CAR_Public/181009.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, October 9, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 202

                            Headlines

ACE COMMERCIAL: Packers Lack Rest & Meal Periods, Alvarez Says
ADIDAS: Faces Class Action Over June Data Breach
ADVANCED CRITICAL: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Marino Says
AIR METHODS: Fails to Pay All Wages Due, Evan Toolajian Claims
ALJ REGIONAL: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Trax Class Suit

ALJ REGIONAL: Bid to Remand Marshall Suit Remains Pending
ALJ REGIONAL: Payments Already Made in McNeil Class Suit
ALL MARKET: Judge Dismisses Vita Coco(R) Suit
ALTA MESA: Court Approves Settlement in Bollenbach Class Suit
ALTISOURCE SOLUTIONS: Collins Suit Moved to S.D. California

ARCIMOTO INC: Counsel Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Complaint
ARKEMA INC: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Rodriguez Says
ASURION LLC: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Alexander Suit Says
AUTOBAHN INC: Settlement in Ferrari Suit Has Prelim Approval
BANK OF AMERICA: Underpays Loan Officers, Veritas Suit Says

BAYER CORP: Allen Matkins Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
BIRD RIDES: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Jon Osuna Says
BRE SELECT: Battaglia Class Action Underway
BROWN HILL: Workman Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
CAMELBAK PRODUCTS: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wage, Morales Says

CDK GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Autoloop's Class Action Ongoing
CDK GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit Ongoing
CELLADON CORP: 9th Cir. Affirms Tadros Securities Suit Dismissal
CEMTREX INC: 3 New York Securities Suits Consolidated
CENSTAR ENERGY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss TCPA Suit

CHICAGO, IL: Kennedy et al. Sue over Red Light Camera Policy
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Schneider Suit
CIVISTA BANCSHARES: Court Dismisses Parshall Suit With Prejudice
CLABORN'S ELITE LAWNS: Harding Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Anthony Pepe Sues D&Os over Pump-and-Dump Scheme

COHU INC: Agreement Reached in Shui Merger Class Action
COLUMBIA GAS: Napoli Shkolnik Files Suit for Impacted Residents
CORE NUTRITION: Duffy Disputes Bottled Water Health Claims
COVIA HOLDINGS: Parties Working on Settlement
CRONOS GROUP: Chanda Sues over 28% Drop in Share Price

DASSAULT FALCON: Gipson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
DECORE-ATIVE SPECIALTIES: Valenzuela Alleges Time-Shaving
DIAKON LOGISTICS: Johnson Moves to Certify Delivery Drivers Class
DIGNITY HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Timekeeping Software
DOW JONES & COMPANY: Made Unsolicited Calls, Deaton Suit Alleges

EASY DRIVING: Must Pay for Instructors' Travel Time, Thomas Says
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz to Lead in Securities Suit
ESSENDANT INC: Shareholders File Over $482MM Sale to Staples
EXXONMOBIL OIL: Refinery Operators Lack Rest Periods, Kendigs Say
FACEBOOK INC: Removes Doshier Case to E.D. Arkansas

FAMILY SOLUTIONS: Underpays Mental Health Specialists, Arends Says
FAT BRANDS: Eric Rojany Suit in California Underway
FAT BRANDS: Faces Alden Class Action in California
FIVE POINT: Suit by Bayview Hunters Point Residents Underway
FLAGSTAFF, AZ: Turner, et al. Seek OT Pay under FLSA

FLINT, MI: Litigation Firm's Breakup Heads to Arbitration
FLOWERS FOODS: Neff Seeks Certification of Distributors Class
FREIGHTQUOTE.COM: Fabricant Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
G4S SECURE: Sterling Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
GALILEE MEMORIAL: Trial Begins in Crumpled Caskets Case

GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action in Canada Over Publication Bans
GOOGLE INC: High Court to Hear from Gov't in Privacy Deal Row
GOOGLE INC: Urges Judge to Reconsider Class Action Decert. Denial
GOOGLE INC: Wants High Court to Uphold Privacy Case Settlement
HELIX ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Canela Says

HERTZ CORP: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Tillman TCPA Suit
HILTON GRAND: Wins Summary Judgment in Glasser TCPA Class Suit
HOME FURNITURE: Fails to Provide OT Pay and Breaks, Bueno Claims
IZEA INC: Continues to Defend Perez Securities Class Action
JENSYN ACQUISITION: New Jersey Shareholder Class Suit Dismissed

KITCHEN COLLECTION: Judge Allows FLSA Class Action to Proceed
KLX INC: Memorandum of Understanding Entered in Gusinsky
LA JOLLA GROUP: Underpays Signature Gatherers, Wilson Claims
LAKE PAVILLION: Liao Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Claims Handlers Class Certified in Lopez Suit

LITTLE CAESAR'S: Ex-General Manager Files No-Poach Class Action
LOVE'S TRAVEL: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 2 Class Lawsuits
LUMINANT ENERGY: Baksinski Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
LYMI INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Pay, Hernandez Says
MACO MANAGEMENT: Smith Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime under FLSA

MAR-CONE APPLIANCE: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
MARKETSOURCE INC: Certification of Class Sought in Delgado Suit
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Employees Seek Jury Trial in 401(k) Suit
MASTERCORP INC: Fox Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages Under FLSA
MERCK & CO: Sansones Sue over Inoculation of Zostavax Vaccine

MERCY HEALTH: Judge Tosses Retirees' ERISA Class Action
MERCY PHYSICIAN: Conditional Bertroche Class Cert. Partly OK'd
MERRILL LYNCH: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
MICROSOFT CORP: Women Engineers Have to Beat SCOTUS Precedent
MUNCH ANYTIME: Harrison Hits Lowered Tip Credit Rate

NATIONAL VISION: Unit Continues to Defend Class Suit in California
NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS: Court Dismisses Insurance Suit
NAVISTONE: New York Court Dismisses Spying Class Action
NET2SOURCE INC: Jeffrey Johns Sues over Background Checks
NEUTRON HOLDINGS: Misclassifies Juicers as Contractors, Osuna Says

NORMANDY, MO: Faces Class Action Over Debtor's Prison
OK FOODS: 8th Cir. Awarded $88K Attys' Fees in Melgar FLSA Suit
OPKO HEALTH: Steinberg Alleges Pump-and-Dump Scheme
ORANGE COUNTY, CA: FEHA Claim Dismissal in Harris Upheld in Part
PACIFIC MARITIME: Ross Suit Moved to Western Dist. of Washington

PG&E CORP: Oklahoma Firefighters Suit Reassigned to Judge Seeborg
PHILIP MORRIS: Westland Police Sues over 22% Drop in Share Price
PORTABLE MUD SYSTEMS: Enriquez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
PREFERRED INSULATION: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wage, Alvarez Says
PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: Continues to Defend Gerbie Class Suit

PROGRESSIVE SELECT: William South Sues over Total Loss Claims, Fees
QUEBEC: Legionnaires' Disease Outbreak Class Action Settled
REDI-MIX CONCRETE: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Gutierrez Says
REHABCARE GROUP: Court Approves Additional Class Distributions
RESEARCH AMERICA: Kristensen Sues over Unsolicited Text Message

RESHAPE LIFESCIENCES: Settlement Negotiation Ongoing in Du Suit
RETAIL MERCHANTS: Faces Mire Suit in Eastern District of Texas
RIVINGTON HOSPITALITY: Website Not Accessible, Juscinska Says
RMG NETWORKS: Weinstein Suit Underway in Delaware Chancery Court
ROMAN EMPIRE LIVING: Ballou Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA

SALOV NORTH: 9th Cir. Affirms Kumar Suit Settlement Approval
SC MOTA ASSOCIATES: Mota Pizza Sues over Poorly Maintained Mall
SITO MOBILE: Bid to Dismiss Roper Suit Still Pending
SOUTHCROSS ENERGY: Says All Merger Related Suits Dismissed
SPAR GROUP: Paradise Hogan Class Action Underway

SPRINKLES CUPCAKES: Corado Sues over Overtime Pay and Breaks
STATE FARM: Dec. 13 Fairness Hearing on $250MM Class Settlement Set
STEADYMED LTD: Says Supplemental Disclosure Moots Class Suits
STERIGENICS INT'L: Cannell Sues over Ethylene Oxide Emission
TAQUERIA EL TAPATIO: Fails to Pay Wage & OT, Torres Claims

TEAMONE LOGISTICS: Driver Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Withheld Tips
TECOGEN INC: Continues to Defend Vardakas Class Action
TECOGEN INC: William May Claim Consolidated with Vardakas Suit
TESLA INC: Pierce Bainbridge Investigates Potential Class Action
THC-ORANGE COUNTY: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Bryce Says

TRANS UNION: Court Narrows Claims in Clemens' TCA
TRANSLINK: Must Face Class Action Over Lost Merchant Revenue
U-TEC GROUP: Komorski Sues over Use of Biometric Information
VANGUARD GROUP: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Court Ruling
VERIZON: Did Not Provide Correct Wage Statements, Gillespie Says

VERU INC: Discovery Ongoing in Aspen Park Acquisition-Related Suit
VIZIO: Class Action Over Spying TVs Currently in Progress
W.D. HENRY & SONS: Sacked Farm Workers Allege Discrimination
WOOLWORTHS: Faces Class Action Over 2015 Profit Downgrade
WOOLWORTHS: To Thoroughly Defend Shareholders' Class Action

[*] Bank Superannuation Funds in Australia Face Class Action Threat
[*] Only Shareholders Can Sue Collectively in Germany

                            *********

ACE COMMERCIAL: Packers Lack Rest & Meal Periods, Alvarez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
EULALIA ALVAREZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACE COMMERCIAL, INC., a
California corporation d/b/a PRESS COLORCOM, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC722101 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sep. 18, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to
provide meal periods and failed to authorize and permit all rest
periods under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants as a non-exempt employee from approximately December
2000 through in or around February 2018, at which time she started
a disability leave of absence. As a non-exempt employee holding the
title of "Packer," the Plaintiff worked on machines that punched
holes in price tags, and also wrapped magazines and fliers in
plastic. During her employment with Defendants and when she was
actively working, the Plaintiffs daily scheduled hours fluctuated
between 4-8 hours per shift. Throughout her employment, the
Plaintiff was not provided all required meal periods due to
Defendants' meal period policies and practices which fail to
provide timely, uninterrupted, duty-free 30-minute meal periods
when employees work in excess of 5.0 hours in a day.  Specifically,
Defendants had a policy and practice of not scheduling meal period
times for the employees. Further, Defendants maintained a small
lunch room that was not large enough to accommodate space for all
of the employees to take a meal period at the same time.
Accordingly, the Defendants allowed the Operators to take their
meal periods and the Packers could only take a meal period after
the Operators had completed their meal breaks. Once the Operators
finished and returned to work, then the Packers and the other
non-exempt employees would be allowed to take their lunch. If the
Operators took their meal periods late, then the other non-exempt
employees would be delayed in starting their meal periods,
resulting in late (after the 5th hour of work) or otherwise
unlawful meal periods. Further, Plaintiff and other non-exempt
employees would not be allowed to take their meal periods until
they had completed all of their pending work assignments. This
practice would also result in late (meal periods after the 5th hour
of work) or otherwise unlawful meal periods. Also, on occasion, the
Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees would be required to at
the direction of Defendants recommence working prior to the end of
their meal periods, resulting in short (less than 30 minutes in
length) or otherwise unlawful meal periods.

Ace Commercial, Inc. provides printing services. The Company offers
digital, offset, and ultra-violet printing services, as well as
provides finishing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


ADIDAS: Faces Class Action Over June Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
Ryan Boysen, writing for Law360, reports that Adidas has been hit
with a proposed class action over a June data breach that saw
hackers make off with the private information of millions of
customers. [GN]


ADVANCED CRITICAL: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Marino Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA MARINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED CRITICAL CARE, EMERGENCY AND
SPECIALTY SERVICES, a California Corporation, HOWARD LIBERSON, an
individual, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. BC722108 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 17, 2018), alleges that
Defendants failed to pay overtime wages, provide compliant meal
periods, provide compliant rest periods, pay all wages earned,
furnish accurate wage statements, maintain required records, pay
earned wages upon termination or discharge, and overtime wages
under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and putative Class Members
were required to work overtime without separate overtime
compensation.  They were not paid all wages earned at the end of
each pay period and were not provided accurate wage statements.
They also were not provided with compliant meal or rest periods,
and were not provided with a premium payment for shifts when they
did not receive compliant meal and/or rest periods.  They were also
not paid all wages earned timely upon termination of their
employment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
          Gene Williams, Esq.
          MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES, APLC
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
          Los Angeles, CA 90025 1760
          Telephone: (310) 312 0299
          Facsimile: (310) 312 0296


AIR METHODS: Fails to Pay All Wages Due, Evan Toolajian Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
EVAN TOOLAJIAN on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. AIR METHODS CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. RG18921592 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 20, 2018), alleges that
Defendants failed to pay all wages due under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members work
shifts that are 12 hours long. The Plaintiff and Class Members
perform certain job duties before the start of their shifts,
including, but not limited to, preflight inspections and shift
change briefings. The Plaintiff and Class Members report all of
their on- duty time to AMC, which reports such time to the Federal
Aviation Administration. However, AMC has not and does not pay
Plaintiff or Class Members for time spent working before the start
of their shifts. AMC also has not and does not provide Plaintiff
and Class Members with off-duty meal periods, as required by
California law, and has not and docs not pay one additional hour of
pay at Plaintiffs and Class Members' respective regular rates of
compensation for each workday that they were not provided an
adequate off-duty meal period.

AMC provides intrastate community-based air medical transport
services by helicopter and airplane.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Hunter Pyle, Esq.
          Chad Saunders, Esq.
          Vincent Chen, Esq.
          HUNTER PYLE LAW
          428 Thirteenth Street, 1lth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 444 4400
          Facsimile: (510) 444 4410
          E-mail: hunter@hunterpylelaw.com
                  csaundcrs@hunterpylelaw.com
                  vchen@hunterpylclaw.com


ALJ REGIONAL: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Trax Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that Faneuil Inc. is awaiting a court decision
on its motion to dismiss the case entitled, Trax and Cilley, et al.
v. Faneuil Inc., et al.

On February 23, 2018, plaintiffs Trax and Cilley filed a proposed
class action against Faneuil Inc. and one of its clients, the
Transportation Corridor Agencies, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California ("US District Court -
Southern California").  

The plaintiffs allege claims for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, the state law corollary and California's
unfair competition law. Plaintiffs' claims arise out of
collections-related activity that Faneuil does not perform under
its contract with the Transportation Corridor Agencies.

Faneuil therefore believes the case is entirely without merit and
intends to defend it vigorously. Faneuil has filed a motion to
dismiss and both sides have presented arguments on such motion to
the US District Court - Southern California.  

ALJ Regional said, "As of the filing of this Form 10-Q, no decision
from the US District Court - Southern California on Faneuil’s
motion to dismiss had been received."  

ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. provides call center, back office,
staffing, and toll collection services to government and commercial
clients in the healthcare, utility, toll, and transportation
industries in the United States. It operates through three
segments: Faneuil, Carpets, and Phoenix. ALJ Regional Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1995 and is based in New York, New York.


ALJ REGIONAL: Bid to Remand Marshall Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the motion to remand the Marshall v.
Faneuil, Inc., lawsuit remains pending.

On July 31, 2017, plaintiff Donna Marshall ("Marshall"), filed a
proposed class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Sacramento against Faneuil Inc and ALJ
Regional Holdings, Inc. (ALJ). Marshall, a previously terminated
Faneuil employee, alleges various California state law
employment-related claims against Faneuil.  

Faneuil has answered the complaint and removed the matter to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California; however, Marshall filed a motion to remand the case
back to state court. The motion to remand has been fully briefed
and argued and remains pending before the court.  

The case is in an early stage and the parties have not begun
substantive discovery at this time. Faneuil believes this action is
without merit and intends to defend it vigorously.

ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. provides call center, back office,
staffing, and toll collection services to government and commercial
clients in the healthcare, utility, toll, and transportation
industries in the United States. It operates through three
segments: Faneuil, Carpets, and Phoenix. ALJ Regional Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1995 and is based in New York, New York.


ALJ REGIONAL: Payments Already Made in McNeil Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that all materials amounts have been paid in
the case, McNeil, et al. v. Faneuil, Inc. suit.

Tammy McNeil, a former Faneuil, Inc. call center employee, filed a
Fair Labor Standards Act collective action case against Faneuil in
federal court in Newport News, Virginia in 2015. The class action
asserted various timekeeping and overtime violations, which Faneuil
denied. On June 6, 2017, the case was settled by the parties as
part of a court-ordered mediation, for $0.3 million in damages,
plus plaintiff's attorney fees.  

Because the parties could not agree on the dollar amount of
plaintiff's attorney fees, both parties agreed to allow the court
to determine the amount. The court awarded $0.7 million in
attorney's fees and overruled Faneuil's objections to the
recommendation of the magistrate judge relating to that amount.
Neither party appealed the decision. As of June 30, 2018, all
material amounts were paid.

ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. provides call center, back office,
staffing, and toll collection services to government and commercial
clients in the healthcare, utility, toll, and transportation
industries in the United States. It operates through three
segments: Faneuil, Carpets, and Phoenix. ALJ Regional Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1995 and is based in New York, New York.


ALL MARKET: Judge Dismisses Vita Coco(R) Suit
---------------------------------------------
On Wednesday, September 26, 2018, a federal judge dismissed a
lawsuit brought by plaintiffs against All Market Inc. ("AMI"), the
parent company of Vita Coco and the largest seller of coconut water
in the United States. Bilzin Sumberg represented AMI in the defense
of the federal consumer fraud class action.

Filed on April 7, 2016 in the Southern District of Florida, the
case styled, Joshua Wasser, Ila Gold, and Alyssa Rechtman, on
behalf of themselves and all others v. All Market Inc., Case No.
16-cv-21238-JLK, revolved around AMI's use of the phrase "born in
brazil" on previous versions of Vita Coco coconut water containers.
The plaintiffs claimed the phrase misled them into purchasing the
product by implying that Vita Coco was exclusively manufactured in
or sourced from Brazil. Vita Coco produces coconut water globally,
and in addition to producing in Brazil, the company also produces
in various countries in Southeast Asia. Notwithstanding the
legally-compliant country of origin statement on each container of
Vita Coco, the plaintiffs alleged that they were deceived by the
"born in brazil" phrase and asserted that they would not have
purchased Vita Coco if they had known the beverage came from a
country other than Brazil. The plaintiffs brought the claims on
behalf of themselves and proposed classes of Florida, New York and
California consumers against AMI for unjust enrichment, injunctive
relief, and violation of state and federal consumer fraud and
deceptive advertising laws and sought more than $200 million in
damages.

The court rejected all of the plaintiffs' claims, including their
allegations that they would be harmed in the future. Further, the
court stated, "And any amount paid for those future purchases will
be the result of informed decisions -- not because the Plaintiffs
were deceived by the 'born in brazil' phrase as to the origin of
the product." As such, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for
class certification and dismissed the case.

"We never doubted that we would win this case," says Vita Coco
co-founder and CEO Michael Kirban. "Brazil is a part of our brand
heritage, but our coconuts come from many countries across the
globe in addition to Brazil. Not only is this is something we're
proud of and very vocal about, it is clearly stated on each and
every container of our coconut water. Baseless claims such as this
are a distraction and financial burden to small, independent
companies like ours that are trying to offer high-quality products
to consumers, while also making a positive impact on the world we
live in and for us, in particular, the communities we source from.
That is why we have and will continue to vigorously defend
ourselves against unfounded class action suits."

AMI was represented by Bilzin Sumberg litigation attorneys Melissa
Pallett-Vasquez and Lori Lustrin, Scott Voelz and Hannah Chanoine
of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, and AMI’s General Counsel, Joe
Rubbone.

                  About Vita Coco(R)

Vita Coco is the leading coconut water brand and is credited with
popularizing coconut water, globally. The idea to start Vita Coco
was literally 'born in Brazil.' Back in 2003, future Vita Coco
co-founders Michael Kirban and Ira Liran were at a New York City
bar where they met two women from Brazil. Within months, Liran
moved to Brazil to marry one of the women and invited Kirban to
visit. On that visit both men saw the popularity of coconut water
and realized the potential for a beverage business in the US. That
idea came to them both on the beaches of Buzios, and Vita Coco was
born.

With the first batch of Vita Coco produced in 2004, Kirban and
Liran marketed their coconut water as a lifestyle beverage,
successfully making what was once an obscure beverage in the
'ethnic foods' aisle into one of the most successful beverages of
the decade. Today, Vita Coco is the US sales leader in coconut
water and is sold in 30 countries around the world.

Vita Coco produces its coconut water in Brazil and Southeast Asia,
and through the brand's social responsibility initiative, the "Vita
Coco Project: Give, Grow, Guide," underwrites and develops
community and agricultural improvements in the countries in which
is produces its drinks. For more information, please visit
http://www.vitacoco.com

                   About Bilzin Sumberg

Bilzin Sumberg works with clients whose business and legal
opportunities and challenges span the United States and cross
borders to Europe, Latin America, Canada, the Middle East, and
Asia. Bilzin Sumberg lawyers concentrate on services at the heart
of both regional and international commerce, including business
litigation, real estate, land development and government relations,
environmental, corporate law, joint ventures, domestic and
international tax and estate planning, finance, and public-private
partnerships. Bilzin Sumberg’s litigation team handles a broad
spectrum of matters including complex class action defense, opt out
antitrust class actions, financial services litigation, and complex
contract disputes in both state and federal courts throughout the
country and in international tribunals. The team regularly provides
thought commentary and analysis of top-of-mind issues confronting
the food and beverage industry -- including product labeling and
consumer product class actions -- on its blog
http://www.foodcourtlaw.com.[GN]


ALTA MESA: Court Approves Settlement in Bollenbach Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alta Mesa Holdings, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that the settlement of the lawsuit by Bollenbach
Enterprises Limited Partnership has been approved by the court in
Oklahoma.

On January 25, 2017, Bollenbach Enterprises Limited Partnership
filed a class action petition in Kingfisher County, Oklahoma
against Oklahoma Energy Acquisitions, LP, the company's wholly
owned subsidiary, Alta Mesa Services, LP, the company's wholly
owned subsidiary, and the company (collectively, the "AMH Parties")
claiming royalty underpayment or non-payment of royalty.  

The suit alleges that the AMH Parties made improper post production
deductions that resulted in underpayment of royalties on natural
gas and/or constituents of the gas stream produced from wells.

The case was moved to federal court and stayed by the court pending
the parties' efforts to settle the case.  In June 2017, the court
administratively closed the case following mediation.  

Alta Mesa Holdings said, "As of December 31, 2017, we accrued
approximately $4.7 million in accounts payable and accrued
liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheets and in
general and administrative expense ("G&A") in our condensed
consolidated statements of operations in connection with this
litigation.  During January 2018, approximately $4.7 million was
paid to fund the settlement. On March 12, 2018, the class
settlement was approved by the Court."

Alta Mesa Holdings, LP engages in the acquisition, exploration,
development, and production of oil, natural gas, and natural gas
liquids in the United States. The company primarily holds interest
in the Sooner Trend Anadarko Basin Canadian and Kingfisher County
field located in Oklahoma.  The company was founded in 1987 and is
based in Houston, Texas. Alta Mesa Holdings, LP is a subsidiary of
SRII Opco, LP.



ALTISOURCE SOLUTIONS: Collins Suit Moved to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joseph Collins, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Altisource
Solutions, Inc. and Does 1-50, the Defendants, Case No.
37-02018-00039611-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego) on Sept. 20, 2018. The
Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-02185-JM-RBB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Jeffrey T. Miller.

Altisource Solutions, Inc. provides real estate disposition
services, closing services, and mortgage servicing offerings that
include residential real estate owned asset management
operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Peter Zlomke Stockburger, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          4655 Executive Drive, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 595 8018
          Facsimile: (619) 232 8311
          E-mail: Peter.Stockburger@dentons.com


ARCIMOTO INC: Counsel Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arcimoto, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that counsel for the company filed a Demurrer to the
consolidated Switzer and Mendelson complaint, seeking its
dismissal

On March 11, 2018, the Company was served with a lawsuit entitled
John R Switzer vs W.R. Hambrecht & Co. LLC et al., Case Number:
CGC-18-564904, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court in the
State of California. In this action, the Company has been named as
a defendant along with five individuals who were directors and/or
executive officers at the time of the completion of the Company's
Regulation A offering on September 21, 2017. The action is styled
as a putative class action, alleged on behalf of all those who
purchased the Company's common stock in its Regulation A offering.


The plaintiff has alleged violations of Section 12(a)(2) and
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and is
seeking damages in an unspecified amount to be proven at trial.

In addition, on March 28, 2018, the Company was served with another
lawsuit entitled Jay Mendelson v. Arcimoto, Inc. et al., Case
Number CGC-18-565324, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court
in the State of California. In that action, which is styled as a
putative class action, the Company has also been named as a
defendant along with the same individuals who were directors and/or
executive officers at the time of the completion of the company's
Regulation A offering on September 21, 2017.

The allegations and claims made in the Mendelson action are
substantially similar to those of the Switzer action and the
plaintiff also is seeking damages in an unspecified amount to be
proven at trial.

The two actions were consolidated into a single lawsuit on May 28,
2018.

Arcimoto said, "The Company believes that the consolidated lawsuit
is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against
these claims in court."

On July 30, 2018, counsel for the Company filed a Demurrer to the
consolidated complaint, seeking its dismissal.

Arcimoto, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells
three-wheeled electric vehicles. The company was formerly known as
WTP Inc and changed its name to Arcimoto, Inc. in December 2011.
Arcimoto, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Eugene,
Oregon.


ARKEMA INC: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Rodriguez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARKEMA
INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC72l328 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep.
17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period
premiums, and unpaid rest period premiums, and unpaid minimum wages
under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff and
other persons as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the
State of California, including the County of Los Angeles. The
Defendants, jointly and severally, employed Plaintiff as an
hourly-paid, nonexempt employee, from approximately October 2013 to
approximately April 2016, in the State of California, County of Los
Angeles. The Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other class
members, classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees,
and failed to compensate them for all hours worked and missed meal
periods and/or rest breaks.

The Defendants had the authority to hire and terminate Plaintiff
and the other class members, to set work rules and conditions
governing Plaintiffs and the other class members employment, and to
supervise their daily employment activities. The Defendants
exercised sufficient authority over the terms and conditions of
Plaintiffs and the other class members' employment for them to be
joint employers of Plaintiff and the other class members.

Arkema Inc., a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASURION LLC: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Alexander Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASURION, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-03103 (S.D. Tex., Sept.4, 2018) seeks to recover all unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Alexander was employed by the Defendant as customer service
representative from October 2017 to January 2018.

Asurion, LLC provides online technology support services. The
company offers Soluto Service, which enables the user to access
technical support on mobile and handheld devises. The company was
founded in 1994 and is based in Nashville, Tennessee. Asurion, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of NEW Asurion Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
          George Schimmel, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com
                  geordie@a2xlaw.com


AUTOBAHN INC: Settlement in Ferrari Suit Has Prelim Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVE FERRARI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AUTOBAHN, INC.
DBA AUTOBAHN MOTORS; MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC; AND SONIC AUTOMOTIVE,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-CV-00018-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and Certification of
Settlement Class.

The Parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement which has been
filed with the Court.  If approved, the Settlement would resolve
all claims in the class action lawsuit against Defendants Sonic
Automotive, Inc. and Autobahn, Inc. ("Autobahn Defendants") and
some but not all of the claims against Defendant Mercedes-Benz
USA.

Thie Action is provisionally certified as a class action for the
purposes of settlement only pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(e).  The Settlement Class is
defined as all consumers who during the period Jan. 1, 2005 through
Feb. 28, 2018 received service from Autobahn, together with all
consumers who purchased a CPO automobile from Autobahn during the
period Jan. 1, 2007 through Dec. 31, 2012, as reflected in the
business records of Autobahn, Inc.  The Settlement Class is divided
into sub-Classes 1A, 1B, 2, 3A, and 3B, which are defined in the
Settlement Agreement.

Upon review and consideration of the motion papers and the
Settlement and all exhibits thereto, Judge Rogers preliminarily
approved the proposed Settlement.  He appointed Varnell & Warwick,
P.A., and Franck & Associates as the Class Counsel; and Plaintiffs
Steve Ferrari, Michael Keynejad, Patricia Rubin, John Diaz, Ray
Gapasin, and Harold Fethe as the Class Representatives for the
Settlement Class.

The Judge directed the parties to select a Settlement Administrator
to carry out all duties and responsibilities of the Settlement
Administrator specified in the Settlement.

He approved the program for disseminating notice to the Class set
forth in the Settlement, as revised by the Second Supplemental
Brief In Support of Preliminary Approval of Pro Tanto Class Action
Settlement for Class Members ("Notice Program").  The also approved
the form and content of the proposed forms of notice.  The
Plaintiffs are ordered to add a table of contents to the beginning
of the long form notice (Exhibit C) for ease of reference.

The Judge also approved the form and content of the proposed Claim
Form, and approved the procedures set forth in the Second
Supplemental Brief In Support of Preliminary Approval of Pro Tanto
Class Action Settlement for Class Members to submit Claims.  He
further approved of the procedures set forth in the Second
Supplemental Brief In Support of Preliminary Approval of Pro Tanto
Class Action Settlement for Class Members to receive vouchers,
elect to receive cash value in lieu of vouchers, and receive
redemption checks.

The Parties acknowledge that the Autobahn Defendants have prepared
a list of Class Members that is reasonably calculated to include
the email addresses and physical addresses of all the Class Members
known by the Autobahn Defendants, for the Settlement
Administrator's use in disseminating notice, vouchers, claim forms,
and redemption checks.  The list of Class Members, and the
information provided therein, will be used only to effectuate the
Agreement.

The "Notice Date" will be 30 days after issuance of the Order.  By
no later than the Notice Date, the Settlement Administrator will
send the Short Form Class Notice in the form approved by the Court,
to the Class Members via email for those Class Members for whom an
email address is available, along with a link to the Settlement
Website.  Where a Class Member's email address is unknown, the
Settlement Administrator will send the Short Form Class Notice in
the form of a postcard to the class member's last known address.

By no later than the Notice Date, the Settlement Administrator will
post the Long Form Class Notice, in substantially the same form
approved by the Court, on the Settlement Website.  The Settlement
Administrator will also implement on the website an electronic
means for Class Members to file a Class 2 Claim, and to elect to
receive a check in lieu of a voucher.  The Settlement Administrator
will establish and use a Settlement Website to allow Class Members
to find further information about the terms of the Settlement,
their rights, important dates and deadlines, and related
information.  The Settlement Administrator will also establish and
maintain a toll-free telephone number where the Class Members can
call to request a copy of the Settlement Agreement, a Claim Form,
or any other information concerning the Settlement or the
Settlement Agreement.

Any Class Member who wishes to be excluded from the Class must mail
a written request for exclusion to the Settlement Administrator,
postmarked no later than the Opt-Out Deadline: Oct. 31, 2018.

Any Class Member or person legally entitled to act on his or her
behalf may object to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of
the Settlement, to the Class Counsel's Request for Attorneys' Fees
and Costs, and/or the Request for service awards for the
Plaintiffs.  To be valid, any objection must be made in writing,
must be filed with the Court and served upon Class Counsel and
counsel for the Autobahn Defendants no later than the Objection
Deadline: Oct. 31, 2018.

The Class Counsel will file their Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Service Awards for the Plaintiffs by no later than Sept. 27, 2018.
After it is filed, the Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Service Awards for the Plaintiffs will be posted on the
Settlement Website.

The Parties will file any motions in support of Final Approval of
the Settlement, including any responses to any Class Member
objections, by no later than Dec. 11, 2018.

The Fairness Hearing will be scheduled for Jan. 15, 2019, at 2:00
p.m.  Pending the final determination of whether the Settlement
should be approved, all claims against the Autobahn Defendants in
the Action, except as may be necessary to implement the Settlement
or comply with the terms of the Settlement, are stayed.

Summary of key dates:

     i. Notice Date: Sept. 27, 2018

     ii. Deadline to file Motion for Attorneys' Fees and service
awards: Sept. 27, 2018


     iii. Opt-Out and Objection Deadline: Oct. 31, 2018

     iv. Deadline for Class 2 Claims to Elect to Receive Check:
Nov. 13, 2018 Deadline

     v. Filing of Motion for Final Approval: Dec. 11, 2018

     vi. Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Service Awards: Jan. 15, 2019, at 2:00 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 28, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/1Hdk7F from Leagle.com.

Steve Ferrari, Mike Keynejad, John Diaz, Harold Fethe & Ray
Gapasin, Plaintiffs, represented by Herman Franck, Franck and
Associates, Brian William Warwick -- bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
-- Varnell and Warwick, David K. Lietz --
dlietz@varnellandwarwick.com -- Varnell and Warwick, Elizabeth
Betowski -- elizabeth.francklaw@gmail.com -- Franck and Associates
& Janet Robards Varnell -- jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com --
Varnell and Warwick.

Patricia Reuben, individually and as representatives of the Class
of Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Herman
Franck, Franck and Associates, Brian William Warwick, Varnell and
Warwick, Elizabeth Betowski, Franck and Associates & Janet Robards
Varnell, Varnell and Warwick.

Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Helen Yiea Trac
-- helen.trac@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, James Niles
Tansey -- james.tansey@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP &
Regina M. Rodriguez -- regina.rodriguez@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP.

Sonic Automotive, Inc. & Autobahn, Inc., doing business as Autobahn
Motors, Defendants, represented by Bruce Grant Nye --
bnye@scalilaw.com -- The Scali Law Firm, Daniel F. Katz --
dkatz@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP, F. Gregory Bowman --
fbowman@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP, Georges A. Haddad --
ghaddad@clarkhill.com -- Clark Hill, Juli Ann Lund -- jlund@wc.com
-- Williams and Connolly LLP, Mary Beth Hickcox-Howard --
mhickcox-howard@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP & Matthew Mark
Schroeder, Adams Nye Becht LLP.


BANK OF AMERICA: Underpays Loan Officers, Veritas Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS VERITAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP.; and BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A., Case No. ESX-L-006242-18 (N.J. Super., Essex Cty., Sept. 4,
2018) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime
compensation and minimum wages, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff Veritas was employed by the Defendants as loan
officer from August 2016 to December 2017.

Bank of America Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
banking and financial products and services for individual
consumers, small- and middle-market businesses, institutional
investors, large corporations, and governments worldwide. Bank of
America Corporation was founded in 1874 and is based in Charlotte,
North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glen D. Savits, Esq.
          GREEN SAVITS, LLC
          25B Vreeland Road, Suite 207
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 695-7777

               - and –

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Ave., 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000

               - and –

          Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888


BAYER CORP: Allen Matkins Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Keith Paul Bishop, Esq. -- kbishop@allenmatkins.com -- of Allen
Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP, in an article for The
National Law Review, wrote that Miles Laboratories pioneered the
concept of daily dosing of multivitamins and minerals in the 1940s
with the introduction of its One A Day brand.  Now owned by Bayer
AG, the brand encompasses a suite of vitamins for targeted at men,
women and children. Bayer AG suffered a setback when a California
Court of Appeal allowed a class action alleging that the name was
misleading could proceed.  Brady v. Bayer Corp., 2018 Cal. App.
LEXIS 800.

The fundamental allegation in the case is that Bayer's packaging of
its "Vitacraves Adult Multivitamin" line of gummies is misleading
because despite the One A Day brand name, the back of the bottle
instructs consumers to chew two gummies.  Thus, a bottle containing
100 gummies represents a 50, not 100, day supply.

Writing for the court, Justice William W. Bedsworth focuses on
common sense, literal truth and the nature of the brand name.  But
what is the "One" in the "One A Day" brand name?  Does it refer to
one gummie or simply taking your vitamins once a day?  

The court's opinion is also a useful reminder that product
descriptions constitute express warranties under the Uniform
Commercial Code.  Cal. Comm. Code Sec. 2313. [GN]


BIRD RIDES: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Jon Osuna Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JON OSUNA, an individual, for himself and all members of the
putative class, the Plaintiff, v. BIRD RIDES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. BC722114 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 18, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, BIRD is a dockless electric scooter
rental company. To rent a scooter, users download BIRD'S smartphone
app and open the map to locate a nearby GPS enabled scooter. The
user can then unlock the scooter and ride it. Each ride costs $1
plus 15 cents per minute thereafter. At the end of the ride, users
leave the scooter at their destination and use the app to lock the
scooter and end the ride. Once that occurs, the scooter's location
reappears on the map in the app for other users to locate, unlock,
and ride.

These scooters sometimes need to be repaired. To do this, BIRD
hires "mechanics" that use BIRD'S smartphone app to collect damaged
scooters, repair them at their homes, and then rerelease them back
to the public once they are fixed. Typical repairs include flat
tires, broken kickstands, broken brake levers, loose
neck/handlebars, or adjusting the breaks. If a mechanic needs more
replacements parts, BIRD will ship the parts to them. If a scooter
is badly damaged and the mechanic is unable to repair it, the
mechanic must bring the scooter to a designated drop-off location.
Mechanics are paid a "bounty" for each scooter they collect,
repair, and re-release. The bounty averages around $15, but could
be more or less depending on how long the scooter has been
available for repair and other repair incentives.

To become a mechanic, applicants can apply on BIRD'S smartphone app
or online. Applicants must be 18 years old or older, have a car,
some basic tools, someplace to fix the scooters (e.g., a garage or
workshop), and live in an area where BIRD operates. Applicants then
have a short telephone interview with a BIRD representative, watch
some how-to videos, and answer some test questions. If an applicant
is approved, they are sent a starter kit that includes a few tools
(wrenches, tire lever, air pump) and replacement parts (inner
tubes, tires, stickers). BIRD classifies its mechanics as
independent contractors. However, at one time BIRD'S scooters were
repaired solely by BIRD employees.

BIRD's classification of its mechanics as independent contractors
is a willful attempt to minimize costs and unduly maximize profits
at the expense of their primary workforce. Mechanics are under the
control and direction of BIRD in connection with the performance of
their work, perform work that is part of the usual course of BIRD'S
business, and are not customarily engaged in an independently
established trade, occupation, or business in the same nature of
the work performed for BIRD.

Through its unlawful misclassification scheme, BIRD avoids the
costs of providing workers compensation to its mechanics, denying
them much needed protection in the event of work related injuries
or illnesses. BIRD also unlawfully passes on its operation costs,
in the form of collection, repair, and drop-off costs to its
mechanics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Kitty K. Szeto, Esq.
          John M. Bickford, Esq.
          Ryan A. Crist, Esq.
          PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949 2595
          Facsimile: (661) 949 7524


BRE SELECT: Battaglia Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------
BRE Select Hotels Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that the company is defending against a putative
class action suit entitled, Battaglia v. BRE Select Hotels Corp.

The Company, as the successor to Apple Six, is subject to claims
for alleged acts of Apple Six that occurred prior to the Merger.

On February 24, 2017, a putative class action, captioned Wilchfort
v. Knight, et al., Civil Action No. 17-cv-01046 (E.D.N.Y.), was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York against BRE Select Hotels Corp, as
successor-in-interest to Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple Hospitality
REIT, Inc., Apple REIT Seven, Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc.
(together with Apple REIT Six, Inc. and Apple REIT Seven, Inc., the
"Apple REITs"), certain of the Apple REITs' directors, officers and
advisors, and Apple Fund Management, LLC.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons and entities
who elected to participate in Apple REITs' Dividend Reinvestment
Plans ("DRIPs") between July 17, 2007 and the later of the
termination and/or suspension of the respective DRIPs or February
12, 2014.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the prices at which
plaintiff and the purported class members purchased additional
shares through the DRIPs were artificially inflated and not
indicative of the true value of units in the Apple REITs. Plaintiff
asserts claims for breach of contract, tortious interference with
contract and tortious interference with business expectancy and
breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and seeks,
among other things, damages and other costs and expenses.

On March 30, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part the
Company's motion to dismiss and, on April 13, 2018, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, captioned Wilchfort et al. v. BRE
Select Hotels Corp., Civil Action No. 17-cv-1046 (E.D.N.Y.).

On May 31, 2018, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint, captioned Battaglia v. BRE Select Hotels Corp., Civil
Action No. 17-cv-01046 (E.D.N.Y.), which, among other things,
narrowed the putative class period to February 24, 2011 through
November 29, 2012.

On June 4, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.
On June 27, 2018, the Company filed an Answer to the Second Amended
Class Action Complaint.

BRE Select said, "The Company believes that any claims against it
are without merit, and it intends to defend against them
vigorously. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably predict the
outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate of the
possible loss or range of loss due to this proceeding."

BRE Select Hotels Corp is a non-listed real estate investment trust
(REIT) focused on the ownership of upscale, extended-stay and
select-service hotels. The company is based in New York, New York.


BROWN HILL: Workman Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------
D. WORKMAN, an individual, Plaintiff, v. BROWN HILL PRODUCTIONS,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, ALEC BERG, an individual
resident of California, and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, the
Defendant, Case No. BC722l09 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 13, 2018),
seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime under the California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed the Plaintiff
for Silicon Valley on January 11, 2018. The Plaintiff allegedly did
not receive the check until May 25, 2018. The Defendants failed to
timely compensate the Plaintiff and other persons who performed
services on Silicon Valley.  The Plaintiff worked for 12.5 hours on
Silicon Valley. However, neither the Plaintiff nor others were
compensated on time as required by law.

Brown Hill is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking
company running freight hauling business from Culver City,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          Lin Zhan, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: 323 962 3777
          Facsimile: 323 962 3004
          E-mail: harrisa@hamsandruble.com
                  dgarrett@harrisandruble.com
                  lznan@harrisandruble.com


CAMELBAK PRODUCTS: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wage, Morales Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
REGINO MORALES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAMELBAK PRODUCTS, LLC, VISTA OUTDOORS,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC722123 (Cal. Super Ct., Sep. 17, 2018), seeks to recover overtime
wages and minimum wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, for at least four years prior to the
filing of this action and continuing to the present, the Defendants
have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages, including
minimum and overtime wages, to Plaintiff and other non-exempt
employees in the State of California in violation of California
state wage and hour laws as a result of, including but not limited
to, unevenly rounding time worked.

CamelBak Products, LLC is an outdoors equipment company based in
Petaluma, California, best known for its hydration products, such
as hydration packs and water bottles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          Dayana Pelayo, Esq.
          BOKHOUR LAW GROUP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 975 4493
          Facsimile: (310) 300 4705
          E-mail: mehrdad@bokhottrlaw.com
                  dayana@bokhourlaw.com


CDK GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Autoloop's Class Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
CDK Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that the motion to dismiss filed by CDK Global LLC
in the putative class action suit filed by Loop LLC d/b/a Autoloop,
is currently being briefed.

Loop LLC d/b/a Autoloop ("Autoloop") brought suit against CDK
Global, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on April 9, 2018, but reserved its rights with respect to
remand to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin at the conclusion of the MDL proceedings.

On June 5, 2018, Autoloop amended its complaint as a putative class
action on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
vendors. CDK Global LLC has moved to dismiss Autoloop's claims;
that motion is currently being briefed by the parties.

Loop is represented by:

     Richard J. Prendergast, Esq.
     Collin Matthew Bruck, Esq.
     Michael Thomas Layden, Esq.
     Richard J. Prendergast, Ltd.
     Tel: 312-641-0881
     E-mail: rprendergast@rjpltd.com
             cbruck@rjpltd.com
             mlayden@rjpltd.com

CDK Global, Inc. provides software and technology solutions for
automotive retailers in the United States and internationally. The
company operates through Retail Solutions North America,
Advertising North America, and CDK International segments. CDK
Global, Inc. is headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.


CDK GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
CDK Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that the company has filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, or in the alternative, stay the complaint in the
consolidated class action suit related to data integration services
(DMS).

Teterboro Automall, Inc. d/b/a Teterboro Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram
("Teterboro") brought a putative class-action suit against CDK
Global, LLC and Reynolds and Reynolds.

Teterboro's suit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey on October 19, 2017. Since that
time, several more putative class actions have been filed in a
variety of Federal District Courts, with substantively similar
allegations; all of them have been consolidated with the MDL
proceeding.

On June 4, 2018, a Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed on
behalf of a putative class made up of all dealerships in the United
States that directly or indirectly purchase DMS or data integration
services from CDK or Reynolds and Reynolds.

The Company has moved to dismiss the complaint, or in the
alternative, stay the cases in the event Reynolds and Reynolds'
concurrent motion to compel arbitration (or, in the alternative,
dismiss the complaint) is granted; those motions are currently
being briefed by the parties.

CDK Global, Inc. provides software and technology solutions for
automotive retailers in the United States and internationally. The
company operates through Retail Solutions North America,
Advertising North America, and CDK International segments. CDK
Global, Inc. is headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.


CELLADON CORP: 9th Cir. Affirms Tadros Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WAHID TADROS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CELLADON CORPORATION;
et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-56904 (9th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's order dismissing Tadros' class action securities fraud
complaint for failure to adequately plead material
misrepresentation or omission and scienter.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' statements touting the
success of Mydicar were misleading because of flaws underlying both
the study and sensitivity analysis.  In the case, the alleged flaws
underlying the study and the sensitivity analysis were disclosed by
the Defendants in a publicly accessible journal article published
years before Celladon went public.  As this information was already
part of the total mix of information available to investors, the
Court holds that the Defendants' statements were not misleading.

The Plaintiff alleges that -- because of Zsebo's education and
experience and Celladon's small size and reliance on Mydicar as its
sole product candidate -- the Defendants knew about the alleged
flaws underlying the clinical trial and had motive to misrepresent
the results.  As the district court found, the Appellate Court also
finds that the Plaintiff has failed to allege specific facts
demonstrating that defendants acted with the intent to manipulate
the clinical trial or deceive the public.  In addition, the
purported weaknesses with the trial were disclosed by defendants,
and there is nothing to suggest that Zsebo or her co-authors, who
were prominent physicians, did not believe in the results of the
study.  Even viewing the Plaintiff's allegations holistically, the
inference of scienter in the case is not as compelling as opposing
inferences from the facts alleged.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 28, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/1xcVHO from Leagle.com.


CEMTREX INC: 3 New York Securities Suits Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------
Cemtrex Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2018, that three securities class action lawsuits pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York have been
consolidated.

Three alleged securities class action complaints were filed against
the Company and certain of its executive officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 24,
2017. Under the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, these three alleged class actions, as well as
any further related actions, were consolidated into a single
lawsuit on March 9, 2018.

A follow-on, related derivative complaint also was filed against
the Company and its executive officers and directors in New York
State court on April 10, 2017. That derivative action has been
stayed by agreement of the parties until after the motion to
dismiss process in the consolidated alleged class actions has run
its course. Pursuant to a stipulated Court schedule, plaintiffs
filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on May 7,
2018. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss this class action
with the Court on July 6, 2018.

The allegations in the complaint are based on the assertions
contained in a blog post published on an internet website that
challenged various aspects of the Company's stock trading and
relationships. The Company denies these assertions, and filed a
lawsuit seeking damages in the amount of $170 million, against the
blogger who published that report on March 4, 2017 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The Company voluntarily dismissed that lawsuit on June 12, 2017,
because in spite of considerable effort, the Company was unable to
serve the defendant blogger within the required time, but the
Company has reserved the right to re-file its claims against him at
a later date.

The Company believes the alleged class action and derivative
litigations are without merit and intends to defend itself
vigorously. The Company has retained Doug Green of Baker Hostetler,
a nationally renowned law firm with no previous relationship to the
Company, to defend the litigations, and intends to seek dismissal
of the litigations at the earliest possible stage. The Company has
to abide by the timeline set by the Court and hence cannot predict
the time table of this litigation.

Cemtrex said, "Regardless of the merit of the claims, litigation is
inherently unpredictable and may be costly, time consuming and
disruptive to the Company's business. Although the Company has an
insurance policy with a $150,000 deductible in place, which covers
this class action lawsuit the Company could incur judgments or
enter into settlements of claims that could adversely affect its
business, operating results or cash flows."

Cemtrex Inc. is a technology company that provides a wide array of
solutions to meet today's environmental challenges. The Company
manufactures, sells, and services instruments, software and systems
for monitoring emissions of Greenhouse gases, hazardous gases,
particulate and other regulated pollutants used in emissions
trading globally. The company is based in Farmingdale, New York.


CENSTAR ENERGY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned SILBAUGH,
Plaintiffs, v. CENSTAR ENERGY CORP., Defendant. Case No.: 1:18 CV
161. (N.D. Ohio).

The Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is filed as Class Action
Complaint alleging that Defendant CenStar Energy Corp. (CenStar)
has violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), by using
automatic telephone dialing systems and prerecorded/artificial
voices to place unsolicited calls and leave messages on consumer's
telephone voicemail without their consent.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

On a motion brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). asserting a
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, this Court's inquiry is not
limited to the content of the complaint. When addressing a factual
challenge to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction the Court is
not to presume that the factual allegations asserted in the
Complaint are true.

CenStar argues that under the recently decided United States
Supreme Court case Spoken v. Robins. 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016). the
claims against it in the Second Amended Complaint must be dismissed
for lack of standing.

In this case, the Court need not determine whether the allegation
of nuisance and invasion of privacy are sufficient in and of
themselves to satisfy standing because Plaintiff has also alleged
that she pays for voicemail service and that the Defendant's
messages take up space in consumers voicemail boxes. These
allegations, if true, represent the same type of harm as the lost
call opportunity created by faxes which temporarily tie up the
phone line, or phone calls and text message that use a portion of
an allotment paid for by the consumer. Plaintiff also alleges
depletion of her cell phone battery, which, when combined with the
other allegations, sufficiently alleges economic injury, even if
the economic loss may be small.

Taking into account the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint
and the items appearing in the record of this case, it appears
clear that Ms. Silbaugh alleges actual harm in the form of
nuisance/invasion of privacy, monetary cost, and waste of time and
resources. These allegations go beyond mere conclusory assertions
as the Second Amended Complaint outlines the means by which the
alleged harms have occurred. Based on the specific allegations and
facts of this case, and taking into account the clarification
provided by the Spokeo Court, this Court finds that Ms. Silbaugh
has alleged an injury sufficient to satisfy the requirements for
standing under Article III of the United States Constitution.

The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is
denied.

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

Glenn Silbaugh, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Tia Silbaugh, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Frank A. Bartela --
fbartela@dworkenlaw.com -- Dworken & Bernstein, Nicole T. Fiorelli
-- nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com -- Dworken & Bernstein & Patrick J.
Perottiv -- pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- Dworken & Bernstein.

CenStar Energy, Corp., Defendant, represented by Ezra D. Church --
ezra.church@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, David D.
Yeagley -- dyeagley@ulmer.com -- Ulmer & Berne & Steven A. Luxton
-- steven.luxton@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.


CHICAGO, IL: Kennedy et al. Sue over Red Light Camera Policy
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Kennedy, Vincent Saisi, Inc., Riza Milovic and Victor
Zisman, the Plaintiffs, vs. City of Chicago, the Defendant, Case
No. 2018CH11693 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Sep. 17, 2018), asks the
Court to declare that the City of Chicago's red light camera
violation notices are unconstitutional, unlawful and void ab
initio; injunction preventing the City from collecting on and
enforcing any such violation notices; and to recover all fines and
penalties unconstitutionally and unlawfully collected by the City.

The Plaintiffs bring this action against the City of Chicago for
issuing red light camera violation notices that are void ab initio
for failing to comply with Illinois law and the City's own
Municipal Code. Specifically, Section 11-208.6 of the Illinois
Vehicle Code enables municipalities to operate automated traffic
law enforcement or "red light camera" systems and establishes
mandatory parameters for the operation of such systems. Section
11-208.6 of the Vehicle Code contains mandatory statements,
warnings, and information that must be included in red light camera
violation notices. The Illinois legislature preempted home rule
authority with respect to a municipality's operation of red light
cameras.

The City adopted an ordinance, codified in the City's Municipal
Code, expressly requiring that all red light camera violation
notices comply with the tem1s of Section 11-208.6 of the Vehicle
Code. Therefore, the City of Chicago may only issue red light
camera violation notices that comply with the express requirements
of Section 11- 208.6 of the Vehicle Code. The City's red light
camera violation notices, however, do not comply with the mandatory
requirements of Section 11-208.6 of the Vehicle Code. The red light
camera violation notices issued by the City are therefore void ab
initio. The City has issued in excess of 2 million violation
notices in the five years before the date of filing this Complaint.


Chicago, on Lake Michigan in Illinois, is among the largest cities
in the U.S. Famed for its bold architecture, it has a skyline
punctuated by skyscrapers such as the iconic John Hancock Center,
1,451-ft. Willis Tower (formerly the Sears Tower) and the
neo-Gothic Tribune Tower.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Roth, Esq.
          ROTH FIORETTI, LLC
          311 S. Wacker Drive Suite 2470
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 922 6262
          E-mail: mark@rothfioretti.com [GN]


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Schneider Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARTIN SCHNEIDER, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
4:16-cv-02200-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam,
Jr. entered an order:

     1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration;

     2. denying Defendant's motion for summary judgment;

     3. denying Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony and
opinions of Dr. Krosnick;

     4. denying as moot Plaintiffs' and Defendant's remaining
Daubert motions; and

     5. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification of
these classes:

        "California: All persons in California who purchased
        Chipotle's Food Products containing meat and/or dairy
        ingredients during the Class Period";

        "Maryland: All persons in Maryland who purchased
        Chipotle's Food Products containing meat and/or dairy
        ingredients during the Class Period"; and

        "New York: All persons in New York who purchased
        Chipotle's Food Products containing meat and/or
        dairy ingredients during the Class Period"; and

     6. appointing Plaintiffs Martin Schneider, Sarah Deigert,
Theresa Gamage, and Nadia Parikka as Class representatives and the
law firm of Kaplan Fox as Class Counsel in this action.

The Court sets a further case management conference for October 30,
2018, at 2:00 p.m.  The parties shall meet and confer and submit a
joint case management statement by October 23.  The joint statement
must include a proposed case schedule through trial.[CC]


CIVISTA BANCSHARES: Court Dismisses Parshall Suit With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Civista Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed that the court has entered
an order dismissing the lawsuit captioned, Parshall v. United
Community Bancorp, et al., with prejudice.

On June 28, 2018, Paul Parshall, a purported stockholder of United
Community, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior
Court for the State of Indiana, Dearborn County, captioned Parshall
v. United Community Bancorp, et al. (Case No.
15D02-1806-PL-000048), against United Community, the members of
United Community's Board of Directors, United Community Bank,
Civista and Civista Bank on behalf of all of United Community's
public stockholders.

The lawsuit had sought relief that included preliminary and
permanent injunction against the consummation of the Merger,
rescission or rescissory damages if the Merger is completed, costs
and attorney's fees.

Mr. Parshall filed a voluntary notice of dismissal. On August 13,
2018, the court entered an order dismissing the lawsuit, with
prejudice as to Mr. Parshall and without prejudice as to the
putative class.

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


CLABORN'S ELITE LAWNS: Harding Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marlen Harding, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Claborn's Elite Lawns, LLC, John Brian
Claborn and April Claborn, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-0910, (W.D.
Okla., September 14, 2018) seeks to recover compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

Defendants provide landscaping and lawn care services to
individuals in and around the Oklahoma City area. Harding was
employed as a laborer from approximately May 2018 until September
2018.

The complaint says the Defendants improperly classified Harding as
an independent contractor. He routinely worked in excess of forty
hours per workweek yet was not paid overtime of at least one and
one-half his regular rate. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Noble K. McIntyre, Esq.
      MCINTYRE LAW PC
      8601 S. Western Avenue
      Oklahoma City, OK 73139
      Telephone: (405) 917-5250
      Facsimile: (405) 917-5405
      Email: noble@mcintyrelaw.com

             - and -

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Lauren Braddy, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 452-1279
      Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com


COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Anthony Pepe Sues D&Os over Pump-and-Dump Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY PEPE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. COCRYSTAL PHARMA, INC. F/K/A BIOZONE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ELLIOT MAZA, GARY WILCOX, JEFFREY MECKLER,
GERALD MCGUIRE, JAMES MARTIN, CURTIS DALE, PHILLIP FROST, BARRY C.
HONIG, JOHN STETSON, MICHAEL BRAUSER, JOHN O’ROURKE III, MARK
GROUSSMAN, BRIAN KELLER, AND JOHN H. FORD, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-14091 (D.N.J., Sep. 20, 2018), is a federal securities
class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased
publicly traded securities of Cocrystal Pharma, Inc. f/k/a/ BioZone
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: COCP) and of Cocrystal's
predecessor, BioZone, from September 23, 2013 through September 7,
2018, inclusive.

According to a statement by The Rosen Law Firm, "defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) defendants were engaged in a pump-and-dump scheme to
artificially inflate Cocrystal's stock price; (2) this illicit
scheme would result in governmental scrutiny, including from the
SEC; (3) defendants failed to abide by SEC disclosure regulations;
and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about Cocrystal's
business, operations and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages."

According to the complaint, in November 2010, Honig, Stetson, and
Groussman purchased one-third of a publicly-traded shell company.
In December 2010, Frost and Brauser each purchased one-half of the
remaining two-thirds of the shell company. Honig, Stetson,
Groussman, Frost, and Brauser disguised their roles in the purchase
of the shell company by purchasing shares through an entity. An
associate of Frost was installed as the sole director of the shell
company.

In late 2010, Honig, Brauser, and Frost approached the management
of a private biotech company, including Keller, who was the Chief
Scientific Officer and a director, to discuss taking the biotech
company public through a reverse merger. Although the merger of the
publicly-traded shell and the private company faced an obstacle
when the bank which was providing a line of credit to the private
company would not approve the merger in 2011, the merger still
closed in June 2011 and the bank sent a default notice.

The reverse merger resulted in the creation of BioZone. Honig,
Brauser, and Frost were not only the controlling shareholders of
BioZone, but exercised control over BioZone's management, including
over Maza. With Frost, Stetson, and Groussman's knowledge and
consent, Honig and Brauser installed Maza as CEO of BioZone. During
his tenure as CEO of BioZone, Maza did what Honig and Brauser told
him to do and sought their approval for BioZone's business
decisions.

Keller, Maza, and an associate of Frost concealed Honig's and
Brauser's control of BioZone by signing company public filings that
failed to disclose the involvement of Honig, Brauser, Stetson, and
Groussman. This includes BioZone's Form 10-K filed on April 16,
2012. Keller and Maza knew that Honig and Brauser, with Frost's
knowledge and consent, controlled BioZone's management and thus the
filings were false. BioZone's filings only identified Frost as a
control person and not Honig and Brauser. Maza and Keller went
along with Honig, Brauser, and Frost's control because they were
promised, and ultimately rewarded, substantial salaries and
millions of BioZone shares.

By April 1, 2013, Honig, Frost, Brauser, Maza, Keller, and an
associate of Frost entered into an agreement to purchase, hold, or
sell their shares in concert. They amassed over 44 million BioZone
shares which equaled almost 71% of the BioZone. Beginning in August
and September 2013, Stetson, at Honig's direction, deposited almost
4 million shares of BioZone that had been issued to Honig in a
brokerage account.

With the deposit of these shares, Stetson falsely denied any
relationship between Honig, BioZone, or its affiliates. Honig
signed the submission for the deposit of these shares knowing that
it was false. On September 4, 2013, Stetson aided in obtaining the
issuance of a false attorney opinion letter to BioZone's transfer
agent to remove restrictive legends from Honig's share
certifications. These opinion letters falsely stated that Honig was
not an affiliate of BioZone, which Stetson knew was false. To aid
in depositing Honig's shares with a broker, Maza was also required
to issue a letter to confirm the authenticity of the stock
certificates, which he did. Maza knew, or was reckless in not
knowing, that statements in his letter regarding Honig not being a
BioZone affiliate was false. Since Honig was a Company affiliate,
his shares would be subject to volume limitations under the federal
securities laws.

Defendant Cocrystal, is a clinical stage biotechnology company
discovering and developing novel antiviral therapeutics that target
the replication machinery of hepatitis viruses, influenza viruses,
and noroviruses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
          South Orange, NJ 07079
          Telephone: (973) 313 1887
          Facsimile: (973) 833 0399
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


COHU INC: Agreement Reached in Shui Merger Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Cohu, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that the company and each member of the
company's Board and the plaintiff in Xinkang Shui v. Xcerra
Corporation, et al., have reached an agreement whereby plaintiff
would dismiss his complaint based on the company's intent to make
certain supplemental disclosures relating to a merger deal.

On May 8, 2018, Cohu, Inc. announced that it entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated as of
May 7, 2018, by and among Cohu, Xavier Acquisition Corporation, a
Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cohu (the
"Merger Sub") and Xcerra Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation
("Xcerra"). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub
will merge with and into Xcerra (the "Merger"), with Xcerra
continuing as the surviving corporation of the Merger (the
"Surviving Corporation") and a wholly owned subsidiary of Cohu.

On July 23, 2018, a putative shareholder class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against Xcerra and each member of the Xcerra Board,
captioned Xinkang Shui v. Xcerra Corporation, et al., C.A. No.
1:18-cv-11529 (the "Shui Action").

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Xcerra and each
member of the Xcerra Board violated federal securities laws and
regulations by soliciting stockholder votes in connection with the
Merger through a proxy statement that purportedly omits material
facts necessary to make the statements therein not false or
misleading.

The complaint seeks, among other things, either to enjoin Xcerra
from conducting the stockholder vote on the Merger unless and until
the allegedly omitted material information is disclosed or, in the
event the Merger is consummated, to recover damages. The complaint
also seeks an award of costs and attorneys' fees.

On July 30, 2018, a second putative shareholder class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against Xcerra and each member of the
Xcerra Board, captioned Waseem Khan v. Xcerra Corporation, et al.,
C.A. No. 1:18-cv-11592 (the "Khan Action" and together with the
Shui Action, the "Actions").

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Xcerra and each
member of the Xcerra Board violated federal securities laws and
regulations by soliciting stockholder votes in connection with the
Merger through a proxy statement that purportedly omits material
facts necessary to make the statements therein not false or
misleading.

The complaint seeks, among other things, either to enjoin Xcerra
from conducting the stockholder vote on the Merger unless and until
the allegedly omitted material information is disclosed or, in the
event the Merger is consummated, to rescind it or recover
rescissory damages. The complaint also seeks an award of costs and
attorneys' fees.

On August 19, 2018, Xcerra and each member of the Xcerra Board and
the plaintiff in the Shui Action reached agreement whereby
plaintiff would dismiss his complaint based on Xcerra's intent to
make certain supplemental disclosures relating to the Merger (the
"Supplemental Disclosures").

The Supplemental Disclosures are being made in response to the
complaints in the Actions and solely for the purpose of mooting the
allegations contained therein. Xcerra denies the allegations of the
two class action complaints, including that it committed any
violations of law. Xcerra continues to believe that the allegations
in the complaints are without merit and is mooting the claims
solely for the purpose of avoiding the expense and burden of
litigation.

Cohu, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in the development,
manufacture, sale, and servicing of semiconductor test and
inspection handlers, micro-electro mechanical system (MEMS) test
modules, test contactors, and thermal sub-systems for semiconductor
manufacturers and test subcontractors worldwide. Cohu, Inc. was
founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Poway, California.


COLUMBIA GAS: Napoli Shkolnik Files Suit for Impacted Residents
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan McGonigle, writing for Wicked Local, reported that as autumn
brings a blanket of brisk, cooling temperatures to New England,
many people in North Andover, Lawrence and Andover are still
without heat in their homes. Scores of businesses remain shuttered
because they have no gas, losing clients every day. The region-wide
explosions of Sept. 13 has economic and safety ramifications that
will stretch far beyond Columbia Gas's promised Nov. 19 deadline
for restoration.

And that's why lawyers at Napoli Shkolnik PLLC -- and dozens of
residents -- met Sunday at Kettle Pizza on Osgood Street to discuss
a class-action lawsuit against Columbia Gas.

"We've been doing Flint [Michigan, which is in a drinking water
crisis] cases, , we're also involved in the World Trade Center
clean-up, we've done a lot of environmental cases," Attorney
Patrick Haines of Napoli Shkolnik said. "Dealing with a lot of
people who had stuff like this happen, and we're very lucky that
it's not worse than it is here. But it's horrible to have a person
die -- one is too many."

He was referring to Leonel Rondon, 18, of Lawrence, who was killed
by one the explosions.

Haine's client, Dean Thornhill, had so much damage done to his home
that it may be a year before everything is repaired. His daughter
ran a daycare, but she can't operate it because of the damage to
the house.

"I walked into that house and I saw that damage to that basement,
and I was surprised that his whole house didn't go up," Haines
said.

"This is a big deal. It's as if a hurricane rolled into the
neighborhood, but this is a man-made disaster, and unfortunately,
one that was preventable," Haines said with a frustrated southern
drawl. "This is Columbia Gas, and it took 23 hours for them to come
out and tell us what was going on. The least they could have done
-- they've got everyone's email address, send something saying,
'We're working on the problem, so hang in there, we're trying to
figure it out,' something like that."

So what's next?

"We're doing two different things," Haines said. "On Friday, we
filed two different actions. One of them was for Dean and Mona
[Thornhill], for their damages and their family, and individual
case for the five of them and what they've gone through -- the
damage to their property, their stress, their mental anguish, all
of that."

Economic debris

The second thing Napoli Shkolnik did was file a class-action suit
limited to businesses impacted by the disaster.

"The businesses in this community, they're really taking it on the
chin right now," Haines said, shaking his head. "They're shut down,
restaurants are closed, and every day they're closed they're losing
money, and they already have kind of a thin margin, right? Most
people don't have a lot of back up, and when they're shut down for
two weeks, that' a big deal."

Indeed, having local businesses suddenly closing en masse is likely
to ravage the region's economy as well as impact its communities'
revenues.

"Some aren't going to make it," Haines lamented. "And like the
daycare that Dean owns. They're gone. Those parents have had to
find other places. Are you going to get those people back, or have
you lost that? And these are damages you can't fix. So it's
horrible what people have for damage to their houses, and
hopefully, people have insurance that will hopefully cover a lot of
that stuff, but these business losses, people don't have stuff to
back them up on that. They don't have a bunch of money sitting in
the bank, so what we're trying to do is even the scales a little
bit for these businesses to help them out."

And there's also the issue of property values. Not many people are
likely to buy a home that has no gas or is near a home that
exploded.

"There's actually been a bunch of people who have asked me to
remove North Andover from their search criteria in the past few
days since the crisis came up," Lisa Sevajian, of Bentley Real
Estate in Andover, said.

But Sevajian said the housing impact may be short term.

". . . my team and I are all meeting to see how we can show the
public that North Andover as a community won't won't be long-term
damaged," Sevajian said, adding she and her team will embark on a
PR campaign promoting the Andovers despite the gas crisis.

"I definitely have had at least seven people tell me that they have
put their Andover and North Andover home searches on hold because
of the gas crisis. If you have a house that's on the market
currently and you're not impacted by the gas issue, you have to
know that there could potentially be fewer people interested for
the next few weeks, but you just gotta weather the storm."

Haines is inviting anyone impacted by the Sept. 13 explosions to
contact Napoli Shkolnik, even if just to discuss their options. You
can call Patrick at 832-563-1356 or email him at
phaines@napolilaw.com.

"I understand a lot of people don't believe in lawsuits, and they
don't want to file lawsuits. But in this instance, I think it's
about balancing out the scales, and that's what it's going to take,
I'm afraid," Haines said. "You're not going to get a fair shake
from Columbia Gas on the property values, the stuff that you lost,
unless you have a lawyer on your side."

Winter is coming

Night temperatures have dropped, and daytime temperatures are soon
to follow. Some home in the impacted area have electrical systems
that aren't even compatible with the small space heaters Columbia
Gas is sending to people's homes.

Haines -- like many around town -- scoffed at the idea that
restoration would be completed by Nov. 19.

"We all know that's just not going to happen," Haines said. "It
would be great, we're hoping for it, but we know November's going
to come and go."

To be blunt, if people are without gas in late autumn and winter,
they could freeze to death. And that is a health emergency.

"If this was a hurricane, we'd have FEMA here, we'd have trailers
set up here, but we don't have any of that," Haines said. "We're on
our own. Winter is coming, and it's going to be here soon, and
people have no answers of how they're going to stay warm."

Haines said he believes full restoration and other work needed will
not be done until the spring.

"And pipes are going to start breaking, and you're going to have
even more damage is gonna happen to these places when the weather
gets like that," Haines said.

Napoli Shkolnik is also planning to try to work with community
leaders -- Lawrence Mayor Dan Rivera, North Andover Town Manager
Andrew Maylor and Andover Town Manager Andrew Flanagan -- to get
them involved.

"We have a class action for the businesses, we're going to have
individual claims for the people affected that have suffered
losses, and if the city of Lawrence would like to get on board, and
North Andover, whoever was affected by this, and they want
representation, our firm represents people, counties and cities all
over the country right now."

As it happens, U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Salem, was in North
Andover Sunday for a town hall. What can he do at the federal level
to help?

"Our entire federal delegation is committed to holding Columbia
accountable, and your getting gas restored as quickly as possible,"
Moulton said. "Obviously, our prime concern is to do it safely. So
we are just as furious with the timeline as you, but we do want to
make sure it's being done in a responsible way."

Moulton said he and other members of the congressional delegation
have encouraged Columbia Gas to consider hiring some of the
National Grid workers.

Gov. Charlie Baker, however, recently issued a state of emergency
so he could put Eversource in charge of the restoration due to
Columbia Gas's seemingly lax response to the explosions.

Living in fear

Tracy Keen, whose kids yoga studio, Stand Tall Family Yoga, lost
gas for a week. And with services like daycare, if the business is
shut down even temporarily, parents need daycare and find new
options. But the North Andover community came through for her.

She met with Napoli Shkolnik lawyers.

"It is hard, but I was able to switch off and do it at libraries
and churches, so I really lucked out," she said.

For Keen, another concern is the psychological consequences of the
explosions.

"My 8-year-old is still waking up with nightmares," Keen said.
"He's afraid the house is going to blow up."

Keen's mother, Dianne Hinckley, was in Ireland on Sept. 13, and at
first she thought the Merrimack Valley had been attacked by
terrorists.

"We were there two days, my other daughter and myself, Rachel, we
were there two days and all of a sudden this happens and we
thought, 'Oh, my God, terrorism. I have children here and
grandchildren,' and that was it."

Naturally, the news of the gas explosions ruined that Ireland trip.
And adding salt to the wound, Hinckley is a retired nurse who
worked for the state -- so for 25 years, even in blizzards, she has
been working as an essential employee -- and the trip to Ireland
was Hinckley's retirement gift.

"So I'm furious over that," Hinckley said. "It was ruined." [GN]



CORE NUTRITION: Duffy Disputes Bottled Water Health Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Sean Duffy individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. Core Nutrition, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-05188, (E.D. N.Y., September 14, 2018), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, monetary damages and interest,
including treble and punitive damages, awarding costs and expenses,
including reasonable fees for attorneys and experts, and such other
and further relief for violation of the New York General Business
Law.

Core Nutrition manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
bottled water products under the "Core Hydration" line in various
sized bottles. Core claims that its bottled water is more effective
at providing hydration than other non-alkalinized, non-reduced
waters, due to its pH level, without any competent and reliable
scientific evidence supporting their claim, says the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
      LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      1 Penn Plaza, Suite 2527
      New York, NY 10119
      Tel: (212) 792-0046
      Email: joshua@levinepstein.com

             - and -

      Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
      SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      891 Northern Blvd., Suite 201
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Tel: (516) 303-0552
      Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


COVIA HOLDINGS: Parties Working on Settlement
---------------------------------------------
Covia Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the parties to the merger-related
lawsuits are preparing a stipulation of settlement and other
documentation to submit to the Court for approval.  

On June 1, 2018 (the "Merger Date"), Unimin Corporation ("Unimin")
completed its previously announced merger transaction (the
"Merger") with Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. ("Fairmount
Santrol"). Upon closing of the Merger, Fairmount Santrol was merged
into a wholly owned subsidiary of Unimin and ceased to exist as a
separate corporate entity.  

The combined entities began operating as Covia. Fairmount Santrol
common stock was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE")
prior to the market opening on June 1, 2018 and Covia commenced
trading under the ticker symbol "CVIA" as of that date.

Beginning on April 24, 2018, alleged stockholders of Fairmount
Santrol filed class actions against Fairmount Santrol and its
directors in the United States District Courts for the Northern
District of Ohio and for the District of Delaware. The lawsuits
generally alleged that Fairmount Santrol and its directors violated
the federal securities laws by issuing allegedly misleading
disclosures in connection with the Merger. The lawsuits sought,
among other things, to enjoin the special meeting at which
stockholders of Fairmount Santrol were scheduled to vote on, among
other items, a proposal to adopt the Merger agreement.

On May 14, 2018, counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for the
defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding that, among
other things, provided for the dissemination of additional
information to Fairmount Santrol stockholders and for dismissal
with prejudice of the lawsuits.  

On May 15, 2018, Fairmount Santrol disseminated the supplemental
disclosures to Fairmount Santrol stockholders through a current
report on Form 8-K. Also on May 15, 2018, the plaintiffs withdrew
their pending motions for a preliminary injunction. On May 25,
2018, at a special meeting of the stockholders of Fairmount
Santrol, the holders of the majority of the outstanding shares of
Fairmount Santrol voted to approve the Merger, among other things.


On June 1, 2018, the Merger was effected pursuant to the Merger
agreement. Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, the parties
are preparing a stipulation of settlement and other documentation
to submit to the Court for approval.  

Covia Holdings Corporation provides minerals and material solutions
for the industrial and energy markets. The company offers various
mineral solutions to the glass, ceramics, coatings, polymers,
construction, water filtration, sports, and recreation markets.
Covia Holdings Corporation was founded in 1970 and is based in
Chesterland, Ohio.


CRONOS GROUP: Chanda Sues over 28% Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------
MANIK CHANDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CRONOS GROUP INC.; and MICHAEL GORENSTEIN,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08047 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 2018) is an
action on behalf of persons and entities that acquired Cronos
securities between August 21, 2018 and August 30, 2018, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, on August 30, 2018, Citron Research
published an article entitled "Cronos: The Dark Side of the
Cannabis Space," alleging, among other things, that the Company has
been "deceiving the investing public by purposely not disclosing
the size of its distribution agreements with provinces -- unlike
every other major cannabis player" and that this was because "the
agreements are so small that they could never justify the premium
investors are paying for the stock."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.62, or over 28%, to
close at $9.12 per share on August 30, 2018, on usually heavy
trading volume.

THe Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the size of
Cronos's distribution agreements with the provinces was relatively
small; and (2) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements in about Cronos's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading, and lacked a
reasonable basis.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Cronos Group Inc. operates as a diversified and vertically
integrated cannabis company. The Company offers production and
distribution platforms of medical marijuana, as well as cultivates
cannabis oil. Cronos Group serves customers in Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
          New York, New York 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


DASSAULT FALCON: Gipson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Gipson, each individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Dassault Falcon Jet Corp., Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-00672, (E.D. Ark., September 14, 2018) seeks monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.

Dassault Falcon Jet Corp. manufactures airplanes and airplane
components related to the air transportation business where Gipson
worked as a manufacturing engineer. He claims to have regularly
worked in excess of forty hours per week without overtime pay.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DECORE-ATIVE SPECIALTIES: Valenzuela Alleges Time-Shaving
---------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO VALENZUELA, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DECORE-ATIVE SPECIALTIES, a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 722127
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 19, 2018), contends that the Plaintiff was
employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee in their
Assembly and Cutting Departments from approximately September 2015
through on or about August 21, 2017, at which time he suffered a
workplace injury and started a leave of absence.  During the
employment, the Defendants allegedly did and still utilize a
timekeeping system which resulted in the Plaintiff not being
compensated for all hours actually worked, by time-shaving or
rounding.  The Defendants regularly, systematically and
impermissibly rounded the time worked by Plaintiff and other
non-exempt employees in the Defendants' favor. Specifically, the
Defendants required Plaintiff to clock in approximately 3 minutes
before his scheduled start time and despite working and being under
the Defendants' direction and control, Plaintiff was not paid until
his scheduled start time of 5:00 a.m.  Due to the Defendants'
timekeeping policies and practices that fail to compensate for all
hours worked, the Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees were
deprived of all required minimum wages and overtime wages.

Decore-Ative Specialties manufactures and supplies wooden furniture
for commercial and residential market in the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

     - and -

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


DIAKON LOGISTICS: Johnson Moves to Certify Delivery Drivers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled TIMOTHY JOHNSON and DARRYL
MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. DIAKON LOGISTICS and INNOVEL SOLUTIONS, INC., f/k/a SEARS
LOGISTICS SERVICES, INC. and SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO., Case No.
1:16-cv-06776 (N.D. Ill.), seek certification of this class:

     All delivery drivers who (1) signed a Service Agreement with
     Diakon, (2) were classified as independent contractors, and
     (3) who performed deliveries for Diakon and Sears in
     Illinois between June 28, 2006 and the present.

Timothy Johnson and Darryl Moore, who are former delivery drivers
of Diakon, allege that the Company violated the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act by misclassifying them and the Company's
other Illinois drivers as "independent contractors" and taking
various deductions from theirs and the other drivers' pay.  The
Plaintiffs also allege that Innovel Solutions, Inc., f/k/a Sears
Logistics Services, Inc., was their joint employer under the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to (1) appoint them as class
representatives; (2) appoint Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., and
Siegel & Dolan, Ltd., as class counsel; and (3) authorize them to
send their proposed notice of class action.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bradley Manewith, Esq.
          Marc J. Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL & DOLAN LTD.
          150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 878-3210
          E-mail: bmanewith@msiegellaw.com
                  msiegel@msiegellaw.com

               - and -

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Olena Savytska, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  osavytska@llrlaw.com


DIGNITY HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Timekeeping Software
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McGough, writing for The Sacramento Bee, reports that
timekeeping software won't let Dignity Health nurses log any
overtime, lawsuit says

A recent lawsuit alleges that up to 1,200 Sacramento-area nurses
with Dignity Health worked as many as 50 minutes per 12-hour shift
of unpaid overtime, three times a week -- and that Dignity's
restrictive timekeeping software was part of the reason those hours
couldn't be logged properly.

Listing Dignity Health as the defendant, the class action complaint
alleges that the plaintiffs were paid for exactly 12 hours of work
per shift at hospitals in the greater Sacramento area, "regardless
of when they actually clocked in or out," attorney Bryan Lazarski
wrote.

The lawsuit was filed on Sept. 10 by two Los Angeles-based
employment attorneys, Mr. Lazarski and Gregory Wong, on behalf of
one current and two former nurses working with Dignity Health over
the past four years.

Registered and licensed practical nurses must, by necessity, stay
before and after their shifts begin and end for preparatory
purposes at Dignity Health hospitals, the lawsuit claims. This
typically involves 20 to 30 minutes of prep before work, with
another 10 to 20 minutes of duty afterward. These duties include
reviewing charts, planning patient care, other paperwork and
communicating information with the preceding and following shifts'
nurses, the lawsuit explains.

"These practices are uniform across all Affected Units at the
Sacramento Hospitals, occur on a routine and daily basis, and are
within the employer's knowledge such that Defendants knew or should
have known the RNs and LVNs were being suffered or permitted to
work off the clock," the class action complaint said.

The lawsuit, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court and seeking
class action status, further states that the Time and Attendance
Software (known as TEAM) used does not allow nurses to clock in
until seven minutes before their assigned start time.

"Although the purported 'grace period' would theoretically also
allow a nurse to clock in as late as 7:07 and receive credit for
clocking in at 7:00, this does not occur outside of highly unusual
circumstances," due to the prep work mentioned above, the lawsuit
says.

Damages are sought, which the complaint says should be calculable
because "records and/or metadata within the TEAM software should be
able to show the actual clock in/out times that employees should
have been paid for."

The class action complaint seeks a total of "the greater of actual
damages or $50 for the initial pay period in which a violation
occurred," plus $100 for each subsequent violation, up to a maximum
of $4,000 in damages per individual.

With approximately 1,200 nurses qualifying for a potential class
action case, this means the lawsuit could seek a maximum of about
$4.8 million total. The lawsuit also seeks recovery of plaintiffs'
legal fees.

Dignity Health released a statement which said they "are reviewing
the complaint, and as a matter of practice we do not comment on
pending litigation. At Dignity Health, patient care and safety are
our highest priorities. We value our nurses and staff and their
daily contributions to our patients and to our mission. We are
committed to providing our employees with the work environment,
tools, and resources they need to provide excellent care."

The complaint names seven hospitals: Woodland Memorial, Mercy
General in Sacramento, Mercy Folsom, Mercy San Juan in Carmichael,
Mercy Redding, Methodist of Sacramento and Sierra Nevada Memorial
in Grass Valley.

Two of the plaintiffs regularly worked both day shifts and night
shifts at more than one of these hospitals, the class action
complaint says.

Dignity Health reached a deal following labor negotiations with the
Engineers and Scientists of California Local 20 union, giving
raises and tuition reimbursements to lab scientists and
technologists. The deal was announced on Labor Day. [GN]


DOW JONES & COMPANY: Made Unsolicited Calls, Deaton Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL DEATON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC. d/b/a THE WALL
STREET JOURNAL, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-08027-AT (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 5, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making
unsolicited calls.

Dow Jones & Company, Inc. offers business and financial news and
information globally to consumers and organizations worldwide. The
company was founded in 1882 and is based in New York, New York. Dow
Jones & Company, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of News Corporation.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron Siri, Esq.
          Mason Barney, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          200 Park Avenue, Seventeenth Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 532-1091
          Facsimile: (646) 417-5967

               - and -

          W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120
          Galleria Tower I
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
                  jarrett@hughesellzey.com


EASY DRIVING: Must Pay for Instructors' Travel Time, Thomas Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BEVERLY THOMAS, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EASY DRIVING
SCHOOL, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; EDRIVING, LLC,
a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-00047639-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sep. 20, 2018), seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff
and other California Class Members for this mandatory travel time
to their first student's house for the day. As a result, the
Plaintiff and other California Class Members forfeited minimum wage
and overtime compensation by regularly working without their time
being accurately recorded and without compensation at the
applicable minimum wage and overtime rates. The Defendant's uniform
policy and practice not to pay Plaintiff and other California Class
Members for all time worked is evidenced by the Defendant's
business records.

The Defendant is a provider of online driver's education, defensive
driving education, behind-the-wheel training and fleet driving
safety.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz to Lead in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Order granting Scarbatettis'
Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and Approval of Counsel
in the case captioned KEVIN BAILEY, on behalf of himself, and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ESPERION THERAPEUTICS,
INC., TIMOTHY M. MAYLEBEN, and RICHARD B. BARTRAM, Defendants. Case
No. 18-11438. (E.D. Mich.).

This class action claim was brought by Plaintiff Kevin Bailey
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint
alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements as a result of which purchasers of Esperion securities
suffered significant losses.

In this case, the class of investors misled by the Defendants'
alleged failure to disclose material facts about Esperion's
business and financial condition is too numerous to make joinder
practicable. The class shares common questions of law and fact, as
they all purchased Esperion securities during the class period. The
Scarpatettis claims are typical of the class in that they suffered
the same injury as a result of the change in security prices.
Indeed, the Scarpatettis suffered a substantial financial loss of
$631,642. Provided the Scarpatettis' financial interest in the
result of this case, and the lack of opposition to their status as
the most adequate plaintiffs, it is the court's determination that
the Scarpatettis will fairly and adequately protect the interests
of other class members.

Accordingly, the Scarpatettis have satisfied the requirements for
appointment as lead plaintiffs.

Considering the law firm of Pomerantz LLP has experience in the
area of securities litigation and class actions and there is no
opposition to the selection of this firm as counsel, the court
approves the Scarpatettis' selection of Pomerantz LLP as counsel in
this case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 20, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9mofxcp from Leagle.com.

Kevin Bailey, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph A. Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw -- Pomerantz LLP.

Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., Timothy M. Mayleben & Richard B.
Bartram, Defendants, represented by Adam Slutsky --
aslutsky@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, Deborah S. Birnbach
-- dbirnbach@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, Katherine
McKenney -- kmckenney@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP &
Matthew J. Boettcher -- mboettcher@plunkettcooney.com -- Plunkett &
Cooney.

Mahmood Khan, Movant, represented by Lance C. Young --
lyoung@sommerspc.com

Manuele Aldi Scarpatetti & Aurelio Scarpatetti, Movants,
represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman , Pomerantz LLP.


ESSENDANT INC: Shareholders File Over $482MM Sale to Staples
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News, reported that
shareholders brought a federal class action to challenge the sale
of the office-supply company Essendant to Staples for $482 million
or $12.80 a share.

The case is PATRICK PLUMLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ESSENDANT INC., RICHARD D.
PHILLIPS, CHARLES K. CROVITZ, DENNIS J. MARTIN, SUSAN J. RILEY,
ALEXANDER M. SCHMELKIN, STUART A. TAYLOR, II, PAUL S. WILLIAMS,
ALEX D. ZOGHLIN, EGG PARENT INC., and EGG MERGER SUB INC.,
Defendants, Case No. ________ (D. Del.).

A copy of the Complaint from Courthouse News is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7rwfdtw

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

OF COUNSEL:

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


EXXONMOBIL OIL: Refinery Operators Lack Rest Periods, Kendigs Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE KENDIG and JIM KENDIG, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated current and former employees, the Plaintiff, v.
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORP.; EXXONMOBIL PIPELINE COMPANY; PBF ENERGY
LIMITED; TORRANCE REFINING COMPANY, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC722119 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep.
18, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to authorize and permit
rest periods under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have employed Plaintiffs
and putative class members as operators at its Torrance refinery,
distribution and pipeline facilities. Because the oil refining,
distribution, and production process requires constant monitoring,
operators work a continuous rotating shift during which time they
are never fully relieved from duty. The Plaintiffs and the other
operators are scheduled for and work 12-hour shifts.  Throughout
their shifts, the ExxonMobil Defendants and the PBF Defendants have
required Plaintiffs and the other operators to monitor the refining
process, respond to upsets and critical events, and maintain the
safe and stable operation of their units. The Plaintiffs and the
other operators are required to remain attentive, carry radios, and
be reachable at all times during their shifts. The Plaintiffs are
also required to remain in contact with supervisors and other
employees working in their unit throughout their shifts. As a
result, Plaintiffs never receive off-duty breaks because they are
constantly and continuously responsible for their units.

Exxon Mobil Corporation, doing business as ExxonMobil, is an
American multinational oil and gas corporation headquartered in
Irving, Texas. It is the largest direct descendant of John D.
Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company, and was formed on November 30,
1999 by the merger of Exxon and Mobil.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Smith, Esq.
          Joshua F. Young, Esq.
          GILBERT& SACKMAN
          3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (323) 938 3000
          Facsimile: (323) 937 9139
          E-mail: js@gslaw.org
                  jyoung@gslaw.org

               - and -

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


FACEBOOK INC: Removes Doshier Case to E.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of WILLIAM F. DOSHIER, and DOTSTRATEGY,
CO., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove
the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Arkansas, County
of Faulkner (Case No. 23CV-18-1018) to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas on September 4, 2018, 2018, and
assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-00628-KGB (E.D. Ark., Sept. 4, 2018).

Facebook, Inc. provides various products to connect and share
through mobile devices, personal computers, and other surfaces
worldwide. Facebook, Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered
in Menlo Park, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          David  A.  Hodges, Esq.
          212 Center Street, Fifth Floor
          Little Rock, AR 72201-2429
          Telephone: (501) 374-2400
          Facsimile: (501) 374-8926
          E-Mail:  david@hodgeslaw.com


FAMILY SOLUTIONS: Underpays Mental Health Specialists, Arends Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALICIA ARENDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FAMILY SOLUTIONS OF OHIO, INC.; PROSTAR
MANAGEMENT, INC.; JOHN HOPKINS; and DAWN SMITH, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-02017 (N.D. Ohio., Sept. 4, 2018) is an action against
the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime compensation and minimum
wages, damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Ms. Arends was employed by the Defendants as mental health
specialists from July to December 2017.

Family Solutions of Ohio, Inc. is an Ohio corporation doing
business at multiple locations in Ohio, including Cleveland, Ohio.
The Company is a behavioral healthcare provider. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Perlmutter, Esq.
          Tittle & Perlmuter
          2012 West 25th Street, Suite 716
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 308-1522
          Facsimile: (888) 604-9299
          E-mail: tittle@tittlelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
          Thomas A. Downie, Attorney at Law
          46 Chagrin Falls Plaza, Suite 104
          Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
          Telephone: (440) 973-9000
          E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com


FAT BRANDS: Eric Rojany Suit in California Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Fat Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 1, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a
class action suit entitled, Eric Rojany, et al. v. FAT Brands Inc.,
et al., Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles,
Case No. BC708539.

On June 7, 2018, Eric Rojany filed a complaint, personally and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, against the Company,
Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Fog Cutter Capital Group, Inc.,
Tripoint Global Equities, LLC and members of the Company's board of
directors.

The complaint alleges that the defendants are responsible for false
and misleading statements and omitted material facts in connection
with the company's initial public offering, which resulted in
declines in the price of the company's common stock. The plaintiff
stated that he intends to certify the complaint as a class action
and is seeking compensatory damages in an amount to be determined
at trial.

Fat Brands said, "The Company and other defendants dispute the
allegations of the lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend against
the claims."

Fat Brands Inc., a multi-brand franchising company, acquires,
markets, and develops fast casual and casual dining restaurant
concepts. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in
Beverly Hills, California. FAT Brands Inc. is a subsidiary of Fog
Cutter Capital Group Inc.


FAT BRANDS: Faces Alden Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------
Fat Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 1, 2018, that the company is defending against a class action
lawsuit entitled, Daniel Alden, et al. v. FAT Brands Inc., et al.,
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case
No. BC716017.

On August 2, 2018, Daniel Alden and others filed a complaint,
personally and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against
the Company, Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, Fog Cutter Capital Group,
Inc., Tripoint Global Equities, LLC and members of the Company's
board of directors.

The complaint alleges that the defendants are responsible for false
and misleading statements and omitted material facts in connection
with the Company's initial public offering, which resulted in
declines in the price of the Company's common stock. The plaintiff
stated that he intends to certify the complaint as a class action
and is seeking compensatory damages in an amount to be determined
at trial.

Fat Brands said, "The Company and other defendants dispute the
allegations of the lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend against
the claims."

Fat Brands Inc., a multi-brand franchising company, acquires,
markets, and develops fast casual and casual dining restaurant
concepts. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in
Beverly Hills, California. FAT Brands Inc. is a subsidiary of Fog
Cutter Capital Group Inc.


FIVE POINT: Suit by Bayview Hunters Point Residents Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Five Point Holdings, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the company id defending against a
putative class action suit filed by the residents of Bayview
Hunters Point neighborhood.

On May 1, 2018, residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood
filed a putative class action in San Francisco Superior Court
naming Tetra Tech, Inc. ("Tetra Tech"), Lennar Corporation and the
Company as defendants.

The plaintiffs allege that, among other things, Tetra Tech, an
independent contractor hired by the U.S. Navy to conduct testing
and remediation of toxic radiological waste at The San Francisco
Shipyard, fraudulently misrepresented its test results and
remediation efforts. The plaintiffs are seeking damages against
Tetra Tech and have requested an injunction to prevent the Company
and Lennar from undertaking any development activities at The San
Francisco Shipyard.

Five Point Holdings, LLC, through its subsidiary, Five Point
Operating Company, LP, plans, develops, and owns mixed-use
communities in California, the United States. It sells residential
and commercial land sites to homebuilders, commercial developers,
and commercial buyers. The company was formerly known as Newhall
Holding Company, LLC and changed its name to Five Point Holdings,
LLC in May 2016. Five Point Holdings, LLC was founded in 2009 and
is based in Aliso Viejo, California.


FLAGSTAFF, AZ: Turner, et al. Seek OT Pay under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------
Matthew A. Turner; Scott Strohmeyer; Aaron Seth Gregar; and
Christopher Samples, the Plaintiffs, vs. City of Flagstaff, an
Arizona municipal corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-08227-BSB (D. Ariz., Sep. 20, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime compensation, damages, equitable and other relief
available under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant suffers or permits Plaintiffs
to perform overtime work, defendant fails to compensate plaintiffs
at the full, legally mandated one-and-one-half times the "regular
rate" for that work by impermissibly excluding certain
remunerations from the overtime rate of pay, or otherwise
undervaluing the Plaintiffs' regular rate of pay. Defendant's
payment method results, and has resulted in, under-payment for
overtime hours worked. Defendant suffered or permitted plaintiffs
to perform overtime work without proper compensation.

Flagstaff is a city in the U.S. state of Arizona, surrounded by
mountains, desert and ponderosa pine forests. It's a gateway to the
San Francisco Peaks, home to Arizona’s tallest mountain
(Humphreys Peak) and the Arizona Snowbowl ski resort.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Woodley, Esq.
          T. Reid Coploff, Esq.
          John W. Stewart, Esq.
          WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP
          1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Ste 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833 8855
          Facsimile: (202) 452 1090
          E-mail: taw@wmlaborlaw.com
                  trc@wmlaborlaw.com
                  jws@wmlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael W. Pearson, Esq.
          CURRY, PEARSON & WOOTEN, PLC
          814 W. Roosevelt
          Phoenix, AZ 85007
          Telephone: (602) 258 1000
          Facsimile: (602) 523 9000
          E-mail: docket@azlaw.com
                  mpearson@azlaw.com


FLINT, MI: Litigation Firm's Breakup Heads to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
Lizzy McLellan, writing for Legal Intelligencer, reports that a
dispute over a local litigation firm's breakup is heading to
arbitration in November.

Former law partners Mark Cuker and Esther Berezofsky have agreed on
a panel of arbitrators to handle their case, which Mr. Cuker filed
in Philadelphia court in May. The case was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in June,
and Ms. Berezofsky filed a motion to compel arbitration.

Mr. Cuker and Ms. Berezofsky were partners at Williams Cuker
Berezofsky from 2000 to 2017, Mr. Cuker's complaint said, along
with Gerald Williams. The firm broke up last September, and each of
its name partners have either founded or affiliated with new
firms.

Mr. Cuker has alleged that Ms. Berezofsky breached the dissolution
agreement with regard to disbursements from the dissolved firm's
operating account, and with regard to co-counsel arrangements
agreed to in the dissolution process.

New Jersey lawyer Carlo Scaramella, who is representing Ms.
Berezofsky, said the complaint includes "mischaracterizations and
misstatements," and should not have been filed in court in the
first place. "The matter is being vigorously contested in the
arbitration," he said.

According to the complaint, Williams Cuker Berezofsky exhausted its
credit line in January 2017 and lacked adequate cash flow to
continue operating without employee layoffs or partner
contributions. Mr. Cuker and Mr. Williams contributed $300,000
between the two of them, the complaint said, but Ms. Berezofsky did
not. Instead, Mr. Cuker alleged, Ms. Berezofsky continued to take a
$4,000 weekly draw, for a total of about $80,000 during that
period.

Ultimately, the partners chose to dissolve the firm, and executed a
dissolution agreement in September. That agreement included
provisions for the amounts each partner should be paid, the
complaint said, based on their contributions, which was over
$181,000 for Williams, over $143,000 for Cuker, and just under
$8,800 for Ms. Berezofsky.

Mr. Cuker has alleged that Ms. Berezofsky violated the dissolution
agreement by refusing to authorize Mr. Cuker's and Williams'
disbursements. Mr. Cuker also alleged that Ms. Berezofsky
misappropriated fees from medical device settlement claims that
came in after the dissolution.

Additionally, Mr. Cuker alleged that Ms. Berezofsky excluded Mr.
Cuker from a class action related to water contamination in Flint,
Michigan, when the dissolution agreement said they would serve as
co-counsel in that litigation.

The parties filed a joint report Sept. 7, which said their
arbitration is scheduled for the week of Nov. 13. The
three-arbitrator panel consists of lawyer Angelo Scaricamazza,
retired Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge Richard Klein and retired
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Sandra Mazer Moss.

Mr. Cuker is representing himself in the case. He did not return a
call seeking comment on Sept. 10. [GN]


FLOWERS FOODS: Neff Seeks Certification of Distributors Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled NICK NEFF and MATTHEW McCREA
individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v.
FLOWERS FOODS, INC., LEPAGE BAKERIES, INC. and CK SALES CO., LLC,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00254-gwc (D. Vt.), moves for an order certifying
a class action in this litigation, consisting of this class:

     All persons who, at any time from December 2, 2012
     continuing through entry of judgment in this case, worked as
     distributors for Flowers Foods, Inc., LePage Bakeries, Inc.,
     and/or CK Sales Co., LLC, in the State of Vermont and were
     classified as independent contractors under their
     distribution agreements.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant their Motion and promptly
commence all required procedures for class action in this
litigation, including to send notice to the class under Rule 23(c)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any appropriate case
management orders under Rule 23(d).[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          Christopher D. Jozwiak, Esq.
          BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
          100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 252-3570
          Facsimile: (612) 252-3571
          E-mail: sjwanta@baillonthome.com
                  cdjozwiak@baillonthome.com

               - and -

          Gordon Rudd, Esq.
          David Cialkowski, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP
          111 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          E-mail: Gordon.Rudd@zimmreed.com
                  David.Cialkowski@Zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Susan E. Ellingstad, Esq.
          Rachel A. Kitze Collins, Esq.
          Brian D. Clark, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: seellingstad@locklaw.com
                  rakitzecollins@locklaw.com
                  bdclark@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Merrill E. Bent, Esq.
          WITTEN, WOOLMINGTON, CAMPBELL & BERNAL, PC
          4900 Main Street
          P.O. Box 2748
          Manchester Center, VT 05255
          Telephone: (802) 362-2560
          Facsimile: (802) 362-7109
          E-mail: merrill@greenmtlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Frederick B. Finberg, Esq.
          Joanne I. Simonelli, Esq.
          Peter Bennett, Esq.
          THE BENNETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
          121 Middle Street, Suite 300
          Portland, ME
          Telephone: (207) 773-4775
          E-mail: rfinberg@thebennettlawfirm.com
                  jsimonelli@thebennetlawfirm.com
                  pbennett@thebennettlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kevin P. Hishta, Esq.
          Margaret S. Hanrahan, Esq.
          Lia A. Lesner, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          One Ninety One Peachtree Tower
          191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4800
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 881-1300
          E-mail: kevin.hishta@ogletreedeakins.com
                  maggie.hanrahan@ogletreedeakins.com
                  lia.lesner@ogletreedeakins.com


FREIGHTQUOTE.COM: Fabricant Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FREIGHTQUOTE.COM, Inc., and Does 1 through
10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-07986
(C.D. Cal., September 11, 2018), seeks damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from contacting
Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

FREIGHTQUOTE.COM, Inc. is an online transportation broker of
freight services. Defendant contacted Plaintiff on his cellular
telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system in an attempt
to promote their services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (877) 206-4741
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            mgeorge@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com
            twheeler@toddflaw.com


G4S SECURE: Sterling Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------
MONET STERLING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC., a Florida Corporation and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC722270 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sep. 17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a consistent
policy of failing to provide Plaintiff and all other aggrieved
employees their mandatory meal and rest breaks, failing to pay all
final wages due at termination or within 72 hours after separation
to all employees in California and failing to provide employees
with accurately itemized wage statements pursuant to Labor Code
section 226(a).

G4S Secure is a United States / British-based security services
company, and a subsidiary of G4S plc. It was founded as The
Wackenhut Corporation in 1954, in Coral Gables, Florida, by George
Wackenhut and three partners.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Otkupman, Esq.
          Meghan Maertz, Esq.
          OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM
          28632 Roadside Dr., Suite 203
          Agoura Hills, CA, 91301
          Telephone: (818) 293 5623
          Facsimile: (888) 850 1310
          E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com
                  Meghan@OLFLA.com


GALILEE MEMORIAL: Trial Begins in Crumpled Caskets Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Linda A. Moore, writing for Memphis Commercial Appeal, reports that
the Arkansas funeral director who was asked to locate a body at
Galilee Memorial Gardens in 2013 told a Shelby County Chancery
Court jury about what he saw on the day he went to look for Renisha
Johnson's grave.

Derrick Gunn with Gunn Funeral Home in Little Rock was asked by
Rodney Williams with Signature Funeral Services in Memphis to help
find Ms. Johnson, who had been shot to death in July.

Mr. Gunn went there on Nov. 3, 2013, and found a lot of activity.

Plaintiffs' attorney Kathryn Barnett asked him how the caskets
looked.

"Crushed and crumpled together," Mr. Gunn said. "It was a casket on
top of five caskets, and they were different directions. They
wasn't just stacked; they were sideways under this particular
casket."

After they realized Ms. Johnson wasn't in that grave, they went to
look in "another hole."

"It had about five or six caskets in it as well stacked and
crumpled all together," Mr. Gunn said.

"Did you see them open them up to look at the people inside?"
Barnett said.

"Yes. That's how they made the determination that those people were
not Renisha Johnson," Mr. Gunn said.

They never found Ms. Johnson, he said.

Mr. Gunn said as a consultant, he met with owner Jemar Lambert to
try to make things right, but eventually contacted state
authorities about he'd seen. That's when Galilee was shut down.

More than 1,200 people are plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit
against Galilee, on Ellis Road in Bartlett, and the dozens of
funeral homes that were contracted by those people to handle
funeral services for loved ones. The lawsuit is for burials from
2011 and 2014.

The plaintiffs say it was the responsibility of the funeral home to
ensure that their loved ones were buried properly.

A portion of the lawsuit reads: "The funeral home defendants
contracted and charged for burial services and then, in violation
of their contractual and legal duty, abandoned the remains at
Galilee, negligently and recklessly failed to supervise the burials
and, instead, allowed unlicensed agents and/or employees of Galilee
to perform the burials and unlawful acts alleged in this
complaint."

However, the funeral directors have said leaving bodies at Galilee
to be buried later was standard practice there and that they are
not responsible for how the cemetery mishandled bodies.

As a licensed funeral director, Ms. Johnson insisted under
cross-examination from defense attorney Richard Sorin that it was
the funeral directors' responsibility to see to it that the caskets
were buried.

All states have different laws that govern funeral homes and
cemeteries, Gunn said.

"And one of the big, big differences between Arkansas law and
Tennessee law is that the Arkansas law with regards to funeral
directors specifically spells it out that the funeral director is
supposed to stay until the burial is complete," Mr. Sorin said.

When asked what he'd found about Tennessee law, Mr.  Gunn asked
Chancellor Jim Kyle for permission to use his cellphone. He then
read a portion of state law that said funeral directors are
responsible for the final disposition of human remains.

"And nowhere in there does it say that a funeral director is
supposed to supervise the closing of the grave or supervise the
burial, does it?" Mr. Sorin said.

The two also sparred over the sinkholes at Galilee, with Gunn
testifying that he saw only one sinkhole at Galilee and that there
should have been more, given the number of bodies that were
supposed to be there.

Shun Newbern, the owner of Metropolitan Mortuary in Riverside,
California, answered questions from the defense and acknowledged
under cross-examination from Mike McClaren that he was not licensed
in Tennessee and that he had not talked to the plaintiffs' families
or the funeral home directors named in the lawsuit.

In the morning, Newbern, a witness for the plaintiffs, discussed
his training and the responsibility of funeral directors from the
beginning of the process to the end.

He was questioned by plaintiffs' attorney Brian Winfrey, who asked
Newbern what he had observed to be the practice of licensed funeral
directors.

"I observed that the job was complete at the grave once the casket
was lowered and once the cemetery workers covered the grave," said
Newbern, a Memphis native who moved to California in the
mid-1980s.

Newbern is also a licensed cemetery manager and has testified as an
expert witness for the funeral industry for about 15 years.

Plaintiffs who testified told the jury that the lawsuit was not
just for them, but for everyone they believe was wronged by the
cemetery and the funeral homes.

The jury also saw portions of recorded depositions, including
statements from Gerren Herndon with J.E. Herndon Funeral Home.

Herndon said he had witnessed one burial at Galilee before 2011 and
none since then.

The caskets were left at a pavilion away from the burial site, and
Herndon said he had not inspected the grave to make sure the body
was buried.

And while statements from the plaintiffs' attorneys and witnesses
have discussed the "peace of mind" funeral directors provide
families, that's not what they're selling, Mr. Herndon said in his
deposition.

"If it gives you peace of mind, that's a benefit," Mr. Herndon
said. "But I can't say I'm in the business of selling you peace of
mind."

On the first day of the trial, hundreds of plaintiffs filled into
Kyle's makeshift courtroom, which was constructed on the third
floor of the Vasco A. Smith Jr. County Administration Building.

There is also space for the dozens of lawyers representing the
funeral homes named in the lawsuit.

During the investigation of the cemetery, officials found records
were so disorganized that it's possible that the exact location of
many buried there may never be known.

Mr. Lambert entered an Alford plea in 2015 to criminal charges of
mishandling bodies and theft, which included burying caskets on
adjacent property not owned by the cemetery. He was sentenced to 10
years' probation.

The trial is expected to last several weeks. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action in Canada Over Publication Bans
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne Laucius, writing for Ottawa Citizen, reports that two Ottawa
lawyers have filed a proposed $80-million class-action lawsuit,
alleging that Google's search engine allows Internet users to
discover names that are supposed to be shielded by court-ordered
publication bans.

The proposed lawsuit follows an investigation by this newspaper
last year. That review found that plugging the publication-banned
name of a young offender or crime victim into the web giant's
search engine would sometimes produce results pointing to media
coverage of their court cases -- even though the media coverage
itself didn't mention their names.

The statement of claim filed in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice is on behalf of "John Doe," a young Vancouver resident
whose name was placed under a publication ban after he was charged
with undisclosed offences under the Criminal Code as a 16-year-old
two years ago.

In October 2016, John Doe discovered that searching his name using
Google produced articles related to his court case, even though
there was a publication ban on his name and the articles did not
identify him, according to the statement, filed by Ottawa lawyers
Norman Mizobuchi and Michael Crystal.

Google searches of the court case also pointed to John Doe in
suggested "related searches," the statement alleges.

Publication bans are a tool that courts can use in very specific
cases and circumstances to shield the identities of victims,
witnesses or young offenders, among others. Publication bans are
routinely put in place to protect the identities of accused persons
under the age of 18. Under the Criminal Code, a publication ban may
also apply to the names of complainants or witnesses to a sexual
offence, or in cases involving criminal organizations and
terrorism. Child-protection hearings are also protected from
publication.

"As a result of discovering the breach of privacy, Joe Doe suffered
… distress, humiliation and anguish. John Doe also suffered from
loss of employment and reputation harm that detrimentally impacted
his life, including his mental health and employment prospects,"
according to the statement of claim, which added that John Doe
contacted Google on or about November 2016 and requested that the
company cease identifying him in search results.

The company "refused to comply with the publication ban and
continued to identify John Doe," the statement alleges.

None of the allegations in the statement of claim has been tested
in court. Google did not respond to a request for comment and has
yet to file a statement of defence.

At the time of the Citizen's investigation last year, a Google
spokesperson said the company would take action based on individual
complaints. "If search results that violate local laws are brought
to our attention, we'll remove them," Google Canada's Aaron Brindle
said in a written statement.

John Doe is a "representative plaintiff" of a class of people whose
names are also under publication ban, but have been revealed to the
public through the use of Google's "highly confidential and
proprietary" search algorithm, according to the filing.

According to the statement of claim, Google owed a duty of care to
John Doe and other members of the class and failed to take
reasonable steps to ensure that their identities were not
disclosed.

"For the past several years, Google has been identifying
individuals under publication bans by generating search results
linking media coverage of the court case when their name is
searched," the court filing alleges. "Furthermore, Google searches
for media coverage related to court cases produces 'related search'
suggestions which included the names of individuals subject to
publication bans."

The statement of claim says Google has ways to exclude web pages
from search results. "Google alters search results to avoid
generating links contrary to court orders and to address child
pornography and 'hate speech' websites. Google employs numerous
full-time employees worldwide who take down specific websites from
Google's search results, including websites subject to court
order."

The filing says it is seeking damages of $50 million for
"negligence intrusion upon seclusion, publicity given to private
life, and breach of privacy legislation, including the costs of
administering the plan of distribution of recovery in this action."
The suit also claims special damages of $15 million and "exemplary,
punitive and/or aggravated damages of $15 million and requests an
order preventing Google from identifying the plaintiffs and class
members."

"We began this lawsuit to protect the rights of some of the most
vulnerable people in the justice system, including children and
crime victims," said Norman Mizobuchi in an emailed response to a
request for comment. "The law says that these peoples' identities
must be protected. However, Google's powerful search engine defeats
this protection, which can result in real harm to these
individuals."

Mr. Mizobuchi said he does not know how many people might fit in
the "class." However, the filing is on behalf of all persons in
Canada whose identities have been subject to a publication ban
since Jan. 1, 2008.

Class actions must be certified by a court before they can proceed.
[GN]


GOOGLE INC: High Court to Hear from Gov't in Privacy Deal Row
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Grande, writing for Law360, reported that the U.S. Supreme
Court paved the way for the U.S. solicitor general to participate
in arguments later this month in a dispute over the fairness of an
$8.5 million privacy.

As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter, Google Inc.
has told the Supreme Court there was nothing unfair or unreasonable
about the tech company's $8.5 million settlement of a class action
in which $5.3 million of the funds go to third parties and none to
members of the class.

In urging the justices to deny review in Frank v. Gaos, Mayer Brown
partner Donald Falk, representing Google, argued the cy pres-only
settlement "will benefit the class as a whole by funding closely
targeted projects that are directly connected to the internet
privacy issues raised by plaintiffs' claims."  Mr. Falk, a partner
in the firm's Palo Alto, California, office, said the "recipient
institutions are of the highest quality and specialize in internet
consumer issues."

The Google case in the Supreme Court stems from a class action
claiming that Google illegally shared the search queries of its
users.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in August
affirmed the district court's approval of the settlement and the
trial judge's finding that the settlement fund was not
distributable to a class of an estimated 129 million Google users.
Distributing the fund would result in each class member receiving
about 4 cents, according to the appellate court -- "a de minimis
amount if ever there was one," the panel remarked.

Instead, the Google settlement directs the funds to be distributed
proportionally to six recipients that are devoted to web privacy:
Carnegie Mellon University; World Privacy Forum; Chicago-Kent
College of Law Center for Information, Society and Policy; Stanford
Law School Center for Internet and Society; Berkman Klein Center
for Internet & Society at Harvard University; and AARP Foundation.

Ted Frank, director of litigation and the Center for Class Action
Fairness at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Melissa Ann
Holyoak were objectors to the settlement in the district court and
in the Ninth Circuit.

In their Supreme Court petition, they argued: "An $8.5 million
class action settlement that awards absent class members no relief
at all in exchange for their claims -- no money, no alteration of
the defendant's allegedly injurious conduct, not even coupons -- is
not 'fair, reasonable, and adequate' by any measure."

Their high court counsel, Andrew Grossman, partner at Baker &
Hostetler, noted in the petition that Chief Justice John Roberts
Jr., writing in a 2013 case, said cy pres relief raised
"fundamental concerns."

The justices, Judge Roberts suggested then, may need in a suitable
case "to clarify the limits" on use of those remedies. Grossman
contends: "This is that case, and the need for clarification is
acute."

Mayer Brown's Falk disagrees.  All of the circuits agree with the
Ninth, he told the Supreme Court, that "a cy pres-only settlement
is appropriate in the rare circumstance where direct distribution
to class members is infeasible, and all insist on a close nexus
between the cy pres remedy and the interests of settling class
members."

The number of cy pres-only settlements has dropped dramatically,
said Falk, who was once described as "California's class action
killer."  The Google case, he said, is "especially well-suited" to
a cy pres remedy because class members have not alleged any actual
harm from the alleged anti-consumer practices.

"At bottom, then, the petition presents a case-specific
disagreement with the findings below that distribution was
infeasible in this case, with its class estimated at 129 million
members," Mr. Falk wrote.  O'Melveny & Myers partner Randall
Edwards in San Francisco also represents Google in the Supreme
Court.

The three named plaintiffs in the class action against Google also
have urged the justices to deny review.  Like Mr. Falk, their
counsel, Kassra Nassiri of San Francisco's Nassiri & Jung, argued
there is no circuit conflict on the legal standards for determining
the fairness and reasonableness of cy pres provisions.  He also
said the petition challenging the deal presents a "fact-bound
question" that has no significance beyond the Google settlement
itself. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Urges Judge to Reconsider Class Action Decert. Denial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that Alphabet Inc's
Google has urged a federal judge in California to reconsider her
recent denial of its bid to decertify a class of job applicants who
are suing the company for age discrimination.

Google's lawyers at Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart on Sept.
7 filed a motion telling U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman in
San Jose that a report the plaintiffs' expert submitted shortly
before her August decision not to decertify the class shows little
disparity in job offers Google made to workers under and over 40.
[GN]


GOOGLE INC: Wants High Court to Uphold Privacy Case Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Google is urging
the Supreme Court to uphold an agreement requiring the company to
donate around $5 million to various nonprofits in order to settle a
privacy class-action lawsuit.

The nonprofits "are of the highest quality and submitted detailed,
grant-like proposals for projects closely targeted to the Internet
privacy issues raised by plaintiffs' claims," Google writes in
papers filed recently with the Supreme Court.

The company adds that attempts to distribute the settlement funds
directly to Google users whose privacy was allegedly violated would
not be feasible.

Google's papers come in response to a challenge to the settlement
by Ted Frank, founder of the Center for Class Action Fairness. He
argues Google shouldn't have been allowed to settle the privacy
lawsuit by making donations to outside organizations -- some of
which have previously received money from the company.

The settlement resolved a 2010 class-action complaint alleging that
Google violated users' privacy by including their search queries in
"referer headers" -- the information that is automatically
transmitted to sites users click on when they leave Google. Some
queries, like people's searches for their own names, can offer
clues to users' identities. (Google no longer transmits search
queries when people click on links in the results.)

The deal calls on Google to donate $5.3 million to six nonprofits
-- Carnegie Mellon University, World Privacy Forum, Chicago-Kent
College of Law, Stanford Law, Harvard's Berkman Center and the AARP
Foundation. The settlement also requires Google to pay more than
$2.1 million to the attorneys who brought the lawsuit.

A trial judge and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Frank's
challenge to the settlement. Frank then asked the Supreme Court to
consider his arguments.

"All the money went to class counsel and to favored nonprofit
organizations affiliated with class counsel and the defendant,"
Frank argued in a brief asking the Supreme Court to vacate the
settlement. "It is not fair or reasonable . . . for class attorneys
to arrogate millions for themselves and nothing for their
clients."

The White House recently weighed in, arguing that Google (and other
companies) shouldn't be able to resolve class-actions by making
donations to charity unless trial judges have conducted a
"rigorous" scrutiny of the deal. The administration asked the
Supreme Court to send Google's settlement back to a trial judge for
reconsideration.

Google counters that it wasn't practical to distribute the
settlement funds directly to users, noting that the settlement
would have provided only four cents per class member.

"The costs of identifying, verifying, processing, and paying claims
would exceed available funds unless the claims rate was
substantially under 1%," Google wrote. "Confirming the claims rate
would siphon off still more of the settlement to the claims
administrator."

The company added that the fund recipients plan to use the money to
advance online privacy. The Stanford Center for Internet and
Society's proposal included projects like studying the best way to
provide privacy notices on mobile devices, Google wrote.

Several outside organizations, including the Electronic Frontier
Foundation and Center for Democracy & Technology, weighed in on
Google's side. They argue in a friend-of-the-court brief that a
settlement involving charitable donations can benefit web users
more than minute monetary awards.

"Awarding funds to an organization that furthers the interests of
the class also impacts all class members -- not just the relatively
few who would actually receive and cash their checks," the groups
wrote in papers filed recently.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case on
Oct. 31. [GN]


HELIX ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Canela Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CANELA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HELIX
ELECTRIC, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC721327 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep.
17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and unpaid minimum
wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are electrical
contractors specializing in design-build and highly complex
electrical projects throughout the United States. Upon information
and belief, Defendants employ approximately 500 employees in
California. The Defendants maintain a single, centralized Human
Resources department, at their corporate headquarters in San Diego,
California, which is responsible for conducting Defendants'
recruiting and hiring of new employees, as well as communicating
and implementing Defendants' company-wide policies to employees
throughout California. In particular, the Plaintiff and class
members, received the same standardized documents and/or written
policies. The usage of standardized documents and/or written
policies, including new-hire documents, indicate that Defendants
dictated policies at the corporate level and implemented them
company-wide, regardless of their employees’ assigned locations
or positions. The Defendants set forth uniform policies and
procedures in several documents provided at an employee's time of
hire. For example, at the time Plaintiff was hired, he received
documents including, but not limited to, the Acknowledgement of
Policies Form, Helix Electric New Hire Acknowledgements, and the
Employee Handbook.

Helix Electric provides electrical design and construction services
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bevin Allen Pike, Esq.
          Jennifer Bagosy, Esq.
          Suzy E. Lee, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943 0396
          E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
                  Jennifer.Bagosy@capstonelawyers.com
                  Suzy.Lee@capstonelawyers.com


HERTZ CORP: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Tillman TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the case, RICO TILLMAN,
Plaintiff, v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, d/b/a HERTZ RENT-A-CAR,
Defendant, Case No. 16 C 4242 (N.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiff's mother, Judy Sanders, rented a car at Defendant's
South Holland, Illinois location on Jan. 5, 2016.  The Defendant
received two telephone numbers from Sanders, one ending with the
numbers 5560 and one ending with the numbers 6075.  The 5560 number
was listed as, and is, Sanders' primary (cellular phone) number and
the 6075 number was listed as Sanders' work or "alt" (presumably
alternative) number.  According to Sanders, she gave the Defendant
the 6075 number, which belongs to the Plaintiff's cellular phone,
as a contact number for emergency purposes only.

Sanders' rental car was initially due to be returned on Jan. 15,
2016, but that return date was extended to Feb. 3, 2016.  February
3 came and went, but the car was not returned.  In the subsequent
days and weeks, the Defendant made multiple calls, some of which
the Plaintiff claims were automated, or "robocalls," to both
numbers Sanders provided in an attempt to get the rental car back.
The Defendants eventually informed Sanders that the car would be
reported as stolen if she did not return it.  Sanders returned the
car on Febr. 25, 2016, and the Defendant's calls stopped.  The
lawsuit followed.

The Defendant argues that it obtained prior express consent to call
both of the numbers Sanders provided when she rented the car.  To
support its argument, it cites a privacy policy contained in its
rental agreement, through which the signatory agrees to receive
auto-dialed communications.  The problem with the Defendant's
position is that it has failed to produce a copy of its rental
agreement signed by Sanders, and while Sanders admits that she
signed a printed contract, she disputes that she signed or received
an agreement with the privacy policy.  Accordingly, although
Sanders' position seems a bit far-fetched, Judge Gettleman finds
that there is a material issue of fact as to whether Sanders
consented to the calls.  Even assuming Sanders signed a rental
agreement containing the Defendant's privacy policy, a reasonable
jury could conclude that the Plaintiff revoked any consent that
Sanders might have given the Defendant to call the 6075 number.

The Judge concludes that the Plaintiff's revocation of consent was
reasonable based on the circumstances of the revocation and the
2015 FCC Order.  According to the 2015 FCC Order, it is reasonable
for callers to rely on customary users, such as a close relative on
a subscriber's family calling plan or an employee on a company's
business calling plan, because the subscriber will generally have
allowed such customary users to control the calling to and from a
particular number under the plan, including granting consent to
receive robocalls.  It follows, then, that revocation by a
customary user is reasonable from the perspective of the caller who
cannot reasonably be expected to divine that the revoking person is
not the subscriber or to then contact the subscriber to receive
additional revocation.

In short, the 2015 FCC Order makes clear that customary users may
control the calling to and from the particular number, and callers
need not contact the subscriber to receive additional consent.  It
would make no sense, then, for courts to require the caller to
contact the subscriber to confirm that consent had been revoked.
Given that the Plaintiff was the customary user of the 6075 number
and, indeed, the only person who ever answered that number when the
Defendant called, the Plaintiff's revocation of consent to call the
number was reasonable, even from the caller's perspective.  The
Defendant's motion is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 29, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/8RvDVD from Leagle.com.

Rico Tillman, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Holmes Burke --
aburke@burkelawllc.com -- Burke Law Offices, LLC, David M. Marco --
dmarco@smithmarco.com -- SmithMarco, P.C., Daniel J. Marovitch --
dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com -- Burke Law Offices, LLC & Larry Paul
Smith --  lsmith@smithmarco.com -- SmithMarco, P.C.

The Hertz Corporation, doing business as Hertz Rent-A-Car,
Defendant, represented by David Charles Layden --
dlayden@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP & Katharine Rachel
Ciliberti -- KCiliberti@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block.


HILTON GRAND: Wins Summary Judgment in Glasser TCPA Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James D. Whittemore granted the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment in the lawsuit captioned MELANIE GLASSER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
HILTON GRAND VACATIONS COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-00952-JDW-AAS
(M.D. Fla.).

In this action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, the Plaintiff alleges that between October 16,
2013, and April 2, 2014, Hilton Grand used an automated telephone
dialing system ("ATDS") to make telemarketing calls to her cell
phone without her consent.

Judge Whittemore opined that the Plaintiff's claim that the
Defendant placed calls to her cell phone using an ATDS without her
consent in violation of the TCPA fails as a matter of law.  Hence,
the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

Judge Whittemore also denied as moot the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  The Plaintiff has proposed a class of:

     All persons in the United States whose cellular telephone
     number Defendant called using the IMC System between
     October 16, 2013 and April 2, 2014 where the IMC system
     recorded a result of either "Connected" or Machine."

The Plaintiff's proposed class, like her individual claim, relies
on the Defendant's use of an ATDS to place calls.  Judge Whittemore
noted that since the Defendant's IMC System is not an ATDS, the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied as moot.[CC]


HOME FURNITURE: Fails to Provide OT Pay and Breaks, Bueno Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIANA BUENO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. HOME FURNITURE INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC722ll7 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 18, 2018),
alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime compensation,
provide meal periods, authorize and permit rest breaks, and timely
pay final wages at termination under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants in
the State of California as a customer service representative from
approximately August 2016 to February 2018. During Plaintiffs
employment for Defendants, the Plaintiff typically worked 5 days
each workweek, and between 9 to 10 hours each workday. During the
entirety of Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was
classified by Defendants as an exempt employee and was paid solely
by way of a salary. However, Plaintiff did not meet any recognized
exemption under California law, and Plaintiff was therefore
misclassified as an exempt employee, when she should have in fact
been classified as non-exempt. Throughout the statutory period,
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, failed to
provide Plaintiff with uninterrupted meal periods, failed to
authorize and permit Plaintiff to take uninterrupted rest periods,
failed to timely pay all final wages to Plaintiff when Defendants
terminated Plaintiffs employment, and failed to furnish accurate
wage statements to Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          Allen Feghali, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232 3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232 3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                  justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com
                  alfen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


IZEA INC: Continues to Defend Perez Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
IZEA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2018, that the company continues to defend a securities class
action suit initiated by Julian Perez.

A securities class action lawsuit, Julian Perez, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IZEA, Inc., et al.,
case number 2:18-cv-02784-SVW-GJS was instituted April 4, 2018 in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the company and certain of its executive officers on behalf
of certain purchasers of our common stock. The plaintiffs seek to
recover damages for investors under federal securities laws.

IZEA said, "We are still in the early stages of this litigation and
are unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss, if any,
that may result from this matter."

IZEA, Inc. creates and operates online marketplaces that connect
marketers with content creators. The company's technology brings
the marketers and creators together, enabling their transactions to
be completed at scale through the management of custom content
workflow, creator search and targeting, bidding, analytics and
payment processing. The company is based in Winter Park, Florida.


JENSYN ACQUISITION: New Jersey Shareholder Class Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jensyn Acquisition Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the shareholder class action suit filed
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, has been
dismissed without prejudice.

On February 2, 2018, a shareholder class action was filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, on behalf of the
holders of public shares against the Company and its Board of
Directors. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's public shareholders by acting to cause or facilitate the
Purchase Agreement because the Purchase Agreement was not in the
best interest of the public shareholders.

On May 23, 2018, this shareholder class action suit was dismissed
without prejudice or costs by agreement between the parties.

Jensyn Acquisition Corp. does not have significant operations. It
intends to acquire, through a merger, share exchange, asset
acquisition, stock purchase, recapitalization, reorganization or
other similar business combination, and one or more operating
businesses. The company was founded in 2014 and is based in
Freehold, New Jersey.


KITCHEN COLLECTION: Judge Allows FLSA Class Action to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Casady, writing for Law360, reports that a federal judge
in Texas on Sept. 10 gave the green light to a former store manager
at The Kitchen Collection LLC to proceed with his Fair Labor
Standards Act collective action. [GN]


KLX INC: Memorandum of Understanding Entered in Gusinsky
--------------------------------------------------------
KLX Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that the parties in the case, Vladimir Gusinsky
Rev. Trust v. KLX Inc., et. al., have entered into a confidential
Memorandum of Understanding.

On July 6, 2018, a putative class action was filed by a purported
KLX stockholder in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, captioned The Vladimir Gusinsky Rev. Trust v.
KLX Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01000 (the "Action"). The
complaint alleges that KLX and the KLX board of directors (the "KLX
Board") failed to disclose material information in the First
Amended Preliminary Proxy Statement on Form 14A. The complaint
seeks, among other things, equitable relief, including to enjoin
the closing of the Merger, to direct disclosure of all material
information in the proxy statement and to award plaintiff's costs,
including attorney's and expert's fees.

On August 15, 2018, the parties to the Action entered into a
confidential Memorandum of Understanding (the "Memorandum of
Understanding") providing for the dismissal of the Action with
prejudice as to the plaintiff in the Action and without prejudice
as to the putative class.

While the Company believes that the Action lacks merit and that the
disclosures in the Definitive Proxy Statement comply fully with
applicable law, in order to avoid the expense and distraction of
litigation, the Company has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the
confidential Memorandum of Understanding, to supplement the
Definitive Proxy Statement with the supplemental disclosures.  

The confidential Memorandum of Understanding also outlines the
terms of the plaintiff in the Action's agreement in principle to
dismiss the Action and release all claims which it has, has ever
had, or could have asserted related to the Merger and disclosures
related to the Merger.

KLX said, "Nothing in the Supplemental Disclosures shall be deemed
an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable
law of the Supplemental Disclosures. To the contrary, the Company
specifically denies all allegations that any of the Supplemental
Disclosures, or any other additional disclosures, were or are
required. The defendants have vigorously denied, and continue
vigorously to deny, that they have committed any violation of law
or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were alleged in the
Action."

KLX also said, "The Supplemental Disclosures will not affect the
merger consideration to be paid to stockholders of the Company in
connection with the Merger or the timing of the special meeting
scheduled for August 24, 2018 at 10:30 a.m., Eastern Time, at
Boston Harbor Hotel, 70 Rowes Wharf, Boston, Massachusetts 02110."

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://goo.gl/u3EPe1.

KLX Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides aerospace
fasteners, consumables, and logistics services worldwide. KLX Inc.
is headquartered in Wellington, Florida.


LA JOLLA GROUP: Underpays Signature Gatherers, Wilson Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
MOSANTHONY WILSON and NANCY URSCIIEL, on behalf of themselves and
all members of the putative class, the Plaintiff, v. THE LA JOLLA
GROUP, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. 37-2010-00046934-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sep. 17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and
unpaid overtime under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, La Jolla Group is a for-profit petition
drive management firm. The usual course of its business is
collecting signatures from registered voters so a proposed
initiative can qualify for placement on the election ballot. To
accomplish this task, La Jolla hires "signature gatherers," which
it classifies as independent contractors. These signature gatherers
are paid for each valid signature they collect. The amount they are
paid depends on the initiative they are gathering signatures for.

The lawsuit contends that La Jolla's signature gatherers are
misclassified as independent contractors. They (a) are under the
control and direction of La Jolla in connection with the
performance of their work, (b) perform work that is part of the
usual course of La Jolla's business, and/or (c) are not customarily
engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or
business in the same nature of the work performed for La Jolla.  As
a result, the Signature Gatherers have been deprived of fundamental
employment rights, such as the right to minimum wages, the right to
mandated meal breaks, the right to mandated rest breaks, the right
to premium wages for missed meal and rest breaks, the right to
accurate itemized wage statements, and the right to the prompt
payment of full wages within time limits designated by law.

Throughout the relevant time period, Plaintiffs worked for La Jolla
as signature gatherers and were classified by LA JOLLA as
independent contractors.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Kitty K. Szeto, Esq.
          John M. Bickford, Esq.
          Ryan A. Crist, Esq.
          PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949 2595
          Facsimile: (661) 949 7524


LAKE PAVILLION: Liao Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Shi Hai Liao, individually and behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lake Pavilion Inc. d/b/a Lake Pavilion
Restaurant New Lake Pavilion Inc. d/b/a Lake Pavilion Restaurant,
Ruo Zhou Chen, Hang Yi Chen, Jian Chen, Nan Chen, Jin Feng Feng,
and Liang Lin, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05266-DLI-VMS
(E.D.N.Y., Sep. 19, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, arising from
Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and/or practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiffs, compensation for all hours worked,
minimum wage, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over
40 each workweek.

Lake Pavilion is Chinese restaurants featuring gourmet Cantonese
seafood and dim sum.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Proposed FLSA Collective and Potential
Rule 23 Class

          Ge Qu, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38 th Ave. Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
          E-mail: rqu@hanglaw.com

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Claims Handlers Class Certified in Lopez Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Andre Birotte, Jr., granted in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled TRINIDAD
LOPEZ, ET AL. v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO, ET AL., Case No.
2:14-cv-05576-AB-JC (C.D. Cal.).

The Court certifies the Class and the Waiting Time Penalties
Subclass as to all claims except the accurate wage statement claim.
The Plaintiffs have sought class certification on behalf of
current, former, and future employees of the Defendants.  The
putative class consists of California-based, non-management claims
handlers, including special investigative unit ("SIU")
investigators.

Judge Birotte further separates the Class into these additional
subclasses: (1) Bodily Injury Claims Handlers, (2) Worker's
Compensation Claims Handlers, (3) Property Claims Handlers, (4) SIU
Investigators, and (5) Claims Handlers Who Managed Litigated
Files.

The Court appoints Trinidad Lopez, Marisela Beas, Gregory
Rutkowski, Pamela Lewis, Amane Perez, Nathan Felser, Gina
McPherson, Nancy Lee Yang, and Jennifer Doud as class
representatives.  The Court appoints Shenoi Koes LLP, Schonbrun
Seplow Harris & Hfoffmann LLP, Rapkin & Associates, LLP and V.
James Desimone Law as class counsel.

The Defendants' Motion to Strike the Report of Jon Krosnick, and
the Plaintiffs' Motions to Strike the Reports of Dr. Reardon, and
Dr. Wilcox are denied as moot.[CC]


LITTLE CAESAR'S: Ex-General Manager Files No-Poach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Porter Wells, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a former
general manager at a Little Caesar's franchise has filed a proposed
class action alleging the company's longtime use of no-poach
clauses has resulted in lost wages and lost job opportunities.

Little Caesar's is one of the 15 fast food chains that agreed in
July to stop using no-poach clauses in its franchise agreements.
No-poach clauses keep franchisees from luring management employees
from one location to another. The clauses at issue don't apply to
non-management employees.

Christopher Ogden said in his lawsuit that he's aware of the
agreement to stop using the clauses. But he says he and other
Little Caesar's franchise managers still suffered depressed wages
and stagnant job growth because of the ban on competition between
locations, and argues they deserve to be made whole. He seeks to
represent management-level employees working at Little Caesar's
franchises between 2009 and 2017.

Little Caesar's didn't respond to Bloomberg Law's request for
comment.

The Miller Law Firm in Rochester, Mich., and McCune Wright Arevalo
in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mr. Ogden. Attorneys for Little
Caesar's haven't yet entered an appearance.

The case is Ogden v. Little Caesar's Enterprises, Inc., E.D. Mich.,
No. 2:18-cv-12792, complaint filed 9/7/18. [GN]


LOVE'S TRAVEL: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 2 Class Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John K. Bush of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing the cases,
KEVIN THOMPSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOVE'S TRAVEL STOPS & COUNTRY
STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. NOLAN C. DARBY; LAURIE ANDERSON;
CHASE MOSELY; DORENE IVY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PILOT
CORPORATION; PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC, doing business as Pilot
Flying J, Defendants-Appellee, Case Nos. 17-5992, 17-5998 (6th
Cir.).

The Plaintiffs in the pair of putative class-action lawsuits allege
that the Defendants (operators of convenience stores and gas
stations) preauthorize too much for too long (several days) and
without adequate notice.  The proposed class representatives are
citizens of various states who allege that they made purchases from
the Defendants in amounts ranging from $14.75 to $47.99 but were
subjected to preauthorization holds of up to $125 on their
credit-card accounts.

The Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of implied-in-fact
contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, and violations
of various state statutes.

Judge Bush finds that the language of the Plaintiffs' complaints
clearly reflects their recognition of the Article III standing
requirement.  But equally clear is their failure to plead facts
that would satisfy that requirement.  Nevertheless, on appeal, the
Plaintiffs have doubled down on their assertions that their
conclusory claims in their complaints suffice to show standing.

However, nowhere in thhe Plaintiffs' pleadings or briefs do they
articulate what is real about the harm arising from the Defendants'
temporary preauthorization holds.  Indeed, they state in their
amended complaints that Thompson has not specifically alleged that
the Defendant's grossly excessive credit holds have deprived him
and other Class members of basic needs, insufficient funds to cover
expenses, or overdraft charges, but it is likely -- and even
probable -- that the loss of credit occasioned by such holds has
indeed resulted in such deprivations for other unnamed Class
members.

The Judge holds that whether it is "likely" that some unnamed
person has suffered a concrete injury on account of the Defendants'
preauthorization practice is irrelevant to his inquiry, for a
potential class representative must demonstrate individual
standing.  This individual standing must affirmatively appear in
the record.  And here it does not.  The district court was
therefore correct to dismiss the Plaintiffs' actions for want of
standing.

Judge Bush holds that the Plaintiffs may have alleged a practice by
the Defendants that could theoretically produce a concrete injury,
but they have not alleged any arguably concrete injury such as the
denial of an opportunity to use their credit, the rejection of an
attempted charge, an impairment to a credit rating or credit
report, or a fee.  The Plaintiffs therefore lack standing to assert
their claims, so he affirmed the district court's order dismissing
their actions.  Because the dismissal is for want of jurisdiction,
however, he remanded for the district court to enter its order
without rather than with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 29, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/5sGIaJ from Leagle.com.


LUMINANT ENERGY: Baksinski Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Baksinski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Luminant Energy Co., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00269 (W.D. Tex., September 14, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Luminant is a power generation business, including mining,
wholesale marketing and trading and development operations.
Baksinski worked for Luminant in Glen Rose, Texas in Somervell
County as a planner from August 20, 2012 until January 2, 2017.
During power outages, Baksinski worked 72 hours or more per week
but was paid at his regular hourly rate for all hours worked in a
week, including those over 40 in a week, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
             adunlap@mybackwages.com

             - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


LYMI INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Pay, Hernandez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE HERNANDEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. LYMI, INC., a California corporation;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC722115
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 18, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to
pay minimum and straight time wages and failed to pay overtime
compensation under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
for all hours worked (including minimum wages, straight time wages,
and overtime wages), failed to provide Plaintiff with uninterrupted
meal periods, failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff to take
uninterrupted rest periods, failed to maintain accurate records of
the hours Plaintiff worked, failed to timely pay all final wages to
Plaintiff when the Defendants terminated Plaintiffs employment, and
failed to furnish accurate wage statements to Plaintiff.

LYMI Inc., doing business as The Reformation, designs and
manufactures limited-edition clothes for women. The company offers
dresses, wedding/party collections, tops, jumpsuits, bottoms, two
pieces, tees, accessories, and bodysuits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          Allen Feghali, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232 3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232 3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                  justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com
                  allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


MACO MANAGEMENT: Smith Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAMI SMITH, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. MACO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., and JAMES
K. MADDOX and KATRINA THOMPSON, individually, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00082 (M.D. Tenn., Sep. 17, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed as a
Property Manager for Defendants from approximately October of 2011
through December of 2017 when she became a District Manager. The
Plaintiff was a District Manager from December 2017 until June 9,
2017, when she quit because of the exhausting and uncompensated
overtime hours she was required to work by the Defendants. During
her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff worked as an hourly paid,
non-exempt employee who routinely worked more than 40 hours each
workweek both as a Property Manager and District Manager. Even
though she was non-exempt and worked a substantial number of
overtime hours, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff all the lawful
overtime compensation to which Plaintiff was due as required by the
FLSA.

During the three year period prior to the filing of this Complaint
through the present, the Defendants committed violations of the
FLSA by requiring and/or suffering or permitting their nonexempt
hourly-paid employees, including Plaintiff, to routinely work more
than 40 hours per week without payment of overtime
compensation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trevor Howell, Esq.
          HOWELL LAW, PLLC
          161 Rosa Parks Blvd
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 244 4994
          E-mail: Trevor@howelllawfirmllc.com

               - and -

          Autumn L. Gentry, Esq.
          Peter F. Klett, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          Fifth Third Center
          424 Church Street, Suite 800
          Nashville, TN 37219-2392
          Telephone: (615) 244 6538
          E-mail: pklett@dickinsonwright.com
                  agentry@dickinsonwright.com


MAR-CONE APPLIANCE: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN RAMIREZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MAR-CONE
APPLIANCE PARTS CO., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CECG03479 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sep. 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff and
other persons as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the
State of California, including the County of Fresno. The
Defendants, jointly and severally, employed Plaintiff as an
hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from approximately February 2014
to approximately August 2015, in the State of California, County of
Fresno.

The Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other class members and
classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and failed
to compensate them for all hours worked and missed meal periods
and/or rest breaks. The Defendants had the authority to hire and
terminate Plaintiff and the other class members, to set work rules
and conditions governing Plaintiffs and the other class members'
employment, and to supervise their daily employment activities.

The Defendants exercised sufficient authority over the terms and
conditions of Plaintiffs and the other class members' employment
for them to be joint employers of Plaintiff and the other class
members. The Defendants directly hired and paid wages and benefits
to Plaintiff and the other class members. The Defendants continue
to employ hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of
California. The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over
eight hours in a day and/or 40 hours in a week during their
employment with Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against
their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          2 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021


MARKETSOURCE INC: Certification of Class Sought in Delgado Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled RAY DELGADO, as an individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARKETSOURCE,
INC., d/b/a MARYLAND MARKETSOURCE, INC., a Maryland corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:17-cv-07370-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), asks the Court to enter an order certifying this class:

     All employees who were employed by Defendant in the State of
     California at any time from November 30, 2016, through the
     present, whose employment was terminated.

Mr. Delgado also asks the Court to certify him as the class
representative and to his counsel and their respective firms,
namely Larry W. Lee, Esq., Kristen Agnew, Esq., and Nicholas
Rosenthal, Esq., of Diversity Law Group, P.C., and William L.
Marder, Esq., of Polaris Law Group LLP, as class counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on December 20, 2018, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                  kagnew@diversitylaw.com
                  nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
          E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com


MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Employees Seek Jury Trial in 401(k) Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Nichole Smith, writing for Law360, reports that a proposed
class of Massachusetts Institute of Technology employees accusing
the school of mismanaging their retirement savings urged a
Massachusetts federal judge to let them take their claims before a
jury. [GN]



MASTERCORP INC: Fox Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Fox, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mastercorp, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-02353, (D. Colo., September 14, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Wage Claim Act.

Mastercorp is into resort housekeeping where Plaintiff worked as a
Housekeeping Supervisor, Houseman and Dispatcher from May 2014
until July 2018. Defendant automatically deducted thirty minutes
for meal breaks with respect to shifts in which Fox claims she did
not receive bona fide uninterrupted meal breaks. Defendant also
failed to provide ten minute rest periods for each four hours
worked or major fractions, says the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason T. Brown, Esq.
     Nicholas R. Conlon, 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


MERCK & CO: Sansones Sue over Inoculation of Zostavax Vaccine
-------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY SANSONE and JOHN SANSONE, the Plaintiff, vs. MERCK & CO.,
INC., MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., the Defendants, Case No.
8:18-cv-02324-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla., Sep. 20, 2018), alleges that the
Plaintiff was inoculated with Defendants' Zostavax vaccine on
September 17, 2007, at Watson Clinic located in Lakeland, Florida
for routine health maintenance and for the prevention of shingles.
The vaccine did not prevent shingles, but rather caused Plaintiff
to contract a persistent strain of herpes zoster. 10 Days after
receiving Defendants Zostavax vaccine the Plaintiff developed an
intermittent, sharp throbbing pain and red raised bumps on eye and
face. Thereafter, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with herpes zoster
ophthalmicus. As a direct and proximate result of these
malfunctions, the Plaintiff suffered painful injuries and damages,
and required extensive medical care and treatment.

Merck developed, tested, developed, tested, designed, set
specifications for, licensed, manufactured, prepared, compounded,
assembled, packaged, processed, labeled, marketed, promoted,
distributed, and/or sold the Zostavax vaccine to be administered to
patients throughout the United States, including Florida. Merck has
conducted business and derived substantial revenue from within the
State of Florida, from including, but not limited to, its business
activities related to the Zostavax vaccine.

Merck & Company, Inc. is an American pharmaceutical company and one
of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Goetz, Esq.
          Nicole Georges, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 222 4737
          E-mail: MGoetz@ForThePeople.com
                  NGeorges@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          Virginia E. Anello, Esq.
          DOUGLAS & LONDON, P.C.
          59 Maiden Lane, 6th floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 566 7500
          Facsimile: (212) 566 7501
          E-mail: vanello@douglasandlondon.com


MERCY HEALTH: Judge Tosses Retirees' ERISA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Sam Knef, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that U.S. District
Judge Catherine Perry recently dismissed a putative class action
against Mercy Health brought by retirees who claim the pension fund
has been underfunded in violation of the Employment Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).

In the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
order dated Aug. 27, Perry held that she does not have jurisdiction
to consider the plaintiffs' ERISA and constitutional claims against
Mercy, which runs one of largest Catholic health care systems in
the U.S., because the Mercy plan is an ERISA-exempt church plan.

"Without federal jurisdiction over those claims, I have no
jurisdictional authority to consider plaintiffs' state law claims,
so I will dismiss this case in its entirety without prejudice for
lack of jurisdiction," Perry wrote.

The case against Mercy Health, the Mercy Health Benefits Committee
and the Mercy Health Stewardship Committee was filed by pensioners
Sally Sanzone, who retired in 2003, and Gen Grasle, who retired in
2013.

According to court documents, Ms. Sanzone and Mr. Grasle both
continue to receive benefits and neither claim that their benefits
have been reduced. Their proposed class action claimed that the
pension plan is not a "church plan" and therefore governed by ERISA
and that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty under ERISA.

Judge Perry wrote that in class action litigation, named plaintiffs
have a duty to establish that they have standing to bring the cause
of action, and if they cannot maintain the action on their own
behalf they cannot seek relief on behalf of the class.

She also wrote that the plaintiffs made no specific allegations to
suggest that they would have had a better funded pension if the
church plan exemption did not apply to the Mercy plan.

"Plaintiffs do not allege a concrete harm or that the relief they
seek would redress an alleged injury," she wrote. "While plaintiffs
raise the specter of a potentially underfunded plan in the future
without ERISA protections, they make no claim of any specific or
concrete injury suffered by them as a consequence of being a
participant in a church plan." [GN]


MERCY PHYSICIAN: Conditional Bertroche Class Cert. Partly OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHARON BERTROCHE, M.D., Plaintiff, v. MERCY PHYSICIAN
ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-59-CJW (N.D. Iowa),
Chief Magistrate Judge C.J. Williams of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division, granted in
part and reserved ruling in part on the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Class Certification and Court Authorized Notice.

The Plaintiff is a female medical doctor who previously practiced
medicine at the Defendant.  She filed the action in state court in
November 2016, alleging, inter alia, that the Defendant owed her
$43,149 as compensation for work she performed for the Defendant.

On April 27, 2018, the Plaintiff amended her state court petition
to add a claim under the federal Equal Pay Act.  On May 24, 2018,
the Defendant timely removed the action to federal court.

The parties appear to have engaged in substantial discovery
regarding the state law claims during the pendency of the state
court proceeding.  In discovery, the Defendant produced documents
including income statements for the income paid to physicians other
than the Plaintiff who were employed by Defendant.  The Plaintiff
alleges that these income statements, although difficult for her to
interpret, show systemic and substantial compensation differences
between similarly-situated male and female physicians employed by
the Defendant.

This alleged gender-based pay gap led the Plaintiff to bring her
claim under the Equal Pay Act and, now, to seek conditional
certification of the class of female physicians who were employed
by the Defendant during a set time period so that she may notify
other potential Plaintiffs that they may have an Equal Pay Act
claim against the Defendant and enable them to 'opt in' to the
case.

Judge Williams recognizes the Defendant's argument that although
there is a pay gap between men and women, that pay gap is not
attributable to differing rates of pay, but is rather due to
different physicians expending different amounts of effort to earn
their total compensation.  He further recognizes the Defendant's
argument that non-medical practice revenue contributed to the total
compensation of certain physicians and, as a result, those
physicians may have earned greater total compensation based on
factors completely independent from the rate paid for rendering
strictly medical services.

The Defendant has not, however, presented any evidence at this
stage in support of these arguments, nor has it asserted that if
the compensation figures were adjusted for the
"non-rate-of-pay-factors," that the rate of pay would be equal for
both male and female physicians.  The Defendant has offered only
bare allegations with no evidence showing that the Plaintiff's
Equal Pay Act claim must fail when all factors are considered.
Although the Defendant does not bear the burden of proof at this
stage, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has met her low burden of
proof, and defendant has failed to rebut that burden.  As such, the
portion of the Plaintiff's motion seeking conditional certification
is granted.

The parties have not fully briefed the issue of the relevant time
period, and the Judge will therefore refrain from definitively
ruling on the issue until the parties have had an opportunity to
address it.  For purposes of notifying the potential Plaintiffs,
however, the relevant time period will be considered to be April
27, 2015, through the date of the Plaintiff's departure from the
Defendant in 2016.  The Judge also finds it appropriate to limit
the class of physicians to whom the Plaintiff may send notices.
Thus, he will direct the Defendant to provide the Plaintiff with
the names, last known addresses, and dates of employment for all
female family practice physicians the Defendant employed between
April 27, 2015, and the Plaintiff's last date of employment with
the Defendant.  This information is to be provided by Sept. 28,
2018.

The Defendant may submit, by Sept. 12, 2018, its own versions of
the notice, consent form, and language appearing or not to appear
on the outside of the envelope containing the documents.  It may
also submit a brief in support by the same date.  The Plaintiff may
submit a reply brief by Sept. 19, 2018, if she so chooses.  The
Judge reserves ruling on the portion of the Plaintiff's motion
concerning the form in which notice is to be provided to the
potential Plaintiffs.

For these reasons, Magistrate Williams granted in part and reserved
ruling in part on the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class
Certification and Court Authorized Notice.  The Defendant is
directed to provide the Plaintiff with the names, last known
addresses, and dates of employment for all female family practice
physicians defendant employed between April 27, 2015, and the
Plaintiff's last date of employment with the Defendant.  The
Defendant may submit by Sept. 12, 2018, its own versions of the
notice, consent form, and language appearing or not to appear on
the outside of the envelope.  The Defendant may also submit a brief
in support by the same date.  The Plaintiff may submit a reply
brief by Sept. 19, 2018, if she so chooses.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 29, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Q29fcU from Leagle.com.

Sharon Bertroche, M.D., Plaintiff, represented by Ann C. Gronlund
-- AGronlund@bpglegal.com -- BRADY PRESTON GRONLUND PC, Brad J.
Brady -- BBrady@bpglegal.com -- Brady Preston Gronlund PC, Mark D.
Sherinian, Sherinian & Hasso Law Firm & Melissa Carol Hasso --
mhasso@sherinianlaw.com -- Sherinian and Hasso Law Firm.

Mercy Physician Associates, Inc, Defendant, represented by Abram V.
Carls -- acarls@spmblaw.com -- Simmons Perrine Moyer Bergman PLC,
Kevin J. Visser -- kvisser@spmblaw.com -- Simmons Perrine Moyer
Bergman PLC & Nicholas Petersen, Simmons Perrine Moyer Bergman
PLC.


MERRILL LYNCH: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order denying Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Amended Complaint in the case captioned IOWA PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM; LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION; ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM;
SONOMA COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION; and TORUS CAPITAL,
LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.; MERRILL
LYNCH L.P. HOLDINGS, INC.; MERRILL LYNCH PROFESSIONAL CLEARING
CORP.; CREDIT SUISSE AG; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; CREDIT
SUISSE FIRST BOSTON NEXT FUND, INC.; CREDIT SUISSE PRIME SECURITIES
SERVICES (USA) LLC; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; GOLDMAN SACHS
EXECUTION & CLEARING, L.P.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; J.P. MORGAN
PRIME, INC.; J.P. MORGAN STRATEGIC SECURITIES LENDING CORP.; J.P.
MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; PRIME DEALER
SERVICES CORP.; STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS I, INC.; UBS AG; UBS AMERICAS
INC., UBS SECURITIES LLC; UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.; EQUILEND
LLC; EQUILEND EUROPE LIMITED; and EQUILEND HOLDINGS LLC,
Defendants. No. 17 Civ. 6221 (KPF). (S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs detail a wide-ranging conspiracy to prevent the
antiquated stock loan market from evolving into a transparent,
direct, all-to-all electronic exchange. This market is critical to
the short selling of stocks, a not-uncommon investment tool. The
thrust of the Plaintiffs' allegations is that the Defendants
conspired to boycott new market entrants, specifically, AQS, SL-x,
and Data Explorers in order to maintain their monopoly grip as
prime broker intermediaries, and, by extension, to charge excessive
fees under the cover of price opacity.

Applicable Law

Motions to Dismiss Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

To survive a [Rule 12(b)(6)] motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim is facially
plausible when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.

Restraints of Trade in Violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1

To state a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, a plaintiff
must show (i) a combination or some form of concerted action
between at least two legally distinct economic entities that (ii)
unreasonably restrains trade.The Court considers each of these
elements in turn.

To plead the first element, a plaintiff must show whether the
challenged conduct `stems from independent decision or from an
agreement, tacit or express.

To plead the second element, a Plaintiff must show that the
concerted action was unreasonable.

Courts generally evaluate reasonableness under the rule of reason,
which requires courts to weigh all of the circumstances of a case
in deciding whether a restrictive practice should be prohibited as
imposing an unreasonable restraint on competition, including
factors such as the relevant business and the history, nature, and
effect of the restraint.
The Prime Broker Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Is Denied

The Amended Complaint Adequately Alleges That Defendants Conspired
to Restrain Trade in Violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1

Applicable Law

The Defendants focus their efforts on the Plaintiffs' pleading of
the first element of a Sherman Act claim: whether there has been a
combination or some form of concerted action between at least two
legally distinct economic entities.

The Defendants' arguments with respect to the first element of
Section 1 touch on six main issues, which the Court will address in
turn: (i) facial plausibility; (ii) group pleading; (iii) direct
evidence of conspiracy; (iv) parallel conduct; (v) so-called plus
factors and (vi) the sufficiency of the pleadings with particular
respect to Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, UBS, and Credit Suisse.

The Alleged Conspiracy Is Facially Plausible

The Defendants first argue that the Plaintiffs' conspiracy theory
is facially implausible. For the reasons that follow, the Court
finds otherwise.

Duration and Membership: The Defendants contend that it is facially
implausible that just six prime brokers effected a nine-year
conspiracy that blocked the migration of stock loans to an
anonymous exchange, when borrowers, lenders, and agent lenders
could have dealt with the dozens of other prime brokers in
existence.

The Defendants cite no legal authorities to support this assertion,
and the Court is aware of none.

Contrary to the Defendants' contentions, it is also not facially
implausible that a small subset of prime brokers could bring about
an actionable conspiracy, because the six named Prime Broker
Defendants allegedly controlled between 76% and 80% of the market
share in the stock loan market and used that overall clout in the
market to discourage others from investing in, or patronizing, AQS,
SL-x, and Data Explorers.

EquiLend Board Meetings: The Defendants next argue, again without
reference to legal authority, that it is implausible that the
conspiracy was planned at EquiLend board meetings because those
meetings included large agent-lenders who supported the victim
businesses and whose clients would have been harmed by the
conspiracy.

The Plaintiffs respond that the agent lenders on EquiLend's Board
were themselves entrenched actors who may well have their own
incentives to preserve the status quo and align themselves with
Defendants, including vulnerability to pressure from the
Defendants.  

Here, the Amended Complaint alleges sufficient facts to support a
reasonable inference in the Plaintiffs' favor: namely, that the
agent lenders were willing to align themselves with Defendants,
even to the detriment of their own clients.

Access to OCC: The Defendants also argue that the conspiracy is
implausible because the bylaws of the sole central clearinghouse,
OCC, prevent lenders and borrowers from transacting directly and
require instead that they clear stock loans through broker-dealer
members of OCC.

The Defendants misconstrue the Amended Complaint. It does not
allege that the conspiracy aimed to prevent borrowers and lenders
from transacting directly without a clearing broker intermediary,
and thus whether such transactions were permitted by OCC is of no
moment. Nor does the Amended Complaint allege or need to allege
that the Defendants conspired to stop any of the roughly 60 other
broker-dealer members of OCC from offering clearing broker
services.

Anonymous Exchange Trading: The Defendants further submit that the
conspiracy is implausible because the clearing arrangements
necessary to sustain anonymous exchange trading do not exist [in
the stock loan market].

The Plaintiffs offer competing inferences concerning the stock loan
market's suitability for anonymous exchange. They submit that the
absence of a regulatory mandate is immaterial because, even without
such a mandate, AQS and SL-x attracted market support for their
offerings of anonymous, centrally-cleared stock lending. Plaintiffs
also submit that most borrowers do not currently care about, or
demand to know, the identity of the lenders from whom they borrow
stock.

The Amended Complaint's factual allegations are not facially
implausible.

Plaintiffs Do Not Rely on Impermissible Group Pleading

An antitrust plaintiff must present evidence tending to show that
association members, in their individual capacities, consciously
committed themselves to a common scheme designed to achieve an
unlawful objective.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' allegations rely on
impermissible generalizations about the Defendants as a group. In
this regard, they focus specifically on paragraphs of the Amended
Complaint that describe the Prime Broker Defendants, without
further specification, as using their positions at EquiLend to
discuss their next move collectively decide that they could not
tolerate the victim platforms collectively refuse to use AQS
pressure other market participants and threaten to withhold
services from hedge funds.

While the Amended Complaint does name four individual Defendants as
the source of the threats, it fails to allege additional details
such as when these threats supposedly occurred or whether they were
made in parallel and why the hedge funds could not have worked with
other prime brokers outside the conspiracy.

Plaintiffs Adequately Allege Direct Evidence of Conspiracy

The alleged statements by Shellard and Wipf qualify as direct
evidence of concerted action. It is true that, as Defendants point
out, Shellard's statement describes an agreement among EquiLend's
directors, not merely among the Prime Broker Defendants. Yet the
alleged conspiracy encompassed EquiLend as well as the Prime Broker
Defendants. Defendants also observe that Shellard himself did not
work as a prime broker for J.P. Morgan. The Court does not find
this observation probative, as an employee need not work in a
particular position to know of and describe his employer's
collusive conduct. Both statements expressly describe agreements
among the Defendants, and are thus direct evidence of concerted
action element one of a Sherman Act claim.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded at least some
direct evidence allegations of conspiracy. Notably, while the
qualifying allegations may be slim, even a failure to allege direct
evidence of conspiracy would not necessarily be fatal to the
pleading.

Plaintiffs Adequately Allege Parallel Conduct

The Plaintiffs argue and the Court agrees, that the Amended
Complaint adequately pleads parallel conduct by the Defendants. To
start, concerning AQS, the Amended Complaint alleges that Credit
Suisse, J.P. Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and UBS each, in separate
meetings, communicated an identical position to AQS: that they
would not support AQS unless it became a broker-only platform. The
Defendants contend that this pleading lacks sufficient factual
details about who said what to whom and when, and that the
Defendants' shared position was simply a recognition that market
standards and OCC by-laws required "broker-dealers" to transact on
AQS.

The Defendants' argument is fallacious; that OCC required end users
to clear their trades through clearing brokers is not the same as a
requirement that AQS be a broker-only platform, the latter of which
implies that no one but broker-dealers can use it. Moreover, the
claim that the allegations of the Defendants' identical positions
regarding AQS lacks specificity only works when reading paragraph
210 in total isolation. Taken holistically, the allegations of the
Defendants' parallel conduct toward AQS, including withdrawals and
denials of support and threats to other market participants, are
sufficiently specific to survive a motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs Adequately Allege Plus Factors

Allegations that a defendant engaged in parallel conduct, without
more, are often insufficient to plead circumstantial evidence of a
conspiracy if such behavior could be the result of coincidence,
independent responses to common stimuli, or mere interdependence
unaided by an advance understanding among the parties.

Interfirm Communications: As the Plaintiffs point out, the Amended
Complaint pleads multiple interfirm meetings at conferences,
private dinners, and EquiLend board meetings, including the 2009
meeting convened by Bank of America, meetings between Wipf and
Conley; a 2009 meeting between Bank of America and Goldman Sachs
executives; meetings between Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and
other Defendants at private dinners and conferences; and meetings
of EquiLend's Board. At this stage of the litigation, these
allegations are sufficient both to plead a high level of interfirm
communications and to support an inference of an opportunity to
conspire

Actions Against Individual Self-Interest: The Plaintiffs contend
that the Amended Complaint alleges actions against self-interest
because, absent the conspiracy, it would have been in the
self-interest of many of the Prime Broker Defendants to support the
platforms to avoid the risk of being left behind, and to offer
their clients access to AQS to avoid their jumping ship to a
competitor. At this stage of the litigation, the Court accepts this
inference as reasonable. The Court thus concludes that Defendants'
lack of support for the new market entrants serves as an additional
plus factor, adding to other circumstantial evidence of
conspiracy.

In sum, the Amended Complaint adequately pleads plus factors in
addition to parallel conduct, and thereby supports an inference of
concerted action from circumstantial evidence.

The Amended Complaint Adequately Alleges an Unreasonable Restraint
on Trade Under Either a Per Se or a Rule of Reason Theory

Applicable Law

The per se rule applies to certain agreements or practices which
because of their pernicious effect on competition and lack of any
redeeming virtue are conclusively presumed to be unreasonable and
therefore illegal without elaborate inquiry as to the precise harm
they have caused or the business excuse for their use.

The Alleged Conduct Is Per Se Unlawful

The Defendants argue that, except for the alleged boycott of AQS,
all of the Amended Complaint's allegations concern actions taken in
the context of, and in furtherance of, a joint venture, and thus
should be evaluated under the rule of reason rather than the per se
standard.

The Plaintiffs argue in contrast that the question of whether to
apply per se or rule of reason turns on the type of claim at issue,
not on isolated allegations that make up the claim.

The Plaintiffs argue that, taken as a whole, the Amended Complaint
alleges a group boycott, which the Plaintiffs contend automatically
falls within a category of per se illegal conduct.

The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs. The Amended Complaint alleges
that EquiLend's joint venture status was a smokescreen behind which
the Prime Broker Defendants could operate. The full relevant
allegation in the Amended Complaint is that, though EquiLend is
nominally organized as a joint venture, this fact does not shield
it or the Prime Broker Dealers from the antitrust laws. This is
because EquiLend does not act as an independent, rational market
participant.

In other words, the Amended Complaint is entirely consistent in its
allegations regarding EquiLend's joint venture status. More
importantly, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Prime Broker
Defendants, acting as separate and individual economic
decision-makers, conspired to boycott SL-x, Data Explorers, and
also AQS, and that this conduct was undertaken on behalf of each
Prime Broker Defendant, and not in furtherance of a legitimate
joint venture.

The Alleged Conduct Violates the Rule of Reason

Drawing all inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs, as required on a
motion to dismiss, the Court concludes that the Amended Complaint
adequately pleads that the Defendants purchased both AQS's and
SL-x's intellectual property for anticompetitive purposes, as
evidenced by the underuse of the products after purchase. The
Defendants' contention that EquiLend did operate the AQS technology
post-purchase, and that the Amended Complaint has not alleged facts
suggesting otherwise improperly draws inferences in the Defendants'
favor. Further, the Amended Complaint does allege that, the Prime
Broker Defendants agreed to exert their influence as Directors of
OCC and Directors of EquiLend to prevent OCC from acquiring AQS.
That allegation supports an inference that Defendants undermined
AQS's discussions with OCC, even without specific factual
allegations of precisely how Defendants went about doing so

In sum, whether analyzed as per se unlawful conduct, or under the
rule of reason, the Amended Complaint adequately pleads that
Defendants' concerted actions amounted to an unreasonable restraint
on trade.

Plaintiffs Have Antitrust Standing

Applicable Law

Courts determine efficient enforcer standing by primarily
considering the following factors: (i) the directness or
indirectness of the asserted injury, (ii) the existence of an
identifiable class of persons whose self-interest would normally
motivate them to vindicate the public interest in antitrust
enforcement (iii) the speculativeness of the alleged injury; and
(iv) the difficulty of identifying damages and apportioning them
among direct and indirect victims so as to avoid duplicative
recoveries.

First, the Defendants argue that the alleged injury is based on the
loss of an all-to-all trading platform, but Data Explorers and SL-x
had no plans to offer such a trading platform in the United States.


The Plaintiffs counter that Data Explorers and SL-x would have
increased efficiency and price competition and transparency in the
market in different ways from AQS. The Plaintiffs point to the
Amended Complaint's allegations that Data Explorers offered
performance data and other products to enhance borrowers' and
lenders' insight into whether their terms were consistent with
comparable market trades and that it would have reduced pricing
opacity.

Second, the Defendants argue that AQS lacked the ability to enable
all-to-all trading due to rules requiring broker-dealer
intermediaries. Plaintiffs counter that AQS accounted for this
limitation by enabling all-to-all trading using clearing agents.

Third, the Defendants theorize that AQS, SL-x, and Data Explorers
were the direct victims of the alleged conspiracy and thus the
proper plaintiffs to bring this claim. Plaintiffs counter that
those entities' decisions not to sue have no bearing, and in any
event, AQS has since filed a related action.  

The Defendants' arguments are thought-provoking, but insufficient
to merit dismissal. To start, the Defendants challenge merely one
of the four factors to plead efficient enforcer standing. The
efficient enforcer inquiry is a general balancing test in which the
importance assigned to each factor will necessarily vary with the
circumstances of particular cases.

Here, the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the new market
entrants were met with market demand, and would have provided
benefits, including increased transparency and efficiency leading
to lower prices, had the conspiracy not occurred.

Plaintiffs' Claims Are Not Time-Barred

Applicable Law

The Defendants also mount a challenge to the timeliness of the
Plaintiffs' claims. Claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act are
subject to a four-year statute of limitations that begins to run
when a defendant commits an act that injures a plaintiff's
business.

If the defendant engages in a continuing violation, each new overt
act that is part of the violation restarts the period of
limitations, but does not permit the plaintiff to recover for
injuries caused by acts that occurred before that limitations
period. Claims for unjust enrichment under New York law are subject
to a six-year period of limitations where the plaintiff seeks an
equitable remedy, and a three-year period of limitations where the
plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

Plaintiffs Adequately Allege Concealment

The Court's finding that the Plaintiffs have alleged an inherently
self-concealing conspiracy discharges the Plaintiffs' burden to
plead concealment. Still again, for the sake of completeness, the
Court also considers whether the Amended Complaint pleads
affirmative acts of concealment. The Plaintiffs maintain that the
Defendants took affirmative steps to conceal the conspiracy by (i)
conducting secret meetings, (ii) using code words, (iii)
misrepresenting their support for both EquiLend and central
clearing, and (iv) using threats to silence victims and witnesses.

The Plaintiffs rely on the Amended Complaint's allegations that the
Defendants conducted the conspiracy through private meetings of the
EquiLend board, using the code name Project Gateway and that
Defendants misrepresented EquiLend's purpose as optimizing
efficiency in the securities finance industry" when its true
purpose was to prevent such efficiency.

The Amended Complaint also alleges that the Defendants made
encouraging statements to SL-x executives about the platform and
about central clearing more broadly, which statements
misrepresented their true lack of enthusiasm as shown by the fact
that, after several meetings with SL-x executives, Defendants
allegedly went cold, refused to engage further, and reported that
they were no longer willing to be first movers on SL-x.

Plaintiffs Adequately Allege Ignorance

The Plaintiffs argue that they had no prior knowledge of the
collusion, which was brought to light only by counsel's recent
investigation revealing critical, non-public facts.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs were put on inquiry notice
by a 2009 article in an industry magazine that called EquiLend a
cartel.  But a single instance of unverified media speculation,
mentioned in passing without any specifics, is not enough to put
Plaintiffs on inquiry notice.

The Defendants also contend that the Plaintiffs had notice based on
the Amended Complaint's assertion that a conspiracy is the only
good explanation for why the stock loan market remains opaque.

However, the Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that the alleged
substantial investment support for the victim platforms shows that,
at the least, it was not obvious that a conspiracy was in the works
to destroy them. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint adequately
pleads ignorance for purposes of tolling.

Plaintiffs Adequately Allege Diligence

The Defendants contend that these allegations are merely conclusory
and therefore fail the Rule 9(b) pleading standard. The Plaintiffs
argue that the allegations are sufficient because, in monitoring
their investments and market news, they received no indication of
the concealed conspiracy, which was only revealed when the
Plaintiffs' counsel conducted a diligent investigation that formed
the basis of the Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs have shown reasonable diligence under the first
prong for purposes of defeating a motion to dismiss because,
drawing all inferences in their favor, a reasonable person would
not have thought to investigate" above and beyond the standard
activities of investment and news monitoring that Plaintiffs
engaged in. At this stage of the litigation, requiring more from
the Plaintiffs would be premature.

The statutes of limitations on Plaintiffs' claims are tolled,
making the claims timely.

Plaintiffs' Unjust Enrichment Claim Stands

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim
should be dismissed because it is entirely dependent on their
fatally flawed antitrust claim. Since the Court has concluded
Plaintiffs state a viable antitrust claim, their unjust enrichment
claim stands as well.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybwzo2um from
Leagle.com.

Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Julie
Goldsmith Reiser -- jreiser@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Christopher James Bateman --
cbateman@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Jeremy Daniel Andersen -- jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn,
Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, LLP, Kit A. Pierson --
kpierson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Maaren Alia Shah -- maarenshah@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Maxwell Paden Deabler-Meadows --
MAXMEADOWS@QUINNEMANUEL.COM -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
Michael Benjamin Eisenkraft -- meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com --
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Richard A. Koffman --
rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Robert White Cobbs -- rcobbs@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Sascha Nicholas Rand --
sascharand@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel, Steig Olson --
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel, Thomas Lepri --
thomaslepri@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel, Thomas Popejoy --
thomaspopejoy@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
& Daniel Lawrence Brockett -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn
Emanuel.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated & Merrill Lynch
L.P. Holdings, Inc., Defendants, represented by Adam Selim Hakki --
ahakki@shearman.com -- Shearman & Sterling LLP, Richard Franklin
Schwed -- rschwed@shearman.com -- Shearman & Sterling LLP & Ryan
Ashby Shores -- ryan.shores@shearman.com -- Shearman & Sterling
LLP.

Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Credit Suisse
First Boston Next Fund, Inc. & Credit Suisse Prime Securities
Services (USA) LLC, Defendants, represented by David George
Januszewski -- djanuszewski@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon & Reindel
LLP, Elai E. Katz -- ekatz@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon & Reindel
LLP, Herbert Scott Washer -- hwasher@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon &
Reindel LLP, Jason Michael Hall -- jhall@cahill.com -- Cahill
Gordon & Reindel LLP, Margaret Ann Barone -- mbarone@cahill.com --
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP & Sheila Chithran Ramesh --
sramesh@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP.


MICROSOFT CORP: Women Engineers Have to Beat SCOTUS Precedent
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Nocera, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Katie
Moussouris, a Microsoft engineer specializing in security issues,
claims she was told during her May 2012 performance review that
she'd had an outstanding year, and on a scale of 1 to 5 she'd
earned the second-highest rating, a 2 -- but because the number of
employees who can get top ranks is capped, she got a 3 instead. The
same thing happened in 2013. She left in 2014 and sued in 2015,
alleging she was passed over for promotion in favor of less
qualified men and was paid less than her male peers.

The Lawsuit

Moussouris and her lawyers sought class-action status on behalf of
8,000 women on the grounds that all were routinely discriminated
against at Microsoft. The plaintiffs got a boost when U.S. District
Judge James Robart ruled they could seek evidence from Microsoft.
What the lawyers found gave them high hopes -- for instance,
according to one of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses, women at the
company earn a "statistically significant" 8.6 percent less than
men. Microsoft denies discriminating on pay and promotions.

The Issue

The plaintiffs had to overcome one important hurdle: a 2011 Supreme
Court case, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes. In a 5-4 decision
written by the late Antonin Scalia, the court ruled that because
thousands of low-level managers were making the pay and promotion
decisions, there wasn't enough "commonality" among the plaintiffs
to justify a class. The Microsoft plaintiffs believed that
corporate policies such as the forced ranking system were a big
part of the problem, making it an issue of corporate culture, not
individual decisions.

The Result

Robart ruled for Microsoft in July, citing the Dukes precedent. The
plaintiffs, he wrote, "have not identified a common mode of
exercising discretion that pervades the entire company." However,
in late September, the Ninth Circuit court of appeals agreed to
review the decision to deny certification. If the appeals court
certifies the class, Microsoft will have to decide whether to take
the case to trial -- where its alleged discrimination will get a
public airing -- or settle and move on.

Then Again . . .

How long will the reprieve last? With judicial vacancies being
rapidly filled by conservative jurists, class actions may soon be a
relic. That would be a shame. While there have certainly been
frivolous or abusive class actions, the suits are a powerful tool
to right real wrongs.

Class Is In?

In the wake of the Dukes decision, there was talk that the Supreme
Court had gutted class actions. But they've seen a resurgence, in
large part because appeals courts aren't interpreting Dukes as
narrowly as business would like, says Robert Klonoff, a professor
at Lewis & Clark Law School.

The case is Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp., Case #2:15-cv-01483
[GN]


MUNCH ANYTIME: Harrison Hits Lowered Tip Credit Rate
----------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Harrison on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Munch Anytime
Restaurant, LLC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02112, (N.D. Ohio,
September 14, 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.

Munch Anytime Restaurant owns and operates a chain of "Denny's"
restaurants where Harrison worked as server at their location in
Parma, Ohio. However, her duties included greater or equal time
spent in non-tipped functions, such as dishwashing, sweeping and
mopping, cleaning the counters, bathroom, basement and sidewalk,
among others, yet was paid at the lowered tip credit rate, notes
the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clifford P. Bendau II, Esq.
      Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
      THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
      P.O. Box 97066
      Phoenix, AZ 85060
      Telephone: (480) 382-5176
      Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com

             - and -

      James L. Simon, Esq.
      6000 Freedom Square Dr.
      Independence, OH 44131
      Telephone: (216) 525-8890
      Facsimile: (216) 642-5814
      Email: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com



NATIONAL VISION: Unit Continues to Defend Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
National Vision Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2018, that its subsidiary FirstSight Vision
Services, Inc., continues to defend itself in a class action suit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California

The Company's FirstSight Vision Services, Inc. (FirstSight)
subsidiary is a defendant in a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California that alleges
that FirstSight participated in arrangements that caused the
illegal delivery of eye examinations and that FirstSight thereby
violated, among other laws, the corporate practice of optometry and
the unfair competition and false advertising laws of California. On
March 23, 2017, the court granted the motion to dismiss previously
filed by FirstSight and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit in April 2017. In July 2018, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated in part, and reversed in
part, the district court's dismissal and remanded for further
proceedings.

National Vision said, "The Company believes that the claims are
without merit and intends to continue to defend the litigation
vigorously."

National Vision Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates
as an optical retailer primarily in the United States. The company
operates in two segments, Owned & Host and Legacy. National Vision
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is based in Duluth,
Georgia.


NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS: Court Dismisses Insurance Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First
Amended Class Action Complaint in case captioned MELODIE BUSHMAN,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation,
and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendant. Civil Action No.
17-cv-2277-WJM-NRN. (D. Colo.).

Plaintiff Melodie Bushman (Bushman) sues Defendant Nationwide
Agribusiness Insurance Company (Nationwide) for its alleged
systemic failure to pay certain amounts that a Colorado statute
requires insurers to pay when insureds' motor vehicles are declared
a total loss.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits the Court to
dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. The Rule 12(b)(6) standard requires the Court to assume
the truth of the claimant's well-pleaded factual allegations and
view them in the light most favorable to the claimant.

The Motion to Dismiss argues that Bushman strategically pleads only
that Nationwide allegedly did not pay a specific dollar amount
($232.09) in ownership taxes and title and registration fees. But
the complaint offers no facts to substantiate or justify this
amount.

Under these specific circumstances, the Court agrees with
Nationwide that Bushman has failed to state a claim. For two
reasons, actually, the complaint does not say enough to plausibly
suggest that the $9.50 reimbursement was less than required by
statute and if it is not less than required by statute, all of
Bushman's claims fail.

The first reason is that articulated by Nationwide. Depending on
when Bushman's yearly registration fee would have come due, $9.50
might have been an accurate pro rata amount. Bushman pleads no
facts to suggest otherwise.

The second reason arises from U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael E.
Hegarty's report and recommendation regarding a motion to dismiss
filed in a similar case against GEICO, presided over by U.S.
District Judge Christine M. Arguello, Pearson et al. v. GEICO
Casualty Company,Civil Action No. 17-cv-2116 (Pearson). Pearson,
filed by the same attorneys that represent Bushman in this lawsuit,
accuses GEICO of the same type of underpayment at issue here.

In a report and recommendation that Bushman brought to the
undersigned's attention, Judge Hegarty recommended, among other
things, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims to the extent they sought
reimbursement of ownership taxes. Judge Hegarty reasoned that the
statute in question only refers to title fees, sales tax, and any
other transfer or registration fee associated with the loss of a
motor vehicle. Conspicuously absent is ownership tax, which is a
yearly tax calculated separately from title fees, sales tax,
transfer fees, and registration fees.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 20, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycs4h9kh from Leagle.com.

Melodie Bushman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Behram Viraf Parekh --
bparekh@yaplaw.com -- Kirtland & Packard LLP, Brett Norman Huff,
Huff & Leslie, LLP, Michael Louis Kelly -- mlk@kirtlandpackard.com
-- Kirtland & Packard LLP & Joshua Adam Fields --
jf@kirtlandpackard.com -- Kirtland & Packard LLP.

Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company, an Iowa Corporation; and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant, represented by Kristine Marie
Schanbacher -- kristine.schanbacher@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP,
Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov, Dentons US LLP & Mark Lane Hanover,
Dentons US LLP.


NAVISTONE: New York Court Dismisses Spying Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Kari M. Rollins, Esq. -- krollins@sheppardmullin.com -- and David
M. Poell, Esq. -- dpoell@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard, Mullin,
Richter & Hampton LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
wrote that in a victory for online retailers, a New York federal
court recently dismissed three putative class action lawsuits
brought on behalf of website visitors whose mouse clicks,
keystrokes, and electronic communications were tracked by a
third-party marketing company. The cases were filed against three
e-commerce retailers -- Casper (a mattress manufacturer and
retailer), Tyrwhitt (a men's clothing company), and Moosejaw (an
active outdoor retailer) -- and against a marketing company named
NaviStone. NaviStone offers computer code that allows e-commerce
retailers to determine the identities of consumers who visit their
websites and track their online behavior. The plaintiff alleged
that the code offered by NaviStone, and embedded in the retailers'
websites, functioned as an illegal wiretap enabling the retailers
and NaviStone to "spy" on website visitors in real time as they
browse. The lawsuits alleged violations under the federal
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the federal Stored
Communications Act (SCA), and New York General Business law
(NYGBL).

In dismissing the lawsuits in their entirety, the Southern District
of New York notably found plaintiff's case failed under all three
laws:  the ECPA, the SCA, and the NYGBL. First, the Court held that
the plaintiff's ECPA claims failed, among other reasons, because
the statute requires only one party to consent to the interception
of electronic communications, and the online retailers clearly
consented to NaviStone's activities. Second, the Court held that
the SCA regulates only electronic communications that are
temporarily stored by electronic communications services (such as
an ISP) incidental to their transmission; and, therefore, the SCA
does not apply to communications stored on an individual's personal
device.  Finally, and significantly, the Court dismissed
plaintiff's NYGBL claims because an alleged general invasion of
privacy -- without more -- does not qualify as a cognizable injury
under New York law sufficient to confer standing to sue under the
NYGBL.

Putting it Into Practice: Despite having dismissed the lawsuits in
their entirety, the Court acknowledged that defendants' conduct
raised "troubling privacy concerns," leaving the door open --
potentially -- for the similar claims to be brought under different
causes of action.  Online retailers should keep courts' potential
unease in mind when using tracking software, and should be mindful
of how the use of such tracking software is disclosed and
represented to consumers who visit their websites. [GN]


NET2SOURCE INC: Jeffrey Johns Sues over Background Checks
----------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY JOHNS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. NET2SOURCE INC., a New Jersey corporation; DCR
WORKFORCE, INC., a Florida corporation; ARKEMA, INC., a
Pennsylvania corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC722124 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 18, 2018),
seeks compensatory and punitive damages due to Defendants'
systematic and willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The case arose from Defendants' acquisition and use of consumer
and/or investigative consumer reports to conduct background checks
on Plaintiff and other prospective employees that it places for
temporary employment. The Defendants routinely obtain and use
information from background reports in connection with their hiring
processes without complying with state and federal mandates for
doing so. The Defendants have violated the requirements under this
statute in at least two separate ways: (1) failure to provide
proper pre-authorization disclosures; and (2) failure to provide
proper adverse-action disclosures.

Net2Source Inc. operates as a global workforce management solutions
company that provides IT consulting and staffing solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEUTRON HOLDINGS: Misclassifies Juicers as Contractors, Osuna Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JON OSUNA, an individual, himself and all members of the putative
class, the Plaintiff, v. NEUTRON HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a/ LIME, a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC722113 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 18, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, LIME is a dockless electric scooter
rental company. To rent a scooter, users download LIME's smartphone
app and open the map to locate a nearby GPS enabled scooter. The
user can then unlock the scooter and ride it. Each ride costs $1
plus 15 cents per minute thereafter. At the end of the ride, users
leave the scooter at their destination and use the app to lock the
scooter and end the ride. Once that occurs, the scooter's location
reappears on the map in the app for other users to locate, unlock,
and ride. Because the scooters are electric, they need to be
charged each night. To do this, LIME hires "juicers" who collect
low-battery scooters throughout the day and all scooters at the end
of the day (typically between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.). Juicers
then charge the scooters at their houses overnight, and drop them
off the following morning (typically between 5:00 a.m. and 7:00
a.m.) at predetermined locations.

Juicers are paid a "bounty" for each scooter they collect, charge,
and timely release the following morning. The bounty ranges from $5
to $20 dollars depending on how much power has been used and how
long the scooter has been available for collection. If a juicer
docs not timely release their scooters the following morning, they
are not paid. To become a juicer, applicants can apply on LIME's
smartphone app or online.

Applicants must be 18 years old or older, have a car, be able to
charge scooters, and live in an area where LIME operates.
Applicants then have a short telephone interview with a LIME
representative and then take a few lessons on charging and a quiz.
If an applicant is hired, they must purchase their own charging
cords.

LIME misclassifies its juicers as independent contractors in order
to minimize costs and unduly maximize profits at the expense of
their primary workforce. Juicers are under the control and
direction of LIME in connection with the performance of their work,
perform work that is part of the usual course of LIME's business,
and are not customarily engaged in an independently established
trade, occupation, or business in the same nature of the work
performed for LIME. Through its unlawful misclassification scheme,
LIME avoids the costs of providing workers compensation to its
juicers, denying them much needed protection in the event of
work-related injuries or illnesses. LIME also unlawfully passes on
its operation costs, in the form of scooter collection, charging,
and drop-off costs to its juicers. LIME's unlawful conduct of
misclassifying juicers also allows it to deprive Plaintiff and
other juicers of fundamental employment rights, such as the right
to minimum wages, the right to mandated meal breaks, the right to
mandated rest breaks, the right to premium wages for missed meal
and rest breaks, the right to accurate itemized wage statements,
the right to the prompt payment of full wages within time limits
designated by law, and the right to workers compensation
protection, guaranteed to employees under various provisions of the
Labor Code and applicable wage order.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Kitty K. Szeto, Esq.
          John M. Bickford, Esq.
          Ryan A. Crist, Esq.
          PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949 2595
          Facsimile: (661) 949 7524


NORMANDY, MO: Faces Class Action Over Debtor's Prison
-----------------------------------------------------
Sarah Fenske, writing for Riverfront Times, reports that in both
December 2012 and December 2013, a disabled U.S. Air Force veteran
named Roelif Carter was pulled over by police on routine traffic
stops. In both cases, the officers learned that Carter, now 65, had
outstanding warrants for his arrest for "failure to appear" and
"failure to pay" from the north-county municipality of Normandy --
all because he'd been unable to pony up the money he owed for
low-level traffic offenses there.

That's despite a number of extenuating circumstances. In one case
where he was charged with "failure to appear," his lawyers say,
Carter came to court, but the courthouse was so overcrowded he
couldn't even get in the door. In another, he got to see a judge,
but didn't have the $100 payment they were demanding on the spot.
He asked if community service was an option; they issued a warrant
for "failure to pay" instead.

And the five warrants the court ultimately issued ended up having
serious consequences for Mr.Carter. In both December 2012, he was
jailed for six days. A year later, he was jailed for another six.
On that second occasion, he was released at 2 a.m. -- and the
officers never allowed him a free phone call or a chance to arrange
transportation. He walked all fifteen miles home in the dead of
winter.

Mr. Carter is not alone -- or even the most extreme case. His story
is just one of many compiled by the nonprofit law firm ArchCity
Defenders and presented as part of a class-action lawsuit it filed
this morning in federal court.

The suit charges Normandy with operating a "modern-day police state
and debtor's prison," terrorizing north-county residents "through a
deliberate policy established and implemented to fill the city's
coffers by extorting money from thousands of poor,
disproportionately African-American people in the St. Louis
region." It explains three ways Normandy has extorted residents: by
threatening them with being jailed, by setting up payment plans
with "exorbitant interest rates, surcharges and other fees" and by
detaining them at the courthouse and telling them to contact
friends and family to pony up the money they owe.

"If private parties had created and implemented this scheme,
enforced it by threatening and imposing indefinite incarceration,
and milked poor families of millions of dollars, the law would
punish them as extortionists and racketeers, and the community
would take steps to prevent them from exploiting the most
vulnerable of its members," ArchCity writes in the lawsuit. "These
predatory practices are no more legitimate — and indeed are more
outrageous — when state and local government actors perpetrate
them under color of law."

The municipality's actions, the 50-page lawsuit charges, violate
the Fourth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments — even as it
collected $6 million in revenue from 2012 to 2016.

The litigation is part of an ongoing campaign. Last year, ArchCity
filed a lawsuit alleging that thirteen north-county suburbs were
using the St. Ann jail as part of a scheme against clients who
couldn't afford to pay court fines and fees. The judge ruled that
each municipality needed to be sued individually. ArchCity suggests
the Sept. 10 filing could be the first of many.

Its lawsuit paints a stark picture of Normandy's practices:
Thousands of people in the Plaintiffs' position were forced to
divert funds from their disability checks, or sacrifice meager
earnings their families desperately need for food, diapers,
clothing, rent, and utilities, to pay spiraling court fines, fees,
costs, and surcharges. Whether or not valid, a citation for a minor
offense -- a broken tail light, a lane change without signaling --
often generates crippling debts for people like Plaintiffs,
resulting in jail time when they cannot afford to pay, deepening
their already desperate poverty.

The summary imprisonment imposed on people who have appeared in the
municipal courts of Normandy and its neighboring municipalities but
who could not afford to pay the sums of money demanded has
frightened many away from the courthouse, allowing Defendant to
jack up the fines even further and issue arrest warrants intended
to coerce payment for "Failure to Pay" and "Failure to Appear."
Month after month, year after year, the cycle has repeated itself,
ensnaring Plaintiffs and those like them in a system from which it
has been nearly impossible to extricate themselves.

In a statement, Roelif Carter bemoaned the situation.

"After serving my country in the Air Force I worked at Ford, one of
the biggest motor companies in the world, and retired from. As a
husband and father, I proudly provided for my family. After having
a brain aneurysm, I couldn't work and was on disability.

"As a black man driving, I was always a target, but with less
income it got worse," he said. "Even though I'd pay the courts as
much as I could from my fixed income, I was still getting locked
up. This whole system in St. Louis is inhumane, and it needs to
change." [GN]


OK FOODS: 8th Cir. Awarded $88K Attys' Fees in Melgar FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ana Melgar, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; Phaythoune Phengsouvanavong, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated; Ruben Iraburo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OK Foods; OK Industries, Inc.
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-2612 (8th Cir.), Judge Michael
Joseph Melloy of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
(i) reversed in part the district court's order approving the
parties' settlement agreement and declining to award the
agreed-upon $87,500 in attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses; and
(ii) remanded with instructions to award the Appellants the
agreed-upon fees.

The employees of a chicken processing plant filed a lawsuit against
their employer OK Foods, alleging their employer failed to pay
certain wages in violation of Arkansas state law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").  The parties eventually settled
their dispute out-of-court for a confidential amount made known to
the court.  While the district court approved the parties'
settlement agreement, it declined to award the agreed-upon $87,500
in attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.  Instead, the district
court, sua sponte, reduced the fees awarded to $22,500.  

Judge Melloy reversed in part and remanded with instructions to
award the Appellants the agreed-upon fees.

In May 2013, Appellants Melgar, Phaythoune Phengsouvanavong, and
Ruben Iraburo filed a class action lawsuit against OK Foods in
state court alleging unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract,
and violations of the Minimum Wage Act of the State of Arkansas.
Ark. Code.  In June 2013, OK Foods successfully removed the case to
federal court.  After the court denied the Appellants' motion for
remand, the Appellants amended their complaint to include FLSA
claims.

In March 2015, the district court certified the case as a
collective action under the FLSA, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b).  Over 1,000 individuals opted in to the action.  In
November 2015, the court stayed the case, pending the Supreme
Court's decision in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo.

In April 2016, the district court granted OK Foods' motion to
decertify the collective action, in light of the Court's decision
in Tyson Foods, reducing the case to the individual claims of the
Appellants.  It also granted OK Foods' motion for partial summary
judgment, subsequently limiting certain claims to a two-year
limitations period under the FLSA.

In late 2016, the parties engaged in settlement discussions.  They
eventually agreed to settle for a confidential amount made known to
the court, which the Appellants allege was higher than the parties
could have expected to win at trial.  The Agreement also included a
provision requiring OK Foods to pay $87,500 in attorneys' fees.
The parties then filed a joint motion for dismissal with
prejudice.

The district court denied the joint motion and requested additional
information to evaluate the fairness of the Agreement.  It
expressed concern as to the amount OK Foods agreed to pay in
attorneys' fees, noting there was no information provided regarding
the fee arrangement between the Plaintiffs and their counsel or the
amount of time expended on the case.  It also expressed concern as
to the relatively high ratio between the attorneys' fees and the
Plaintiffs' recovery.

In response, the parties provided the district court with the
requested information and filed a joint motion to approve the
settlement.  The district court granted the motion as to the
settlement amount but declined to award the agreed-upon attorneys'
fees.  Instead, it instructed the Appellants to file a
properly-supported motion to recover fees and costs.  The district
court also expressed concern as to the possibility of
double-recovery by the Appellants' counsel, as the counsel is also
involved in an ongoing state-court class action against OK Foods.

Accordingly, the Appellants submitted documentation and filed a
third, uncontested motion requesting that the court orders OK Foods
to pay the agreed-upon $87,500.  The documents included hour logs
and rates accounting for $536,810.00 in attorneys' fees and
$94,745.30 in incurred costs and expenses, to support fees and
costs totaling $631,555.30.

The district court denied the motion to approve the attorneys'
fees, identifying the attorneys' fees provision of the Agreement
and noting the provision was severable from the remainder of the
settlement agreement.  As such, the court determined the Appellants
were entitled to reasonable fees and costs that reflect that
success, noted the amount Appellants recovered was lower than the
attorneys' fees, and awarded $22,500 in attorneys' fees and costs
without providing any additional explanation for the court's
alternative calculation.

The Appellants filed a timely appeal of the district court's order
with the Court.  OK Foods did not oppose the appeal, file a brief,
or participate in oral argument.  According to OK Foods, the terms
of the settlement agreement preclude them from contesting the fee
award.

Judge Melloy finds that the case presents two questions for his
review: (1) did the court have a duty or a right to review the
Agreement, and (2) if so, under what standard of review.

As to the first question, the Judge recognizes an apparent circuit
split as to whether private settlements relating to FLSA claims
require district court review.  Since neither party discusses
whether district court approval is required, he needs not address
this issue.  Instead, he will assume without deciding that the
district court has a duty to exercise some level of review of the
Agreement and the attorneys' fee award.

As to the second question, where the parties have already agreed
upon the fees to be paid, any required review need not be a
line-by-line, hour-by-hour review of the attorneys' fees.  Even
assuming the district court had a duty to review the Agreement, at
some level, for fairness and reasonableness, review of attorneys'
fees included in a settlement agreement requires a certain level of
deference by the district court to the parties' agreement.  Here,
he finds that the district court's approach extended beyond the
scrutiny the situation required.

In a matter involving the joint stipulation of attorneys' fees in a
settlement agreement, given the facts of this particular case, the
court's duty to review is not an invitation to exercise line-item
veto power over certain provisions. First, the fees are supported
by ample documentation.  Second, the case was extensively litigated
and hard fought.

While he understands the district court's concern as to the
attorneys' fees-to-recovery ratio, this ratio alone is not the sole
determining factor.  In light of the need to focus on multiple
factors and not just one, and in light of the strong likelihood
that the parties' agreement is reasonable, he finds that any
required review by the district court is light and the award in the
case is not outside the range of what would be approved.

The Judge concludes the parties' agreed-upon attorneys' fees are
fair and reasonable.  Furthermore, any process of reviewing and
approving stipulated attorneys' fees in the event of a settlement
is more deferential than resolving attorneys' fees in a disputed
case.

For these reasons he reversed and remanded the case to the district
court with instructions to award the Appellants the agreed-upon
$87,500 in attorneys' fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 29, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/QcaJPm from Leagle.com.

Matthew Tancred Horan, for Defendant-Appellee.

Don A. Smith -- dsmith@smithcashion.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Stephen M. Sharum, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

John T. Holleman, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Gary William Udouj, Sr., for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Ashley B. Abel -- Ashley.Abel@jacksonlewis.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Timothy A. Steadman, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

L. Dale Owens, for Defendant-Appellee.

Matthew Michael Ford, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Eric Russell Magnus -- Eric.Magnus@jacksonlewis.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Donald Christopher Lauderdale, for Defendant-Appellee.


OPKO HEALTH: Steinberg Alleges Pump-and-Dump Scheme
---------------------------------------------------
CHARLES STEINBERG, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OPKO HEALTH, INC., PHILLIP
FROST, ADAM LOGAL, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-23786-JEM (S.D. Fla., Sep. 14, 2018), is a class action
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on
behalf of a class consisting of all those who purchased or
otherwise acquired Opko common stock during the Class Period from
September 26, 2013, through the cessation of trading in its
securities on September 7, 2018 and who were damaged thereby.
Excluded from the Class are: Defendants; members of their immediate
family; any subsidiary or affiliate of Opko and the directors,
officers and employees of the Company or its subsidiaries or
affiliates or any entity in which any excluded person has a
controlling interest; and the legal representatives, heirs,
successors and assigns of any excluded person.

According to the complaint, Defendants were participants in a
"pump-and-dump" scheme designed, in part, to artificially inflate
the price of various stocks, allowing Defendant Frost, among
others, to reap millions of dollars in unlawful profits, in
violation of a number of laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. The Defendants never
disclosed their participation in these "pump-and-dump" schemes. To
the contrary, in each of the quarterly and annual securities
filings made by Opko and signed by Frost as Chairman of its Board
of Directors and Chief Executive Officer and by Defendants Logal
and Rodriguez during their respective tenures as Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, Defendants attested to the accuracy of the
Company's financial reporting and represented that the financial
statements contained no material misrepresentations.

The actions in furtherance of this "pump-and-dump" scheme included
causing the article entitled "Opko and its Billionaire CEO Invested
in Biozone" to appear in Seeking Alpha on September 26, 2013. This
article promoted the stock of Biozone by citing Frost's ownership
in Biozone based on his reputation as a savvy investor in biotech
companies. This publication included a statement that the author
was not compensated for the article (other than from Seeking
Alpha), whereas, upon information and belief based upon the SEC's
recent complaint, its author had been paid for writing it. Other
actions in furtherance of the "pump-and-dump" scheme also included
causing the article entitled "Opko Spots Another Overlooked
Opportunity in MabVax Therapeutics" to appear in Seeking Alpha on
April 8, 2015 in order to promote the stock of MabVax, by using
Frost's and Opko's reputation to pump up the stock of MabVax as
part of the "pump-and-dump" scheme.  Upon information and belief
based upon the SEC's complaint, this article falsely claimed that
its author had no business relationship with MabVax and that he was
not being compensated for writing it.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel E. Bacine, Esq.
          Mark R. Rosen, Esq.
          Lisa M. Port, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963 0600
          Facsimile: (215) 963 0838
          E-mail: dbacine@barrack.com
                  mrosen@barrack.com
                  lport@barrack.com

               - and -

          Joseph E. White, Esq.
          Kenneth M. Rehns, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          150 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 394 3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394 3382
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  krehns@saxenawhite.com


ORANGE COUNTY, CA: FEHA Claim Dismissal in Harris Upheld in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GAYLAN HARRIS, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 13-56061 (9th Cir.), Judge Marsha S.
Berzon of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
in part and reversed in part the district court's dismissal of the
FEHA claim.

It is the fourth time the Court has been asked to consider whether
the County of Orange violated the vested rights of its retired
employees when it restructured its health benefits program.  This
time, it is asked to consider whether two reforms adopted by the
County in 2006 deprived the Plaintiffs of vested employment
benefits, in violation of the County's contractual obligations, and
constituted age discrimination, in violation of California's Fair
Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA").

The case arises out of the restructuring of two benefits the County
provided to its retirees: the Retiree Premium Subsidy and the Grant
Benefit.  The County began offering group medical insurance to its
retired employees in 1966.  Initially, premiums were calculated
separately for active and retired employees.  The County paid a
large portion of the premiums for active employees, but retirees
paid most of their own premiums.  From 1993 through 2007, retired
employees also received a monthly grant to defray the cost of
health care premiums.  The terms of the Grant Benefit were set
forth in Memoranda of Understanding ("MOUs") between the County and
its unionrepresented employees.

Beginning in 2004, the County negotiated with its labor unions to
restructure the retiree medical program, which was underfunded.
Two years later, the Board of Supervisors approved an agreement
with the labor union that made the following relevant reductions in
benefits for retirees: (1) the County would split retired and
active employees into separate pools to set premiums; (2) the
maximum increase for the Grant Multiplier would be reduced from 5%
to 3%; and (3) once a retiree became eligible for Medicare (at age
65), the Grant Benefit would be reduced by 50%.

On Nov. 5, 2007, the Retired Employees Association of Orange
County, Inc. ("REAOC"), a non-profit representing County retirees
and their spouses, filed suit challenging the County's decision to
eliminate the Retiree Premium Subsidy.  The district court granted
summary judgment in favor of the County in the REAOC case, holding
that the County was not obligated to provide the Retiree Premium
Subsidy for the duration of Retirees' lives because there was no
evidence of any explicit legislative or statutory authority
requiring the County to do so, and because that obligation could
not arise by implication from past practices or the parties' course
of dealing.

On appeal, the Appellate Court certified to the California Supreme
Court the question whether, as a matter of California law, a
California county and its employees can form an implied contract
that confers vested rights to health benefits on retired county
employees.  The California Supreme Court, answering the certified
question, held that under California law, a vested right to health
benefits for retired county employees can be implied under certain
circumstances from a county ordinance or resolution.

In light of that response, the Court remanded the case to the
district court for further proceedings.  On remand, the district
court again entered summary judgment in favor of the County,
finding that REAOC had failed to show the existence of an implied
contract right to the pooled premium.  REAOC appealed, and the
Court affirmed ("REAOC V").

While the REAOC case was pending, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of
thousands of retired Orange County employees ("Retirees"), filed
the class action, which was assigned to the same district judge
presiding over the REAOC litigation.  The complaint alleged that
the County breached its contractual obligations to Retirees by
eliminating the Retiree Premium Subsidy and reducing the Grant
Benefit, and that the elimination of the Retiree Premium Subsidy
also constituted age discrimination in violation of California's
Fair Employment and Housing Act.  The Harris and REAOC litigations
overlap to the extent both seek declaratory and injunctive relief
related to the County's elimination of the Retiree Premium Subsidy.
But the class action, Harris, also seeks damages, pleads claims
relating to the reduction of the Grant Benefit, and asserts a FEHA
claim not alleged in REAOC.

In 2011, the district court granted the County's motion for
judgment on the pleadings, holding, inter alia, that the Retirees'
contract claims relating to the Grant Benefit should be dismissed
because Retirees had not identified any explicit legislative or
statutory authority that required the County to provide the Grant
Benefit in perpetuity.  While an appeal was pending, the California
Supreme Court issued its answer to the certified question in the
REAOC litigation.  In light of REAOC III, the Court reversed the
district court's Rule 12(c) dismissal.

On remand, the Retirees filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC").
The allegations in the SAC mirrored those in the prior complaint
with regard to the Retiree Premium Subsidy claims.  With regard to
the Grant Benefit claims, the Retirees alleged that the County
impliedly promised to provide the Grant Benefit for life, as shown
in the express terms of the relevant MOUs and by extrinsic evidence
of the parties' intent.

On Jan. 30, 2013, the district court granted the County's motion to
dismiss the SAC.  It dismissed the contract claims relating to the
Grant Benefit with prejudice.  The FEHA claim was dismissed as
well, on the ground that the Plaintiffs have provided no legal
authority that FEHA prohibits the action which is based on
retirement status and is facially neutral to age.  But the district
court granted leave to amend that claim.

Less than a month later, another panel of the Court issued its
opinion in Sonoma Cty. Ass'n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cty., in
which retirees alleged that Sonoma County had breached its
obligation to provide certain health care benefits in perpetuity.
Noting that the district court in that case did not have the
benefit of the California Supreme Court's answer to the certified
question in the REAOC litigation, the Court reversed the dismissal
of the Sonoma complaint so that the retirees could attempt to
plausibly allege that the County used resolutions or ordinances to
ratify or approve MOUs that created contracts for healthcare
benefits and included implied terms vesting those benefits for
perpetuity.

In light of Sonoma, the Retirees moved for reconsideration of the
district court's Jan. 30, 2013 order dismissing the SAC, asserting
that Sonoma made clear that retired county employees could premise
claims to vested retirement health benefits on an implied contract
theory, supporting their claim to vesting solely by extrinsic
evidence of the parties' intent.  The district court denied the
motion for reconsideration.

Retirees then filed a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"), reasserting
all claims, and the County again moved to dismiss the complaint.
The district court, taking the proffered evidence into account,
once more dismissed the contractbased claims for the reasons given
in the Jan. 30, 2013 order.  It also dismissed the FEHA claim, this
time with prejudice, concluding that 'splitting the pool' between
retired employees and active employees is not actionable age
discrimination under FEHA.

Retirees moved for reconsideration, seeking leave to file a Fourth
Amended Complaint that included the evidence they had described at
the hearing regarding the motion to dismiss the TAC.  The district
court denied the motion, stating that it had already considered the
new allegations and evidence presented at the hearing.

After judgment was entered in favor of the County on all claims,
the Retirees timely appealed.  The appeal challenges the dismissal
of three categories of claims: (1) contract claims related to the
reduction of the Grant Benefit; (2) contract claims related to the
elimination of the Retiree Premium Subsidy; and (3) the FEHA claim
related to the elimination of the Retiree Premium Subsidy.

REAOC V directly addressed the second set of claims.  As the case
is indistinguishable from REAOC V as to those claims, Judge Berzon
will affirm the district court's dismissal of Retirees' claims that
the County breached its contractual obligations by eliminating the
Retiree Premium Subsidy.

The Judge then turns to the Retirees' allegation that they had an
implied contractual right to receive the Grant Benefit throughout
their retirement.  She explains that to survive a motion to
dismiss, Sonoma requires, that the Retirees allege that the County
created that contract by ordinance or resolution.  In Sonoma, the
plaintiff association did not do that.  Although the complaint
alleged that the MOUs were 'Board-ratified,' it did not allege that
the Board ratified the MOUs by resolution or ordinance; nor did the
plaintiff association submit copies of any such resolutions or
ordinances with the amended complaint.  Sonoma therefore remanded
to the district court to allow the plaintiff association to amend
the complaint to cure this pleading defect.

Here, by contrast, the Retirees attached to the SAC the Board
resolution expressly adopting the terms of the "exemplar" 1993 MOU.
The County has not disputed that each annual MOU was similarly
adopted by resolution of the Board.  The Judge requires nothing
more at this pleading stage of the litigation.  She therefore
reverses the district court's order insofar as it dismissed the
Retirees' contract claims regarding the Grant Benefit.

Finally, the Retirees' FEHA age discrimination claim challenges the
elimination of the Retiree Premium Subsidy.  The Judge holds that
where employers are not required to provide post-retirement
benefits at all, and particularly where retirees as a force are
covered by separate benefit terms, the County does not violate the
FEHA by treating retirees as a separate force and making cost
calculations accordingly, taking into account the age distribution
of the retiree group as a whole.  The Retirees' claim of unlawful
age discrimination under FEHA fails as a matter of law.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Berzon affirmed in part, reversed
in part, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with her Opinion.  She affirmed the district court's
dismissal of the FEHA claim, but concluded that the district court
erred in dismissing certain of the Retirees' contract claims.  She
accordingly reversed in part and remanded.

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

Michael P. Brown -- mbrown@gordontilden.com -- (argued), Law Office
of Michael P. Brown, Seattle, Washington, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Arthur A. Hartinger -- ahartinger@publiclawgroup.com -- (argued)
and Jennifer L. Nock -- jnock@publiclawgroup.com -- Renne Sloan
Holtzman Sakai LLP, Oakland, California, for Defendant-Appellee.


PACIFIC MARITIME: Ross Suit Moved to Western Dist. of Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Marlena Ross, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pacific Maritime
Association PMA; Joint Port Labor Relations Committee JPLRC; SSA
Marine, Inc.; Eli Bohm; and Damien Bressler, the Defendants, Case
No. 18-00002-20277-9 SEA, was removed from the King County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington (Seattle) on May 22, 2018.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01367-BJR to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Barbara J.
Rothstein. The suit alleges labor and management relations
violation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Elliot Breskin, Esq.
          BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC
          1000 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 3670
          SEATTLE, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 652 8660
          Facsimile: (206) 340 8856
          E-mail: dbreskin@bjtlegal.com

Attorneys for Pacific Maritime Association:

          Katie Loberstein, Esq.
          Kellen Andrew Hade, Esq.
          Clemens H Barnes, Esq.
          MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN LLP (SEA)
          2801 Alaskan Way, Ste 300 Pier 70
          Seattle, WA 98121-1128
          Telephone: (206) 624 8300
          E-mail: katie.loberstein@millernash.com
                  kellen.hade@millernash.com
                  clem.barnes@millernash.com


PG&E CORP: Oklahoma Firefighters Suit Reassigned to Judge Seeborg
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID C. WESTON, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PG&E CORPORATION, ANTHONY F.
EARLEY, JR., JASON P. WELLS, GEISHA J. WILLIAMS, CHRISTOPHER P.
JOHNS, DINYAR B. MISTRY, and DAVID S. THOMASON, Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-03509-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, (i) granted the parties' stipulation that
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Lewis Chew,
et al., No. 3:18-cv-04698 ("Derivative Action") and the securities
class actions, Weston v. PG&E Corporation, et al., No.
3:18-cv-03509-RS; and Moretti v. PG&E Corporation et al., No.
3:18-cv-03545-VC are related are related; and (ii) reassigned the
Derivative Action to him.

On June 12, 2018, Weston filed a securities class action complaint
against PG&E and its current and former officers, asserting
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 related to alleged misrepresentations in connection
with wildfires that started on or about Oct. 8, 2017 in Northern
California.

On June 14, 2018, Plaintiff Jon Paul Moretti filed a securities
class action complaint in the District against the same Defendants
as in the Weston Action predicated on nearly identical allegations,
and asserting identical claims.

On Aug. 14, 2018, Judge Seeborg ordered the Securities Class
Actions related, and directed the Clerk of the Court to reassign
the Morreti Action to him.

On Aug. 3, 2018, Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System filed a derivative action in the District against
Nominal Defendant PG&E and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, predicated on allegations concerning PG&E's
conduct related to the North Bay Wildfires.  On Aug. 20, 2018, the
Derivative Action was assigned to the Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton.

The parties agree that the Derivative Action and the Securities
Class Actions are related pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(a),
because (1) the actions concern substantially the same parties,
property, transaction or event; and (2) it appears likely that
there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense
or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different
Judge.

Therefore, they stipulated and agreed, pursuant to Civil Local
Rules 3-12 and 7-12, and Judge Seeborg granted, that the Derivative
Action and the Securities Class Actions are related, and that the
Derivative Action will be reassigned to him.  The Judge ordered
that the Derivative Action is related to the Securities Class
Actions.  Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(f)(3), the Clerk will
reassign the Derivative Action to the Judge.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 29, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/1xcVHO from Leagle.com.

Jon Paul Moretti, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick V.
Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Jason P. Wells, Geisha J. Williams,
Christopher P. Johns, Dinyar B. Mistry & David S. Thomason,
Defendants, represented by Charles Edward Weir -- cweir@mwe.com --
McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

Los Angeles Fire and Police Pensions, Movant, represented by Reed
R. Kathrein -- reed@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.


PHILIP MORRIS: Westland Police Sues over 22% Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF WESTLAND POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHILIP
MORRIS INTERNATIONAL INC.; ANDRE CALANTZOPOULOS; MARTIN G. KING;
and JACEK OLCZAK, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08049 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 4, 2018) is a class action on behalf of all purchasers of
Philip Morris common stock between February 8, 2018 and April 18,
2018, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

According to the complaint, with the price of Philip Morris stock
artificially inflated, the Company insiders sold millions of
dollars' worth of their own Philip Morris shareholdings. On
February 22, 2018 -- one day after making rosy statements about the
Company's ongoing sales trends and expected results to investors --
the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Andre Calantzopoulos, sold
49,000 shares of Philip Morris stock at $103.66 per share for over
$5 million in gross insider trading proceedings. This sale was
unusual in both timing and amount, representing a greater than 22%
increase over the next greatest number of shares sold by the
Defendant Calantzopoulos in a single day in at least the preceding
five years.

On April 19, 2018, Philip Morris issued a press release announcing
disappointing results for the Company's first quarter of 2018.
Against its easiest prior-year comparison, the Company reported
that combined cigarette and heated tobacco unit shipment volume had
declined by 2.3% during the quarter. The Company also stated that
key sales initiatives had stalled, as the Company's heated tobacco
unit growth had plateaued due to market demographics and faltering
consumer conversion tactics and, further, that cigarette shipments
had fallen by 5.3% during the quarter, signaling persistent adverse
trends in the business.

On this news, the price of Philip Morris stock declined $15.80 per
share, or more than 15%, to close at $85.64 per share on April 19,
2018. This represented the worst daily decline for the Company in
nearly a decade and a closing price more than 17% below the price
at which Defendant Calantzopoulos had sold his Philip Morris stock
less than two months before.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, plaintiff
and the Class purchased Philip Morris common stock at artificially
inflated prices. However, after the above revelations entered the
market, the price of Philip Morris stock dropped nearly 22% from
its Class Period high, causing economic harm and damage to
plaintiff and the Class.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products. Philip Morris International
Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          OBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          David C. Walton, Esq.
          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: davew@rgrdlaw.com
                  bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
          VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD &
          TIMMONY, P.C.
          79 Alfred Street
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-1200
          Facsimile: (313) 578-1201
          E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com


PORTABLE MUD SYSTEMS: Enriquez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Enriquez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Portable Mud Systems, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00168, (W.D. Tex., September 14, 2018)
seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

Portable Mud Systems is an oilfield services company specializing
in solids control for land-based oil and gas drilling operations
where Enriquez worked as a solid control hand from approximately
October 2012 to August 2018.  They usually worked off-the-clock,
but would only pay them only for the number of hours approved for
the individual repair. Plaintiff worked in excess of forty hours
per week but was not paid overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PREFERRED INSULATION: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wage, Alvarez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS ALVAREZ, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PREFERRED INSULATION
CONTRACTORS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC722116 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep.
18, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to pay minimum wage and
straight time wages and overtime compensation under the California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
for all hours worked (including minimum wages, straight time wages,
prevailing wage, and overtime wages), failed to provide Plaintiff
with uninterrupted meal periods, failed to authorize and permit
Plaintiff to take uninterrupted rest periods, failed to indemnify
Plaintiff for necessary business expenses, failed to timely pay all
final wages to Plaintiff when the Defendants terminated Plaintiffs
employment, and failed to furnish accurate wage statements to
Plaintiff.

Preferred Insulation provides insulation contracting services. The
Company offers return air ductwork, domestic water piping, heat
tracking systems, boiler piping, and ductwork fire wrapping
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          Allen Feghali, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232 3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232 3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                  justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com
                  alfen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: Continues to Defend Gerbie Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Professional Diversity Network, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend
itself in a putative class action suit entitled, Gerbie, et al. v.
Professional Diversity Network, Inc.

The Company is a party to a proceeding captioned Gerbie, et al. v.
Professional Diversity Network, Inc. (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Ill.), a
putative class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Professional Diversity SAID, "This matter is in a very early stage
and the Company is in the process of evaluating any potential
exposure. However, the Company generally believes that its
practices and procedures are compliant with the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. The Company plans to vigorously defend itself in
court and simultaneously explore any reasonable settlement
opportunities."

Professional Diversity Network, Inc. operates online professional
networking communities with career resources in the United States.
The company operates through three segments: Professional Diversity
Network, National Association of Professional Women, and Noble
Voice Operations. The company was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Professional Diversity Network,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Cosmic Forward Limited.


PROGRESSIVE SELECT: William South Sues over Total Loss Claims, Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM SOUTH, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 78065841 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 18, 2018),
contends that Progressive insures all its Florida individual
automobile insurance policyholders using the identical Form 9611D
FL (07/13) policy form. The Policy, as reformed to conform with
Fla. Stat. section 626.9743(5)(a), allows Progressive to adjust and
settle a first-party motor vehicle total loss via a cash settlement
based upon the actual cost to purchase a comparable motor vehicle.
Such "actual cost" may be derived from the retail cost as
determined from a generally recognized used motor vehicle industry
source, including an electronic database.  Progressive purports to
adjust and settle the total loss claims of all its Florida
policyholders in this manner, but it does not do so in reality,
according to the lawsuit, thereby breaching the Policy as to all of
them. Specifically, it uniformly uses the Mitchell WorkCenter Total
Loss electronic system, a proprietary product licensed from
Mitchell International, Inc., to adjust and settle total loss
claims in Florida. Use of the Mitchell System breaches the Policy
in two major ways.  To make matters worse, Progressive additionally
breaches the Policy and violates Florida law by refusing to pay
title and license plate registration fees required by the State and
the dealer fees charged by every used car dealer in Florida. Those
fees constitute part of the "actual cost to purchase a comparable
motor vehicle," just like sales tax. Progressive's refusal to pay
these fees additionally damages by hundreds of dollars all its
Florida policyholders who suffer total losses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott R. Jeeves, Esq.
          THE JEEVES LAW GROUP, P.A.
          954 First Avenue North
          St. Petersburg, FL 33705
          Telephone: (727) 894-2929
          E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com
                  khill@jeeveslawgroup.com
                  rmandel@jeevesmandellawgroup.com

               - and -

          Craig E. Rothburd, Esq.
          CRAIG E. ROTHBURD, P.A.
          320 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 251-8800
          E-mail: crothburd@e-rlaw.com

               - and -

          Casim Adam Neff, Esq.
          NEFF INSURANCE LAW, PLLC
          P.O. Box 15063
          St. Petersburg, FL 33733-5063
          Telephone: (727) 342 0617
          E-mail: cneff@neffinsurancelaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen B. Murry, Jr., Esq.
          MURRAY LAW FIRM
          Suite 2150 Poydras Center
          650 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504 525 8100
          Facsimile: 504 584 5249
          E-mail: smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com


QUEBEC: Legionnaires' Disease Outbreak Class Action Settled
-----------------------------------------------------------
Giuseppe Valiante, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
victims of the 2012 legionnaires' disease outbreak in Quebec City
that killed 14 people and affected 167 others have reached an
agreement in principle with defendants in a class action lawsuit.

The tentative deal was announced in court on Sept. 10, with a judge
sealing details, including the negotiated compensation for victims,
until a later date.

The lawsuit targeted regional and provincial health authorities as
well as a labour federation that was allegedly responsible for
maintaining a cooling tower atop its Quebec City offices that was
confirmed as the source of the outbreak.

Lead plaintiff Solange Allen, whose husband died of pneumonia
connected to the outbreak, told reporters she was glad to avoid the
trauma of going to trial in two weeks.

"My husband, the first day he fell ill, the whole ordeal, the day
he died -- which was a week later -- to relive everything, I hoped
there would be no trial," Allen said.

Her lawyer, Jean-Pierre Menard, said in an interview details of the
compensation would be explained to plaintiffs at an assembly and
"they will be satisfied because we got a very, very good ruling."

Ms. Menard said the lawsuit accused health authorities in Quebec
City of failing in their duties, including not informing the public
about the seriousness of the outbreak and not acting quickly to
stop the spread of the disease.

Luc de la Sablonniere, a lawyer representing the regional health
authority, said an agreement in principle was reached but, "there
are a few elements to include, but the essential elements are
there."

He called the deal "fair and just" and added, "there is absolutely
no admission of responsibility in the agreement on the part of our
clients."

From July 12 to 18, 2012, the first five cases of legionnaires'
disease were reported to health authorities from hospitals around
the Quebec City area.

It was only on Sept. 18 that the source of the outbreak -- a
cooling tower atop an office building in Quebec City's lower-town
area -- was confirmed.

The tower was located on a building co-owned by the city and the
Centrale des syndicats du Quebec labour group accused in the
lawsuit of being responsible for maintaining the unit.

By Oct. 8, the outbreak had killed 14 people and affected 167
others.

Menard said he had evidence indicating regional health authorities
"lost a month" in controlling the disease because they didn't act
quickly enough.

"In that period more than 150 additional people contracted the
disease," he said.

A spokesperson for Menard's office said details of the compensation
agreement will be announced publicly in October, after which it is
estimated between 200 and 250 people will be registered to receive
money from the defendants.

The class action initially sought $125,000 for each spouse of a
deceased person, a minimum of $50,000 for each victim who
contracted the disease, as well as other damages related to
emotional suffering and hospital costs.

Lawyers for the labour federation as well as for Quebec's Justice
Department said they would not comment on the case.

All sides are scheduled to return to court Nov. 15 to finalize the
deal. [GN]


REDI-MIX CONCRETE: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Gutierrez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
GRACIELA GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REDI-MIX CONCRETE LP, Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-02339-N (N.D. Tex., Sept. 4, 2019) seeks to
recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, minimum
wage, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

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

Redi-Mix Concrete, L.P. manufactures and markets ready mix
concrete, precast concrete products, and concrete related products.
The company was founded in 1981 and is based in Euless, Texas.
Redi-Mix Concrete, L.P. operates as a subsidiary of U.S. Concrete,
Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edith K. Thomas, Esq.
          777 Main Street, Suite 600
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (888) 760-0149
          Facsimile: (972) 692-7988
          E-mail: edith@ediththomaslaw.com


REHABCARE GROUP: Court Approves Additional Class Distributions
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval
of Additional Class Distributions in the case captioned DAKOTA
MEDICAL, INC., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. REHABCARE GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants.
No. 1:14-cv-02081-DAD-BAM. (E.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the settlement
administrator KCC distributed settlement checks in the total sum of
$6,739,088.97 to 12,294 class members.

There are 6,311 class members who were slated to receive $600 or
more but who had not provided valid TINs. KCC is prepared to
distribute additional funds to these members for a projected total
distribution of $3,786,536.89.  To avoid IRS penalties, and to the
extent these members' redistribution payments combined with the
balance of payments owed these members is $600 or more, KCC will
cap these members' payments at $599.99, with the balance to be
credited to their settlement shares for distribution after 2018.

Accordingly, the Court ordered that the settlement administrator
will, no later than 30 days after entry of this order, distribute
$3,786,536.89 to 6,311 class members that have failed to provide
valid TINs. The amount payable per member will not exceed $599.99.
KCC will, in addition to other appropriate measures to obtain valid
TINs from these class members, include a notice with each check in
the amount of $599.99 that informs the member that payment was
limited because the member failed to provide a valid TIN, and shall
include a form for the member to complete to provide that number to
KCC. KCC will pay the balance of funds due each member that
provides a valid TIN on or before December 31, 2018.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 20, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yak5er9m from Leagle.com.

Dakota Medical, Inc., a California corporation, Plaintiff,
represented by Donald R. Fischbach -- dfishbach@dowlingaaron.com --
Dowling Aaron Incorporated, Mark D. Kruthers --
dkruthers@dowlingaaron.com -- Dowling Aaron Incorporated, Charles
Darryl Cordero -- cdc@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears, Daniel
Friedman Lula -- dfl@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears, LLP, Joel S.
Magolnick -- magolnick@mm-pa.com - Marko & Magolnick, P.A., pro hac
vice, Leilani Elizabeth Livingston -- llj@paynefears.com -- Payne &
Fears, LLP, Matthew K. Brown -- mkb@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears
LLP & Scott Olin Luskin -- sol@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears
LLP.

RehabCare Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jon Wilson -- jwilson@broadandcassel.com -- Broad
and Cassel, Kimberly Freedman -- gfreedman@broadandcassel.com --
Broad and Cassel, pro hac vice, Melissa Jill Gomberg --
mgomberg@broadandcassel.com -- Broad And Cassel, Oliver W. Wanger
-- owanger@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger Jones Helsley PC & Erin
Kristen Kolmansberger -- ekolmansberger@broadandcassel.com -- Broad
and Cassel, pro hac vice.

Cannon & Associates, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation,
Defendant, represented by Daniel Scott Kubasak -- dkubasak@grsm.com
-- Gordon & Rees, David L. Jordan -- dljordan@grsm.com -- Gordon &
Rees LLP, Fletcher Carlton Alford -- falford@gordonrees.com --
Gordon Rees LLP & Stephen Albert Watkins -- falford@gordonrees.com
-- Carlson & Messer LLP.

Scott Zimmermann, Movant, represented by Frank Wynn Nemecek --
fnemecek@nemecek-cole.com -- Ness Di Poala and McEvilly & Jonathan
Martin Starre -- jstarre@nemecek-cole.com -- Nemecek and Cole.


RESEARCH AMERICA: Kristensen Sues over Unsolicited Text Message
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN KRISTENSEN, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RESEARCH AMERICA, INC., and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-04026-JD (E.D. Pa., Sep. 17, 2018), seeks damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant, in
negligently contacting Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, in or about May 2018, the Plaintiff
received an unsolicited text message from the Defendant on his
cellular telephone, number ending in -9711. During this time, the
Defendant began to use Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the
purpose of sending Plaintiff research gathering surveys, via text
messages including a text message sent to and received by Plaintiff
on or about May 6, 2018 from the Defendant's phone number, (916)
438-9641. This text message placed to Plaintiffs cellular telephone
were placed via the Defendant's SMS Blasting Platform, i.e., an
"automatic telephone dialing system," as defined by 47 U.S.C.
section 227 (a)(1) as prohibited by 47 U.S.C. section 227
(b)(1)(A).

The telephone number that the Defendant, or their agent, called was
assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs
a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227
(b)(1). These telephone calls constituted calls that were not for
emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227
(b)(1)(A)(i). The Plaintiff was never a customer of the Defendant's
and never provided his cellular telephone number the Defendant for
any reason whatsoever. Accordingly, the Defendant and its agent
never received Plaintiff's prior express consent to receive
unsolicited text messages, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227
(b)(1)(A).[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Cynthia Z. Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          1150 First Avenue, Suite 501
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (888) 595 9111
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: clevin@attorneysforconsumers.com


RESHAPE LIFESCIENCES: Settlement Negotiation Ongoing in Du Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ReShape Lifesciences Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2018, that the parties in the class action complaint
filed by Vinh Du are currently negotiating the terms of a
settlement.

On February 28, 2017, the Company received a class action and
derivative complaint filed on February 24, 2017 in U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware by Vinh Du, one of the Company's
shareholders. The complaint names as defendants ReShape
Lifesciences, the board of directors and four members of the
company's senior management, namely, Scott Youngstrom, Nick Ansari,
Peter DeLange and Paul Hickey, and contains a purported class
action claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the board of
directors and derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against the board of directors and unjust enrichment against the
company's senior management.  

The allegations in the complaint relate to the increase in the
number of shares authorized for grant under the company's Second
Amended and Restated 2003 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan"), which
was approved by the company's shareholders at the Special Meeting
of Shareholders held on December 12, 2016 (the "Special Meeting"),
and to the company's subsequent grant of stock options on February
8, 2017, to the Company's Directors and senior management to
purchase an aggregate of 1,093,450 shares of the company's common
stock (the "Option Grants").  

In the complaint, the plaintiff contends that (i) the number of
shares authorized for grant under the Plan, as adjusted by the
board of directors after the Special Meeting for the subsequent
recapitalization of the Company, resulted from an alleged breach of
fiduciary duties by the board of directors, and (ii) the company's
senior management was allegedly unjustly enriched by the subsequent
Option Grants. The plaintiff seeks relief in the form of an order
rescinding the Plan as approved by the shareholders at the Special
Meeting, an order cancelling the Option Grants, and an award to
plaintiff for his costs, including fees and disbursements of
attorneys, experts and accountants.  

On April 17, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint based on the plaintiff's failure to satisfy Delaware's
demand requirement for a derivative action and failure to state a
valid claim. The court denied the motion to dismiss on November 30,
2017.  

ReShape Lifesciences said, "While the Company continues to believe
that the allegations in the complaint are without merit, the
parties are currently negotiating the terms of a settlement of this
matter. During the quarter ended June 30, 2018, the Company has
recorded an accrued liability and legal expense for $190,000
representing a probable and currently estimable settlement amount
for this matter."

ReShape Lifesciences Inc., a medical device company, focuses on the
design and development of devices that use neuroblocking technology
to treat obesity, metabolic diseases, and other gastrointestinal
disorders. ReShape Lifesciences Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in San Clemente, California.


RETAIL MERCHANTS: Faces Mire Suit in Eastern District of Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retail Merchants
Association of Port Arthur, Texas. The lawsuit is captioned as
Kimiko Mire, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Retail Merchants Association of Port
Arthur, Texas, doing business as: RMA Credit Association and John
Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00448-MAC (E.D. Tex.,
Sep. 18, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Marcia A.
Crone. The suit alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282 6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282 6501
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


RIVINGTON HOSPITALITY: Website Not Accessible, Juscinska Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIA JUSCINSKA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIVINGTON HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-08032-RA (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 2018)
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's
Website to learn about accessible features of the Defendant's
Hotel, and to independently assess whether the Hotel is accessible
to her, and whether she could independently reserve an accessible
room at the Hotel, in the same manner as those seeking to reserve
non-accessible rooms. Upon her visit, the Plaintiff discovered that
the Website does not comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Rivington Hospitality Group LLC is a New York limited liability
corporation engaged in the Hotel business in the State of New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RMG NETWORKS: Weinstein Suit Underway in Delaware Chancery Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
RMG Networks Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2018, that the case entitled, Eric Weinstein
et al. v. Gregory H. Sachs et al., is ongoing.

On March 23, 2018, a class action and a verified stockholder
derivative complaint on behalf of the Company entitled Eric
Weinstein et al. v. Gregory H. Sachs et al., Case No. 2018-0210-AGB
was filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against
the Company, as nominal defendant, and certain individual
shareholders, directors and former employee of the Company, as
defendants (the "Weinstein Proceeding").  

The lawsuit alleges that certain members of the Company's Board
breached their fiduciary duties of good faith and loyalty by
agreeing to enter into a purchase agreement (the "Purchase
Agreement") with certain investors on March 25, 2015 to sell such
investors shares of preferred stock of the Company, (i) on terms
that allowed a small group of investors to acquire common stock of
the Company at a significant discount, in a quantity that
entrenched their power within the Company, favoring their interests
to the detriment of the Company's minority stockholders, and (ii)
by knowingly making false and misleading disclosures, and failing
to disclose all material information, to the Company's
stockholders.  

The complaint further alleges that Mr. Sachs and Mr. Donald Wilson,
as the Company's controlling stockholders, breached their fiduciary
duties of good faith and loyalty by agreeing to issue preferred
stock of the Company on terms that allowed a small group of
investors to acquire common stock of the Company at a significant
discount, in a quantity that entrenched their power within the
Company, favoring their interests to the detriment of the Company.


The complaint also alleges that certain of the Company's insiders,
including four directors and a former employee, were unjustly
enriched by the opportunity to acquire common stock of the Company
at a discount to its trading price at the time. The lawsuit seeks
to cause the defendants to disgorge to the Company the stock that
they received at a discount to the market price, and also seeks an
award of appropriate damages, plus pre- and post-judgment interest
for the plaintiff, the class and the Company.

RMG Networks said, "The Company believes that the allegations set
forth in the complaint are without merit and intends to defend
itself vigorously in the proceedings. Due to the inherent
uncertainties of litigation and the early stage of the proceedings,
the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter."

RMG Networks Holding Corporation, through its subsidiaries,
provides enterprise-class digital signage solutions. It offers
suite of products, including proprietary software,
software-embedded hardware, maintenance and support services,
content and creative services, installation services, and
third-party displays. RMG Networks Holding Corporation was founded
in 1980 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


ROMAN EMPIRE LIVING: Ballou Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
JOHN BALLOU, an individual, on behalf of aggrieved employees
pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act, the Plaintiff, v.
ROMAN EMPIRE LIVING SKILLS, INC., a California Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC722107
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 17, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay
under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants currently employ
Plaintiff as a non-exempt or hourly-paid employee. The Defendants
have the authority to hire and terminate Plaintiff and the other
class members; to set work rules and conditions governing Plaintiff
and the other class members; and to supervise their daily
employment activities. The Defendants directly hired and paid wages
and benefits to Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees. The
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were advised by skilled lawyers
and other professionals, employees, advisors, and consultants
highly knowledgeable about California wage law, employment and
personnel practices. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants ignored
the employment and personnel policy changes proposed by skilled
lawyers and other professionals, employees, advisors, and
consultants highly knowledgeable about California wage laws,
employment, and personnel practice. The Plaintiff alleges, that
Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other
aggrieved employees were working over eight hours per day and were
entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation and
that they were not receiving wages for overtime compensation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Kitty K. Szeto, Esq.
          John M. Bickford, Esq.
          Ryan A Crist, Esq.
          PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949 2595
          Facsimile: (661) 949 7524


SALOV NORTH: 9th Cir. Affirms Kumar Suit Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROHINI KUMAR, an individual, on behalf of herself, the
general public and those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
SALOV NORTH AMERICA CORP., Defendant-Appellee, v. THEODORE H.
FRANK, Objector-Appellant, Case No. 17-16405 (9th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's approval of the settlement agreement.

The dispute arises from the district court's approval of a
nationwide class action settlement between a class of purchasers of
Filippo Berio olive oil and the manufacturer of the olive oil,
Salov.  On appeal, Theodore Frank, a non-participating class member
and objector, challenges the approval of the settlement agreement.
Salov contends that Frank has no standing.

Assuming that Frank ultimately paid a higher price for the olive
oil than he would have without "Imported from Italy" on the label,
the Court finds that Frank has Article III standing to challenge
the settlement agreement.  

Going to the merits of his challenge, the Court finds that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the
settlement agreement.  It says the district court properly
considered and applied the relevant Hanlon factors in its
determination that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and
adequate.  It considered the strength of the Plaintiffs' case and
the risk involved with further litigation.  Further, the court
recognized that the litigation was hard fought and that the class
counsel reached an excellent result for the class, including
achieving the class's non-monetary goal of getting the Defendants
to improve their practices.  Because there is no strong showing
that the district court's decision was a clear abuse of discretion,
the Court affirmed.

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


SC MOTA ASSOCIATES: Mota Pizza Sues over Poorly Maintained Mall
---------------------------------------------------------------
MOTA PIZZA RUSTICA CORP, the Plaintiff, v. STERLING RETAIL
SERVICES, INC., SC MOTA ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, the
Defendants, Case No. 2018-000000-CA-01 (Fla. 11th Cir., Miami-Dade
Cty., Sep. 17, 2018), contends that the Defendants, which are mall
operators, breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment when they:

     -- stopped providing air conditioning in the common areas,
kept an unattractive, unpresentable construction scaffold in the
main court yard for years, did not provide bathrooms in the food
court area (where they are most needed) and instead placed
portable, concert style poorly maintained bathrooms outside the
Mall;

     -- did not provide for handicapped bathrooms in food court
area, permitted roof leaks, inside the Unit and in the alleys and
food court;

     -- permitted pot-holes, unsafe and exposed grease traps, and
inadequate parking;

     -- re-designed and effectively did a 1/3 reduction in size of
leasable space, depriving Plaintiffs of the benefits of the extra
rentable retail space for their businesses;

     -- made zero efforts to maintain the Mall decently and thereby
caused a massive exodus of tenants, depriving Plaintiffs of the
benefits of the extra rentable retail space for their businesses.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were entitled to enjoy a
Mall of the size it was at the time they leased, that is decently
maintained, where shoppers walk in and feel comfortable spending
time.  The lawsuit seeks to recover actual damages for violation of
the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, monetary
damages and prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees and
costs.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Eduardo A. Maura.
          Ayala Law P.A. 1390
          Brickell Avenue, 335
          Miami, Florida 33131
          Telephone: (305) 570 2208
          E-mail: eayala@ayalalawpa.com
                  1awayala@gmail.com



SITO MOBILE: Bid to Dismiss Roper Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
SITO Mobile, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that the motion to dismiss the case entitled, Roper
v. SITO Mobile, Ltd., is still pending.

A scheduling conference set for September 18, 2018, had been
cancelled.  "Within five business days of a decision on the motion
to dismiss, the parties shall inform the Court," Magistrate Judge
Michael A. Hammer said in a September 18 Order.

On February 17, 2017, plaintiff Sandi Roper commenced a purported
securities class action against the company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Roper v.
SITO Mobile, Ltd., Case No. 17-cv-1106-ES-MAH (D.N.J. filed Feb.
17, 2017).

On May 8, 2017, Red Oak Fund, LP, Red Oak Long Fund LP, Red Oak
Institutional Founders Long Fund, and Pinnacle Opportunities Fund,
LP (collectively, "Red Oak") were appointed lead plaintiffs.

On June 22, 2017, Red Oak filed an amended complaint, purporting to
represent a class of stockholders who purchased our common stock
between August 15, 2016 and January 2, 2017 ("Class Period"). The
amended complaint names as defendants the company's directors and
certain of its officers during the Class Period. It alleges that
the defendants violated section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended (the "Securities Act"), in connection with the September
16, 2016 offering of the company's stock, by allegedly omitting
material information from the registration statement and
prospectus, and that the individual defendants are liable as
controlling persons under section 15 of the Securities Act.

The amended complaint also alleges that the defendants violated
section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
allegedly making materially false or misleading statements
regarding its media placement revenues, and that the individual
defendants are liable as controlling persons under section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages.


The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September
1, 2017. That motion is pending. Discovery has not commenced, and
no trial date has been set for this action.

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

SITO Mobile, Ltd. provides advertisement delivery, measurement and
attribution, and consumer insights using its proprietary
location-based marketing intelligence platform in the United States
and Canada. The company was formerly known as Single Touch Systems,
Inc. and changed its name to SITO Mobile, Ltd. in September 2014.
SITO Mobile, Ltd. was incorporated in 2000 and is based in Jersey
City, New Jersey.


SOUTHCROSS ENERGY: Says All Merger Related Suits Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
All merger-related lawsuits involving Southcross Energy Partners,
L.P. have been dismissed, the company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2018.

The Company said, "On October 31, 2017, we and our General Partner
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement")
with American Midstream Partners, LP ("AMID"), American Midstream
GP, LLC, the general partner of AMID ("AMID GP"), and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of AMID ("Merger Sub"). The Merger
Agreement provides that we will be merged with Merger Sub (the
"Merger"), with the Partnership surviving the merger as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of AMID. On July 29, 2018, we terminated
the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated October 31, 2017, by and
among us, our General Partner, American Midstream Partners, LP, a
Delaware limited partnership ("AMID"), American Midstream GP, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company and the general partner of
AMID ("AMID GP"), and Cherokee Merger Sub LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of AMID ("Merger
Sub") as amended by that certain Amendment No. 1 to Merger
Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2018, by and among us, our General
Partner, AMID, AMID GP and Merger Sub (as amended, the "Merger
Agreement"), as a result of the merger contemplated by the Merger
Agreement not being completed on or prior to June 15, 2018."

In connection with the Merger, five putative class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas. The actions were filed against multiple defendants,
different entities and individuals, including by way of example
only and among others, the Partnership, the company's General
Partner, Southcross Holdings, Holdings GP, AMID, AMID Merger Sub,
and certain former and current members of our executive management
and the Board of Directors of our General Partner.

The complaints generally alleged, among other things, that the
registration statement on Form S-4 (file no. 333-222501) was false
and materially misleading and that the defendants have violated
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. Generally, the complaints sought
class certification, injunctive relief, damages, declaratory
relief, and attorney's fees and court costs. All defendants deny
any wrongdoing in connection with the proposed Merger.

All of these actions have been dismissed by the court and are no
longer pending cases due to lack of activity by the plaintiffs. The
cases were:

     * Robinson Iglesias v. Southcross Energy Partners, L.P.,
Southcross Energy Partners GP, LLC, Southcross Holdings LP,
Southcross Holdings GP LLC, Bruce A. Williamson, David W. Biegler,
Andrew A. Cameron, Nicholas J. Caruso, Jason H. Downie, Wallace
Henderson, Jerry W. Pinkerton, Cherokee Merger Sub LLC, and
American Midstream Partners, LP , Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-00158-N.
Dismissed on April 10, 2018.

     * Adrian Marshall v. Southcross Energy Partners, L.P.,
Southcross Energy Partners GP, LLC, Southcross Holdings LP,
Southcross Holdings GP LLC, Bruce A. Williamson, David W. Biegler,
Andrew A. Cameron, Nicholas J. Caruso, Jr., Jason H. Downie, Jerry
W. Pinkerton, Randall S. Wade, Bret M. Allan, American Midstream
Partners, LP, and Cherokee Merger Sub LLC , Civil Action No.
3:18-cv-00272-D. Dismissed on April 11, 2018.

     * Kristin Doller v. Southcross Energy Partners, L.P.,
Southcross Energy Partners GP, LLC, Southcross Holdings LP,
Southcross Holdings GP LLC, David W. Biegler, Andrew A. Cameron,
Nicholas J. Caruso, Jr., Jason H. Downie, Jerry W. Pinkerton,
Randall S. Wade, and Bruce A. Williamson , Civil Action No.
3:18-cv-00291-N. Dismissed on April 10, 2018.

     * Anthony Franchi v. Southcross Energy Partners, L.P.,
Southcross Energy Partners GP, LLC, Bruce A. Williamson, David W.
Biegler, Andrew A. Cameron, Nicholas J. Caruso, Jr., Jason H.
Downie, Jerry W. Pinkerton, Randall S. Wade, American Midstream
Partners, LP, American Midstream Partners GP, LLC, and Cherokee
Merger Sub LLC, Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-00179-D.

     * Robert Johnson v. Southcross Energy Partners, L.P.,
Southcross Energy Partners GP, LLC, Southcross Holdings LP,
Southcross Holdings GP LLC, Bruce A. Williamson, David W. Biegler,
Andrew A. Cameron, Nicholas J. Caruso, Jr., Jason H. Downie, Jerry
W. Pinkerton, Randall S. Wade, Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-00289-C.

Southcross Energy Partners, L.P., together with its subsidiaries,
provides natural gas gathering, processing, treating, compression,
and transportation services in the United States. The company also
offers natural gas liquid (NGL) fractionation and transportation
services. In addition, it supplies natural gas to industrial,
commercial, and power generation customers, as well as local
distribution companies. The company was founded in 2009 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Southcross Energy Partners, L.P. is
a subsidiary of Southcross Holdings LP.


SPAR GROUP: Paradise Hogan Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------
Spar Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a
class action suit initiated by Paradise Hogan.

Paradise Hogan was engaged by and provided services to SPAR
Business Services, Inc. (SBS) as an independent contractor pursuant
to the terms of an "Independent Contractor Master Agreement" with
SBS acknowledging his engagement as an independent contractor.

On January 6, 2017, Hogan filed suit against SBS and SGRP (and part
of the Company), styled Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-10024-LTS, in the
U.S. District Court for District of Massachusetts. Hogan initially
asserted claims on behalf of himself and an alleged nationwide
class of similarly situated individuals who provided services to
SBS and SGRP as independent contractors. Hogan alleged that he and
other alleged class members were misclassified as independent
contractors, and as a result of this purported misclassification,
Hogan asserted claims on behalf of himself and the alleged
Massachusetts class members under the Massachusetts Wage Act and
Minimum Wage Law for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, as
well as state law claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
quantum meruit, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.

In addition, Hogan asserted claims on behalf of himself and the
nationwide class for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act's
overtime and minimum wage provisions. On March 28, 2017, the
Company moved to refer Hogan's claim to arbitration pursuant to his
agreement, to dismiss or stay Hogan's case pending arbitration, and
to dismiss Hogan's case for failure to state a specific claim upon
which relief could be granted.

On November 13, 2017, the Court convened a status conference call
with the parties to discuss the impact on the case of the Supreme
Court's pending decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, in which
the Supreme Court heard arguments in October 2017 and ultimately
will decide whether arbitration clauses that include a waiver of a
worker's right to bring or participate in a class action violate
the National Labor Relations Act.

On March 12, 2018, the Court denied both defendants' Motion to
Dismiss for failure to state a claim, denied the Motion to Compel
Arbitration as to SGRP, denied the Motion to Stay as to SGRP, and
allowed the Motion to Stay as to SBS pending the outcome of the
Supreme Court's decision in Epic Systems), which (depending on the
Supreme Court's ruling) could result in all SBS disputes being sent
to arbitration. On April 24, 2018, SGRP filed a notice of appeal
with the First Circuit of the District Court's decision.

The Parties have agreed to stay the District Court litigation
pending the First Circuit's decision on SGRP's appeal. Briefing on
SGRP's appeal closed on August 8, 2018 and the appeal hearing is
scheduled to be heard by the First Circuit on September 11, 2018.
If SGRP's appeal is unsuccessful, SGRP will vigorously defend
itself against all claims.

Spar Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
merchandising and marketing services worldwide. SPAR Group, Inc.
was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in White Plains, New
York.


SPRINKLES CUPCAKES: Corado Sues over Overtime Pay and Breaks
------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTINA CORADO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SPRINKLES CUPCAKES CA, LLC, a
California limited liability corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC722118 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep.
18, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime wages,
provide meal periods, pay due wages at termination or resignation,
and provide accurate wage statements.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a consistent
policy of failing to pay wages, including overtime wages, to
Plaintiff and other non-exempt former and current employees in the
State of California in violation of California state wage and hour
laws as a result of, including but not limited to, improperly
calculating the overtime rate by not including all forms
remuneration in determining the regular rate.

Sprinkles Cupcakes operates a chain of bakeries. The company offers
cupcakes, cupcake mixes, and other retail items. It also provides
custom sugar decorations for corporate events and wedding
parties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 975 1493
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1705

               - and -

          Sanjay Bansal, Esq.
          BANSAL LAW
          11845 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (424) 501 5099


STATE FARM: Dec. 13 Fairness Hearing on $250MM Class Settlement Set
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A $250 million settlement has been reached in the previously
certified class action lawsuit, Hale v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 12-cv-00660-DRH, filed in
2012. For comprehensive information about the claims, rulings, and
events in the case, visit www.HalevStateFarmClassAction.com. The
Defendants deny that they did anything wrong. The Court has not
decided who is right.

The Class includes individuals in the United States (except
Arkansas and Tennessee) who, between July 28, 1987, and February
24, 1998, (1) were insured by a vehicle casualty insurance policy
issued by State Farm and (2) made a claim for vehicle repairs
pursuant to their policy and had non-factory authorized and/or
non-OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) 'crash parts' installed
on or specified for their vehicles or else received monetary
compensation determined in relation to the cost of such parts.  The
complete class definition is available at
www.HalevStateFarmClassAction.com.

The Defendants have agreed to establish a Settlement Fund of $250
million.  Class Members who received notice in the mail or via
email do not need to take any action to receive a payment (unless
they have an Arkansas or Tennessee address).  However, Class
Members may call or visit the website to confirm or update their
address or to request an electronic payment.  Those who were not
sent notice, but believe they are included in the Class, should
visit www.HalevStateFarmClassAction.com and file an online claim,
by January 31, 2019.  They may also call toll-free 1-844-420-6491
and request a paper claim form be mailed to them.

Class Members may object to the Settlement by November 17, 2018.
The Notice available on www.HalevStateFarmClassAction.com explains
how to object.  The Court will hold a hearing on December 13, 2018
at 9:00 a.m. to consider whether to finally approve the Settlement
and a request for attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the
Settlement Amount, reimbursement of reasonable expenses, and
service awards of $25,000 to each of the three Class
Representatives.  Class Members may appear at the hearing, either
by themselves or through an attorney hired by them, but do not have
to.  For more information, call 1-844-420-6491 or visit
www.HalevStateFarmClassAction.com.  Neither State Farm personnel
nor State Farm agents are authorized to discuss this case. Please
do not call a State Farm agent about this case. [GN]


STEADYMED LTD: Says Supplemental Disclosure Moots Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
SteadyMed Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2018, that the company's supplemental disclosure moots the
Scarantino, Hoover, and Skinner class action suit.

Three plaintiffs, Richard Scarantino, Australia A. Hoover and
Donald Skinner, have filed separate putative class action lawsuits
on June 27, 2018, June 27, 2018 and June 29, 2018, respectively,
each in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, each purportedly on behalf of the shareholders of
SteadyMed, against SteadyMed and its directors and each alleging,
among other things, violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9
thereunder.  The complaints in these actions each seek, among other
things, to enjoin the defendants from completing the previously
announced proposed merger transaction by which SteadyMed will
become a wholly-owned subsidiary of United Therapeutics Corporation
(the "Merger").

On July 6, 2018, plaintiff Hoover filed a motion for preliminary
injunction, seeking to enjoin the Merger from proceeding until
certain disclosures were made to shareholders in addition to those
included in the proxy statement issued in connection with the
merger (the "Proxy Statement"). On July 16, 2018, SteadyMed
provided certain additional disclosures in a supplement to the
Proxy Statement filed with the SEC (the "Supplemental
Disclosures").  

On July 19, 2018 and July 20, 2018, respectively, plaintiffs
Skinner and Hoover filed notices of voluntary dismissal of their
actions without prejudice as moot, and Counsel for plaintiff
Scarantino has confirmed that the Supplemental Disclosures moot
their claims in that action and that it will likewise be dismissed.


SteadyMed said, "As stated in the Supplemental Disclosures, the
Supplemental Disclosures should not be taken to indicate that
SteadyMed or its affiliates, officers, directors or other
representatives, or any recipient of this information, considered
the information contained in the Supplemental Disclosures to be
material; rather, SteadyMed believes that the Proxy Statement
disclosed all required material information.

SteadyMed Ltd. a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the
development and commercialization of therapeutic product candidates
that address the limitations of market-leading products in certain
orphan and other well-defined, high-margin specialty markets.


STERIGENICS INT'L: Cannell Sues over Ethylene Oxide Emission
------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE CANNELL, Individually and On behalf of All Those Similarly
Situated; PAMELA MCGONIGAL, Individually and On behalf of All Those
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. STERIGENICS INTERNATIONAL
LLC; and GTCR LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2018L010183 (Ill. Cir .
Ct., Cook Cty., Sep. 20, 2018), alleges that the Defendants engaged
in ultra-hazardous or abnormally dangerous activities by
continuously emitting ethylene oxide, a known human carcinogen.  As
a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' ultra-hazardous or
abnormally dangerous activities, the Plaintiffs have suffered
severe and permanent health problems, and have endured and will in
the future endure pain and suffering; have suffered a loss of the
enjoyment of a normal life; have endured and will in the future
endure emotional distress; have incurred and will in the future
incur expenses for medical and rehabilitative care; have suffered a
loss of earnings; and have been damaged in their capacity to earn a
living.

The case arose out of Defendant Sterigenics' decades long emissions
of ethylene oxide from its plant in Willowbrook, Illinois. The
plant is used to sterilize medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and
food products by placing them into sealed chambers, which are then
sprayed with ethylene oxide, a powerful sterilizing agent. Ethylene
oxide is a highly flammable, colorless gas and has been a known
human carcinogen for decades. On July 26, 2018, the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services' Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry released a 2016 reassessment of the carcinogenetic
nature of ethylene oxide, concluding ethylene oxide now has a "30
fold increase in cancer potency." This prompted the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) to change their description
of ethylene oxide from "probably carcinogenic to humans" to
"carcinogenic to humans."  Based on their assessment of multiple
studies, the EPA has determined "that there is sufficient evidence
of a causal relationship between EtO exposure and breast cancer in
women."

The Defendant is a multi-national corporation in the business of
sterilizing medical devices, pharmaceuticals, food and
high-performance materials and operated a facility at 7775 Quincy
St., Willowbrook, Illinois with its principal place of business at
2015 Spring Road, Suite 650, Oak Brook, Illinois.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Todd A. Smith, Esq.
          Brian LaCien, Esq.
          POWER ROGERS & SMITH, LLP
          Address 70 West Madison Street, 55th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone (312) 236 9381
          E-mail: tsmith@prslaw.com
                  blacien@prslaw.com


TAQUERIA EL TAPATIO: Fails to Pay Wage & OT, Torres Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
ARTURO TORRES, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. TAQUERIA EL TAPATIO
1, INC., a California Corporation; RENATO FERREIRA, an individual;
and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC722686
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 20, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and
overtime compensation under the California labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant El Tapatio employed
Plaintiff as a cook from approximately September 2016 through
November 22, 2017. Plaintiff worked for Defendants at multiple
store locations. The Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for
all hours worked, missed, short, late, and/or interrupted meal
periods and/or rest breaks. The Defendants had the authority to
hire and terminate Plaintiff, to set work rules and conditions
governing Plaintiffs employment, and to supervise Plaintiffs daily
employment activities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq.
          SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA, 90010
          Telephone: (818) 473 5003
          Facsimile: (818) 476 5619
          E-mail: contact@slawla.com


TEAMONE LOGISTICS: Driver Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Withheld Tips
---------------------------------------------------------------
David C. Gottschalk, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Teamone Logistics, LLC, and Dwayne P. Dailey, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-03293, (S.D. Tex., September 14, 2018) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, unlawfully kept tips, liquidated damages and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Teamone Logistics, operates a logistics and trucking business where
Gottschalk worked as driver. He claims to have 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 his regular rate of
pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
      Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
      ROSS LAW GROUP
      1104 San Antonio Street
      Houston, Texas 78701
      Tel: (512) 474-7677
      Fax: (512) 474-5306
      Email: Charles@rosslawpc.com


TECOGEN INC: Continues to Defend Vardakas Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Tecogen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a class action
lawsuit entitled, Vardakas v. American DG Energy, Inc.

On or about February 15, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by Lee
Vardakas ("Vardakas"), individually and on behalf of other
stockholders of American DG Energy (ADGE), naming ADGE, John N.
Hatsopoulos, George N. Hatsopoulos, Benjamin Locke, Charles T.
Maxwell, Deanna M. Petersen, Christine M. Klaskin, John Rowe, Joan
Giacinti, Elias Samaras, Tecogen., Merger Sub., and Cassel Salpeter
and Co., LLC, as defendants (the "Defendants").

The action is captioned Vardakas v. American DG Energy, Inc., Case
No. 17-CV-10247(LTS). At the time Vardakas commenced the action,
his complaint challenged the proposed Merger between Tecogen and
ADGE.

Following the consummation of the Merger (and the appointment of
May, from the Massachusetts Superior Court Action, as lead
plaintiff), Vardakas filed an Amended Class Action Complaint (the
"Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint discontinued the claims
against Cassel Salpeter & Co., LLC but asserted against the
remaining defendants claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 14a-9;
claims against certain defendants for control person liability
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act (collectively, the "Federal
Securities Law Claims"); and common law claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting (the "State Law Claims").
The Federal Securities Law Claims allege, in substance, that
defendants made material nondisclosure in the proxy statement about
the process leading to the Merger and about the fairness opinion
relied upon by ADGE's Board of Directors in recommending the Merger
to shareholders. The State Law Claims assert, in substance, that
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating and
approving the Merger, which, plaintiff claims, deprived ADGE's
nonaffiliated shareholders of fair value for their shares.

On July 19, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint. In their motion papers, defendants contended that the
Federal Securities Law Claims are not sufficiently pleaded and fail
to state a viable claim.  On February 28, 2018, the parties
presented their oral arguments on the defendant's motion to
dismiss. On March 2, 2018, the district court rendered its
decision, dismissing the Federal Securities Law Claims, but
retaining the State Law Claims. The district court exercised
supplemental jurisdiction over the State Law Claims and ordered the
Defendants to file an answer to the Amended Complaint addressing
the State Law Claims. On March 12, 2018, the Defendants filed their
first answer.

On May 2, 2018, the Defendants filed their amended answer to assert
further defenses, and the judge in the district court ordered the
parties to hold a mediation session.  On May 21, 2018, defendants
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff filed a
reply brief and the parties are awaiting a decision. On July 6,
2018 plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and
defendants filed a reply brief on August 6, 2018. Plaintiff has
until September 6, 2018 to file a reply brief regarding class
certification.

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends
to defend vigorously. The Amended Complaint does not specify the
amount of damages claimed and the likelihood of an unfavorable
outcome is not reasonably estimable.

Tecogen Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells industrial and
commercial cogeneration systems that produce combinations of
electricity, hot water, and air conditioning in the United States
and internationally. The company was incorporated in 2000 and is
headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts.


TECOGEN INC: William May Claim Consolidated with Vardakas Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tecogen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2018, that the class action suit initiated by William C. May has
been voluntarily dismissed and his claims have been consolidated
with the pending federal action in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts entitled, Vardakas v. American DG
Energy, Inc.,.

On or about February 6, 2017, American DG Energy (ADGE), John
Hatsopoulos, George N. Hatsopoulos, Charles T. Maxwell, Deanna M.
Petersen, Christine Klaskin, John Rowe, Joan Giacinti, Elias
Samaras, Tecogen, and the wholly owned subsidiary of the Company
that merged with ADGE ("Merger Sub") were served with a Verified
Complaint by William C. May ("May"), individually and on behalf of
the other shareholders of ADGE as a class.

The action was commenced in the Business Litigation Session of the
Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Civil Action
No. 17-0390. The complaint alleged class action claims arising out
of the proposed Merger.

On May 31, 2017, May voluntarily dismissed the action and
consolidated his claims with the pending federal action in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
entitled, Vardakas v. American DG Energy, Inc..

Tecogen said, "If the complaint in the federal court is dismissed,
it is possible that May or another plaintiff will recommence an
action in state court with similar claims to those asserted by
May."

Tecogen Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells industrial and
commercial cogeneration systems that produce combinations of
electricity, hot water, and air conditioning in the United States
and internationally. The company was incorporated in 2000 and is
headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts.


TESLA INC: Pierce Bainbridge Investigates Potential Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP is investigating whether
Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) violated federal securities laws. If you or
your company recently purchased or sold Tesla shares, bonds, or
options and have lost over $100,000, you are encouraged to contact
Pierce Bainbridge attorney David Hecht at (213) 262-9333 x 105 or
dhecht@piercebainbridge.com for additional information about your
legal rights and options.

On June 17, 2018, Tesla's Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk tweeted
that Tesla short sellers had "about three weeks before their short
position explodes." Tesla's stock rose 4% on the first day of
trading after Musk's tweet. Approximately three weeks later, on
August 7, 2018, Musk tweeted: "Am considering taking Tesla private
at $420. Funding secured." On this news, Tesla shares went from
$341.99 on August 6, 2018 to $379.57 on August 7, 2018, an increase
of 11%.  Musk holds approximately 22% of Tesla's shares.

On August 8, 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
reportedly contacted Tesla to inquire about the accuracy of Elon
Musk's tweets and why the announcement was not made in a regulatory
filing.

On August 16, 2018, during aftermarket hours, The New York Times
published an article stating "that [Tesla's] funding, it turned
out, was far from secure." According to the article, "Mr. Musk . .
. was referring to a potential investment by Saudi Arabia's
government investment fund. Mr. Musk had extensive talks with
representatives of the $250 billion fund about possibly financing a
transaction to take Tesla private . . . . But the Saudi fund had
not committed to provide any cash, two people briefed on the
discussions said." On this news, Tesla's stock fell over 8% from
its previous closing price, damaging investors.

If you or your company have recently transacted in Tesla shares,
bonds, or options and have lost over $100,000, please contact
Pierce Bainbridge attorney David Hecht at (213) 262-9333 x 105 or
dhecht@piercebainbridge.com for additional information about your
legal rights and options.

       About Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP

Pierce Bainbridge has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities fraud cases and taking cases through trial across the
United States.  It has represented pension funds, foundations,
individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York,
Los Angeles, and Washington D.C. [GN]


THC-ORANGE COUNTY: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Bryce Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY BRYCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. THC-ORANGE COUNTY, INC., a California
corporation; KINDRED HEALTHCARE OPERATING, LLC a Delaware
corporation; THC-ORANGE COUNTY, LLC, a California limited liability
corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant, Case No.
BC722120 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 18, 2018), seeks to recover wages
and penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, including but not
limited to unpaid minimum wages, unpaid and illegally calculated
overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest period-policies,
failure to pay all wages due to discharged or: quitting employees,
failure to maintain required records, failure to provide accurate
itemized to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or
losses incurred in discharging their duties, and interest,
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.

The Defendants are in the business of providing healthcare
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Danny Yadidsion, Esq.
          LABOR LAW PC
          100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700:
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 494 6082
          Facsimile; (877) 775 2267
          E-mail: Darmy@LaborLawPC.com


TRANS UNION: Court Narrows Claims in Clemens' TCA
-------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Galveston Division, issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned
AMANDA CLEMENTS; KATHERINE ANGUS; RANDALL LESLIE; CLINTON PERRY;
EDUARDO LUCIO; STEVEN LOSS; MELISSA FIKES; and DALE CARMAN;
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TRANS UNION, LLC; TXU ENERGY RETAIL CO., LLC; and
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-00237. (S.D. Tex.).

Pending before the Court is the Memorandum and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Andrew Edison.  Pending before Judge
Edison was Trans Union LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third
Amended Class Action Complaint, Defendant Experian Information
Solutions, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class
Action Complaint.

No objections have been filed to the Memorandum and Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court reviews the Memorandum and Recommendation
for plain error on the face of the record.  

Accordingly, the Court approves and adopts Judge Edison's
Memorandum and Recommendation in its entirety and Trans Union's
Motion to Dismiss and Experian's Motion to Dismiss be be denied in
part and granted in part.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 20, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc5rgas9 from Leagle.com.

Amanda Clements, Katherine Angus, Randall Leslie & Clinton Perry,
Plaintiffs, represented by Dennis McCarty --
info@mycreditattorney.com -- McCarty & Raburn, A Consumer Law Firm,
PLLC, Ari H. Marcus -- Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman LLC,
Jonathan Raburn -- info@mycreditattorney.com -- McCarty and Raburn,
pro hac vice & Yitzchak Zelman -- Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com --
Marcus & Zelman LLC.

Dale Carman & Melissa Fikes, Plaintiffs, represented by Dennis
McCarty, McCarty & Raburn, A Consumer Law Firm, PLLC, Ari H.
Marcus, Marcus & Zelman LLC & Jonathan Raburn , McCarty and
Raburn.

Eduardo Lucio, Consol Plaintiff, pro se.

Steven Loss, Consol Plaintiff, pro se.

Transunion, LLC, Defendant, represented by Paul Lee Myers, Quilling
Selander Lownds Winslett & Moser, P.C. & Marc F. Kirkland,
Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C.

TXU Energy Retail Company LLC, Defendant, represented by Robbie
LuAnn Malone -- rmalone@mamlaw.com -- MALONE AKERLY MARTIN PLLC,
Eugene Xerxes Martin, IV -- xmartin@rmalonelaw.com -- Malone Akerly
Martin PLLC & Jacob Michael Bach -- jbach@mamlaw.com -- Malone
Akerly Martin PLLC.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented
by Alexa Leigh Sendukas -- asendukas@jonesday.com -- Jones Day,
Joshua Fuchs -- jlfuchs@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & William
Roquemore Taylor -- wrtaylor@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.


TRANSLINK: Must Face Class Action Over Lost Merchant Revenue
------------------------------------------------------------
Lyle Adriano, writing for Insurance Business, reports that
TransLink has been ordered by the BC Supreme Court to pay
compensation to local merchants over a construction class-action
lawsuit.

The transportation agency was sued by three BC merchants -- Leonard
Schein, owner of the Park Theatre; Dale Dubberley, operating the
Thai Away Home restaurant; and Gary Gautam, owner of the Cambie
General Store -- over its construction of the SkyTrain Canada Line
from 2005 to 2009.

The merchants initially claimed that the project -- which involved
digging a large trench instead of boring a tunnel in a technique
known as "cut and cover" -- drove away their customers and cost
them hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost profits.

But the BC Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that members of the class
action could not sue for lost revenues, but could sue for
compensation over the effect on the rental value of the property
they owned or occupied.

Globalnews.ca reported that since the last ruling, the court has
issued new rulings regarding the compensation.

"What the cut and cover method of construction caused, of course,
was the digging up of Cambie Street in a manner that greatly
restricted access to the plaintiffs' businesses over a lengthy
period of time," the ruling stated.

"It was not, however, the degree of interference at any given
moment that was intolerable; rather, I find, it was the length of
time over which access was restricted that made the interference
intolerable to the businesses in question."

The court awarded Schein $128,000, Mr. Dubberly $44,560 and Mr.
Gautam $7,600 after reviewing their net income and gross revenue
prior to the construction project.

In its judgment, the court added that the merchant's complaint will
serve as a test case for succeeding lawsuits against TransLink.

"It is contemplated that the claims of the remaining plaintiffs
will be resolved in accordance with the parameters I set in this
case," the judgment read. [GN]


U-TEC GROUP: Komorski Sues over Use of Biometric Information
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KOMORSKI, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. U-TEC GROUP INC., a California
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH11884 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty., Sep. 20, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's capture,
collection, use, and storage of biometric identifiers and/or
biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act, and to obtain redress for all persons
injured by its conduct.

The Defendant is a company that manufactures electronic,
biometric-enabled door locks. However, through its biometric door
lock technology, the Defendant captures, collects, stores, and
otherwise uses Plaintiffs and other users' biometrics without
regard to BIPA and the concrete privacy rights and pecuniary
interests that BIPA protects.  The Defendant's technology requires
users to upload, store, and repeatedly transmit their biometrics,
i.e. their fingerprints, in order to open the Defendant's smart
lock to homes and/or private areas.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          William P. Kingston
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55
          W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          E-mail: jsheikali@mcgpc.com
                  wkingston@mcgpc.com


VANGUARD GROUP: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that on
September 4, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed the partial denial of a motion to dismiss a
putative class action against investment services provider Vanguard
Group (the "Company"). Alex Taksir, et al. v. The Vanguard Group,
No. 17-3585 (3d. Cir. Sept. 4, 2018). Plaintiffs alleged that the
Company violated Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law ("UTPCPL") and breached its contract with plaintiffs
by overcharging on per-trade commissions. According to the
Complaint, the Company's website represented that commissions were
$2 per stock trade for customers who maintained account balances of
between $500,000 and $1,000,000, but the Company allegedly charged
plaintiffs -- who met the prerequisite balance requirements -- $7
per trade. The United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania dismissed the UTPCPL claim, but held that
the breach of contract claim was not barred by the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act ("SLUSA") -- which precludes
parties from bringing class actions based on state law claims
relating to "a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in
connection with the purchase or sales of a covered security" --
because no misrepresentations were made "in connection with" a
covered security. The Company sought leave to file an interlocutory
appeal, which the Third Circuit granted.

The Company argued that the District Court erred by concluding that
SLUSA does not bar plaintiff's breach of contract claim. According
to the Company, the alleged overcharge of commissions constitutes a
misrepresentation "in connection with" the purchase or sale of a
covered security. The Third Circuit first evaluated the Company's
argument that the United States Supreme Court's 2014 ruling in
Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, 571 U.S. 377, 386–87 (2014) --
in which the Supreme Court concluded that the scope of "in
connection with" did not "extend further than misrepresentations
that are material to the purchase or sale of a covered security" --
was inapplicable because Troice addressed the purchase or sale of
"uncovered" securities. The Third Circuit disagreed, finding that
that the Supreme Court in Troice did not limit its reasoning to the
distinction between covered and uncovered securities, and that the
Third Circuit need not do so here. The Court was also not persuaded
by the Company's attempt to distinguish Troice based on decisions
from the Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits, which applied a
purportedly broader "in connection with" standard for SLUSA
preclusion as stated by the Supreme Court in Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71 (2006). The Third Circuit
noted that the Supreme Court in Troice expressly stated that it was
clarifying Dabit, and not modifying it, and therefore the Court may
appropriately "look[] to Troice for guidance." Moreover, the Court
found that each of the appellate cases cited by the Company was
distinguishable from this case because each involved "the direct
breach of a duty that the broker owe[d] customers pertaining to a
securities transaction," and therefore the alleged misconduct at
issue in those cases was "plainly material" to the brokerage
customers. The Court further noted that both the Seventh and Ninth
Circuits have concluded in similarly situated cases that inflated
commission fees do not trigger the SLUSA bar, and likewise the same
result should apply in this case.

Turning next to the issue of materiality, the Third Circuit
addressed the Company's argument that even if Troice applied,
SLUSA's "in connection with" standard would still be met because
the District Court erred by treating the rule of materiality the
same as "subjective reliance," and by ruling as a matter of law
that "no reasonable investor would consider it important when
deciding whether to buy or sell securities that he was allegedly
being overcharged." The Court agreed with the District Court's
conclusion that "a reasonable investor would not be swayed" by the
overcharges on commission fees, emphasizing that the reduced
commissions at issue were only available for customers with at
least $500,000 invested in the Company's accounts, and thus the
"single digit differences in trading commissions" were "objectively
immaterial" in comparison to the amounts invested. The Court
further agreed with the District Court's distinction between the
facts in this case and those in cases where the alleged
misrepresentation constituted a breach of duty of "best execution,"
noting that the false promise to obtain "the best available price"
is material to brokerage customers, which differs from the
"incidental and low-value overcharges in this case." The Court also
rejected the Company's contention that a customer concedes that a
contractual term is material to their securities transaction merely
by attempting to enforce that term.

Finally, the Court rejected the Company's argument that while
plaintiffs' claim sounded in contract, it was in fact a fraud claim
barred by SLUSA because the misrepresentation prong is satisfied
under SLUSA. The Court held that whether the Company's alleged
conduct constituted a misrepresentation or a breach of contract was
irrelevant because even if the conduct were a misrepresentation, it
is not a misrepresentation that is "material or adequately
connected to a securities transaction." Accordingly, the Third
Circuit found that plaintiffs' breach of contract claim was not
precluded by SLUSA, and affirmed the District Court's denial of the
Company's motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim. [GN]


VERIZON: Did Not Provide Correct Wage Statements, Gillespie Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA GILLESPIE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERIZON; CELLCO PARTNERSHIP; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-at-01422
(E.D. Cal., Sept. 4, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements under the
California Labor Code.

On March 5, 2018, the Plaintiff Gillespie began employment with the
Defendants as a non-exempt employee in Roseville, California. The
Plaintiff is still currently employed by the Defendants.

Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless, provides
wireless voice and data services. The Company provides postpaid and
prepaid services, such as text and picture messaging, and mobile
broadband services. Cellco Partnership serves customers throughout
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Mai Tulyathan, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                  ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          William L. Marder, Esq.
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
          E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com

               - and -

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL, APC
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com


VERU INC: Discovery Ongoing in Aspen Park Acquisition-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Veru Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2018, that the parties in the consolidated class action suit
related to the Aspen Park Pharmaceutical Inc.'s acquisition are
currently engaged in discovery.

In connection with the Aspen Park Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s (APP's)
Acquisition, two purported derivative and class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, which were captioned Glotzer v. The Female Health
Company, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-13815, and Schartz v. Parrish, et
al., Case No. 2016-CH-14488.

On January 9, 2017 these two lawsuits were consolidated.  On March
31, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. The
consolidated complaint named as defendants Veru, the members of the
company's board of directors prior to the closing of the APP
Acquisition and the members of the company's board of directors
after the closing of the APP Acquisition. The consolidated
complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted such
breaches, by consummating the APP Acquisition in violation of the
Wisconsin Business Corporation Law and NASDAQ voting requirements
and by causing us to issue the shares of our common stock and
Series 4 Preferred Stock to the former stockholders of APP pursuant
to the APP Acquisition in order to evade the voting requirements of
the Wisconsin Business Corporation Law.

The consolidated complaint also alleges that Mitchell S. Steiner, a
director and the President and Chief Executive Officer of Veru and
a co-founder of APP, and Harry Fisch, a director of Veru and a
co-founder of APP, were unjustly enriched in receiving shares of
our common stock and Series 4 Preferred Stock in the APP
Acquisition.

Based on these allegations, the consolidated complaint seeks
equitable relief, including rescission of the APP Acquisition,
money damages, disgorgement of the shares of the company's common
stock and Series 4 Preferred Stock issued to Dr. Steiner and Dr.
Fisch, and costs and expenses of the litigation, including
attorneys' fees.  

On May 5, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. On August 15, 2017, the court entered an
order dismissing without prejudice the claims that the
post-acquisition directors aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties by the pre-acquisition directors and that Dr.
Steiner and Dr. Fisch were unjustly enriched. The court did not
dismiss the claims that the pre-acquisition directors breached
their fiduciary duties and the claims that Veru consummated the APP
Acquisition in violation of the Wisconsin Business Corporation Law
and NASDAQ voting requirements, and the action is continuing as to
those claims. The parties are currently engaged in discovery.    

Veru believes that this action is without merit and is vigorously
defending itself.  No amount has been accrued for possible losses
relating to this litigation as any such losses are not both
probable and reasonably estimable.

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

Veru Inc. operates as a urology and oncology biopharmaceutical
company. The company operates through two segments, Commercial; and
Research and Development. Veru Inc. was founded in 1896 and is
headquartered in Miami, Florida.


VIZIO: Class Action Over Spying TVs Currently in Progress
---------------------------------------------------------
Chris Merriman, writing for the INQUIRER, reports that Vizio is on
the verge of agreeing to cut its own throat (more so) with an
on-screen message to customers inviting them to join a class-action
lawsuit.

In 2015, the company was rumbled as it gathered data on customers'
viewing habits, based on demographics such as their age, race and
marital status.

After settling with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to the tune
of $2.2m, it's now time to face its public.

The class action suit is currently in progress, with a date of 3
October set for preliminary settlement.

As part of the settlement, customers will receive a message telling
them that there are people fighting for them and that they should
get in touch to activate entitlement to any part of the
settlement.

Originally set for late September, the October date is designed to
allow testing of the onscreen message which will be delivered
through the Vizio middleware. Both sides will need to be satisfied
that it is clear in its wording and will be visible by anyone who
turns on their TV. It's not clear if this will also allow the user
to interactively register with the suit from their remote, which
let's face it, would be ruddy hilarious if it happens. Not that we
like schadenfreude or anything.

Other demographics collected include sex, size of household, level
of education, whether they are tenant or owner and how much their
home is worth. All hypothetically anonymised but nevertheless a
huge breach of privacy and trust.

In an age where Chinese companies are under scrutiny over their
privacy arrangements, this has not been Chintech's finest hour.
Some have even claimed that the software constitutes wiretapping.
At present, it's not clear exactly what Vizio is going to admit to,
as it may well differ from what it told the FTC. [GN]


W.D. HENRY & SONS: Sacked Farm Workers Allege Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Rolando Diaz Reyes, Hector Ivan Burgos Rivera, Jose A. Garcia
Marrero, Kidanny Josue Martinez Reyes and Edwin Cosme Colon as
individuals and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. W.D. Henry & Sons, Inc., Henry Realty Associates,
Inc., Daniel Henry and Mark C. Henry Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-01017 (W.D. N.Y., September 14, 2018) seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief as well as damages, attorneys' fees and costs for
violations of Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection
Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law, and for breach of contract.

W.D. Henry & Sons Inc. is in the vegetables and melons business.

Plaintiffs are Puerto Ricans who worked for Defendants'
agricultural business each season except in the past two years.
They claim to have been unlawfully displaced and discriminated
against by Defendants who now import temporary foreign guest
workers to do their jobs. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      John Marsella, Esq.
      Robert McCreanor, Esq.
      1187 Culver Road
      Rochester, NY 14609
      Tel: (585) 325-3050
      Fax: (585) 325-7614
      Email: jmarsella@wjcny.org
             rmccreanor@wjcny.org


WOOLWORTHS: Faces Class Action Over 2015 Profit Downgrade
---------------------------------------------------------
Sophie Moore, writing for news.com.au, reports that Woolworths is
facing a potential $100 million class action launched on behalf of
investors whose shares lost value following a shock 2015 profit
downgrade by the supermarket giant.

The class action, brought by lawyers Maurice Blackburn, alleges
Woolworths breached continuous disclosure obligations and engaged
in misleading conduct by giving profit guidance that couldn't be
met.

Woolworths advised the market in February, 2015, that it would not
meet its 2014/15 profit guidance, wiping nearly nine per cent, or
$3.03 cents, off its share price on one day of trading.

The company downgraded its profit growth forecasts from a range of
four to seven per cent to a much lower 1.8 to 6.6 per cent, on the
back of plans to boost investment in its core supermarkets
business.

Shares slid another seven per cent over two days in May when
Woolworths revealed it would have to invest an additional $500
million in lowering its prices to meet heightened competition,
including from newcomer Aldi.

Lead plaintiff in the class action Norman Wills, in a statement
issued by Maurice Blackburn, said he used to think Woolworths was
one of the most reliable businesses on the ASX.

"It looks like (Woolworths) has failed to inform the market of what
was going on within the company. I'm really disappointed in the way
the company behaved and Woolworths needs to be held to account," Mr
Willis said.

Maurice Blackburn announced it would pursue a class action on
behalf of shareholders back in April 2017 but it was delayed after
financial backer IMF Bentham pulled out.

It filed the case with the Federal Court on Sept. 10 supported by
International Litigation Funding Partners.

In a statement to the ASX, Woolworths said it would thoroughly
defend itself against any proceedings. [GN]


WOOLWORTHS: To Thoroughly Defend Shareholders' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sue Mitchell, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that
Woolworths shareholders fear companies will become averse to
issuing detailed earnings guidance following a flood of class
action claims from investors who say they lost money after relying
on profit forecasts.

The latest such claim has been lodged by class action specialist
Maurice Blackburn, which is seeking at least $100 million for
shareholders who saw their Woolworths shares fall by almost 40 per
cent after the retailer backed away from profit guidance in 2015,
saying it needed to sacrifice margins to win back customers lost to
Coles and Aldi.

In a Federal Court filing, Maurice Blackburn alleged Woolworths
breached its continuous disclosure obligations and engaged in
misleading conduct in 2014 and 2015 by issuing and reaffirming
profit guidance it could not meet without adversely affecting its
competitiveness.

Under former chief executive Grant O'Brien, Woolworths issued three
profit downgrades between February 2015 and November 2015 after
deciding to invest at least $500 million into reducing grocery
prices and improving service in stores.

The price reductions decimated earnings in Woolworths' Australian
supermarkets and, combined with mounting losses in the now defunct
Masters hardware business and deteriorating sales at BIG W, saw its
shares sink almost 40 per cent over 15 months to $22.50 in November
2015, from $37.02 in August 2014.

The class action claim was launched on behalf of Woolworths
investors who bought shares between August 29 2014, when the
company forecast 4 to 7 per cent net profit growth, and the
retailer's strategy day in May 2015, when Woolworths admitted it
had been relying on the wrong metrics to measure price
competitiveness and on-shelf availability and more price cuts were
necessary.

After hitting a low of $20.50 in July 2016 -- by which time
Woolworths had sunk more than $1 billion into prices and service --
the stock has rebounded 38 per cent to more than $28 this year as
sales and margins recovered. The shares rose 1 per cent on Sept. 11
to $28.54.

Maurice Blackburn class actions principal Andrew Watson said the
case reinforced the need for enhanced transparency and proper
disclosures from large listed companies and ensured they were held
to account if they failed to provide the market with accurate
information.

However, Woolworths said on Sept. 11 it would thoroughly defend the
proceedings and took its continuous disclosure obligations
seriously.

Woolworths cast doubt on the success of the claim, pointing to the
fact that in April 2017 Maurice Blackburn proposed a class action
claim funded by litigation funder IMF Bentham. In January 2018 IMF
Bentham decided not to proceed with funding the claim, saying the
case no longer met its investment criteria.

IMF Bentham's withdrawal followed lengthy correspondence with
Woolworths, which is understood to have provided the litigation
funder with compelling evidence there was no merit in pursuing the
claim.

Maurice Blackburn has now teamed up with Singaporean-based
litigation funder, International Litigation Funding Partners
(ILFP), which has funded successful class actions against QBE, NAB
and Multiplex.

Fund managers said the growth in class action claims that hinged on
profit guidance increased the risk corporates would stop issuing
detailed profit forecasts.

"It potentially makes them more cautious about giving really
precise guidance -- it will be much more general in nature," said
Argo Investments senior investment officer Andy Forster.

"As a shareholder you inevitably tend to participate in them even
though you'd probably wish they didn't happen  . . . what you get
out of them is relatively small," Mr Forster said. "There's not
much left for the shareholder at the end of it."

Another Woolworths shareholder said companies were already moving
away from issuing detailed guidance to avoid being "trapped" by
class action claims.

"Guidance is given under a certain scenario and people change their
mind," the fund manager said. "They won't give guidance at all . .
. if you're going to be sued every time you change it."

A case in point is Myer, which was before the Federal Cour,
defending a class action claim led by TPT Patrol, the trustee of
lead plaintiffs the Amies Superannuation Fund, which alleged Myer
engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and failed to abide by
its continuous disclosure obligations by providing profit guidance
without a reasonable basis in 2015.

Maurice Blackburn, which has launched successful class action
claims against Aristocrat, Centro Properties, QBE, River City,
National Australia Bank, Multiplex and GIO, believes the Woolworths
claim is strong.

"Maurice Blackburn has run the nation's largest shareholder class
actions including the only cases to have settled for in excess of
$100 million," a spokesman said on Sept. 11, "and we've never
wavered from our belief in the strength of this case both on the
merits and in terms of investor support for it, which is extremely
strong."

Australia has become the second most active class action market in
the world, behind the US, driven by new entrants in the litigation
funding market, according to a Herbert Smith Freehills report.

Litigation funders pay expenses related to a class action in return
for a percentage of any final settlement, usually between 20 per
cent and 45 per cent. [GN]


[*] Bank Superannuation Funds in Australia Face Class Action Threat
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlyn Offer, writing for news.com.au, reports that bank-owned
superannuation funds face the threat of class actions on the back
of evidence from the banking royal commission.

Millions of Australians are being invited by by law firm Slater and
Gordon to sign up to the Get Your Super Back claim, which will
involve a series of class actions, most likely starting with
Commonwealth Bank-owned superannuation fund, Colonial First State
and AMP.

"The banking royal commission exposed appalling behaviour by the
bank-owned super funds who may have stripped money from the
retirement savings of millions of hard working Australians," head
of class actions for Slater and Gordon, Ben Hardwick, told
reporters.

"We're happy the royal commission has exposed these dodgy practices
but we don't believe exposure is good enough, we don't think it's
fair that Australians retirement savings may have been gauged and
today we are saying enough is enough," he said.

It will be alleged that Colonial First State "dumped" super with
its parent bank, which had "ludicrously low" interest rates, below
even the Reserve Bank of Australia's cash rate.

Mr Hardwick said the royal commission also revealed some AMP
customers were getting negative returns on their funds.

"We don't believe there is any justification for a bank-owned fund
member being worse off than an industry fund member, especially
when they have chosen to invest in a passive cash investment
option, which requires the fund to do basically nothing," Mr
Hardwick said.

In response to Slater and Gordon's announcement, AMP encouraged
direct contact from customers and said the potential action related
to issues previously identified and reported to the regulator.

"We have reduced the administration fees on some of our cash
investment options to address the issue of negative returns in the
small number of funds impacted by this issue. We are also
compensating affected customers for lost earnings," the AMP
statement reads.

"In July, we also announced that we are cutting fees on our
flagship MySuper products, benefiting around 700,000 existing
customers as well as new customers, improving member outcomes."

In a statement, Commonwealth said it was aware of the announcement
but it and its subsidiaries have not been served with any legal
proceedings.

"CBA will keep the market informed of developments," it said.

Would-be claimants can register through the law firm's website
getyoursuperback.com, but the action will take weeks to months to
lodge and the class actions themselves could take years to resolve.
[GN]


[*] Only Shareholders Can Sue Collectively in Germany
-----------------------------------------------------
Laura de la MotteLaura de la Motte, writing for Handelsblatt
Global, reports that Germany is agog as VW shareholders sue the
company for failing to disclose its Dieselgate misdeeds sooner. To
many abroad, that could look a bit like a class action. It isn't,
though Berlin is gradually moving to allow these, due to Dieselgate
and the number of European consumers who haven't been compensated.

But in the US, for 50 years, class actions have allowed a group of
consumers to sue companies in a single legal proceeding brought by
one or several plaintiffs. The resultant judgment or settlement
then becomes valid for all members of the group or class.

But in Germany, there's no way a group of consumers can sue a
company. While VW has paid billions to settle class actions brought
by angry car-owners in the US and Canada, 2 million German owners
of the dirty diesels are fuming, empty handed. That is set to
change in fall but until then, only investors get their day in
court.

That's because in the German legal system, the only group that can
sue a company collectively is shareholders, thanks to a case
involving Deutsche Telekom's misbegotten IPO and a hoard of
infuriated investors, in 2004. That led to a cumbersome process
that bears only a limited resemblance to the US: plaintiffs can
only sue as individuals and must demonstrate and prove their
cases.

Back in 2004, 17,000 people sued Deutsche Telekom, the former
monopolist provider of telecom services after its IPO failed to
deliver. The company's share price fell 78 percent and many lost
cash they are still trying to recoup. The Frankfurt Regional Court
was overrun as plaintiffs demanded compensation for what they felt
was a misleading description in the prospectus.

That led to a change in the regulations, as lawmakers introduced
the Lex Telekom, whose real name is the Capital Investor Model
Procedure Act, or KapMuG. It gave investors a form of class action,
though unlike in the US, each affected party must file a suit in
their own name in order to benefit from the proceedings' outcome.

Here, an investor, or model plaintiff, clarify a controversial
question on behalf of others. That might be whether a statement in
a sales prospectus for an IPO is incorrect or, as in the current VW
case, whether the company informed capital markets too late about
its cheat devices. If the court determines wrongdoing, then other
investors can refer to that in their own cases. But each time, a
judge must determine whether an individual plaintiff meets the
necessary criteria to receive compensation.

If a large number of complaints are submitted to a regional court,
the plaintiffs can apply for proceedings according to the KapMuG.
If at least 10 plaintiffs want to pursue that model, they're
directed to a Higher Regional Court which appoints a model
plaintiff and one or more model defendants.

All of the other plaintiffs who weren't selected become joint
plaintiffs in the main, "model" proceedings. That also means all of
the proceedings at the initial regional court are suspended –
including those involving plaintiffs who didn't opt to be part of
the group.

For the next six months, other shareholders who haven't yet filed a
lawsuit with the regional court can join the model proceedings by
simply entering their names in a register. For this group, the
statute of limitations is suspended, but they don't have to file a
suit.

Even after six months are over, shareholders can join the case by
filing a complaint at the Regional Court, so long as the initial
case isn't statute-barred. The VW shareholders in Braunschweig have
until year-end to do so. Such claims are then suspended until the
model proceeding is concluded.

David, Goliath and bureaucracy
Germany's model may seem cumbersome but one advantage is that in
addition to the initial plaintiff, others involved can also submit
information to the model proceedings, and contribute their own
findings. That evens out the balance of power against a mighty
opponent like a large corporation. Costs for the individual
plaintiffs are also low. And while each only pays the fee for the
first instance, they benefit from the judgement from the highest
court.

Happily, for everyone in Braunschweig, the current VW case is less
complicated than the Deutsche Telekom precedent, though it's still
expected to drag on for many years. That's partly because the legal
system doesn't make enough people available to handle such complex
proceedings, says Christian Wolf, professor of law at the
University of Hanover.

The good news is that thanks to an amendment to the KapMuG, a
settlement can also be concluded in the proceedings.

That doesn't necessarily mean everyone can go home happy with a wad
of cash. While the final decision is binding for all shareholders,
that doesn't spell a decision for the individual investor. Each
plaintiff must prove their own individual loss and could also go
home empty-handed, even if the investor who brought the suit wins
the case. Even though those who joined in the six-month period
benefit from the ruling, they still have to file a suit at the
regional court level to prove to a judge they suffered similar
damages.

Feel sorry for them? Recall the German owners of diesels cars. Only
on November 1, the Bundestag will pass an act to introduce
class-action style litigation. That's more than three years after
Dieselgate. The justice ministry expects 2 million claims against
VW. But many more people may press suits related to other companies
too.

Here too, though, the situation won't match the US. Eager to avoid
what Berlin sees as excesses in the system in the United States,
under the new German law, plaintiffs must be represented by
consumer protection associations.

The law requires such groups to have at least 350 members, and have
been registered for at least four years. It would have to process
10 cases, then present a lawsuit to the court. Within two months,
50 people affected would have to sign up in order for the case to
proceed.

Consumer watchdogs are already preparing accordingly, even if it is
a class action suit with the brakes on. [GN]



                            *********

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 ***