CAR_Public/181011.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, October 11, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 204

                            Headlines

70-30 AUSTIN: Cruz Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
89 MONTCLAIR CLEANERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moreno Claims
AARP INC: Senior Citizens Sue Over Inflated Insurance Charges
ABBVIE INC: Rubinstein's Bid to Certify Class Under Advisement
ACTIVISION PUBLISHING: Fishel Seeks Damages Over Game Termination

ADECCO USA: Farley Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
ALEX OF POLK COUNTY: Servers File Suit Over Improper Wages
ALLIED BUILDING: Court Approves $833K Attorney's Fees in Figueroa
ALLIED SOLUTIONS: Dismissal of Robertson Suit Affirmed in Part
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Everhart Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed

AMS PAVING: Underpays Drivers, Painters & Sealers, Ocampo Claims
ARCADIA RECOVERY: Vullings Seeks to Certify Class
ASSURANT INC: Coleman Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
BIRMINGHAM, AL: 11th Cir. Partly Reverses Ruling in Freeze +P Suit
BLUE CROSS: J.R. Suit Alleges ERISA Violation

CAPELLA EDUCATION: Made Illegal, Unwanted Calls, Thompson Says
CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, Greifman Says
CHS EMPLOYMENT: Court Denies Smith's Bid to Certify FLSA Class
CITY WATCH: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Maceda Says
COLOMEX INC: Staff Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work

CONROY'S KC LLC: Zerbe Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Cooley's Class Cert. Bid Denied as Moot
COOL EVENTS: Falsely Advertises Tickets and Events, Yamada Claims
CORECIVIC: Court Certifies Class of Inmates with Diabetes
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Guterman SAC

CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Dixon Suit Moved to N.D. California
DEKALB MEDICAL: Bryant Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
DEVILLE ASSET MANAGEMENT: Chavez Disputes Collection Letter
DIRECT ENERGY: 2nd Amended Sevugan Dismissed
DIRECT FLOW: Reynolds Seeks to Certify Class of Employees

DOS REALES: Olivera et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Class
EASTERN REVENUE: Bonser Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
EF EDUCATION: Acree Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Court Stays Fryett Suit
FORTUNA HOTEL: Bishop Files ADA Suit in New York

GENERAL RV: Dolores Files Suit Over Deceptive Trade Practices
GLOBAL TELLINK: $8.8MM Settlement Has Final Approval
GREENTREE PROPERTY: Ebuehi Suit Asserts Calif. Labor Code Violation
GRETNA, LA: Nelson's Bid for Cert. Tossed; Parties to Meet Oct. 23
HALL'S SOUTHERN: Graham Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages

HAMILTON COUNTY WATER: WWTA Act Amendment Ruling in AHA Suit Upheld
HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Fixes Prices for TV Commercials, Suit Says
HILTON GRAND: Court OKs Summary Judgment in Glasser TCPA Suit
HYATT CORPORATION: Faces Insixiengmay Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
IBERIA FOODS: Okoe Files Fraud Class Suit in New York

ICHIBANYA USA: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, Salmon Says
INSEL AIR: Saade Seeks to Certify Class over Extra Fees
INTERSTATE HOTELS: Bishop Suit Asserts ADA Violation
ISLAND TRANSPORTATION: Correa Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
JP MORGAN CHASE: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Barton Suit

KIMBERLY-CLARK: Responses to Petitions in "Davidson" Due Oct. 11
KMG CHEMICALS: Walter Seeks to Block Cabot Merger
LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Aparicio Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
LISNR INC: Court Narrows Counterclaims in Wiretap Act Suit
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sosa Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

MCKESSON CORP: Marion Diagnostic Suit Asserts Antitrust Violations
MDL 2773: Prelim Injunction Bid in Qualcomm Antitrust Suit Denied
MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Riley Sues in E.D. Cal. Over Unpaid Overtime
MIKE STINSON: Gibbs Files RICO Class Suit
MLK EXPRESS: Burns Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

NATIONAL CREDIT: Faces Quintana Suit in Middle District of Florida
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Guerrido Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
NEW HYDE PARK: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEWS AMERICA: Underpays Service Reps, Bolsinger Claims

NICON BUILD: Reico Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
NUWAY ENTERPRISES: Chapman Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
OHIO FIRST: Englemon Class Certification Bid Denied Pending Accord
OKLAHOMA: Court Denies Motion for Intervention in Prisoners' Suit
OVATION CREDIT: Diggs Seeks to Certify Class of ISRs/Analysts

PERRY ELLIS: Witmer Opposes Merger with Feldenkreis Holdings
PETER A KLC: Cannon Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
PORT PACKAGING: Gonzalez Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
PRAXAIR INC: Garcia Suit Moved to Central District of California
PREMIER STUDENT: Bond Suit Alleges TCPA Violation

PRET A MANGER: Daly Files False Labeling Class Action
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Poole Sues Over Defective Snapshot Devices
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Advance Trust Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
RESTAURANTE & TORTILLERIA: Acosta Files FLSA Suit in M.D. Florida
RICHANI RESTAURANT: Court Certifies FLSA Class

ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Carrettas Sue over Alleged Kickbacks
S & V RESTAURANT: Faces Diaz Suit in New York State Court
SAFE STEP: Violates TCPA by Illegally Calling Phones, Naiman Says
SBE HOTEL: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS: Parsittie Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

SCI GREENE: Pelino Class Certification Bid Denied
SCOTIABANK PUERTO RICO: Maura's Amended Bid to Certify Class Denied
SFMTA: Suzuki Sues over Sexual Harassment & Discrimination
SHERMAN'S DELICATESSEN: Taylor Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
SJBH LLC: Violates Calif. Labor Code, Stevenson Suit Says

SKYLINE METRICS: Cranor Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
SPECIALIZED LOAN: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Patel Suit
SPINE AND JOINT: Ct. Stays Further Proceedings in Perez Class Suit
STAPLES GROUP: Class of ASMs Certified in Worsley FLSA Suit
STATE FARM: Court Certifies Monetary Damages Class

SUITED CONNECTOR: Invades Class Members' Privacy, Souders Suit Says
SUNDANCE INC: Accused by Morgan Suit of Not Paying Overtime Wages
TASTEE PATTEE: Riley Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
TRANS UNION: Dismissal of Clements FCRA Suit Recommended in Part
UNITED STATES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Hamama Suit

W. W. GRAINGER: Mendez Suit Asserts ADA Breach
WARREN, MI: Court Grants Class Opt Out After Deadline
WEBSTAURANT INC: Class of Specialists Certified in Rogers\ Suit
WYNDHAM HOTEL: Violates ADA, Bishop Suit Says
ZACK GROUP: Cranor Suit Alleges TCPA Violation


                            *********

70-30 AUSTIN: Cruz Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Lazaro Reyes Cruz, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. 70-30 Austin Street Bakery Inc. dba Martha's Country
Bakery, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-07408 (S.D. N.Y., August 15,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as baker for
Defendants' Martha's Country Bakery located at 70-28 Austin Street,
Forest Hills, NY 11375 from in or about January 2007 until in or
about February 2018.

The Defendants own and operate five bakeries under the common trade
name "Martha's Country Bakery". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


89 MONTCLAIR CLEANERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moreno Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA L MORENO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 89 MONTCLAIR CLEANERS INC. (D/B/A 89 MONTCLAIR
CLEANERS) and HYUN C KIM, Case No. 1:18-cv-08797 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 25, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiff worked for the
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that she
worked.

89 Montclair Cleaners Inc. is a domestic corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of New York.  The Individual
Defendant serves or served as owner, manager, principal, or agent
of the Company.

The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a laundromat, located
at 1349 Lexington Avenue, in New York City under the name "89
Montclair Cleaners."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


AARP INC: Senior Citizens Sue Over Inflated Insurance Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Christoph and Glen Hill, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. AARP, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-03453 (E.D. Pa., August 15, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law.

This is a consumer class action seeking to recoup millions of
dollars on behalf of a class of senior citizens and disabled
individuals residing in the state of Pennsylvania who, by the
deceptive practices and unlawful acts alleged herein, were fooled
into paying artificially inflated insurance charges for Medicare
supplemental health insurance policies so that the Defendants could
use the inflated portion of the payment for illegal purposes -
namely the payment of insurance commissions to an unlicensed
entity.

The Plaintiff Stephen Christoph is a resident of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. He first purchased an AARP Medigap policy in
Pennsylvania in or about January 2017 and has paid his premium for
that policy every month since.

The Plaintiff Glen Hill is a resident of Coopersburg, Pennsylvania.
He first purchased an AARP Medigap policy in Pennsylvania in or
about March 2014 and has paid his premium for that policy every
month since, including in February 2018.

The Defendant AARP, formerly known as the American Association of
Retired Persons, is a tax-exempt, non-profit membership
organization for seniors aged 50 years and older. The Defendant
AARP Insurance Plan is a grantor trust organized by AARP, Inc.
under the laws of the District of Columbia and maintains its
primary place of business at 601 E Street, NW, Washington, D.C.
20049. AARP Trust is the vehicle through which AARP, Inc. collects,
invests and remits premium payments for AARP Medigap policies and
collects its unlawful 4.95% commission. AARP Trust conducts
substantial business in the state of Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Brian Penny, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C.
      8 Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
      161 Washington Street
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Tel: (484) 342-0700
      E-mail: penny@lawgsp.com


ABBVIE INC: Rubinstein's Bid to Certify Class Under Advisement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr., has taken under advisement the
Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification in the lawsuit
titled Murray Rubinstein, et al. v. Richard Gonzalez, et al., Case
No. 1:14-cv-09465 (N.D. Ill.).

Richard Gonzalez is Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer of AbbVie Inc., a global biopharmaceutical company.

The Plaintiffs' prior amended motion for class certification is
stricken as superseded.[CC]


ACTIVISION PUBLISHING: Fishel Seeks Damages Over Game Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Fishel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Activision Publishing, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-08092, (C.D. Cal., September 18, 2018) seeks
monetary damages, compensatory, incidental, or consequential
damages, any and all equitable monetary relief, reasonable costs
and expenses of suit, including attorneys' fees, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and such further relief for violation of
various state consumer protection statutes.

Activision Publishing, Inc. developed Guitar Hero Live, a music
video game in which players use a unique guitar-shaped controller
to "play along" with music tracks by contemporaneously matching, on
the controller, guitar fret patterns that the game scrolls on
screen. Activision launched Guitar Hero Live for consoles in
October 2015 and for Apple TV and iOS devices in November 2015. On
this platform, Guitar Hero Live products also allow players to
purchase in-game currency called "Hero Cash" using real money which
can be used to purchase premium or exclusive content.

However, Activision allegedly misled consumers about whether, and
how long, they could use the most substantial components of the
Apple TV, iOS, and console versions of Guitar Hero Live. On June 1,
2018, Activision announced that on December 1, 2018, Activision
will terminate Guitar Hero TV, and the game's online servers will
be permanently shut down and the iOS versions of the Product are no
longer available for download.

Plaintiffs bought the tvOS version of the Guitar Hero by new Apple
TVs. The iOS versions of the Product may be eliminated entirely
from consumers' iOS devices if Apple upgrades the iOS operating
system, thereby forfeiting their Hero Cash, says the complaint.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. Reese, Esq.
      George V. Granade, Esq.
      100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10025
      Telephone: (212) 643-0500
      Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
      Email: mreese@reesellp.com
             ggranade@reesellp.com

             - and -

      Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
      THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
      85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
      Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
      Telephone: (854) 705-9460
      Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
      Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

             - and -

      David R. Shoop, Esq.
      Thomas S. Alch, Esq.
      THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
      250 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 330
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (866) 884-1717
      Email: dshoop@thesultzerlawgroup.com
             talch@thesultzerlawgroup.com


ADECCO USA: Farley Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------
Virginia Farley, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. Adecco USA, Inc. and Restaurant Revolution
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-01185 (W.D. Wash., August 13,
2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Virginia Farley is a resident of Orlando, Florida and
has been employed by Adecco since November 2016 and jointly
employed by RRT as a Virtual Server since the same date.

The Defendant Adecco USA provides permanent and temporary staffing
to companies throughout the United States.

The Defendant RRT operates a restaurant specific call center that
specializes in answering telephone takeout and corporate catering
orders. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth A. Hanley, Esq.
      REED LONGYEAR MALNATI & AHRENS, PLLC
      801 Second Ave., Ste. 1415
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Tel: (206) 624-6271
      Fax: (206) 624-6672
      E-mail: ehanley@reedlongyearlaw.com


ALEX OF POLK COUNTY: Servers File Suit Over Improper Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Cassidy Cataker, Leslie Delatorte, Nenetta McManus, Romona Moreno,
and Lidia Ramirez, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Alex of Polk County,
Inc., Mihalis Houvardas, and Maria Guadalupe Arroyo Delgado,,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02302, (M.D. Fla., September 18, 2018)
seeks to recover minimum wages, damages, attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a restaurant under the trade name "Southeast
Eatery" in Winter Haven, Polk County, Florida where Plaintiffs
worked as servers.

The complaint says the Defendants would require Plaintiffs to
artificially increase the amount of cash tips reported in order to
give the appearance that Plaintiffs were making at least the
required minimum wages, regardless of whether they actually
received at least minimum wage. Defendants would also inflate the
amount of credit card tips by reporting a higher amount to the
payroll service than was captured by the POS system, notes the
complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      J. Kemp Brinson, Esq.
      BLOODWORTH LAW, PLLC
      224 E. Marks St.
      Orlando, FL 32803
      Tel: (407) 777-8541
      Mobile/Direct: (863) 288-0234
      Email: KBrinson@LawyerFightsForYou.com


ALLIED BUILDING: Court Approves $833K Attorney's Fees in Figueroa
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Central District of
California, Southern Division issued an Order and Judgment granting
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
in the case captioned EDUARDO FIGUEROA, SR., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALLIED BUILDING
PRODUCTS CORP, a New Jersey Corporation; and DOES 1 to 50,
Inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 8:16-cv-02249-AG-KES. (C.D. Cal.)

This Court conducted a Final Approval Hearing pursuant to this
Court's previous Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement.

This Order and Judgment Granting Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the terms
and conditions of the parties' Stipulation, together with the
definitions of terms used and contained therein.

The Court approves attorney's fees to Class Counsel in the amount
of $833,333 and costs in the amount of $13,877, as compensation for
all attorney time spent on this matter from inception through and
including the Final Approval Hearing and all other work related to
this case and all costs, as these requests are fair and reasonable.
Costs to the Settlement Administrator in the amount of $12,000 are
approved as fair and reasonable. No other costs or fees relief
shall be awarded, either against Defendant or any other of the
Released Parties, as defined in the Stipulation.

The Court approves a Service Award to Plaintiff Eduardo Figueroa,
Sr. (Plaintiff) in the amount of $2,500.  The Plaintiff's Service
Award is approved as a service award to the class representative
and in consideration and exchange for Plaintiff's Complete and
General Release of all claims as explained in the Stipulation.
Based on his contribution to the Class, risks incurred, stigma,
change of policies, execution of a general release and all other
factors presented to the Court, the Court finds this request fair
and reasonable.

The Court approves a PAGA Award of $25,000, with $18,750 payable to
the Labor Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), as this request is
fair and reasonable.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 24, 2018 Order
and Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya2rvktk from
Leagle.com.

Eduardo Figueroa, Sr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by James R. Hawkins --
James@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- James Hawkins APLC & Gregory E. Mauro
-- greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- James Hawkins APLC.

Allied Building Products Corp., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Mustafa El-Farra -- melfarra@littler.com
-- Littler Mendelson PC & Karin Morgan Cogbill --
kcogbill@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC.


ALLIED SOLUTIONS: Dismissal of Robertson Suit Affirmed in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHAMECA S. ROBERTSON, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLIED
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-3196 (Cal. App.),
Judge Diane Wood of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit (i) reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing
that claim for lack of standing, (ii) affirmed in all other
respects, and (iii) remanded for further proceedings.

Employers rarely extend job offers without first checking the
applicant's background and references.  They are free to conduct
such checks, but they must follow certain rules.  Many of those
rules come from the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").  Robertson
alleges that Allied disregarded several of the Act's requirements
when she applied for a position with the company.  The action,
filed on behalf of herself and two proposed classes, seeks to hold
Allied accountable for those missteps.  

Robertson applied for a position with Allied.  It offered her the
job, but it ran a background check before she reported to work.
Allied was required to alert Robertson clearly and conspicuously of
its intent to obtain the report and to secure her consent.  Those
disclosures needed to be in writing and unadorned by any additional
information.  Robertson complains that they were not.  Instead, the
forms she received were neither clear nor conspicuous, and they
included extraneous information.  She did not allege, however, that
the added information affected her consent to the check.

Certain non-conviction information (the nature of which is
immaterial for present purposes) turned up in the course of
Robertson's background check.  This information prompted Allied to
revoke the job offer.  A representative from its human resources
department passed that word along to Robertson.  She alleges that
the representative told her only that the offer was being rescinded
because of information in her 'criminal background check' report.
An employer that relies in any measure on a background check for an
adverse employment decision (including rescinding a job offer) must
provide the applicant with a copy of the report and a written
description of her rights under the FCRA before acting.  Allied
provided neither to Robertson.

She responded with the lawsuit.  Her complaint includes two claims,
each on behalf of a distinct subclass.  First, she sued Allied for
failing to furnish clear and conspicuous disclosure forms.  This is
the notice claim.  Second, she sued Allied for taking an adverse
employment action based on her background check without first
supplying a copy of the report or a written summary of her FCRA
rights.  This is her adverse-action claim.

After mediation in April 2016, the parties reached a tentative
settlement agreement.  A month later, the Supreme Court decided
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, in which it emphasized that federal
jurisdiction exists (as relevant in the case) only if the plaintiff
has alleged an injury that is both concrete and particular to
herself.  Neither Allied nor the court responded immediately to
Spokeo.

Several months later, Robertson filed an unopposed motion under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) for preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement and for certification of two settlement
classes.  Instead of acting on the motion, however, the district
court raised Spokeo on its own and asked the parties first to brief
the question whether Robertson had Article III standing.  The court
then learned that related issues were pending before this court in
Groshek v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., and so it delayed ruling.

After the Appellate Court ruled in Groshek that an injury
functionally indistinguishable from the one underpinning
Robertson's notice claim was not concrete and did not confer
standing, the district court ordered Robertson to show cause why
her case should not be dismissed for the same reason.  In its
order, the court rejected as simply wrong Robertson's assertion
that it could approve the settlement agreement without jurisdiction
over the underlying case.

Eventually the district court dismissed the entire case for lack of
standing.  It held that Groshek compelled that result for
Robertson's notice claim.  With respect to the adverseaction claim,
the court ruled that because Robertson had not pleaded facts
connecting the lost offer with Allied's failure to turn over a copy
of the background report, it too had to be dismissed.  Had
Robertson pleaded, for example, that the report was inaccurate or
that she favorably could explain the report's content, the court
indicated that it might have ruled that she sustained an Article
III injury.  It refused to permit her to amend her complaint
because she never indicated what facts she could allege that would
support jurisdiction.  She now appeals.

Judge Wood concludes that Robertson has alleged enough at this
stage to demonstrate standing under Article III.  Her injury is
concrete and particular to her, and the remaining criteria for
standing (causation, redressability) are also present.  This is not
to say that she is home-free, of course.  The Judge expresses no
opinion at this point on questions such as her suitability to serve
as the class representative, the propriety of class certification,
or the adequacy of the proposed settlement.  She holds only that
she has adequately alleged that what Allied divulged was
insufficient under the Act, and that the Plaintiff is entitled from
an Article III standpoint to press her adverse-action claim.

Based on information discovered in a background check, Allied
rescinded Robertson's job offer without furnishing Robertson a copy
of that report on which it relied.  By failing to do so, Allied
deprived her of the chance to review it and present her side of the
story.  That is the very reason why the FCRA obligates employers to
produce a copy of the report before taking adverse action.  Because
the alleged injury is concrete and Robertson otherwise alleged
enough to support her Article III standing on her adverse-action
claim, Judge Wood reversed the judgment of the district court
dismissing that claim for lack of standing, and remanded for
further proceedings.  In all other respects, the judgment of the
district court is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 29, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/S5FyFU from Leagle.com.

Jeffrey S. Beck -- jeffrey.beck@FaegreBD.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Rozlyn M. Fulgoni-Britton, for Defendant-Appellee.

Matthew A. Dooley -- mdooley@omdplaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Everhart Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a class action lawsuit styled STEVE EVERHART, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff,  vs.
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL LP, the Defendant, Case No.: 2:18-cv-01480-WED
(E.D. Wisc.), asks the Court to enter an order certifying classes
in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as class representatives,
and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com


AMS PAVING: Underpays Drivers, Painters & Sealers, Ocampo Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO A. VARGAS OCAMPO, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs AMS PAVING, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC722767 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 21, 2018),
alleges that Defendants failed to pay minimum and straight time
wages, failed to pay overtime compensation, failed to provide meal
periods, failed to authorize and permit rest breaks, and failed to
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 driver, painter, and sealer from
December 2015 to February 2018. Defendants also employed Plaintiff
to work on public works contracts and paid him a prevailing wage on
his paychecks.

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 timely pay all final wages to Plaintiff when Defendants
terminated Plaintiffs employment, and failed to furnish accurate
wage statements to Plaintiff, the lawsuit claims.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          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

ARCADIA RECOVERY: Vullings Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff moves the Court for class certification of the class
action lawsuit styled MICHELLE W. VULLINGS, Individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs ARCADIA
RECOVERY BUREAU, LLC, the Defendant, Case 5:17-cv-04361-EGS (E.D.
Pa.).[CC]

Attorney for Plaintiff and the Class:

Brent F. Vullings, Esq.
VULLINGS LAW GROUP, LLC
3953 Ridge Pike Suite 102
Collegeville, PA 19426
Telephone: (610) 489 6060


ASSURANT INC: Coleman Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Coleman and Paul Ameris, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Assurant, Inc., Interfinancial Inc.,
American Security Insurance Company, and Assurant Services, LLC,
Case No. 4:18-cv-02808 (S.D. Tex., August 14, 2018), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff Kenneth Coleman resides in Conroe, Texas. The
Plaintiff Coleman worked as a Staff Appraiser for the Defendants
from approximately February 27, 2017 to June 17, 2018.

The Plaintiff Paul Ameris resides in Miami, Florida. The Defendants
hired him as an Appraiser in or around May 2016. The Plaintiff
Ameris performs appraisals for the Defendants throughout Miami-Dade
County.

The Defendants operate in interstate commerce by, among other
things, dispatching Appraisers to multiple states to perform
appraisals, including in Texas and Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bryan J. Schwartz, Esq.
      BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
      1330 Broadway, Suite 1630
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel: (510) 444-9300
      Fax: (510) 444-9301
      E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com


BIRMINGHAM, AL: 11th Cir. Partly Reverses Ruling in Freeze +P Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, issued an
Opinion reversing the District Court's judgment granting students'
relief on most of the claims in the case captioned J W, by and
through his next friend, Tammy Williams, G S, by and through her
next friend, LaTonya Stearnes, P S, by and through her next friend,
LaTonya Stearnes, T L P, by and through her next friend, Tarra
Pritchett, T A P, by and through her next friend, Barbara Pettaway,
individually, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BIRMINGHAM BOARD OF
EDUCATION, et al., Defendants, A.C. ROPER, in his individual and
official capacity as Chief of the Birmingham Police Department, J.
NEVITT, Officer, in his individual capacity, A. CLARK, Officer, in
his individual capacity, R. TARRANT, Officer, in his individual
capacity, M. BENSON, Officer, in her individual capacity, D.
HENDERSON, Officer, in his individual capacity, S. SMITH, Officer,
in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellants. No. 15-14669
(11th Cir.).

Chief Roper appeals the rulings on the class claims.

Student Resource Officers employed by the Birmingham Police
Department and stationed at schools have the authority to use
Freeze +P, an incapacitating chemical spray, on students under
certain circumstances. A number of Birmingham high school students
who were sprayed with or exposed to Freeze +P, filed a civil rights
lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the Birmingham Board
of Education.

A.C. Roper, the Chief of the BPD; and the SROs who used the spray
against them or in their vicinity. Asserting individual and
class-based claims, they alleged that the SROs used excessive force
in violation of the Fourth Amendment by spraying them and by
failing to adequately decontaminate them.

On the class claims, the district court concluded that the Fourth
Amendment violations occurred pursuant to a policy or custom of the
BPD, and ruled that declaratory and injunctive relief was
warranted. Rather than issue a permanent injunction, however, the
court ordered the parties to meet and confer to devise a training
and procedure plan to improve the policies related to the use of
chemical spray in Birmingham schools.

Chief Ropert contends that these claims should have been dismissed
for lack of standing, that they alternatively fail on the merits,
that the district court should have decertified the class, and that
the court's mandatory injunction (the general practices provided to
the parties for the formulation of the proposed training and
procedure plan) is contrary to the principles of federal-state
comity.

CLASS-BASED CLAIMS

The district court concluded that Chief Roper's actions rendered
the City of Birmingham liable on both aspects of the policy/custom
claim, but not as to the failure-to-train claim.  As to the
failure-to-train claim, the court rejected the use-of-spray portion
and concluded that the decontamination portion was subsumed by
K.B.'s policy/custom claim because the SROs were trained pursuant
to an unconstitutional policy.  

Chief Roper argues that the district court should have dismissed
the class policy/custom claims for lack of standing

Article III Standing Requirements

To have standing, a plaintiff must show that he suffered an injury,
that there is a sufficient causal connection between the injury and
the conduct complained of, and that there is a likelihood that the
injury will be redressed by a favorable legal decision. Because
standing is not dispensed in gross, a plaintiff must demonstrate
standing for each claim and for each form of relief that is
sought.

A party has standing to seek injunctive relief only if the party
alleges, and ultimately proves, a real and immediate as opposed to
a merely conjectural or hypothetical threat of future injury.

In assessing whether a future injury is likely to occur, the Court
consider whether the plaintiff is likely to have another encounter
with a government officer due to the same conduct that caused the
past injury.

Standing for the Spraying Claim

Chemical spray can be properly deployed under the Fourth Amendment
when the subject uses or threatens force, physically resists, or
attempts to flee.  

At the time of the events in question in this case, the BPD's
policies provided that SROs could use chemical spray as a means of
control when a subject demonstrated defensive resistance (a Level
IV category of resistance), such as pulling away or pushing away;
engaged in active aggression (a Level V category of resistance),
such as challenging, punching, kicking, and grabbing; or used
lethal force (a Level VI category of resistance), which included
the use of firearms, knives, or any force that the officer believes
could cause serious bodily injury or death. And Chief Roper
testified that at that earlier time SROs had the discretion to use
chemical spray for lesser behavior, such as passive resistance (a
Level III category of resistance), which includes dead weight; and
verbal non-compliance (a Level II category of resistance), which
includes blank stares, clenching of fists, and tightening of jaws.


By the time of trial, however, the BPD had revised its policies
concerning the use of control mechanisms. Significantly, the
revised policy, which became effective in 2012, required SROs to
consider a number of specific factors when determining the
appropriate amount of control for a given situation, including the
seriousness of the crime committed by the subject; the subject's
size, age, and weight; the apparent physical ability of the
subject; the number of subjects present; the weapons possessed or
available to the subject; the subject's known history of violence;
the presence of innocent or potential victims; and the possible
destruction of evidence.

The district court concluded that standing for injunctive relief
existed in part due to the involuntary nature of the students'
position. The court reasoned that the students were in the same
position as the plaintiffs in 31 Foster Children and Church, and
the students echo that rationale on appeal.  

The Court disagrees.

The plaintiffs in 31 Foster Children and Church could not avoid
exposure to the conduct they challenged because their own behavior
or situation, which drove the challenged conduct, was involuntary.
For reasons beyond their control they were unable to avoid
repeating the conduct that led to their injuries. In 31 Foster
Children, the plaintiffs were foster care children who were in the
state's custody involuntarily and would be until they were adopted
or reached the age of majority.

Because they were legally required to be in the state foster care
system, the children could not avoid exposure to the challenged
conduct, which consisted of alleged systematic deficiencies and the
resulting harms.The same type of involuntariness was present in
Church, where we recognized that the plaintiffs' homelessness was
an involuntary status and the City of Huntsville's alleged policy
of harassment and arrest was incited by that homelessness. The
plaintiffs in those two cases could expect to be future victims of
more of the same harms they had alleged because they faced those
harms due to circumstances they could not change.

As a result, the Court concludes that K.B. did not have standing to
bring her class claim for declaratory and injunctive relief as to
the use-of-spray policy.

Standing for the Decontamination Claim

K.B.'s class-based claim against Chief Roper also alleged that he
violated the Fourth Amendment rights of K.B. and the class by
promulgating unconstitutional decontamination policies. Although
the district court focused its standing analysis primarily on
K.B.'s spraying claim, we also address whether K.B. can seek
class-based relief for her claim that Chief Roper's decontamination
policies are unconstitutional.

Browning's, Florida State Conference of N.A.A.C.P. v. Browning, 522
F.3d 1153, 1162 (11th Cir. 2008), standing analysis is relevant to
this case, Browning was guided by how the Lyons, 461 U.S. at 97-98,
Court had relied on several factors to deny standing.  

First, it pointed out, the Lyons Court noted that for the
threatened injury to occur, a sequence of individually improbable
events would have to occur: (1) Lyons would have had to do
something to cause another encounter with the police, (2) the city
would have had to have authorized all police officers to use choke
holds unnecessarily, (3) the officers in that specific encounter
would have had to use a choke hold and (4) the use in that
situation would have to have been unnecessary.

Second, the threatened injury in Lyons was predicated on the
plaintiff first doing something that at least would give an officer
probable cause to detain or arrest him. And third, there was an
adequate remedy at law for the threatened injury in Lyons, namely a
damages suit against the city and police.

Those three factors support the denial of standing in this case. As
for the first factor, the likelihood of improper decontamination
depends on a similar sequence of individually improbable events:
(1) the students would have to do something to cause an encounter
with the officers, (2) the officers must be authorized to
decontaminate the students improperly, (3) the officers in that
specific encounter would have to decontaminate the students
improperly (we assume that this factor favors the students), and
(4) the improper decontamination would have to be unnecessary.  

About the second and third factors, as in Lyons the threatened
injury here, improper decontamination, is based on a student
behaving in a way that warrants spraying or on the chance of being
in the vicinity of a student who does. And if a student is
unlawfully sprayed or unlawfully decontaminated (or both) then she
may pursue a damages action against the city and the officer, as
this case illustrates.

From a quantitative and qualitative perspective, K.B. does not have
standing to pursue her decontamination claim. A 1.77% chance of
being improperly decontaminated is not enough to establish
standing. That low likelihood reflects the qualitative fact that
K.B.'s standing claim depends on open ended, independent, and
unpredictable events that "cast the injury into the realm of
conjecture and speculation.

A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's September 24, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8rjmzcy from
Leagle.com.

Thomas Bentley, III , for Defendant-Appellant.

Mark McCarroll Lawson, for Defendant-Appellant.

Elizabeth Bosquet Shirley, for Defendant-Appellant.
Fredric L. Fullerton, II, for Defendant-Appellant.

Nicole Elise King, for Defendant-Appellant.

Ebony Glenn Howard, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Maria V. Morris, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jerri Katzerman, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Julien Mitchell Relfe, for Defendant-Appellant.

Brooke Menschel -- JCorrigan@al.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.


BLUE CROSS: J.R. Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
---------------------------------------------
J.R., by and through his parents and guardians, Ju.R. and Ja.R.,
individually, on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, Catholic Health Initiatives
Medical Plan, and Catholic Health Initiatives, Case No.
2:18-cv-01191 (W.D. Wash., August 14, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties under the  Employment
Retirement Security of Act of 1974.

J.R. seeks to end Defendants' standard practice of health coverage
discrimination against J.R. and other enrollees with autism
spectrum disorder who need treatment with Applied Behavior Analysis
therapy. Early and intensive provision of medically necessary ABA
therapy can dramatically improve the health and life-long
well-being of enrollees with ASD, a mental health condition.
Defendants, however, exclude all coverage of medically necessary
ABA services to treat ASD. Plaintiff seeks to enforce the Federal
Mental Health Parity Act through ERISA and the terms of the Plan to
end such discriminatory practices.

The Plaintiff J.R. is the four-year-old son and dependent of Ju.R.
and Ja.R. and resides in King County, Washington. J.R. is a
beneficiary, as defined by ERISA of the Catholic Health Initiatives
Welfare Benefit Plan. J.R.'s coverage is through Ju.R.'s employment
with Catholic Health Initiatives.

The Defendant Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois is the
third-party administrator for the Catholic Health Initiatives
Welfare Benefit Plan and a fiduciary under ERISA.

The Defendant Catholic Health Initiatives Medical Plan represents
that it is an employee welfare benefit plan under the Employment
Retirement Security of Act of 1974. The Plan provides health
benefits for Catholic Health Initiatives' employees and their
dependents such as J.R.

The Defendant Catholic Health Initiatives is the "Plan Sponsor" and
"Plan Administrator" and is a named fiduciary under ERISA. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
      Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
      SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER
      701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2560
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Tel: (206) 223-0303
      Fax: (206) 223-0246
      E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com
              rspoonemore@sylaw.com


CAPELLA EDUCATION: Made Illegal, Unwanted Calls, Thompson Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DOYCE THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. CAPELLA EDUCATION COMPANY d/b/a CAPELLA
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 4:18-cv-00790-O (N.D. Tex., September 24,
2018), alleges that the Defendant conducted wide scale
telemarketing campaigns and repeatedly made unsolicited calls to
consumers' telephones -- whose numbers appear on the National Do
Not Call Registry -- without consent, all in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Capella Education Company, doing business as Capella University, is
a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
Delaware.  Capella University is a for-profit online institution of
higher learning based in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Mark A. Alexander, Esq.
          MARK A. ALEXANDER, P.C.
          5080 Spectrum Drive, Suite 850E
          Addison, TX 75001
          Telephone: (972) 364-9700
          Facsimile: (972) 239-2244
          E-mail: mark@markalexanderlaw.com


CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, Greifman Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Greifman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cawley & Bergmann, LLC, Case No. 7:18-cv-08784-NSR
(S.D.N.Y., September 25, 2018), asserts violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The complaint says the Defendant's request that the Plaintiff make
payment for a debt that she does not owe is a false representation
or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.

Cawley & Bergmann, LLC, is a New Jersey Limited Liability Company
with a principal place of business in Bergen County, New Jersey.
The Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection
of debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHS EMPLOYMENT: Court Denies Smith's Bid to Certify FLSA Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. George C. Smith denied the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Class Certification and Court Supervised Notice in the
lawsuit titled DONIELE SMITH v. CHS EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case
No. 2:17-cv-01077-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio).

The Plaintiff has brought the collective action pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4111, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.  The
Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for weeks in which
she worked more than 40 hours.  The Plaintiff generally alleges
that other members of the putative class are similarly situated to
her and are also due compensation for unpaid time worked.

Ms. Smith sought to have this class conditionally certified:

     All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
     Defendant who received remuneration payments in addition to
     their normal hourly rate of pay during any workweek that
     they worked over 40 hours in any workweek beginning three
     years preceding the filing date of this Complaint and
     continuing through the date of final disposition of this
     case (the "Section 216(b) Class" or the "Section 216(b)
     Class Members").

In his order, Judge Smith opines that the Plaintiff has failed to
identify potential plaintiffs with any particularity, she has not
submitted affidavits of potential plaintiffs, she has offered
little evidence beyond mere speculation proving a widespread
discriminatory plan, and her proposed class -- potentially
including all hourly employees at a minimum of 26 facilities -- is
not manageable.

"All of these factors weigh against conditional certification.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification is
DENIED," Judge Smith rules.

Judge Smith also denies CHS's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint and CHS's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Declaration.
Judge Smith explains that the Plaintiff's allegations, when viewed
in a light most favorable to her, state a claim that is plausible
on its face.[CC]


CITY WATCH: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Maceda Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELVIS MACEDA and all others similarly-situated under 29 U.S.C. 216
(B) v. CITY WATCH PROTECTIVE SERVICES INC.; CITY WATCH PROTECTION
GROUP INC.; CITY WATCH PROTECTIVE CORP.; GEORGINA (AKA GINA)
NAVARRO and PERCY A. PALMA, Case No. 1:18-cv-23966-RNS (S.D. Fla.,
September 25, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiff regularly worked
overtime hours and was not paid overtime compensation at an
overtime rate of time and one-half of the regular rate of pay for
all of the overtime hours worked, among other violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Corporate Defendants are corporations that regularly transact
business within Miami-Dade County, Florida.  The Individual
Defendants are corporate officers, owners or managers of the
Corporate Defendants.

The Defendants provide security services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Claudio R. Cedrez Pellegrino, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF CLAUDIO R. CEDREZ PELLEGRINO
          1090 Kane Concourse, Suite 206
          Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
          Telephone: (305) 763-8678
          Facsimile: (786) 664-6596
          E-mail: ccedrez@cedrezlaw.com


COLOMEX INC: Staff Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Bean and Joshua Ferguson, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Colomex, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-02386 (D. Colo., September 18, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs as a result of willful violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant operates numerous Taco Bell franchises in Colorado,
including restaurants in Pueblo, Pueblo West and Woodland Park.
Bean was assigned to work at Taco Bell restaurants in Pueblo and
Pueblo West, Colorado as a crew member. Ferguson was Assistant
General Manager at Taco Bell Pueblo West.

The complaint says the Plaintiffs performed off the clock towards
the end of and after their scheduled shifts but Defendant failed to
pay Plaintiffs for short rest periods of 20 minutes or less. They
also regularly worked more than forty hours per workweek without
overtime pay. [BN]

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


CONROY'S KC LLC: Zerbe Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRENNEN ZERBE, On Behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CONROY'S KC LLC d/b/a/ BRADY'S And TRAILWOODS, LLC,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00758-GAF (W.D. Mo., September 24, 2018), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation, and
related penalties pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Conroy's KC LLC is a corporation organized under the laws of
Missouri, with its principal place of business located in the state
of Missouri.   Conroy's KC LLC owns and operates Brady's Public
House restaurant in Missouri.

Trailwoods, LLC, is a limited liability company, organized under
the state of Kansas.  Trailwoods owns and operates Conroy's Public
House in Overland Park and Westwood, Kansas.

Both Conroy's and Trailwoods are owned and operated in whole or in
part by Raymond Dunlea, Patrick O'Brien, Mary O'Brien and Patrick
Walsh.  The Defendants operated Irish-style pubs in Kansas and
Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq.
          HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
          1501 Westport Road
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 875-3332
          E-mail: jziegelmeyer@hkm.com

               - and -

          Michael Hodgson, Esq.
          THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
          Michael Hodgson, Esq.
          3699 SW Pryor Rd.
          Lee's Summit, MO 64082
          Telephone: (816) 600-0117
          Facsimile: (816) 600-0137
          E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Cooley's Class Cert. Bid Denied as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Angel Cooley v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-03121 (N.D. Ill.), the Honorable Charles
P. Kocoras has denied as moot the Plaintiff's motion to certify
class.

The denial is made in accordance with the stay pending
certification of a nationwide class, according to the Court's
Notification of Docket Entry.[CC]


COOL EVENTS: Falsely Advertises Tickets and Events, Yamada Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHIKO YAMADA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COOL EVENTS, LLC, BLACKLIGHT SLIDE, LLC., and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Case No. BC720950 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., September 24, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendants' alleged
practice of falsely advertising its tickets and events, and to
obtain redress for a California class of consumers within the
applicable statute of limitations period, as a result of the
Defendants' false and misleading advertisements.

Cool Events, LLC, is a Texas corporation with its principal place
of business in Texas.  Cool Events is engaged in the sale and
distribution of tickets, and organization and management of
events.

Blacklight Slide, LLC, is an Arizona corporation with its principal
place of business in Arizona.  Blacklight is engaged in the sale
and distribution of tickets, and organization and management of
events.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are
currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CORECIVIC: Court Certifies Class of Inmates with Diabetes
---------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS DODSON, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. CORECIVIC, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00048 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge
William L. Campbell, Jr. entered an order:

     1. certifying a class of:

         "all inmates with Type I and insulin-dependent Type II
diabetes who are or may become housed at Trousdale Turner
Correctional Facility and who require access to blood sugar checks
and insulin administration in coordination with regular
mealtimes";

     2. appointing Plaintiffs, Dodson and Vick, as class
representatives; and

     3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.[CC]


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Guterman SAC
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) in the case captioned MARK A.
GUTERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant.
No. 17-CV-4812 (KMK). (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Mark A. Guterman, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, brings this putative class action against
Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco), alleging a private right of
action under New York Tax Law Section 1139, and asserting claims
for violations of New York General Business Law (GBL) and for
unjust enrichment.  The Plaintiff alleges that Costco has illegally
charged its New York customers sales tax on the full price rather
than the reduced price of their coupon-related warehouse purchases,
and thus required its New York customers to reimburse Costco for
its liability for sales tax on the difference between the reduced
price and the full price.

Standard of Review

While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's
obligation to provide the grounds of his or her entitlement to
relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.

Plaintiff's Claims under New York Tax Law

The Defendant argues the Plaintiff's claim asserting a private
right of action fails, because the explicit language of New York
Tax Law Section 1140 provides that the administrative procedures
set out in Section 1139 are the exclusive remedies for a person
challenging the imposition of a tax. Plaintiff argues that under
Section 1139(a)(ii), and the related regulations, Costco's New York
customers are entitled to obtain repayment of the sales tax
collected by Costco in violation of Section 526.5(c)(4) from Costco
without the need to first file a refund application with the New
York Tax Commission.

New York Tax Law Section 1139 dictates how a taxpayer may seek a
refund for a sales tax that the taxpayer believes was erroneously,
illegally or unconstitutionally collected: "In the manner provided
in this section the tax commission shall refund or credit any tax,
penalty or interest erroneously, illegally or unconstitutionally
collected (i) in the case of tax paid by the applicant to a person
required to collect tax, within three years after the date when the
tax was payable by such person to the tax commission or (ii) in the
case of a tax, penalty or interest paid by the applicant to the tax
commission, within three years after the date when such amount was
payable under this article. No refund or credit shall be made to
any person of tax which he collected from a customer until he shall
first establish to the satisfaction of the tax commission, under
such regulations as it may prescribe, that he has repaid such tax
to the customer."

It is undisputed that the Plaintiff has not sought administrative
relief under Section 1139. Instead, the Plaintiff argues that the
administrative procedures in Section 1139(a)(i) are too burdensome,
if not futile, and thus the Plaintiff should be able to bring suit
against Defendant and require it to seek the refund under Section
1139(ii). To begin, the Plaintiff's suggestion that the customer's
lack of relevant information only in possession of Costco makes it
impossible for the customer to satisfy the requirements to
successfully apply for a refund under Section 1139(a)(i), is belied
by the fact that Plaintiff's SAC contains almost all the relevant
information.

The regulations require an application include: the applicant's
name; the applicant's address; the applicant's vendor
identification number; the time period covered; the amount of
refund claimed; a full explanation of the facts on which the claim
is based, including substantiation of the basis for and the amount
of the claim; a certification that no part of the tax paid for
which the claim is made has been refunded or credited to the
applicant by the person to whom it was paid; the date of
application; and signature of the applicant. While Costco also has
this information in its possession, it would not be impossible for
a customer to obtain the information.

Plaintiff's Claims Under New York General Business Law Section 349

The Plaintiff cannot make an end run around the exclusive remedy
provisions in New York Tax Law by presenting the improper
collection of sales tax as a claim under GBL Section 349. For the
same reasons the Plaintiff's claims under Section 1139 fail to
state a claim, the Plaintiff's claims of fraud under N.Y. General
Business Law Section 349 that is predicated on the sales tax
overcharge allegations must be dismissed.

The Court grants Defendant's Motion To Dismiss the claims under GBL
Section 349.

Plaintiff's Claims for Unjust Enrichment

The Plaintiff's claim that Costco has received a windfall at the
expense of the Plaintiff and the other putative class members, and
thus he should be able to pursue a claim for unjust enrichment,
fails for the same reasons explained above. Here, too, the
Plaintiff cannot sidestep the exclusive remedy for allegedly
illegal tax collection outlined in Section 1139 by phrasing it as a
claim for unjust enrichment. While the Plaintiff has alleged
troubling conduct by Costco, the Court cannot re-write New York
law, which dictates that the Plaintiff's remedy lies with the Tax
Commission, and not the Court. Thus, the Court grants the
Defendant's Motion To Dismiss the unjust enrichment claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 24, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yadwbkf6 from
Leagle.com.

Mark A. Guterman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by William Robert
Weinstein, Law Offices of William R. Weisnstein.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, Defendant, represented by James
Daniel Arden -- Jarden@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP.


CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Dixon Suit Moved to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
Dimitri Dixon, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. CGC-18-568886, was removed from San Francisco
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco). The California Northern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-05813-JSC to the
proceeding. The suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violation.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott
Corley.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Laura L. Ho, Esq.
          Alan D. Romero, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN BORGEN DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763 9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835 1417
          E-mail: lho@gbdhlegal.com
                  aromero@gbdhlegal.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Brendan Dolan, Esq.
          Joseph Kevin Mulherin, Esq.
          VEDDER PRICE (CA) LLP
          275 Battery Street, Suite 2464
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 749 9530
          Facsimile: (415) 749 9502
          E-mail: bdolan@vedderprice.com
                  jmulherin@vedderprice.com


DEKALB MEDICAL: Bryant Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
TAMEKA BRYANT, Individually, and On Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DEKALB MEDICAL CENTER, INC., the
Defendant, Case 1:18-cv-04447 (N.D. Ga., Sept. 21, 2018), seeks to
recover damages for the Defendant's failure to pay minimum wages
and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

This case is a renewal action, pursuant to O.C.G.A. section 9-2-61.
Pursuant to O.C.G.A. section 9- 11-41, the previous action, Bryant
v. DeKalb Medical Hospital, Civil Action No. 18-A-67840, in the
State Court of DeKalb County, Georgia, was dismissed without
prejudice.  This renewal action is brought within six months from
the dismissal without prejudice.

DeKalb Medical owns and operates hospitals in DeKalb and Gwinnett
counties, Georgia. It offers alcohol and drug abuse, behavioral
health, blood donation, breast care, cancer care, clinical trials,
diabetes care, emergency support, heart and vascular, heartburn,
maternity, orthopedic, palliative care, podiatry, pulmonary
rehabilitation, radiology and medical imaging, rehabilitation and
physical therapy.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Larry A. Pankey, Esq.
          PANKEY & HORLOCK, LLC
          1441 Dunwoody Village Pkwy #200
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Tel: 770-670-6250


DEVILLE ASSET MANAGEMENT: Chavez Disputes Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Chavez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. DeVille Asset Management, Ltd., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-02163, (S.D. Fla., April 5, 2018), seeks statutory and actual
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred
in this action, including expert fees, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and other and further relief under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

On or about November 9, 2017, Defendant sent a written
communication to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of an
alleged debt. Said letter failed to disclose the name of the
creditor to whom the alleged debt is owed yet demanded payment
within 30 days of the date of the letter and not upon receipt of
the collection letter, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY
      409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 222-7429
      Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
      Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com

             - and -

      James L. Davidson, Esq.
      Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
      Alexander Kruzyk, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Tel: (561) 826-5477
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
             jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com


DIRECT ENERGY: 2nd Amended Sevugan Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
In the case, CHETTY SEVUGAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES,
LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 17 C 6569 (N.D.
Ill.), Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Direct
Energy's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

Sevugan filed a class action suit against Direct Energy, alleging
various state law claims against it including claims for a
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act ("ICFA"), breach of contract, breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.  

The State of Illinois deregulated its market for retail electricity
supply in 1997.  Prior to 1997, local utility companies were the
sole suppliers and distributors of electricity in the state.  The
deregulation allowed privately-operated Alternative Retail Energy
Suppliers ("ARES") to supply energy to Illinois consumers without
having to seek the Illinois Commerce Commission ("ICC")'s approval
of their rates or the method by which they set their rates.

The ARES purchase energy directly or indirectly from energy
producers who then deliver the energy to the utilities to deliver
to ARES customers.  The purpose of the 1997 deregulation was to
allow ARES to use innovative purchasing strategies to reduce
electricity cost for Illinois customers.

According to the Complaint, the expectation that the competition
spawned by ARES would help reduce wholesale purchasing costs and,
in turn, lower retail residential rates has not occurred.
Ninety-eight ARES currently sell electricity in Illinois.

In April 2018, the Illinois Attorney General filed a lawsuit in
state court against a different ARES.  The lawsuit alleges that
according to the ICC, from June 1, 2016 to May 31, 2017, ARES
customers in the ComEd territory paid over $198 million for
electricity than traditional utility customers in this territory.
The suit alleges also that in the past three years, residential and
small-commercial ARES customers statewide have paid almost $400
million more for electricity than traditional utility customers.
According the Complaint, of the 42 states that either began or
considered this deregulation process, only 17 states and the
District of Columbia remain deregulated or partially deregulated
today.

In August 2011, the Plaintiff switched electricity providers from
ComEd to the Defendant by enrolling in an Electricity Supply
Contract.  The 2011 Contract provided a fixed rate of $.0689 kWh
for an Initial Term of twelve months and, once the Initial Term
expired, automatically renewed on a month-to-month basis at a
variable rate.

When the 12-month, fixed-rate Initial Term concluded, the Plaintiff
called the Defendant and renewed the contract for another year at a
fixed rate.  The renewed contract made the language in the 2011
Contract applicable to the second contract.  When the 12-month,
fixed-rate Initial Term concluded on the second contract, the
Defendant switched the Plaintiff to a month-by-month contract at a
variable rate.  The Plaintiff paid the variable rate from September
2013 through November 2016.

The Plaintiff alleges that, contrary to the parties' contract, the
Defendant did not base its variable kWh pricing upon generally
prevailing market prices for electricity in the PJM market at the
Electric Utility load zone for the applicable period plus a
reasonable adder and that the Defendant's variable kWh pricing was
not competitive because its variable kWh prices did not reflect the
rates that ComEd offered.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant used its variable rate as
a profit center, increasing the rate when wholesale prices rose but
keeping the rate significantly higher than the wholesale market
rates when wholesale prices fell.  According to the Plaintiff,
either the Defendant did not base its variable rate on generally
prevailing market prices in the PJM market, the Defendant charged
an unreasonable adder, or both.

The Complaint also alleges that the Defendant's prices are
substantially higher than other ARES prices but provides no chart,
graph or other comparison of the Defendant's prices to prices
charged by any other ARES.

The Plaintiff brings his breach of contract claim on behalf of
himself and all the Defendant's Illinois customers who paid it a
variable rate since Sept. 12, 2007.

The Court granted Direct Energy's Motion to Dismiss the First
Amended Complaint, and the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint, re-alleging only the breach of contract claim.  Direct
Energy then moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

Judge Kendall finds that the Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant
failed to base its rate on generally prevailing market prices boils
down to a claim that the Defendant failed to charge rates
commensurate with ComEd's rates or with wholesale market prices.
This claim fails to allege a breach because the parties' contract
does not require Defendant to charge such rates.  In fact, as the
Court explained in its prior order, the parties' contract allowed
Defendant to base its rate on more than one factor, including a
discretionary component completely unrelated to ComEd, market or
wholesale rates.  Therefore, even if the Defendant's rates as a
whole did not reflect generally prevailing market prices, that
alone would be insufficient to allege a plausible breach of the
contract because it fails to address the discretionary component of
the variable pricing.

The Judge cannot infer from the facts alleged that the adder is
based only on the Defendants' non-energy related costs or that the
adder is fixed.  The contract grants the Defendant's broader
discretion than the Plaintiff describes.  She finds that the
Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege how the Defendant exercised
its discretion in determining the adder unreasonably, except to
claim that the final variable prices were greater than ComEd and
wholesale prices.  But even if it were attributable to the adder,
the Plaintiff again has failed to allege that the Defendant's rates
are not reasonable in comparison to all of its competitors' rates.

Finally, she finds that the Plaintiffs allegation that the
Defendant failed to set its prices competitively fails for the same
reasons as its claim regarding generally prevailing market prices
fails.  The Complaint focuses only on one competitor in the
electricity supply market and ignores the majority and arguably
more relevant market participants that together determine
"competitive" market prices.  Additionally, it is not clear what
"competitively" as used in the contract means.

For these reasons, Judge Kendall granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 29, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/ol6U9N from Leagle.com.

Chetty Sevugan, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Richard Karon --
dkaron@karonllc.com -- Karon LLC, Jamie Elisabeth Weiss, Quantum
Legal LLC, Jonathan Shub -- jshub@kohnswift.com -- Kohn, Swift &
Graf, P.C., Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, Zachary A. Jacobs,
Quantum Legal LLC & Kevin Laukaitis -- klaukaitis@kohnswift.com --
Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.c.

Direct Energy Services, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Constance Tang, Griffin & Williams LLP, Diane Sharon
Wizig -- diane.wizig@mhllp.com -- McDowell Hetherington LLP, pro
hac vice, Joshua Michael Feagans -- jfeagans@gwllplaw.com --
Griffin Williams LLP & Michael D. Matthews, Jr. --
matt.matthews@mhllp.com -- McDowell Hetherington LLP, pro hac
vice.


DIRECT FLOW: Reynolds Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled J. JASON REYNOLDS, Plaintiff, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. DIRECT FLOW MEDICAL, INC; DAN LEMAITRE; JOHN DAVID
BOYLE; GORDON BISHOP; PAUL LAVIOLETTE; and YUVAL BINUR, Case No.
4:17-cv-00204-KAW  (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court
on December 20, 2018, for an order:

     1. granting class certification of:

        "all of Defendants' employees who worked at one or both of
Defendants' facilities in California (other than any named
individual Defendants) who were terminated from employment on or
around November 30, 2016, as part of a mass layoff or plant
closing";

     2. appointing Gibbs Law Group LLP and Douglas Law Offices to
serve as Class Counsel;

     3. directing notice to be provided to Class Members.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

          Steven M. Tindall, Esq.
          Caroline Corbitt, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350 9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350 9701
          E-mail: smt@classlawgroup.com
                  ccc@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          John H. Douglas, Esq.
          DOUGLAS LAW OFFICES
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 794-4751
          Facsimile: (415) 795-3432
          E-mail: jdouglas@douglaslegal.com


DOS REALES: Olivera et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled ANATOLIO PENA OLIVERA and MARIA
FERNANDA MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DOS REALES, INC. and ALVARO QUEZADA,
the Defendants, Case 2:17-cv-02203-KGS (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs
move the Court for conditional Fair Labor Standards Act collective
action certification and for approval of notice to those
similarly-situated.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek an Order:

     1. conditionally certifying this action as collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

     2. directing Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with a list of
with a list of similarly-situated employees; and

     3. approving Plaintiffs' proposed Notice to potential opt-in
Plaintiffs and allowing Plaintiffs to send the Notice to potential
opt-in Plaintiffs.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Paul H. Mose, Esq.
          MOSE LAW LLC
          3111 Strong Avenue,
          Kansas City, KS 66106
          Telephone: (913) 432-4484
          Facsimile: (913) 432-4464
          E-mail: Pablo@moselaw.com

               - and -

          Mark V. Dugan, Esq.
          Heather J. Schlozman, Esq.
          DUGAN SCHLOZMAN LLC
          8826 Santa Fe Drive, Suite, 307
          Overland Park, KS 66212
          Telephone: (913) 322-3528
          Facsimile: (913) 904-0213
          E-mail: mark@duganschlozman.com
          heather@duganschlozman.com

Counsel for Defendants:

          Donald M. McLean, Esq.
          3134 Woodview Ridge Dr., No. 304
          Kansas City, KS 66103
          Telephone: (816) 835 9954
          Facsimile: (913) 713 0065
          E-mail: dmcleanlaw@outlook.com


EASTERN REVENUE: Bonser Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
George Bonser aka George W Bonser IV, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Eastern Revenue, Inc. and John
Does 1-25, Case No. 5:18-cv-03409 (E.D. Pa., August 13, 2018),
seeks damages and declaratory relief against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
County of Lehigh, with a residence at 2312 Hamilton Street, Apt. 1
A, Allentown, PA 18104.

The Defendant is a debt collector with an address at 601 Dresher
Road, Suite 301, Horsham, PA 19044. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Antranig Garibian, Esq.
      GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      1800 JFK Blvd, Suite 300
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 326-9179
      E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com


EF EDUCATION: Acree Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
Sharon Acree, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EF Education First, Inc. and Go Ahead Vacations, Inc.,
Case No. 8:18-cv-02010 (M.D. Fla., August 15, 2018), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Tampa, Florida.

The Defendant Education First is the U.S. affiliate of EF Education
First International Ltd., a global education company founded in
Sweden in 1965. Education First formed Go Ahed Vacations in 1987
for the sole purpose of marketing Education First's educational
travel package in the U.S. In that respect, Education First and Go
Ahead Vacations operate jointly as "EF Go Ahead Tours." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
      KAUFMAN P.A.
      400 NW 26th Street
      Miami, FL 33127
      Tel: (305) 469-5881
      E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Court Stays Fryett Suit
---------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, Western Division, issued an Order granting Parties' Joint
Motion to Stay Pending Final Approval of Nationwide Class Action
Settlement in the case captioned JAMES ALAN FRYETT, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN
INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant. Case No. 5:18-CV-00250-BO.
(E.D.N.C.).

This matter coming before the Court on the Parties' Joint Motion to
Stay Pending Final Approval of Nationwide Class Action Settlement.

All future case management deadlines, including those set forth in
the Order for Discovery Plan entered on August 7, 2018 are
stricken.

This matter is stayed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 24, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybwzo2um from Leagle.com.

James Alan Fryett, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Leonard A. Bennett, Consumer
Litigation Associates, P.C.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Ashley Kamphaus Brathwaite -- ashley.brathwaite@elliswinters.com --
Ellis & Winters, LLP.


FORTUNA HOTEL: Bishop Files ADA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------
Fortuna Hotel Hugo LLC is facing a class action lawsuit in New
York. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fortuna Hotel Hugo LLC
doing business as: Hotel Hugo, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09127
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 4, 2018).

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

Hotel Hugo embodies the contemporary luxury and bohemian chic that
captivate visitors and residents of trendy Lower Manhattan. A
seamless blend of contemporary luxury and bohemian chic, Hotel Hugo
pays tribute to the storied history of Lower Manhattan and the
area's enduring art-meets-industrial edge.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL RV: Dolores Files Suit Over Deceptive Trade Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
George Dolores, Jr. and Odelia M. Dolores, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The General RV Center,
Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00981 (M.D. Fla., August 13, 2018), seeks
damages under the Florida's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices
Act and the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act.

The lawsuit involves the intentional exploitation and abuse of
elderly, infirmed senior citizens.

The Plaintiffs are elderly, senior citizens and are deemed public
consumers and buyers.

The Defendant is a licensed recreational vehicle dealership
conducting business in the State of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      THE JONES LAW FIRM, PA
      10752 Deerwood Park Suite 100
      Waterview Office
      Jacksonville, FL 32256


GLOBAL TELLINK: $8.8MM Settlement Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of the Settlement in the case captioned ALICE LEE, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION, Defendants. Case No.
2:15-cv-02495-ODW (PLA). (C.D. Cal.).

This case is about automated collect call messages that occur when
inmates at jails and prisons attempt to call a number and have the
recipient of the call pay the charges. Such calls trigger an
automated voice notice directing the called party to provide
billing information. Plaintiff alleges that the automated nature of
the calls to cell phone numbers violates the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

Settlement Fund  

GTL will pay $8,800,000 into a non-reversionary, common settlement
fund. Class members who submit a claim will receive a pro-rata
share of the balance of that amount after payment of notice and
administration costs, any Court-ordered award of attorneys' fees
and expenses, and any Court-ordered incentive award for the class
representative. The parties estimated at the preliminary approval
stage that each class member who submitted a successful claim would
receive approximately $60.

Fairness of Settlement Terms

In determining whether a proposed class action settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, this Court may consider some or all of
the following factors: (1) the strength of the plaintiffs' case;
(2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further
litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status
throughout trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the
extent of discovery completed, and the stage of the proceedings;
(6) the experience and views of counsel; (7) the presence of a
governmental participant; and (8) the reaction of the class members
to the proposed settlement.

Strength of Plaintiffs' case and complexity of further litigation

The Defendant presented a cognizable defense by arguing that the
FCC's rules regarding opt-outs prevented liability. Thus, the
Defendant disputes its liability, but concedes to settlement
because of the inherent uncertainty in the result of continued
litigation. While the details of this case may not be terribly
complex, the large number of class members, and case management
issues, support a resolution through the class-wide settlement
process. In most situations, unless the settlement is clearly
inadequate, its acceptance and approval are preferable to lengthy
and expensive litigation with uncertain results.

Accordingly, these elements support approving the settlement.

Risk of maintaining class action status

Individual issues unearthed during discovery can derail a class
action in TCPA suits. On the other hand, some courts find that
issues of consent are worthy of class resolution. Accordingly, both
sides had arguments for, and against, class certification, which
supports a settlement.

Amount offered in settlement

The parties agreed to an $8.8 million non-reversionary settlement
fund. If the Court awards the requested fees, and the number of
claims stays the same, then each class member will receive $174.52.
This exceeds the amount individual class members receive in many
TCPA cases in the Ninth Circuit. Therefore, this factor also favors
approving the settlement.

Stage of proceedings

The parties litigated this case for two years before reaching a
settlement. The Plaintiffs defeated a motion to dismiss, and
opposed a motion for summary judgment, and motion to exclude expert
testimony. They engaged in discovery regarding the substance of the
Plaintiffs' claims and the Defendant's defenses. The parties
attended mediation in October 2016, which proved unsuccessful.

However, they later accepted a mediator's proposal. Even after the
Court preliminarily approved the settlement, the Plaintiffs
continued to litigate to obtain the identifying information of
class members from cellular providers.  

These facts all support a finding that the parties settled after
being fully informed of their respective positions.

Experience of counsel

The parties are represented by worthy counsel, who are experienced
in this field.

Presence of government participant

The settlement administrator notified the United States Attorney
General and the attorneys general of each of the 50 states. None of
the notified parties have objected to the settlement, or otherwise
appeared.  This supports a finding that the government entities
have no concerns regarding the settlement's adequacy. Accordingly,
this factor also supports approving the settlement.

Reaction of class members

Of approximately 32,000 valid claims, only nineteen class members
opted out of the settlement. This low opt-out rate indicates a
favorable reception by the class. Accordingly, this factor weighs
in favor of settlement.

On balance, these factors weigh in favor of approving the
settlement.

Sufficiency of Notice

Type of Notice

Under Rule 23(c)(2)(B), the court must direct to class members the
best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including
individual notice to all members who can be identified through
reasonable effort. The Ninth Circuit has approved individual notice
to class members via e-mail. It has also approved notice via a
combination of short-form and long-form settlement notices.  

The settlement administrator emailed, snail-mailed, and advertised
the settlement via Facebook and the settlement website. It also
received thousands of calls on the toll-free number created for
this settlement, which confirms the notice effectively reached
class members.

Content of Notice

Objectors & Petition for Alternate Cy Pres Distribution

Irene Beck and Stephen Kron object to the settlement.

Irene Beck

Beck contends that, while the National Consumer Law Center
advocates worthy causes, it does not focus upon litigation
specifically aimed at ameliorating the barriers to communication
between inmates and their loved ones. She contends she spent large
amounts of money speaking to her incarcerated loved one, and she
requests that the cy pres award be distributed to an organization
that would fight to lower the cost of communication with prisoners.
Defendant and other providers, she argues, charge exorbitant rates
to communicate with prisoners. She suggests the Human Rights
Defense Center (HRDC) as an organization that would work to lower
the rates, and further allow communication with inmates. .

The Plaintiffs  contend that Beck lacks standing because she
submitted a deficient claim form.The form was deficient because it
did not provide a mobile number contained in the Class List, a
valid claim ID, or any telephone records establishing receipt of a
Notification Call. Beck responded to this argument in a late-filed
declaration attaching 2018 telephone records, bank records spanning
2015-17, and a deficient claim notice. However, the court need not
address Beck's standing. Even assuming Beck has standing to object,
the grounds for her Objection and Petition are insufficient to
warrant denial of the Motion for Final Approval.

Accordingly, the Court overrules Beck's Objection, and denies her
Petition.  

Stephen Kron

Kron objects to the settlement because he claims class counsel
seeks too high a fee award. Kron contends he is a class member and
submitted claim number 10268118101. Plaintiffs counter that Kron is
not a class member, and therefore lacks standing to object.
Plaintiffs argue that Kron is not on the class list, and that,
while the claim ID he provided corresponds to a company on the
class list, Westcoast Commercial, Kron does not claim to be
associated with Westcoast Commercial. In any event, Westcoast
Commercial already submitted a claim, and did not object.

The Court overrules Kron's Objection.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 24, 2018 Order
and Conclusion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybl4hdds from
Leagle.com.

Alice Lee, Plaintiff, represented by Candice E. Renka --
crenka@maclaw.com -- Marquis Aurbach Coffing PC, pro hac vice,
Scott A. Marquis -- smarquis@maclaw.com -- Marquis Aurbach Coffing
PC, Brian Arnold Vogel  -- brian@bvogel.com -- Brian A Vogel Law
Offices PC & Patric Alexander Lester -- pl@lesterlaw.com -- Lester
and Associates.

David W Martin, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Patric Alexander
Lester , Lester and Associates & Timothy J. Sostrin --
TSostrin@KeoghLaw.com -- Keogh Law Ltd, pro hac vice.
Frederick Banks, Movant, pro se.

Global Tel*Link Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert J.
Herrington -- herringtonr@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP --
Tyler R. Andrews -- andrewst@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP &
Matthew R. Gershman -- gershmanm@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig
LLP.

T-Mobile US, Inc., Non-party Respondent & Metropcs, Non-party
Respondent, Interested Partys, represented by Debra R. Bernard --
DBernard@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac vice &
Katelyn C. Sullivan -- KOSullivan@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie
LLP.

New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC & Cricket Wireless, Interested
Partys, represented by David Brandon Clark --
david.clark@haynesboone.com -- Haynes and Boone LLP.


GREENTREE PROPERTY: Ebuehi Suit Asserts Calif. Labor Code Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL EBUEHI, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GREENTREE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
CGC-18-570037 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., September 24,
2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the California Labor
Code, including failure to provide employees with accurate itemized
wage statements.

Greentree is a California corporation engaged in property
management services.  The Plaintiff does not know the true names or
capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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

               - 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


GRETNA, LA: Nelson's Bid for Cert. Tossed; Parties to Meet Oct. 23
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ivan L.R. Lemelle dismissed without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class in the lawsuit styled TAMARA G.
NELSON and TIMOTHEA RICHARDSON, ET AL. v. MAYOR BELINDA CONSTANT,
ET AL., Case No. 2:17-cv-14581-ILRL-JVM (E.D. La.).

The Plaintiffs' "Motion to Certify Class" is dismissed without
prejudice to give the parties additional time to conduct discovery
and pursue, in good faith, an amicable resolution.

"It appears that this case has core issues that preclude
certification of a class, including individualized calculations of
a potential claimant's financial ability to pay associated costs
for deferred prosecution and workable alternatives to same.  Those
and related issues should be collectively considered by all parties
with assistance of counsel," Judge Lemelle states.

"To that end, parties shall jointly propose agreeable status
conference dates to meet with the undersigned no later than October
23, 2018," Judge Lemelle adds.

On December 05, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
seeking to rectify "[d]ue [p]rocess and [e]qual [p]rotection
violation[s]" in the Mayor's Court of Gretna, Louisiana.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the Mayor's Court is
improperly operated by the Defendants as a source of income for the
municipality.  The fines and fees that are assessed by the Mayor's
Court fund the City of Gretna, the Mayor's Court, and the salaries
of police officers, prosecutors, and judges.

Plaintiffs Tamara G. Nelson and Timothea Richardson filed a "Motion
to Certify Class" seeking to certify two classes of prospective
plaintiffs, Class A and Class B.  Class A, purportedly represented
by Plaintiff Nelson, is comprised of "all persons with criminal
prosecutions pending before the Gretna Mayor's Court who are
awaiting trial of their criminal or traffic offenses."  Class B,
purportedly represented by Plaintiff Richardson, is comprised of
"persons who in the past year were denied participation in,
terminated from, or threatened with termination from the Deferred
Prosecution Program due to their inability to pay program
fees."[CC]


HALL'S SOUTHERN: Graham Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Graham, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Hall's Southern Kitchens, LLC d/b/a High Cotton, Case
No. 2:18-cv-02621-DCN (D.S.C., September 25, 2018), seeks to
recover, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, alleged
minimum and overtime wages, unlawful deductions, misappropriated
tips, and other wages for the Plaintiff and his similarly situated
tipped workers, who work or have worked at the High Cotton
Charleston restaurant.

Hall's Southern Kitchens, LLC, doing business as High Cotton, is a
limited liability company organized pursuant to the laws of the
state of South Carolina, and has conducted business in South
Carolina.  The Company operates a restaurant in Charleston
County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Scott Falls, Esq.
          Ashley L. Falls, Esq.
          FALLS LEGAL, LLC
          245 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 250
          Charleston, SC 29492
          Telephone: (843) 737-6040
          Facsimile: (843) 737-6140
          E-mail: scott@falls-legal.com
                  ashley@falls-legal.com


HAMILTON COUNTY WATER: WWTA Act Amendment Ruling in AHA Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMERICAN HERITAGE APARTMENTS, INC., v. HAMILTON COUNTY
WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT AUTHORITY, HAMILTON COUNTY,
TENNESSEE, Case No. E2017-01307-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. App.), Judge
Charles D. Susano, Jr. of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at
Knoxville affirmed the trial court's judgment that statutory
amendment applies retroactively to bar the Plaintiff's class
certification request.

In the interlocutory appeal, the issue is whether a statutory
amendment barring class action lawsuits against the Defendant
applies retroactively thereby requiring the denial of the
Plaintiff's previously-filed request for class certification under
Tenn. R. Civ. P. 23.

To build a needed sewer system, the Hamilton County Commission
created a water and wastewater treatment authority in accordance
with Tennessee Code Annotated sections 68-221-601-618 (2013), known
as the Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority Act ("WWTA Act").
The entity it created is the Appellant in the action, the
Defendant/Appellant Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment
Authority.

By 2008, the sewer systems in the service areas of the County
Authority became unable to process adequately the high influx of
storm and rain water.  This caused a variety of difficulties.
Ultimately, the problem got the attention of the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation ("TDEC"), which
concluded that the inability to process the storm and rain water
violated various TDEC requirements.  On March 20, 2008, TDEC issued
an order concluding that the County Authority had violated TDEC
requirements.  TDEC directed the County Authority to develop a
program to prevent storm water from entering or infiltrating the
sewer system in Hamilton County.

To comply with the TDEC order, the County Authority implemented
several strategies.  These strategies included an ambitious program
called the Private Service Lateral Program aimed to repair and
refurbish all of the pieces of pipe that connect private properties
to county-owned sewer lines; the pieces of pipe are referred to as
either sewer laterals or private sewer service laterals. To
accomplish this, the Program outlined plans to have all 26,000 of
the private service laterals in the service area inspected and
repaired or replaced as necessary.

To cover the cost of the Program, the County Authority voted to
authorize a flat-rate monthly fee of $8 per unit for all of its
customers.  The $8 Charge would appear as a separate monthly fee on
customers' water bills for a period of twenty years.

The Plaintiff/Appellant American Heritage, is a Tennessee,
not-for-profit corporation that operates a low-income, 168-unit
apartment complex in East Ridge, Tennessee, one of the incorporated
municipalities served by the County Authority.  On Aug. 19, 2011,
the County Authority sent American Heritage a letter notifying it
of the $8-per-unit Charge on its water bill.  Based on a 90%
occupancy rate, the letter stated, the County Authority would
charge American Heritage $8 each for 151 units.  This amounts to
$1,208 per month or $14,496 per year; over the 20-year projected
life of the Program, the charges would total over $289,000.  The
lawsuit followed.

The complaint was filed by American Heritage both individually and
as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Tennessee Rules of
Civil Procedure.  It asserted in essence that, by imposing the $8
Charge on its customers, the County Authority exceeded its
statutory authority.  American Heritage contended that, because
sewer service laterals are owned by the owners of the buildings to
which they connect, the County Authority should charge customers
according to their need of repair rather than by a per-unit flat
fee.

American Heritage asked the trial court to declare that (1) the
imposition of the $8 Charge constitutes an ultra vires act of the
County Authority and is not just and equitable, as required by
statute and under the common law; (2) the $8 Charge breaches the
County Authority's contracts with American Heritage and the other
members of the class; (3) the Program violates Tennessee Code
Annotated section 7-35-401; and (4) the Program creates a monopoly
that violates the Tennessee Constitution, Article II, section 21.

It also asked the trial court to order the County Authority to
cease collecting the $8 Charge, conduct an accounting, and refund
all collected charges to the landowners who had paid them.
Overall, American Heritage sought declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, restitution, costs, and any other available relief.

The County Authority moved for summary judgment on the grounds that
(1) American Heritage failed to exhaust administrative remedies
under the Utility District Law ("UDL") of 1937; (2) the WWTA Act
does not provide a private right of action for citizens to contest
or recover utility charges; and (3) the class action certification
under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 23 would be improper in the case.

The trial court held that because the UDL provided an
administrative procedure for contesting utility charges, no private
right of action was available under the WWTA Act. The court granted
the County Authority summary judgment.  As an alternative ruling,
the trial court held that if it was in error finding no private
right of action, that the class certification would be granted.
American Heritage appealed.

The Court disagreed with the trial court's conclusions that the UDL
applies to American Heritage's claims and that there is no private
right of action under the WWTA Act.  The Court affirmed the trial
court's class action certification and vacated summary judgment.
The County Authority appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted
review.

he Supreme Court held that the administrative procedures in Part 4
of the Utility District Law of 1937 do not apply to a rate
challenge filed by an individual customer against a water and
wastewater treatment authority, so it agreed with the Court of
Appeals that the trial court erred in dismissing the lawsuit for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies.  It affirmed the
remainder of the Court of Appeals' decision, except that it vacated
the trial court's alternative ruling on class certification and
remanded that issue to the trial court for reconsideration.

On April 21, 2016, the same day the mandate issued on the Supreme
Court's opinion in the case, the General Assembly passed an
amendment to the WWTA Act.  The Governor signed it into law a week
later.  Among other things, it creates a new administrative remedy
whereby aggrieved citizens may challenge a county authority's
actions regarding fees, rates, charges, penalties, or deposits.

Shortly after remand to the trial court, the County Authority filed
a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the new
section 608 applies retroactively to bar American Heritage from
seeking class certification.  The trial court held that the class
action prohibition is unambiguous and procedural in nature, and
thus applies retroactively.  

The court then turned to the question of whether the statute's ban
on class actions applies to any claims brought against an entity
created under the Act or solely as to claims brought under the WWTA
Act itself.  It found the statute ambiguous on that point.  After
looking at the statutory scheme as a whole and the legislative
history, it concluded that the legislature intended for the
administrative remedy to be the sole means of bringing any actions
against the WWTA and other wastewater treatment authorities.
American Heritage sought and received permission for the
interlocutory appeal.

In the interlocutory appeal, the issue is whether a statutory
amendment barring class action lawsuits against the Defendant
applies retroactively thereby requiring the denial of the
Plaintiff's previously-filed request for class certification under
Tenn. R. Civ. P. 23.

Judge Susano holds that in its brief, American Heritage frequently
describes the statute as "creating a new administrative remedy."
Because subsection 608(e)(4) is remedial and addresses the
procedural privilege to proceed as a class action, the trial court
did not err in applying it retroactively.

The trial court also correctly declined to consider legislative
history as an interpretive aid in considering the issue.  When a
statute's text is clear and unambiguous, the Court needs look no
further than the language of the statute itself.  In his view, the
language of the statute barring class actions is clear and
unambiguous.

He further holds that the language at issue is also unambiguous
regarding its scope.  Thus, although the trial court did not err in
its conclusion that the legislature intended to bar all class
actions against the County Authority, regardless of theory, it was
unnecessary to consider the legislative history to reach that
conclusion.  The statute provides, "this part will not authorize or
permit any class action lawsuits against any authority," with a
prescribed exception not applicable in the case.  If the
legislature intended to restrict the class action ban to only
actions brought "under this part" or "under the WWTA," it knows how
to say so, and would have included such a provision in the
amendment.  The Judge holds that in barring "any class action
lawsuits," the General Assembly intended to bar any class action
lawsuit against the County Authority.

For these reasons, Judge Susano affirmed the judgment of the trial
court.  He remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with his Opinion.  Costs on appeal are
assessed to the Sppellant, American Heritage.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 29, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/X8M8bu from Leagle.com.

J. Gerard Stranch, IV -- jims@bsjfirm.com -- Michael G. Stewart ,
Nashville, Tennessee, and Jimmy F. Rodgers, Chattanooga, Tennessee,
for the appellant, American Heritage Apartments, Inc.

J. Christopher Clem -- cclem@sampleslaw.com -- Chattanooga,
Tennessee, and James L. Hollis , Atlanta, Georgia, for the
appellee, Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority,
Hamilton County, Tennessee.


HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Fixes Prices for TV Commercials, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE BARNES FIRM L.C., individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; GRAY TELEVISION,
INC.; NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC.; TEGNA INC.; TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY;
and SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-06500 (N.D.
Ill., September 24, 2018), is an antitrust class action alleging a
conspiracy among the Defendants and their coconspirators, which
caused the Plaintiff and the Class to suffer injuries by stifling
competition and inflating, fixing, raising, stabilizing, or
maintaining prices for television advertising in the United
States.

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

Nexstar is a television broadcasting and digital media company
headquartered in Irving, Texas.  Tegna is a broadcasting, digital
media, and marketing services company and is headquartered in
McLean, Virginia.

Tribune is a media and entertainment company headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.  Sinclair is a television broadcast company
headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          Michael J. Freed, Esq.
          Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
                  mfreed@fklmlaw.com
                  rwozniak@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
          Jennifer M. Oliver, Esq.
          MOGINRUBIN LLP
          600 West Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 687-6611
          E-mail: dmogin@moginrubin.com
                  joliver@moginrubin.com


HILTON GRAND: Court OKs Summary Judgment in Glasser TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, issued an Order granting Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned MELANIE GLASSER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. HILTON GRAND VACATIONS COMPANY, LLC, Defendant. Case
No. 8:16-cv-952-JDW-AAS. (M.D. Fla.).

In this action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), the Plaintiff alleges that  Hilton Grand
Vacations Company, LLC used an automated telephone dialing system
(ATDS) to make telemarketing calls to her cell phone without her
consent.

Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate if Defendant shows there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and it is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.

The Undisputed Facts

Eric Beekman, the Defendant's Senior Director of Customer
Relationship Management and Contact Management Marketing, testified
that calls were placed manually by employees clicking a Make Call
button on the IMC System computer screen (IMC Desktop Application).
Those employees are referred to as manual dialing marketing agents.
When an agent clicks on the Make Call button, the phone number will
be attempted to be dialed through the IMC System.

The TCPA prohibits any person from making any call other than a
call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express
consent of the called party using any automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to any telephone
number assigned to a cellular telephone service.

To prevail on her TCPA claim, therefore, the Plaintiff must show
that the Defendant called her cell phone using an ATDS. Her claim
turns on whether the Defendant's IMC System constitutes an
automatic telephone dialer system.

Although the Plaintiff acknowledges clicker agents initiate the
calling process by clicking the Make Call button, she argues that
internal software on the server dials the numbers, rather than
humans, and that human intervention is not only not required at the
point in time at which the number is dialed, it is not possible as
the number is dialed later.

In its discussion of the statutory requirement that an autodialer
have the capacity to store or produce numbers and dial those
numbers at random, in sequential order, or from a database of
numbers, the court found that the ruling's reference to dialing
random or sequential numbers' means generating those numbers and
then dialing them and observed that the ruling distinguishes
between use of equipment to 'dial random or sequential numbers' and
use of equipment to call a set list of consumers.

The court concluded that it follows that the ruling's reference to
dialing random or sequential numbers' means generating those
numbers and then dialing them and the Commission's prior
declaratory rulings reinforce that understanding. It follows that
the Plaintiff's focus on the dialing of the numbers is misplaced.
Nothing in the record demonstrates that Defendant's IMC System
generated numbers and then called them.

The Experts

The Plaintiff argues that the IMC System is a predictive dialer
under the TCPA. A predictive dialer is an automated dialing system
that uses a complex set of algorithms to automatically dial
consumers' telephone numbers in a manner that predicts the time
when a consumer will answer the phone and a telemarketer will be
available to take the call. A predictive dialer may fall within the
TCPA's definition of an ATDS, even though it may not store or
produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or
sequential number generator.

Nothing in the evidence, however, demonstrates that the IMC System
used a predictive algorithm or function to engage in predictive
dialing. Indeed, the undisputed evidence demonstrates that the IMC
System did not have the functionalities of a predictive dialer.
Rather, the evidence shows that the clicker agents control the pace
of the calling based on what they observe at their workstations.

The Plaintiff's expert, Snyder, acknowledges that the calls are
initiated when the Make Call button is clicked, and each click
provides a telephone number to the dialing system so that those
numbers can be dialed by that system, thus initiating outbound
telephone calls. While Snyder professes not to know what
constitutes human intervention, the evidence shows that human
intervention is necessary for numbers to be dialed, the antithesis
of a predictive dialer.

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

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 24, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9ltjchx from Leagle.com.

Melanie Glasser, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda J. Allen, The Consumer
Protection Firm, PLLC, Geoffrey E. Parmer, The Consumer Protection
Firm, PLLC, Timothy James Sostrin, Keogh Law, LTD, pro hac vice,
William Peerce Howard, The Consumer Protection Firm, PLLC & Keith
J. Keogh, Keogh Law, LTD, pro hac vice.

Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Angela C. Agrusa -- angela.agrusa@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US,
LLP, pro hac vice, David B. Farkas -- david.farkas@dlapiper.com --
DLA Piper US, LLP, pro hac vice, Lawrence D. Silverman --
lawrence.silverman@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP & Sandra Jessica
Millor -- sandra.millor@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP.


HYATT CORPORATION: Faces Insixiengmay Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyatt Corporation.
The case is styled as Janice Insixiengmay on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Does 1-100, Hyatt Corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00241994-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Oct. 4, 2018).

Hyatt Hotels Corporation operates as a global hospitality company.
The Company manages, franchises, owns, and develops branded hotels,
resorts, and residential and vacation ownership properties. Hyatt
Hotels serves customers worldwide.[BN]



IBERIA FOODS: Okoe Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A fraud class action has been filed against Iberia Foods Corp. The
case is styled as Daniel Okoe on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Iberia Foods Corp., Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-09161 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 5, 2018).

Iberia Foods Corporation distributes a wide range of foods and
household products. The Company distributes branded products,
including Knorr, Maizena, Mistolin, Quaker Spanish Brands, Fruta
Viva, Choco Listo, and Corona Columbian Chocolates.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ICHIBANYA USA: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, Salmon Says
----------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY SALMON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs ICHIBANYA USA, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. BC722766 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 21, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay minimum and straight time wages, failed to
pay overtime compensation, failed to provide meal periods, failed
to authorize and permit rest breaks, and failed to timely pay final
wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants in
California as a cook and kitchen support staff employee from 2015
to June 2018. The Defendants classified the Plaintiff as non-exempt
from California's overtime laws. During the statutory period, the
Plaintiff typically worked over 6 hours per workday, 5 days per
week, and he sometimes worked over 8 hours in a workday and more
than 40 hours in a workweek.

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

Ichibanya operates a restaurant.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          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
                  feghali@moonyanglaw.com


INSEL AIR: Saade Seeks to Certify Class over Extra Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled HECTOR G. SAADE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INSEL AIR
INTERNATIONAL B.V., a limited liability company registered in
Curacao, & INSELAIR ARUBA N.V., a corporation registered in Aruba,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-22003-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff moves the Court to enter an Order:

   1. certifying a class, including damages for breach of contract;


   2. appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel.

This class action seeks to remedy the Defendant's extra-contractual
practice of charging an extra-contractual fee to its passengers as
a condition to performing its air transport service obligations
under the terms of its Contract of Carriage. The Plaintiff brought
this class action for damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of the
Airline in breaching the terms of its Contract of Carriage with
Plaintiff and those similarly situated.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          John G. Crabtree, Esq.
          Charles M. Auslander, Esq.
          Brian C. Tackenberg, Esq.
          CRABTREE & AUSLANDER
          240 Crandon Boulevard, Suite 101
          Key Biscayne, FL 33149
          Telephone: (305) 361 3770
          Facsimile: (305) 437 8118
          E-mail: jcrabtree@crabtreelaw.com
                  causlander@crabtreelaw.com
                  btackenberg@crabtreelaw.com
                  floridaservice@crabtreelaw.com

               - and -

          Jose L. Baloyra, Esq.
          BALOYRA LAW
          201 Alhambra Cir., Ste. 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 442 4142
          Facsimile: (305) 442 4377
          E-mail: jbaloyra@baloyralaw.com
                  rcruz@baloyralaw.com

               - and -

          Milton Fuentes, Esq.
          M. FUENTES & CO.
          201 Alhambra Cir., Ste. 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 447 1960
          Facsimile: (786) 288 3808
          E-mail: mf@mfuenteslaw.com
                  sc@mfuenteslaw.com

               - and -

          Brian M. Torres, Esq.
          Nicolas M. Jimenez, Esq.
          BRIAN M. TORRES, P.A.
          One S.E. Third Ave., Ste. 3000
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 901 5858 ext. 101
          Facsimile: (305) 901 5874
          E-mail: btorres@briantorres.legal
                  njimenez@briantorres.legal
                  e-service@briantorres.legal

               - and -

          John Cody German, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
          9150 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1400
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (786) 268-6415
          Facsimile: (305) 373-2294
          E-mail: Cody.German@csklegal.com
                  yvonne.orosa@csklegal.com

Counsel for Insel Air International B.V.

          Andres F. Fernandez, Esq.
          Alexander J. Monje, Esq.
          BERENS, FERNANDEZ & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          2100 Ponce de Leon Blvd., PH-2
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 329 2990
          E-mail: pleadings@berensfernandez.com
                  Fernandez@berensfernandez.com
                  Monje@berensfernandez.com
                  fraga@berensfernandez.com

Counsel for Bankruptcy Trustee for Inselair Aruba N.V.

          Jean Maurice de Cuba, Esq.
          De Cuba Wever, Esq.
          LAYA ERNESTO PETRONIA 62
          Oranjestas – Aruba
          Telephone: (297) 583 8144
          Facsimile: (297) 583 8145
          E-mail: jeannot@decubawever.com


INTERSTATE HOTELS: Bishop Suit Asserts ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Interstate Hotels
Company. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Interstate Hotels
Company doing business as: Nomo Soho, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-09133 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 4, 2018).

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

Interstate Hotels & Resorts, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a hotel real estate investor and independent hotel
management company. It operates in two segments, Hotel Ownership
and Hotel Management. The Hotel Ownership segment includes
wholly-owned hotels and joint venture investments in hotel
properties. As of December 31, 2008, it owned 7 hotels with 2,051
rooms; and held non-controlling equity interests in 18 joint
ventures, which owned or held ownership interests in 50 of its
managed properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ISLAND TRANSPORTATION: Correa Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Island Transportation
Corporation. The case is styled as Guillermo Correa individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Island
Transportation Corporation doing business as: Island Transportation
Corp., Michael Fioretti also known as: Mike, Peter Fioretti,
Rossane Fioretti, Marvin Velez, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05589
(E.D. N.Y., Oct. 5, 2018).

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

Island Transportation Corp provides trucking services. The Company
provides trucking transportation services. Island Transportation
serves customers in the United States. It is located at 299 Edison
Avenue, West Babylon, NY 11704.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


JP MORGAN CHASE: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Barton Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Byron Lee Barton and Jean Marie Barton filed an appeal
from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Jean Barton, et al.
v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01100-RAJ, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed a petition in court for remand of foreclosed property in
violation of the U.S. Constitution and Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection rules.

The Plaintiffs at first sued JP Morgan Chase Bank on an acquired
interest in a property located in Seattle, Washington sold under a
Warranty Deed.  The Defendant later on executed and delivered a
promissory note and a mortgage to Washington Mutual Bank (WAMU).
The Vice President of Chase signed a limited power of attorney
authorizing Quality Loan Service to act on its behalf in connection
with foreclosing on the property.  But, previous to that, the
United States already seized WAMU and placed it into receivership
with FDIC where Chase acquired the bulk of WAMU's assets from the
FDIC and a Purchase and Assumption agreement was executed in
support of said summary judgment.

The Plaintiff alleged that the agreement is silent as to whether
Chase acquired WAMU's interest in the property and there is no
evidence of an assignment of the mortgage from WAMU to FDIC and
from FDIC to Chase.  Chase has admitted that it does not own WAMU
Mortgages. Plaintiff claimed that the foreclosure was void and they
remained the owners in free title of the property.

The appellate case is captioned as Jean Barton, et al. v. JP Morgan
Chase Bank NA, et al., Case No. 18-35798, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellants Byron Lee Barton and Jean Marie Barton's opening
      brief is due on December 31, 2018;

   -- Appellees Quality Loan Service Corp of Washington and
      Triangle Property of Washington's answering brief is due on
      January 28, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants JEAN MARIE BARTON and BYRON LEE BARTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
both of Renton, Washington, appear pro se.[BN]

Defendant-Appellee QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP OF WASHINGTON is
represented by:

          Joseph W. McIntosh, Esq.
          MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP
          108 1st Avenue South
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 596-4842
          E-mail: jmcintosh@mccarthyholthus.com

Defendant-Appellee TRIANGLE PROPERTY OF WASHINGTON is represented
by:

          David James Lawyer, Esq.
          INSLEE, BEST, DOEZIE & RYDER, P.S.
          PO Box 90016
          777 108th Ave. NE
          Bellevue, WA 98009-9016
          Telephone: (425) 455-1234
          E-mail: dlawyer@insleebest.com


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Responses to Petitions in "Davidson" Due Oct. 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
Responses to petitions for writ of certiorari are due today, Oct.
11, 2018, in the case titled Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al.,
Petitioners vs. Jennifer Davidson, Case No. 18-304, in the Supreme
Court of United States.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Defendants
Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., sought extension of time to
file a petition for a writ of certiorari of the decision of the
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, dated October 20, 2017, in
the appellate case, Jennifer DAVIDSON, an individual on behalf of
herself, the general public and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION; Kimberly-Clark
Worldwide, Inc.; Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 15-16173 (9th Cir.).

On September 6, 2018, the Defendants filed with the Supreme Court
petitions for a writ of certiorari.

Plaintiff Jennifer Davidson complains that she paid extra for wipes
labeled as "flushable" because she believed that flushable wipes
would be better for the environment, and more sanitary than
non-flushable wipes.  She alleges that the wipes she purchased,
which were manufactured and marketed by Kimberly-Clark Corporation,
were not, in fact, flushable.  She seeks to recover the premium she
paid for the allegedly flushable wipes, as well as an order
requiring Kimberly-Clark to stop marketing their wipes as
"flushable."

The Ninth Circuit said Ms. Davidson has plausibly alleged that
Kimberly-Clark engaged in false advertising.  Ms. Davidson has also
plausibly alleged that she will suffer further harm in the absence
of an injunction.  The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court
ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., are
represented by:

          Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Ave.
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com


KMG CHEMICALS: Walter Seeks to Block Cabot Merger
-------------------------------------------------
RICHARD WALTER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. KMG CHEMICALS, INC., CHRISTOPHER T. FRASER, KAREN A.
TWITCHELL, GERALD G. ERMENTROUT, FRED C. LEONARD, III, GEORGE W.
GILMAN, JOHN C. HUNTER, III, ROBERT HARRER and MARGARET C. MONTANA,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00785-O (N.D. Tex., September 24, 2018), seeks to
enjoin the Defendants from holding the shareholder vote on the
proposed merger between KMG and Cabot Microelectronics
Corporation.

On August 14, 2018, the Company's board of trustees caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to
which each share of KMG common stock will be exchanged for $55.65
in cash and 0.2 shares of Cabot common stock.

To convince KMG shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed
Merger, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete
and misleading Registration Statement on Form S-4 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, alleges the Plaintiff.  In particular, he
contends, the S-4 contains materially incomplete and misleading
information concerning the Company's financial projections, which
were relied upon by the Board in recommending shareholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Merger and utilized by the Company's
financial advisor, KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., in rendering its
fairness opinion.

KMG is incorporated in Texas and maintains its principal executive
offices in Fort Worth, Texas.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.  KMG is a global provider of
specialty chemicals and performance materials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Balon B. Bradley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BALON B. BRADLEY
          11910 Greenville Avenue, Suite 220
          Dallas, TX 75243
          Telephone: (972) 991-1582
          E-mail: balon@bbradleylaw.com

               - and -

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Ave., 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com


LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Aparicio Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEMAR APARICIO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs LINEAGE LOGISTICS, LLC, a limited
liability; LINEAGE LOGISTICS HOLDINGS, LLC, a limited liability
company; GROWERS COLD STORAGE, INC., a  U.S. California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. BC722764 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 21, 2018), alleges that
Defendants failed to pay minimum and straight time wages, failed to
pay overtime compensation, failed to provide meal periods, failed
to authorize and permit rest breaks, failed to indemnify necessary
business expenses, failed to timely pay final wages at termination,
failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in illegal
and improper wage practices that have deprived Plaintiff and the
Class of wages and Overtime compensation. Specifically, Defendants
maintain a policy in which employees are required to work
off-the-clock, whereby Plaintiff and the Class are required to
change into their work uniform after arriving to the workplace but
before clocking into the timekeeping machine. The Plaintiff and the
Class were also required to change out of their uniforms before
exiting the work premises, but were required to clock out before
changing out of their uniforms. Requiring employees to change into
and out of their uniforms at work is done for the sole benefit of
Defendants and is a company-wide practice and policy.

The time it takes for Plaintiff and the Class to change into their
uniforms and subsequently clock into work typically takes between
5-10 minutes, particularly if there is a line formed at the time
clock, leaving Plaintiff and the Class uncompensated for the time
spent under Defendants' uniform changing policy. Some of this
unpaid work also should have been paid at the overtime rate, the
case says.

Lineage Logistics is a port warehousing, logistics, and cold
storage company delivering sophisticated, customized and dependable
cold chain solutions.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

          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


LISNR INC: Court Narrows Counterclaims in Wiretap Act Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division, issued an Order granting in part
and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims in
the case captioned ALAN RACKEMANN, individually and on behalf all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LISNR, INC., ADEPT MOBILE,
LLC, and INDIANAPOLIS COLTS, INC., an Indiana Corporation,
Defendants. Case No. 1:17-cv-00624-TWP-MJD. (S.D. Ind.).

Rackemann and Evans are individual clients of the Edelson law firm.
The Plaintiffs initially alleged a putative class action against
the Defendants LISNR, Adept Mobile, LLC, and the Indianapolis
Colts, Inc. (Colts), alleging that the version of the Colts' mobile
phone application (App), that included LISNR's technology, violated
the Wiretap Act. In particular, the Plaintiffs alleged that the
technology recorded users' private conversations.

The Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and LISNR's counterclaims are the only claims
that remain in this action. The Plaintiffs filed a Motion to
Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, asking the Court to dismiss LISNR's counterclaims. The
Magistrate Judge submitted a Report and Recommendation,
recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and
denied in part.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

The magistrate judge's recommendation on a dispositive matter is
not a final order, and the district judge makes the ultimate
decision to accept, reject, or modify the findings and
recommendations, and the district court need not accept any portion
as binding.
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss

The standard for assessing the procedural sufficiency of pleadings
is imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which
requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief. Thus, although the complaint need
not recite detailed factual allegations, it must state enough facts
that, when accepted as true, state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.

LISNR's Objections

The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of LISNR's counterclaims
for declaratory judgment, abuse of process and spoliation. LISNR
does not object to the recommendation for dismissal of the
counterclaim for Count I. Spoliation of Evidence against Rackemann
and Edelson. Accordingly, the Court adopts that portion of the
Report and Recommendation and this claim is dismissed.

Count III-Declaratory Judgment against all Plaintiffs

LISNR argues that Edelson and Evans have threatened to imminently
bring suit against LISNR and by signing an engagement letter,
filing a motion to substitute, and drafting and filing a proposed
amended complaint. However, these acts alone do not constitute an
imminent threat and the Plaintiffs have not filed a new action.

Moreover, as the Plaintiffs argue in their response, there is no
actual controversy concerning Edelson since Edelson cannot bring a
claim in its own name to recover for itself. LISNR cites no
authority holding that a law firm is an appropriate declaratory
judgment defendant simply because it might represent a particular
individual in a potential lawsuit. Thus, the Court determines there
is no actual controversy with respect to Edelson.

No actual controversy exists with respect to Rackemann, because he
was never exposed to the challenged technology and was dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Regarding Evans, the Court
determined that Evans could not be substituted as a plaintiff in
this case because in the absence of Rackemann having a claim
against LISNR, and there was no case remaining to be substituted
into. All of the underlying disputes between LISNR and each of the
Plaintiffs have been dismissed or disallowed. As the Magistrate
Judge reasoned, because the underlying wiretap claim has been
dismissed and there is no dispute intact, there is no actual
controversy for the Court to adjudicate. The Court finds no error
in the recommendation for dismissal of the claim for declaratory
relief.

Accordingly, LISNR's objection is overruled.

Count II - Abuse of Process against Rackemann and Edelson

Regarding LISNR's state law counterclaim for abuse of process, the
Magistrate Judge concluded that LISNR had not adequately pled the
second element of the claim improper process. LISNR objects to this
finding and argues that its counterclaims specifically pled that
Edelson and Rackemann filed two complaints containing baseless
claims and false statements.

LISNR emphasizes several times that the lawsuit was baseless,
however, baseless is not enough when there is no evidence that an
attorney filed a claim for a purpose other than aiding his or her
client in adjudicating his or her claim. The Magistrate Judge
reasoned that LISNR's belief that Rackemann and Edelson filed suit
to reap financial benefits unrelated to the actual value of the
purported Wiretap Act claim, simply describes the nature of the
consumer protection class action lawsuit; and that Rackemann's
allegedly improper motive does not constitute a willful act in the
use of process not proper in the regular conduct of the
proceeding.

The Court agrees. LISNR has failed to state a plausible claim for
abuse of process and the objection to this recommendation is
overruled.

Plaintiffs' Objections

The Plaintiffs object to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to
deny dismissal of LISNR's counterclaims for malicious prosecution,
violation of the Illinois DTPA, and defamation. They argue the
Magistrate Judge made several errors, and should have granted the
motion to dismiss in its entirety.

Noerr-Pennington Doctrine

The Magistrate Judge determined the Noerr-Pennington doctrine,
which provides immunity from antitrust liability for engaging in
conduct including litigation aimed at influencing decision making
by the government did not apply immunity to litigation completely
unrelated to governmental action, such as the claims here.

Although the Noerr-Pennington doctrine may protect litigation,
lobbying, and speech, Plaintiffs have failed to identify how it
would apply to the counterclaims in this action. Even if the
doctrine were to apply to counterclaims, Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated how it applies to the particular claims against them
in this action at this stage of the proceedings. Importantly, the
Noerr-Pennington defense is typically only properly analyzed
through a consideration of evidence outside of the pleadings and as
such, is usually not appropriately considered in a Rule 12(b)(6)
context.

Count IV- Malicious Prosecution against Rackemann and Edelson.

The Magistrate Judge concluded that LSINR plausibly alleged that
Edelson's actions were malicious within the meaning of a malicious
prosecution tort. The elements of a malicious prosecution action
are: (1) the defendant instituted or caused to be instituted an
action against the plaintiff; (2) the defendant acted maliciously
in so doing; (3) the defendant had no probable cause to institute
the action; and (4) the original action was terminated in the
plaintiff's favor.  

There is no dispute as to the first element, Rackemann and Edelson
brought the original action against LISNR. The malice element is
supported by LISNR's allegations of personal animosity or inferred
from a complete lack of probable cause Edelson studied the App and
learned facts fatal to the Wiretap Act claims prior to filing the
action, or a failure to conduct an adequate investigation prior to
filing the lawsuit; thereby satisfying the second and third
elements. The Magistrate Judge reasoned that because Plaintiffs'
claims have all been dismissed (a favorable termination for LISNR),
the favorable termination element has been satisfied.

The Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge's recommendation
to dismiss the abuse of process claim.

Count V - Violation of the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act
against Edelson.

The Magistrate Judge recommended denying Edelson's motion to
dismiss LISNR'S claim under the Illinois DTPA. Edelson argues this
recommendation is incorrect for two reasons, because (1) Indiana
not Illinois law governs this claim, and Indiana has no applicable
statute; and (2) alternatively, the Illinois DTPA prohibits only
statements that disparage the quality of a business's goods or
services.

Courts consider several factors to determine whether a transaction
occurred primarily and substantially in Illinois, bringing a claim
under the ambit of the DTPA, including: (1) the plaintiff's
residence, (2) where the misrepresentation was made, (3) where the
damage to the plaintiff occurred, and (4) whether the plaintiff
communicated with the defendant in Illinois.   

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's assessment that while
the counterclaim lacks some detail, LISNR has established the
factual nexus with Illinois necessary to state a plausible claim
under the DTPA. LISNR alleges that Edelson, an Illinois firm,
committed their tortious actions from offices in Illinois. The law
firm and its technology laboratory are there, the false statements
emanated from there and litigation was directed from there. These
factors primarily and substantially show that Illinois is the very
center of gravity for this cause of action. While further discovery
may illuminate facts that negate the factual nexus with Illinois,
at this time there is enough of a connection to allow the claim to
proceed.  

The Court accepts the recommendation that dismissal of this claim
be denied.

Count VI - Defamation against Edelson

To maintain an action for defamation, a plaintiff must prove a
communication with four elements: 1) defamatory imputation; 2)
malice; 3) publication; and 4) damages.  

Edelson sought dismissal of LISNR's defamation claim on the grounds
that statements made during, or in connection with, judicial
proceedings are immunized from liability on claims of defamation.
The Magistrate Judge recognized the viability of the litigation
privilege, but concluded, because privilege is an affirmative
defense, it was premature to assess the privilege at the pleadings
stage.

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) does not test whether
the plaintiff will prevail on the merits but instead whether the
claimant has properly stated a claim.

The Court overrules LISNR'S Objection and the Plaintiffs'
Objections and adopts in full the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation. The Court grants in part and denies in part, the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss. LISNR's counterclaims for
declaratory judgment, abuse of process, and spoliation are
dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 24, 2018 Order
is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yad39cq2 from Leagle.com.

ALAN RACKEMANN, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eve-Lynn Rapp --
erapp@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, Benjamin H. Richman
-- brichman@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, Benjamin Thomassen --
bthomassen@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, Erica C. Mirabella --
bthomassen@edelson.com -- & Rafey S. Balabanian --
rbalabanian@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC.

LISNR, INC., Defendant, represented by Jesse Jenike-Godshalk --
Jesse.Jenike-Godshalk@ThompsonHine.com -- THOMSPON HINE LLP, pro
hac vice, Thomas L. Feher -- Tom.Feher@ThompsonHine.com -- THOMPSON
HINE LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas F. Zych --
Tom.Zych@ThompsonHine.com -- THOMPSON HINE LLP, pro hac vice.

ADEPT MOBILE, LLC, Defendant, represented by David O. Tittle --
dtittle@bgdlegal.com -- BINGHAM GREENEBAUM DOLL LLP & John F.
McCauley -- jmccauley@bgdlegal.com -- BINGHAM GREENEBAUM DOLL LLP.


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sosa Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
GUADALUPE SOSA individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Delaware corporation, Blanca
Carrillo, an individual, and DOES 1 through 10, the Defendants,
Case No. 18CV335342 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 21, 2018), alleges that
Defendants failed to provide off duty rest periods, failed to pay
earned wages upon discharge, and failed to purchase timely and
accurate wage statements under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, since at least September 20, 2014, the
Defendants have willfully failed and refused, and continue fail and
refuse, to timely pay wages due for at least rest and/or meal
period compensation to whose employment with Defendants has
terminated, at the conclusion of their employment with Defendants,
entitling these Plaintiff and former employee the Class to waiting
time penalties under California Labor Code.

Marriott International is an American multinational diversified
hospitality company that manages and franchises a broad portfolio
of hotels and related lodging facilities.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Daniel R. Weltin, Esq.
          Cody Stroman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL WELTIN, P.C.
          14895 E. 14th Street, Suite 350
          San Leandro, CA 94578
          Telephone: (510) 856 4421
          Facsimile: (510) 856 3624
          E-mail: daniel@danielweltin.com
                  cody@danielweltin.com



MCKESSON CORP: Marion Diagnostic Suit Asserts Antitrust Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARION DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, LLC; AND MARION HEALTHCARE, LLC v.
McKESSON CORPORATION; McKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL, INC.; ASCEND
LABORATORIES, LLC; APOTEX CORP.; AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC.; CITRON
PHARMA, LLC; DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, INC.; EMCURE
PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.; GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., USA;
HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; LANNETT COMPANY, INC.; MAYNE PHARMA
INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.; SANDOZ, INC.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS, USA, INC.; ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS (USA) INC.; MYLAN
INC.; MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,
INC.; AND UNNAMED DISTRIBUTOR CO-CONSPIRATORS, Case No.
2:18-cv-04137-CMR (E.D. Pa., September 25, 2018), is an antitrust
class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, bring this action on behalf of direct purchasers of
generic drugs from an alleged overarching, industry-wide conspiracy
comprised of Defendant manufacturers of generic drugs, the largest
distributor of these drugs, McKesson Corporation and its controlled
subsidiary McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc., and other unnamed
distributor co-conspirators.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants fix prices and allocate sales among themselves for
generic drugs across the industry.

McKesson Corporation is a corporation formed under the laws of
Delaware, with its principal place of business in San Francisco,
California.  McKesson (including its subsidiary McKesson
Medical-Surgical, Inc.) is one of the four largest distributors of
generic drugs in the United States.  McKesson Medical-Surgical
Inc., is a corporation formed under the laws of Virginia, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Ascend Laboratories, LLC, is a corporation formed under the laws of
the state of New Jersey, with a principal place of business in
Parsippany, New Jersey.  Ascend is in the business of,
manufacturing generic versions of branded pharmaceutical products
for distribution in the United States.

Apotex Corp. is a corporation formed under the laws of the state of
Delaware with its principal place of business located in Weston,
Florida.  Apotex is in the business of, manufacturing and selling
generic pharmaceutical products for distribution in this District
and throughout the United States.

Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., is a corporation formed under the laws
of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business
located in Dayton, New Jersey.  Aurobindo has marketed and sold
generic pharmaceuticals in this District and throughout the United
States.

Citron Pharma, LLC, is a corporation formed under the laws of the
state of New Jersey with its principal place of business located in
East Brunswick, New Jersey.  Citron has marketed and sold generic
pharmaceuticals in this District and throughout the United States.

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., is a corporation formed under the
laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business
located in Princeton, New Jersey.  Dr. Reddy's has marketed and
sold generic pharmaceuticals in this District and throughout the
United States.

Emcure Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., is a corporation formed under the
laws of India, having its principal place of business located in
Pune, India.  Emcure is the parent company of Defendant Heritage
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and another U.S.-based entity, Emcure
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., which has a principal place of business
located in East Brunswick, New Jersey.  Heritage Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., is a corporation formed under the laws of the state of
Delaware with its principal place of business located in Eatontown,
New Jersey.  Heritage is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant
Emcure.

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Inc., USA, is a corporation formed under
the laws of the state of Delaware with a principal place of
business located in Mahwah, New Jersey.  Glenmark has marketed and
sold generic pharmaceuticals in this District and throughout the
United States.

Lannett Company, Inc., is a corporation formed under the laws of
the state of Delaware with its principal place of business located
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Lannett has marketed and sold
generic pharmaceuticals in this District and throughout the United
States.

Mayne Pharma Inc. is a corporation formed under the laws of the
state of Delaware with its principal place of business located in
Raleigh, North Carolina.  Mayne has marketed and sold generic
pharmaceuticals in this District and throughout theUnited States.

Mylan Inc. is a corporation formed under the laws of the state of
Pennsylvania with its principal place of business located in
Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.  Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a
corporation formed under the laws of the state or West Virginia
with its principal place of business located in Morgantown, West
Virginia.  Mylan Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. are
wholly-owned subsidiaries of Mylan N.V., a Dutch pharmaceutical
company.  Mylan has marketed and sold generic pharmaceuticals in
this District and throughout the United States.

Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., is a corporation formed under
the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of
business located in Chestnut Ridge, New York.  Par has marketed and
sold generic pharmaceuticals in this District and throughout the
United States.

Sandoz, Inc., is a corporation formed under the laws of the state
of Colorado, with its principal place of business located in
Princeton, New Jersey.  Sandoz is a subsidiary of Novartis AG, a
global pharmaceutical company based in Basel, Switzerland.  Sandoz
has marketed and sold generic pharmaceuticals in this District and
throughout the United States.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., is a corporation formed under
the laws of the State of Michigan with its principal place of
business located in Cranbury, New Jersey.  Sun is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., an Indian
corporation.  Sun has marketed and sold generic pharmaceuticals in
this District and throughout the United States.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., is a corporation formed under the
laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business
located in North Wales, Pennsylvania.  Teva has marketed and sold
generic pharmaceuticals in this District and throughout the United
States.

Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. is a corporation formed under the
laws of the state of New Jersey with its principal place of
business located in North Pennington, New Jersey.  Zydus has
marketed and sold generic pharmaceuticals in this District and
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Stephen Berry, Esq.
          BERRY LAW PLLC
          1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 645
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 296-3020
          Facsimile: (202) 296-3038
          E-mail: sberry@berrylawpllc.com

               - and -

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS LLP
          1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 447-7060
          Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
          E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
                  ekallas@whatleykallas.com

               - and -

          Henry C. Quillen, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS LLP
          159 Middle St., Suite 2C
          Portsmouth, NH 03801
          Telephone: (603) 294-1591
          Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
          E-mail: hquillen@whatleykallas.com


MDL 2773: Prelim Injunction Bid in Qualcomm Antitrust Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: QUALCOMM ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No.
17-MD-02773-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division,
denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction.

Qualcomm is the leading supplier of modem chips worldwide.  In
particular, it is dominant in the supply of two types of modem
chips: (1) modem chips that comply with Code Division Multiple
Access standards ("CDMA modem chips"); and (2) modem chips for use
in premium tier handsets, which comply with advanced Long-Term
Evolution ("LTE") standards ("premium-LTE modem chips")

The Plaintiffs bring a putative class action against Qualcomm
alleging antitrust violations.  Qualcomm initiated separate
patent-infringement proceedings against Apple, Inc. before the
International Trade Commission ("ITC") seeking to prevent
importation of certain Apple devices into the United States.

The Plaintiffs allege that Qualcomm uses its dominance in the
supply of CDMA and premium-LTE modem chips to skew standard
essential patent ("SEP") licensing negotiations toward outcomes
that benefit Qualcomm and harm Qualcomm's modem chip competitors.
They allege that Qualcomm does this through a course of conduct
that includes three primary practices: (i) a "no license-no chips"
policy; (ii) Qualcomm's refusal to license its SEPs to competing
modem chip manufacturers; (iii) Qualcomm's exclusive dealing
arrangements with Apple.

In a separate action initiated in January 2017, the Federal Trade
Commission sued Qualcomm in the Court and alleged that Qualcomm
engaged in unfair methods of competition in violation of Section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission Act.  Subsequently, a number of
class action lawsuits were filed by consumers against Qualcomm.

These lawsuits generally alleged that Qualcomm's conduct violated
state and federal antitrust and consumer protection laws.  In early
2017, the plaintiffs in several of the class action lawsuits moved
to centralize pretrial proceedings in a single judicial district.
On April 6, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued a transfer order selecting the undersigned judge as the
transferee court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings in the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") arising out of
Qualcomm's allegedly anticompetitive conduct.

On July 11, 2017, the Plaintiffs in the MDL cases filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("CCAC") asserting two federal
statutory claims and two state statutory claims: (1) a claim under
the California Cartwright Act, (2) a claim under Section 1 of the
federal Sherman Act, (3) a claim under Section 2 of the federal
Sherman Act, and (4) a claim under the California Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL").

On Aug. 11, 2017, Qualcomm moved to dismiss all of the claims in
the CCAC and to strike the Plaintiffs' nationwide class
allegations.  On Nov. 10, 2017, the Court granted Qualcomm's motion
in one limited respect but otherwise denied Qualcomm's motion.
Specifically, it granted with prejudice Qualcomm's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' federal Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2 claims
to the extent those claims seek damages, but otherwise denied
Qualcomm's motion to dismiss and to strike the Plaintiffs'
nationwide class allegations. Id.  Thus, the Plaintiffs retain
their California Cartwright Act and UCL claims in their entirety
and their federal Sherman Act Sections 1 and  2 claims to the
extent those claims do not seek damages.

On May 31, 2018, the Plaintiffs sent Qualcomm a copy of a proposed
amended complaint.  On June 12, 2018, Qualcomm consented to the
filing of the proposed amended complaint.  The next day, on June
13, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint.
Qualcomm filed an answer on June 27, 2018. The parties are
currently briefing class certification and Daubert issues.

In the meantime, on July 7, 2017, Qualcomm initiated proceedings in
the ITC.  In its complaint, Qualcomm claims that Apple's imported
mobile electronic devices that do not incorporate a Qualcomm brand
modem chip infringe, or are manufactured by processes that
infringe, one or more claims of Qualcomm's patents.  Qualcomm does
not assert any SEPs in the ITC case; rather, the case is limited to
non-SEPs.

Qualcomm seeks an order excluding infringing Apple mobile devices
from importation into the United States.  The hearing before the
ITC's Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") concluded on June 26, 2018.
The ALJ must issue his initial determination by Sept. 14, 2018.
The full ITC will then review the ALJ's initial determination and
is expected to issue a final determination by Jan. 14, 2019.  If
the ITC finds that exclusion is warranted, that determination is
subject to a 60-day presidential review period.

On June 28, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary
injunction, which seeks to enjoin Qualcomm from enforcing any
exclusion or cease-and-desist order that the ITC may issue.
Qualcomm filed its opposition on July 12, 2018, and the Plaintiffs
filed their reply on July 19, 2018.

Judge Koh finds that the Plaintiffs' own submissions confirm,
rather than undermine, the difficulty (if not futility) of
attempting to predict the ITC's action.  The differing accounts
highlight the high degree of uncertainty associated with
anticipating the outcome before the ALJ, let alone the full ITC or
the President.

Moreover, even if the ITC issues an exclusion or cease-and-desist
order and the President does not disapprove, the Judge finds that
Qualcomm's ability to enforce the order could be significantly
delayed or completely or partially overturned on appeal.
Specifically, within 60 days of the expiration of the presidential
review period or the date on which the President notifies the ITC
of his approval, any party adversely affected by the ITC's order
may appeal to the Federal Circuit.  The Plaintiffs can only
speculate as to whether that court will" uphold any exclusion order
in whole or in part.

Additionally, the Judge cannot ascertain the resulting effects in
the market without some semblance of the scope of the relevant
exclusion or cease-and-desist order.  While she agrees that the
report identifies concrete harms that would be felt by consumers,
the report assumes that the ITC will issue Qualcomm's proposed
exclusion order without exemptions.  At this time, the Plaintiffs'
claim of an imminent injury is too speculative.

At bottom, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs cannot sustain their
request for a preliminary injunction because their asserted harm
relies on a speculative and attenuated inferential chain, which
centrally includes intervening decisions by multiple independent
decisionmakers.  Because the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing
to pursue the relief that they seek, she will deny their motion for
preliminary injunction on this ground.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge koh denied without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.

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

Karen Stromberg, Samuel Roecker, Thomas Lammel, Mary Galloway &
Danielle LaGrave, Plaintiffs, represented by Jeffrey Greg Lewis --
jlewis@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P.

Thomas McMahon, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman --
jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Mark P.
Robinson, Jr. , Robinson Calcagnie, Inc., Shana E. Scarlett --
shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W.
Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro
hac vice.

Boardsports School LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Britt Ann Cibulka
--  bcibulka@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, LLP, Lesley
Elizabeth Weaver -- lweaver@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld
LLP, Mili G. Desai , Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP & Robyn Rose
English -- englishr@pepperlaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti and Auld.

Patrick Benad, Plaintiff, represented by Gordon M. Fauth, Jr.,
Litigation Law Group, Nyran Rose Rasche, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether
Sprengel LLP & Rosanne L. Mah, Finkelstein Thompson.

Lindsey Carr, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L. Cramer, Berger
Montague PC, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Kyla
Jenny Gibboney, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Michael Jay Kane,
Berger Montague PC, pro hac vice, Nicomedes Sy Herrera, Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Ruthanne Gordon, Berger Montague PC & Ryan
James McEwan , Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.

Renee Acosta, Patricia Burness, Carol Harris, Robert Links,
Nichelle Lyons & Nuala Vignoles, Plaintiffs, represented by Louise
Hornbeck Renne, Renne Public Law Group & Steve Cikes, Sloan Sakai
Yeung & Wong LLP.

Rachel L. Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Burk ,
Scott Scott LLP, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
Lerach LLP & Walter W. Noss, Scott+Scott LLP.

Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Daniel Allen Sasse , Crowell & Moring LLP, Richard
J. Stark , Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Addy
Van Nest -- rvannest@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP,
Antony L. Ryan, Cravath, Swaine Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Asim M.
Bhansali -- abhansali@keker.com -- Kwun Bhansali Lazarus LLP, Bryn
Anderson Williams, Keker, VanNest and Peters, Cody Shawn Harris,
Keker and Van Nest LLP, Eugene Morris Paige -- EMP@kvn.com -- Keker
& Van Nest Peters LLP, Evan R. Chesler, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP,
Gary Andrew Bornstein, Cravath, Swaine and Moore, pro hac vice,
Geoffrey T. Holtz, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, James W. Carlson,
Cravath, Swaine Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Jesselyn K. Friley, Keker
Van Nest and Peters, Joe Wesley Earnhardt, Cravath, Swaine and
Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Justina Kahn Sessions --
jsessions@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Matan Shacham,
Keker & Van Nest LLP, Michael Brent Byars , Cravath, Swaine Moore
LLP, pro hac vice, Nicole Peles, Cravath, Swaine Moore LLP, pro hac
vice, Nitin Jindal, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Rachael Catherine
Chan, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP, Richard S. Taffet, Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Roger G. Brooks , pro hac vice,
Roger G. Brooks, Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP, Stefan H. Atkinson,
Cravath, Swaine Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Vanessa A. Lavely,
Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Walter Scott Tester,
Morgan Lewis, Willard K. Tom, Morgan Lewis, pro hac vice & Yonatan
Even, Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP, pro hac vice.

InterDigital, Inc., Movant, represented by Michael Brett Levin ,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati A Professional Corporation & Maura
Lea Rees, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

NVIDIA Corporation, Movant, represented by Robert John Benson,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Carl Lawrence Malm, Cleary
Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice.


MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Riley Sues in E.D. Cal. Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES RILEY v. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, INC.; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:18-cv-02626-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal., September 25,
2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated, accusing the Defendants of failing to properly
calculate and pay the overtime wages owed to Plaintiff and other
hourly, non-exempt employees.

Medline Industries, Inc., is an Illinois corporation that does
business in California and throughout the United States.  The
Plaintiff is not aware of the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

Medline manufactures and distributes healthcare supplies.  The
Company offers wound and skin care, central sterile, nursing and
patient care, pharmaceuticals and nutrition, respiratory care,
infection prevention, and incontinence care products; furnishings;
gloves; lab supplies and diagnostics; linens and cleaning supplies;
patient and professional apparel; perioperative supplies; and
equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Wasserman, Esq.
          William J. Gorham, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq.
          Vladimir J. Kozina, Esq.
          John P. Briscoe, Esq.
          MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
          2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
          Stockton, CA 95207-8253
          Telephone: (209) 477-3833
          Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
          E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com
                  wgorham@mayallaw.com
                  nscardigli@mayallaw.com
                  vjkozina@mayallaw.com
                  jbriscoe@mayallaw.com


MIKE STINSON: Gibbs Files RICO Class Suit
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stinson et al. The
case is styled as Darlene Gibbs, Stephanie Edwards, Lula Williams,
Patrick Inscho, Lawrence Mwethuku on behalf of themselves and all
individual similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Mike Stinson, 7HBF NO.
2, Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC, John Drew, Technology Crossover
Ventures, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00676-MHL (E.D. Va., Oct. 4,
2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

Mike Stinson is an American singer-songwriter and musician. He is a
native of Virginia. Mike Stinson moved to Los Angeles in 1991.
Inspired by the country rock of Gram Parsons, as well as more
traditional country artists such as Johnny Cash and George Jones,
he began to write songs and eventually formed his own band.

Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC operates as a venture capital firm.
The Firm invests in energy, financial services, healthcare,
internet, mobile, outsourcing, and technology sectors. Sequoia
Capital Operations serves clients worldwide.

Technology Crossover Ventures is a private equity and venture
capital firm specializing in investments in leveraged buyouts,
minority growth equity, full or partial recapitalizations for both
diversification of capital structure and modifying shareholder
equity, acquisition financings to supplement complementary add-on
acquisitions, public market transactions, and public deal
constructs. The firm seeks to invest in growth stage, early, mid,
and late venture stages, mature, and later stages of development in
private and public companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
     Kelly & Crandall PLC
     3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
     Fairfax, VA 22030
     Phone: (703) 424-7576
     Fax: (703) 591-0167
     Email: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

          - and -

     Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
     Kelly & Crandall PLC
     3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
     Fairfax, VA 22030
     Phone: (703) 640-3334
     Fax: (703) 591-9285
     Email: casey@kellyandcrandall.com

          - and -

     Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
     Kelly & Crandall PLC
     3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
     Fairfax, VA 22030
     Phone: (703) 424-7570
     Fax: (703) 591-9285
     Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com

          - and -

     Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
     Consumer Litigation Associates
     763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
     Newport News, VA 23601
     Phone: (757) 930-3660
     Fax: (757) 930-3662
     Email: craig@clalegal.com

          - and -

     Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
     Consumer Litigation Associates
     763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
     Newport News, VA 23601
     Phone: (757) 930-3660
     Fax: (757) 930-3662
     Email: elizabeth@clalegal.com

          - and -

     Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
     Consumer Litigation Associates
     763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
     Newport News, VA 23601
     Phone: (757) 930-3660
     Fax: (757) 930-3662
     Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com


MLK EXPRESS: Burns Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Linda Burns on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. MLK Express Services LLC and AMAZON.COM
Services, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-00625, (M.D. Fla., September 18,
2018), seeks to recover compensation, overtime wages, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

MLK Express operates a carrier and logistics business catering to
Amazon customers in Florida where Burns worked as a non-exempt
driver. She claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per work
week without being paid overtime. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil L. Henrichsen, Esq.
      HENRICHSEN SIEGEL, P.L.L.C.
      301 West Bay Street, 14th Floor
      Jacksonville, FL 32202
      Telephone: (904) 381-8183
      Email: nhenrichsen@hslawyers.com

             - and -

      Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
      DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
      Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 214-7900
      Email: lreasons@.dlcfirm.com

             - and -

      Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
      Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq.
      DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
      7556 Mentor Avenue
      Mentor, OH 44060
      Telephone: (440) 953-8888
      Email: kabbarno@dlcfirm.com
             mabramowitz@dlcfirm.com


NATIONAL CREDIT: Faces Quintana Suit in Middle District of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Credit
Systems, Inc. The lawsuit is captioned as Geno Quintana,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. National Credit Systems, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-02333-EAK-CPT (M.D. Fla.). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich. The suit
alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation.

National Credit Systems, Inc. provides debt recovery services to
the apartment industry. It helps apartment communities to recover
lost moneys from vacated/former residents.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Bryan James Geiger, Esq.
          Philip Ross Goldberg, Esq.
          Thomas Martin Bonan, Esq.
          SERAPH LEGAL PA
          2002 E 5th Ave Ste 104
          Tampa, FL 33605
          Telephone: (813) 321 2348
          Facsimile: (855) 500 0705
          E-mail: bgeiger@seraphlegal.com
                  PhilRGoldberg@Gmail.com
                  tbonan@seraphlegal.com


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Guerrido Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a class action lawsuit styled JENNIFER GUERRIDO, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
NATIONWIDE CREDIT INC., the Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-1478 (E.D.
Wisc.), asks the Court to enter an order certifying classes in this
case, appointing the Plaintiff as class representatives, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a class action lawsuit styled RONALD RUNTERSHINE and JULIE
VOEKS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. NATIONWIDE CREDIT INC., the Defendant, Case
No.:18-cv-148-WED (E.D. Wisc.), ask the Court to enter an order
certifying classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com

NEW HYDE PARK: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Hyde Park Inn,
Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. New Hyde Park Inn,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09134 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 4, 2018).

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

The Inn at New Hyde Park is a Long Island landmark established in
1938. The Inn at New Hyde Park can accommodate as few as 10 guests
and up to 500 or more guests.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEWS AMERICA: Underpays Service Reps, Bolsinger Claims
------------------------------------------------------
DARWIN BOLSINGER, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs NEWS AMERICA MARKETING
IN-STORE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and
DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. BC722768 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sept. 21, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage under
the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has worked for the
Defendants as a non-exempt Service Representative since 2004,
although he has been on a leave of absence since approximately
September 18, 2016.  The Defendants are in the business of
providing in-store marketing and promotion services by distributing
coupons and advertisements and preparing special marketing events
throughout various grocery and drug stores. The  Plaintiff's job
duties include, but are not limited to, traveling to various
grocery stores, drug stores and retailers in and around Los Angeles
County and Orange County to distribute, assemble, and maintain
manufacturer’s promotional materials including coupons,
advertisements, and in-store displays.  The Plaintiff was also
required to store promotional materials in his home and transport
promotional materials to and from retailers in his personal
vehicle.

The Defendants' timekeeping policies and/or practices resulted in
Plaintiff not being compensated for all hours actually worked.  The
Defendants designated a specific amount of time, or "time budget,"
for the Plaintiff to complete each in-store assignment compensated
for this time budget, regardless of the amount of time he actually
worked in order to complete the project preparing and assembling
in-store displays, and the Plaintiff was also required to load and
transport advertising materials in his personal vehicle, as well as
travel between assignments, but he was only compensated for work
performed on-site at the retail locations. As a result, the
Plaintiff was not compensated for all hours that he actually
worked, the case says.

News America offers at-shelf coupon dispensers to manufacturers for
use in supermarket promotions.[BN].

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
          Brittaney D. de la Torre, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segunao, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup. com
                  mmoen @haineslawgroup .com
                  bdelatorre@haineslawgroup.com


NICON BUILD: Reico Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS GROS REICO, MILTON MARTIN VARELA DURAN, and NORMAN GOMEZ,
on behalf of themselves and similarly Situated individuals v. NICON
BUILD LLC, NICON CONSULTING & CONSTRUCTION, INC., and EVAN FROST,
Case No. 1:18-cv-08781 (S.D.N.Y., September 25, 2018), alleges that
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals are entitled
to recover from the Defendants:

   (1) unpaid wages at the overtime wage rate;
   (2) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and
   (3) attorneys' fees and costs.

Nicon Build LLC is a domestic business corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of the state of New York, with a place of
business located at 260 Madison Avenue, in New York City.

Nicon Consulting & Construction, Inc., is a domestic business
corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the state of
New York, with a place of business located at 24 Iris Ct., in
Staten Island, New York.  Evan Frost is an owner, officer, director
and/or managing agent of the Corporate Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James F. Sullivan, Esq.
          Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN, P.C.
          52 Duane Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 374-0009
          Facsimile: (212) 374-9931
          E-mail: ls@jfslaw.net


NUWAY ENTERPRISES: Chapman Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Barry Chapman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NuWay Enterprises, LLC, Amanda Guthrie, individually,
and William Guthrie, individually, Case No. 3:18-cv-02250 (D.S.C.,
August 14, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed on the aerial crew as a lineman from
around December 2014 until August 2018.

The Defendant NuWay Enterprises, LLC is a for-profit corporation
organized under the laws of the State of South Carolina with its
principal place of business at 148 Dahlia Street in Lexington,
South Carolina. The Defendant is engaged in interstate commerce,
namely line construction. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bryn C. Sarvis, Esq.
      SARVIS LAW, LLC
      3424 Augusta Highway
      Gilbert, SC 29054
      Tel: (803) 892-5525
      E-mail: bsarvis@sarvislaw.com


OHIO FIRST: Englemon Class Certification Bid Denied Pending Accord
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled EBONY ENGLEMON, the Plaintiff,
vs. OHIO FIRST HOME HEALTHCARE, INC., ET AL., the Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-01158-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael R.
Barrett entered an order denying, without prejudice on mootness
grounds, the motion for class certification filed by Plaintiff in
January 2017, subject to re-filing should the proposed settlement
of the case not be approved.

The Court said, "On January 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to
Conditionally Certify a FLSA Collective Action, to Approve Notice,
and for Expedited Consideration. Shortly thereafter, the Parties
jointly filed a motion to stay pending settlement negotiations,
which motion was granted. On October 25, 2017, the Parties filed a
joint motion for settlement approval and dismissal. On May 11,
2018, the Court conditionally approved the settlement. Upon
approving the Parties' revised Notice and Consent papers, the Court
instructed the Parties to confer regarding their availability for a
fairness hearing and to email Chambers regarding the same. Based on
the Parties' availability, the Court set the fairness hearing for
September 13, 2018 at 4:00 p.m., and advised counsel and the
Parties that they may participate via telephone. On September 13,
2018, the Parties advised the Court that there was a
misunderstanding regarding the nature of the proceedings scheduled
for September 13, 2018, resulting in a defect in the dissemination
of class notice. To allow time for the notice to be disseminated,
the Court reset the fairness hearing for December 11, 2018 at 10:00
a.m."[CC]


OKLAHOMA: Court Denies Motion for Intervention in Prisoners' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma issued an Opinion and Order denying Individual Motion for
Intervention in the case captioned JOSEPH Z. WOMBLE, Plaintiff, v.
KAMERON HARVANEK, Defendant. No. CIV 16-328-RAW-SPS. (E.D. Okla.).

Six prisoners incarcerated filed individual motions to intervene in
this matter.

The Plaintiff had stated a claim against Defendant Harvanek
concerning the Plaintiff's lack of access to a sufficient supply of
uncontaminated drinking water at Mack Alford Correctional Center
(MACC) during a time of high cell temperatures. The Plaintiff
presently is incarcerated at Lexington Correctional Center in
Lexington, Oklahoma.

Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs when a
party may intervene in a case either as of a right, or with
permission of the Court: (a) Intervention of Right. On timely
motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: (1) is given
an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (2)
claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is
the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the
action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movants's
ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately
represent that interest.

The Defendant has filed responses to the Movants' motions, alleging
the Movants have no right to intervene in this matter. There is no
federal statute which confers upon Movants an unconditional right
to intervene.  Further, the Movants have shown no interest in the
outcome of this matter for which they are impaired or impeded from
protecting, unless Plaintiff adequately represents their interests.


The Plaintiff has filed a response to the motions to intervene,
alleging that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B), the proposed
interveners have claims that share with the main action a common
question of law, although there is no common question of fact. He
contends that instead of allowing multiple interveners, the Court
could certify this case as a class action and examine each of the
movants' motions to establish eligibility for the defined class.
The Court, however, finds Petitioner's allegations in the response
are insufficient for the Court to consider the issue of class
certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Furthermore, each of
the movants could pursue his claims in a separate civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

Therefore, the Court will examine the movants' motions to
intervene.

After careful review, the Court finds the Movants' motions to
intervene should be denied. While there may be a common question of
law concerning allegedly unconstitutional general conditions of
confinement in the Department of Corrections facilities, the Court
finds the Movants' proposed claims are much broader than the
Plaintiff's claim regarding his access to uncontaminated water when
his cell at MACC was very hot. Again, there is an adequate avenue
to pursue the Movants' claims through individual civil rights
complaints pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

The motions to intervene by Robert Cotner, Lawrence Cross, Fred
Smith, Lelyn Bodine, Alric Smith, and Charles C. Brewington are
denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 24, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7epq59l from
Leagle.com.

Joseph Z. Womble, Plaintiff, pro se.

Kameron Harvanek, Warden, Defendant, represented by Desiree Singer,
Office of the Attorney General.


OVATION CREDIT: Diggs Seeks to Certify Class of ISRs/Analysts
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled VERNON DIGGS, Individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated v. OVATION CREDIT SERVICES,
INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, TERRY D. CORDELL, Individually,
and AMY MYERS, Individually, Case No. 3:18-cv-00367-MMH-MCR (M.D.
Fla.), asks the Court to conditionally certify a class of Inside
Sales Representatives or Credit Analysts, who worked for the
Defendants for the three-year period prior to the filing of the
complaint to the present.

Mr. Diggs seeks to facilitate notice to a limited class of ISRs,
who are compensated on an hourly basis, but are not paid proper
overtime compensation and/or minimum wages due to them, as required
by the Fair Labor Standards Act, for all of the hours that they
work each week.

Mr. Diggs also asks the Court to direct the Defendants to produce
to his counsel a list containing the names, the last known
addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, and e-mail
addresses of putative class members, and to require the Defendants
to post a copy of the notice as approved by the Court.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


PERRY ELLIS: Witmer Opposes Merger with Feldenkreis Holdings
------------------------------------------------------------
COLLEEN WITMER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PERRY ELLIS INTERNATIONAL, INC., GEORGE FELDENKREIS,
OSCAR FELDENKREIS, J. DAVID SCHEINER, JOE ARRIOLA, JANE DEFLORIO,
BRUCE J. KLATSKY, and MICHAEL W. RAYDEN, Case No. 1:18-cv-23942-CMA
(S.D. Fla., September 24, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which Perry Ellis will be taken private by George
Feldenkreis, Perry Ellis's founder and member of the Company's
Board of Directors.

On June 15, 2018, Perry Ellis's Board caused the Company to enter
into an agreement and plan of merger with Feldenkreis Holdings LLC
("Parent") and GF Merger Sub, Inc.  Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, G. Feldenkreis, through Feldenkreis Holdings,
will acquire all of the outstanding common shares of Perry Ellis
not already beneficially owned by the Feldenkreis family for $27.50
per share in cash.

On September 10, 2018, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Proxy Statement, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction for October 18, 2018, omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, rendering the Proxy Statement
false and misleading.

Perry Ellis is a Florida corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in Miami, Florida.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Perry Ellis is a designer, distributor, and licensor of a broad
line of men's and women's apparel, accessories, and fragrances.
The Company's collection of dress and casual shirts, golf
sportswear, sweaters, dress pants, casual pants and shorts, jeans
wear, active wear, dresses, and men's and women's swimwear is
available through all major levels of retail distribution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
          CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
          6541 N.E. 21st Way
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
          Telephone: (561) 676-5370
          E-mail: Cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com

               - and -

          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310

               - and -

          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800


PETER A KLC: Cannon Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
Richard Cannon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Peter A. KLC and Associates, PLLC dba Paramount
Acceptance, Case No. 4:18-cv-00678 (N.D. Tex., August 15, 2018), is
brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff resided in the State of Texas, County of Tarrant and
City of Bedford.

The Defendant is an entity who engages, by use of the mails and
telephone, in the business of attempting to collect a "consumer
debt". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Russell S. Thompson, Esq.
      Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC
      5235 E. Southern Ave. D106-618
      Mesa, AZ 85206
      Tel: (602) 388-8898
      Fax: (866) 317-2674
      E-mail: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com


PORT PACKAGING: Gonzalez Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Gonzalez, Individually, and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Port Packaging, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03327,
(S.D. Tex., September 18, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Port Packaging provides storage for commodities, loading and
unloading of products, bulk handling and packaging,
prebagged/finished products, cleaning and processing and federal
grain inspection services. Plaintiff are employed as warehouse
workers. Gonzalez claims to have worked more than forty hours in a
workweek, was classified as an independent contractor, and denied
any premium for overtime hours worked. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
      Samantha J. Rodriguez, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
      4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      Email: gassaad@kennedyhodges.com
             srodriguez@kennedyhodges.com


PRAXAIR INC: Garcia Suit Moved to Central District of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rita Garcia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Praxair Inc., a Delaware corporation
and Praxair Distribution Inc., a Delaware corporation, the
Defendants, Case 3:18-cv-03887, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of  Northern California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles). The Central District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-08170-JAK-AFM to the proceeding.
The suit alleges Labor-Management Relations violations. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt.

Praxair, Inc. is an American worldwide industrial gases company. It
is the largest industrial gases company in North and South America,
and the third-largest worldwide by revenue.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Carlos Jimenez, Esq.
          Carly M. Nese, Esq.
          Kimberli A. Williams, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          633 West 5th Street 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443 4300
          Facsimile: (213) 443 4299
          E-mail: cajimenez@littler.com
                  cnese@littler.com
                  kawilliams@littler.com


PREMIER STUDENT: Bond Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Joseph Bond, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Premier Student Loans, Inc., and Does 1 through 10,
Case No. 8:18-cv-01435 (C.D. Calif., August 14, 2018), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of DeKalb, Georgia.

The Defendant Premier Student Loans, Inc. is a document preparation
and consulting company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRET A MANGER: Daly Files False Labeling Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
SAMARA DALY and LINDA VIRTUE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. PRET A MANGER, LTD. and JAB HOLDING
COMPANY, Case No. 1:18-cv-05368 (E.D.N.Y., September 24, 2018),
arises from the Defendants' alleged deceptive labeling, marketing,
and sale of certain bread and other baked goods as "Natural Food,"
despite the fact that the Products contain traces of a synthetic
biocide.

Specifically, the Products at issue are:

   (a) Harvest (Oatmeal Raisin) Cookie; and

   (b) Egg Salad and Arugula Sandwich, and other products made
       with Pret A Manger's 9-Grain Granary Bread.

Pret A Manger, Ltd., is a corporation headquartered in the United
Kingdom, and JAB Holding Company is a corporation headquartered in
Germany.

Pret A Manger produces sandwiches, baked goods, and other prepared
foods that are sold to consumers through Pret A Manger's retail
outlets or restaurants and are advertised and promoted as "Natural
Food."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          RICHMAN LAW GROUP
          81 Prospect Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (212) 687-8291
          Facsimile: (212) 687-8292
          E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Poole Sues Over Defective Snapshot Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY POOLE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Case No.
1:18-cv-02194 (N.D. Ohio, September 24, 2018), arises from alleged
defective Snapshot Devices.

Progressive Insurance Co. is incorporated in Ohio and maintains its
principal place of business and headquarters in Mayfield Village,
Cuyahoga County, Ohio.  Progressive is the creator of the Snapshot
Program, a usage-based automobile insurance program that
purportedly allows consumers to lower their automobile insurance
rates by sharing their driving patterns and histories with
Progressive.

Customers who choose to participate in the Snapshot Program are
given a small device that plugs directly into their car and is
powered by the car's battery.  The Device collects the driver's
data, including how often the driver is on the road and for how
long, the driver's speed, and sometimes the driver's location, and
sends that information directly to Progressive.  Progressive uses
the data to calculate an insurance rate that, it claims, is
tailored to the driver's own driving habits and risks.

However, the Plaintiff contends that Progressive fails to warn its
customers that the Snapshot Device is defective.  In fact, the
Snapshot Device destroys automobile batteries and damages
automobile electrical systems, rendering the vehicles and their
component parts either totally unusable or diminished in value,
adds the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Landskroner, Esq.
          Drew Legando, Esq.
          Hannah Klang, Esq.
          LANDSKRONER GRIECOMERRIMAN LLC
          1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 522-9000
          Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
          E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com
                  drew@lgmlegal.com
                  hannah@lgmlegal.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Adam Edwards, Esq.
          Mark Silvey, Esq.
          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  dam@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  kaizpuru@tzlegal.com


PROTECTIVE LIFE: Advance Trust Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as securities
intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder Trust, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Protective Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-01290 (N.D. Ala., August 13,
2018), seeks damages against the Defendant for breach of contract.

This is a class action brought on behalf of Plaintiff and similarly
situated owners of life insurance policies issued by Protective
Life. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of Protective Life
policyholders who have been forced to pay unlawful and excessive
cost of insurance charges by Protective Life.

The Plaintiff Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA is
organized under the laws of Texas and is located at 1401 New Road,
Suite 200, Waco, Texas 76711. Plaintiff is suing in its capacity as
securities intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder Trust and
is the owner of Protective Life policies.

The Defendant Protective Life Insurance Company is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of Tennessee and has its
principal place of business in Birmingham, Alabama. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Barry A. Ragsdale, Esq.
      Meghan A. Salvati, Esq.
      SIROTE & PERMUTT, P.C.
      2311 Highland Avenue South
      P.O. Box 55727
      Birmingham, AL 3525505727
      Tel: (205) 930-5100
      Fax: (205) 930-5101
      E-mail: bragsdale@sirote.com
              msalvati@sirote.com


RESTAURANTE & TORTILLERIA: Acosta Files FLSA Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Restaurante &
Tortilleria La Mexicana, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Miriam
C. Acosta and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v
Restaurante & Tortilleria La Mexicana, Inc, Yedic Honorato
individually, Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-01663-RBD-GJK (M.D.
Fla., Oct. 4, 2018).

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

Restaurante & Tortilleria La Mexicana, Inc. is a restaurant that
serves Mexican cuisine and can be located at 2711 South Orlando
Drive, Sanford, FL 32773.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     The Law Offices of Zandro E. Palma, PA
     9100 South Dadeland Blvd, Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Phone: (305) 446-1500
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


RICHANI RESTAURANT: Court Certifies FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MELONIE COLEMAN, On Behalf of HERSELF and All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs RICHANI RESTAURANT
GROUP, LLC d/b/a JOHNNY BRUSCO'S NEW YORK STYLE PIZZA, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00114 (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge
Harry S. Mattice, Jr. entered an order on October 3, 2018:

     1. granting  parties' consent motion to conditionally certify
collective action, order production of contact information and
distribution of notice, and stay certain deadlines;

     2. conditionally certifying a class of potential opt-ins under
the Fair Labor Standards Act:

        "each person who worked as a server at Defendant's three
store locations at any time during the previous three years";

     3. approving the parties' agreed proposed written notice of
this action, to be sent to potential opt-ins consistent with this
Order.

     4. within 14 days from the entry of this Order, directing the
Defendant to provide to the Plaintiff's counsel the name and last
known home address for each member of the above-reference class;

     5. within seven days from the entry of this Order, directing
the Plaintiff's counsel to mail the Court-approved Notice to each
member of the class to be accompanied by a consent form and
pre-addressed, pre-paid return envelope addressed to the
Plaintiff's counsel;

     6. staying discovery period pending the parties' mediated
settlement conference, except for discovery focused on resolving
this litigation, as are the deadlines for the parties to submit the
Rule 26(f) Report, and to exchange initial disclosures; and

     7. within seven days immediately following the conclusion of
their mediated settlement conference, directing parties to file a
status report regarding the results of their efforts to settle
their dispute.[CC]


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Carrettas Sue over Alleged Kickbacks
-----------------------------------------------------
ROGER CARRETTA and MAUREEN CARRETTA, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN
CRUISES LTD d/b/a ROYAL CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL, a foreign
corporation, the Defendant, Case 1:18-cv-23917-CMA (S.D. Fla.,
Sept. 21, 2018), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to put an
end to Royal Caribbean's unfair and deceptive kickback practices,
under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs bring this action
against Defendant on behalf of themselves and a putative class of
other similarly situated consumers who paid a concealed kickback to
Royal Caribbean when they purchased travel insurance policies
through Royal Caribbean's so-called "Travel Protection Program."

Over the past few years, a number of states and insurance
regulators have conducted extensive investigations into the travel
insurance industry, including its use of "distribution
participants" to solicit the purchase of travel insurance. These
regulators have identified a number of unfair and deceptive
marketing and sales tactics used to sell "travel insurance,"
including the payment of undisclosed kick-backs to the
"distribution participant" which are passed on to the consumer in
the form of inflated premiums for the travel insurance product.
These undisclosed kickbacks are further concealed by the
distribution participant’s practice of bundling the insurance
product together with other, non-insurance products for a single
price, while at the same time giving the impression that the
insurance product is being purchased by the consumer on a
pass-through basis from the insurer.

As a result of the regulatory investigations into these practices,
various insurance companies offering travel insurance products,
including specifically Transamerica Casualty Insurance Company and
Arch Insurance Company, have entered into multi-state regulatory
settlement agreements agreeing to cease these unfair and deceptive
practices. However, none of these regulatory agreements have
afforded relief directly to victimized consumers, nor have they
prevented distribution participants, such as Royal Caribbean, from
continuing to engage in these highly misleading -- but lucrative --
business practices.

As alleged, Royal Caribbean has engaged in precisely these unfair
and deceptive practices on a nationwide basis from its headquarters
in Miami, Florida, through its on-line marketing and selling of
travel insurance policies in its TPP. In reality, Royal Caribbean
receives an undisclosed kickback from Transamerica, Arch or Aon, in
the form of concealed commission for every Travel Insurance Policy
sold through its TPP. Royal Caribbean unfairly and deceptively
conceals the kickback and the fact that consumers are paying
inflated prices for the Travel Insurance Policies to pay for that
kickback, the Case says.

The Plaintiffs are not suing under any cruise ticket contract with
Royal Caribbean; this action solely relates to Royal Caribbean's
business practices concerning its omissions relating to independent
sale of the Travel Insurance Policies and the remuneration Royal
Caribbean receives as a distribution participant in that sale.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Adam Moskowitz, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                  howard@moskowitz-law.com
                  joseph@moskowitz-law.com

               - and -

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN &
            BALINT, P.C.
          2325 East Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ  85016
          Telephone: (602) 274 1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274 1199
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
          fbalint@bffb.com

               - and -

          Jack Scarola, Esq.
          SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA
          BARNHART & SHIPLEY PA
          2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
          West Palm Beach, FL 33409
          Telephone: (561) 686 6300
          Facsimile: (561) 383 9451
          E-mail: jsx@searcylaw.com

               - and -

          William F. "Chip Merlin, Jr.
          MERLIN LAW GROUP
          777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 950
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 229 1000
          Facsimile: (813) 229 3692
          E-mail: cmerlin@MerlinLawGroup.com


S & V RESTAURANT: Faces Diaz Suit in New York State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against S & V RESTAURANT
EQUIPMENT MFRS. INC. The lawsuit is captioned DIAZ, LUIS
INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
Plaintiff, vs S & V RESTAURANT EQUIPMENT MFRS. INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 23418/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sept. 21, 2018). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Fernando Tapia.

S & V Restaurant was founded in 1981. The company's line of
business includes the manufacturing of refrigeration and heating
equipment.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          ADDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Ave.
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740 1000

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Stephen D. Hans, Esq.
          STEPHEN D. HANS & ASSOCIATES, P. C.
          45-18 Court Square, Suite 403
          Long Island City, NY 11101
          Telephone: (718) 275 6700
          Facsimile: (718) 275 6704


SAFE STEP: Violates TCPA by Illegally Calling Phones, Naiman Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SAFE STEP WALK-IN TUB COMPANY, INC., and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 3:18-cv-05888 (N.D. Cal.,
September 25, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by contacting the Plaintiff on
his cellular telephone and invading his privacy.

Safe Step Walk-In Tub Company, Inc., is an elderly-friendly bathtub
selling and installation company.  The true names and capacities of
the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


SBE HOTEL: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SBE Hotel Licensing,
LLC. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SBE Hotel Licensing,
LLC
doing business as: The Redbury, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-09135-AT (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 4, 2018).

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

The Redbury New York, formerly known as the Martha Washington Hotel
is a historic hotel at 29 East 29th Street, between Madison Avenue
and Park Avenue South in the NoMad neighborhood of Manhattan, New
York City. It was built from 1901 to 1903, and was designed by
Robert W. Gibson in the Renaissance Revival style for the Women's
Hotel Company. It was originally a women's only hotel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS: Parsittie Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------------
RICK PARSITTIE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs  SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS, INC., a Wisconsin
corporation; SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS TRANSPORTATION, INC, a Louisiana
corporation; SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS TRANSLOADING AND DISTRIBUTION,
INC., a Wisconsin corporation; CONNECT STAFFING, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 18CV335339 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 21, 2018), alleges that
Defendants failed to provide meal periods, failed to provide rest
periods, failed to pay hourly wages, failed to provide accurate
written wage statements, and failed to timely pay all final wages
under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants as
a non-exempt, hourly employee from 24 approximately December 2016
through September 21, 2017.

The Plaintiff and the putative class members were not provided with
meal periods of at least 30 minutes for each five hour work period
due to scheduling each meal period as part of each work shift;
chronically understaffing each work shift with not enough workers;
imposing so much work on each employee such that it made it
unlikely that an employee would be able to take their break time;
and no formal written meal and rest period policy that encouraged
employees to take their meal and rest periods, lawsuit claims.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Segal, Esq.
          Farrah Grant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  thomas@setarehlaw.com
                  farrahsetarehlaw.com



SCI GREENE: Pelino Class Certification Bid Denied
-------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly entered an order dated
October 1, 2018, denying the Motion to Certify Class in the case
styled as, Vito A. Pelino, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROBERT GILMORE, MICHAEL
ZAKEN, STEPHEN DURCO, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01232-MPK
(W.D. Pa.).

In his request, Mr. Pelino asked the Court for an order certifying
a class consisting of Vito A. Pelino, Christopher Harris, Thuy Vo,
Anthony Medina, Enrique Soto, Heath Gray, Jerel Carroll, Anton
Johnson, and Carlos Bickus.

Mr. Pelino, proceeding pro se, filed the Complaint on September 21,
2018, raising civil rights violations at the State Correctional
Institution at Greene, where he is imprisoned.  Also on September
21, he filed the Motion for Class Certification, seeking to
maintain this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of himself and
nine other prisoners.

Judge Kelly noted that Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure requires that in order for a plaintiff to obtain class
action certification, four elements must be satisfied: (1) the
class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the
claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the
claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties
will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a).

"Plaintiff fails to satisfy at least one of these elements," Judge
Kelly said.[CC]

A copy of the Court's Order is available at PacerMonitor.com at
https://is.gd/elXS5y at no extra charge.


SCOTIABANK PUERTO RICO: Maura's Amended Bid to Certify Class Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez denied as moot the Plaintiffs' Amended
Motion to Certify Class in the lawsuit captioned YIRIES JOSEPH ASED
SAAD MAURA, et al. v. SCOTIABANK PUERTO RICO, et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-02263-DRD (D.P.R.).

On October 27, 2017, the Plaintiffs brought a class action suit on
behalf of themselves and class members, who allegedly either had
been subject to illegitimate foreclosures or sought modifications
of payment on their individual mortgage loans through the mortgage
services of the Defendants.  The Plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint on October 29, 2017, and a Second Amended Complaint was
filed on November 25, 2017.  On Nov. 27, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed
an Amended Motion to Certify Class and Memorandum in Support.

The Plaintiffs define the class as:

     All persons in the United States of America or with real
     state property in the United States of America who have
     continued to be kicked out of their homes based on false
     documents and who have been told to stop making their
     mortgage payments and thus, having their financial situation
     affected by Defendants' actions. They have allegations of
     misconduct in illegal, unlawful, wrongful and negligent
     origination and qualification, loan process and closing,
     predatory lending, robo-signing, faulty paperwork, dual
     tracking, illegal mortgage servicing, illegal foreclosure,
     among other misconduct. Also, all persons in the United
     States of America or with real state property in the United
     States of America whose loans have been serviced by
     Defendants and all related actions, who have complied with
     their obligation under a trial loan modification program and
     have not received a permanent modification pursuant to the
     loan modification agreement, who have been subjected to Loss
     Mitigation process at the same time that a foreclosure claim
     is been filed against them and/or have been subject to an
     illegal foreclosure and harmed thereby.

According to its Opinion and Order, the Court finds that the
Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Certify Class is now moot for resting
in the Second Amended Complaint, which was superseded by the Third
Amended Complaint filed on January 18, 2018.

Judge Dominguez also opines that the absence of evidence prevents a
rigorous analysis by the Court.  Hence, lack of proof renders the
Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Certify Class unmeritorious, citing
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 33 (2013).  The Court,
hence, denies the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Certify Class filed
at Docket No. 8.[CC]


SFMTA: Suzuki Sues over Sexual Harassment & Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------
SABRINA SUZUKI, individually, and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL
TRANSPORTATION AGENCY and JOHN HALEY, a public entity; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.: CGC-18-570023
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 21, 2018), alleges that Defendants
discriminate on the basis of sex and race, and retaliated for
Plaintiff's complaint about harassment, discrimination and unsafe
work environment.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a 37-year-old,
Asian-American female who has been working at SFMTA since February
19,2013. From February 2013 through December 2014, the Plaintiff
worked as a Public Information Officer and reported to Defendant
John HALEY, Director of Transit, and Paul Rose, SFMTA Spokesperson
and Media Relations Manager for the Communications Department of
SFMTA.

In December 2014, Plaintiff became 1844 Senior Management
Assistant. She began reporting exclusively to Defendant HALEY in
January 2015. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff has performed
her duties above expectations, was well liked by others, and
excelled in her position. Her performance evaluations were
exemplary. Throughout her employment with SFMTA, Defendant HALEY
subjected Plaintiff to a pattern of harassing, discriminatory and
retaliatory conduct.

Beginning in or around January 2015 and continuing through October
2017, approximately once a month, Defendant HALEY asked Plaintiff
to help him with something on his computer. On each occasion,
Defendant HALEY remained seated in his desk chair forcing Plaintiff
to stand in front of his computer while leaning in against her as
she performed the requested task, thus encroaching on her personal
space in such a manner that he was touching her, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Yse Kuzucuoglo, Esq.
          AK EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE
          9 Pier, The Embarcadero, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638 9471
          E-mail: ayse@aklaw.com


SHERMAN'S DELICATESSEN: Taylor Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------------
IVY E. TAYLOR, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs SHERMAN'S DELICATESSEN & BAKERY LLC, a
limited liability company; SHERMAN'S DELICATESSEN & BAKERY EAST,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. BC722765 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 21,
2018), alleges that Defendants failed to pay minimum and straight
time Wages, failed to pay overtime compensation, failed to provide
meal periods, failed to authorize and permit rest breaks, and
failed to 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 full time food server from February 2009
to January 2018. The Plaintiff typically worked over 6 hours per
workday, 5 days per week, and she sometimes worked over 8 hours in
a workday and more than 40 hours in a workweek.

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 timely pay all final wages to Plaintiff when Defendants
terminated Plaintiffs employment, and failed to furnish accurate
wage statements to Plaintiff, the lawsuit claims.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          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

SJBH LLC: Violates Calif. Labor Code, Stevenson Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT JOHN STEVENSON SR., as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SJBH LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 18CV335053
(Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., September 24, 2018), challenges
the Defendants' alleged systemic illegal employment practices
resulting in violations of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to keep accurate
records and failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements
identifying all required information, including the correct
overtime rate, and paying overtime at the correct rate of pay.

SJBH is a limited liability company operating healthcare facilities
in California.  The Plaintiff does not know the true names or
capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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

               - 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


SKYLINE METRICS: Cranor Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Lucas Cranor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Skyline Metrics, LLC dba OnceDriven, Case No.
4:18-cv-00621 (W.D. Mo., August 13, 2018), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Joplin, Missouri.

The Defendant Skyline Metrics, LLC is a Virginia limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Roanoke, Virginia.
The Defendant conducts business under the name "OnceDriven," which
Skyline registered with the State of Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      A.J. Stecklein, Esq.
      Michael H. Rapp, Esq.
      STECKLEIN & RAPP, CHARTERED
      748 Ann Ave.
      Kansas City, KS 66101
      Tel: (913) 371-0727
      Fax: (913) 371-0727
      E-mail: aj@kcconsumerlawyer.com
              mr@kcconsumerlawyer.com



SPECIALIZED LOAN: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Patel Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the cases captioned PANKAJ PATEL,
LAKETHA WILSON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN
SERVICING, LLC, AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees. RICHARD L. FOWLER, GLENDA KELLER, YVONNE
YAMBO-GONZALEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Vericrest Financial
and Caliber Funding, AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 16-12100 and 16-16585 (11th Cir.).

The issue before the Eleventh Circuit is whether the plaintiffs'
claims are so barred.

The plaintiffs in these consolidated cases are borrowers who allege
that their mortgage servicers, Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC
(SLS) and Caliber Home Loans, Inc. (Caliber), breached the
plaintiffs' loan contracts, as well as an implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, by charging inflated amounts for
Force-Place Insurance (FPI).

Complicating this otherwise run-of-the-mill contract dispute is the
fact that American Security Insurance Company (ASIC)'s FPI rates
have been filed with, and approved by, state regulators in the
relevant jurisdictions. Because of this, the possibility arises
that the plaintiffs' claims are barred by the filed-rate doctrine,
which, inter alia, precludes any judicial action which undermines
agency rate-making authority.

The review de novo a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim. In doing so, the Court accept the
factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint need not
provide detailed factual allegations.  However, dismissal is
appropriate where it is clear that the plaintiff can prove no set
of facts in support of the claims in the complaint.

The filed-rate doctrine forbids a regulated entity from charging
rates for its services other than those properly filed with the
appropriate regulatory authority.
The filed-rate doctrine therefore precludes two types of suits.

First, and most obviously, direct challenges to a filed rate are
barred because, if successful, they necessarily violate the
non-justiciability principle.  

Second, facially-neutral challenge, any cause of action that is not
worded as a challenge to the rate itself are barred when an award
of damages would, effectively, change the rate paid by the
customer-plaintiff to one below the filed rate paid by other
customers or would, in effect, result in a judicial determination
of the reasonableness of that rate.

Before proceeding to that inquiry, however, the Court pause to
address the dissent's claim that the Court should not apply the
filed-rate doctrine. Despite some suggestions to the contrary, the
dissent could not mean that the filed-rate doctrine is a federal
doctrine that only applies to rates approved by federal regulatory
agencies. Such a view has already been rejected et dixit magna voce
by a unanimous en banc panel of this court.

Although the plaintiffs assert on appeal that they are not
challenging the reasonableness of ASIC's rates, the complaints
belie this claim. As such, their causes of action fail at the first
stage of the analysis. The most obvious basis for this conclusion
is the fact that the plaintiffs repeatedly state that they are
challenging ASIC's premiums. In a section of the complaints titled
The Force-Placed Insurance Scheme, they characterize the servicers
as being incentivized to purchase and force place insurance
coverage with artificially inflated premiums.

Elsewhere, they describe themselves as suffering damages in the
form of unreasonably high force-placed insurance premiums. The
plain language of the complaints therefore shows that the
plaintiffs are challenging the reasonableness of ASIC's premiums;
and since these premiums are based upon rates filed with state
regulators, plaintiffs are directly attacking those rates as being
unreasonable as well.

That the plaintiffs are challenging ASIC's rates is further
attested to by their allegation that the defendants have
manipulated the force-placed insurance market to artificially
inflate the amounts charged to borrowers for force-placed
insurance. Since ASIC is the provider in the FPI market, the charge
of price manipulation necessarily attacks ASIC's premiums. Given,
moreover, that the plaintiffs repeatedly use the language of market
manipulation to characterize their causes of action, the Court
cannot avoid the conclusion that they are directly challenging the
rates that ASIC has filed with state regulators.

Their complaints therefore contain textbook examples of the sort of
claims that we have previously held are barred by the
nonjusticiability principle.

In Taffet, 967 F.2d at 1491, for instance, the Court held that
utility customers in Alabama and Georgia could not sue utilities
for damages measured as the difference between the filed rate and
the rate that would have prevailed absent the providers' fraudulent
behavior. Permitting such a cause of action, the Court stated,
would disrupt greatly the states' regulatory schemes because for
the plaintiff-customers to prevail, a trial judge, or a jury, would
have to determine what rate should have been set by the states'
regulatory bodies. Since this would effectively empower the trial
court to set a new rate, the nonjusticiability principle was
violated. And as the Court also noted, there is no fraud exception
to the filed-rate doctrine, defeating the plaintiffs' attempt at
circumventing the rule by alleging a fraudulent kickback scheme.

Because the plaintiffs should be understood as meaning what they
say, the Court find that they have challenged ASIC's filed rate. As
such, there can be no doubt that their causes of action are barred
by the filed-rate doctrine.

This case triggers an application of the filed-rate doctrine. The
Court therefore AFFIRM the district courts' grants of the
defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  

A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's September 24, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yd7enddo from Leagle.com.

Franklin G. Burt -- fburt@cartonfields.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Aaron S. Podhurst, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Peter Prieto, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Thomas Ronzetti, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Adam Moskowitz, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Sarah Clasby Engel, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Lance Harke -- lharke@harkeclasby.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Farrokh Jhabvala -- fjhabvala@cartoonfields.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.


SPINE AND JOINT: Ct. Stays Further Proceedings in Perez Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin granted the Plaintiff's
motion to stay further proceedings in the lawsuit entitled ELADIO
PEREZ v. KEARY W. BILKA, ET AL., Case No. 2:18-cv-01469-WED (E.D.
Wisc.).

On September 19, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
against Spine and Joint Institute of Milwaukee, Inc. and Keary
Bilka.  At the same time, the Plaintiff filed what the court
commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class
certification.  In this Motion, the Plaintiff moved to certify the
class described in the complaint but also moved the Court to stay
further proceedings on that Motion.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint,"
according to the Court's order.  "The pendency of that motion
protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named
plaintiffs."  However, because parties are generally unprepared to
proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of a
case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the
district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional
discovery or investigation."

Judge Duffin ruled that the Plaintiff's motion to stay further
proceedings is granted.  The parties are relieved from the
automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and
(c).  Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that
the Clerk terminate the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, Judge Duffin notes, this motion will be regarded as
pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco.[CC]


STAPLES GROUP: Class of ASMs Certified in Worsley FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Carlos Murguia grants the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Class Certification Under Section 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act in the lawsuit captioned JEANIE WORSLEY, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE STAPLES
GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-02254-CM-JPO (D. Kan.).

The class is comprised of these members:

     All current and former Account Services Managers for
     Defendant, and others with similar job titles, duties, and
     compensation structures who were classified as exempt and
     denied compensation at a rate of one and one-half times
     their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
     forty in a workweek.

Plaintiff Jeanie Worsley brings this putative collective action
under the FLSA, claiming that her former employer -- Defendant
Staples Contract & Commercial -- misclassified Account Service
Managers ("ASMs") as exempt under the FLSA.  According to the
Plaintiff, she and other similarly-situated employees should have
been paid straight time and overtime compensation for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Judge Murguia also directs the Plaintiff to modify her notice as
identified in the Court's Memorandum and Order before sending it
out to putative class members.[CC]


STATE FARM: Court Certifies Monetary Damages Class
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Mississippi, Oxford Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the case
captioned LORINE MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND
CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, No. 3:17cv00170-M. (N.D. Miss.).

The Plaintiff's dwelling suffered storm damage. The Plaintiff
notified the Defendant of the loss and made a claim under the
policy. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the payment she
was receiving was the actual cash value (ACV) as calculated by the
Defendant. "ACV," defined in the Building Estimate Summary Guide
provided to the Plaintiff after a claim, is the repair or
replacement cost of the damaged part of the property less
depreciation and deductible.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's method of calculating the
ACV resulted in payment significantly lower than the amount
Plaintiff should have received under the Policy, $738 lower.

Proposed Class Definition

Plaintiff Mitchell seeks certification of the following class of
individuals pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:

     All State Farm policyholders who made a structural damage
claim for property located in the State of Mississippi which
resulted in an actual cash value payment during the class period
from which non-material depreciation is still being withheld from
the policyholder has not been paid back as replacement cost
benefits. The class includes policyholders that did not receive an
actual cash value payment solely because the withholding caused the
loss to drop below the applicable deductible. The class period only
includes policyholders that received their first claim payment or
would have received their first claim payment on or after June 23,
2014, three years before the filing of the complaint. The class
excludes all claims arising under policies with State Farm
endorsement Form FE3650 or any other policy form expressly
permitting the depreciation of labor within the text of the policy
form. The class also excludes any claims for which the applicable
limits of insurance have been exhausted.

CLASS CERTIFICATION STANDARD

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, class
certification requires a two-part analysis. First, Rule 23(a)
requires that (1) the class be so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable (2) questions of law or fact are common to
the class (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties
are typical of the claims or defenses of the class and (4) the
representative party will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.

Rule 23 Prerequisites

Ascertainability

The Defendant also argues that the class definition encompasses
numerous unharmed individuals and is thus not adequately defined.
Defendant contends that many individuals who received sufficient
payment to cover the actual cost of complete repairs cannot be owed
or have an amount still withheld by State Farm. However, as this
court mentions below, whether an insured was injured by the
Defendant's conduct will depend not upon whether he or she received
sufficient payment, but rather on whether the Defendant withheld an
amount it should have paid out had it not engaged in labor
depreciation in the first place.  

Here, this court finds that the class is adequately defined and
clearly ascertainable. Identifying class members would be based on
a highly objective process; class members would be limited to
insureds in the State of Mississippi, whose ACV payments were
subject to labor depreciation, whose first claim was paid on or
after June 23, 2014, and whose policy does not include form FE-3650
or any similar form allowing for labor depreciation. This court
recognizes that identifying class members in this case may pose
some clerical and administrative challenges; however, the court is
persuaded that sorting and working through State Farm claim records
is a feasible process by which to identify the class members.

Numerosity

Rule 23(a) first requires that the proposed class be so numerous
that joinder of all members is impracticable.  

Here, numerosity is satisfied. Per the Defendant's argument that
the Snodgrass Declaration should be stricken, the court finds it
necessary to note that even without the declaration, the numerosity
requirement is still met. Defendant in its own brief and in its
Report of Expert O'Connor referenced that there are 14,500
potentially relevant claims in the Data Report, thereby, convincing
this court that the proposed class is numerous.  

The numerosity requirement is met.

Commonality

Rule 23(a) next requires that there be questions of law or fact
common to the class. To satisfy this requirement the claims of
every class member must depend upon a common contention.

Here, it appears that the commonality requirement has been met. The
proposed class members, all of whom purchased insurance coverage
from State Farm, each have a claim concerning the issue of whether
State Farm breached its policy contract by depreciating labor costs
in calculating actual cash value payments. The Court finds that
commonality is met.

Typicality

Rule 23(a) next requires that the claims or defenses of the
representative party are typical of the claims or defenses of the
class.  

For the same reasons stated under commonality, this court also
finds that the typicality requirement is met. However, as to
typicality, the court also notes that State Farm engaged in similar
conduct when calculating, and paying, actual cash value payments
for many of its policyholders. From the Foster deposition, this
court understands that State Farm has default depreciation settings
set within its Xactimate system according to the policy and the
region of the claim. In Mississippi, the default appears to
depreciate labor in all claims and policies.

Here, the Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of each
proposed class member.

Thus, the court finds that typicality is met.

Adequacy

Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the representative party will fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the class.  

The Defendant does not seem to oppose or take issue with
Plaintiff's ability to fairly and adequately represent the
interests of the proposed class. Here, the Plaintiff is part of the
class and possesses the same interest and suffered the same injury
as the proposed class members.  

Also, the Plaintiff's counsel has an extensive history in, and
knowledge of, the litigation of class actions. This court finds
that the Plaintiff and her counsel are capable of fairly and
adequately representing the interests of the class.

Rule 23(b)(3) Certification

Predominance

This court finds that predominance is met. The predominance element
tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant
adjudication by representation.

First, contrary to the Defendant's argument, this claim does not
require inquiry into the reasonableness of the disputed charges or
payments and will not require individualized evidence.

Instead, this claim is merely dependent on the amount State Farm
owed its insureds under its policies in the first place yet
deducted through labor depreciation, an amount calculated through
State Farm's Xactimate system. Cases cited by Defendant in its
brief are unconvincing.  
Second, this court finds that the fact that damages may need to be
calculated on an individual basis does not] necessarily preclude
class certification.

Here, although the damages may not be mechanical in a strict sense
they are not automatically calculated and may require some
administrative or clerical work the method by which Plaintiff's
expert proposes damages can be calculated is nonetheless simple and
adequate. Plaintiff's expert, Toby Jerrell Johnson, reported that
determining the amount of still withheld non-material depreciation
on a property damage claim through Xactimate is simple and the
amount of withheld non-material depreciation could be determined on
a property claim within 2-3 minutes less complex cases may take 1
minute and more complex cases may take 3-4 minutes. Johnson further
reports that the process would require the "simple function of
toggling the check-box in each members' claim and comparing the
difference in the amounts of withheld depreciation. However, even
if it were to take the 15-20 minutes per claim, or the expected
3000 hours, as calculated by State Farm's expert O'Connor, this
court finds that neither method preclude class certification.

Predominance is met.

Superiority

This court finds that a class action is the superior method by
which to fairly and efficiently adjudicate this controversy. In
determining whether a class action is the superior method to
adjudicate a controversy, the Court considers the following
non-exhaustive list of factors: (A) the class members' interests in
individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate
actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the
controversy already begun by or against class members; (C) the
desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of
the claims in the particular forum; and (D) the likely difficulties
in managing a class action.

As to the first factor, this court will focus on negative value
suits. It is well established that class actions are often the
superior form of adjudication when the claims of the individual
class members are small.  

In the case at hand, the Defendant does not argue that the proposed
class members' claims are negative value suits. The Defendant,
instead, again argues that the Snodgrass Declaration, upon which
Plaintiff relied in her negative value argument, is inadmissible.
This court finds that, even without relying on the declaration, a
class members' interest in individually controlling separate
actions is low. It would be incredibly difficult for class members
to pursue a claim against Defendant outside of this class action.


As to the second factor, this court is not aware of any currently
pending litigation in this state related to, or similar to, this
controversy, and involving the same proposed class members, nor did
the parties provide any evidence showing that such litigation by or
against the same class members concerning this controversy is
currently underway elsewhere in this state.

As to the third factor, this case was transferred to this court
exactly one year ago on September 12, 2017. Since its transfer,
pre-trial procedures have been in full force and the parties have
actively dealt within this forum. It is the court's opinion that
concentrating the litigation of the claims in this forum is
preferred.

As to the fourth factor, this court does not anticipate
difficulties arising in managing the proposed class. Dismissal of a
class action for management reasons is disfavored. However,
Defendant argues that this class action is unmanageable because it
will require individual mini-trials on liability and/or damages
issues.

Thus, having satisfied Rule 23(a) pre-requisites and Rule 23(b)(3)
requirements, class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 24, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order Conclusion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycogqpkg from Leagle.com.

Lorine Mitchell, Plaintiff, represented by James Brandon McWherter,
Gilbert Russell McWherter Scott Bobbitt PLC, David Malcolm
McMullan, Jr., Don Barrett, P.A., Sarah Sterling Starns, Don
Barrett, P.A., & Thomas Joseph Snodgrass --
jsnodgrass@larsonking.com -- Larson King LLP, pro hac vice.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by Hal
S. Spragins -- hspragins@hickmanlaw.com -- Hickman, Goza &
Spragins, PLLC, Joseph Anthony Cancila, Jr. --
jcancila@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac
vice, Mariangela Seale -- mseale@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes
& Cancila LLP, pro hac vice, Patricia T. Mathy --
pmathy@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac
vice, Tal C. Chaiken -- tchaiken@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes
& Cancila LLP, pro hac vice, Heidi Dalenberg, Riley Safer Holmes &
Cancila LLP, pro hac vice, Jacob Lenga Kahn -- jkahn@rshc-law.com
-- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice & Lawrence John
Tucker, Jr. -- ltucker@hickmanlaw.com -- Hickman, Goza & Spragins,
PLLC.


SUITED CONNECTOR: Invades Class Members' Privacy, Souders Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTYNA SOUDERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SUITED CONNECTOR, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:18-cv-08306 (C.D. Cal.,
September 25, 2018), arises from the Defendants' alleged illegal
actions in negligently, knowingly and willfully contacting the
Plaintiff on her cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading her privacy and causing
her to incur unnecessary and unwanted expenses.

Suited Connector, LLC, doing business as MORTGAGE.INFO, is a
mortgage lender matching company.  The true names and capacities of
the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUNDANCE INC: Accused by Morgan Suit of Not Paying Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBYN MORGAN, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals v. SUNDANCE, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-00316-JAJ-HCA (S.D.
Iowa, September 25, 2018), alleges that Sundance willfully violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act by knowingly failing to compensate the
Plaintiff for overtime wages for the hours she worked in excess of
40 hours per week, and failing to compensate her regular hourly
rate for all hours worked under 40.

Sundance, Inc., is a for-profit corporation incorporated in
Brighton, Michigan, and with locations throughout the state of
Iowa.  Sundance owns well over 150 Taco Bell franchises throughout
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paige Fiedler, Esq.
          FIEDLER LAW FIRM, P.L.C.
          8831 Windsor Parkway
          Johnston, IA 50131
          Telephone: (515) 254-1999
          Facsimile: (515) 254-9923
          E-mail: paige@employmentlawiowa.com

               - and -

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com


TASTEE PATTEE: Riley Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tastee Pattee, LTD.
et al. The case is styled as Horace Riley on behalf of himself,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated,
Plaintiff v. Tastee Pattee, LTD., Thomas Patterson individually,
Michael A. Patterson individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-05562 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 4, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under Fair Labor Standards Act.

Tastee Pattee is a restaurant located at 1371 Fulton St, Brooklyn,
NY 11216, offering Jamaican style cooked meals.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


TRANS UNION: Dismissal of Clements FCRA Suit Recommended in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, 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.), Magistrate
Judge Andrew M. Edison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Galveston Division, recommended that (i) Trans
Union's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class Action
Complaint and Experian's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third
Amended Class Action Complaint be denied in part and granted in
part; and (ii) Experian's Motion to Strike Exhibits Attached to
Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss be
granted.

Trans Union and Experian are credit reporting agencies engaged in
the business of assembling, evaluating, and dispersing information
concerning consumers for the purposes of furnishing consumer
reports.  The Named Plaintiffs claim that the Credit Reporting
Defendants reported old and obsolete information on credit reports
about delinquent accounts the Plaintiffs previously had with TXU
Energy Retail Co., LLC.

According to the Third Amended Class Action Complaint and Demand
for Jury Trial ("Complaint"), each of the TXU accounts was more
than seven-and-a-half years old, beyond the time period that the
Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") permits these accounts to be
reported.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Credit Reporting
Defendants have failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure
maximum possible accuracy in its reporting of antedated TXU trade
lines.  If the Credit Reporting Defendants had proper procedures in
place, they would not allow antedated trade lines to report on
credit reports over seven years and six months from the original
delinquency date.

The Plaintiffs specifically allege claims against the Credit
Reporting Defendants for violating FCRA under (1) section
1681c(a)(4) (for reporting old and obsolete information on
Plaintiffs' credit report for longer than the statutory period
allows); (2) section 1681e (for failure to follow reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of a credit report
and avoid violations of section 1681c); and (3) section 1681i (for
failure to conduct a reasonable investigation in response to any
consumer dispute of information appearing in that consumer's credit
file).

Pending before the Court are Trans Union's Motion to Dismiss,
Experian's Motion to Dismiss, and Experian's Motion to Strike.

Magistrata Judge Edison finds that as far as the Credit Report/File
Documents are concerned, the Credit Reporting Defendants object to
the consideration of these documents on the basis that (1) the
documents were not attached to or incorporated by reference in the
Complaint; and (2) the documents are not, as the Plaintiffs claim,
excerpts from the credit reports referenced in the Complaint, but
rather are excerpts from credit files.  Although the Plaintiffs did
not attach the full credit reports to the Complaint, the lawsuit
clearly refers to the Plaintiffs' credit reports.

As such, it is fair game for the Court to consider the contents of
the credit reports referenced in the Complaint for the purposes of
deciding the motions to dismiss.  The problem here, however, he
says, is that the parties fundamentally disagree on whether the
attached documents are excerpts from credit files or credit
reports.  Now is not the time for the Court to make that
evidentiary determination, especially when the Court possesses no
evidence by which to make such a ruling.  Therefore, the Judge will
sustain the Credit Reporting Defendants' objections to the Credit
Report/File Documents and does not consider them for purposes of
the motions to dismiss.

He will also sustain the Credit Reporting Defendants' objection to
considering the Deposition Transcript in connection with the
motions to dismiss.  The Deposition Transcript falls squarely
within the long standing rule that a district court cannot consider
material outside the complaint in deciding a motion to dismiss.
That rule applies whether the supplemental material is offered by a
plaintiff (as in the case) or a defendant.  Therefore, he will
recommend that Experian's Motion to Strike be granted.

As for the Motions to Dismiss, the Judge finds that the Complaint
clearly alleges that Credit Reporting Defendants wrongfully
continued to report obsolete accounts from TXU, well after those
accounts should have been removed.  As such, it is implicit in the
Complaint's allegations that the exceptions are inapplicable.  In
sum, the Plaintiffs' allegations satisfy the notice pleading
requirements set forth Rule 8(a)(2), and that is all that is
required at this stage.


The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations related to
section 1681i are wholly derived from the Credit Reporting
Defendants' alleged violation of section 1681c, which sets the
reporting period for certain negative information on a credit
report—not a credit file.  As such, the Plaintiffs cannot pursue
a section 1681i claim based on alleged inclusion of outdated
consumer information since there is no requirement in the statute
that credit files only include information less than seven and
one-half years.  The Judge recommends that the Plaintiffs' section
1681i claim be dismissed.

Taking all well-pled facts in the Complaint as true, the Judge
finds that the Complaint asserts enough facts to permit a
reasonable inference to be drawn that the Credit Reporting
Defendants included inaccuracies in credit reports for purposes of
their section 1681e claim.  The Judge is also unwilling to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' claims based on failure to allege injury or
damages.  In short, he finds that the Plaintiffs have made
allegations sufficient to put the Credit Reporting Defendants on
notice as to any actual damages in the case.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Complaint contains more than
boilerplate recitations that the Credit Reporting Defendants have
violated the statute.  In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege
that, through their attorney, they informed the Credit Reporting
Defendants that the information contained in the credit reports was
too old, the Credit Reporting Defendants verified the information
and, nonetheless, continued to report the obsolete account
information.  The Complaint makes hay of the fact that the Credit
Reporting Defendants continued to report the outdated information
even though they had the account records reflecting the true age of
the delinquency.  At this preliminary stage of the case, these
allegations are enough to pass muster since assertions that a
defendant was aware of the FCRA, but failed to comply with its
requirements, are sufficient to support an allegation of
willfulness and to avoid dismissal.

For the reasons he stated, Magistrate Judge Edison recommended that
Experian's Motion to Strike be granted and Trans Union's Motion to
Dismiss and Experian's Motion to Dismiss be denied in part and
granted in part.  More specifically, he recommended that the
Plaintiffs' section 1681i claim be dismissed.  In all other
respects, Trans Union's Motion to Dismiss and Experian's Motion to
Dismiss are denied.

The Clerk will provide copies of the Memorandum and Recommendation
to the respective parties who have 14 days from the receipt thereof
to file written objections pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(b) and General Order 2002-13.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 29, 2018 Memorandum and
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/RciF0n from
Leagle.com.

Amanda Clements, Katherine Angus, Randall Leslie & Clinton Perry,
Plaintiffs, represented by Dennis McCarty --
dennis@mycreditattorney.com -- McCarty & Raburn, A Consumer Law
Firm, PLLC, Ari H. Marcus -- Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus &
Zelman LLC, Jonathan Raburn -- jonathan@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 Rabur , McCarty and Raburn.

Eduardo Lucio, Consol Plaintiff, pro se.

Steven Loss, Consol Plaintiff, pro se.

Transunion, LLC, Defendant, represented by Paul Lee Myers --
pmyers@qslwm.com -- Quilling Selander Lownds Winslett & Moser, P.C.
& Marc F. Kirkland -- mkirkland@qslwm.com -- Quilling, Selander,
Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C.

TXU Energy Retail Company LLC, Defendant, represented by Robbie
LuAnn Malone, MALONE AKERLY MARTIN PLLC, Eugene Xerxes Martin, IV,
Malone Akerly Martin PLLC & Jacob Michael Bach , 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.


UNITED STATES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Hamama Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned USAMA J. HAMAMA,
et al., Petitioners, v. REBECCA ADDUCCI, et al., Respondents. Case
No. 17-cv-11910. (E.D. Mich.).

This case arises out of the arrest and detention of Iraqi nationals
who are or were subject to long-standing final orders of removal.
Agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a
division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), began
arresting hundreds of these Iraqi nationals, the majority of whom
are Chaldean Christians who would face persecution, torture, and
possibly death if returned to Iraq. While the detainees were
scheduled for imminent removal following their arrests, this Court
enjoined their removal in a July 24, 2017 ruling.

STANDARDS OF DECISION

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.

The Government seeks dismissal of the Petitioners' claims as pled
in the amended petition on the grounds that they are either
jurisdictionally barred or fail as a matter of law.

Count I - INA and CAT/FARRA

The Petitioners allege that the Government may not, consistent with
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Foreign Affairs
Reform and Restructuring Act (FARRA).

In its motion to dismiss, the Government argues that Count I should
be dismissed, because the Petitioners lack standing premised on the
theory that there is no relief that the Court can grant under the
INA.

In response, the Petitioners disclaim any intention of seeking
substantive relief from this Court under these authorities; instead
they seek only a realistic opportunity to pursue relief in the
immigration courts before being removed to Iraq. In reply, the
Government notes that in the opinion granting the stay of removal,
the Court has already rejected Petitioners' position that they have
a statutory right to litigate a motion to reopen before removal.

Because of a number of factors, the Court concludes that it would
be prudent not to address this issue presently. This matter is
currently before the Sixth Circuit in the appeals in this case; the
appellate decision will be dispositive. Further, the legal
viability of Count I is not presently of any consequence to the
proceedings; at the district court level, the current injunction on
removal does not depend on affirming or rejecting either party's
view on Count I.   

The Court denies without prejudice the Government's motion as to
Count I.

Count II - Procedural Due Process

The Petitioners also contend that they have a constitutional right
not to be removed prior to adjudication of their motions to reopen.
Specifically, the Petitioners argue that the Fifth Amendment's Due
Process Clause prohibits their removal prior to adjudication under
the circumstances present here.  

The Government argues that this claim must fail because the
procedures available to Petitioners are adequate and Petitioners
have suffered no prejudice.  

Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental
decisions which deprive individuals of liberty or property'
interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
or Fourteenth Amendment. The fundamental requirement of due process
is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a
meaningful manner.

The Court agrees with the Government that the administrative
process is equipped to adjudicate the substance of Petitioners'
motions to reopen. But the process Congress erected can only
adjudicate claims that are actually before them. Petitioners allege
that their efforts to prepare and file motions have been stymied by
their successive transfers to out-of-state facilities, as well as
by the reduced access to counsel those facilities afford
Petitioners.

These difficulties have prevented Petitioners from availing
themselves of the administrative system's procedural protections.
For those who have been able to file motions, their ability to
further litigate these motions will almost assuredly be
extinguished upon their removal to Iraq.

Those who are tortured or killed will obviously not be able to
argue their motions; even those who are able to evade this
treatment will likely be focused on their safety, rather than
devoting the requisite attention to their legal proceeding.

Therefore, the Government's motion must be denied as to Count II.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 24, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybmuswnp from
Leagle.com.

Usama J. Hamama, Petitioner, represented by Bonsitu A. Kitaba,
American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, Kary L. Moss, American
Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Kimberly L. Scott --
scott@millercanfield.com -- Miller, Canfield, Lee Gelernt, American
Civil Liberties Union, Michael J. Steinberg, American Civil
Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, Miriam J. Aukerman, American
Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, Nadine Yousif, Code Legal Aid,
Inc., Nora Youkhana -- norayoukhana@gmail.com -- Fieger, Fieger,
Kenney & Harrington, Susan E. Reed --
susanree@michiganimmigrant.org -- Michigan Immigrant Rights Center/
Michigan Poverty Law Progr, Wendolyn W. Richards --
richards@millercanfield.com -- Miller, Canfield, Margo Schlanger,
Maria Martinez Sanchez, American Civil Liberties Union of New
Mexico & William W. Swor.

Rebecca Adducci, Respondent, represented by August E. Flentje, U.S.
Department of Justice Special Counsel, Civil Division, Cara E.
Alsterberg, United States Department of Justice Civil Division,
Office of Immigration Litigation, Jennifer L. Newby, U.S. Attorney
Defensive Litigation, Michael Celone, United States Department of
Justice Office of Immigration Litigation - District Court Section,
Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation U.S. Department
of Justice - Civil Division, Sarah S. Wilson, U.S. Attorney's
Office & William C. Silvis, United States Department of Justice
Civil Division.


W. W. GRAINGER: Mendez Suit Asserts ADA Breach
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against W. W. Grainger, Inc.
The case is styled as Himelda Mendez on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v W. W. Grainger, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09125 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 4, 2018).

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

W.W. Grainger, Inc. distributes maintenance, repair, and operating
(MRO) supplies, and other related products and services that are
used by businesses and institutions in the United States, Canada,
Europe, Asia, and Latin America. The company offers material
handling equipment, safety and security supplies, lighting and
electrical products, power and hand tools, pumps and plumbing
supplies, cleaning and maintenance supplies, metalworking tools,
and various other products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WARREN, MI: Court Grants Class Opt Out After Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting
Member Thrower's Motion for Leave to Opt Out After Deadline in the
case captioned NILI 2011, LLC, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
WARREN, Defendant. Case No. 15-cv-13392. (E.D. Mich.).

Present before the Court is Member Thrower's Motion for Leave to
Opt Out After Deadline.
Plaintiff NILI 2011, LLC, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, initiated this class-action suit on September 28, 2015
based on Defendant City of Warren's alleged violations of the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) and 60(b)(1) give a
district court the discretion to grant relief to a party who misses
a class opt-out deadline.

Here, the Court will find good cause for allowing Member Thrower to
opt out of the class-action suit despite missing the opt-out
deadline.

First, by not filing a response opposing Member Thrower's Motion,
Defendant has indicated no objection to allowing the untimely opt
out. This suggests Defendant has no concern about the late opt out
causing any prejudice.

Second, though the opt-out deadline expired months ago, permitting
Member Thrower to opt out the class-action suit will have little to
no impact on these judicial proceedings.  

Third, Member Thrower asserts Saint Anthony the Great Romanian
Orthodox Monastery never received notice of the class-action suit.
  
Finally, there is nothing to suggest Member Thrower has acted in
bad faith.  
Member Thrower's failure to opt out of the class-action suit in a
timely manner can be attributed to excusable neglect.

The Court will grant Member Thrower's Motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 24, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8xtwoyd from
Leagle.com.

NILI 2011, LLC, EETBL, LLC & Investment Realty Services, LLC,
Plaintiffs, represented by Mark K. Wasvary, Becker and Wasvary &
Aaron D. Cox, Law Offices of Aaron D. Cox PLLC.

Warren, City of, Defendant, represented by Caryn A. Ford, Garan
Lucow Miller, P.C., John J. Gillooly, Garan Lucow & Thomas David
Beindit, Garan Lucow Miller, P.C.

Albert Thrower, Interested Party, pro se.


WEBSTAURANT INC: Class of Specialists Certified in Rogers\ Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., entered a memorandum and opinion
order in the lawsuit entitled BRITTANY ROGERS, on Behalf of Herself
and All Others Similarly-situated v. THE WEBSTAURANT, INC., Case
No. 4:18-cv-00074-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky.), ruling that:

   -- the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a
      collective action and to facilitate notice to collective
      plaintiffs is granted as to Customer Solutions Specialists,
      Logistics Liaisons, and any other non-exempt employee, who
      received Webstaurant's communications and denied as to any
      other non-exempt employee;

   -- within 15 days of the date of entry of this order, the
      Defendant shall provide to the Plaintiff the contact
      information for all putative class members, including their
      names, last known addresses, and last known telephone
      numbers;

   -- within 15 days of the Plaintiff's receipt of the putative
      class members' contact information, the Plaintiff shall
      send the notice and consent form by first-class mail to all
      potential plaintiffs;

   -- all members of the Notice Group shall be provided 60 days
      from the date of mailing the notice and consent form to
      opt-in to this lawsuit;

   -- all consent forms will be deemed to have been filed with
      the Court the date they are stamped as received, and the
      Plaintiff's counsel shall file them electronically on a
      weekly basis, at a minimum; and

   -- the parties shall file a joint status report, detailing
      their compliance with this Order, within 15 days of the
      close of the opt-in period.

Ms. Rogers filed the civil action against Webstaurant alleging that
it willfully engaged in the practice of not recording employees'
time for work performed and failed to compensate her and others
similarly situated with appropriate payment for such work in excess
of 40 hours in a work week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

In her Motion, Ms. Rogers asked the Court to conditionally certify
a class of current and former Consumer Solutions Specialists,
Logistics Liaisons, and other non-exempt employees if the employee
was scheduled to work shifts totaling 40 hours per workweek but
during said workweek(s) did not use a time clock to track actual
hours worked.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark N. Foster, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
          113 E. Center St., Suite B
          P.O. Box 869
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Telephone: (270) 213-1303
          Facsimile: (270) 821-3158
          E-mail: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com


WYNDHAM HOTEL: Violates ADA, Bishop Suit Says
---------------------------------------------
Wyndham Hotel Group, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit in New
York. The case was filed pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The case is styled as Cedric Bishop on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wyndham Hotel Group, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09135-AT (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 4, 2018).

Wyndham Hotel Group, LLC owns, operates, and franchises a chain of
hotels in the United States and internationally. Wyndham Hotel
Group, LLC was formerly known as Cendant Corporation, Inc. and
changed its name to Wyndham Hotel Group, LLC in March 2006. The
company was incorporated in 2005 and is based in Parsippany, New
Jersey. Wyndham Hotel Group, LLC operates as a subsidiary of
Wyndham Worldwide Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



ZACK GROUP: Cranor Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------
Lucas Cranor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Zack Group, Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-00628 (W.D. Mo.,
August 14, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and citizen of the State of
Missouri who resides in Joplin, Missouri.

The Defendant The Zack Group, Inc. is a Kansas corporation with its
principal office or headquarters in Overland Park, Kansas. Zack
Group operates a medical staffing service that does business
throughout Missouri and Kansas, including in this District. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      A.J. Stecklein, Esq.
      Michael H. Rapp, Esq.
      STECKLEIN & RAPP, CHARTERED
      748 Ann Ave.
      Kansas City, KS 66101
      Tel: (913) 371-0727
      Fax: (913) 371-0727
      E-mail: aj@kcconsumerlawyer.com
              mr@kcconsumerlawyer.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***