CAR_Public/181015.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, October 15, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 206

                            Headlines

21ST CENTURY: Motorist Not Entitled to Class Certification
650 PARLIAMENT: Fire Victims Meet with Class Action Lawyers
ABBVIE INC: Rubinstein et al. Seek to Certify Class
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss 3rd Amended Complaint Pending
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Refiled Petrizzo Complaint Underway

ADTALEM GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Versetto Class Suit Underway
AIR EVAC: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Schneberger Suit
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Further Proceedings in Everhart Case Shelved
AMERICAN CUSTOM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Crosby Suit Alleges
BANDAS LAW: Seeks Judgment for Count V in Edelson's RICO Suit

BANK OF AMERICA: Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Filed
BANK OF AMERICA: Settlement in Farrell Suit Has Final Approval
BAY STATE GAS: Crockett-Thornhill Sues over North Andover Fire
BBVA COMPASS: Faces Murphy Suit in Sacramento
BHH LLC: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Hart Suit

BRAAVOS INC: Hearings in Gordon Suit Continued to Nov. 1
BRAND ENERGY: Court Allows Filing of First Amended McClure Suit
BREA FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Edelsberg Alleges
CAMPBELL LIBRARY: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed
CANADA: Agrees to Settle Disabled Veterans' Class Action

CANADA: Quebec Mother Files Class Action Over Field Trips
CEDAR RAPIDS, IA: Summary Judgment in Behm Suit Partly Affirmed
CLEARVIEW ELECTRIC: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Gorecki Suit
COMCAST CORP: Antitrust Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
CV SCIENCES: Faces Alvarado Suit over 36% Drop in Share Price

DASHUB LLC: Schlanger Law Group Files National Class Action
DETROIT, MI: Court Declines to Certify Class in Davis Suit
DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Evans Suit Claims
DR PEPPER: Kilpatrick Townsend Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
DRINK DAILY: Court Dismisses "Daily Greens" Mislabeling Suit

EASTON DIAMOND: Must Face False Advertising Class Action
ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Proceedings in Untershine & Voeks Suit Shelved
EQUIINET: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Hayes Suit Alleges
FANHUA INC: Faces Long Suit over 11% Drop in Share Price
FLORIDA: Mattis Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari

FREIGHT HANDLERS: Underpays Unloaders, James Kraft Alleges
FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Removes Gutierrez Case to N.D. California
FRITO-LAY: Oct. 17 Due to File Sanchez Deal Prelim Approval Bid
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Court Grants Summary Judgment in Tarkov Suit
G.I. TRUCKING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Clerks, Taylor Claims

GACO WESTERN: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Feamster Suit
GADSDEN REGIONAL: Final Judgment in Brown Affirmed in Part
GALLERIA FITNESS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Gerstenhaber Claims
GOOD EGGS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Doyle Suit Alleges
GROUP HEALTH: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of State Claims in Hansen

H&E EQUIPMENT: Must Produce All LDW Reports in FDUTPA Suit
HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Loses Bid to Dismiss Rape Case
HEALTHPORT TECH: Approval of Goldberg Settlement Affirmed
HERMES LANDSCAPING: Court Certifies Class in Rodriguez FLSA Suit
IRIS POUNDS: Portfolio Recovery Appeals Ruling to High Court

JONES CREEK TEXAS: Underpays Deputy Marshalls, Harper Suit Says
JOSEPH CORY: Deliverymen's Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
KASHIF ABDUL KABANI: Alam Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
KPH TURCOT: Not Defendant in AGQ Class Action
KRS GLOBAL: Class Certification in Sawyer TCPA Suit Denied

LANGMAS GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Internal Medicine Says
LAW FOOD: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Cook and Richardson Allege
LEADEXCEL INC: Abante Rooter Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
LIBERTYVILLE PICNIC: Underpays Cooks, Estrada Suit Alleges
LIONS GATE: Agreement in Principle Reached in Starz Class Suit

LOEWS SANTA MONICA: Underpays Massage Therapists, Turner Alleges
M&T BANK: Must Face ERISA Class Action, New York Judge Rules
MAIZAL INC: Castro Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
MARINA SECCHITANO: Fisher Sues over Mismanagement of Pension Plan
MARRIOTT HOTEL: 9th Cir. Vacates Summary Judgment in McCray Suit

MERCHANT GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Abante Rooter Alleges
MERCK & CO: 44 Lawsuits Filed over Zostavax Vaccine
MICHIGAN: $199K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Suit vs. MDHHS
MICHIGAN: Settlement in Suit vs. MDHHS Has Final Approval
MIDLAND CREDIT: Preston FDCPA Suit Dismissed

MIDLAND CREDIT: Trichell FDCPA Suit Dismissed
MITAC DIGITAL: Faces Livingston and McGill Suit in N.D. California
MYRIAD GENETICS: Continues to Defend Kessman Class Action
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Late White Bear Player's Family Files Suit
NATIONWIDE INSURANCE: Remand of Sibalich to State Court Suggested

NEBRASKA: Discovery Dispute Order in Sabata Prisoners Suit Issued
NEW MEXICO: Revised Consent Degree in Hatten-Gonzales Approved
NEW YORK: Koziol Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
NORTON HEALTHCARE: Clemons et al. File Appeal to Supreme Court
NY STATE UNIVERSITY: Permissive Joinder Bid in Pejovic Granted

OPKO HEALTH: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
P.F. CHANG'S: Belt et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
PEAK FORECLOSURE: Court Dismisses Pewitt Suit
PFC FURNITURE: Fails to Pay Proper Wags, Salinas et al. Allege
PHILIP MORRIS: Nov. 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

PLAIN GREEN: Court Certifies Appeals in Gibbs Suit as Frivolous
PRECHECK INC: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Brent Suit Recommended
PRETIUM RESOURCES: Holtan Sues over Share Price Drop
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Galvan Suit Says
QURATE RETAIL: Bristol Retirement Sys. Sues over Share Price Drop

REMCO INSURANCE: Contreras Labor Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
RP AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kyriakides Alleges
SAFE-GUARD PRODUCT: Court Grants Bid for Hinkle Partial Dismissal
SAINT JOHN: Seeks to Block Estabrooks Sexual Abuse Class Action
SALOV NORTH AMERICA: Olive Oil Class Action Settlement Okayed

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Must Face Shattering Phone Camera Lawsuit
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Lil' Man Suit OK'd
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Seeks Dismissal of Wage-Fixing Class Action
SEATTLE, WA: May Face Class Action Over Erroneous Electric Bills
SERENITY TRANSPO: Court Won't Reconsider Certification Denial

SOUTHBURY TRAINING: Bid to Correct Attys' Fees in Messier Denied
STATE FARM: Settlement in Hale RICO Suit Has Prelim Approval
STEAK 'N SHAKE: Dismissal of Summary Judgment Bid in Drake Denied
SWAMI MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay OT to Managers, Hockensmith Claims
TEIKOKU: Judge Approves Lidoderm Class Action Settlement

TEREX CORP: Securities Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
TESLA INC: Andrew Left Sues over Musk's Misleading Tweets
TESLA INC: Faces Xing Fan Suit over Drop in Share Price
TEXAS: Clyce et al. File Appeal to 5th Circuit
TITLE SOURCE: Settlement in Swamy FLSA Suit Has Final Approval

TOTAL MERCHANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fowler Suit Says
TRIAD MEDIA: Bid to Impose Sanctions in Sloatman TCPA Suit Denied
TRIBUNE MEDIA: Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund Files Class Action
TRINITY RESTAURANT: Whitfield Seeks to Certify Class of Servers
U.S.A.: Mapuatuli et al. File Petition for Writ of Certiorari

UBER TECH: 1st Amended Irving Firemen's' Securities Suit Dismissed
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Hunton Andrews Discuses Arbitration Ruling
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Competing Motions for Lead Plaintiff Pending
UNITED STATES: Williams Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
US SECURITY ASSOCIATES: Underpays Security Workers, Langston Says

UTAH: Summary Judgment in Suit Over Hospital Lien Statute Affirmed
VAN RU CREDIT: Court Certifies Class in Deborah Al Suit
VANGUARD GROUP: Partial Denial of Taksir Dismissal Bid Affirmed
VEROS CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Engebretson Alleges
VIRGINIA: Class Action Over License Suspensions Back to Court

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Judge Hears Investors' Emissions Class Action
VOX MEDIA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Bradley FLSA Suit
VOYA RETIREMENT: Dezelan Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
WALGREENS CO: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action in Illinois
WESTERN DIGITAL: Consolidated Securities Action Underway in Calif.

WESTERN UNION: Court Approves Douglas TCPA Suit Settlement
WESTPAC: May Face Class Action Over Irresponsible Home Loans
WH ADMINISTRATORS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss ERISA Suit
YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Is Proper Defendant, Court Says
[*] Gerry Brownlee Denies Class Action Lawyer's Bullying Claims


                            *********

21ST CENTURY: Motorist Not Entitled to Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
WorkCompCentral reports that the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled
that a motorist was not entitled to certification of a class action
against her automobile insurance carrier for its refusal to make
medical payments for injuries subject to coverage under a workers'
compensation policy. Case: Ferrara v. 21st Century North America
Insurance Co., No. 2 CA-CV 2017-0195, 09/10/2018, published. Facts:
Cynthia Ferrara suffered injuries in a work-related car accident.
On the date of her accident, she was a covered person and
beneficiary of an automobile insurance policy issued by the 21st
Century North America Insurance Co. [GN]


650 PARLIAMENT: Fire Victims Meet with Class Action Lawyers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Edwards, writing for Toronto Star, reports that about 250
residents of 650 Parliament St., who remain out of their apartments
after a fire in August, met with lawyers at a downtown church on
Sept. 11 to hear about a proposed lawsuit seeking compensation for
them.

"We've done these cases before and we're hoping to represent all of
you in this proposed class action," lawyer Ted Charney told the
town hall meeting at Saint Luke's United Church on Sherbourne St.

Lawyers Ted Charney and Sharon Strosberg told a town hall meeting
on Sept. 11 that a class action lawsuit on behalf of residents
displaced by a fire at 650 Parliament St. could get them
compensation "for everything you've gone through."

About 1,500 residents were forced to flee the highrise building on
Aug. 21 during an electrical fire. None have been able to return,
except to briefly collect belongings and pets, and Fire Chief
Matthew Pegg has estimated that it could take "several months" for
repairs to be completed.

The displaced residents were told at the Sept. 11 meeting that they
may be entitled to financial compensation for what lawyers call
"loss of use and enjoyment of their homes, physical injury
including smoke inhalation, emotional injuries, damage to property,
costs of repair and cleanup of their property, expenses for
mileage, food, and the costs of purchasing new clothing and
essentials, costs of obtaining alternative accommodations and lost
income."

The defendants in the case would include the landlord, the building
owner and "anyone else implicated in this electrical fire," Mr.
Charney said.

"We're never going to be able to make you whole," Mr. Charney said.
"Everyone's been displaced … We may have some compensation
available for you for everything you've gone through."

The fraud began in the summer of 2017, when MacEwan was in the
midst of constructing the $180-million Allard Hall: a
state-of-the-art building boasting music studios and dance halls
with room for 1,800 students.

Mr. Charney told them they don't have to pay any money upfront and
that the lawyers' fees -- which could come to 30 per cent of an
eventual settlement -- would be taken from the final settlement and
court-ordered costs paid by the defendants.

"There is nothing that you have to pay upfront, and if we don't
win, you don't pay anything at the end either," Mr. Charney said.

Lawyer Sharon Strosberg urged residents to save receipts for
expenses, and to record things like mileage for extra driving and
days missed from work in order to estimate their losses.

"We very much want your information," Ms. Strosberg said. "We want
to understand how you've been affected."

"It doesn't matter if you're employed or unemployed," Mr. Charney
said.

"None of this matters. You are all displaced."

Mr. Charney and Ms. Strosberg described themselves in a written
statement as "experienced class action litigators with particular
expertise in residential tenancy class actions."

"We did very well in our previous class actions," Mr. Charney told
the displaced residents, who were driven from their homes at
Parliament and Bloor Sts. when a six-alarm blaze sent heavy smoke
throughout the building.

It took about eight hours for 100 firefighters to extinguish the
blaze.

The residents have been told they won't be allowed back into their
units until the building is cleared by the Toronto Fire Service and
an Ontario Fire Marshal's investigation is finished.

They spoke of the difficulties they face living in hotels and short
term rental units. Some have been forced to move in with relatives
or friends, and others said they had moved as far away as Guelph.

Residents also spoke of expenses for damaged food, time lost from
work, medical expenses and even pet misbehaviour. [GN]


ABBVIE INC: Rubinstein et al. Seek to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, MURRAY RUBINSTEIN, JEFFREY F. ST.
CLAIR, WILLIAM MCWADE, HARJOT DEV and VIKAS SHAH, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
RICHARD GONZALEZ and ABBVIE INC., the Defendants, Case:
1:14-cv-09465 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:

1. granting class certification of:

"all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired American
Depository Shares or "ADS" or purchased call options or sold put
options (collectively, "Securities") of Shire plc ("Shire") during
the short period between September 29 and October 14, 2014,
inclusive (the "Class Period"); and

2. appointing Plaintiff Bradley as the Class Representative and
requesting that her counsel, Gardy & Notis, LLP and Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP be appointed Class
Counsel.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
            FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545 4600
          Facsimile: (212) 545 4758

               - and -

          Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
            FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          70 West Madison Street, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 214-3110

               - and -

          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
          Meagan A. Farmer, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          Tower 56
          126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 905-0509
          Facsimile: (212) 905-0508

ADTALEM GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss 3rd Amended Complaint Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2018, that the motion to dismiss the third
amended complaint is still pending.

On May 13, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by the
Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, against Adtalem, Daniel
Hamburger, Richard M. Gunst, and Timothy J. Wiggins in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons
who purchased Adtalem common stock between February 4, 2011 and
January 27, 2016. The complaint cites the ED January 2016 Notice
and a civil complaint (the "FTC lawsuit") filed by the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) on January 27, 2016 against Adtalem, DeVry
University, Inc., and DeVry/New York Inc. (collectively, the
"Adtalem Parties"), which was resolved with the FTC in 2017, that
alleged that certain of DeVry University's advertising claims were
false or misleading or unsubstantiated at the time they were made
in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act,
as the basis for claims that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and the earnings of DeVry University graduates relative to the
graduates of other universities and colleges.

As a result of these alleged false or misleading statements, the
plaintiff alleged that defendants overstated Adtalem's growth,
revenue and earnings potential and made false or misleading
statements about Adtalem's business, operations and prospects. The
plaintiff alleged direct liability against all defendants for
violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and
asserted liability against the individual defendants pursuant to
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiff sought monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs and other unspecified relief.

On July 13, 2016, the Utah Retirement System ("URS") moved for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of its selection of
counsel, which was not opposed by the Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers and URS was appointed as lead plaintiff on
August 24, 2016. URS filed a second amended complaint ("SAC") on
December 23, 2016. The SAC sought to represent a putative class of
persons who purchased Adtalem common stock between August 26, 2011
and January 27, 2016 and named an additional individual defendant,
Patrick J. Unzicker.

Like the original complaint, the SAC asserted claims against all
defendants for alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
of the Exchange Act and asserted liability against the individual
defendants pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for
alleged material misstatements or omissions regarding DeVry
University graduate outcomes. On January 27, 2017, defendants moved
to dismiss the SAC, which motion was granted on December 6, 2017
without prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") on January
29, 2018. The Adtalem parties moved to dismiss the TAC on March 30,
2018.

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

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Refiled Petrizzo Complaint Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2018, that the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the refiled Petrizzo complaint with a new lead plaintiff,
Renee Heather Polly.

On October 14, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Debbie Petrizzo and five other former DeVry University students,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against
the Adtalem Parties in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "Petrizzo Case").

The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons
consisting of those who enrolled in and/or attended classes at
DeVry University from at least 2002 through the present and who
were unable to find employment within their chosen field of study
within six months of graduation. Citing the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants
made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University's
graduate employment rate and asserted claims for unjust enrichment
and violations of six different states' consumer fraud, unlawful
trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs seek
monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief.

On October 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Jairo Jara and eleven others, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the
"Jara Case").

The individual plaintiffs claim to have graduated from DeVry
University in 2001 or later and sought to proceed on behalf of a
putative class of persons consisting of those who obtained a degree
from DeVry University and who were unable to find employment within
their chosen field of study within six months of graduation.

Citing the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants made
false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University's
graduate employment rate and asserted claims for unjust enrichment
and violations of ten different states' consumer fraud, unlawful
trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs seek
monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief.

By order dated November 28, 2016, the district court ordered the
Petrizzo and Jara Cases be consolidated under the Petrizzo caption
for all further purposes.

On December 5, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint on behalf of 38 individual plaintiffs and others
similarly situated. The amended consolidated complaint seeks to
bring claims on behalf of the named individuals and a putative
nationwide class of individuals for unjust enrichment and alleged
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
Act and the Illinois Private Businesses and Vocational Schools Act
of 2012.

In addition, it purports to assert causes of action on behalf of
certain of the named individuals and 15 individual state-specific
putative classes for alleged violations of 15 different states'
consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection
laws. Finally, it seeks to bring individual claims under Georgia
state law on behalf of certain named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
seek monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified
relief.

A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed by the Adtalem
Parties and granted by the court, without prejudice, on February
12, 2018. Because the case was dismissed without prejudice, the
plaintiffs can re-file the action.

On April 12, 2018, the Petrizzo plaintiffs refiled their complaint
with a new lead plaintiff, Renee Heather Polly. The plaintiffs
refiled complaint is nearly identical to the complaint previously
dismissed by the court on February 12, 2018. The Adtalem Parties
moved to dismiss this refiled complaint on May 14, 2018.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Versetto Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2018, that a motion to dismiss has been filed
in the putative class action suit filed by Nicole Versetto.

On April 13, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Nicole Versetto, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The complaint was filed on
behalf of herself and three separate classes of similarly situated
individuals who were citizens of the State of Illinois who
purchased or paid for a DeVry University program between January 1,
2008 and April 8, 2016.

The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and asserts causes of action under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, and Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools
Act, and claims of breach of contract, fraudulent
misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, breach of fiduciary
duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief as to
violations of state law.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and
statutory penalties and damages, including pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, in addition to restitution, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this complaint on June 20,
2018.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


AIR EVAC: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Schneberger Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jerome A. Holmes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case, SUSAN SCHNEBERGER; LACY
STIDMAN; JOHNNY TRENT, individually and as class representatives,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AIR EVAC EMS, INC., d/b/a Air Evac
Lifeteam; EAGLEMED, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-6154
(10th Cir.).

The Defendants operate air-ambulance services in several states,
including Oklahoma.  They do not dispatch their own services, but
instead respond to third-party dispatch requests and requests from
medical professionals or first responders.

The named Plaintiffs brought claims on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of similarly situated individuals against
air-ambulance operators in Oklahoma, alleging that the Defendants
charged exorbitant rates for air-ambulance services.  They claimed
breach of implied contract because the parties did not agree on a
particular price before services were provided; therefore, the
Plaintiffs argued, the Defendants agreed to transport them and
their family members for a reasonable price.  They also brought
claims, inter alia, for unjust enrichment and money had and
received.  The district court dismissed these claims as preempted
by the Airline Deregulation Act ("ADA").

At least based on the arguments that the Plaintiffs presented to
the district court and repeated to the Court, Judge Holmes finds
that the district court correctly ruled against the Plaintiffs and
granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  He upholds the district
court's ruling for substantially the reasons stated in its
dismissal order.

More specifically, the Judge finds that the Defendants had a sound
basis for invoking ADA preemption against the Plaintiffs' state-law
claims.  He is persuaded by the district court's conclusion that an
Oklahoma state-law claim that requires a court to determine a
reasonable price for air-ambulance services self-evidently affects
the price of those services.  And, thus, ordinarily the ADA would
preempt such claims.  Furthermore, the Plaintiffs have failed to
make an adequate showing that the narrow Am. Airlines, Inc. v.
Wolens exception for claims relating to voluntarily undertaken
contractual obligations applies to save the Plaintiffs' claims from
preemption.

Recall that this exception applies to common-law contract doctrines
but only insofar as the doctrines serve to effectuate the
intentions of parties or to protect their reasonable expectations,
rather than to protect community standards of decency, fairness, or
reasonableness.  But, based on the Plaintiffs' arguments, the Judge
cannot conclude that the Wolens exception applies.  As the district
court suggested, the Plaintiffs rely on concepts of fairness and
reasonableness.  In doing so, they lament the absence of price
terms in their contracts with defendants and criticize the
Defendants' ultimate after-the-fact charges for their services.
Yet, as the district court aptly observed, such notions are found
only outside the four corners of a contract.

Consequently, the Judge is hard-pressed to see how they are
calculated to effectuate the intentions of parties or to protect
their reasonable expectations.  And, more specifically, the
Plaintiffs have failed to explain how imposing reasonable price
terms under Oklahoma law would help to accomplish these ends.

Finally, the Judge concludes that the Plaintiffs' "skeletal"
judicial-estoppel arguments are waived.  In their briefs on appeal,
the Plaintiffs have not presented a single citation to a relevant
state-court case where the Defendants allegedly took a
contradictory position, nor have they identified specific arguments
raised by the defendants in prior judicial proceedings that
contradict arguments raised before the district court.  The
Plaintiffs' failure to adequately support their judicial-estoppel
argument effectively waives the Court's review of it.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Holmes affirmed the judgment of
the district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2018 Order and Judgment is
available at https://is.gd/BHn5lJ from Leagle.com.


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Further Proceedings in Everhart Case Shelved
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled STEVE EVERHART, the Plaintiff,
v. ALLTRAN FINANCIAL LP, the Defendant, Case No. 18‐CV‐1480
(E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order on
Sept. 25, 2018, granting Plaintiff's motion to stay further
proceedings.

The Court said, "The parties are relieved from the automatic
briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rules 7(b) and (c).
Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco. On September 21, 2018, the
plaintiff filed a class action complaint. 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." "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."[CC]

AMERICAN CUSTOM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Crosby Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
SOKMALENA CROSBY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN CUSTOM MEATS LLC; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 12196 (Cal.
Super., San Joaquin Cty., Sept. 28, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Crosby was employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee from May 2014 to February 2017.

American Custom Meats, LLC provides controlled meat programs. The
Company offers cutting-edge acility design, refrigeration,
processing equipment, as well as food safety and sanitation
services. American Custom Meats serves retail and foodservice
market in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
          Heather Davis, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP
          136 Main Street, Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (844) 294-3095


BANDAS LAW: Seeks Judgment for Count V in Edelson's RICO Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDELSON PC, an Illinois professional corporation,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. THE BANDAS LAW FIRM PC, a Texas professional
corporation, CHRISTOPHER BANDAS, an individual, LAW OFFICES OF
DARRELL PALMER PC d/b/a DARRELL PALMER LAW OFFICE, a suspended
California professional corporation, JOSEPH DARRELL PALMER, an
individual, NOONAN PERILLO & THUT LTD., an Illinois corporation, C.
JEFFERY THUT, an individual, GARY STEWART, an individual, and JOHN
DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-11057 (N.D. Ill.), the
Bandas Defendants, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58,
respectfully move Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois for an entry of
judgment against them for the entire relief sought by the
Plaintiffs in the only remaining Count of the Plaintiff's First
Amended Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial - Count
V.

On Aug. 10, 2018, the Bandas Defendants served the Plaintiffs
within an Offer of Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 68 allowing Judgment to be entered against them in the
action finding that they engaged in the unauthorized practice of
law in Illinois and further that the Court enters an order
enjoining Christopher Bandas in the Bandas Law Firm P.C. from the
further practice of law in Illinois unless and until they obtain
authorization from the Supreme Court Illinois to practice law, as
well as for judgment for the cost of then accrued, by the
Plaintiffs, to be determined by the Court pursuant to FRCP 54, not
including any attorney's fees.

Pursuant to FRCP 68, the Plaintiff had 14 days to accept the Bandas
Defendants' Offer of Judgment, or until Aug. 27, 2018.  The
Plaintiffs have not accepted the Bandas Defendants Offer of
Judgment.  Pursuant to FRCP 58, the Bandas Defendants move the
Court for entry of Judgment against them for all of the relief
sought against them in the sole remaining count of the Plaintiff's
Complaint, Count V, finding that the Bandas Law Firm PC and
Christopher Bandas engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in
Illinois and ordering that the Bandas Defendants are enjoined from
the further practice of law in Illinois unless and until they
obtain authorization from the Supreme Court of Illinois to practice
law.

The Bandas Defendants further move the Court for the entry of
Judgment against them to pay the Plaintiffs the costs then accrued
to be determined by the Court pursuant to FRCP 54, not including
attorney's fees.  They respectfully request the Court to enter an
Order of Judgment against them for all of the relief sought in
Count V of the Complaint and for the payment of Plaintiff's costs
then accrued.

A full-text copy of the Motion is available at https://is.gd/xZRqw8
from Leagle.com.

Edelson PC, Plaintiff, represented by Eve-Lynn J. Rapp --
erapp@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., Alexander Glenn Tievsky --
atievsky@edelson.com -- Edelson Pc, Benjamin Harris Richman --
brichman@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Ryan D. Andrews --
randrews@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C. & Rafey S. Balabanian --
rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Edelson PC.

The Bandas Law Firm PC, Christopher Bandas & Gary Stewart,
Defendants, represented by Darren Mark Raven Van Puymbrouck --
dvan@freeborn.com -- Freeborn & Peters, LLP, Alexander S.
Vesselinovitch -- avesselinovitch@freeborn.com -- Freeborn &
Peters, LLP & Matthew Thomas Connelly -- mconnelly@freeborn.com --
Freeborn and Peters.

Noonan Perillo & Thut Ltd & C. Jeffery Thut, Defendants,
represented by Chris C. Gair -- cgair@gairlawgroup.com -- Gair
Eberhard Nelson Dedinas Ltd, Joseph R. Marconi --
marconij@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Kristi Lynn Nelson --
knelson@gairlawgroup.com -- Gair Eberhard Nelson Dedinas Ltd, Brian
C. Langs -- langsb@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell Ltd., Thomas
Reynolds Heisler -- theisler@gairlawgroup.com -- Gair Eberhard
Nelson Dedinas Ltd & Victor J. Pioli -- pioliv@jbltd.com -- Johnson
& Bell, Ltd.


BANK OF AMERICA: Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Filed
--------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM L. PENDER AND DAVID L. MCCORKLE, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES
AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Applicants, vs Bank of
America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Bank of America Pension
Plan, Bank of America 401(k) Plan, Bank of America Corporation
Corporate Benefits Committee, and Bank of America Transferred
Savings Account Plan, the Respondents, Case No. 18A313 (U.S.), is
an appeal filed in the Supreme Court of United States on Sept. 26,
2018, from a lower court decision in Case No. 17-1485 (4th Cir.).

The Applicants ask the Court to extend the time to file a petition
for a writ of certiorari from October 1, 2018 to October 31,
2018.[BN]

Attorneys for William L. Pender, et al.

Julia Penny Clark, Esq.
BREDHOFF AND KAISER, PLLC
805 15th Street NW Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
E-mail: jpclark@bredhoff.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Settlement in Farrell Suit Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOANNE FARRELL, et al. Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00492-L-WVG (S.D. Cal.), Judge M.
James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California granted both the Class Counsel's unopposed motions
for final approval of class action settlement and final approval of
fees, costs, and service awards.

The case is a putative class action focused on BoA's practice of
levying $35 fees against deposit account holders for failing to
rectify an overdrawn deposit account within five days.  To open a
deposit account with BoA, a customer had to first execute a Deposit
Agreement.  Under the terms of the Deposit Agreement BoA charged a
$35 fee anytime a deposit account holder wrote a check against
insufficient funds.  When a deposit account holder thus over
drafted his or her account, BoA had discretion as to whether to
honor the overdrawn check by advancing funds to the payee
sufficient to cover the note.  However BoA levied the Initial
Charge whether it advanced the funds or not.  In the event BoA
advanced the funds, deposit account holders were obligated under
the Deposit Agreement to pay back BoA's advance plus any fees
incurred.  Failure to do so within five days triggered a $35
Extended Overdrawn Balance Charge ("EOBC").

The Plaintiff wrote some checks against insufficient funds.  BoA
honored the checks but charged her $35 fee for not having
sufficient funds.  When the Plaintiff failed to remedy her negative
account balance within five days, BoA levied EOBCs.  Because the
EOBCs, as a percentage of her negative account balance, exceeded
the interest rate permitted by the National Banking Act, the
Plaintiff filed the putative class action against BoA, alleging
violation of 12 U.S.C. Sections 85, 86 ("NBA").

A significant amount of pretrial activity followed.  BoA moved to
dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint, arguing that the EOBCs were not
"interest" and therefore cannot trigger the NBA.  The Court
disagreed, and therefore denied BoA's motion.  BoA subsequently
answered and then amended their answer, and the Plaintiff twice
moved to dismiss certain of BoA's affirmative defenses.  In part
because every other court to consider the issue had held that EOBCs
do not constitute interest, the Court found that there was
substantial ground for a difference of opinion on the issue.  It
therefore granted BoA's motion for certification of an
interlocutory appeal of the denial of BoA's motion to dismiss.

BoA petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a permissive interlocutory
appeal on April 21, 2017.  The Plaintiff answered.  The Ninth
Circuit Granted BoA's Petition.  While the permissive appeal was
pending before the Ninth Circuit, the parties participated in
settlement negotiations, exchanged informal discovery, and attended
mediation before the Hon. Layn Philips (Ret.), a highly respected
neutral. Through these efforts, the parties successfully reached a
settlement agreement in early October 2017.

After conducting confirmatory discovery and reducing terms to
writing, the parties formally executed the Settlement Agreement on
Oct. 31, 2017 and requested preliminary approval.  On Dec. 21,
2017, the Court granted preliminary approval.  The Plaintiffs now
move unopposed for certification of a settlement class, final
approval of the settlement, final approval of attorneys' fees and
costs award, and final approval of service awards for the named
Plaintiffs.

In exchange for the release of the class members' claims, the
settlement agreement provides four forms of consideration:

     1. BoA ceases charging EOBCs for five years beginning Dec. 31,
2017.  BoA's obligation will terminate during this timeframe only
if the U.S. Supreme Court expressly holds that EOBCs or their
equivalent do not constitute interest under the NBA.  BoA testifies
that this cessation will depress their revenue (and benefit BoA
deposit account holders) by approximately $20 million per month, or
$1.2 billion total over the five year period.

     2. BoA provides cash payment (Cash Portion) of $37.5 million
to the class members who (1) were charged an EOBC and (2) did not
have their EOBC refunded or charged off.  The Attorneys' fees
($14.5 million), the costs ($53,119.92), the named Plaintiff
service awards ($20,000), and the settlement administrator hourly
charges (approximately $62,242) will come off the top 3),  The
residue (approximately $22,864,638) to issue pro rata based upon
how many EOBC's each qualifying class member paid as a percentage
of all EOBC's paid by the class during the class period.  The class
members who do not opt out will receive their payment
automatically.

     3. BoA provides debt reduction (Debt Reduction) in the amount
of at least $29.1 million.  Debt Reduction will issue to class
members whose BoA accounts closed with an outstanding balance
stemming from one or more EOBC's levied during the class period.
Each eligible class member will receive up to $35 in debt
reduction.  To the extent BoA reported any of this debt to the
credit bureaus, BoA will update the Bureau's as to the effect of
the debt reduction.  This debt reduction will issue automatically
to all qualifying members who do not opt out.  It will apply only
to debt which BoA has a legal right to collect.  It will not apply
to unenforceable debt, such as debt discharged in bankruptcy.

     4. BoA is paying all settlement administration costs other
than the administrator's hourly service charges.  These costs are
currently estimated at $2.9 milliion.

If there is any residual Cash Portion settlement funds after the
first distribution, the residue will go to the class by way of a
secondary distribution, if economically feasible.  Otherwise, the
residue will go to the Center for Responsible Learning as cy pres
beneficiary.  one of the settlement funds will revert to BoA.

Judge Lorenz overruled all objections and granted the Class
Counsel's unopposed motions for final approval of class action
settlement and final approval of fees, costs, and service awards.
He dismissed with prejudice the Amended Complaint.  The 100 class
members who opted out are not bound by the settlement agreement.

Provided it is economically feasible, should any funds remain after
the initial distribution of the class member awards, the parties
will do a second distribution to the Settlement Class members who
received their class member awards, provided it was by direct
deposit or by negotiated check.  Should residual funds remain
following a second distribution, or in the event a second
distribution is not economically feasible, the Parties will
distribute the remaining funds, if any, to cy pres recipient,
Consumers for Responsible Lending (www.responsiblelending.org), a
non-profit organization that fights against abusive financial
practices.

The Judge denied Objector Collins' motion for leave to file an
amended Reply.  To properly assess the fairness of the settlement
and the requested fees, it is not necessary for the Court to
determine whether Objector Collins' attorney verbally indicated to
the Class Counsel that his client was satisfied by the $2 million
reduction in the Class Counsel's prayer for fees.  The Judge
assumed Collins did not retract her objection, and overruled it.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/sGPryT from Leagle.com.

Ronald Dinkins, Tia Little & Larice Addamo, Plaintiffs, represented
by Jeffrey M. Ostrow -- ostrow@kolawyers.com -- Kopelowitz Ostrow
Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert & Hassan Ali Zavareei --
hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP.

Patrick Michael Farrell, Ryan Thomas Farrell, Timothy Gaelan
Farrell & Brooke Ann Farrell, Plaintiffs, represented by Bryan
Gowdy --
bgowdy@appellate-firm.com -- Creed and Gowdy, P.A., pro hac vice,
Cristina Maria Pierson -- cmp@kulaw.com -- Kelley Uustal PC, pro
hac vice, Hassan Ali Zavareei, Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Jeffrey
Douglas Kaliel -- jdkaliel@gmail.com -- Kaliel PLLC, Jeffrey M.
Ostrow -- ostrow@kolawyers.com  -- Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson
Weiselberg Gilbert, pro hac vice, John Russell Hargrove --
jrh@kulaw.com -- Kelley Uustal PC, pro hac vice, John Joseph Uustal
-- jju@kulaw.com -- Kelley Uustal PC, pro hac vice, Robert C.
Gilbert -- gilbert@kolawyers.com -- Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson
Weiselberg Gilbert, pro hac vice & Walter W. Noss --
wnoss@scott-scott.com -- ScottScott LLP.

Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by Brian D. Boyle --
bboyle@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Danielle N. Oakley --
doakley@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jonathan Hacker --
jhacker@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Meyers LLP, pro hac vice & Matthew
William Close -- mclose@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers.


BAY STATE GAS: Crockett-Thornhill Sues over North Andover Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA CROCKETT-THORNHILL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAY STATE GAS COMPANY D/B/A
COLUMBIA GAS OF MASSACHUSETTS; and NISOURCE, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1877CV01404-A (Mass. Cmmw., Essex Cty., Sept. 28, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants to recover economic losses arising
from the disruption of business activity sustained by the
Plaintiff.

According to the complaint, on the afternoon of September 13, 2018,
a catastrophic fire raged through the property located at 30 East
Water Street in North Andover. Due to the fire, the daycare
operated by the Plaintiff has been significantly impacted by the
fire and as a result the Plaintiff has suffered loss and damage to
business.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to provide natural
gas products at a safe pressure. It has been reported that on the
day of the disaster, the lines were being operated at a pressure 12
times higher than normal. The unsafe pressure was the direct result
of the Defendants' failure to reasonably update and monitor their
gas transmission lines. This failure resulted in a breach of the
Defendants' duty of reasonable care to the Plaintiff, thereby
causing the fire which ravaged her property and caused damages.

Bay State Gas Company, doing business as Columbia Gas of
Massachusetts, offers natural gas transmission and distribution
services. The company was formerly known as Springfield Gas Light
Company and changed the name to Bay State Gas Company in 1974. Bay
State Gas Company was founded in 1847 and is based in Westborough,
Massachusetts. Bay State Gas Company operates as a subsidiary of
NiSource Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian R. Cunha, Esq.
          BRIAN CUNHA AND ASSOCIATES
          311 Pine Street
          Fall River, MA 02720
          Telephone: (508) 675-9500

               - and –

          Patrick N. Haines, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          3001 Esperanza Xing
          Austin, TX 78758
          Telephone: (832) 563-1356

               - and –

          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID J. RAIMONDO
          2780 Middle Country Rd., Suite 312
          Lake Grove, NY 11755
          Telephone: (631) 471-1222


BBVA COMPASS: Faces Murphy Suit in Sacramento
---------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
BBVA Compass. The case is captioned as Janelle Murphy, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BBVA Compass;
BBVA Compass Bancshares Inc.; BBVA Compass Financial Corp.; and
Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00241658-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 28, 2018).

Compass Bank, doing business as BBVA Compass, operates as a bank.
The Bank offers offers saving and current account, investment and
financial services, online banking, mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans. BBVA
Compass serves client in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Larry W. Lee, Esq., and William L.
Marder, Esq.


BHH LLC: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Hart Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Pauley, III, of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied NHH's motion for summary
judgment in the case, JOANNE HART and SANDRA BUENO, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BHH,
LLC d/b/a BELL + HOWELL and VAN HAUSER LLC, Defendants, Case No.
15cv4804 (S.D. N.Y.).

The lawsuit involves ultrasonic pest repellers manufactured and
sold by BHH and purchased by the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs claim
the Repellers are completely ineffective and that BHH committed
fraud.  BHH counters that its Repellers are effective under certain
circumstances and that nothing in its marketing is fraudulent.

The crux of the dispute is how effective BHH represented the
Repellers to be.  The Plaintiffs contend that BHH made three Common
Representations: that the Repellers (1) are ultrasonic pest
repellers, (2) repel ants, roaches, spiders, mice, and rats, and
(3) will drive pests out of one's home.  BHH counters that their
disclaimers represented that the Repellers are not completely
effective in the presence of furniture, carpeting, and other
household objects.

The Plaintiffs maintain that the Repellers do not work, and BHH
does not disclaim all effectiveness.  They also offer evidence that
BHH may have known the Repellers were ineffective before marketing
them.  Moreover, they append a cavalcade of studies published
before 2011, which they contend demonstrate that ultrasonic
repellers are generally ineffective.

BHH moves for summary judgment in the class-action lawsuit for
fraud, breach of warranty, and violations of the California Legal
Remedies Act.  It sets forth various statute-of-limitations
arguments.  However, Judge Pauley finds that none of those
arguments seek to bar claims completely -- they merely limit the
date from which certain Plaintiffs may recover.  The Plaintiffs
make no counterargument as to whether some of their claims are
time-barred.  Rather, they argue that subclasses should be created
so that the Court can address any time-barred claims separately.
BHH agrees.  In view of the parties' agreement regarding the
applicability of various statute-of-limitations issues, the parties
are directed to submit proposed subclasses to the Court.

Finally, the parties disagree about the date the action commenced
for statute of limitations purposes.  Because a federal court
evaluating the timeliness of state law claims must look to the law
of the relevant state to determine whether, and to what extent, the
statute of limitations should be tolled by the filing of a putative
class action in another jurisdiction, the Judge looks to the law of
New York.

New York state courts have yet to decide the issue.  But the most
recent and persuasive case law in the District predicts that New
York would permit cross-jurisdictional class-action tolling.  As
such, the action will be deemed commenced on April 16, 2015.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Pauley denied BHH's motion for
summary judgment.  He directed the parties to submit proposed
subclasses to address the varying statutes of limitations by Sept.
26, 2018.  The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions
pending at ECF Nos. 139 and 159.  The parties are further directed
to appear for a status teleconference on Sept. 27, 2018 at 11:00
a.m.  The counsel for the Defendants is directed to circulate
dial-in information for the teleconference.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/c1sx6v from Leagle.com.

Joanne Hart, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Frederick John Klorczyk --
fklorczyk@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Joshua David Arisohn
-- jarisohn@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher P.A., Neal Jamison
Deckant -- ndeckant@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Yitzchak
Kopel -- ykopel@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. & Joseph
Ignatius Marchese -- jmarchese@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Sandra Bueno, Plaintiff, represented by Yitzchak Kopel, Bursor &
Fisher, P.A.

BHH LLC, doing business as Bell + Howell & Van Hauser LLC,
Defendants, represented by Howard B. Randell -- hbr@lefltd.com --
Leahy, Eisenberg & Franenkel, Ltd., pro hac vice, Robert J. Ostojic
-- ro@lefltd.com -- Leahy Eisenberg & Frankel, Ltd. & Scott Wing --
sw@lefltd.com -- Leahy, Eisenberg & Franenkel, Ltd., pro hac vice.


BRAAVOS INC: Hearings in Gordon Suit Continued to Nov. 1
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAYLA GORDON and JAMES MOLLO, Plaintiffs, v. BRAAVOS,
INC., d/b/a BANNERMAN SECURITY; JONATHAN CHIN; and DOES 1 through
10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C 17-06310 WHA (N.D. Cal.),
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California continued the Sept. 6, 2018 hearings on the
Defendants' motion to stay the action and the Plaintiffs' motion to
file an amended complaint to Nov. 1, 2018, at 8:00 a.m.

The case is a wage-and-hour putative class action.  At the initial
case management conference, the Court reminded the counsel that
they should not discuss class-wide settlement until after the class
is certified.  While settlements can always be discounted for risks
of litigation on the merits of a claim, the class settlements
should not be further discounted for the risk of denial of the
class certification.  Accordingly, it is important to learn whether
the Plaintiffs will be adequately represented and if other
requirements can be met before claims of absent class members are
compromised.

After the initial case management conference, both sides stipulated
to continue the Sept. 6, 2018 hearings to allow the Plaintiffs and
their counsel to intervene in a concurrent action in the Superior
Court of California, County and City of San Francisco before Judge
Mary Wiss.  That action is against the same Defendants and is also
for wage-and-hour violations.

Because of the sequence of events stated, Judge Alsup is concerned
that the parties may wish to reach a compromise that not only
discounts the settlement based on the merits of the claims but also
based on the risks of class certification.  Nevertheless, he
granted the continuance of the hearings to give Judge Wiss an
opportunity to hear the motions before her.  He ordered the parties
to provide Judge Wiss a copy of the Order.  The September 6
hearings on the Defendants' motion to stay the action and the
Plaintiffs' motion to file an amended complaint are vacated and
continued to Nov. 1, 2018, at 8:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/WXec3V from Leagle.com.

Kayla Gordon & James Mollo, Plaintiffs, represented by Jennifer Lin
Liu -- jliu@liulawpc.com -- The Liu Law Firm, P.C., Rebecca
Peterson-Fisher -- rpetersonfisher@liulawpc.com -- The Liu Law
Firm, PC, Alison L. Kosinski -- alison@ktlawsf.com -- Kosinski &
Thiagaraj, LLP & Emily Ann Thiagaraj -- emily@ktlawsf.com --
Kosinski & Thiagaraj, LLP.

Braavos, Inc., d/b/a Bannerman Security & Jonathan Chin,
Defendants, represented by Jerome Schreibstein --
jschreibstein@jschreiblaw.com -- Law Office of Jerome
Schreibstein.


BRAND ENERGY: Court Allows Filing of First Amended McClure Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARLIN McCLURE, an individual, for himself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BRAND ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, a
Delaware corporation doing business in California; BRAND ENERGY
SERVICES OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, a Delaware corporation doing business
in California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-01726-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
granted the Plaintiff leave to file his First Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiff will file said FAC electronically and serve it within
five calendar days of the Order issuing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/sscnc0 from Leagle.com.

Marlin McClure, Plaintiff, represented by Michael A. Strauss --
mike@strausslawyers.com -- Strauss & Strauss, APC.

Waveland Services, Inc., incorrectly named as Brand Energy
Services, LLC and Brand Energy Services of California, LLC,
Defendant, represented by Douglas J. Farmer --
doug.farmer@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart,
PC & Jason Phillip Brown -- jason.brown@ogletree.com -- Ogletree
Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, PC.


BREA FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Edelsberg Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARK EDELSBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. THE BREA FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC D/B/A PUB
CLUB LEADS, Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-62119-WPD (S.D. Fla.,
Sept. 7, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls.

The Brea Financial Group, LLC d/b/a Pub Club Leads is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Ignacio Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH Law
          1200 Brickell Ave Ste 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (786) 496-4469
          E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com


CAMPBELL LIBRARY: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed
-------------------------------------------------------
CHARLIE COLEMAN, JOHN P. ROTH, JR., AND ERIK HERMES, ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Petitioners, v.
CAMPBELL COUNTY LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, the Respondent, Case
No.: 18-283 (U.S., Sept. 5, 2018), is an appeal filed in the
Supreme Court of United States from a lower court decision in Case
No. 2016-CA-001642-MR (Court of Appeals of Kentucky).

A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was filed on Aug. 31, 2018.
Response due was October 5, 2018.

The initial decision of the Campbell County Circuit Court finding
the library tax illegal was rendered on April 1, 2013, is not
reported and is reproduced at Pet. App. 1. The Kentucky Court of
Appeals' decision harmonizing the statutes governing the library
tax and remanding the Campbell Circuit Court's decision for further
instructions is reported at 475 S.W.3d 40 (Ky. App. 2015) and
reproduced at Pet. App. 30a. The order denying petitioners' Motion
for Discretionary Review by the Kentucky Supreme Court is reported
at 2015 Ky. LEXIS 2047 and reproduced at Pet. App. 29a. The Final
Order of the Campbell Circuit Court holding the Kentucky Court of
Appeals' decision shall be given a prospective-only effect and
dismissing petitioners' complaint was rendered on September 16,
2016, is not reported but is at Pet. App. 22a. The Order of the
Circuit Court denying petitioners' motion to alter, amend, or
vacate was entered on October 21, 2016, is not reported but is at
Pet. App. 18a.

The Opinion of the Kentucky Court of Appeals from which this
Petition arises is reported at 547 S.W.3d 526 (Ky. App. 2018) and
reproduced as Pet. App. 1a. The denial of petitioners' Motion for
Discretionary Review by the Kentucky Supreme Court is reported at
2018 Ky. LEXIS 235 and reproduced at Pet. App. 62a.[BN]

Counsel for Petitioners:

          Timothy J. Eifler, Esq.
          Walter L. Sales, Esq.
          Stephen A. Sherman, Esq.
          STOLL KEENON OGDEN PLLC
          2000 PNC Plaza
          500 W. Jefferson St.
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 333 6000
          E-mail: timothy.eifler@skofirm.com

               - and -

          Brandon N. Voelker, Esq.
          GATLIN VOELKER, PLLC
          2500 Chamber Center Dr., Suite 203
          Fort Mitchell, KY 41017
          Telephone: (859) 905 0946


CANADA: Agrees to Settle Disabled Veterans' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the federal government says it's
agreed to pay $100 million to settle a legal battle with disabled
veterans, who had launched a class-action lawsuit after some of
their financial benefits were clawed back.

The settlement would provide thousands of veterans with payments of
between $2,000 and $50,000 depending on when they served and the
severity of their disabilities.

The settlement must still be approved by the Federal Court.

A settlement approval hearing is set for December in Ottawa.

Veterans Affairs Minister Seamus O'Regan says he believes the
proposed settlement is fair and provides both sides with needed
closure.

The lawsuit was launched in 2014 after the federal government
deducted financial assistance from thousands of low-income veterans
because they were also receiving disability pensions for injuries
sustained while in uniform. [GN]


CANADA: Quebec Mother Files Class Action Over Field Trips
---------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Greenaway, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that there
is some confusion about what field trips, if any, schools are
planning this year. In the case of Lester B. Pearson School Board
schools, there will be field trips but details are still being
hammered out.

A series of events has helped feed the confusion.

It all began when a mother in Quebec City launched a class action
lawsuit against school boards province-wide, including all nine
English school boards. The lawsuit contested school fees parents
were being charged for field trips and school supplies. The lawsuit
was settled out of court in the spring and awaits legal
ratification. The exact amount each child will receive has not been
officially announced, but media reports say it will be $27 to $28
per child per year for the time period covered in the lawsuit.

In June, Quebec Education Minister Sebastien Proulx announced that
no fees may be charged for field trips designed to augment
curriculum being taught in class.

LBPSB assistant director general Tom Rhymes said schools are still
struggling with the ambiguity of that new regulation.

"Our philosophy is that every activity students participate in when
they leave the building for a field trip, be it a visit to a museum
or a play or concert, is somehow related to the curriculum," Mr.
Rhymes said.

So if schools can't charge for the trip, how will it be financed?

In August, the Quebec government allocated $27 million to two
programs -- Ecole inspirante and Sorties scolaires en milieu
culturel -- to help finance field trips. And school boards heard
they would be receiving more help from the government — an
additional $9 per student to put toward the cost of field trips.  

The booking of field trips is done well in advance -- normally in
the spring of the previous academic school year -- but since the
funding was announced just recently, schools are still figuring out
how the money will be spent.

An unfortunate trickle-down effect of all this is that field trip
destinations -- such as museum tours and live performances that
rely on revenue from school tours -- are struggling to stay afloat
while the schools scramble to decide, so late in the game, what
field trips will be booked for this academic year.

Mr. Rhymes said the money has already been distributed to LBPSB
schools on a per-capita basis and that each school makes its own
decision regarding field trips.

The money may be there, but the ambiguity remains.

"We are entering territory that is different," Mr. Rhymes said. "We
need time to collectively see what we can and cannot do. I know it
is frustrating for parents, teachers and principals, but it is
something we need time to work through.

"We're not anticipating any changes when it comes to fees for
materials students use once, but when it comes to field trips,
things are a little trickier for us. It's an evolving thing."

In late June, the province's nine English school boards issued a
statement saying the boards are committed to working with parents,
teachers and the Education Ministry to further clarify what the fee
structure will look like in the future.

On the subject of field trips, the statement read, "The minister
announced that he would undertake a consultative process titled Les
Grands Chantiers en Éducation, which will begin in the fall of
2018 and lead to an amendment of the Education Act by the spring of
2019. Hopefully, this initiative will provide greater clarity on
the question of what should be free and what parents may choose to
pay for. Activities and field trips that are directly related to
the classroom programs taught and for which the students are
evaluated, shall be free. Conversely, optional complementary
activities and field trips such as a visit to the zoo, a ski day,
out-of-country trips, may be charged to parents."

To read the full statement, visit
http://parents.lbpsb.qc.ca/News-Info/ArticleID/3015/School-Fees-Class-Action-Lawsuit.
[GN]


CEDAR RAPIDS, IA: Summary Judgment in Behm Suit Partly Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MYRON DENNIS BEHM, BURTON J. BROOKS, ROBBY LEE
LANGSTON, DAVID LEON BRODSKY, JEFFREY R. OLSON, and GEOFF TATE
SMITH, Appellants, v. CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS and GATSO USA, INC.,
Appellees, Case No. 16-1031 (Iowa), Judge Brent R. Appel of the
Supreme Court of Iowa (i) vacated the decision of the court of
appeals; and (ii) affirmed in part and reversed in part the
judgment of the district court.

In the case, the Court once again consider a range of issues
related to an automated traffic enforcement ("ATE") system.  The
City of Cedar Rapids enacted an ordinance designed to authorize and
implement the establishment of an ATE system intended to detect
drivers traveling in excess of speed limits within Cedar Rapids.
Pursuant to the ordinance, Cedar Rapids contracted with Gatso to
install the ATE system, which included mounted cameras and radar
equipment, and to provide the City with evidence of vehicles
violating the speed limit at the ATE locations.  The ATE ordinance
imposed a civil penalty for a violation.

The Plaintiffs filed a class-action petition against Cedar Rapids
and Gatso.  They sought damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief, claiming the ATE system as implemented by the defendants
violated the equal protection, due process, and privileges and
immunities clauses of the Iowa Constitution.  The Plaintiffs also
raised a number of other challenges, asserting that the
administrative remedies under the ATE ordinance were in conflict
with Iowa law, that the ATE ordinance as implemented by the City's
contract with Gatso unconstitutionally delegated governmental power
to a private entity, and that the Defendants were unjustly enriched
by the revenues generated by the ATE system.

The district court granted the Defendants summary judgment, and the
Plaintiffs appealed.  The Court transferred the case to the court
of appeals.  The court of appeals affirmed the district court,
generally applying reasoning similar to the district court.  With
respect to the Plaintiffs' claim that Iowa statutes preempted the
ordinance, however, the court of appeals engaged in additional
analysis.  It noted the argument was based upon implied rather than
express preemption.  The court recognized that a municipality
cannot enact an ordinance that expressly or impliedly conflicts
with state law.  It, however, cited federal authority for the
proposition that the ATE ordinance was not impliedly preempted.
Relying on these principles, the court of appeals found no implied
preemption.

An important threshold question for equal protection, privileges
and immunities, and substantive due process analyses is whether the
ATE system in the case infringes on a fundamental right to
intrastate travel.  Judge Appel concludes that there is no basis to
examine the constitutional validity of the ATE system using strict
scrutiny arising from alleged infringement of the right to
intrastate or interstate travel.  Instead, he applies the RACI II
rational basis test "with bite."

And turning to the question of whether the ATE system violates
substantive due process as the Plaintiffs' claim, he finds that it
is possible to imagine a scenario in which the challenger develops
a factual record that demonstrates an ATE system as implemented is
so attenuated and remote from public safety concerns and is simply
designed to raise revenues for the city that it violates rationale
basis analysis.  But he concludes that the Plaintiffs have not made
such a showing in the case.

Municipalities have home rule authority to enact legislation not
inconsistent with the laws of the general assembly.  This means
that the general assembly has the power to preempt municipalities
from enacting otherwise lawful legislation.  In the case, the
Plaintiffs challenge the ordinance because it allows the City to
enforce civil penalties outside the judicial process for enforcing
municipal infractions provided in Iowa Code section 364.22 and the
jurisdictional provisions of Iowa Code section 602.6101.

The Judge concludes that the provisions of the ordinance that
purportedly impose liability on a protesting vehicle owner who does
not respond to a notice of violation or who does not timely file a
request with the City to institute a municipal infraction
proceeding at the conclusion of the administrative process are
irreconcilable with the provisions of Iowa Code section 364.22.
Upholding these provisions of the ordinance would be tantamount to
choosing the City's enactment over the legislature's enactment,
contrary to Seymour, 755 N.W.2d at 541.  If the City wishes to
enforce liability under its ordinance upon a vehicle owner who does
not voluntarily agree to pay, it must institute a municipal
infraction action under Iowa Code section 364.22.  As a result, the
Judge concludes that the district court erred in granting summary
judgment to the defendant on the question of whether Iowa Code
section 364.22 preempted the ordinance.

The Plaintiffs argue that the ATE system improperly delegates
governmental authority to Gatso, a private entity.  Cedar Rapids
responds by emphasizing that the activities of Gatso are
ministerial and not discretionary.  The Judge holds that the
judgment call that was involved in the determination of who should
be sent notices of violation, namely, the decision to forward to
the City only images of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by
eleven miles per hour, was approved by Cedar Rapids as part of its
business rules governing the ATE project.  There was no unlawful
delegation when the City approved the specifically challenged
policy as part of its business rules governing an ATE system.

Finally, the Plaintiffs bring a claim for unjust enrichment.  They
argue that as a result of the implementation of the unlawful
ordinance, Cedar Rapids and Gatso were unjustly enriched.  The
Judge agrees with the line of cases that provide that when a
statutory violation is alleged, the doctrine of voluntary payment
does not apply.  The Court has rejected all of the Plaintiffs'
constitutional claims and the Plaintiffs' delegation challenges
except on the calibration issue upon which the Court was
deadlocked.  No unjust enrichment arises from these rejected
claims.  However, the Court has the district court on the issue of
preemption.  Because of this changed legal landscape and because
the Court has rejected the voluntary payment doctrine, the Judge
vacated the district court's judgment on unjust enrichment and
remanded the matter to the district court for further consideration
in light of changed posture of the case.

For these reasons, Judge Appel vacated the decision of the court of
appeals and affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of
the district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/NBdL33 from Leagle.com.

James C. Larew of Larew Law Office, Iowa City, for appellants.

Elizabeth D. Jacobi, Assistant City Attorney, for appellee City of
Cedar Rapids.

Paul D. Burns -- pburns@bradleyriley.com -- and Laura M. Hyer --
lhyer@bradleyriley.com -- of Bradley & Riley PC, Iowa City, for
appellee Gatso USA, Inc.


CLEARVIEW ELECTRIC: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Gorecki Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAREN GORECKI, Plaintiff, v. CLEARVIEW ELECTRIC, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00035 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Mark R. Hornak
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
granted in part and denied in part Clearview's Motion to Dismiss
the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim.

Around October 2012, a Clearview representative solicited the
Plaintiff to change her utility service from Duquesne Light Co. to
Clearview, promising she would save money if she made the switch.
The Plaintiff switched to Clearview around that date.  The
Plaintiffs plan worked as follows: she was placed on an
introductory, fixed-rate plan for electricity for six months.  At
the end of the six months, the plan automatically renewed for an
additional twelve months.

Around Feb. 10, 2014, Clearview sent her a letter stating that it
was committed to providing her with continued value and notifying
her that her electricity plan would continue on a variable rate
plan. The letter contained the Sales Agreement and Terms of Service
applying to the variable rate plan.  The Plaintiff paid this rate
from approximately May 2014 until approximately October 2017, when
she canceled her service.  Between Sept. 11, 2016, and Aug. 13,
2017, Clearview's rate was .1299/kwh each and every month.  During
those same months, the wholesale market price1 fluctuated; it was
as low as .0484/kwh and as high as .0836/kwh.

Gorecki filed a putative class action against Clearview, alleging
that Clearview breached its service contract by not varying price
based on wholesale market conditions, and charging Gorecki and the
putative class substantially higher rates as a result (Count I).
In the alternative, Gorecki alleges that Clearview unjustly
enriched itself at her and the class' benefit by charging
excessively for electricity (Count II).

The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of herself and similarly
situated Clearview customers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Clearview now moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Judge Hornak finds that Clearview has raised a number of arguments
that, although they may ultimately prove meritorious, are not
appropriate for resolution at this stage, when the Court must draw
all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiffs favor.  For instance,
Clearview argues that wholesale market conditions are based on many
factors besides the wholesale market price.  However, the Plaintiff
has plausibly alleged that Clearview did not follow its Sales
Agreement term to base its rate on wholesale market conditions by
averring facts supporting an inference that despite changes in
those conditions, Clearview's rate never changed.  Drawing all
reasonable inferences in the Plaintiffs favor, as the Court must,
the Judge concludes that the Plaintiff has stated a facially
plausible claim for breach of contract.

The parties concede the existence of a contract.  A claim for
unjust enrichment may be pleaded in the alternative to other
contract claims, but such alternative pleading is plausible only
when the validity of the contract is itself actually disputed,
making unjust enrichment a potentially available remedy.  Because
the parties do not dispute the validity of the contract, the Judge
will grant the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, without prejudice, as
it relates to Count II of the Amended Complaint.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hornal concludes that Clearview's
Motion to Dismiss will be granted in part (as to Count II) and
denied in part (as to Count I).  An appropriate Order will issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/FAqaS6 from Leagle.com.

KAREN GORECKI, Individually and on behalf of all others simiarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles E. Schaffer --
cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Sedran & Berman, Jonathan Shub --
jshub@kohnswift.com -- Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., pro hac vice,
Kevin Laukaitis -- klaukaitis@kohnswift.com -- Kohn, Swift & Graf,
P.C., pro hac vice & Daniel C. Levin -- dlevin@lfsblaw.com -- Levin
Sedran & Berman, pro hac vice.

CLEARVIEW ELECTRIC, INC., doing business as CLEARVIEW ENERGY, INC.,
Defendant, represented by Allison L. Ebeck --
aebeck@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC &
Jeffrey Brundage -- jbrundage@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans
Cherin & Mellott, LLC, pro hac vice.


COMCAST CORP: Antitrust Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: COMCAST CORP. SET-TOP CABLE TELEVISION BOX
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 09-md-2034 (E.D. Pa.), Judge
Anita B. Brody of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Certification of a Settlement Class and Preliminary
Approval of a Class Action Settlement.

The Judge preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement and
preliminarily certifies the Settlement Class.  She denied the
portion of the motion that seeks approval of the proposed Notice
and proposed Claim Form, the appointment of a Claims Administrator,
and the establishment of a schedule for completion of the
Settlement approval process.

The Judge directed the Plaintiffs that on Nov. 5, 2018, they must
submit an amended motion that only seeks approval of revised
proposed forms of Notice, a revised proposed Claim Form,
appointment of a Claims Administrator, and a revised proposed
schedule for completion of the Settlement approval process.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/F4BWu0 from Leagle.com.

JAMES DEANNE, WILLIAM GONZALES & STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,
Appellants, represented by DIANNE M. NAST -- dnast@nastlaw.com --
NASTLAW LLC.


CV SCIENCES: Faces Alvarado Suit over 36% Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
LENNY ALVARADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. CV SCIENCES, INC.; MICHAEL MONA, JR.;
JOSEPH D. DOWLING; and MICHAEL MONA, III, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-01709 (D. Nev., Sept. 6, 2018) is an action by the
Plaintiff and the class who purchased or otherwise acquired CV
Sciences securities between June 19, 2017 and August 20, 2018,
seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of
the federal securities laws, and to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, on May 16, 2016, CV Sciences filed a
patent application with the US Patent Trademark Office ("USPTO")
for CVSI-007, titled "Pharmaceutical Formulations Containing
Cannabidiol and Nicotine For Treating Smokeless Tobacco Addiction."
On February 7, 2017, CV Sciences filed a continuing patent
application under the same title, Patent #15/426,617.

On April 27, 2017, the USPTO made a non-final rejection decision on
the Company's Patent and mailed CV Sciences a letter indicating the
non-final rejection status of its Patent on June 6, 2017.  On
December 14, 2017, the USPTO made a final rejection decision on the
Company's Patent and mailed CV Sciences a letter indicating the
final rejection status of its Patent on December 20, 2017.

During the Class Period, CV Sciences never disclosed the material
information concerning the Patent to the public, either through its
several SEC disclosures or in any other forum. Since the rejection
of the Patent on April 27, 2017, CV Sciences has discussed CVSI-007
in four Form 8-K reports, four Form 10-Q reports, and a Form 10-K
report for fiscal 2017—none of which disclose or indicate the
Patent's rejected status.

On August 20, 2018, Citron Research ("Citron") reported, via
Twitter, the Defendants' failure to disclose either the April 27,
2017 non-final rejection or the December 14, 2017 final rejection
of the Patent application for CVSI-007. Following publication of
the Citron report, CV Sciences' stock price fell $2.40 per share,
or 36.31%, to close at $4.21 per share on August 20, 2018.

CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. The company
focuses on developing and commercializing prescription drugs
utilizing synthetic cannabidiol (CBD) as the active pharmaceutical
ingredient. CV Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in
Las Vegas, Nevada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq.
          MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD.
          7915 West Sahara Ave., Suite 104
          Las Vegas, Nevada 89117
          Telephone: (702) 330-4505
          Facsimile: (702) 825-0141
          E-mail: andrew@mlolegal.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ
          & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


DASHUB LLC: Schlanger Law Group Files National Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Sept. 12, Schlanger Law Group LLP filed nationwide and New York
state class action claims against Dashub, LLC, a licensed
automobile dealer doing business nationwide. The case, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, is Yacine
Ounis v. Dashub, LLC.

Dashub provides consumers with a means of purchasing vehicles
listed at dealer auctions, which often accept bids only from
licensed dealers. Dashub represents to consumers that the company
will bid and purchase the vehicle on the consumer's behalf, and the
consumer will then pay Dashub the final auction price plus
specified fees and costs. However, plaintiff alleges that Dashub
routinely misrepresents the price it pays for vehicles at auction,
collecting the artificially inflated amount from the consumer and
pocketing the difference.

For example, Mr. Ounis says the vehicle he purchased through Dashub
sold at auction for $10,100. However, Dashub advised Mr. Ounis that
the car had cost $10,600. This inflated price was reflected in Mr.
Ounis's final billing, resulting in him being overcharged by $500.

The complaint also alleges that Dashub violated New York Vehicle &
Traffic Law §417, which requires that a dealer selling a used
vehicle in New York inspect the vehicle and certify it roadworthy.
Rather than conducting inspections and providing the required
certification, Dashub explicitly states that vehicles are sold "as
is, with no warranty."

The lawsuit seeks monetary compensation for the fraudulent charges,
third party inspection of vehicles sold to New York consumers, and
other appropriate remedies. Mr. Ounis also seeks punitive damages
for Dashub's alleged practice of buying used vehicles at one price
and then unlawfully charging consumers more and pocketing the
difference.

If you have purchased a vehicle through Dashub and believe you may
have been overcharged, or are a New York consumer who purchased a
used vehicle through Dashub and did not receive a certificate of
roadworthiness, contact us at 212-500-6114, or fill out the contact
form on our website.

                About Schlanger Law Group LLP

Schlanger Law Group LLP -- http://www.consumerprotection.net-- is
a consumer protection law firm with offices in New York City,
Upstate New York, and Mississippi. SLG is dedicated to protecting
consumer rights through class action litigation and sophisticated,
zealous advocacy under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA), Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Truth in Lending Act
(TILA), and other state and federal consumer financial protection
statutes. [GN]


DETROIT, MI: Court Declines to Certify Class in Davis Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIMOTHY DAVIS and HATEMA DAVIS, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
DETROIT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-10547 (E.D. Mich.), Judge
Paul D. Borman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan, Southern Division, denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.

In the putative class action, nominal Plaintiffs Timothy and Hatema
Davis allege that Defendant City of Detroi and various individual
police officer Defendants violated their constitutional rights when
officers of the City's Narcotics Unit searched Plaintiff Timothy
Davis' duly licensed marijuana grow facility, seized property that
he legitimately owned in connection with his operation of that
facility, and arrested him, all without probable cause.  

The Plaintiffs seek certification of the proposed class of (a)
individuals who were the owners and/or occupants of homes and/or
businesses engaged in the licensed distribution of marijuana for
medical purposes; (b) who were subjected to search and/or seizure
by agents and/or members of the Detroit Police Department's
Narcotics' Unit; (c) from the period of Feb. 11, 2012 until the
date of judgment or settlement of the case; (d) who were never
convicted of any offense arising from the search and/or seizure;
(e) whose search and seizure were executed without probable cause;
and (f) where such searches and/or seizures were conducted pursuant
to Defendant City of Detroit's policies, practices, and/or
customs.

In a Report and Recommendation issued on May 11, 2018, Magistrate
Judge David R. Grand recommended that the Court denies the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.  The Plaintiffs have
filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the
Defendants have filed a Response to the Plaintiffs' Objections.

The Plaintiffs have raised separate objections to the Magistrate
Judge's determinations that the proposed class does not meet Rule
23(a)'s ascertainability requirement, does not meet Rule 23(a)(1)'s
numerosity requirement, and does not qualify for certification
under Rule 23(b)(2).

Judge Borman finds that these objections lack merit.  First, he
says the Plaintiffs have cited no binding authority suggesting that
the Magistrate Judge committed legal error in determining that
Plaintiffs have not satisfied the ascertainability requirement.
Second, the Magistrate Judge regarded the Plaintiffs' prediction of
the size of the putative class to be overly speculative, and he
agrees.  Third, the Plaintiffs' projection of a class of hundreds
of members is too sparsely supported -- particularly given the
amount of time that the case has been pending -- to be anything but
speculative.  Fourth, the Plaintiffs' argument that the proposed
class satisfies various requirements of Rule 23(b)(1) and Rule
23(b)(3) class actions is premised on the notion that the
Magistrate Judge's ascertainability finding was erroneous.  The
Judge finds that it was not.

For these reasons, Judge Borman overruled the Plaintiffs'
Objections, adopted the Magistrate Judge's May 11, 2018 Report and
Recommendation, and denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/q3AzXN from Leagle.com.

Timothy Davis & Hatema Davis, Plaintiffs, represented by Dennis A.
Dettmer, Dettmer and Dezsi, PLLC & Michael R. Dezsi --
mdezsi@dezsilaw.com -- Law Office of Michael R. Dezsi, PLLC.

City of Detroit, Charles Flanagan, Officer Amy Matellic, Officer
Larry Barnett, Officer Steven Riley, Officer Matthew Bray, Officer
Brian Johnson, Officer Reginald Beasley & Sgt. Stephen Geelhood,
Defendants, represented by Calvert A. Bailey, Detroit City Law
Department, James P. Allen, Allen Brothers & Lindsey R. Johnson,
Allen Brothers, Attorneys and Counselors, PLLC.

Arthur Leavells, Defendant, represented by Stephani J. LaBelle,
LaBelle Law PLLC.


DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Evans Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES EVANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOLGEN CALIFORNIA, LLC, and DOES I through
50, Defendants, Case No. 18CV335538 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty.,
Sept. 27, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Evans was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt,
hourly employee from September 9, 2017 to September 27, 2017.

Dolgen California, LLC is a Tennessee limited liability company
doing business in the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          William M. Pao, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com
                  william@setarehlaw.com


DR PEPPER: Kilpatrick Townsend Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Reynolds, Esq. -- jreynolds@kilpatricktownsend.com -- of
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an article for Lexology,
wrote that there's been a string of cases by the Southern District
of New York and Northern District of California dismissing
deceptive labeling class actions based on the marketing of "diet"
soda. See July 9, 2018 post, "S.D.N.Y. joins N.D. Cal. in rejecting
claim that "diet" soda is deceptive to a reasonable consumer." One
of those cases provided the class plaintiff one more opportunity to
try and state a claim under California's consumer protection laws.
In dismissing that plaintiff's renewed attempt, the Northern
District of California made two key observations that will likely
doom any future class action alleging that the marketing of "diet"
soda is deceptive: (1) reasonable consumers understand that diet
soda -- at best -- will help them lose or maintain weight relative
to the consumption of regular (high calorie) soda, and (2) no
scientific study to date has established that the sweetener used in
diet soda actually causes weight gain, rending implausible any
allegation to the contrary.

In Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., No. 17-CV-05921, 2018 WL
3995832 (N.D. Cal. August 21, 2018), the plaintiff -- a regular
purchaser of Diet Dr Pepper for 13 years -- filed a putative class
action against Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. ("Dr Pepper") based on the
term "diet" in Dr Pepper's marketing of Diet Dr Pepper. Just as in
a recent case against Pepsi-Cola Company ("PepsiCo") regarding Diet
Pepsi (featured in the prior post cited above), the plaintiff
alleged that the term "diet" on a soft drink label leads consumers
to believe that Diet Dr Pepper "assists with weight loss, or at
least not weight gain," and that the sweetener in Diet Dr Pepper in
fact leads to weight gain. Becerra, 2018 WL 3995832, at *3; see
also Manuel v. Pepsi-Cola Co., No. 17-CV-7955-PAE, 2018 WL 2269247
(S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018), appeal filed, No. 18-1748 (2d Cir. June
12, 2018). Based on this allegation, the plaintiff brought claims
under California consumer protection laws (the FAL, CLRA, and UCL),
and for breach of express and implied warranty.

California's "reasonable consumer" test controlled the plaintiff's
consumer protection claims, which require that a plaintiff
plausibly allege that members of the public are "likely" to be
deceived. Becerra, 2018 WL 3995832, at *4. The Becerra court had
previously dismissed the plaintiff's claim because the plaintiff
had not alleged any "facts or theories" to plausibly support the
notion that "the label conveys more than that the drink has
relatively less calories and sugar than normal soft drinks." Id. at
*3 (emphasis in original). And, just as in the Southern District of
New York's decision in Manuel, the Becerra court analyzed the
scientific studies featured in the plaintiff's operative complaint
(which the plaintiff relied on to substantiate the allegation that
Diet Dr Pepper actually causes weight gain), ruling the studies
only showed correlation and not causation.

In her amended complaint, the plaintiff also added a number of
allegations, regarding (i) dictionary definitions of the term
"diet," (ii) examples of Dr Pepper's advertisements, (iii)
statements about diet soda and weight loss from the American
Beverage Association, (iv) the results from a consumer survey
asking consumers about their understanding of the impact diet soda
has on their weight, and (v) additional scientific studies about
whether the sweetener in Diet Dr Pepper actually causes weight
gain. None of these new allegations saved the plaintiff's putative
class action.

First, the Becerra court evaluated the plaintiff's eight new
dictionary definitions of "diet," all of which associated the term
with "losing weight, limiting food intake, or preventing disease."
Id. at *4. But the Court refused to consider the term "diet"
outside of the "context" in which it appeared – on the soft drink
label. Highlighting the thorough reasoning of Judge Engelmayer in
Manuel, the Becerra court held it is not plausible for reasonable
consumers to look at "diet" in Diet Dr Pepper as "associated with
weight loss, separate and apart from the specific context of the
product." Id.

Second, the Becerra court evaluated advertisements from as early as
the 1970s that allegedly conveyed the "impression" that consumption
of Diet Dr Pepper is beneficial in terms of weight loss and healthy
weight management. For example, one advertisement showed a
"bikini-clad woman" with the text, "[j]ust keep sipping, watch what
you eat, and pretty soon you'll start looking better and better
too." Id. at *5. But again, the Court found that these
advertisements suffered from the same problems as the dictionary
definitions: all they convey are benefits as compared to regular
soft drinks.

Third, the Becerra court rejected the plaintiff's reliance on two
articles from the American Beverage Association, which discussed
how drinking diet beverages can help consumers lose weight. Neither
of these articles did anything more than support the Becerra
court's view that a reasonable consumer "would simply not look at
the brand name Diet [Dr Pepper] and assume that consuming it,
absent any lifestyle change, would lead to weight loss." Id. at *6
(quoting Becerra v. Coca-Cola Co., C 17-05916 WHA, 2018 WL 1070823
(N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2018) (analyzing identical claims against Diet
Coke)).

Fourth, the plaintiff presented results from a survey of 400
California consumers purporting to show that 63.3 percent of them
expected that soft drinks labeled "diet" would "help them maintain
weight, or at least not affect their weight." Id. Dr Pepper
contested the significance of the survey results, because the
plaintiff had not also include allegations about the survey's
methodology, what questions were asked, or who administered it. The
Becerra court agreed and ruled that the amended complaint lacked
other plausible allegations that could permit a reasonable
inference that Diet Dr Pepper is misleading. It also concluded that
the unsupported survey simply signified a "possible" consumer view,
as opposed to a plausible one. Even so, the Becerra court found
that the survey failed to challenge the view that "diet" only
signals relatively fewer calories, as compared to regular soda.

Finally, the plaintiff included additional allegations about
scientific studies concerning the impact of Diet Dr Pepper's
sweetener on weight, further alleging that causation is not the
pleading requirement because "unequivocal proof of causation" does
not always exist. The Becerra court agreed but ruled that the
plaintiff must nonetheless plausibly allege causation. Having
failed to offer a "single finding of causation" between the
sweetener or diet soda products and weight gain, the plaintiff
failed to supply "the plausibility of a causal link between Diet Dr
Pepper and weight gain." Id. at *8. For this reason, the plaintiff
failed to "cross the threshold from allegations of correlation to
causation." Id. at *9. The Becerra court also noted that "continued
scientific research" may allow the plaintiff to reach her desired
conclusions but that her claims failed "today." Id.

In sum, the plaintiff's new allegations could not overcome the two
key conclusions shared by the federal district courts: First, the
message and meaning of "diet" in diet soda must be viewed in
context when assessing whether that term is deceptive. And when
properly viewed in context, reasonable consumers understand the
benefits of diet soda only in relation to regular soda – not
independently as a weight loss tool. Second, to plausibly allege
that diet soda causes weight gain, a plaintiff must point to
scientific studies that establish such a causal link. Mere
allegations of correlation will not survive scrutiny. These two
conclusions likely spell trouble for any future "diet" soda class
actions. [GN]


DRINK DAILY: Court Dismisses "Daily Greens" Mislabeling Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERARD CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, v. DRINK DAILY GREENS,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-7176 (E.D. N.Y.), Judge I. Leo
Glasser of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint, under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, for failure to state a claim.

The Plaintiff brings the putative consumer class action against the
Defendant.  The case is in federal court on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction.  Campbell asserts three causes of action: (i)
deceptive business practices under New York General Business Law
("GBL") Section 349; (ii) false advertising under GBL Section 350;
and (iii) common-law fraud.  The crux of all three claims is the
allegation that Defendant sells juice products with misleading
labels.

Pending now before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint, under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, for failure to state a claim.

The Defendant is a Texas-based company that manufactures and sells
juice products bearing the name 'Daily Greens.'  Two of its product
lines are at issue in the case: Green Juices and Just Juices.  The
Defendant manufactures the Products through a two-step process.

Step one is cold-pressing, itself a two-step process by which
fruits and vegetables are first (i) shredded into a pulp and then
(ii) the pulp is subjected to hydraulic pressure, which pressure
extracts juice and water from the produce while leaving behind the
pulp and fiber.  After bottling comes step two: high pressure
processing ("HPP").  During HPP, an FDA-approved method for
eliminating harmful pathogens and bacteria, the bottles are placed
into a cylindrical vessel and pressurized at levels up to 87,000
pounds per square inch.

Plaintiff Campbell, a Brooklyn resident, claims that he purchased
one of the Products in August 2016.  More to the point, he claims
that he paid a premium for the Products based on several purported
misrepresentations on the Products' labels and on the Defendant's
website.  Specifically, Campbell claims that the Defendant, on its
Products' labels and on its website, made a number of materially
false or misleading representations—namely, that the Products (i)
are cold-pressed; (ii) are not pasteurized; (iii) are fresh or have
the quality of freshness; (iv) are never heated; and (v) have 4.5
pounds of produce pressed into every bottle.  According to
Campbell, these claims about the Products are all materially false
or misleading in light of the fact that the Products undergo HPP.

In addition, Campbell claims to have relied on the Defendant's
website, drinkdailygreens.com, for its representation that the
Products are not subjected to a process of pasteurization.  What
his Second Amended Complaint nowhere acknowledges, however, is that
the Products' label also discloses, in boldfaced text, that the
Products are High Pressure Processed.  The images Campbell included
in the Second Amended Complaint are carefully cropped, failing to
include the portion of the Products' label pasted.

The Defendant submitted the image of the Products' label as an
attachment to a declaration in support of its motion to dismiss,
and Campbell has not disputed its accuracy or authenticity.
Accordingly, the Court takes judicial notice of this portion of the
label under Rule 201(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.  This
portion of the label is appropriate for consideration on a motion
to dismiss because Campbell clearly relied on it in bringing his
suit.  The Second Amended Complaint repeatedly highlights two
statements that appear only on this portion of the label: (i)
pressing raw vegetables preserves nutrients and (ii) never heated
to preserve freshness and nutritional value.

Judge Glasser finds that since Campbell has not plausibly alleged
any materially misleading statements or omissions by the Defendant,
he has failed to state a claim under either Section 349 or Section
350 of the GBL.

In addition, Campbell's fraud claim flounders on the first element:
he has failed to allege a material misrepresentation or omission of
fact.  Moreover, Campbell has not alleged facts sufficient to
satisfy the scienter element (i.e., intent to defraud).  In any
event, the Judge finds that Campbell appears to have abandoned his
fraud claim.  The Defendant made these and other points in its
opening brief, and Campbell did not respond or otherwise defend (or
even mention) his fraud claim in his opposition brief.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Glasser granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.  The action is
dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/KXV6hY from Leagle.com.

Gerard Campbell, individually on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Levin-Epstein,
Levin-Epstein & Associates.

Drink Daily Greens LLC, Defendant, represented by Jonas Noah Hagey
-- hagey@braunhagey.com -- BraunHagey & Borden LLP, Matthew B.
Borden -- borden@braunhagey.com -- BraunHagey & Borden LLP, pro hac
vice & Amit Rana -- rana@braunhagey.com -- BraunHagey & Borden LLP,
pro hac vice.


EASTON DIAMOND: Must Face False Advertising Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Boysen, writing for Law360, reports that Easton Diamond Sports
LLC can't strike out a proposed class action alleging it mislabels
the weights of its expensive bats, the customer leading the suit
has told a California federal court. [GN]


ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Proceedings in Untershine & Voeks Suit Shelved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled RONALD UNTERSHINE and JULIE
VOEKS, the Plaintiffs, v. ENCORE RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01484-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge
William E. Duffin entered an order on Sept. 25, 2018, granting
Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings.

The Court said, "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, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco. On September 21, 2018, the
plaintiff filed a class action complaint. 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." "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."[CC]

EQUIINET: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Hayes Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
KAROLINE HAYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EQUIINET; and DOMINIC MARROCCO, Defendants,
Case No. 0:18-cv-62112-WPD (S.D. Fla., Sept. 6, 2018) seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Equiinet is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Nevada. The company is a manufacturer of voice and
security appliances and provides telecommunications, cloud
services, and VoIP services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


FANHUA INC: Faces Long Suit over 11% Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------
MIAO LONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FANHUA, INC.; CHUNLIN WANG, and PENG GE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08183 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2018) is a
class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Fanhua securities between April 20,
2018 through August 27, 2018, seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, on October 31, 2007, the Company listed
its American depositary shares ("ADS"), each of which represents 20
ordinary shares, on the Nasdaq Global Market ("NASDAQ"). Fanhua's
ADSs trade under the symbol "FANH."

The Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Fanhua engaged in
improper business practices, including irregular accounting; (ii)
the foregoing practices were intended to benefit Company insiders
and overstated Fanhua's financial assets and performance metrics;
and (iii) as a result, Fanhua's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 27, 2018, stock analyst Seligman Investments published an
article that described Fanhua as a "questionable company" and
detailed a history of alleged fraud within the Company, including
accounting irregularities in the Company's second quarter 2018
financial results. On this news, Fanhua's ADS price fell $2.75 per
share, or 10.52%, to close at $23.40 on August 27, 2018.

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

Fanhua Inc. distributes insurance products in China. It operates
through two segments, Insurance Agency and Claims Adjusting. The
company was formerly known as CNinsure Inc. and changed its name to
Fanhua Inc. in December 2016. Fanhua Inc. was founded in 1998 and
is headquartered in Guangzhou, China. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


FLORIDA: Mattis Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
-----------------------------------------------------
Theadene Mattis filed a petition for writ of certiorari on Sept.
12, 2018.  The proceeding is captioned as THEADENE MATTIS, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, the Respondent, Case No. 18-5962
(U.S.).

Mr. Mattis said, "The denials by the 4th District Court of Appeal
in Florida in this case raise issues of great practical importance
and constitutional significance meriting this Court's intervention.
This Court should agree that when police know that a "confidential
informant" being used to secure a search warrant is a suspect's
spouse, the failure to note the spousal relationship on the
application for the search warrant and the failure to prove that
the spouse waived her marital privilege when providing such
information to police represents a constitutional violation."[BN]

The Petitioner appears pro se.


FREIGHT HANDLERS: Underpays Unloaders, James Kraft Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES KRAFT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FREIGHT HANDLERS, INC.; and FHI, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-01469-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla., Sept. 7,
2018) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Mr. Kraft was employed by the Defendants as unloader.

Freight Handlers, Inc. provides product handling and logistics
services to retailers, distributors, manufacturers, and carriers in
the grocery industry in the United States. Freight Handlers, Inc.
was founded in 1991 and is based in Charlotte, North Carolina.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. Gunter, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
          E-mail: mgunter@forthepeople.com

                - and -

          Paul M. Botros, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL
          Telephone: (954) 327-5352
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3017
          E-mail: pbotros@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Camar R. Jones, Esq.
          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  cjones@shavitzlaw.com


FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Removes Gutierrez Case to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant removed the case captioned Alejandro Gutierrez,
individually and on behalf of all other similar situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. FriendFinder Networks, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 18CV332813 (filed on August
10, 2018) from the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara
County, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. The Northern District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-05918-SVK to the proceeding.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Jack Russo, Esq.
          Christopher Sargent, Esq.
          Lucy Goodnough, Esq
          COMPUTERLAW GROUP LLP
          401 Florence Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 327-9800
          Facsimile: (650) 618 1863
          E-mail: jrusso@computerlaw.com
                  csargent@computerlaw.com
                  lgoodnough@computerlaw.com


FRITO-LAY: Oct. 17 Due to File Sanchez Deal Prelim Approval Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIAZAR SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FRITO-LAY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00797-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California has
issued an order granting the joint stipulation to extend deadline
and continue hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement.

On Aug. 31, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation to extend time
for the Plaintiff's filing of a motion for preliminary approval of
the class action settlement and to continue the scheduled hearing
on that motion.  Good cause appearing and the parties having so
stipulated, the Judge ordered that the Plaintiff will have until
Oct. 17, 2018 to file the motion for preliminary approval, and that
the hearing on preliminary approval is continued to Nov. 20, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/r08Wmw from Leagle.com.

Eliazar Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian D. Chase --
bchase@bisnarchase.com -- Bisnar Chase, LLP & Jerusalem F. Beligan
-- jbeligan@bisnarchase.com -- Bisnar Chase, LLP.

Frito-Lay, Inc., Defendant, represented by Samantha D. Hardy --
shardy@sheppardmullin.com -- Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ashley
Teiko Hirano -- ahirano@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP & Daniel Francisco De La Cruz --
ddelacruz@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP.


FRONTIER AIRLINES: Court Grants Summary Judgment in Tarkov Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John J. Tharp, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Frontier's
motion for summary judgment in the case, ILYA and RIMMA TARKOV,
Plaintiffs, v. FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
15-CV-03430 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs Ilya and Rimma Tarkov purchased round-trip airline
tickets from Frontier for a vacation to Punta Cana, Dominican
Republic.  The Tarkovs sued the airline under Article 19 of the
Montreal Convention, alleging that their flights to and from Punta
Cana were delayed and seeking compensatory damages for the expenses
they incurred as a result of the delays.

Frontier is a Colorado corporation and the Tarkovs are residents of
Deerfield, Illinois.  The Tarkovs were scheduled passengers on a
March 21, 2015 Frontier flight from Chicago, Illinois to Punta
Cana, Dominican Republic ("Flight 40").  Flight 40 was scheduled to
depart from Chicago's O'Hare Airport at 10:00 a.m. local time and
to arrive at the Punta Cana Airport at 3:30 p.m. local time.  On
March 21, 2015, Flight 40 left O'Hare Airport at 10:01 a.m. and
landed in Punta Cana at 3:12 p.m.

The Tarkovs were also scheduled passengers on a March 28, 2015
Frontier flight from Punta Cana to Chicago ("Flight 41").  Flight
41 was scheduled to depart from Punta Cana at 4:25 p.m. local time
and arrive in Chicago at 8:36 p.m. local time.  According to
Frontier, Flight 41 was cancelled on March 28, 2015 due to an
outage in the radar system at the Punta Cana Airport, which was not
within Frontier's control.  Radar is essential for the safe control
of air traffic. F rontier states that the cancellation of Flight 41
was categorized as an "uncontrollable" event.  It asserts that it
was impossible to operate Flight 41 without a working radar system
and that it was required by law to cancel Flight 41 because of the
radar outage.  Ilya Tarkov, however, asserts that he personally
observed another airplane departing the Punta Cana Airport on March
28, 2015.

After Flight 41 was cancelled, Frontier re-booked the Tarkovs on
the next available flight to Chicago, which was Flight 2041,
scheduled to leave Punta Cana the next day, on March 29, 2015.
Flight 2041 left the Punta Cana Airport on March 29, 2015, as soon
as the radar system was operational.  Frontier took all reasonable
measures to ensure that Flight 2041 departed as soon as it had
permission from air traffic control to do so.

The Tarkovs assert that they incurred financial losses as a result
of the delays, including the cost of a hotel, taxi fares, food,
medication, phone charges, unused pre-paid theater tickets, and
lost wages. Their complaint asserts two claims against Frontier
under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention -- one for the delay of
Flight 40 on March 21, 2015 (Count II) and one for the delay of
Flight 41 on March 28, 2015 (Count 1).

Frontier moves for summary judgment on both claims asserted by the
Tarkovs.  The air carrier argues that undisputed evidence shows
that Flight 40 (the flight to Punta Cana) was not delayed.  As to
Flight 41, the return flight, Frontier admits that the flight was
delayed but argues that it has presented sufficient undisputed
evidence to establish the affirmative defense provided for in
Article 19.

Judge Tharp concludes that no juror could reasonably find in favor
of the Plaintiffs based on the single piece of evidence they
presented to show that the delay of Flight 41 was not impossible to
avoid.  In doing so, he does not improperly weigh conflicting
evidence or make credibility determinations; such judgments are not
permitted at the summary judgment stage.  Instead, he finds that
Ilya Tarkov's observation is not sufficiently probative to create a
conflict with Frontier's evidence.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs
cannot survive summary judgment on their Article 19 claim for the
Flight 41 delay.

Because Frontier has met its burden to establish that it is
entitled to summary judgment on both claims asserted by the
Tarkovs, the Judge will not address the air carrier's additional
arguments regarding damages and discovery violations.  He, however,
does address the Tarkovs' failure to comply with Judge Kim's Aug.
1, 2017 Order requiring them to pay Frontier $1,040 for the
attorney's fees related to a motion to compel discovery that
Frontier was forced to file.  Frontier has established that the
Tarkovs have not made the Court-ordered payment and the Tarkovs do
not dispute that fact in their brief or SOF.  They are ordered to
comply with Judge Kim's Aug. 1, 2017 Order and to file on the
Court's docket proof of payment of the $1,040 by Sept. 10, 2018.

For these reasons, Judge Tharp granted Frontier's motion for
summary judgment.  Judgment will be entered in favor of Frontier.
The Plaintiffs are ordered to file on the docket by Sept. 10, 2018,
proof of payment of $1,040 to Frontier.  The claims of any putative
class members are dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/8kekjq from Leagle.com.

Alisa Kolodizner, Helen Kolodizner, Ilya Tarkov, Rimma Tarkov,
Nicole Adler, Alyona Adler & Leonid Adler, Plaintiffs, represented
by Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky, Law Offices of Vladimir M.
Gorokhovsky.

Frontier Airlines, A foreign corporation, Defendant, represented by
Brian T. Maye -- bmaye@amm-law.com -- Adler, Murphy, & McQuillen
LLP & Michael Gerard McQuillen -- mmcquillen@amm-law.com -- Adler,
Murphy & McQuillen.


G.I. TRUCKING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Clerks, Taylor Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BROOKE TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. G.I. TRUCKING COMPANY d/b/a ESTES WEST;
ESTES EXPRESS LINES, and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. BC722778
(Cal. Super., Sept. 27. 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Taylor was employed by the Defendants as clerk.

G.I. Trucking Company operates a trucking company that provides a
range of transportation services. It also offers transportation
services through terminals in the United States and Canada. The
company was formerly known as G.I. Trucking Company and changed its
name in August 2001. Estes West Express was founded in 1946 and is
based in La Mirada, California. As of August 1, 2001, Estes West
Express operates as a subsidiary of Estes Express Lines, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arnold M. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON LAW, APC,
          2 Venture Plaza, Ste. 240
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 281-6857
          Facsimile: (949) 777-6218


GACO WESTERN: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Feamster Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denied Gaco's motion to dismiss the
case, SCOTT FEAMSTER, Plaintiff, v. GACO WESTERN, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-01327-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

Gaco filed the motion on April 16, 2018.  On April 30, 2018, the
Plaintiff opposed the motion.  The Defendant moves to dismiss the
Plaintiff's putative class action complaint under the doctrine of
claim splitting.  According to the Defendant, this doctrine
precludes the Plaintiff from raising individual personal injury
claims in state court, and at the same time, pursuing his product
liability claims on a class-wide basis in the Court.  It argues
that the Plaintiff's claims in these lawsuits stem from the same
transactional nucleus of facts, and must be brought in the same
proceeding.

There is no dispute that: (1) the Plaintiff filed his state court
lawsuit on the same day that he filed the action in federal court;
and (2) the Plaintiff has not yet received a judgment in his state
court lawsuit.

Judge Gilliam declines to dismiss the Plaintiff's putative class
action claims at this stage.  He finds that the claim splitting
doctrine is based on res judicata principles, and asks broadly
whether a "prior judgment" precludes a subsequent action that, in
effect, seeks to relitigate the same cause of action.  As
mentioned, the Plaintiff's state court lawsuit is proceeding in
parallel with the action, and the state court has not yet issued a
judgment on the Plaintiff's personal injury claims.  The Judge also
finds that the Defendant fails to present any analogous authority
suggesting that claim splitting applies where two actions are
proceeding in parallel.  

Considering the action's early stage, the Judge declines to decide
now whether the Plaintiff's failure to expressly plead his personal
injury claims substantively interferes with his adequacy as class
representative in the action.  That issue is better addressed on a
motion for class certification.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gilliam denied the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the complaint.  He set a case management
conference for Sept. 18, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.  The parties must submit
a joint case management statement by Sept. 11, 2018.  The Judge
vacated the case management conference currently set for Sept. 13,
2018 at 2:00 p.m.

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

Scott Feamster, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Sheri L. Kelly --
slk@sherikellylaw.com -- Law Office of Sheri L. Kelly.

Gaco Western, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, Defendant,
represented by Nicolas Peter Martin -- nick.martin@wilsonelser.com
-- WILSON ELSER LLP.


GADSDEN REGIONAL: Final Judgment in Brown Affirmed in Part
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARILYN BROWN, AARON R. GRINDSTAFF,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GADSDEN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER LLC, a
foreign imited iability company, PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT SERVICES INC,
a foreign corporation, TRIAD HOLDINGS V LLC, a foreign imited
iability company, TRIAD OF ALABAMA LLC, a foreign imited iability
company, Defendants-Appellees. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS INC, a
foreign corporation, Defendant, Case No. 17-14310 (11th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and
vacated in part the district court's final judgment in favor of
Defendants Gadsden Regional Medical Center, LLC ("GRMC"), Triad
Holdings V, LLC, Triad of Alabama, LLC, and Professional Account
Services, Inc.; and remanded.

The Plaintiffs challenge the Defendants' billing practices
following GRMC's treatment of patients involved in car accidents.
Each Plaintiff had personal health insurance through Alabama Blue
Cross Blue Shield.  The Plaintiffs assert that -- pursuant to a
Participating Hospital Contract ("Provider Agreement") between GRMC
and Blue Cross -- GRMC could seek reimbursement only from Blue
Cross.  Instead, GRMC filed a hospital lien for the costs of each
Plaintiff's medical treatment.

The Plaintiffs filed in state court the putative class action
against the Defendants, alleging state law claims for breach of
express contract, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty.  The
case was then removed to federal district court.  The district
court dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing the
Plaintiffs' claim for breach of express contract.  The district
court dismissed for failure to state a claim the Plaintiffs'
conversion claim.  The district court then entered judgment in
favor of GRMC on the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary
duty.

In the diversity action involving Alabama law, the Named Plaintiffs
appeal the district court's final judgment in favor of the
Defendants.  On appeal, they challenge the district court's
dismissal of their conversion claim based only on the theory that
GRMC's hospital liens interfered unlawfully with their rights to
their med-pay insurance benefits.  The Plaintiffs next challenge
the district court's entry of judgment in favor of GRMC on their
claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

The Appellate Court finds that the Plaintiffs made no allegations
that GRMC received payment on Grindstaff's behalf or that GRMC
placed Grindstaff's med-pay proceeds in a separate account.  It
cannot infer reasonably that the unpaid med-pay benefits constitute
specific property that would support a claim for conversion under
Alabama law.  Thus -- under the federal pleading standard -- the
Plaintiffs have alleged no plausible claim for relief.  The Court
affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
conversion claim for failure to state a claim.

The Court also finds that the district court provided no notice to
the Plaintiffs that the Court -- notwithstanding the Defendants'
omissions -- intended to rule regarding their
breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim, as a matter for summary judgment.
On this record, the Court concludes that the district court
committed error in granting summary judgment sua sponte without
first giving the Plaintiffs a full and fair opportunity to present
legal argument and evidence in support of their claim.  It vacated
the district court's entry of judgment in favor of GRMC on the
Plaintiffs' breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim and remand for further
proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/9cAz14 from Leagle.com.

Daniel B. King, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Benjamin T. Gardner, Jr., for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jonathan W. Macklem -- jwmacklem@csattorneys.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

John Thomas Richie -- trichie@bradley.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Richard E. Smith -- resmith@csattorneys.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Deborah Alley Smith -- dasmith@csattorneys.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

William Tipton Johnson, III, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jeffrey Conett Kirby, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

James Bradley Robertson -- brobertson@bradley.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Lisa F. Gardner -- lgardner@donohoetalbert.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

J. Paul Zimmerman -- jpz@csattorneys.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.


GALLERIA FITNESS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Gerstenhaber Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL GERSTENHABER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GALLERIA FITNESS CLUB, LLC d/b/a
POWERHOUSE GYM FORT LAUDERDALE, Defendants, Case No.
0:18-cv-62108-CMA (S.D. Fla., Sept. 6, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Galleria Fitness Club, LLC d/b/a Powerhouse Gym Fort Lauderdale is
a limited liability company doing business in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH Law
          1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
          Telephone: 786.496.4469

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954.400.4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


GOOD EGGS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Doyle Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
KELLY DOYLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOOD EGGS, INC. D/B/A GOOD EGGS TECHNOLOGY,
INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC-18-569499
(Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 6, 2018) is an action
against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours,
minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

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

Good Eggs, Inc. d/b/a Good Eggs Technology, Inc. is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          WORKMAN  LAW  FIRM, PC
          Robin G. Workman, Esq.
          Rachel E. Davey, Esq.
          177 Post Street, Suite 800
          San Francisco,  CA  94108
          Telephone: (415) 782-3660
          Facsimile: ( 415) 788-1 028
          E-mail: robin@workmanlawpc.com
                  rachel@workmanlawpc.com


GROUP HEALTH: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of State Claims in Hansen
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAREN HANSEN, on her own behalf and on behalf of other
similarly situated persons; BETTE JORAM, on her own behalf and on
behalf of other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 16-35684
(9th Cir.), Judge Ronald M. Gould of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's exercise of subject
matter jurisdiction in dismissing some claims, and remanded with
instructions for the district court to return the entirety of the
action to the Washington superior court.

Hansen and Bette Joram are mental health providers who live and
work in Washington.  Group Health Cooperative ("GHC"), now known as
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington, is a health insurance
company with its principal place of business in Washington.

In August 2015, the Providers filed a class action complaint
against GHC in a Washington state superior court.  According to the
complaint, in January 2007 GHC adopted screening criteria for
mental healthcare coverage called the Milliman Care Guidelines.
GHC allegedly uses these guidelines as the "primary criteria" for
authorizing psychotherapy treatment.

The Providers claim that GHC's use of the Milliman Care Guidelines
has injured their practices in violation of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act.  That statute makes unlawful unfair methods of
competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the
conduct of any trade or commerce.

Three of the Providers' allegations are at issue in the appeal.
First, the Providers allege that GHC's licensing of the guidelines
is inherently unfair and deceptive because the treatment guidance
is biased against mental healthcare.  Second, the Providers allege
that GHC deceptively uses the guidelines to avoid paying for mental
healthcare coverage required by Washington's Mental Health Parity
Act.  And third, the Providers assert that GHC unfairly competes by
employing its own psychotherapists who strictly adhere to the
guidelines and by discouraging patients from seeking treatment from
therapists who do not work for the company.  The Providers bring
the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all Washington
psychotherapists who are not employed by GHC.

In September 2015, GHC removed the case to federal court.  It
determined that Hansen and Joram had been assigned benefits by
three of their patients who were insured under employer-sponsored
health plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 ("ERISA").  The patients made these assignments so that
their therapists could appeal adverse benefit determinations on
their behalf.  GHC argued that the benefit assignments caused the
Providers' claims to be completely preempted by ERISA, meaning
there was subject matter jurisdiction in federal court.

A month later, the Providers moved to remand the case to state
court, while GHC moved to dismiss the complaint.  In a consolidated
order, the district court denied the motion to remand and granted
the motion to dismiss in part, concluding that the Providers'
claims were subject to conflict and express preemption to the
extent that they concerned GHC's business practices in
administering ERISA plans.  The court then declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the Providers' claims as to GHC's
administration of non-ERISA plans, and remanded that part of the
case back to Washington state court.  The Providers appeal.

Judge Gould finds that Providers' three claims for unfair and
deceptive business practices are based on independent duties beyond
those imposed by three of their patients' ERISA plans.  These
claims do not satisfy the second prong of Aetna Health Inc. v.
Davila, and hence the case was improperly removed to federal
court.
The Judge concludes that the federalism requires that federal
courts refrain from adjudicating state-law claims between
non-diverse parties unless a purported state-law claim is really a
poorly disguised federal claim.  But in the case, the Providers'
claims for unfair and deceptive business practices are not federal
claims improperly cloaked in the language of state law.  Those
claims are basically that, as mental health professionals, the
Providers are unfairly being cut out of the market of suppliers of
mental health services by GHC's unfair and deceptive use of
treatment guidelines.

To state their claims under Washington law, the Providers have
alleged (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) occurring
in trade or commerce, (3) affecting the public interest, (4) injury
to a person's business or property, and (5) causation.  Business
and property injuries of this sort are not of central concern to
ERISA, but instead pose important public policy issues under state
law that are best decided by a state court.  The Judge expresses no
opinion whether these state-law claims are valid as pleaded, but
rather concludes only that these claims do not mirror a suit for
benefits due under an ERISA plan.

Judge Gould holds that the Providers' claims do not fall within the
scope of, and so are not completely preempted by, ERISA section
502(a)(1)(B).  He reversed the district court's exercise of subject
matter jurisdiction in dismissing these claims, and remanded with
instructions for the district court to return the entirety of the
action to the Washington superior court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/xA6oAN from Leagle.com.

Albert H. Kirby -- ahkirby@soundjustice.com -- (argued), Sound
Justice Law Group PLLC, Seattle, Washington, for
Plaintiffs-Appellants.

James Derek Little -- dlittle@karrtuttle.com -- (argued) and Medora
A. Marisseau -- mmarisseau@karrtuttle.com -- Seattle, Washington,
for Defendant-Appellee.


H&E EQUIPMENT: Must Produce All LDW Reports in FDUTPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel in the case,
IN & OUT WELDERS, INC., v. H & E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC., ET AL,
Civil Action No. 16-86-JWD-RLB (M.D. La.).

On Oct. 5, 2015, In & Out brought the class action lawsuit against
H&E claiming that certain Loss Damage Waivers and Environmental
Charges contained in the H&E's equipment rental contracts
constitute a breach of contract, violate the duty of good faith and
fair dealing, and violate Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act ("FDUTPA") and Texas's Deceptive Trade
Practices-Consumer Protection Act ("TDTPA").  In & Out alleges that
the Loss Damage Waivers ("LDW") and Environmental Charges are
included on pre-printed contracts, and that H&E misrepresent the
nature and purpose of these fees, which In & Out asserts were
solely included to raise profits.

The Plaintiff seeks an order requiring additional responses to
Request for Production No. 2 and No. 5 of their Second Requests for
Production, Interrogatory No. 6 of their First Interrogatories, and
Requests for Production No. 3 and No. 5 of their Third Requests for
Production.

On Sept. 5, 2018, the Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave
to Amend Complaint, which sought to allege that H&E was involved in
an illegal RICO enterprise with its third-party insurers EPG
Insurance, Inc. and Glynn General Corp. in which H&E marketed and
resold its policies with EPG and Glynn to its customers as LDW.

The Plaintiff's Second Request for Production No. 2 seeks
production of all documents between H&E and any insurer (including
but not limited to Travelers, EPG, and Glynn, as referenced by Kurt
Sorenson) that in any way concern the insurance that H&E pay
premiums on for insurance on equipment H&E rent and for which it
charged a putative class member a LDW, also known as Physical
Damage Waiver).

The Plaintiff's Third Request for Production No. 5 seeks production
of all correspondence (including emails) between H&E and EPG or
Glynn regarding the LDW, including correspondence regarding
payments and insurance policies.  H&E objected on various grounds,
including irrelevance, over breadth, and undue burden.

The Plaintiff's Third Request for Production No. 3 seeks production
of all LDW Reports (similar to H&E's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
exhibit 14).

Their Second Request for Production No. 5 seeks production of all
documents between H&E and Billtrust or between H&E and CCS that in
any way concerns the Fees or Related costs.

The Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 6 requests all facts and evidence
H&E believes support each of the affirmative defenses they raise in
their Answer.

Magistrate Judge Bourgeois granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel.  H&E must supplement their
responses to the Plaintiff's Third Request for Production No. 3
within 14 days of the date of the Order.

The Magistrate found that notwithstanding the fact that the Court
has denied the Plaintiff leave to add a RICO claim, the Plaintiff's
Third Request for Production No. 3 seeks information relevant to
the claims in the action, namely, whether the LDWs are excessive
and constitute unregulated insurance.  He has reviewed an example
of these reports filed under seal.  The production of the two-page
monthly reports will not result in an undue burden and is
proportional to the needs of the case.  Accordingly, the Magistrate
required H&E to produce the documents sought pursuant to the
Plaintiff's Third Request for Production No. 3.

The parties will bear their own costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/K339Rb from Leagle.com.

In & Out Welders Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Lyle Salim ,
Lucas C. Montgomery, Montgomery Ponder, LLC, pro hac vice, Nicholas
W. Armstrong -- nick@pricearmstrong.com -- Price Armstrong, pro hac
vice, Oscar M. Price, IV, pro hac vice & Taylor C. Bartlett --
Taylor@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger Garrison Davis LLC, pro hac
vice.

H&E Equipment Services, Inc. & H&E Equipment Exchange LLC,
Defendants, represented by Loretta G. Mince --
lmince@fishmanhaygood.com -- Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley Willis
& Swanson, Jeanette Amedee Donnelly -- jdonnelly@fishmanhaygood.com
-- Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley Willis & Swanson, Michael Ryan
Dodson -- mdodson@fishmanhaygood.com -- Fishman Haygood & Molly
Louise Wells -- mwells@fishmanhaygood.com -- Fishman Haygood LLP.


HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Loses Bid to Dismiss Rape Case
------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports that just as video
went public on Sept. 12 of Harvey Weinstein apparently sexual
harassing a women in a business meeting, attempts by the once
high-powered producer to close down a criminal case that could see
him behind bars for life was called out by the New York County
District Attorney's Office as "meritless" and that it "should be
denied."

"Defendant moves to dismiss the indictment or counts thereof on
various grounds of alleged defect or deficiency in the presentation
of the matter to the grand jury," said Cyrus Vance Jr's office on
Sept. 12 in a response to a sprawling and politically charged
August 3 motion to dismiss from Mr. Weinstein's primary attorney
Ben Brafman.

"Inspection will reveal that the evidence before the grand jury
amply supported the offenses charged, that the grand jury was
properly instructed on the law, and that the integrity of the
proceedings was unimpaired, and the People deny all allegations to
the contrary, and oppose disclosure of the grand jury minutes to
the defense," adds the filing (read it here) in New York Supreme
Court.

The D.A. isn't saying more at this time, but Mr. Weinstein's lawyer
isn't buying the response.

"We believe that the People's response in its entirety makes it
absolutely clear that the case against Mr. Weinstein cannot be
successfully prosecuted," said Mr. Brafman in a statement to
Deadline. "Period."

While fending off "failure to provide exculpatory email evidence"
and other claims, Deputy D.A. Joan Illuzzi-Orbon's response on
Sept. 12 is admittedly not altogether publicly complete. "As a
result of recent developments, the People serve this disclosure and
additional letter on the defense relating to Count Six of the
indictment," The Sept. 12 filing notes of a Protective Order signed
by Justice James Burke. "The investigation into facts set forth in
the disclosure are ongoing, and we will respond to defendant's
motion addressing count Six at the conclusion of that
investigation."

Out on $1 million bail after having plead not guilty to the first
round of indictment and having surrendered his passport earlier
this year, Mr. Weinstein is set to be back in Burke's Manhattan
courtroom September 20. The disgraced producer was last in court
July 9 to enter another not guilty plea after the Manhattan D.A.'s
office slapped him with additional and more damning sex crime
charges July 2.

Those charges this summer mark an additional count of Criminal
Sexual Act in the First Degree for a forcible sexual act that
allegedly occurred in 2006. Joining the two women identified in a
previous indictment in late May, the new indictment relates to a
new alleged victim and includes two counts of Predatory Sexual
Assault.

The response from the Big Apple D.A. comes the same day that Sky
News revealed exclusive video of Weinstein allegedly sexually
harassing Melissa Thompson in September 2011 in what was supposed
to be a pitch meeting for a potential analytics service for the
Weinstein Company.

As detailed previously in her class action suit with Larissa Gomes
and Caitlin Dulany, the video (watch the full Sky segment here)
shot on Thompson's laptop shows Weinstein being very touchy. In
addition to telling Thompson he wants "a part of her," Weinstein is
apparently, out of the camera's view, running his hands up her leg
as she objects -- "That's a little high, a little high," Thompson
says in the video. In her jury-seeking action, Thompson says
Weinstein raped her later that day in a nearly hotel.

"What do I do?" Thompson told Sky she was thinking of the initial
encounter with Weinstein. "How did I get myself here?"

Also on Sept. 12, a hearing in federal court in New York City heard
arguments on Ms. Thompson, Ms. Gomes and Ms. Dulany's class action
and matters related to motions to dismiss. That hearing resulted in
the presiding judge allowing the plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint, which is due by October 31.

At another hearing on another case against the ex-movie mogul hit a
procedural bump in the road and saw RICO claims against Weinstein
in a class action by half a dozen alleged victims dismissed, for
now. After telling attorneys for Louisette Geiss, Katherine
Kendall, Zoe Brock, Sarah Ann Masse, Melissa Sagemiller, and
Nannette Klatt that they have not meant the legal standard to
demonstrate that Weinstein had a pattern of actions that
constituted sex trafficking, Judge Alvin Hellerstein offered the
plaintiffs another chance. They now have until October 31, a
significant date it seems in the world of Weinstein, to file an
amended compliant in the matter, which was first filed in December
of last year.

As well as being investigated by federal prosecutors and probes by
the Manhattan D.A.'s office and the NYPD, allegations against
Weinstein have been reviewed by the LAPD, which sent an initial
trio of cases to the L.A. County D.A. on February 8. Another case
was handed over to that same office early in August. As UK police
continue their investigation, the Beverly Hills Police first passed
two cases of sexual assault that they say occurred in their
jurisdiction to Lacey's office on January 2. [GN]


HEALTHPORT TECH: Approval of Goldberg Settlement Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FISCHEL GOLDBERG and JERRY VELASQUEZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v. HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, KIMBALL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.,
COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER, INC., BARNABAS HEALTH, INC., OCEAN
MEDICAL CENTER, JERSEY SHORE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, and
MERIDIAN HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendants-Respondents, Case No.
A-2657-16T3 (N.J. Super. App. Div.), the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the Law Division's approval of
the class action settlement, and (ii) entry of a judgment of
dismissal.

Appellant, Diana Dos Santos, appeals from two Law Division orders,
the first approving the class action settlement, the second
entering a judgment of dismissal.  She contends the Court's review
is de novo.  She submits that under de novo review, the Court must
reverse the Law Division orders, because notice to the class
members was constitutionally lacking.

The Respondents, nominal Plaintiffs Goldberg and Velasquez, contend
the Court should review the Law Division orders under an
abuse-of-discretion standard.  They submit that under the
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, it must affirm the Law
Division orders, the trial court having properly exercised its
discretion to approve the class action settlement and dismiss the
case.

According to the amended complaint, with the exception of
Healthport Technologies, the Defendants operate hospital facilities
throughout New Jersey.  The complaint identifies Healthport as a
medical record reproduction company and an agent of the Defendants
that provides hospital records to requestors.  

The fees for records a hospital may charge a patient or the
patient's authorized representative are regulated.  The amended
complaint, which alleged the Defendants charged an unauthorized,
unlawful $5 fee for certifying copies of hospital records, included
four counts: violation of the New Jersey Administrative Code,
violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, fraudulent and
negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

The proposed class was all patients who, during the time period of
March 4, 2008 through the present, requested copies of medical
records in the State of New Jersey, either personally or through
their legally authorized representatives (as such terms are defined
in N.J.A.C. 8:43G-15.3(d)), in writing, from the Defendants and who
have suffered economic damages as a result of the payment of
service fees that were imposed by the Defendants in excess of those
expressly authorized under N.J.A.C. 8:43G-15.3(d).

The Court concludes that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in determining the class notice was the best notice
practicable under the circumstances.  In the underlying action, the
known medical record requestors were the attorneys who requested
the records on behalf of their clients.  Although the attorneys may
have been reimbursed the disputed certification fees by their
clients, the only contact the Defendants had concerning the
requested records was with the attorneys and law firms requesting
them.  Therefore, it was reasonable for notice to be sent to the
attorneys.

It does not find the trial court abused its discretion in finding
the Appellant's proposed notice was less practicable than that
used.  The Appellant argues notice should be sent either directly
to the underlying patients, or to both the underlying patients and
their attorneys.  However, the Court finds that the former method
overlooks that the attorneys requested the documents and payed the
certification fee, and the latter method raises the issue of
duplicative claims.  In addition, due to privacy considerations, it
was unclear who was permitted to provide patient names.

For these reasons, the Superior Court concludes the trial court did
not abuse its discretion in determining that sending the notice to
the requesting attorney was the most effective and efficient manner
to ensure notice reached the proper claimant.  Accordingly, it
affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/bkM2x9 from Leagle.com.

Clark Law Firm, PC, attorneys for appellant Diana Dos Santos
(Gerald H. Clark, of counsel; Mark W. Morris, on the brief).

Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rubin, LLC, attorneys for respondents
Fischel Goldberg and Jerry Velasquez (Michael R. Rudick --
michael.rudick@rivkin.com -- Peter J. Kurshan --
PKurshan@chaselawnj.com -- and Maureen Doerner Fogel --
MFogel@herzfeld-rubin.com -- on the joint brief).

Thompson Hine, LLP, attorneys for respondents HealthPort
Technologies, LLC, Kimball Medical Center, Inc., Community Medical
Center, Inc., Barnabas Health, Inc., Ocean Medical Center, Jersey
Shore University Medical Center, and Meridian Health System, Inc.
(Rebecca A. Brazzano -- rebecca.brazzano@thompsonhine.com -- and
Seth A. Litman -- Seth.Litman@ThompsonHine.com -- (Thompson Hine,
LLP) of the Georgia bar, admitted pro hac vice, on the joint
brief).


HERMES LANDSCAPING: Court Certifies Class in Rodriguez FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTONIO CHAVEZ RODRIQUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
HERMES LANDSCAPING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-2142 (D. Kan.),
Judge Carlos Murguia of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class.

Rodriguez, Isaac Chavez Duarte, and Jose Alfredo Soto Servin filed
their Second Amended Complaint on Aug. 16, 2017.  The Plaintiffs
are Mexican nationals who came to the United States under the
federal H-2B or H-2R temporary foreign worker visa programs to work
for defendant Hermes Landscaping, Inc. in Lenexa, Kansas.  

The H-2B program is a guest-worker visa program, and it allows
persons having a residence in a foreign country which he has no
intention of abandoning who is coming temporarily to the United
States to perform other temporary service or labor if unemployed
persons capable of performing such service or labor cannot be found
in the country.  It program is for returning H-2B workers.

The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant has sponsored workers since
2012 and in recent years has sponsored around 100 workers annually
-- 105 in 2016; 90 in 2015; 115 in 2014; 92 in 2013; 100 in 2012.
They claim the Defendant failed to pay them for all the hours they
worked, including overtime doing residential and commercial
landscape work for the Defendant in the greater Kansas City area,
as well as incurring work and travel expenses for which they were
not reimbursed.

They bring the action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 ("FLSA"); the Kansas Wage Payment Act; the Missouri Minimum
Wage Law; as well as for breach of contract and quantum meruit
claims.  The Plaintiffs bring the suit on behalf of themselves and
all other H-2B or H-2R workers who worked for defendant since 2012
and who may seek to opt into the FLSA suit.

On Jan. 4, 2018, the parties stipulated to conditional
certification and notice of collective action to send to the
putative class members, which the Court entered on Jan. 10, 2018.
On Feb. 15, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their motion to certify the
case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) for
claims II (Missouri Overtime Compensation Violation); III (Kansas
Wage Payment Violation); V (Breach of Contract); VII (Prevailing
Wage Rate); and VIII (Quantum Meruit); to be appointed the class
representatives; to have their counsel appointed as the class
counsel, and for authorization to send notices to the putative
class members.  

The Defendant opposes certification under Rule 23.

Judge Murguia finds that the Plaintiffs have met the Rule 23(a) and
(b) requirements for the class certification for claims II
(Missouri Overtime Compensation Violation); III (Kansas Wage
Payment Violation); V (Breach of Contract); VII (Prevailing Wage
Rate); and VIII (Quantum Meruit).  Therefore, he granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/UErKol from Leagle.com.

Antonio Chavez Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Isaac Chavez Duarte, Jose Alfredo Soto Servin,
Oscar J Moreno, Eduardo Montaya Galicia, Eduardo Jiminez Hernandez,
Jose Calderon Gonzalez, Nestor Animas Arredondo & Ruben Calderon
Gonzalez, Plaintiffs, represented by Heather J. Schlozman --
heather@duganschlozman.com -- Dugan Schlozman LLC, Mark V. Dugan --
mark@duganschlozman.com -- Dugan Schlozman LLC & Patricia C.
Kakalec -- pkakalec@kakalec-schlanger.com -- Kakalec & Schlanger,
LLP, pro hac vice.

Hermes Landscaping, Inc., Defendant, represented by Justin M. Dean
-- justin.dean@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, PC & Patrick F. Hulla -- patrick.hulla@ogletree.com --
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC.


IRIS POUNDS: Portfolio Recovery Appeals Ruling to High Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, the Petitioner vs. Iris Pounds,
et al., the Respondents, Case. No. 18-204 (U.S., Aug. 16, 2018), is
an appeal filed in the Supreme Court of United States from a lower
court decision in Case No. 18-174 (4th Cir., May 17, 2018).

In a March 2018 decision, Judge William L. Osteen, Jr. of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted in
part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand; (ii)
denied as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Determination
of Motion to Remand; and (iii) granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Defer Time to File Federal Motion for
Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs commenced the putative class action in Durham County
in the Superior Court Division of the General Court of Justice of
the State of North Carolina on Nov. 21, 2016, against Defendant
PRA.   The Defendant removed the case to federal district court on
Dec. 9, 2016, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA").  The Plaintiffs
moved the District Court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c) to remand
the case to state court on the grounds that the District Court
lacks jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine.

The Plaintiffs' Complaint seeks to set aside certain default
judgments obtained by PRA in North Carolina state courts, and seeks
to recover actual damages and civil penalties for alleged
violations of N.C. Gen. Stat. Sections 58-70-115(7), 58-70-130, and
58-70-155.

PRA is a debt buyer and collection agency under North Carolina law.
As a debt buyer, PRA is required to file certain properly
authenticated evidence with a court prior to entry of a default
judgment against a debtor.  Rule 55(b) of the North Carolina Rules
of Civil Procedure also governs the entry of default judgments.
When a plaintiff's claim is for a sum certain or for a sum which
can by computation be made certain, then the clerk has the
authority to enter a default judgment.  Absent a sum certain, the
default judgment must be entered by a judge.

Since Section 58-70-155 became effective in October 2009, PRA has
filed thousands of lawsuits in North Carolina state courts in which
it subsequently obtained default judgments.  PRA obtained default
judgments against each of the named Plaintiffs in the action.  The
Plaintiffs claim that PRA failed to satisfy the Section 58-70-155
prerequisites that required it to file properly authenticated
business records providing an itemization of the amount claimed to
be owed.  Plaintiff Townes has additionally filed and been granted
a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the North Carolina Rules of
Civil Procedure to set aside her default judgment.

In his ruling, Judge Osteen finds that the Court lacks jurisdiction
over the claims of Plaintiffs Pounds, Miller, Sayaphet-Tyler, and
Hall pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.  He granted in part
and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.  He remanded
the claims of Plaintiffs Pounds, Miller, Sayaphet-Tyler, and Hall
to the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Durham
County, North Carolina, for further disposition.  He denied the
motion as to the claims of Plaintiff Townes.  The Judge directed
the Clerk of Court to send a certified copy of the Memorandum
Opinion and Order to the Clerk of Superior Court in Durham County.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 28, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/sRH3Vi from Leagle.com.

A petition for writ of certiorari was filed on Aug. 14, 2018.[BN]

Attorneys for Portfolio Recovery Associates:

          Troy D. Shelton, Esq.
          Sean W. Fernandes, Esq.
          Jonathan A. Berkelhammer, Esq.
          Joseph D. Hammond, Esq.
          ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP
          4131 Parklake Avenue, Suite 400
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 865 7098
          E-mail: jon.berkelhammer@elliswinters.com


JONES CREEK TEXAS: Underpays Deputy Marshalls, Harper Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDMON KEITH HARPER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VILLAGE OF JONES CREEK, TEXAS;
JONES CREEK POLICE DEPARTMENT; and MARSHAL WILLIAM R. TIDWELL, in
his official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00267 (S.D.
Tex., Sept. 8, 2018) seeks payment of unpaid overtime compensation,
regular wage, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Harper was employed by the Defendants as deputy marshall.

Village of Jones Creek, Texas is a Texas municipal governmental
agency created as part of a political subdivision of the U.S. and
the State of Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul H. LaValle, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAUL HOUSTON
          LAVALLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          2501 Palmer Hwy., Ste. 112
          Texas City, TX 77592-3073
          Telephone: (409) 945-3314
          Facsimile: (409) 945-2310
          E-mail: paul@lavalle-law.com


JOSEPH CORY: Deliverymen's Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Astudillo, Julio Astudillo, Luis Astudillo and Ariel Vela,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Joseph Cory Holdings LLC, Joseph Cory Holdings, LLC
of New York and Bob's Discount Furniture, LLC and Patrick Cory,
Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-005262, (E.D. N.Y., September 19, 2018),
seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of New York State
labor laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act; compensatory and
liquidated damages; interest; attorneys' fees; costs and all other
legal and equitable remedies.

Joseph Cory Holdings operate as "Cory 1st Choice Home Delivery" and
"Bob's Discount Furniture," furniture shop with a warehouse at 70
Marcus Avenue, Melville, New York 11747. Plaintiffs worked as
delivery personnel. Defendants owe Plaintiffs unpaid wages for
overtime and willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage
and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the
location of their employment and failed to keep payroll records,
notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591
      Fax: (718) 263-9598
      Email: HFDalton6912@gmail.com


KASHIF ABDUL KABANI: Alam Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burhan Alam, and all others similarly situate, Plaintiffs, v.
Kashif Abdul Kabani, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03350 (S.D. Tex.,
September 19, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney's
fees, all costs of the action, and post-judgment interest for
Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Alam was an employee who worked as a clerk at a gas station and
convenience store owned, operated and controlled by Kabani. Alam
did not receive overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40
during each workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
      ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
      One Arena Place
      7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920
      Houston, TX 77074
      Telephone: (713) 223-1300
      Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
      Email: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


KPH TURCOT: Not Defendant in AGQ Class Action
---------------------------------------------
P.A. Sevigny, writing for The Suburban, reports that contrary to
what was published in a recent issue of The Suburban, the Attorney
General of Québec (AGQ) is now the sole defendant in a class
action suit that was initially filed against the AGQ and its
partners that included the consortium known as KPH Turcot.

According to court documents, (page 2, #3), ". . . the application
was heard on January 22 and 23, 2018, at a time when the named
defendants included the AGQ, but also a consortium and its
partners, KPH Turcot, un partenariat S.E.N.C. (collectively KPH),
and a contractor who was granted a design-built contract for
certain work related to the project."

However, further reading of the 30 page judgement indicates that on
the second day of the hearing, KPH Turcot lawyers convinced the
court to ". . . discontinue the authorization proceedings against
KPH," after which the consortium was reduced to little more than a
footnote in Superior Court Judge Karen Roger's decision to allow
the case to proceed as requested. [GN]


KRS GLOBAL: Class Certification in Sawyer TCPA Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM P. SAWYER d/b/a SHARONVILLE FAMILY MEDICINE,
Plaintiff, v. KRS GLOBAL BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-550 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Susan J. Dlott of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division,
(i) overruled the Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and
Recommendation; and (ii) denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

Sawyer, doing business as Sharonville Family Medicine, is a primary
care medical practice located in Sharonville, Ohio.  Sawyer has a
telephone number that is used to receive faxes.  Defendant KRS
Global Biotechnology, Inc. is a Florida compounding pharmacy with
nearly 90 employees, almost 20 of whom are sales representatives.

On Oct. 9, 2015, KRS sent an unsolicited one-page advertisement for
intravenous infusion sets and/or other products ("Infusion Kit
Fax") to Sawyer.  KRS admits that it had no prior business
relationship with Sawyer and that KRS did not seek or obtain
permission from Sawyer to send the Infusion Kit Fax prior to doing
so.  Although KRS admits that it sent an unsolicited fax to Sawyer,
it maintains that the fax was sent in violation of KRS's
established business practice to send fax advertisements only to
existing customers and others who have agreed to receive the faxed
advertisements.

In October 2015, RingCentral provided KRS' telecommunications
services.  In response to a subpoena, RingCentral produced KRS'
call and fax log data.  According to the fax log, KRS transmitted
34,773 outbound faxes on Oct. 8 and Oct. 9, 2015.  More than 99% of
these faxes originated from the same number as the number used to
send Sawyer the Infusion Kit Fax.  KRS disputes that it faxed
34,773 copies of the Infusion Kit Fax, but it admits it transmitted
between 1,000 and 10,000 of that particular advertisement.  The fax
log reflects only whether a fax was successfully transmitted, not
the content of the fax.

Sawyer initiated the putative class action under the "junk fax"
provision of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
("TCPA").  Sawyer filed a Motion for Class Certification in which
it seeks to represent all 34,773 fax recipients it claims received
the Infusion Kit Fax on Oct. 8 or Oct. 9, 2015.  The Court referred
the motion to a Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b)(1)(B).

The Magistrate Judge conducted oral argument on May 14, 2018.  In a
well-reasoned report, the Magistrate Judge explained, in part, that
Sawyer failed to satisfy the "predominance" requirement of Federal
Civil Rule 23(b)(3) as individualized questions of consent to
receive the Infusion Kit Fax prevented common questions from
predominating and recommended that Sawyer's Motion to Certify Class
be denied.

Sawyer has filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation to
which KRS has responded.  Specifically, Sawyer makes the following
objections: (i) KRS' evidence of permission is insufficient to
undermine the predominance requirement; (ii) KRS bears the burden
of proof on the permission defense; (iii) the Magistrate Judge did
not apply the appropriate legal standard for evaluating whether the
prerequisites of commonality, typicality, and adequacy have been
met; and (iv) the Magistrate Judge failed to make a clear
recommendation as to whether the prerequisites of adequacy and
superiority have been met.

Judge Dlott holds that the Magistrate Judge entered a thorough and
thoughtful Report and Recommendation in the case.  As part of that
report, she properly concluded that Sawyer has failed to satisfy
the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).  The Judge, after
reviewing the matter de novo, agrees.  Because Sawyer has failed to
fulfill the requirements of Rule 23(b), his remaining objections
are moot.  

For the foregoing reasons, the Judge orverruled the Plaintiff's
Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and
denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/2YaU6U from Leagle.com.

William P. Sawyer, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by
George Demetrios Jonson -- GJonson@mrjlaw.com -- Montgomery, Rennie
& Johnson & Matthew E. Stubbs -- MStubbs@mrjlaw.com -- Montgomery,
Rennie & Jonson.

KRS Global Biotechnology, Inc., Defendant, represented by Paula
Milsom Brown -- pbrown@kravitzllc.com -- Kravitz, Brown & Dortch,
LLC, Richard R. Parsons -- rparsons@kravitzllc.com -- Kravitz Brown
& Dortch LLC, Eric Bravin -- info@ellslaw.com -- Ellsworth Law
Firm, P.A., pro hac vice & Sean M. Ellsworth, Ellsworth Law Firm,
P. A., pro hac vice.


LANGMAS GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Internal Medicine Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNAL MEDICINE RURAL HEALTH CLINIC OF NEW ALBANY, P.A., doing
business as New Albany Medical Group, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE LANGMAS GROUP,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00192-GHD-RP (N.D. Miss., Sept.
7, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls.

The Langmas Group, Inc.  is a public company that services in
healthcare. The Company has its principal place of business in
Bend, Oregon, is organized under the laws of the State of Oregon.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L.N. Chandler Rogers, Esq.
          ROGERS LAW GROUP
          201 E Bankhead Street
          New Albany, MS 38652
          Telephone: (662) 538-5990
          Facsimile: (662) 538-5997
          E-mail: chandler@rogerslawgroup.com

                - and -

          Winston B. Collier, Esq.
          THE COLLIER FIRM
          2090 Old Taylor Road
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (870) 347-2100
          Facsimile: (870) 47-1164
          E-mail: winston@thecollierfirm.com

                - and -

          Gregory M. Zarzaur, Esq.
          ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR &
            DEBROSSE-TRIAL LAWYERS
          2332 2nd Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: 205-983-7985
          Facsimile: 888-505-0523
          E-mail: Gregory@zarzaur.com


LAW FOOD: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Cook and Richardson Allege
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHITNEY COOK, and CECILIE RICHARDSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAW FOOD SERVICE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-2155 (W.D. Ark., Sept. 6, 2018) is an
action for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs
as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Plaintiff Cook was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid
employee. The Plaintiff Richardson was employed as assistant
general manager.

Law Food Service, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in Arkansas.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LEADEXCEL INC: Abante Rooter Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Leadexcel, Inc. and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-05750 (N.D. Cal.,
September 19, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages,
treble damages and all other relief for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Leadexcel, Inc. provides business process outsourcing, including
offering live-transfer lead generation services for merchant
funding businesses.

Abante Rooter and Plumbing is a rooting and plumbing business in
Emeryville, California. It received calls from the Defendant using
an automatic telephone dialing system offering its services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIBERTYVILLE PICNIC: Underpays Cooks, Estrada Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS ESTRADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE LIBERTYVILLE PICNIC BASKET, INC.; and
AHMED AMIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06606 (N.D. Ill., Sept.
27, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mr. Estrada was employed by the Defendants as cook.

Picnic Basket is an Illinois corporation that operates a restaurant
located at 501 N. Milwaukee Avenue, Libertyville, IL 60048.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS, P.C.
          77 West Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com
                  sarendt@flsalaw.com


LIONS GATE: Agreement in Principle Reached in Starz Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case entitled, In re Starz Stockholder
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 12584-VCG, have reached an
agreement in principle providing for the settlement of and
dismissal of the case for a settlement payment in the amount of
$92.5 million.

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said, "As previously
disclosed by Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. (the "Company"),
between July 19, 2016 and August 30, 2016, seven putative class
action complaints were filed by purported stockholders of Starz, a
subsidiary of the Company, in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against former members of the board of directors of Starz,
John C. Malone and the Company (the "Litigation") in connection
with the acquisition of Starz by the Company in December 2016. The
Litigation was consolidated into In re Starz Stockholder
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 12584-VCG."

On August 22, 2018, the parties to the Litigation reached an
agreement in principle providing for the settlement of the
Litigation on the terms and conditions set forth in an executed
term sheet (the "Term Sheet"). The Term Sheet provides for, among
other things, the final dismissal of the Litigation in exchange for
a settlement payment made in the amount of $92.5 million. Insurance
reimbursement is being sought and is expected for a significant
portion of this amount.

The settlement of the Litigation is subject to the final approval
of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. In addition, the
settlement of the Litigation is not contingent or dependent in any
way on, and does not release or resolve claims for, the separate
statutory appraisal action brought by petitioners in In re Starz
Appraisal, Consolidated CA. No. 12968-VCG.

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. engages in motion picture production
and distribution, television programming and syndication, home
entertainment, interactive ventures and games, and location-based
entertainment in Canada, the United States, and internationally.


LOEWS SANTA MONICA: Underpays Massage Therapists, Turner Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLINE TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LOEWS SANTA MONICA HOTEL, INC.; and DOES 1
THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. BC723614 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 28, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

Ms. Turner was employed by the Defendants as massage therapist.

Loews Hotels, Inc. owns and operates a chain of hotels and resorts
for business, leisure, and family travelers in the United States
and Canada. Loews Hotels, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Loews
Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amab Banerjee, Esq.
          Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
          Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 9434-0396
          E-mail: Amab.Banerjee@capstonelawyers.com
                  Ari.Basser@capstonelawyers.com
                  Ruhandy.Glezakos@capstonelawyers.com


M&T BANK: Must Face ERISA Class Action, New York Judge Rules
------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Brill, writing for Law360, reports that M&T Bank Corp. must
face a pared-down proposed class action accusing it of improperly
stuffing its 401(k) plan with its own costly investment products, a
New York federal judge ruled on Sept. 11. [GN]


MAIZAL INC: Castro Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Miranda Castro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Maizal, Inc. and Leonel Alberto
Zelaya, Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-05263, (E.D. N.Y., September 19,
2018), seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of New
York State labor laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act;
compensatory and liquidated damages; interest; attorneys' fees;
costs and all other legal and equitable remedies.

Defendants operate as "Maizal Restaurant" in Astoria, New York
where Castro worked as a dishwasher, delivery person and food
preparer. Defendants owe Plaintiff unpaid wages for overtime in
excess of 40 hours per week, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591
      Fax: (718) 263-9598
      Email: HFDalton6912@gmail.com


MARINA SECCHITANO: Fisher Sues over Mismanagement of Pension Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLINT FISHER, individually and on behalf of the participants in
Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific National Pension Plan and its
participants, Plaintiff v. MARINA SECCHITANO; LEE EGLAND; BRIAN
DODGE; DONOVAN DUNCAN; PETER HART; GAIL MCCORMICK; JOHN SKOW; ADAM
SMITH; ROBERT ESTRADA; MATT HAINLEY; PATRICK MURPHY; ALICE NG; MIKE
O'CONNOR; and ROBERT RELLER, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01639-BR
(D. Or., Sept. 7, 2018) alleges violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The Plaintiff is a participant in the Inlandboatmen's Union of the
Pacific National Pension Plan (the "IBU Plan"). The IBU Plan was
established on July 1, 1981, pursuant to a Trust Agreement between
the Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific and several employers.

The Plaintiff alleges in the compliant that the Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to the participants in the IBU Plan by
allowing the IBU Plan to incur and failing to timely eliminate an
unfunded vested benefit liability ("UVB") over the last nine years.
That UVB has now grown to an amount in excess of $73 million as of
June 30, 2017.

The IBU Trust Documents required the trustees to meet and take
action to modify plan benefits and contributions in order to
eliminate and avoid incurring UVB. However, the trustees failed to
do that despite full knowledge of the UVB, until now, in 2018, they
seek to adopt a Rehabilitation Plan that imposes changes in
benefits only on those who retire after July 1, 2018.

If the Trustees would have eliminated the UVB when it was first
incurred in 2009, all participants at that time would have shared
in the reduction in benefits to eliminate the $37 million UVB.
However, rather than eliminating the UVB in 2009, the Trustees let
the UVB ride, and now, in 2018, it has grown to $73 million.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve D. Larson, Esq.
          Cody Berne, Esq.
          STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING
             & SHLACHTER P.C.
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 227-1600
          Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
          E-mail:  slarson@stollberne.com
                  cberne@stollberne.com


MARRIOTT HOTEL: 9th Cir. Vacates Summary Judgment in McCray Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IAN MCCRAY, an individual, and on behalf of himself,
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; SJMEC, INC., a California corporation,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-15767 (9th Cir.), Judge Albert
Diaz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the
district court's denial McCray's motion to remand and grant of
summary judgment to Marriott.

When the City of San Jose enacted an ordinance that established a
minimum wage of $10/hour, the San Jose Marriott Hotel continued to
pay McCray and other employees less.  It turned out that McCray's
union had negotiated with Marriott and agreed to waive the
ordinance's minimum-wage requirement so that it could bargain for
other benefits for its members.

McCray sued Marriott in state court.  He says that the ordinance
doesn't allow for waiver, and so Marriott owes him the difference
between what he was paid and the new minimum wage.  Marriott
removed the case to federal court on the basis that McCray's claims
are preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act
("LMRA").  The district court concluded that McCray failed to first
exhaust his claim through a required grievance process and granted
summary judgment to Marriott.  The appeal followed.

Judge Diaz finds that the San Jose ordinance and relevant state law
afford workers in San Jose the right to be paid the minimum wage
established by the ordinance, subject to the requirements of
California law.  That the ordinance contains an opt-out mechanism
doesn't change the fact that these rights originate outside of the
collective-bargaining agreement ("CBA").  He therefore holds that
McCray's claims arise independently under state law and are not
subject to Section 301 preemption on that basis.

The Judge next finds that the degree of analysis of the CBA the
case requires isn't altogether different from checking an agreement
to identify, for example, an employee's pay rate.  And in many
respects, it presents the inverse of the issue in Burnside v.
Kiewit Pac. Corp.: there, the Court said that looking at a CBA to
see whether it contained a valid waiver didn't require
"interpreting" the agreement.  The Judge fails to see why the
result should be any different in the case simply because a waiver
does exist.

Finally, the Judge recognizes that although McCray hasn't yet
challenged the substance of the waiver, he may attempt to do so
later in the litigation.  But that speculative possibility isn't
enough to warrant preemption at this early stage.  As McCray has
framed his claims (and argued them thus far), his case will rise or
fall based on interpretation of the local ordinance, not
interpretation of the CBA.  The possibility that things could
change down the road is simply not enough to warrant preemption
now.
In sum, the Judge concludes that the district court didn't have
jurisdiction to hear the case, because the LMRA doesn't preempt
McCray's claims.  The district court therefore erred in denying
McCray's motion to remand this case to state court and shouldn't
have reached the merits of Marriott's motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, Judge Diaz vacated the district court's denial of
McCray's motion to remand and also vacated its grant of summary
judgment in favor of Marriott.  Upon remand, the district court
should return the case to state court for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/ykBw60 from Leagle.com.

James L. Pagano (argued) and Ian A. Kass -- ianakass@yahoo.com --
Pagano & Kass APC, San Jose, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

William J. Dritsas (argued)-- wdritsas@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, San Francisco, California; Michael W. Kopp --
mkopp@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Sacramento, California;
for Defendants-Appellees.

Paul L. More -- pmore@msh.law -- McCracken Stemerman & Holsberry
LLP, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae Unite Here Local
19.


MERCHANT GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Abante Rooter Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MERCHANT GROUP USA, LLC
d/b/a 1800 MONEY MERCHANT, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case
No. 4:18-cv-05493-DMR (N.D. Cal., Sept. 7, 2018) alleges that the
Defendant negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacted the
Plaintiff on its cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Merchant Group USA, LLC d/b/a 1800 Money Merchant is a
financing 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
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com
                  abacon@ toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


MERCK & CO: 44 Lawsuits Filed over Zostavax Vaccine
---------------------------------------------------
At least 44 lawsuits have been filed against Merck & Co., Inc.
early this year seeking to recover damages as a result of personal
injuries suffered from the use of Zostavax (TM) vaccine.

Each of the complaints relates that the Zostavax (TM) vaccine was
and is intended for the long-term prevention of herpes zoster (or
shingles).  It is manufactured, designed, licensed, processed,
assembled, marketed, promoted, packaged, labeled, distributed,
supplied, and/or sold by Defendants.  In each of the lawsuits, the
Plaintiff was inoculated with the Zostavax (TM) vaccine for the
long-term prevention of shingles. However, the Plaintiff was
diagnosed with shingles after being inoculated with the Zostavax
(TM) vaccine and suffered serious physical, emotional, and economic
damages as a result of her shingles and associated injuries.

The lawsuits are captioned as:

"ADAMS, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME
CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
4:18-cv-00155-MW-CAS (M.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2018)";

"DONNA ALFORD, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP &
DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
6:18-cv-00093-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla., Apr. 5, 2018)";

"PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON, MICHAEL STEPHENS, NORMA STANTON, SHELBY
FELL, SANDRA MORRIS, ROSLYN BUDZINSKI, MITCHEL BASS, KATHLEEN
CIRILLO, MARGARET DELAMORE, GERALD CARTER, SANDRA TRAPNESE, HOWARD
E. GLASSCO, RODGER HENDERSON, LINDA HUTER, EARL POPLARS, NORMA
CAMPBELL-HICKEY, JOHN DESTEPHANO, JANICE GREENE, ESTELLE BROWN, and
EDWARD CEDERBERG,, the Plaintiffs, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK
SHARP & DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
18-CA-5258 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., Jul. 1, 2018)";

"ANGELO BENCIVENGA, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK
SHARP & DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20014-HB (M.D. Fla., Jan. 26,2018)";

"MARYFAITH BLANCHARD, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK
SHARP & DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20004-HB (M.D. Fla., Mar. 8, 2018)";

"JANE BODA, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP &
DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20089-HB (M.D. Fla., May 1, 2018)";

"EILEEN BOWMAN, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP &
DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20015-HB (M.D. Fla., Mar. 26, 2018)";

"PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON, MICHAEL STEPHENS, NORMA STANTON, SHELBY
FELL, SANDRA MORRIS, ROSLYN BUDZINSKI, MITCHEL BASS, KATHLEEN
CIRILLO, MARGARET DELAMORE, GERALD CARTER, SANDRA TRAPNESE, HOWARD
E. GLASSCO, RODGER HENDERSON, LINDA HUTER, EARL POPLARS, NORMA
CAMPBELL-HICKEY, JOHN DESTEPHANO, JANICE GREENE, ESTELLE BROWN, and
EDWARD CEDERBERG, the Plaintiffs, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP
& DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20072-HB (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., July 18,
2018)";

"PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON, MICHAEL STEPHENS, NORMA STANTON, SHELBY
FELL, SANDRA MORRIS, ROSLYN BUDZINSKI, MITCHEL BASS, KATHLEEN
CIRILLO, MARGARET DELAMORE, GERALD CARTER, SANDRA TRAPNESE, HOWARD
E. GLASSCO, RODGER HENDERSON, LINDA HUTER, EARL POPLARS, NORMA
CAMPBELL-HICKEY, JOHN DESTEPHANO, JANICE GREENE, ESTELLE BROWN, and
EDWARD CEDERBERG, the Plaintiffs, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP
& DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20069-HB (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., July 18,
2018)";

"PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON, MICHAEL STEPHENS, NORMA STANTON, SHELBY
FELL, SANDRA MORRIS, ROSLYN BUDZINSKI, MITCHEL BASS, KATHLEEN
CIRILLO, MARGARET DELAMORE, GERALD CARTER, SANDRA TRAPNESE, HOWARD
E. GLASSCO, RODGER HENDERSON, LINDA HUTER, EARL POPLARS, NORMA
CAMPBELL-HICKEY, JOHN DESTEPHANO, JANICE GREENE, ESTELLE BROWN, and
EDWARD CEDERBERG, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP
& DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20063-HB (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., July 18,
2018)";

"PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON, MICHAEL STEPHENS, NORMA STANTON, SHELBY
FELL, SANDRA MORRIS, ROSLYN BUDZINSKI, MITCHEL BASS, KATHLEEN
CIRILLO, MARGARET DELAMORE, GERALD CARTER, SANDRA TRAPNESE, HOWARD
E. GLASSCO, RODGER HENDERSON, LINDA HUTER, EARL POPLARS, NORMA
CAMPBELL-HICKEY, JOHN DESTEPHANO, JANICE GREENE, ESTELLE BROWN, and
EDWARD CEDERBERG, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP
& DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20073-HB (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., July 18,
2018)";

"PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON, MICHAEL STEPHENS, NORMA STANTON, SHELBY
FELL, SANDRA MORRIS, ROSLYN BUDZINSKI, MITCHEL BASS, KATHLEEN
CIRILLO, MARGARET DELAMORE, GERALD CARTER, SANDRA TRAPNESE, HOWARD
E. GLASSCO, RODGER HENDERSON, LINDA HUTER, EARL POPLARS, NORMA
CAMPBELL-HICKEY, JOHN DESTEPHANO, JANICE GREENE, ESTELLE BROWN, and
EDWARD CEDERBERG, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP
& DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20061-HB (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., July 18,
2018)";

"FRANZ DEKER, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP &
DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20017-HB (M.D. Fla., Mar. 26, 2018)";

"PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON, MICHAEL STEPHENS, NORMA STANTON, SHELBY
FELL, SANDRA MORRIS, ROSLYN BUDZINSKI, MITCHEL BASS, KATHLEEN
CIRILLO, MARGARET DELAMORE, GERALD CARTER, SANDRA TRAPNESE, HOWARD
E. GLASSCO, RODGER HENDERSON, LINDA HUTER, EARL POPLARS, NORMA
CAMPBELL-HICKEY, JOHN DESTEPHANO, JANICE GREENE, ESTELLE BROWN, and
EDWARD CEDERBERG, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP
& DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20062-HB (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., July 18,
2018)";

"PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON, MICHAEL STEPHENS, NORMA STANTON, SHELBY
FELL, SANDRA MORRIS, ROSLYN BUDZINSKI, MITCHEL BASS, KATHLEEN
CIRILLO, MARGARET DELAMORE, GERALD CARTER, SANDRA TRAPNESE, HOWARD
E. GLASSCO, RODGER HENDERSON, LINDA HUTER, EARL POPLARS, NORMA
CAMPBELL-HICKEY, JOHN DESTEPHANO, JANICE GREENE, ESTELLE BROWN, and
EDWARD CEDERBERG, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP
& DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20070-HB (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., July 18,
2018)";

"PEGGY DISS, ERNEST MORRIS, MARC RAWITT, DEBORAH AUGENTI, MONIQUE
COCHRAN, ROLAND HALLE, ALVAH HULETT, GAIL DIXON, SUSAN GAINES,
SUSAN DETRIE, JOANNE HOLLAND, JOSEPH ENGOLIA, EILEEN GIDDINGS, JOHN
BARRETT, SHIRLEY JARVIS, LINDA ARCH, JANET FORNEY, MARION GRAHAM
JR., JUAN CASTRO, CECIL CAMPBELL, JUDY FISCHER, VICTOR RODRIGUEZ,
INEZ ARCHER, PATRICIA DAMICO, and MARY HIGDON, the Plaintiff, v.
MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP.,
the Defendants Case No.: 2:18-cv-20074-HB (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
Hillsborough Cty., July 23, 2018)";

"WILLIAM DOLAN, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP &
DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20018-HB (M.D. Fla., Mar. 23, 2018)"

"ROBERT ERICKSON, VERNON PURDHAM, and REBECCA BELL,, the
Plaintiffs, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; and
McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.: 2:18-cv-20002-HB (Fla.
Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., Sep. 21, 2017)";

"PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON, MICHAEL STEPHENS, NORMA STANTON, SHELBY
FELL, SANDRA MORRIS, ROSLYN BUDZINSKI, MITCHEL BASS, KATHLEEN
CIRILLO, MARGARET DELAMORE, GERALD CARTER, SANDRA TRAPNESE, HOWARD
E. GLASSCO, RODGER HENDERSON, LINDA HUTER, EARL POPLARS, NORMA
CAMPBELL-HICKEY, JOHN DESTEPHANO, JANICE GREENE, ESTELLE BROWN, and
EDWARD CEDERBERG, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP
& DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20058-HB (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., July 18,
2018)";

"PHYLLIS FORD, and JUDITH ENDRESEN-WORTH, the Plaintiffs, v. MERCK
& CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the
Defendants Case No.: 2:18-cv-20079-HB (M.D. Fla., July 1, 2018)";

"HOWARD E. GLASSCO, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK
SHARP & DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20065-HB (M.D. Fla., Aug. 9, 2018)";

"JANE GREENAWALT, MARY OUTLAW, MARYANN INTAGLIATA, PALMA TRESCHAN,
SHARON GODWIN, SARAH A MCCLELLAND, MARY SPEIGLE, RONALD STICHTER,
CAROLE TRIPLETT, BETTY WARNER-WILLIAMS, BEATRICE WHITENER, WANDA
MARTINEZ, and LORETTA MARTINEZ-FAVIER,, the Plaintiffs, v. MERCK &
CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the
Defendants Case No.: 2:18-cv-20054-HB (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough
Cty., May 17, 2018)";

"PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON, MICHAEL STEPHENS, NORMA STANTON, SHELBY
FELL, SANDRA MORRIS, ROSLYN BUDZINSKI, MITCHEL BASS, KATHLEEN
CIRILLO, MARGARET DELAMORE, GERALD CARTER, SANDRA TRAPNESE, HOWARD
E. GLASSCO, RODGER HENDERSON, LINDA HUTER, EARL POPLARS, NORMA
CAMPBELL-HICKEY, JOHN DESTEPHANO, JANICE GREENE, ESTELLE BROWN, and
EDWARD CEDERBERG, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP
& DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20071-HB (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., July 18,
2018)";

"JUDITH GRENIER, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP &
DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20010-HB (M.D. Fla., Mar. 23, 2018)";

"CURTIS HIRAM, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP &
DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20021-HB (M.D. Fla., Mar. 23, 2018)"

"PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON, MICHAEL STEPHENS, NORMA STANTON, SHELBY
FELL, SANDRA MORRIS, ROSLYN BUDZINSKI, MITCHEL BASS, KATHLEEN
CIRILLO, MARGARET DELAMORE, GERALD CARTER, SANDRA TRAPNESE, HOWARD
E. GLASSCO, RODGER HENDERSON, LINDA HUTER, EARL POPLARS, NORMA
CAMPBELL-HICKEY, JOHN DESTEPHANO, JANICE GREENE, ESTELLE BROWN, and
EDWARD CEDERBERG, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP
& DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20067-HB (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., July 18,
2018)";

"DAVID MALBERG, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP &
DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20013-HB (M.D. Fla., Jan. 26,2018)";

"PATTE MARTINEZ, TAMMY MEADE, EDNA MIDDLETON, and HELEN OPORTO,,
the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; and
McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.: 2:18-cv-20053-HB (Fla.
Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., May 17,2018)";

"MILDRED SHEPPARD, KAREN STEPHENS, MARIAN McRAE, and BETTY MELUCCI,
the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; and
McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.: 2:18-cv-20001-HB (Fla.
Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., Mar. 5, 2018)";

"PEDRO RIVERA MELENDEZ, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK
SHARP & DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20011-HB (M.D. Fla., Mar. 23, 2018)";

"MILDRED SHEPPARD, KAREN STEPHENS, MARIAN McRAE, and BETTY MELUCCI,
the Plaintiffs, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.;
and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.: 2:18-cv-20019-HB (Fla.
Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., Mar. 5, 2018)";

"PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON, MICHAEL STEPHENS, NORMA STANTON, SHELBY
FELL, SANDRA MORRIS, ROSLYN BUDZINSKI, MITCHEL BASS, KATHLEEN
CIRILLO, MARGARET DELAMORE, GERALD CARTER, SANDRA TRAPNESE, HOWARD
E. GLASSCO, RODGER HENDERSON, LINDA HUTER, EARL POPLARS, NORMA
CAMPBELL-HICKEY, JOHN DESTEPHANO, JANICE GREENE, ESTELLE BROWN, and
EDWARD CEDERBERG, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP
& DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20059-HB (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., July 18,
2018)";

"JANE PATTERSON, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP &
DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20008-HB (M.D. Fla., Apr. 9, 2018)";

"JOYCE PILLITTERI, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP
& DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20003-HB (M.D. Fla., Mar. 8, 2018)";

"PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON, MICHAEL STEPHENS, NORMA STANTON, SHELBY
FELL, SANDRA MORRIS, ROSLYN BUDZINSKI, MITCHEL BASS, KATHLEEN
CIRILLO, MARGARET DELAMORE, GERALD CARTER, SANDRA TRAPNESE, HOWARD
E. GLASSCO, RODGER HENDERSON, LINDA HUTER, EARL POPLARS, NORMA
CAMPBELL-HICKEY, JOHN DESTEPHANO, JANICE GREENE, ESTELLE BROWN, and
EDWARD CEDERBERG, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP
& DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20068-HB (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., July 18,
2018)";

"LILLIE PRATT, LEONARD REISS, GARRY SCHUEMANN, RICHARD MCDONALD,
ROBERT MASUCCI, MARTHA WATSON, RUTH MUZZEY, ANDREA PRESTON,
NICHOLAS SPEIDEL, JOYCE A. STEDMAN, WILLIAM F. KELSHAW JR., ALICE
PEALE, JAMES SANTO, FRANCES LANE, NATALIE ROBINSON, SANDRA
SIUDVINSK1, RUTH LINTEAU, JOSI ZEN DZIAN, VERNON LEE, JOSEPH YEPEZ,
WILLIAM KELLY, SYLVIA LAGUERRA, and CAROL SNYDER;, the Plaintiff,
v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON
CORP., the Defendants Case No.: 2:18-cv-20051-HB (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
Hillsborough Cty., July 23, 2018)";

"PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON, MICHAEL STEPHENS, NORMA STANTON, SHELBY
FELL, SANDRA MORRIS, ROSLYN BUDZINSKI, MITCHEL BASS, KATHLEEN
CIRILLO, MARGARET DELAMORE, GERALD CARTER, SANDRA TRAPNESE, HOWARD
E. GLASSCO, RODGER HENDERSON, LINDA HUTER, EARL POPLARS, NORMA
CAMPBELL-HICKEY, JOHN DESTEPHANO, JANICE GREENE, ESTELLE BROWN, and
EDWARD CEDERBERG, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP
& DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20055-HB (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., July 18,
2018)";

"MILDRED SHEPPARD, KAREN STEPHENS, MARIAN McRAE, and BETTY MELUCCI,
the Plaintiffs, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.;
and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.: 2:18-cv-20023-HB (Fla.
Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., Mar. 5, 2018)";

"SUZANNE SMITH, the Plaintiffs, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP &
DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20007-HB (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., Jan. 8,
2018)";

"PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON, MICHAEL STEPHENS, NORMA STANTON, SHELBY
FELL, SANDRA MORRIS, ROSLYN BUDZINSKI, MITCHEL BASS, KATHLEEN
CIRILLO, MARGARET DELAMORE, GERALD CARTER, SANDRA TRAPNESE, HOWARD
E. GLASSCO, RODGER HENDERSON, LINDA HUTER, EARL POPLARS, NORMA
CAMPBELL-HICKEY, JOHN DESTEPHANO, JANICE GREENE, ESTELLE BROWN, and
EDWARD CEDERBERG, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP
& DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20057-HB (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., July 18,
2018)";

MILDRED SHEPPARD, KAREN STEPHENS, MARIAN McRAE, and BETTY MELUCCI,
the Plaintiffs, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.;
and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.: 2:18-cv-20016-HB (Fla.
Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., Mar. 5, 2018)";

"PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON, MICHAEL STEPHENS, NORMA STANTON, SHELBY
FELL, SANDRA MORRIS, ROSLYN BUDZINSKI, MITCHEL BASS, KATHLEEN
CIRILLO, MARGARET DELAMORE, GERALD CARTER, SANDRA TRAPNESE, HOWARD
E. GLASSCO, RODGER HENDERSON, LINDA HUTER, EARL POPLARS, NORMA
CAMPBELL-HICKEY, JOHN DESTEPHANO, JANICE GREENE, ESTELLE BROWN, and
EDWARD CEDERBERG, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP
& DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20056-HB (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., July 18,
2018)";

"PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON, MICHAEL STEPHENS, NORMA STANTON, SHELBY
FELL, SANDRA MORRIS, ROSLYN BUDZINSKI, MITCHEL BASS, KATHLEEN
CIRILLO, MARGARET DELAMORE, GERALD CARTER, SANDRA TRAPNESE, HOWARD
E. GLASSCO, RODGER HENDERSON, LINDA HUTER, EARL POPLARS, NORMA
CAMPBELL-HICKEY, JOHN DESTEPHANO, JANICE GREENE, ESTELLE BROWN, and
EDWARD CEDERBERG, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP
& DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP., the Defendants Case No.:
2:18-cv-20064-HB (Fla. Cir. Ct., Hillsborough Cty., July 18,
2018)"; and

"BEULAH VANMETER, GAIL SANTORO, ANGELINA RICCI, LILLIAN MACOMBER,
CYNTHIA LLINAS, LINDA RUSS, and ANNE LEVINSON, the Plaintiffs, v.
MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; and McKESSON CORP.,
the Defendants Case No.: 2:18-cv-20052-HB (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
Hillsborough Cty., Apr. 27, 2018)"

Merck & Company, Inc., d.b.a. Merck Sharp & Dohme outside the
United States and Canada, is an American pharmaceutical
company.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Carmen A. De Gisi, Esq.
          MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS LLP
          101 West Elm Street, Suite 215
          Conshohocken, PA
          Telephone: (610) 941 4444
          Facsimile: (610) 941 9880
          E-Mail: cdegisi@bernllp.com


MICHIGAN: $199K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Suit vs. MDHHS
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, M.R., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NICK LYON, in his official capacity Only as
Executive Director of the MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-11184-DPH-RSW (E.D. Mich.),
Judge Denise Page Hood of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted the Class
Counsel's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement
of Expenses.

The Class Plaintiff and Defendant Lyon, in his official capacity
only as the Executive Director of the Michigan Department of Health
and Human Services ("MDHHS"), agree on the Motion for Attorneys'
Fees.  The Class Counsel requests that the Court issues an award of
$199,000 in attorneys' fees, as agreed upon in the preliminarily
approved Settlement Agreement.

One Class Member, Mr. Kirk Leaphart, filed an Objection to the
proposed settlement, arguing that the exclusive incentive award is
unfair and that the Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees is
excessive.  Leaphart requests that each Class Member who filed, and
was unsuccessful, in bringing administration action against the
Defendant's state agency for the relief sought in the litigation,
also be granted an incentive award of $5,000.

Judge Hood finds that the Class Counsel's requested attorneys' fee
award is appropriate.  First, the Plaintiff class will receive a
tremendous benefit from the Class Counsel's work in the case.
Second, she finds the requested amount of attorneys' fees
reasonable considering that the Class Counsel has spent more than
896.3 hours pursuing the litigation, and the Class Counsel requests
a fee substantially lower than the Class Counsel would normally
receive for the services provided in the case.  Third, the Class
Counsel rendered services on a contingent fee basis.  Fourth,
public policy supports approving the Class Counsel's requested
fees.  Fifth, the case involved certifying a class to afford the
Plaintiff Class Member's statewide relief in a case involving
numerous factually and legally complex issues.  Sixth, the Class
Counsel is skilled and knowledgeable in prosecuting class actions,
and has negotiated and recovered millions of dollars in class
actions throughout the United States.

Based on the factors considered, the Judge denied the objection to
the amount of attorneys' fees, and granted the Plaintiffs' Motion
for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(h) and 54(d)(2).
The Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney fees in the amount of
$199,000, which is inclusive of all costs and expenses incurred in
the matter.  Their Class Representative, M.R., is entitled to an
incentive award in the amount of $5,000.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/aSbj9p from Leagle.com.

J.V., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by John M. Traylor --
jtraylor@dickinson-wright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, Randall L.
Tatem, Dickinson Wright PLLC & Aaron V. Burrell, Dickinson Wright,
PLLC.

Nick Lyon, in his official capacity only as Executive Director of
the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant,
represented by Joshua S. Smith, MI Department of Attorney General
Health Education and Family Services & Kelley Turnock McLean,
Department of Attorney General.


MICHIGAN: Settlement in Suit vs. MDHHS Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, M.R., on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NICK LYON, in his official capacity only as
Executive Director of the Michigan Department of Health and Human
Services, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-11184-DPH-RSW (E.D. Mich.),
Judge Denise Page Hood of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement.

On Aug. 15, 2018, Plaintiff M.R. and Class Counsel Dickinson
Wright, PLLC, for themselves and on behalf of the certified class,
moved for final approval of the class action settlement and Release
Agreement.  The Court granted Preliminary Approval on May 29, 2018.
The Defendant does not object to the Motion.  A fairness hearing
was held on Aug. 8, 2018.  One objection and two letters were
received by the Court.

One objection was filed, "Class Member 60's Kirk Leaphart's
Objections in Part to Class Action Settlement Agreement and
Release."  The sole objector to the class settlement argues that
the amount of attorneys' fees requested by the Class Counsel is
excessive.  That objection is addressed in a separate order
awarding attorneys' fees.

On April 14, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division captioned J.V. on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Nick Lyon, in his official capacity
only as executive director of the Michigan Department of Health and
Human Services, Case No.: 2:17-cv-11184-DPH-RSW.  

The complaint alleged that the Defendant's current
prior-authorization criteria for Hepatitis C treatment (the MDHHS
Prior Authorization Criteria) violates three separate provisions of
the Medical Assistance Program, Title XIX of the Social Security
Act: (1) excluding qualified Medicaid recipients from medically
necessary treatment as required by 42 U.S.C. Section
1396a(a)(10)(A); (2) discriminating among similarly situated
Medicaid recipients in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section
1396a(a)(10)(B); and (3) failing to provide medically necessary
treatment with reasonable promptness as required by 42 U.S.C.
Section 1396a(a)(8).

The terms of the Settlement Agreement include but are not limited
to the following:

     a. The Defendant agrees to replace the MDDHS Prior
Authorization Criteria and institute the Amended Prior
Authorization Criteria to provide coverage for direct-acting
antiviral treatment to all Eligible Michigan Medicaid beneficiaries
diagnosed with chronic Hepatitis C.

     b. The Defendant agrees to expand direct-acting antiviral
treatment coverage to all Eligible Michigan Medicaid beneficiaries
diagnosed with chronic Hepatitis C based on the following schedule:
(i) it will provide coverage for all eligible beneficiaries with a
metavir fibrosis score of F-1 and above on Oct. 1, 2018; and (ii)
it will provide coverage for all beneficiaries with a metarvir
fibrosis score of F-0 an above on Oct. 1, 2019.

     c. The Amended Prior Authorization Criteria will include, but
is not limited to, the following provisions;

          i. the direct-acting antiviral medication must be
prescribed by a gastroenterologist, hepatologist, liver transplant
or infectious disease physician.  If the prescribing provider is
not one of the identified specialists noted, the prescriber must
submit documentation of consultation/collaboration of the specific
case with one of the aforementioned specialists which reflects
discussion of the history and agreement with the plan of care with
the date noted in the progress note.

          ii. Documentation of the patient's use of Illegal Drugs
or abuse of alcohol must be noted (i.e., current abuse of IV drugs
or alcohol or abuse within the past 6 months).  The Michigan
Department of Health and Human Services will consider this
information for the sole purpose of optimizing treatment.

          iii. Documentation of the patient's commitment to the
planned course of treatment and monitoring (including SVR 12) as
well as patient education addressing ways to reduce the risks for
reinfection must be submitted.

     d. The Defendant reserves the right to revise the Amended
Prior Authorization Criteria and Claim Form to incorporate updated
clinical recommendations or other best practices, consistent with
the Agreement.

     e. The Defendant agrees to provide coverage for direct-acting
antiviral medications that are (i) approved by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic Hepatitis C; (ii)
have a federal Medicaid rebate; and (iii) are listed on the
Defendant's Preferred Drug List as preferred at the time the
beneficiary is approved for treatment.

     f. If a direct-acting antiviral medication is no longer
approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment
of chronic Hepatitis C or no longer on the Defendant's Preferred
Drug List, it will no longer be covered.

Judge Hood, following the fairness hearing, finds there is no
indication of fraud or collusion in the case.  The opinions of the
class counsel and class representative -- based on the Settlement
Agreement entered into by the Parties -- show that they favor the
Agreement and agree the terms are fair.  The Judge finds that the
Class Representative has obtained a significant, potentially
life-saving benefit, for the Class.  The Settlement Agreement is
also in the public interest for people to receive access to needed
health care.

As the Court determined in granting preliminary approval on May 29,
2018, Dickson Wright PLLC (the "Firm") has invested significant
time and effort identifying, researching, and investigating the
claims in the action.  The Firm has developed a litigation strategy
for Plaintiff and the putative class members, and negotiated the
proposed Settlement Agreement.  It has been appointed as the class
counsel in other recent health care-related litigation before the
Court, has experience handling class actions and other complex
litigation, and has the resources to represent this class in this
action.  The Firm is qualified to be the class counsel in the
litigation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).

For the reasons set forth, Judge Hood certified the controversy as
a class action.  The class certified is defined as all individuals
that are or will be enrolled in Michigan's Medicaid Program at the
time the Order is entered; have been or will be diagnosed with a
chronic infection of the Hepatitis C Virus; are 18 years of age or
older; require, or in the future will require, treatment for
Hepatitis C with direct-acting antiviral medication; and do not
meet the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services' current
treatment criteria, which restricts direct-acting antiviral
treatment to individuals with a minimum metavir fibrosis score
criteria of F-2.

Te Judge appointed named Plaintiff, M.R., as the class
representative; and Dickinson Wright as the class counsel.  The
approval of the Parties' class action Settlement Agreement is
granted.

On Sept. 21, 2018, the Parties will mail notice of settlement
approval and claim forms to class members.  On Oct. 1, 2018,
Settlement Agreement terms will go into full effect.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/5nPLlg from Leagle.com.

J.V., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by John M. Traylor --
jtraylor@dickinson-wright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, Randall L.
Tatem, Dickinson Wright PLLC & Aaron V. Burrell, Dickinson Wright,
PLLC.

Nick Lyon, in his official capacity only as Executive Director of
the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant,
represented by Joshua S. Smith, MI Department of Attorney General
Health Education and Family Services & Kelley Turnock McLean,
Department of Attorney General.  


MIDLAND CREDIT: Preston FDCPA Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
Judge Sara L. Ellis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted MCM's motion to
dismiss the case, NEAL PRESTON, individually and on behalf of a
nationwide class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v.
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18 C 1532
(N.D. Ill.).

After MCM sent a debt collection letter with an allegedly
time-sensitive discount offer, Preston filed the putative class
action suit against MCM claiming violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), and the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA").  

In July 2017, MCM sent Preston a debt collection letter, enclosed
in an envelope with the words "Time Sensitive Document" printed on
its exterior in bold font.  The letter contained information
regarding a debt that MCM sought to collect from Preston, as well
as potential discounted plans for Preston to pay off his debt if he
submitted a payment by a certain date.  Specifically, the letter
outlined two discounted payment options, with one offering 40% off
the total debt balance if Preston made one single payment by Aug.
18, 2017, and another offering 20% off the balance if he made six
monthly installment payments, with the first payment due by August
18, 2017.  The letter urged Preston to "act now" to take advantage
of the discounts.  At the bottom of the letter, MCM stated that
they're not obligated to renew any offers provided.

Preston claims that the language on the exterior of the envelope
violates Section 1692f(8) and that the language on its own and in
combination with the letter's discount offer suggests a false sense
of urgency in violation of Section  1692e(2)(A), e(10), and Section
1692f.

MCM moves to dismiss the FDCPA claims pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Judge Ellis agrees that MCM's use of language on the outside of the
envelope falls within the benign language exception to Section
1692f(8) and so Preston's Section 1692f(8) claim fails.  She also
finds that the language, alone or in combination with the discount
offer, does not violate Section 1692e(2)(A) or e(10) because MCM
properly employed safe harbor language approved by the Seventh
Circuit in connection with its discount offer.  As this disposes of
the FDCPA claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction,
the Judge declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
ICFA state law claim and dismisses that claim without prejudice.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Ellis granted MCM's motion to
dismiss.  She dismissed Preston's individual FDCPA claims (Counts
I, III, V) with prejudice and his class based FDCPA claims (Counts
II, IV, and VI) without prejudice.  She dismissed the ICFA claim
(Count VII) without prejudice to refiling in state court and
terminated the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/Yqnyw9 from Leagle.com.

Neal Preston, Plaintiff, represented by Ahmad Tayseer Sulaiman --
osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com -- Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd., Mohammed
Omar Badwan, Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd., Omar Tayseer Sulaiman --
ahmad.sulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com -- Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. & James
C. Vlahakis -- jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com -- Sulaiman Law Group,
Ltd.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by David M.
Schultz -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP &
Jennifer W. Weller -- jweller@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Trichell FDCPA Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------
Judge Annemarie Carney Axon of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, JOHN TRICHELL, Plaintiff,
v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-00132-ACA (N.D. Ala.).

Trichell filed the putative class action suit on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, naming as the Defendants two debt
collectors: Midland Credit Management, Inc. and its sister company
Midland Funding, LLC.  Mr. Trichell alleges that the Defendants
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by
deceptive or misleading debt collection letters seeking repayment
of legally unenforceable debts.

Midland Funding is a company that buys defaulted consumer debts,
which it collects through other collection agencies, such as
Midland Credit Management.  Mr. Trichell alleges that more than
seven years before he filed this complaint, he allegedly defaulted
on an unspecified amount of credit card debt.  Consistent with its
business model, Midland Funding acquired Mr. Trichell's defaulted
debt and in 2017, it had Midland Credit Management send him three
collection letters stating that he had a balance due of $42,859.55.
But, under Alabama law, by the time Midland Credit Management sent
those letters, the debt was legally unenforceable because the
statute of limitations barred any lawsuit to recover the defaulted
debt.

Mr. Trichell, on behalf of himself individually and all persons
similarly situated in the State of Alabama, asserts that the
Defendants' actions (1) violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e by
attempting to collect time-barred debts using deceptive and
misleading collection letters (Count One); and (2) violated 15
U.S.C. Section 1692f by using unfair or unconscionable means to
collect or attempt to collect a debt (Count Two).

The Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Judge Axon concludes that the collection letters do not deceptively
or misleadingly imply that the debts are legally enforceable.  She
also concludes that the rest of the language from the collection
letters is not, as a matter of law, deceptive or misleading.  As a
matter of law, even a least sophisticated consumer would not find
Midland Credit Management's collection letters deceptive or
misleading.  Even accepting as true all facts asserted by Mr.
Trichell and making all reasonable inferences in his favor, Midland
Funding and Midland Credit Management have not violated Section
1692e of the FDCPA.

Because a least sophisticated consumer would not find the
collection letters sent to Mr. Trichell deceptive or misleading,
Judge Axon garnted the motion to dismiss the complaint, and
dismissed without prejudice the complaint.  The Judge will enter a
separate order consistent with her Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/y6zRqq from Leagle.com.

John Trichell, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bradford W. Botes --
bbotes@bondnbotes.com -- Bond, Botes, Reese & Shinn, P.C., David J.
Philipps, Philipps & Philipps, Ltd., pro hac vice & Mary Elizabeth
Philipps, Philipps & Philipps, Ltd., pro hac vice.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., A Kansas Corporation & Midland
Funding, LLC, A Delaware Limited Company, Defendants, represented
by Chase Tristian Espy -- cespy@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM LLP &
Jason B. Tompkins -- jtompkins@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM LLP.


MITAC DIGITAL: Faces Livingston and McGill Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MiTAC Digital
Corporation. The case is captioned as Michael Livingston, and
Sharon McGill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MiTAC Digital Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 3:18-cv-05993-JST (N.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2018). The case is
assigned to Judge Jon S. Tigar.

MiTAC Digital Corporation provides portable GPS navigation consumer
electronics. The company was founded in 1986 and is based in Santa
Clara, California. As of January 13, 2009, MiTAC Digital
Corporation operates as a subsidiary of MiTAC International Corp.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Cody Robert Padgett, Esq.
          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Trisha Kathleen Monesi, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 9434-0396
          E-mail: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com
                  Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                  trisha.monesi@capstonelawyers.com


MYRIAD GENETICS: Continues to Defend Kessman Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Myriad Genetics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend a purported
class action lawsuit filed by Matthew Kessman.

On April 20, 2018, Matthew Kessman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court, District of Utah,
No. 2:18-cv-0336-DAK-EJF, against the company, its President and
Chief Executive Officer, Mark C. Capone, its former President and
Chief Executive Officer, Peter D. Meldrum, its Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, R. Bryan Riggsbee, and its
former Chief Financial Officer, James S. Evans.

The action is premised upon allegations that the defendants made
false and misleading statements regarding the company's business,
operational and compliance policies, specifically by allegedly
failing to disclose that the Company was allegedly submitting false
or otherwise improper claims for payment under Medicare and
Medicaid for our hereditary cancer testing.

The plaintiff seeks certification as the purported class
representative and the payment of damages allegedly sustained by
plaintiff and the purported class by reason of the allegations set
forth in the complaint, plus interest, and legal and other costs
and fees.  

Myriad Genetics said, "We intend to vigorously defend against this
action."

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

Myriad Genetics, Inc., a molecular diagnostic company, focuses on
developing and marketing novel predictive medicine, personalized
medicine, and prognostic medicine tests worldwide. Myriad Genetics,
Inc. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City,
Utah.


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Late White Bear Player's Family Files Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Strand, writing for White Bear Press, reports that alleging
that players like need not have suffered from avoidable brain
damage, the family of the late White Bear Lake hockey player has
filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the National Hockey League
(NHL).

Scott Parker, Jeff's brother, filed the suit late August in
California Superior Court for Los Angeles County, in the capacity
as trustee of his brother's estate, also naming Jeff's 5-year-old
daughter as a plaintiff.

"My brother Jeff signed up for the concussion lawsuit, and we feel
obligated to follow up on his wish to do this," said Mr. Parker, a
high school teacher and hockey coach in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin.
"We were instructed by the judge that this is the way to go about
it.

"It wasn't an easy decision for the family, but we kept going back
to knowing that Jeff wanted to help younger players in the NHL, to
let them know what is coming."

Jeff Parker was among 150-plus former players in a lawsuit
originally filed in 2013 alleging that the NHL promoted violence
and fighting to make the league more popular and profitable, while
downplaying health risks associated with concussions.

That was intended to be a class-action case, but a federal judge in
St. Paul, Susan Nelson, rejected the class-action status July 13,
on the grounds that it would present "significant case management
difficulties." As a consequence of that ruling,
ex-players (or their families) had to choose whether to go it alone
against the league. The Parkers elected to sue.

The 83-page lawsuit acknowledged that former players knew they
might get injured playing in the league, but did not sign up for
avoidable brain damage. A key passage reads: "The NHL was aware of
the evidence and the risks associated with repetitive traumatic
brain injuries for many decades, but deliberately ignored and
actively concealed the information from the players, including the
late Jeff Parker."

It goes on to claim that the league "either took no steps to
protect and educate its players or took insufficient steps to make
players aware of the real risks of playing in the NHL, which would
have protected players from unnecessary long-term effects of head
trauma."

Jeff Parker played four NHL seasons for the Buffalo Sabres and
Hartford Whalers. He suffered multiple concussions, most notably
the one that ended his career in 1991 when his head struck a metal
stanchion as he was driven hard into the glass, while playing with
Hartford against the Washington Caps.

Mr. Parker, who helped White Bear Mariner reach the state finals as
a senior in 1982, and was one of the leaders of Michigan State's
national champion team in 1986, passed away Sept. 11, 2017, at age
53. His death was attributed to a blood infection.

The former hockey hero had been working as a bartender in a St.
Paul bar in recent years. He told White Bear Press and other media
outlets in interviews that he dealt with a constant ringing in his
ears, loss of taste, and sensitivity to light, which was why he
took the bartender job. He was also disoriented with memory loss at
times, his brother said.

After Mr. Parker's death, the family donated his brain to be
studied at Boston University's CTE (chronic traumatic
encephalopathy) Center. Examiners confirmed that he suffered from
the neurodegenerative brain disease.

"The second (reason for filing) was the result of the CTE test,"
Mr. Scott Parker said. "If we had not donated the brain, we would
not have much of a case, but . . . the results of the test being
what they were, knowing how far along his CTE was, that helped us
make this very difficult decision."

Mr. Parker's Facebook page is filled with links to stories of
former NHLers struggling with head injuries. One article hitting
close to home concerned Joe Murphy, a former Michigan State
teammate of Jeff's and a first-round draft pick. Scott was dismayed
to learn that Murphy is homeless and doesn't even have a cell
phone.

"Our whole objective is to make the NHL accountable," said Mr.
Parker. "This is not about Jeff; it's about other young men who are
suffering . . . This ruling, looking at it, I don't know, I think
makes it more difficult for some of the guys who are distraught and
don't have the resources, who don't even have a cell phone."

Mr. Parker was interviewed about Jeff's case by the Chippewa Falls
Leader-Telegram in May. About the CTE discovery in Jeff's brain, he
commented, "I knew it all along -- when he was late for his brother
John's wedding, when he went to the wrong place for a TV interview,
when he would come to my house and go down in the basement because
he needed to be in a dark place." [GN]


NATIONWIDE INSURANCE: Remand of Sibalich to State Court Suggested
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAREN SIBALICH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONWIDE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-7818 (SOW) (LDW)
(D. N.J.), Magistrate Judge Leda Dunn Wettre of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey recommended that the Court
grants the Plaintiffs' motion for remand.

Plaintiffs Sibalich, Margaret A. Owens, Spine Surgery Associates,
and Ambulatory Surgical Center of Somerset bring the putative class
action to recover Personal Injury Protection insurance benefits
that Defendant Nationwide allegedly failed to pay.  The Plaintiffs
initially filed the action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Sussex County on March 12, 2018.

On March 14, 2018 at 3:20 p.m., a process server personally
delivered the summons and complaint to Kim Mangan, a legal
department senior analist at One Nationwide Plaza in Columbus,
Ohio.  The Plaintiffs filed an affidavit of service with the New
Jersey state court on March 29, 2018.

Nationwide employs CSC, a third-party service provider, to
electronically manage and track its receipt of legal process.  On
March 16, 2018, CSC generated a "Notice of Service of Process"
alerting the appropriate personnel that Nationwide had been served
in the action.  The notice states that the summons and complaint
were originally served on Nationwide and describes the method of
service as "Client Direct."  CSC also transmitted to Nationwide a
copy of the summons and complaint bearing a handwritten notation
"3/14/18 @ 3:20 p.m."  However, CSC's notice erroneously reported
the date of service as March 15, 2018.

On April 16, 2018, the Defendant removed the state court action to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting
that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists based on diversity
of citizenship and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA").


On April 17, 2018, the Plaintiffs moved to remand the action to the
state court.  They assert that the Defendant's purported removal of
the action was untimely under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b) because it
filed the notice of removal more than 30 days after personal
service of the summons and complaint was effectuated.  The
Defendant does not dispute that its removal of the action was
untimely, but it seeks to have the Court extend the removal period
pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
the doctrine of equitable tolling.

Magistrate Judge Wettre finds that the Defendant's delay in
removing admittedly was brief and the Plaintiffs do not argue that
they will be prejudiced.  However, the Defendant's failure to file
a timely notice of removal falls squarely on its own shoulders.
The Defendant submits that it reasonably relied on the notice from
CSC which contained an erroneous date of service.  But CSC warned
the Defendant that the Notice of Service of Process does not
constitute a legal opinion, and Nationwide itself is responsible
for interpreting the documents and taking appropriate action.

Moreover, she finds that the Defendant should have and easily could
have verified the deadline for removal: as highlighted in the CSC
Notice, Nationwide was personally served with the summons and
complaint and could have discussed the date of service with its own
employee; the complaint it received included a handwritten notation
showing the correct date of service; and the Plaintiff filed an
affidavit of service with the correct date on the state court
docket on March 29, 2018 (more than two weeks before the
Defendant's removal to the Court), of which the Defendant had at
least constructive notice.  Given the strict time limit for removal
under Section 1446(b) and considering all the relevant
circumstances, she says the Defendant has not shown excusable
neglect.

Finally, the Magistrate finds that CSC's reporting error cannot be
considered egregious, and the Defendant's unfortunate -- but
entirely preventable -- reliance on the date in the CSC Notice of
Service of Process is not so extraordinary as to justify equitable
tolling of the 30-day window for removal under Section 1446(b).

For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Wettre recommended that
the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the action be granted.  The
parties are advised that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(2),
they have 14 days after being served with a copy of the Report and
Recommendation to serve and file specific written objections to the
Hon. Susan D. Wigenton, U.S.D.J.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2018 Report and
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/0Z4EmS from
Leagle.com.

KAREN SIBALICH, MARGARET A. OWENS, Individually, and as class
representatives on behalf of others similarly situated & SPINE
SURGERY ASSOCIATES, Plaintiffs, represented by CHARLES THOMAS
KANNEBECKER -- info@kannebeckerlaw.com -- & CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL
PLACITELLA -- cplacitella@cprlaw.com -- COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH,
PC.

AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER OF SOMERSET, Individually, and as class
representatives on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by CHARLES THOMAS KANNEBECKER.

NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JOHN R.
VALES -- john.vales@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP.


NEBRASKA: Discovery Dispute Order in Sabata Prisoners Suit Issued
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nebraska has issued an order regarding the parties'
ongoing discovery disputes in the case, HANNAH SABATA; DYLAN
CARDEILHAC; JAMES CURTRIGHT; JASON GALLE; RICHARD GRISWOLD; MICHAEL
GUNTHER; ANGELIC NORRIS; R. P., a minor; ISAAC REEVES; ZOE RENA;
and BRANDON SWEETSER; on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; SCOTT FRAKES, in his official capacity as
Director of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services;
HARBANS DEOL, in his official capacity as Director of Health
Services of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services;
NEBRASKA BOARD OF PAROLE; JULIE MICEK, in her official capacity as
the Board of Parole Acting Parole Administrator; and DOES, 1 to 20
inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 4:17CV3107 (D. Neb.).

The matter is before the Court following a telephone conference
held with the counsel for the parties on Aug. 30, 2018.  The
Plaintiffs requested the telephone conference to discuss several
ongoing discovery disputes.  In advance of the telephone
conference, and as ordered by the Court, the counsel for both
parties submitted a number of written documents to the Magistrate
Judge, including memorandum arguments and a Joint Discovery Dispute
Chart.

While there are numerous areas of dispute identified by the parties
in their written submissions, during the telephone conference the
parties primarily addressed issues related to the Plaintiffs'
request that the Defendants disclose non-party inmate medical
files, and whether a protective order is sufficient to address the
Defendants' concerns regarding non-party inmates' privacy and
HIPAA.  Given the nature of this dispute and the potential privacy
concerns at stake, Magistrate Judge Nelson will require
supplemental briefing on that issue, as well as any other issues
that the parties are unable to resolve following the additional
meet and confer(s).

In particular, the parties should provide the Court with any
authority regarding whether a party can disclose medical records of
non-party individuals in a putative class action, without the
express consent of the non-parties.  As discussed with the counsel
during the telephone conference, upon receipt of the supplemental
briefing, the Magistrate will rule on any outstanding discovery
requests identified in the parties' Join Discovery Dispute Chart.

In accordance with the matters discussed during the telephone
conference, Magistrate Judge Nelson ordered the parties to meet and
confer to further attempt to resolve their ongoing discovery
disputes.  On Sept. 13, 2018, the Plaintiffs will file supplemental
briefing on any outstanding disputes.  The Defendants will file
their supplemental briefing on Sept. 27, 2018.  Unless the Court is
notified otherwise, it will then make its rulings on the parties'
Joint Discovery Dispute Chart.

The Magistrate terminated the Motion deadline for the document
filed by non-party Jesse Blackstock.  The document requires no
Court ruling and is simply a putative class member's written
interest in joining the class, if one is certified.  He therefore
granted the Defendants' unopposed Motion to Strike.  The
Defendants' exhibits at Filing No. 127-2 and Filing No. 127-47 are
stricken from their Index of Evidence as they were filed in error.
The Magistrate will consider the corrected exhibits at Filing No.
146 when ruling on the Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.

He also granted the Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to
serve objections to the Plaintiffs' proposed facility tours, as the
Plaintiffs do not object to the extension.  He granted the
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Brief
in Opposition to the Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.  They will have an extension of time to Sept. 7, 2018, to
file their response to the Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.  The Defendants are granted an extension to Sept. 21,
2018, to file a Reply.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/dXUhGN from Leagle.com.

Hannah Sabata, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Dylan Cardeilhac, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, James Curtright, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Jason Galle, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Richard Griswold, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Michael Gunther, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Angelic
Norris, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Isaac Reeves, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Zoe Rena, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated & Brandon Sweetser, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Amy
Fettig, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION - NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT,
pro hac vice, Amy A. Miller, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION, Andrew D. Day -- andrew.day@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER
US LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Anna P. Bitencourt Emilio, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF LAW & ADVOCACY CENTER, pro hac vice,
Benjamin Bien-Kahn -- bbien-kahn@rbgg.com -- ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM,
pro hac vice, Christopher M. Young --
christopher.young@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice,
David C. Fathi, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION - NATIONAL PRISON
PROJECT, pro hac vice, Dawn M. Jenkins -- dawn.jenkins@dlapiper.com
-- DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Debra Patkin, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF LAW & ADVOCACY CENTER, pro hac vice, Ernest
Galvan -- egalvan@rbgg.com -- ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice,
Jennifer Eldridge -- jennifer.eldridge@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER
LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kara J. Janssen -- kjanssen@rbgg.com --
ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kenneth M. Smith --
ksmith@neappleseed.org -- NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER, Michael W.
Bien -- mbien@rbgg.com -- ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Rekha
Arulanantham -- rarulanantham@aclusocal.org -- AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION - NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice & Robert E.
McEwen, NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER.

R. P., a minor, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Fettig , AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION - NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT, pro hac vice, Amy A.
Miller, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Andrew D. Day,
DLA PIPER US LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Anna P. Bitencourt Emilio,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF LAW & ADVOCACY CENTER, pro hac
vice, Benjamin Bien-Kahn, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice,
Christopher M. Young, DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, David C.
Fathi, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION - NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT,
pro hac vice, David J. Tarrell, Berry Law Firm, Dawn M. Jenkins,
DLA PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Debra Patkin, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF LAW & ADVOCACY CENTER, pro hac vice, Ernest
Galvan, ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Jennifer Eldridge, DLA
PIPER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Kara J. Janssen, ROSEN, BIEN LAW
FIRM, pro hac vice, Kenneth M. Smith, NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER,
Michael W. Bien , ROSEN, BIEN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Rekha
Arulanantham, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION - NATIONAL PRISON
PROJECT, pro hac vice & Robert E. McEwen, NEBRASKA APPLESEED
CENTER.

Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, Scott Frakes, In his
official capacity as Director of the Nebraska Department of
Correctional Services, Harbans Deol, In his official capacity as
Director of Health Services of the Nebraska Department of
Correctional Services, Nebraska Board of Parole & Julie Micek, In
her official capacity as the Board of Parole Acting Parole
Administrator, Defendants, represented by Danielle L. Jones,
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, David A. Lopez, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
OFFICE, Jessica M. Forch, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Katherine
O'Brien, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE & Ryan S. Post, ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE.

Marshall Lux, Movant, represented by Shawn D. Renner --
srenner@clinewilliams.com -- CLINE, WILLIAMS LAW FIRM.


NEW MEXICO: Revised Consent Degree in Hatten-Gonzales Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEBRA HATTEN-GONZALES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BRENT
EARNEST, Secretary of the New Mexico Human Services Department,
Defendant, Case No. CIV 88-385 KG/KBM, Consolidated with No. CIV
88-786 KG/KBM (D. N.M.), Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico granted the parties'
Joint Motion to Approve and Adopt Revised Modified Consent Decree
filed on Aug. 10, 2018.

The parties in the case spent many months negotiating and updating
the terms of a revised consent decree and have now reached
agreement.  The Judge has reviewed the Joint Motion and the
agreed-upon Second Revised Modified Settlement Agreement (Consent
Decree), and held a hearing on the matter on Aug. 21, 2018.

The parties have informed the Court that the Second Revised
Modified Settlement Agreement (Consent Decree) protects the
interests of the Plaintiff class in the case and brings the current
Consent Decree up to date with the current circumstances and
practices of the New Mexico Human Services Department and with
current federal mandates for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program and Medicaid.  Judge Gonzales has determined that approval
of the Second Revised Modified Settlement Agreement filed on Aug.
10, 2018 is in the best interests of the Plaintiff-class and of the
parties to the litigation.

Therefore, he granted the Joint Motion to Approve and Adopt Revised
Modified Consent Decree.  He approved and adopted as the Order the
Second Revised Modified Settlement Agreement, which has now been
signed and re-named by the Court Second Revised Modified Settlement
Agreement and Order and separately filed by the Court.  The Second
Revised Modified Settlement Agreement and Order became the operant
Consent Decree in the case.

The parties, their officers, agents, servants, employees and
attorneys, and those persons in active concert with them who
receive actual notice of the Second Revised Modified Settlement
Agreement and Order are restrained from violating its terms,
conditions and undertakings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 21, 2018 Order and Consent
Decree is available at https://is.gd/7oNNqb from Leagle.com.

Debra Hatten-Gonzales, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Yohalem --
jbyohalem@gmail.com -- Daniel Yohalem Attorney at Law, Gail J.
Evans -- gail@nmpovertylaw.org -- NM Center on Law and Poverty,
Jane Yohalem, Law Office of Jane B Yohalem, Maria T. Griego, NM
Center on Law and Poverty, Sovereign Hager, New Mexico Center on
Law and Poverty & Adrianne R. Turner, NM Center on Law and
Poverty.

Brent Earnest, Secretary of the New Mexico Human Services
Department, Defendant, represented by Christopher P. Collins, New
Mexico Human Services Dept., Jessica M. Hernandez, Kennedy,
Hernandez & Associates, P.C., Paul J. Kennedy, Kennedy, Hernandez &
Associates, PC & George F. Heidke, Jr., Bernalillo County
Attorney's Office.

Lawrence M Parker, Special Master, Miscellaneous, pro se.

Ramona McKissic, Compliance Officer, Miscellaneous, pro se.


NEW YORK: Koziol Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
------------------------------------------------------
Leon R. Koziol, individually, as natural parent of Child A and
Child B, and on behalf of parents similarly situated, Petitioner,
vs Janet DiFiore, Chief Judge of the New York Unified Court System;
James Tormey, Chief Judge of the Fifth Judicial District; James
McClusky, New York Supreme Court Judge; Family Judge; James Eby;
Magistrate Natalie Carraway and Kelly Hawse-Koziol Respondents,
Case No. 18-278 (U.S., Sept. 5, 2018), is an appeal filed in the
Supreme Court of United States from a lower court decision in Case
No. 18-00101 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Fourth Judicial Department)

The Petitioner asks the Court to grant his Petition for Writ of
Certiorari to the New York Court of Appeals, a stay of enforcement
of orders and proceedings, and alternatively, an order converting
this petition to one for an extraordinary writ under Rule 20.[BN]

The Petitioner appears pro se.


NORTON HEALTHCARE: Clemons et al. File Appeal to Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth A. Clemons, et al., Petitioners vs. Norton Healthcare
Inc. Retirement Plan, Respondent, Case No. 18A251 (U.S., Sept. 11,
2018), is an appeal filed in the Supreme Court of United States
from a lower court decision in Case No. 16-5063, 16-5124 (6th
Cir.).

The Application to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of
certiorari from September 16, 2018 to November 15, 2018, has been
submitted to Justice Elena Kagan.[BN]

Attorneys for Petitioners:

          Michael Douglas Grabhorn, Esq.
          GRABHORN LAW OFFICE, PLLC
          2525 Nelson Miller Parkway, Suite 107
          Louisville, KY 40223
          E-mail: m.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com

               - and -

          William T. Payne, Esq.
          Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC
          429 Forbes Ave., 17th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281 8400


NY STATE UNIVERSITY: Permissive Joinder Bid in Pejovic Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ISIDORA PEJOVIC, CHAE BEAN KANG, ALBA SALA HUERTA, and
CHASSIDY KING, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, and GORDON GRAHAM, Plaintiffs, v. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW
YORK AT ALBANY, and MARK BENSON, Defendants, Civ. No. 1:17-CV-1092
(TJM/DJS) (N.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Permissive Joinder.

The Plaintiffs have moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 20(a)(1), for an order allowing joinder of the four
additional Plaintiffs: Courtney Trudeau, Olivia Schultz, Brianna
Cicoria, and Danielle Duguid and to amend the Complaint
accordingly.  The proposed new Plaintiffs are college rowers, who
are said to be harmed by the intentional discriminatory refusal of
Defendant SUNY Albany to fully accommodate the capabilities and
interests of females, in violation of Title IX.  The Proposed
Amended Complaint, including a red-lined version, has been
submitted to the Court, as required by the local rules.

The Defendants oppose the Motion for Permissive Joinder and to
Amend, primarily for procedural reasons and, further, upon the
grounds that any such amendment would be futile.

The Class Action Complaint was initially filed on Sept. 29, 2017,
by four members and the coach of the former women's varsity tennis
team at the SUNY Albany.  The Plaintiffs were notified of SUNY's
intention to eliminate the women's tennis team in late March, 2016.
Plaintiff Graham then filed a Title IX complaint with the Office
of Civil Rights ("OCR"), which conducted an investigation and found
SUNY to be in violation of Title IX.  Thereafter, it is alleged
that SUNY Albany, without making any admission, entered into a
Resolution Agreement to resolve the issues identified by the OCR.
The present lawsuit then followed, which sought class
certification, monetary damages, and an injunction.

After the Complaint was initially filed, the parties engaged in
extensive motion practice, which had the ultimate effect of
narrowing the claims.  In particular, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion
for a Preliminary Injunction, which was denied.  On Nov. 29, 2017,
the Defendants filed a Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss.  The Plaintiffs,
in turn, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.

In a Decision and Order dated July 26, Senior United States
District Court Judge Thomas J. McAvoy denied the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Summary Judgment, and granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Rule 12 Motion.  The Court dismissed Plaintiff Graham's
Title IX retaliation claim (but allowed his discrimination claim
under Title IX to proceed); dismissed all the Plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 claims against Defendant Benson in his official
capacity; dismissed the Plaintiffs' New York State Human Rights Law
claims; dismissed the claim for declaratory relief; and dismissed
claims for punitive damages under Title IX.  The Court held that
there were questions of fact as to whether Defendants violated
Title IX.

Accordingly, the claims that presently remain are as follows: (i)
Count 1 -  a proposed Class Action Title IX discrimination claim on
behalf of individual female students at SUNY Albany against the
Defendants; (ii) Count 2 - a Title IX discrimination claim by
Plaintiff Graham; and (iii) Count 3 - a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 Age
Discrimination/Equal Protection Claim by Plaintiff Graham against
Defendant Benson.

A Rule 16 Initial Conference was scheduled in the case on Dec. 28,
2017, but at the request of the Defendants it was stayed pending
the outcome of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Having reviewed the Proposed Amended Complaint, Magistrate Judge
Stewart concludes that the proposal for joinder of the four
additional Plaintiffs satisfies both requirements of Rule 20(a).
He finds that the new Plaintiffs seek a right of recovery arising
out of the same series of occurrences or transactions.  He also
finds that the proposed class to be certified includes all present,
prospective, and future female students who are harmed by and wish
to end SUNY Albany's sex discrimination in the allocation of
athletic participation opportunities.  The proposed new Plaintiffs
certainly fall within this sphere, and therefore there are common
questions of law and fact that will arise in the action.

Most importantly, in the Magistrate's view, is the fact that it
would be a waste of judicial and litigation resources to split up
these two cases, conduct separate and potentially overlapping
discovery, and to allow multiple motions.  Instead, the Court will
impose an aggressive discovery schedule which will allow for a
timely resolution of the matter.  In the event that it later
appears that a single trial is somehow unwarranted or unwieldy,
remedies exist under Rule 20(b).

As to futility, the District Court has already reviewed the
Plaintiffs' Title IX claim, and while it found that questions of
fact predominate which require discovery, at no point did it
indicate that the female students' Title IX claim failed to state a
cause of action.  More generally, the Magistrate finds that the
proposed Amended Complaint alleges continuing injuries to those
female students due to ongoing discriminatory conduct.  Therefore,
the Defendants' claims of futility based upon standing or
timeliness are unpersuasive.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Stewart granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Permissive Joinder, and to Amend.  The Plaintiffs are to
file an amended complaint within 10 days of the Decision and Order.
For the sake of clarity, the Amended Complaint to be filed by the
Plaintiffs will not contain any of the claims, or demand for
punitive damages, that were dismissed by Judge McAvoy in his July
26, 2018 Decision and Order.

Pursuant to FED R. CIV. P. 72(a), the parties have 14 days within
which to file written objections to the foregoing order.  Such
objections will be filed with the Clerk of the Court.  As
specifically noted in Rule 72(a) a party may not assign as error a
defect in the order not timely objected to.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2018 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/PtdTEY from Leagle.com.

Isidora Pejovic, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Chae Bean Kang, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Alba Sala Huerta, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, Chassidy King, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated & Gordon Graham, Plaintiffs,
represented by Bernays T. Barclay -- buz.barclay@rimonlaw.com --
Rimon, P.C.

State University of New York at Albany & Mark Benson, Defendants,
represented by Mark G. Mitchell, New York State Attorney General.


OPKO HEALTH: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 12
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of OPKO Health, Inc. (NASDAQ:OPK) from
September 26, 2013 through September 7, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for OPKO investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the OPKO class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1412.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) OPKO and its
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Phillip Frost, were engaged
in a pump-and-dump scheme with several other individuals and
companies in their investments in several penny stocks; (2) this
illicit scheme would result in governmental scrutiny including from
the SEC; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about OPKO's
business, operations and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
13, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1412.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653
or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen—firm.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. [GN]


P.F. CHANG'S: Belt et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
The employment-related class action lawsuit titled STEVEN BELT;
LAURA COUNCIL; and JAMES HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02126 (D. Md., July 11, 2018),
was removed from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on September 6, 2018.  The Eastern District of
Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-03831-AB (E.D. Pa., Sept. 6,
2018) to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Anita B.
Brody.

P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. is engaged in the sale of food and
beverage items. The Company is headquartered in Scottsdale,
Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
          George E. Swegman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 244-7005
          Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
          E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
                  gswegman@nicholllaw.com


PEAK FORECLOSURE: Court Dismisses Pewitt Suit
---------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES B. PEWITT and ELIZABETH C. PEWITT, as a married
couple and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
PEAK FORECLOSURE SERVICES OF WASHINGTON, INC., a Washington
corporation; PEAK FORECLOSURE SERVICES, INC., a California
corporation; and BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, Defendants, Case No: 2:15-CV-173-RMP (E.D. Wash.),
Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington (i) granted the parties' Stipulated
Motion for Dismissal; (ii) denied as moot all pending motions; and
(iii) struck all scheduled Court hearings, if any.

The Judge dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiff's Complaint,
with respect to the class action claims, and with prejudice with
respect to the Plaintiff's individual claims, and without costs to
any party.  He directed the District Court Clerk to enter the
Order, provide copies to the counsel, and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/r08Wmw from Leagle.com.

James B Pewitt, as a married couple and on behalf of others
similarly situated & Elizabeth C Pewitt, as a married couple and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Clay M. Gatens -- clayg@jdsalaw.com -- Jeffers Danielson Sonn &
Aylward PS & Honea Lee Lewis, IV -- leel@jdsalaw.com -- Jeffers
Danielson Sonn & Aylward PS.

Peak Foreclosure Services of Washington Inc, a Washington
corporation, Peak Foreclosure Services Inc, a California
corporation & Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, a Delaware
corporation, Defendants, represented by Behzad Ben Mohandesi --
bmohandesi@yumollp.com -- Yu Mohandesi, LLP, pro hac vice, Pavel
Ekmekchyan -- pavel@yumollp.com -- Yu Mohandesi LLP, pro hac vice &
Donald Gene Grant -- don@dongrantps.com -- Donald G Grant PS.

Bank of New York Mellon, f/k/a The Bank of New York, as Trustee for
the Benefit of the Certificateholders of the CWABS, Inc.
Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-SD4, Defendant, represented
by Donald Gene Grant, Donald G Grant PS.


PFC FURNITURE: Fails to Pay Proper Wags, Salinas et al. Allege
--------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO SALINAS; ALEXIS RAMIREZ; EDUARDO LOPEZ; MIGUEL GUTIERREZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. PFC FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
DC-18-13000 (D. Tex., Sept. 6, 2018) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid overtime compensation and minimum wages, damages,
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

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

PFC Furniture Industries, Inc. distributes home furniture to retail
stores. The company offers living room, bedroom, dining room,
mattress sets, and kid’s bedroom furniture. It also sells
products online. The company was founded in 2008 and is
headquartered in Richardson, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew R. Scott, Esq.
          Javier Perez, Esq.
          Carson D. Bridges, Esq.
          SCOTT PEREZ LLP
          900 Jackson Street, Suite 550
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 965-9675
          Facsimile: (214) 965-9680
          E-mail: javier.perez@scottperezlaw.com
                  matt.scott@scottperezlaw.com
                  carson.bridges@scottperezlaw.com


PHILIP MORRIS: Nov. 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Philip Morris International, Inc.  ("Philip Morris")
(NYSE: PM) between February 8, 2018 and April 18, 2018. You are
hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/philip-morris-international-inc-loss-form?wire=3

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500,
toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) Philip Morris was experiencing a faster
decline in overall cigarette and e-cigarette (or "heated tobacco")
sales volumes during the first quarter of 2018 than investors had
been led to believe; (2) Philip Morris' much-lauded sales
initiatives had stalled; (3) Philip Morris was experiencing adverse
sales headwinds in key markets; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' statements about Philip Morris' business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you suffered a loss in Philip Morris you have until November 5,
2018 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with
offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.
The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience
representing investors in securities litigation, and have recovered
hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. [GN]


PLAIN GREEN: Court Certifies Appeals in Gibbs Suit as Frivolous
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DARLENE GIBBS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PLAIN GREEN,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:17cv495 (E.D. Va.),
Judge M. Hannah Lauck of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Richmond Division, certified both Defendant
Great Plains Lending, LLC's Notice of Appeal, and Defendant Plain
Green, LLC's Notice of Appeal as frivolous.

The Defendants operate internet lending websites offering
short-term loans to consumers.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants offered loans to them in amounts ranging from $300 to
$3,000, charging interest rates ranging from 118% to 448%.  The
Plaintiffs bring the suit on behalf of themselves and all
individuals similarly situated, alleging that the Defendants'
lending enterprises violate state and federal lending laws.

Specifically, they allege that the Defendants structured their
businesses to benefit from the protections of tribal sovereign
immunity even though they do not constitute tribal entities.  The
Defendants did so, the Plaintiffs contend, in order to evade state
and federal lending laws.  The Plaintiffs contend that the
Defendants' fraudulent posture as tribal entities eradicates any
potential claim to the protection of tribal sovereign immunity.

The Plaintiffs filed a five-count putative class action Complaint
against the Defendants alleging various state and federal
violations, including two civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO") claims, associated with an illegally
usurious loan enterprise.

Plain Green filed a Motion to Dismiss without Leave to Amend or, in
the Alternative, to Compel Arbitration.  Great Plains filed three
separate motions: (1) a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction;
(2) a Motion to Compel Arbitration; and (3) a Motion to Transfer
Case.  The Defendants each moved to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), claiming sovereign
immunity.

The Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Permit Jurisdictional Discovery,
seeking limited jurisdictional discovery on the issue of the
Defendants' claim of sovereign immunity.  The Defendants each
opposed the Motion for Discovery.

On July 25, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Discovery and dismissed without prejudice the Defendants' Motions
to Dismiss based on sovereign immunity and the Defendants' Motions
to Compel Arbitration.  It concluded that it could not establish
jurisdiction on the record before it and found that the Plaintiffs'
specific and substantive allegations against the Defendants justify
jurisdictional discovery to determine whether Defendants share in
the Tribes' sovereign immunity.

The Court dismissed the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss based on
sovereign immunity because the jurisdictional discovery would
affect parties' briefing on that issue.  Because a finding that the
Defendants had tribal sovereign immunity would deprive the Court of
jurisdiction to compel arbitration, the Court also denied the
Motions to Compel Arbitration for procedural reasons, stating that
the jurisdictional discovery will likely affect the parties'
briefings.

On Aug. 3, 2018, Great Plains filed Great Plains' Appeal.  On
Aug.6, 2018, Plain Green filed Plain Green's Appeal.  The Appeals
invoked 9 U.S.C. Section 16(a)(1)(B)6 as a basis for interlocutory
appeal.  The Defendants contended that the Appeals automatically
stayed the action pending resolution by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

On Aug. 17, 2018, the Court ordered briefing on the effect, if any,
of the Notices of Appeal on the case and the Aug. 30, 2018
deadline.  All parties submitted briefing.  On Aug. 24, 2018, the
Court ordered additional briefing on the applicability of 9 U.S.C.
Section 16(a)(1)(B) to the current proceeding.  All parties briefed
the issue.

The Defendants have invoked 9 U.S.C. Section 16(a)(1)(B) to appeal
the Court's denial without prejudice of their Motions to Compel
Arbitration.  Judge Lauck explains that the ability to invoke this
provision relies on 9 U.S.C. Section 4.  Section 4 allows a party
to petition a district court to compel arbitration, pursuant to a
written arbitration agreement, when the district court, save for
such agreement, would have jurisdiction under title 28.  At the
same time it denied the Motions to Compel Arbitration, the Court
denied the Motions to Dismiss based on sovereign immunity because
it could not determine whether it had jurisdiction.

Until the Court resolves this threshold jurisdictional issue, the
Judge holds that the Defendants cannot invoke Section 16.  Their
arguments to the contrary are wholly without merit.  Because
Section 16 does not apply, none of the legal points are arguable on
their merits.  The inapplicability of Section 16 requires the Judge
to deem the Defendants' Appeals frivolous.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Lauck certified the Defendants'
Appeals as frivolous.  Having made such a finding, she ordered the
parties to proceed with the Court's July 25, 2018 Order for
jurisdictional discovery.  However, she extended the deadline for
parties to agree upon a plan for limited jurisdictional discovery
and submit a proposed order to the Court to Sept. 11, 2018.  Other
deadlines will similarly be advanced.  Jurisdictional discovery
will be completed by Oct. 19, 2018.  The Defendants will file an
answer or other responsive pleading by close of business Oct. 31,
2018.  An appropriate Order will issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/OCJxkt from Leagle.com.

Darlene Gibbs, on behalf of themselves and all individuals
similarly situated, Stephanie Edwards, on behalf of themselves and
all individuals similarly situated, Lula Williams, on behalf of
themselves and all individuals similarly situated, Patrick Inscho,
on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated &
Lawrence Mwethuku, on behalf of themselves and all individuals
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Kristi Cahoon Kelly
-- kkelly@kellyandcrandall.co -- Kelly & Crandall PLC, Andrew
Joseph Guzzo -- aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly & Crandall
PLC, Casey Shannon Nash -- casey@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly &
Crandall PLC, Craig Carley Marchiando -- craig@clalegal.com --
Consumer Litigation Associates, Elizabeth W. Hanes --
elizabeth@clalegal.com -- Consumer Litigation Associates, James
Wilson Speer -- jay@vplc.org -- Virginia Proverty Law Center &
Leonard Anthony Bennett -- lenbennett@clalegal.com -- Consumer
Litigation Associates.

Plain Green, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Donald Foster
-- fosterm@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton LLP, Francis Anthony
Weber -- weberf@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey Kyle Holth -- jholth@thejacobsonlawgroup.com -- Jacobson,
Magnuson, Anderson & Halloran, P.C., pro hac vice, Joseph
Fredericks Halloran -- jhalloran@thejacobsonlawgroup.com --
Jacobson, Magnuson, Anderson & Halloran, P.C., pro hac vice &
Richard Joseph Zack -- zackr@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton LLP,
pro hac vice.

Great Plains Lending, LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles Kalman
Seyfarth -- cseyfarth@ohaganspencer.com -- O'Hagan Meyer PLLC,
Elizabeth Scott Turner -- eturner@ohaganmeyer.com -- O'Hagan Meyer
PLLC & Saba Bazzazieh -- sbazzazieh@rosettelaw.com -- Rosette LLP,
pro hac vice.


PRECHECK INC: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Brent Suit Recommended
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GREG BRENT, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PRECHECK, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01747 (M.D. Tenn.), Magistrate Judge
Jefferey S. Frensley of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, recommended the denial
of Brent's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice.

The matter is before the Court upon a Motion to Dismiss Without
Prejudice filed by the Mr.  Brent.  PreCheck has filed a Response
in Opposition.  Defendants Columbia Medical Group - The Frist
Clinic and HCA Human Resources have also filed a Response in
Opposition.

Mr. Brent filed his Motion to Dismiss in conjunction with his
Motion to Modify Scheduling Order, stating that should the Court
determine that Mr. Brent's motion in that regard should be denied,
he respectfully requests, in the alternative, leave to dismiss the
case without prejudice.  Mr. Brent specifically incorporates his
arguments associated with his Motion to Modify Scheduling Order
regarding procedural delays that he asserts have been caused by
others and lack of prejudice to opposing parties.

PreCheck responds that dismissal without prejudice would be
inappropriate at this time, citing the factors laid out by the
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Grover v. Eli Lilly & Co.
If dismissal without prejudice is granted, PreCheck requests that
the Court impose conditions upon that dismissal.

The Frist Clinic and HCA HR respond by reiterating their arguments
in opposition to Mr. Brent's Motion to Modify Scheduling Order,
specifically, that conduct by other Parties and their counsel are
not to blame for Mr. Brent's failure to file a motion to certify a
class action.  Regarding the instant Motion to Dismiss, these
Defendants simply note that it is within the discretion of the
Court under controlling law.

Reviewing the Grover factors in light of the Court's recent Order,
Magistrate Judge Frensley finds that allowing Mr. Brent to dismiss
without prejudice and re-file the action would result in visiting
upon the Defendants the unfair treatment against which Rule
41(a)(2) is supposed to protect.  He has previously discussed the
unreasonable delay and lack of diligence on the part of Mr. Brent
in prosecuting the action, and his explanation for the need to take
a dismissal is insufficient in that its only purpose is to allow
Mr. Brent to circumvent the Court's ruling with respect to his
Motion to Modify Scheduling Order.  Additionally, as PreCheck's
Motion to Dismiss is pending, PreCheck would suffer clear legal
prejudice if Mr. Brent's voluntary dismissal is granted.

For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate recommended the denial of
Mr. Brent's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice.  Under Rule 72(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has 14 days
after service of the Report and Recommendation in which to file any
written objections to the Recommendation with the District Court.
Any party opposing said objections will have 14 days after service
of any objections filed to the Report in which to file any response
to said objections.  Failure to file specific objections within 14
days of service of the Report and Recommendation can constitute a
waiver of further appeal of the Recommendation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2018 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/Z7MnPe from
Leagle.com.

Greg Brent, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin M. Rose, RoseArters,
PLLC & Joshua Douglas Arters, RoseArters, PLLC.

Columbia Medical Group - The Frist Clinic, Inc. & HCA Human
Resources, LLC, Defendants, represented by Robert Earl Boston --
bob.boston@wallerlaw.com -- Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP.

PreCheck, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert F. Chapski --
rchapski@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg &
Waldrop, P.C. & Whitney H. Kimerling --
wkimerling@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg &
Waldrop, P.C..


PRETIUM RESOURCES: Holtan Sues over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
RAMER B. HOLTAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRETIUM RESOURCES, INC.; JOSEPH OVSENEK; and
TOM S.Q. YIP, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08199 (S.D.N.Y., Sept.
7, 2018) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
acquired Pretium securities between July 21, 2016 and September 6,
2018, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

According to the complaint, on January 23, 2018, the Company
disclosed lower gold production for the Brucejack Mine than
previously projected, and also delayed achievement of steady state
gold production and operation of the grade control program. On this
news, the Company's share price fell $2.86 per share, or over 26%,
to close at $7.93 per share on January 23, 2018, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

On September 6, 2018, Viceroy Research published a report entitled
"Pretium Resources – digging up dirt," alleging, among other
things, that the Company's "reported grades and reserves are
significantly inflated, a much greater amount of waste is being
dumped into local lakes, and more explosives are being utilized."
The report further alleged that "management is scrambling to find
consistent, high-grade ore to maintain the charade that its debt
and equity are viable."  On this news, the Company's share price
fell $0.77 per share, or approximately 10%, to close at $6.94 per
share on September 6, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Brucejack
Project is not a high-grade, high-output mine; and (2) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis.

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

Pretium Resources Inc. acquires, explores for, and develops
precious metal resource properties in the Americas. Pretium
Resources Inc. was incorporated in 2010 and is headquartered in
Vancouver, Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

              - and -

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


PROPERTY MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Galvan Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE A. GALVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.; and
DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Defendants, Case No. BC722781 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Sept. 27, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Galvan was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employee.

Property Management Associates, Inc. is a corporation organized
under the laws of the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Zorik Mooradian, Esq.
            Haik Hacopian, Esq.
            MOORADIAN LAW, APC
            5023 N. Parkway Calabasas
            Calabasas, CA 91302
            Telephone: (818) 876-9627
            Facsimile: (888) 783-1030
            E-mail: zorik@mooradianlaw.com
                    haik@mooradianlaw.com


QURATE RETAIL: Bristol Retirement Sys. Sues over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRISTOL COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QURATE RETAIL, INC.;
MICHAEL A. GEORGE; GREGORY B. MAFFEI; DARRELL CAVENS; AND THADDEUS
JASTRZEBSKI, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02300 (D. Colo., Sept. 6,
2018) is an action by the Plaintiff and the class who purchased or
otherwise acquired Qurate securities between August 5, 2015 and
September 7, 2016, seeking to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws, and to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendant offers a payment plan
called Easy-Pay to its customers in the U.S., U.K., Germany and
Italy (known as Q-Pay in Germany, and Italy). Easy Pay allows the
Defendants' customers to pay for certain merchandise in two or more
monthly installments. When Easy-Pay is elected by the customer, the
first installment is billed to the customer's credit card upon
shipment and an Easy-Pay receivable is established to account for
the collection of subsequent installments.

The Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was
aggressively loosening the credit standards of its Easy-Pay program
to attract a large group of new customers; (2) the Company's strong
sales growth was due to this loose credit policy; (3) accounts
receivable associated with this new group of customers posed a high
risk of write-off; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's positive statements about its business, operations, and
prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

The slowdown in sales began to emerge on August 5, 2016, when the
Company issued a press release announcing financial results for the
second quarter ended June 30, 2016, in which the Company disclosed
"significant headwinds" and sales declines as compared to prior
periods.

On news of sales slowdown, the Company's stock price fell $5.69 per
share, or 21.63 percent, to close on August 5, 2016 at $20.61 per
share. Then, on September 8, 2016, during a Goldman Sachs Global
Retailing Conference in New York City, the Company finally
disclosed the true impact of the Easy Pay issues, revealing to
investors that it expects to see "higher default rates" associated
with these sales. Moreover, the Company warned that this negative
trend, while improved, would still, continue to impact its
business. On this news, the Company's stock fell price $1.87 per
share, or 8.71 percent, to close on September 8, 2016 at $19.59 per
share.

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

Qurate Retail, Inc. provides e-commerce services. The Company
engages in the video and digital commerce via television networks
and e-commerce sites, social pages, mobile application, print
catalogs, and in-store destinations. Qurate Retail serves customers
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ivy T. Ngo, Esq.
          FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          14426 East Evans Avenue
          Aurora, CO 80014
          Telephone: (303) 757-3300
          E-Mail: ngoi@fdazar.com

               - and -

          Guillaume Buell, Esq.
          Thornton Law Firm, LLP
          100 Summer Street, 30th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone (617) 531-3933
          E-Mail: gbuell@tenlaw.com


REMCO INSURANCE: Contreras Labor Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ivette Contreras, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. REMCO Insurance Agencies, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00976, (W.D. Tex., September 19, 2018), seeks
declaratory relief, unpaid overtime pay, liquidated and/or other
damages as permitted by applicable law, and attorney's fees, costs
and expenses incurred for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant is an insurance company that specializes in personal and
business insurance across Texas where Contreras worked as a salary
paid insurance agent. She claims to have not been compensated at
the overtime premium rate for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week. Defendant would also routinely deduct $70.00 per
day for each day of work missed due to illness regardless of
whether the employee was an hourly or salaried employee, notes the
complaint.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James M. Loren, Esq.
      Rachael Rustmann, Esq.
      George Z. Goldberg, Esq.
      GOLDBERG & LOREN, PA
      4801 Lang NE, Suite 110
      Albuquerque, NM 87109
      Office Line: (800) 719-1617
      Direct Line: (505) 369-3699
      Fax: (888) 272-8822
      Email: jloren@lorenlaw.com
             ggoldberg@goldbergdohan.com
             rrustmann@goldbergloren.com


RP AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kyriakides Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL KYRIAKIDES, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RP AUTOMOTIVE, INC., and DOES
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00049034-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super.,
San Diego Cty., Sept. 27, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Kyriakides was employed by the Defendants as
non-exempt employee.

RP Automotive, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           William B. Sullivan, Esq.
           Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
           Andrea Torres-Figueroa, Esq.
           SULLIVAN LAW GROUP, APC
           2330 Third Avenue
           San Diego, CA 92101
           Telephone: (619) 702-6760
           Facsimile: (619) 702-6761
           E-mail: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
                   yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
                   andrea@sullivanlawgroupapc.com


SAFE-GUARD PRODUCT: Court Grants Bid for Hinkle Partial Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBIN L. HINKLE, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CASEY JOE MATTHEWS; TIMOTHY MAY
and CONNIE MAY, husband and wife; SANTANDER CONSUMER, USA, INC., an
Illinois corporation; SAFE-GUARD PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a
Georgia limited liability company; and JOHNNY HINKLE, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-13856 (S.D. W.V.), Judge John T.
Copenhaver, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, Charleston, granted both (i) Hinkle's
motion for reconsideration of the Court's memorandum opinion and
order of July 19, 2016; and (ii) Safe-Guard's motion for partial
dismissal.

Hinkle is a resident of Delbarton, West Virginia.  The Defendant, a
Georgia limited liability company doing business in West Virginia,
offered Guaranteed Auto Protection ("GAP") insurance to vehicle
purchasers in West Virginia.  In the event of an accident resulting
in the total loss of a vehicle, GAP insurance is alleged by Hinkle
to cover any "gap" between the purchaser's outstanding balance owed
on the vehicle and the amount paid by the purchaser's primary
insurer.

In July 2006, Hinkle entered into a "Retail Installment Contract
and Security Agreement" for the purchase of a vehicle.  As part of
that transaction, Hinkle also purchased GAP insurance from
Safe-Guard by signing a "Gap Contract Insurance Policy' or
'Deficiency Waiver Addendum.'"  The Security Agreement and the
Insurance Policy, show that Hinkle paid $495 upfront for the GAP
insurance, which was the only payment due to Safe-Guard for the
purchase of the policy.

On June 1, 2011, Hinkle was involved in an automobile accident
resulting in the total loss of her vehicle.  At the time, Hinkle's
outstanding balance on the vehicle was $11,983.81.  After Hinkle's
primary insurer paid the vehicle's cash value, Hinkle still owed a
"gap" of $4,698.81.  By letter of July 21, 2011, Safe-Guard denied
Hinkle's claim under the GAP policy and did not pay the deficiency,
stating that Hinkle lacked coverage because of inconsistencies in
her payment history, such as late payments, that caused the loan to
be re-amortized.  In effect, Safe-Guard asserts that had payments
been timely made, the amount owing at the time of the accident
would have been around $5,000, which is less than the $7,000
insurance accident recovery, leaving no gap to be covered by the
Safe-Guard policy.

Hinkle initiated the action on July 20, 2012, in the Circuit Court
of Mingo County.  In the state court, Safe-Guard sought a writ of
prohibition from the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia to
prevent enforcement of an order finding that the GAP policy
Safe-Guard sold to Hinkle was insurance, State ex rel. Safe-Guard
Prods. Int'l, LLC v. Thompson.  In that case, on March 11, 2015,
the Supreme Court of Appeals found as a matter of first impression
that Safe-Guard's GAP policy is insurance under the laws of West
Virginia.

Following that ruling, on May 28, 2015, Hinkle moved to amend her
complaint to include class claims against Safe-Guard on behalf of
all purchasers of GAP insurance in West Virginia.  In the amended
complaint, she claims that Safe-Guard sold GAP insurance without a
license in violation of West Virginia Code section 33-3-1.  Hinkle
alleges that this unlawful sale of insurance constituted a
violation of various provisions of the WVCCPA's debt collection
provisions of article 2 and general consumer protections of article
6.

After Hinkle moved to amend her complaint to add class allegations,
Safe-Guard removed the action to the Court on Oct. 9, 2015,
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.  On Nov. 23, 2015,
Safe-Guard filed a motion for partial dismissal, arguing that its
alleged conduct falls outside the protections of the West Virginia
Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("WVCCPA") as a matter of law.

On July 19, 2016, the Court entered a memorandum opinion and order
dismissing Hinkle's claims under the debt collection provisions of
the WVCCPA, West Virginia Code sections 46A-2-122 to 129a.  

Pending is Hinkle's motion, filed July 20, 2016, for
reconsideration of the Court's memorandum opinion and order of July
19, 2016.  Safe-Guard seeks wholesale dismissal of Hinkle's WVCCPA
claims, arguing that the WVCCPA does not apply to the sale of
insurance.  Safe-Guard references West Virginia Code section
46A-1-105(a)(2), which provides that the WVCCPA does not apply to
the sale of insurance by an insurer, except as otherwise provided
in this chapter.  It also contends that Hinkle's WVCCPA claims are
preempted by West Virginia's insurance laws.

Hinkle highlights the caveat in section 46A-1-105(a)(2), except as
otherwise provided, and contends that various provisions of the
WVCCPA provide for the coverage of insurance.  First, Hinkle argues
that the unlicensed sale of insurance is covered by the WVCCPA's
debt collection provisions.  Second, Hinkle insists that the
statute's general consumer protections apply to insurance sales.
Third, she argues that the WVCCPA allows for recovery for
violations of other laws, including the insurance laws.

Judge Copenhaver dismissed Hinkle's claim under West Virginia Code
section 46A-2-127.  He finds that the plain language of the statute
is unambiguous and that, even liberally construed, Safe-Guard is
not a "debt collector" within the protections of the WVCCPA's debt
collection provisions.  The contract was accepted and the sum of
$495 was earmarked then for payment to Safe-Guard through financing
when Hinkle (or Hinkle's then-spouse on her behalf) signed the
Security Agreement and the Insurance Policy.  Hinkle's agreement
with Safe-Guard was, as she concedes, a point of sale exchange.
Accordingly, because she had no duty to pay Safe-Guard money as a
result of a prior purchase of GAP insurance, Safe-Guard's sale of
GAP insurance is not a "claim" under the WVCCPA's debt collection
provisions.

The Judge reiterates the Court's prior decision that the sale of
insurance is not encompassed within the WVCCPA's general consumer
protections of article six.  As noted in the court's prior order,
article six's exclusions supplement, rather than supplant, the
WVCCPA's generally-applicable exclusions in section
46A-1-105(a)(2).  This is underscored by the subject matter of
article six's exclusions, which merely shield news media from
liability for innocently publishing "false, misleading or
deceptive" advertisements.  Hinkle also does not point to anything
about article six in the court's previous order that warrants
reconsideration under Rule 54(b).  Instead, she simply restates her
argument that Safe-Guard's sale of insurance falls within the
purview of article six because "services" is defined by the WVCCPA
to include "insurance."

Finally, because the Judge dismissed Hinkle's debt collection and
general consumer protection claims, he holds he needs not address
Safe-Guard's preemption argument or Hinkle's contention that the
WVCCPA allows for recovery for violations of West Virginia's
insurance laws.

Accordingly, Judge Copenhaver granted both (i) Hinkle's motion for
reconsideration of the Court's memorandum opinion and order of July
19, 2016; and (ii) Safe-Guard's motion for partial dismissal, which
he construes as limited to the issues adjudicated.  The Judge
directed the Clerk to transmit copies of his Memorandum Opinion and
Order to all the counsel of record and to any unrepresented
parties.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/UW0mam from Leagle.com.

Robin L. Hinkle, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Howard M. Persinger, III, Esq.
-- hmp2@persingerlaw.com -- PERSINGER & PERSINGER; Jonathan R.
Marshall, Esq. -- jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- andSandra Henson
Kinney, Esq. -- skinney@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER.

Casey Joe Matthews, Defendant, represented by C. William Davis,
Esq. -- calvin@starrlaw.com -- RICHARDSON & DAVIS.

Timothy May & Connie May, husband and wife, Defendants, represented
by David F. Nelson, ALLEN KOPET & ASSOCIATES.

Santander Consumer, USA, Inc., an Illinois corporation, Defendant,
represented by Daniel J. Konrad -- daniel.konrad@dinsmore.com --
DINSMORE & SHOHL.

Safe-Guard Products International, LLC, a Georgia limited liability
company; Defendant, represented by Debra Tedeschi Varner, Esq. --
dtvarner@wvlawyers.com -- James A. Varner, Sr., Esq. --
javarner@wvlawyers.com -- and Jeffrey D. Van Volkenburg, Esq. --
jdvanvolkenburg@wvlawyers.com -- MCNEER HIGHLAND MCMUNN & VARNER.

Johnny Hinkle, Defendant, pro se.


SAINT JOHN: Seeks to Block Estabrooks Sexual Abuse Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Drost and Connell Smith, writing for CBC News, report that
the City of Saint John is turning to the Supreme Court of Canada in
an attempt to block a class action lawsuit on behalf of adults who
say they were sexually abused as minors by the late police officer
Kenneth Estabrooks.

The class action suit was launched by Robert Hayes and other
victims and has been certified by New Brunswick's Court of Queen's
Bench.

Saint John challenged that certification in the province's Court of
Appeal and lost. The city is now asking the Supreme Court for leave
to appeal that decision.

City councillors voted unanimously on Sept. 10 to seek leave to
appeal the certification.

"From a pure legal perspective the advice has been that that's the
right move to make from a legal perspective and council has agreed
with that," Saint John Mayor Don Darling said on Sept. 10.

Alleged abuse
In 2017, the city launched an appeal on four legal issues: duty of
care, vicarious liability, punitive damages and fiduciary duty. The
only one of those that didn't stand in the August decision was the
appeal on the breach of fiduciary duty.

Mr. Estabrooks was a city police officer between 1953 and 1975,
when he was fired after admissions to superiors he had sexually
abused at least two boys.

After that, he was transferred to the city works department and
retired from that in 1983.

In 2013, a private investigator hired by the city said that as many
as 263 youths may have been sexually abused by Mr. Estabrooks over
three decades.

In 1999 Mr. Estabrooks was convicted of four charges of indecent
assault and sentenced to six years in prison. He died in 2005.
[GN]


SALOV NORTH AMERICA: Olive Oil Class Action Settlement Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan News Company reports that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals on Sept. 11 rejected a class member's challenge to the
settlement of an action under which purchasers of Flippo Berio
olive oil -- which proclaimed on their labels, "Imported From
Italy" -- will receive, subject to provisos, 50 cents for every
bottle they purchased between May 23, 2010 and June 30, 2015.

The settlement came after two years of litigation and the
production of about 30,000 pages of documents. According to the
complaint filed by consumer Rohini Kumar on May 23, 2014 against
the importer of the olive oil, Salov North America Corp and
Italfoods, Inc.:

"[B]y stating 'IMPORTED FROM ITALY' Defendants lead consumers to
believe that these Products are made from Italian olives or. at a
minimum, are pressed in Italy. This is false and deceptive. In
fact, none of the Mock Italian Products are made from olives grown
in Italy. Nor are they pressed in Italy. Rather, the Mock Italian
Products are made from oil pressed in many different countries,
trucked or shipped to Italy, mixed with oil from other countries,
bottled and then exported."

Salov's defense was that "imported" meant "shipped out of."

Settlement Terms

Under the settlement, the defendant agreed to pay a minimum of $2
to any household where members bought from one to four bottles
during the specified period, up to $5 per household for up to 10
purchases, with no proof of purchase necessary. Proof of payment
was required for those claiming 50 cents per bottle where more than
10 bottles were bought.

The period for filing claims ended last year.

Injunctive relief was also part of the settlement. The stipulation
provides:

"Defendant agrees not to use the phrases 'Imported from Italy,'
'Made in Italy,' 'Product of Italy,' or any other phrase on the
label of a Product sold in the United States suggesting that olive
oils in a Product originate from olives grown in Italy, and instead
to use the designation 'Imported' on the front panel, until at
least three years after the Effective Date, unless the Product so
labeled is composed entirely of oil extracted in Italy from olives
grown in Italy. Defendant is not required to remove or recall any
Product that may remain in the marketplace that bears the
designation 'Imported from Italy.' "

Memorandum Decision

The Sept. 11 Ninth Circuit decision arises from the protest of a
non-participating class member, Theodore Frank, that the settlement
was inadequate. In a memorandum decision, approval of the
settlement by District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the
Northern District of California was affirmed.

The opinion says:

"The district court considered the strength of the plaintiffs' case
and the risk involved with further litigation, noting that Salov
North America Corp. had a legitimate defense and that this 'was
[not] the strongest case [she] ha[d] ever seen.' The district court
also noted that proceeding to trial would be costly given the need
for expert testimony, and that the best potential outcome at trial
would not exceed the recovery per bottle offered by the settlement.
Further, the court recognized that the litigation was 'hard fought'
and that class counsel reached an 'excellent result' for the class,
including achieving the class's non-monetary goal of 'get[ting] the
defendants to improve their practices.' Because there is no 'strong
showing that the district court's decision was a clear abuse of
discretion,' we affirm."

The case is Frank v. Salov North America Corp., No. 17-16405. [GN]


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Must Face Shattering Phone Camera Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge said on Sept. 12 she won't toss a putative class
action claiming Samsung sold defective smartphones with camera
lenses covered with glass that spontaneously shatters. [GN]


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Lil' Man Suit OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LIL' MAN IN THE BOAT, INC., Plaintiff, v. CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-00904-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted the
Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Lil' Man owns and operates a licensed commercial charter Motor
Vessel 'Just Dreaming' that provides transportation and hospitality
services on the San Francisco Bay both for locals and visitors from
all over the globe.  Lil' Man filed the case because San Francisco
changed the terms under which it allowed boats to dock at South
Beach Harbor.

For the years 2013 through 2015, the landing fee for commercial
vessels such as Just Dreaming was $160 per hour.  In 2016, the
Defendants introduced a Landing Agreement which required commercial
vessel operators to enter a written landing rights agreement with
the Defendant.  The agreement increased landing fees to $220 for
commercial vessel operators, gave the Defendants the right to
increase the required fees at any time, and imposed a supplemental
7% Gross Revenue Fee.

In June 2016, the Defendants ordered the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated to either sign the 2016 Agreement or cease all
commercial interstate operations as of Oct. 1, 2016.  The Plaintiff
paid the 7% gross revenue fee on two occasions in order to continue
its previously reserved operations.

The Plaintiff filed its original complaint on Feb. 22, 2017, making
four claims: (1) violation of Section 1983 based on violations of
the Tonnage Clause, the Commerce Clause, the First Amendment, and
the Rivers & Harbors Act; (2) violation of the Bane Act; (3)
declaratory and injunctive relief; and (4) unjust enrichment.

On March 30, 2017, the Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in
its entirety.  The Court denied the motion to dismiss with respect
to the Tonnage Clause, Dormant Commerce Clause, and Rivers &
Harbors Act, and granted it with respect to the Bane Act claim.  It
allowed the derivative claims for declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, and restitution to survive.

The Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint on Aug. 14, 2017.
Its FAC makes three claims relating to the 2016 Agreement.  First,
the Plaintiff brings a claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 claim based on violations of the Tonnage Clause, the Commerce
Clause, the First Amendment, and the Rivers & Harbors Act.  Second,
the Plaintiff brings a claim entitled "Declaratory and Injunctive
Relief," although the body of the complaint seeks declaratory
relief only.  And third, it brings a claim for unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff's FAC also brings a putative class action.  It seeks
to represent the following four classes:

     (a) All persons and entities licensed by the USCG for
commercial passenger service who, at any time during the four years
preceding the filing of the action to the date of Class
Certification have landed at, moored, or caused passengers to
traverse South Beach Harbor and incurred or paid fees to Defendants
for that opportunity;

     (b) All persons and entities who, at any time during the four
years preceding the filing of the action to the date of Class
Certification, were licensed commercial passenger vessel operators
who were subject to the Defendants' demand that they execute and/or
comply with the terms, payments, and conditions of the 2016 Landing
Agreement in order to use South Beach Harbor;

     (c) All persons and entities who, at any time during the four
years preceding the filing of the action to the date of Class
Certification, were licensed commercial passenger vessel operators
and signed the 2016 Landing Agreement and complied with its terms;

     (d) All persons or entities who, for the past four years to
the present, have been licensed for sale and consumption of
alcoholic beverages and who were or are subject to the Defendants'
demand for payment of a percentage of revenues or profits.

The Defendants filed the motion for judgment on the pleadings on
Feb. 22, 2018.  They argue that the following claims fail as a
matter of law: (1) the Plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment and
declaratory relief to the extent they each rely on California
Business and Professions Code section 23300; and (2) the
Plaintiffs' claim for violation of the First Amendment right to
access the courts.

Both the Plaintiff and the Defendants ask the Court to take notice
of legislative history documents from the California legislature
relating to California Business and Professions Code section
23300.1.  Judge Tigar concludes that the documents included by the
parties are proper subjects of judicial notice and grants their
respective requests.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment
and declaratory relief based on Section 23300 fail as a matter of
law, and the Defendants' motion for judgment on these claims is
granted.  The legislative history of section 23300.1 suggests that
a revenue-sharing agreement does not violate the statute.  That
history shows that the statute's author intended to clarify that
the mere existence of revenue-sharing agreements does not
constitute the exercising of license privileges.  Thus, to the
extent the language and legislative history of section 23300.1 can
be read to favor either side in the case, they favor the
Defendants.

The Judge also finds that there is no freestanding coercive waiver
claim.  The Plaintiff must actually sign the waiver, then see if
the Defendants assert it.  At that point, the Plaintiff can dispute
its validity.  But Lil' Man may not bring a standalone claim for
coercive waiver, because the law does not recognize such a claim.
Accordingly, the Judge grants the Defendants' motion for judgment
on the pleadings with respect to the Plaintiff's access to the
courts claim.

For the aforementioned reasons, Judge Tigar granted with prejudice
the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the
Plaintiff's First Amendment, and section 23300 unjust enrichment
and declaratory relief claims.  He set a further case management
conference on Nov. 7, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.  An updated joint case
management statement is due Oct. 31, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/X1ZasM from Leagle.com.

Lil' Man in the Boat, Inc., a California Corporation, Plaintiff,
represented by David Raymond Ongaro -- dongaro@ongaropc.com --
Ongaro PC.

City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Port Commission,
operating under the title Port of San Francisco, Elaine Forbes,
Interim Executive Director, Peter Daley, Deputy Director, Maritime
the San Francisco Port, Jeff Bauer, Deputy Director of Real Estate,
the San Francisco Port & Joe Monroe, Harbormaster, South Beach
Harbor, Pier 40, Defendants, represented by Tara M. Steeley, San
Francisco City Attorney's Office.


SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Seeks Dismissal of Wage-Fixing Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Bernardini, writing for Law360, reports that Schneider
National Inc. has asked a California federal court to toss a
proposed class action brought by a group of truck drivers who
accused the company of conspiring to restrain competition. [GN]


SEATTLE, WA: May Face Class Action Over Erroneous Electric Bills
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Kroman, writing for Crosscut, reports that for months, even
years, Seattle City Light customers have complained about their
erratic bills to anyone who'd listen -- the utility, elected
officials, the press.

Soon, a new avenue may open up: court.

A high-profile Seattle law firm — a founding member has
represented UW football coach Rick Neuheisel and former Mayor Ed
Murray -- is investigating a class action lawsuit against Seattle
City Light on behalf of customers who feel they've received
erroneously high bills.

"It is alleged that Seattle City Light overcharges its customers
for electricity by billing customers for incorrect estimates of
their electricity usage rather than billing customers for their
actual electricity usage," says a call for customers on the website
of McNaul Ebel Nawrot and Hellgren.

Specifically, the firm points to reports in Crosscut and the
Seattle Times laying out issues the department has experienced with
its new (and over budget) billing system, which has occasionally
created high bills based on estimated meter reads.

As of Sept. 12, no lawsuit had been served to the City, according
to Dan Nolte, spokesperson for the City Attorney's Office.

The call for aggrieved customers was first posted in late June of
this year.

In an unrelated announcement on Sept. 11, Seattle City
Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda is ordering an audit of the utility
department's billing practices -- be they related to the new system
or otherwise. Ms. Mosqueda said in a statement that her office had
heard from customers concerned about their bills.

The audit will be conducted by the Seattle City Auditor, and will
look into how City Light prevents erroneous bills, checks the
accuracy of bills, communicates with customers, resolves
complaints, accommodates payment plans and reimburses customers
who've been overcharged.

"Ensuring that City Light has clear policies that customers and
staff alike understand is important to delivering high-quality
service," said Ms. Mosqueda. "My commitment is not only to ensure
those policies are clearly articulated and followed, but that we
are prepared to nimbly respond to constituent concerns about
billing, and are inward-looking, identifying problematic policies
and remedying them to best benefit our communities."

The issues with city's new $109 million billing system go back to
before it even rolled out —more than $40 million over budget.

But when it got up and running, it did not function as intended.
City Light employees are supposed to sign off on meter reads filed
into the system. But the department fell behind and some readings
were never approved.

The more automated system then began rejecting legitimate but
unapproved readings in favor of estimates, which were sometimes
higher. "The machine thinks it's correcting, but it's not
correcting well," Joel Vancil, a call taker in the city's Customer
Contact Center, told Crosscut in February.

Additionally, the department fell behind on account transfers and
move-in setups, meaning some customers' first bills were backlogged
and, when eventually produced, very large, even if technically
correct.

In a statement, City Light spokesperson Scott Thomsen declined to
comment on the potential litigation. But he did say the department
would work with the auditor to support the review and offered some
explanation.

"There have been times when locks have been changed on meter rooms
in multifamily buildings and our meter readers have not been able
to access them; meter readers were not able to complete a route;
gates were locked; or dogs were left out in the yard," he said.
"Situations like that will force an estimate for the reading. Once
we do get an actual read, it will show whether our estimate was low
or high. If we were too high, the next bill could be very small or
have a credit. If our estimate was low, the next bill will account
for all the electricity that was used but not paid for in previous
billing cycles as well the current billing cycle's usage."

Thomsen said the rollout of a new network of "smart meters" will
improve the department's ability to deliver timely and accurate
bills.

This comes as utility rates across the board increase -- due to
rise 4.5 percent annually over the next five years. Separating out
what is standard sticker shock with genuinely incorrect bills can
be challenging.

Some instances are clear. Olivia Borrows moved into a
350-square-foot apartment near Green Lake last June. The first bill
to arrive was outrageous -- $6,187.27, due July 11.

"I kind of just laughed because it was completely impossible," said
Borrows, a flight attendant. But then, she said, "I got a little
scared."

Ms. Borrows called City Light and the person on the other end also
laughed. Within three minutes, said Ms. Borrows, her bill was
corrected to its actual amount -- $45. It's unclear why Borrows
received such a high bill.

Others, though, may feel incorrect, even if they're right. In a
recent City Council meeting, Councilmember Mosqueda mentioned a
neighbor of hers who'd received a bill for more than $1,000. But
according to City Light's Thomsen, that bill was accurate.

"The property manager changed the locks on the meter room and did
not provide us with access for 18 months, which forced us to
estimate usage for that entire timeframe," he wrote in an email.
"Once we got actual reads, the bills reflected electricity that had
been used, but not paid for. In those circumstances, we will work
out payment plans for up to the length of time that the estimates
were in place."

One of McNaul Ebel Nawrot and Helgren's founding members,
Robert Sulkin, represented former UW football coach Neuheisel in
his wrongful termination suit against the college. Mr. Sulkin also
defended former Mayor Ed Murray in the sexual abuse allegations
brought by Delvonn Heckard.

The lawyer on the City Light case is Matthew Campos, according to
his assistant. Campos represents Deadliest Catch star Sig Hansen in
the molestation case brought against him by his estranged
daughter.

A spokesperson for the firm did not respond to a request for
comment, so it's unknown how many customers may have responded to
their call.

Mayor Jenny Durkan has taken a keen interest in issues at Seattle
City Light. In a statement responding to the audit, she said, "City
Light has faced many challenges; we have been making significant
positive progress including clearing a backlog of more than 74,000
account billing issues that created much of the frustration that
customers have experienced."

Her nominee to be the utility's next CEO, Debra Smith, has her
first hearing before the Seattle City Council on Sept. 13. If
approved, she will earn $340,000, on par with what her predecessor
Larry Weis earned. Ms. Durkan is putting it on Smith, whom the
mayor has described as obsessed with customer service, to take
control of the department's issues: "She is what the utility needs
at exactly this time -- an experienced leader who I trust will make
any necessary corrections to ensure the utility is accountable to
its customers."   

Crosscut reporter Lilly Fowler contributed reporting to this story.
[GN]


SERENITY TRANSPO: Court Won't Reconsider Certification Denial
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CURTIS JOHNSON, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. SERENITY
TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.15-cv-02004-JSC
(N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted in
part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a
motion for reconsideration of that portion of the Court's Aug. 1,
2018 order denying class certification.

In the wage and hour class action, the Plaintiff drivers allege
that Serenity Transportation misclassified their status as
independent contractors and as a result failed to pay them
overtime, among other wage and hour violations.  They also seek to
recover damages from defendant SCI California, Inc.

By Order filed Aug. 1, 2018, the Court certified for class
treatment the Plaintiffs' claims against Serenity Transportation,
except that to the extent the trier of fact finds that their
on-call time is not compensable; in that case their overtime and
minimum wage claims must be tried individually.  It also denied
certification of the California Labor Code Section 2810.3 claim
against SCI California, Inc.

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file a motion for reconsideration of that portion of the Court's
Aug. 1, 2018 order denying class certification.

As stated at the case management conference on Aug. 23, 2018,
Magistrate Judge Corley holds that leave is granted to file the
motion for reconsideration as to the California Labor Code Section
2810.3 issues.  She directed the parties to follow the briefing
schedule set forth at the hearing.  However, she denied leave as to
the argument about individualized damages.

The Plaintiffs insist that the Court erroneously denied
certification because of the possibility that damages may have to
be calculated on an individual basis and therefore manifestly
failed to consider dispositive legal argument.  The Magistrate
disagrees.  She holds that evidence of an employer's uniform policy
to misclassify a group of employees as exempt from overtime
requirements is not sufficient to support class certification
because misclassification alone does not establish liability for
overtime violations.

In addition, the Magistrate Holds does not find on the class
certification record that Serenity's business model required
drivers to work overtime, unless the trier of fact finds that
on-call time is compensable.  The Plaintiffs' attempts at proving
liability through common proof are unpersuasive.

The Plaintiffs' proposal to calculate overtime based on Serenity's
estimate that calls take between one to four hours, and use the
mid-point for calculating overtime, is also unpersuasive.  The
Magistrate finds that there is a big difference between one hour
and four hours for purposes of determining overtime and minimum
wage violations, and the Plaintiffs have not offered any analysis
or evidence that their proposal leads to a result that is anything
close to accurate.

For all these reasons, Magistrate Judge Corley declines to
reconsider at this time its decision not to try on a classwide
basis the claims that depend on hours worked if the trier of fact
finds that on-call time is not compensable.  This decision,
however, can be revisited after the trial on the certified claims,
if necessary.

The Order disposes of Docket No. 282.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/k9IrAi from Leagle.com.

Curtis Johnson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated & Gary Johnson, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Peter Scott Rukin --
prukin@rukinhyland.com -- Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP, Jessica Lee
Riggin -- jriggin@rukinhyland.com -- Rukin Hyland & Riggins LLP &
Valerie Jean Brender -- vbrender@rukinhyland.com -- Rukin Hyland &
Riggin LLP.

Jean Katheryn Hyams, Plaintiff, pro se.

Serenity Transportation, Inc. & David Friedel, Defendants,
represented by William Frederick Schauman --
wschauman@schauman-hubins.com  -- Schauman & Hubins.

Service Corporation International, Inc., Defendant, represented by
John A. Mason -- info@gurneelaw.com -- Gurnee Mason & Forestiere
LLP.

SCI California Funeral Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Steven Hazard Gurnee, Gurnee, Mason & Forestiere LLP, Candace Holly
Shirley -- cshirley@gurnee-law.com  -- Gurnee Mason Forestiere LLP
& William Frederick Schauman, Schauman & Hubins.

County of Santa Clara, Defendant, represented by Nancy Joan Clark,
Office of County Counsel.

Service Corporation International, Inc., Cross-claimant,
represented by John A. Mason, Gurnee Mason & Forestiere LLP.


SOUTHBURY TRAINING: Bid to Correct Attys' Fees in Messier Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD MESSIER et al., Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHBURY
TRAINING SCHOOL et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:94-cv-01706 (VAB)
(D. Conn.), Judge Victor A. Bolden of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut denied the motion of one of the
attorneys for the Plaintiffs, David C. Shaw, for the Court to
correct certain alleged errors in its March 27, 2015 Ruling on the
amount of attorney's fees, costs, and expenses that the Plaintiffs'
counsel is to be awarded.

Residents of Southbury Training School, an institution for the
mentally disabled in Connecticut, brought the class-action case
against Southbury Training School, the Director of Southbury
Training School, and the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department
of Developmental Services, seeking injunctive relief for alleged
constitutional and statutory violations relating to the conditions,
services, and programs at Southbury Training School, the
appropriateness of individual placements in a more integrated
setting, and the right to be free of discrimination with respect to
having such placements made.

In 1994, the Plaintiffs sued the Defendants.  After a bench-trial
that lasted 123 days, in 1999, the Court ruled that the Defendants
had deprived the class members of their procedural due process and
statutory rights to professional judgment regarding the
appropriateness of community placements, as well as their statutory
right to be free of discrimination with respect to such placements.
Based on the Court's finding of liability on the Plaintiffs'
community placement claim, the parties reached a settlement on the
issue of remedies.  The Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and
costs followed.  The petition, as supplemented through October
2014, sought a total award of $7,676,839.09.

The Court ruled on the Plaintiffs' motion in two parts.  The first
ruling addressed the Plaintiffs' "degree of success" on the merits.
The second ruling addressed what award of attorneys' fees, costs,
and expenses was reasonable in light of the Plaintiffs' limited
success in the case.  Having considered a number of factors,
including time reasonably expended on successful claims, excessive,
redundant or unnecessary time and expenses, excessiveness in rates
sought, and loss in the time-value-of-money that an award of
interest would cover, the Court awarded the Plaintiffs an aggregate
award of $2,724,763.28.

The Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia ("PILCO") and Mr.
Shaw separately moved for the Court to correct what they alleged
were errors in the Court's ruling awarding the Plaintiffs
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.  PILCO subsequently settled
its portion of the fees award.

On the Court heard oral argument on July 3, 2018, at which the
Court granted leave for the parties to file post-hearing
submissions.  The parties submitted additional filings on July 20,
2018, and on Aug. 3, 2018, respectively.

Mr. Shaw asks whether it makes sense to count 6.3 years during
which no litigation occurred at all toward to the time it took to
litigate the case, but the inquiry is whether the Court overlooked
controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on
the underlying motion.  Judge Bolden finds that Mr. Shaw has not
made such a showing.  Reconsideration is inappropriate if it is
merely a second bite at a fully briefed and considered underlying
ruling whose outcome disappointed one of the litigants.  He
therefore declines to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Shaw also argues that the Court determined that the Plaintiffs'
counsel were entitled to fees at the current rate but failed to use
current rates when making the final fee award.  The Judge
determined that, although the rates the Plaintiffs sought were
excessive and did not reflect the then-applicable prevailing market
rates at any particular time, it would not make a downward
adjustment of 20% to correct for inflated rates because any such
adjustment would be offset by the complementary upward adjustment
to all of the counsel's past billing to the now-higher prevailing
market rates to account for the time-value-of-money that an award
of interest would cover.  The Court declined to adjust all of the
counsel's past billing one way or the other, and the Judge declines
to do so now.

Finally, Mr. Shaw argues that the Court erroneously counted
approximately 175 hours as time expended on the liability phase of
the litigation when, in fact, these were hour spent on the fee
petition.  The Judge disagrees.  He says on a motion for
reconsideration, the issue is whether Mr. Shaw can point to
controlling decisions or data that the Court overlooked in giving
effect to the principle of rough justice.  Absent such a showing
and in due regard for her superior understanding of the litigation,
the Judge declines to reconsider Judge Burns' ruling.

For these reasons, Judge Bolden denied the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2018 Ruling and Order is
available at https://is.gd/zWRNZ4 from Leagle.com.

Richard Messier, by guardian, Thomas Nerney, Thomas Maloney, by
guardian and sister, Kate Clinton, Carole Ann Carr, by guardian,
Ted Bergeron, Leon Horton, by mother and guardian, Emma Debiase,
Raymond Mitchell, by guardian, Frank Wargo, Leonard Haversat, by
guardian, Mary Tracy, Gregory Kabbai, by guardian, Jane Williams &
People First of Connecticut, Inc., Plaintiffs, represented by David
C. Shaw -- davidshawctatty@gmail.com -- Law Office of David C.
Shaw, LLC, Frank J. Laski, Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee &
David N. Rosen -- drosen@davidrosenlaw.com -- David N. Rosen &
Associates, P.C.

ARC/Connecticut, Inc & Western Connecticut Association for Human
Rights, Plaintiffs, represented by Barbara E. Ransom --
Barbara.Ransom@ysterlinglaw.com -- Public Interest Law Center of
Philadelphia, David C. Shaw, Law Office of David C. Shaw, LLC,
Frank J. Laski, Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee & Judith A.
Gran -- judith@rcglawoffices.com -- Public Interest Law Center of
Philadelphia.

all plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by David C. Shaw, Law Office
of David C. Shaw, LLC & Martha M. Dwyer -- mmd@mdwyerlaw.com --
Novack Burnbaum Crystal LLP.

Toni Richardson, Connecticut Department of Mental Retardation &
Director Thomas Howley, Southbury Training School, Defendants,
represented by David Paul Friedman -- dfriedman@murthalaw.com --
Murtha Cullina, LLP, James P. Welsh -- JPWelsh@omalleydeneen.com --
Director-Legal & Govt Affairs Dept. of Mental Retardation, Thomas
B. York, York Legal Group LLC & Henry A. Salton, Attorney General's
Office Health & Human Services.

Commissioner Patricia Giardi, Connecticut Department of Social
Services, Defendant, represented by David Paul Friedman, Murtha
Cullina, LLP, Henry A. Salton, Attorney General's Office Health &
Human Services, Hugh Barber, Attorney General's Office Health &
Human Services & Richard J. Lynch, Attorney General's Office Health
& Human Services.

Commissioner Susan S. Addiss, Connecticut Department of Public
Health and Addiction Services, Defendant, represented by David Paul
Friedman, Murtha Cullina, LLP, Henry A. Salton, Attorney General's
Office Health & Human Services, Marianne Horn, Attorney General's
Office Department of Public Health & Richard J. Lynch, Attorney
General's Office Health & Human Services.

Home & School Association of Southbury Training School, Movant,
represented by David Paul Friedman, Murtha Cullina, LLP, Frank J.
Silvestri, Jr., Verrill & Dana LLP & Richard J. Scarola .

Southbury Training School Foundation, Inc., Movant, represented by
David Paul Friedman, Murtha Cullina, LLP, Frank J. Silvestri, Jr.
-- fsilvestri@verrilldana.com -- Verrill & Dana LLP, Martha M.
Dwyer, Novack Burnbaum Crystal LLP, pro hac vice & Robert M. Frost,
Jr. -- rmf@frostbussert.com -- Frost Bussert, LLC.

James C. Walen, by his parent and guardian, Edward D. Walen, Steven
M. Bondy, by his parents and guardians, Philip K. Bondy, M.D. and
Sarah E. Bondy, Michael Dougherty, by his sister and guardian, Ann
Dougherty, Rebecca Benson, by her parents and guardians, Carleton
J. Benson and Gloria P. Benson, Susan Hendricks, by her parents and
guardians, Marylyn Hendricks and Laurence Hendricks, Alan Rotzal,
by her sister and co-guardian, Carol A. Revere, Steven B. Gorski,
by his parents and guardians, Henry P. Gorski and Bernadetta
Gorski, Edward D. Walen, M.D. Philip K. Bondy, Sarah E. Bondy, Ann
Dougherty, Carleton J. Benson, Gloria P. Benson, Marylyn Hendricks,
Laurence Hendricks, Carol A. Revere, Henry P. Gorski, Bernadetta
Gorski, Toni Richardson, Connecticut Department of Mental
Retardation & Director Thomas Howley, Southbury Training School,
Movants, represented by David Paul Friedman, Murtha Cullina, LLP &
Frank J. Silvestri, Jr., Verrill & Dana LLP.

Home and School Association of the Southbury Training School, Inc.
& 611 Residents of Southbury Training School, Movants, represented
by Richard J. Scarola -- rjjs@szslaw.com.

Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, Movant, represented by
David Richman -- richmand@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton, pro hac
vice, Hedya Aryani -- aryanih@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton, pro
hac vice, Dennis Mark Carnelli -- dcarnelli@npmlaw.com -- Neubert
Pepe & Monteith, PC & Robert B. Flynn -- rflynn@oamlaw.com --
O'Connell, Attmore & Morris, LLC.

Attorney David C. Shaw, Movant, represented by David N. Rosen --
drosen@davidrosenlaw.com -- David N. Rosen & Associates, P.C.

USA, Interested Party, represented by Laurie J. Weinstein, United
States Attorney's Office.


STATE FARM: Settlement in Hale RICO Suit Has Prelim Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK HALE, TODD SHADLE, and LAURIE LOGER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STATE
FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, ED MURNANE, WILLIAM G.
SHEPHERD, Defendants, Case No. 3:12-cv-00660-DRH-SCW (S.D. Ill.),
Judge David R. Herndon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the proposed class action Settlement
Agreement.

The Court has previously certified the Class pursuant to Rule 23(a)
and Rule 23(b)(3) defined as all persons in the United States,
except those residing in Arkansas and Tennessee, who, in between
July 28, 1987, and Feb. 24, 1998, (1) were insured by a vehicle
casualty insurance policy issued by Defendant State Farm and (2)
made a claim for vehicle repairs pursuant to their policy and had
non-factory authorized and/or non-OEM (Original Equipment
Manufacturer) crash parts installed on or specified for their
vehicles or else received monetary compensation determined in
relation to the cost of such parts.

It previously appointed and confirmed Mark Hale, Todd Shadle and
Laurie Loger as the Class representatives.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Judge appointed Epiq
Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. to serve as the Claims
Administrator.  Epiq, in consultation with its notice expert,
Cameron R. Azari, Esq. of Hilsoft Notifications, previously
provided the notice to the Class and reported to the Court
regarding the implementation of the prior notice plan and opt
outs.

The Final Fairness Hearing is set for Dec. 13, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.
No later than Oct. 16, 2018, which is 31 days prior to the deadline
for the Class Members to object to the Settlement, the Class
Plaintiffs must file papers in support of final settlement
approval, and the Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees
and expenses and the requested service awards to the Class
Representatives.  No later than Dec. 6, 2018, which is seven days
prior to the Final Approval Hearing, the Class Plaintiffs must file
reply papers in support of final approval of the Settlement
Agreement and respond to any written objections.  The Defendants
may (but are not required to) file papers in support of final
approval of the Settlement Agreement and in response to written
objections, so long as they do so no later than Dec. 6, 2018.

The Court previously approved a Class Notice Plan.  This Plan has
been completed as approved.  The Judge directed the Parties and the
Claims Administrator to file the Class Settlement Notice Plan with
forms of notice no later than Sept. 5, 2018 and to complete all
aspects of the Settlement Notice plan no later than Nov. 1, 2018,
in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

The Claims Administrator will file with the Court by no later than
Dec. 6, 2018, which is seven days prior to the Final Approval
Hearing, proof that Notice was provided in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement and the Order, as well as proof that notice
was provided to the appropriate State and federal officials
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

To object to the Settlement Agreement, the Class Members must
follow the directions in the Notice and file a written Objection
with the Court by the Objection Deadline.  

These are the deadlines by which certain events must occur:

     i. Oct. 16, 2018 - Deadline for Completion of Class Notice
Program

     ii. Oct. 16, 2018 - Deadline for the Class Plaintiffs' Motion
for Attorneys' Fees and Incentive Awards

     iii. Nov. 17, 2018 - Deadline for the Class Members to file
Objections

     iv. Dec. 6, 2018 - Deadline for Parties to File the Following:
(1) Proof of Class Notice and CAFA Notice; and (2) Motion and
Memorandum in Support of Final Approval, including responses to any
Objections.

     v. Dec. 13, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. - Final Approval Hearing

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/2RmfOo from Leagle.com.

Illinois Chamber of Commerce, Objector, represented by August M.
Appleton, August Appleton - Attorney.

Mark Hale, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley M. Cosgrove --
BMC@CliffordLaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices PC, Charles F. Barrett
-- cbarrett@nealharwell.com -- Neal & Harwell, PLC, Kevin P. Durkin
-- KPD@CliffordLaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices PC, Patrick W.
Pendley -- pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley Law Firm, Robert A.
Clifford -- rclifford@CliffordLaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices.
P.C., Stephen A. Saltzburg, Stephen A. Saltzburg --
ssaltz@law.gwu.edu -- pro hac vice, W. Gordon Ball, Ball & Scott,
Brent W. Landau -- blandau@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, David T.
Brown -- dbrown@muchshelist.com -- Much, Shelist et al. Cook
County, Elizabeth J. Cabraser -- ecabraser@lchb.com -- Lieff,
Cabraser et al., Erwin S. Chemerinsky --
echemerinsky@law.berkeley.edu -- University of California –
School of Law, pro hac vice, George S. Bellas --
george@bellas-wachowski.com -- Clifford Law Offices P.C., Jeannine
M. Kenney -- jkenney@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Jessica A.
Perez
-- jperez@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., John
(Don) W. Barrett -- dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com -- Barrett Law
Group, Jonathan L. Loew -- jloew@muchshelist.com -- Much, Shelist
et al., Kevin Reid Budner -- kbudner@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser et
al., Kristofer S. Riddle -- KSR@CliffordLaw.com -- Clifford Law
Offices PC, Lance K. Baker -- lkbakerlaw@gmail.com -- Gordon Ball
PLLC, Marcus Neil Bozeman -- bozemanmarcus@sbcglobal.net – Thrash
Law Firm PA, pro hac vice, Megan Elizabeth Jones --
mjones@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Melinda R.
Coolidge -- mcoolidge@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Michael S.
Krzak -- MSK@CliffordLaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices. P.C.,
Nicholas R. Rockforte -- nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley,
Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., Nimish Ramesh Desai -- ndesai@lchb.com --
Lieff, Cabraser et al., Richard R. Barrett -- rrb@rrblawfirm.net --
Barrett Law Office, Richard M. Heimann -- rheimann@lchb.com --
Lieff, Cabraser et al., Robert J. Nelson -- rnelson@lchb.com --
Lieff, Cabraser et al., Robert P. Sheridan -- RPS@CliffordLaw.com
-- Clifford Law Offices, Of Counsel, Shannon M. McNulty --
SMM@CliffordLaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Steven P.
Blonder -- sblonder@muchshelist.com -- Much, Shelist et al., Cook
County, Thomas P. Thrash, Thrash Law Firm PA, pro hac vice &
William P. Butterfield -- wbutterfield@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld
LLP.

Todd Shadle, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley M. Cosgrove,
Clifford Law Offices PC, Charles F. Barrett, Neal & Harwell, PLC,
Kevin P. Durkin, Clifford Law Offices PC, Patrick W. Pendley,
Pendley Law Firm, Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices. P.C.,
Stephen A. Saltzburg, Stephen A. Saltzburg, pro hac vice, W. Gordon
Ball, Ball & Scott, Brent W. Landau, Hausfeld LLP, Elizabeth J.
Cabraser, Lieff, Cabraser et al., Erwin S. Chemerinsky, University
of California - School of Law, pro hac vice, George S. Bellas,
Clifford Law Offices P.C., Jeannine M. Kenney, Hausfeld LLP, John
(Don) W. Barrett, Barrett Law Group, Jonathan L. Loew, Much,
Shelist et al., Kevin Reid Budner, Lieff, Cabraser et al.,
Kristofer S. Riddle, Clifford Law Offices PC, Lance K. Baker,
Gordon Ball PLLC, Marcus Neil Bozeman, Thrash Law Firm PA, pro hac
vice, Megan Elizabeth Jones, Hausfeld LLP, Melinda R. Coolidge,
Hausfeld LLP, Michael S. Krzak, Clifford Law Offices. P.C., Nimish
Ramesh Desai, Lieff, Cabraser et al., Richard R. Barrett, Barrett
Law Office, Richard M. Heimann,
Lieff, Cabraser et al., Robert J. Nelson, Lieff, Cabraser et al.,
Robert P. Sheridan, Clifford Law Offices- Of Counsel, Shannon M.
McNulty, Clifford Law Offices. P.C., Steven P. Blonder, Much,
Shelist et al. Cook County & Thomas P. Thrash, Thrash Law Firm PA.

Laurie Loger, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley M. Cosgrove,
Clifford Law Offices PC, Kevin P. Durkin, Clifford Law Offices PC,
Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices. P.C., Stephen A.
Saltzburg, Stephen A. Saltzburg, pro hac vice, Elizabeth J.
Cabraser, Lieff, Cabraser et al., Erwin S. Chemerinsky, University
of California - School of Law, pro hac vice, George S. Bellas,
Clifford Law Offices P.C., Jeannine M. Kenney, Hausfeld LLP,
Jonathan L. Loew, Much, Shelist et al., Marcus Neil Bozeman, Thrash
Law Firm PA, pro hac vice, Megan Elizabeth Jones, Hausfeld LLP,
Melinda R. Coolidge, Hausfeld LLP, Nimish Ramesh Desai, Lieff,
Cabraser et al., Steven P. Blonder, Much, Shelist et al. Cook
County & W. Gordon Ball, Ball & Scott.

Mark Covington, Plaintiff, represented by Robert A. Clifford,
Clifford Law Offices P.C., George S. Bellas, Clifford Law Offices
P.C., Jeannine M. Kenney, Hausfeld LLP, Jonathan L. Loew, Much,
Shelist et al., Marcus Neil Bozeman, Thrash Law Firm PA, pro hac
vice, Megan Elizabeth Jones, Hausfeld LLP, Melinda R. Coolidge,
Hausfeld LLP, Nimish Ramesh Desai, Lieff, Cabraser et al., Steven
P. Blonder, Much, Shelist et al. Cook County & W. Gordon Ball, Ball
& Scott.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Joseph A. Cancila, Jr. -- jcancila@rshc-law.com --
Riley Safer et al, Patrick D. Cloud -- pcloud@heylroyster.com --
Heyl, Royster et al., Ronald S. Safer -- rsafer@rshc-law.com --
Riley Safer et al, Harnaik Kahlon -- nkahlon@rshc-law.com – Riley
Safer et al, J. Timothy Eaton -- teaton@taftlaw.com -- Taft
Stettinius & Hollister, James P. Gaughan -- jgaughan@rshc-law.com
-- Riley Safer et al, Jonathan D. Parente --
jonathan.parente@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice,
Jonathan M. Redgrave -- jredgrave@redgravellp.com -- Partner,
Redgrave LLP, Matthew C. Crowl -- mcrowl@rshc-law.com -- Riley
Safer et al, Michael P. Kenny -- mike.kenny@alston.com -- Alston &
Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Monica McCarroll --
MMcCarroll@redgravellp.com -- Redgrave LLP, pro hac vice, Patricia
B. Holmes -- pholmes@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer et al & Patricia
T. Mathy -- pmathy@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer et al.

Edward Murnane, Defendant, represented by Andrew Chinsky --
ACHINSKY@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Karim Basaria --
KBASARIA@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Patrick Edward Croke --
PCROKE@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP & Paul E. Veith --
PVEITH@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP.

William G Shepherd, Defendant, represented by Russell K. Scott --
rks@greensfelder.com -- Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale PC & Clark W.
Hedger -- ch1@greensfelder.com -- Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC.

Illinois State Bar Association, Stanley Tucker & April Troemper,
Movants, represented by Michael J. Nester, Donovan Rose Nester PC.

Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, Movant,
represented by Julie Fix Meyer -- jfixmeyer@armstrongteasdale.com
-- Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

Lloyd A Karmeier, Interested Party, represented by A. Courtney Cox
-- ccox@sandbergphoenix.com -- Sandberg, Phoenix et al. & Anthony
L. Martin -- amartin@sandbergphoenix.com -- Sandberg, Phoenix et
al.

Tillery Group, Interested Party, represented by J. William Lucco,
Lucco, Brown et al. & Joseph R. Brown, Jr., Lucco, Brown et al.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce & Institute for Legal Reform, Intervenors,
represented by Bobby Roy Burchfield -- bburchfield@kslaw.com --
King & Spalding, LLP, pro hac vice.

Institute for Legal Reform, Intervenor, represented by Bobby Roy
Burchfield, King & Spalding, LLP, pro hac vice.


STEAK 'N SHAKE: Dismissal of Summary Judgment Bid in Drake Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SANDRA DRAKE and RANDY SMITH, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STEAK N. SHAKE
OPERATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:14-cv-01535-JAR (E.D. Mo.),
Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to
Katrina Wolfshoefer.

The matter is before the Court on SnS' Motion for Summary Judgment
as to opt-in Plaintiff Katrina Wolfshoefer, and the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Dismiss.

On Oct. 25, 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay
Briefing on two motions for summary judgment until it ruled on the
Parties' competing motions to certify/decertify the Plaintiffs'
class action.  One of those motions for summary judgment was
directed at Wolfshoefer on the ground that her deposition testimony
conclusively established that she met the definition of an
overtime-exempt managerial and/or administrative employee.  In the
Court's order granting the Motion to Stay, the Court opined that,
in the event it certified the Plaintiffs' class action, the
Defendant's arguments regarding Wolfshoefer will likely be common
to the other class members.

On Dec. 22, 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify.  On Jan. 10, 2018, the Court lifted the stay on briefing.
Rather than respond to SnS' Motion for Summary Judgment, the
Plaintiffs moved to dismiss it, arguing that the Court's order
granting certification rendered the motion moot.  SnS opposes the
Motion to Dismiss and has filed a sur-reply.

Judge Ross concludes that SnS' Motion for Summary Judgment is not
moot as the Plaintiffs argue.  While the Court's certification
order may bear directly on the merits of SnS' Motion for Summary
Judgment, SnS retains a cognizable legal interest in the outcome of
that motion.  For this reason, he will deny Plaintiffs' Motion to
Dismiss.

Accordingly, the Judge denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Katrina Wolfshoefer.
The Plaintiffs shall, no later than Sept. 7, 2018, file their
response to the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.  The
Defendant shall, no later than Sept. 12, 2018, file any reply.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/JY4OLm from Leagle.com.

Sandra Drake & Randy Smith, on behalf of, Plaintiffs, represented
by Brendan J. Donelon, DONELON, P.C. & Daniel W. Craig, DONELON,
P.C.

Steak N Shake Operations, Inc., an Indiana Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Rene' Leigh Duckworth -- rene.duckworth@ogletree.com
-- OGLETREE DEAKINS, Rodney A. Harrison --
rodney.harrison@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS, Erin E. Williams
-- erin.williams@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS & Mallory M.
Stumpf -- mallory.stumpf@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS.


SWAMI MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay OT to Managers, Hockensmith Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA HOCKENSMITH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SWAMI MANAGEMENT CORP. d/b/a THREE
CROWNS MOTOR LODGE and THE COLTON MOTEL; MINESH PATEL; and PRERANA
PATEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01766-SHR (M.D. Pa., Sept. 7,
2018) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Hockensmith was employed by the Defendants as manager
from April 2011 to August 2017.

Swami Management Corp., d/b/a Three Crowns Motor Lodge and The
Colton Motel, is a corporation organized under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Company is engaged in the
hospitality industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve T. Mahan, Esq.
          Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
          Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
          Stephen P. Gunther, Esq.
          MC CARTHY WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
          2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B
          Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380
          Telephone: (717) 238-5707
          Facsimile: (717) 233-8133
          E-mail: smahan@mwcfirm.com
                  dcummings@mwcfirm.com
                  lweisberg@mwcfirm.com
                  sgunther@mwcfirm.com


TEIKOKU: Judge Approves Lidoderm Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, reported that a California federal
judge on Sept. 12 approved "excellent" settlements ending claims
that Teikoku, Endo and Actavis violated antitrust laws by stalling
the release of a generic form of the Lidoderm pain medicine. [GN]


TEREX CORP: Securities Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Sept. 12
announced Terex Corporation (NYSE: TEX) may face damages caused by
a pending securities class action lawsuit. Terex manufactures and
sells aerial work platforms, cranes, and materials processing
machinery worldwide.

Investors filed a class action complaint against Terex for alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the
complaint, Terex used improper accounting practices and falsely
touted the company's business prospects in order to disguise
dramatically declining demand for its products. Specifically, Terex
prematurely recognized revenue in connection with product sales by
moving its products to off-site locations and reporting them as
sold, even though they were not being sent to customers. Terex's
attempts to boost sales, meet market expectations, and maintain
unrealistic financial projections were in vain, as the company
eventually admitted a significant net loss and massive goodwill
impairment charges. On March 31, 2018, U.S. District Judge Robert
N. Chatigny denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiff's complaint, paving the way for litigation to proceed.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
https://www.robbinsarroyo.com/terex-corporation/

Terex Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov
at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its
clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and
the companies in which they have invested. [GN]


TESLA INC: Andrew Left Sues over Musk's Misleading Tweets
---------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW E. LEFT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TESLA, INC.; amd ELON R. MUSK, Defendants,
Case No. 4:18-cv-05463-JSW (N.D. Cal., Sept. 6, 2018) is a class
action on behalf of all persons who purchased, sold, or otherwise
transacted in Tesla securities between August 7, 2018 and August
17, 2018. The action is brought against Tesla and its Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer Elon R. Musk for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendant Musk has a long-standing
public feud with short-sellers and often uses his personal Twitter
account to taunt and confront skeptics of his company. For example,
on May 4, 2018, he tweeted that the "short burn of the century was
coming soon" and that the "sheer magnitude of the short carnage
will be unreal. If you're short, I suggest tiptoeing quietly to the
exit." He also tweeted on June 17, 2018, that Tesla short-sellers
had "about three weeks before their short position explodes."

The Defendants artificially manipulated the price of Tesla
securities to damage the Company's short-sellers, and in the
process, damaged all purchasers of Tesla securities by issuing
materially false and misleading information. The Defendants'
fraudulent scheme started on August 7, 2018, when Defendant Musk,
via his verified personal Twitter account, issued the following
tweet: "Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding
secured." Later that day, Defendant Musk issued another tweet,
stating: "Investor support is confirmed. Only reason why this is
not certain is that it's contingent on a shareholder vote."

The lawsuit says Defendant Musk artificially manipulated the price
of Tesla securities with objectively false tweets in order to
"burn" the Company's short-sellers. In the succeeding days, the
truth regarding the supposedly "secure" financing needed to
effectuate the going-private transaction began to emerge, exposing
the fraudulent scheme, and in the process, injuring Class Period
investors as the price of Tesla securities deteriorated rapidly. As
a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and misleading statements,
and the precipitous artificial inflation in the market value of the
Company's securities and subsequent decline, the Plaintiff and
other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.

Tesla, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells electric
vehicles, and energy generation and storage systems in the United
States, China, Norway, and internationally. The company was
formerly known as Tesla Motors, Inc. and changed its name to Tesla,
Inc. in February 2017. Tesla, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Palo Alto, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
          Frank Busch, Esq.
          KERR & WAGSTAFFE LLP
          101 Mission Street, 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 371-8500
          Facsimile: (415) 371-0500
          E-mail: wagstaffe@kerrwagstaffe.com
                  busch@kerrwagstaffe.com

               - and -

          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          Michael P. Canty, Esq.
          David J. Schwartz, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  ebelfi@labaton.com
                  mcanty@labaton.com
                  dschwartz@labaton.com
                  fmcconville@labaton.com


TESLA INC: Faces Xing Fan Suit over Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------
ZHI XING FAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TESLA, INC., and ELON R. MUSK, Defendants,
Case No. 4:18-cv-05470-YGR (N.D. Cal., Sept. 6, 2018) is an action
by the Plaintiff and the class who purchased or otherwise acquired
Tesla securities between August 7, 2018 through August 17, 2018,
seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of
the federal securities laws, and to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, on August 7, 2018, the Defendant Elon
Musk, Tesla's co-founder, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer,
issued the following statement via Twitter: "Am Considering taking
Tesla private at $420. Funding secured." In reaction to Musk's
tweet, the price of Tesla's common stock increased, reaching an
intra-day high of $387.46 per share—$45.47 per share higher than
the previous day's closing price—and closed at $379.57 per share
on August 7, 2018, an increase of $37.58 per share, or
approximately 11%.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Defendants had not secured funding for a transaction to take Tesla
private; (ii) Tesla's Board of Directors was unaware of any plan to
take Tesla private; (iii) Musk had not retained advisors in
connection with his purported plan to take Tesla private; (iv) the
status and likelihood of Tesla going private was therefore
misrepresented to the market; and (v) as a result, Tesla's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On August 8, 2018, reports began to emerge that the SEC had made
inquiries into Musk's tweet and whether it was truthful that he
did, in fact, have "funding secured" to take Tesla private.
Following this news, Tesla's stock price fell $9.23 per share, or
2.4%, to close at $370.34 per share on August 8, 2018. On August 9,
2018, Tesla's stock price continued to fall after facts emerged
after the market closed on August 8, 2018 and later on August 9,
2018 that Musk's tweet had, in fact, triggered an SEC inquiry.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the SEC "has asked Musk to
produce proof that he's secured funding. . ." and numerous other
media sources reported that Musk did not have funding secured prior
to issuing his statement to that effect via Twitter. Following this
news, Tesla's stock price fell by more than $17.89 per share,
nearly 5%, to close at $352.45 per share on August 9, 2018,
resulting in a two-day decline of more than 7%.

On August 13, 2018, post-market, Musk stated via Twitter: "I'm
excited to work with Silver Lake and Goldman Sachs as financial
advisers, plus Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and Munger, Tolles &
Olson as legal advisors, on the proposal to take Tesla private."
However, on August 14, 2018, Bloomberg reported that at the time of
Musk's August 13, 2018 Twitter announcement, neither Goldman Sachs
nor Silver Lake were yet working with Musk pursuant to a signed
agreement or in an official capacity. On this news, Tesla's stock
price fell $8.77 per share, or nearly 2.5%, to close at $347.64 per
share on August 14, 2018.

Then, on August 16, 2018, The New York Times published an interview
with Musk in which he described the circumstances leading up to the
tweet, including his high stress levels and his use of the
sedative-hypnotic sleep medication Ambien in order to cope with his
stress. On this news, the price of Tesla stock declined $29.95 per
share, or 8.93%, to close at $305.50 per share on August 17, 2018.
On August 24, 2018, Musk issued a statement on the Company's
website stating that he would abandon his plan to take Tesla
private. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Tesla, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells electric
vehicles, and energy generation and storage systems in the United
States, China, Norway, and internationally. The company was
formerly known as Tesla Motors, Inc. and changed its name to Tesla,
Inc. in February 2017. Tesla, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Palo Alto, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          468 North Camden Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (818) 532-6499
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


TEXAS: Clyce et al. File Appeal to 5th Circuit
----------------------------------------------
Chance Clyce, et al v. Nadine Butler, et al., Case No. 18-11189
(5th Cir, Sept. 10, 2018) is an appeal filed in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from a lower court decision, Case No.
3:15-CV-793 (N.D. Tex., March 10, 2015).

Attorneys for Plaintiff – Appellants

          Martin J. Cirkiel, Esq.
          CIRKIEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1901 E. Palm Valley Boulevard
          Round Rock, TX 78664-0000
          Telephone: (512) 244 6658

Attorneys for NADINE BUTLER, LESLY JACOBS, KEVIN DUBOSE, CONRAD
JONES, and TEXAS JUVENILE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT:

          Christopher Lee Lindsey, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          300 W. 15th Street - 7th Floor
          William P. Clements Building
          Austin, TX 78701-1220
          Telephone: (512) 463 2080

Attorneys for FREDERICK FARLEY, Investigator and Supervisor for
Hunt County Juvenile Detention Center, individually and in his
official capacity; KENNETH WRIGHT, individually and in his official
capacity; SHANIGIA WILLIAMS, individually and in her official
capacity; and DAVID REILLY, Interim Executive Director:

          Jason Eric Magee, Esq.
          ALLISON, BASS & MAGEE, L.L.P.
          402 W. 12th Street
          AO Watson House
          Austin, TX 78701-0000
          Telephone: (512) 482 0701


TITLE SOURCE: Settlement in Swamy FLSA Suit Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SOM SWAMY, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TITLE SOURCE INC.,
Defendant, Case No. C 17-01175 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(i) granted the parties' motion for final approval of a proposed
class settlement and approval of an individual FLSA settlement;
(ii) granted the Plaintiff's motion for an award of attorney's fees
and costs to the class counsel; and denied the Plaintiff's motion
for a service award.

Swamy asserted class claims against his former employer, the
Defendant, under the California Labor Code and the Fair Labor
Standards Act for failing to reimburse necessary business expenses,
failing to pay overtime, and providing inaccurate wage statements.
A prior order certified a class only as to the Plaintiff's expense
reimbursement and wage statement claims under California law . That
same order declined to certify a class with respect to the
Plaintiff's overtime claims and denied the Plaintiff's motion to
certify a FLSA collective action.  The class consists of all
persons employed by defendant as an external staff appraiser in
California between March 2013 and April 2018.

A May 2018 order granted the parties' joint motion for preliminary
approval of a proposed class action settlement.  The order also
approved, as to form and content, a notice concerning the class
settlement agreement and final approval hearing. The claims
administrator mailed the class notice to all 50 potential class
members at addresses obtained from the Defendant.  The Defendant
also emailed the notice and opt-out forms to each class member.

No objections to the settlement have been received by the counsel
or the class administrator.  Five members of the class opted out of
the settlement agreement.  The settlement agreement provides for an
average cash payment of nearly $12,000 dollars to each class
member.  The classwide release is limited to the certified claims.

The parties now move for final approval of the class settlement
agreement and, separately, for approval of a settlement of the
Plaintiff's individual FLSA claim.  The lass counsel also moves for
an award of (1) $900,216 in attorney's fees, (2) $99,433 in costs,
and (3) a $5,000 incentive award to the class representative.

Judge Alsup (i) granted final approval of the proposed class
settlement, (ii) granted approval of the settlement of the
Plaintiff's individual FLSA claim, (iii) granted the request for an
award of attorney's fees and costs, and (iv) denied the request for
an incentive award.  Judgment will be entered separately.

By Oct. 2, 2018, and every 14 calendar days thereafter, the parties
will file a joint submission explaining whether or not the claims
administration process is proceeding according to schedule and how
any snafus will be cured.

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

om Swamy, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lorrie T. Peeters --
lpeeters@caffarelli.com -- Caffarelli & Associates Ltd., Don J.
Foty -- dfoty@kennedyhodges.com -- Kennedy Hodges, LLP, pro hac
vice, Galvin B. Kennedy -- gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com -- Kennedy
Hodges, LLP & William Marshall Hogg , Kennedy Hodges, LLP.

Title Source, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by James Milton
Nelson -- nelsonj@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, Adil Mansoor
Khan -- khanad@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Jeffrey B.
Morganroth -- jmorganroth@morganrothlaw.com -- Morganroth and
Morganroth PLLC, Lindsay Erin Hutner -- hutnerl@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Mark David Kemple -- kemplem@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, Michelle L. DuCharme -- ducharmem@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traruig, LLP & Peter S. Wahby -- wahbyp@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, LLP.


TOTAL MERCHANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fowler Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
FARRAH FOWLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TOTAL MERCHANTS SERVICES, LLC; TOTAL
MERCHANT SERVICES, INC. and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case
No. BC 722782 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 27, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Plaintiff Fowler was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt,
hourly employee from April 2013 to July 2017.

Total Merchant Services, Inc. provides credit card processing
services for small businesses and merchants in the United States
and Canada. Total Merchant Services, Inc. was founded in 1996 and
is based in Basalt, Colorado. As of July 11, 2017, Total Merchant
Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of North American Bancard
Holdings, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRIAD MEDIA: Bid to Impose Sanctions in Sloatman TCPA Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LALA SLOATMAN, Plaintiff, v. TRIAD MEDIA SOLUTIONS,
INC., d/b/a COMPARETOPSCHOOLS.COM Defendant, Civ. No. 17-cv-11383
(KM) (D. N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey denied the Defendant's motion for an
order imposing Rule 11 sanctions and striking the complaint.

Sloatman, has filed the putative class action against Triad,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  The essential allegation is that Triad, using an
automatic telephone dialing system, called Sloatman's cell phone
number in September 2016 to make a commercial solicitation, without
her prior consent.  

Triad's current motion asks the Court to strike the Complaint and
impose sanctions under Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P.  The Complaint in
the case, according to Triad, lacks the necessary evidentiary
support.  It states without objection that such a commercial call
is permissible with the recipient's prior consent.  Triad has
attached what it calls "irrefutable" evidence of consent in the
form of an "opt-in" printout from its website,
www.comparetopschools.com.  This evidence, it says, demonstrates
that on Sept. 9, 2016, Sloatman explicitly consented to being
contacted at her cell phone number, which she supplied by typing it
into the online form and checking the appropriate box.

Sloatman's counsel explained that his client has never visited the
website nor has she provided her information, including her
cellular telephone number to the Defendant for any reason.  He went
on to state that the "consent" small print on the website would not
have been visible and that contact information or consent may be
supplied for limited purposes only.

Judge McNulty finds that there is a factual dispute, which must be
resolved by the usual means, not in the context of a sideshow
motion for sanctions.  While the focus of Rule 11 is on whether a
claim is wholly without merit, and is not dictated by whether
resources will be expended in deciding the motion, Rule 11 motions
should conserve rather than misuse judicial resources.  For these
reasons, the Judge denied Triad's motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/2mQJgv from Leagle.com.

LALA SLOATMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by ROSS H. SCHMIERER --
rschmierer@denittislaw.com -- DeNittis Osefchen Prince, P.C.

TRIAD MEDIA SOLUTIONS, INC., doing business as
COMPARETOPSCHOOL.COM, Defendant, represented by MARK M. TALLMADGE
-- mtallmadge@bressler.com -- BRESSLER, AMERY & ROSS, PC & MEGHAN
M. DOUGHERTY -- mdougherty@bressler.com -- BRESSLER, AMERY & ROSS,
P.C.


TRIBUNE MEDIA: Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Jacobson, writing for Radio+Television Business Report,
reports that if you thought Tribune Media's now-imploded merger
with Sinclair Broadcast Group was largely due to actions taken by
Sinclair, you may want to look closely at what a private equity
firm believes.

This entity, named the Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund, on Sept. 10
filed a class action complaint with an Illinois federal district
court against Tribune. A jury trial is being demanded. The charge?
Tribune executives cost investors millions of dollars for failing
to disclose Sinclair's ill-fated actions.

As the fund sees it, Tribune CEO Peter Kern, EVP/CFO Chandler
Bigelow and EVP/General Counsel Edward Lazarus each failed to
reveal to the investors that Sinclair had declined to honor a
request by the FCC to divest certain television stations -- a move
Tribune has said would have cleared the transaction.

Instead, the $3.9 billion merger was terminated by Tribune,
resulting in competing lawsuits alleging breach of contract.

For the Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund, managed by New York-based
Water Island LLC, the lack of disclosure from Tribune's three
C-Suite executives cost investors some $564 million. This is
particularly vexing to the Fund, as Kern and his colleagues are
believed to have known since November 2017 about the problems
associated with the Sinclair merger.

The Fund filed the complaint based on information gathered by its
attorneys which included, among other things, a review of press
releases and other public statements issued by Tribune Media, media
and analyst reports about Tribune, publicly available information
in Tribune Media Company v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, and other
public information regarding Tribune.

Noting the statement made July 16, 2018, from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai
in which he expressed "serious concerns" about the well-publicized
merger. In particular, Chairman Pai stated that "certain station
divestitures that have been proposed to the FCC would allow
Sinclair to control those stations in practice, even if not in
name, in violation of the law."

The Fund asserts, "This signal that Sinclair was not agreeing to
the regulatory requirements necessary to complete the merger -- the
station divestitures discussed frequently in Tribune's public
filings since May 2017 -- caused Tribune stock to close down $6.44
per share (over 16%), costing investors more than $564 million in
value."

As such, the class action suit was filed in Illinois, based on
"misrepresentations and omissions of material fact" made by Tribune
in its public filings concerning Sinclair's conduct during the
regulatory approval process necessary to complete the merger.

The goal is to get the court to determine that the action is a
proper class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure; to award compensatory damages; and to declare that a
violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act as well as Rule
10b-5 was done.

Representing the Fund as legal counsel are Entwistle & Cappucci LLP
and Moirano Gorman Kenny LLC. [GN]


TRINITY RESTAURANT: Whitfield Seeks to Certify Class of Servers
---------------------------------------------------------------
MERCEDES WHITFIELD, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiff, vs TRINITY RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, the
Defendant, Case 2:18-cv-10973-DML-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff
moves the Court for entry of an order certifying Plaintiff's claim
under the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act and proceed on
behalf of the following class:

"all current and former Servers who worked for Defendant Trinity
Restaurant Group, LLC at its IHOP restaurants in the State of
Michigan since March 26, 2015."

The Plaintiff challenges Defendant's failure to pay its Servers the
full minimum wage based on two uniform practices: (1) requiring
Servers to perform certain types and amounts of sidework; and (2)
requiring Servers to share a portion of their tips with other
restaurant employees called expediters. The Defendant readily
admits the existence of these practices but argues that they are
permissible under the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act, the
lawsuit says.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025

               - and -

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          KREIS ENDERLE, P.C.
          8225 Moorsbridge
          P.O. Box 4010
          Kalamazoo, MI 49003

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio
          Jason S. Rathod
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street, NE, Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Edward N. Boehm, Jr., Esq.
          Martin B. Heller, Esq.
          Joseph A. Starr, Esq.
          William Reed Thomas, Esq.
          FISHER PHILLIPS
          www.fisherphillips.com
          450 E Las Olas Blvd Suite 800
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525 4800
          Facsimile: (954) 525 8739
          E-mail: tboehm@fisherphillips.com
                  mheller@fisherphillips.com
                  jstarr@starrbutler.com
                  wthomas@starrbutler.com


U.S.A.: Mapuatuli et al. File Petition for Writ of Certiorari
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALAN MAPUATULI; GILBERT MEDINA; and GARY VICTOR DUBIN,
a Member of the Hawaii Bar, doing business as THE DUBIN LAW
OFFICES, for themselves and for all others similarly situated, the
Petitioners, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, in his official capacity
as United States Attorney General; CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR., in his
official capacity as Director of the United States Bureau of
Prisons; J. RAY ORMOND, in his official capacity as Warden of the
Honolulu Federal Detention Center; and FLORENCE T. NAKAKUNI, in her
official capacity as United States Attorney for the District of
Hawaii, the Respondents, Case No. _____ (U.S.), the Petitioners
filed an application to extend the time to file a petition for writ
of certiorari submitted to the Hon. Judge Anthony M. Kennedy.

The Petitioners said, "This application for a 60-day extension of
time if necessary in which to file a petition for writ of
certiorari is being timely filed by mail on May 21, 2018, pursuant
to Supreme Court Rule 22, Rule 30 and Rule 33.2. The Memorandum
decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, was filed in this
case on March 2, 2018, affirming an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of Hawaii, the original parties
having been substituted for by Order of the Circuit Court. A
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to this Court by Petitioners is
therefore due on or before May 31, 2018, ten days from today. This
application for an extension of time is therefore being timely
filed."

In Alan Mapuatuli v. Jefferson Sessions, federal inmates challenge
a Department Bureau of Prison's email policy.[BN]

Attorneys for Petitioners:

          Frederick J. Arensmeyer, Esq.
          DUBIN LAW OFFICES
          55 Merchant Street, Suite 3100
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 537-2300
          Facsimile: (808) 523-7733
          E-mail: gdubin@dubinlaw.net

Attorney for Respondents:

          Michael F. Albanese, Esq.
          ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
          Room 6-100, PJKK Federal Bldg.
          300 Ala Moana Boulevard
          Honolulu, HI 96850
          Telephone: (808) 541 2850
          Facsimile: (808) 541 3752
          E-mail: michael.albanese@usdoj.gov


UBER TECH: 1st Amended Irving Firemen's' Securities Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IRVING FIREMEN'S RELIEF & RETIREMENT FUND, Plaintiff,
v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-05558-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (i) granted the
Defendants' motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint with
leave to amend; and (ii) granted the Defendants' motions to stay
discovery pending the Dismissal Order.

Plaintiff Irving Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund filed the
putative class action on Sept. 26, 2017, asserting one violation of
Cal. Corp. Code Sections 25400(d) and 25500 against Uber and Travis
Kalanick, Uber's former CEO.  On Dec. 22, 2017, the Plaintiff filed
the FAC.  The FAC asserts the same statutory violation.

The Plaintiff defines the putative class to include all persons or
entities who, directly or indirectly, purchased or committed to
purchase (and subsequently closed a binding commitment to purchase)
an interest in Uber securities between June 6, 2014 and Nov. 27,
2017.

The gravamen of the FAC is that Uber and Kalanick disseminated
false and misleading statements and omissions for the purpose of
inducing the purchase of billions of dollars of Uber securities.
The FAC divides the Defendants' allegedly fraudulent statements
into six categories: (1) growth; (2) legal compliance; (3)
competitive spirit; (4) ethical culture; (5) self-driving car
technologies; and (6) data security.  The Plaintiff claims that the
price of Uber securities declined as Uber's various corporate
scandals came to light, and class members consequently lost
billions of dollars.

Currently pending before the Court are the Defendants' separately
filed motions to dismiss the FAC.  The Defendants contend that the
Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief under Rules 8(a) and
9(b).

On Feb. 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an omnibus opposition to the
Defendants' motions.  Each Defendant replied on March 9, 2018.
They also filed motions to stay and/or bifurcate discovery.  On
Feb. 2, 2018, the Plaintiff opposed the stay motions.  On Feb. 9,
2018, the Defendants each replied.

On April 19, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the motions.  Judge
Gilliam finds that (i) the Defendants' allegedly false or
misleading growth statements fail to conform with the presentation
requirements of Rules 8(a) and 9(b); (ii) the Defendants' omission
of the information did not violate the securities laws; (iii) the
Defendants never claimed that Uber would never again suffer a data
breach, nor does the Plaintiff suggest as much; and in the absence
of additional factual allegations showing that these statements
were either false or misleading, the Defendants' representations
that they were protecting users' privacy are not actionable; and
(iv) none of the challenged statements are specifically linked to
practices alleged to be unlawful (including for instance,
institutionalized gender discrimination and misappropriation of
other companies' technologies) in a way that plausibly suggests the
representations are false or misleading.

Notwithstanding the discussed deficiencies, the Judge cannot
definitively say at this stage that the Plaintiff could not state
its claims with sufficient specificity.  He therefore provided the
Plaintiff with an additional opportunity to amend its complaint.

Finally, the Judge does not need further factual development to
analyze the complaint's sufficiency.  He accordingly also deferred
deciding whether to bifurcate discovery until the litigation
advances beyond the pleading stage.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gilliam granted the Defendants'
motions with leave to amend, and granted their motions to stay
discovery pending the Order.  Any amended complaint must include a
statement-by-statement analysis of the allegedly actionable
statements, and must be filed within 28 days of the date of the
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/c7Yzq0 from Leagle.com.

Irving Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund, Plaintiff, represented
by Angel Puimei Lau , Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Brian Edward
Cochran -- bcochran@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller, et al., Jason A.
Forge -- jforge@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP,
Jeffrey James Stein -- jstein@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
and Dowd LLP, Luke O. Brooks -- lukeb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darryl James Alvarado --
dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Erika
Limpin Oliver -- eoliver@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd
LLP, Lucas F. Olts -- lolts@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & Darren Jay Robbins -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Uber Technologies, Defendant, represented by Alvin Matthew Ashley
-- mashley@irell.com -- Irell & Manella LLP, Andra Barmash Greene
-- agreene@irell.com -- Irell & Manella LLP, David Siegel --
dsiegel@irell.com --  Irell & Manella LLP, Michael David Harbour --
mharbour@irell.com -- Irell and Manella & Nathaniel H. Lipanovich
-- nlipanovich@irell.com -- Irell & Manella LLP.

Travis Kalanick, Defendant, represented by James Neil Kramer,
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Joseph G. Petrosinelli,
Williams and Connolly LLP, Kenneth Jerome Brown, Williams and
Connolly LLP & Walter F. Brown, Orrick Herrington & Suutcliffe
LLP.

New Riders LP & Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc.,
Miscellaneouss, represented by James Glenn Kreissman, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP & Stephen Patrick Blake, Simpson Thacher
Bartlett LLP.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Hunton Andrews Discuses Arbitration Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP disclosed that on September 5, 2018, the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held
that a class action arising from a 2016 Uber Technologies Inc.
("Uber") data breach must proceed to arbitration. The case was
initially filed after a 2016 data breach that affected
approximately 600,000 Uber drivers and 57 million Uber customers.
Upon registration with Uber, the drivers and customers entered into
a service agreement that contained an arbitration provision. Based
on this provision, the defendants moved to compel arbitration. They
argued that the provision's express language delegated the
threshold issue of whether the case should be arbitrated (also
called an issue of "substantive arbitrability") to an arbitrator,
not to the court. The plaintiffs countered, arguing that the
arbitration clause was both inapplicable to the 2016 data breach
and unconscionable, and that Uber customers did not receive
reasonable notice of the electronic terms agreement when they
registered.

The court rejected each of the plaintiffs' arguments. First, citing
Mohammed v. Uber Techs., Inc., 848 F.3d 1201, 1209 (9th Cir. 2016),
the court held that the agreement's language "clearly and
unmistakably" delegated to the arbitrator the threshold and
substantive issue of whether the 2016 breach was one that should be
arbitrated. Second, whether the arbitration provision was
unconscionable was similarly a question of substantive
arbitrability "expressly delegated to the arbitrator." Third, the
court noted that the plaintiffs offered no evidence of confusion or
lack of notice, and that many other courts had found similar
electronic notice to be reasonable.

The case has been stayed pending completion of the arbitration.
[GN]


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Competing Motions for Lead Plaintiff Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2018, that competing motions for lead plaintiff is still
pending.

On February 21, 2018, a purported class action, captioned Paul
Vanderheiden v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-01620
(the "Vanderheiden Action"), was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers. The
Vanderheiden Action complaint alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and/or misleading
statements, including purported overstatements of the Company's
online community user engagement metrics and accounts receivable.


On February 28, 2018 and March 13, 2018, substantially similar
purported class actions, captioned Xiya Qian v. Ubiquiti Networks,
Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-01841 (the "Qian Action") and John Kho v.
Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-02242 (the "Kho Action",
together with the Vanderheiden Action and the Qian Action, the
"Class Actions"), respectively, were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  

Plaintiff Xiya Qian has moved to be appointed lead plaintiff, and
Plaintiff John Kho has opposed Plaintiff Qian's motion and sought
to have himself appointed lead plaintiff. The issue is pending
before the court.

Within ten days of the court's order appointing lead plaintiff and
lead counsel, Plaintiffs are required either to inform defendants
that a consolidated class action complaint will be served within 60
days or notify defendants that one of the original complaints will
be the operative complaint, and defendants will have 60 days
thereafter in which to respond.

Ubiquiti Networks said, "While the Company believes that the Class
Actions are without merit and plans to vigorously defend itself
against these claims, there can be no assurance that the Company
will prevail in the lawsuits. The Company cannot currently estimate
the possible loss or range of losses, if any, that it may
experience in connection with these litigations."

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

Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. develops networking technology for service
providers, enterprises, and consumers. It focuses on three
principal technologies, including high-capacity distributed
Internet access, unified information technology, and consumer
electronics for home and personal use.


UNITED STATES: Williams Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Louise Williams filed a petition for writ of certiorari to
the U.S. Supreme Court from the decision of the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case captioned Valerie
Louise Williams, the Petitioner, v. United States of America, the
Respondent, Case No. 17-4686 (4th Cir.).[BN]

Counsel for Petitioner:

          Seth A. Neyhart
          6011 Farrington Road, Suite 300
          Chapel Hill, NC 27517
          Telephone: (202) 870 0026
          Facsimile: (919) 490 5551
          E-mail: setusn@hotmail.com


US SECURITY ASSOCIATES: Underpays Security Workers, Langston Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL LANGSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:18-cv-00868-SLP (W.D. Okla., Sept. 6, 2018) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Mr. Langston was employed by the Defendant as security workers.

U.S. Security Associates, Inc. is a corporation organized under the
laws of the State of Delaware. The Company provides security
services to clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UTAH: Summary Judgment in Suit Over Hospital Lien Statute Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Utah issued an Opinion affirming the District
Court's judgment granting the Hospital's Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case captioned ZACHARY BRYNER, NENITA R. EZAR,
MICHELLE GALLAGHER, and CHRISTOPHER FURR, Appellants, v. CARDON
OUTREACH, LLC, IHC HEALTH SERVICES, INC., ST. MARK'S HOSPITAL,
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH HEALTH CARE, and STATE OF UTAH, Appellees. No.
20160818. (Utah).

The question before the state Supreme Court is not a particularly
thorny one: what is the correct interpretation of Utah's Hospital
Lien Statute?

This proposed class action involves persons injured in car
accidents who filed personal injury claims against the third
parties at fault. All had hospital liens placed on any potential
recovery from those claims, and all reached settlement agreements,
paying their attorney fees by way of a contingent fee on the
recovery. The patients contend that the hospitals failed to pay
their fair share of the attorney fees including court costs and
other necessary expenses the patients incurred in generating the
settlement proceeds.

The plaintiffs argued that the Hospital Lien Statute requires a
hospital to pay its proportional share of an injured person's
attorney fees and costs when a hospital lien is paid due to the
efforts of the injured person or his or her attorney.

The defendants countered that the statute contains no such
language, and that the statute operates instead to establish a
priority system as to entitlement to settlement funds to allow
hospitals to get paid.

The district court concluded that the hospitals' interpretation was
correct, as it was the only reasonable interpretation that made
sense given the context of the statute read as a whole.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court affirms a grant of summary judgment when the record shows
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

The parties disagree about the effect of the Hospital Lien Statute
in allocating the attorney fees and costs of the personal injury
litigation. In particular, the parties disagree about the meaning
of subsections 1(a) and 1(b) of the statute. These subsections
state.

"(1) (a) Except as provided in Subsection (3), a hospital located
within the state that furnishes emergency, medical, or other
service to a patient injured by reason of an accident is entitled
to assert a lien upon that portion of the judgment, settlement, or
compromise going or belonging to the patient, or, in the case of
death, to the patient's heirs or personal representatives, less the
amount paid by the patient, or on behalf of the patient by heirs or
personal representatives, for attorney fees, court costs, and other
necessary expenses incidental to obtaining the judgment,
settlement, or compromise.

"(b) No reduction of the asserted lien amount is allowed other than
the amount paid by the patient, or the patient's heirs, or personal
representatives for attorney fees, court costs, and other necessary
expenses incidental to litigation, unless otherwise agreed to in
writing by the lien claimant."

The Whole-Text Canon and the Grammatical Structure of Subsection
(1)

The whole-text canon calls on the judicial interpreter to consider
the entire text, in view of its structure and of the physical and
logical relation of its many parts.

Read as a whole, Utah Code section 38-7-1(1) creates a priority for
the distribution of the judgment, settlement, or compromise going
or belonging to the patient. The judgment is first used to pay
attorney fees, court costs, and other necessary expenses accrued in
obtaining the judgment. Subsection 1(a) allows a hospital to assert
a lien on the remaining amount of the judgment to obtain payment
for medical expenses incurred in treating the patient as a result
of the action being litigated provided that the amount is greater
than $100.  

Subsection 1(b) establishes that the hospital has priority over any
other creditor or the patient to the entirety of the net judgment
(total judgment less attorney fees) up to its asserted lien unless
expressly agreed to by the hospital.

In other words, the total amount of the judgment going or belonging
to the patient is first used to pay or reimburse attorney fees,
with the net judgment becoming available to cover the entirety of
the hospital lien. Any remaining funds go to other lien holders, if
they exist, and then the patient receives the final amount.

The Substantive Terms Canon

Nothing in the language of the Hospital Lien Statute allows for
assessing the hospitals with a proportional share of the attorney
fees. The patients' reading of the statute to incorporate
proportional sharing does not comport with the language in the
statute; in fact, substantive terms must be added to read it as
assessing hospitals for a portion of the attorney fees. This goes
four square against our case law. The Court will not infer
substantive terms into the text that are not already there.

Rather the interpretation must be based on the language used, and
the Court have no power to rewrite the statute to conform to an
intention not expressed. In short, where the legislature has not
indicated an intention to enact an unprecedented legal requirement,
we will not alter the statutory terms to surmise one.

The Court rejects the patients' notion of proportional fee
sharing.

Common Fund Doctrine

The patients' argument that the doctrine would avoid unjust
enrichment because the hospitals otherwise would bear none of the
litigation costs is inapposite. The relationship between a hospital
and a patient is generally a contractual oneeither expressed
through signing the forms upon admission and consenting to
treatment or implied through receiving emergency treatment even
without signing the forms.  

The existence of a claim, or right to payment, is at the heart of
the debtor-creditor relationship. When hospitals have provided
medical services to patients in accordance with the law, they are
entitled to payment from the patients. This establishes a
debtor-creditor relationship between the patients and the
hospitals. The Hospital Lien Statute is just one mechanism that
hospitals may use to recover the debt owed for treatment-an amount
that would be owed regardless of whether a lawsuit against a
tortfeasor ensued. To expect a creditor to help pay attorney fees
for a lawsuit when they are entitled to collect on the debt owed
them-regardless of whether a suit is filed or the outcome-is
unrealistic and illogical.  

The Court affirms the district court in its grant of summary
judgment to the hospitals.

A full-text copy of the state Supreme Court's September 24, 2018
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9ysaos7 from
Leagle.com.

Robert B. Sykes, Alyson Carter McAllister, Daniel Oswald, for
appellants

Gregory John Wilder, Provo, for appellant Nenita R. Ezar

Sean D. Reyes, Att'y Gen., Peggy Stone, Asst. Sol. Gen., Salt Lake
City, for appellees University of Utah Health Care and State of
Utah.

Derek J. Williams , P. Matthew Cox , Nathaniel J. Mitchell , Salt
Lake City, for appellee Cardon Outreach, LLC

Alan C. Bradshaw , Steven C. Bednar , Salt Lake City, for appellee
IHC Health Services, Inc.
Andrew G. Deiss , Billie Jean Siddoway , Salt Lake City, Sean
Gallagher, Denver, CO, for appellee St. Mark's Hospital.


VAN RU CREDIT: Court Certifies Class in Deborah Al Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled DEBORAH AL, the Plaintiff, v.
VAN RU CREDIT CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-01738-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge J. P. Stadtmueller
entered an order on Sep. 25, 2018.

1. denying as moot Plaintiff's first motion for class
certification, to stay, and for relief from briefing requirement;

2. denying as moot Plaintiff's second motion for class
certification;

3. granting Plaintiff’s third motion for class certification;

4. certifying a class of:

"(a) all natural persons in the State of Wisconsin (b) who were
sent a collection letter in the form represented by Exhibit A to
the complaint in this action, (c) seeking to collect a debt
allegedly owed for personal, family or household purposes, (d)
between December 13, 2016 and December 13, 2017, (e) that was not
returned by the postal service";

5. appointing Plaintiff as class representative and appointing her
counsel as class counsel;

6. granting Plaintiff's motions to seal related to the class
certification briefing;

7. granting Plaintiff's motion seeking the Court's ruling on class
certification prior to a ruling on summary judgment; and

8. staying parties' motions for summary judgment and related
motions to seal.[CC]

VANGUARD GROUP: Partial Denial of Taksir Dismissal Bid Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEX TAKSIR; ORIT TAKSIR, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. THE VANGUARD GROUP, Appellant, Case No.
17-3585 (3d Cir.), Judge Michael Chagares of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's partial
denial of Vanguard's motion to dismiss the claims against it and
the denial of its motion for reconsideration.

Vanguard is an investment services company that offers retail
securities brokerage accounts to consumers.  At all relevant times,
its website stated that Vanguard offered a price of $2 commissions
for stock trades for customers who maintained a balance in Vanguard
accounts between $500,000 and $1 million.  

In May 2016, the Taksirs, whose holdings met the required balance
threshold, availed themselves of Vanguard's services to make two
purchases of Nokia Corp. stock.  Vanguard charged the Taksirs a $7
commission for each of their respective purchases.  Alex Taksir
then contacted Vanguard in order to receive an explanation and
refund.  Vanguard responded by email, noting in relevant part that
the Taksirs' accounts are not eligible for discounts for trading
stocks and other brokerage securities because of IRS
nondiscrimination rules and that unfortunately, the information is
not listed on the Vanguard Brokerage Commission and Fee Schedule.

Following additional correspondence from Alex Taksir, Vanguard
reiterated its position that the accounts were not eligible for the
$2 per-trade commission.  Nevertheless, six weeks later, Orit
Taksir acquired additional Nokia Corp. stock in the same Vanguard
account and was charged only a $2 commission.

The Taksirs came to believe that Vanguard was overcharging sales
commissions to clients meeting certain balance thresholds.  They
filed the instant lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, bringing a putative class action
for: (1) "fraud or deception" under Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"); and (2) breach of
contract under Pennsylvania state law.

Thereafter, Vanguard moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on two grounds: (1) that
the SLUSA bars both claims; and (2) that the UTPCPL claim fails for
an additional reason, which is not relevant to the appeal.  The
District Court concluded that SLUSA did not bar the claims, but
dismissed the UTPCPL claim on other grounds.  The District Court
denied Vanguard's motion to dismiss with respect to the breach of
contract claim.

Vanguard moved for reconsideration and alternatively sought leave
to file an interlocutory appeal.  The District Court denied the
motion for reconsideration but certified its opinion and order for
the Appellate Court's immediate review.  The Court granted the
petition for leave to appeal.

Vanguard argues that the District Court erred by concluding that
SLUSA does not bar the Taksirs' claim for breach of contract.

Judge Chagares concludes that he relies on the Supreme Court's
decisions in both Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice and Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit, and he holds that the
two overcharges of commissions do not have a connection that
matters to the securities transactions at issue.  The Judge notes
that the facts of the case are in plain contrast to: (1) the breach
of duties in executing trades of covered securities that triggered
the SLUSA bar in Goldberg v. Bank of Am., Lewis v. Scottrade, Inc.,
and Fleming v. Charles Schwab Corp.; and (2) the fraudulent
manipulation of stock prices in Dabit.  The overcharges are
different in nature from these examples of fraud, and they were not
objectively material to the decision to purchase securities from
Vanguard.  Because the SLUSA bar does not apply, the Taksirs'
breach of contract claim may proceed.

For these reasons, Judge Chagares affirmed the Orders of the
District Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/P4g2cj from Leagle.com.

Stuart T. Steinberg, Esq. [ARGUED] -- stuart.steinberg@dechert.com
-- Selby P. Brown, Esq. -- selby.brown@dechert.com -- Ellen L.
Mossman -- ellen.mossman@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP, Cira Centre,
2929 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, Counsel for Appellant.

Christopher L. Nelson, Esq. [ARGUED] -- cln@weiserlawfirm.com --
James M. Ficaro, Esq. -- mf@weiserlawfirm.com -- The Weiser Law
Firm, P.C., 22 Cassatt Avenue, First Floor, Berwyn, PA 19312.
Samuel L. Rosenberg -- samuelinjurylawyer@gmail.com -- 15 Astor
Place, Monsey, New York 10952, Counsel for Appellees.


VEROS CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Engebretson Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE ENGEBRETSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VEROS CREDIT, LLC; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-02082-SHK (C.D.
Cal., Sept. 28, 2018) is an action against the Defendant in
negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on
the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Veros Credit, LLC was founded in 2010. The company's line of
business includes extending credit to business enterprises for
relatively short periods. [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


VIRGINIA: Class Action Over License Suspensions Back to Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Wm. Moyer, writing for The Washington Post, reports that a
long-simmering federal class-action lawsuit that claims Virginia
unjustly suspends the driver's licenses of those unable to pay
fines returned to court when advocates for the poor sought to
immediately stop the practice.

In 2016, the Legal Aid Justice Center, which represents low-income
Virginians, filed suit in U.S. District Court in Western Virginia,
saying that more than 940,000 people in the state had their
licenses suspended for nonpayment of fees and fines. The practice
of suspending licenses for traffic debt was widely criticized after
the Justice Department found law enforcement acting as collection
agents in Ferguson, Mo., in 2015.

After appealing the case's dismissal, the Legal Aid Justice Center
filed an amended claim on Sept. 11 that said "the state traps
thousands of Virginians in a nightmarish spiral from which there is
no apparent exit" by automatically suspending the licenses of those
who can't pay fines. The suspensions disproportionately affect
people of color, as the state imposes more than $500 million in
fines per year without considering the ability to pay, the suit
alleges.

"The indefinite suspension of the driver's licenses of low-income
Virginians erects significant barriers to their ability to pursue a
livelihood and meet basic human needs," the suit said.

The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles declined to comment on
the suit.

The lawsuit, Stinnie v. Holcomb, details the story of Damian
Stinnie, a 26-year-old Charlottesville man who first lost his
license in 2012 after he did not pay fines for three traffic
infractions. He continued to drive while battling lymphoma, the
suit said, receiving additional citations for driving with a
suspended license and even serving jail time.

The suit seeks an immediate halt to license suspensions for court
debt and a declaration that the practice is a civil rights
violation.

In a statement, Angela Ciolfi, the Legal Aid Society's director of
litigation and advocacy, said driver's license suspension "sets up
two justice systems in Virginia."

"Those who can immediately pay court fines or fees are able to
quickly untether themselves from their infractions, while those who
do not have the resources to pay continue to be punished well
beyond their original infraction -- they are punished for their
poverty, and set up for even harsher consequences as their debts
compound, their jobs are lost, and their families struggle to make
ends meet," the statement said.

A Washington Post analysis in May found that more than 7 million
people nationwide may have lost their licenses because of unpaid
court debts. [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Judge Hears Investors' Emissions Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Posky, writing for the truth about cars, reports that a judge
hearing a case brought by investors against Volkswagen has deemed
its former corporate head, Martin Winterkorn, was too slow in
addressing the emissions test cheating that steered the automotive
giant into colossal U.S. fines. It's an early blow against the
German company in a suit seeking $10.6 billion in damages for stock
losses suffered when the scandal finally became public.

"Anyone acting in good faith would have followed up on this
information," Judge Christian Jaede of the ex-CEO during the second
day of hearings held at the Braunschweig higher regional court.
"This appears not to have happened."

According to Reuters, Judge Jaede accused Mr. Winterkorn of
"dragging his feet" after a top-level management meeting discussed
how to best deal with U.S. regulators who were threatening to ban
VW because of excessive pollution levels. That gathering occurred
roughly two months before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
issued a notice of violation in September of 2015 and the scandal
became public.

The judge continued by saying it was unclear why Volkswagen
neglected to put out a statement after finding that engine software
on numerous diesel models had been manipulated to circumvent
emission testing, adding that it was reasonable to assume Mr.
Winterkorn knew about the emissions cheating far earlier than
claimed.

Thomas Liebscher, a lawyer for VW, said it would be unfair to
assume the chief executive knew how the company's engine management
software worked. Volkswagen's official defense is that no
high-ranking official had any knowledge of the defeat devices prior
to the company's first official announcement. However, years of
investigative efforts have placed those claims on some rather shaky
ground.

Mr. Winterkorn resigned shortly after the scandal broke. Last year,
he told German lawmakers he learned of VW's illegal activities at
roughly the same time the organization publicly admitted to them.
He currently faces conspiracy charges in the United States but is
in no danger of being extradited from Germany to stand trial
there.

Meanwhile, a consumer rights group said it will file a class-action
lawsuit against Volkswagen on Sept. 12 over the manipulation of
emissions software. It's seeking compensation for up to 2 million
owners of the affected diesel models. [GN]


VOX MEDIA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Bradley FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHERYL C. BRADLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VOX MEDIA,
INC. d/b/a SB NATION, Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-1791 (RMC) (D.
D.C.), Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia denied Vox's Motion to Dismiss, and Motion to
Take Judicial Notice.

Vox is a media corporation that maintains and operates
approximately 319 sports websites through its business division, SB
Nation.  Each website is maintained by a Site Manager, who is in
turn supervised by a League Manager.  Vox manages its Site Managers
through Blogger Agreements and direct supervision by League
Managers. Each Blogger Agreement outlines when and how often Site
Managers must create new content, specifies that Vox maintains the
authority to edit or remove such content, and includes a
non-compete clause.  When a position becomes available, Vox posts a
short description to its website that includes a list of
requirements and responsibilities, as well as details on how to
apply.  It advertises for all its paid positions in the same
manner.

Bradley was a Site Manager for Vox's website, Mile High Hockey,
from June 2013 until February 2015.  Her relationship with Vox was
governed by a Blogger Agreement that she signed on June 1, 2013.
Ms. Bradley was interviewed, and later managed, by League Manager
Travis Hughes.  She was required to watch games featuring the
Colorado Avalanche, a professional ice hockey team, and then to
publish five to six articles per week, manage other writers, edit
and approve articles by those writers, monitor search engine
optimization, manage Mile High Hockey's comments section and social
media accounts, and live-Tweet games and practices.

Ms. Bradley was paid $125 per month.  She regularly worked 30 to 40
hours per week, and up to 50 hours per week during peak times or
when she was understaffed.  In late 2013, Ms. Bradley complained to
her League Manager that her wages were inadequate and was told that
wages were dependent on team site traffic.  Even though she
increased Mile High Hockey's site traffic, her pay never increased.
Ms. Bradley was fired in February 2015.

Plaintiff John Wakefield was a Site Manager for Vox's website,
Through it All Together, from December 2015 until May 2017.  Mr.
Wakefield applied for the position on Dec. 10, 2015 and was hired
by Soccer League Manager Jeremiah Oshan.  His relationship with Vox
was governed by a Blogger Agreement that he signed on Jan. 1, 2016.
He was required to watch or listen to games featuring the Leeds
United Football Club, an English professional soccer team, and
publish one to three articles per week, manage other writers, edit
and approve articles, monitor search engine optimization, and
manage Through It All Together's comments section and Twitter
account.  Mr. Wakefield was initially paid $50 per month; his pay
was later increased to $75 per month.  He regularly worked 30 to 40
hours per week, and up to 60 hours per week during peak times.

Plaintiff Maija Varda is currently the Site Manager for Vox's
website, Twinkie Town.  She applied for the position of Site
Manager in April 2016 after seeing a job posting and was
interviewed and hired by Major League Baseball League Manager
Justin Bopp.  Her relationship with Vox is governed by a Blogger
agreement that she signed on May 1, 2016.  She is required to write
daily interest articles about the Minnesota Twins, a professional
baseball team, report breaking news, recruit and manage staff
writers, and manage Twinkie Town's social media accounts.  She is
paid $400 per month.  She regularly works 30 to 40 hours per week,
and up to 50 hours per week during peak times or when she is
understaffed.

On Sept. 1, 2017, Ms. Bradley filed a Collective Action Complaint
against Vox, alleging a violation of the minimum wage and overtime
requirements of the FLSA.  An Amended Complaint adding Mr.
Wakefield and Ms. Varda as the named Plaintiffs was filed Oct. 23,
2017.

Vox moved for partial dismissal of any claims outside the standard
two-year statute of limitations on Nov. 6, 2017 and at the same
time moved for the Court to take judicial notice of four exhibits
attached to the partial motion to dismiss.

How much employer control is required for an independent contractor
to be considered an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 ("FLSA") is the question raised by a purported class of
employees who provide blogging and supervision services to Vox on
its various sports blogs.  Vox moves for partial dismissal to limit
the Plaintiffs' claims to the two-year, rather than three-year,
statute of limitations provided by the FLSA.  It argues that the
Plaintiffs have failed to allege adequately its violation was
willful, as required to fall under the three-year statute of
limitations.

Judge Collyer finds that in considering the motion to dismiss, she
is concerned with whether these Plaintiffs have successfully stated
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.  It is premature
to consider whether Plaintiffs subjectively believed they were
employees of Vox.  She also realizes that LinkedIn profiles
generally consist of self-reported employment information.
However, at this point in the litigation, she cannot find that the
accuracy of the information contained in these screen shots can be
verifiable with certainty.  The Judge declines to take judicial
notice of Exhibits 2-5.

The Judge also finds that the allegations of willfulness in the
case are not as concrete or specific as those in Galloway v.
Chugach Gov't Servs., Inc. or Wilson v. Hunam Inn, Inc.; however,
they are sufficient to raise a plausible right to relief under the
three-year statute of limitations.  In evaluating a motion to
dismiss, the Judge must accept all well-pleaded facts in the
Amended Complaint as true.  After discovery, Vox may move for
summary judgment on the issue of willfulness if the record supports
it.  For now, the Plaintiffs may attempt to discover evidence to
support their allegations.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Collyer denied Vox Media's Motion
to Dismiss, and Motion to Take Judicial Notice.  A memorializing
Order accompanies the Memorandum Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/NVqDg8 from Leagle.com.

CHERYL C. BRADLEY, Individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by James E. Goodley --
jgoodley@jslex.com -- JENNINGS SIGMOND, P.C., Judith A. Sznyter --
jsznyter@jslex.com -- JENNINGS SIGMOND, P.C., Marc L. Gelman --
mgelman@jslex.com -- JENNINGS SIGMOND, P.C., pro hac vice & Stephen
J. Holroyd -- sholroyd@jslex.com -- JENNINGS SIGMOND, P.C., pro hac
vice.

JOHN M. WAKEFIELD & MAIJA LIISA VARDA, Plaintiffs, represented by
James E. Goodley, JENNINGS SIGMOND, P.C.

VOX MEDIA, INC.., doing business as SB NATION, Defendant,
represented by Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. --
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP & Jason
Craig Schwartz -- jschwartz@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN &
CRUTCHER, LLP.


VOYA RETIREMENT: Dezelan Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darlene Dezelan, individually, on behalf of the Cedars Sinai
Medical Center 403(b) Retirement Plan, and on behalf of all
similarly situated Plans, the Plaintiff – Appellant, v. Voya
Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, the Defendant –
Appellee, Case No. 18-2732 (2nd Cir., Sep. 13, 2018), is an appeal
filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
from a lower Court decision in Case No. 16-cv-1251 (D. Conn., July
26, 2016).

In an August 17, 2018 decision, the District Court granted Voya's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint, with
prejudice.

Plaintiff sued Voya concerning retirement funds managed by Voya on
her behalf.  She brought three claims under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, on behalf of the Cedar-Sinai Medical Center
403(b) Retirement Plan, in which she was a participant, as well as
all other ERISA-covered employee pension benefits plans whose
assets were invested in similar funds managed by Voya.

The District Court previously dismissed Ms. Dezelan's Complaint
without prejudice. Following the dismissal, she filed an Amended
Complaint, which Voya moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff – Appellant:

          Robert A. Izard, Jr., Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
          29 South Main Street
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493 6295

Attorneys for Defendant – Appellee:

          Melissa D. Hill, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178


WALGREENS CO: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Saylo Pilo, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reports
that Walgreen Company faces a class action lawsuit from a customer
who alleges the pharmacy chain misrepresented the amount of peanuts
in its bags of mixed nuts.

Jessica Munton filed a complaint on Aug. 28 in St. Clair County
Circuit Court against Walgreen Company, alleging violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

According to the complaint, Walgreen Company sells bags of mixed
nuts that prominently state only 50 percent of the nuts included
are peanuts. However, Ms. Munton claims the bags contain far more
peanuts -- about 64 percent by her own count.

Ms. Munton bought the nuts at a Belleville store in January, the
suit claims.

"On the label of the Nuts, Defendant prominently represents that
the Nuts contain 50% peanuts," the suit says.

"The Nuts, however, contain far more than 50% peanuts."

Ms. Munton says peanuts are the most inexpensive nut in the bags,
and had she known the bag contained more than 50 percent peanuts,
she would not have purchased the mixed nuts. She claims customers
have been overcharged for the $2.99 bags.

"Although not technically a nut, peanuts are far and away the
cheapest nut in the Defendant's Nuts," the complaint states.

Ms. Munton compares the per pound wholesale cost of raw peanuts
($2.46) to other, real, nuts, such as almonds ($5.84), brazil
($8.75), cashews ($9.70), hazelnuts ($11.70) and pecans ($13.20).

"By putting more than 50% peanuts in the Nuts, therefore, Defendant
is able to save substantial amounts of money on the backs of
customers," she claims.

Ms. Munton seeks class action status for the lawsuit. She requests
a jury trial and damages. She is represented by David C. Nelson of
Nelson & Nelson, Attorneys at Law PC in Belleville and Matthew H.
Armstrong of Armstrong Law Firm LLC in St. Louis. The lawyers have
filed numerous other false advertising class actions that are
pending in St. Clair County Circuit Court.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 18-L-570 [GN]


WESTERN DIGITAL: Consolidated Securities Action Underway in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 29, 2018, that the company still faces a consolidated
class action suit in California.

Beginning in March 2015, SanDisk and two of its officers, Sanjay
Mehrotra and Judy Bruner, were named in three putative class action
lawsuits filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Two complaints are brought on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of SanDisk's securities between October 2014 and March
2015, and one is brought on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of SanDisk's securities between April 2014 and April
2015.

The complaints generally allege violations of federal securities
laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the
defendants during the alleged class periods. The complaints seek,
among other things, damages and fees and costs.

In July 2015, the District Court consolidated the cases and
appointed Union Asset Management Holding AG and KBC Asset
Management NV as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in August 2015. In January 2016, the District
Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the
amended complaint with leave to amend. In February 2016, the
District Court issued an order appointing as new lead plaintiffs
Bristol Pension Fund; City of Milford, Connecticut Pension &
Retirement Board; Pavers and Road Builders Pension, Annuity and
Welfare Funds; the Newport News Employees' Retirement Fund; and
Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund (collectively, the
"Institutional Investor Group").

In March 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed an amended
complaint. In June 2016, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to
amend. In July 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed a
further amended complaint. In June 2017, the District Court denied
the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Western Digital said, "The Company intends to defend itself
vigorously in this matter."

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

Western Digital Corporation ("Western Digital") is a leading
developer, manufacturer, and provider of data storage devices and
solutions that address the evolving needs of the information
technology ("IT") industry and the infrastructure that enables the
proliferation of data in virtually every other industry. Western
Digital Corporation was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in San
Jose, California.


WESTERN UNION: Court Approves Douglas TCPA Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JASON DOUGLAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE WESTERN UNION COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 14 C 1741 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Gary Feinerman of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, (i) granted Douglas' motion to approve the class
settlement and certify the settlement class; and (ii) granted in
part and denied in part his motion for attorney fees, costs, and an
incentive award.

Douglas filed the suit as a putative class action against Western
Union for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") by sending unsolicited text messages to him and the
putative class.  Western Union answered two months later.  One
month after that, and before litigation efforts commenced in
earnest, the parties reported that they would engage in a private
mediation; a year later, they reported that they had reached a
classwide settlement in principle.  Confirmatory discovery
followed, as did hearings at which the parties reported that they
would soon file a preliminary approval motion.  Douglas moved for
preliminary approval of the class settlement and conditional
certification of the settlement class, which the Court granted.

The proposed class is defined as all Persons in the United States
who received one or more unsolicited text messages sent by or on
behalf of Western Union between March 12, 2010 and Nov. 10, 2015.

The Settlement Agreement provides for a non-reversionary payment by
Western Union of $8.5 million, to be distributed as follows: (1)
$5,209,007.64 to the settlement class; (2) $5,000 to Douglas as an
incentive award; (3) $2,804,850.27 in attorney fees; and (4)
$481,142.09 in notice and administration costs (with a cap of
$553,197, with the difference coming from the amount devoted to the
settlement class).  Because 54,315 individuals (approximately 7.3%
of the class) submitted timely claims; each would receive $95.90 if
the referenced figures held.

Now before the Court are Douglas' (i) motion to certify the
settlement class and for approval of the class settlement, and (ii)
motion for attorney fees, costs, and incentive award.

Judge Feinerman explains that certain matters transpired during the
approval process that gave the court great pause, not about the
appropriateness of the class certification or the size of the class
settlement, but rather about the conduct and representations of the
lead class counsel, Joseph Siprut of Siprut PC.  Considering the
importance of these matters, the Judge wished to give the most
careful consideration to the record and to Siprut's explanations
for his conduct; in addition, the Judge awaited the opinion in In
re Southwest Airlines Voucher Litigation, which from the appeal's
outset conceivably could, and ultimately did, address certain
questionable conduct by Siprut as the lead class counsel in that
case, including what the Seventh Circuit described as his rapacious
requests for fees.

Judge Feinerman holds that given the good result Siprut obtained
for the class and the fact that he is responsible for covering
additional administrative expenses, he will award Siprut $425,000
in attorney fees and costs, which is 5% of the settlement fund.
This reduction reflects in part that Siprut failed to keep
contemporaneous time records and, compounding the problem, failed
to provide any support (other than his own say-so) for his
reconstructed time calculations.  The difference between Siprut's
requested fees and costs, and the fees and costs awarded, will
revert to the class.

Judge Feinerman granted the motions for approval of the settlement,
class certification, and incentive awards, while the motion for
attorney fees is granted in part and denied in part.  The Judge
modified the settlement such that the distribution of the $8.5
million common fund is as follows: (1) the class member claims in
the amount of $7,516,803; (2) the settlement administration
expenses of $553,197 (the cap is likely to be reached given the
supplemental notice), with the class counsel covering any costs
incurred above that amount; (3) an incentive award to Douglas of
$5,000; and (4) the attorney fees and costs to the class counsel of
$425,000.

The settlement administrator will re-send notice as described.
After the new claims period expires, the administrator will file a
status report indicating the number of notices that bounced back,
the number of additional valid claims, and the re-calculated
recovery per claimant.  Then, 90 days after the settlement checks
are distributed, the parties will file a status report indicating
the amount of unredeemed funds and proposing whether those funds
should be distributed through a second pro rata distribution or a
cy pres award.  In deciding whether to seek fees or take other
action, the counsel for the objector who is not a class member
should seriously consider whether it is proper for a non-class
member's attorney to further burden the parties and the judiciary
with additional filings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 31, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/QOJjte from Leagle.com.

Jason Douglas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph J. Siprut, Siprut PC &
Todd Lawrence McLawhorn -- tmclawhorn@siprut.com -- Siprut PC.

Bethany Carol Price, Plaintiff, represented by Lloyd C. Chatfield,
II -- LCC@lloydchatfieldlaw.com -- Law Offices Of Lloyd C.
Chatfield II & Wallace Allen McDonald, Lacy, Price & Wagner.

The Western Union Company, a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Mark Steven Mester -- mark.mester@lw.com -- Latham &
Watkins LLP, Andrew D. Prins -- andrew.prins@lw.com -- Latham &
Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & Kathleen Patricia Lally --
kathleen.lally@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP.


WESTPAC: May Face Class Action Over Irresponsible Home Loans
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Long, writing for ABC News, reports that Westpac could be
sued by its customers, funders and investors after admitting it
breached responsible lending laws and a separate finding that it
lacked appropriate lending controls.

The bank recently reached a $35 million settlement with the
corporate watchdog ASIC after admitting an "automated
decision-making system" for home loans breached responsible lending
laws, issuing more than 10,000 mortgages that should not have been
approved.

"These admissions expose Westpac to civil action by individuals who
were provided with too much credit -- and inappropriately so --
during their application for a loan," Josh Mennen, a principal at
the plaintiff law firm Maurice Blackburn, told the ABC.

"In circumstances where people find themselves in default on their
mortgages they will be able to bring an action against Westpac,
potentially, for breaches of responsible lending laws.

"It is early days in relation to any class action, but I don't
think anyone who has been following this could seriously rule out
the possibility of a class action being brought."

International investors in the wholesale money markets who funded
Westpac mortgages or invested in residential mortgage-backed
securities underpinned by its loans could also have a case to sue
in the future if default rates rise.

"There is an argument that the international wholesale lending
community who gave these banks a lot more money than they probably
would have had they known that the banks did not have these
controls in place would have grounds for legal action," Lindsay
David of LF Economics said.

Last year, in response to allegations of mortgage fraud and
manipulation by major Australian banks, the Australian Prudential
Regulation Authority (APRA) commissioned a series of confidential
"targeted reviews" of major banks.

The reviews probed the data and systems Westpac uses to assess
applicants' ability to service housing loans.

The findings on Westpac were damning.

Eight out of 10 of its core lending controls were found to be
"ineffective in their operation". Most were also poorly designed.

The consequence was Westpac lacked effective measures to accurately
assess the existing debts and expenses of home loan customers or
properly assess their ability to service loans.

"There were limited controls in place to ensure that borrower
declared living expenses were complete and accurate," audit firm
PWC, which conducted the review for APRA, concluded.

With interest rates at historic lows, arrears and default rates on
Westpac's mortgage book are low despite the adverse findings;
Westpac maintains the loans which were the subject of its $35
million settlement with ASIC are performing well.

The question is whether this will continue when interest rates
rise, and borrowers face the potential "double whammy" of rising
rates and falling property values.

APRA findings 'never meant to see the light of day'
The findings of the targeted review and the admissions of
irresponsible lending expose Westpac to "very large litigation
actions against them down the line should investors find themselves
running at a loss or running at some sort of deficit due the fact
that they invested into some sort of financial product that --
let's call it what it is -- [involved] fraud,"
Mr David said.

APRA kept the targeted reviews secret -- the findings only became
public when the documents surfaced earlier this year at the banking
royal commission.

"These findings were never meant to see the light of day,"
Mr David said.

The banking regulator did not provide the results of the targeted
reviews to the Treasurer, the Minister for Financial Services or
the Finance Minister, the prudential regulator told Mr David in
response to a request for documents under Freedom of Information
laws.

The ABC contacted APRA and asked why it had not formally
communicated the results of the targeted reviews to relevant
ministers, and why it had allegedly failed to inform the banking
royal commission of the existence of the targeted reviews until
after the commission was "tipped off" to their existence.

APRA, in response, did not answer the questions, but it told the
ABC:

"APRA can and does instigate targeted reviews across all industries
it regulates as part of the normal supervision process.

"APRA does not comment on its supervision of specific entities.
However, as has been noted in public statements regarding the
outcomes of the program of targeted reviews on mortgage lending, a
range of issues was identified across all institutions reviewed.
Institutions were required to provide APRA with rectification plans
to deal with the issues identified."

Westpac declined a request for an interview.

A spokesman said it was not able to comment because its settlement
with ASIC was yet to be ratified by the Federal Court. [GN]


WH ADMINISTRATORS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge S. Thomas Anderson of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, Eastern Division, denied the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the case, KERRY YOUNG, on behalf of himself and
all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. WH ADMINISTRATORS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02829-STA-egb (W.D. Tenn.).

Tennessee Tractor is a west Tennessee-based John Deere dealer
engaged in the sale and service of John Deere tractors, mowers, and
their respective parts.  It also established the Tennessee Tractor
LLC Health and Welfare Benefit Plan for the benefit of its
employees and their eligible dependents.

Young is and, at all times relevant to the lawsuit, was a full-time
employee of Tennessee Tractor.  The Defendant is and, at all times
relevant to the lawsuit, was a third-party provider of ERISA plan
administration and claims services.

In February 2016, the Defendant, through its own actions in
Tennessee and those of its agent and broker, marketed a self-funded
group health plan in Tennessee to Tennessee Tractor for the benefit
of its employees.  This health plan would be and indeed was an
employee welfare benefit plan as defined under ERISA.  

On April 18, 2016, Tennessee Tractor entered into a Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act Compliance Service Agreement
with Defendant WH Administrators to administer the Plan.  Under the
Agreement, the Defendant was to, among other things, ensure
Tennessee Tractor's compliance with the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act and administer the Plan.  The Plan was to
commence on June 1, 2016.  Tennessee Tractor was named as Plan
Sponsor.  The Defendant was the duly appointed Plan Administrator
and named fiduciary.
Tennessee Tractor's employees, including Young, were participants
in the Plan and therefore eligible to receive benefits under it.
Over the course of the parties' contractual relationship, Tennessee
Tractor performed all of its duties and obligations under the
Agreement.  But in December 2016, the Defendant abruptly, and
without explanation, ceased processing or paying the claims of
Tennessee Tractor's employees, including those of Young.

On Nov. 10, 2017, Plaintiffs Tennessee Tractor and Young, on behalf
of himself and all similarly situated persons, filed a class-action
Complaint under ERISA against Defendant WH Administrators.  On Nov.
27, 2017, they filed a still-pending Motion for Preliminary
Injunction.  On Dec. 4, 2017, the Defendant filed a Motion to
Compel Arbitration.  Then on Dec. 11, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an
Amended Complaint, resulting in the Defendants' re-filed Motion to
Compel Arbitration.   After the parties filed a Response, a Reply,
and a Sur-Reply, the Court granted the Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration in Part and compelled Tennessee Tractor to take its
claims against Defendant to arbitration.  The Defendant sought
reconsideration of its Motion as to Young and the other class
Plaintiffs, which the Court denied in its April 13, 2018 Order.

Since that time, the Court has rejected the Defendant's efforts to
quash various subpoenas because the Defendant lacked standing to
move the Court to do so, and the parties agreed to a Consent Order
that resolved the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure
to Join a Necessary and Indispensable Party.  It seeks the
dismissal of the class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(7) because Young failed to join his co-plaintiff and employer
Tennessee Tractor and insurance broker Jas. D. Collier & Co.  The
Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to the Defendant's Motion,
asserting that neither Tennessee Tractor nor Collier is necessary
and indispensable to the case.

Judge Anderson finds that the Defendant has failed to meet its
burden of showing that an absent party is necessary and
indispensable to the litigation.  Accordingly, dismissal is not
warranted under Rule 12(b)(7).

He explains that the Defendant asserts that Tennessee Tractor is
the Plan Administrator and, therefore, Tennessee Tractor's presence
is required because it is the entity in control of the funds and in
the best position to provide the Plaintiff with relief.  But, as
the Plaintiff noted in his Response and as the Court noted in its
Order on the Motion to Compel, there are, at the very least,
reasons to doubt the Defendant's assertion here.  Ultimately,
however, the Judge needs only, and indeed must, accept the
Plaintiff's allegations as true for the purposes of the Motion.
And the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is the Plan
Administrator.  Therefore, the Judge lacks a basis to conclude that
Tennessee Tractor is a necessary party.

The Defendant's additional argument that Collier is a necessary
party because the Plaintiff relies on representations made by
Collier in setting forth his claims must also fail.  He finds that
the Amended Complaint only mentions Collier to the effect that
Collier assisted the Defendant in marketing its health plans in
Tennessee to Tennessee Tractor.  But the Plaintiff's claims against
the Defendant involve the Defendant's statutory duties under ERISA
and are not based in Collier's representations.  Thus, complete
relief can be sought from Defendant as Plan Administrator.  Once
again, he lacks a basis to conclude that Collier is a necessary
party because the nature of the Plaintiff's allegations suggests
that relief, if he is entitled to it, should come completely from
the Defendant.

As the Defendant does not assert that either Tennessee Tractor or
Collier claims an interest relating to the subject of the action,
the Judge further concludes that there is no basis to find that
either party is necessary under the second prong of Rule 19(a).
Thus, there is no need to proceed to Rule 19(b).  The Court holds
that Rule 12(b)(7) and Rule 19 do not require dismissal of the
Amended Complaint.  He denied the instant Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 22, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/FA2TXq from Leagle.com.

Tennessee Tractor, LLC, on behalf of itself and the Tennessee
Tractor, LLC Health and Welfare Benefit Plan & Kerry Young, on
behalf of himself and all similarly situates persons, Plaintiffs,
represented by John I. Houseal, Jr. -- jhouseal@glankler.com --
GLANKLER BROWN, PLLC & Don Lester Hearn, Jr. -- dhearn@glankler.com
-- GLANKLER BROWN, PLLC.

WH Administrators, Inc., Defendant, represented by James Allison
Holifield, Jr., HOLIFIELD JANICH & ASSOCIATES, PLLC & Ronald Scott
Kravitz -- rkravitz@sfmslaw.com -- SHEPARD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH,
LLP.


YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Is Proper Defendant, Court Says
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled JOHN WEST II, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and
unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. YUM! BRANDS, INC., a Kentucky
for-profit business, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-12750-GCS-RSW
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge George Caram Steeh entered an order on
September 25, 2018:

1. dismissing YUM! Brands, Inc. as a party from this action and
substituting Taco Bell of America in its place;

2. directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint properly
identifying Taco Bell of America, LLC as the Defendant in this
action;

3. giving Taco Bell of America 21 days after the date Plaintiff
files its Amended Complaint to file its Answer or other responsive
pleading; and

4. denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification filed September 8, 2018, as moot.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

          Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
          Elaina S. Bailey, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
          23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
          Brownstown, MI 48134
          Telephone: (734) 692 9200
          Facsimile: (734) 692 9201
          E-mail: bryan@yaldoulaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Allan S. Rubin, Esq.
          Daniel C. Waslawski, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          2000 Town Center, Suite 1650
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone (248) 936 1900
          E-mail: rubina@jacksonlewis.com
                  daniel.waslawski@jacksonlewis.com


[*] Gerry Brownlee Denies Class Action Lawyer's Bullying Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Williscroft, writing for Stuff, reports that national MP
Gerry Brownlee has rejected claims he bullied or intimidated a
junior solicitor at an Auckland law firm behind a class action
lawsuit against steel mesh providers.

Any suggestion that he had deliberately set out to derail the class
action was ridiculous, he said.

Brownlee was responding to accusations that followed a phone call
he made to Adina Thorn Lawyers after he received a letter from the
law firm, sent to his Ilam address in Christchurch as a property
owner, asking him to support the class action.

The proposed lawsuit is a result of manufacturers of the mesh, used
mainly under concrete floors and driveways between 2012 and 2016,
being fined after pleading guilty to misrepresenting their
product.

Those guilty pleas were a good result for the Commerce Commission,
the letter said, but did not provide any compensation for affected
property owners, which was the purpose of the class action.

The firm's principal, Adina Thorn, said she was disappointed that
Brownlee had targeted one of her staff and appalled that a senior
member of Parliament would attempt to intimidate anyone planning a
legal action.

"The junior solicitor was incredibly upset after the call she
received from Mr Brownlee. She felt intimidated and harassed."

Ms Thorn said Mr Brownlee's behaviour was unprofessional and that
he did not identify himself until the very end of the call.

"The motivation for the call seems unclear," she said. "However we
do wonder if Mr Brownlee was attempting to intimidate us in order
to try and derail a proposed class action related to the
non-compliant steel mesh. We can see no other reason for the angry
and intimidating call. We should all be concerned about this kind
of behaviour; it's unacceptable for an MP to interfere in this
way,"

Mr. Brownlee said it was only at the end of the call he realised
that he was not speaking to Thorn but should have made no
difference to the person at the other end of the phone who they
thought they were talking to.

"Are they saying that if I had said who I was at the start of the
phone call I would have got a different answer?"

Mr. Brownlee said he rang to question what he sees as the lawsuit's
lack of clarity, saying the letter seeking support from property
owners does not clearly state whether the class action is based on
products being wrongly labelled or whether they were deficient.

That was a big issue and it was irresponsible of the firm not to
make that clear, he said, as the two companies so far fined over
their mesh products were charged over misleading customers about
whether their steel had been tested and certified as complying with
a new earthquake safety standard, not because the product's
strength had been proven to be substandard.

Mr. Brownlee said property owners considering joining the class
action needed to be aware that by adding their property's address
to a legal action they could in effect be labelling it as having
deficiencies, which could have an adverse affect in the future.

"The potential to devalue property is quite strong. It was
incumbent as a sitting MP for me to ask the questions that I did."

Ms. Thorn said the lawsuit is based on people being sold a product
that was not what it was promoted as being.

About 75 per cent of the homes and businesses with the steel mesh
are in Canterbury, she said.[GN]



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***