CAR_Public/181008.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, October 8, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 201

                            Headlines

70-30 AUSTIN STREET: Underpays Bakery Staffs, Medel et al. Claim
ACROPOL REST: Underpays Bussers, Carrasco Suit Alleges
ADVANCED COLLECTION: Kol Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
ALLIED EAGLE: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Bermudez Suit Alleges
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Court Certifies Class in Taylor FDCPA Suit

AQUARIUS RESTAURANT: Wen Sues over Tip-Skimming, Unpaid OT
ARIRANG HIBACHI: DiCarlo Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ASPLUNDH TREE: Ct. Stays Discovery in Belloso Pending Dismissal Bid
ASSET RECOVERY: Monfort Sues over Debt Collection Practices
AT&T MOBILITY: Court Certifies Locurto FLSA Class

AUDI AG: Removes Browne, Jr. Suit to District of New Jersey
AUTOSALES INC: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Davis Alleges
AVCORP COMPOSITE: Archuleta Suit Moved to C.D. California
BARILLA AMERICA: Kubilius Files Fraud Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
BARRICK GOLD: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit

BASF CORP: Tri-Iso Tryline Alleges Price-Fixing of Chemicals
BAYER A.G.: Faces Suit over Price Fixing of Polyurethanes
BIEHL & BIEHL: Giannetti Files FDCPA Suit in New York
BIG PICTURE: Faces Williams, et al. Suit in D. South Carolina
BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS: Website Not Accessible, Diaz Suit Alleges

CAMPBELL SOUP: Nov. 27 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
CANADA: Canadian Lawyer Discusses Road to LGBT Purge Award
CAPTAIN GEORGE'S: Underpays Servers, Smith and Gudinas Allege
CLUB ROUGE: Reaches Deal with Strippers in Wage Suit
COCHLEAR LIMITED: Class Status Sought in Hearing Aid Defect Suit

COLLEGE BOARD: Faces Suit over SAT Exam Leaks
CORRECT CARE: Ct. Orders Mercado to File Amended Complaint
CPC LOGISTICS: Court Narrows Claims in Tonge FCRA Suit
CRABCAKE FACTORY: Underpays Restaurant Servers, Gaske Alleges
CREDENCE RESOURCE: Certification of Class Sought in Gomez Suit

CRUNCH SAN DIEGO: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Marks TCPA Suit
D&A SERVICES: Lebovitch Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Court Certifies Class in Money Bail Suit
DIRECTV LLC: Removes City of Creve Coeur's Suit to E.D. Missouri
DISTRIBUTION PROS: Underpays Newspaper Delivery Staffs, Suit Says

DNC: Court Dismisses Sweigert Fraud Suit
DOLLAR RENT A CAR: Beats Class Action Over Toll Fees
DOLLAR TREE: Court Denies Reconsideration on Class Certification
EAST SIDE BAGEL: Vidal Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Davis Appeals N.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Circuit

ENERGY XXI: Grinberger Says Proxy Statement Lacks Info on Merger
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Caudill et al. Sue over Debt Collection
FACEBOOK INC: Kacouris Suit Moved to N.D. California
FACEBOOK INC: Sued in Canada After Massive Security Breach
FARM NECK: Court OKs Summary Judgment in Shkuratova FLSA Suit

FAST CASUAL: Denied Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips, Says Gonzalez Suit
FDG NORTH: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
FERNY PROPERTIES: Tompkins Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
FIRST ACCEPTANCE: MSPA to Recover Reimbursements for Med. Expenses
FOUNDATION MEDICINE: Court Won't Dismiss Mahoney Securities Suit

FRONTIER NATURAL: Garcia Sues over Mislabeled Organic Salt
GENERAL MOTORS: AARC Appeals Decision in Musician Royalty Suit
GENERAL NUTRITION: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Gold Card Suit
GERALD MATTHEW REIBEL: Court Denies Class Certification Bid
GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL: Frank Sues over Medical Malpractice

GP KEYSTAND: Bid to Maintain Matter as Class Action Granted
GRIDSUM HOLDING: Court Consolidates 2 Securities Suits
H&M HENNES: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
H.STERN JEWELERS: Burbon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HARTFORD CASUALTY: Settlement in Johnson Suit Has Final Approval

HASBRO INC: Nov. 27 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
HEALTHY MINDS: Underpays Managers & Care Workers, Suit Alleges
HERTZ GLOBAL: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of PSLRA Suit
HIT MOBILE: Fails to Reimburse Business Expenses, Armendariz Says
HR BENEFITS SERVICES: Guerra Files Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

IC SYSTEM INC: Duffy Seeks Damages Over FDCPA Breach
JASPER COUNTY, GA: Haddock Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
JEFFERSON COUNTY: Underpays Deputy Sheriffs, Bailey et al. Say
JELD-WEN INC: Court Denies Prelim Approval of Class Settlement
JOHN LEE JACKSON: Adams Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation

JYP FOODS: Court Strikes Answer in Sanchez FLSA Suit
KAUFF'S INC: Lesley Puza Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
KELLY SERVICE: Underpays Claim Adjusters, Floyd Suit Alleges
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Dry Ginger Ale Suit Wins Class Status
KNORR-BREMSE AG: Faces Tarin Suit over No-Poach Agreements

KOBI'S WINDOWS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Portillo Suit Alleges
MDL 2244: Tinnirellos Sue over Use of Pinnacle Device
MDL 2521: Court Grants Final Approval of $166MM Settlement
METRO-TECH SYSTEMS: Underpays Cable Technicians, Manigo Suit Says
MICHAEL KORS: Lucas Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Circuit

MICHIGAN: Court Rejects Class Action Status in Women's Prison Suit
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Seeks 5th Cir. Review of Cleven Suit Ruling
MIZUHO BANK: Court Dismisses Babiak's Tortious Interference Suit
MOBILITY WORKS: Community Resources Files ADA Suit in N.D. Ca.
MONFRIC INC: Underpays Apartment Managers, Jenkins Suit Claims

MONSANTO COMPANY: Purdy Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MOORINGS: Faces Honeywell ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Beaumont Costales Sues Over LaCroix Water
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court OKs Amendment to Contreras Suit
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Feb. 8 Fairness Hearing on $2.5MM Settlement

NEIMAN MARCUS: Court Denies Approval of Remijas Class Settlement
NESTLE USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrett Suit Alleges
OCEAN COUNTY, NJ: $1.9MM Settlement Reached in Strip Search Suit
OXIS OCNI: Underpays Restaurant Cleaners, Diaz Suit Alleges
PABLO'S MACHINE: Underpays Mechanics, Carmenates Suit Alleges

PAPA JOHN'S: Danker Sues over 5% Drop in Shares Price
PARK CITIES: Appeals Ruling in Carmarck Suit to 5th Circuit
PATE LACAYE: Fails to Pay OT to Cooks, Ordelus and Romain Allege
PENINSULA NEW YORK: Burbon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PESG OF ALABAMA: Wilson Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA

PEST AUTHORITY: Chisum Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
PRODUCTION CAPITAL: Fails to Pay Wages to Pilots, Sparks Alleges
QUEEN MARIE: Fails to Pay OT to Cooks, Alvarez Suit Alleges
QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Illegally Faxed Ads
RELIANT SERVICES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Fabricant Alleges

REMIK HOLDINGS: 2 More Class Suits Filed Over J-51 Abuse
RUBY IV: Kidwell Seeks to Certify Two Classes
SANDIA CORP: Ct. Won't Stay Gender Bias Suit Pending Dismissal Bid
SERGEANT'S PET: Court Denies Certification of 2 Classes
SIGNATURE CLEANING: Disla Hits Retaliation, Seeks to Recover OT Pay

SILVER AUTUMN HOTEL: Breeze Files Civil Rights Suit in S.D.N.Y.
SOUTHERN METALS: No Insurance Notice Provided, Donnelly Claims
SPINE AND JOINT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
STEELMASTER INDUSTRIES: Wooten Seeks OT Pay under FLSA
STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Faces Moran Wage-and-Hour Suit

STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Court Won't Confirm Award Won in Arbitration
SUPERVALU INC: Vladimir Gusinsky Sues over United Natural Merger
TESLA INC: Faces Isaacs Securities Class Action
TROPICAL ISLE: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
TWIN HILL: Uniforms Cause Health Problems, Lisa Joy et al. Allege

U.S. MEDIA GIANTS: Freedom Watch Alleges Anti-Trump Stance
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court OKs Summary Judgment in TCPA Suit
UNIFIED PARKING: Underpays Parking Attendants, Landazuri Alleges
UNITED JEWISH: Court Refuses to Compel Arbitration in "Hichez"
UNITED NORTHERN: Court Narrows Claims in Kline TCPA Suit

UNITED STATES: Court Vacates Final Delay Rule in Bauer Suit
UNITED STATES: Employees File Racial Discrimination Suit v. CFPB
UNITED STATES: S.D.N.Y. Proper Venue for Deported Bulgarian's Suit
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Gray Suit Hits Share Price Drop
USF REDDAWAY: Bid for Class Certification Taken under Submission

VENUESMART LLC: Dorsey Seeks OT Pay for Hrs Worked Over 40 per Week
VITALE'S ITALIAN: Torres Seeks to Certify Restaurant Staff Class
WEBASTO PRODUCTS: $15MM Deal Reached in Direct Parking Heater Suit
WILLIAMS & FUDGE: Made Unsolicited Calls, Abrantes Suit Claims
XPRESS URGENT: Zannini Sues over Unsolicited Text Marketing

XTO ENERGY: Anderson Wage & Hour Suit Remanded to State Court
YOSSI'S FISH: Hernandez Milian Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
ZIMMER BIOMET: Private Equity Shops Escape Class Action
ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Faust Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

                            *********

70-30 AUSTIN STREET: Underpays Bakery Staffs, Medel et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUCIO MOLINA MEDEL, and MANUEL MOLINA MEDEL, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 70-30
AUSTIN STREET BAKERY d/b/a MARTHA'S COUNTRY BAKERY; 41-06 BELL
BLVD. BAKERY LLC; GEORGE STERTSIOS; ANTONIO ZANNIKOS; and GEORGE
DOULIAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04926 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 29,
2018) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum
wages for all hours worked, and overtime premiums for hours worked
over 40 in a given workweek under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as bakery staffs.

70-30 Austin Street Bakery d/b/a Martha's Country Bakery is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
New York. The Company is in the bakery industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ACROPOL REST: Underpays Bussers, Carrasco Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
EFREN CARRASCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACROPOL REST. CORP. d/b/a RITZ DINER;
DIMITRIOS SARANTOPOULOS; GEORGE KALOGERAKOS, and SAMMY DOE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07883-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2018) is
brought against the Defendants to recover unpaid minimum wages and
unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Carrasco was employed by the Defendants as busser from June
2014 to August 20, 2018.

Acropol Rest. Corp. is a corporation doing business as the Ritz
Diner, having its principal place of business located at New York,
New York. The Company is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 323-6980
          Facsimile: (212) 233-9238
          E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


ADVANCED COLLECTION: Kol Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
----------------------------------------------------------
CAMRYN KOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANCED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 0:18-cv-62014-WPD (S.D. Fla., Aug. 25, 2018) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Advanced Collection Bureau, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Florida. The Company was
established in 1995 and engaged as debt collection agent. [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


ALLIED EAGLE: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Bermudez Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN BERMUDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIED EAGLE TRANSPORTS, LLC, and
JOSE PENA, Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-00158 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 30,
2018) is an action against the Defendants for declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs as a result of the Defendants' policy and practice of failing
to pay the Plaintiffs and the class proper overtime compensation
for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Bermudez was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver.

Allied Eagle Transports, LLC is a domestic for-profit limited
liability company, registered to do business in the State of Texas,
providing delivery services to oil and gas wells throughout
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Court Certifies Class in Taylor FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division, granted Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification in the case captioned EDWARD TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
v. ALLTRAN FINANCIAL, LP, LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Defendants. No.
1:18-cv-00306-JMS-MJD. (S.D. Ind.).

Plaintiff Edward Taylor alleges that the Defendants sent him and
over 200 others a form debt collection letter which failed to
effectively identify the current creditor, in violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Mr. Taylor seeks to certify the following class:

     All persons similarly situated in the State of Indiana from
whom Defendants attempted to collect a defaulted consumer debt
allegedly owed for a Springleaf Financial Services account, via the
same form collection letter that Defendants sent to Plaintiff, from
one year before the date of this Complaint February 1, 2017 to the
present.

Numerosity

First, Rule 23(a) requires that the class must be so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable. Mr. Taylor has
demonstrated, based upon Defendants' discovery response, that over
200 consumers meet the proposed class definition. Defendants do not
contest that this satisfies the numerosity requirement of Rule
23(a), and the Court finds that it does. Joinder of all 200-plus
individuals who received the letter sent to Mr. Taylor would be
unworkable and inefficient. Mr. Taylor has established numerosity.

Commonality & Typicality

Next, Mr. Taylor must make two, overlapping showings: that there
are common issues of fact or law, and that his claim is typical of
the class.  

Here, the Defendants' argument that the proposed class could
contain individuals who received commercial or business loans, and
who would therefore be ineligible under the FDCPA, makes no sense.
Even were Defendants correct in their assertions that the proposed
class is overbroad (and they are not), the appropriate course of
action would be to craft a class definition so as to exclude
ineligible individuals who owed debts for commercial or business
purposes. But there is no such problem in this case because the
proposed class consists only of persons from whom Defendants
attempted to collect a defaulted consumer debt.

The Defendants specifically represented, in their discovery
response, that there were 218 individuals who fall within the class
definition alleged in the Complaint, meaning that these individuals
received the same letter sent to Mr. Taylor to collect on a
consumer debt. Defendants may neither ignore the plain meaning of
the term consumer debt nor disavow this discovery response in an
effort to muddle up an otherwise straightforward class of
individuals who had debts arising from loans for a personal,
family, or household purpose. In sum, the proposed class, as
currently defined, clearly excludes individuals with business or
commercial loans, obviating the concern expressed by Defendants.

Having dispatched with the Defendants' sole, unavailing argument,
the Court finds that Mr. Taylor meets both the commonality and
typicality requirements. There are common issues of both fact and
law as to the class, as the sole issue presented is whether the
form letters received by the class members violates the FDCPA by
ineffectively identifying the current creditor. Mr. Taylor's claim
is typical of the class claims, inasmuch as Defendants' discovery
response demonstrates that the class all received the same,
allegedly-deficient form dunning letters. Mr. Taylor has satisfied
Rule 23(a)(2) and (3).

Adequacy of Representation

The final requirement of Rule 23(a) is that the plaintiff must
demonstrate that the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class. Mr. Taylor argues
that he and his counsel satisfy this requirement because Mr.
Taylor's interests are aligned with those of the class, because he
has a sufficient personal stake in the outcome of the case to
vigorously pursue the matter, and because his counsel has
substantial experience litigating FDCPA class actions.  

In response, the Defendants argue that Mr. Taylor is an inadequate
class representative because he has not introduced evidence showing
that he has been actively involved in this case. Defendants also
argue that Mr. Taylor's counsel is inadequate because they
previously lost a similar matter, Zuniga v. Asset Recovery
Solutions, 2018 WL 1519162 (N.D. Ill. 2018), on a motion to
dismiss.

As demonstrated by Mr. Taylor's counsel's affidavit, his attorneys
have ample experience and success in FDCPA litigation. Defendants'
efforts to paint Mr. Taylor's counsel as insufficient on the basis
of one unsuccessful case are utterly unavailing, particularly in
light of the fact that they pursued an appeal and (per counsel's
representation) then achieved some measure of success for their
client by mediating a settlement. Moreover, Defendants have not
argued that the plaintiff's lack of success in Zuniga may be
attributable to some shortcoming of counsel, such as a deficient
brief or missed deadline. Rather, the result appears, as is usually
the case in civil litigation, to be the product of a judicial
decision rendered following the parties' participation in the
adversarial process. In short, Mr. Taylor's attorneys, with decades
of collective experience in FDCPA and class action litigation,
plainly qualify as adequate class representatives for this case.
Therefore, the Court concludes that Mr. Taylor satisfies all four
class action prerequisites identified in Rule 23(a): numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy.

Predominance & Superiority of the Class Action

Mr. Taylor argues that his action qualifies under Rule 23(b)(3),
which requires that the plaintiff demonstrate that common issues of
fact or law predominate over individual questions and that the
class action device is superior to other methods of adjudication.
Mr. Taylor argues that class issues predominate because liability
turns on the same form dunning letter sent to all class members.

Mr. Taylor argues that the class action device is superior because
it ensures that class members, who may otherwise be unaware of
their rights, may have their rights vindicated; there is no other
lawsuit pending regarding this particular letter; it is more
efficient to address the legality of the dunning letter in one suit
instead of in many; and proceeding as a class action would present
no particular case management problems.

The Defendants reiterate their argument that class treatment is
inappropriate because of the need to conduct an individual
evaluation to ensure that each class member's loans were for
personal, family, or household use.

Next, Defendants argue that the class action device is not superior
because plaintiff seeks only statutory damages and no actual harm
or damages, because of the potential that Mr. Taylor's counsel may
bring additional lawsuits based upon similar facts outside of the
class definition to circumvent the statutory damages cap for class
actions, and because individual plaintiffs have the incentive of
attorney's fees to bring individual actions.

The Court rejects the Defendants' repurposed arguments regarding
the possibility that the class may include individuals who received
loans for business or commercial purposes. As explained above, any
reasonable reading of the class definition, which is limited to
individuals to whom Defendants sent letters to collect consumer
debt, would exclude business or commercial debts.

The Defendants assert that the availability of attorney's fees
makes class certification unnecessary. But this assumes that the
plaintiff will be aware of her rights, willing to subject herself
to all the burdens of suing and able to find an attorney willing to
take her case. The fact that there may be some incentive for
individual class members to independently pursue claims has no
bearing on the appropriateness of the class action. Given the
identical issues presented by each class member's clam, there is no
reason that each class member should have to find counsel and file
individual lawsuits.

As Mr. Taylor explains, each class member's claim presents an
identical issue of law under the FDCPA. Class issues therefore
predominate over any individual issues. Finally, a class action is
superior to individual lawsuits due to the large number (over 200)
of potential plaintiffs, the relatively small statutory damages at
issue, and the easy management of the class in this case.
Accordingly, in addition to satisfying the prerequisites in Rule
23(a), Mr. Taylor has also satisfied the requirements of Rule
23(b)(3), making class certification appropriate.

The Court finds that Mr. Taylor has met the requirements of Rule
23(a) and (b)(3) and that class certification is appropriate in
this case. The Court therefore grants Mr. Taylor's Motion for Class
Certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s September 17, 2018 Entry
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybjro24k from Leagle.com.

EDWARD TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Angie K. Robertson, PHILIPPS
AND PHILIPPS, LTD., Carissa Rasch, PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD.,
David J. Philipps, PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD., John Thomas
Steinkamp, JOHN T. STEINKAMP AND ASSOCIATES & Mary E. Philipps,
PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD.

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL, LP, a Texas limited partnership & LVNV FUNDING,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, represented
by Daniel C. Fanaselle -- FANASELLED@BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD
SPAHR LLP & Kevin Dale Koons -- kkoons@kgrlaw.com -- KROGER GARDIS
& REGAS LLP.


AQUARIUS RESTAURANT: Wen Sues over Tip-Skimming, Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------
QING CONG WEN, a/k/a "NELSON," on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AQUARIUS RESTAURANT GROUP
CORPORATION, Le Le a/k/a Leo Le, Wei Le, and Joyce "Doe" (last name
unknown), the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-14009 (D.N.J., Sep. 19,
2018), seeks to recover unlawful tips retentions, unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest
and/or (4) attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New Jersey
State Wage and Hour Law, the Federal Labor Standards Act, and the
New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of federal and state
labor laws by engaging in a pattern and practice of unlawfully
retaining part of tips owed to Plaintiff who worked as a waiter
and/or redistributing them to non-tipped employees in violation of
Section 203(m) of the FLSA, as well as of failing to pay its
employees, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 each workweek.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and proposed FLSA Collective:

          Xiaoxi Liu, Esq.
          HANG AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Ave. Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353 6288


ARIRANG HIBACHI: DiCarlo Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arirang Hibachi Steak
House, Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as David DiCarlo on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Arirang Hibachi Steak House, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05501 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 1, 2018).

Arirang Hibachi Steakhouse and Sushi Bar is located in Sayreville,
New Jersey, Staten Island New York and Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASPLUNDH TREE: Ct. Stays Discovery in Belloso Pending Dismissal Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Orlando Division, issued an Order granting in part
Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling on the Court's
Subject Matter Jurisdiction in the case captioned MILTON ANTONIO
BELLOSO, ALEJANDRO JASSO MARTINEZ and RAUL G. PEREZ, JR.,
Plaintiffs, v. ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT, CO. and ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT,
LLC, Defendants. Case No. 6:18-cv-460-Orl-40TBS. (M.D. Fla.)

This case comes before the Court without a hearing on Defendants'
Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling on the Court's Subject
Matter Jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs in this putative class action allege that the
Defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets
and manage their cases, including by staying discovery. The
Eleventh Circuit has emphasized the responsibility of trial courts
to manage pretrial discovery properly in order to avoid a massive
waste of judicial and private resources and a loss of society's
confidence in the courts' ability to administer justice. Granting a
discovery stay until an impending motion to dismiss is resolved is
a proper exercise of that responsibility.

The Court has read the complaint, motion to dismiss, and response
to the motion to dismiss. It has also read some of the cases cited
by counsel in their briefing of the motion to dismiss. Defendants
contend that Plaintiffs do not have Article III standing, and
therefore the Court lacks jurisdiction, because Plaintiffs have not
alleged a concrete injury. The plaintiff carries the burden to
establish standing by showing that s/he has (1) suffered an injury
in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of
the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a
favorable judicial decision. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct.
1540, 1547 (2016).

To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she
suffered 'an invasion of a legally protected interest' that is
'concrete and particularized' and 'actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical. Article III standing requires a
concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.
Spokeo was a FCRA case in which the majority said Robins could not,
for example, allege a bare procedural violation, divorced from any
concrete harm, and satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of
Article III.

Consistent with Spokeo, the Seventh Circuit has found that a
plaintiff who only claimed that a FCRA disclosure form contained
extraneous information had alleged a statutory violation but no
concrete injury.

After considering the parties' arguments the Court finds that the
Defendant's motion to dismiss has merit and is potentially case
dispositive. While this does not constitute a finding on the merits
of the motion to dismiss, it is sufficient to grant in part the
Defendants' motion to stay.

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

Milton Antonio Belloso, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Alejandro Jasso Martinez & Raul G. Perez, Jr.,
Plaintiffs, represented by N. Ryan LaBar -- rlabar@labaradams.com
-- LaBar & Adams, PA & Scott C. Adams -- sadams@labara.com -- LaBar
& Adams, PA.

Asplundh Tree Expert, Co. & Asplundh Tree Expert, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Ben William Subin -- Ben.Subin@hklaw.com -- Holland
& Knight, LLP, David E. Cannella -- David.Cannella@hklaw.com --
Holland & Knight, LLP & Luis Javier Gonzalez --
luis.gonzalez@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight, LLP.


ASSET RECOVERY: Monfort Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
DESIREE MONTFORT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC;
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
0:18-cv-62052-JIC (S.D. Fla., Aug. 29, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendants' unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC operates as an asset recovery
management company. The Company focuses on maximizing the value of
unused and end-of-life assets through effective reuse and
divestment strategies. Asset Recovery Solutions serves customers in
the State of Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (754) 217-3084
          Facsimile: (954) 272-7807
          E-mail: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


AT&T MOBILITY: Court Certifies Locurto FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification in the case captioned LISA LOCURTO, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AT&T
MOBILITY SERVICES LLC, Defendant. No. 13 Civ. 4303 (AT) (KNF).
(S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff, Lisa LoCurto, brings this putative class and collective
action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees
of Defendant, AT&T Mobility Services LLC (AT&T), alleging that the
Defendant failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law (NYLL) and the
New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL).

Class Certification

The Plaintiff moves to certify an NYLL and NJWHL class action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) consisting of:

     Current and former employees of AT&T Mobility Services, LLC
(AT&T) who performed any work as a Retail Account Executive (RAE)
for AT&T in either New York State or New Jersey at any time
beginning on June 20, 2007 and thereafter through the entry of
final judgment in this case (the Class Period), and who worked in
excess of forty (40) hours in a given work week and who have not
been paid all wages owed to them, including overtime premiums, in
violation of the New York Labor Law and the New Jersey Wage and
Hour Law (the Class), with the exception of RAEs who: (a) agreed to
arbitrate their overtime claims with Defendant; (b) settled their
State law overtime claims with Defendant that accrued during the
Class Period; or (c) annually earned during the Class Period
compensation (including base salary and commissions) of $100,000 or
more, which includes at least $455/week paid on a salary basis.

A class may only be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) if it meets the
requirements of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality,
and adequacy. If all four Rule 23(a) factors are satisfied, the
Court will proceed to consider whether the questions of law or fact
common to the class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior
to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating
the controversy.

Rule 23(a)

Numerosity

The first Rule 23(a) factor is whether the class is so numerous
that joinder is impracticable. Numerosity is generally presumed
when the size of the class exceeds forty members. Here, Plaintiff,
who worked as an NRAE in the five boroughs of New York City, three
other counties in New York, and four counties in New Jersey,
asserts that she worked with fifty-three other RAEs and NRAEs in
those counties.  Defendant does not dispute this assertion or that
the Plaintiff has satisfied the numerosity prong.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff has established
numerosity.

Commonality and Typicality

Rule 23(a)(2) requires there to be questions of law or fact common
to the class. Commonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate
that the class members have suffered the same injury. It asks not
simply whether there are questions of law or fact common to the
class, but whether a class action is capable of generating common
answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.

Here, it is undisputed that the members of the putative class were
paid a base salary plus commission, were classified as exempt from
overtime pay, and were required to be available to answer phone
calls while their accounts' retail locations were open for
business. The putative class members, therefore, share two common
questions: (1) whether the Defendant properly classified them as
exempt under the NYLL and NJWHL, and (2) whether their on-call time
is compensable. For the purposes of commonality, the Court must
decide whether answering those questions requires analysis of
independent facts attributable only to individual plaintiffs.

The Court has already concluded that LoCurto, Cascioli, Ward,
Henton, and Martino the members of the FLSA collective who worked
in New York and New Jersey during the limitations period and are,
therefore, part of the class  are similarly situated with respect
to on-call time and the level of independent judgment and
discretion they exercise in the areas of scheduling, training,
marketing, and planning business objectives.  In addition to those
class members, Defendant has submitted declarations of Patricia
Medrano and James O'Brien, two NRAEs based in New York who did not
opt into the FLSA collective action.

The Defendant argues that the RAE and NRAE positions differ
significantly, meaning a class comprised of both RAEs and NRAEs
cannot share common questions.  These arguments, however, focus on
two distinctions that are unrelated to the legal issues at the
heart of this litigation: first, that RAEs had exclusive
distribution arrangements in the Local Dealer Channel, whereas
NRAEs had non-exclusive distribution arrangements in the National
Retail Channel; and second, that RAEs offered some products to
their dealers that NRAEs did not offer to them. These facts do not
concern how RAEs and NRAEs exercise discretion and independent
judgment or the demands of their on-call time, and are, therefore,
irrelevant to the commonality inquiry.

Because the record demonstrates that members of the putative class
exercised similar levels of discretion and independent judgment in
connection with their job duties and were subject to the same
policy regarding on-call time, the Court concludes that two central
questions apt to drive the resolution of this litigation are
subject to common answers: (1) whether Defendant properly
classified RAEs and NRAEs as exempt from overtime pay; and (2)
whether RAEs' and NRAEs' on-call time is compensable. Accordingly,
Plaintiff has established commonality.

The Court concludes that the Plaintiff has established typicality.


Adequacy of Representation

Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the representative parties will fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the class. In determining
whether Plaintiff is an adequate representative, the Court must
consider whether (1) class counsel is qualified, experienced, and
generally able to conduct the litigation"; and (2) Plaintiff has
interests that are antagonistic to members of the class. Defendant
does not challenge class counsel's qualifications, and there are no
apparent conflicts of interest between Plaintiff and the members of
the putative class. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff
is an adequate class representative, and proceeds to the Rule
23(b)(3) analysis.

Rule 23(b)(3)

Predominance

A question predominates when 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.  

The Court concludes that issues subject to generalized proof
predominate over those subject to individualized proof. As
discussed above, the record establishes that class members had
similar levels of independence and discretion with respect to
setting their schedules, training sale associates at their
accounts, marketing AT&T products, and planning short- and
long-term business objectives.

They each set their own schedules with similar degrees of
managerial oversight; conducted trainings based on materials
designed by AT&T, but sometimes tailored training materials based
on their observation of sales associates, delivered promotions and
contests created by AT&T at the direction of their managers,  and
prepared semi-annual business plans for each account that included
sales data and analysis of sales trends and operational challenges.
The record also establishes that putative class members were
subject to the same policy regarding on-call time, as they were
required to be available to answer calls from their accounts at all
times while the stores were open for business.  

Superiority

Rule 23 directs the Court to consider four factors: (A) the class
members' interests in individually controlling the prosecution or
defense of separate actions (B) the extent and nature of any
litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against
class members  (C) the desirability or undesirability of
concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum
and (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.

Here, the relatively small recovery available to each prospective
class member makes the class action a more efficient mechanism.
Defendant points to no ongoing litigation involving class members
that pertains to this controversy. Prospective class members'
claims all arose in New York and New Jersey, making the Southern
District of New York a convenient and appropriate forum. And
nothing in the record suggests that the class action will be
difficult or unwieldy to manage.   

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff has established
that the class action is superior to other available methods of
adjudicating this controversy.

The Plaintiff's motion for certification of the NYLL and NJHWL
class action is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 20, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybz6orba from
Leagle.com.

Lisa Lo Curto, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Steven I. Adler --
sadler@lawfirm.ms -- Mandelbaum, Salsburg, Gold, Lazris & Discenza
P.C., pro hac vice, Brian Block -- bblock@lawfirm.ms -- Mandelbaum
Salsburg PC & Michael Alan Saffer -- msaffer@lawfirm.ms --
Mandelbaum, Salsburg, Gold, Lazris & Discenza P.C.

Aldo Martino, Angela Runnels, Toni Bryant, Jasmine Briscoe, Devin
Lombard, Cortland Ward & Erick Henton, Plaintiffs, represented by
Michael Alan Saffer, Mandelbaum, Salsburg, Gold, Lazris & Discenza
P.C. & Brian Block, Mandelbaum Salsburg PC.

Marla Yowell, Holly Smith, John Walker, Eugene Cascioli, Cheryl
Foster, Dustin Daily, Anthony Renzi, Jr. & Pauline Renzi,
Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Alan Saffer, Mandelbaum,
Salsburg, Gold, Lazris & Discenza P.C.

AT&T Mobility Services LLC, Defendant, represented by Erika L.
Leonard -- erika.leonard@
ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Dearkins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.,
pro hac vice & Patrick William Shea -- patrickshea@paulhastings.com
-- Paul Hastings LLP.


AUDI AG: Removes Browne, Jr. Suit to District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of DONALD F. BROWNE, JR., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUDI
AG; and AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC, Defendants, filed a notice to remove
the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey,
County of Camden (Case No. L-002684-18) to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey on August 30, 2018, and assigned
Case No. 1:18-cv-13403-NLH-AMD (D.N.J., Aug. 30, 2018).

AUDI AG develops, produces, assembles, distributes, and sells
vehicles of the Audi and Lamborghini brands in Germany and
internationally. The company was founded in 1899 and is
headquartered in Ingolstadt, Germany. AUDI AG is a subsidiary of
Volkswagen AG. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Homer B. Ramsey, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Chase, Esq.
          Michael B. Gallub, Esq.
          CHASE KURSHAN HERZFELD & RUBIN, LLC
          354 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 1100
          Livingston, NJ 07039
          Telephone: (973) 535-8840


AUTOSALES INC: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Davis Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOSALES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:18-cv-01997 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 30, 2018) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Davis was employed by the Defendant as customer
service representative.

Autosales, Incorporated, doing business as Summit Racing Equipment,
engages in the mail order, retail, and Internet supply of
automotive parts and accessories. Autosales, Incorporated was
founded in 1968 and is based in Tallmadge, Ohio with retail stores
in Tallmadge, Ohio; Sparks, Nevada; and McDonough, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  lori@lazzarolawfirm.com


AVCORP COMPOSITE: Archuleta Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Michael Archuleta on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Avcorp
Composite Fabrication Inc., a Delaware corporation; HITCO Carbon
Composites, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC714171, was removed from the
Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on
Sept. 19, 2018. The California Central District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-08106 to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge The suit alleges labor related
violation.

Avcorp Composite Fabrication Inc. was founded in 2015. The
company's line of business includes the manufacturing of aircraft
parts and equipment.[BN]

Attorneys for HITCO Carbon Composites, Inc.:

          Sabrina A Beldner, Esq.
          Sean Sullivan, Esq.
          Matthew Charles Kane, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 315 8200
          Facsimile: (310) 315 -8210
          E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
                  ssullivan@mcguirewoods.com
                  mkane@mcguirewoods.com



BARILLA AMERICA: Kubilius Files Fraud Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barilla America, Inc.
The case is styled as Lukas Kubilius on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Barilla America, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06656 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 1, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Barilla America, Inc. produces and distributes pastas and sauces.
The company offers egg, spinach, and cheese flavored pastas made of
semolina, wholegrain, flaxseeds, spelt, oats, barley, and legumes
in various shapes; and tomato, sweet pepper, mushroom, Tuscan herb,
and roasted garlic sauces. It serves restaurants, cafeterias,
commissaries, or other foodservice operations in the United States
and Italy. The company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in
Northbrook, Illinois with production plants in Ames, Iowa and
Parma, Italy. Barilla America, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Barilla G. e R. Fratelli S.p.A.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BARRICK GOLD: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned In re BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION
SECURITIES LITIGATION. No. 17 Civ. 3507 (NRB)(S.D.N.Y.).

This action is not an environmental regulatory proceeding or an
environmental tort suit. Rather, it is a federal securities class
action filed on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired shares of the common stock of defendant
Barrick Gold Corp. in the United States or on a U.S.— based stock
exchange. The Plaintiffs allege that Barrick and four individual
defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5.

Legal Standards

On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), we must accept as true
all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable
inferences in plaintiffs' favor. Nevertheless, plaintiffs' factual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level, on the assumption that all of the allegations in
the complaint are true.

Section 10(b), as effectuated by Rule 10b-5, makes it unlawful for
any person to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to
omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the
statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they
were made, not misleading.

In order to state a claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, a
plaintiff must [plausibly allege] (1) a material misrepresentation
or omission by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a connection
between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale
of a security; (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission;
(5) economic loss; and (6) loss causation.

Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5

Consistent with their obligations under the PSLRA, plaintiffs
specifically identify three misleading statements: (1) Jorge
Palmes's statement on the February 16, 2017 conference call
describing the completion of remedial works (2) the statement in
Barrick's March 30, 2017 press release that the company expected no
material change to its 2017 production guidance and (3) the
production guidance contained in the April 6, 2017 press release.

Palmes's February 16, 2017 Statement

The Plaintiffs first identify as misleading a portion of the
statement that Palmes made during the February 16, 2017 conference
call. Palmes stated that: "At Veladero, 2016 was a very challenging
year. In Q2, severe winter-related resulted in 42 days of lost
production. In Q3, production was impacted by the two weeks
suspension of an operation due to environmental incident quickly
followed by a recovery action plan in Q4. We previously completed a
series of remedial works to prevent such an incident from occurring
again, including the deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles for
remote sensing."

Falsity

The Plaintiffs do not plausibly plead that the statement was false
or misleading. The Plaintiffs contend that the statement was false
because the March 2017 spill occurred shortly after Palmes's
statement and because Barrick had in fact missed a number of work
deadlines imposed by local authorities.  

The Defendants respond that Barrick had in fact completed various
works intended to prevent further cyanide spills, including the
deployment of monitoring drones11and the raising of perimeter berms
surrounding the leach pad.

The occurrence of the March 2017 spill does not support an
inference that Palmes's statement was false or misleading. Fraud
depends on the state of events when a statement is made, not on
what happens later, and the falsity of Barrick's statement
therefore depends on whether Barrick had, as of February 16, 2017,
completed a series of remedial works intended to prevent further
solution spills. Barrick either had done so or it had not as of
that time, and what occurred afterwards  including the March 28
spill.

The Plaintiffs' second theory relies on three orders issued by
local authorities in December 2016 and February 2017 directing the
completion of certain works, but this theory relies on the same
mischaracterization of Palmes's statement. One of these three
orders plaintiffs do not specify which one directed the replacement
of certain pipes at Veladero. Assuming in plaintiffs' favor that
these work orders in fact related to the September 2016 spill, the
fact that Barrick did not complete certain remedial measures even
if required by local authorities) nonetheless does not mean that it
did not complete certain other remedial measures which could be
fairly described as a series. The Plaintiffs can argue (and the
Argentine authorities can state) with the benefit of hindsight that
compliance with those work orders would have prevented the March
2017 spill, but this chain of causation was hardly known ex ante
before the spill, including the time Palmes's statement was made.

Ultimately, plaintiffs' theories support at most an inference that
Barrick could have, and very possibly should have, done more to
prevent further leaks and spills of cyanide solution. But it does
not plausibly allege that Barrick did not in fact undertake a
number of remedial measures intended to prevent spills, as needed
to render Palmes's February 16 statement false or misleading.

Scienter

Further, plaintiffs fail to plead a strong inference of scienter as
to this statement. In order to plead a strong inference of
scienter, plaintiffs must allege either (1) that defendants had the
motive and opportunity to commit fraud or (2) strong circumstantial
evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness.

Here, plaintiffs do not meaningfully argue that defendants had
motive and opportunity to defraud. Plaintiffs attempt to stitch
together an inference of scienter based on Palmes's knowledge of
the falsity of his statement, Barrick executives' access to capital
expenditure information recorded in the Oracle accounting system,
and the core operations doctrine. These three pieces of
circumstantial evidence, taken together, do not add up to a strong
inference of scienter.

First, Palmes's alleged knowledge of the falsity of his statement
depends on the occurrence of the March 2017 spill and an Argentine
official's May 2017 statement that replacement of pipes would have
prevented the March 2017 spill. But each of those events occurred
after Palmes's February 2017 statement, and they do not support the
proposition that Palmes knew his statement was false at the time he
made it.

Second, plaintiffs' references to the Oracle accounting system also
do not support an inference of scienter. Where plaintiffs contend
defendants had access to contrary facts, they must specifically
identify the reports or statements containing this information.
Plaintiffs' broad allegations regarding expense and capital cost
data are insufficient, as plaintiffs do not identify what specific
facts these data would have contained that contradicts Palmes's
statement that a series of remedial works had been completed.  

Finally, the Second Circuit has not decided whether the core
operations doctrine remains valid as a theory of scienter following
the PSLRA. Regardless of the doctrine's viability, however, the
core operations doctrine contributes little to the scienter
analysis here. Courts have required that the operation in question
constitute nearly all of a company's business before finding
scienter based on the`core operations doctrine.

Barrick's March 30 and April 6, 2017 Press Releases

The Plaintiffs identify as misleading the March 30 press release's
statement that at this time, we do not anticipate a material impact
to Veladero's 2017 production guidance and the April 6 press
release's statement that Veladero "is expected to produce
770,000-830,000 ounces of gold in 2017, at a cost of sales of
$750-$800 per ounce, and all-in sustaining costs of $840-$940 per
ounce.  

Under the PSLRA's safe-harbor provision, a defendant is not liable
if (1) the forward-looking statement is identified and accompanied
by meaningful cautionary language, (2) the forward-looking
statement is immaterial, or (3) the plaintiff fails to prove that
the forward-looking statement was made with actual knowledge that
it was false or misleading. Because the safe harbor is written in
the disjunctive, a forward-looking statement is protected under the
safe harbor if any of the three prongs applies.

Forward-Looking Statement

The PSLRA defines the term forward-looking statement to be (A) a
statement containing a projection of revenues, income (including
income loss), earnings (including earnings loss) per share, capital
expenditures, dividends, capital structure, or other financial
items; (B) a statement of the plans and objectives of management
for future operations, including plans or objectives relating to
the products or services of the issuer; (C) a statement of future
economic performance, including any such statement contained in a
discussion and analysis of financial condition by the management or
in the results of operations included pursuant to the rules and
regulations of the Commission; (D) any statement of the assumptions
underlying or relating to any statement described in subparagraph
(A), (B), or (C).  

The Plaintiffs characterize Barrick's statements as misrepresenting
the present fact that the March 28, 2017 spill did not have any
effect on production, but this statement is a mischaracterization.
When coupled with Barrick's acknowledgement that cyanide
restrictions had already been imposed as of the March 30 statement,
Barrick's statement that it did not anticipate a material impact on
2017 production can be reasonably interpreted only as a statement
that the restrictions imposed were impacting production, but not to
a material extent.

At bottom, the total amount of gold produced at Veladero in a given
year the figures reflected in the production guidance  can be
assessed only at the end of the year, which was nine months into
the future at the time the statements in question were made. As
Judge Scheindlin has explained, forecasts of future events are
necessarily contingent on present circumstances, but it is a game
of semantics to label them as grounded in the present.

Of course, a statement comparable to the March 30 and April 6
statements made later in the year would come closer to being a
statement about present fact rather than a forward-looking
statement. For example, a statement about ability to meet annual
production guidance made on December 30 is not particularly
forward-looking and could more reasonably be considered a statement
of present fact. But here, where nine months remained in the
production year and plaintiffs' own allegations suggest that
recuperation of lost production is not only possible but a focus at
Veladero, the statements in question are best characterized as
forward-looking.

Meaningful Cautionary Language

To avail themselves of safe harbor protection under the meaningful
cautionary language prong, defendants must demonstrate that their
cautionary language was not boilerplate and conveyed substantive
information.

To determine whether cautionary language is meaningful, courts must
first `identify the allegedly undisclosed risk and then read the
allegedly fraudulent materials including the cautionary language to
determine if a reasonable investor could have been misled into
thinking that the risk that materialized and resulted in his loss
did not actually exist.

By March 30, the Argentine authorities had already imposed
restrictions on Barrick's addition of cyanide to the leach pad, and
Barrick had already so disclosed in the March 30 press release one
of the very statements that plaintiffs allege to be misleading.
Accordingly, the allegedly undisclosed risk must be that, moving
forward, Argentine authorities would not permit Barrick to resume
adding cyanide to the leaching process within a certain time a
regulatory approval of the type identified in the cautionary
language accompanying both press releases. Indeed, both releases
include timing of receipt of, or failure to comply with, necessary
permits and approvals. Accordingly, a reasonable investor would
have understood that Barrick's projections as to how much gold
would be produced by the end of 2017 were contingent on Argentine
authorities' allowing Barrick to resume the addition of cyanide in
its leaching process. Because the press releases include cautionary
language sufficient to prevent a reasonable investor from believing
the contrary, that cautionary language is meaningful. See In re
Delcath, 36 F. Supp. 3d at 333.

This identification of the allegedly undisclosed risk also allows
us to readily dispense with plaintiffs' argument that Barrick's
statements are not protected by the PSLRA safe harbor because the
risks they concealed had already materialized. The PSLRA's safe
harbor indeed does not apply to already-materialized risks but that
principle has no application here. The fact that inability to add
cyanide would impact at some point the efficiency of the gold
leaching process is not so much a risk but a scientific certainty,
and plaintiffs essentially so allege and argue.

In sum, the Court concludes that the March 30 and April 6
statements identified by plaintiffs were accompanied by meaningful
cautionary language. Those statements are therefore not actionable
because they fall within the PSLRA's safe harbor.

Actual Knowledge of Falsity

The PSLRA's safe harbor applies for the additional reason that
plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that these forward-looking
statements were made with actual knowledge that it was false or
misleading.

The Plaintiffs contend that Barrick knew that its production
estimates were false because the individual defendants received
daily production reports from Veladero, Barrick had a history of
maintaining production guidance despite previous spills and the
production restrictions consequently imposed by the Argentine
authorities, and Barrick admitted that restrictions on the addition
of cyanide reduced production.

Lacking in these theories, however, is any plausible inference that
reduced production over the course of two and nine days  the amount
of time that the production restrictions had been in place
following the March 28 leak when the March 30 and April 6
statements were made has a material impact on total production
assessed as of year-end. Accordingly, accepting that Barrick
executives (including several of the individual defendants)
received daily production updates from Veladero reflecting
decreased production day-to-day,  whether these production updates
reflected decreases that were significant enough to call into
question Barrick's annual production guidance is a separate
question and is unsupported by plaintiffs' allegations.

For example, considering CW1's estimate that gold production was
reduced by up to 10% on days when cyanide solution was not added to
the leach pad,  restrictions in place for a period of 18 days (the
length of time between Barrick's April 6 statement and April 24
corrective disclosure would amount to only a 0.5% reduction in
annual production. Restrictions would need to be in place for a
substantial period before overall annual production would be
impacted, and plaintiffs do not seriously engage with the mismatch
in temporal scope between restrictions in effect for a number of
days and annual production reflected in production guidance.

In sum, the Court holds that plaintiffs have failed to plausibly
allege that Palmes's February 16 statement was false or made with
scienter and that the remaining statements are forward-looking
statements protected by the PSLRA's safe harbor.

Loss Causation

The Plaintiffs' loss causation allegations as to the Barrick's
April 24 announcement of its 2017 First Quarter results fare
better, but only somewhat. Further, while plaintiffs need not
demonstrate on a motion to dismiss that the corrective disclosure
was the only possible cause for decline in the stock price,
plaintiffs would have needed to so prove had their case proceeded
beyond this motion to dismiss. The Defendants identify accurately
that Barrick's April 24 disclosure contained a litany of negative
information about the company unrelated to gold production at
Veladero. While these arguments are premature on a motion to
dismiss and therefore do not form a basis of our dismissal of the
section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims to they extent they are based
on the March 30 and April 6 statements, there is no reason to
believe that these confounding factors would not have presented
plaintiffs with serious difficulties of proof were the case to
proceed beyond the pleading stage.

The Court grants the defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety.


A full-text copy of the District Court's September 20, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7ks5oxn
from Leagle.com.

Ashwini Malhotra, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Kim Elaine Miller
-- kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC.

Shepard Broadfoot, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy
-- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Isaac Kim, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Joseph
Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Markus Knittel, Movant, represented by Phillip C. Kim , The Rosen
Law Firm P.A.

Jacques Fuhrer, Jung Wei Chi, John Sun & Tomasz Gomolinski,
Movants, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP &
Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP.

BKW Living Trust, Movant, represented by Adam M. Apton --
aapton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

Barrick Gold Corporation, Kelvin Dushnisky, Catherine Raw, Richard
Williams & Jorge Palmes, Defendants, represented by John Gleeson --
lgleeson@debevoise.com -- Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, Ada Fernandez
Johnson -- afjohnson@debevoise.com -- Debevoise & Plimpton LLP,
Bruce E. Yannett -- beyanett@debevoise.com -- Debevoise & Plimpton,
LLP, Eileen Castilla Zelek -- eczelek@debevoise.com -- Debevoise &
Plimpton, LLP & Jonathan Rosser Tuttle -- jrturtle@debevoise.com --
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.


BASF CORP: Tri-Iso Tryline Alleges Price-Fixing of Chemicals
------------------------------------------------------------
TRI-ISO TRYLINE, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BASF CORP.; BASF SE.; BAYER
AG; BAYER CORP.; COVESTRO AG; COVESTRO LLC; DOWDUPONT INC.; DOW
CHEMICAL CO.; HUNTSMAN CORP.; HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL LLC.; MCNS
POLYURETHANES USA INC.; MITSUI CHEMICALS, INC.; MITSUI CHEMICALS
AMERICA, INC.; MITSUI CHEMICALS & SKC POLYURETHANES, INC.; WANHUA
CHEMICAL GROUP CO., LTD.; WANHUA CHEMICAL (AMERICA) CO. LTD.; and
WANHUA CHEMICAL US HOLDING, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-14043 (D.N.J., Sep. 19, 2018), alleges that the Defendants
conspired to fix the prices of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate
(MDI) and toluene diisocyanate (TDI), in violation of the Sherman
Act and Clayton Act.

MDI and TDI are the primary chemicals used in the manufacture of
polyurethane-based products and are referred to in the polyurethane
industry as Isocyanates.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendants limit the supply of
chemicals through coordinated and pretextual manufacturing
shutdowns.  The complaint contends that the Defendants' conspiracy
artificially raised and maintained prices for Isocyanates, which
caused antitrust injury to Plaintiff and Class Members who paid
higher prices for Isocyanates than they would have in the absence
of the Defendants' conduct. The Defendants' collusive conduct
started as early as 2015 and has continued through the present. The
United States Department of Justice is investigating the
Defendants' collusive conduct in the Isocyanates market. Three
Defendants are repeat offenders of the antitrust laws and have been
the subjects of previous criminal and civil, including unlawfully
conspiring to fix the prices of polyurethanes from the late 1990s
to the early 2000s.

BASF SE is a German chemical company and the largest chemical
producer in the world. The BASF Group comprises subsidiaries and
joint ventures in more than 80 countries and operates six
integrated production sites and 390 other production sites in
Europe, Asia, Australia, the Americas and Africa.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 500 6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395 9940
          E-mail: swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
                  jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  kgibboney@saverilawfirm.com


BAYER A.G.: Faces Suit over Price Fixing of Polyurethanes
---------------------------------------------------------
FINISHING SOLUTIONS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER A.G.; BAYER CORPORATION;
COVESTRO LLC; BASF SE; BASF CORPORATION; DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY;
HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL LLC; HUNTSMAN CORPORATION; WANHUA CHEMICAL
GROUP CO., LTD.; WANHUA CHEMICAL AMERICA CO. LTD.; MITSUI
CHEMICALS, INC.; MITSUI CHEMICALS AMERICA, INC.; MCNS; and MCNS
POLYURETHANES USA INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01391-RDP
(N.D. Ala., Aug. 29, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
arising out of a conspiracy to violate federal antitrust laws in
the manufacturing and selling of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate
("MDI") and toluene diisocyanate ("TDI") an ingredients for the
manufacture of polyurethane foams and thermoplastic polyurethanes,
in the United States.

Plaintiff alleges in the complaint conspiracy among the Defendants
and certain unnamed co-conspirators to fix, raise, maintain and
stabilize prices for MDI and TDI products sold in the United
States. The conspiracy was implemented in part through an agreement
among the Defendants to limit production of MDI and TDI products
and thereby drive up prices for these products.

Bayer Aktiengesellschaft operates as a life science company
worldwide. Bayer Aktiengesellschaft has a collaboration agreement
with The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center to develop
cancer treatments, as well as Haplogen GmbH. The company was
founded in 1863 and is headquartered in Leverkusen, Germany. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
          Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
          PITTMAN DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
          2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 322-8880
          Facsimile: (205) 328-2711
          E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com
                  jonm@pittmandutton.com

               - and -

          James F. Barger, Jr., Esq.
          Ben Bucy, Esq.
          FROHSIN BARGER & WALTHALL
          100 Main Street
          St. Simons Island, GA 31522
          Telephone: (205) 933-4006
          Facsimile: (205) 933-4008
          E-mail: jim@frohsinbarger.com
                  ben@frohsinbarger.com

               - and -

          J. Elliott Walthall, Esq.
          FROHSIN BARGER & WALTHALL
          402 Office Park Drive, Suite. 270
          Birmingham, AL 35223
          Telephone: (205) 933-4006
          Facsimile: (205) 933-4008
          E-mail: elliott@frohsinbarger.com


BIEHL & BIEHL: Giannetti Files FDCPA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Donna Giannetti, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Biehl & Biehl, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-05174, (E.D. N.Y., September 13, 2018) seeks to recover
damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Defendant is a "debt collector" who alleges Giannetti owes a debt
with Newsday and fell behind on payments owed and sent her a
collection letter. Said letter violates the six-year statute of
limitations for collection of a contractual debt that was not
time-barred at that time, notes the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 203-7600
      Fax: (516) 706-5055
      Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


BIG PICTURE: Faces Williams, et al. Suit in D. South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Picture Loans
LLC.  The lawsuit is captioned as Lula Williams, Gloria Turnage,
George Hengle, and Dowin Coffy, on behalf of themselves and all
individuals similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Felix Gillison,
Simon Xu Liang, the Movant, and Big Picture Loans LLC, Matt
Martorella, Ascension Technologies Inc., Daniel Gravel, James
Williams, Jr., Gertrude McGeshick, Susan McGeshick, and
Giiwegiizhigookway Martin, the Defendants, Case No.
6:18-mc-00303-DCC (D.S.C., Aug. 31, 2018). The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Donald C Coggins, Jr.

Ascension Technologies, through its subsidiary, offers analytical
consulting services. The company is based in Watersmeet,
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

Attorneys for Movant:

          Beth B Richardson, Esq.
          Elizabeth Van Doren Gray, Esq.
          ROBINSON GRAY STEPP AND LAFFITTE LLC
          1310 Gadsden Street
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 929 1400
          Facsimile: (803) 929 0300
          E-mail: brichardson@robinsongray.com
                  egray@robinsongray.com


BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS: Website Not Accessible, Diaz Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS TIRE OPERATIONS, LLC
d/b/a FIRESTONE, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07903 (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
29, 2018) is an action against the Defendant for failure to design,
construct, maintain and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's website
www.firestone.com is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, violating the Americans With
Disabilities Act.

Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC manufactures and markets
car and truck tires. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC was
formerly known as Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC
and changed its name to Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC
in 2009. The company was incorporated in 2001 and is based in
Nashville, Tennessee. As of August 19, 2018, Bridgestone Americas
Tire Operations, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Dickinson Fleet
Services, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


CAMPBELL SOUP: Nov. 27 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until November 27, 2018 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Campbell
Soup Company (NYSE: CPB), if they purchased the Company's shares
between August 31, 2017 and May 17, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Campbell and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-cpb/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by November 27, 2018.

About the Lawsuit

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

On May 18, 2018, the Company disclosed disappointing financial
results, for the third straight quarter, including the poor
performance of its Campbell Fresh division that forced it to take a
$619 million pre-tax non-cash impairment charge, a $19 million
quarterly loss for the division, further revisions to its fiscal
year 2018 earnings guidance, and that the Company's CEO was
stepping down immediately.

On this news, the price of Campbell's shares plummeted over 12% to
close at $34.37 per share on May 18, 2018.

                  About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include the former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities,
antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger &
acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices in
New York, California and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

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


CANADA: Canadian Lawyer Discusses Road to LGBT Purge Award
----------------------------------------------------------
Gail J. Cohen, writing for Canadian Lawyer, wrote that even for
seasoned class action lawyers, June 18, 2018 was an unusual day in
court. Federal Court Justice Martine St-Louis presided over a
hearing that lead class counsel Douglas Elliott calls "more of a
therapy session than a legal hearing." Fifteen victims of the
federal government's systemic discrimination and persecution of its
gay, lesbian and bisexual employees stood up to tell their stories
before the court.

One of them was Michelle Douglas, whose discrimination case against
the military ended in 1992, forcing the Canadian Armed Forces to
grudgingly change its ban on allowing LGBT people to serve.
Douglas' case was settled so she never had her day in court. For
her, and others whose lives and careers were devastated, that
settlement hearing "was a profoundly emotional day," she says. "It
felt like a real sisterhood and brotherhood coming together, a
group of people with shared experience, a shared commitment to
service to Canada, who had been so unjustly treated. I addressed
the court. I held in my hand as I did so a copy of the prime
minister's apology, that might give you a sense about how much that
meant to me. I wanted to say certain things to the court, I wanted
the court to hear those things. And it was actually my only time to
ever really address the court on the painful chapter that I
experienced back in the 1980s with the military."

Crown lawyers say even though it was a settlement hearing with no
findings of fact or anything to prove, the judge understood that
allowing class members to speak was a valuable part of ensuring
justice was done. "Justice St-Louis deserves credit, because she
really went out of her way to make sure that there was a safe space
for these people to tell their stories," says Alexander Pless,
general counsel with the Department of Justice. "I am sure that
they could see that she was interested in their stories, and it was
important for her to hear them."

The were many poignant, heart-breaking stories that day as well as
tears not only from class members but counsel and staff in the
court. Several participants say the emotions of the moment are
likely what led St-Louis to make another unusual move: approving
the settlement from the bench with members of the class in the
courtroom. "[J]ust the eruption of happiness in the court, of the
applause, and people were crying and hugging one another. I've
never seen anything like that ever -- in any case that I've been
involved in. I doubt I ever will. It was an extraordinary moment,"
recalls Halifax lawyer John McKiggan, who has worked on a number of
historical abuse cases.

On top of all the emotions in the courtroom, though, the settlement
of this case was the culmination of something that spanned decades,
hundreds of government departments and a creative legal team
fighting for redress.

The class action

This was no ordinary class action against the government. Firstly,
at $145 million, the LGBT purge class action is the largest such
settlement for redress of historical harms to the lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender community in the world. In addition, the DoJ
lawyers say that, unlike most lawsuits against the government that
affect one or two ministries, this involved at least 200
departments and agencies, including about 20 core departments whose
legal teams participated. They were led by DoJ senior general
counsel Christine Mohr and Pless.

That emotional June day, St-Louis approved a truly unique
settlement for thousands of public servants, as well as members of
the CAF and RCMP who were discriminated against, persecuted or
fired between 1955 and 1996 due to their real or perceived sexual
orientation. Compensation for most class members will be between
$5,000 and $50,000. The final settlement amount will be determined
by how many make claims; lawyers estimate perhaps 1,000 victims are
still alive. Former Supreme Court of Canada justice Marie Deschamps
will adjudicate exceptional harm claims that could result in awards
of up to $125,000 per person. Beyond individual compensation, the
settlement provides money for education and reconciliation,
including a monument in Ottawa and museum exhibits, as well as
individual apologies and amendments to employment records to
reflect that victims were unjustly fired. Class members will also
receive the Pride Citation, an honour to reflect their service to
Canada.

Class counsel will be paid $15 million directly by the government
and are obliged to assist claimants through the claims process at
no charge. The claims period begins in late October.

The personal toll of the purge

Many factors and players over the decades paved the path toward the
class actions, which were launched in the fall of 2016. These
included groups and individuals who fought for redress,
particularly from the military, usually with little success. Their
aim was not primarily financial compensation but an official
apology for and recognition of the discrimination they faced while
serving their country.

Until the early 1990s, few Canadians had any inkling their
government was systematically discriminating against homosexuals,
who were defined by the government's security apparatus as
suffering from a "character weakness" that could open them to
blackmail by "enemy" agents. A 1992 article by Canadian Press
reporter Dean Beeby, based on the release of explosive government
documents, showed the RCMP had in 1959 "launched a massive hunt for
male homosexuals" in Ottawa. The "hunt" forced many government
employees to live a double life for fear of being sanctioned,
fired, transferred or denied opportunities. They, and often their
families, were surveilled and questioned by the RCMP in efforts to
get names of other suspected homosexuals. Few would ever discuss
what happened to them publicly.

A few brave individuals who had been investigated by the Special
Investigations Unit of the Military Police and then forced out --
under Canadian Forces Administrative Order 19-20 --
Homosexuality-Sexual Abnormality investigation, Medical Examination
and Disposal -- tried on their own to get redress, apologies or
answers, but to no avail.

The first to openly challenge her expulsion from the forces for
being a lesbian was Barbara Thornborrow. In May 1977, she'd been
investigated by the SIU and was given an ultimatum to admit she was
gay and be released or agree to see a psychiatrist. She refused and
went public with her story, including showing up on Parliament Hill
during hearings on the Human Rights Act. Shortly after that,
Thornborrow was let go as "not advantageously employable," the
official notation used frequently on military discharge papers in
these cases. A group of lesbians in the navy in Newfoundland was
also purged that year. Despite the publicity of these events,
nothing changed.

Diane Pitre suffered not only ongoing surveillance and questioning
by the SIU while at CFB Chatham near Halifax and CFB Borden in
Ontario but was subjected to months of psychiatric evaluations.
Pitre describes being 18 and undergoing her first SIU interrogation
at a mysterious Halifax location in 1977: "This was like 10 o'clock
at night and it lasted way into the morning and then they drove me
to the base, dropped me off in a psych ward, then they picked me up
in the morning. And they did that for two, three days:
investigation, lie detector tests, psych ward, then back to my
base." The two SIU operatives continuously asked her highly
personal questions: Who is the man in the relationship? Do you like
to masturbate in front of a mirror? Who takes the garbage out? Do
you use a dildo? Do you hate men?

As word got out on the base about the investigation, the obscene
phone calls and name-calling started. Pitre was sexually assaulted
by a drunken male corporal, who was never brought to bear for the
crime. It became too much, and on Sept. 24, 1980, she was forced to
quit. The harassment was so severe she and her partner left town.

For decades, all Pitre wanted was an apology for her treatment. She
approached MP Svend Robinson among others. She wrote dozens of
letters, including to senior military officer Michel Drapeau (now
retired and practising law). Drapeau's response, she says, was
essentially that it was never going to happen.

Martine Roy, too, was subjected to multiple humiliating and
degrading SIU interrogations and strung along for years until one
day, in December 1984, she was called in to the office at CFB
Borden and told she had nine days to pack up her stuff and get out.
She was a sexual deviant and was being discharged for
homosexuality, she was told. Roy returned home to Quebec, broken.
She and her father wrote letters of grievance to everyone from
commanding officers to the chief of defence staff and even
then-governor general Jeanne Sauvé. Every time, they were told
"that was the law and there was nothing they could do. That took
five years," says Roy. For years, she struggled with drug
addiction, underwent intensive therapy, had difficulty maintaining
relationships and lived with the constant fear and anxiety of
rejection for being her real self.

Diane Pitre

Lawyers were not immune from the discrimination either. In 1974,
17-year-old Michael Fox joined the army reserve then served a year
as a UN peacekeeper. "I suspected I was gay, but at that age and in
that time, I thought that since it had only recently been
decriminalized and was still contrary to military law, it was
utterly immoral and I vowed to remain celibate," he recalls. As he
completed more of his education and began naval officer training,
Fox realized it would be impossible to keep this vow of celibacy
even though "my attitude then, and still is, that the best antidote
to prejudice is to be out and quietly competent. Unfortunately,
being out was not an option back then." He saw the SIU conduct
anti-gay operations in Halifax, arresting and discharging sailors.
"I always awaited arrest and expulsion with certain humiliation,
even if not disgrace," says Fox.

Resolving to fight such polices, he went to law school. Soon after
graduating, Fox says, he basically came out to his commanding
officer. He'd also applied for and was offered a job in the Judge
Advocate General's office. But the bottom fell out when he received
a call that his superior officer had told the JAG he was gay and
would therefore be investigated. "I had no real choice but to
resign from the reserve and withdraw my application." Fox went on
to have a meaningful and lengthy career as a Crown attorney in
Hamilton, Ont., where he still works. Yet, even after all this
time, he finds those events tremendously difficult to discuss.

Discrimination was not so blatant for former DoJ lawyer Mark
Berlin. While he had "some great jobs," he says, "in my mind . . .
I still believed for many years, and indeed to this day, that there
were certain opportunities and positions that were not provided to
me simply because I was gay."

He remembers one fateful day in 1988 that changed his life. Berlin
was ministerial liaison counsel between the Justice department and
Justice minister's office, where as a five-year call, he wrote
speeches, among other duties, for then-minister Ray Hnatyshyn. He
went across the street to the old Citadel hotel to play squash with
his boss at lunch. After the game, his boss remarked somewhat
off-the-cuff that their assistant deputy minister had asked him if
he thought Berlin was gay. He scoffed at the idea and told the ADM
that, of course, Berlin wasn't gay. The ADM then added if he was
gay, they'd have to fire him.

"Thirty something years later, I could tell you, I remember where I
stood and the words that were said to me." Now retired from the DoJ
after a 32-year career and speaking publicly about this with
Canadian Lawyer for the first time, Berlin remembers "getting
dressed and going back to the office and having this explosion of
1,000 things going on in my head: 'Do I admit it? Am I going to get
fired when they find out?' It is certainly what led to the spiral
down." That day was the beginning of a double life where he had to
be one person at work and another in his "real" life. It left him
fighting emotional and psychological demons for years.

Both Berlin and Fox are members of the class.

Change is forced upon the military

The national security campaign against LGBT members of the civil
service waned by the mid 1980s, but the injustices continued in the
military for another decade. Transformation of the military's
policies eventually came in the form of Michelle Douglas, a
promising young air force lieutenant and only the second woman to
join the Military Police unit that ironically conducted the purge
investigations. Suspected of being homosexual, Douglas, like
others, was taken to a non-military location for interrogation by
two SIU officers. In 1989, after days of intensive questions and
polygraph tests, she admitted she was a lesbian, was stripped of
her security clearance and forced to leave the military for being
"not advantageously employable." With the help of Robinson and
lawyer Clayton Ruby, she sued the military for violating her
Charter rights. The case first went to the independent Security
Intelligence Review Committee, which blasted the SIU for
"deplorable" conduct and ruled the military's bar on employing
homosexuals unconstitutional. It ordered Douglas' reinstatement.
The government appealed.

On the eve of the trial in Federal Court, the government settled
with Douglas for $100,000. Faced with the lawsuit, the military
finally revoked CFAO 19-20, its policy banning homosexuals. Several
similar suits were quietly settled in the following year. The
government never apologized to them or offered any kind of
restitution. And while, by 1992, gays and lesbians were no longer
banned from serving (a few years before changes were made so LGBT
soldiers could not be forced out but also would not be eligible for
training or promotions if they stayed), it would still be years
before LGBT service members would feel comfortable being open about
their sexuality.

Road to an apology -- and more

Starting around that same time, professors Gary Kinsman and
Patrizia Gentile did extensive research on national security
campaigns against lesbian and gay men. Their 2010 book The Canadian
War on Queers: National Security as Sexual Regulation chronicled
the official and personal stories of Canadians affected by the
purge. In 1997, scholars Carmen Poulin and Lynne Gouliquer, who had
resigned from the military, began interviewing current and former
lesbian service members and their partners. One of the women they
interviewed was Pitre, who later connected them with MP Peter
Stoffer, who in 2009 was one of the first MPs to seek an apology
for purge victims from then-defence minister Peter MacKay. Stoffer
was roundly rebuffed.

Organized actions began to form. Poulin, Gouliquer and a group that
included Pitre, Roy, Kinsman and others affected by the purge
created the "We Demand An Apology Network" in 2015. Its main
purpose was to secure a public and official government apology and
redress process for purge victims. In June 2016, the network held a
press conference in Ottawa to publicly call for an apology. Days
later, EGALE Canada Human Rights Trust released "The Just Society
Report: Grossly Indecent: Confronting the Legacy of State Sponsored
Discrimination Against Canada's LGBTQ2SI Communities." Chaired by
lawyer Douglas Elliott, the committee, among other demands, also
called for an apology from the government for its the systemic
purge.

The pressure was on and various paths were converging. Elliott, a
well-known equality and gay rights lawyer, had met Michelle Douglas
in the early 2000s during the M. v. H. case, which gave recognition
to same-sex common law relationships. Douglas was then president of
the Foundation for Equal Families, which intervened in the case and
hired Elliott.

Working on another LGBTQ rights case a few years later, he'd met
former sailor Todd Ross. Elliott enlisted Ross to tell his "untold"
story at the release of the "Just Society Report." After an
18-month investigation, sobbing and hooked up to a polygraph
machine, still somewhat in denial of his own sexuality, Ross
admitted he was gay. Only 21 and feeling he had no options, Ross
agreed to leave the navy and was discharged on June 20, 1990.
Traumatized, ashamed and alone, Ross tried to take his own life.

After that emotional press conference, Roy pressed Elliott on
whether the government would do anything for purge victims. He told
her it was more likely than ever. Followup meetings with the
government got underway. Undertakings to apologize and make other
legislative changes called for in the "Just Society Report" were
made by the Prime Minister's Office -- but months went by with no
concrete action. Elliott and others were losing patience.

After another meeting with a determined Roy, Elliott told her, "The
only way this could be done, if at all, would have to be a class
action like we did in Hislop," the 2007 Supreme Court of Canada
case that extended Canada Pension Plan spousal pension benefits to
same-sex survivors. "I saw how a class action could really be a
powerful tool for LGBT folks. Because so often, it's lonely
individuals, it's not always the Michelle Douglases, that glorious
test case. It's people trying to get their pension, trying to solve
the problem in their own workplace," says Elliott. For 30 years,
Roy had been looking for someone to take the gamble with her and
launch a legal fight. "You needed someone who really believed," she
says. "With [Elliott], it was beyond being gay, beyond being a
lawyer."

Buoyed by the conciliatory attitude of the Trudeau government,
armed with the outcome of the 2010 SCC case Vancouver (City) v.
Ward, which allowed for damage awards for Charter breaches, and
with a sense that the only way to "goose" the feds into real action
was through the courts, Elliott and his firm Cambridge LLP geared
up to file a nationwide class action. They enlisted Audrey Boctor,
of IMK LLP in Montreal, to represent Quebec plaintiffs.

There were many legal issues to overcome, says Boctor. When she
heard the victims' stories, she knew something had to be done, "but
legally speaking, historical abuse claims have a number of
challenges. The first and obvious one being limitations . . . and
the second are always considerations arising under the Crown
Liability and Proceedings Act. In this case, we had to think how
about how we would argue s. 9 of the act, which deals with when
benefits are available under other government programs, whether
that's a complete bar to bring a proceeding like this."

Despite the potential complications, the class actions were
launched Oct. 31, 2016 in Ontario, with Ross as the representative
plaintiff represented by Elliott and in Quebec by Boctor with Roy
as the representative plaintiff. "I actually called my contact in
the Prime Minister's Office the night before we launched and I
said, 'Time's up, we're launching a class action tomorrow,'"
Elliott recounts. "And he was shocked. I said, 'We've been waiting
too long.' And I said, 'I can tell you right now, I've heard many
rumours that someone's going to sue, so it's not whether there's
going to be a class action, it's who's going to be suing you.'"

Elliott says they discovered three or four other actions against
the military, mostly for gender discrimination with LGBT matters
bolted on. "So, we had to reach out to all of these people and say,
back off, leave the LGBT piece out," he says. "And we succeeded in
doing that, because I had heard from the Department of Justice by
then and they said, 'Look, unless you represent everyone, we will
not negotiate with you.'"

Another consideration was an action being launched by McKiggan, of
McKiggan Hebert in Halifax. He was contacted seven years before by
former members of the Armed Forces telling him stories of being
forced out. He was aghast at learning what happened, but nothing
went forward. Then, a couple of years ago, he was approached by
other former service members, including Alida Satalic, who became
the third representative plaintiff in the purge class action.
Experienced in historical redress cases, McKiggan looked at their
claims with renewed vigour. He figured out a way forward. "I wanted
to frame the claim as a breach of fiduciary duty because, at least
here in Nova Scotia anyway, there's no limitation period for breach
of fiduciary duty claims." Working with Kirk Baert at Koskie Minsky
LLP in Toronto, McKiggan says the "thought was keep it as simple as
possible. Keep the class narrow: the military. Keep the claims
narrow: breach of fiduciary duty and systemic negligence."

McKiggan learned through Kinsman, whom he was going to use as an
expert witness, that Elliott was about to file parallel actions.
After some negotiations, they agreed to roll the three suits into
one, filing in the Federal Court and covering the broader class of
the military, civil service and RCMP. The Federal Court route came
from lessons learned the hard way of dealing with multiple
jurisdictions across the country -- for McKiggan in the Indian
residential school class actions and for Elliott in the same-sex
marriage cases. The combined class action, Ross, Roy and Satalic v.
Her Majesty the Queen, was filed March 13, 2017 in Montreal.

No ordinary class action

Despite the breadth of the suit, the government came back swiftly
with an offer to begin settlement discussions. "In this case, the
stars aligned early," says Pless. "I think probably the biggest
difference with this case was that the government was already very
knowledgeable about the history and the underlying issues.

. . . And then the government also, I think, had a general sense
of how they wanted to address these kinds of issues with the LGBT
community." Considering the "Just Society Report" and interactions
with the community, he says, the government was already looking to
right historical wrongs including amending the Criminal Code and
expunging old convictions. In addition, the feds had set up a new
LGBTQ2 Secretariat within the Privy Council and MP Randy
Boissonnault was appointed as a special adviser to Prime Minister
Justin Trudeau on LGBTQ issues, all in parallel with work on the
formal apology for the state's historical discrimination.

Negotiations still took a year, but monthly meetings and a
willingness on both sides meant an agreement in principle was in
place when Trudeau made his apology in the House of Commons on Nov.
28, 2017. "The way in which the negotiations unfolded was very
positive," says Pless. "It really is a model of how these kinds of
negotiations can occur. . . . The approach was not an adversarial
approach, it was a genuinely constructive dialogue."

Plaintiffs' counsel are also positive. "I have a tremendous amount
of respect for everyone who sat around that table. They were
extremely sensitive to the issues that class members were facing,"
says Boctor. "It did take almost a year to come to an agreement and
I think that indicates that it wasn't always smooth sailing." She
describes Mohr and Pless as "probably two of the best ones I've
encountered in my career." Elliott calls the negotiations
"collegial but tough."

After the PM made his tearful apology, final negotiations began.
"That turned out to be a lot more complicated than expected. The
devil's in the details and there was a lot of work to do on the
details," says Elliott. "I don't think there's ever been a
settlement like this before. It covered every government department
over a 40-year period.

. . . It is the most multi-faceted, most complex settlement, I
think, against the Canadian government ever. And one of the reasons
I think it's one of the best is because it has all of these
features that you wouldn't get if you went to trial."

From the start, class members needed recognition of the injustice
they suffered. Non-monetary components such as individual
apologies, including to the families of purge victims who had
passed away, as well as education and memorialization were
integral. "We want the lessons to be learned, not to forget," says
Roy. "The Crown was very co-operative on the soft measures." The
final agreement reflects that with class members including Roy,
Douglas and Pitre participating or leading the committees putting
the agreements into action.

The settlement and approval hearing

The (almost) final legal hurdle was the settlement and approval
hearing, held before St-Louis in Ottawa in June. It's one thing
doing cases on behalf of shareholders or for defective products,
notes Garth Myers of Koskie Minsky, "but this case really touched
sort of the innermost part of people's heart and dealt with traumas
that were so extremely personal and overpowering for class members.
. . . And that really came out on settlement approval where we
heard people's stories about the profound effect that the purge had
on their lives in terms of psychological health, employment and
relationship with their country."

For the DoJ's Mohr, the most poignant moment was when "one of the
class members concluded her remarks by saying that she felt that
with the settlement justice had been done. I think hearing those
words, it was fair to say that everyone on our legal team was
really affected by that and proud to have been part of the team
that negotiated and finalized the settlement."

There were unexpected moments even for Elliott who'd been working
on the case for years. There were the heightened emotions, but
"then I heard stories that I did not expect," such as the colonel
who found herself one night sitting on her bed putting bullets into
her gun because she was so distraught. Another one started with the
usual tale of a soldier being picked up in an undercover K-car and
taken to a shed to be interrogated, except this time he was
shackled and the SIU officers sexually assaulted him. "I couldn't
believe that this guy would have the courage to talk about that in
open court."

At the end of the day, Elliott thanked St-Louis for allowing all
that had taken place. He says she got "verklempt and she said,
'C'est le moindre de chose,' it was the least I could do." [GN]


CAPTAIN GEORGE'S: Underpays Servers, Smith and Gudinas Allege
-------------------------------------------------------------
DESERA SMITH, and KAYLA GUDINAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAPTAIN GEORGE'S OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, LP; CAPTAIN GEORGE'S OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC.; CAPTAIN
KDH, LLC; LIDESLAMBOUS, INC.; PITSILAMBOUS, INC.; PITSILIDES
MANAGEMENT, LLC; GEORGE PITSILIDES; SHERRY PITSILIDES; and DOE
CORPORATIONS 1-4, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-02409-RBH (D. S.C.,
Aug. 30, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime compensation and minimum wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers. Ms.
Smith was employed from 2014 to March 2018, while Ms. Gudinas from
May 2016 to November 2016.

Captain George's of South Carolina, LP own and operate four seafood
buffet restaurants in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, Kill Devil
Hills, North Carolina, Virginia Beach, Virginia, and Williamsburg,
Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick McLaughlin, Esq.
          WUKELA LAW FIRM
          403 Second Loop Rd.
          Florence, SC 29504-3057
          Telephone: (843) 669-5634
          Facsimile: (843) 669-5150
          E-mail: Patrick@wukelalaw.com

               - and -

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


CLUB ROUGE: Reaches Deal with Strippers in Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Frank Green, writing for Richmond Times-Dispatch, reported that
strippers and five Richmond-area adult clubs have reached an
agreement in a class action wage dispute that will pay the
plaintiffs $830,000 from which attorneys' fees and other costs will
be deducted.

In court papers, both sides told U.S. District Judge Henry E.
Hudson that the agreement had been reached and would be filed, but
only after the judge allows it to be filed under seal.

The parties are asking that the settlement be sealed, arguing that
it contains confidential and proprietary information of the
defendants and personal, nonpublic information about the
plaintiffs. As of Oct. 1, no order from Hudson had been posted.

A 14-page suit, first filed in January on behalf of roughly 30
plaintiffs and later amended, alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and asked for claimed unpaid minimum and overtime
wages, withheld tips and other allegedly unlawful deductions.

The defendants, including Club Rouge, Daddy Rabbits, Candy Bar,
Paper Moon, and Pure Pleasure, denied any wrongdoing and filed
counter claims alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

"The parties have negotiated a court-supervised settlement in this
action, and they have agreed to resolve the disputed factual and
legal issues," wrote lawyers in a joint memorandum to Hudson asking
that the suit be dismissed.

The plaintiffs were classified as independent contractors rather
than employees and as such were not paid wages directly from the
clubs but were compensated solely by club patrons, according to the
memorandum.

According to the plaintiffs' damages model, if the plaintiffs
prevailed and the jury found they were owed unpaid wages, the
dancers would have received $1,234,052, and would have been
entitled to double damages -- or $2,468,105 -- under the FLSA
unless the defendants proved the alleged violations were in good
faith.

In-person settlement conferences were held in July and September
before U.S. Magistrate Judge Roderick C. Young. [GN]


COCHLEAR LIMITED: Class Status Sought in Hearing Aid Defect Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Donald K. Alexander, et al., v. Cochlear
Limited, and Cochlear America's, the Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-00498-HFS (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order certifying his case as a class action.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants committed false advertising
and consumer fraud in connection with a cochlear implant known to
the Defendants to be potentially defective when transmitting
extremely common high and medium high frequency sound waves via a
Cochlear Americas cochlear implant such that such sound waves as
received by the implanted Lead Plaintiff and class members are
vastly distorted.[CC]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


COLLEGE BOARD: Faces Suit over SAT Exam Leaks
---------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of his minor child and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE COLLEGE BOARD; and EDUCATIONAL
TESTING SERVICE, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-02172-CEH-AEP (M.D.
Fla., Aug. 30, 2018) is a class action lawsuit over an SAT exam
leak conducted on August 25 and August 26, 2018, in the United
States.

According to the complaint, the reused exam questions, and the
answers thereto, had been leaked online for a period of time
leading up to the August 25 and 26 examination. As a result,
students who took the August 25 and 25 exams may have taken the
October 2017 SAT and practiced the same test in preparation for the
exam, gaining a distinct advantage over other students who were
seeing the test for the first time. By continuing the Defendant's
practice of recycling questions, the Defendants failed to ensure
test taker had a fair and reasonable opportunity to demonstrate
college readiness.

College Board is an American not-for-profit organization that was
formed in December 1899 as the College Entrance Examination Board
to expand access to higher education. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 SW 57th Court, Ste. 515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 357-9000
          Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
          E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
                  lgrossman@cridenlove.com

               - and -

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


CORRECT CARE: Ct. Orders Mercado to File Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Steven P. Logan entered an order on October 4, 2018,
dismissing the case captioned Richard Mercado on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Correct Care
Solutions private corporation, Stephanie Herrick RNP, medical
provider, Charles Ryan director of the ADC in his official
capacity, Richard Pratt division director, Division of Health
Services, Arizona Department of Corrections in his official
capacity, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-08242-SPL-BSB (D. Ariz.,
Oct. 1, 2018).

The lawsuit asserts prisoner civil rights and was filed over prison
conditions.

The Court held that the Plaintiff has 30 days from the date the
Order is filed to file a first amended complaint in compliance with
the Order. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within
30 days, the Clerk of Court must, without further notice, enter a
judgment of dismissal of this action without prejudice and deny any
pending unrelated motions as moot.

Correct Care Solutions is a healthcare company based in Nashville,
Tennessee, U.S.  The company was founded in 2003 by Jerry Boyle. It
is co-owned by private equity firms Audax Group and Frazier
Healthcare Partners. It provides healthcare services to US prisons,
including immigrant-only prisons run by the GEO Group.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CPC LOGISTICS: Court Narrows Claims in Tonge FCRA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned CHRISTINE TONGE,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. CPC LOGISTICS, INC., Defendant. Civ. No. 16-cv-09579 (WHW)(CLW).
(D.N.J.).

Plaintiff Christine Tonge alleges that the Defendant violated
provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and the New
Jersey Fair Credit Reporting Act (NJ FCRA), by not providing her
with proper materials and information relating to consumer agency
reports procured by Defendant CPC Logistics, Inc., as part of her
job application to work for CPC.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff does not adequately allege
an injury in order to confer standing, and that even if she does,
the complaint does not demonstrate that CPC violated the FCRA.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)

Rule 12(b)(6) allows for dismissal where the non-moving party fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 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.

Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1)

A motion to dismiss for want of standing is .properly brought
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), because standing is a jurisdictional
matter.

FCRA and NJ FCRA

Count One of the complaint alleges a violation of the FCRA's
stand-alone requirement, which, under 15 U.S.C. Section
1681b(b)(2)(A), states that consumers should receive a clear and
conspicuous disclosure [] made in writing to the consumer at any
time before the report is procured or caused to be procured, in a
document that consists solely of the disclosure. Defendant argues
that Count One should be dismissed in part because Tonge complains
that CPC provided her too much information and still not enough
information.

Counts Two and Three allege CPC did not provide Tonge with
statutorily-required information. Plaintiff again does not allege
she was confused by these documents, and Defendant claims the
information was provided elsewhere. The alleged missing FCRA
information includes (i) the address and telephone number of
HireRight; (ii) notification that HireRight was not the one who
made the adverse decision and (iii) notification that a free copy
of the report could be obtained and a dispute filed with the
agency.  Because CPC did not provide the alleged missing FCRA
information to Tonge within the appropriate timeframe, Plaintiff
has stated a claim under the statute..

Standing

FCRA

CPC argues that Tonge has not sufficiently pled injury to confer
standing, and so this suit should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1). A plaintiff seeking to establish standing to sue
must demonstrate: (1) an injury-in-fact, (2) a sufficient causal
connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and
(3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable
decision.

The Plaintiff has not adequately pled any of the above under the
FCRA.

First, she does not persuasively dispute that she has been given
all of the requested information under the FCRA, instead contesting
the manner by which she has received it. Tonge claims that the mere
deprivation of information can amount to an injury, which is true,
but she alleges not that she never received the information, but
instead that it was not within a statutorily-prescribed manner.
This is not enough to meet the threshold for injury-in-fact.

Here, Tonge has not adequately alleged either the veracity or the
completeness of the missing FCRA information.

Second, Tonge does not allege she was confused by or does not know
how to act in light of the presentation of the information.  The
heart of Tonge's argument is that CPC causes informational injuries
through its technical violations of the FCRA because prospective
employees cannot know which document is the controlling
disclosure.

Third, Tonge does not allege that the information's falsity or
inaccuracy has caused her, directly or indirectly, any injury,
including potential professional embarrassment. Tonge argues in her
response brief that she suffered privacy injuries, see Resp. Br. at
18, but this allegation is not included in her complaint, and she
cannot cure this deficiency through her motion papers.  

Accordingly, Counts One and Three of the complaint are dismissed.

NJ FCRA

Tonge has sufficiently alleged injury-in-fact under the NJ FCRA.
The only remaining portion of her claim under Count Two is her
allegation that she did not receive a full copy of the report.

This is the kind of informational injury contemplated by the
statute. A plaintiff suffers an injury in fact when the plaintiff
fails to obtain information which must be publicly disclosed
pursuant to a statute. Given that the NJ FCRA is a law directed to
truth-inlending or truth-in-leasing, the policy goals contemplated
by the FCRA are directly implicated in Tonge not receiving a full
and complete consumer report. A consumer receiving a full copy of
the report is the kind of transparency the New Jersey legislature
was seeking when it passed its bill.

Tonge has sufficiently pled an informational injury and
injury-in-fact, and consequently she has standing to pursue her
state claim.

The Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) is granted in part, denied in part. It
is ordered that Counts One and Three of the FAC are dismissed
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), while Count Two  remains.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 20, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7o8ckfl from
Leagle.com.

CHRISTINE TONGE, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by JEFFREY JOSEPH CIARLANTO --
ciarlanto@prolawpa.com -- PROFY PROMISLOFF & CIARLANTO, P.C.,
RICHARD HAN KIM, THE KIM LAW FIRM, LLC, DRUCILLA HUGHES TIGNER, THE
KIM LAW FIRM & KEVIN J. KOTCH, FERRARA LAW GROUP, P.C.

CPC LOGISTICS INC., Defendant, represented by JACQUELINE R. BARRETT
-- jacqueline.barrett@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS --
jessica.bocchinfuso@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK &
STEWART PC.


CRABCAKE FACTORY: Underpays Restaurant Servers, Gaske Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Gaske, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Crabcake Factory Seafood House, LLC d/b/a
Crabcake Factory's Loca Madre; Satellite Restaurants Inc.; John J.
Brooks; Krista Brooks, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02630-GJH (D.
Md., Aug. 25, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Gaske was employed by the Defendants as restaurant
server.

Crabcake Factory Seafood House, LLC d/b/a Crabcake Factory's Loca
Madre; Satellite Restaurants Inc. is a corporation formed in the
State of Maryland to engage in the operation of a restaurant, bar,
and related activities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard B. Hoffman, Esq.
          Jordan S. Liew, Esq.
          HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAW, LLC
          600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 304
          Rockville, MD 20852
          Telephone: (301) 251-3752
          Facsimile: (301) 251-3753


CREDENCE RESOURCE: Certification of Class Sought in Gomez Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Irma Gomez moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit titled IRMA GOMEZ, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CREDENCE RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-01489-PP (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
asserts.

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 Plaintiff contends.

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


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

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

The district court held that the automatic text messaging system
that had sent the messages was not an automatic telephone dialing
system (ATDS) under the TCPA, because it lacked the present or
potential capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be
called, using a random or sequential number generator.

As the D.C. Circuit noted, the definition of ATDS naturally raises
two questions: (i) when does a device have the capacity to perform
the two enumerated functions; and (ii) what precisely are those
functions? The TCPA defines ATDS as equipment which has the
capacity (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called,
using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such
numbers.

The question is whether, in order to be an ATDS, a device must dial
numbers generated by a random or sequential number generator or if
a device can be an ATDS if it merely dials numbers from a stored
list. The Court must also determine to what extent the device must
function without human intervention in order to qualify as an
ATDS.

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

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

After struggling with the statutory language ourselves, the Court
concludes that it is not susceptible to a straightforward
interpretation based on the plain language alone.  

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

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

The Court also rejects Crunch's argument that a device cannot
qualify as an ATDS unless it is fully automatic, meaning that it
must operate without any human intervention whatsoever. By
referring to the relevant device as an automatic telephone dialing
system, Congress made clear that it was targeting equipment that
could engage in automatic dialing, rather than equipment that
operated without any human oversight or control. Common sense
indicates that human intervention of some sort is required before
an autodialer can begin making calls, whether turning on the
machine or initiating its functions. Congress was clearly aware
that, at the very least, a human has to flip the switch on an ATDS.
Crunch does not dispute that the Textmunication system dials
numbers automatically, and therefore it has the automatic dialing
function necessary to qualify as an ATDS, even though humans,
rather than machines, are needed to add phone numbers to the
Textmunication platform.

Because the Court reads Section 227(a)(1) to provide that the term
automatic telephone dialing system means equipment which has the
capacity (1) to store numbers to be called or (2) to produce
numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number
generator—and to dial such numbers automatically (even if the
system must be turned on or triggered by a person), we conclude
there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the
Textmunication system is an ATDS.

The evidence in the record shows that the Textmunication system
stores numbers and dials them automatically to send text messages
to a stored list of phone numbers as part of scheduled campaigns.
This is sufficient to survive summary judgment.  Because the
district court did not have the benefit of ACA International or our
construction of the definition of ATDS, the Court vacates the
district court's ruling and remands it for further proceedings.
Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's September 20, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybhy29x3 from Leagle.com.

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

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

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

Brian Melendez, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for
Amicus Curiae ACA International.


D&A SERVICES: Lebovitch Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D & A Services, LLC
of IL. The case is styled as Zoltan Lebovitch on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. D & A
Services, LLC of IL, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05482 (E.D. N.Y.,
Sept. 30, 2018).

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

D&A Services, LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Court Certifies Class in Money Bail Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case
captioned SHANNON DAVES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DALLAS COUNTY,
TEXAS, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:18-CV-0154-N. (N.D.
Tex.).

This Order addresses Plaintiffs Shannon Daves, Shakena Walston,
Erriyah Banks, Destinee Tovar, Petroba Michieko, and James
Thompson's motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs are recent arrestees in custody at the Dallas County
Jail. The Plaintiffs allege that the County, the Sheriff, the
Magistrates, the Felony Judges, and the Misdemeanor Judges employ
an unconstitutional system of wealth-based detention by imposing
and enforcing secured money bail without an inquiry into and
findings concerning the arrestee's present ability to pay.

The Plaintiffs move to certify the following class:

     All arrestees who are or will be detained in Dallas County
custody because they are unable to pay a secured financial
condition of release.

THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth two main
requirements that must be satisfied before a class is certified.
First, Rule 23(a) states:

One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative
parties on behalf of all only if: (1) the class is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of
law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.

THE PROPOSED CLASS SATISFIES RULE 23(a)

The Defendants do not contest that the Plaintiffs' proposed class
meets the numerosity requirement under Rule 23(a)(1), or the
adequacy requirement under Rule 23(a)(4).   

The Defendants instead argue that the proposed class lacks
sufficient commonality and typicality to be certified under Rules
23(a)(2) and 23(a)(3).  

The Proposed Class is Sufficiently Common

To satisfy the commonality requirement under Rule 23(a)(2),
Plaintiff must demonstrate that there are questions of law or fact
common to the class.

The common question in this case is not, as the Defendants suggest,
"why was my bail set at an amount I could not afford."  Rather, it
is whether or not the alleged procedures that apply to all
arrestees and result in unaffordable bail deprive the proposed
class members of constitutionally required process. Resolving that
question will resolve the claims of every proposed class member,
regardless of what crime they committed.

The Court thus finds that the proposed class satisfies the
requirements for commonality under Rule 23(a)(2).

The Proposed Class has Requisite Typicality

The Plaintiffs must also demonstrate that the claims of the
representative parties are typical of the claims of the class.

The Plaintiffs' claims meet this mark for similar reasons to those
stated above. The Plaintiffs are not challenging individual bail
determinations. If they were, each claim would be unique, and
satisfying the typicality requirement would be a tall order.
Instead, this action challenges universal policies and practices
that allegedly results in certain individuals being detained solely
because they could not pay the set bail. The constitutional
challenges brought by the Plaintiffs against these procedures are
the same challenges that any member of the class would bring. The
Court thus finds that the proposed class meets the typicality
requirement under Rule 23(a)(3).

Accordingly, the proposed class satisfies the requirements under
Rule 23(a).

The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 20, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycxs7nar from Leagle.com.

Shannon Daves, Shakena Walston, Erriyah Banks, Destinee Tovar,
Patroba Michieka & James Thompson, On Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Elizabeth
Rossi -- elizabeth@civilrightscorps.org -- Civil Rights Corps, pro
hac vice, Akeeb Dami Animashaun -- dami@civilrightscorps.org --
Civil Rights Corps, pro hac vice, Alexander George Karakatsanis --
alec@civilrightscorps.org -- Civil Rights Corps, pro hac vice,
Andre Segura -- asegura@aclutx.org -- ACLU Foundation of Texas,
Andrea Woods -- awoods@aclu.org -- American Civil Liberties Union,
pro hac vice, Brandon Buskey -- bbuskey@aclu.org -- American Civil
Liberties Union, Emily Gerrick, Texas Fair Defense Project, Kali
Alanna Cohn, ACLU of Texas, Premal Dharia, Civil Rights Corps, pro
hac vice, Susanne Ashley Pringle, Texas Fair Defense Project &
Trisha Trigilio -- ttrigilio@aclutx.org -- American Civil Liberties
Union Foundation of Texas.  

Faith in Texas & Texas Organizing Project Education Fund,
Plaintiffs, represented by Akeeb Dami Animashaun, Civil Rights
Corps, pro hac vice, Alexander George Karakatsanis, Civil Rights
Corps, pro hac vice, Andrea Woods, American Civil Liberties Union,
pro hac vice,Brandon Buskey, American Civil Liberties Union, Emily
Gerrick, Texas Fair Defense Project, Premal Dharia, Civil Rights
Corps, pro hac vice & Elizabeth Rossi, Civil Rights Corps.

Dallas County Texas, Marian Brown, Terrie McVea, Lisa Bronchetti,
Steven Autry, Anthony Randall, Janet Lusk, Hal Turley, Dallas
County Magistrates, Dan Patterson, Julia Hayes, Doug Skemp, Nancy
Mulder, Angela King, Elizabeth Crowder, Tina Yoo Clinton, Peggy
Hoffman, Roberto Canas, Jr. & Shequitta Kelly, No 11 Judges of
Dallas County Criminal Courts at Law, Defendants, represented by
Peter L. Harlan, Dallas County District Attorney's Office, Ben
Stephens -- ben.stephens@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell LLP,
Katharine D. David -- kate.david@huschblackwell.com -- Husch
Blackwell LLP, pro hac vice, Mike Stafford, Husch Blackwell LLP &
Philip James Morgan -- phil.morgan@huschblackwell.com -- Husch
Blackwell LLP, pro hac vice.


DIRECTV LLC: Removes City of Creve Coeur's Suit to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of City of Creve Coeur, Missouri,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DirecTV, LLC; Dish Network Corp.; and Dish Network,
L.L.C., filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court
of the State of Missouri, County of St. Louis (Case No.
18SL-CC02821) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri on August 29, 2018, and assigned Case No.
4:18-cv-01453-RLW (E.D. Mo., Aug. 29, 2018). The case is assigned
to District Judge Ronnie L. White.

As of July 24, 2015, DIRECTV, LLC was acquired by AT&T, Inc.
DIRECTV, LLC offers direct-to-home (DTH) services in the United
States and Latin America. DIRECTV, LLC was founded in 1977 and is
based in El Segundo, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl J. Lumley, Esq.
          CURTIS AND HEINZ, P.C.
          130 S. Bemiston Avenue, Suite 200
          St. Louis, MO 63105-1951
          Telephone: (314) 725-8788
          Facsimile: (314) 725-8789
          E-mail: clumley@lawfirmemail.com

               - and -

          Elkin L. Kistner, Esq.
          BICK AND KISTNER, PC
          101 S. Hanley Road, Suite 1280
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 571-6823
          Facsimile: (314) 727-9071
          E-mail: elkinkis@bick-kistner.com

               - and -

          Garrett Ray Broshuis, Esq.
          John W. Hoffman, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          505 N. 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-4844
          Facsimile: (314) 241-1854

               - and -

          John F. Mulligan , Jr., Esq.
          101 S. Hanley, Suite 1280
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-1135
          Facsimile: (314) 727-9071
          E-mail: jfmulliganjr@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert J. Wagner, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN, LLP
          505 N. 7th Street
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552-6206
          Facsimile: (314) 552-7206
          E-mail: rwagner@thompsoncoburn.com

               - and -

          Roman P. Wuller, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN, LLP
          505 N. 7th Street
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552-6121
          Facsimile: (314) 552-7000
          E-mail: rwuller@thompsoncoburn.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Schultz, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
          7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1800
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 621-5070
          Facsimile: (314) 621-5065
          E-mail: jschultz@armstrongteasdale.com


DISTRIBUTION PROS: Underpays Newspaper Delivery Staffs, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SILVIA PORTILLO; ERIK RIVERA; ALMA LOPEZ; ROCIO GARCIA; ALEJANDRO
SANDOVAL; JOSE HERNANDEZ; JOAQUIN GARCIA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DISTRIBUTION
PROS; and EDWARD MARTINEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05913 (N.D.
Ill., Aug. 29, 2018) is an action to recover from the Defendants
unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to deliver
newspapers to clients in Chicago, Illinois.

Distribution Pros is an Illinois corporation operating a newspaper
distribution business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Will Bloom, Esq.
          Deanne S. Medina, Esq.
          COMMUNITY ACTIVISM LAW ALLIANCE
          17 North State Street, Suite 1380
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 999-0056
          E-mail: will@calachicago.org
                  deanne@calchicago.org


DNC: Court Dismisses Sweigert Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Columbia, issued a
Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned GEORGE WEBB SWEIGERT, Plaintiff, v. JOHN PODESTA, et al.
Defendants. Civil Action No.: 17-2330 (RC). (D.D.C.).

Defendants Haseeb Rana, the DNC, the Podesta Group, Deborah
Wasserman Schultz, Huma Abedin, and Imran Awan each move to dismiss
the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6).

Pro se plaintiff George Webb Sweigert brings this putative class
action against a host of individuals and entities purportedly
associated with the Democratic National Party in connection with
alleged actions taken by Defendants during the Democratic primaries
to the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.  

Mr. Sweigert, an alleged supporter of Bernie Sanders, asserts that
the Defendants committed fraud and breach of fiduciary duty by,
among other things, executing an undisclosed funding agreement with
a not-for-profit associated with the Hillary Clinton campaign and
by conducting a website-hacking conspiracy to promote Hillary
Clinton's candidacy and to diminish the candidacy of Bernie
Sanders.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows a defendant to move
to dismiss a complaint, or any portion thereof, for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. When reviewing a motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), a court must review the complaint
liberally, granting the plaintiff the benefit of all inferences
that can be derived from the facts alleged.  

The D.C. Circuit has instructed that a motion to dismiss for lack
of standing constitutes a motion under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure because the defect of standing is a defect
in subject matter jurisdiction.

To establish subject matter jurisdiction, a plaintiff must have
standing, as governed by Article III of the Constitution. A party
has standing to bring suit under Article III of the Constitution
only when she has suffered an injury in fact that is, an injury
which is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent which is
traceable to defendant's actions and redressable by the relief
sought.

Injury in Fact

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has not suffered a legally
cognizable injury in fact that would support a finding of standing.
This Court concludes that the Plaintiff has alleged but one legally
cognizable injury in fact: the $30 that he alleges he alleges that
he donated to Bernie Sanders's Presidential campaign.

The Plaintiff has advanced in his complaint and in all other
documents before the Court only one legally cognizable injury in
fact: the $30 that he donated to the Bernie Sanders's 2016
Presidential Campaign.  The Plaintiff's loss of $30 is indeed
sufficiently concrete, particularized, and actual to satisfy the
injury-in-fact requirement of standing. Unlike in Lujan and
Clapper, where the potential harm associated with danger to species
abroad and with phone-tapping American citizens, respectively, was
either prospective, conjectural, or generalized, the alleged $30
injury incurred to Mr. Sweigert occurred in the past and, upon the
presentation of evidence, is potentially demonstrable. Lujan, 504
U.S. at 555; Clapper, 568 U.S. at 420.

Accordingly, the alleged $30 injury purportedly incurred is
concrete, particularized, and actual, and therefore qualifies as a
legally cognizable injury in fact.

Causation

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants caused his injury in fact
that is, his loss of $30 in the form of an alleged donation to the
Bernie Sanders campaign.  

To establish causation, a plaintiff must show that it is plausible
that defendants proximately caused plaintiff's injury in fact. That
is, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the
conduct complained of the injury must be fairly traceable to the
challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the
independent action of some third party not before the court.

Mr. Sweigert made his alleged donation through ActBlue to the
Bernie Sanders campaign, any loss that he may have suffered is not
traceable to any Defendants. Even taking as true the claim that the
DNC diverted donations intended for the Sanders campaign to the
Clinton campaign, Plaintiff has not alleged that his donation went
to the DNC and was diverted. To establish causation, the connection
between the injury and the conduct complained of must be
attributable to the defendant, and not the result of the
independent action of some third party not before the court.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Mr. Sweigert has failed to
establish a causal link between his alleged injury and Defendants'
conduct, and, thus, he lacks standing to bring this suit.

Redressability

The Plaintiff enumerates a number of forms of relief that he claims
would address his purported injuries in fact. First, Mr. Sweigert
seeks a judicially-mandated enjoinment of the aforementioned spy
ring activity in the U.S. House of Representatives. Second, Mr.
Sweigert seeks declaratory and injunctive relief with regard to
Defendant DNC's alleged violation of its own Charter and/or Bylaws.
Third, the Plaintiff requests compensatory damages in the amount of
$300 million, and fourth, punitive damages in the amount of $600
million. This Court concludes that the Plaintiff's one legally
cognizable injury in fact his alleged loss of a $30 donation to the
Bernie Sanders campaign is not redressable by the relief sought.

The Plaintiff's request for damages cannot redress his alleged loss
because it is not alleged that the Defendants caused this loss.
Because the Plaintiff has advanced only one legally cognizable
injury in fact, and that purported injury cannot be plausibly
traced to any of the Defendants' actions and is therefore not
redressable, the Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to bring this
action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 20, 2018
Memorandum Opinion Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y76ehmub from Leagle.com.

GEORGE WEBB SWEIGERT, Plaintiff, pro se.

JOHN PODESTA, Chairman Hillary for America & TOM PEREZ, DNC
SERVICES CORP., Defendants, represented by Bruce Van Spiva --
BSpiva@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE LLP & Caitlin M. Foley --
cfoley@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE LLP, pro hac vice.

KIM FRITTS, CEO, Podesta Group & CEO ARMZ Uranium Holding Comp. &
PODESTA GROUP, Defendants, represented by Timothy Cone, TIMOTHY
CONE, ESQ.

DEBORAH WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, "DEBBIE", Defendant, represented by
William Bullock Pittar IV -- wpittard@kaiserdillon.com -- KAISER
DILLON, PLLC.

IMRAN AWAN & HASEEB RANA, Defendants, represented by Jesse Isaac
Winograd -- jwinograd@gowensilva.com -- GOWEN SILVA & WINOGRAD
PLLC.

HUMA ABEDIN, Defendant, represented by Karen L. Dunn --
kdunn@bsfllp.com -- BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP & Martha Lea
Goodman -- mgoodman@bsfllp.com -- BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP.


DOLLAR RENT A CAR: Beats Class Action Over Toll Fees
----------------------------------------------------
John Petrick, writing for Law360, reported that a Florida federal
judge has dismissed a proposed class action alleging Dollar Rent A
Car deceived consumers regarding an "administrative fee" for each
electronic road toll incurred by drivers. [GN]


DOLLAR TREE: Court Denies Reconsideration on Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order denying Defendant Motion for
Reconsideration of the Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned TERRY T. SNIPES, SR., an
individual, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR TREE DISTRIBUTION, INC., a
Virginia corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants.
No. 2:15-cv-00878-MCE-DB. (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff moved for class certification, and that Motion was
granted by Memorandum and Order. Dollar Tree now moves for
reconsideration of that ruling.

Plaintiff Terry T. Snipes, Sr., challenges various wage and hour
practices utilized by his employer, Defendant Dollar Tree
Distribution, Inc. (Dollar Tree) both on his own behalf and on
behalf of others similarly situated. According to the Plaintiff,
Dollar's Tree uniform timekeeping practices wrongfully exclude
compensable time and operate to deprive employees of their legally
guaranteed uninterrupted rest and/or meal period.

Local Rule 230(j) requires a party filing a motion for
reconsideration to show the new or different facts or circumstances
claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such
prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion. Mere
dissatisfaction with the court's order, or belief that the court is
wrong in its decision, is not grounds for relief through
reconsideration.

First, had the Defendant believed the allegedly new argument was
truly a significant one, it could have sought permission to file a
sur-reply but chose not to do so. Neither did Dollar Tree seek to
strike the disputed portion of the Plaintiff's reply papers as
improper. Instead, the Defendant chose to do nothing for almost a
year and waited until after the Court's Memorandum and Order
granting class certification was granted before taking any remedial
step whatsoever.

Second, examination of the Plaintiff's papers in the underlying
motion shows that the issue of compensable clocked in time had been
unequivocally raised in any event. While not disputing Dollar
Tree's right in general terms to round clocked-in time to the
nearest quarter hour, the Plaintiff clearly asserted that by
punishing employees who clocked in or out in such a way that
rounding inured to their benefit, Dollar Tree's rules necessarily
deprived employees of time that should have been compensated.

The Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 17, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yawbzvw5 from Leagle.com.

Terry T. Snipes, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Eugene Guzman --
anthony@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation, S. Brett
Sutton -- brett@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation,
PC, Jared Hague -- jared@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law
Corporation, PC & Joseph Vidal Macias --
joseph.macias@maximintegrated.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation,
PC.

Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
J. Mann -- jmann@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Kurt R.
Bockes -- kbockes@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Lindbergh
Porter, Jr. -- lporter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Elena R.
Baca -- elenabaca@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, George W.
Abele -- georgeabele@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP & Ryan
David Derry -- ryanderry@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP.


EAST SIDE BAGEL: Vidal Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Julian Mendez Vidal, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. East Side Bagel Cafe, Inc dba East Side Bagel,
Maximillion Cafe Corporation dba Bagels & More, Ratnawati Lubis,
Haim Hassid, Ahsan Ullah, and Mohammed H. Kamal, Case No.
1:18-cv-07251 (S.D. N.Y., August 10, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff Mendez was employed as a deli man at the delis
located at 1496 1st Avenue, New York, NY 10075 and 1585 3rd Ave #2,
New York, NY 10128. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from
approximately 2010 until on or about June 2018.

The Defendants own, operate, or control two delis, located at 1496
1st Avenue, New York, NY 10075 under the name "East Side Bagel" and
at 1585 3rd Ave #2, New York, NY 10128 under the name "Bagels &
More".

The Individual Defendants Ratnawati Lubis, Haim Hassid, Ahsan
Ullah, and Mohammed H. Kamal, serve or served as owners, managers,
principals, or agents of Defendant Corporations and, through these
corporate entities, operate or operated the delis as a joint or
unified enterprise. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Davis Appeals N.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Michael E. Davis, Billy Joe Dupree and Vince Ferragamo
filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Michael
Davis, et al. v. Electronic Arts, Inc., Case No. 3:10-cv-03328-RS,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Francisco.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 31, 2018, the Hon.
Richard Seeborg entered an order on August 17, 2018, denying the
Plaintiff's second motion for class certification of:

    "all former NFL players who did not provide permission to EA
     to use their name, image, identity, persona and/or likeness
     that are listed on a roster for an NFL team that is included
     as a "historic" or "all time" team in a Madden NFL video
     game, and whose actual name appears in the software, or in
     EA's design database(s), for Madden NFL video games that
     [were] sold or distributed in California within the
     applicable statute of limitations."

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Davis, et al. v.
Electronic Arts, Inc., Case No. 18-80121, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners MICHAEL E. DAVIS, VINCE FERRAGAMO and BILLY
JOE DUPREE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Brian C. Cannon, Esq.
          Robert W. Stone, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          555 Twin Dolphin Drive
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065
          Telephone: (650) 801-5000
          E-mail: briancannon@quinnemanuel.com
                  robertstone@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          David Michael Cooper, Esq.
          Kathleen M. Sullivan, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          E-mail: davidcooper@quinnemanuel.com
                  kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Brian Douglas Henri, Esq.
          HENRI LAW GROUP
          640 W. California Avenue
          Sunnyvale, CA 94086
          Telephone: (650) 614-5807
          Facsimile: (650) 618-1937
          E-mail: brianhenri@henrilg.com

Defendant-Respondent ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC., is represented by:

          Robert Adam Lauridsen, Esq.
          Nicholas David Marais, Esq.
          R. James Slaughter, Esq.
          Chessie Thacher, Esq.
          KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          E-mail: alauridsen@keker.com
                  NMarais@keker.com
                  rslaughter@keker.com
                  cthacher@keker.com


ENERGY XXI: Grinberger Says Proxy Statement Lacks Info on Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Grinberger, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Energy XXI Gulf Coast, Inc., Gary C. Hanna, Douglas E.
Brooks, Michael S. Bahorich, Gabriel L. Ellisor, Stanford Springel,
and Charles W. Wampler, Case No. 1:18-cv-01233 (D. Del., August 10,
2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleged that on August 3, 2018, EGC filed a
Definitive Proxy Statement with the SEC.
The Proxy Statement recommends that EGC stockholders vote in favor
of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 18, 2018, by
and among EGC, MLCJR LLC, a Texas limited liability company (Cox),
and YHIMONE, Inc., a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of Cox.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Proxy Statement omits or
misrepresents material information.

The Plaintiff is the owner of EGC common stock.

The Defendant EGC is a Delaware corporation and maintains its
principal executive offices at 1021 Main Street, Suite 2626,
Houston, Texas 77002. EGC engages in the development, exploitation,
and operation of oil and natural gas properties primarily offshore
on the Gulf of Mexico Shelf. EGC's common stock is traded on the
NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "EGC."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Caudill et al. Sue over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------
KYLE CAUDILL; and ANGEL BELTREZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. ENHANCED RECOVERY
COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04821-JS-SIL (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 24, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Enhanced Recovery Company LLC provides business process outsourcing
services that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research
primarily for Fortune 500 companies in the United States and
internationally. Enhanced Recovery Company LLC was formerly known
as Enhanced Recovery Corporation. The company was founded in 1999
and is based in Jacksonville, Florida with locations in the United
States, the Dominican Republic, Belize, and India. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
          E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com


FACEBOOK INC: Kacouris Suit Moved to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled James Kacouris, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Facebook
Inc., Mark E. Zuckerberg, David M. Wehner, Sheryl K Sandberg, and
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi; and Amalgamated
Bank, as Trustee for the LV LargeCap 1000 Growth Index Fund,
LongView Quantitative LargeCap Fund, and LongView Quant LargeCap
Equity VEBA Fund, the Intervenors, Case No. 1:18-cv-06765, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (Oakland) on Sept. 19, 2018. The Northern District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-05678-DMR to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired common shares of Facebook between April 25, 2018
and July 25, 2018, both dates inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks to
recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

Facebook operates a social networking website that allows people to
communicate with their family, friends, and coworkers. Facebook
develops technologies that facilitate the sharing of information,
photographs, website links, and videos. Facebook users have the
ability to share and restrict information based on their own
specific criteria. By the end of 2017, Facebook had more than 2.2
billion active users.[BN]

Attorneys for James Kacouris individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated:

          Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Esq.
          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661 1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661 8665
          E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com

Attorneys for Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi
and Amalgamated Bank:

          Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554 1400
          E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com

Attorneys for Amalgamated Bank:

          David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP(LI)
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367 7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367 1173
          E-mail: drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Sued in Canada After Massive Security Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reported that a class-action lawsuit has been
proposed in Canada against Facebook following a security breach
that put the accounts of tens of millions of users at risk.

The social media company announced that about 50 million user
accounts worldwide had been accessed by hackers, with another 40
million left vulnerable during the attack.

Using a video upload tool, which has been available on the site
since July 2017, hackers were able to access users' private
messages and posts, as well as retrieve information through
third-party websites like Instagram, Etsy and Spotify.

The company says there were no signs that any accounts were
misused. Affected users were logged out and notified of the breach
when they were logged back in.

Facebook Canada said it would not provide any further comment.

Toronto law firm Charney Lawyers PC, which is heading the class
action, says Facebook has an obligation to ensure that user
information is "properly protected." [GN]


FARM NECK: Court OKs Summary Judgment in Shkuratova FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case captioned ANNA SHKURATOVA, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FARM NECK
ASSOCIATION, INC., d/b/a FARM NECK GOLF CLUB, THE LINKS AT MARTHA'S
VINEYARD, INC., PASCAL BITOUN, TIMOTHY D. SWEET, and JOHN and JANE
DOES 1-10, Defendants. Civil Action No. 17-10388-GAO. (D. Mass.).

Shkuratova has moved for class certification. The defendants have
opposed class certification and have also moved for summary
judgment, contending that the plaintiff's employer is a seasonal
amusement or recreational establishment exempt from the FLSA's
overtime requirements.

The plaintiff, Anna Shkuratova, brings a putative class action
against Farm Neck Association, Inc., The Links at Martha's
Vineyard, Inc., Pascal Bitoun, and Timothy D. Sweet, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and similar state
laws. The gravamen of the complaint is that the defendants failed
to pay the plaintiff overtime for hours she worked in excess of
forty per week.

The FLSA generally requires that employees be compensated for hours
worked in excess of forty in a single workweek at a rate of pay of
not less than one and one-half times the employee's regular rate.
It also establishes various exemptions from this general rule,
including an exemption from the overtime requirement for seasonal
amusement or recreational establishments. This exemption provides
that the FLSA's overtime provisions shall not apply with respect
to: "any employee employed by an establishment which is an
amusement or recreational establishment, organized camp, or
religious or non-profit educational conference center, if (A) it
does not operate for more than seven months in any calendar year,
or (B) during the preceding calendar year, its average receipts for
any six months of such year were not more than 33 1/3 per centum of
its average receipts for the other six months of such year."

The Golf Club, however, has demonstrated that it satisfies the
receipts test. According to financial data presented in the record,
during the calendar year preceding the plaintiff's employment,
2015, the months with the highest receipts for the Golf Club's
operations were April, May, June, July, August, and September. The
total receipts for those months were $5,979,081.31 with a monthly
average of $996,513.55. The lowest six months were January,
February, March, October, November, and December. The total
receipts for those months were $456.753.59, with a monthly average
of $76,125.60. The lowest six months were therefore only 7.6% of
the highest six months, well below the statute's 332153%
threshold.

Because the Golf Club is a recreational or amusement establishment
as defined in the statute and its average receipts for the six
lowest months in 2015 were not more than 332153% of the average
receipts for the six highest months, the Golf Club qualifies for
the statutory exemption from overtime requirements under 29 U.S.C.
Section 213(a)(3). The defendants are therefore entitled to
judgment as a matter of law on the FLSA overtime claim.

Summary judgment is granted in favor of the defendants as to the
FLSA claims.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 17, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8qoj9vm from
Leagle.com.

Anna Shkuratova, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kateryna Stupnevich, Ballon
Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., pro hac vice, Thomas E. Pontes, Wynn &
Wynn & Vano I. Haroutunian, Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., pro
hac vice.

Farm Neck Association, Inc., doing business as, Pascal Bitoun,
Timothy D. Sweet & The Links at Martha's Vineyard, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Austin M. Joyce, Reardon, Joyce &
Akerson, P.C., & John M. Collins, Collins & Weinberg.


FAST CASUAL: Denied Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips, Says Gonzalez Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Gonzalez, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Fast Casual Partners, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-13840, (D.N.J., September 13, 2018) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, unlawfully kept tips, liquidated damages and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, as well as pre-judgment interest under the New Jersey Wage and
Hour Law and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.

Defendants operate and own a number of franchised stores of Moe's
Southwest Grill restaurant in the States of New Jersey and New York
where Gonzales worked as an assistant store manager from
approximately May 2018 to July 2018 at their 75 Rt. 17 South,
Paramus, NJ 07652 location.

The complaint says Gonzales worked in excess of forty hours in a
workweek without being paid an overtime premium at a rate not less
than one and one half times her regular rate of pay. He claims that
Defendants retained the credit card tips and catering tips paid by
customers without distributing them to employees. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason T. Brown, Esq.
     Nicholas R. Conlon, Esq.
     Ching-Yuan Teng, Esq.
     JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
     155 2nd St., Suite 4
     Jersey City, NJ 07302
     Tel: (877) 561-0000
     Fax: (855) 582-5297
     Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
            nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
            tonyteng@jtblawgroup.com


FDG NORTH: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FDG North, LLC. The
case is styled as Cheri Honeywell individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FDG North, LLC a Delaware
limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-62318-KMW
(S.D. Fla., Sept. 28, 2018).

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

FDG North, LLC is the owner of the Plunge Beach Hotel. Plunge Beach
Hotel in Lauderdale By The Sea offers its guests a boutique and
modern ocean front resort.[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


FERNY PROPERTIES: Tompkins Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
JILL TOMPKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FERNY PROPERTIES, LLC. d/b/a THE NORTHERN
GENTLEMEN’S CLUB, and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00190-ARS (D.N.D., Sep. 19, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, including inappropriately withheld tips, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the North Dakota Century
Code, the North Dakota Minimum Wage and Work Conditions Order, and
the North Dakota common law.

According to the complaint, under applicable employment laws all
employees are entitled to a defined minimum wage and premium
overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of forty in a
given work week (unless the employee is determined to be exempt),
and are protected from having improper deductions taken from their
wages, including their tips. However, Defendant improperly
classified Plaintiff and other exotic entertainers as "independent
contractors." Consequently, Defendants failed to pay Dancers at
least the applicable minimum wage. In addition, Defendants required
Dancers to work in excess of forty hours per work week, and then
failed to pay them premium overtime compensation. Further,
Defendant improperly collected a portion of the tips Plaintiff and
other Dancers receive from customers.

The complaint notes that dancers who work, or have worked, for
Defendant, including Plaintiff and her current and former
co-workers, work in an "unorganized" industry where many workers
are "disenfranchised" by the wide disparities in bargaining power
between workers and club owners. Accordingly, adult entertainment
clubs such as those operated by Defendants are well-positioned to
take advantage of Dancers and routinely deny them basic workplace
rights. Over the past two decades, the United States Department of
Labor and courts across the country have recognized that Dancers
are employees, not independent contractors, and thus entitled to
protection under various state and federal wage and hour laws.

Despite these significant strides, adult night clubs across the
country still routinely deny Dancers the basic protections they are
accorded under state and federal law. Indeed, The Northern Club is
no exception. The Northern Club regularly deprives Dancers of their
rights under federal law, as well as the laws of North Dakota.
Plaintiff brings this lawsuit to address these improper pay
practices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory J. Myers, Esq.
          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339 6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339 0981
          E-mail: gjmyers@locklaw.com
                  khriebel@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA &
          CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322 9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231 0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com


FIRST ACCEPTANCE: MSPA to Recover Reimbursements for Med. Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------
MSPA Claims 1, LLC, Plaintiff, v. First Acceptance Insurance
Company, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02277, (M.D. Fla.,
September 13, 2018) seeks double damages under the MSP Law for
Defendant's failure to properly reimburse conditional payments for
enrollees' accident-related medical expenses.

MSP claims reimbursement of medical expenses of First Acceptance
policyholders who were also Medicare beneficiaries.

Plaintiff is a Medicare Advantage Organization that provides
Medicare benefits to Medicare-eligible beneficiaries enrolled under
the Medicare Advantage program. These Medicare beneficiaries were
simultaneously covered by insurance policies issued by Defendants,
which made Defendants the primary payers for the medical bills,
services, and items paid by Plaintiffs and the Class Members. They
paid for the medical items or treatment even though the Defendants
were responsible for paying those expenses under their no-fault
insurance policies and the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of
Medicare, says the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
      Janpaul Portal, Esq.
      FERRARO LAW FIRM
      38th Floor, 600 Brickell Avenue
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (305) 375-0111
      Fax: (305) 379-6222
      Email: JJR@ferrarolaw.com
             jpp@ferrarolaw.com
             jlf@ferrarolaw.com


FOUNDATION MEDICINE: Court Won't Dismiss Mahoney Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case
captioned MARC F. MAHONEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FOUNDATION MEDICINE, INC.,
MICHAEL J. PELLINI, STEVEN KAFKA, JASON RYAN, VINCENT MILLER, and
DAVID DALY, Defendants. Civil No. 17-11394-LTS. (D. Mass.).

Lead Plaintiff John A. Blair (Plaintiff), individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed an Amended Class
Action Complaint (Amended Complaint) alleging violations of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5, against all above-captioned Defendants (Count I), and
violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Defendants
Michael J. Pellini, Steven Kafka, Jason Ryan, Vincent Miller, and
David Daly (Defendants) (Count II).

The Plaintiff claims that the alleged statements and omissions
constituted a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the price
of Foundation common stock and operated as a fraud or deceit on
investors who purchased Foundation common stock during the Class
Period. The Amended Complaint alleges that Foundation made a series
of partial disclosures that avoided a swifter and steeper stock
price decline that would have resulted from full disclosure of the
facts adverse to Foundation's business prospects. Thus, purchasers
of Foundation common stock suffered damages by purchasing stock at
artificially high share prices as a result of the Defendants'
misrepresentations and omissions and sustaining losses upon
subsequent market revelations. In addition, the Plaintiff claims
that the individual Defendants, except Defendant Daly, sold, during
the Class Period, about $21 million of their personally held
Foundation stock at artificially inflated prices that were the
result of their conduct during the Class Period.

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face. Plaintiffs alleging violations of Section 10(b) must plead
(1) a material misrepresentation or omission; (2) scienter; (3) a
connection with the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance;
(5) economic loss; and (6) loss causation.

Lack of Scienter

The PSLRA requires that a complaint contain particular facts that
give rise to a strong inference of scienter. For an inference of
scienter to be strong, a reasonable person would have to deem it
cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference one
could draw from the facts alleged.

Foundation's Growth

The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants knew, or were
severely reckless in disregarding, the commercial challenges facing
Foundation, including declining growth in testing volume and the
lack of progress in obtaining reimbursement for its tests.

The Plaintiff also claims that the Defendants misled investors by
providing figures on the number of tests performed without
disclosing that many of those tests were performed at significant
discounts. This claim appears to suggest that the figures the
Defendants released misleadingly concealed the fact that revenue
per test performed would inevitably be lower in future periods
because of discounts promised in previous periods. But the
Plaintiff alleges no specific facts regarding discounting, instead
providing only a blanket claim that Foundation was offering
significant discounts. He also does not allege that the Defendants
ever released inaccurate information about company revenue or the
number of tests it reported, nor does he specify any time at which
revenue per test reported ever actually fell because of
Foundation's discounting practices. Without more specific facts
showing that Foundation's discounting amounted to fraud, this claim
also fails to give rise to a strong inference of scienter.

Reimbursement Eligibility

Similarly, the Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants' claims
about Foundation's progress toward achieving reimbursement
eligibility, particularly from Medicare, were inaccurate. To the
contrary, the Plaintiff acknowledges that the Defendant admitted
that there was no direct precedent for reimbursement of its tests
by government and private commercial payors and reported accurately
on the steps Foundation took to secure such reimbursement.

The Plaintiff points to no indication that the Defendants were
aware of these rules at the time of their statements, and such
knowledge would be essential to a strong inference of scienter. The
Plaintiff also offers facts insufficient to establish that the
Defendants' July 29, 2015, reduction in revenue guidance was
substantially the result of the timing of the possibility of
Medicare reimbursements. Rather, the Plaintiff acknowledges that
the Defendants called Medicare reimbursement only one substantive
piece of the change in the revenue guidance and that the earlier
revenue guidance had included the possibility of only a local
coverage determination for a portion of Medicare cases not a
national determination that could have affected all of Foundation's
Medicare cases. These facts undercut the Plaintiff's suggestion
that the Defendants' earlier statements of higher revenue guidance
were misleading when made because they were entirely dependent on
Medicare reimbursement timing that Defendants knew was impossible.

Defendants' Stock Sales

The Defendants' sales of stock, as outlined in the Amended
Complaint, also fail to support a strong inference of scienter.
Allegations of unusual insider trading can support a strong
inference of scienter but mere pleading of insider trading, without
regard to either context or the strength of the inferences to be
drawn, is not enough. The Plaintiff fails to allege that the trades
that he identifies by certain of the individual Defendants were
unusual. In fact, the Amended Complaint only points to the fact
that the Defendants made the sales during the Class Period. It does
not indicate how the sales were unusual, either on their own or as
compared to the Defendants' trading outside the Class Period. Nor
does it allege that the timing or amounts of the Defendants' sales
indicate knowledge of artificially inflated prices.
  
Further, the Amended Complaint provides no comparison to the
Defendants' sales before or after the Class Period to suggest that
the Defendants acted upon artificially-inflated prices caused by
materially false and misleading statements and omissions that they
knowingly or recklessly made. Accordingly, the bare facts alleged
in the Amended Complaint about the Defendants' trading do not
permit a strong inference of scienter.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 20, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya4pso5b from Leagle.com.

Marc F. Mahoney, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated (Lead Plaintiff), Plaintiff, represented by David A.
Rosenfeld -- Drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, pro hac vice & Theodore M. Hess-Mahan --
thessmahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com -- Hutchings, Barsamian, Cross
and Mandelcorn, LLP.

John Blair, (Lead Plaintiff), Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas I.
Porritt -- nporritt@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, pro hac vice
& Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Hutchings, Barsamian, Cross and
Mandelcorn, LLP.

Foundation Medicine, Inc., Michael J. Pellini, Steven Kafka & Jason
Ryan, Defendants, represented by Caroline T. Bullerjahn --
cbullerjahn@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter, LLP, Deborah S.
Birnbach -- dbirnbach@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter, LLP &
Ezekiel Hill -- ehill@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP.

Vincent Miller & David Daly, Defendants, represented by Deborah S.
Birnbach, Goodwin Procter, LLP.


FRONTIER NATURAL: Garcia Sues over Mislabeled Organic Salt
----------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER NATURAL PRODUCTS COOPERATIVE; and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-07457 (C.D.
Cal., Aug. 24, 2018) alleges that the Defendants' marketing and
labeling of their products as "organic" constitute an unfair or
deceptive business practice under the California Business and
Professions Code, Consumer Legal Remedies, and False Advertising
Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants market and sell a
variety of flavors of "organic" salt, including "Simply Organic All
Seasons Salt". The Plaintiff and others similarly situated
purchased the salt products in reliance on the Defendants'
representation that the salt products are organic salt and thus
healthier than regular salt. In so doing, the Plaintiff and the
Class paid more for the salt products because they were marketed as
an organic products.

The Defendants' misrepresentations regarding the salt products were
designed to, and did, lead the Plaintiff and the Class to believe
that the salt products were organic salt. The Plaintiff and members
of the Class relied on the Defendant's misrepresentations and would
not have paid as much, if at all, for the salt products but for the
Defendant's misrepresentations.

Frontier Natural Products Cooperative provides natural ingredients
products. The Company offers natural and organic foods such as
herbs, spices, teas, dried flowers, body care, and bulk products.
Frontier Natural Products serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


GENERAL MOTORS: AARC Appeals Decision in Musician Royalty Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies, Inc., filed
an appeal from a court decision in its lawsuit titled Alliance of
Artists and Recording Companies, Inc. v. Denso International
America, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01271-KBJ, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed in July 2014 on behalf of a proposed class of tens of
thousands of copyright owners and featured recording artists and
organizations that represent them, including the AARC, which is a
nonprofit organization that collects and distributes royalties.
The complaint alleges the companies ran afoul of the Audio Home
Recording Act by distributing music-copying car devices that aren't
registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, aren't equipped with the
serial copy management system and for which they hadn't paid
royalties.

The devices at the heart of the litigation are marketed as a 10 GB
digital Jukebox that can hold up to 2,400 songs and an
"infotainment system" in which music from CDs can be recorded and
stored on a hard drive.  Michigan-based Denso manufactures the hard
drive device for General Motors LLC, and Clarion Corporation of
America, with headquarters in Japan, makes Ford's Jukebox system.

The appellate case is captioned as Alliance of Artists and
Recording Companies, Inc. v. Denso International America, et al.,
Case No. 18-7141, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit.

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

   -- Letter sent regarding attorney membership to Paul J.
      Reilly, Esq., for Clarion Corporation of America.
      Application for Admission is due on October 22, 2018;

   -- These Appellant documents are due on October 22, 2018:

      * docketing statement;
      * certificate as to parties;
      * statement of issues;
      * underlying decision;
      * deferred appendix statement;
      * notice of appearance;
      * transcript status report; and
      * procedural motions;

   -- Appellant's dispositive motions are due on November 5,
      2018;

   -- Appellee's certificate as to parties is due on October 22,
      2018;

   -- Appellee's entry of appearance is due on October 22, 2018;

   -- Appellee's procedural motions are due on October 22, 2018;
      and

   -- Appellee's dispositive motions are due on November 5,
      2018.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies,
Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Richard Brian Dagen, Esq.
          AXINN VELTROP & HARKRIDER, LLP
          950 F Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 912-4700
          E-mail: rdagen@axinn.com

               - and -

          Russell Steinthal, Esq.
          AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
          114 West 47th Street, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 728-2200
          E-mail: rsteinthal@axinn.com

Defendant-Appellee Denso International America, Inc., is
represented by:

          Steven J. Routh, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          Columbia Center
          1152 15th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-1706
          Telephone: (202) 339-8400
          E-mail: srouth@orrick.com

Defendant-Appellee Ford Motor Company is represented by:

          E. Desmond Hogan, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          Columbia Square
          555 13th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-1109
          Telephone: (202) 637-5600
          E-mail: desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com

Defendant-Appellee Clarion Corporation of America is represented
by:

          Paul J. Reilly, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS LLP
          2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75201-0000
          Telephone: (214) 953-6849
          E-mail: paul.reilly@bakerbotts.com

Defendant-Appellee General Motors LLC is represented by:

          Andrew Phillip Bridges, Esq.
          FENWICK & WEST LLP
          555 California Street, Suite 1200
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 875-2300
          E-mail: abridges@fenwick.com

Defendants-Appellees Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America, Inc.,
14cv1920, and FCA US LLC, 14cv1920, are represented by:

          David Dwane Golden, Esq.
          CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP
          1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1300N
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 204-3500
          E-mail: dgolden@constantinecannon.com


GENERAL NUTRITION: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Gold Card Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirms the judgment of the District Court granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned DOUG COOK; JODY
EBERHART; BARBARA SWILLEY; MATTHEW DOVNER; CODY MAYFIELD,
Appellants, v. GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION. No. 17-3216. (3rd
Cir.).

The Appellants appeal an order of the District Court dismissing
their suit against General Nutrition Corporation (GNC) for breach
of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of Florida and
California consumer protection laws.

GNC, one of the world's largest specialty retailers of health,
wellness and performance products, launched its membership program,
known as the Gold Card Program, in 1991.  To join, GNC customers
paid a $15 annual membership fee and in return received benefits at
GNC stores, including up to 50% off purchases, for one or two years
from the date of payment. Five Plaintiff-Appellants, citizens of
Georgia, Pennsylvania, Florida, and California, all of whom were
Gold Card members and one of whom, Barbara Swilley, was also my GNC
Rewards member, filed a class action suit against GNC alleging
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of Florida and
California consumer protection laws.

GNC moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint and to compel
arbitration of Swilley's claim. The District Court granted both
motions and stayed the proceedings with respect to Swilley's
claim.

The District Court's judgment is proper only if, accepting all
factual allegations as true and construing the complaint in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff, the Court determines that
the plaintiff is not entitled to relief under any reasonable
reading of the complaint.

The Appellants first argue that the District Court erred when it
concluded that the T&Cs were an enforceable contract that precluded
the Appellants' unjust enrichment claim under Pennsylvania law.

The Court disagrees. An unjust enrichment claim is inapplicable
when the relationship between the parties is founded on a written
agreement or express contract.

The T&Cs constitute such a contract, the provisions of which are
express, clear and unambiguous. Accordingly, an unjust enrichment
claim is unavailable to the Appellants here and the District Court
did not err in dismissing such a claim on that basis.

In the alternative, the Appellants argue that the T&Cs constituted
an enforceable contract, which GNC breached by terminating the Gold
Card Program without providing full membership benefits or refunds
of membership fees. Although the Court agrees that the terms
constitute an enforceable contract, the Court must disagree with
the latter contention. Under Pennsylvania law, a breach of contract
claim has three elements: (1) a contract and its essential terms;
(2) a breach of a duty imposed by the contract; and (3) damages.  

A valid contract was formed when the Appellants paid GNC to join
the program and signed the accompanying T&Cs, which expressly
permit GNC to unilaterally modify or cancel the agreement at any
time, with or without notice. Accordingly, GNC's decision to
terminate, while unfortunate, is permissible by the terms of the
contract.

There is, therefore, no breach and the District Court properly
dismissed the claim.

Appellant Swilley argues that the District Court erred by granting
GNC's motion to compel arbitration of her claim. However, the Court
is unable to consider this argument as the Federal Arbitration Act
(FAA) limits appellate review to final orders. Where a district
court orders parties to resolve their dispute by arbitration and
dismisses the case, the arbitration order is final and immediately
appealable. On the other hand, where, as here, a district court
orders the parties to arbitration, but chooses to stay the
proceedings, the FAA specifies that an immediate appeal is not
available.

Because there is no appealable order, the Court have no
jurisdiction to address whether the District Court erred in finding
this controversy arbitrable.

The Court will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' September 17, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7h3rrbf from
Leagle.com.


GERALD MATTHEW REIBEL: Court Denies Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
denying Defendant/Counter Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned MARY KAY INC.,
Plaintiff-counterdefendant, v. GERALD MATTHEW REIBEL,
Defendant-counterplaintiff, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants. Civil
Action No. 3:17-CV-2634-D. (N.D. Tex.).

The instant motion by defendant-counterplaintiff Gerald Matthew
Reibel (Reibel) to certify a class of defendants to defend the
claims of plaintiff-counterdefendant Mary Kay Inc. (Mary Kay)
presents the question whether Reibel has established that a
defendant can certify a class of defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23.

This is an action by Mary Kay against Reibel arising from Reibel's
alleged unauthorized sale of expired Mary Kay products. Mary Kay is
a global manufacturer and wholesale distributor of cosmetics, skin
care products, toiletries, and related products. Mary Kay initiated
the present lawsuit against Reibel, asserting federal claims of
trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, and
trademark dilution; and Texas state-law claims of trademark
dilution, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and tortious
interference with a contract.

To obtain class certification, a party must satisfy Rule 23(a)'s
four threshold requirements (numerosity, commonality, typicality,
and adequacy of representation), as well as the requirements of
Rule 23(b)(1), (2), or (3). The party seeking class certification
bears the burden of proving that all the required elements of Rule
23 are met.

Because Reibel is the party seeking certification, he bears the
burden of establishing that all requirements of Rule 23 have been
satisfied. This of course includes the obligation to show that Rule
23 permits him, as a defendant, to certify a defendant class. But
Reibel does not address, or even acknowledge, the fundamental,
undecided issue presented by his motion. He cites no supporting
authority. And even after Mary Kay challenged in its response the
premise that Rule 23 permits a defendant to certify a class of
defendants, Reibel elected not to file a reply brief and therefore
failed to carry his burden of establishing that all requirements of
Rule 23 have been satisfied.

To grant Reibel's motion, it would be necessary for this court not
only to disregard a complete absence of supporting authority, but
to engage in a counterintuitive reading of the plain text of Rule
23. Rule 23(a) states that parties may sue or be sued in a
representative capacity, similarly, Rule 23(c)(1)(A) directs that
courts decide the certification issue at an early practicable time
after a person sues or is sued as a class representative. It is not
apparent that a defendant who seeks to certify a class of
defendants after being sued individually has been sued as a class
representative per the language of Rule 23. The advisory committee
notes to the Federal Rules also largely assume that it is
plaintiffs, not defendants, who move for class certification.
Reibel presents no argument for why the court should adopt a
contrary interpretation.

"The court does not hold today that it is impossible for a
defendant ever to certify a defendant class. It would be unwise to
reach this conclusion in response to a one-paragraph argument
presented by only one of the parties to this case. The court's
holding instead rests on the fact that Reibel bears the burden on
this motion and has failed to carry it," the Court stated in the
opinion.

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

Mary Kay Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Schwegmann
-- cjs@lynnllp.com -- Lynn Pinker Cox and Hurst LLP.

Gerald Matthew Reibel, Defendant, represented by Warren V. Norred,
The Law Office of Warren V Norred & C. Chad Lampe, Norred Law,
PLLC.

Gerald Matthew Reibel, Counter Claimant, represented by Warren V.
Norred, The Law Office of Warren V Norred & C. Chad Lampe, Norred
Law, PLLC.

Mary Kay Inc, Counter Defendant, represented by Christopher J.
Schwegmann, Lynn Pinker Cox and Hurst LLP.


GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL: Frank Sues over Medical Malpractice
------------------------------------------------------------
JAHMIR CHRISTOPHER FRANK 105 EAST MAIN STREET LEESBURG, FLORIDA
34745, the PLAINTIFF, vs GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL FOUNDATION OF
CINCINNATI, INC. C/O DONNA S. NIENABER 619 OAK STREET CINCINNATI,
OHIO 45206; THE GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL OF CINCINNATI, OHIO C/O
DONNA S. NIENABER 619 OAK STREET CINCINNATI, OHIO 45206; JOHN DOE
PHYSICIANS NUMBERS 1-5 NAMES AND ADDRESSES UNKNOWN TO PLAINTIFF;
JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS NUMBERS 1-5 NAMES AND ADDRESSES UNKNOWN TO
PLAINTIFF; JOHN DOE EMPLOYEES NUMBERS 1-5 NAMES AND ADDRESSES
UNKNOWN TO PLAINTIFF; and JOHN DOE NURSES NUMBERS 1-10 NAMES AND
ADDRESSES UNKNOWN TO PLAINTIFF, the DEFENDANTS, Case No.
1:18-cv-00618-MRB (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 31, 2018), seeks to recover
compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest and attorneys'
fees as a result of Good Samaritan Hospital's violation of its duty
to retain medical records appropriately, to properly instruct
Cintas concerning destruction and separation of records, and to
notify patients whose records were destroyed prematurely.

This is an action for medical malpractice. By reason of the
negligence of Defendants during the delivery of Plaintiff, Jahmir
C. Frank, at Good Samaritan Hospital on July 30, 1998, Mr. Frank
now suffers from periventricular leukomalacia, a permanent and
debilitating brain injury. The birth records of Mr. Frank were
destroyed in 2010, due to the negligence of Defendants Good
Samaritan Hospital and its contractor, Cintas. It was not learned
until June 22, 2017, that the birth records had been destroyed
despite Defendants' actual knowledge of the destruction since 2012.
Mr. Frank's family requested the records in 2014. It was not until
a previous lawsuit , voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on
June 8,2018, was filed in Hamilton County, Ohio that Defendants
finally admitted Mr. Franks birth records had been destroyed due to
the negligence of Cintas Corporation No. 2, a third party hired by
Defendants to store and, when lawful, destroy medical records.

Mr. Frank brought the action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure on behalf of himself and a class and subclass. The
Class Period commenced on January 1, 1997.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Percy Squire, Esq.
          341 S. Third St., Suite 10
          Columbus, Ohio 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224 6528
          Facsimile: (614) 224 6529
          E-mail: psquire@sp-lawfirm.com


GP KEYSTAND: Bid to Maintain Matter as Class Action Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, New York County, issued a Decision and Order
granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Maintain the Matter as Class Action
in the case captioned GPK 31-19 LLC, individually and on behalf of
all the lienors, claimants or creditors for wages or materials,
pursuant to Lien Law Article 3-A, in connection with the
improvement of real property known as 31-19 37th Avenue, Long
Island City, in the City of New York, County of Queens and State of
New York, Plaintiff, v. L & L CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT INC.,
XIANGBO LI, "JOHN DOE 1" through "JOHN DOE 10", defendants being
unknown to plaintiff and having or claiming an interest in or lien
upon the private improvements foreclosed herein and "JANE DOE 1"
through "JANE DOE 10", being fictitious names, the real names being
unknown to the plaintiff at this time, and being intended to
designate the individuals, corporations or other legal entities who
are or were recipients of funds diverted from the Trust described
in the complaint, Defendants. L & L CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT INC.,
Third-Party Plaintiff, v. GP KEYSTAND LLC, and WESTCHESTER FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Defendants. Docket No. 650533/2017,
Motion Seq. No. 002. (N.Y. Sup.).

Plaintiff GPK 31-19 LLC (GPK) moves, pursuant to CPLR 901 and 902,
to maintain the matter as a Lien Law Section 77 (1) class action.

This case arises out of an agreement between GPK, the developer of
property located at 31-19 37th Avenue in Long Island City, New York
(Property), and defendant L & L Construction Development Inc.
(L&L); under that agreement, L&L would serve as the general
contractor for the project of improving the Property (Project).

CPLR 901 (a) permits class certification if: (1) the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (2) questions
of law or fact common to the class predominate over  questions
affecting only individual members (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of those of the class (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class and (5) a class action is superior to other
available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the
controversy.

The Defendants argue only that the action should not be maintained
as a Lien Law Section 77 (1) class action because the numerosity
requirement of CPLR 901 (a) (1) is not satisfied; specifically,
they contend that there is only one potential trust fund
beneficiary GPK as subrogee of NY Drilling's Article, 3-A rights
and that no mechanic's liens have been filed against the Property,
demonstrating that there are no other potential trust
beneficiaries.

Although GPK does not know the quantity, or the identities, of all
potential trust beneficiaries that provided labor, work, or
materials to the Project, the absence of such information is not
fatal to an application for class certification and the numerosity
prerequisite of CPLR 901 (a) may be waived in an Article 3-A
action. Thus, while the only trust fund beneficiary identified in
the amended complaint is GPK, as assignee of NY Drilling's Article
3-A rights, the absence of numerosity may be cured GPK furnishing
of notice of the trust fund diversion claim to other potential
class members.

The Defendants' arguments as to numerosity are unpersuasive. The
absence of mechanic's liens, filed by unpaid potential trust fund
beneficiaries against the Property, does not preclude GPK from
maintaining this claim as a class action; under Lien Law Section 71
(4), the existence of a valid lien is not a necessary precondition
to commencing an action to recover Article 3-A trust assets. None
of the other arguments or assertions advanced by defendants
requires denial of GPK's motion.

The motion of plaintiff GPK 31-19 LLC is granted.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's September 17, 2018 Decision
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydhgc7gq from
Leagle.com.


GRIDSUM HOLDING: Court Consolidates 2 Securities Suits
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Class Member's Unopposed
Motion to Consolidate Actions in the case captioned PEIFA XU,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. GRIDSUM HOLDING INC., GUOSHENG WI, and PENG ZHANG,
Defendants, XUECHUN LI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. GRIDSUM HOLDING INC., GUOSHENG
WI, PENG ZHANG, GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS INC., and STIFEL, NICOLAUS COMPANY INCORPORATED,
Defendants. 18 Civ. 3655 (ER), 18 Civ. 5749 (ER). (S.D.N.Y.).

Pending before the Court is class member William Barth's unopposed
motion to consolidate the two above-captioned actions.

Two putative class actions were brought under federal securities
laws against Gridsum Holding Inc. (Gridsum) and several other
defendants. The plaintiffs in these actions claim to represent a
class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Gridsum
securities from certain dates through April 20, 2018, and seek to
recover damages caused by the defendants' alleged violations of
federal securities laws.

Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure empowers a trial
judge to consolidate actions for trial when there are common
questions of law or fact to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

Under Rule 42 and the PSLRA, actions need not be `identical' to
allow for consolidation. So long as any confusion or prejudice does
not outweigh efficiency concerns, consolidation will generally be
appropriate.

Unsurprisingly, the above-captioned actions share sufficiently
common questions of law and fact to warrant consolidation. Given
that both actions involve the same company and nearly all the same
defendants, facts, claims, and legal theories, consolidation will
prevent needless duplication and possible confusion, as well as
potentially inconsistent jury verdicts.

There is also little or no risk of prejudice to the parties from
consolidation. No party has opposed the request for consolidation,
and because Defendants' time to answer has not yet passed, the
Court can easily place these cases on the same procedural track.  

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Xu and Li
actions involve common questions of law and fact and, therefore,
warrant consolidation. Accordingly, the Court consolidates the
Xuand Li actions.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 17, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9uzyeap from
Leagle.com.

Xuechun Li, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory M. Egleston --
gegleston@gme-law.com -- Gainey McKenna & Egleston.


H&M HENNES: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against H&M Hennes & Mauritz
L.P. The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. H&M
Hennes & Mauritz L.P. doing business as: Cos, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-08897 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 28, 2018).

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

H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP retails apparel and cosmetics for men,
women, teenagers, and children. The company is based in New York,
New York. H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP operates as a subsidiary of H & M
Hennes & Mauritz AB (publ).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


H.STERN JEWELERS: Burbon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against H. Stern Jewelers,
Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. H. Stern Jewelers, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-08953 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 30, 2018).

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

H.Stern Jewelers, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells jewelry.
The company offers bracelets, earrings, necklaces, pendants, rings,
and watches. It serves customers through its retail stores, agents,
and retail partners in the United States and internationally. The
company was founded in 1945 and is based in New York, New York with
additional offices in Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Israel, Mexico,
Peru, and the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


HARTFORD CASUALTY: Settlement in Johnson Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, issued an Order granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
and for Award of Attorney's Fees, Costs and Incentive Award in the
case captioned G. GRANT JOHNSON, an individual, on behalf of
himself and a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v.
HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Case No.
3:15-cv-04138-WHO. (N.D. Cal.).

All Class Members other than the individuals and entities listed on
Exhibit C to the Declaration of Jason Stinehart filed on August 22,
2018 are fully and finally bound by all determinations of the
Court, the Settlement Agreement and this Final Approval Order and
Judgment. All Releasors other than the individuals and entities
listed on Exhibit C to the Declaration of Jason Stinehart filed on
August 22, 2018 and/or their representatives shall be conclusively
deemed to have fully and finally released all of the Released
Persons from any and all Released Claims.

Class counsel, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, are awarded $900,000 in
attorneys' fees, to be paid by Hartford pursuant to the terms of
the settlement. The Court finds that this amount is reasonable and
justified under both the lodestar and percentage methods.

Class counsel is also entitled to recover those out-of-pocket
expenses that would normally be charged to a fee paying client.
Class counsel seeks reimbursement of $72,000 in litigation costs.
Class counsel has presented adequate documentation of those costs,
including mediation fees for three mediations, travel, research,
printing, postage, service charges, and filing fees. The Court,
upon review of counsel's filings, finds the request for costs
reasonable, and therefore grants class counsel's request for costs
of $72,000. That amount shall be paid to Class counsel by Hartford
pursuant to the settlement.

The class representative, G. Grant Johnson, is awarded an incentive
award of $10,000. That amount is supported by Mr. Johnson's
efforts, his granting of a broader release than that provided by
the class, and by awards in other cases.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 20, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y92qewbd from Leagle.com.

G Grant Johnson, an individual, on behalf of himself and a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Michael John
von Loewenfeldt -- michael.burkhardt@morganlewis.com -- Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP, Daniel Jack Veroff -- veroff@kerrwagstaffe.com --
Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar -- labar@kerrwagstaffe.com
-- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Jennifer Lorraine Freeland, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP.

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Linda Beth Oliver -- loliver@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper &
Gale, LLP, Christopher Charles Frost -- cfrost@maynardcooper.com --
Maynard Cooper and Gale, pro hac vice, Michael Douglas Mulvaney --
mmulvaney@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper and Gale, pro hac
vice & Wystan M. Ackerman -- wackerman@rc.com -- Robinson and Cole
LLP, pro hac vice.

Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Hartford Fire Insurance
Company, Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Hartford Life
Insurance Company, Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company,
Property & Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford, Sentinel
Insurance Company, Ltd., Trumbull Insurance Company & Twin City
Fire Insurance Company, Defendants, represented by Christopher
Charles Frost , Maynard Cooper and Gale, Linda Beth Oliver ,
Maynard Cooper & Gale, LLP, Michael Douglas Mulvaney , Maynard
Cooper and Gale, pro hac vice & Wystan M. Ackerman , Robinson and
Cole LLP, pro hac vice.


HASBRO INC: Nov. 27 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until November 27, 2018 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Hasbro,
Inc. (NasdaqGS: HAS), if they purchased the Company's shares
between April 24, 2017 and October 23, 2017, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Rhode Island.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Hasbro and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-has/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by November 27, 2018.

About the Lawsuit

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

On October 23, 2017, the Company disclosed disappointing 3Q2017
financial results including that U.S. and Canada operations were
negatively impacted by the Toys "R" Us bankruptcy, contributing to
a 5% decline in operating profit to $217.3 million, or 21.9% of net
revenues, compared to $228 million in 2016.  Further, the Company's
CFO advised that challenges in the U.K. and Brazil would likely
continue through the year with sales increasing only 4% to 7% from
the fourth quarter a year ago.

On this news, the price of Hasbro stock plummeted.

                       About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities,
antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger &
acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices in
New York, California and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

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


HEALTHY MINDS: Underpays Managers & Care Workers, Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY DEFRESE-REESE; TYANNA JONES; and LEMATTHEW WILSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. HEALTHY MINDS, INC.; HEALTHY MINDS OF BASTROP, LLC;
and ANGELA NICHOLS, Case No. 3:18-cv-01134 (W.D. La., Aug. 30,
2018) is an action against the Defendants for declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs as a result of the Defendants' policy and practice of failing
to pay the Plaintiffs and the class proper overtime compensation
for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Defrese-Reese was employed by the Defendants as office manager.
The Plaintiffs Jones and Wilson was employed as direct care
workers.

Healthy Minds of Bastrop, LLC is a behavioral health agency in
Bastrop, Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: scott@bohrerbrady.com
                  phil@bohrerbrady.com

               - and -

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


HERTZ GLOBAL: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of PSLRA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint in the
case captioned In re: HERTZ GLOBAL HOLDINGS INC. SHEET METAL
WORKERS LOCAL UNION 80 PENSION TRUST FUND; WESTCHESTER TEAMSTERS
PENSION FUND, Appellants. No. 17-2200. (3rd Cir.).

The Funds appeal the District Court's dismissal of their fourth
amended complaint (FAC) for failure to plead a strong inference of
scienter, as required by the PSLRA.

Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 80 Pension Trust Fund and Westchester
Teamsters Pension Fund (Funds) brought a putative securities fraud
class action against Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. (Hertz) and
several of its current and former executives for violating Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA),
and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

Legal Standard for Pleading Securities Fraud

To adequately allege a Section 10(b) securities fraud claim, a
plaintiff must plead (1) a material misrepresentation or omission,
(2) scienter, (3) a connection between the misrepresentation or
omission and the purchase or sale of a security, (4) reliance upon
the misrepresentation or omission, (5) economic loss, and (6) loss
causation. A plaintiff must also meet the heightened pleading
standards imposed by the PSLRA.

The District Court Applied Tellabs Appropriately

The Funds argue that the District Court erred when it concluded
that the FAC's allegations did not give rise to a strong inference
of scienter. They contend that the Court failed to adhere to the
interpretive framework for assessing scienter set forth by the
Supreme Court in Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd, and
that, when analyzed appropriately, the FAC's allegations give an
inference of scienter that is at least as compelling as any
opposing inference.

Those contentions do not persuade the Court.

First, the District Court did not stray from the Tellabs framework
by failing to make inferences only in the Funds' favor. Rather, it
adhered to Tellabs's explicit instruction to conduct a comparative
analysis by considering both inferences favorable to the Funds as
well as plausible, nonculpable explanations for the defendant's
conduct. That the District Court disagreed with the Funds'
preferred inferences is not a violation of the Tellab sframework.

Second, the Court did not effectively require the Funds to submit
smoking-gun evidence to survive the defendants' motions to dismiss.
It simply emphasized that the FAC lacked allegations connecting the
fact that Hertz had accounting problems caused by the Individual
Defendants" with an inference that "those defendants were aware
that they caused those problems.

The FAC Does Not Plead a Strong Inference of Scienter

To make that argument, the Funds depend as they did in the District
Court  on five categories of scienter allegations: (1) the size and
scope of the Restatement, (2) Hertz's admission of material
weaknesses in its internal controls, (3) signed SOX certifications
accompanying materially false SEC filings, (4) Hertz's replacement
of upper management, and (5) insider trading activity by Douglas
and Kapur.

Size and Scope of the Restatement

The inferential force of a restatement is lessened when the
plaintiff fails to plead particularized allegations of fraudulent
intent.  As the District Court observed, the FAC fails to
sufficiently allege either that the Individual Defendants knowingly
caused Hertz's accounting personnel to engage in accounting fraud
or that the accounting improprieties were so obvious that the
Individual Defendants must have known about them when reporting
Hertz's financial results to the public. The Court logically
concluded that, although the Restatement was substantial, any
inference of scienter was circumscribed by the fact that the
accounting errors were spread across myriad accounting categories.


The size and scope of the changes highlighted in the Restatement
provide at most some inference of scienter but not a strong
inference.

Hertz's Admission of Material Weaknesses in Its Internal Controls

The FAC has pleaded that the Individual Defendants presided over a
poorly managed corporation and that the mismanagement created an
environment in which improper accounting practices flourished. But
we have long held that an allegation of mismanagement on the part
of a defendant will not alone support" a securities fraud claim.
Allegations of mismanagement will only support a securities fraud
claim if they are coupled with allegations that the defendants were
aware, or recklessly disregarded, that their mismanagement created
an environment in which fraud was occurring. The FAC simply lacks
sufficient allegations to compellingly imply that the Individual
Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their actions were
resulting in improper accounting practices.

Accordingly, the Restatement's admissions of material weaknesses in
Hertz's internal controls, including its admission of an
inappropriate tone at the top, do not weigh in favor of inferring
scienter.

SOX Certifications Accompanying False SEC Filings

An allegation that a defendant signed a SOX certification attesting
to the accuracy of an SEC filing that turned out to be materially
false does not add to the scienter puzzle in the absence of any
allegation that the defendant knew he was signing a false SEC
filing or recklessly disregarded inaccuracies contained in an SEC
filing. As discussed above, the FAC fails to plead facts that could
plausibly lead to such an inference.

Replacement of Upper Management

The Funds argue that the Individual Defendants' resignations show
scienter because they each resigned in close proximity to the
public release of bad news, the Restatement blamed the accounting
irregularities on an inappropriate tone at the top and the
Restatement explained that part of Hertz's remedial measures
included hiring a new senior management team. The Court agrees with
the District Court, however, that the Individual Defendants'
resignations do not materially add to an inference of scienter
because the FAC lacks allegations that those resignations were a
result of the Individual Defendants' involvement in a systemic
fraud.

Here, Douglas's resignation was announced just days before Hertz
publicly released bad news stemming from the Company's accounting
problems, and Frissora's and Kapur's resignations were announced
within about two months of Hertz releasing similar news. Hertz
freely acknowledged that it replaced executive- and
management-level employees as a remedial measure to change and
enhance leadership in the business units associated with the
restatement matters. As the District Court noted, the FAC's
allegations make clear that the resignations were causally related
to the bad news" ultimately resulting in the Restatement.  

But pleading scienter requires more than pleading a link between
bad news and an executive's resignation. Changes in leadership are
only to be expected when leadership fails. That is not, in itself,
a symbol of fraud. Corporate resignations do not strengthen an
inference of scienter, when, as here, the allegations do not
cogently suggest that the resignations resulted from the relevant
executives' knowing or reckless involvement in a fraud.

Insider Trading Activity

Demonstrating that a defendant had a motive, such as personal
financial gain, to commit a securities fraud violation is a
relevant consideration that may weigh heavily in favor of a
scienter inference. Alleging insider trading is one way to plead
motive.  The mere fact that an insider sold corporate stock,
however, is not enough to give rise to an inference of scienter.  

Two considerations from the FAC's insider trading allegations add
to the inference of scienter.

First, the FAC alleges that both Douglas's and Kapur's insider
trading activities were unusual when compared to their trading
history. For example, Douglas sold Hertz stock on four occasions
during the class period but had not sold any Hertz stock in the
three years prior to those trades. Similarly, Kapur sold Hertz
stock on five occasions during the class period but had only traded
in Hertz stock one other time in the three preceding years. Those
allegations support an inference of scienter. Second, the FAC
alleges that Douglas earned a net profit of approximately $4
million on her insider trades, which exceeded her 2013 salary of $3
million. Although the FAC does not identify Kapur's salary, it
alleges that the approximately $3.1 million in profit he earned
from his trading activities likely exceeded his annual
compensation, given that he was Douglas's subordinate.  

The FAC's insider-trading allegations thus add only minimal weight
to the inference of scienter.

Holistic Review

The FAC and Restatement make clear that the problems plaguing Hertz
and its accounting department were significant, that Frissora and
other members of senior management created a pressurized
environment that contributed to those problems, and that those
problems resulted in material misstatements regarding the Company's
financial condition. But the allegations that the Individual
Defendants resigned as Hertz discovered those problems, and that
Douglas and Kapur sold portions of their Hertz stock holdings while
those problems were ongoing, do not necessarily suggest that Hertz
or its senior management were engaged in a systemic fraud. More
plausible is the suggestion that the Individual Defendants were
just bad leaders. The FAC's allegations do not give rise to a
cogent inference that the Individual Defendants were aware that
their actions were improper, that they consciously disregarded that
their tone was causing employees to engage in erroneous accounting,
or that Hertz's accounting errors were so obvious that only an
attitude of reckless disregard on the part of the Individual
Defendants can explain what they said and did.

The Court will affirm the District Court's dismissal of the FAC.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's September 20, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9chlsg4 from Leagle.com.

Evan J. Kaufman, Samuel H. Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd.

Douglas S. Wilens [ARGUED], Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd.

Peter S. Pearlman, Cohn Lifland Pearlman Hermann & Knopf, Counsel
for Appellants Sheet Metal Workers, Local 80 Pension Trust Fund,
and Westchester, Teamsters Pension Fund.

Ross B. Bricker, Howard S. Suskin, Jenner & Block.

Adam G. Unikowsky [ARGUED], Jenner & Block, Counsel for Appellee,
Hertz Global Holdings Inc.

Kevin H. Marino, John D. Tortorella, Marino, Tortorella & Boyle,
Counsel for Appellees, Hertz Global Holdings Inc., and Elyse
Douglas.

David A. Kotler, Dechert.

Andrew J. Levander, Dechert, Counsel for Appellee, Mark P.
Frissora.

Elliott Greenfield, Maeve L. O'Connor, Edwin G. Schallert,
Debevoise & Plimpton, Counsel for Appellee, Elyse Douglas.

Gregory A. Markel [ARGUED], Heather E. Murray, Seyfarth Shaw,
Counsel for Appellee, Jatindar S. Kapur.


HIT MOBILE: Fails to Reimburse Business Expenses, Armendariz Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FABIAN ARMENDARIZ, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HIT
MOBILE, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00047293-CU-OE-NC (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sep. 19, 2018), alleges that Defendant failed to
indemnify and reimburse Plaintiff and the California Labor
Sub-Class Members for necessary business expenses incurred in the
discharge of their job duties for the Defendant's benefit.

Hit Mobile is a telecommunications provider founded in 2009. Hit
Mobile is one of T-Mobile's largest partners in the Southwest with
approximately 60 retail locations from Los Angeles to San Diego.
Hit Mobile conducted and continues to conduct substantial and
regular business in the State of California, including in the
County of San Diego.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in California from
approximately May 15, 2017 to September 21, 2017 and was at all
times classified by the Defendant as a non-exempt employee, paid in
whole or in part on an hourly basis at $12.00 per hour, and
entitled to all legally required meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and a
California class, defined as all individuals who are or previously
were employed by the Defendant in California and classified as
non-exempt employees at any time during the period beginning four
years prior to the filing of this Complaint and ending on the date
as determined by the Court. The amount in controversy for the
aggregate claim of California Class Members is less than
$5,000,000.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          Chase M. Stem, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1400
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
          E-mail: FrankJ@johnsonfistel.com
                  ChaseS@johnsonfistel.com

               - and -

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK
          DE BLOUW LLP
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232


HR BENEFITS SERVICES: Guerra Files Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Guerra, and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. HR
Benefits Services, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Mario Roiz,
individually and Vivian Roiz, individually, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-23775, (S.D. Fla., September 13, 2018), seeks to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and
attorney's fees for willful violations of overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

HR Benefits is a company that brokers insurance benefits for its
clients. Guerra was employed by HR as a non-exempt office employee,
assisting those with inquiries concerning their insurance policies.
She worked approximately 55 hours per week without overtime wages,
says the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
     2847 Hollywood Blvd.
     Hollywood, FL 33020
     Tel: (305) 308 - 5619
     Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

            - and -

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     MAMANE LAW LLC
     1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor
     Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
     Telephone (305) 773 - 6661
     E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


IC SYSTEM INC: Duffy Seeks Damages Over FDCPA Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Edward Duffy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. I.C. System, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-05173, (E.D. N.Y., September 13, 2018) seeks to recover
damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Defendant is a "debt collector" who alleges Duffy owes a debt and
fell behind on payments owed and sent him a collection letter. Said
letter failed to include any "safe harbor" language concerning the
accrual of billing fees, failed to indicate the minimum amount
Plaintiff owed at the time of receipt of the letter, and failed to
provide information about the minimum amount owed and the amount of
late charges, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 203-7600
      Fax: (516) 706-5055
      Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


JASPER COUNTY, GA: Haddock Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Samantha M. Haddock, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Jasper County, Georgia, Case No.
5:18-cv-00292 (M.D. Ga., August 10, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

This is an FLSA overtime case in which Haddock, a former Emergency
Medical Technician for Jasper County, alleges that she was
misclassified as partially exempt from the FLSA's overtime
provisions as an employee engaged in fire protection activities.

The Plaintiff is a resident in Jasper County, Georgia. The
Defendant Jasper County employed Haddock as an E.M.T. Intermediate
from approximately 2002 through June 4, 2018.

The Defendant Jasper County is a County existing and organized
under the laws of the State of Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Caldwell, Esq.
      Charles R. Bridgers, Esq.
      Mitchell D. Benjamin, Esq.
      DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS
      FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC
      3100 Centennial Tower
      101 Marietta Street
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Tel: (404) 979-3150
      Fax: (404) 979-3170
      E-mail: michaelcaldwell@dcbflegal.com
              charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com
              benjamin@dcbflegal.com


JEFFERSON COUNTY: Underpays Deputy Sheriffs, Bailey et al. Say
--------------------------------------------------------------
TRENDIA BAILEY, and JOHN'NIQUA WOFFORD-LIBBETT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JEFFERSON
COUNTY, ARKANSAS, Defendant, Case No. 518-cv-00222 (E.D. Ark., Aug.
30, 2018) seek declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs as a result of the
Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay the Plaintiffs
and the class proper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as deputy sheriffs.

Jefferson County, Arkansas is a county located in the U.S. state of
Arkansas in the area known as the Arkansas Delta, that extends west
of the Mississippi River. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


JELD-WEN INC: Court Denies Prelim Approval of Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to
Preliminarily Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case
captioned JASON CRANE, Plaintiff, v. JELD-WEN, INC., Defendant.
Case No. 3:17-cv-00455-L-WVG. (S.D. Cal.).

Pending before the Court in this putative class action alleging,
among other claims, violations of California Labor Code provisions
regarding wages and hours, is the Plaintiff's motion to
preliminarily approval of class action settlement.

The Plaintiff seeks preliminary approval of settlement pursuant to
Rule 23(e); however, he provided insufficient information to
consider the settlement in light of the factors outlined in Staton
v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 959-60 (9th Cir. 2003).

First, it is unclear why the claim for failure to pay all wages
upon termination, which is alleged in the first amended complaint
and covered by the release in the settlement agreement, is not
included in a sub-class of employees terminated during the class
period. It is also unclear why there is no provision for such
employees to be compensated from the settlement for this violation.


Second, the Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to
evaluate the fairness and adequacy of the settlement. If the
Plaintiff renews this motion, he must state the range of possible
recovery and average recovery per class member, assuming that all
class members make a claim against the proposed settlement fund.

The Plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice to re-filing
after curing the defects.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 17, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9h2lmx4 from Leagle.com.

Jason Crane, an individual, on behlaf of himself and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander
Isaac Dychter -- Alex@DychterLaw.com -- Dychter Law Offices, APC,
Walter L. Haines -- walter@whaines.com -- United Employees Law
Group, PC & Seth Adam Spiewak -- s.adamspiewak@gmail.com

Jeld-Wen, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Alexander Raffetto Stevens -- astevens@mcginnislaw.com -- McGinnis
Lochridge, Matthew E. Costello -- matthew.costello@haynesboone.com
-- Haynes and Boone & Tamara I. Devitt --
tamara.devitt@haynesboone.com -- Haynes and Boone, LLP.


JOHN LEE JACKSON: Adams Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Pearl Adams, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. John Lee Jackson, Esq. and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 7:18-cv-02206 (D. S.C., August 10, 2018), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of South Carolina, County
of Spartanburg, residing at 191 Chapel Court, Lot 2, Spartanburg,
SC 29301.

The Defendants are debt collectors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth E. Norsworthy, Jr., Esq.
      NORSWORTHY LAW, LTD. CO.
      505 Pettigru Street
      Greenville, SC 29601
      Tel: (864) 804-0581
      E-mail: norsworthylaw@gmail.com


JYP FOODS: Court Strikes Answer in Sanchez FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued a Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to
Strike Answer in the case captioned MARCO ANTONIO SANCHEZ,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. JYP FOODS INC., d/b/a KRISTALBELLI, and JOON KIM,
Defendants. No. 16-CV-4472 (JLC). (S.D.N.Y.).

In light of the defendants' disappearance, the plaintiffs now move
to strike the answer.

Plaintiff Marco Antonio Sanchez worked as a busboy and bar-back at
Kristalbelli restaurant in Manhattan from April 2012 to July 2015.
In June 2016, Sanchez brought this collective/class action against
defendants Jyp Foods Inc., doing business as Kristalbelli, and its
chief executive officer Joon Kim, alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, for failure to pay
minimum wages and overtime compensation, as well as provide wage
statements and wage notices.

Sanctions

Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court
to impose sanctions when a party fails to appear at a court-ordered
conference or fails to obey other pretrial orders, including
sanctions authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii).  Such sanctions
may include striking pleadings in whole or in part and rendering a
default judgment against the disobedient party.

The Second Circuit has articulated several factors [that] may be
useful in evaluating a district court's exercise of discretion to
impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 37, including: (1) the
willfulness of the non-compliant party or the reason for
noncompliance; (2) the efficacy of lesser sanctions; (3) the
duration of the period of noncompliance, and (4) whether the
non-compliant party had been warned of the consequences of
noncompliance.

Willfulness

In his motion to withdraw, defense counsel Steven Seltzer reported
to the Court that his last communication with defendants took place
on July 7, 2017 and that he had been unable to communicate with
them despite nearly two dozen attempts to do so. The Court held a
hearing on November 1, 2017, at which it considered and granted
defense counsel's motion to withdraw.

The Defendants failed to appear at the November 1 hearing despite
multiple notices from both the Court and defense counsel.  They
also ignored numerous court orders, including a November 2, 2017
Order that directed JYP Foods to retain new counsel and Kim to
appear by counsel or pro se.

The Defendants have plainly been aware of this lawsuit (they
initially answered the complaint and participated in a settlement
conference) but have nonetheless failed to defend this action. Such
conduct is reflective of willfulness and warrants harsh sanctions.


Efficacy of Lesser Sanctions

The Court concludes that a less severe sanction than the entry of a
default judgment would not be appropriate in this case because
defendants have failed to defend the action since the settlement
conference in May 2017. While lesser sanctions should be considered
before the Court proceeds to strike an answer and issue a default
judgment against a non-compliant party, defendants' repeated
noncompliance with court orders and failure to engage with the
Court indicates that any lesser sanction would be an exercise in
futility.  

Duration of Non-compliance

The Defendants' failure to appear and comply with court orders
spans almost a year and qualifies as an amount of time sufficient
to warrant striking the answer and entering a default judgment.  

The Defendants failed to submit an executed, court-approved
settlement agreement by September 11, 2017; respond to the Court's
September 18, 2017 Order to provide a status update; attend the
November 1, 2017 hearing where their counsel moved to withdraw;
appear pursuant to the Court's November 2, 2017 Order; and oppose
plaintiffs' motion to strike the answer and for default judgment.
Accordingly, the duration of defendants' failure to defend this
action and comply with this Court's orders warrants sanctions.

History of Warnings

As far back as November 2017, defendants were on notice that
failing to participate in the litigation and defend against
plaintiffs' lawsuit would result in sanctions. After the November
1, 2017 hearing, the Court directed JYP Foods to appear by new
counsel and Kim to advise whether he would be appearing with
counsel or proceeding pro se. In its order dated November 2, 2017,
the Court warned defendants that if they failed to appear,
plaintiffs would be permitted to move to strike the answer and seek
a default judgment. Despite the Court's warnings, defendants have
still failed to appear.

The Court's warnings, coupled with the other factors, weigh in
favor of striking the answer and entering a default judgment at
this stage of the proceedings.  

The Plaintiffs' motion to strike defendants' answer is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 20, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y88a88mb from
Leagle.com.

Marco Antonio Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons, Mahamaduo Sillah, Hyun Jun Kim, Levon
J. Augustin, Emad Newaz, Jeffrey Santiago & Augustine Uzowuvu,
Plaintiffs, represented by Gennadiy Naydenskiy , Naydenskiy Law
Group.

JYP Foods Inc., doing business as Kristalbelli, Defendant, pro se.

Joon Kim, Defendant, pro se.


KAUFF'S INC: Lesley Puza Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kauff's, Inc. et al.
The case is styled as Lesley Puza on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kauff's, Inc. doing business
as: Kauff's Transportation, Kauff's Transportation Systems and
Kauff's Towing and Transportation, Guardian Fleet Services, Inc.
doing business as: Kauff's Transportation, Kauff's Transportation
Systems and Kauff's Towing and Transportation, Francis Geoffrey
Russell also known as: Geoffrey Russell, Defendants, Case No.
9:18-cv-81330-BB (S.D. Fla., Oct. 1, 2018).

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

Kauff's Transportation Systems in south Florida, was founded in
1969 by brothers, Howard and Richard Kauff, as a light duty towing
and recovery provider to motor clubs and local police agencies.

Guardian Fleet Services Inc is a licensed and bonded freight
shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from
Orlando, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven Leo Schwarzberg, Esq.
     Schwarzberg & Associates
     2751 South Dixie Highway, Suite 400
     West Palm Beach, FL 33405
     Phone: (561) 659-3300
     Fax: (561) 693-4540
     Email: steve@schwarzberglaw.com


KELLY SERVICE: Underpays Claim Adjusters, Floyd Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
REBEKAH FLOYD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plainiff v. KELLY SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-02247-K (N.D. Tex., Aug. 24, 2018) is an action against the
Defendant to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Floyd was employed by the Defendant as claim
adjuster.

Kelly Services, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
workforce solutions to various industries worldwide. Kelly
Services, Inc. was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Troy,
Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charlene C. Koonce, Esq.
          Brandi J. McKay, Esq.
          SCHEEF & STONE, L.L.P.
          500 North Akard, Suite 2700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 706-4200
          Facsimile: (214) 706-4242
          E-mail: charlene.koonce@solidcounsel.com
                  brandi.mckay@solidcounsel.com


KEURIG DR PEPPER: Dry Ginger Ale Suit Wins Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------
Gutride Safier LLP on Oct. 1 announced that a class action has been
certified involving California purchasers of Canada Dry Ginger Ale
products with a trial set for January 2019 in San Jose.

WHO IS AFFECTED BY THE CASE?
The Court has certified a class of "All persons who, between
December 28, 2012 and June 26, 2018, purchased any Canada Dry
Ginger Ale products in the state of California."

All persons who are members of the class will be bound by the
judgment in this case, unless you request to be excluded.

WHAT IS THE LAWSUIT ABOUT?
A lawsuit was brought against Keurig Dr. Pepper ("KDP"). The
plaintiffs in the suit claim that KDP mislabels its Canada Dry
brand ginger ales sold in California as "Made From Real Ginger."

Plaintiffs contend that the claim "Made From Real Ginger" caused
the soda to sell at a higher market price (a "premium").
Plaintiffs seek refund of the alleged premiums to all California
purchasers during the time periods stated above.

KDP contends that its Canada Dry ginger ales are, and always have
been, properly labeled. It also denies that there was any "premium"
price attributable to the labelling claims.

The Court has not determined whether plaintiffs or KDP is correct.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT IN THE CASE?
The case is set for trial on January 7, 2019 in U.S. District Court
in San Jose. KDP has asked the Court to grant summary judgment in
its favor before trial, and Plaintiffs have opposed.  A hearing is
scheduled for October 17, 2018. The parties may also try to settle
the case. If there is a class settlement, additional notice will be
distributed.

HOW CAN PEOPLE EXCLUDE THEMSELVES FROM THE CASE?
A class member may preserve the right to sue KDP separately for the
claims being litigated, only by submitting a timely request for
exclusion from the class. Upon submitting the request for
exclusion, the person will be removed from the class and cannot
share in any money that may be awarded to the class.

To be excluded, the class member must complete and submit the
online form at www.canadadryclassaction.com or mail a request to
Canada Dry Ginger Ale Litigation, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10629, Dublin,
OH 43017-9229. If mailed, the exclusion request must contain the
person's name, address, the words "I wish to be excluded from the
Canada Dry Class Action," and the person's signature.

Exclusion requests must be made or postmarked by October 30, 2018.


How Do I Get More Information?
Additional information is available at the website maintained by
the court-appointed notice administrator, at
www.canadadryclassaction.com.

You can contact plaintiffs' counsel, Gutride Safier LLP, at
www.gutridesafier.com/investigations/canadadry/24.  You can also
write to Gutride Safier at 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250, San
Francisco, CA 94111, call at 415-639-9090, or email
info@gutridesafier.com.

Other papers filed in this lawsuit are available through PACER, the
online service for the United States District Courts, at
ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov. Alternatively you may visit the office of
the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Ave, San
Francisco, CA from 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Court holidays. Please do not write to or call the Court
for information or advice. [GN]


KNORR-BREMSE AG: Faces Tarin Suit over No-Poach Agreements
----------------------------------------------------------
LUIS TARIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KNORR-BREMSE AG; KNORR BRAKE COMPANY LLC;
NEW YORK AIR BRAKE LLC; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; FAIVELEY TRANSPORT, S.A.; FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH
AMERICA INC.; RICON CORPORATION; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-01153-JFC (W.D. Pa., Aug. 29, 2018) is an action
against the Defendants to recover damages and obtain injunctive
relief, including treble damages, costs of suit, and reasonable
attorneys' fees arising from the Defendants' no-poach agreements in
violations of the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that over a period spanning
several years, the Defendants entered into similar no-poach
agreements with one another to eliminate competition between them
for employees. These agreements were executed and enforced by the
companies' senior executives and reached several of the companies'
U.S. subsidiaries. The no-poach agreements were not reasonably
necessary to any separate, legitimate business transaction or
collaboration between the companies.

The Defendants' no-poach agreements were facially anticompetitive
because they eliminated a significant form of competition to
attract skilled labor in the U.S. rail industry. These agreements
denied the Plaintiff and the class access to better job
opportunities, restricted their mobility, and deprived them of
competitively significant information that they could have used to
negotiate for better terms of employment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          707 Grant Street, Suite 2500
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 214-7477
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  shanas@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


KOBI'S WINDOWS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Portillo Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL D. PORTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOBI'S WINDOWS & DOORS MFG, INC.;
KOBI LOURIA; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. BC719087 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 29, 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. Portillo was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employee.

Kobi's Windows & Doors Mfg, Inc. specializes in manufacturing
high-end custom wood windows & doors for residential and commercial
properties. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2244: Tinnirellos Sue over Use of Pinnacle Device
-----------------------------------------------------
LORENZO J. TINNIRELLO and ALICE F. TINNIRELLO, the Plaintiffs, v.
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC.; DEPUY PRODUCTS, INC.; DEPUY
INTERNATIONAL, LIMITED; and JOHNSON & JOHNSON SERVICES, INC. the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02496-K (N.D. Tex., Sept. 19, 2018),
alleges that Ms. Tinnirello suffered the loss of support, services,
love, companionship, affection, society, and intimate relations,
among others, as a result of her use of the Defendants' Pinnacle
device.

The Defendants manufactured the Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System and
launched it in 2001. The Pinnacle Device was designed, developed,
and sold for human hip joints damaged or diseased due to fracture,
osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and avascular necrosis.  It
is designed to be fastened to human bone with surgical screws; and
sold to provide pain relief and consistent and smooth range of
motion.  The Defendants marketed and described the Pinnacle Device
as "[u]niquely designed to meet the demands of active patients like
you -- and reduce pain" and advertised it with pictures of a young
woman trying on sneakers in an athletic shoe store.  They
advertised the Pinnacle Device as a superior device featuring
TrueGlide technology, allowing the body to create a thin film of
lubrication between surfaces, which enables "a more fluid range of
natural motion."  They also advertised and sold the Pinnacle Device
as the best surgical option that "[r]ecreates the natural
ball-and-socket joint of your hip, increasing stability and range
of motion."

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants sold approximately 150,000
Pinnacle Devices.  The Defendants have stated in promotional
materials that "99.9% of Pinnacle Hip components are still in use
today." The Plaintiffs allege that over 1,300 adverse reports have
been submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regarding
failures or complications of the Pinnacle Device.

The complaint alleges that:

     -- The Defendants are aware that the use of the Pinnacle
Device may result in metallosis, biologic toxicity, and a high
failure rate;

     -- The use of the Pinnacle Device results in unsafe release of
toxic metal ions into hip implant recipients' tissue and
bloodstream;

     -- The Defendants are aware that metal particles from the
Pinnacle Device results in metallosis, tissue death, bone erosion,
and development of tumors;

     -- Particulate debris from the Pinnacle Device causes severe
inflammation, severe pain, tissue and bone loss, and other related
diseases;

     -- The Defendants are aware that certain Pinnacle Device
recipients have elevated cobalt and chromium levels greatly
exceeding acceptable safety standards.

Presently, there is an MDL Case No. 3:11-MD-02244 in the Northern
District of Texas in front of the Hon. James E. Kinkeade entitled
IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., PINNACLE HIP IMPLANT PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Diamond, Esq.
          GOLDBERG & OSBORNE
          698 E. Wetmore Road, Suite 200
          Tucson, AZ 85705
          Telephone: (520) 620 3975
          Facsimile: (520) 620 3991
          E-mail: ddiamond@goldbergandosborne.com


MDL 2521: Court Grants Final Approval of $166MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Final Approval of Settlement
With Direct Purchasers Class in the case captioned In re LIDODERM
ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: DIRECT PURCHASER
ACTIONS. Case No. 14-md-02521-WHO. (N.D. Cal.).

This matter has come before the Court to determine whether there is
any cause why this Court should not approve the three separate
settlements between Plaintiffs American Sales Company, LLC,
Droguería Betances, Inc., and Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc.
(Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs) and each of defendants (1) Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Endo) (2) Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc. and
Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd. (Teikoku) and (3) Actavis, Inc. (f/k/a
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), Watson Laboratories, Inc., and
Actavis plc (Defendants), pursuant to Rules 23(e) and 54(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in accordance with the terms
of the respective Settlement Agreements.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court finally approves in all respects the Settlements as set forth
in (a) the settlement agreement between Direct Purchaser Class and
Teikoku dated December 31, 2017 (Teikoku Agreement),  (b) the
settlement agreement between Direct Purchaser Class and Watson
dated March 19, 2018 (Watson Agreement) and (c) the settlement
agreement between Direct Purchaser Class and Endo dated March 19,
2018 (Endo Agreement) and finds that each of the three Settlements
is in all respects, fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best
interests of the Direct Purchaser Class. The Court further approves
the establishment of the Settlement Fund upon the terms and
conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreements. The parties are
hereby directed to carry out the Settlements in accordance with the
terms and provisions of the three Settlement Agreements.

Class Counsel are awarded Attorneys' Fees in the amount of
$45,000,070.46 (i.e., 27.5% of $163,636,619.85, which represents
the $166 million settlement less litigation expenses of
$2,363,380.15), plus 27.5% of the accrued interest on the
Settlement Fund. Additionally, Class Counsel will be reimbursed for
reasonable litigation expenses of $2,363,380.15 incurred in the
representation of the Class, for a total Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses award of $47,363,450.61 plus 27.5% of the accrued interest
on the Settlement Fund. The Court finds that the amount of
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses awarded is fair and reasonable. The
award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses will be allocated among Class
Counsel by Co-Lead Counsel. The Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
awarded will be paid out of the Settlement Fund.

Neither this Order and Final Judgment, the Settlement Agreements,
nor any of their respective terms or the negotiations or papers
related thereto will constitute evidence or an admission by any
party that any acts of wrongdoing have been committed, and they
will not be deemed to create any inference that there is any
liability therefor. Neither this Order and Final Judgment, the
Settlement Agreements, nor any of the terms or negotiations or
papers related thereto, will be offered or received in evidence or
used for any purpose whatsoever, in this or any other matter or
proceeding in any court, administrative agency, arbitration or
other tribunal, other than as expressly set forth in the Settlement
Agreements.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 20, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybq489xh from
Leagle.com.

United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating
Employers Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian O.
O'Mara -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Christina H. Sharp -- chc@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP,
Gregory S. Asciolla -- gasciolla@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow
LLP, J. Douglas Richards -- drichards@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen,
Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Jeffrey L. Kodroff --
jspector@srkattorneys.com -- SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., Renae
Diane Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Robert Samuel
Kitchenoff -- kitchenoff@wka-law.com - Weinstein Kitchenoff and
Asher LLC, Robert William Sink, Law Offices of Robert W. Sink,
Sharon K. Robertson -- srobertson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen,
Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills &
Olson, P.L.C., Daniel C. Girard -- dcg@girardgibbs.com -- Girard
Gibbs LLP, David W. Mitchell -- davidm@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Deborah R. Willig -- dwillig@wwdlaw.com -- Willig
Williams & Davidson

Teikoku Pharma USA, Defendant, represented by David S. Elkins --
david.elkins@squiresanders.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP,
Joseph Anthony Meckes -- David.Elkins@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton
Boggs (US) LLP, Noriyuki Shimoda -- Noriyuki.Shimoda@squirepb.com
-- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Amy L. Brown, Squire Sanders, pro
hac vice -- daniel.asimow@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer LLP, Marc N. Bernstein -- mbernstein@blgrp.com -- The
Business Litigation Group, P.C., Rafael Matias Langer-Osuna, Squire
Patton Bogg (US) LLP, Steven C. Sunshine --
steve.sunshine@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom
LLP, pro hac vice & Will Barnett Fitton -- wfitton@blgrp.com -- The
Business Litigation Group, P.C.

Teikoku Seiyaku Co, Defendant, represented by David S. Elkins ,
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Joseph Anthony Meckes, Squire Patton
Boggs (US) LLP, Noriyuki Shimoda, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Amy
L. Brown, Squire Sanders, pro hac vice, Daniel B. Asimow, Arnold &
Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Rafael Matias Langer-Osuna, Squire Patton
Bogg (US) LLP & Steven C. Sunshine, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and
Flom LLP, pro hac vice.


METRO-TECH SYSTEMS: Underpays Cable Technicians, Manigo Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC MANIGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; Plaintiff v. METRO-TECH SYSTEMS, INC.; and ECE
INSTALLATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00479 (W.D.N.C.,
Aug. 29, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
overtime hours and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Mr. Manigo was employed by the Defendants as cable technician.

Metro-Tech Systems, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of North Carolina. The Company is
engaged in the construction and broadband business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
          Craig L. Leis, Esq.
          GIBBONS LEIS, PLLC
          14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Ste. 325
          Charlotte, NC 28277
          Telephone: (704) 612-0038
          E-mail: phil@philgibbonslaw.com
                  craig@gibbonsleis.com


MICHAEL KORS: Lucas Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Victoria E. Lucas filed an appeal from a court ruling in
her lawsuit titled Victoria Lucas v. Michael Kors (USA), Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01608-MWF-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 11, 2018, a
California federal judge on Aug. 13 tentatively ruled that Michael
Kors USA Inc. and a staffing company can send to individual
arbitration a woman's putative class action alleging the companies
stiff workers on overtime and withhold rest and meal breaks.

At a hearing in downtown Los Angeles, U.S. District Judge Michael
Fitzgerald issued a written tentative ruling indicating he would
grant Michael Kors and Decton Inc.'s motion to compel plaintiff
Victoria Lucas to arbitrate her claims against them.

The appellate case is captioned as Victoria Lucas v. Michael Kors
(USA), Inc., et al., Case No. 18-56240, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 19, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on November 19, 2018;

   -- Appellant Victoria E. Lucas' opening brief is due on
      December 28, 2018;

   -- Appellees Decton Staffing Services, Decton, Inc., Does and
      Michael Kors (USA), Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      January 28, 2019; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant VICTORIA E. LUCAS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          James Alexander De Sario, Esq.
          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          1801 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553-3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553-3603
          E-mail: jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com
                  mnourmand@nourmand.com

               - and -

          Christie Webb, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTIE E. WEBB
          5901 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 412
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (323) 686-1947
          E-mail: Christie@cwebblaw.com

               - and -

          Judith K. Williams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUDITH K. WILLIAMS
          3940 Laurel Canyon Boulevard, Suite 1023
          Studio City, CA 91604
          Telephone: (818) 343-9230
          E-mail: jkwesq@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellee MICHAEL KORS (USA), INC., a Delaware
corporation, is represented by:

          Jon D. Meer, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com

Defendants-Appellees DECTON, INC., a California corporation, and
DECTON STAFFING SERVICES are represented by:

          Daniel Joseph Kessler, Esq.
          BURKHALTER KESSLER CLEMENT AND GEORGE LLP
          2020 Main Street, Suite 600
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 975-7500
          E-mail: dkessler@bkcglaw.com


MICHIGAN: Court Rejects Class Action Status in Women's Prison Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a federal judge has rejected
class-action status in a lawsuit challenging conditions at
Michigan's only prison for women.

Judge Stephen Murphy III says the claims are too varied to be
folded into one case. The Detroit Free Press reports that Murphy is
allowing just a portion of the lawsuit to proceed.

Prisoners complained about being squeezed into makeshift space at
the Huron Valley prison near Ypsilanti and long waiting lists for
certain programs due to overcrowding. The judge says the claims
would require "individualized fact-finding" that is unsuitable for
a class-action lawsuit.

The Corrections Department says the current prison population of
2,100 women is below capacity.

Lynn Shecter, an attorney for the women, had no immediate comment
on the decision. [GN]


MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Seeks 5th Cir. Review of Cleven Suit Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Mid-America Apartment Communities, et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Cathi Cleven, et
al. v. Mid-America Apartment Communities, Incorporated, et al.,
Case No. 1:16-CV-820, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas, Austin.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
sought certification of a damage class defined as:

     All persons during the Class Period who (i) were residential
     tenants of apartment properties in the State of Texas under
     written leases where MAA or its predecessor in merger,
     Colonial, served as an owner or landlord, and (ii) were
     assessed and paid an initial rent late fee of $75.00 and/or
     a daily rent late fee of at least $10.00.

The case challenges a statewide, uniform rent late fee policy
(here, a fixed initial $75 late fee and daily late fees of at least
$10, referred to as the "$75/10 rent late fee") as an unenforceable
penalty under Section 92.019 of the Texas Property Code.

The appellate case is captioned as Cathi Cleven, et al. v.
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Incorporated, et al., Case No.
18-90038, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents CATHI CLEVEN, for herself and all others
similarly situated; TARA CLEVEN, for herself and all others
similarly situated; ARELI ARELLANO, for herself and all others
similarly situated; and JOE L MARTINEZ, for himself and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Britton D. Monts, Esq.
          THE MONTS FIRM
          401 Congress Avenue
          Austin, TX 78701-0000
          Telephone: (512) 474-6092
          Facsimile: (512) 692-2981
          E-mail: bmonts@themontsfirm.com

               - and -

          Richard Eugene Norman, Esq.
          CROWLEY NORMAN, L.L.P.
          3 Riverway
          Houston, TX 77056-3034
          Telephone: (713) 651-1771
          Facsimile: (713) 651-1775
          E-mail: rnorman@crowleynorman.com

               - and -

          Stacey V. Reese, Esq.
          MCGINNIS, LOCHRIDGE, L.L.P.
          600 Congress Avenue
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 495-6084
          E-mail: sreese@mcginnislaw.com

               - and -

          Jason W. Snell, Esq.
          THE SNELL LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1615 West Sixth Steet
          Austin, TX 78703
          Telephone: (512) 477-5291
          Facsimile: (512) 477-5294
          E-mail: firm@snellfirm.com

Defendants-Petitioners MID-AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES,
INCORPORATED, MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS, L.P., and CMS/COLONIAL
MULTIFAMILY CANYON CREEK JV, LP, are represented by:

          Barry Goheen, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, L.L.P.
          1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-4618
          E-mail: bgoheen@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Kathy Lynn Poppitt, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, L.L.P.
          500 W. 2nd Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 457-2004
          E-mail: kpoppitt@kslaw.com


MIZUHO BANK: Court Dismisses Babiak's Tortious Interference Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, Alexandria Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned SCOTT BABIAK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MIZUHO BANK, LTD., Defendant. Case No. 1:18-cv-352.
(E.D. Va.).

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(2) and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).

Plaintiff, Scott Babiak, filed this putative class action and in
his Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges one count of tortious
interference with contract against Defendant, Mizuho Bank.

Legal Standard

It is plaintiff's burden to demonstrate personal jurisdiction at
every stage after a defendant raises a challenge under Rule
12(b)(2). When the court is considering a personal jurisdiction
challenge by reviewing only the parties' motion papers, affidavits
attached to the motion, supporting legal memoranda, and the
allegations in the complaint the plaintiff need only make a prima
facie showing of personal jurisdiction.

Mizuho did not purposefully avail itself of the privilege of
conducting activities in Virginia.

The Fourth Circuit also evaluates whether the parties contractually
agreed that the law of the forum state would govern disputes,
whether the performance of contractual duties was to occur within
the forum and the nature, quality and extent of the parties'
communications about the business being transacted.

Here, the Defendant has no offices or agents in Virginia. It does
not own property in Virginia. It did not reach into Virginia to
solicit or initiate business. If anything, Virginians reached out
to the Defendant to solicit or initiate business by wiring money
from their U.S. banks to the Defendant. The Defendant did not
deliberately engage in significant or long-term business activities
in Virginia. Instead, all of Defendant's actions took place in
Japan. Defendant never made in person contact with a Virginian
regarding Mt. Gox. Defendant never entered into a contract with a
Virginian regarding this matter, much less a contract that
specified that contractual duties were to be performed in
Virginia.

Therefore here, as has been found in other districts, there is no
personal jurisdiction. The Defendant did not purposely avail itself
of the privilege of conducting activities in Virginia.

In fact, the Defendant conducted no activities in Virginia at all.
It is the defendant, not the plaintiff or third parties, who must
create contacts with the forum State. Here, the Defendant did not
create contacts with Virginia. Any contacts with Virginia that
arguably exist are of the Plaintiff's making. The Defendant's
inaction is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.

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

Scott Babiak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Olin Wilson --
rwilson@finkelsteinthompson.com -- Finkelstein Thompson LLP.

Mizuho Bank, Ltd., a Japanese financial institution, Defendant,
represented by Ryan Ashby Shores, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP.


MOBILITY WORKS: Community Resources Files ADA Suit in N.D. Ca.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mobility Works of
California, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Community Resources
for Independent Living a California non-profit corporation, on
behalf of itself, Dorene Giacopini an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Stuart James an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Mobility Works of California, LLC a California
limited liability corporation, WMK, LLC an Ohio limited liability
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-06012-TSH (N.D. Cal.,
Oct. 1, 2018).

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

WMK, Inc., doing business as Mobility Works, is engaged in selling,
servicing, and renting new and used wheelchair accessible minivans,
full-size vans with lifts, and commercial fleet vehicles for the
disabled community. It offers side entry minivans, rear entry
minivans, and full size van conversions; wheelchair accessible
trucks, SUVs, and adaptive equipment modifications; and other
wheelchair accessible vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Sean Paul Betouliere, Esq.
     Disability Rights Advocates
     2001 Center Street
     Fourth Floor
     Berkeley, CA 94704
     Phone: (510) 665-8644
     Fax: (510) 665-8511
     Email: sbetouliere@dralegal.org


MONFRIC INC: Underpays Apartment Managers, Jenkins Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
TASHA JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONFRIC D/B/A MONFRIC, INC.; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC719089 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Aug. 29, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal
and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Jenkins was employed by the Defendants as residential
apartment manager from October 1, 2016 to March 23, 2018.

Monfric d/b/a Monfric, Inc. is a corporation organized under the
laws of the State of California. The Company is engaged as a real
estate property manager. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Olivia A. Burgos, Esq.
          SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 312
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 582-3086
          Facsimile: (818) 582-2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  olivia@spivaklaw.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Purdy Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
GARY E. PURDY, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00392 (E.D. Tenn., Sept. 19, 2018), seeks to
recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate
result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup,
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell W. Lewis IV, Esq.
          Kori Westbrook, Esq.
          JOHNSON LAW GROUP
          1019 16th Avenue
          South Nashville, TN 37212
          Telephone: (615) 200 1122
          Facsimile: (866) 902 8647
          E-mail: rlewis@johnsonlawgroup.com
                  kwestbrook@johnsonlawgroup.com


MOORINGS: Faces Honeywell ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Moorings -
Islamorada, Inc. The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The
Moorings - Islamorada, Inc. a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 0:18-cv-62314-BB (S.D. Fla., Sept. 28, 2018).

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

The Moorings Village situated in beautiful Islamorada, is an
18-acre luxury resort consisting of 18 cottages and homes equipped
with a full range of amenities.[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


NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Beaumont Costales Sues Over LaCroix Water
------------------------------------------------------------
Beaumont Costales announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in Cook County against LaCroix's parent company National
Beverage Corporation, on behalf of Lenora Rice and all those
injured by the popular sparkling water brand's false claims to be
"all natural" and "100% natural." In fact, as the filing states,
testing reveals that LaCroix contains a number of artificial
ingredients, including linalool, which is used in cockroach
insecticide.

LaCroix has seen tremendous growth in popularity in recent years,
driven presumably by American consumers' increasing demand for
healthier food and beverage options. National Beverage Corporation
has seen net sales rise from $646 million in 2015 to $827 million
in 2017, and Nielsen data from grocery and convenience stores shows
that the sparkling water category itself has more than doubled,
growing from $961 million in 2013 to $1.8 billion.

The plaintiff Rice, desiring a healthy, natural beverage, was led
to purchase LaCroix sparkling water because of the claims made on
its packaging, advertising and web site to be "innocent,"
"naturally essenced," "all natural," and "always 100% natural."
However, LaCroix in fact contains ingredients that have been
identified by the Food and Drug Administration as synthetic. These
chemicals include limonene, which can cause kidney toxicity and
tumors; linalool propionate, which is used to treat cancer; and
linalool, which is used in cockroach insecticide.

As the lawsuit states, LaCroix and National Beverage are aware of
the synthetic chemicals contained in LaCroix sparking water, and
yet they intentionally misled consumers into believing LaCroix
all-natural in order to drive sales of the product.

The lawsuit seeks to stop LaCroix from falsely labeling and
promoting its products as natural and to award damages to those
individuals who purchased LaCroix under this inaccurate depiction.

Individuals who have purchased LaCroix and who wish to be added to
the plaintiff list may contact Beaumont Costales at 773-831-8000.

Beaumont Costales is a law firm whose primary practice is
plaintiff's class action litigation with a special emphasis on
workers' rights and consumer rights. Beaumont Costales has offices
in Chicago and New Orleans. For more information, please visit
www.beaumontcostales.com.

Liz Graham, Esq.
Beaumont Costales
Tel: 312-217-0588 [GN]


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court OKs Amendment to Contreras Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint in the case captioned
EUGENIO AND ROSA CONTRERAS, WILLIAM AND MELVA PHILLIPS, TERESA
BARNEY, KEITH AND TERESA MARCEL, SHERLIE CHARLOT, COLLEEN ANN
O'HALLORAN, JENNIE MILLER, and EDWARD YAGER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY;
SOLUTIONSTAR, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; and DOES 1
through 1000, Defendants. No. 2:16-cv-00302-MCE-EFB. (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs seek relief from Defendants Nationstar Mortgage LLC
(Nationstar), Solutionstar LLC (Solutionstar), and Does 1-100
arising from fees assessed during the court of the loan.

In exercising its discretion to permit or deny a party to amend its
pleading, this Court considers five factors: (1) whether the
amendment was filed with undue delay; (2) whether the movant has
requested the amendment in bad faith or as a dilatory tactic; (3)
whether the movant was allowed to make previous amendments which
failed to correct deficiencies of the complaint; (4) whether the
amendment will unduly prejudice the opposing party; and (5) whether
the amendment would be futile.

The Plaintiffs have not previously been granted leave to amend,
and, while the Plaintiffs acknowledge that they delayed in seeking
the proposed relief, undue delay by itself is insufficient to
justify denying a motion to amend.  The Defendants do not allege,
and nothing in the record indicates the Plaintiffs' proposed
amendments are the result of any bad faith. Finally, regardless of
whether the Defendants believe they will inevitably succeed in
defending against the Plaintiffs' new allegation, nothing before
the Court indicates that the amended claims are futile.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 17, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y77nlp3l
from Leagle.com.

Eugenio Contreras, Rosa Contreras, Teresa Barney, Keith Marcel,
Teresa Marcel, Sherlie Charlot & Jennie Miller, Plaintiffs,
represented by Derek W. Loeser -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com --
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Gretchen S. Obrist --
gobrist@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice,
Ian J. Mensher -- imesher@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., pro hac vice, Thomas Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Dean N. Kawamoto --
dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P.

William Phillips, Melva Phillips, Colleen Ann O'Halloran & Edward
Yager, Plaintiffs, represented by Ian J. Mensher, Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., pro hac vice, Thomas Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP & Dean N. Kawamoto , Keller Rohrback L.L.P.

Nationstar, LLC, Defendant, represented by Erik Wayne Kemp --
ek@severson.com -- Severson & Werson, PC & John B. Sullivan --
jbs@severson.com -- Severson & Werson.

Solutionstar, LLC & Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Defendants,
represented by Erik Wayne Kemp, Severson & Werson, PC, Mary
Catherine Kamka -- mkk@severson.com -- Severson and Werson & John
B. Sullivan , Severson & Werson.


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Feb. 8 Fairness Hearing on $2.5MM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
This is a notice of a proposed settlement of a class action
lawsuit.

Denise Baker v. Navient Solutions, LLC., Case Np: 1:17-cv-1160
(LMB/JFA)

What is this lawsuit about?

Plaintiff Denise Baker ("Baker") filed this lawsuit on October 16,
2017.  Baker was listed as a credit reference on a Navient
Solutions, LLC's ("NSL") borrower's student loan application, and
NSL subsequently called her cellular telephone, using a dialing
process that it contends is manual, in connection with efforts to
locate that borrower. Baker alleges that NSL violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq.,
in making these calls because the dialing technology constitutes an
automatic telephone dialing system, within the meaning of the TCPA,
and NSL did not have the requisite prior express consent to call
her. The parties have agreed to a settlement.

What does the settlement provide?

NSL will establish a settlement fund in the amount of $2,500,000.
Out of the settlement fund, NSL will pay: (1) settlement
compensation to the class members; (2) the costs and expenses of
administrating the class action settlement; (3) an award of
attorneys' fees in an amount up to one-third of the settlement
fund, or $833,333, subject to the Court's approval; (4) costs and
expenses incurred litigating this matter, not to exceed $35,000,
subject to the Court's approval; and (5) a service award to Baker
in an amount up to $15,000, subject to the Court's approval.  How
much each class member receives depends on how many people make
approved claims.  Plaintiff estimates that the amount of the cash
award may be $50.00.

When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the
settlement?

The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on February 8, 2019,
at 10:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 401 Courthouse
Square, Alexandria, VA 22314, before the Honorable Leonie M.
Brinkema.  At the fairness hearing, the Court will consider whether
the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and, if so, whether
final approval of the settlement should be granted.

What are your rights and options in this settlement?

If you received a call on your cellular phone from NSL between
October 16, 2013, and July 3, 2018, as a credit reference on a
student loan, here are your rights and options:

SUBMIT A TIMELY CLAIM FORM: You must mail a valid claim form to the
Baker Settlement Administrator:

Baker Settlement Administrator
PO Box 44
Minneapolis, MN 55440-0044

postmarked by November 30, 2018. Or you must submit a valid claim
through www.BakerTCPAsettlement.com by November 30, 2018.

EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT: You may exclude yourself from
the settlement, in which case you will not receive a payment.  If
you wish to exclusive yourself from the settlement, you must mail a
written request for exclusion to the settlement administrator
postmarked by November 30, 2018.

OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT: If you do not exclusive yourself from the
settlement, you can object to the settlement if you do not believe
it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.  If you wish to object, you
must mail a written notice of objection, postmarked by November 30,
2018, to class counsel, NSL's attorneys, and to the Court.

DO NOTHING: If you do nothing and the Court approves the Settlement
Agreement, you will not receive a share of the settlement fund, but
you will release claims you have against NSL related to the
allegations.

This is only a summary of the proposed settlement.  For more
information, you may write to:

Baker Settlement Administrator
PO Box 44
Minneapolis, MN 55440-0044

Or call: 1-866-404-0137

Or visit: www.BakerTCPAsettlement.com

Do not contact the Court, NSL, or NSL's counsel.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Court Denies Approval of Remijas Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
denying Parties' Motion to Approve Class Settlement and Award and
Attorney's Fees in the case captioned HILARY REMIJAS, MELISSA
FRANK, DEBBIE FARNOUSH, and JOANNE KAO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE NEIMAN MARCUS
GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant. Case
No. 14-cv-1735. (N.D. Cal.).

Neiman Marcus began to receive reports of fraudulent charges on its
customers' credit cards. Neiman Marcus investigated these reports
and ultimately discovered malware1 in its computer systems. News of
Neiman Marcus' data breach yielded multiple class-action
complaints, which were consolidated in this action brought by
plaintiffs Hilary Remijas, Melissa Frank, Debbie Farnoush, and
Joanne Kao.

The settling parties' position on this issue is strongly supported
by Uhl v. Thoroughbred Technology and Telecommunications, Inc., 309
F.3d 978 (7th Cir.2002).

In Uhl, the defendant announced its intention to install fiber
optic conduits along a railroad right-of-way. The named plaintiff
brought a class action on behalf of those who owned real estate on
either side of the right-of-way. At the time of the class action
settlement, the defendant had not yet surveyed or determined which
side of the tracks the conduit would be installed on and could not
do so without trespassing on the land-owners land, absent the
settlement at issue.

The settlement thus divided the class into two categories: those on
the side of the tracks that the conduit would be installed on, and
those on the side of the tracks that the conduit would not be
installed on. Because the location of the installation of the
conduit was not yet known, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the
class representative, who lived on one side of the tracks, could
adequately represent both categories of class-members. The named
representatives here were similarly cloaked in a veil of ignorance
with respect to whether or not the malware was active at the time
that they made their purchase within the malware period. Thus, at
the time that the settlement was negotiated the class
representatives and class counsel had equal incentive to represent
the interests of all class members who made a purchase within the
malware period.

Accordingly, the Court sees no adequacy problem as between the
recovering and non-recovering class members who made their
purchases within the malware period.

More important, at the time of the settlement the class
representatives knew whether or not they had made their purchases
within the malware period. Accordingly, the reasoning of Uhlcannot
be applied to that subclass because the class representatives had
no incentive to represent that group or its interests.3 The
interests of the non-malware period subclass, moreover, plainly
conflict with those of the remaining class-members. Unlike those
within the malware period, the non-malware period subclass has no
chance of monetary recovery under the current settlement terms
because there appears to be no chance that their credit card
numbers were actually compromised by the malware now at issue.

Those who purchased during the malware period, by contrast, had
heightened incentive to agree to the lackluster non-monetary relief
offered to those whose credit card numbers weren't compromised
because, if their credit card number was compromised, they stood to
receive actual damages to offset that more pressing harm. The
non-Malware-Period subclass, by contrast, has no chance of monetary
recovery under the proposed settlement agreement, and thus has
strong incentive to pursue additional legal that the plaintiffs
have declined to pursue in favor of settling. Accordingly, the
settlement class as it is currently composed has a fundamental
conflict that undermines the adequacy of the representation of the
class.  

The Court's concerns about the representation of the interests of
all members of the proposed settlement class is only amplified by
the illusory nature of the relief being afforded to those whose
credit card information was not compromised, including those who
made their purchases outside the malware period. The settling
parties' assert that these individuals are receiving valuable
non-monetary relief. Once the data breach that gave rise to this
case was publicized, Neiman Marcus agreed to provide everyone who
shopped in its stores between July 2013 and January 2014 with a
year of free credit monitoring and identity theft insurance. Neiman
Marcus also took actions to enhance its cybersecurity business
practices. The settling parties attempt to argue that these are
non-monetary benefits flowing from the settlement. These
non-monetary benefits, however, were issued prior to the class
action settlement and thus cannot be fairly attributed to that
settlement. Neiman Marcus' changed business practices, moreover,
cannot be characterized as relief given their non-binding nature.

In the settlement agreement, the business practice changes that
Neiman Marcus implemented are listed for informational purposes
only with an explicit disclaimer stating that their identification
did not create "any rights or obligations and that Neiman Marcus
was free to alter or abandon the practices at any time. Although
the Court does not hold that these actions conferred no value on
the non-malware period subclass, the Court questions whether they
constitute the relief that an adequately represented non-malware
period subclass would seek to recover.

The pending motions for final approval of the class action
settlement and for attorney fees, costs, and class representative
service awards are therefore denied without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 17, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7tenbf8 from Leagle.com.

Hilary Remijas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated,, Melissa Frank, Debbie Farnoush & Joanne Kao, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated,, Plaintiffs,
represented by Joseph J. Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- Siprut PC,
John A. Yanchunis -- jyanchunis@forthepeople.com -- Morgan &
Morgan, Complex Litigation Group, Melanie K. Nelson , Siprut PC,
Theodore Walter Maya -- tmaya@ ahdoowolfson.com -- Ahdoot &
Wolfson, PC, pro hac vice & Tina Wolfson --
twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC, pro hac vice.

The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company,, Defendant, represented by David Henry Hoffman --
DAVID.HOFFMAN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Daniel Cochran Craig
-- DCRAIG@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin Llp, Geetanjli Malhotra
-GMALHOTRA@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, James D. Arden --
JARDEN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice & Steven
Michael Bierman -- SBIERMAN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin Llp, pro
hac vice.


NESTLE USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrett Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
SKY BARRETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NESTLE USA, INC.; and NESTLE PREPARED FOODS
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00167-DPM (E.D. Ark., Aug.
30, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs as a result of the Defendants' policy and
practice of failing to pay the Plaintiffs and the class proper
overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Barrett was employed by the Defendants as an
hourly-paid employee.

Nestle USA, Inc. produces and markets food and beverage products in
the United States. The company offers bakery products, chocolates,
confectionery products, snacks, coffee, drinks, and ice creams,
culinary, chilled, and frozen food. The company was incorporated in
1920 and is based in Rosslyn, Virginia.  Nestle USA, Inc. operates
as a subsidiary of Nestle Holdings, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OCEAN COUNTY, NJ: $1.9MM Settlement Reached in Strip Search Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
If You Were Admitted Into The Ocean County Correctional Facility
From November 28, 2005 Through December 28, 2007 For A
Non-Indictable Offense And Were Strip Searched Upon Arrival, You
Could Get A Payment From A Class Action Settlement.

A $1,975,000.00 (one million nine hundred seventy-five thousand
dollar) settlement has been proposed in a Class Action lawsuit
about the strip search policies of the Ocean County Correctional
Facility (the "Jail").  If you meet the criteria explained below,
you can share in this settlement.

The Superior Court of New Jersey-Ocean County authorized this
notice.  The Court will have a hearing to decide whether to approve
the settlement, so that the benefits may be paid.

Who's Included?

You are a Class Member and could get benefits if (1) you were
admitted into the Jail from, November 28, 2005 through December 28,
2007, (2) you were charged solely with a non-indictable offense(s),
such as a disorderly persons offense, traffic violation, or held on
a civil matter, and (3) you were strip searched upon entry into the
Jail.

What's This About?

The lawsuit claims that Defendant Ocean County and its Correction
Officers' booking procedures constitute an unlawful strip search of
individuals admitted into the Jail without reasonable suspicion to
believe the individuals were concealing contraband.  The County of
Ocean has denied those claims.  The Court did not decide which side
was right, but both sides agreed to a settlement to ensure a
resolution and to provide benefits to the people who were
affected.

What Does the Settlement Provide?

Defendants agreed to pay a total of up to $1,200,000.00 (one
million two hundred thousand dollars) for claims, including
$20,000.00 (twenty thousand dollars) total as an incentive award
fee to the Class Representatives, allocated ten thousand dollars
($10,000.00) each; plus $150,000.00 (one hundred fifty thousand
dollars) for costs of administration, plus reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs, not to exceed $625,000.00 (six hundred twenty-five
thousand dollars) to be applied for upon the motion for Final
Approval to settle the case.

There are 7,530 (seven thousand five hundred thirty) potential
Class Members who can make claims. Ocean County may challenge any
claim as not meeting the Class Definition.  If the claims made
exceed 4,000 (four thousand) claims the amount received per claim
will be reduced pro rata.  You may make only one claim regardless
of the number of admissions and/or strip searches you were
subjected to during the Class Period. Each Class Member who makes a
valid claim who meets the Class Definition will receive up to
$300.00 (three hundred dollars).

How Do You Ask For A Payment?

A detailed Notice and Claim Form package contains everything you
need.  Call 866-828-2555 or visit the settlement website,
www.OceanCountyStripSearch.com, to get one.  To qualify for a
payment, you must send in a Claim Form.  Claim Forms are due by
February 1, 2019.

What Are Your Other Options?

If you want to share in the settlement, you can obtain a Claim
Form, as just explained, and return it according to its directions.
If you do not want the settlement benefits or do not want to be
legally bound by the settlement, you must exclude yourself by
December 15, 2018.  If you exclude yourself, you cannot receive any
benefits from this settlement, but you could bring a separate case
against the Defendants, if you want to.  If you stay in the
settlement, you may object to it by December 15, 2018.  The
detailed notice, available by calling or visiting the website
below, explains how to exclude yourself or object.

The Court will hold a hearing in this case, Bizzarro et al. v.
Ocean County, Docket  OCN-1644-17, on April 16, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider whether to approve the settlement and a request by the
lawyers, representing all Class Members,

   Carl Poplar, Esq.
   1010 Kings Highway South
   Building One
   Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
   Phone: 856-216-9979
   Fax: 856-216-9970

   William Riback, Esq.
   William Riback, LLC
   1101 N. Kings Highway, Suite 210
   Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
   Phone: 856-857-0008

for attorneys' fees and costs.  You may ask to appear at the
hearing, but you do not have to.  For more information, call
toll-free 866-828-2555, visit the settlement website
www.OceanCountyStripSearch.com, or write to: Ocean County
Settlement, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 170500, Milwaukee, WI
53217. [GN]


OXIS OCNI: Underpays Restaurant Cleaners, Diaz Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
WILBER DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OXIS OCNI REST., INC. dba SANTA FE GRILL;
SANTA FE GRILL; and JOSEPH MCFEELY, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-04843 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 26, 2018) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, prejudgment interest,
maximum liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Diaz was employed by the Defendants as a restaurant cleaner.

Oxis Ocni Rest., Inc. d/b/a Santa Fe Grill is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. The
Company is engaged in the restaurant industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PABLO'S MACHINE: Underpays Mechanics, Carmenates Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS J. CARMENATES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PABLO'S MACHINE SHOP & WELDING
CORP.; and PABLO Z. CISNEROS, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-23536-DPG (S.D. Fla., Aug. 29, 2018) is an action to
recover from the Defendants overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Mr. Carmenates was employed by the Defendant as mechanic from
November 18, 2017 to July 20, 2018.

Pablo's Machine Shop & Welding Corp. is engaged in the business of
maintaining and repairing motor vehicles owned and operated by
motor carriers, and motor private carriers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


PAPA JOHN'S: Danker Sues over 5% Drop in Shares Price
-----------------------------------------------------
JOANNE E. DANKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
JOHN H. SCHNATTER; STEVE M. RITCHIE, and LANCE F. TUCKER,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07927 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2018)
alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding Papa John's business, operational and
compliance policies in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that:

     (i) Papa John's executives, including Defendant Schnatter, had
engaged in a pattern of sexual harassment and other inappropriate
workplace conduct at the Company;

    (ii) Papa John's Code of Ethics and Business Conduct was
inadequate to prevent the foregoing misconduct;

   (iii) the foregoing conduct would foreseeably have a negative
impact on Papa John's business and operations, and expose Papa
John's to reputational harm, heightened regulatory scrutiny, and
legal liability; and

    (iv) as a result, Papa John's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 10, 2018, post-market, and July 11, 2018, media outlets
reported that Papa John's founder, Defendant Schnatter, had used a
racial slur during a conference call in May 2018.

On this news, Papa John's stock price fell $2.46 per share, or
4.84%, to close at $48.33 per share on July 11, 2018.

Then, on July 19, 2018, Forbes published an article entitled "The
Inside Story of Papa John's Toxic Culture." Citing "interviews with
37 current and former Papa John's employees—including numerous
executives and board members," the Forbes article reported that
"Schnatter's alleged behavior ranges from spying on his workers to
sexually inappropriate conduct, which has resulted in at least two
confidential settlements." The Forbes article further reported that
"to protect himself, Schnatter, installed loyalists in the firm's
top ranks, who enabled its 'bro' culture."

On this news, Papa John's stock price fell $2.60 per share, or
4.85%, to close at $51.00 per share on July 19, 2018.

Papa John's International, Inc. operates and franchises pizza
delivery and carryout restaurants under the Papa John's trademark
in the United States and internationally. The company was founded
in 1984 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


PARK CITIES: Appeals Ruling in Carmarck Suit to 5th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Park Cities Healthcare, L.L.C. and Sharon D. Westen
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Charlotte
Carmack, et al. v. Park Cities Healthcare, L.L.C., et al., Case No.
3:16-CV-3500, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Dallas.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation, equal amount
of liquidated damages, attorney fees, and costs pursuant to Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Charlotte Carmack, et al. v.
Park Cities Healthcare, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 18-11235, in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees CHARLOTTE CARMACK, Individually and on Behalf
of Others Similarly Situated, TERESA MILLER and JOVAN ANIAGU are
represented by:

          Barry S. Hersh, Esq.
          HERSH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3626 N. Hall Street
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 303-1022
          Facsimile: (214) 550-8170
          E-mail: barry@hersh-law.com

Defendants-Appellants PARK CITIES HEALTHCARE, L.L.C., and SHARON D.
WESTEN, formerly known as Sharon D. Quick, are represented by:

          Lloyd Eugene Ward, Esq.
          LLOYD WARD & ASSOCIATES
          12655 N. Central Expressway
          Dallas, TX 75243
          Telephone: (972) 361-0036
          E-mail: lward@lloydward.com


PATE LACAYE: Fails to Pay OT to Cooks, Ordelus and Romain Allege
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, EMMANUEL ORDELUS; and FRANCITHA PETIT HOMME ROMAIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. PATE LACAYE, INC. D/B/A LA BAGUETTE SHOP; BAGUETTE LA
KAY INC. D/B/A LA BAGUETTE SHOP; FRANTZ MAYARD; MARIE J. MAYARD;
and MARIE F. POULARD, Defendants, Case No. 708921/2018 (N.Y. Sup.,
Queens Cty., June 8, 2018) is underway in New York state court.
The lawsuit seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime
compensation, interest, minimum wage, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as cook at the
bakery of the Defendants.

Pate Lacaye, Inc. d/b/a La Baguette Shop is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Sim, Esq.
          PARK & SIM GLOBAL LAW GROUP, LLP
          39-01 Main Street, Suite 608
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 445-1300
          Facsimile: (718) 445-8616


PENINSULA NEW YORK: Burbon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peninsula New York
Hotel LLC. The case is styled as Luc Burbon on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Peninsula New York
Hotel LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-08949 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 30,
2018).

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

Peninsula New York Hotel LLC was founded in 2011. The company's
line of business includes operating public hotels and motels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


PESG OF ALABAMA: Wilson Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
RODERICK WILSON, on behalf of himself and all Other Employees or
Former Employees of the Named Defendants, the Plaintiffs, vs. PESG
OF ALABAMA, LLC and PESG HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 5:18-cv-01535-UJH-MHH (N.D. Ala., Sep. 19, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees,
costs, and other relief under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, at the end of last school year,
Roderick Wilson was working at Huntsville High School as a Special
Education Instructional Aid. In May, the Huntsville City School
Board awarded the staffing contract under which he was working to
PESG. Once the contract was transferred, the Special Education Aids
were required to apply with PESG and start work on August 1, 2018.
On July 6, 2018, Mr. Wilson received an acknowledgement of his
application and was then informed that would be required to attend
a two-day PESG Managing Crisis Safely Restraint Training. The
training, at PESG's newly-opened offices, was 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. for two days and the Special Education Aids were given four
options to attend; all in July. He attended the training for 16
hours but, in violation of the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, was not paid anything for the time he spent
attending this mandatory training.

PESG of Alabama, LLC and PESG Holding Company, LLC directly and by
and through its duly-authorized agents, participated in payroll
decisions involving the Plaintiff and others similarly-situated,
and intentionally, knowingly, and willfully failed to compensate
the Plaintiff and others similarly-situated in accordance with the
minimum wage provisions of 29 U.S.C. section 206 and overtime
provisions of 29 U.S.C. section 207.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Teri Ryder Mastando, Esq.
          Eric J. Artrip, Esq
          MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
          301 Washington St., Suite 302
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 532 2222
          Facsimile: (256) 513 7489
          E-mail: teri@mastandoartrip.com
                  artrip@mastandoartrip.com


PEST AUTHORITY: Chisum Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Chisum and Willie Humphrey, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pest Authority of
Georgia, LLC and Nicholas Catchings, Individually, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-04324 (N.D. Ga., September 13, 2018), seeks unpaid
overtime wages, damages and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act for performance of non-exempt work in
excess of forty hours per week.

Pest Authority of Georgia operate as The Mosquito Authority of
North Atlanta where Plaintiffs were hired as pest-control
technicians. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Kaufman, Esq.
      Richard J. Tillery, Esq.
      Johnathan Chiu, Esq.
      8215 Roswell Road, Building 800
      Atlanta, GA 30350-6445
      Tel: (770) 390-9200
      Email: rjk@kauflaw.net
             rjt@kauflaw.net
             jc@kauflaw.net


PRODUCTION CAPITAL: Fails to Pay Wages to Pilots, Sparks Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SPARKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRODUCTION CAPITAL, LLC; PRODUCTION CAPITAL
LEASING, LLC; FUGA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case
No. BC719616 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 29, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for retaliation, unsafe working
conditions, wrongful termination, unpaid vacation, and failure to
pay final wages.

Mr. Sparks was employed by the Defendants as pilot.

Production Capital, LLC is a company conducting business in Los
Angeles, California. The Company is engaged in the aircraft
industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus Jackson, Esq.
          ATTORNEY AT LAW
          41593 Winchester Road, Suite 200
          Temecula, CA 92590
          Telephone: (951) 375-4624
          Facsimile: (951) 375-4625
          E-mail: marcus@jacksonlitigation.com


QUEEN MARIE: Fails to Pay OT to Cooks, Alvarez Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
BIDULFO ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUEEN MARIE ITALIAN RESTAURANT, INC.;
VINCENT VITIELLO; and PASQUINO VITIELO, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-04923-SJF-SIL (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2018) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, spread of
hours pay, and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Alvarez was employed by the Defendants as cook.

Queen Marie Italian Restaurant, Inc. is engaged in the restaurant
business, located in Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          825 Veterans Highway-Ste. B
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com


QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Illegally Faxed Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Quintiles
Transnational Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00197 (N.D.
Miss., September 13, 2018), seeks damages and injunctive relief
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as
amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.

Advanced Obstetrics and Gynecology is comprised of physicians and
other women's health experts who provide healthcare to women.
Quintiles is a company that serves the health information
technology and clinical services industries.

Quintiles allegedly utilizes "fax blasting" activities to generate
sales leads for its seminars.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      L.N. Chandler Rogers, Esq.
      ROGERS LAW GROUP
      201 E. Bankhead Street
      New Albany, MS 38652
      Tel: (662) 538-5990
      Fax: (662) 538-5997
      Email: chandler@rogerslawgroup.com

             - and -

      Gregory M. Zarzaur, Esq.
      ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE-TRIAL LAWYERS
      2332 2nd Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 983-7985
      Fax: (888) 505-0523
      Email: Gregory@zarzaur.com


RELIANT SERVICES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Fabricant Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RELIANT SERVICES GROUP, LLC; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-07592 (C.D.
Cal., Aug. 30, 2018) allege that the Defendant negligently,
knowingly, and willfully contacted the Plaintiff on his cellular
telephone without any express consent in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Reliant Services Group, LLC, doing business as Reliant Funding,
provides alternative lending solutions to businesses in the United
States. The company was founded in 2008 and is based in San Diego,
California with additional offices in New York and Melville, New
York. As of April 20, 2015, Reliant Services Group, LLC operates as
a subsidiary of Merchants Capital Access, LLC. [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


REMIK HOLDINGS: 2 More Class Suits Filed Over J-51 Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------
Tanay Warerkar, writing for Curbed New York, reported that an
investigation by the housing watchdog group, Housing Rights
Initiative, has led to two more class-action lawsuits over
landlords allegedly abusing the J-51 tax abatement program. Last
year, another investigation by the group led to the filing of four
class-action lawsuits against three NYC landlords who were
allegedly violating the same program.

The J-51 tax break program gives landlords tax exemptions for
carrying out rehabs and renovations of older, multi-dwelling
buildings. Renovation work could include installing hot water,
repairing the roof, installing an elevator, etc. As part of the
deal, landlords must ensure that all the units within the building
are rent-regulated for the duration of the tax break, which
typically lasts between 14 to 34 years.

In many cases throughout the city, landlords had been flouting the
rules dictated by the J-51 program, and charging significantly
higher rents to tenants. As a result, Governor Andrew Cuomo
launched the J-51 initiative, in 2016, to return 50,000 apartments
back to rent regulation. However, HRI's investigations over the
past couple of years has revealed that many NYC landlords continue
to receive (or did in the past) benefits of the tax break without
maintaining rent-regulated apartments, even as the city is in the
midst of a growing affordable housing crisis. The program costs
taxpayers about $250 million per year.

"New York State is standing idly by as taxpayers are being robbed
in broad daylight," said Aaron Carr, the founder and executive
director of HRI. "It is time for our government to step up to the
plate with a shovel in hand and uproot this culture of real estate
corruption."

The latest class-action lawsuits stemming from an HRI investigation
were filed by the Law Offices of Grimble & LoGuidice and the the
Law Offices of Jack Lester, in the New York State Supreme Court.
They were filed on behalf of the tenants at 230 West 147th Street,
a six-story building in Central Harlem, with 100 apartments; and
42-72 80th Street, a six-story building in Elmhurst, Queens with
103 apartments.

The Harlem building, which is owned by Remik Holdings LLC, is still
receiving the tax break, but only had 8 units registered as rent
stabilized in 2017. Between 2014-2016, none of the apartments were
registered, and in the five years prior to that, only 12 apartments
or fewer were registered.

The management at Remik Holdings LLC first told Curbed, on the
phone, that they weren't receiving any J-51 benefits at their
Harlem building. When pressed on the matter, the manager declined
to comment.

At the Queens building, which is owned by a variety of LLCs, the
J-51 benefits expired in 2012. However at the time of expiration,
only 10 apartments were registered as rent stabilized. HRI contends
that any tenant who moved in prior to the expiration is entitled to
a rent stabilized lease, a rent refund, and a rent reduction. In
the few years before the tax benefit expired, the number of rent
stabilized units registered were 14 or under. Curbed was unable to
contact the management at the Queens building as the LLCs
associated with it, had no listed phone numbers or contact
information.

"In all five boroughs of New York City, landlords continue to reap
the tax benefits of the J-51 program, without passing the rent
stabilization benefits on to tenants as the program requires," said
Shaina Weissman, an attorney at Grimble & LoGuidice. "We will
pursue these actions as long as the City fails to enforce
affordable housing laws."

The agency in charge of keeping landlords in check, on this
program, is the state's Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(DHCR). At the time of publication, the agency had not returned
Curbed's request for comment. In May this year, HRI worked with the
same law firms listed above to sue the DHCR for allegedly refusing
to provide the group with the list of landlords who had failed to
maintain rent-regulated apartments while still reaping the
dividends of the tax break.

In September, the Village Voice reported that landlords looking to
circumvent the J-51 laws were allegedly engaging in a
scheme-swapping mechanism that gave the impression that they were
maintaining rent-regulated units as per the tax break guidelines,
but were in fact charging much higher rents.

Since Governor Cuomo's initiative launched in 2016, HRI's research
research has led to the filing of over 40 class-action lawsuits
against landlords who are allegedly flouting the laws.
Simultaneously, HRI is also working with City Council member
Ritchie Torres, who heads the Council's Oversight and
Investigations Committee, to introduce legislation to root out NYC
landlords who fail to mention that they have rent-regulated
apartments in their buildings. [GN]


RUBY IV: Kidwell Seeks to Certify Two Classes
---------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TAMMY KIDWELL, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RUBY IV, LLC, et al.,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02052-BWA-MBN (E.D. La.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      Overtime FLSA Collective:

      "all hourly workers working for Defendants between June 13,
      2015 (three years prior to the filing of the Amended
      Complaint) and the present; and

      Server FLSA Collective

      "all servers (waiters and waitresses) working for
      Defendants between June 13, 2015 (three years prior to the
      filing of the Amended Complaint) and the present"

   2. approving written notice and consent forms to be sent to
      the putative collective action members via First Class
      Mail, e-mail, and text message;

   3. requiring Defendants to produce in Excel format the names,
      last-known addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers,
      and dates of employment/work of all putative collective
      action members for purposes of distributing the notice and
      consent forms;

   4. ordering Defendants to post the attached written notice,
      along with the consent forms, in conspicuous locations at
      Defendants' headquarters and all of their IHOP restaurant
      locations; and

   5. prohibiting Defendants and their managers from retaliating
      against any individuals who exercise their rights under the
      FLSA or opt-in to this lawsuit.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective

          Christopher L. Williams, Esq.
          639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: 504 308 1438
          Facsimile: 504 308 1446
          E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com

               - and -

          Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
          STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
          318 Harrison Ave., Suite 104
          New Orleans, La. 70124
          Telephone: (504) 267 0777
          Facsimile: (504) 513 3084
          E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com


SANDIA CORP: Ct. Won't Stay Gender Bias Suit Pending Dismissal Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery in the
case captioned LISA A. KENNICOTT, LISA A. GARCIA, SUE C. PHELPS,
and JUDI DOOLITTLE, on behalf of themselves and a class of those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SANDIA CORPORATION d/b/a SANDIA
NATIONAL LABORATORIES, Defendant. Civ. No. 17-188 JB/GJF.
(D.N.M.).

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Sandia Corporation's
(Sandia's) Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling on Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Class Claims.

In its Motion to Stay, Sandia asserts that the temporary stay it
requests will advance three principal purposes: (1) promoting
judicial economy, (2) minimizing potentially unnecessary litigation
costs, and (3) increasing the possibility of settlement.

First, they predict that Sandia is not likely to prevail on its
Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs next contend that Sandia has not
claimed nor demonstrated any undue burden associated with ongoing
class discovery.  Rather, according to Plaintiffs, the requested
stay is merely the latest salvo in Sandia's long-running campaign
of delaying disclosure.

LEGAL STANDARD FOR STAYS OF DISCOVERY

The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent
in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its
docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and
for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of
judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even
balance.

The Court is also not convinced that the three principal purposes
that Sandia has identified will in fact be served by granting the
requested stay. In terms of promoting judicial economy, the Court
is not concerned that its resources will be unnecessarily expended
in refereeing any class discovery disputes that arise in the
interim before Judge Browning rules on the Motion to Dismiss.
Currently, there are no pending motions to compel even though the
parties have now re-engaged in discovery. See Def.'s Reply 5 n.1.
Even if such a motion was filed and fully briefed in the interim,
the judicial resources required to resolve it would not be so
substantial as to actually disserve judicial economy. The same is
true for the periodic discovery management conferences this Court
holds in this case. To the contrary, the Court believes that
judicial economy would better be served by having the parties
persist in discovery with the ultimate goal of ending this case
sooner rather than later.

As for reducing the litigation expense of what Sandia predicts will
be unnecessary discovery, Sandia's argument is sound only as far as
it goes. It is true enough that money spent on a task that later
may turn out not to have been necessary is money that cannot be
recouped. But in the Court's view, the marginal savings associated
with temporarily staying the completion of class discovery tasks,
some of which Sandia has represented are at or near completion, are
insufficient to justify such a stay.  

With respect to the requested stay enhancing the prospects of
settlement, the Court will accept at face value Plaintiffs'
position that a stay will leave them without sufficient information
on which to make reasonably informed settlement decisions.  

In the final analysis, as the proponent of the stay, Sandia bore
the difficult burden of convincing this Court that the
extraordinary measure of staying discovery particularly in a case
in which discovery has been ongoing and contentious for well more
than a year is appropriate. For the foregoing reasons, the Court
concludes that Sandia has not satisfied its burden.

The Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling on Sandia's Motion to
Dismiss Class Claims is denied.

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

Lisa A. Kennicott, Lisa A. Garcia & Sue C. Phelps, on behalf of
themselves and a class of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Anne Brackett Shaver -- ashaver@lchb.com -- Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Gretchen Mary Elsner, Elsner Law
& Policy, LLC, Kelly Maureen Dermody -- kdermody@lchb.com -- Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Bien --
rmb@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Adam T.
Klein -- atk@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP, pro hac vice,
Cheryl-Lyn Bentley -- cbentley@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden
LLP, pro hac vice, David Lopez -- pdl@outtengolden.com -- Outten &
Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Lin Yee Chan -- lchan@lchb.com -- Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Michael Ian Levin-Gesundheit --
mlevin@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Tiseme
Gabriella Zegeye -- tzegeye@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP.

Sandia Corporation, doing business as Sandia National Laboratories,
Defendant, represented by Cindy Jean Lovato-Farmer, Sandia National
Laboratories, Justin E. Poore, Sandia Corporation, Scott D. Gordon
-- sgordon@rodey.com -- Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A.,
Grace E. Speights -- grace.speights@morganlewis.com -- Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Lowry --
jllowry@rodey.com -- Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A.,
Krissy A. Katzenstein -- krissy.katzenstein@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Michael S. Burkhardt --
michael.burkhardt@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
pro hac vice, Paola Viviana Jaime, Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin &
Robb, P.A. & Theresa W. Parrish -- tparrish@rodey.com -- Rodey,
Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A.


SERGEANT'S PET: Court Denies Certification of 2 Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RYAN BIETSCH, MICHAEL PFORTMILLER, JUSTIN
MANNER, and SELIM FREIHA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SERGEANT'S PET CARE
PRODUCTS, INC., a Michigan corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:15-cv-05432 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Sara L. Ellis entered an
order dated September 19, 2018:

   1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of:

      National Class:

      "all persons in the United States who purchased Pur Luv
      Grande Bones and/or Mini Bones Treats within the Class
      Period of June 19, 2010, through the present"; and

      Consumer Fraud Multistate Class:

      "all persons residing in California, Florida, Illinois,
      Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey,
      New York, Ohio, and Washington who purchased Pur Luv Grande
      Bones and/or Mini Bones Treats within the Class Period of
      June 19, 2010, through the present."

   2. denying Sergeant's motion to exclude Dr. Kelly Swanson's
      expert opinions and testimony; and

   3. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion to
      exclude Dr. Jorg Steiner's expert opinion and testimony.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs make no real effort to address the
issue of injury. Standing to pursue prospective injunctive relief
requires a threat of future harm that is not conjectural or
hypothetical. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.
Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992). "Past exposure to illegal
conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy
regarding injunctive relief, however, if unaccompanied by any
continuing, present adverse effects." O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S.
488, 495–96, 94 S. Ct. 669, 38 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1974). The
Plaintiffs do not explain how the mere presence of the Pur Luv
Treats on the market will cause them continuing adverse effects.
Without such a showing, they have no standing to pursue an
injunction. Therefore, the Court finds this case unsuitable for
certification under Rule 23."[CC]


SIGNATURE CLEANING: Disla Hits Retaliation, Seeks to Recover OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Disla, on behalf of herself and the Class, Plaintiff, v.
Signature Cleaning Services Inc. and Andrew Weisbach, Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-08319, (S.D. N.Y., September 12, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime, compensation for retaliation, liquidated
damages, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a commercial cleaning company, offering cleaning
and maintenance services to different businesses. Plaintiff worked
as an executive assistant. She never received any wage statements
and worked more than 40 hours per work week without the
corresponding overtime pay, says the complaint. Her vocal complaint
about her compensation led to hostility in the workplace and
eventually resulted in a constructive discharge, it adds. [BN]

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
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


SILVER AUTUMN HOTEL: Breeze Files Civil Rights Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Silver Autumn Hotel
(N.Y.) Corporation Limited. The case is styled as Byron Breeze, Jr.
on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. Silver Autumn Hotel (N.Y.) Corporation Limited a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-08918 (S.D. N.Y.,
Sept. 28, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Silver Autumn Hotel Corp. Limited was founded in 1980. The
Company's line of business includes operating public hotels and
motels. Silver Autumn Hotel operates in the United States. It is
located at 65 West 54th Street, New York, NY 10019, 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.
     PRO SE


SOUTHERN METALS: No Insurance Notice Provided, Donnelly Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARRIE DONNELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN METALS RECYCLING, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00200-JRH-GRS (S.D. Ga., Aug. 24, 2018) alleges
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1985.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide the
Plaintiff and the class adequate notice of their rights to continue
the health coverage upon the occurrence of a qualifying event.

The Plaintiff Donnelly was employed by the Defendant from 2016 to
August 2017. The Plaintiff was terminated in August 2017 and the
notice require by law was due to Plaintiff no later than the
timeframe required by law. The Plaintiff reached out to the
Defendant many times to ask about the notice. However, the
Defendant failed its legal duties and never provided the Plaintiff
the required notice in the required timeframe.

Southern Metals Recycling, Inc. was founded in 1970. The company's
line of business includes the collection and disposal of refuse
systems. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew L. Weiner, Esq.
          Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq.
          WEINER & SAND LLC
          3525 Piedmont Road
          Atlanta, CA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 205-5029
          Facsimile: (404) 254-0842
          E-mail: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com
                  js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com


SPINE AND JOINT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ELADIO PEREZ, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SPINE AND JOINT
INSTITUTE OF MILWAUKEE, INC. and KEARY BILKA, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-01469-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for an order certifying classes, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

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. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir.
2017).[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          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


STEELMASTER INDUSTRIES: Wooten Seeks OT Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
TOM WOOTEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. STEELMASTER INDUSTRIES, INC., a Florida Profit
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-02317-SDM-AEP (M.D.
Fla., Sep. 19, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt
hourly paid laborer for Defendant in Volusia County, Florida. The
Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of himself and all other
similarly-situated employees of Defendant, who performed similar
duties to, and who were paid in the same illegal manner as
Plaintiff.

The Defendant has an alleged policy and practice of paying
non-exempt hourly paid laborers like Plaintiff "straight time" for
all overtime hours worked in a workweek, in lieu of the federally
mandated time and one half rate for all overtime hours worked. The
Defendant applies this policy and practice uniformly, and has done
so for the entire limitations period (and longer) under the FLSA.

Steelmaster Industries has been a commercial metal building
contractor in Central Florida for more than 30 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah E. Storch, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (866) 344 9243
          Facsimile: (954) 337 2771
          E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com


STONELEDGE FURNITURE: Faces Moran Wage-and-Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------
IGNACIO MORAN an individual, on behalf of himself and other current
and former employees, the Plaintiff, v. STONELEDGE FURNITURE, LLC
d/b/a ASHLEY FURNITURE HOMESTORE and DOES 1 through 50, the
Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-00047374-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sep. 19, 2018), seeks civil penalties pursuant to the Private
Attorney General Act, incorporated in Labor Code sections 2698,
2699 et seq.

According to the complaint, Ashley Furniture is the owner and
operator of California furniture stores. The Plaintiff was hired on
April 5, 2016 and worked for Ashley Furniture as a furniture
assembler during which time he was paid hourly, on a weekly basis,
and was considered nonexempt. The Plaintiff was terminated on or
about May 24, 2018. During the relevant period, Ashley Furniture is
believed to have employed more than 100 employees.

The lawsuit also alleges that Ashley Furniture maintains
computer-generated payroll records that fail to accurately provide
the employees hourly rate of pay, pay period begin-date, entity's
address, and paid sick leave/paid time off accrual. Pursuant to
Labor Code Section 226(b), Plaintiff requested his payroll records
from Ashley Furniture. In response, Ashley Furniture produced
computer-generated payroll records that failed to accurately
provide all the requirements under the Labor Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex Asil Mashiri, Esq.
          MASHIRI LAW FIRM
          11251 Rancho Carmel Drive No. 500694
          San Diego, CA 92150
          Telephone: (858) 348 4938
          Facsimile: (858) 348 4939
          E-mail: alexmashiri@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Tamim Jami, Esq.
          THE JAMI LAW FIRM P.C.
          3525 Del Mar Heights Rd No. 941
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 284 0248
          Facsimile: (858) 284 0977
          E-mail: tamim@jamilaw.com


STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Court Won't Confirm Award Won in Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order denying Defendant's Motion to
Confirm the Award Won in arbitration in the case captioned
CHRISTIAN ZAMBRANO, LUZ DURANGO, MOIRA RIVEROS, and RIGOBERTO
ROMERO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. STRATEGIC DELIVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, DAVID KRONICK,
ANDREW KRONICK, and MIKE RUCCIO, Defendants. 15 Civ. 8410 (ER).
(S.D.N.Y.)

The Defendants move to confirm the award Strategic Delivery
Solutions, LLC (SDS) won in one arbitration against Forero.

Christian Zambrano, Luz Durango, Moira Riveros, and Rigoberto
Romero (Plaintiffs) brought this putative collective and class
action against Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC, David Kronick,
and Mike Ruccio (Defendants), alleging that the Defendants
improperly classified them as independent contractors and denied
them wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

The Court decides Defendants' Motion to Confirm an Arbitration
Award as akin to a motion for summary judgment based on the
movant's submissions. Summary judgment is appropriate where the
movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact. An issue of fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.

Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. Section 9, confirmation of an arbitral award
normally takes the form of a summary proceeding that converts a
final arbitration award into a judgment of the court.

In accordance with the Independent Vendor Agreements signed by the
Plaintiffs and Forero, SDS and Forero agreed to arbitrate any
dispute, difference, question, or claim arising out of or in any
way relating to this Agreement or the transportation services
provided hereunder. However, as Forero argues, a complete lack of
any arbitrable issue prevents this Court from confirming the award.


The Defendants argue that the arbitration award must be confirmed
because Forero has not made a timely motion to challenge it. To
some extent, this argument tracks the FAA's text: Section 9 of the
FAA provides that a party to an arbitration agreement may move a
court to confirm an arbitration award and that the court must grant
such an order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected
as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title. Pursuant to
section 12 of the FAA, motions filed under sections 10 or 11 must
be served upon the adverse party or his attorney within three
months after the award is filed or delivered. Furthermore, the
Second Circuit has interpreted these provisions and concluded that
a party may not raise a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an
arbitration award after the three month period has run, even when
raised as a defense to a motion to confirm. Defendants read this
statutory and decisional law to mean that, in the absence of a
timely motion to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award,
the Court must confirm any arbitration award.  

The Court does not find the Defendants's argument persuasive
because it ignores the fundamental issue: Arbitration under the
Federal Arbitration Act is a matter of consent, not coercion and a
party may only apply for an order confirming an arbitration award
if the parties in their agreement have agreed that a judgment of
the court shall be entered upon the award made pursuant to the
arbitration.   Here, the parties did not agree to proceed to
arbitration, as Forero specifically disclaimed any relief to which
he might have been entitled. As a result, none of the FAA's
procedures, let alone the time limits in section 12, applies.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 17, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaodz6jh from
Leagle.com.

Christian Zambrano, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Luz Durango, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Moira Riveros, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated & Rigoberto Romero, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Denise Andrea Schulman -- denise@jhllp.com -- Joseph
& Kirschenbaum LLP, Lucas Colin Buzzard -- lucas@jhllp.com --
Joseph & Kirshenbaum LLP & Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph,
Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum.

Jose Tiban, Franklin Santamaria, Maria Caisaguano, Maria Tacoaman,
Maribel Hernandez, Tannia Ronquillo, Victor Barrios, Alex
Ronquillo, Darwin Ronquillo, Blanca Alulema, Ines Llangari, Luis
Llangari, Martin Forero, Mercy Gallardo, Wilmer Castillo, Norberto
Zavata, Washington Gallardo, Waldo Mendizabal, Antuanet Sarmiento,
Julio Sarmiento, Carolina Garzon, Alexandra Robalino & Mayra
Rodriguez, Plaintiffs, represented by Matthew Paul Madzelan, The
Slater Firm, P.C., Christopher Marlborough, The Marlborugh Law
Firm, P.C. & Christopher L. Van De Water, Phillips & Associates,
PLC.

Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC, David Kronick, Andrew Kronick &
Mike Ruccio, Defendants, represented by David F. Jasinski --
djasinski@jplawfirm.com -- Jasinski, P.C. & Peter Paul Perla, Jr.,
Jasinski and Williams, P.C.


SUPERVALU INC: Vladimir Gusinsky Sues over United Natural Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
VLADIMIR GUSINSKY REV. TRUST, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUPERVALU INC.; DONALD R.
CHAPPEL; IRWIN COHEN; PHILIP L. FRANCIS; MARK GROSS; ERIC JOHNSON;
MATHEW M. PENDO; FRANCESCA RUIZ DE LUZURIAGA; FRANK A. SAVAGE, and
MARY WINSTON, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01323-UNA (D. Del., Aug.
24, 2018) is a class action lawsuit over United Natural Foods,
Inc.'s acquisition of Supervalu Inc.

According to the complaint, the Defendants announced on July 26,
2018, that Supervalu Inc. will be acquired by United Natural Foods,
Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Jedi Merger sub, Inc.  On
July 25, 2018, Supervalu's Board of Directors caused Supervalu to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with United Natural.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, if the Proposed
Transaction is approved by Supervalu's shareholders and completed,
Supervalu's stockholders will receive $32.50 in cash for each share
of the Supervalu common stock they hold.

On August 21, 2018, the Defendants filed a preliminary proxy
statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction.

The Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the
Company's financial projections, as well as the analyses performed
by the Company's financial advisors in connection with the Proposed
Transaction, Barclays Capital Inc. and Lazard Freres & Co. LLC.

Supervalu Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
grocery wholesaler and retailer in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 1871 and is
headquartered in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


TESLA INC: Faces Isaacs Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Kalman Isaacs, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Elon Musk and Tesla, Inc., Case No.
3:18-cv-04865 (N.D. Calif., August 10, 2018), seeks to recover
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased
securities of Tesla, Inc. after 12:48 p.m., eastern standard time,
on August 7, 2018, through and including August 8, 2018. The
Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants filed materially false and
misleading statements, resulting to market manipulation.

The Plaintiff purchased Tesla securities on August 8, 2018.

The Defendant Tesla is a Delaware corporation maintaining its
principal place of business at 3500 Deer Creek Road, Palo Alto,
California 94304. Tesla shares trade on NASDAQ under the ticker
symbol "TSLA." Tesla designs, develops, manufactures and sells
high-performance, fully electric vehicles and designs,
manufactures, installs, and sells solar energy generation and
energy storage products.

The Defendant Musk is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Tesla. The Defendant Musk issued the materially false and
misleading Tweets on behalf of himself and Tesla, notes the
complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric M. George, Esq.
      Carl Alan Roth, Esq.
      BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP
      2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 2800
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 274-7100
      Fax: (310) 275-5697
      E-mail: egeorge@bgrfirm.com
              croth@bgrfirm.com


TROPICAL ISLE: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tropical Isle Resort,
Inc. The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tropical Isle
Resort, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-62319-CMA (S.D. Fla.,
Sept. 28, 2018).

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

Tropic Isle Beach Resort is a South East Florida vacation
destination in Deerfield Beach, Florida situated minutes from the
beach.[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


TWIN HILL: Uniforms Cause Health Problems, Lisa Joy et al. Allege
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA JOY; KATHY L. RUNKLE; VERONICA VERA; JULIE F. KRESKO; SANDRA
STUART, and DEANNA JONES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TWIN HILL ACQUISITION COMPANY,
INC.; and AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-05808 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 24, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for personal injury damages, and seek injunctive and
equitable relief, including a medical monitoring fund, on behalf of
all American Airlines employees who have worn or been exposed to
Twin Hill's uniforms since September 2016.

According to the complaint, on September 2016, American Airlines
implemented a change of uniforms for its worldwide workforce,
including flight attendants, pilots, other cockpit crew members,
and service representatives. Several years in development, these
uniforms are manufactured by Twin Hill but were and are purchased
and supplied to the American Airlines workforce by American
Airlines.

These uniforms manufactured by Twin Hill pose an unreasonable risk
of physical harm, including current and future serious health
problems to those who wear them and to those who are near to or
work in the close quarters of an airplane with those who are
wearing the uniforms.

Since the introduction of these uniforms into the American Airlines
workforce, over the last year, over 5,000 flight attendants, pilots
and service representatives who have either worn or been near those
who are wearing these uniforms, have experienced a cascade of
health problems, including, but not limited to, skin rashes, ear
and throat irritation, headaches, fatigue, vertigo, the triggering
of various auto-immune conditions, and adverse effects on endocrine
as well as liver functions.

Twin Hill Acquisition Company, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is
based in Houston, Texas. Twin Hill Acquisition Company, Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd L. McLawhorn, Esq.
          Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
          Michael Chang, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312.236.0000
          Facsimile: 312.754.9616
          E-mail: tmclawhorn@siprut.com
                  sweltman@siprut.com
                  mchang@siprut.com


U.S. MEDIA GIANTS: Freedom Watch Alleges Anti-Trump Stance
----------------------------------------------------------
FREEDOM WATCH, INC., individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE, INC.; FACEBOOK, INC.;
TWITTER, INC.; and APPLE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02030
(D. Col., Aug. 29, 2018) alleges that the Defendants have engaged
in a conspiracy to intentionally and willfully suppress politically
conservative content. This conspiracy has resulted in severe
financial loss, as well as unconstitutional suppression of speech
and other content to the Plaintiff those similarly situated.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants --
acting in concert with traditional media outlets, including but not
limited to Cable News Network, MSNBC, the New York Times and the
Washington Post, all of whom are owned and managed by persons with
a leftist political ideology -- have intentionally and willfully
suppressed politically conservative content in order to take down
President Donald Trump and his administration with the intent and
purpose to have installed leftist government in the nation's
capital and the 50 states.

Google LLC develops technology products and provides services to
organize the information. Google LLC was formerly known as Google
Inc and changed its name to Google LLC in August 2015. The company
was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Mountain View,
California. Google LLC operates as a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry Klayman, Esq.
          FREEDOM WATCH, INC.
          2020 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 345
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (310) 595-0800
          E-mail: leklayman@gmail.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court OKs Summary Judgment in TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned CHARLES CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff,
v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant. No. 16 C 5468. (N.D. Ill.).

The parties have cross-moved for summary judgment as to whether
they agreed to arbitrate this dispute.

Plaintiff Charles Johnson, on behalf of himself and as
representative of a putative class, has sued Defendant Uber
Technologies, Inc. (Uber) for allegedly sending him an unsolicited
text message in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).

Johnson admits it is possible that he may have seen, clicked on,
read, and indicated that he accepted Uber's Terms of Service &
Privacy Policy when he created his Uber account, but he does not
recall doing so. Johnson claims to have deleted the Uber app from
his phone, but he does not have any documentary evidence to support
that assertion. Johnson claims that afterwards, Uber sent a single
unsolicited text message to his mobile phone number asking him
whether he wanted to sign up to be an Uber driver.

Legal Standard

The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Johnson has failed to raise a genuine dispute as to whether he
entered into an enforceable agreement to arbitrate.

Undeterred, Johnson further argues that, even if he did enter into
an arbitration agreement, his TCPA claim does not fall within its
scope. Once it is clear, however, that the parties have a contract
that provides for arbitration of some issues between them, any
doubt concerning the scope of the arbitration clause is resolved in
favor of arbitration as a matter of federal law.

To this end, a court may not deny a party's request to arbitrate an
issue unless it may be said with positive assurance that the
arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that
covers the asserted dispute.

As Uber points out, the Terms of Service specifically permit Uber
to text promotional offers to its customers. Because Johnson's TCPA
claim may arguably fall within the parameters of this provision,
the claim must be arbitrated.  

In addition, Uber argues that, by agreeing to the broad language in
the arbitration clause, the parties have delegated to the
arbitrator any determination requiring its interpretation,
including whether a dispute falls within the clause's scope.  

In pertinent part, the Terms of Service provide that any dispute,
claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this Agreement's
enforcement, interpretation or validity will be settled by binding
arbitration. Certainly, a determination of whether Plaintiff's TCPA
claim falls within the scope of the arbitration clause necessitates
interpretation of the agreement and, thus, is itself subject to
arbitration.  

Defendant Uber's summary judgment motion is granted and Johnson's
cross-motion for summary judgment is denied

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 20, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ya3xkkf7 from Leagle.com.

Charles Christopher Johnson, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by
Phillip A. Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com -- Bock Law Firm, LLC dba
Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, David Max Oppenheim --
david@classlawyers.com -- Bock, Hatch, Lewis and Oppenheim, LLC,
James Michael Smith -- jim@classlawyers.com -- Bock Law Firm, LLC
dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, John P. Orellana, Bock,
Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC & Tod Allen Lewis --
tod@classlawyers.com -- Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis &
Oppenheim, LLC.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by James B. Mills,
Ellis Legal P.C., John C. Ellis, Ellis Legal P.C., Kelsey M.
Stricker -- KStricker@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, pro hac
vice & Tiffany Cheung -- tcheung@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster
LLP, pro hac vice.


UNIFIED PARKING: Underpays Parking Attendants, Landazuri Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
SILVIO LANDAZURI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIFIED PARKING SERVICE, INC.;
MIKE MAJID SABET; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
BC719088 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 29, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
and provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff Landazuri was employed by the Defendants as parking
attendant from October 2013 to January 26, 2018.

Unified Parking Service, Inc. offers car parking and management
services. The company was founded in 1978 and is based in Pasadena,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Olivia A. Burgos, Esq.
          SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 312
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 582-3086
          Facsimile: (818) 582-2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  olivia@spivaklaw.com


UNITED JEWISH: Court Refuses to Compel Arbitration in "Hichez"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, New York County, issued a Decision and Order
denying Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case
captioned EPIFANIA HICHEZ, CARMEN CARRASCO and SEFERINA ACOSTA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. UNITED JEWISH COUNCIL OF THE EAST SIDE, HOME
ATTENDANT SERVICE CORP., Defendant. Docket No. 653250/2017, Mot.
Seq. No. 001. (N.Y. Sup.).

Defendant United Jewish Council of the East Side, Home Attendant
Service Corp. (UJC) moves to compel arbitration and to stay this
action.

Plaintiffs Epifania Hichez (Hichez), Carmen Carrasco (Carassco) and
Seferina Acosta (Acosta) allege that they were previously employed
by UJC as home care aides, paid on an hourly basis.

The Plaintiffs allege that UJC failed to pay them and the class
they represent: (1) the statutory minimum wage, in violation of
Labor Law Section 652 and 12 NYCRR 142-3.1; (2) overtime pay, in
violation of Labor Law Article 19 Section 650, et seq. and 12 NYCRR
142-3.2; (3) spread of hours pay, in violation of Labor Law
Sections 190 and 650 and 12 NYCRR 142-3.4f; and (4) all wages due,
in violation of Labor Law Section 663 (1).

UJC moves to compel arbitration or for a stay of this action,
arguing that plaintiffs are bound by the provisions of a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOA) negotiated and signed by UJC and plaintiffs'
union, 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East (1199), which
mandates mediation and binding arbitration of all claims brought by
either the Union or Employees, asserting violations of or arising
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Home care
Worker Wage Parity Law, or New York Labor Law (Covered Statutes).

In support of their argument that they are not bound by the MOA,
plaintiffs rely on Chu v Chinese-American Planning Council Home
Attendant Program, Inc. (194 F.Supp.3d 221, 228 [SDNY, 2016]), a
case similar to this one, brought on behalf of former home care
workers. In. Chu, the court stated that plaintiffs, who were no
longer employed by the defendant home care agency, could not be
required to arbitrate a claim pursuant to an ADR provision adopted
after they left the agency's employ because they may not be bound
by subsequently adopted amendments to a collective bargaining
agreement to which they were not parties. The court noted that,
because the obligation to arbitrate is created by contract, a party
cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he
has not agreed so to submit.

UJC contends that the decision in Chu should be disregarded as mere
dicta because the court was remanding the action to state court for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and, in any event, this Court
is not bound by the decision of a federal court.

While recognizing the strong federal policy favoring arbitration as
an alternative means of dispute resolution, this Court agrees with
the rationale in Konstantynovska v Caring Professionals, Inc. (2018
NY Slip Op 31475[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2018]) and concludes that
plaintiffs, who were no longer employed by UJC when the MOA was
signed, are not bound by its alternate dispute provisions.

Moreover, whether the parties have entered into a valid arbitration
agreement and, if so, whether the issue sought to be submitted to
arbitration falls within the scope of that agreement is an issue
for the court to decide, and is not one to be resolved by the
arbitrator, as UJC contends. U J C also argues that, because
plaintiffs' class allegations purport to bring this action on
behalf of current as well as former home care aides, they are bound
by the ADR requirements. However, plaintiffs have not yet moved to
certify the class they seek to represent. When and if they do so
move, the scope of that class and its implications will be
considered by the court.

The motion of defendant United Jewish Council of the East Side,
Home Attendant Service Corp. to compel arbitration and stay the
action is denied

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's September 17, 2018 Decision
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8qoj9vm from
Leagle.com.


UNITED NORTHERN: Court Narrows Claims in Kline TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum Opinion granting in part and
denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned
ROBERT K. KLINE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED NORTHERN MORTGAGE BANKERS
LTD., Defendant. No. 4:18-CV-00489. (M.D. Pa.).

Mr. Kline received an unsolicited call on his cell phone. After
answering the call, he heard several seconds of silence before
being greeted by an individual identified as Rob. Rob transferred
Mr. Kline to Shawn, who claimed to work for a company called Access
Funding. Shawn, in turn, transferred Mr. Kline to a Patricia
Losito, who identified herself as a lender for United Northern. Mr.
Kline filed a class action complaint in this Court alleging (1)
that the May 19, 2017 call was made using an automated dialing
system, an artificial or prerecorded voice, or both; (2) that the
call was not made for emergency purposes; (3) that Mr. Kline did
not consent to receiving such a call; and (4) that the call,
therefore, violated several provisions of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

Standard of Review

When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, a court assumes the truth of all
factual allegations in the plaintiff's complaint and draws all
inferences in favor of that party the court does not, however,
assume the truth of any of the complaint's legal conclusions.

Whether Mr. Kline Has Sufficiently Alleged That United Northern
Made the May 19, 2017 Call

Mr. Kline has clearly alleged both that United Northern used
equipment having the capacity to dial numbers without human
intervention to make marketing telephone calls to Mr. Kline's
cellular telephone and that United Northern made prerecorded or
artificial voice calls to Mr. Kline's cellular telephone.

Mr. Kline's direct liability TCPA claim against United Northern,
then, survives.

Whether Mr. Kline Has Sufficiently Alleged That United Northern is
Vicariously Liable for the May 19, 2017 Call

In addition to the direct liability allegations above, Mr. Kline
has alternatively alleged that the May 19, 2017 call was made by a
third party directed by United Northern. Additionally, Mr. Kline
has alleged that, after answering the unsolicited call, he was
eventually connected to a self-identified United Northern agent, a
fact that allows this Court to infer that whoever made the call was
acting in some capacity on United Northern's behalf.

Mr. Kline's vicarious liability TCAP claim against United Northern,
then, survives.

Whether Mr. Kline Has Sufficiently Alleged a Willful or Knowing
Violation of the TCPA
Mr. Kline has alleged that United Northern (1) knew that [it] did
not have Mr. Kline's prior express consent to make the May 19, 2017
call (2) knew that it was using an automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and (3) knew that its
conduct violated the TCPA.

Mr. Kline's request for treble damages, then, survives.

Whether Mr. Kline Sufficiently Alleged That the May 19, 2017 Call
Was Made Using An Automatic Telephone Dialing System

Mr. Kline has directly alleged that the May 19, 2017 call was
placed through an automatic telephone dialing system and has even
spelled out, in some detail, how such a system operates.

In addition, Mr. Kline has alleged that, upon answering the call,
he encountered several seconds of silence (dead air) before anyone
spoke to him, an allegation which other courts have found
sufficient in these circumstances.

Mr. Kline, then, has sufficiently alleged that the May 19, 2017
call was made using an automatic telephone dialing system.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 17, 2018
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yav2q9tw
from Leagle.com.

Robert K. Kline, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin F. Johns --
benjohns@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, Andrew W.
Ferich -- awf@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, Mark B.
DeSanto -- mbd@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis LLP & Seth M.
Lehrman, Edwards Pottinger LLC.

United Northern Mortgage Bankers Limited, a New York domestic
business corporation (d/b/a Senior Security Advisors and/or Senior
Security Home Advantage, Defendant, represented by Timothy Patrick
Ofak -- brodsky@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, Brandon
K. McWaters -- mcwaters@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider PC,
pro hac vice & Jason W. McElroy -- mcelroy@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner
Brodsky Kider PC, pro hac vice.


UNITED STATES: Court Vacates Final Delay Rule in Bauer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Columbia issued a
Memorandum Opinion and Order vacating the Final Delay Rule in the
case captioned MEAGHAN BAUER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ELISABETH
DeVOS, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 17-1330 (RDM). (D.D. C.)

Department of Education promulgated the Borrower Defense
Regulations, a package of regulatory changes to federal student
loan programs that was to become effective on July 1, 2017. Shortly
before the effective date, the California Association of Private
Postsecondary Schools (CAPPS) brought suit challenging the
regulations, CAPPS sought a preliminary injunction blocking the
implementation of two aspects of the new rules.

LEGAL STANDARD

When a reviewing court determines that agency regulations are
unlawful, the ordinary result is that the rules are vacated. That
rule, however, is not absolute, and a remand without vacatur may be
appropriate if there is at least a serious possibility that the
agency will be able to substantiate its decision' given an
opportunity to do so, and when vacating would be disruptive.

Final Delay Rule

All parties are in accord or at least do not contest that vacatur
is the appropriate remedy with respect to the Final Delay Rule.
Accordingly, the Court will vacate the Final Delay Rule.

Section 705 Stay

The Plaintiffs and the Department disagree, however, as to the
appropriate remedy with respect to the Section 705 Stay. The
Plaintiffs ask the Court to vacate the stay and to allow the
Borrower Defense Regulations to take effect immediately. In the
alternative, they ask the Court to allow the Borrower Defense
Regulations to take immediate effect, but, if necessary, to issue a
temporary restraining order (TRO) in CAPPS, Civ. No. 17-999,
staying the provision prohibiting predispute arbitration agreements
and class action waivers the only provision that CAPPS had
previously sought to enjoin. The Department counters that the
appropriate remedy is remand without vacatur, or, in the
alternative, to stay any implementation pending the preliminary
injunction briefing in CAPPS, Civ. No. 17-999. The Department also
represented that, in the event the Court orders the Borrower
Defense Regulations to take immediate effect, the Department
requires at least 60 days to implement the regulations.  

Because this case is about the consequences of delay, however, the
Court is mindful that, in crafting the appropriate remedy, time is
of the essence. The further delay that would result from remanding
the Section 705 Stay to the Department for further explanation
without vacatur risks depriving Plaintiffs of meaningful relief.
Accordingly, the Court will chart an intermediate course: the Court
will vacate the Section 705 Stay, but stay the vacatur for 30 days
from the date of its opinion declaring the Section 705 Stay
unlawful. This will allow the Department to attempt to remedy the
deficiencies in the Section 705 Stay while the CAPPS litigation
proceeds in an expeditious manner; it will also curtail the harm to
student borrowers that a remand without vacatur would otherwise
engender.

The Final Delay Rule, will be immediately vacated.  Section 705
Sta, will be vacated, but the vacatur will be stayed until October
12, 2018 at 5:00 p.m.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 17, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y762cy96 from Leagle.com.

MEAGHAN BAUER & STEPHANO DEL ROSE, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam
R. Pulver, PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP, Scott Lawrence Nelson,
PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP,Toby R. Merrill, LEGAL SERVICES
CENTER OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL & Julie A. Murray, PUBLIC CITIZEN
LITIGATION GROUP.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff, represented by Yael
Shavit, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, represented by
Bernard Ardavan Eskandari, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE &
Nicklas A. Akers, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, Plaintiff, represented by John A.B. Langmaid,
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL/CT & Joseph J. Chambers, OFFICE OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL/CT.

STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff, represented by Christian Douglas
Wright, DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Michael
Wiseman, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Office of Consumer
Protection & Mark Stanley Kubiak, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
VIRGINIA Consumer Protection Section.

ELISABETH DEVOS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Education, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION & BETSY
DEVOS, Defendants, represented by Karen Bloom, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE & R. Charlie Merritt, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil
Division, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COSMETOLOGY SCHOOLS, Movant,
represented by Robert Lawrence Shapiro, Duane Morris LLP.

NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,
AMERICANS FOR FINANCIAL REFORM, BAY AREA LEGAL AID, CENTER FOR
RESPONSIBLE LENDING, COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES OF PHILADELPHIA,
CONSUMER ACTION, CONSUMERS UNION, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS
ADVOCATES, LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES, LEGAL SERVICES NYC,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION COUNSELING, NEW YORK
LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP, PUBLIC COUNSEL, PUBLIC LAW CENTER,
INSTITUTE FOR COLLEGE ACCESS & SUCCESS, UNITED STATES PUBLIC
INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP & YOUNG INVINCIBLES, Amicuss, represented
by Abigail E. Shafroth, NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER.

LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW, Amicus, represented
by Jon M. Greenbaum, LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER
LAW.


UNITED STATES: Employees File Racial Discrimination Suit v. CFPB
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carzanna Jones and Heynard L. Paz-Chow, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. John Michael
Mulvaney, in his official capacity as Acting Director, Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02132, (D.D.C.,
September 13, 2018) seeks injunctive relief to end Defendants'
racial and gender discrimination and retaliation under the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act and the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Defendant CFPB is an executive agency of the United States that
regulates consumer financial products and services in compliance
with federal law.

Jones is an African American woman who has been employed by the
CFPB in the Consumer Response Division for over six years. Paz-Chow
is of Asian and Hispanic descent who worked for three years in
CFPB's Consumer Response Division.

The Bureau allegedly denied Jones promotions and transfers to other
positions and refused to promote her and gave the more desirable
assignments and promotions to whites and males.

Paz-Chow was responsible for reviewing the regulatory compliance of
large financial institutions in response to complaints filed
against those institutions. The Bureau discriminated against
Paz-Chow by giving him lower performance reviews than those given
to his white counterparts, notes the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      George S. Robot, Esq.
      STOWELL & FRIEDMAN LTD.
      303 W. Madison, Suite 2600
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 431-0888
      Email: grobot@sfltd.com


UNITED STATES: S.D.N.Y. Proper Venue for Deported Bulgarian's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order ruling the Southern
District of New York as the Proper Venue in the case captioned EMIL
KOLEV, Petitioner, V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, et al., Respondent. No.
17-CV-9477 (RA). (S.D.N.Y.).

Before this Court is a dispute as to the proper venue for the
motion to certify a class action brought by Petitioner Emil Kolev,
who was deported from this country to Bulgaria.

Mr. Kolev filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the legality
of his detention and the medical care he was receiving, as well as
the detention and care of similarly situated persons.

In addition to a writ of habeas corpus, the petition seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241(a), federal district courts
possess limited authority to grant writs of habeas corpus within
their respective jurisdictions. The proper respondent to a habeas
petition is the person having custody of the person detained.

Mr. Kolev alleges in the petition and the government does not
dispute the facts underlying the allegation that Christopher
Shanahan, an ICE official based in New York City, is the warden of
the facility where he was being held at the time he filed his
petition. Mr. Kolev argues that this makes Mr. Shanahan his
immediate custodian and that venue is therefore proper the Southern
District of New York.

The Court agrees.

This is not a novel claim. Courts have consistently held that the
warden of the detainee's facility at the time of the petition is a
proper habeas respondent, and specifically that ICE officials can
be wardens of immigration facilities for the purposes of
immigration habeas petitions. Indeed, in this Court's previous
ruling applying the immediate custodian rule to such petitions, the
Court noted that the petitioner was in the custody of an ICE field
office director, even though he was detained at a local county
jail. In sum, when he filed his petition, Mr. Kolev explicitly and
credibly identified Mr. Shanahan as the warden of the immigration
detention facility in which he was being held, and the government
has not refuted that characterization. Mr. Shanahan is therefore
the proper respondent and since it is undisputed that he is located
in this district, venue lies here.

The Court finds that venue for this matter is proper within the
Southern District of New York.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 17, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yboe6lfg from Leagle.com.

Emil Kolev, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated,
Petitioner, represented by Nicolette Glazer --
nicolette@glazerandglazer.com -- Law Offices of Larry R Glazer.

Jefferson Sessions, Attorney General in his official capacity, DHS
Acting Secretary Elaine C. Duke, in her official capacity, Thomas
D. Homan, the senior official performing the duties of the Director
of ICE, in his official capacity, Christopher Shanahan, the field
office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, ICE, New
York City, as the warden of the Hudson County Correctional
Facility, in his official capacity and each of their respective
successors and assigns & Director Thomas Decker, Respondents,
represented by Brandon Matthew Waterman , United States Attorney's
Office & Charles Salim Jacob , United States Attorney's Office.

Does 1 Through 5, Respondent, represented by Charles Salim Jacob ,
United States Attorney's Office.


USA TECHNOLOGIES: Gray Suit Hits Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------
David Gray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. USA Technologies, Inc., Stephen P. Herbert
and Priyanka Singh, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-13860, (D. N.J.,
September 13, 2018) seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
violations of federal securities laws, and to pursue remedies under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

USA Technologies provides wireless networking, cashless
transactions, asset monitoring, and other value-added services in
the United States and internationally.

USA Technologies failed to disclose that its treatment of
contractual arrangements in its financial statements would result
in an internal investigation and delay the filing of its annual
report for fiscal year 2018, indicating that its internal controls
over financial reporting were weak and deficient. On this news,
shares of USA Technologies fell $5.74 per share or over 37% during
intraday trading on September 11, 2018.

Gray acquired USA Technologies securities at artificially inflated
prices and lost substantially upon the revelation of the alleged
corrective disclosures, notes the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Tel: (973) 994-1700
      Email: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com

             - and -

     David C. Walton, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101-8498
     Telephone: (619) 231-1058
     Fax: (619) 231-7423
     Email: davew@rgrdlaw.com

            - and -

     Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
     JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
     40 Powder Springs Street
     Marietta, GA 30064
     Telephone: (770) 200-3104
     Fax: (770) 200-3101
     Email: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com


USF REDDAWAY: Bid for Class Certification Taken under Submission
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Ricardo I. Gomez, the Plaintiff, v. USF
Reddaway Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-05572-JAK-FFM (C.D. Cal., May 22, 2018), the Hon. Judge
John A. Kronstadt entered an order taking under submission the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and supplemental motion
for class certification.

According to civil minutes, the Court has reviewed the parties'
Updated Joint Scheduling Report. The Report states that the parties
have been continuing to discuss settlement informally and had a
mediation scheduled with Michael Lob on August 29, 2018. Counsel
state that they have attempted to resolve this matter on three
separate occasions but have been unsuccessful. The Court directed
counsel to confer and file a joint report by October 1, 2018,
regarding whether a final ruling on the submitted motions would be
beneficial to the parties' further settlement discussions. The
scheduling conference is not held. The Court will set the remainder
of the dates upon the issuance of its final ruling on the
Plaintiffs' Motion and Defendant's Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory E. Mauro, Esq.
          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          THE MAURO LAW FIRM APLC
          790 E Colorado Blvd Fl 9,
          Pasadena, CA 91101-2193
          Telephone: (626) 698 0048
          Facsimile: (626) 698 0049
          E-mail: GREG@MAUROLAWFIRM.NET

               - and -

          James Ross Hawkins, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Dr Ste 200, Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387 7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387 6676
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ronald J. Holland, Esq.
          Pankit J. Doshi, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
          275 Middlefield Rd Ste 100
          Menlo Park, CA 94025-4004
          Telephone: (650) 815 7400
          Facsimile: (650) 469 1431
          E-mail: pdoshi@mwe.com
                  rjholland@mwe.com


VENUESMART LLC: Dorsey Seeks OT Pay for Hrs Worked Over 40 per Week
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Venecia Dorsey and Simone Redman, on behalf of themselves, and all
other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs,
v. Venuesmart LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-06256, (N.D. Ill.,
Sept. 13, 2018), seeks liquidated damages equal to the amount of
all unpaid compensation, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
incurred, and such other additional relief for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Venuesmart is engaged in the business of concert and entertainment
venue clean-up services where Plaintiffs were clean-up laborers at
one or more of the event locations. They claims to have been denied
time and one-half their regular or effective hourly rate for work
performed in excess of forty hours within a statutory workweek.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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



VITALE'S ITALIAN: Torres Seeks to Certify Restaurant Staff Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned EMILIO TORRES, an individual and behalf of
all similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. VITALE'S ITALIAN
RESTAURANT, INC., a Michigan Corporation, d/b/a VITALE'S GRAND
RAPIDS SALVATORE VITALE, an individual, and BELINDA PIERSON, an
individual, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00547-PLM-RSK (W.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   a. conditionally certifying a collective action for unpaid
      wages pursuant to 29 U.S.C section 216(b) defined as:

      "all individuals who worked or are working at Vitale's
      Italian Restaurant, Inc., d/b/a Vitale's Grand Rapids
      located on Leonard Street who were not paid time and a half
      (overtime) for any hours worked beyond 40 hours in a week
      at any time after May 15, 2015";

   b. compelling Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with the names,
      all known addresses, e-mail addresses and cell phone
      numbers of the potential Collective members;

   c. authorizing the notice to be sent to the Collective members
      with a 90-day opt-in period; and

   d. appointing Avanti Law Group, PLLC as interim class
      counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

          Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
          Agustin Henriquez, Esq.
          AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC
          600 28th St. SW 55
          Wyoming, MI 49509
          Telephone: (616) 257 6807
          E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant

          Ian A. Northon, Esq.
          G. Will Furtado, Esq.
          RHOADES McKee PC
          Campau Ave. N.W., Suite 300
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 235 3500
          E-mail: ian@rhoadesmckee.com


WEBASTO PRODUCTS: $15MM Deal Reached in Direct Parking Heater Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Two settlements, worth up to $15 million, have been reached with
Defendants Webasto Products North America, Inc., Webasto Thermo &
Comfort North America, Inc. and Webasto Thermo & Comfort SE
(collectively, "Webasto") and Eberspaecher Climate Control Systems
GmbH & Co. KG, Espar, Inc., and Espar Products Inc. (collectively,
"Espar") in a class action lawsuit about whether Webasto and Espar
participated in an unlawful conspiracy to raise, fix, maintain,
and/or stabilize the price of aftermarket Parking Heaters (heaters
and accessories used to heat commercial vehicles) at artificially
high levels. Webasto and Espar deny the allegations in the lawsuit
but have agreed to the Settlements. The Court has not decided who
is right.

Under the Settlements, "Parking Heaters" are defined as "parking
heaters for commercial vehicles sold in the aftermarket, including
the heaters themselves, accessories sold for use with the heaters,
and parking heater kits containing heaters and selected
accessories." Parking Heaters produce heat without the need to run
a vehicle's engine or idling.

The Settlements include all persons or entities that purchased
aftermarket Parking Heaters in the United States, its territories
or possessions, directly from Webasto or Espar, or from any of
their parents, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, or
affiliates, from October 1, 2007 through December 31, 2012. Federal
and state government entities and Defendants, their officers,
directors, and employees, as well as Defendants' parents,
predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, affiliates are excluded. A
person or entity fitting this definition is a "Class Member." It is
important to note that anyone who bought Parking Heaters from any
other source and not directly from Webasto or Espar, are not Class
Members.

The Settlements offers automatic payments to Class Members. If a
Class Member received a notice in the mail and the Settlement is
approved, they do not need to file a claim in order to receive a
payment. Estimated payments will be calculated based on available
purchase data. Once the calculations are made, Class Members can
visit the Settlements website and input their unique ID number
(notices with unique ID numbers were mailed to all identified Class
Members) to see their estimated payment. Anyone who believes they
are a Class Member and did not receive a notice in the mail should
visit www.DirectParkingHeaterSettlement.com or call toll-free
1-888-396-9582.

Class Members who do not want to be legally bound by one or both of
the Settlements must exclude themselves by December 1, 2018. Class
Members who do not exclude themselves will release any claims they
may have against Webasto and Espar. Class Members may object to one
or both of the Settlements by December 1, 2018. Class Members
cannot both exclude themselves from, and object to, the
Settlements. The Detailed Notice available at
www.DirectParkingHeaterSettlement.com explains how to exclude or
object. The Court will hold a fairness hearing on January 9, 2019
to consider whether to finally approve the Settlements and a
request for attorneys' fees of up to 33-1/3% of the total
Settlement Amount and incentive awards for each of the Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs. Class Members may appear at the fairness
hearing, either by themselves or through an attorney hired by them,
but do not have to. For more information, call 1-888-396-9582 or
visit www.DirectParkingHeaterSettlement.com. [GN]


WILLIAMS & FUDGE: Made Unsolicited Calls, Abrantes Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOGERT ABRANTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAMS & FUDGE, INC., and DOES 1 through
10, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-at-00637 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 29, 2018)
seeks to stop the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently,
knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone without his express consent in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Williams & Fudge, Inc. provides financial services. The Company
offers tuition, institutional, health profession, nursing, private
education loans, and other miscellaneous receivables. Williams &
Fudge operates in the United States. [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


XPRESS URGENT: Zannini Sues over Unsolicited Text Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------
LISA ZANNINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. XPRESS URGENT CARE, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-14388-RLR (S.D. Fla., Sep. 19, 2018), seeks injunctive
relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in
the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of
the daily life of thousands of individuals under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, on or about June 27, 2018, the
Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number ending in 0985.  The text messages
constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future
purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e.,
visiting a clinic for medical treatment. The information contained
in the text message advertises the Defendant's "Visit Xpress Urgent
Care for acute illnesses, injurie & physicals," which the Defendant
sends to promote its business.

The Plaintiff received the subject texts within this judicial
district and, therefore, the Defendant's violation of the TCPA
occurred within this district.  The Defendant caused other text
messages to be sent to individuals residing within this judicial
district. At no point in time did the Plaintiff provide the
Defendant with his express written consent to be contacted using an
ATDS.

The Defendant is full-service walk-in clinic. To promote its
services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming
thousands of consumers in the process.

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

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

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          19495 Biscayne Blvd No. 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975 3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


XTO ENERGY: Anderson Wage & Hour Suit Remanded to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion
to Remand to State Court in the case captioned RONDALE ANDERSON, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
XTO ENERGY, INC, and MICHAEL WAYNE MARRIOTT Defendants. Case No.
1:18-cv-00518 WJ/JHR. (D.N.M.).

The Plaintiff was a lease operator for Defendant XTO Energy, Inc,
in San Juan County, New Mexico. The Plaintiff filed a complaint
against both XTO Energy, Inc., and Michael Marriott, alleging that
they failed to pay him and sixty other lease operators overtime as
required under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Under the New
Mexico Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA), an employee shall not be required
to work more than forty hours in any week of seven days, unless the
employee is paid one and one-half times the employee's regular
hourly rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours.

Removal and Diversity Jurisdiction

The Plaintiffs removed this case to federal court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). To
invoke diversity jurisdiction, a party must show that complete
diversity of citizenship exists between the adverse parties and
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Fraudulent Joinder

The party defending removal may carry this heavy burden and
successfully assert fraudulent joinder by demonstrating either: (1)
actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts, or (2) the
inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against
the non-diverse party in state court.  

A fraudulent joinder analysis is a jurisdictional inquiry and
therefore a district court should pierce the pleadings, consider
the entire record, and determine the basis of joinder by any means
available.

Defendants failed to show there is no possibility of a claim
against Defendant Marriott

Here, the pleadings on their face indicate a lack of complete
diversity, because Defendant Marriott, like the Plaintiff, is
alleged to be a citizen of New Mexico. Therefore, to support
removal, the Defendants bear the burden of showing with complete
certainty that there is no possibility of a claim against Defendant
Marriott. The Defendants attempt to do so here by arguing that
Defendant Marriott cannot be an employer under the New Mexico
Minimum Wage Act.

There is no controlling law interpreting the definition of employer
under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

Whether a supervisor is an employer under the NMMWA appears to be
an issue of first impression. Although the NMMWA defines employer,
there is no case law construing the definition of employer under
that act in New Mexico or in the Tenth Circuit.

Under the NMMWA, an employer includes any individual, partnership,
association, business trust, legal representative or any organized
group of persons employing one or more employees at any time,
acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in
relation to an employee.

This language is exceedingly broad. The plain language of the
definition provides that individuals employed by a company may be
an employer themselves when they take certain actions in relation
to employees on behalf the corporate employer. There is no
controlling law in New Mexico or the Tenth Circuit discussing how
this definition applies to individuals who act in a supervisory or
managerial role.

On this basis alone, the Court concludes that Defendant has not
shown there is no possibility that Plaintiff has a claim against
Defendant Marriott.

Even under the FLSA, it is possible that Defendant Marriott is an
employer
Even if the Court applied persuasive case law interpreting the FLSA
on the definition of employer, the Court is not convinced to a
complete certainty that there is no possibility of a claim against
Defendant Marriott.

The Defendants assert that the economic reality test applies. That
test is primarily designed to determine whether an individual is an
employee subject to the relevant act, or an independent contractor.
To the extent the economic reality test does apply, the relevant
question thereunder is the supervisor's role in the alleged FLSA
violation, and whether the supervisor in fact had control over the
Plaintiff's work schedule or overtime hours claimed.  

Upon reviewing Defendant Marriott's declaration, the Court finds
that the Defendants have not shown that there is no possibility of
a claim under the NMMWA. For example, Defendant Marriott asserts
that he had no authority over the Plaintiff and class members, but
notes that he made recommendations to corporate headquarters on a
variety of issues, including termination and the class members'
schedule. He also reviewed and approved time cards. Whether the
acceptance of these recommendations indicate that he had de facto
control over the relevant decisions in this case would bear on
whether he was an employer and requires an in-depth merits
analysis.

Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that there is no possibility
that Defendant Marriott was acting directly or indirectly in the
interest of an employer in relation to an employee and therefore an
employer pursuant to NMSA Section 50-4-21(B).

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is granted for
reasons and the action is remanded to the Eleventh Judicial
District Court, County of San Juan, New Mexico.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 17, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y762cy96 from Leagle.com.

Rondale Anderson, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M. Faber, Law
Office of Daniel Faber & John Anthony Neuman --
Jneuman@smnlawfirm.com -- Sosa-Morris Neuman, PLLC, pro hac vice.

XTO Energy Inc., a Delaware corporation & Michael Wayne Marriott,
Defendants, represented by Alexander R. Stevens --
astevens@mcginnislaw.com -- McGinnis Lochridge, pro hac vice,
Felicity A. Fowler -- ffowler@mcginnislaw.com -- McGinnis
Lochridge, Little West, Holland & Hart LLP & Bradford C. Berge,
Holland & Hart LLP.


YOSSI'S FISH: Hernandez Milian Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yossi's Fish Market,
Corp. The case is styled as Ismael Hernandez Milian on behalf of
himself and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Yossi's
Fish Market, Corp. doing business as: Yossi's Fish Market,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05485 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 1, 2018).

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

Yossi's Fish Market, Corp. is located in Brooklyn, New York. This
organization primarily operates in the Fish Markets business or
industry within the Food Stores. It is located at 5324 13th Avenue,
Brooklyn, NY 11219.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ZIMMER BIOMET: Private Equity Shops Escape Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Brad Perriello, writing for MassDevice, reported that a federal
judge in Indiana dismissed a clutch of private equity shops from a
securities class action brought against Zimmer Biomet, alleging
that the company and its management concealed problems at a plant
in its Warsaw, Ind., home base.

The lawsuit, filed in December 2016 in the U.S. District Court for
Northern Indiana, concerns Zimmer Biomet's revelation in the fall
of that year that prompted it to take its North Campus plant in
Warsaw off line and cut its full-year guidance. But the full extent
of the facility's problems were kept under wraps until an analyst's
note forced the company to come clean, the lawsuit alleged. The
resulting foofaraw pared some 20% from ZBH share prices in a single
week, according to court documents.

FDA inspectors documented numerous violations in a Form 483 in
autumn 2016. In its reply in December of that year, Zimmer Biomet
told the FDA that it cleaned house after the inspection, replacing
five operations and quality executives as it sought to bring the
facility back into compliance and noting that company-wide audits
put in place after the $14 billion merger of Zimmer and Biomet had
already turned up problems at the site. (A re-inspection last April
resulted in another Form 483 warning and by August Zimmer Biomet
revealed that the FDA sent a formal warning letter.)

The lawsuit's plaintiffs, led by Rajesh Shah, alleged that the
company's management concealed the issues at the North Campus plant
during a conference call discussing its third-quarter 2016
results.

"While analysts may have been shocked by this development, Shah
alleges that defendants were anything but taken aback. According to
Shah, the company's challenging situation would have come as no
surprise at all had ZBH not misled investors as to the cause of the
issues and made materially misleading statements in the process.
Shah alleges that all of the causes of the lower-than-anticipated
third-quarter growth, downward projection in fourth-quarter growth
and attendant supply shortages were the result of substantial
issues at North Campus which ZBH and its co-defendants are alleged
to have known about and appreciated for months," according to the
documents.

The lawsuit also accused the private equity (PE) firms, including
funds affiliated with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, TPG Global and
Goldman Sachs Capital Partners, of ditching their collective 10%
stake in Zimmer Biomet in June and August 2016 based on their
alleged inside knowledge of the North Campus situation. Those stock
sales reaped proceeds of roughly $2.25 billion, according to the
documents.

But Judge Philip Simon ruled that, although two of the PE shops
(KKR and TPG) had directors on the Zimmer Biomet board, there is no
evidence that they were privy to any inside information.

"[T]here is no allegation that any information relating to problems
at North Campus was in fact shared with the private equity
defendants, whether in this instance or any others. In essence,
Shah has alleged nothing more than that the private equity
defendants had potential access to insider information," Judge
Simon wrote [emphasis his]. "Plaintiffs' allegations as to the
Goldman funds are even more deficient on this front, as there is no
allegation that any of the Goldman funds were affiliated with any
of ZBH's board of directors. Nor is there any allegation that any
representative of any of the Goldman funds otherwise participated
in the management of ZBH or attended meetings of ZBH's board of
directors."

Judge Simon dismissed the two insider trading counts without
prejudice, giving Shah a chance to file an amended complaint should
more evidence of prior knowledge turn up during discovery, and
dismissed with prejudice another two counts alleging securities
violations by the PE players on the grounds that the stock sales
were made via underwriters.

The judge allowed the case to proceed against the company and its
management. [GN]


ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Faust Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zwicker & Associates,
P.C. The case is styled as Frederick Faust on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zwicker & Associates,
P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05502 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 1, 2018).

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

Zwicker & Associates, P.C. operates as a law firm. The Company
offers debt collection and other legal services to various sectors.
Zwicker & Associates serves clients in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



                            *********

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 ***