CAR_Public/181016.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, October 16, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 207

                            Headlines

A10 NETWORKS: Eric Blackwell Appointed Lead Plaintiff
ABBVIE INC: Pippins Sues over Share Price Drop
ACARA SOLUTIONS: Sent Unsolicited SMS Ads to Gerrard's Phone
AMERICAN BANK: Judge Confirms Ruling in Wage Class Action
AMN HEALTHCARE: White Sues over Credit and Background Reports

AMP: Clyde & Co Attorneys Discuss Shareholder Class Actions
ANSOFONE CONTACT CENTERS: Brown Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING: Court Affirms $479K Taxation Costs
ARIZONA: Bid to File Deposition Testimony in Darjee Denied
ATLANTIC COLLECTION: Ryan Files FDCPA Suit in Massachusetts

AUDI: Faces Class Action Over Defective Vehicle Coolant Pumps
AVEO: Investors Still Wary Following Class Action Threats
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Faces GBP50MM Class Action Over Data Breach
BUTCH'S RAT: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in Labor Suit Denied
CANADA: Federal Court Confirms Legal Fees in '60s Scoop Case

CANADA: Ottawa Settles Class Action Over EI Sickness Benefits
CANADA: Proposes $100MM Settlement in Veterans' Class-Action
CANADA: Quebec Sued for Violating Nunavik Offenders' Rights
CENTURYLINK: Taking A Beating In Class-Action Suit Alleging Fraud
CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Ringo et al Seek Unpaid Wages under FLSA

CHICAGO, IL: Black Lives Matter's Class Action Pending
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Rael Class Action Remains Stayed
CIBC: Faces Class Action Over Investment Trailer Fees
CIOX HEALTH: Kasher Law Group's Suit Remanded to State Court
CITIBANK NA: Dec. 20 Libor Settlement Approval Hearing Set

COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
COLLEGE OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC: Court Issues Class Action Ruling
COOPER COMPANIES: Settlement in Lens-Related Suit Has Initial Okay
CULPEPER COUNTY, VA: Sheriff Faces Class Action Over ICE Holds

DIOCESE OF PITTSBURGH: Suit Seeks Disclosure of Sexual Abuses
DOLLAR TREE: Continues to Defend Ex-Store Staff's Suit in Florida
DUN AND BRADSTREET: Kirk Seeks to Halt Sale to CC Capital
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Thomas FCRA Suit in Virginia
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: 6th Cir. Flips Dismissal Securities Suit

ESSENTIA WATER: Kennedy Disputes Bottled Water's Health Benefits
ESTER C CO: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Hughes Suit
EXTREME NETWORKS: Agreement Reached in Securities Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Privacy Class Action Mulled in Australia
FIAT CHRYSLER: Sued Over Cherokee 9-Speed Transmission Issues

FIRST LIBERTY: Filing of Third Amended Brewton Suit Denied
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Choi Files FDCPA Suit in New York
FOUR SEASONS: Court Narrows Claims in Hualalai Club Membership Suit
GDS HOLDINGS: Queri Sues over 38% Drop in ADS Price
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action in Fla. Over Oil-Guzzling SUVs

GRAY TELEVISION: Car Dealer Sues Over Air-time Price-fixing
GREENWAY HOME: Poole Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
HAYS RECRUITMENT: Faces Adero Law Class Action Over Casuals
HP INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Printer Firmware Suit
HP INC: Continues to Defend Forsyth Class Action

HP INC: Notice of Appeal Filed in Jackson Suit
HUNTER ENGINEERING: Cal. App. Affirms Certification Denial
IBM: Vermonters Can Join Class Action on Age Discrimination
INOVALON HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in Fromer TCPA Suit
INTUIT INC: Accord in Tax Refund Fraud Case Has Initial Court OK

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Says Indian Patients' Claims Unreasonable
KAPSTONE PAPER: Faces Multiple Merger Related Suits
KLX INC: Stipulation of Dismissal Filed in Merger-Related Suit
KRYPTONITE ENERGY: Shields Seeks Unpaid Wages and OT under FLSA
LAZY ONE: Crosson Files ADA Suit in New York

LEXINGTON INSURANCE: Court OKs Dismissal of Ezell RICO Suit
LUXOR ESTATES CONDOMINIUM: Pasternakiewicz Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
MARICOPA, AZ: David Isabel Files Civil Rights Class Suit
MASSACHUSETTS: Sabree Files Appeal in Massachusetts Judicial Court
MEDNAX: Bernstein, Spector Vie for Class Action Lead Counsel Spot

MEDTRONIC PLC: Pretrial in Sprint Fidelis-Related Suit Underway
MICROSOFT CORP: Appeals Court Will Consider Class-Action Question
MONSANTO COMPANY: Sonnier Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
NATIONAL INSURANCE: Court Challenges Solvency Capital Policy
NATIONWIDE CAPITAL: Fabricant Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls

NEOEN: Cites Risk Of Class Action Against Wind Farms
NEW MEXICO: Corrections Dept. Sued over Employment Discrimination
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Workers Appeal ERISA Class Action Dismissal
NEW ZEALAND: $6MM Taxpayers' Money Spent to Defend Kiwifruit Case
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Labaton Sucharow Expands Class Action Lawsuit

NISOURCE INC: Law Firm to Investigate Possible Securities Claims
O.P.E.N. AMERICA: Mark Cries Fraud, Sues to Recover Minimum Wages
OCH-ZIFF:Oks Settlement w/ Investors After Class Action Certified
OPTIMA COMPUTERS: Bitcoin Users Seek Class Action in Connecticut
OXY USA: Gas Royalty Owner Seeks to Certify Class Action

PENN CREDIT: Alicea Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
PPDAI GROUP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action Lawsuit
PURDUE PHARMA: Pioneer Tel. Benefit Plan Files RICO Suit in OK
QUALCOMM INC: Court Certifies Class in Antitrust Suit
ROYAL WINNIPEG: Former Students Get Class Action Notices

RUSHMORE LOAN: Vaquilar et al. Allege Fraudulent Mortgage Deals
S.G.E. MANAGEMENT: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of RICO Claims
SENIOR HEALTH: Settlement in Caballero Suit Has Prelim Approval
SERVICE PROS: Ridenour Seeks Minimum & OT under FLSA
SHERRY-NETHERLAND INC: Bishop Files Class Action Under ADA

SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Singh Balks at Tribune Media Merger Deal
SIRIUS XM: Objects to Provisions of Music Modernization Act
SOC LLC: Court Grants Bid to Clarify Risinger Class Definition
SOLAR TINT: Shulman Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS COLLEGE: Violates ADA, Bishop Suit Says

STARBUCKS CORP: Removes Amster Case to C.D. California
STATE FARM: $250MM Settlement May Spur More Campaign Cash Suits
SUN LIFE: Sued for Misrepresenting Life Insurance Policies
SUN TAN CITY: Sent Unsolicited SMS Ads to Goodman's Phone
TD AMERITRADE: Judge Rules Class-Action Lawsuit Can Proceed

TELENAV INC: Court Approves Gergetz Class Settlement
TELSTRA CORP: CEO Says Shareholder Class Action Likely Unsuccessful
TESLA INC: Sodeifi Suit Transferred to N.D. California
TICKETMASTER LLC: Vaccaro Sues over Multiple Ticket Commissions
TIMBUK2 DESIGNS: Diaz Files ADA Suit in New York

TIME WARNER: Court Defers Ruling on Arbitration Bid in Landry Suit
TRIBUNE MEDIA: Entwistle & Cappucci Files Securities Class Action
TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Court Denies Bid to Intervene in Chapman Suit
TWIN HILL ACQUISITION: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Zurbriggen Suit
UNITED COLLECTION: Sprei Files FDCPA Suit in New York

UNITED STATES: El Paso County Joints PILT Class Action
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: Sued Over Mishandled Rape Reports
US BANK: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Deceptive Bank Fees
USA TECH: Faces Class Action After Internal Probe Announcement
USA TECH: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

VALLEY BROOK, OK: Motorists File Class Action Against Police
VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Imran Files Class Action Over False Ad
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Canada's Response to Emissions Scandal Criticized
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Braunschweig Court Criticizes Ex-CEO Behavior
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: German Consumer Body to File Class Action

WELLS FARGO: $480MM Settlement in Hefler Suit Has Prelim Approval
WELLS FARGO: Dec. 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WESTERN UNION: Judge Cuts Attorney's Fees in TCPA Case Settlement
WHIRLPOOL: Sued Over AquaLift Self-Cleaning Technology
YVES SAINT LAURENT: Diaz Files ADA Suit in New York

[*] Gerry Brownlee Accused of Intimidating Class Action Lawyer
[*] JND Legal Administration Named #1 Claims Administrator
[*] South Korea Justice Minister to Expand Class Action System

                            *********

A10 NETWORKS: Eric Blackwell Appointed Lead Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, Shah v. A10 Networks, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-01772 (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2018), Judge Vince Chhabria
granted the motion to appoint Eric Blackwell as lead plaintiff.

The motion to appoint Robert Kraszewski as lead plaintiff is
denied.

On October 5, an amended complaint against A10 Networks, Inc., Lee
Chen, Tom Constantino, Shiva Natarajan, Greg Straughn and Ray Smets
was filed by Eric Blackwell and Robert Kraszewski.

A10 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 on March 22, 2018, the Company, its Chief Executive
Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and certain former officers,
were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, captioned Shah v. A10 Networks, Inc. et al.,
3:18-cv-01772-VC (the "Securities Action"). The complaint in the
Securities Action alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

Plaintiff John Moulton is represented by:

     Todd David Carpenter, Esq.
     Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter LLP
     Tel: 619-762-1910
     E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

Plaintiff Ketankumar Shah is represented by:

     David Jay Stone, Esq.
     Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
     Tel: 212-308-5858
     E-mail: stone@bespc.com

          - and -

     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
     Tel: 213-785-2610
     E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

Eric Blackwell is represented by:

     Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq.
     Kirby Mcinerney LLP
     Tel: 619-398-4340
     E-mail: bgralewski@kmllp.com

Movant Robert Kraszewski is represented by:

     Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
     Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
     Tel: 310-201-9150
     E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com

Movant A10 Investor Group is represented by:

     Lawrence Paul Eagel, Esq.
     Melissa Ann Fortunato, Esq.
     Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq.
     Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
     Tel: 212-308-5858
     E-mail: eagel@bespc.com
             fortunato@bespc.com
             squire@bespc.com

          - and -

     Daniel Hume, Esq.
     Thomas Elrod, Esq.
     Kirby Mcinerney LLP
     Tel: 212-371-6600
     E-mail: dhume@kmslaw.com
             telrod@kmllp.com

          - and -

     Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq.
     Kirby Mcinerney LLP
     Tel: 619-398-4340
     E-mail: bgralewski@kmllp.com

Defendants A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen and Tom Constantino are
represented by:

     Doru Gavril, Esq.
     Drew S Liming, Esq.
     Nina F. Locker, Esq.
     Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
     Tel: 650-493-9300
     E-mail: dgavril@wsgr.com
             dliming@wsgr.com
             nlocker@wsgr.com

Defendant Shiva Natarajan is represented by:

     Bahram Seyedin-Noor, Esq.
     Alto Litigation, PC
     Tel: 415-868-5602
     E-mail: bahram@altolit.com

Defendant Greg Straughn is represented by:

     Simona Gurevich Strauss, Esq.
     Lee S. E. Brand, Esq.
     Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
     Tel: 650-251-5000
     E-mail: sstrauss@stblaw.com
             lee.brand@stblaw.com

A10 Networks, Inc. provides software and hardware solutions in the
United States, Japan, other Asia Pacific and EMEA countries, and
internationally. A10 Networks, Inc. was incorporated in 2004 and is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


ABBVIE INC: Pippins Sues over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------
DAVID PIPPINS, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs ABBVIE INC., RICHARD A. GONZALEZ, and
WILLIAM J. CHASE, the Defendants, Case 2:18-cv-08225 (C.D. Cal.
Sept. 21, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

This case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
AbbVie between October 25, 2013 and September 18, 2018, both dates
inclusive.

According to the complaint, HUMIRA is AbbVie's blockbuster drug,
which is used to treat Crohn's isease, rheumatoid arthritis,
ulcerative colitis, psoriasis, and other ailments. In 2017,
HUMIRA's sales were $18.4 billion. HUMIRA accounted for
approximately 65% of AbbVie's net revenue for the fiscal year. On
April 5, 2013, the Company filed its amended annual report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 on Form 10-K with the SEC,
which provided the Company's annual financial results and position.
The 2012 10-K/A was signed by Defendants Gonzalez and Chase. In the
3Q 2013 Press Release, Defendant Gonzalez stated that AbbVie's
"third-quarter performance demonstrates the strength and durability
of our product portfolio and the continued execution of our key
strategic priorities as an independent biopharmaceutical company."

On February 21, 2014, the Company filed its annual report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 on Form 10-K with the SEC,
which provided the Company's annual financial results and position.
The 2013 10-K 24 was signed by Defendants Gonzalez and Chase. The
2013 10-K also contained signed certifications pursuant to the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by Defendants Gonzalez and Chase
attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of
any material changes to the Company's internal controls over
financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud.

According to the California Complaint, relator-plaintiff Lazaro
Suarez worked for AbbVie via its sub-contractor, Quintiles
Transactional Holdings, Inc., as a "Nurse Educator" and "Patient
Ambassador" from approximately March 23, 2013 and October 2014. In
that position, he "became aware of AbbVie's [kickback] scheme
nationwide, including in California, because of his role as a
trainer, among other ways. After leaving his employment, Mr. Suarez
continued to obtain  information about the allegations, including
through ongoing contacts with AbbVie and Quintiles personnel. The
California Complaint states the alleged fraudulent conduct occurred
from 2013 to the present. On this news, shares of AbbVie fell $4.35
per share or over 4.5% over the next two consecutive trading days
to close at $91.02 per share on September 19, 2018.

AbbVie is a publicly traded biopharmaceutical company founded in
2013. It originated as a spin-off of Abbott Laboratories.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


ACARA SOLUTIONS: Sent Unsolicited SMS Ads to Gerrard's Phone
------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Gerrard, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Acara Solutions Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-01041, (W.D. N.Y., September 20, 2018), seeks
statutory and actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs,
and expenses incurred in this action, including expert fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and other and further relief
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Acara is a staffing and recruiting company that solicits consumers
for jobs on behalf of clients needing employees. It uses text
message telemarketing via an autodialer to send these text message
job notifications. Gerrard did not give his consent to receive such
messages, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
      201 s. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (877) 333-9427
      Fax: (888) 498.8946
      Email: law@stefancoleman.com

             - and -

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


AMERICAN BANK: Judge Confirms Ruling in Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Record reported that a federal judge has confirmed
another judge's decision earlier this spring to refuse to end a
class action brought by a group of bank loan officers, who accused
their employer, American Bank and Trust, of shorting them wages and
commissions.

On Aug. 24, U.S. District Judge Andrea Wood denied the bank's
request to reconsider the decision of Judge Wood's colleague, Judge
John Z. Lee, who had recused himself after he had granted the
plaintiffs' request to certify their collective action against the
bank. Judge Lee had granted the motion for class certification on
March 31, 2017, but about six weeks later, on May 11, 2017, Judge
Lee recused himself, saying "one of the parties is represented by a
law firm (he) was associated with during the past five years."

Plaintiffs Marc Kramer, Kiril Trajcevski and Matt Nyman had filed
suit in 2011 against American Bank and Trust, alleging they and
others who had worked as mortgage loan officers at the bank were
owed wages and commissions which the bank allegedly failed to pay,
allegedly in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

According to the court documents, the bank classified the loan
officers as "sales employees," which the bank claimed allowed the
employees to be paid "on a commission-only basis" before January
2011.

After that date, however, the bank "began tracking hours worked and
started paying loan officers hourly wages and overtime wages,"
asking its employees to "report only 40 hours per week, regardless
of whether the loan officers worked additional hours," according to
the factual background in Judge Wood's opinion.

The employment agreement, cited in the ruling, "represented that
they would be paid monthly commissions as a percentage of 'revenue
generated' from the loans originated by the loan officer."

However, the loan officers also asserted the bank would "skim" a
portion of what they alleged was their pay, under a "company-wide
policy of setting aside for itself a percentage of the revenue that
was generated when a mortgage loan was sold in the secondary
mortgage market, i.e., the 'secondary gain,' and considered that
gain as 'the Bank's profit margin.'"

The loan officers' commissions were thus calculated by the bank as
"a percentage of the total revenue generated from his or her
mortgage loans less the secondary gain,' the ruling stated.

Following Judge Lee's recusal, American Bank responded with the
request for reconsideration, and again asserted its arguments that
the lawsuit should not be allowed to proceed as a class action. The
bank asked Judge Wood to undo Judge Lee's ruling.

However, Judge Wood backed Judge Lee's decision, saying she agreed
with Judge Lee's conclusions in certifying the class action and
allowing the loan officers to continue with their lawsuit.

". . . This Court concludes that the issues covered by the March
31, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order were correctly decided and
those rulings should stand," Judge Wood wrote.

American Bank and Trust is represented by attorneys with the firms
of Heninger and Heninger P.C., of Davenport, Iowa, and Pappas
O'Connor P.C., of Rock Island.

Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys with the firms of Freeborn
& Peters, of Chicago; and Offit Kurman P.A., of Baltimore, Md.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Case
number 1:11-cv-08758 [GN]


AMN HEALTHCARE: White Sues over Credit and Background Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
KATHARINE L. WHITE, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMN HEALTHCARE, INC., a Nevada
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. RG18921814 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 21, 2018) seeks compensatory
and punitive damages due to the Defendants' systematic and willful
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, California
Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, and the California
Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants routinely acquire
consumer, investigative consumer and/or consumer credit reports to
conduct background checks on the Plaintiff and other prospective,
current and former employees and use information from credit and
background reports in connection with their hiring process without
providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in
compliance with the law.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Scott Leviant, Esq.
          William M. Pao, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA  90212
          Telephone (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com
                  william@setarehlaw.com


AMP: Clyde & Co Attorneys Discuss Shareholder Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Janette McLennan, Esq. -- janette.mclennan@clydeco.com -- and Luke
Russell, Esq. -- luke.russell@clydeco.com -- of Clyde & Co LLP, in
an article for Lexology, wrote that competing class actions
continue to be in the spotlight in Australia, where it has been
just over 26 years since the class action regime was introduced.

Whilst the Australian Law Reform Commission (the ALRC) is currently
embarking on an inquiry into litigation funding and class actions,
with its final report due in December 2018, jurisprudence is
emerging from the Courts to tackle some of the same issues being
considered by the ALRC on the commercialisation of law and the
oppressive nature of multiple class actions.

A recent landmark case (which will be welcomed by class action
respondents generally) has resulted in a financial services company
and asset fund manager AMP succeeding in its application to
transfer four separate competing class actions from the Federal
Court of Australia to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where
one class action was filed. Following the imminent transfer, the
Supreme Court is expected to make a decision on how many of the
class actions should proceed.

AMP shareholder class actions

Australia operates an "opt out" system, where all potential
claimants fall within the defined class upon commencement of an
action unless they choose to opt-out when notified of the claim.
Despite this, closed class actions have been permitted by the
Australian courts with the class being confined to those that have
entered into an agreement with a particular litigation funder. This
has resulted in many competing class actions in Australia,
particularly in the shareholder and product liability space.

In the case of AMP, it was quickly on the receiving end of five
competing shareholder class actions filed in May and June 2018
following revelations of alleged misconduct in the current Royal
Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and
Financial Services Industry. Those revelations were in relation to
AMP allegedly charging customers fees where no services had been
provided, and once made the AMP share price plummeted.

The first of the five class actions was filed in the Supreme Court
of New South Wales, followed by four subsequent class actions in
the Federal Court of Australia. All actions had different lead
plaintiffs and legal representatives, as well as backing from
different litigation funders.

Whilst there are nuances applicable to the various claims, each of
the competing class actions contain allegations that AMP:

   * made false or misleading statements to Australia's corporate
regulator in relation to the charging of fees for no service;
   * engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct; and
   * breached its continuous disclosure obligations in relation to
material information under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Such causes of action are typical in shareholder claims.

In a jurisdictional battle AMP promptly moved to consolidate the
claims and transfer all matters to the State court in New South
Wales. Competing applications were filed by each of the class
applicants in the Federal Court seeking to preserve the claims in
that forum, and for the New South Wales action to be transferred
there. They did not succeed. On 14 August 2018, the Full Federal
Court determined that AMP should be permitted to have each of the
four shareholder actions filed in the Federal Court transferred to
the State Court.

New South Wales was a natural forum for reasons including that AMP
had its registered office in that jurisdiction, it is where the
relevant events took place and it is where the relevant documents
are situated and will need to be considered.

Implications of the decision

The AMP saga highlights the inter-jurisdictional tension that can
arise in Australia between the Supreme Courts of the states and
territories and the Federal Court, given they concurrently exercise
federal jurisdiction and class action regimes have been introduced
in the states of Victoria (in 2000), NSW (in 2011) and most
recently Queensland (in 2017). All of the state regimes are largely
based on the federal regime, where the Federal Court has
historically been the predominant forum for the filing of
shareholder claims.

In his lead judgment in AMP, his Honour Chief Justice Allsop of the
Federal Court remarked that there are not yet any standing
arrangements between Supreme Courts and the Federal Court for a
procedural protocol for approaching "competing" proceedings.
However, his Honour emphasised his complete agreement with the
Chief Judge in Equity in the New South Wales Supreme Court, who had
stated (in relation to the competing class actions) that comity
between the courts was of utmost importance. Whether or not an
official protocol will be developed to deal with such procedural
matters remains to be seen.

The AMP decision follow the recent case of GetSwift, delivered in
late May 2018, where a single judge of the Federal Court determined
that only one class action could proceed whilst two competing class
actions were stayed. The New South Wales Supreme Court in AMP is
now expected to tackle the same issues of competing class actions
that were ventilated in GetSwift.

In the last say that the Federal Court has in AMP, Allsop CJ
commented that this decision would involve questions such as class
definition, the nature of the causes of action, the terms of any
relevant funding agreements and other considerations of the kind
considered in GetSwift and other recent decisions of the FCA on
competing class actions. His Honour observed that little weight
should be given to which class action was "first to the filing
gate" as all courts "should be astute to protect the best interests
of all group members, not the desires of the promoters and managers
of the litigation (in particular, the commercial funders and the
lawyers).

Whilst the developing jurisprudence is welcome and likely to
continue in Australia, the ALRC is expected to make broader
recommendations later this year, given competing class actions
increase cost and delay for both prospective class members and
respondents. [GN]


ANSOFONE CONTACT CENTERS: Brown Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lloyd Brown, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ansofone Contact Centers, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00490, (M.D. Fla., September 20, 2018), seeks
damages and other relief relating to violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Defendant's failure to pay overtime at one and
one-half the regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked
within a workweek.

Ansofone operates a call center in Ocala, Florida where Brown
worked as a call center agent. He claims to have been misclassified
as independent contractor and denied overtime compensation for
hours worked over forty per week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Celler, Esq.
      Noah E. Storch, Esq.
      RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A
      7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
      Davie, FL 33314
      Telephone: (866) 344-9243
      Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
      Email: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com
             noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com


ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING: Court Affirms $479K Taxation Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
issued an Order affirming Taxation Costs in the case captioned
STEVEN A. STENDER, and INFINITY CLARK STREET OPERATING, L.L.C., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING TRUST et al., Defendants. Civil Action
No. 07-cv-2503-WJM-MJW. (D. Colo.).

The Court awarded the Defendants their costs. After a contested
hearing before the Court's Chief Legal Officer, to whom taxation of
costs has been delegated, the Clerk of Court taxed $418,023.21 in
favor of the Archstone Defendants and $61,643.01 in favor of the
Tishman Defendants.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

On motion served within the next 7 days after the clerk taxes
costs, the court may review the clerk's action. The district
court's review of a clerk's order is de novo.

Costs Awarded to Archstone Defendants

Costs Explicitly Available Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1920

Deposition & Hearing Transcripts from the Arbitration

The Plaintiffs' distinction is artificial. The claim resolved
through arbitration was originally brought in this lawsuit, and the
arbitration was a predicate to moving on with the other claims in
this lawsuit. The depositions and testimony from the arbitration
likely would have been elicited through discovery in this case but
for the arbitration clause, and the transcripts were indeed used in
this case to assist the parties in avoiding duplicative discovery
on the remaining claims.

The Plaintiffs further claim that of the more than 3000 pages of
hearing transcript, the parties cited lines from only sixty pages
in the summary judgment filings in this Court. And of that number,
the Archstone Defendants referred to a mere five pages. But this is
improper hindsight bias. It is not a basis to deny recovery of
these costs.

This objection is overruled.

Deposition Videos

The Tenth Circuit interprets Section 1920(2) to encompass video
recordings of depositions, not just stenographic transcripts. The
Plaintiffs argue that the Archstone Defendants had no need to
purchase any video recording before it became clear that the case
would proceed to trial, or at least the Archstone Defendants did
not need to purchase the video recordings of depositions of
witnesses slated to appear at trial or otherwise within the
subpoena power of the Court.

The Plaintiffs' only argument for disallowing all video recording
costs is that such costs are unnecessary until trial is certain.
That rationale, if accepted, would undermine the general preference
for awarding video recording costs.

This objection is overruled.

Costs Awarded Under State Law

Here, the Clerk taxed some costs under Colorado's cost-shifting
regime codified at Colorado Revised Statutes Sections 13-16-105 and
-122.

The Plaintiffs argue that the Clerk should have applied Maryland
law because Maryland law governs the contracts at issue in this
case. Both groups of Defendants respond that this is a new
argument, not advanced to the Clerk before or at the costs hearing,
and implicitly contrary to the Plaintiffs' prior arguments against
certain costs which cited to Colorado authority. The Plaintiffs, in
their reply brief, do not deny Defendants' accusations, but assert
that this Court reviews parties' requests for costs de novo.

The Plaintiffs do not explain why Maryland law should control over
Colorado law on the question of costs a matter deeply entwined with
the forum in which one chooses to sue. The Court agrees with the
Clerk and Defendants that Colorado law should apply to the matter
of costs, to avoid as much as possible an incentive to forum shop
as between Colorado state and federal courts.

In that light, the Court turns to the Plaintiffs' objections to
costs awarded under Colorado's statutory authority.

Attorney Travel & Lodging

The Clerk awarded the Archstone Defendants $29,778 for travel and
lodging associated with depositions in this case, $3,575 for travel
and lodging associated with the arbitration hearing, and $5,439 for
travel and lodging associated with attending status and scheduling
conferences in this courthouse.

This authority does not obviously embrace all of the
travel-and-lodging categories under which the Clerk awarded costs.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs' only challenge beyond the argument that
Maryland law should apply is that the Clerk cited as authority
Colorado Revised Statutes Section 13-16-122(h), which permits an
award of any attorney fees, when authorized by statute or court
rule. Subsection (h) does not apply here and this may have been a
typographical error on the Clerk's part. But the Clerk also cited
Home Loan Investment Co. v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co., 78
F.Supp.3d 1307, 1323 (D. Colo. 2014), which awarded deposition
travel costs under Colorado law, citing the Colorado Supreme
Court's Cherry Creek School District decision.

The Court is unaware of Colorado authority holding that a court may
award travel and lodging costs for attendance at court hearings and
conferences. But Plaintiffs failed to offer any argument specific
to that line item beyond the Clerk's apparently erroneous citation
to Section 13-16-122(h).

Accordingly, this objection is overruled.

Electronic Legal Research

The Colorado Court of Appeals holds under the logic of Cherry Creek
School District that electronic legal research expenses may be
awarded as costs if the client was billed for such expenses
separate from attorneys' fees, the legal research was necessary for
trial preparation, and the expenses are reasonable. The Clerk
awarded the Archstone Defendants $182,287.01 for electronic legal
research. Plaintiffs challenge this award on two bases: (1) the
Colorado Supreme Court does not appear to have spoken on the issue
and (2) a Tenth Circuit case suggests that electronic legal
research expenses are essentially a substitute for attorneys' fees,
but attorneys' fees are not at issue here.

As for the fact that the Colorado Supreme Court has not spoken on
the question, the Archstone Defendants respond that this simply
means that the rule first announced by the Colorado Court of
Appeals] in Roget remains controlling law. To the extent the
Archstone Defendants contend that Roget is controlling law in
federal court, they are mistaken. Federal courts sitting in
diversity are not bound by the decisions of state intermediate
appellate courts. Be that as it may, Plaintiffs do not argue that
the Colorado Supreme Court would reject Roget. In this
circumstance, the Court finds that Roget is the best evidence of
what the Colorado Supreme Court would do if confronted with the
question, so the Clerk committed no error in taxing legal research
costs.

The Plaintiffs' objection is overruled.

Costs Awarded to Tishman Defendants

Costs Explicitly Available Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1920

The Clerk awarded the Tishman Defendants $52,472.01 for transcripts
and video recordings of the more than fifty depositions in this
case. Plaintiffs claim that the Archstone Defendants took the lead
role in this case and that the parties deposed only five Tishman
Defendants, so the Tishman Defendants had no need to attend and
incur costs for any depositions beyond those five.  

As for copying and sharing transcripts, the Plaintiffs cite no
authority that this is ever required, or is even permissible under
the terms by which shorthand reporters provide their services. If
it were permissible, it seems that courts would have long since
ordered that only one party should ever pay for a deposition
transcript (or video, if applicable) and then that party should
share with all other parties. Plaintiffs notably do not argue that
they would have been willing to share their transcripts and videos
with either defendant group, thus reducing costs further.

This objection is overruled.

Costs Awarded Under State Law

The Clerk also awarded the Tishman Defendants travel and lodging
expenses associated with depositions, totaling $9,171. Plaintiffs
challenge this portion of the award for the same reasons stated in
Part II.A.2.a, above, and the Court similarly overrules this
objection for the same reasons stated there.

The Court affirms the Clerk's awards of costs.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycclog6w from Leagle.com.

Steven A. Stender & Infinity Clark Street Operating LLC, on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated,, Plaintiffs,
represented by Brian Keith Matise -- BMatise@burgsimpson.com --
Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, PC, Kenneth A. Wexler --
kaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace, LLP, Olimpio Lee Squitieri
-- lee@sfclasslaw.com -- Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, Christopher
James Stuart -- cjs@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace, LLP,
Daniel Charles Girard -dcg@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs, LLP,
Edward Anthony Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com --  Wexler Wallace,
LLP, Jordan S. Elias -- je@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs, LLP,
Kara A. Elgersma -- kae@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace, LLP,
Maria J. Ciccia -- maria@sfclasslaw.com -- Squitieri & Fearon, LLP,
Mark Richard Miller -- mrm@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace,
LLP, Renee Beth Taylor , Bader & Associates, LLC & Thomas Arthur
Doyle -- tad@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace, LLP.

Archstone-Smith Operating Trust & Archstone-Smith Trust,
Defendants, represented byJonathan D. Polkes --
jonathan.polkes@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Adam Baker
Banks , Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY
10153-0119, Alex C. Myers -- amyers@lrrc.com -Lewis Roca Rothgerber
Christie LLP, Ashish Dinesh Gandhi -- Ashish.gandhi@weil.com --
Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Caroline Jane Hickey Zalka --
caroline.hickeyzalka@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP,
Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser  -- elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com --
Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Frederick J. Baumann  --
fbaumann@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Justin
David D'Aloia -- justin.daloia@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges,
LLP, Melanie A. Conroy -- melanie.conroy@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal &
Manges, LLP, Ralph I. Miller -- Ralph.miller@weil.com -Weil Gotshal
& Manges, LLP & Raquel Kellert -- raquel.kellert@weil.com -- Weil
Gotshal & Manges, LLP.


ARIZONA: Bid to File Deposition Testimony in Darjee Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Aita Darjee, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Thomas Betlach,
Defendant, Case No. CV-16-00489-TUC-RM (DTF) WO (D. Ariz.), Judge
Rosemary Marquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona (a) denied the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class
Certification; (b) denied the Plaintiffs' Alternative Motion for
Class Discovery; (c) denied the Defendant's Motion for Leave to
File Deposition Testimony; and (d) overruled in part and sustained
in part the Plaintiffs' Objections to Judge Ferraro's denial of
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel.

Darjee is an immigrant from Nepal who came with her family to the
United States as a refugee in 2011 and, based on her status as a
refugee, is eligible for Full Medical Assistance ("Full MA") with
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System ("AHCCCS").  Darjee's
benefit eligibility was twice improperly reduced, once in 2015 and
once in 2016, to Federal Emergency Services ("FES"), a medical plan
with significantly less coverage.  After both reductions, Full MA
was restored, but Darjee and her family worry that their benefits
will again be improperly reduced, preventing them from obtaining
much-needed medical care.

Plaintiff Alma Sanchez Haro came to the United States in 2003 as an
immigrant and has, since that time, been eligible for Full MA based
on her status as a victim of domestic violence under the Violence
Against Women Act ("VAWA").  In 2015, Sanchez Haro became a legal
permanent resident ("LPR"); LPRs generally have to wait five years
for Full MA, but Sanchez Haro is exempt from the waiting period
because of her VAWA status.  After obtaining status as an LPR,
Plaintiff Sanchez Haro's benefits were improperly reduced to FES on
three separate occasions, but Full MA was later restored each time.
(Id. at 16; Doc. 119 at 4-5; Doc. 158 at 2.) Plaintiff Sanchez Haro
suffers from medical conditions, including mental illness, and
worries that her reduced status will prevent her from receiving the
medications and medical care she relies on. (Doc. 1 at 17.)

AHCCCS benefits are determined by the Department of Economic
Security ("DES"), which processes applications for benefits using
the Health-e-Arizona Plus computer system ("HEAPlus").  Immigration
information relating to eligibility for benefits is stored at an
application level; that is, immigration information will not
transfer within the system when a caseworker begins a new
application, like a renewal.  The system prompts a caseworker with
a series of questions regarding the applicant, including
immigration information affecting benefit eligibility, and will
then automatically generate a benefit eligibility response.
However, any application which, based on the information input by
the caseworker, would result in an eligibility change from Full
Medical Assistance ("Full MA") to Federal Emergency Services
("FES") cannot happen automatically because it requires approval by
DES supervisory staff.

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action claiming that the
Defendant, in his official capacity, violated the Medicaid Act by
failing to furnish them Medicaid benefits with "reasonable
promptness."  They additionally claim that the written eligibility
notices the Defendant sent to them were deficient and in violation
of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in addition
to the Medicaid Act.

Plaintiffs Darjee and Alma Sanchez Haro filed their two-count
Complaint in July 2016 alongside a Motion for Class Certification,
which sought certification of a class defined as all immigrant
residents of Arizona eligible for full-scope Arizona Health Care
Cost Containment System ("AHCCCS") benefits who, on or after Jan.
1, 2015, have been or will be required to recertify their
eligibility for AHCCCS and whose benefits have been or will be
improperly reduced from full-scope AHCCCS to emergency-only AHCCCS.

The Defendant subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss on the basis
that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim or, even if they did
state a claim, they lacked standing to assert their claims, and
that their claims were moot.  After a motions hearing, Judge
Ferraro issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the
Court grants the Motion to Dismiss with prejudice and deny as moot
the motion for class certification and other pending motions.
After considering the Plaintiffs' Objections to the Report and
Recommendation, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation in
part.  Specifically, it dismissed the Plaintiff Darjee's claim
under Count 2, otherwise denied the motion to dismiss, and denied
the Motion for Class Certification.

After approximately six months of discovery, the Plaintiffs filed
the instant Renewed Motion for Class Certification, for which Judge
Ferraro has issued a Report and Recommendation recommending denial
of the Motion.  The Plaintiffs objected to the Report and
Recommendation, and the Defendants responded to those Objections.

In the Renewed Motion, the Plaintiffs seek certification of the
class of all immigrant residents of Arizona eligible for full-scope
AHCCCS benefits who, on or after Jan. 1, 2015, have been or will be
required to recertify their eligibility for AHCCCS through the
Health-e-Arizona Plus computer system and whose benefits have been
or will be reduced from full-scope AHCCCS to emergency-only
AHCCCS.

In evaluating the Renewed Motion, Judge Ferraro found that the
Plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden of showing commonality,
typicality, or numerosity.  Accordingly, he recommends that the
Court denies the Renewed Motion for Class Certification.

In their Objection to Judge Ferraro's Report and Recommendation,
the Plaintiffs begin by arguing that the errors identified by the
Defendant's HEAPlus computer system have yet to be corrected.  They
then go on to describe examples of the myriad errors the HEAPlus
system necessarily produces.  Next, the Plaintiffs contend that the
manual review process instituted by DES in order to identify and
correct improper benefit reductions is temporary and wholly
inadequate at preventing continuing errors.  The remainder of the
factual allegations in the Plaintiffs' Objections attempts to
dismiss counterarguments based on other possible sources of
errors.

Judge Marquez will deny the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification.  On the whole, she finds their proposed class is too
broad for the class certification to be appropriate.  Additionally,
she does not find that additional pre-certification class discovery
would affect the Court's resolution of the Motion, so the
Plaintiffs' alternative request for the Court to take the motion
under advisement and allow for class discovery will be denied.

The Defendant moved for leave to file additional deposition
testimony in support of his responses to the Plaintiffs' Objections
to Judge Ferraro's Report and Recommendation.  Because additional
exhibits would not have been useful to the Court's consideration of
the Renewed Motion for Class Certification or of Judge Ferraro's
Report and Recommendation, the Judge will deny the Motion.

The Plaintiffs moved to compel responses to interrogatories and
requests for production.  Generally, the discovery they sought in
the motion was information on how the HEAPlus computer system
functions and how it processes renewal applications with regard to
immigrants other than the named Plaintiffs, for comparative
purposes.  The Judge finds that none of the Plaintiffs'
protestations have provided her with a definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed, nor have they convinced her that
Judge Ferraro's findings were unreasonable or devoid of evidentiary
support.

For these reasons, Judge Marquez accepted and adopted in full Judge
Ferraro's Report and Recommendation.  She (a) denied the
Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification; (b) denied the
Plaintiffs' Alternative Motion for Class Discovery; (c) denied the
Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Deposition Testimony; and (d)
overruled in part and sustained in part the Plaintiffs' Objections
to Judge Ferraro's denial of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel as
follows: (i) the Objection is sustained as to the Plaintiffs'
Interrogatory No. 7., the Defendant will have 30 days to answer the
Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 7; and (ii) the Objection is
overruled as to the Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Nos. 2, 4, and 8-13,
and Request for Production Nos. 2-4, 10, 11, and 13.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/KHPR4K from Leagle.com.

Aita Darjee, on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor child
N.D. & Alma Sanchez Haro, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Ellen Sue Katz --
eskatz@qwestoffice.net -- William E Morris Institute for Justice,
Martha Jane Perkins -- perkins@healthlaw.org -- National Health Law
Program & Sarah Lynne Grusin, National Health Law Program.

Thomas Betlach, Director of the Arizona Health Care Cost
Containment System, in his official capacity, Defendant,
represented by Logan T. Johnston, Johnston Law Offices PLC.


ATLANTIC COLLECTION: Ryan Files FDCPA Suit in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Collection
Agency, Inc. The case is styled as Robin Ryan individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Atlantic
Collection Agency, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12107-MLW (D.
Mass., Oct. 9, 2018).

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

Atlantic Collection Agency is a full service collection agency,
specializing in medical debt collection. They have been working
with medical providers throughout New England since 1975.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth D. Quat, Esq.
     Quat Law Offices
     929 Worcester Road
     Framingham, MA 01701
     Phone: (508) 872-1261
     Email: kquat@quatlaw.com


AUDI: Faces Class Action Over Defective Vehicle Coolant Pumps
-------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that an Audi
coolant pump class-action lawsuit alleges more than 340,000
vehicles are at risk of fires even though the automaker has
recalled the vehicles twice.

The lawsuit includes vehicles equipped with 2-liter turbocharged
four-cylinder type EA888 Evo2 engines.

   -- 2013-2017 Audi A4
   -- 2013-2017 Audi allroad
   -- 2013-2017 Audi A5
   -- 2013-2017 Audi A5 Cabriolet
   -- 2012-2015 Audi A6
   -- 2013-2017 Audi Q5

Plaintiff Scott D. Sager purchased a used 2013 Audi allroad in 2018
and soon learned the vehicle was recalled to replace the coolant
pump. Sager says he contacted a dealer but was allegedly told no
replacement coolant pumps were available and wouldn't be for
months.

The plaintiff claims the dealership told him he shouldn't drive the
Audi until the pump was replaced, but the plaintiff says the dealer
refused to provide a loaner vehicle.

Sager doesn't claim his Audi suffered any problems from the coolant
pump, but Audi admits moisture can enter the pump and cause a
short-circuit that could lead to a fire.

Volkswagen and Audi have been aware of the coolant pump problems
since at least 2016 because a recall was ordered to install
software that allegedly deactivated the power supply to the coolant
pump if the pump got blocked by debris. The debris could further
lead to moisture issues.

The "fix" was supposed to prevent coolant pump fires, but owners
continued to complain about overheated pumps even after the
software was updated.

Audi ordered another recall in April 2018 to replace the coolant
pumps, but the automaker admitted the newly designed replacement
pumps wouldn't be available until November 2018.

In the interim, dealers were told to replace the pumps with
identical pumps that would allegedly last until the permanent
replacement pumps were installed.

According to the lawsuit, Audi sent letters to owners in June
warning customers to park their vehicles outdoors and away from
anything that may burn if the coolant pumps cause fires.

The plaintiff claims owners and lessees should have been offered
free loaner vehicles until dealers were able to install the
permanent replacement coolant pumps. In addition, the plaintiff
says Audi told its dealerships to inform consumers the vehicles are
safe to drive when they allegedly are anything but safe.

Attorneys for the plaintiff claim Audi customers would not have
purchased their vehicles if the automaker would have told them
about the coolant pumps.

The Audi coolant pump class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey - Scott D. Sager, et
al., v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., and Audi of America,
Inc.

The plaintiff is represented by Lemberg Law, LLC.

CarComplaints.com has complaints you can read from owners of the
Audi vehicles included in the coolant pump lawsuit.

   -- Audi A4
   -- Audi allroad
   -- Audi A5
   -- Audi A6
   -- Audi Q5 [GN]


AVEO: Investors Still Wary Following Class Action Threats
---------------------------------------------------------
Business News Australia reports that despite Aveo (ASX: AOG)
reporting some solid FY18 results and announcing the completion of
its five-year transformation project, investors are still wary of
the retirement village operator.

It has been just over a year since the company suffered at the
hands of an ABC Four Corners investigation and the threats of two
class action law suits; two factors that led to the dissipation of
the company's share price in the first place. [GN]


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Faces GBP50MM Class Action Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
John Leyden, writing for The Register, reports that British Airways
faces a GBP500m lawsuit over its recent mega-breach that exposed
payment card details of 380,000 customers.

The airliner apologised and offered to compensate customers for any
direct financial loss for the attack that took place between 21
August and 5 September via its website and app.

However, an group-action suit* led by SPG Law contends BA has not
gone far enough and should be paying travellers for the
"compensation for inconvenience, distress and annoyance associated
with the data leak".

The action points to compensation rights in the European General
Data Protection Regulation, which came into effect in May.

SPG Law, the Brit limb of US firm Sanders Phillips Grossman, set up
a dedicated micro-site to get victims to sign up to the case.

The firm, which cynics might dismiss as an ambulance chaser, is
recruiting participants on a "no win, no fee" basis. It has
suggested its offer is the best and most straightforward way
passengers might be able to secure up to GBP1,500 compensation.

SPG Law said it would cap its fees at a maximum of 35 per cent
including VAT.

If the case goes to court, SPG Law acknowledged the possibility
that the airline may win and might even be awarded legal costs.

"In the event that it is necessary to litigate, we will arrange
insurance on behalf of all Claimants who sign up with us," it said.
"This will protect you against having to pay BA's costs in the
unlikely event that the claim is lost."

British Airways is yet to respond to a request for comment from The
Register. (R)

Bootnote
* A group-action lawsuit is the English law equivalent of a
class-action lawsuit. SPG Law is also "campaigning" to mount a
group-action lawsuit over the VW emissions scandal on behalf of
affected drivers.  The firm is acting just days after the breach
was disclosed and before the dust has settled and the facts are
known. [GN]


BUTCH'S RAT: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in Labor Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM KEY, Plaintiff, v. BUTCH'S RAT HOLE & ANCHOR
SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. CIV 17-1171RB/KRS (D. N.M.),
Judge Robert C. Brack of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Mexico denied both the Defendant's (i) Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, filed on March 30, 2018; and (ii) Motion to
Disregard or Strike Plaintiff's Untimely Responses to Defendant's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed on June 18, 2018.

The Plaintiff and all putative class members worked for the
Defendant laying pipe for oil and gas wells.  The lawsuit arises
out of a disagreement about whether the workers were entitled to
overtime pay under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("MWA").

The Defendant is a Texas oilfield service company that provides
services to oil and gas industry customers.  It employed the
Plaintiff from November 2014 through August 2016.  The Plaintiff
has filed a class action complaint alleging that the Defendant
failed to pay certain "non-exempt workers" ("Field Workers")
overtime hours in violation of the MWA.  The Field Worker positions
represented in the declarations the Plaintiff submitted include
Casing Floor Hands, Derrick Hands, Stabbers, Tool Haulers, Crew
Haulers, and Relief Operators.  The Defendant moves for partial
summary judgment and asks the Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's
claim only with respect to those Field Workers who were employed as
Casing Floor Hands.

During the time period covered by this lawsuit, Casing Floor Hands
received several different types of pay, two of which are relevant
to the motion: (1) "Footage Pay," which is calculated on a
per-foot-of-pipe-laid basis; and (2) "Location Hours Pay"
("Exceeded Hours Pay"), which is calculated on an hourly basis.
The Defendant's payment structure worked as follows: It allotted a
certain number of hours for its workers to lay pipe ("running
casing") on each customer's project, based on its estimate that
workers can lay approximately 1,000 feet of pipe per hour.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant added some additional
hours to each bid to allow time for rigging up and rigging down.
The total number of hours bid gave the Defendant the maximum
"Footage Pay" it would pay out to its Casing Floor Hands.  If the
project exceeded this set number of bid hours, the Defendant then
paid Casing Floor Hands the hourly "Location Hours Pay" rate for
all hours worked over the bid hours.

The Plaintiff asserts that at times, the Casing Floor Hands had to
wait before beginning or resuming their duties at a customer's well
location.  The Defendant required the Casing Floor Hands to remain
at the job site during these unproductive times.  If this
unproductive time occurred within the Defendant's bid hours and
Casing Floor Hands were still being paid under the Footage Pay
structure, they were not compensated for the down time.

Both parties submitted sample pay stubs from the relevant time
period.  The Plaintiff's four pay stubs demonstrate that, at least
for these particular paychecks, the Plaintiff's Location Hours Pay
accounted for anywhere from 15.5% to 22.1% of his total pay.  The
Location Hours Pay accounted for 16.9% of the total year-to-date
pay as shown on the employee's paycheck that the Defendant
submitted.

As the Court found in Casias v. Distrib. Mgmt. Corp., Inc., at this
stage in the litigation, the Judge must tip the scales in favor of
the Plaintiff as the party opposing summary judgment.  Moreover,
the Court is required to construe the Section 50-4-21(C)(5)
exemption to the Wage Act narrowly and cannot grant summary
judgment in the Defendant's favor unless the exemption
'unmistakably' includes the Plaintiff.  Based on the foregoing, he
finds that the Plaintiff has come forward with evidence sufficient
to create a genuine dispute of fact with respect to whether Casing
Floor Hands are truly exempt from the MWA.

The Plaintiff received three extensions to file his response to the
Defendant's motion.  In its order granting the Plaintiff's third
request for an extension, the Court stated that no further
extensions will be granted.  On June 13, 2018, at 11:59 p.m., the
proverbial eleventh hour, the Plaintiff filed his response.  He
filed the exhibits to his response seven minutes later, at 12:06
a.m. on June 14, 2018.

Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff at the time, he had inadvertently
filed a draft of his response, rather than the final version.  When
he discovered his error the next day, he filed the final draft of
the response.  The Defendant now asks the Court to strike the
Plaintiff's late response.  Because the Plaintiff attempted to
comply with the Court's order and file his response on June 13,
2018, and because the Defendant has not been prejudiced by the
Plaintiff's late filing of the final version of his response on
June 14, 2018, the Judge will deny the Defendant's motion to
strike.

Therefore, Judge Brack denied both (i) the Defendant's Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment; and (ii) the Defendant's Motion to
Disregard or Strike Plaintiff's Untimely Responses to Defendant's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

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

William Key, Plaintiff, represented by Jack L. Siegel, Siegel Law
Group PLLC, Travis Andrew Gasper, Lee & Braziel, LLP & J. Derek
Braziel, Lee & Braziel LLP.

Butch's Rat Hole & Anchor Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Charlotte A. Lamont -- clamont@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC
& Yvette V. Gatling -- ygatling@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson,
PC.


CANADA: Federal Court Confirms Legal Fees in '60s Scoop Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a Federal Court judge says he
doesn't have the power to reconsider how much the government should
pay lawyers who led a successful class-action lawsuit against
Canada over the so-called '60s Scoop.

In a decision released, Judge Michael Phelan said the fees were
approved by another Federal Court judge in May and there has been
no appeal or legal process to reopen the matter.

He further notes that the appeal periods have expired and the
parties involved the class-action have been working to carry out
the $750-million compensation deal for victims of the Scoop,
Indigenous children who lost their cultural heritage after being
taken from their homes and placed with non-Indigenous families.

"It is not in the interests of the claimants or the administration
of justice to add further uncertainty by reopening the issue of
council fees further," Judge Phelan wrote in his decision.

The judge said lawyers in the federal suit are free to reassess
their fees and decide whether part of the money should instead go
to the settlement, but are legally entitled to the sum approved by
Federal Court Judge Michel Shore, who was handling the matter.

Judge Phelan had requested input into whether he could review the
fees after Justice Edward Belobaba, in a separate but parallel
proceeding in Ontario Superior Court, found the $75 million Canada
had agreed to pay in legal costs was excessive.

Justice Belobaba also took issue with part of the deal that split
the fees evenly between lawyers who acted in Federal Court and
those who did in Superior Court.

The lawyers who had spent years fighting the landmark case in
Superior Court agreed to allow Justice Belobaba to deal with the
fee issue separately, so that he could approve the Scoop settlement
under which survivors are to be paid up to $50,000 each.

The lawyers in the Federal Court action, however, maintained that
Shore had signed off on the settlement on May 11, including the fee
arrangement. But they returned to Federal Court for one more
approval in light of the decision on the Ontario end.

Phelan, who took over the case from Shore, signed an order in
August confirming the lawyers in Federal Court would get their
$37.5 million. But he sent a note to the federal parties the next
day saying his approval applied to the agreement except for the
fees and later questioned if he could even rule on the issue.

In the end, the judge found that Justice Belobaba's ruling did not
raise a circumstance that would permit the reopening of a federal
judgment, saying each court's decisions stand on their own.

It would also be inappropriate for the Federal Court to comment on
the merits of the Superior Court ruling, given that counsel fees
remain a "live issue" before the Superior Court, Phelan said.

"It is not surprising that different court records yield different
court decisions," Judge Phelan wrote. "Both are valid and
subsisting decisions." [GN]


CANADA: Ottawa Settles Class Action Over EI Sickness Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Monsebraaten, writing for The Star, reported that as many as
2,000 new parents -- mostly mothers -- who were seriously ill
during parental leave, but denied additional EI sickness benefits,
may finally get their money.

After more than six years of legal wrangling, the federal
government and Calgary mother Jennifer McCrea have settled a
multi-million-dollar class-action lawsuit that alleged Ottawa
wrongly withheld the payments.

Federal Court Justice Catherine Kane confirmed the deal on Sept.
11. Subject to court approval in December, the settlement is
expected to pay McCrea and about 2,000 others an average of almost
$4,000 each, her lawyer said.

The total value of the settlement, reached Aug. 22, is estimated to
be between $8.5 million and $11 million, depending on the number of
class members who apply for the money.

"I am filled with gratitude for this settlement offer," said Ms.
McCrea, 41, who developed breast cancer in 2011 while on maternity
leave with her youngest son, Logan, but was denied additional EI
sickness benefits.

She stands to receive $7,515, the maximum 15-week benefit at the
time.

"It is such a relief. It was such a weight I carried for so long.
I'm just so glad it's over," she said in an emotional telephone
interview from Calgary.

Under the settlement offer, only parents who were sick during the
parental leave portion of their combined maternity/parental leave
period and were denied additional EI sickness benefits are eligible
for compensation.

"Each member will receive 100 per cent of the EI benefit they are
owed," said Ms. McCrea's lawyer Stephen Moreau --
smoreau@cavalluzzo.com

"We certainly fought for interest, but in every case like this
there is give and take on both sides," added Mr. Moreau, a lawyer
with Cavalluzzo LLP.

About $2.5 million of the settlement has been earmarked to cover
the firm's legal costs.

The government, which has records on EI sickness claimants, will
mail notices of settlement to parents eligible for payment, who
will have until December to give their input. The estates of those
who have died will also be able to claim the money, said Moreau,
who added he is confident people will support the offer.

"The government of Canada recognizes the challenges faced by
Canadians who cannot work because of illness, injury and other
family challenges and has reached a settlement agreement . . . to
bring closure to these legal proceedings," said a statement from
Social Development Minister Jean-Yves Duclos's office.

The court action stems from a 2002 change to EI legislation that
extended sickness benefits to working parents who become ill during
pregnancy or while on maternity and parental leave.

It meant new mothers, such as Ms. McCrea, could take up to 15 weeks
of sickness benefits to recuperate and then resume their parental
benefits.

But EI officials didn't interpret the changes that way; they argued
that since an ill woman on parental leave wasn't available for
work, she wasn't eligible for EI sickness benefits.

It wasn't until Toronto mother Natalya Rougas successfully appealed
her case in 2011 that the federal government took notice.

Mr. Moreau, who represented Ms. Rougas in her successful claim,
launched the class action in 2012 on behalf of Ms. McCrea after the
Calgary mother read about the case online in the Star.

"It was during Natalya's case that I realized many more women just
like her were probably affected," Mr. Moreau said. "Jennifer McCrea
agreed to be the face of those women."

The Stephen Harper government eventually changed the law in 2013 to
ensure new mothers with serious illnesses are not denied EI
sickness benefits. And it quietly paid about 350 women who had
their applications denied in 2012 and 2013.

But it refused to pay Ms. McCrea and others who were denied
sickness benefits between 2002 and 2013.

A judge certified Ms. McCrea's class-action suit in May 2015. But
despite an election promise to quickly settle the lawsuit, the
current Liberal government continued to fight the case.

Government documents released in March 2016 show the previous
government spent $2.2 million fighting the class action. But an
access to information request filed by The Canadian Press in the
fall of 2017 showed the Liberals spent a further $300,000 opposing
the case, bringing the total to more than $2.5 million. It is not
clear how much more federal lawyers have spent since last year.

Ms. Rougas received her EI sickness benefits when she won her case
in 2011 and was not part of the class action. But she and her
husband Stavros are pleased a settlement has been reached with Ms.
McCrea and other parents.

"It took time, but justice prevailed," Stavros said in an
interview. "It feels good."

Ms. McCrea, who has contacted cabinet ministers and local MPs to
plead the case, admits there were times when she felt like giving
up. But the marathon runner and mother of two says she was buoyed
by friends and the knowledge other mothers were counting on her.

"When you start a race, you have to finish it," she said. "And
that's what we did." [GN]


CANADA: Proposes $100MM Settlement in Veterans' Class-Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Sasvari, writing for The Manitoulin Expositor, reports that the
President of the Espanola-Manitoulin War Pensioners of Canada (WPC)
is indifferent to a settlement proposed by the federal government
that would provide a $100 million settlement in a disabled veterans
clawback class-action.

"It sounds like a lot of money, but it isn't when it gets divided
among all the veterans who are part of this class action lawsuit
against the federal government," said Colin Pick of WPC.

Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of Natural
Defence the Honourable Seamus O'Regan issued a statement on
September 12 regarding the settlement of a class action lawsuit
brought against the Government of Canada which said: "the
Government of Canada and the plaintiff Ray Toth have reached an
agreement-in-principle to settle the class proceeding in Toth. vs
Her Majesty the Queen, bringing the parties closer to the end of a
legal action that began over four years go. The government and the
plaintiffs have agreed in principle to settle this class action
with an amount of $100 million inclusive of legal fees. I believe
the proposed settlement is fair and provides both sides with needed
closure. The settlement is subject to approval by the Federal
Court." A settlement approval hearing is set for December.

"Now that this matter may soon be behind us, the Government of
Canada will continue working to better serve veterans and their
families," said Minister O'Regan. "I believe this decision shows
that we intend to ensure that veterans in Canada are better off now
than they were before."

"We have already invested $10 billion of new money into services
and supports for veterans, and their families, hired hundreds of
new staff and opened 10 Veterans Affairs office across the
country," said Mr. O'Regan. "I look forward to continuing important
discussions with Canadians in the coming weeks and months so that
we can continue to build on what has been achieved to date."

"The settlement, which is still to be approved by the federal
court, would provide more than 12,000 veterans with payments of
between $2,000 and $50,000 depending on when they served and the
severity of their disabilities," said Minister O'Regan.

Mr. Pick said, "I understand payments from $2,000-$50,000 would be
provided. Even $50,000 is peanuts when for instance a veteran is
having to deal with life after the military and is missing body
parts. What the government is proposing sounds like a lot of money,
but when not when it is being divided amongst so many veterans."

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

The veterans alleged that the deductions, which took place between
April 2006 and May 2012, violated their charter rights by
discriminating against them because they were disabled.[GN]


CANADA: Quebec Sued for Violating Nunavik Offenders' Rights
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jane George, writing for Nunatsiaq News, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been launched against the Quebec government to
seek compensation for Nunavik residents who, due to the lack of
correctional facilities in their region, are held in custody in the
south for unreasonable periods of time.

Lawyers Victor Chauvelot and Louis Nicholas Coupal-Schmidt, on
behalf of Michael Carrier, 28, of Kangirsuk, and others, filed the
statement of claim in Montreal on Sept. 3 at Quebec's Superior
Court.

The suit seeks damages of $2,500 per day for all Nunavik residents
who are forced into "inhumane" jails in the south, leaving them
with feelings of abandonment, solitude, anxiety and despair.

This experience should merit each claimant an additional $50,000 in
punitive damages, the statement of claim says.

The statement of claim, which is for now available in French only,
requires that the Quebec Superior Court first accepts this as a
class action.

It seeks compensation for anyone accused in Nunavik of a criminal
offence since Sept. 4, 2015 -- three years before the statement of
claim was filed -- and held for a period of more than three days
between their first appearance before a judge and a bail hearing.

According to Section 515 of the Criminal Code of Canada this wait
should be no longer than three days, unless those arrested have
consented to the extra time in jail.

The parties held responsible for the breaches of the claimants'
rights include Quebec's ministries of justice and public security.

In the statement of claim, Mr. Carrier, 28 and a father of two,
alleges that his rights and those of others were violated after
arrest.

Mr. Carrier was arrested this past July 5 but was detained until
July 13 when he was released. It took him two more days to get
home, amounting to 10 days in all.

Every person detained in Nunavik should have the right to the "full
protection of the law," as other Canadians and Quebecers do, says
the statement of claim.

However, that wasn't the case for Carrier and others in Nunavik who
saw this this time frame violated due to the "indifference and
negligence of the state," says the statement of claim.

As well, Nunavik offenders can't remain in the region while the
investigation is taking place, because there is no jail.

The lack of a regional jail means, like Carrier, people who have
been arrested must travel to correctional facilities in Amos or St.
Jerome, on a long and costly journey that can take up to two
weeks.

The statement of claim states Quebec acted "in full knowledge of
the immediate and obvious consequences of its actions" in allowing
this to happen.

Plans once existed to build a jail in Nunavik, which was called for
in the 1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the 2002
Sanarutik Agreement, but "these promises were unfulfilled," states
the statement of claim.

By 2005, a $40-million jail was to be built in Inukjuak that would
house 40 detainees.

But in 2006, Nunavik leaders, Maggie Emudluk of the Kativik
Regional Government, and Pita Aatami of Makivik Corp., traded that
jail in the region for $300 million in crime prevention money from
Quebec over a 22-year period, and the Sanarrutik Agreement was
amended.

Mr. Chauvelot told Nunatsiaq News that even though Nunavik leaders
renounced a jail in favour of the money that led to the
establishment of Ungaluk Safer Communities Program, that doesn't
mean Quebec can continue to break the law.

The idea that the correctional system needs to change isn't new:
the Quebec ombudsman's report in 2016 revealed that the annual
number of Inuit admitted into the province's correctional
facilities stands at about 900 per year and that the average stay
for Inuit awaiting trial is 17.6 days longer than for the rest of
the inmate population in Quebec.

The inequities due to the lack of a jail in Nunavik were raised
again earlier this year at the Viens commission, which is looking
at Quebec's track record with respect to Indigenous people.

And more recently a Quebec Superior Court judge ruled that a
Kuujjuaq woman does not have to complete a jail sentence until the
province can provide a facility for her to serve an intermittent
sentence in Nunavik.

The Superior Court is likely to say within six months where this
class action suit can move ahead, Mr. Chauvelot said. [GN]


CENTURYLINK: Taking A Beating In Class-Action Suit Alleging Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Ritchie, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that
CenturyLink -- bumbling fools running a cobbled-together company or
greedy executives deliberately "cramming" onto bills services that
customers don't want and didn't order?

Orlando lawyer Mark O'Mara, Esq. -- mark@omaralawgroup.com -- one
of three lead attorneys in a nationwide lawsuit against
CenturyLink, was inclined to believe the argument that the octopus
of a firm with 5.9 million broadband customers just didn't have
consistent policies and its customer-service representatives
weren't well trained. The mistakes were, well, just that --
mistakes.

Then, he and his colleagues pursuing a federal complaint started
taking sworn statements from employees of the communications
company that also has 12 million wireline subscribers.

That's when O'Mara changed his mind.

The lawyers began hearing from former and current CenturyLink
employees that the company set impossibly high goals for sales
people -- so high that they couldn't meet the numbers without
engaging in fraud.

Indeed, CenturyLink fired more than half its sales force between
2013 and 2017 for failing to meet crazy-high quotas, the suit
states. At any given time, 70 to 80 percent of sales employees were
somewhere on CenturyLink's discipline ladder because they couldn't
sell enough.

Here's a sample from the 165-page lawsuit, a statement from an
employee identified only as FE-2:

"A lot of times I'd get unit projections and would think, ‘Are we
really going to do this?' Just looking at what we had done
[historically] it was always mind blowing. In a market where we'd
never sold over 1,700 units, all of a sudden we're going to push
2,500 units next month."

And the result of high-pressure sales for you, dear customer?

The lawsuit, filed in Minnesota but representing folks in Orlando
and those in a dozen or so states, says that misquoting charges and
adding unwanted services was "so endemic and institutionalized at
CenturyLink" that the company may have over-billed 3.5 million
customers -- half those who buy Internet and up to a third of those
who have household phones.

The suit is out to get refunds for customers here and elsewhere,
and to change the way CenturyLink does business, which it contends
results in massive rip-offs of customers.

Asked specific questions about allegations in sworn statements by
its employees, CenturyLink officials declined to answer.

Spokesman Mark Molzen said, "In cases such as these, plaintiff
lawyers frequently float unsubstantiated claims to put the company
in a defensive and negative light. It isn't productive for us to
react to their attempts to leverage the media to their advantage."

Nice try. But diversion only works in football.

Employees of CenturyLink testified that the company pays workers in
big call centers in countries such as Honduras, El Salvador and the
Philippines $3 to $4 an hour and gives them a monthly set amount
with which to give refunds to angry customers, O'Mara said. If the
customer-service representative runs over the typically low amount,
the excess is deducted from the representative's paycheck. Oh, my.
Now that's a bit medieval.

Those representatives who can convince a customer to buy more
services, however, can make relatively big bucks, O'Mara said.

"If you up-sell, you can double or triple your income. If I'm the
rep who resolves the problem, I get no bonus, no commission, no
benefit for simply resolving the problem," he said.

Perhaps the most common complaint about CenturyLink is that one
customer-service representative promises a certain rate or change,
and then a far higher bill arrives. The customer phones again and
gets a new service representative who claims to have no way of
knowing what rate was promised or by whom.

It's as if every day is Monday at CenturyLink for the hapless
customer.

But that's a sham, O'Mara said.

Employees testified that CenturyLink uses a sophisticated tracking
program called "Assemble" that gives every customer representative
full information.

"Once the call is opened and the customer number is identified, all
info, including previous contacts, services purchased, billing,
etc., comes up on the screen. All calls are recorded and available
to the reps," O'Mara said. "You don't get to a customer
representative who doesn't have it."

That's nice to know, isn't it? Here at the Orlando Sentinel, we
pride ourselves on bringing you news you can use when you're up
against a big corporation.

While CenturyLink was boasting a "customer-first" focus, "in
reality, fraudulent sales practices were at the very core of the
company's business model," the suit states. The lawsuit lays out
evidence showing the company knew its business plan was faulty and
secretly tried to fix it. When sales dropped after the "fix," the
company returned to requiring the higher goals and pressuring the
sales staff, the suit says.

Another part of the complex lawsuit is a claim on behalf of
shareholders who, according to the court documents, received
fabricated disclosures and whose stock dropped because of bad
management.

Over the next few months, O'Mara said, both sides will finish
taking sworn statements and begin to argue legal issues, including
one that could derail the complainants' efforts. That issue is
whether customers must take their complaints to arbitration rather
than sue in federal court as they have done. CenturyLink contends
that all customers signed releases that state they will arbitrate
if there is a dispute with the company. O'Mara said he believes he
can get past that roadblock and litigate the case.

Here's hoping he can. If half the claims meticulously described in
the lawsuit are true, the result may be some tangible dollars in
customers' pockets.[GN]


CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Ringo et al Seek Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
KINYATTA RINGO and AYONNA PENNINGTON, Each Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
CHECKERS DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-715-DPM (E.D. Ark., Sept. 26, 2018) seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a
result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other
hourly-paid shift leaders lawful overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant owns and operates several
Checker's and Rally's restaurants throughout Arkansas and the
surrounding states. The Plaintiffs and other shift leaders were
paid an hourly rate by Defendant. The Plaintiffs and other shift
leaders worked more than 40 hours in most workweeks. The Defendant
routinely scheduled Plaintiffs and other shift leaders to work more
than 40 hours in a single workweek.

It was the Defendant's commonly applied practice to not pay
Plaintiffs and other shift leaders for all of the hours during
which they were performing labor for the Defendant.  The Defendant
had a practice of not paying Plaintiffs and other shift leaders one
and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


CHICAGO, IL: Black Lives Matter's Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that opening statements were expected
Sept. 17 in the first-degree murder trial of a white Chicago police
officer in the fatal shooting of a black 17-year-old, Laquan
McDonald.

Officer Jason Van Dyke is scheduled to go on trial in a Cook
County, Illinois, courtroom. He also is charged with aggravated
battery and official misconduct. He has pleaded not guilty.

Van Dyke's attorneys say he feared for his life when he shot
McDonald 16 times. Video shows Van Dyke opening fire as the young
man walks away from officers with a knife in his hand.

Here are key moments in the case:

2014

Oct. 20: Van Dyke fatally shoots McDonald after responding to a
call about a teenager breaking into cars. Other officers back Van
Dyke's claim that McDonald, who had a small knife with its blade
folded, posed a threat to Van Dyke's life.

2015

April 15: The Chicago City Council votes to approve a $5 million
settlement with McDonald's family.

Nov. 24: More than a year after the shooting, Cook County State's
Attorney Anita Alvarez announced she was charging Van Dyke with
first-degree murder. Hours later, the city responds to a judge's
order and releases dashcam video of the shooting that shows
McDonald veering away from officers. The footage appears to
contradict the accounts of Van Dyke and the other officers on the
scene that he lunged at them with the knife. The video's release
sparks days of protests.

Dec. 1: Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel fires Police Superintendent
Garry McCarthy after a public outcry over the handling of the
McDonald case.

Dec. 7: The U.S. Department of Justice announces that its civil
rights division will investigate the police force, looking for
patterns of racial disparity in its use of force.

Dec. 9: Emanuel apologizes for McDonald's killing in a speech
before the City Council. He says Chicago's police force needs
"complete and total reform."

Dec. 16: A grand jury indicts Van Dyke on six counts of
first-degree murder and one count of official misconduct.

2016:

Feb. 16: The city of Chicago says it will release videos of police
shootings and in-custody deaths within 60 days, after being
criticized for refusing to release the McDonald shooting video for
more than a year.

April 12: A task force established by Emanuel to look into police
practices in the wake of the McDonald shooting says the department
must acknowledge its racist past and overhaul its handling of
excessive force allegations. It also recommends abolishing the
Independent Police Review Authority, which investigates officer
misconduct.

April 21: Emanuel announces changes to how police shootings and
misconduct cases are handled, but draws criticism for stopping
short of abolishing the Independent Police Review Authority.

May 13: Emanuel announces that he is abolishing the Independent
Police Review Authority and replacing it with the Civilian Police
Investigative Agency, which will have more independence and
resources.

June 3: Chicago releases hundreds of videos that offer startling
glimpses into violent encounters involving police, including the
fatal shooting of a robbery suspect speeding toward officers in a
van and an incident in which an officer slammed his night stick
against a man's head at a party.

Aug. 18: Superintendent Eddie Johnson says seven Chicago police
officers should be fired for filing false reports in the McDonald
shooting.

Oct. 7: Johnson releases details of a proposed new policy that
would require officers to use the least amount of force necessary
and emphasizes the "sanctity of life."

Nov. 16: A special prosecutor says a grand jury has been impaneled
to hear evidence into a possible cover-up by Chicago police
officers in the McDonald shooting.

2017

Jan. 13: The Justice Department announces the findings of its civil
rights investigation. It says the Chicago Police Department has
violated the constitutional rights of residents for years  --
permitting racial bias against blacks, using excessive force and
killing people who didn't pose a threat. It concludes that the
pattern was attributable to "systemic deficiencies" within the
department and the city, including insufficient training and a
failure to hold bad officers accountable for misconduct.

March 23: A grand jury adds 16 counts of aggravated battery with a
firearm to the first-degree murder charges against Van Dyke in the
McDonald shooting. The new indictment raises the number of felony
counts against Van Dyke to 23.

May 17: The Police Department releases a new use of force policy
that requires Chicago officers to undergo de-escalation training
and imposes stricter rules on when they can fire their weapons at
fleeing suspects.

June 3: Media reports say the city of Chicago and the Justice
Department have negotiated a draft agreement that calls for an
independent monitor to oversee reforms for the police force, which
is the nation's second largest. But it is unclear if there will be
court oversight at some stage in the future.

June 14: Leading community groups, including a Black Lives Matter
organization, file a class-action lawsuit against Chicago in a bid
to bypass or scuttle a draft agreement between the city and the
Justice Department that seeks to reform the police without federal
court oversight.

June 27: Three Chicago police officers are indicted on felony
charges that they conspired to cover up Van Dyke's actions in the
killing of McDonald.

Aug. 28: The city of Chicago changes course and says it wants to
carry out far-reaching reforms of its police under strict federal
court supervision, abandoning a draft deal on reforms with the
Trump administration that envisioned no court role.

Nov. 14: The grand jury that indicted three Chicago police officers
on charges that they conspired to cover up what happened when Van
Dyke fatally shot McDonald disbands without indicting anyone else
in the department.

Dec. 11: The Chicago Police Department says all patrol officers are
now equipped with body cameras.

2018

March 20: The American Civil Liberties Union and several community
organizations say that they have reached an agreement to provide
input into reforms being proposed for the Chicago Police
Department.

Sept. 13: Lawyers finish choosing 12 jurors and five alternates for
Van Dyke's murder trial. Emanuel and Illinois' attorney general
Lisa Madigan meanwhile unveil an updated plan to reform the city's
police, saying it will ensure permanent, far-reaching changes
within a 12,000-officer department that has a long history of
committing serious civil rights abuses. The more than 200-page
document is submitted to U.S. District Judge Robert Dow for his
consideration. [GN]


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Rael Class Action Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
The Children's Place, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended August 4, 2018, that the purported class action suit
entitled, Rael v. The Children's Place, Inc., is still stayed.

The Company is a defendant in Rael v. The Children's Place, Inc., a
purported class action, pending in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of California. In the initial complaint filed in
February 2016, the plaintiff alleged that the Company falsely
advertised discount prices in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.  

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in April 2016, adding
allegations of violations of other state consumer protection laws.
In August 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
adding an additional plaintiff and removing the other state law
claims. The plaintiffs' second amended complaint seeks to represent
a class of California purchasers and seeks, among other items,
injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company engaged in mediation proceedings with the plaintiffs in
December 2016 and April 2017. The parties reached an agreement in
principle in April 2017, and signed a definitive settlement
agreement in November 2017, to settle the matter on a class basis
with all individuals in the U.S. who made a qualifying purchase at
The Children's Place from February 11, 2012 through the date of
preliminary approval by the court of the settlement.

The settlement is subject to court approval and provides for
merchandise vouchers for class members who submit valid claims, as
well as payment of legal fees and expenses and claims
administration expenses.

The court has stayed the matter, pending an appellate court ruling
in another lawsuit to which the Company is not a party.

The settlement, if ultimately approved by the court, will result in
the dismissal of all claims through the date of the court's
preliminary approval of the settlement. However, if the settlement
is rejected by the court, the parties will likely return to
litigation, and in such event, no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of this matter. In connection with the proposed
settlement, the Company recorded a reserve for $5.0 million in its
consolidated financial statements in the first quarter of 2017.

The Children's Place, Inc. operates as a children's specialty
apparel retailer. The company operates in two segments, The
Children's Place U.S. and The Children’s Place International. It
sells apparel, accessories, footwear, and other items for children;
and designs, contracts to manufacture, and sells merchandise under
the proprietary The Children's Place, Place, and Baby Place brand
names. The Children's Place, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is
headquartered in Secaucus, New Jersey.


CIBC: Faces Class Action Over Investment Trailer Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
Erica Johnson, writing for CBC News, reports that Steve Pozgaj
became the lead plaintiff in a proposed class-action lawsuit
against CIBC and CIBC Trust Corporation regarding trailer fees paid
to online or discount brokers on CIBC mutual funds.

A Toronto man says his "head exploded" when he learned he'd lost
more than $60,000 from his retirement nest egg by paying fees for
financial advice he never got -- and that his broker isn't legally
allowed to provide.

"Investors are getting screwed," said Mr. Pozgaj.

Mr. Pozgaj, 65, is one of a growing number of Canadians who are
do-it-yourself investors, using online brokerages to purchase
mutual funds and other investments, instead of through a financial
adviser.

Last year, he and his wife were dinged almost $5,000 in trailer
fees -- also known as trailing commissions -- which are embedded
commissions paid by mutual fund companies to compensate advisers
and firms that sell their funds, for the services and advice they
provide clients.

Mr. Pozgaj estimates he's been indirectly paying those fees to his
discount brokerage, TD Direct Investing, for more than a decade,
which means he's also lost the effect of compounded interest.

In the case of do-it-yourself investment sites, like the ones Mr.
Pozgaj uses, securities regulators strictly prohibit online brokers
from giving advice.

"Why should I be paying for advice when they're legally not able to
give it?" said Mr. Pozgaj.

In the dark
Mr. Pozgaj said he had no idea he was paying for the supposed
advice until a few months ago, when he took a close look at his
investment statements, after the industry was forced to be more
transparent about the fees charged to investors.

"I have no problem paying somebody to manage my mutual funds;
that's what they do to make me money, and I'm generally happy with
TD," said Mr. Pozgaj. "But paying for advice that I'm not getting?
Crazy."

In an email to his discount broker at TD Direct Investing last
April, Mr. Pozgaj asked about the trailer fees. His broker
responded: "Everything is as it should be."

Mr. Pozgaj considers himself a knowledgeable investor; in the
1990s, he was a chief information officer at Mackenzie Financial, a
large investment management firm.

Yet he had never heard of a type of mutual fund he could have been
purchasing, called "Series D" funds. They're designed specifically
for DIY investors, with lower fees -- and no trailing commissions.

"I'm not Einstein," said Mr. Pozgaj. "But if I didn't know about
them, with my level of sophistication, I would bet dollars to
doughnuts that not many people know about this at all."

Class actions filed
Five months ago, Siskinds LLP, a law firm based in London, Ont.,
filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against TD Bank's investment
management firm, TD Asset Management, claiming there were "breaches
of trust" when TD charged trailing commissions for advice that was
not provided by a discount brokerage.

"As discount brokers do not and cannot provide investment advice to
investors, the paying of trailing commissions . . . is improper,
unreasonable and unjustified," Siskinds wrote in its statement of
claim.

Siskinds also filed a similar proposed class action in June against
Scotiabank's investment management divisions regarding trailing
commissions paid to discount brokers.

"Investors are now seeing the dollars and cents they're paying by
way of management fees, which include trailing commissions on these
[DIY] mutual funds -- and I think people find it troubling," said
Siskinds lawyer Michael Robb.

He admits he himself once had DIY investments and paid trailer
fees.

"I'm sure there are thousands of people, if not more, who are
affected by this," said Mr. Robb. "We're talking well into the tens
of millions of dollars that Canadians have paid for advice that was
never delivered."

The proposed class-action suits have yet to be certified and no
response has been submitted by either bank.

When contacted by Go Public, both TD and Scotiabank said they are
unable to comment on the proposed class actions as the matter is
"currently before the courts." TD added that its mutual fund fees
are all disclosed on its website.

'Industry-wide' problem
Although the proposed class-action lawsuits target two investment
fund management companies, Siskinds is currently considering
class-actions against other mutual fund management companies, Robb
said, because charging DIY investors for advice they're not getting
is "an industry-wide" issue.

A 2017 report by the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA), an
umbrella group for all provincial securities commissions, estimates
that there were more than $25 billion worth of mutual fund products
paying trailer fees held in discount brokerages, as of the end of
2015.

"It's a big problem and it's costing regular people a lot of
money," said Mr. Robb. "It's money taken out of their accounts
every year and it compounds."

Proposed ban
On Sept. 13, the CSA published its proposal to ban trailer fees
paid to discount brokerages. It is giving the industry three months
to comment on the proposed change.

The move comes years after the CSA launched in 2012 a review of the
fees on mutual funds, which are the country's most commonly held
investment product.

The delay is disappointing to some investment experts, including
Larry Bates.

"This has been going on for years," said Mr. Bates, a former
investment banker turned independent investor advocate, and author
of a how-to book for Canadian investors titled Beat the Bank.

"I would like to see the regulators act more decisively and more
quickly on this issue."

'Biggest secret on Bay Street'
While Bates said he believes paying trailer fees to discount
brokers is "ridiculous," he said those products are really just a
small segment of the total mutual fund market, which totals $1.49
trillion, according to the Investment Funds Institute of Canada.

"The impact of mutual fund fees on retirement accounts, over time,
is the biggest secret on Bay Street," said Mr. Bates. "Investors
are unaware, and the industry wants to keep it that way."

A typical mutual fund's total fees range from 1.5 per cent to 2.5
per cent a year, Mr. Bates said.

"Those fees are deducted from retirement accounts," he said. "But
the industry never presents a bill. Investors are never showed the
quantum of fees they pay, and they don't see the impact of those
fees over time."

Over a 25-year time frame, Bates said a two per cent fee will strip
out about 50 per cent of an investor's total returns. "It's plain
wrong, and really takes advantage of investors."

Investors would be well-served learning some investment basics,
Bates said. The fees aren't just an issue for individuals, he
argues, but "a social issue" as well.

"Who's going to pay for the retirements of our generation and the
next generation? The business model we have in the investment
industry that's addicted to these high-cost products serves
Canadian investors extremely poorly," he said.

"It's not good for Canadians. It's as simple as that."

As for Mr. Pozgaj, he says he's been waiting to see how TD will
address his concerns about the trailer fees he's been indirectly
paying, and is considering legal action.

"I just can't see injustice being done and do nothing about it," he
said. "This just seems wrong. It's morally incorrect, what they're
doing." [GN]


CIOX HEALTH: Kasher Law Group's Suit Remanded to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KASHER LAW GROUP, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CIOX HEALTH, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01821-NLH-AMD (D. N.J.), Judge Noel L.
Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted the Plaintiff's motion for remand.

The putative class action, originally filed in state court and
removed by the Defendants to the Court, concerns the Plaintiff's
allegations that the Defendant committed fraud and acted in bad
faith by overcharging for electronic copies of patients' medical
records.  

The Plaintiff is a law firm that requested hospital medical records
for its client from Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Camden, New
Jersey.  The Defendant is an information management company that,
among other things, contracts with hospitals, including Our Lady of
Lourdes Hospital, to provide copies of patients' medical records at
their request.  According to the Plaintiff's complaint, the
Defendant charged $161.90 for 261 pages of its client's medical
records, which were electronically downloaded onto a CD and mailed
to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's fees for electronic
production are not based on its actual costs, and are higher than
the limits imposed by N.J.A.C. Section 8:43G-15.3(d), which permits
only a $10 search fee, the actual cost of the portable media (e.g.,
CD), and the actual cost of postage, as determined by the New
Jersey Department of Health.  

The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the Defendant's
violation of this provision constitutes an unconscionable business
practice, and violates the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  It also
claims that the Defendant breached the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing by overcharging for electronic medical records and
adds a claim for unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff has proposed the class of all patients who are New
Jersey citizens, or persons designated by such patients to receive
copies of their medical records: (A) who, between Dec. 11, 2011 and
the present, received an invoice from Ciox for electronic copies of
patient medical records produced on a CD or via internet download,
which were created by a New Jersey health care provider; and (B)
who paid that Ciox invoice.  The Plaintiff alleges that each class
member has incurred less than $210 in out-of-pocket damages.

The Defendant removed the Plaintiff's case from New Jersey Superior
Court, Camden County, to the Court, contending that the Court has
jurisdiction over the matter pursuant the  Class Action Fairness
Act ("CAFA").  In its notice of removal, the Defendant contends
that all three elements for CAFA jurisdiction are met.
Specifically with regard to the amount in controversy, it contends
that the Plaintiff's proposed class encompasses more than 50,000
potential class members.  At $100 in damages per class member ($110
less than proposed by the Plaintiff), along with treble and
punitive damages and attorney's fees, all of which are available to
the Plaintiff for its claims and requested in the complaint, the $5
million amount in controversy threshold is easily met.

The Plaintiff has moved to remand its case to state court.  In its
motion to remand, it does not dispute that the matter meets the
citizenship and numerosity requirements of CAFA.  The Plaintiff
argues, however, that the Defendant has not demonstrated that the
class claims will exceed $5 million and contends its case should be
remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Judge Hillman finds that the evidence before the Court shows that
the Defendant's allowable charges for the electronic production of
hospital medical records are $10 for the search fee and $11.65 for
postage, which is what the Defendant charged the Plaintiff in the
case.  As for the cost of the CD, even if it is only $.01 when
factored into calculation, that cost results in an amount in
controversy significantly less than the $5 million threshold for
CAFA jurisdiction.  Permitted charges ($21.66) x class members
(18,523) = $401,208.18. Total revenue ($1,267,453) — permitted
charges ($401,208.18) = $866,244.82 in overcharges.  Overcharges
($866,244.82) × 3 for treble damages = $2,598,734.46 in class
damages.  Fifty-percent attorney's fees and costs ($1,299,367.23) +
class damages ($2,598,734.46) = $3,898,101.69 for the total amount
in controversy.  Understanding that a CD or other portable media
device most likely costs more than $.01, the increase in permitted
costs simply reduces the total class damages and thus further
supports that the amount in controversy is not met in the case.

Consequently, because the preponderance of the evidence shows that
the total amount in controversy for the Plaintiff's putative class
action is less than $5 million, the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's putative class action under CAFA.
The Defendant has not proven by the preponderance of the evidence
that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.  Accordingly,
the Judge granted the Plaintiff's motion for remand.  An
appropriate Order will be entered.

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

KASHER LAW GROUP, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarily situated, Plaintiff, represented by JOSEPH A. OSEFCHEN,
DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN, P.C. & STEPHEN PATRICK DENITTIS --
sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC.

CIOX HEALTH, LLC, Defendant, represented by REBECCA BRAZZANO --
Rebecca.Brazzano@ThompsonHine.com -- THOMPSON HINE LLP.


CITIBANK NA: Dec. 20 Libor Settlement Approval Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
If you are a U.S.-Headquartered Lending Institution that owned a
loan with interest payable to you at a rate based upon U.S. Dollar
LIBOR anytime between August 1, 2007 and May 31, 2010, you may be
eligible for a payment from Settlements totaling $31 million.

What is this lawsuit about?
In a class-action lawsuit about alleged manipulation of the London
Interbank Offered Rate ("LIBOR"), Settlements have been reached
with Citibank, N.A. and Citigroup Inc. (collectively, "Citibank"),
HSBC Bank plc and HSBC Holdings plc (collectively, "HSBC") and
Barclays Bank plc ("Barclays"). Citibank, HSBC and Barclays are
together called "Settling Defendants." The lawsuit claims that
Settling Defendants and the Non-Settling Defendants unlawfully
manipulated U.S. Dollar LIBOR, artificially lowering the rate which
caused class members to lose money in connection with loans and
transactions regarding loans.

Who is included?
You are included in the Settlements if you are a U.S.-headquartered
lending institution that originated loans, held loans, held
interests in loans, owned loans, owned interests in loans,
purchased loans, purchased interests in loans, sold loans, or sold
interests in loans with interest rates based upon U.S. Dollar
LIBOR. Class Members will release claims through these Settlements
only against Settling Defendants and their affiliates; the
Settlements do not impact claims in the lawsuit against the
Non-Settling Defendants, and the lawsuit is ongoing.

The loans affected include, among others: U.S. Dollar LIBOR-based
loans that include a term, provision, or obligation or right to
receive interest payments based on U.S. Dollar LIBOR. These
Settlements do not include other types of U.S. Dollar LIBOR-based
instruments such as interest rate swaps or bonds.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THESE SETTLEMENTS

OPTION AND DEADLINE

Submit a Claim

November 20, 2018
(Submitted or Postmarked)
This is the only way to receive a payment from the Settlements.

Ask to be Excluded

November 20, 2018
(Postmarked)

You will receive no monetary benefits from the Settlements. This is
the only option that allows you to retain any claims released by
the Settlements against Settling Defendants about U.S. Dollar LIBOR
manipulation and other claims at issue in this case.

Object

November 20, 2018
(Postmarked)
If you wish to object to the Settlements, or anything else
referenced in this Notice, you must file a written objection.

Go to a Hearing
You may also request to be heard at the Fairness Hearing.
The Court will hold a hearing on December 20, 2018, to consider
whether to approve the Settlements and approve Class Counsel's
request for attorney's fees of up to one-third of the Settlement
Fund, plus reimbursement of costs and expenses. You or your own
lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense.

Do Nothing

You will forfeit your right to receive a monetary benefit from the
Settlements and you will give up your rights to assert claims
released by the Settlements against Settling Defendants about U.S.
Dollar LIBOR manipulation claims at issue in this case.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

         Call: 1-833-609-9716
         Email: info@LendersLiborSettlements.com
         Mail: Lenders LIBOR Settlements
               c/o JND Legal Administration
               P.O. Box 91347
               Seattle, WA 98111


COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on September 20, 2018, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey against Cocrystal Pharma, Inc., f/k/a
BioZone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: COCP). The complaint alleges
violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including
allegations of issuing a series of material or false
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is September 23, 2013 through September 7, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Cocrystal
Pharma, Inc., f/k/a BioZone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. shareholders who
purchased common stock during the Class Period and are therefore a
member of the Class as described above. You may move the Court no
later than Monday, November 19, 2018 to serve as a lead plaintiff
for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet
certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights please:

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]


COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Cocrystal Pharma, Inc. (f/k/a/ BioZone
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) ("Cocrystal Pharma" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq: COCP) in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Cocrystal Pharma securities between
September 23, 2013 through September 7, 2018, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants were
engaged in a pump-and-dump scheme to artificially inflate
Cocrystal's stock price; (2) this illicit scheme would result in
governmental scrutiny, including from the SEC; (3) Defendants
failed to abide by SEC disclosure regulations; and (4) as a result,
defendants' statements about Cocrystal Pharma'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.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the November 19, 2018
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action please:

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
          Gainey McKenna & Egleston
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300
          Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                 gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


COLLEGE OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC: Court Issues Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Sjolin, Esq. -- VSjolin@blg.com -- of Borden Ladner
Gervais LLP, in an article for Lexology, reported that the
Newfoundland Court of Appeal has rendered a precedent-setting
decision in Thorne v. College of the North Atlantic, in which the
bench was tasked with deciding a novel issue: does the Newfoundland
and Labrador Class Actions Act, (the "Act") provide for the
certification of counterclaims? The Court of Appeal answered in the
negative.

Like many other provinces in Canada, Newfoundland's class action
legislation does not expressly provide for the certification of a
claim against a class of defendants. In this case, the defendant in
a class action sought to bring a counter-claim against the same
class that was suing the defendant. In other words, it was seeking
to certify the plaintiff class as a defendant class for the
purposes of its counterclaim.

While the defendant in Thorne was trying to bring a counterclaim
and was therefore forced to proceed in Newfoundland, there may be
cases where parties will want to certify a defendant class. Thorne
suggests that parties contemplating this unusual strategy will have
to litigate in provinces such as Ontario, whose legislation
expressly provides for defendant class actions.

The Background

The defendant College is a publicly-owned technical training
institute operating in Newfoundland and Labrador. In 2001, the
College entered into an agreement with the government of Qatar to
operate a technical training institute in Qatar.

The plaintiff, Ms. Thorne, was employed by the College as an
instructor in Qatar. She commenced a class action, along with other
employees, against the College for breach of contract, alleging
that, in addition to the remuneration set out in their individual
contracts of employment with the College, they ought to have been,
but were not, paid a living allowance. The application for
certification was granted and Ms. Thorne was appointed the
representative plaintiff.

The College filed a defence and counterclaim. In its counterclaim,
the College argued that some of its employees, including Ms.
Thorne, were overpaid and sought reimbursement of the overpaid
amounts.

The Trial Decision

The Judge recognized that certification of the College's
counterclaim did not fit within the scheme of the Act but
nevertheless found that rule 7A.01(4) of the Rules of Supreme
Court, 1986 and section 13 and 14 of Act provided him with the
discretion to do so.

The Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and struck the College's
counterclaim. The counterclaim did not meet the statutory
conditions for certification, as required by the Act.

The Court set out the applicable provisions of the Act.
Specifically, section 3 of the Act speaks to a plaintiff class
action and section 4 of the Act provides that a defendant may apply
to certify a plaintiff class if the defendant is sued by more than
on plaintiff and the plaintiff's class has not already been
certified. A defendant class action, however, is when two or more
defendants are certified as a class. There is no such provision in
the Act.

Because a counterclaim is an independent action, a defendant who
files a counterclaim becomes a plaintiff by counterclaim. That
meant that the College was a plaintiff and must therefore comply
with the requirements under the Act.

In this case, the College, a corporate entity, was the sole
defendant in the plaintiff's class action and the sole plaintiff by
counterclaim. As a sole plaintiff by counterclaim, it was not a
member of a class of persons who reside in the province as required
by section 3(1) of the Act. Section 4 of the Act also did not apply
because the College was not named as a defendant in more than one
action.

Finally, the College was unable to fit within other sections of the
Act. For instance, the counterclaim did not disclose a cause of
action as required by section 5(1) of the Act. Even if employees
had been overpaid, the pleadings did not disclose why the College
should be entitled to recover those amounts. Further, the
counterclaim was only against about half of the plaintiff class and
therefore, this was not an issue common to all members of the
class. [GN]


COOPER COMPANIES: Settlement in Lens-Related Suit Has Initial Okay
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cooper Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2018, that the court has granted preliminary
approval of the parties' settlement in the contact lens-related
class action suit.

Since March 2015, over 50 putative class action complaints were
filed by contact lens consumers alleging that contact lens
manufacturers, in conjunction with their respective Unilateral
Pricing Policy (UPP), conspired to reach agreements between each
other and certain distributors and retailers regarding the prices
at which certain contact lenses could be sold to consumers.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages against CooperVision, Inc.,
other contact lens manufacturers, distributors and retailers, in
various courts around the United States. In June 2015, all of the
class action cases were consolidated and transferred to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

In August 2017, CooperVision entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs, without any admission of liability, to settle
all claims against CooperVision. In July 2018, the Court approved
the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement,
and the Company paid the $3.0 million settlement amount into an
escrow account.

Cooper Companies said, "The settlement remains subject to final
Court approval at a future hearing to be set by the Court."

The Cooper Companies, Inc. operates as a medical device company
worldwide. It operates through CooperVision and CooperSurgical
business units. The company develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of contact lenses, including spherical lenses, and toric and
multifocal lenses that correct near- and farsightedness, as well as
addresses various complex visual defects, such as astigmatism and
presbyopia.  The Cooper Companies, Inc. was founded in 1980 and is
headquartered in Pleasanton, California.


CULPEPER COUNTY, VA: Sheriff Faces Class Action Over ICE Holds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Moore, writing for WTOP, reports that a Virginia man, who was
pulled over last August on misdemeanor charges and kept in jail for
three months, has filed a class-action lawsuit against the Culpeper
County sheriff, claiming the official's practice of holding
suspected undocumented immigrants in jail after their release dates
is unconstitutional.

The case involves Sheriff Scott Jenkins' policy of honoring
requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to
temporarily hold immigrants in custody.

The lawsuit claims the sheriff who runs the county jail refused to
release prisoners who had ICE detainers placed against them -- even
if a judge had ordered them to be released and even if friends and
family members sought to pay the prisoner's bail.

The lawsuit was filed by the Legal Aid Justice Center and Victor M.
Glasberg, a civil rights attorney.

Francisco Guardado Rios, the man at the center of the lawsuit, was
locked up in the Culpeper County jail last August after he was
arrested for driving without a license and contributing to the
delinquency of a minor. (His lawyer told WTOP the second charge
stemmed from the fact that Mr. Guardado Rios, who is in his 30s,
was with his 17-year-old cousin and there was beer in the car).
Both charges are misdemeanors in Virginia.

Hours after his initial arrest, Mr.  Guardado Rios was ordered
released from jail on a $1,000 bail. Meanwhile, ICE had lodged a
detainer against him, and when his friend showed up to pay his
bail, the friend was told it wouldn't matter: Mr. Guardado Rios
would remain in jail, regardless, because Jenkins had a policy of
refusing to release prisoners with ICE detainers, the lawsuit
claims.

A spokesman for the Culpeper County Sheriff's Office did not
immediately respond to a request for comment from WTOP.

Mr. Guardado Rios stayed locked up for nearly three months.

At his Nov. 7 trial, he was convicted of contributing to the
delinquency of a minor and sentenced to 10 days in jail. But
because he had already served far more time than that before his
trial, the court ordered him released immediately. However, the
lawsuit claims Jenkins held Mr. Guardado Rios for two more days --
because of the ICE detainer -- and then had him transferred to the
custody of federal immigration authorities.

The lawsuit claims Mr. Guardado Rios' "prolonged detention"
violated his due process rights under the U.S. Constitution and
also constituted false imprisonment under Virginia common law.

His lawyers said Mr. Guardado Rios suffered emotional distress and
also lost the opportunity to return home to arrange his affairs
before being taken into custody by ICE. The suit seeks to have a
judge declare the sheriff's policy of holding people past their
release dates as unlawful and also seeks damages.

In addition, the class action suit includes additional plaintiffs
who were held at the Culpeper County jail past their release dates
on ICE detainers. Citing a database of federal data maintained by
Syracuse University, the lawsuit claims Jenkins held nearly 100
prisoners at the county jail past their release dates on ICE
detainers in 2017 and 2018.

The practice of local law enforcement officials cooperating with
federal immigration authorities is controversial. The ICE detainers
and similar ICE "arrest warrants" are only requests to local
officials to hold prisoners and are not signed off on by a judge,
activists have long pointed out.

In 2015, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring issued a nonbinding
opinion saying local authorities did not have to cooperate with ICE
and should release prisoners when they are eligible whether or not
ICE has requested a detainer.

In April, the Culpeper County Sheriff's Office signed an agreement
with ICE that allows sheriff deputies in the county to enforce
federal civil immigration laws. The lawsuit deals with prisoners
who were held past their release dates before that agreement went
into place. [GN]


DIOCESE OF PITTSBURGH: Suit Seeks Disclosure of Sexual Abuses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Lee, writing for York Daily Record, reports that a Verona man
and a Catholic school kindergartner are the representative
plaintiffs in a class action suit seeking the full disclosure of
all Catholic dioceses' records concerning sexual abuse by priests.

The complaint was filed on Sept. 17 in Pittsburgh while untold
numbers of people who were allegedly sexually assaulted by
predatory priests wait for the Pennsylvania legislature to
determine if they have a "window of justice" to seek legal
redress.

The adult plaintiff, Ryan O'Connor, says he was abused by a priest
between the ages of 10 and 12. O'Connor says he remains a member of
the Catholic Church, and his children attend Catholic school.

The child plaintiff is represented in the suit by his mother,
Kristen Hancock, who is active in her son's school and volunteers
as a homeroom mother.

Individually, they represent two classes of plaintiffs in the suit
-- survivors of priest abuse and children in Catholic schools who
potentially are at risk of priest abuse.

Filed in Allegheny Common Pleas Court, the lawsuit alleges that
eight Pennsylvania dioceses, seven bishops and an archbishop named
as defendants have continued to protect, support and cover for
predatory priests.

The complaint asks the court to order the defendants to:

   -- Prove they have met their mandatory child abuse reporting
requirements and given the identities of all predatory priests to
law enforcement;
   -- Disclose all further information and records in their
position pertaining to the abuse of children by members of the
clergy;
   -- Allow others to provide additional information concerning
abuse allegations either as victims or witnesses;
   -- Admit that the illegal, abusive acts occurred;
   -- Publicly acknowledge their wrongdoing;
   -- And, be compelled to immediately disclose the identity of
individuals they know to be dangerous to children.

The suit contends the release of all information will allow parents
and caretakers to protect their children.

The suit further contends that failure to release information that
validates the abuse allegations is, in itself, "retributive" and
"pits survivors against the denials of extremely formidable
authority figures and leads to years of emotional and psychological
harm."

The complaint notes that the recent grand jury report that
identified 301 predatory priests in Pennsylvania "emphasized it did
not believe the report identified all predator priests and that
many victims never came forward."

"Lack of a complete accounting and disclosure . . . constitutes a
clear and present danger," the suit concludes.

The plaintiffs are not seeking any monetary damages, but are
requesting attorney and expert witness fees and "any and all other
legal or equitable relief that the court may deem proper and
just."

Benjamin Sweet, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs,
said the Catholic church is "meticulous" about records, and he
believes there are files and information that "contain damaging
information" that have not been turned over to law enforcement or
shared with the public.

He said that Mr. O'Connor had been "grappling with whether he
wanted to go public with this" for "20-something years."

The lawsuit is "a real act of courage on his part," Sweet said.

Rachel A. Bryson, executive director of public relations for the
Diocese of Harrisburg, said on Sept. 17 that their attorneys have
just received a copy of the suit and are reviewing it.

The defendants:

   -- The Roman Catholic Dioceses of Pittsburgh, Allentown, Erie,
Greensburg, Harrisburg, Scranton and Altoona-Johnstown and the
Archdiocese of Philadelphia;
   -- Archbishop Charles Joseph Chaput and Bishops Alfred Andrew
Schlert, Mark Leonard Bartchak, Lawrence T. Persico, Edward C.
Malesic, Rronald William Gainer, David Zubic and Joseph Bambera.
[GN]


DOLLAR TREE: Continues to Defend Ex-Store Staff's Suit in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 4, 2018, that the company continues to defend a putative
class action suit filed in Florida state court.

In April 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action
in Florida state court brought by a former store employee asserting
the Company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act in the way it
handled background checks. The plaintiff is seeking statutory
damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation for the disclosure form
claims.

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

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores in the
United States and Canada. It operates through two segments, Dollar
Tree and Family Dollar. Dollar Tree, Inc. was founded in 1986 and
is headquartered in Chesapeake, Virginia.


DUN AND BRADSTREET: Kirk Seeks to Halt Sale to CC Capital
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kirk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation, Cindy
Christy, L. Gordon Crovitz, James N. Fernandez, Paul R. Garcia,
Anastassia Lauterbach, Thomas J. Manning, Randall D. Mott and
Judith A. Reinsdorf, Defendants, Case 18-cv-01455 (D. Del.,
September 19, 2018) seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or
closing the acquisition of Dun and Bradstreet by CC Capital, Cannae
Holdings and funds affiliated with Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P.;
rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages
in the event defendants consummate the merger; as well as costs of
this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Dun & Bradstreet's stockholders will receive $145 in cash for each
share of Dun & Bradstreet common stock they hold.

The complaint says the Defendants' registration statement omits Dun
and Bradstreet's financial projections, relied upon by the former's
financial advisors, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC in connection with
the rendering of their fairness opinions.

Dun & Bradstreet is a provider of business information and
technology solutions, which help its customers reduce credit risk,
manage business relationships, and collect cash and receivables.
The Company's databases include information regarding both public
and private companies around the world. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
      James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
      New Yor006B, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
             jwilson@faruqilaw.com

             - and -

      Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Tel: (302) 482-3182
      Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Thomas FCRA Suit in Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Mark William Thomas, Bertram
M. Brown, C. Ralph Copeland on behalf of themselves and anyone
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Equifax Information Services,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00684-MHL (E.D. Va., Oct. 9,
2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Equifax Information Services LLC collects and reports consumer
information to financial institutions. The company was formerly
known as Equifax Credit Information Services Inc. and changed its
name to Equifax Information Services LLC in June 2004. The company
was incorporated in 1937 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Equifax
Information Services LLC operates as a subsidiary of Equifax
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

          - and -

     Matthew James Erausquin, Esq.
     Consumer Litgation Associates PC (Alex)
     1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 600
     Alexandria, VA 22314
     Phone: (703) 273-7770
     Fax: (888) 892-3513
     Email: matt@clalegal.com


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: 6th Cir. Flips Dismissal Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, issued an
Opinion reversing the District Court's judgment granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned KEVIN L.
DOUGHERTY, Plaintiff, RONALD E. WALLACE and WALTER J. MINETT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Movants-Appellants, v. ESPERION THERAPEUTICS, INC.; TIM M.
MAYLEBEN, Defendants-Appellees. No. 17-1701. (6th Cir.).

In this case, the district court held that the Plaintiffs, certain
stockholders of Esperion Therapeutics, failed to adequately plead a
strong inference that Esperion CEO Tim Mayleben willfully or
recklessly made misleading statements to investors following a
meeting with the FDA regarding the company's new cholesterol drug.

The Plaintiffs, the purchasers of Esperion common stock between
August 18 and September 28, brought this class action against
Esperion and Mayleben for violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5. Their
amended complaint alleges that Esperion misled investors by falsely
stating that the FDA would not require a completed CVOT prior to
approval of ETC-1002, causing Esperion stock to trade at
artificially inflated levels during the class period. When the
FDA's final meeting minutes forced the company to reveal that the
FDA might indeed require a completed CVOT before approving the
drug, the Plaintiffs say, Esperion stock plummeted.

The court further held that Esperion's statements were not reckless
because they were based upon the company's knowledge that the FDA
had never before required a company to complete a CVOT prior to
approval of a drug similar to ETC-1002. Last, the district court
held that Esperion's statements fell within the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act's (PSLRA) safe harbor provision because they
served as the basis for later forward-looking statements by the
company.

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to allow the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.

To succeed on their claims under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and
SEC Rule 10b-5, the Plaintiffs must prove six elements: (1) a
material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant; (2)
scienter; (3) a connection between the misrepresentation or
omission and the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance upon
the misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss
causation.

The Plaintiffs' theory of scienter is straightforward. After
meeting with the FDA in August, Esperion issued statements saying
that the FDA told Esperion that it would not need to complete a
CVOT prior to approval in the high-unmet-need patient population,
and that the FDA would continue to consider lower LDL-cholesterol
levels as a proxy for improved heart health. But after the FDA
published its final minutes from the End-of-Phase 2 meeting,
Esperion issued statements saying that the FDA might require a
completed Cadiovascular Outcomes Test (CVOT) before approving
ETC-1002, and that there was some doubt regarding whether lower
LDL-cholesterol would remain an acceptable proxy.

According to the Plaintiffs, the only explanation for this
discrepancy is that Esperion's August statements regarding what
transpired at the meeting were knowingly or recklessly false. After
all, according to administrative guidance, the FDA's minutes are
the official record of what transpired at the End-of-Phase 2
meeting.  

Therefore, there should have been no substantial difference between
the FDA's minutes and Esperion's original account of the meeting.

Esperion offers two possible explanations for the differences
between its August and September statements. The company first says
that Esperion's September statements were made with the benefit of
further information not available in August, the FDA's final
minutes. In other words, Esperion suggests that the FDA's minutes
did not accurately reflect what transpired at the End-of-Phase 2
meeting.  

Second, Esperion suggests that it might have left the meeting with
a different impression than the FDA minutes ultimately reflected.
Under this theory, the FDA accurately stated its positions during
the meeting, but the company's executives simply misunderstood what
the FDA told them. Esperion then repeated those mistaken beliefs
along with significant cautionary language—to its investors in
August, and later corrected its statements once the FDA published
its minutes.

Neither explanation, however, is more plausible than the knowing or
reckless fraud alleged by Plaintiffs. Esperion provides no reason
why the FDA would have changed its position following the
End-of-Phase 2 meeting. Granted, the FDA has a dispute resolution
procedure through which drug sponsors can seek changes to the
minutes when there are significant differences in understanding"
between the FDA and the sponsor. This lends credence to Esperion's
argument that the FDA's minutes sometimes differ from what actually
transpires at a meeting.

But here, Esperion did not avail itself of the dispute resolution
procedure, even though the FDA's minutes (according to Esperion)
represented a material shift from what the FDA told the company in
August. Esperion argues that it could not have gained any advantage
from requesting revised minutes, since the FDA could still have
required the company to complete a pre-approval CVOT. One advantage
readily comes to mind: removing the basis for this suit. Although
it is possible that the FDA's minutes differed from what was
actually said during the End-of-Phase 2 meeting, this explanation
is no more plausible than Plaintiffs' inference that Esperion
knowingly and deliberately misrepresented the FDA's statements.

The Plaintiffs allege facts, that the FDA meeting minutes reflect
what was said during the End-of-Phase 2 meeting, and that what was
said at that meeting was inconsistent with what Esperion told its
investors in August that most assuredly support a strong inference
that the company knew its statements were false. At the very least,
the Plaintiffs' allegations support a strong inference that
Esperion recklessly misstated to its investors what the FDA said
during the meeting. The district court therefore erred by
concluding that the Plaintiffs' amended complaint failed to
adequately allege scienter.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's September 27, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycls45g5 from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Steven F. Hubachek, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, 655
West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101, for Appellants.

Deborah S. Birnbach -- dbirnbach@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER
LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Steven F. Hubachek, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, San
Diego, California, for Appellants.

Deborah S. Birnbach, Kevin P. Martin -- kmartin@goodwinlaw.com --
Adam Slutsky -- aslutsky@goodwinlaw.com -- Joshua J. Bone --
jbone@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, Boston, Massachusetts,
for Appellees.


ESSENTIA WATER: Kennedy Disputes Bottled Water's Health Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Kennedy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Essentia Water, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-05257, (E.D. N.Y., September 19, 2018) seeks preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief; monetary damages and interest,
including treble and punitive damages, pursuant to the common law;
costs and expenses, including reasonable fees for attorneys and
experts; and such other and further relief pursuant to New York
General Business Laws.

Essentia Water manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
water products under the "Essentia" line in various sizes,
including 33.8 oz. Kennedy disputes the health benefits claim by
Essentia, saying that there no causality between alkalinized foods
and a change in blood viscosity, that the alkalinized water
achieved a reduction in blood viscosity by any effect from the
alkalinity of the water is negated by the acids present in the
stomach and that the presence of electrolytes likely caused the
water to be absorbed better by the body. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


ESTER C CO: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Hughes Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICK HUGHES and NAFISE NINA HODJAT, Plaintiffs, v.
THE ESTER C COMPANY, NBTY, INC., and NATURESMART, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 12-CV-0041 (PKC) (GRB) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Pamela K. Chen
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in its entirety
and dismissed the action.

On Jan. 4, 2012, Plaintiffs Hughes and Hodjat initiated the
putative class action against Defendants The Ester C Co., NBTY,
Inc., and NatureSmart LLC, alleging that the Defendants' labeling
of their "Ester-C" vitamin C supplements as "The Better Vitamin C"
is unlawful, deceptive, and misbranded.

On Sept. 30, 2016, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify a nationwide class, as well as California and Missouri
subclasses.

Pending before the Court is the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment as to the Plaintiffs' individual claims filed on Jan. 19,
2018.  The Plaintiffs filed their opposition, under seal, on Feb.
26, 2018.  In it, the Plaintiffs withdrew their common law claims
for intentional and negligent misrepresentation.  The Defendants
filed their Reply Memorandum Brief with the Court earlier, on Jan.
19, 2018, noting the Plaintiffs' withdrawal of these claims.  

Thus, the remaining claims in the action are the Plaintiffs'
individual claims, alleging: (1) as to Plaintiff Hodjat, violations
of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), False
Advertising Law ("FAL"), Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and the
California "Sherman Law"; (2) as to Plaintiff Hughes, violations of
Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"); and (3) as to both
the Plaintiffs, a New York common law "unjust enrichment" claim.

Judge Chen finds that the Plaintiffs offer nothing more than their
own conclusory allegations and "anecdotal" testimony to show what
implied claims Ester-C purportedly conveyed.  This is plainly
insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether the statements on Ester-C's labeling conveyed the alleged
implied disease claims.  The record otherwise contains no evidence
that a broad cross-section of reasonable consumers interpret the
challenged statements in the manner the Plaintiffs allege.
Accordingly, the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment solely
on this ground with respect to the Plaintiffs' false advertising
and misrepresentation claims under the CLRA, FAL, UCL, and MMPA.

The Plaintiffs have similarly failed to offer any evidence to show
the material falsity of the slogan, "The Better Vitamin C®," which
they allege conveys the implied statement that Ester-C is more
effectively absorbed into the human body than ascorbic acid.  The
Plaintiffs have disclosed no expert testimony concerning the
relative bioavailability or absorbability of Ester-C and other
forms of vitamin C, such as ascorbic acid.  The Judge holds that
the Plaintiffs' failure to offer any expert evidence to establish
the material falsity or deception element of their false
advertising and misrepresentation claims, in itself, compels
summary judgment for the Defendants on the Plaintiffs' false
advertising and misrepresentation claims under the UCL, CLRA, FAL,
and MMPA.

Nowhere is the gravamen of Plaintiff Hodjat's misbranding claims
more transparent than in her Amended Complaint: The Sherman Law
provides that a product is misbranded if its labeling is false or
misleading in any particular.  Here, the Judge finds, the clear
predicate violations of the Plaintiff's UCL misbranding claims are
the false or misleading advertising provisions of the Sherman Law.
Given that Hodjat's UCL misbranding claims are based on the false
advertising and misrepresentation provisions of the Sherman Law,
they fail for the same reasons as her other claims, i.e.,
insufficient evidence to satisfy the reasonable consumer standard
or establish the falsity of the implied disease claims alleged.
The Defendants, therefore, are entitled to summary judgment as to
Hodjat's three UCL misbranding claims.

Because the Plaintiffs have failed to develop any evidence to show
that the implied disease claims even exist, Hodjat is unable to
show that the Defendants violated federal regulations, so as to
relieve Hodjat of having to prove all of the elements of her UCL
misbranding claims.  For this reason, the Judge thus finds
Plaintiff Hodjat's UCL misbranding claims cannot survive summary
judgment.

Finally, the Judge finds that because the Plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claim simply duplicates, or replaces, these conventional
contract or tort claims, it cannot survive summary judgment.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Chen granted the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.  The Clerk of the Court is
respectfully directed to enter judgment and close the case
accordingly.

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

Patrick Hughes, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by George Volney Granade, II,
Reese LLP, Kim Richman, Reese Richman LLP, Michael Robert Reese,
Reese Richman LLP, Alvin C. Paulson, Becker, Paulson, Hoerner &
Thompson, P.C., Jeffrey A. Leon, Quantum Legal LLC, pro hac vice,
Kevin T. Hoerner, Becker, Paulson, Hoerner & Thompson, P.C.,
Patrick J. Sheehan -- psheehan@whatleykallas.com -- Whatley Drake &
Kallas LLC & Zachary A. Jacobs, Complex Litigation Group LLC.

Nafise Nina Hodjat, Plaintiff, represented by George Volney
Granade, II, Reese LLP, Michael Robert Reese, Reese Richman LLP,
Alvin C. Paulson, Becker, Paulson, Hoerner & Thompson, P.C.,
Jeffrey A. Leon, Quantum Legal LLC, pro hac vice, Kevin T. Hoerner,
Becker, Paulson, Hoerner & Thompson, P.C., Patrick J. Sheehan,
Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC & Zachary A. Jacobs, Complex Litigation
Group LLC.

The Ester C Company, NBTY, Inc. & Naturesmart, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Michelle Waller Cohen -- mcohen@pbwt.com --
Patterson  Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Steven Alan Zalesin --
sazalesin@pbwt.com -- Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP, Jackson
Taylor Kirklin -- jtkirklin@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb &
Tyler LLP & Jonah Moses Knobler -- jknobler@pbwt.com -- Patterson
Belknap Webb & Tyler.


EXTREME NETWORKS: Agreement Reached in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Extreme 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 an agreement in principle reached in the case
entitled, In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On October 23 and 29, 2015, punitive class action complaints
alleging violations of securities laws were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against the
Company and three of its former officers (Charles W. Berger,
Kenneth B. Arola, and John T. Kurtzweil). Subsequently, the cases
were consolidated (In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 3:15-CY-04883-BLF).  

Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the securities laws by
disseminating materially false and misleading statements and
concealing material adverse facts regarding the Company's financial
condition, business operations and growth prospects. Plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
investors who purchased the Company's common stock from September
12, 2013 through April 9, 2015.  

On June 28, 2016, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff.  On
September 26, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint. On November 10, 2016, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss, which the Court granted with leave to amend on April 27,
2017. On June 2, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, which, on July 10, 2017, defendants again moved to
dismiss.  

In a March 21, 2018 Order (the "March 2018 Order"), the Court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion. The
March 2018 Order narrowed the scope of the case, but allowed
certain claims to proceed. On July 18, 2018, the parties to the
litigation commenced a mediation process with the assistance of a
professional mediator and the Company believes the parties have
arrived at an agreement in principle which they are in the process
of documenting and which is subject to court approval.

Extreme Networks, Inc. provides software-driven networking
solutions for enterprise customers worldwide. Extreme Networks,
Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


FACEBOOK INC: Privacy Class Action Mulled in Australia
------------------------------------------------------
Luke Costin, writing for Australian Associated Press, reports that
Australians may distrust Facebook but six months after the
Cambridge Analytica scandal we are still flocking in record numbers
to the social media giant's platforms.

About 13 million across the nation log on to Facebook every day
while another three million people check in at least once a month.

The Mark Zuckerberg creation is also seeing growth in its other key
apps -- Messenger and Instagram -- which both boast more than nine
million users, a spokeswoman told AAP.

That's despite Facebook's privacy battles and it being named our
least trusted media brand in a Roy Morgan poll this year.

Sept. 17 marks six months since news first broke of the CA privacy
breach involving a potential 87 million Facebook accounts,
including those of 310,000 Australians.

The British political consultancy agency had used data mined from
Facebook accounts to conduct psychological profiling for use in
political campaigns.

Facebook said that data was "improperly shared" and banned several
apps that scraped data in that way.

It also admitted about the same time most of its two billion users
had had their phone number and email address publicly exposed
through one of its search features.

Curtin University internet studies expert Tama Leaver says people
might still be logging on but their time spent in each session had
likely dropped.

That's in part because of News Feed changes introduced in January
that prioritised friends' posts over updates from pages and news
organisations.

"But I think users would be much more circumspect about what they
share and how much they use the platform," Associate Professor
Leaver told AAP.

He said the privacy issues had prompted the platform to take up an
expensive billboard and TV ad campaign to reclaim the messaging
about what Facebook means.

Research suggested young people turned to the platform to organise
events but mainly communicated via other platforms, Prof Leaver
said.

"Facebook is almost like stationery -- you have to have it for some
stuff but it is no longer the social core of their lives," he
said.

"The fact Facebook and Instagram are trying to get more and more
marketing and businesses into the stories format suggests that's
where they see their growth as well."

In Australia, the social giant is still facing the threat of a $2.1
million fine, with the federal privacy commissioner now in the
sixth month of her investigation into the Cambridge Analytica
issue.

The privacy commissioner's office declined to comment on the
progress of the probe.

A potential class action dependent on the commissioner's findings
is being bankrolled by litigation funding provider IMF Bentham.

Facebook says it takes seriously its responsibility to be a
"positive force" in the world and points to the changes it has made
to protect people's data and its efforts to be more transparent
about how it operates.

Opting out of advertising based on third-party data is possible as
are new ways to delete old posts and stop rarely used third-party
apps from accessing profile data.

Facebook will also soon tell Australian users exactly how long
they've spent on its app.

"We're committed to improving Facebook for everyone in a way that
enables communities to build and flourish, while safeguarding
people's private data," a spokeswoman told AAP.

Belinda Barnet, a social media and data privacy expert, said
Facebook has made significant changes since March, including ending
its partnership with data brokers and ensuring users know where to
change privacy settings or download their data.

But the Swinburne University lecturer doesn't think it has gone far
enough and wants to see a change in the business model driven by
users' data.

"I think we are seeing more public awareness about that business
model," she told AAP.

"We're seeing an increase in government regulation and that,
long-term, is probably the only way we can do it."

Regulation might do what privacy concerns could not -- stop the
behemoth's unyielding growth. [GN]


FIAT CHRYSLER: Sued Over Cherokee 9-Speed Transmission Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Jeep
Cherokee 9-speed transmission issues have caused a proposed
class-action lawsuit that alleges model year 2016 Cherokees
suddenly accelerate, decelerate and lose power while driving.

According to plaintiff Lisa Cummings, Fiat Chrysler (FCA US) knows
the 9-speed transmissions are defective but conceals the defects to
keep selling the SUVs.

Ms. Cummings purchased a new 2016 Jeep Cherokee and has allegedly
experienced multiple transmission issues, including when her
grandchildren were riding with her.

The plaintiff says she was driving at about 70 miles per hour when
the Jeep Cherokee quickly decelerated to a speed of around 20 to 25
miles per hour. The semi-truck behind Ms. Cummings nearly hit the
2016 Cherokee, and the plaintiff claims she now avoids driving the
Jeep on the freeway.

The Cherokee allegedly does not change gears reliably and can
sometimes take a minute or longer for the 9-speed transmission to
shift from reverse to drive.

Ms. Cummings says within a week of buying the Jeep she returned it
to the FCA dealership and complained about the acceleration and
deceleration problems. Technicians allegedly "flashed" the Cherokee
and told the plaintiff the transmission wouldn't cause her
additional issues.

The plaintiff says she has taken the Cherokee back to the dealer
about eight times and complained about the transmission problems
and how they cause safety hazards while driving, but FCA and its
dealers allegedly deny there are any problems.

The 9-speed transmissions are manufactured by ZF Friedrichshaffen
AG and installed in thousands of 2016 Jeep Cherokees. According to
the plaintiff, the SUVs lose power, have shifting problems, make
sudden forward movements and finally lose power when the
transmissions fail.

Ms. Cummings claims Chrysler misled consumers about the safety of
the 2016 Cherokees when the automaker allegedly knew in 2013 about
the transmission issues. In addition to the dangers of driving the
Jeeps, the lawsuit alleges customers were convinced to buy or lease
the Cherokees only because FCA omitted valuable information about
the transmissions.

The lawsuit references transmission complaints from 2016 Jeep
Cherokee owners, and many of those complaints were submitted to
CarComplaints.com.

"This piece of junk vehicle has done nothing but give me problems
since the day I bought it!!! Now the hunk of junk slams into gear
when driving. It feels like you get rear ended. Oh and don't let me
be going down a steep hill that I have to brake on, the rpm with
ramp all the way into the red zone and never downshift until I slam
the brakes as hard as I can."

"My wife is the primary driver of this 2016 Jeep Cherokee, and when
we bought this, the salesman was pitching his whole "Jeep
Reliability" speech! On her way from work, she called me and said
that the Cherokee just all of a sudden started to lunge, and that
it felt like it wanted to stall. The service department was already
closed, but yesterday (Dec 15, 2017) they called her and said that
the entire transmission was shot! They would have to replace the
whole thing -- so new transmission supposedly coming in from
Detroit (2 weeks) and another week to do the work!"

According to the class-action, Chrysler issued technical service
bulletins for the 2016 Jeep Cherokees after driver complaints. On
August 31, 2016, FCA issued TSB SB-21-013-16 which informed dealers
what to do if 2016 Cherokee customers "indicated that their
transmission shift quality may be erratic."

In February 2017, FCA issued TSB 18-018-17 to its dealers which
superseded TSB 18-014-16 issued on September 3, 2016. The February
2017 bulletin concerned 2016 Cherokees that experienced "[a]
Transmission Tip-In Bump (when accelerating out of 4th gear)."

Another bulletin (21-008-17) was issued to dealers in April 2017
covering the 2016 Jeep Cherokee concerning the procedure to follow
for customers who reported:

"[a] harsh 4-5 upshift[,]" "5-4 coast down transmission shift
quality enhancement[,]" "[l]ess than desired low speed drivability
and response to accelerator pedal input[,]" "[l]ess than desired
transmission shift quality[,]" a"[t]ransmission [that] is slow to
upshift after releasing the accelerator pedal[,]" "[l]ess than
optimal transmission shift timing, driving up and down hills[,]" or
"[l]ess than desired Engine Stop/Start re-engagement or
smoothness."

The bulletins allegedly did no good as the lawsuit alleges dealer
repairs haven't solved the 9-speed transmission issues and Cherokee
owners are the ones paying for FCA's mistakes.

The Jeep Cherokee 9-speed transmission lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York - Lisa
Cummings, et al., v. FCA US LLC.

The plaintiff is represented by Finkelstein, Blankinship,
Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP. [GN]


FIRST LIBERTY: Filing of Third Amended Brewton Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHANDRA H. BREWTON, Plaintiff, v. THE FIRST LIBERTY
INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:14-CV-436(MTT) (M.D.
Ga.), Judge Marc T. Treadwell of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division, denied Brewton's motion
to file a third amended complaint.

The case is one of several putative class actions filed in the
Court in which the Plaintiffs, all of whom are represented by the
same lawyers, allege that the insurance companies providing their
homeowners coverage have denied that their policies provide
coverage for the diminished value of property damaged as a result
of a loss that is overwise covered by their policies.  Basically,
the Plaintiffs want their insurers to accept what has been clearly
established by the Georgia Supreme Court -- when the value of a
home has decreased as the result of a covered loss even though the
home has been fully repaired, the insurer must compensate the
insured for that diminished value.  The Georgia Supreme Court has
also held that when an insurer denies coverage for diminished value
and has refused to assess a loss for diminished value, a court
appropriately can order the insurer to assess for diminished value.


When the Plaintiffs' lawyers filed the suit on behalf of Brewton,
they thought First Liberty was one of those insurers that
stubbornly refused to accept that its policy covered diminished
value.  Only long after filing suit did Brewton's lawyers discover
they were wrong.

For First Liberty, in response to the Georgia Supreme Court's
rulings, had acknowledged that Brewton's policy covered diminished
value and had assessed her loss to determine whether the value of
her home had diminished notwithstanding the repairs paid for by
First Liberty.  Given that, the Court granted First Liberty's
motion for summary judgment on Brewton's claim that First Liberty
did not assess her loss for diminished value.

Brewton has submitted further evidence and asked the Court to
reconsider.  Brewton asks the Court to fashion a remedy that goes
beyond the limited remedy created by the Georgia Supreme Court in
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mabry.  Even though First Liberty
acknowledged her policy covered her loss, and even though it
assessed her loss to see if the value of her home had diminished,
she wants the Court to order First Liberty to do another
assessment, what she calls a proper assessment.

Brewton has also moved to amend her complaint.  She seeks leave to
amend to add allegations related to, and claims arising from, First
Liberty's scheme that was created and implemented to give the
appearance that it was complying with its duty under Georgia law
and its insurance policies to assess for and pay diminished value
when, in reality, First Liberty never intended to do so.
Specifically, Brewton wishes to add claims for violations of the
Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act
based on First Liberty's theft by taking and theft by deception of
Brewton and other insureds' contract rights and services.

Judge Treadwell finds that Brewton contests the adequacy of the
assessment she received for a covered loss, not the denial of
coverage and the total failure to assess.  Simply put, she asserts
a claim not sanctioned by Mabry, and the Judge sees no reason to
expand Mabry to create such a claim.  Nothing has changed since the
Court's previous assessment of the case: Brewton's claim is not a
Mabry/Royal Capital claim.  Nothing in Georgia law supports
Brewton's new and un-pleaded theory that an insured can bring a
stand-alone claim for the failure to properly assess a covered
loss.

As for Brewton's motion to amend her complaint, the Judge finds
that Brewton has been afforded the chance to conduct discovery,
and, he finds as a matter of law that Brewton cannot show that
First Liberty conducted a "sham" assessment for diminished value
that was not an assessment at all.  The same reasons for that
finding require the finding that Brewton's Georgia RICO claims fail
as a matter of law.  Accordingly, in the alternative to finding
that the amendments are futile, the Judge finds that the amendments
would result in unfair prejudice and constitute undue delay.

For the reasons discussed, Judge Treadwek declined to alter the
Court's previous order granting summary judgment on Brewton's
failure to assess claims, and denied Brewton's motion to file a
third amended class action complaint.  Finally, as a result of his
order dismissing Brewton's failure to assess claim, only her
failure to pay diminished value claim remains.  It seems certain
that that claim is not sufficient to satisfy the jurisdictional
threshold for diversity jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff
will show cause no later than Sept. 25, 2018 why the case should
not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/48at8E from Leagle.com.

CHANDRA H BREWTON, Plaintiff, represented by ADAM P. PRINCENTHAL --
adam@princemay.com -- C. COOPER KNOWLES, Law Office of C. Cooper
Knowles, LLC, CLINTON W. SITTON, JAMES C. BRADLEY --
jbradley@rpwb.com -- KIMBERLY KEEVERS PALMER -- kkeevers@rpwb.com
-- MATTHEW A. NICKLES -- mnickles@rpwb.com -- MICHAEL J. BRICKMAN
-- mbrickman@rpwb.com -- NINA FIELDS BRITT & RICHARD KOPELMAN .

THE FIRST LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by
BOWEN REICHERT SHOEMAKER, US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, CARI K. DAWSON --
cari.dawson@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD, DANIEL F. DIFFLEY --
dan.diffley@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD & DAVID B. CARPENTER --
david.carpenter@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD.


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Choi Files FDCPA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource
Advantage, LLC. The case is styled as Soojeong Choi individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05662 (E.D.
N.Y., Oct. 10, 2018).

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

Firstsource Advantage, LLC offers collections and recovery
solutions. It provides debt recovery services for credit card
issuers, retail banking and mortgage. Firstsource Advantage, LLC
was formerly known as Firstsource LLC and changed its name in
February 2007. The company was founded in 1995 and is based in
Amherst, New York. As of October 8, 2004, Firstsource Advantage,
LLC operates as a subsidiary of Firstsource Solutions Limited.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     Sanders Law, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 281-7601
     Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


FOUR SEASONS: Court Narrows Claims in Hualalai Club Membership Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii issued
an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts II, IX and X
in the case captioned  CHRISTOPHER ZYDA, On Behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. FOUR SEASONS HOTELS
AND RESORTS FOUR SEASONS HOLDINGS INC.; FOUR SEASONS HUALALAI
RESORT; HUALALAI RESIDENTIAL, LLC (dba HUALALAI REALTY); HUALALAI
INVESTORS, LLC; KAUPULEHU MAKAI VENTURE; HUALALAI DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY; HUALALAI VILLAS & HOMES; HUALALAI INVESTORS, LLC; HUALALAI
RENTAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; and DOES 1-100, Defendants. Civil No.
16-00591 LEK. (D. Haw.).

The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants induced them and others to
make purchases within Hualalai by promising, inter alia, that the
Plaintiffs and others would enjoy membership in the Hualalai Club
and that their family and guests would be able to enjoy facilities
in a world-class resort environment without additional guest fees.
After the Plaintiffs and other Class members had committed
substantial resources, the Defendants failed to maintain and
provide adequate facilities to handle the growing population. The
Plaintiffs allege the Defendants continued to build homes in
Hualalai and sell new Club memberships to non-Hualalai residents,
while falsely complaining that Hualalai homeowners, their families,
and their guests were overburdening the Resort.

The Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Condominium
Property Act (Count I); violation of the Uniform Land Sales
Practices Act, (ULSPA and Count II),  unfair methods of competition
(UMOC) and unfair or deceptive acts or practices (UDAP) (Count
III), promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance (Count IV) violation
of the duty of good faith and fair dealing (Count V), negligent
misrepresentation (Count VI), estoppel (Count VII), unjust
enrichment (Count VIII), organized crime, pursuant to Haw. Rev.
Stat. Chapter 842 (Count IX) and breach of fiduciary and other
common law duties (Count X).

STANDARD

Following Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868
(2009) Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929
(2007), we have settled on a two-step process for evaluating
pleadings:

First, to be entitled to the presumption of truth, allegations in a
complaint or counterclaim may not simply recite the elements of a
cause of action, but must contain sufficient allegations of
underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing
party to defend itself effectively. Second, the factual allegations
that are taken as true must plausibly suggest an entitlement to
relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to
be subjected to the expense of discovery and continued litigation.

Count II - ULSPA

Haw. Rev. Stat. Section 484-16(a) creates liability for certain
persons who, in disposing of subdivided lands make an untrue
statement of a material fact, or omit a material fact required to
be stated in a registration statement, an application, or public
offering statement or necessary to make the statements made not
misleading. Section 484-16(f) states: No person shall be entitled
to recover under this section unless the person has commenced
action for such recovery within four years after the person's first
payment of money to the subdivider in the contested transaction.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' ULSPA claims are
time-barred because they, respectively, purchased their lots in
2000 and 2003, which is more than four years before this action was
commenced in 2015.

Count II - ULSPA

Haw. Rev. Stat. Section 484-16(a) creates liability for certain
persons who, in disposing of subdivided lands make an untrue
statement of a material fact, or omit a material fact required to
be stated in a registration statement, an application, or public
offering statement or necessary to make the statements made not
misleading. Section 484-16(f) states: No person shall be entitled
to recover under this section unless the person has commenced
action for such recovery within four years after the person's first
payment of money to the subdivider in the contested transaction.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' ULSPA claims are
time-barred because they, respectively, purchased their lots in
2000 and 2003, which is more than four years before this action was
commenced in 2015.

Section 484-16(a) creates liability for certain persons who, in
disposing of subdivided lands make an untrue statement of a
material fact, or omit a material fact required to be stated in a
registration statement, an application, or public offering
statement or necessary to make the statements made not misleading.


Section 484-16(f) states: No person shall be entitled to recover
under this section unless the person has commenced action for such
recovery within four years after the person's first payment of
money to the subdivider in the contested transaction.

The Defendants argue the Plaintiffs' ULSPA claims are time-barred
because they, respectively, purchased their lots in 2000 and 2003,
which is more than four years before this action was commenced in
2015.

The Plaintiffs' Count II claims are time-barred because they were
commenced more than four years after their first payment of money
to the subdivider in the contested transactions. Count II must
therefore be dismissed. The Plaintiffs do not contend they also
purchased other subdivided property from Defendants during the
limitations period. Because it is clear that any amendment of the
Plaintiffs' claims would be futile, the dismissal must be with
prejudice. However, because it is arguably possible for the
Plaintiffs to add a new plaintiff whose ULSPA claim is not
time-barred, the dismissal is without prejudice insofar as
Plaintiffs may add a new plaintiff as to Count II only.

Count IX - Organized Crime

In their Count IX claim, the Plaintiffs allege: By wrongfully
seeking to deprive the Plaintiffs of their property the Defendants
are engaging in extortion, a prohibited offense under HRS Chapter
842.

The Plaintiffs argue the Second Amended Complaint shows that
extortion has occurred because it alleges the defendants are
preventing the Plaintiffs from exercising their property rights by
illegally demanding money they are not entitled to. Even if the
Second Amended Complaint gave the Defendants fair notice which it
does not that the Plaintiffs allege extortion on the theory that
the Defendants announced they would wrongfully impose increased
DRGFs, and then later did so, Count IX would still fail to allege
extortion. Even assuming the increased DRGFs were wrongful,
extortion did not occur merely because Defendants provided notice,
rather than increasing the DRGFs by surprise. Because it is at
least theoretically possible that Plaintiffs can cure the defects
in their Chapter 842 claim in a third amended complaint, Count IX
is dismissed without prejudice.

Count X - Breach of Fiduciary Duty

In their Count X claim, the Plaintiffs allege: Due to the
Defendants exclusive control over the Resort, the Club and their
actions, inactions representations and omissions, defendants owe
fiduciary and other common law duties to the Class, including but
not limited to those set forth in the Restatement, 3d of Property.
Further, Plaintiffs allege they are entitled to general, special
and punitive damages as a result of the breach.

The Defendants seek dismissal of Count X on the grounds that
Plaintiffs make erroneous factual allegations. According to
Plaintiffs, the Hualalai Defendants are and were at all relevant
times the owners, developers and in house realtors for the Hualalai
Resort. In the instant Motion, Defendants argue this allegation is
erroneous because certain Defendant entities neither sold
Plaintiffs their lots nor represented Plaintiffs in any
transaction.

Although it is not clear, Plaintiffs appear to argue that,
regardless of whether Defendants owed fiduciary duties, Defendants
have violated other duties recognized in the Restatement (Third) of
Property: Servitudes. Plaintiffs' complaint, and not their
memorandum in opposition to a motion to dismiss, must give
Defendants fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests. Apart from pointing to the entirety of
the common law and the entirety of the Restatement (Third) of
Property: Servitudes, the Second Amended Complaint does not
indicate what duties Defendants allegedly breached so as to entitle
Plaintiffs to relief on their Count X claim.

The portion of Count X alleging that Defendants breached other
common law duties must also be dismissed. Moreover, even if this
Court considered Plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition, it is still
not clear which of the seven duties recognized in Section 6.20 of
the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes was allegedly
breached. However, because it is at least theoretically possible
that Plaintiffs can cure these defects by amendment, the dismissal
of Count X is without prejudice.

Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss Organized Crime, Uniform Land
Sales Practices Act, and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Counts in Class
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages,
Declaratory, and Injunctive Relief is granted, and Counts II, IX,
and X are dismissed.  The dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims in
Count II is with prejudice, but the dismissal is without prejudice
insofar as the Plaintiffs have leave to add a new plaintiff as to
Count II only. The dismissal of Counts IX and X is without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya4sj2az from Leagle.com.

Christopher Zyda, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated & Carol Meyer, (Class Plaintiffs) On Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Patrick Kyle Smith -- kyle@smithhawaii.law -- Smith Law  & Terrance
M. Revere  -- terry@revereandassociates.com -- Revere & Associates,
LLLC.

Four Seasons Holdings, Inc., Hualalai Residential, LLC, doing
business as Hualalai Realty, Hualalai Investors, LLC, Hualalai
Rental Management, LLC & Four Seasons Hotels Limited, Defendants,
represented by Barry A. Sullivan -- sullivan@smlhawaii.com --
Sullivan Meheula Lee LLP, Donald M. Falk , Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac
vice, Natasha L.N. Baldauf  -- baldauf@smlhawaii.com -- Sullivan
Meheula Lee LLP, Patrick K. Shea -- shea@SMLhawaii.com -- Sullivan
Meheula Lee LLP & William Meheula -- meheula@smlhawaii.com --
Sullivan Meheula Lee LLP.


GDS HOLDINGS: Queri Sues over 38% Drop in ADS Price
---------------------------------------------------
MARIA M. QUERI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GDS HOLDINGS LIMITED, WILLIAM WEI
HUANG, and DANIEL NEWMAN, the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-08810
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 26, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, GDS purports to be a leading developer
and operator of high-performance data centers in China.  The
Company is headquartered in Shanghai, China.  On November 2, 2016,
GDS conducted an initial public offering of American depositary
shares on the NASDAQ Global Market. Since the IPO, GDS ADSs have
traded on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "GDS". Throughout the
Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) GDS had
assumed significant levels of debt in order to enrich insiders by
acquiring data centers from related parties; (ii) GDS had
overstated the value of a number of its data centers; (iii) GDS was
inflating the size of its service area, utilization rates, reported
revenues, and EBITDA; and (iv) as a result, GDS's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 31, 2018, Blue Orca Capital published a report alleging,
inter alia, that "GDS is borrowing crippling amounts of debt to
enrich insiders by acquiring data centers from undisclosed related
parties which are not nearly as valuable as the Company claims."
The Blue Orca report further asserted that "GDS is inflating the
size of its service area, its utilization rates and therefore its
reported revenues and EBITDA." On this news, GDS's ADS price fell
$13.42 per share, or over 38%, to close at $21.83 per share on July
31, 2018. As a result of the 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, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, 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
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action in Fla. Over Oil-Guzzling SUVs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins, writing for Law360, reports that two car owners hit
General Motors with a proposed class action in Florida federal
court on Sept. 10 that accuses the automaker of selling 2010-2017
Chevrolet Equinox SUVs with defective oil-guzzling engines. [GN]


GRAY TELEVISION: Car Dealer Sues Over Air-time Price-fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Neil Johnson Toyota, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Gray Television, Inc.,
Hearst Communications, Nexstar Media Group, Inc., Tegna Inc.,
Tribune Media Company, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. and Does
1-20,, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02913 (D. Md., September 19,
2018), seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief for
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Defendants are media companies who are accused by the Plaintiff of
conspiring to fix, raise, stabilize, and maintain prices for
commercials to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout
the United States by sharing competitively sensitive information
through their advertising sales teams.

Plaintiff is a Toyota dealership who purchased TV ad time one or
more of the Defendants. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul Mark Sandler, Esq.
      Eric R. Harlan, Esq.
      SHAPIRO SHER GUINOT & SANDLER
      250 West Pratt Street, Suite 2000
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Tel: (410) 385-0202
      Fax: (410) 539-7611
      Email: pms@shapirosher.com
             erh@shapirosher.com

             - and -

      Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
      Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street, N.E.
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Email: jonc@cuneolaw.com
             vicky@cuneolaw.com

            - and -

      Sarah Starns, Esq.
      David McMullan, Esq.
      BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
      P.O. Box 927
      404 Court Square
      Lexington, MS 39095
      Telephone: (662) 834-2488
      Email: sstarns@barrettlawgroup.com
             dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

             - and -

      Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
      LARSON KING, LLP
      2800 Wells Fargo Place
      30 East Seventh Street
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (651) 312-6500
      Email: sraiter@larsonking.com


GREENWAY HOME: Poole Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
CARL POOLE, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. GREENWAY HOME SERVICES, LLC, GREENWAY
HOME SERVICES OF NASHVILLE, LLC, and WHIT GREENWAY and DEVIN
WILLIAMS, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00967
(M.D. Tenn., Sept. 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages
and/or overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants committed violations of
the FLSA by requiring and/or suffering or permitting their
non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff, to routinely work for
less than minimum wage and more than 40 hours per week without
payment of overtime compensation.  The Plaintiff currently resides
in Davidson County, Tennessee, and is a citizen of the United
States. Within the last three year period, Plaintiff was employed
by Defendants as a non-exempt Repair Technician.

Greenway Home provides plumbing, heating, AC, and appliance
installation services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Trevor Howell, Esq.
          HOWELL LAW, PLLC
          161 Rosa Parks Blvd
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 406 1416
          E-mail: Trevor@howelllawfirmllc.com

               - and -

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


HAYS RECRUITMENT: Faces Adero Law Class Action Over Casuals
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Marin-Guzman, writing for the Australian Financial Review,
reports that a class action law firm is targeting the biggest
labour hire firms in the mining industry for allegedly failing to
pay $325 million in entitlements to "regular" casuals after being
emboldened by a precedent-setting court decision.

ACT-based firm Adero Law announced on September 21 that it is
preparing class actions against Hays Recruitment, WorkPac,
Programmed and One Key Resources over annual leave and other
entitlements allegedly owed to 25,000 casuals in the black coal
industry.

The class actions, expected to be filed in the Federal Court in the
next month, confirm employers' fears that a recent full court
ruling on casual entitlements could spark a wave of legal action
across the economy and drive businesses into insolvency.

The ruling, from a case brought by the Construction, Forestry,
Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, found casual WorkPac truck
driver Paul Skene was entitled to accrued annual leave because he
worked regular and predictable rosters, despite receiving extra
loading in place of permanent employee entitlements.

Australian Industry Group has estimated the decision affects
between 61 per cent and 85 per cent of all casuals, from retail to
healthcare, creating employer backpay liabilities between $6
billion and $8 billion.

London-based litigation funder Augusta Ventures is funding the
Hays, WorkPac and Programmed actions, and Adero is still seeking
funding for its case against One Key Resources, which is part of
global recruitment group Fircroft.

The targeted companies provide the vast majority of labour workers
for BHP Billiton mines in NSW and Queensland, as well as for
Glencore, Yancoal and Anglo American.

Earlier this year, Adero filed class actions against BHP Billiton
and labour hire firms Chandler Macleod and Tesa Mining over their
use of "full-time" casuals at the Mount Arthur coal mine in the
Hunter Valley.

'Whole of industry' challenge

Adero Law firm principal Rory Markham, Esq. said the new actions
"bring to completion a whole of industry challenge".

"[They] provide a pathway for up to 25,000 black coal miners to
achieve an estimated underpayment exceeding $325 million," he
said.

"We want to see mineworkers who work to rosters planned months and
years in advance treated as what they really are, permanent
workers.

"We hope these class actions bring an end to a practice of
casualisation that has caused havoc on individuals' pay packets,
communities and mineworkers' careers."

The firm's underpayment estimate is based on 1100 black coal miners
who have already registered their interest, which Adero says is the
highest subscription level for any previously unannounced class
actions.

The workers' claims average five years of employment with a
potential loss per worker of $62,700.

Adero will rely on the Skene precedent as authority to claim
minimum entitlements under the Fair Work Act but will use different
legal arguments in a bid to secure more generous entitlements under
the black coal award.

In the case of Hays, Adero is alleging the recruitment giant has
been breaching the award's prohibition on casuals since 2013 by
supplying hundreds of casuals to BHP Billiton mine sites without an
enterprise agreement authorising them.

Hays did not respond to requests for comment.

'Urgent' legislative action needed

Employers have said the class actions show Parliament must take
urgent legislative action to address the uncertainty created by the
Skene precedent, including by blocking casuals "double dipping" on
their entitlements and defining casual in the Fair Work Act.

"The class action is reportedly being funded by an overseas
litigation funding firm, and demonstrates just how exposed
employers and their employees right across Australia have become
after the recent WorkPac v Skene decision," AiGroup chief executive
Innes Willox said.

"The court's decision exposes firms to being required to pay casual
employees twice for various entitlements, which could drive many
businesses to the wall, causing significant job losses."

Mr Willox said the Fair Work Act's no-costs jurisdiction made the
field attractive for litigation funders, who typically charge high
commissions on damages ordered.

"There is the likelihood of many additional class actions in
response to the court's decision.

"Unless Parliament acts quickly, the litigation likely to result
from the decision will lead to a big increase in business
insolvencies and a huge blow-out in the cost of the [federal
government's] Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme due to claims by
casuals for annual leave and other entitlements."

The FEG scheme allows employees to claim their unpaid entitlements
from the government if their employer is wound up. Its costs
recently blew out to $1 billion over four years.

'Exploring all options'

Other law firms have also flagged they are examining legal actions
over casuals in wake of the Skene precedent.

Slater and Gordon, which acted for the CFMEU in the Skene case,
said it was "exploring all options".

A spokeswoman for Shine Lawyers said the firm "can't reveal what
we're looking into just yet but can confirm that we're looking".

Maurice Blackburn said it was not considering a class action on the
issue.

Industrial Relations Minister Kelly O'Dwyer said she is getting
legal advice on the "extent to which the court's ruling raises
uncertainty in the industry around casual employment".[GN]


HP INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Printer Firmware Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018,
that the parties in the case entitled, In re HP Printer Firmware
Update Litigation, have since reached a settlement in principle.

Five purported consumer class actions were filed against HP,
arising out of the supplies authentication protocol in certain
OfficeJet printers. This authentication protocol rejects some
third-party ink cartridges that use non-HP security chips.

Two of the cases were dismissed, and the remaining cases were
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, captioned In re HP Printer Firmware Update
Litigation.

The remaining plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint was filed
on February 15, 2018, alleging eleven causes of action: (1) unfair
and unlawful business practices in violation of the Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.; (2)
fraudulent business practices in violation of the Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.; (3)
violations of the False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17500, et seq.; (4) violations of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq.; (5) violations
of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices ‒ Consumer Protection Act,
Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. Section 17.01, et seq.; (6) violations
of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
Section 19.86.010, et seq.; (7) violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, New Jersey Statutes Ann. 56:8-1, et seq.; (8)
violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
1030, et seq.; (9) violations of the California Computer Data
Access and Fraud Act, Cal. Penal Code Section 502; (10) Trespass to
Chattels; and (11) Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations
and/or Prospective Economic Advantage.

On February 7, 2018, the plaintiffs moved to certify an injunctive
relief class of "all persons in California who own a Class Printer"
under the "unfair" prong of the California unfair competition
statute and a class of "all persons in the United States who
purchased a Class Printer and experienced a print failure while
using a non-HP aftermarket cartridge during the period between
March 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017" under the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act and common law trespass to chattels.

On March 29, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part
HP's motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim
under the "unfair" prong of the California unfair competition
statute, claims under the non-California consumer protection
statutes, and claim for tortious interference with contractual
relations and/or prospective economic advantage. The court also
dismissed in part the plaintiffs' fraud-based claims under the
California consumer protection statutes and computer hacking claims
under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and California Computer Data
Access and Fraud Act. The court denied HP's motion to dismiss with
respect to the plaintiffs' claim for trespass to chattels and claim
under the "unlawful" prong of the California unfair competition
statute. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend on all of
the dismissed claims, except the California Computer Data Access
and Fraud Act claim to the extent it was based on two specific
subsections of that statute.

The parties have since reached a settlement in principle. On July
13, 2018, the court vacated the remaining dates on the case
schedule and ordered that the plaintiffs file their motion for
preliminary approval of the class settlement within 60 days.

HP Inc. provides products, technologies, software, solutions, and
services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized
businesses, and large enterprises, including customers in the
government, health, and education sectors worldwide. It operates
through Personal Systems and Printing segments. HP Inc. was founded
in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


HP INC: Continues to Defend Forsyth Class Action
------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018,
that the company continues to defend a purported class action suit
entitled, Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard
Enterprise.

This is a purported class and collective action filed on August 18,
2016 in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, against HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging the
defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment
Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
California public policy and the California Business and
Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them
with younger workers.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide collective class action
under the ADEA comprised of all U.S. residents employed by
defendants who had their employment terminated pursuant to a
workforce reduction ("WFR") plan on or after May 23, 2012 and who
were 40 years of age or older.

Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23 class under California
law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by
defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a
WFR plan on or after May 23, 2012.

Following a partial motion to dismiss, a motion to strike and a
motion to compel arbitration that the defendants filed in November
2016, the plaintiffs amended their complaint. New plaintiffs were
added, but the plaintiffs agreed that the class period for the
nationwide collective action should be shortened and now starts on
December 9, 2014. On January 30, 2017, the defendants filed another
partial motion to dismiss and motions to compel arbitration as to
several of the plaintiffs. On March 20, 2017, the defendants filed
additional motions to compel arbitration as to a number of the
opt-in plaintiffs.

On September 20, 2017, the Court granted the motions to compel
arbitration as to the plaintiffs and opt-ins who signed WFR release
agreements (17 individuals), and also stayed the entire case until
the arbitrations are completed. On November 30, 2017, three named
plaintiffs and twelve opt-in plaintiffs filed a single arbitration
demand.

On December 22, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to (1) stay the
case pending arbitrations and (2) enjoin the demanded arbitration
and require each plaintiff to file a separate arbitration demand.
On February 6, 2018, the Court granted the motion to stay and
denied the motion to enjoin. The portion of the case not stayed is
proceeding through the mediation and arbitration process.

HP Inc. provides products, technologies, software, solutions, and
services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized
businesses, and large enterprises, including customers in the
government, health, and education sectors worldwide. It operates
through Personal Systems and Printing segments. HP Inc. was founded
in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


HP INC: Notice of Appeal Filed in Jackson Suit
----------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018,
that the plaintiffs in Jackson, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett
Packard Enterprise filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal order
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

This putative nationwide class action was filed on July 24, 2017 in
federal district court in San Jose, California. The plaintiffs
purport to bring the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated African-Americans and individuals over the age
of forty. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a
pattern and practice of racial and age discrimination in lay-offs
and promotions.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 29, 2017. On
January 12, 2018, the defendants moved to transfer the matter to
the federal district court in the Northern District of Georgia. The
defendants also moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds and
to strike certain aspects of the proposed class definition. The
Court dismissed the action on the basis of improper venue.  

On July 23, 2018, the plaintiffs refiled the case in the Northern
District of Georgia. On August 9, 2018, the plaintiffs also filed a
notice of appeal of the dismissal order with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

HP Inc. provides products, technologies, software, solutions, and
services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized
businesses, and large enterprises, including customers in the
government, health, and education sectors worldwide. It operates
through Personal Systems and Printing segments. HP Inc. was founded
in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


HUNTER ENGINEERING: Cal. App. Affirms Certification Denial
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Three,
issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment denying
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
JAY ROSSET et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. HUNTER ENGINEERING
COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. No. A148819. (Cal. App.).

The Plaintiffs appeal the District Court denials of their motion
for class certification.
Appellants are three Sales Representatives (SRs) and a Technical
and Training Service Representative (TTR) (Plaintiffs) under
contract with Hunter Engineering Company (Hunter).

The Plaintiffs sued Hunter on behalf of themselves and a putative
class alleging various Labor Code violations and moved for class
certification. The trial court considered the evidence and
arguments, applied the appropriate legal standard and denied the
motion.

Standard of Review

The decision to grant or deny a certification motion rests squarely
within the discretion of the trial court' because the trial court
is ideally situated to evaluate the efficiencies and practicalities
of permitting group action.

The Legal Test Applied by the Trial Court

To obtain certification, a party must establish the existence of
both an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of
interest among the class-members. This requires an inquiry into
numerosity, ascertainability, whether common questions of law or
fact predominate, whether the class representatives have claims or
defenses typical of the class, and whether the class
representatives can represent the class adequately.

Both the prerequisites of numerosity and ascertainability were
undisputed and therefore satisfied, and the trial court proceeded
to consider whether common issues of fact and law predominated.

The determination of how much commonality is enough to warrant use
of the class mechanism requires a fact-specific evaluation of the
claims, the common evidence, and the anticipated conduct of the
trial. California courts consider pattern and practice evidence,
statistical evidence, sampling evidence, expert testimony, and
other indicators of a defendant's centralized practices in order to
evaluate whether common behavior towards similarly situated
plaintiffs makes class certification appropriate.

Commonality is determined with respect to the claims and defenses
as pleaded. All of plaintiffs' causes of action depend upon a
predicate finding that, during the proposed class period, the
Defendant acted as their employer and misclassified SRs and/or TTRs
as Independent Contractors (ICs). If the misclassification issue is
appropriate for certification, the court will also consider whether
common issues predominate as to plaintiffs' underlying causes of
action.

Here, the court must determine whether, together, the factors are
susceptible to common proof and/or whether plaintiffs have
identified ways to effectively manage proof of any criteria that
would otherwise require review of individualized evidence. Ayala,
supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 1024.)

The court assessed whether common issues predominate, how
individualized factors, including the control of details test, can
be managed effectively and whether trying common issues would save
the litigants and the court time.

The Trial Court's Criteria

The trial court correctly stated the applicable criteria for
deciding both whether plaintiffs met their burden for class
certification and whether common questions of law and fact
predominate as to the alleged misclassification of employee status.
Next the court carefully analyzed each of the required factors,
weighed and balanced the proffered evidence and found some common
issues, but they were substantially outweighed both in number and
significance by elements which required individualized evidence.

The court scrutinized numerous declarations and deposition
testimony on the degree of supervision of the representatives. As
to the requirement of attending meetings and trainings, the court
concluded: the evidence on the degree of managerial control
exercised through meeting attendance and the message that
representatives received from management on this issue, is mixed,
not common. Representatives reported similarly disparate
experiences on the extent to which they were monitored, evaluated
and adversely affected by their performance. Some felt they were
adversely affected by issues related to productivity or other
issues; other representatives, especially some who were from
southern California, disclaimed any pressure or retaliation.

The evidence on the requirement to log in on the program to provide
client-specific details to respond to client demands was just as
varied, leading the court to conclude that the evidence on
supervision of TTRs through centralized programs is highly
individualized in nature, not common.

The court also found disparity on the approach to the role of
business plans and sales projections: while one manager required
that they be provided, that was not universal. The range of views
on Hunter's control of representatives' personal appearance, dress
and vehicle type/appearance was equally far ranging and in the
court's view not common.

The trial court carefully and exhaustively analyzed all of the
evidence and applied the correct legal standards: The court must
compare those issues that may be jointly tried with those requiring
separate adjudication to determine whether the common issues are
sufficiently numerous and substantial to make the class action
advantageous to the judicial process and to the litigants. Here,
the misclassification inquiry is the most important and will
dominate this litigation, as it is a predicate to all causes of
action. The court recognized that there are some common issues in
the employment status inquiry, but after analyzing all of the
evidence and the applicable precedent decided that plaintiffs had
not met their burden.

The court concluded: Perhaps most importantly, the multi-factor
test for the employment relationship requires that all of the
factors be examined together. Even if certain issues were tried
jointly as to a class or subclasses, the remaining individualized
issue would have to be determined and then weighed along with the
already-determined common issues in order to resolve whether each
class member was an employee or independent contractor. It does not
appear that trying common issues first would result in any
appreciable savings of the court's or the litigant's time. As such,
a class action is not a superior method for resolving putative
class members' claims.

The judgment is affirmed.  

A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s September 27, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7h9aqz4 from Leagle.com.


IBM: Vermonters Can Join Class Action on Age Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan D'Ambrosio, writing for Burlington Free Press, reports that if
you are one of the hundreds of former IBM employees in Vermont laid
off less than six years ago, you may be eligible to join a
class-action lawsuit alleging age discrimination filed against the
company on September 24.

"Age discrimination in the tech industry is, unfortunately, a
rampant problem," said attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. who
filed the lawsuit. "IBM, which given its age, has an older
workforce on average than other companies in this area. It appears
that IBM has been trying to change that by targeting older workers
for layoff and adopting policies that would lead to severance of
many of its older workers."

It's about skills, not age

IBM issued a statement saying that changes in its workforce "are
about skills, not age." The company said that since 2010 there has
been no change in the age of its U.S. workforce, but that "the
skills profile has changed dramatically."

Liss-Riordan filed the lawsuit on behalf of three former IBM
employees in California, North Carolina and Georgia. The thousands
of Vermonters laid off by IBM in the early 2000s may not be
eligible to join the lawsuit because of a statute of limitations.

"We were just contacted by a Vermont IBM employee who was laid off,
but it was too long ago to be part of the case," Liss-Riordan told
the Burlington Free Press in an email on September 19.

Liss-Riordan said the federal statute of limitations for age
discrimination lawsuits is just 300 days, but that former Vermont
employees might be able to join the case "even if they were laid
off six years ago."

The Vermont Attorney General's office did not immediately confirm
that the statute of limitations for cases such as Liss-Riordan's is
six years.

Targeting older employees

GlobalFoundries took over the semiconductor "fab" in Essex Junction
in 2015 after IBM agreed to pay the company $1.5 billion to take
the facility off its hands.

The lawsuit alleges that over the last several years, IBM has been
in the process of "systematically laying off older employees in
order to build a younger workforce." The lawsuit states that
between 2012 and today, IBM has laid off at least 20,000 employees
over the age of 40.

Liss-Riordan filed the lawsuit in federal court in the Southern
District of New York on September 17. She encouraged former IBM
employees in Vermont to contact her at ibmlawsuit@llrlaw.com,
saying, "We will sort out who is eligible."[GN]


INOVALON HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in Fromer TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC B. FROMER CHIROPRACTIC, INC., Plaintiff, v.
INOVALON HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. GJH-17-3801
(D. Md.), Judge George J. Hazel of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, Southern Division, (i) granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants Motion to Dismiss; and (ii) stayed
the case pending resolution of the Defendants' Petition for
Expedited Declaratory Ruling presently pending before the Federal
Communications Commission ("FCC").

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated,
brings this putative class action against Defendants Inovalon
Holdings, Inc., Inovalon, Inc., and Inovalon SME, LLC, alleging
that the Defendants sent the Plaintiff an unsolicited advertisement
via facsimile transmission in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005.

On Nov. 14, 2017, the Defendants sent an unsolicited facsimile
transmission to the Plaintiff.  The Fax offers medical providers,
like the Plaintiff, free access to Inovalon's electronic record
retrieval system.  The Plaintiff alleges that it did not give prior
express invitation or permission to the Defendants to send the Fax
and that it does not have an established business relationship with
the Defendants to otherwise authorize the Fax.  In addition to
being unsolicited, the Fax does not display an opt-out notice as
required by the TCPA.  

The Plaintiff alleges that it lost paper and toner consumed in
printing the Fax.  It also wasted time in receiving, reviewing, and
routing the Fax, and receipt of the Fax interrupted its interest in
being left alone.  The Plaintiff further alleges that the
Defendants profit and benefit from the sale of the products, goods
and services advertised in the Fax.  According to the Plaintiff,
the Defendants have faxed the same, or similar, unsolicited fax in
violation of the TCPA to at least 40 other recipients without first
obtaining the recipient's express invitation or permission.

The Plaintiff filed its putative class action on Dec. 26, 2017.  On
Feb. 19, 2018, the Defendants filed a petition with the FCC seeking
an expedited declaratory ruling that because Inovalon does not sell
the products or services mentioned in the Fax to recipients of the
Fax, the Fax was not an unauthorized advertisement otherwise
prohibited by the TCPA.  

In its Petition, the Defendants ask the FCC to declare: (i) the
faxes sent by a health insurance plan's designee to a patient's
medical provider, pursuant to an established business relationship
between the health plan and provider, requesting patient medical
records are not advertisements under the TCPA; and (ii) the faxes
that offer the free collection and/or digitization of patient
medical records, and which do not offer any commercially available
product or service to the recipients are not advertisements under
the TCPA.

Presently pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's "Placeholder"
Motion to Certify Class, to which the Defendants have not
responded, and the Defendants Motion to Dismiss.  The Defendants
move to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.  Alternatively, they ask the Court to
stay the case pending resolution of its FCC Petition for Expedited
Declaratory Ruling.

The Plaintiff suggests that some courts have considered that the
Ninth Circuit's decision in an Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group,
LLC implicitly overturned ARcare v. Qiagen N. Am. Holdings, Inc.
Judge Hazel disagrees.  In ARcare, like Van Patten, the district
court found that a procedural violation of the TCPA constituted a
concrete injury for Article III standing purposes. T he district
court's traceability holding was not addressed in Van Patten
because the TCPA violation there did not depend on whether the text
was accompanied by a TCPA-required opt-out notice.  However, the
Judge finds that ARcare is unpersuasive because it unjustifiably
narrows the concrete injury recognized by Congress in the TCPA--
receipt of an unsolicited fax -- and imposes a heighted causation
requirement not supported by Article III standing case law.  It is
therefore well established that the mere receipt of an unsolicited
fax in violation of the TCPA constitutes a concrete injury
sufficient to satisfy Article III's injury in fact requirement.

The Judge finds that it is certainly plausible that the Defendants
stand to profit from the Plaintiff utilizing its services, even if
at no cost Plaintiff.  By simply offering its services to the
Plaintiff free of charge, the Fax could constitute an unsolicited
advertisement prohibited by the TCPA.  The Plaintiff attached the
actual fax to the Complaint, and the Judge is hard-pressed to think
of what additional factual allegations would more clearly suggest
that the Defendants have offered the Plaintiff a
commercially-available service through the use of a fax machine in
order to defeat a 12(b)(6) motion.  Therefore, the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss is denied.

As the Defendants note, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida recently stayed a Junk Fax action pending FCC's
resolution of similar questions, and the Judge's interpretation in
the case could be inconsistent with either of the agency's
forthcoming determinations.  Therefore, he stays the action pending
FCC's resolution of Defendants' Petition for Expedited Declaratory
Ruling.

Finally, because the Judge will stay the case pending FCC's
resolution of Defendants' Petition for Expedited Declaratory
Ruling, he needs not rule on the Plaintiff's motion at this time.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hazel granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and stayed the case
pending review by the FCC.  A separate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/IxO8aH from Leagle.com.

Eric B. Fromer Chiropractic, Inc., a California corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen
Howard Ring -- shr@ringlaw.us -- Stephen H. Ring PC, Ross M. Good
-- rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson and Wanca, pro hac vice &
Ryan M. Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson and Wanca,
pro hac vice.

Inovalon Holdings, Inc., Inovalon, Inc., Delaware corporations &
Inovalon SME, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants, represented by Daniel Scott Blynn --
dsblynn@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, Dino S. Sangiamo --
dssangiamo@Venable.com -- Venable LLP & Elizabeth Catherine
Rinehart, Venable LLP.


INTUIT INC: Accord in Tax Refund Fraud Case Has Initial Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Eslinger, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge has preliminarily approved a non-monetary deal Intuit
Inc. reached to settle proposed class action claims over TurboTax
refund fraud.

Intuit Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July
31, 2018, that in fiscal 2015 Intuit was contacted by certain state
and federal regulatory authorities in connection with inquiries
regarding an increase during the 2015 tax season in attempts by
criminals using stolen identity information to file fraudulent tax
returns and claim refunds. Intuit provided information in response
to those inquiries and now believes those inquiries are resolved.

A consolidated putative class action lawsuit was filed by
individuals who claim to have suffered damages in connection with
the 2015 events. On May 23, 2018, the parties reached a settlement
in principle of this matter, which is subject to preliminary and
final approval by the court. On August 23, 2018, the parties filed
a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. A preliminary
approval hearing was scheduled to be heard on October 4, 2018.

Intuit  said, "The terms of the proposed settlement are not
material to our consolidated financial statements. In the event the
settlement does not receive final approval by the court, the
litigation may resume and we may not be able to predict the outcome
of such lawsuit. We continue to believe that the allegations in
this lawsuit are without merit."

Intuit Inc. provides financial management and compliance products
and services for small businesses, consumers, self-employed, and
accounting professionals in the United States, Canada, and
internationally. Intuit Inc. was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Mountain View, California.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Says Indian Patients' Claims Unreasonable
------------------------------------------------------------
MENAFN reports that pharma giant Johnson & Johnson, which is facing
lawsuit over its faulty hip implants, told National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that demands of Indian
patients were 'unreasonable and undue', as they filed the lawsuit
only after knowing about the US settlement.

In the US, J&J gave $2.5 billion to thousands of affected patients,
after a class action lawsuit was filed in 2011.

Patient demands Rs. 2cr in damages, J&J feels it's 'undue'

The case

Notably, in 2016, 52-year-old Jyoti Sharma had approached the
country's top consumer court demanding Rs. 2 crore in damages from
J&J.

Responding to her lawsuit, the company filed an affidavit in
July'16, saying she didn't approach the commission in time.

Calling it an afterthought after the US verdict, the affidavit
claimed it was done "with a view to make unreasonable, undue and
wrongful windfall gains".

Backstory: Sharma had surgery in 2006, pain persisted for years
Details

Sharma had underwent a surgery in September 2006, and complained of
pain.

She made regular visits to the hospital, and it was only in 2011
that she learned the cobalt-chromium level in her blood was 3.69.
The ideal window is 0.08-0.09.

In 2012, she underwent a revision hip replacement surgery, but
after getting no respite from the pain, she moved court.

Sharma tells why she moved court after years
Fact

"Despite the revision surgery, the fact remains that it has caused
me irreparable, long-term damage to my hip bone and tissue. There
was no move by the company to compensate me. Therefore, I decided
to sue the company for damages for suffering," she told IE.

Company explains why it isn't liable to pay compensation
Affidavit

But J&J questioned the timing of the Sharma's complaint. In the
affidavit, the company said it wasn't liable to pay compensation,
because the implant was removed in 2012.

Further, the firm added it was important to take technical, medical
and scientific evidence into account which 'are beyond the scope of
the Consumer Protection Act'.

On J&J's affidavit, Ms. Sharma said it insulted her injury.

Their reason is unbelievable, Ms. Sharma on J&J's affidavit

Fact

"I could not sue them in the US, hence, approached Indian courts.
The reason given by Johnson and Johnson to the court is
unbelievable, especially when it has agreed that ASR (articular
surface replacement) implant was faulty and paid for my revision
surgery," she said.

Another son is fighting a battle for her mother
Details

Notably, hers isn't the only case. Arun Goenka is also fighting a
similar case.

He alleges the faulty hip surgery in 2006 laid roots for medical
complications of her mother, Purna Devi. She died in March this
year.

He said though they knew about the problem another surgery at her
mother's age wasn't recommended.

"She developed associated problems and died of complications," Mr.
Goenka said.

Defending itself, J&J said patient didn't undergo revision surgery,
willingly
Defense

Responding to Mr. Goenka's complaint, J&J told the court, "It is
submitted that there are several conditions such as age, medical
profile, type and duration of use of hip implants that are
applicable for determining the eligibility for receiving
compensation."

J&J told the patient 'waived her right' for revision surgery. On
this Mr. Goenka asked, does a patient have to undergo painful
surgery to get compensation? [GN]


KAPSTONE PAPER: Faces Multiple Merger Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------
KapStone Paper and Packaging Corporation said in its Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the
company made a supplemental disclosure in connection to the
merger-related suits.

As previously disclosed, on January 28, 2018, KapStone Paper and
Packaging Corporation ("KapStone"), WestRock Company ("WestRock"),
Whiskey Holdco, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of WestRock
("Holdco"), Kola Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Holdco ("KapStone Merger Sub"), and Whiskey Merger Sub, Inc., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Holdco ("WestRock Merger Sub"), entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement").

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, and subject to the terms and
conditions thereof, WestRock will acquire all of the outstanding
shares of KapStone through a transaction in which: (i) WestRock
Merger Sub will merge with and into WestRock, with WestRock
surviving such merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Holdco and
(ii) KapStone Merger Sub will merge with and into KapStone, with
KapStone surviving such merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Holdco (the "Merger").

The following complaints have been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware: (i) on August 6, 2018,
a putative class action lawsuit captioned Jordan Rosenblatt,
Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v.
KapStone Paper and Packaging Corporation, Roger W. Stone, Matthew
Kaplan, Robert J. Bahash, John M. Chapman, Paula H.J. Cholmondeley,
Jonathon [sic] R. Furer, David G. Gabriel, Brian Gamache, Matthew
H. Paull, Maurice S. Reznik and David P. Storch, Case No.
1:18-CV-01190-RGA (the "Rosenblatt Complaint"); (ii) on August 8,
2018, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Todd Harrison,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
KapStone Paper and Packaging Corporation, Roger W. Stone, Matthew
Kaplan, Robert J. Bahash, John M. Chapman, Paula H.J. Cholmondeley,
Jonathon [sic] R. Furer, David G. Gabriel, Brian Gamache, Matthew
H. Paull, Maurice S. Reznik and David P. Storch, Case No.
1:18-CV-01210-RGA (the "Harrison Complaint"); and (iii) on August
22, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit captioned David Pill,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
KapStone Paper and Packaging Corporation, Roger W. Stone, Matthew
Kaplan, Robert J. Bahash, John M. Chapman, Paula H.J. Cholmondeley,
Jonathan R. Furer, David G. Gabriel, Brian Gamache, Matthew H.
Paull, Maurice S. Reznik and David P. Storch, Case No.
1:18-CV-01290-RGA (the "Pill Complaint" and, together with the
Rosenblatt and Harrison Complaints, the "Merger Litigation").

The Merger Litigation relates to the Merger Agreement and the
definitive proxy statement/prospectus filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on August 1, 2018
(the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus") in connection with the Merger.

KapStone and WestRock believe that the claims asserted in the
Merger Litigation are without merit and intend to defend against
the Merger Litigation vigorously. However, in order to moot the
plaintiffs' unmeritorious disclosure claims, alleviate the costs,
risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and provide
additional information to their respective stockholders, KapStone
and WestRock have determined to voluntarily supplement the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus. KapStone and WestRock specifically deny all
allegations in the Merger Litigation that any additional disclosure
was or is required.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://goo.gl/bbzj7f

KapStone Paper and Packaging Corporation produces and sells a range
of containerboards, corrugated products, and specialty paper
products in the United States and internationally. The company
operates in two segments, Paper and Packaging, and Distribution.


KLX INC: Stipulation of Dismissal Filed in Merger-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
KLX Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2018,
that the plaintiff in the merger related class action suit filed a
stipulation of dismissal.

On April 30, 2018, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with The Boeing Company, a
Delaware corporation ("Boeing"), and Kelly Merger Sub, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Boeing
("Merger Sub"), as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto, dated June
1, 2018, pursuant to which Boeing has agreed to acquire the
Aerospace Solutions Group ("ASG") business of KLX. In addition, the
Company announced its intention to spin-off its Energy Services
Group ("ESG") business ("KLX Energy Services") to its stockholders.
Upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the
Merger Agreement, at the closing, Merger Sub will merge with and
into the Company, with the Company surviving as a direct or
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Boeing (the "Merger").

Following KLX's announcement of the merger, on July 2, 2018, KLX
received a demand letter from counsel for a purported KLX
stockholder seeking inspection of KLX's books and records. After
negotiation with counsel for this purported stockholder and
pursuant to an agreement governing the confidentiality of any
produced documents, KLX produced certain books and records in
connection with the proposed merger between KLX and Boeing.

On July 6, 2018, a putative class action (the "Complaint") was
filed by a purported KLX stockholder in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware. The Complaint purports to bring
the litigation as a class action on behalf of the public
stockholders of KLX (the "Action"). The Complaint names as
defendants the members of the board of directors of KLX and KLX.

The Complaint alleges that KLX and the board of directors of KLX
failed to disclose material information in KLX's First Amended
Preliminary Proxy Statement on Form 14A filed on June 28, 2018. The
Complaint seeks, among other things, equitable relief, including to
enjoin the closing of the merger, to direct disclosure of all
material information in KLX's proxy statement and to award
plaintiff’s costs, including attorney's and expert's fees.

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

While KLX believes that the Action lacks merit and that the
disclosures in the definitive proxy statement comply fully with
applicable law, in order to avoid the expense and distraction of
litigation, KLX agreed, pursuant to the terms of the confidential
Memorandum of Understanding, to supplement the definitive proxy
statement with certain supplemental disclosures, which it did on
August 15, 2018. The confidential Memorandum of Understanding also
outlined the terms of the plaintiff in the Action's agreement in
principle to dismiss the Complaint and release all claims which it
has, has ever had, or could have asserted related to the Merger and
disclosures related to the Merger.

On August 22, 2018, the plaintiff filed a stipulation of dismissal.
The counsel for the plaintiff has reserved the right to seek a
mootness fee but has not yet made any specific demand for such a
fee.

In the opinion of management, neither the demand letter, nor the
Complaint are likely to result in a material adverse effect on the
Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.

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


KRYPTONITE ENERGY: Shields Seeks Unpaid Wages and OT under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Shields, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kryptonite Energy Services, LLC, the
Defendant, Case 2:18-cv-01284-MRH (W.D. Pa., Sept. 26, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation for the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated co-workers who work or have worked for
the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Constitution, and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of himself and other current and
former employees as well as those similarly situated current and
former employees holding comparable positions but different titles,
including Crew Leads and Roustabouts employed by the Defendant who
elect to opt into this action pursuant to the FLSA, that they are
entitled to (i) unpaid wages for all hours worked in a workweek ,
as required by law, (ii) unpaid overtime wages for hours worked
above 40 in a workweek, as required by law, and (iii) liquidated
damages pursuant to the FLSA.

Kryptonite Energy specializes in pressure testing, torque wrenches,
chemical injection, on-site greasing, and roustabout services.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Collective and Class Members:

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esquire
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          707 Grant Street, Suite 2500
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918
          Telephone: (412) 281-7229
          Facsimile: (412) 281-4229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470 3520
          Facsimile: (202) 800 2730
          E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                  jrathod@classlawdc.com


LAZY ONE: Crosson Files ADA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lazy One, Inc. The
case is styled as Aretha Crosson individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Lazy One, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05649 (E.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 10, 2018).

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

Lazy One sells not only "cheeky" boxers, but also pj tees,
sleepwear and more, all featuring original-and strangely
endearing-designs of wacky wildlife.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group, P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11217
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


LEXINGTON INSURANCE: Court OKs Dismissal of Ezell RICO Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the amended
complaint in the case captioned NORMA EZELL, LEONARD WHITLEY, and
ERICA BIDDINGS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN
INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.; AIG ASSURANCE COMPANY; AIG INSURANCE
COMPANY; AIG PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY; AIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY; AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL UNION
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURG, P.A.; AGC LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY; AMERICAN GENERAL ANNUITY SERVICE CORPORATION; and AIG
DOMESTIC CLAIMS, INC., Defendants. Civil Action No. 17-10007-NMG.
(D. Mass.).

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against ten
insurance companies and subsidiaries alleging that certain
commissions charged in connection with annuity payments are
unlawful.

Legal Standard

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face. In considering the merits of a motion to
dismiss, the Court may look only to the facts alleged in the
pleadings, documents attached as exhibits or incorporated by
reference in the complaint and matters of which judicial notice can
be taken.  

Civil RICO

To state a RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. 1961, a plaintiff must allege
four elements: (1) conduct, (2) of an enterprise, (3) through a
pattern, (4) of racketeering activity. Section 1961(1) defines
racketeering activity to mean any act that violates one of the
federal laws specified in the RICO statute, including the mail and
wire fraud statutes, 18 U.S.C. .5.5 1341 and 1343, over a ten-year
period.  

The plaintiffs have again failed to plead adequately that the
defendants and non-party brokers associated together for a common
illegal purpose as opposed to merely conducting their business in
parallel. The original and amended complaints both allege that
defendants maintain an Approved Broker List of brokers to sell
annuities for structured settlements. Those on the list are known
as Agency Partners who have allegedly engaged in parallel conduct,
namely concealing the fact that their broker's fees are bundled
into the represented annuity costs in an effort to push the sale of
AIG annuities.

In this Court's prior order allowing defendants' motion to dismiss,
it found that those allegations, alone, do not rise to the level of
an association-in-fact enterprise because the complaint does not
state how the brokers collaborated with each other or if the
brokers were even aware of each other's participation in the
alleged scheme.

Because plaintiffs have not remedied the deficiencies of the
original complaint with respect to the civil RICO claim, Count I of
the amended complaint will be dismissed with prejudice against all
defendants.

Fraudulent Misrepresentations

The Plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and misleading
representations concerning the value of the payments agreed to in
the structured settlement agreements. They contend that defendants
assumed an affirmative duty to disclose the broker's fees and that
by concealing the true cost of the annuities, defendants violated
that duty. In their complaint, plaintiffs further allege that they
relied upon defendants' misrepresentations to their detriment and
financial injury.

The Defendants rejoin that the allegations in the complaint fail to
satisfy the pleading requirements under. Furthermore, they deny
that they were under any duty to disclose the pricing and premium
information. The Defendants suggest that, while Lexington entered
into the settlement agreements with plaintiffs, other defendants,
and in the case of Biddings's settlement, non-parties from whom
Lexington bought the annuities were the entities that actually paid
the broker commissions.

Even if plaintiffs had adequately alleged the author of the
fraudulent misrepresentations, they have failed to allege how those
misrepresentations were material. To show materiality, plaintiffs
must demonstrate that the matter misrepresented was relevant and
important in determining their choice of action.  

The Plaintiffs fail to allege how their decisions would have been
affected had they known of the 4% broker's commission. They concede
that charging such a fee was an industry-wide practice for
annuities and they do not claim that they would have declined the
structured settlement had they known of the broker's fee. To the
contrary, they assert that, had they known of the broker's fee,
they would have employed their own brokers who would have acted in
their interests rather than the interests of defendants.

That claim, however, addresses only the separate issue of who hired
the brokers, not the issue of saving the 4% broker's fee. Had
plaintiffs hired their own brokers, presumably they would have
still paid the industry-standard 4% commission to enter into the
structured settlement agreements. Without alleging specifically how
foreknowledge of the broker's fee would have affected their choice
of taking the structured settlement, plaintiffs have failed to
plead the materiality prong of common-law fraud.

Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss Count II will be
allowed and Count II will be dismissed with prejudice.

The Defendants' motion to dismiss is allowed and the amended
complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8seqccn
from Leagle.com.

Norma Ezell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Leonard Whitley, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated & Erica Biddings, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Craig R.
Spiegel  -- craig@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
pro hac vice, Kristen A. Johnson --  kristenj@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Richard B. Risk, Jr., Risk Law Firm, PA,
pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman  -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.  

Lexington Insurance Company, American International Group, Inc.,
AIG Assurance Company, AIG Property Casualty Company, AIG Specialty
Insurance Company, American General Life Insurance Company,
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA., AGC Life
Insurance Company, American General Annuity Service Corporation &
AIG Claims, Inc., formerly known as AIG Domestic Claims, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by William T. Hogan, III  --
bill.hogan@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson, Mullins, Riley &
Scarborough, LLP, Adam H. Offenhartz -- aoffenhartz@gibsondunn.com
-- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, pro hac vice, James L. Hallowell-
jhallowell@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac
vice, Nancy E. Hart -- nhart@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick T. Uiterwyk  --
patrick.uiterwyk@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP & Peter M. Wade -- pwade@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice.

AIG Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by William T. Hogan,
III, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP & Patrick T.
Uiterwyk, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP.


LUXOR ESTATES CONDOMINIUM: Pasternakiewicz Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miroslaw Pasternakiewicz, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Luxor Estates Condominium
Association, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-08602, (S.D. N.Y.,
September 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Defendant owns vacation lodging in upstate New York where
Pasternakiewicz worked as a construction worker. He was allegedly
misclassified by Plaintiff as an independent contractor. He claims
to have worked more than 40 hours in a workweek and was not
properly compensated for the overtime work by paying 1.5 times his
regular hourly wage rate. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan El-Hag, Esq.
      EL-HAG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      777 Westchester Ave, Suite 101
      White Plains, NY, 10604
      Tel: (914) 755-1579
      Fax: (914) 206-4176
      Email: Jordan@elhaglaw.com
      Website: www.elhaglaw.com



MARICOPA, AZ: David Isabel Files Civil Rights Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
David Isabel has brought a class action lawsuit against officials
of Maricopa county in Arizona.  The case is styled as David Isabel
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Michele Reagan in her individual capacity, County of
Maricopa, Adrian Fontes in his official capacity as Maricopa County
Recorder, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03217-JZB (D. Ariz., Oct. 9,
2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Civil Rights Act.

Michele Reagan (born October 13, 1969) is an American Republican
politician who is the 20th and current Arizona Secretary of State,
succeeding Ken Bennett in 2015.

Maricopa County is a county in the south-central part of the U.S.
state of Arizona. As of the 2010 census, its population was
3,817,117, making it the state's most populous county, and the
fourth-most populous in the United States.

Adrian Fontes is the county recorder of Maricopa County,
Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nathan Jean Fidel, Esq.
     Miller Pitt Feldman & McAnally PC
     2800 N Central Ave., Ste. 840
     Phoenix, AZ 85012-1069
     Phone: (602) 266-5557
     Fax: (602) 266-2223
     Email: nfidel@mpfmlaw.com

          - and –

     Spencer Garrett Scharff, Esq.
     Scharff PLC
     502 W Roosevelt St.
     Phoenix, AZ 85003
     Phone: (602) 739-4417
     Email: spencer@scharffplc.com


MASSACHUSETTS: Sabree Files Appeal in Massachusetts Judicial Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
G. SAIF SABREE, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER BLACK PRISONERS
CURRENTLY AND IN THE FUTURE SIMILARLY SITUATED AT THE MASSACHUSETTS
TREATMENT CENTER, the Plaintiff/Petitioner v. DANIEL BENNETT,
SECRETARY EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY, THOMAS
TURCO III, COMMISSIONER OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STEVEN
O'BRIEN, FORMER SUPERINTENDENT OF MASSACHUSETTS TREATMENT CENTER,
STEVEN WHEELER, PRESIDENT/CEO MHM CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC.,
GEORGE JOHNS REGIONAL VICE PRESIDENT MHM CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,
INC., AND KIMBERLY LYMAN-JULIUS PROGRAM DIRECTION FORENSIC HEALTH
SERVICES MHM CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC., the
Defendant/Respondents, Case No. SJ-2018-0424, is an appeal filed in
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on Sept. 19, 2018, from a
lower court decision in Case No. 1784CV00314, Suffolk Superior
Court.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MEDNAX: Bernstein, Spector Vie for Class Action Lead Counsel Spot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Bolado, writing for Law360, reported that Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Spector Roseman & Kodroff PC
are battling to nab the lead counsel spot in a shareholder class
action against health care administration company Mednax. [GN]


MEDTRONIC PLC: Pretrial in Sprint Fidelis-Related Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 27, 2018, that pretrial proceedings in Sprint
Fidelis class action related suit is ongoing.

In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal injuries
allegedly related to the Company's Sprint Fidelis family of
defibrillation leads. On October 20, 2009, the court certified a
class proceeding but denied class certification on plaintiffs'
claim for punitive damages. Pretrial proceedings are underway.

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

Medtronic Public Limited Company develops, manufactures,
distributes, and sells device-based medical therapies to hospitals,
physicians, clinicians, and patients worldwide. It operates through
four segments: Cardiac and Vascular Group, Minimally Invasive
Therapies Group, Restorative Therapies Group, and Diabetes Group.
The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


MICROSOFT CORP: Appeals Court Will Consider Class-Action Question
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Lerman, writing for The Seattle Times, reports that women
suing Microsoft alleging widespread gender discrimination will get
another chance to convince a court that their claims should be
considered together as a class, after the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals agreed to hear an appeal of a lower-court decision.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are seeking to add to the case more
than 8,600 women who have worked in engineering jobs at the
company, making it a class-action suit. U.S. District Judge James
Robart denied the class-action motion in June, saying there were
not strong enough similarities between the women's claims to prove
companywide bias practices.

The case, Moussouris v. Microsoft, is one of a few high-profile
gender-discrimination lawsuits against big tech companies weaving
its way through the courts. It has been going on for three years
and alleges gender discrimination across Microsoft, particularly
tied to the way performance reviews and promotions were conducted.
Microsoft has denied the claims, saying its processes do not
discriminate against women.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs appealed Robart's ruling this summer
that blocked class-action status.

"We welcome the Ninth Circuit's clarification of the class
certification standards and believe the evidence here demands that
Microsoft's common discriminatory systems be addressed on a class
basis so that women at the company can get justice," plaintiff
attorney Kelly Dermody, Esq. -- kdermody@lchb.com -- said in a
statement on September 21.

A Microsoft spokesperson said September 21 that the company
believed Robart made the correct decision.

"There is no bias in Microsoft's pay and promotion practices," a
company spokesperson said in a statement. "We remain committed to
increasing diversity and making sure that Microsoft continues to be
a workplace where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed."

The court will likely hear oral arguments in the appeal in
2019.[GN]


MONSANTO COMPANY: Sonnier Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHELIA SONNIER, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01633 (E.D. Mo., Sept. 26, 2018), seeks to recover
damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
agricultural products for farmers worldwide. It operates in two
segments, Seeds and Genomics, and Agricultural Productivity.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359


NATIONAL INSURANCE: Court Challenges Solvency Capital Policy
------------------------------------------------------------
Business Day reports that a Federal High Court in Lagos has
restrained the National Insurance Commission (NAICOM) from
implementing its proposed minimum solvency capital policy scheduled
to take effect from October 1, 2018, pending the expiration of a
30-day pre-action notice.

Justice Muslim Hassan, gave the order in a class action brought by
some shareholders of insurance companies in Nigeria, challenging
the new minimum solvency capital policy proposed by the NAICOM.

At the hearing, counsel to the applicant, Bert Chucks Igwilo, told
the court that they had filed and served the NAICOM a pre-action
notice on Sept 6. Justice Hassan gave the order and adjourned
further hearing to Oct 8. [GN]


NATIONWIDE CAPITAL: Fabricant Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nationwide Capital Solutions Group, Inc.,
and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-08128
(C.D. Cal., September 19, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory
damages, treble damages and all other relief for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Nationwide Capital Solutions Group, Inc. is a finance brokerage
company who attempted to contact Fabricant using an automatic
telephone dialing system offering its services, says the complaint.
[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


NEOEN: Cites Risk Of Class Action Against Wind Farms
----------------------------------------------------
Giles Parkinson, writing for Renew Economy, reports that the
French-owned renewable energy developer Neoen says there is a risk
that wind farms in South Australia could face a class action suit
over the state-wide blackout in September, 2016.

The risk was cited in Neoen's documentation for its upcoming
initial public offering, where it will seek to raise $A850 million
in a share market float.

Most of the company's revenue now comes from Australia, where it
owns the Hornsdale wind farm, the Tesla big battery, and three
solar farms in NSW, and is building new wind, solar and battery
projects in Victoria and NSW, and has others planned in those
states and in South Australia and Queensland.

The documents reveal, for the first time, some of the detailed
contracts, costs and revenues of the Tesla big battery that was
built last year next to the 317MW Hornsdale wind farm.

But it also raises the possibility of court action over the
state-wide blackout, and the possibility of "significant" losses if
it lost a claim for damages connected with the blackout.

The Australian Energy Market Operator found that the blackout was
caused by catastrophic failures triggered by a series of tornadoes
that knocked down three main transmission lines.

Its investigations also found that many of the state's wind farms
had software for system protection at settings hitherto unknown to
AEMO that took them off-line after a series of faults caused by the
downed transmissions lines.

"These system protection measures led to a reduction or even
stoppage of such wind farms' output and hence an increase in
imported power flowing into the network, specifically from the
neighbouring state of Victoria, through an inter-connector that
overloaded and was tripped, leading to a complete system
shut-down," Neoen notes,

Neoen says there is a possibility that a yet to be delivered report
by the Australian Energy Regulator could impose fines of up to
$20,000 to Hornsdale – and other wind farms – for
"non-compliance" with certain National Electricity Rules. Only the
first 100MW stage of Hornsdale was operating at the time.

"(Neoen) believes it has a strong basis to contest any infringement
notice that may be issued," it says in its document. But it also
notes that any legal battle could be drawn out and expensive.

The French-owned renewable energy developer Neoen says there is a
risk that wind farms in South Australia could face a class action
suit over the state-wide blackout in September, 2016.

The risk was cited in Neoen's documentation for its upcoming
initial public offering, where it will seek to raise $A850 million
in a share market float.

"The imposition of a penalty would increase the risk of a class
action lawsuit against (Hornsdale 1) by claimants requesting
compensation for damage incurred in connection with the blackout.

"Defending against such legal action would be costly and any
related losses could be significant."

A spokesman for the AER said the report was expected to be
delivered by the end of the year.

The report is expected to be comprehensive, and will also look
closely at the actions of AEMO, and its decision on that day not to
take preventative action -- such as putting extra capacity on
standby and by dialling down the imports from Victoria (actions
which are now standard) despite warnings of storm activity.

The report may also look at why AEMO didn't know about the software
settings on the wind farm.

It should also investigate the settings on the country's big
synchronous generators, with many analysts and reports suggesting
they present a big threat to system security because of control
systems that have been allowed to loosen.

Those settings have since been rectified, AEMO has taken a more
cautious approach to dealing with credible contingencies, has
introduced new rules about the amount of back-up needed in South
Australia, is taking a closer look at weather forecasts, and also
has the Tesla big battery to provide support at critical times,
such as when two big transmissions lines failed last month.[GN]


NEW MEXICO: Corrections Dept. Sued over Employment Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SANDY TRAINER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO CORRECTIONS
DEPARTMENT, the Defendant, Case no. 1:18-cv-00908 (D. N.M., Sept.
26, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiff and those similarly situated
were systematically discriminated against on the basis of their sex
by being disproportionately misclassified as independent
contractors.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other female
employees of the State of New Mexico have been systematically
misclassified by the State of New Mexico as "independent
contractors" despite being, in fact, employees of the State of New
Mexico as defined under State and Federal Law.

The Plaintiff and other wrongly-classified employees were harmed as
a result of the State of New Mexico’s misclassification of its
employees because they did not receive the same benefits as
similarly situated male employees, including but not limited to
time-and-a-half for overtime, and because they paid taxes and other
expenses that should have been paid by the State of New Mexico, and
were made ineligible for benefits, including medical, retirement
plan, and unemployment benefits, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant operates prisons in the state of New Mexico.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

Andrew Indahl, Esq.
ALTURA LAW FIRM
500 Marquette Dr. NW, Suite 1200
Albuquerque NM 87102
E-mail: andy@alturalawfirm.com

     - and -

Anthony Spratley, Esq.
GENUS LAW GROUP
500 Marquette Dr. NW, Suite 1200
Albuquerque NM 87102
E-mail: aspratley@genuslawgrp.com


NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Workers Appeal ERISA Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Lidgett, writing for Law360, reported that a class of New York
University workers have appealed to the Second Circuit their recent
loss in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act case. [GN]


NEW ZEALAND: $6MM Taxpayers' Money Spent to Defend Kiwifruit Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerard Hutching, writing for Stuff, reports that taxpayers have so
far spent $6 million to defend the kiwifruit claim case, and the
Appeal Court hearing has yet to start.

This makes it the most expensive primary sector court case on
record.

In June the 212 growers who joined a class action won a High Court
case which found the Ministry for Primary Industries was negligent
in allowing the disease Psa into the country in 2010.

They are claiming $450m compensation.

MPI said it was taking the case to appeal because it sought to
"clarify the scope for government regulators to be sued in
negligence".

It added the High Court finding had the potential to "significantly
impact on the Ministry's biosecurity operations".

The claimants have filed a cross-appeal on the grounds that packer
Seeka was owed a duty of care, contrary to the High Court finding,
and that MPI was negligent in failing to inspect a shipment of
banned kiwifruit plant material, infected with Psa, when it arrived
from China.

The 12-week High Court case was funded by litigation funder the LPF
Group, chaired by former Supreme Court judge Bill Wilson. As a
funder of the class action, LPF Group is to receive a percentage of
the compensation granted.

In response to an Official Information request, the Ministry for
Primary Industries said the $6m figure did not include internal
staffing costs, and it would not be possible to provide an exact
figure for the total time spent by staff.

The costs for consultants and experts paid directly by MPI was
$400,000.

Lawyers who acted in court for MPI were Mary Scholtens QC (until
March 2016) and Jack Hodder QC (from March 2016), Crown counsel
from Crown Law and Sally McKechnie from Simpson Grierson from
mid-2017.

Prior to mid-2017, Sally McKechnie was manager and Crown counsel at
Crown Law and was responsible for leading the Crown's defence in
the litigation.

"Given her extensive involvement and knowledge up to that date, she
continued to be engaged by MPI once she left for Simpson Grierson.
From May 29, 2017 until July 31, 2018, costs incurred from Simpson
Grierson were $479,913," MPI said.  

Kiwifruit Claim chairman John Cameron would not divulge how much
his group had spent on the case, but said it was much less than the
Crown's costs.

"The landmark decision, which found MPI completely failed to do
their job and was negligent in letting Psa into New Zealand, was
emphatic. Litigation is expensive and the Governments' move to
appeal the High Court decision will only add to the costs already
incurred by the taxpayer."

"We believe the Government is taking a massive risk in appealing
the judge's clear findings, enough is enough -- it's time for MPI
to accept full responsibility", Mr. Cameron said.

The case has already set a record for being the most expensive
primary sector trial, and it has the potential of heading to the
Supreme Court.

One of New Zealand's most celebrated defamation cases occurred in
the mid-1980s, when the Bell-Booth Group sued the Ministry of
Agriculture for damages of $11.5m over allegations regarding their
liquid fertiliser Maxicrop.

Eventually, after the country's longest civil case, Bell-Booth were
awarded $25,000 but that decision was overturned in the Court of
Appeal.

The case cost Bell-Booth $2m, and MAF spent $1m defending it. In
today's money, that defence would cost $2.75m. [GN]


NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Labaton Sucharow Expands Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP disclosed that on September 21, 2018, it filed
a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its client Plumbers
and Steamfitters Local 60 Pension Trust ("UA Local 60") against
Nielsen Holdings plc ("Nielsen" or the "Company") (NYSE: NLSN), and
certain of its senior executives (collectively, "Defendants").  The
action, which is captioned Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 60
Pension Trust v. Nielsen Holdings plc, No. 1:18-cv-06459 (N.D.
Ill.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Nielsen common stock between February 11, 2016
and July 25, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint expands the class period asserted in the action
against Nielsen captioned Gordon v. Nielsen Holdings plc, No.
1:18-cv-07143-JFK (S.D.N.Y.) ("Gordon").  Pursuant to the notice
published on August 8, 2018 in connection with the filing of the
first-filed Gordon action, as required by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, investors wishing to serve as Lead
Plaintiff in the securities actions pending against Nielsen are
required to file a motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff by no
later than October 9, 2018.  

Nielsen provides its customers with analytical data to assist in
their comprehensive understanding of what products consumers buy
and what programming consumers watch. Nielsen divides its business
into two segments: (1) Buy; and (2) Watch.  The Company's Buy
segment tracks millions of retail transactions around the world and
transforms this data into various products that assist consumer
packaged goods ("CPG") companies in their marketing decisions.
Nielsen's Watch segment "provides viewership and listening data and
analytics primarily to the media and advertising industries across
the television, radio, print, online, digital, mobile viewing and
listening platforms."

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
failed to disclose that: (1) Buy segment sales were experiencing a
permanent decline due to major budget cuts instituted by the
Company's CPG customers; (2) the Company's CPG clients were
reducing and cancelling Nielsen custom project work in favor of
real-time analytical solutions; (3) the Company recklessly
disregarded its readiness for and the true risks of privacy related
regulations and policies, including the General Data Protection
Regulation ("GDPR"), on its current and future financial and growth
prospects; (4) the Company's financial performance was far more
dependent on Facebook and other third-party large data set
providers than previously disclosed and privacy policy changes
affected the scope and terms of access Nielsen would have to
third-party data; (5) access to Facebook and other third-party
provider data was becoming increasingly restricted for Nielsen and
its clients; and (6) as a result, the Company's positive statements
about its business, operations, and financial conditions lacked a
reasonable basis.

The truth regarding Nielsen's struggling business and financial
condition was revealed through a series of disclosures culminating
on July 26, 2018, when Nielsen announced disappointing results for
its second quarter ended June 30, 2018.  Nielsen attributed these
disappointing results to the negative impact that the GDPR and
other privacy regulations had on its business and the continued
underperformance of its Buy segment.  In addition, Nielsen
announced that it had opened an in-depth strategic review of its
Buy segment and that its Chief Executive Officer would retire at
the end of 2018.  On this news, the Company's stock price fell
$7.46 per share, or more than 25 percent, to close at $22.11 per
share on July 26, 2018.

If you purchased or acquired Nielsen common stock during the Class
Period, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek
appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead Plaintiff motion papers must
be filed no later than October 9, 2018.  The Lead Plaintiff is a
court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class.
You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in
any Class recovery in this action.  If you are a Class member and
there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery
as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your choice to
represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit you may;

         Francis P. McConville, Esq.
         Labaton Sucharow
         Telephone: (800) 321-0476
         Email: fmcconville@labaton.com [GN]


NISOURCE INC: Law Firm to Investigate Possible Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary C. Serreze, writing for MASSLive, reports that a Pennsylvania
law firm said on Sept. 14 it intends to investigate NiSource, Inc.
and its officers for "possible violations of federal securities
law."

NiSource stocked tanked nearly 12 percent on Sept. 14, losing $3.29
and closing at $24.79, "thereby injuring investors," the law firm
of Howard G. Smith said in an announcement. NiSource (NYSE:NI),
based in Indiana, is the parent of Columbia Gas of Massachusetts,
implicated in a series of fires and explosions on Sept. 14.

The disaster destroyed or damaged dozens of homes in Andover, North
Andover, and Lawrence. One person was killed and many more were
injured. Thousands were forced to evacuate.

The National Transportation Safety Board confirmed that
over-pressurization of a natural gas main belonging to Columbia Gas
was a factor, but has not yet determined the cause. Columbia had
been working in the area on an upgrade project.

Smith urged people to get in touch with his firm if they purchased
NiSource securities or have information to share. The law firm was
not immediately available for comment on Sept. 14 on the topic of
any potential securities class action lawsuit.

NiSource had been considered a secure investment, and its leading
fund investor recently loaded up on utility stocks as "the safest,
most defensive sector in the S&P 500," Reuters reported.

NiSource holds utility subsidiaries in seven states and serves
nearly 4 million customers, according to its website. It
distributes natural gas and electricity, and also generates power
and operates transmission lines.

Columbia Gas has more than 313,000 customers in 65 Massachusetts
cities and towns. It has been fined more than $100,000 by state
regulators over the past eight years, records show. In a recent
filing with federal pipeline safety regulators, Columbia Gas
reported 471 miles of old cast-iron and wrought-iron gas
distribution lines in the state.

Part of a NiSource-owned pipeline exploded in Sissonville, West
Virginia in 2012. The NTSB found corrosion was to blame, according
to local television reports. The pipeline had not been inspected
since 1988. [GN]


O.P.E.N. AMERICA: Mark Cries Fraud, Sues to Recover Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Mark, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. O.P.E.N. America, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02412, (D. Colo., September 20, 2018)
seeks to recover minimum wages, damages, attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Minimum
Wage and Overtime Law; and actual, compensatory, and punitive
damages resulting from fraud, negligent misrepresentation and
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing under the Arizona
Consumer Fraud Act.

O.P.E.N. America, Inc. is a large, national cleaning company that
cleans commercial, industrial, and office facilities in several
states. It allegedly requires its workers to incorporate into
separate LLCs and enter into franchise agreements under which they
purportedly operate as independent companies. Mark was promised a
small cleaning business franchise but ended working brutal hours
for meager pay as a cleaning worker. Being a foreigner, she did not
understand the differences between being a franchisee and an
employee, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David H. Seligman, Esq.
      Alexander N. Hood, Esq.
      TOWARDS JUSTICE
      1410 High St., Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80218
      Tel: (720) 248-8426
      Fax: (303) 957-2289
      Email: alex@towardsjustice.org
             david@towardsjustice.org


OCH-ZIFF:Oks Settlement w/ Investors After Class Action Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Swanson, writing for Global Investigations Review, reports
that Och-Ziff has agreed in principle a settlement with investors
who sued the hedge fund for allegedly failing to disclose a
government probe into foreign bribery, according to court
documents.[GN]

OPTIMA COMPUTERS: Bitcoin Users Seek Class Action in Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Audette, writing for Brattleboro Reformer, reports that with
more than 200,000 users having spent nearly $30 million on
cryptocurrency that didn't actually exist, plaintiffs in a civil
suit in Connecticut are pushing for their suit to be reclassified
as a class action.

"There are several thousand class members here," wrote Mark Kindall
-- mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- and Robert A. Izard -- rizard@ikrlaw.com
-- of Izard, Kindall & Raave in West Hartford. "Given the
complexity of securities litigation and the size of the claims of
individual Class members, it would not make sense for Class members
to proceed individually."

Messrs. Kindall and Izard represent three men who claim they were
misled by Josh Garza into investing in a cryptocurrency between
Aug. 1, 2014, and Dec. 1, 2015. But, wrote Messrs. Kindall and
Izard, "An enormous group of potential plaintiffs, with losses
ranging from millions of dollars to tens of dollars," deserve to be
represented in the suit, as well.

On Friday, Sept. 14, Mr. Garza pleaded guilty in a federal court in
Hartford to wire fraud and was sentenced to 21 months in prison
followed by six months of home confinement and three years of
probation. Mr. Garza was also ordered to pay nearly $10 million in
restitution to his victims.

Mr. Garza founded the now-defunct Optima Computers in Brattleboro,
Vt., in 2002. Once Optima went out of business, Garza and his
then-business mentor, Stuart Fraser, founded Great Auk Wireless
High Speed Internet, also in Brattleboro. Great Auk was eventually
bought out and no longer exists. In 2014, Garza and Fraser also
founded GAW Miners and ZenMiner, bitcoin mining companies.

"This case might sound complicated," wrote Messrs. Kindall and
Izard. "Though cloaked in technological sophistication and jargon,
defendants' fraud was simple at its core -- defendants sold what
they did not own and misrepresented the nature of what they were
selling."

The civil suit against Mr. Garza and Mr. Fraser was filed in 2016,
accusing them of running a bitcoin Ponzi scheme that resulted in
the plaintiffs losing more than $10 million. Several months after
the filing, Mr. Garza was dismissed from the suit.

Mr. Fraser, who has been characterized by the plaintiffs as
Mr. Garza's mentor and "the man behind the curtain," has contended
that he had very little, if any, control of Garza's actions in the
scheme. Mr. Fraser has claimed the plaintiffs made "a deal with the
Devil, agreeing with the previously alleged mastermind of the fraud
. . . Joshua Garza, to dismiss all the claims against him in
exchange for purported information from him in the hope that it
could cure the deficiencies in their claims against Fraser."

Mr. Fraser's attorneys have filed motions in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Vermont, where the civil suit has been
field, seeking the notes of the meetings between Mr. Garza and the
attorneys for the plaintiffs. The judge has not yet ruled on that
request.

According to the motion requesting consolidation into a class
action suit, Mr. Garza and Mr. Fraser were required to register
their products as securities under the Connecticut Uniform
Securities Act, which they did not.

Mr. Garza also made misrepresentations about the nature of products
the companies sold, including how much computing power was
available to conduct the calculations that create a cryptocurrency
and that the companies had a $100 million reserve to back up the
$20 value of each of the bitcoins produced. In an internal email,
Mr. Garza admitted that the companies would need to hold huge
amounts of cash to guarantee the $20 price and "the entire model is
flawed," noted the class action filing.

In fact, noted one of the former employees of the companies, there
wasn't actually any bitcoin being mined.

"Instead," wrote Messrs. Kindall and Izard, "the Companies used
payments they received from new investors to make payouts to older
investors."

"I knew that if his mindset was to over-leverage the mining
capacity to bring in more revenue, that that was not going to be
sustainable for long, plus it's illegal, I believe," stated GAW
Miners' Chief Technical Officer. "It's a Ponzi scheme."

"No reasonable investor would have purchased the products if they
knew the truth about defendants' fraudulent scheme," wrote Messrs.
Kindall and Izard. "The fact that investors paid for the products
indicates they were unaware of the falsehoods."

The Companies also represented that thousands of merchants,
including Amazon.com, had agreed to accept PayCoin, when "In fact,
no such agreements had been made with Amazon or any other
significant retailer. This promise was particularly significant
because widespread commercial adoption had not been achieved by any
other cryptocurrency and was considered crucial for long-term
value."

"For the foregoing reasons and authorities, plaintiffs request that
the Court grant their motion to certify the class," wrote Messrs.
Kindall and Izard. [GN]


OXY USA: Gas Royalty Owner Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Phillis, writing for Law360, reported that a gas royalty
owner has asked a Kansas federal court to certify its proposed
class of more than 1,800 owners in a suit against Oxy USA Inc.
[GN]


PENN CREDIT: Alicea Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penn Credit
Corporation. The case is styled as Madeline Alicea individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Penn
Credit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05661 (E.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 10, 2018).

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

Penn Credit Corporation provides accounts receivables management
services. The company offers third party collection, small balance
recovery, legal collection, letter campaign, and extended business
office function services. It serves bankcard, commercial, direct
marketing, education, government, healthcare, retail,
telecommunications, and utilities sectors. The company was
incorporated in 1987 and is based in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     Sanders Law, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 281-7601
     Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


PPDAI GROUP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities
that purchased American Depositary Receipts ("ADR's") of PPDAI
Group Inc. ("PPDAI" or the "Company") (NYSE:PPDF).  If you
purchased ADR's of PPDAI Group Inc. directly on or subsequent to
the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") on November 10, 2017,
and incurred losses on your investment, please contact Wolf
Haldenstein.

All investors who have incurred losses in ADR's of PPDAI Group Inc.
are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com
or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional
information about the firm on our website, www.whafh.com.

PPDAI Group Inc. provides consumer financing services. The Company
offers online consumer financing platform and asset class consumer
loan services. PPDAI Group serves clients in China.

The filed complaint  concerns whether PPDAI's filings with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the
IPO contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted
material information regarding PPDAI's business practices, the
interest rates on loans made through PPDAI's platform, or the
quality of loans made through PPDAI's platform.

In late November 2017, shortly after the IPO, ADR's of PPDAI
dropped significantly on concerns that the Chinese government was
considering increased regulation of the peer-to-peer loan industry
in order to curb usurious interest rates and other abuses.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this potential case, please
immediately

         Gregory Stone
         Director of Case and Financial Analysis
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         Tel: (800) 575-0735
              (212) 545-4774
         Email: gstone@whafh.com
                classmember@whafh.com[GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: Pioneer Tel. Benefit Plan Files RICO Suit in OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma LP, et
al. The case is styled Pioneer Telephone Cooperative Inc. Employee
Benefits Plan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Bios Companies Inc. Welfare Plan, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Pioneer Telephone
Cooperative Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and as plan sponsor and fiduciary of Pioneer
Telephone Cooperative Inc. Employee Benefits Plan, Bios Companies
Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
and as plan sponsor and fiduciary of Bios Companies Inc., Welfare
Plan Plaintiffs v. Purdue Pharma LP, Purdue Pharma Inc., The Purdue
Frederick Company Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc. Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Inc, Par Pharmaceutical
Companies Inc. formerly known as: Par Pharmaceutical Holdings Inc.,
Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Ortho-McNeil- Janssen Pharmaceuticals
Inc. now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Janssen
Pharmaceutica Inc. now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Johnson & Johnson, Noramco Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Cephalon Inc., Allergan plc
formerly known as: Actavis plc., Allergan Finance LLC formerly
known as: Actavis Inc. formerly known as: Watson Pharmaceuticals
Inc., Watson Laboratories Inc., Actavis LLC, Actavis Pharma Inc
formerly known as: Watson Pharma Inc., Insys Therapeutic Inc.,
Mallinckrodt plc, Mallinckrodt LLC, SPECGX LLC, Amerisourcebergen
Drug Corporation, Anda Inc., Cardinal Health Inc., McKesson
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00994-G (W.D. Okla., Oct.
9, 2018).

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

Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned
principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and Raymond
Sackler. The company's branches include Purdue Pharma Inc., The
Purdue Frederick Company, Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P., and
Purdue Products L.P.

The Frederick Purdue Company provides research, development,
production, marketing, sales, and licensing of prescription and
non-prescription medicines and healthcare products. The Company
offers specializes in pain medication research, as well as other
therapeutic areas, including sleep and gastrointestinal disorders.
The Frederick Purdue operates in the United States.

Endo Health Solutions Inc. provides specialty healthcare solutions
in the United States and internationally. The company’s Endo
Pharmaceuticals segment offers branded prescription products,
including Lidoderm, Opana ER, Percocet, Voltaren Gel, Frova,
Supprelin LA, Vantas, Valstar, and Fortesta Gel for pain, urology,
endocrinology, and oncology. Its Qualitest segment provides
non-branded generic products in the pain management, urology,
central nervous system disorders, immunosuppression, oncology,
women’s health, and hypertension markets.

Endo Health Solutions Inc. provides specialty healthcare solutions
in the United States and internationally. The company’s Endo
Pharmaceuticals segment offers branded prescription products,
including Lidoderm, Opana ER, Percocet, Voltaren Gel, Frova,
Supprelin LA, Vantas, Valstar, and Fortesta Gel for pain, urology,
endocrinology, and oncology. Its Qualitest segment provides
non-branded generic products in the pain management, urology,
central nervous system disorders, immunosuppression, oncology,
women’s health, and hypertension markets.

Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and distributes
generic drugs in the United States. The company was incorporated in
2003 and is based in Spring Valley, New York. Par Pharmaceutical,
Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Endo International plc.

Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic drugs in the United
States. It operates through two segments, Par Pharmaceutical and
Par Specialty Pharmaceuticals. The Par Pharmaceutical segment
markets generic products under Par Pharmaceutical brand name and
sterile products under the Par Sterile brand.

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. manufactures and markets prescription
pharmaceutical products. It provides medicines for health concerns
in various therapeutic areas, including attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder, pain management, acid reflux and infectious
diseases, women’s health, and mental health (bipolar I disorder
and schizophrenia); neurologics, including Alzheimer’s disease,
epilepsy, and migraine prevention and treatment; and SYMTUZATM, a
darunavir-based single-tablet regimen for the treatment of human
immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in treatment-naïve and
certain virologically suppressed adults.

As of December 26, 1996, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, LLC was
acquired by Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Ortho-McNeil
Pharmaceutical, LLC develops and provides prescription drugs for
women’s health, analgesics, anti-infectives, anti-epileptics, and
urology in the United States. It offers various therapeutic
products in the areas of contraceptive and urology. The company
also offers vaginal therapy, a topical prescription medication
indicated for the local treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis. In
addition, it offers various therapeutics for the treatment of
overactive bladder. The company was founded in 1993 and is based in
Raritan, New Jersey.

Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational medical devices,
pharmaceutical and consumer packaged goods manufacturing company
founded in 1886. Its common stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and the company is listed among the Fortune
500.

Noramco, Inc. produces pain management and active pharmaceutical
ingredients that provide the inherent therapeutic benefit in
pharmaceuticals. The company offers amphetamine-L-aspartate,
amphetamine-sulfate, dextroamphetamine-saccharate,
dextroamphetamine-sulfate, buprenorphine base, buprenorphine HCl,
codeine phosphate, fentanyl base, hydrocodone bitartrate,
hydromorphone HCl, methylphenidate HCl, morphine sulfate, naloxone
HCl, naltrexone base, naltrexone HCl, oxycodone base, oxycodone
HCl, and oxymorphone HCl.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
The Generic Medicines segment offers sterile products, hormones,
narcotics, high-potency drugs, and cytotoxic substances in various
dosage forms, including tablets, capsules, injectables, inhalants,
liquids, ointments, and creams. This segment also develops,
manufactures, and sells active pharmaceutical ingredients.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. manufactures and markets generic
drugs in the United States. It offers generic products for various
therapeutic options, such as cardiovascular, anti-infective,
central nervous system, anti-inflammatory, oncolytic,
anti-diabetic, analgesic, dermatologic, respiratory, and women’s
health. The company offers its products in various dosage forms,
such as tablets, capsules, injectables, creams, ointments,
inhalants, solutions, and suspensions. It serves patients through
distributors. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. was formerly known as
Lemmon Pharmacal Company and changed its name to Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. in 1996.

Cephalon, Inc. engages in the discovery and development of
medicines for central nervous system disorders, pain, and cancer.
It offers NUVIGIL (armodafinil) tablets for improving wakefulness
in patients with excessive sleepiness associated with treated
obstructive sleep apnea and shift work disorder, also known as
shift work disorder and narcolepsy; TREANDA (bendamustine HCl) for
injection for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and AMRIX (Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride extended-release
capsules), which is indicated as an adjunct to rest and physical
therapy for relief of muscle spasm associated with acute and
painful musculoskeletal conditions.

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. It operates through
US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International
segments. The company offers a portfolio of products for the
central nervous system, eye care, medical aesthetics and
dermatology, gastroenterology, women’s health, urology, and
anti-infective therapeutic categories.

Allergan Finance, LLC develops, manufactures, and commercializes
generic and branded pharmaceutical products, and biologics and
medical devices for patients worldwide. It offers products in
central nervous system, eye care, medical aesthetics,
gastroenterology, women’s health, urology, cardiovascular, and
anti-infective therapeutic categories. Allergan Finance, LLC was
formerly known as Actavis, Inc. The company was incorporated in
2005 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey. Allergan Finance, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of Allergan plc.

Watson Laboratories, Inc. manufactures pharmaceutical drugs. The
company was incorporated in 1992 and is based in Corona,
California. Watson Laboratories, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
ATeva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited.

Actavis Pharma, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets generic
pharmaceutical products. It offers solid dosage and sterile dosage
generic products. The company was formerly known as Watson Pharma,
Inc. The company was founded in 1931 and is based in Parsippany,
New Jersey. As of August 28, 2000, Actavis Pharma, Inc. operates as
a subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited.

Insys Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
develops and commercializes supportive care products. The company
markets SUBSYS, a sublingual fentanyl spray for breakthrough cancer
pain in opioid-tolerant adult patients; and SYNDROS, an orally
administered liquid formulation of dronabinol for the treatment of
chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and anorexia associated
with weight loss in patients with AIDS.

Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, based in Staines-upon-Thames,
England, with its U.S. headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri,
produces specialty pharmaceutical products, including generic drugs
and imaging agents.

Mallinckrodt LLC manufactures pharmaceutical products, including
opiates and synthetic narcotics, diagnostic medical imaging
products, peptides used for various therapeutics, and stearates and
other specialty inorganics. Mallinckrodt LLC was formerly known as
Mallinckrodt, Inc. and changed its name to Mallinckrodt LLC in June
1997. The company was founded in 1867 and is based in St Louis,
Missouri with additional location in Hayward, California and
Hazelwood, Missouri. Mallinckrodt LLC operates as a subsidiary of
Mallinckrodt Public Limited Company.

AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation distributes pharmaceuticals
products, equipment, and systems. The company provides global
product sourcing, generic purchasing programs, technology
solutions, pharmacy network and programs, and pharmaceutical
packaging solutions. The company serves healthcare providers,
independent retailers, and pharmacies. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation was formerly known as AmeriSource Corporation and
changed its name to AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation in January
1995.

Anda, Inc. distributes generic, brand, specialty, and
over-the-counter pharmaceutical (OTC) products to retail
independent and chain pharmacies, nursing homes, mail order
pharmacies, hospitals, clinics, and physician offices in the United
States. It offers vaccines, injectables, medical/surgical supplies,
OTCs/vitamins, and pet medications. The company helps to meet the
needs of customers in long term care pharmacies, managed care
facilities, mail order pharmacies, physician offices, clinics,
hospitals, and student health centers.

McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies
in the United States and internationally. It operates in three
segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European
Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. The
company distributes branded, generic, specialty, biosimilar, and
over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs, as well as other
healthcare-related products; and offers practice management,
technology, clinical support, and business solutions to
community-based oncology and other specialty practices.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


QUALCOMM INC: Court Certifies Class in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned IN RE:
QUALCOMM ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Case No. 17-MD-02773-LHK (N.D.
Calif.).

Plaintiffs Sarah Key, Terese Russell, Carra Abernathy, Leonidas
Miras, and James Clark bring a putative class action against
Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated (Qualcomm) alleging antitrust
violations. The Plaintiffs' alleged that Qualcomm has used its
cellular SEPs and its modem chips monopoly to harm competition in
certain modem chips markets.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23:

     All natural persons and entities in the United States who
purchased, paid for, and/or provided reimbursement for some or all
of the purchase price for all UMTS, CDMA (including CDMAone and
cdma2000) and/or LTE cellular phones (Relevant Cellular Phones) for
their own use and not for resale from February 11, 2011, through
the present (the Class Period) in the United States. This class
excludes (a) Defendant, its officers, directors, management,
employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates; (b) all federal and state
governmental entities; (c) all persons or entities who purchased
Relevant Cellular Phones for purposes of resale; and (d) any judges
or justices involved in this action and any members of their
immediate families or their staff.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 23(a) provides that a district court may certify a class only
if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.

First, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule
23(a)(1)'s numerosity requirement. Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(1), the
Plaintiffs must show that the class is so numerous that joinder of
all members is impracticable. Here, the Plaintiffs define their
class by reference to objective criteria namely, persons and
entities who purchased particular types of cell phones in the
United States from February 11, 2011 to the present. The parties
agree that the class members number in the hundreds of millions.

Thus, the numerosity requirement is satisfied.  

Second, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule
23(a)(2)'s commonality requirement. Rule 23(a)(2) requires that
there are questions of law or fact common to the class.

Nevertheless, even a single common question will do. As this Court
has previously recognized, antitrust liability alone constitutes a
common question. Thus, Plaintiffs here have satisfied Rule
23(a)(2)'s commonality requirement by raising the issues whether
Qualcomm's business practices are anticompetitive and whether each
class member suffered the same injury as a result of Qualcomm's
anticompetitive conduct.

Third, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule
23(a)(3)'s typicality requirement. The permissive typicality
requirement requires only that the representative's claims are
reasonably co-extensive with those of the absent class members;
they need not be substantially identical. Typicality is present
when each class member's claim arises from the same course of
events, and each class member makes similar legal arguments to
prove the defendants' liability.

Thus, in antitrust cases, typicality usually will be established by
plaintiffs and all class members alleging the same antitrust
violations by defendants.

Here, all class members allege the same injury stemming from the
same conduct by Qualcomm.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs' interests align
with the interests of the class, and the typicality requirement of
Rule 23(a)(3) is met.

Finally, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs satisfy Rule
23(a)(4)'s adequacy requirement. Legal adequacy of a class
representative under Rule 23(a)(4) turns on two inquiries: (1)
whether named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of
interest with other class members and (2) whether named plaintiffs
and their counsel will prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of
the class. As noted above, Plaintiffs and class members share an
interest in proving that Qualcomm's conduct violated the antitrust
laws and caused injury to consumers.1 In addition, Plaintiffs and
Class Counsel do not have any conflicts of interest with class
members and have demonstrated a commitment to prosecuting this
action vigorously.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(a)(4).

Rule 23(b)

The Plaintiffs contend that their proposed class meets the
requirements of two subsections of Rule 23(b), namely, Rule
23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3).  

Rule 23(b)(3)

The Plaintiffs first seek to certify their proposed class for
damages and injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(3). As noted above,
Rule 23(b)(3) can be broken into two component pieces: (1)
predominance, and (2) superiority.  

Predominance

Under Rule 23(b)(3), plaintiffs must show that the questions of law
or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members.

To establish a federal antitrust claim, plaintiffs typically must
prove (1) a violation of antitrust laws, (2) an injury they
suffered as a result of that violation, and (3) an estimated
measure of damages.

Antitrust Violation

First, Plaintiffs provide substantial evidence that Qualcomm
requires OEMs to accept a separate license to Qualcomm's cellular
SEPs in order to gain access to Qualcomm's modem chips. Qualcomm
admitted in interrogatory responses that Qualcomm does not sell
modem chips to unlicensed OEMs.

Second, the Plaintiffs set forth significant evidence that Qualcomm
has adopted a uniform policy of refusing to offer exhaustive
licenses for its cellular SEPs to competing modem chip
manufacturers. The Plaintiffs rely on evidence that is common to
the class, including internal Qualcomm documents, licenses, and
licensing negotiations.

Third, and finally, the Plaintiffs' allegation that Qualcomm
entered into exclusive dealings with Apple depends upon evidence
that does not vary from class member to class member. In
particular, Plaintiffs cite to two agreements between Qualcomm and
Apple -- namely, a 2011 agreement and a 2013 agreement (which
amended the 2011 agreement).  Under the 2011 and 2013 agreements,
Apple would lose past and future lump-sum incentive payments from
Qualcomm if Apple launched any new products that contained modem
chips from a manufacturer other than Qualcomm.

This substantial evidence presented by Plaintiffs suggests that
adjudication of Qualcomm's alleged antitrust violations will turn
on legal and factual issues that are common to the proposed class.
Accordingly, the Court finds that common questions will predominate
with respect to the alleged antitrust violations.

Superiority

Rule 23(b)(3) provides four non-exhaustive factors for a court to
consider in determining whether a class action is superior to other
methods of adjudication. These factors are:
(A) the class members' interests in individually controlling the
prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and
nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun
by or against class members; (C) the desirability or undesirability
of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular
forum; and (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.

The first factor is each class member's interest in individually
controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions. Where
recovery on an individual basis would be dwarfed by the cost of
litigating on an individual basis, this factor weighs in favor of
class certification.
Here, the amount at stake for each individual class member is too
small to bear the risks and costs of litigating a separate action.
Litigation costs would be high, given that the case involves the
intersection of complex intellectual property and economic issues
and requires substantial expert testimony. As one district court in
this district recognized, in antitrust cases such as this, the
damages are likely to be too small to justify litigation, but a
class action would offer those with small claims the opportunity
for meaningful redress.

The second factor is the extent and nature of any litigation
concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members
of the class. Pursuant to an order from the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), federal cases filed throughout the
country were transferred to this Court for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings. As the JPML articulated, the
actions shared factual questions about whether Qualcomm's conduct
violated federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws
and involved overlapping putative nationwide classes of cell phone
purchasers.

Consequently, this factor too weighs in favor of certification.

The third factor is the desirability or undesirability of
concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum.
When the JPML issued its transfer order, it selected this district
as the appropriate transferee district. The JPML observed that this
district presents a convenient and accessible forum with the
necessary judicial resources and expertise to manage this
litigation efficiently. More specifically, numerous actions were
already pending in this district, including the FTC enforcement
action.  

Thus, this factor likewise supports certification.

Qualcomm also raises practical problems based on the sheer size of
the class. Qualcomm broadly contends that a class of hundreds of
millions of consumers holding such a large amount of claims is
inherently unmanageable, unfair, and inferior to alternative forms
of adjudication. More precisely, Qualcomm worries about
difficulties in providing notice, managing damages inquiries, and
administering and verifying claims. However, Plaintiffs' responses
to these points are persuasive. Plaintiffs note that many courts
have certified broad classes with similarly high numbers of
potential class members where common evidence rendered class
treatment manageable.   

Thus, questions regarding manageability weigh in favor of finding
class treatment superior to other methods of adjudication.

In sum, the Court finds that the proposed class members' interests
weigh in favor of having this case litigated as a class action. In
particular, the nature of Qualcomm's alleged overarching conduct
and the desirability of concentrating the litigation in one
proceeding weigh heavily in favor of finding that class treatment
is superior to other methods of adjudication of the controversy.
Nor do manageability concerns favor another form of adjudication.
Therefore, Plaintiffs have satisfied the superiority requirement.
Because Plaintiffs have also satisfied the predominance
requirement, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification under Rule 23(b)(3).

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

Karen Stromberg, Samuel Roecker, Thomas Lammel, Mary Galloway &
Danielle LaGrave, Plaintiffs, represented by Jeffrey Greg Lewis –
jlewis@kellerrohrback.com  -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
Thomas McMahon, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman --
jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Mark P.
Robinson, Jr. -- mrobinson@rcrsd.com -- Robinson Calcagnie, Inc.,
Shana E. Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Boardsports School LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Britt Ann
Cibulka, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, LLP, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver,
Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Mili G. Desai, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld
LLP & Robyn Rose English, Bleichmar Fonti and Auld.

Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Daniel Allen Sasse -- dsasse@crowell.com -- Crowell
& Moring LLP, Richard J. Stark -- rstark@cravath.com -- Cravath,
Swaine and Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Addy Van Nest --
rvannest@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Antony L. Ryan
-- aryan@cravath.com -- Cravath, Swaine Moore LLP, pro hac vice,
Asim M. Bhansali -- ABHANSALI@KBLFIRM.COM -- Kwun Bhansali Lazarus
LLP, Bryn Anderson Williams -- bwilliams@keker.com -- Keker,
VanNest and Peters, Cody Shawn Harris -- charris@keker.com -- Keker
and Van Nest LLP, Eugene Morris Paige -- epaige@keker.com -
Keker & Van Nest Peters LLP, Evan R. Chesler --
echesler@cravath.com -- Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Gary Andrew
Bornstein -- gbornstein@cravath.com -- Cravath, Swaine and Moore,
pro hac vice, Geoffrey T. Holtz -- gholtz@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, James W. Carlson, Cravath, Swaine
Moore LLP, pro hac vice, Jesselyn K. Friley --  jfriley@keker.com
-- Keker Van Nest and Peters, Joe Wesley Earnhardt --
wearnhardt@cravath.com -- Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP, pro hac
vice, Justina Kahn Sessions -- jsessions@keker.com -- Keker, Van
Nest & Peters LLP, Matan Shacham -- mshacham@keker.com -- Keker &
Van Nest LLP, Michael Brent Byars, Cravath, Swaine Moore LLP, pro
hac vice


ROYAL WINNIPEG: Former Students Get Class Action Notices
--------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Rollason, writing for Winnipeg Free Press, reports that
thousands of former Royal Winnipeg Ballet School students are
getting notices about a multimillion-dollar, class-action lawsuit
against a former dance instructor who allegedly took intimate
photos of students.

The ballet school is sending a legal notice -- which was drafted by
Toronto law firm Waddell Phillips Professional Corp. after
receiving instruction by an Ontario judge -- to students who were
at the school from 1984 to 2015. The notice asks former students if
they were photographed by Bruce Monk in a private setting during
that time.

The notice says if they are a class member, there is nothing they
need to do. If they don't want to be part of the legal action, they
have to opt out by sending a signed letter, fax or email to lawyers
handling the lawsuit.

Lawyer Margaret Waddell said the ballet has the addresses of about
40 per cent of the dancers who passed through the school during
those years and all are receiving copies of the notice.

"It is in the thousands," Ms. Waddell said on Sept. 14. "The
professional division had just a few hundred per year, but this is
also the recreational dancers, including the after-school and
summer camps. There are thousands."

Ms. Waddell said former students who get the legal notice aren't
necessarily part of the class-action suit.

"If you weren't privately photographed by Mr. Monk, then you are
not part of the class. You don't have to opt out," she said.

Ms. Waddell said so far, they have heard from 70 people who are
potential class-action participants. They either came forward on
their own or their names were put forward by others.

Ms. Waddell said people have until Nov. 20 to decide if they want
to stay in the lawsuit.

Natasha Havrilenko, the RWB's communications manager, said the RWB
cannot comment on anything connected to the lawsuit.

"As a standard procedure of any class action, there is an opt-out
notice period during which time we are ordered by the court to not
communicate any information," Ms. Havrilenko said.

Monk was a teacher, choreographer and photographer at the school
for 28 years until the RWB let him go in 2015 after allegations
against him surfaced.

The lead plaintiff for the lawsuit, Sarah Doucet, alleges Monk
persuaded her to let him take semi-nude photos of her as a
teenager. She later learned he had distributed them.

Ms. Doucet is suing for $50 million in damages on behalf of herself
and other students. Another former student, who is not named in the
lawsuit, is suing for $10 million. Unspecified special damages are
being sought as well as $25 million in punitive and exemplary
damages.

It's similar to allegations contained in a separate lawsuit, which
was filed in Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench by a former dance
student, and remains before the courts.

The woman, who is now in her 30s and has three children, is suing
for $300,000 in general damages and $100,000 in punitive,
aggravated and/or exemplary damages. She is also suing for
unspecified special damages.

None of the allegations in either the Winnipeg case or the Ontario
class-action lawsuit has been proven in court. Monk and the RWB
have filed statements of defence denying the allegations.

In November 2016, Manitoba Justice announced that after an
investigation, no criminal charges would be laid.

"The Crown recommended that charges not be laid because a
conviction was unlikely," a justice official said at the time.

"Complainants were made aware of this decision and supports were
offered through the province's victim services branch." [GN]


RUSHMORE LOAN: Vaquilar et al. Allege Fraudulent Mortgage Deals
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELMER PADUA VAQUILAR and JOSELYN GIRON VAQUILAR, individually, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, GREEN TREE
SERVICING, LLC , U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION , MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS,INC., ALL PERSONS , CORPORATIONS,
ENTITY OR PERSONS UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT,
TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN , OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE
COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFFS' TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD ON PLAINTIFFS'
TITLE THERETO AND ALL WHOSE TRUE NAMES ARE DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
UNKNOWN, INCLUSIVE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00368-JAO-KSC
(D. Haw., Sept. 26, 2018), seeks to recover damages and penalties
from the Defendants' conduct in creating and using fraudulent
mortgage assignments and mortgage note endorsement.

According to the complaint, such fraudulent assignments and note
endorsements formed the basis for the submission of at least tens
of thousands false claims to the U.S . Department of Housing and
Urban Development ("HUD") for payments pursuant to the mortgage
insurance program administered by the Federal Housing
Administration.

To add insult to injury, not only did Defendants use the fraudulent
assignments and endorsements for procure insurance payments from
HUD, they also charged HUD the cost of filing the fraudulent
documents in the foreclosure proceedings, the lawsuit says.

Rushmore Loan provides residential mortgage loan servicing and
customer support for performing, re-performing, and non-performing
loans in the United States and Puerto Rico.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


S.G.E. MANAGEMENT: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of RICO Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment dismissing the case
captioned JERNARD GRIGGS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.G.E.
MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.; STREAM GAS & ELECTRIC, LIMITED, doing business
as Stream Energy; STREAM S.P.E. G.P., L.L.C; STREAM S.P.E.,
LIMITED; IGNITE HOLDINGS, LIMITED, formerly known as Ignite Energy,
Limited, doing business as Ignite, doing business as Ignite Powered
by Stream Energy; CHRIS DOMHOFF; ROB SNYDER; PIERRE KOSHAKJI;
DOUGLAS WITT; STEVE FLORES; MICHAEL TACKER; DONNY ANDERSON; STEVE
FISHER; RANDY HEDGE; LOGAN STOUT; PRESLEY SWAGERTY,
Defendants-Appellees. No. 17-50655. (5th Cir.).

After the case had been stayed for a year without Griggs having
submitted his claims to arbitration, the court dismissed the case
without prejudice.

When Plaintiff-Appellant Jernard Griggs began working as an
Independent Associate (IA) for Ignite, he agreed to Ignite's
Policies & Procedures, which includes an arbitration clause
covering all claims between (1) any two or more IAs and (2) any IA
and Ignite. The arbitration clause also gives the arbitrator the
sole power to decide questions of arbitrability. Despite that,
Griggs brought a class action in federal court, asserting RICO
claims against Defendants-Appellees Ignite, Stream, their related
entities, and several other IAs (Defendants).

The district court (1) ruled that the parties had agreed to
arbitrate arbitrability; (2) compelled arbitration; and (3) stayed
the case pending arbitration.

Voluntary Dismissal Under Rule 41(a)

The Defendants contend that Griggs voluntarily dismissed the case
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).

A voluntary dismissal of a case without prejudice is not a final
appealable decision.

Here, after the district court compelled arbitration and stayed the
case in November 2015, the parties submitted a status report in
February 2016, notifying the court that Griggs had not submitted
the dispute to arbitration. More than a year later, the court again
ordered a status report, and the parties confirmed in June 2017
that Griggs still had not submitted the case to arbitration. The
court then ordered Griggs to show cause why it should not dismiss
the case for want of prosecution. Griggs responded that he
disagreed with the Court's conclusion that this matter must go to
arbitration and informed the court that he would not pursue
arbitration. He added that he stood ready to litigate this case.
Finally, Griggs stated different district courts do not stay, but
dismiss, allowing the plaintiff to appeal an order of arbitration.


Griggs will either litigate this matter now before this Court or
will appeal when dismissed.

These statements do not serve as a notice of dismissal, but rather
are statements of inaction. If the district court had not dismissed
the case, it is unlikely that the parties would have understood
that Grigg's response to the show-cause order dismissed the case.
Because that response was not a self-effectuating"27 notice of
dismissal, it was not a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a).

Dismissal Without Prejudice

The Court thus must determine whether the district court's
dismissal without prejudice supports appellate jurisdiction.

The Defendants rely on the Supreme Court's decision in Microsoft v.
Baker and a recent Fourth Circuit decision, Keena v. Groupon, Inc.,
to support their contention that a plaintiff may not appeal an
order compelling arbitration merely by convincing the district
court to dismiss the case.

In Microsoft, the plaintiffs filed individual claims and class
allegations against Microsoft. The district court struck the class
allegations, effectively declining to certify the class. The Ninth
Circuit denied the plaintiffs permission to appeal that decision
under Rule 23(f). The plaintiffs then stipulated to a voluntary
dismissal, with prejudice, of their individual claims. On appeal
following the voluntary dismissal, the plaintiffs sought a reversal
of the district court's order striking the class allegations.

The Ninth Circuit held that the voluntary dismissal was an
appealable final decision and vacated the district court's denial
of class certification. The Supreme Court reversed, rejecting the
plaintiffs' voluntary-dismissal tactic on the ground that the
plaintiffs' appeal sought review of the inherently interlocutory"
order striking the class allegations, not the review of final order
dismissing the case.

Here, unlike the inherently interlocutory nature of
class-certification decisions discussed in Microsoft, the district
court's dismissal in favor of arbitration does not raise a concern
about piecemeal appeals" because the dismissal ended the litigation
on the merits. And, unlike Microsoft and Keena, the instant
dismissal was not voluntary, as the Court discussed in the
preceding section. Griggs stated that he stands ready to litigate
this case before this Court to a conclusion and will either
litigate this matter now before this Court or will appeal when
dismissed. Those statements of inaction do not amount to a
voluntary-dismissal tactic or a consensual dismissal of Griggs's
claims.

The district court made clear over the course of a year and a half
that it would take no action in this case. If Griggs took the
court's dismissal without prejudice as an invitation simply to
re-file, he would have obtained the same result. The district
court's action ended the litigation on the merits, by sending all
the issues to arbitration and leaving the district court nothing
more to do than execute the judgment. Thus, its order was a final
decision, and the Court have appellate jurisdiction.

Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute

Rule 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action sua
sponte for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order.

After the district court granted Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration and stayed the case, Griggs persistently refused to
arbitrate as ordered. Specifically, a status report submitted three
months after the arbitration order stated: Plaintiff has not
submitted the case to arbitration. More than a year after that,
another status report explained that plaintiff has not submitted
the dispute to arbitration. When the district court ordered Griggs
to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for want of
prosecution" he responded that he disagreed with this Court's
conclusion that this matter must go to arbitration, would] not
pursue arbitration, and stood ready to litigate this case before
this Court to a conclusion. The district court was well within its
discretion to dismiss this case for want of prosecution in response
to Griggs's disobedience to its prior order.

A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's September 27, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y72ejoz7 from Leagle.com.

Scott M. Clearman, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Allyson Newton Ho, for Defendant-Appellee.

Andrew Patrick LeGrand -- alegrand@gibsondunn.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Bradley G. Hubbard -- bhubbard@gibsondunn.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Kathryn Cherry, for Defendant-Appellee.


SENIOR HEALTH: Settlement in Caballero Suit Has Prelim Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, OLGA CABALLERO, JIE DU, by her friend MICHAEL TONG,
ALEXANDRA NEGRON, MARIANO VAZQUEZ, by his next friend IRAIDA
VASQUEZ; and JUAN SANTOS, by his next friend RITA BAEZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SENIOR HEALTH PARTNERS, INC.; HEALTHFIRST, INC.; HF
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; HEALTHFIRST HEALTH PLAN, INC.; XYZ
CORPORATIONS 1-10; and HOWARD ZUCKER, as Commissioner of the New
York State Department of Health, Defendants. MADELINE BUCCERI,
PATRICIA TRUJILLO, And LOURDES LO, on Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. HOWARD ZUCKER, as
Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health; HF
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; SENIOR HEALTH PARTNERS, INC.; HF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC.; HEALTHFIRST, INC.; HEALTHFIRST
HEALTH PLAN, INC., Defendants, Case Nos. 16 CV 0326 (CLP), 18 CV
2380 (CLP) (E.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (1)
provisionally certified the Rule 23 Class for purposes of
settlement; (2) granted preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement, as articulated in the Settlement Agreement; (3)
appointed the Named Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class; (4)
appointed the New York Legal Assistance Group, The Legal Aid
Society, Winston & Strawn LLP, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP as the Class Counsel; and (5) approved the proposed
Notice of Class Action Settlement and the proposed method of
distribution.

On Jan. 21, 2016, the Caballero Plaintiffs, commenced the class
action, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against the Ddefendants, alleging violations of the
Medicaid Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the
Rehabilitation Act, the U.S. Constitution, and New York State laws.
The Plaintiffs, recipients of Medicaid-funded home care services
through two Managed Long Term Care ("MLTC") health plans -- Senior
Health Partners or Healthfirst Complete Care -- claimed that the
Healthfirst Defendants unlawfully 1) reduced or threatened to
reduce the Caballero Plaintiffs' home healthcare services; 2)
denied or refused to consider increases in the Caballero
Plaintiffs' home healthcare services; and 3) failed to provide
timely and adequate notice to the Caballero Plaintiffs about the
reduction or denial of services.  On April 1, 2016, the Caballero
Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint, adding as
Plaintiffs Mariano Vazquez, by his next friend Iraida Vasquez, and
Juan Santos, by his next friend Rita Baez.

On Oct. 24, 2016, the Bucceri Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, commenced a class action in the
Southern District of New York against Defendants Howard Zucker, in
his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State
Department of Health, HF Management Services, LLC, Senior Health
Partners, Inc., HF Administrative Services, Inc., Healthfirst, Inc.
and Healthfirst Health Plan, Inc., also raising claims on behalf of
current and future Medicaid recipients who receive or will receive
Medicaid-funded home care services from two Healthfirst MLTC plans,
Senior Health Partners, Inc. and CompleteCare.  The Bucceri
Plaintiffs allege that they have asked for an increase in their
home care services and rather than timely recording, assessing, and
determining these requests, defendants ignored or used flawed
systems of assessment, systematically denying or reducing their
needed service.

Following the filing of the Amended Complaint in the Caballero
action, the parties engaged in extensive settlement negotiations
under the supervision of the Court.  At the direction of the Hon.
Vernon S. Broderick, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District
of New York, the Bucceri Plaintiffs joined in the settlement
negotiations before the undersigned.  Ultimately, the parties were
able to reach a settlement and successfully integrated the Bucceri
claims into the settlement agreement as well.

On April 20, 2018, the Bucceri Plaintiffs moved to transfer the
Bucceri action from the Southern District of New York to the Court,
and on April 23, 2018, Judge Broderick ordered the case transferred
to the Eastern District of New York.  On July 10, 2018, the
Caballero Plaintiffs consented to have the case assigned to the
undersigned for all purposes; the Bucceri Plaintiffs also consented
to the undersigned's jurisdiction on the same day.  On July 19,
2018, the parties in both actions sought to consolidate the cases
with an eye to consummating the settlement reached among all
parties.

The consolidated settlement seeks to certify a class consisting of
all current and future Medicaid recipients who receive Home Care
Services through Healthfirst Defendants.

Currently pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion seeking an Order: 1) preliminarily certifying the Class for
purposes of settlement; 2) appointing the proposed Class
representatives; 3) approving the Class counsel; 4) preliminarily
approving the terms of the Settlement; 5) approving the form of
Notice to the Class; and 6) scheduling a Fairness Hearing.  

Given that consolidation of the cases did not occur until after the
motion was filed, the Bucceri Plaintiffs filed a letter on Aug.
13, 2018 confirming that they are in agreement with the contents of
the motion and support the motion as filed.

Magistrate Judge Pollak (1) provisionally certified the Rule 23
Class for purposes of settlement; (2) granted preliminary approval
of the proposed settlement, as articulated in the Settlement
Agreement; (3) appointed the Named Plaintiffs as representatives of
the Class; (4) appointed the New York Legal Assistance Group, The
Legal Aid Society, Winston & Strawn LLP, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP as the Class Counsel; and (5) approved the
proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement and the proposed method
of distribution.

The Magistrate finds that (i) the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2); and (ii) the terms of
the proposed settlement for the Rule 23 Class to be fair and
reasonable under the circumstances present in the case.

The Fairness Hearing is scheduled for Nov. 29, 2018 at 11:00 am.
Any Class Member will have the right to appear and be heard at the
Fairness Hearing or to submit a written objection to the Court
within 14 days before the Fairness Hearing, pursuant to the terms
of the Class Notice and Settlement Stipulation.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of the Order to the parties
either electronically through the Electronic Case Filing system or
by mail.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/67OyPb from Leagle.com.

Madeline Bucceri, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Patricia Trujillo, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated & Betty Francisco, on behalf of LOURDES LO,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Belkys Raquel Garcia, The Legal Aid
Society, Jeffrey L. Kessler -- jkessler@winston.com -- Winston &
Strawn LLP, Angela A. Smedley -- asmedley@winston.com -- Winston &
Strawn LLP, Jeffrey Amato -- jamato@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn
LLP, Jill K. Freedman -- jfreedman@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn
LLP, Judith A. Goldiner, Legal Aid Society, Kenneth R. Stephens,
The Legal Aid Society Civil Appeals & Law Reform Unit, Civil
Division & Rebecca Antar Novick, The Legal Aid Society.

Commissioner Howard Zucker, in his official capacity as
Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, Defendant,
represented by Joshua Evan Keller, NYS Office of the Attorney
General & Roderick Leopold Arz, Office of the Attorney Genral of
New York.

HF Management Services, LLC, Senior Health Partners, Inc., HF
Administrative Services, Inc., Healthfirst, Inc. & Healthfirst
Health Plan, Inc., Defendants, represented by Scott B. Klugman --
sklugman@levinelee.com -- Levine Lee LLP & Seth L. Levine --
slevine@levinelee.com -- Levine Lee LLP.


SERVICE PROS: Ridenour Seeks Minimum & OT under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------
JASON RIDENOUR, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SERVICE PROS INSTALLATION GROUP, INC.,
the Defendant, Case 3:18-cv-00418 (E.D. Tenn., Sept. 29, 2018),
seeks unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FLSA minimum
wage requirement by misclassifying Plaintiff and other Measurement
Technicians as independent contractors and paying them weekly net
compensation (i.e. gross pay minus expenses) that averaged out to
less than $7.25 per hour in many weeks. The Defendant violated the
FLSA overtime requirement by paying Plaintiff and the other
misclassified Measurement Technicians a piece rate for each
successful appointment without paying any additional premium pay
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

As a result, there were many weeks in which Defendant's
misclassification of Measurement Technicians as independent
contractors resulted in them being deprived of minimum wages and
overtime compensation of 1.5 of their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, in violation of the
FLSA, the Case Says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  adam@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd St., Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (877) 561 0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582 5297
          E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
                  jtb@jtblawgroup.com


SHERRY-NETHERLAND INC: Bishop Files Class Action Under ADA
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The
Sherry-Netherland, Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
The Sherry-Netherland, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09206
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 8, 2018).

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

The Sherry-Netherland, Inc. operates as a hotel. The Hotel offers
guestrooms and suites, indoor function space, rooftop pool, all day
dining restaurant, fitness center, in-room dining, and other
services. The Sherry-Netherland serves individuals, groups,
corporates, investment partners, and owners in the State of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Singh Balks at Tribune Media Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
HARTEH SINGH 3108 Schubert Drive Silver Spring, Montgomery County,
Maryland, 20904, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC.,
Christopher S. Ripley and Lucy A. Rutishauser, 10706 Beaver Dam
Road, Hunt Valley, Baltimore County, Md 21030, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-02967-CCB (D. Md. Sept. 26. 2018), seeks to recover
damages caused by the Defendants' violation of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, Sinclair announced a proposed $3.9
billion merger with Tribune Meida Co., which the Company called the
"largest acquisition in the Company's history. The Defendant made
materially false and misleading statements assuring investors and
the U.S. Federal Communications Commission that it was using its
"best efforts" to obtain regulatory approval and close the deal and
that the Company would sell or divest certain stations as necessary
"in order to comply with FCC ownership requirements and antitrust
regulations."

The Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deceive the FCC
and the investing public by creating "sham" transactions with
buyers intertwined with the Company and its controlling
shareholders, the Smith Brothers, in an effort to misleadingly
convince regulators that Sinclair's proposed merger was in
compliance with FCC ownership regulations, the Court says.

Sinclair, headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland, is the largest
television station operator in the United States by both number of
stations and total coverage.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500, East Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408 4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408 4699
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                  dsommerscohenmilstein.com
                  dbunchohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          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
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSSTEIN, GEWIRTZ, & GROSSMAM, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697 6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697 7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

SIRIUS XM: Objects to Provisions of Music Modernization Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ed Christman, writing for Billboard, reports that the music
industry powers that be must be confident that they have the votes
they need because sources tell Billboard that the Music
Modernization Act is planned to be hotlined in the Senate tomorrow
afternoon.

Hotlining is a process implemented when the leaders feel that there
is the potential for legislation to be passed unanimously by verbal
vote. Hotlined bills are generally noncontroversial, technical
bills that rarely makes the mainstream newspapers that cover
politics.

However, if one Senator doesn't vote yes, then the legislation
could be stalled and would then have to go to the floor for debate;
and where other things could happen to waylay the legislation
including amendments and possibly packaging it with another
unpopular piece of legislation that could kill the music industry's
chances of getting any copyright revisions at all.

While the opening of the hotlined process means that the Senators
are notified that the legislation will be fast-tracked, they have
24 hours to object and if none do then the billl is considered
ready for unanimous consent consideration before the full Senate,
according to a memo supplied to Billboard. If a Senate office
objects, then the leadership tries to ascertain the reason for the
objection and if it can be worked out, the hotline process can
start again. If the objection can't be rectified, chances are the
bill will not be added to the docket for debate and likely wouldn't
come up for vote by the end of this term, i.e. year-end. In
January, a new Congressional session will begin, which means that
all pending legislation will have to start the process all over
again.

On Sept. 14, the latest version of the legislation was e-mailed to
all 100 Senators with the information that the Senate would
consider the bill for hot-lining on Sept. 17.

The fact that it will be hotlined means that the Senate has figured
out a way to pay for the costs of the legislation. When last heard
about, the legislation was expected to create $175 million in new
taxes, but cost $223 million to oversee regulation of the bill --
which would require digital and satellite services to pay
performance royalties to master rights owners and artists; create a
blanket mechanical license and a collective to administer it; and
codify payments to producers by Sound Exchange -- which meant it
had a $48 million shortfall. But the legislation appears to be
somehow appropriating some funds from legislation regarding
advanced nuclear power facilities.

Meanwhile, as it stands, none of the amendments offered by Sirius
XM, the main music industry service still protesting the otherwise
consensus legislation, appears to have made it to the final version
of the bill being considered tomorrow.

Sirius XM objected that the legislation makes them legally
responsible to pay for pre-1972 recordings the same as copyright
law has for years made it pay for post-1972 recordings. In 2012,
Sirius stopped paying for pre-1972 recordings and it took a class
action lawsuit by the Turtles, which resulted in two settlements --
one with the class action and the other with the major labels --
for Sirius to pay royalties on those recordings. Both settlements
have a going forward licensing provision, but once those respective
licensing periods end, there is no guarantee that Sirius would
continue paying, other than its word.

So Sirius has complained that the legislation gives an advantage to
its main competitor, terrestrial radio, which doesn't have to pay
performance royalties for master recordings, let alone just the
pre-1972 recordings, while the legislation legally adds that Sirius
has to pay for pre-1972 recordings, in addition to post-1972
recordings as determined by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of
1998.

Also, Sirius objected that the legislation also eliminates a
carve-out granted to it in the DMCA, which allowed special status
to pre-existing services -- which apply to three services, Sirius,
Music Choice, and CMX -- called the 801-B standard, that would
allow rate courts to take into consideration how royalty rates
would effect the services, such as, in the case of Sirius, the
expense of running a satellite system. The MMA eliminates that that
carve-out.

Additionally, the MMA eliminates another limitation on rate setting
in that previously rate courts couldn't take into consideration any
royalties being paid to master recording rights holder when setting
publishing rates. So now when Sirius rates are being set, the
Copyright Royalty Board can consider royalty rates paid to record
labels in setting publishing royalty rates for most services,
including Sirius.

However, the MMA gives terrestrial radio a carve-out so that the
legislation eliminating that carve-out doesn't apply to analog
transmission, i.e. terrestrial radio.

Since the Music Choice cable network was also objecting to the
elimination of the 801-B standard, the new version of the
legislation gives Music Choice a grace period until 2028, in that
the law says that when the current period ends on Dec. 31, 2022,
the rates paid by pre-existing subscription services -- the only
one being Music Choice as Sirius is considered pre-existing
satellite service -- will stay the same through the next five-year
period ending Dec. 31, 2027, with no need to go before the CRB.

So while the MMA takes away Sirius XM's carve-out, it gives
carve-out concessions to both terrestrial radio and Music Choice,
another reason why Sirius has objected to the bill.

Finally, Sirius wanted the legislation to say specifically that the
money it pays as part of its settlement be split evenly 50/50
between the labels and the artists and musicians. As it is, those
payments deduct the legal cost of fighting Sirius over the pre-1972
recordings. However, this Sirius ask doesn't appear to have made
its way into the final version.

In addition to making changes aimed at apparently pleasing
terrestrial radio and Music Choice, the legislation also has made
changes to accommodate Harry Fox Agency/SESAC/Blackstone, as well
as Senator Wyden and Sen. Cruz.

Since the Senate is proceeding to implement hot-lining on the MMA
tomorrow, without any changes to accommodate Sirius, the industry
must think it has every Senators vote. Because if any of Sirius
XM's objections resonates with even one Senator, that could derail
the legislation this year, and send the industry back to the
drawing board.

Industry players with a stake in the proposed legislation couldn't
be reached for comment on Sept. 16. [GN]


SOC LLC: Court Grants Bid to Clarify Risinger Class Definition
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KARL E. RISINGER, Plaintiff, v. SOC LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:12-cv-00063-MMD-PAL (D. Nev.), Judge Miranda
M. Du of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (i)
granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification Regarding Class
Definition, (ii) denied as moot the Defendants' Motion to Strike
Expert Testimony of William Buckley Regarding Asserted Damages for
Persons Outside the Class ("First Motion to Strike"), and (iii)
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Strike
Expert Testimony of William Buckley under Daubert and Fed. R. Evid.
702 ("Second Motion to Strike").

The case is a class action involving a dispute over the terms of
employment for armed guards hired to work in Iraq.  The Court
certified a class consisting of armed guards who worked for SOC in
Iraq between 2006 and 2012.

In his Motion for Clarification, the Plaintiff seeks an order
clarifying that "armed guards" encompasses the individuals
Plaintiff refers to as "Reclassified Guards."  Reclassified Guards
held job titles other than "Guard" during their employment with the
Defendants because the Defendants changed their job title and/or
salaries upon, or shortly after, their arrival in Iraq.
Nevertheless, the Plaintiff argues, these individuals are "armed
guards" within the meaning of the Class definition because they
were recruited as armed guards, received the same representations
as the other Class members, were hired as armed guards, signed the
standardized armed contracts, performed armed guard duties and had
the same 72-hour work restriction under the TWISS-II contract.

The Defendants have not persuaded Judge Du that the Plaintiff's
request is untimely.  Their characterization of the Plaintiff's
request as untimely is pegged to the Plaintiff's agreement "months
ago" to the class list.  However, the Plaintiff's agreement was
apparently based on a misunderstanding between the counsel.
Consequently, the Plaintiff's agreement cannot serve as the point
at which some time limit for seeking clarification began to run.
Accordingly, she will grant the Plaintiff's Motion for
Clarification.

The Plaintiff seeks to introduce the expert testimony of William
Buckley at trial regarding the class' damages.  In their First
Motion to Strike, the Defendants seek to strike the portions of Mr.
Buckley's report that opine on liability and damages regarding the
Reclassified Guards.  The Judge will deny the Defendants' motion as
moot in light of the Court's ruling that the class includes the
Reclassified Guards.

Mr. Buckley's testimony is based on the results of a survey that he
and class counsel sent to 935 individuals on a class list provided
by the Defendants (that does not include the Reclassified Guards).
Mr. Buckley and the class counsel received about 159 responses.  In
their Second Motion to Strike, the Defendants seek to strike the
entirety of William Buckley's expert report for failure to comply
with the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702.  They argue that Mr.
Buckley's report should be stricken because it is not the product
of a qualified expert in survey design and statistical analysis; it
relies on insufficient data because the surveys introduce egregious
bias and ambiguity; and it does not comport with statistical
principles.

The Judge agrees with the Plaintiff that Mr. Buckley's experience
shows he has strong quantitative skills.  While the Defendants
contend that Mr. Buckley is unable to explain core statistical
concepts such as what makes a sample representative or biased,
these are issues to explore on cross-examination.  These purported
insufficiencies bear on the weight of Mr. Buckley's testimony
rather than its admissibility.  The Defendants have also not
persuaded the Judge that the survey data is inadmissible for any of
their cited reasons.  The Judge will limit Mr. Buckley's testimony
to that involving the damages incurred by the 159 individuals who
responded and not impute their responses to the entire Class,
though the limitation is without prejudice to reargument at trial.

Judge Du notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to
several cases not discussed.  She has reviewed these arguments and
cases and determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do
not affect the outcome of the parties' motions.  She therefore
granted the Plaintiff's motion for clarification consistent with
the Order.  The parties are instructed to include the Reclassified
Guards on the class list and give the Reclassified Guards notice of
the action.

The Judge granted the Plaintiff's motion to seal.  She denied as
moot the Defendant's first motion to strike, and granted in part
and denied in part, without prejudice the Defendant's second motion
to strike to reargument at trial.  Mr. Buckley may testify about
responses to the survey but will not be permitted to impute those
responses to the entire class.

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

Karl E. Risinger, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew hale Steinberg ,
Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher
I. Ritter -- critter@earlysullivan.com -- Early Sullivan Wright
Gizer & McRae -- dmcrae@earlysullivan.com -- LLP, Devin A. McRae,
Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, Erik C. Alberts --
erik.alberts@ea-lawfirm.com -- Law Offices of Erik C. Alberts &
Scott E. Gizer -- sgizer@earlysullivan.com -- Early Sullivan Wright
Gizer & McRae LLP.

SOC LLC, doing business as SOC Nevada LLC, SOC-SMG, Inc. & Day &
Zimmerman, Inc., Defendants, represented by Daniel P. Mach --
danielmach@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel, Keith H. Forst --
keithforst@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP, pro hac vice, Kristen L. Martini -- kmartini@lrrc.com -- Lewis
Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Tara Melissa Lee --
taralee@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP,
pro hac vice & E. Leif Reid -- lreid@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca
Rothgerber LLP.


SOLAR TINT: Shulman Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------
BORIS SHULMAN, the Plaintiff, v. SOLAR TINT, INC., the Defendant,
Case 1:18-cv-23972-JEM (S.D. Fla., Sept. 26, 2018), seeks payment
from the Defendant of compensation at one-half of regular rate of
pay for the hours worked over 40 in a work week, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and for all
other appropriate relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in
Miami, Florida. The similarly situated individuals who may become
Plaintiffs in this action are Defendant's non-exempt employees who
have worked in excess of 40 during one or more work weeks within
the last three years and did not receive overtime pay for all hours
worked over 40 in one or more work weeks.

The Defendant hired the Plaintiff as an employee approximately 21
years ago. The Plaintiff does not recall the precise date that he
began working for Defendant. The Defendant also employed 5 other
full-time technicians at its business, all of whom performed job
duties that were substantially similar to the Plaintiff's job
duties. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant continuously until
approximately April 18, 2018. While working for the Defendant, the
Plaintiff and the Class performed non-exempt duties as window tint
technicians.  The Plaintiff's primary job function was to install
3M window tint on automobiles, commercial buildings, private
residences, and boats, the Case says.

The Defendant offers tinting for car, home, and business
windows.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          J. Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
          Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
          721 US Highway 1, Suite 201
          North Palm Beach, FL 33408
          Telephone: (561) 822-3446
          Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
          E-mail: dennis@cloorg.com
                  darren@cloorg.com


ST. THOMAS AQUINAS COLLEGE: Violates ADA, Bishop Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against St. Thomas Aquinas
College. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v St. Thomas Aquinas
College, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09207 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 8,
2018).

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

St. Thomas Aquinas College or sometimes known as STAC is a private
four-year liberal arts college in Rockland County, New York. At 125
Route 340 in Sparkill, New York, the college is named after the
medieval philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas. It was founded
by the Dominican Sisters of Sparkill.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STARBUCKS CORP: Removes Amster Case to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
Starbucks Corporation removed case captioned SHAYNA AMSTER, an
individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION; and Does 1 through
50, Inclusive, Defendant, from the  Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 26, 2018. The
California Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-08327 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant "failed and continues to fail
to accurately calculate and pay Plaintiff and the other members of
the California Class for their overtime worked and meal premiums."

Starbucks Corporation is an American coffee company and coffeehouse
chain. Starbucks was founded in Seattle, Washington in 1971. As of
2018, the company operates 28,218 locations worldwide.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Keith A. Jacoby, Esq.
          Judy  M. IriyeE, Esq.
          Rachael Lavi, Esq.
          Tina SundarR, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
          Telephone: (310) 553-0308
          Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
          E-mail: kjacoby@littler.com
                  jiriye@littler.com
                  rlavi@littler.com
                  tsundar@littler.com


STATE FARM: $250MM Settlement May Spur More Campaign Cash Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Novak Jones, writing for Law360, reported that the
eye-popping $250 million that State Farm will pay to settle claims
it rigged an Illinois judicial election to overturn a $1 billion
class action verdict likely will spur copycat suits. [GN]


SUN LIFE: Sued for Misrepresenting Life Insurance Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Jesse McLean, writing for Toronto Star, reported that a few years
after Sun Life took over MetLife's Canadian life insurance
policies, the two companies were in court.

Sun Life said it had unequivocal evidence that MetLife's agents
misrepresented to Canadian consumers how the cost of their
insurance could rise over the life of the policy.

Sun Life, who now administers these policies, wanted MetLife to be
on the hook for any legal claims by consumers who said they were
paying more for their insurance than had been promised.

While the court battle was unfolding, Sun Life continued to
administer the plans, charging increasing premiums to hundreds of
thousands of Canadians while "deceitfully" concealing "its
knowledge that systematic sales misrepresentations had occurred,"
according to allegations filed in a long-running lawsuit brought by
angry customers against Sun Life.

Those customers scored a significant win after the Ontario Court of
Appeal certified a class action against Sun Life alleging the
insurance company breached its contracts when calculating fee
increases on the policies.

The allegations concern more than 230,000 life insurance policies
sold to Canadians between 1985 and 1998. The lawsuit is seeking
$2.5 billion.

The Sept. 5 ruling overturned a lower court decision, and
potentially brings to an end eight years of litigation over whether
the case should move ahead.

Sun Life did not say whether it plans to appeal the ruling, saying
only that it's reviewing the appellate court's decision.

"We care deeply about our clients, working to help them achieve
lifetime financial security and live healthier lives," a Sun Life
spokesperson said.

The disputed policies were last sold in 1998, yet many Canadians
continue to pay premiums to keep their coverage.

The MetLife sales reps often used illustrations to explain the
complex "universal" policies: A customer's premiums would go into
an "accumulation fund," from which the insurance company would take
its cut for the cost of insurance and administering the policies.
The leftover money in the fund could accrue interest and eventually
those earnings could cover some or all of the customer's premiums.

The policies were marketed at a time of high interest rates. But
when rates began to plummet in the late 1990s, the income from the
customers' accumulation funds fell -- as did the insurance
company's profits, prompting premiums and administration costs to
go up, according to the recent ruling.

Had customers not been misled as to how the plans worked, they
could have purchased different insurance policies, according to the
customers' allegations in court filings. Instead, with the low
interest rates and increased cost of insurance, customers who had
been paying into the policies for decades say they are struggling
to make payments on policies they say are more expensive than was
advertised.

"As policies become financially unsustainable and go into default
and lapse, policyholders will suffer loss of the money they
invested over the years, and Sun Life and its shareholders . . .
will reap windfalls from never having to pay the policy death
benefits," the policyholders' lawyers said in a factum filed with
the Court of Appeal.

In 1998, MetLife sold its Canadian business to Mutual Life, which a
few years and a name change later, merged with Sun Life. Sun Life
was soon receiving a deluge of complaints by customers who said the
cost of their insurance was increasing despite what MetLife sales
agents had told them.

Sun Life sued MetLife in 2006 over an indemnification provision in
the sales agreement, arguing that MetLife should be responsible for
covering the costs of consumers' claims.

"The evidence filed by Sun Life . . . established unequivocally
that MetLife, through its sales agents and employees, engaged in
and condoned a pattern and repeated practice of misrepresenting and
failing to accurately describe" the policies it sold to customers,
Sun Life claimed in a court filing.

Sun Life lost the case after the judge made a summary judgment that
the company had not proved the legal claims it faced surpassed $1
million -- the threshold in the sale's agreement that would require
MetLife to cover the claims. Sun Life appealed the decision but
later withdrew its appeal on terms that have not been disclosed.
MetLife said it would not comment on the allegations in the current
class action lawsuit against Sun Life.

For lawyers representing Sun Life customers, the evidence the
insurance company had submitted in its fight against MetLife was a
smoking gun.

"(MetLife) and its agents had used misrepresentation in selling the
policies, and . . . Sun Life later deceitfully concealed from the
existing policyholders its knowledge that systematic sales
misrepresentation had occurred," the lawyers from Kim Spencer
McPhee Barristers said in a factum filed at the Court of Appeal.

Sun Life, however, says the statements it made in its lawsuit were
a submission -- not an admission. "They were not evidence. They
were not findings. They are proof of nothing in this litigation,"
the company's lawyers said in a factum. Sun Life's factum said the
company took "proactive steps" to offer a remedy to "individual
policyholders who felt their policy had been sold to them based on
a misrepresentation."

Lawyers for the policyholders filed the proposed class action
against Sun Life in 2010. After years of litigation, the lawsuit
was put on life support after an Ontario Superior Court judge
dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to have the class action
certified.

In its Sept. 5 ruling overturning that dismissal, the Ontario Court
of Appeal found the earlier judge had overstepped his role, which
was to assess whether there was enough evidence for the case to go
to a trial, not to determine whether there was in fact a breach of
contract.

The plaintiffs argued that Sun Life had increased the rates
customers paid for the cost of insurance and administrative fees
based on factors not included in the signed policy.

"There was some basis in fact to establish that the adjustment was
calculated, for all policyholders, in a manner that was
inconsistent with the express terms of the policy," the appeal
court ruled.

The appeal court also found the earlier judge was wrong in siding
with Sun Life that claims of breach of contract were barred under
the statute of limitations because customers ought to have noticed
the alleged breach when their rates were increased over the years.

"There is some basis in fact for the assertion that Sun Life
concealed or misrepresented to affected policyholders the manner in
which the (cost of insurance) was adjusted," the appeal court
ruled.

Eldon Fehr was a 20-year-old newlywed studying to become a minister
in 1990 when he was sold the life insurance policy by a MetLife
agent. In his understanding from the sales pitch, his payments
would not change, making budgeting easy.

Mr. Fehr said his annual costs of insurance have since increased on
several occasions, and he said Sun Life never told him that the
policies had been misrepresented, as the company alleged in its
lawsuit against MetLife.

"The deeper problem for me is a company that misrepresents a
product and misleads people in what they're intending to do," Fehr,
a reverend in Chilliwack, B.C. and the lead plaintiff in the class
action lawsuit, said in an interview. "They're so complex, these
policies, that it's really hard for simple people like me to
understand."

While the Court of Appeal certified a class action based on alleged
breach of contract, the ruling upheld the earlier judge's decision
to dismiss the class action claim that policyholders were misled by
sales agents because each customer's experience was unique. The
appeal court said customers could pursue their own individual
lawsuits claiming agents misrepresented how the policies worked.
[GN]


SUN TAN CITY: Sent Unsolicited SMS Ads to Goodman's Phone
---------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Goodman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Sun Tan City, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-81281, (S.D. Fla., September 20, 2018), seeks statutory and
actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses
incurred in this action, including expert fees, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and other and further relief under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant owns and operates a chain of tanning salons throughout
the United States. Defendant offers its moisturizers, facial and
sunless tanning lotions, tan extenders, and sun and sunless tanning
services. To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Goodman
did not give his consent to receive such messages, asserts the
complaint. [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
      Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

             - and -

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


TD AMERITRADE: Judge Rules Class-Action Lawsuit Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cezary Podkul, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
mom-and-pop investors who think their brokers are prioritizing
high-frequency traders over them may soon have a chance to try to
prove their case in court.

A federal judge in Nebraska this month ruled a class-action lawsuit
could proceed against TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., one of the
nation's largest discount brokerages. In his ruling, the judge
cited "serious and credible allegations of securities fraud"
stemming from the company's order routing practices.

The TD Ameritrade customers who brought the suit alleged the
company, which provides investing and trading services for 11
million client accounts, prioritized its profits over their best
interests. They claim it did so by accepting incentives from stock
exchanges and large electronic trading firms to route customer
orders to them without ensuring the customers would get the best
prices available – an obligation that along with related factors
is known as "best execution."

A spokeswoman for TD Ameritrade said the company disagrees with the
judge and will appeal his ruling.

Judge Joseph Bataillon's ruling, delivered Sept. 14 in federal
court in Omaha, Neb., marks the first time a court has allowed
customers to pursue a class-action lawsuit on the grounds a retail
brokerage breached its duty to provide best execution, according to
the ruling and the plaintiffs' attorneys.

The decision comes at a time of growing focus on how brokerages
handle customer orders. In its Oct. 2017 blueprint for streamlining
financial regulations, the U.S. Treasury Department said it is
concerned payments to brokerages "may create misaligned incentives"
for brokers and their customers. It urged the Securities and
Exchange Commission to boost regulation of such payments and
require more disclosure.

In March, the SEC proposed a study that would impose temporary
restrictions on stock exchanges' fee and rebate payments and
measure the impact on order routing behavior and trade execution
quality. On September 19, an SEC commissioner called on the agency
to move ahead with the study and faulted it for not doing more to
ensure transparency and fairness in the stock market.

Meanwhile, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, which
oversees brokerage firms, has sought more information about such
practices. And in August 2017, Massachusetts' top securities
regulator launched an investigation into the practice.

In its latest quarterly report, TD Ameritrade said "certain
regulatory authorities are conducting examinations and
investigations regarding the routing of client orders." The firm
collected $320 million from order-routing incentives in the 12
months ended Sept. 2017, according to a regulatory filing.

There is no prohibition on brokerages accepting such incentives.
Large electronic trading firms such as Citadel Securities, Virtu
Financial and Two Sigma Securities often pay brokers, like TD
Ameritrade, Charles Schwab Corp., and E*Trade Financial Corp. to
send them their clients' trades for execution, an incentive known
as payment for order flow. The New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq Inc.
and other exchanges provide their own incentives for order routing,
known as rebates.

Proponents of such payments say investors get a better deal when
brokers route orders to high-speed traders for execution and that
any payments brokerages receive can be used to lower transaction
costs.

"The execution cost is as low as it's ever been, in fact it's
approaching zero," said Richard Repetto, an analyst at Sandler
O'Neill + Partners, L.P.

Still, accepting incentives for order flow has sparked a flurry of
litigation in recent years. Charles Schwab and E*Trade are facing
lawsuits seeking class-action status on similar grounds as the TD
Ameritrade case. Spokespeople for the firms did't immediately
provide comment.

Amid controversy surrounding the practice, one large brokerage --
Fidelity Investments -- decided to stop accepting payments for its
customers' order flow in 2015. A Fidelity spokesman said that by
not accepting such payments, Fidelity can offer its customers the
best available prices on trades.

Critics have long argued that the incentives hurt retail and
institutional investors by giving brokers a reason to send trades
to venues that give them the most money, as opposed achieving what
is best for the investor.

"Are they routing orders in ways that give their customers the best
prices, or make them the biggest profits?" said Tyler Gellasch,
executive director of the Healthy Markets Association, which is
critical of rebates.

The legal action against TD Ameritrade has its roots in a June 2014
Congressional hearing when a senior TD Ameritrade executive said
the firm almost always routed customer orders to markets that paid
it the most money. Former Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) said at the
hearing he found that practice to be a "pretty incredible
coincidence" and questioned whether the firm in fact provided best
execution to its clients.

TD Ameritrade said after the hearing that it takes its best
execution duties "very seriously" and makes it the "top priority"
when routing clients' orders.

Some academic research has found incentives for order flow may
complicate brokers' ability to obtain best executions for their
clients. A 2013 study by finance professors at the University of
Notre Dame and Indiana University found that TD Ameritrade and
three of its competitors routed orders in a manner that seemed to
maximize such payments, and that such behavior hurt their ability
to obtain best execution for clients.

The study, also cited by plaintiffs, concluded that brokers who
seek to maximize incentive payments and customer best execution
"cannot have it all."[GN]


TELENAV INC: Court Approves Gergetz Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiff's
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case
captioned NATHAN GERGETZ, Plaintiff, v. TELENAV, INC., Defendant.
Case No. 16-cv-04261-BLF. (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Nathan Gergetz filed this action asserting violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), on behalf of himself
and others who received unsolicited text messages from Defendant
Telenav, Inc.

In order to grant final approval of the class action settlement,
the Court must determine that (a) the class meets the requirements
for certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and (b)
the settlement reached on behalf of the class is fair, reasonable,
and adequate.

The Class Meets the Requirements for Certification under Rule 23

A class action is maintainable only if it meets the four
requirements of Rule 23(a):
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable;(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class;(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and(4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.

Turning first to the Rule 23(a) prerequisites, the Court has no
difficulty in concluding that because the class contains
approximately 200,000 individuals, and approximately 2,000 claims
have been filed, joinder of all class members would be
impracticable.

The commonality requirement is met because the key issue in the
case is the same for all class members whether the text messages
generated by Telenav and the Scout App violated the TCPA.

Gergetz's claims are typical of those of both subclasses, as he
received text messages before and after sending STOP messages in
response to texts. In Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020, typicality requires
only that the claims of the class representatives are reasonably
co-extensive with those of absent class members.

Finally, to determine the Plaintiffs' adequacy, the Court "must
resolve two questions: (1) do the named plaintiffs and their
counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members and
(2) will the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the
action vigorously on behalf of the class?

With respect to Rule 23(b)(3), the predominance inquiry tests
whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant
adjudication by representation. The common question in this case
whether the text messages generated by Telenav and the Scout App
violated the TCPA predominates. Given that commonality, and the
number of class members, the Court concludes that a class action is
a superior mechanism for adjudicating the claims at issue.

The Court concludes that the requirements of Rule 23 are met and
thus that certification of the class for settlement purposes is
appropriate.

The Settlement is Fundamentally Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable

In making that determination, the district court is guided by an
eight-factor test articulated by the Ninth Circuit in Hanlon v.
Chrysler Corp Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026-27, (Hanlon factors).

Those factors include: the strength of the plaintiffs' case; the
risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further
litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status throughout
the trial; the amount offered in settlement; the extent of
discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; the
experience and views of counsel; the presence of a governmental
participant; and the reaction of the class members to the proposed
settlement.

Notice was Adequate

Gergetz provides declarations of counsel and the Administrator
describing implementation of the notice plan. The Court has
summarized the key portions of those declarations in section I,
above. Based on those declarations, it appears that at least 79.1%
of all class members received notice through direct postal mail,
email, banner ads, and the Settlement Website. The Court is
satisfied that the class members were provided with the best notice
practicable under the circumstances, and that such notice was
adequate.

Presumption of Correctness

Before discussing the Hanlon factors, the Court notes that a
presumption of correctness is said to `attach to a class settlement
reached in arm's-length negotiations between experienced capable
counsel after meaningful discovery. The settlement in this case was
the result of arms-length negotiations between experienced counsel
with the aid of a respected mediator. While there was little formal
discovery, Gergetz's counsel has submitted a declaration describing
the pre-suit investigation and informal discovery which was
conducted.  

The Court therefore concludes that on this record a presumption of
correctness applies to the class action settlement.

Hanlon Factors

The settlement recovery is substantial for a TCPA case. In his
motion papers, Gergetz estimated that each Award Unit would be
worth approximately $900, and at the hearing his counsel revised
that amount downward slightly to $810. Thus under the terms of the
Agreement, each class member who submits a valid claim will receive
at least $810, and some may receive as much as $4,860.

Gergetz provides a chart listing the recoveries resulting from
other TCPA settlements, which range between $20 and $200. Given
those figures, the recovery obtained under this settlement is
exceptionally good.

Little formal discovery had been completed at the time of
settlement, and the case is in its early stages. However, Gergetz's
counsel conducted pre-suit investigation and informal discovery,
and the case has been pending for two years. The Court is satisfied
that the parties are sufficiently familiar with the issues in the
case to have informed opinions regarding its strengths and
weaknesses. Class Counsel specialize in litigation of consumer
class actions, including TCPA cases, and Telenav is represented by
a well-respected law firm. Their views that the settlement is a
good one is entitled to significant weight.  

Based on these reasons, and after considering the record as a whole
as guided by the Hanlon factors, the Court finds that notice of the
proposed settlement was adequate, the settlement is not the result
of collusion, and the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y82tnwja from Leagle.com.

Nathan Gergetz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick Harry Peluso --
ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Peluso, LLC, Richard
Toshiyuki Drury -- richard@lozeaudrury.com -- Lozeau Drury LLP,
Stefan Louis Coleman, Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, LLC, pro hac
vice, Steven Lezell Woodrow -- swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com --
Woodrow & Peluso, LLC & Rebecca Leah Davis --
rebecca@lozeaudrury.com -- Lozeau Drury LLP.

TeleNav, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Tonia Ouellette Klausner -- tklausner@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich Rosati, pro hac vice & Kelly Marie Knoll --
kknoll@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati.


TELSTRA CORP: CEO Says Shareholder Class Action Likely Unsuccessful
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Duke, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Telstra chief executive Andy Penn has told shareholders a planned
merger between rivals TPG Telecom and Vodafone Hutchison Australia
is a "good thing" for the competitive mobile industry.

Mr Penn, while fronting retail investors in Melbourne on Sept. 17
morning, said the creation of a $15 billion rival will help keep
competition in the mobile space to a more "appropriate" level, with
telcos already seeing prices falling and data inclusions rising as
they fight for customers.

TPG, which has a significant presence in selling fixed internet
services, has long been planning to launch a fourth mobile network
and had been advertising upcoming unlimited mobile phone plans for
$9.99, which would have put a squeeze on existing telcos.

Assuming the planned merger obtains regulatory approvals and a
shareholder vote, Mr Penn described it as "generally speaking a
good thing for the industry".

"Telecommunications as an industry tends to run more efficiently
when there's an appropriate number of competitors," he said.

This number needed to be enough to force players to "compete hard"
to provide results for customers, and innovation, but not "so many"
as to leave the market inefficient. Industry experts have long
speculated the Australian market cannot sustain more than three
players.

Mr Penn explained to investors the disruption brought about by the
National Broadband Network roll out has had a knock-on effect to
mobile, with providers competing more aggressively in this space to
take market share to make up for the impact of the NBN Co.

A disgruntled investor asked, to applause, whether shareholders
could "take a class action against government or institutions" for
disrupting the telco with the NBN. Mr Penn said a class action was
"unlikely to be successful" as shareholders had voted in 2011 in
favour of Telstra's participation in the roll out of the network.

Telstra's earnings (before interest, tax, depreciation and
amortisation) are impacted by $3 billion a year due to the NBN,
with the government providing $11 billion as "compensation" over
several years as part of the agreement.

Telstra's share price last peaked at $6.61 in February 2015. The
price increased 1.25 per cent to $3.23 by 3.43pm on Sept. 17.

Mr Penn said some of the impacts on telecommunications were from
the "global" change in consumer behaviour, with telcos failing to
benefit from the increased demand for data and over-the-top players
benefiting instead.

"The telcos have not done as a good job as they would like
certainly in terms of capturing the value," he said.

"A crucial question remains is can we do a better job of this as an
industry . . . as we move into [ultra-fast next generation mobile
networks] 5G."

He told investors he couldn't see "anybody ahead of us in the world
in relation to 5G" with three major benefits of the future network
over 4G, including increased capacity, speed and the ability to
connect many more devices at once.

"In a future world where you can connect sensors, trucks, cars on
the road . . . we anticipate there will be billions of devices
connected. It will be transformational in the changes it brings,"
he said. [GN]


TESLA INC: Sodeifi Suit Transferred to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
SHAHRAM SODEIFI,Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TESLA, INC., a Delaware corporation,
and ELON R. MUSK, an individual, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-07575, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
California Central District, to the U.S. District Court for the
California Northern District (San Francisco). The California
Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-05899-RS to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard
Seeborg.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons, other than Defendants, who purchased or
sold securities of Tesla between August 7, 2018 and August 10, 2018
and suffered financial damages as a result of Defendants' alleged
statements and omissions. The Plaintiff seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defednants' violation of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Tesla, Inc. is an American automotive and energy company based in
Palo Alto, California. The company specializes in electric car
manufacturing and, through its SolarCity subsidiary, in solar panel
manufacturing.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

          Marc Y. Lazo, Esq.
          2105 Foothill Blvd., Suite B121
          La Verne, CA 91750
          Telephone: (855) 471 1110
          Facsimile: (855) 471 1110
          E-mail: marclazo@cox.net

Attorneys for Tesla Inc. and Elon R. Musk:

          Dean S. Kristy, Esq.
          Mara Ludmer, Esq.
          Jennifer C Bretan, Esq.
          FENWICK AND WEST LLP
          555 California Street 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 875-2300
          Facsimile: (415) 281-1350
          E-mail: dkristy@fenwick.com
                  mludmer@fenwick.com
                  jbretan@fenwick.com


TICKETMASTER LLC: Vaccaro Sues over Multiple Ticket Commissions
---------------------------------------------------------------
SALVATORE VACCARO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TICKETMASTER, L.L.C., the Defendant,
Case: No. 1:18-cv-06574 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2018), alleges that
the Defendant violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practice Act and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act by reselling (on its secondary exchange) the same
tickets that it sold initially to resellers (on its primary
exchange), thereby collecting multiple commissions per ticket, and
even apparently creates and distributes "doubledip bots" to
resellers to allow them to purchase or repost these tickets
automatically which ultimately artificially inflates the prices to
consumers.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated Section 510/2 of
the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act by
misrepresenting the amount of tickets Ticketmaster had sold on its
primary ticket exchange. The misrepresentations about its quantity
of tickets created a likelihood of confusion on the part of
consumers regarding how many tickets are on the primary ticket
exchange website.

Ticketmaster L.L.C. was founded in 1997. The company's line of
business includes operating sports, amusement, and recreation
services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Heather L. Blaise, Esq.
          BLAISE & NITSCHKE, P.C.
          123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 250
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 448 6602
          Facsimile: (312) 803 1940
          E-mail: hblaise@blaisenitschkelaw.com


TIMBUK2 DESIGNS: Diaz Files ADA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Timbuk2 Designs, Inc.
The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Timbuk2 Designs, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09249 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 9, 2018).

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

Timbuk2 Designs, Inc. manufactures and sells made-to-order bags. It
offers messenger bags, laptop bags, backpacks, Duffel bags and
rollers, panniers, custom bags, women's bags, accessories, work
bags, bike bags, travel bags, weekend bags, and gift cards. The
company sells its products online, as well as through its stores in
North America, Asia, and Europe. It also sells its products through
authorized resellers. Timbuk2 Designs, Inc. was formerly known as
Scumbags Inc. and changed its name to Timbuk2 Designs, Inc. in
1990. The company was founded in 1989 and is based in San
Francisco, California with manufacturing locations in San
Francisco, China, Indonesia, and Vietnam.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TIME WARNER: Court Defers Ruling on Arbitration Bid in Landry Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire
granted in part and denied in part, albeit without prejudice, Time
Warner's motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the
action styled Ryan Landry, Plaintiff, v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.,
and Thomson Reuters Corporation, Defendants. Case No. 16-cv-507-SM.
(D.N.H.).

Plaintiff, Ryan Landry, filed this putative class action against
his former employer, Time Warner Cable, alleging that Time Warner
violated various provisions of the federal Fair Credit Reporting
Act (FCRA), as well as New Hampshire's statutory analogue. He also
claims Time Warner wrongfully terminated his employment and, in so
doing, violated New Hampshire's Whistleblower Protection Act.

The court will employ the familiar summary judgment standard of
review in resolving Time Warner's motion to compel arbitration.
Applying that standard, the court reviews the record in the light
most favorable to Landry, and draws all reasonable inferences in
his favor.

The question presented in this case is whether the parties actually
formed an enforceable contract that is, whether the Mutual
Agreement to Arbitrate complies with New Hampshire's general
principles governing contract formation and enforcement.

Landry Executed the Mutual Arbitration Agreement

First, although he does not deny that he accessed the onboarding
website, reviewed Time Warner's various employment policies and
procedures, and electronically signed the Mutual Arbitration
Agreement, Landry says he cannot recall having done so. Nor does he
recall having provided Time Warner with the Yahoo email address to
which Time Warner sent Landry's login and password credentials.
But, as Time Warner points out, Landry's lack of recall (and
absence of any denial of the material facts at issue), is
insufficient to call into question any properly supported facts
presented by Time Warner.  

The records submitted by Time Warner plainly demonstrate that
Landry did provide Time Warner with his Yahoo email address and he
did complete the company's onboarding process with the login
credentials that were sent to that email address in two separate
communications. Additionally, those documents establish that Landry
acknowledged reading the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate and
electronically signed that document. Those material facts are
established and not genuinely disputed.

Unconscionability

Landry asserts that even if he did execute the Mutual Agreement to
Arbitrate, it is unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable. The
parties agree that whether their arbitration agreement is
enforceable against Landry must be determined under New Hampshire's
law of contract formation.  

This court has previously address and resolved many of the
arguments advanced by Landry. And, largely for the reasons
discussed in Klinedinst, as well as those set forth in Time
Warner's memoranda, the court concludes that Landry has failed to
demonstrate that the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate is unenforceable
on grounds that it is either procedurally or substantively
unconscionable. In brief, the arbitration agreement is not at least
under the circumstances presented an unenforceable adhesion
contract. Landry's claim that he did not face an actual choice' to
reject an arbitration agreement without facing poverty,
unemployment, and/or eventual destitution,  describes a personally
difficult choice, but hardly a legally unconscionable one.

Nor was the arbitration agreement presented to Landry in an unfair
or confusing manner. That document consists of less than two pages
and it is written in plain, easy-to-understand language. And,
despite the fact that Landry gave no indication that he wished to
review the agreement with an attorney before executing it, Time
Warner provided him with ample time to do so if he had wished.
Copies of the rules of the arbitration process, as well as the
location of the relevant arbitration resolution centers, were also
made available to Landry through the onboarding website.  

Such clauses are not unenforceable on the grounds asserted by
Landry that is, that the Arbitration Agreements is unreasonably
favorable to TWC' because the class action waiver embedded in the
mandatory Arbitration Agreement deprives employees of meaningful
redress of their rights and solely benefits TWC.

Restraints of Protected Activity

Finally, Landry asserts that the Mutual Agreement to arbitrate is
unenforceable because its class action waiver represents an
unlawful restraint on his rights under the National Labor Relations
Act. This argument seems to have the most substance.

Landry asks the court to apply what has become known as the D.R.
Horton Rule, which arises out of a decision issued by the National
Labor Relations Board in which the Board concluded that: (1) class
and collective actions are other concerted activities protected
under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act; (2) agreements
between employers and employees to arbitrate disputes on an
individual, rather than a representative or class basis, constitute
an unfair labor practice under Section 8 of the NLRA; and (3) the
Federal Arbitration Act does not preclude the Board from declaring
such agreements unenforceable. In Re D.R. Horton, Inc.,357 NLRB
2277 (2012). But, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
reversed that decision, concluding that the class action waiver at
issue was not rendered unenforceable by the NLRA. D.R. Horton, Inc.
v. NLRB, 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013).  

The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has yet to address this
issue and those courts of appeals that have are divided. But, on
January 13, 2017, the United States Supreme Court granted
certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, to
resolve that very issue, i.e., whether arbitration agreements with
individual employees that bar them from pursuing work-related
claims on a collective or class basis in any forum are prohibited
as an unfair labor practice under 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), because they
limit the employees' right under the National Labor Relations Act
to engage in concerted activities in pursuit of their mutual aid or
protection, 29 U.S.C. 157, and are therefore unenforceable under
the saving clause of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 2.

Because the Supreme Court will likely resolve that dispositive
question of law in the near future, it would seem unnecessary and
unwise to proceed here. An authoritative and controlling
description of the interplay between the NLRA and the FAA will be
forthcoming shortly.

Accordingly, pending the Supreme Court's decision in Murphy Oil,
the court will defer ruling on that final question of law presented
in Landry's objection to Time Warner's motion to compel
arbitration.

As well as those set forth in Time Warner's legal memoranda Time
Warner's motion to compel arbitration is granted in part and denied
in part. With the exception of his claim that the class action
waiver violates provisions of the NLRA, none of Landry's arguments
in favor of invalidating the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate is
persuasive.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y77c2ah4 from Leagle.com.

Ryan Landry, Plaintiff, represented by Amy E. Tabor --
aet@caddellchapman.com -- Caddell & Chapman, pro hac vice, Michael
A. Caddell -- mac@caddellchapman.com -- Caddell & Chapman, pro hac
vice, Benjamin J. Wyatt, Wyatt Law Offices & Michael Varraso, Wyatt
Law Offices.

Thomson Reuters Corporation, Defendant, represented by Eric Bosset
-- ebosset@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP, pro hac vice,
Geoffrey J. Vitt -- gvitt@vittandassociates.com -- Vitt &
Associates PLC & Neil K. Roman -- nroman@cov.com -- Covington &
Burling LLP, pro hac vice.


TRIBUNE MEDIA: Entwistle & Cappucci Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP ("Entwistle & Cappucci") on Sept. 11
disclosed that it has filed a securities class action lawsuit on
behalf of persons or entities who purchased common stock of Tribune
Media Company (NYSE: TRCO) ("Tribune" or the "Company") during the
period from November 29, 2017 through July 16, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby (the "Class"). The
case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Case No. 1:18-cv-06175, against Tribune and
certain of its senior executives (collectively, "Defendants").

The class action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that,
during the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omitted material adverse facts concerning
the conduct of Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. ("Sinclair") during
the process of seeking regulatory approval necessary to complete a
proposed merger between Tribune and Sinclair (the "Merger").
Specifically, the complaint alleges that while the Defendants
frequently discussed the regulatory steps necessary to complete the
Merger in public statements and presentations, including Sinclair's
purported agreement to take certain actions to secure regulatory
approval, the Defendants misstated or omitted the fact that: (i)
Sinclair was refusing to divest itself of television stations in
certain markets necessary in order to secure regulatory approval;
and (ii) Sinclair was taking the position that it was not legally
or contractually obligated to complete the identified divestitures
to ensure regulatory approval. As a result of the Defendants' false
and misleading statements and omissions, Tribune common stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and
such inflation was removed when it was revealed that the Merger had
not received regulatory approval by the applicable deadline and
would not close. The complaint seeks an award of damages, and
prejudgment interest, to plaintiff and other Class members.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this matter, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than November 13, 2018. Any
member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as a lead
plaintiff in this matter through counsel of their choice, or they
may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the Class.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Andrew J.
Entwistle, Esq. of Entwistle & Cappucci at (212) 894-7200 or via
e-mail at aentwistle@entwistle-law.com; or Joshua K. Porter, Esq.
of Entwistle & Cappucci at (212) 894-7200 or via e-mail at
jporter@entwistle-law.com.

                 About Entwistle & Cappucci

Entwistle & Cappucci -- http://www.entwistle-law.com-- is a
national law firm providing exceptional legal representation to
clients globally in the most complex and challenging legal matters.
Its practice encompasses all areas of litigation, including
securities, antitrust, corporate transactions, general corporate
and commercial, creditor's rights and bankruptcy, corporate
governance and fiduciary duty, government affairs, insurance,
investigations and white collar defense. Its clients include public
and private corporations, major hedge funds, public pension funds,
governmental entities, leading institutional investors, domestic
and foreign financial services companies, emerging business
enterprises and individual entrepreneurs. [GN]


TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Court Denies Bid to Intervene in Chapman Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENNETH CHAPMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TRISTAR
PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-CV-1114, No. 1:17-CV-2298
(N.D. Phio), Judge James S. Gwin of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio denied (i) the Arizona Movants' motion to
intervene only to allow them to appeal the Court's order approving
the parties' settlement; and (ii) their request to be deemed a
formal objector to the settlement on the basis of their prior
filings.

In this products liability class action, the Attorney General of
Arizona and the State of Arizona ("Arizona Movants") move to
intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24.  The Arizona
Movants played no role in this long-pending and bitterly contested
litigation.  The Arizona Movants seek intervention only to allow
them to appeal the Court's order approving the parties' settlement.
In the alternative, they request that the Court deems them a
formal objector to the settlement on the basis of their prior
filings.

In 2016, the Plaintiffs sued Tristar alleging that certain of the
Defendant's pressure cookers were defective.  The Plaintiffs sought
class certification.  They alleged Tristar sold a home pressure
cooker with a defect that allowed users to release the pressure
cooker's lid even while the pressure cooker was still pressurized.
They claimed this defect allowed heated food contents to
potentially shoot out and injure the user.

The Court certified several state classes but denied nationwide
class certification.  After extensive motion practice that
partially ended some of the Plaintiffs' claims, the case went to
trial.  Near the end of the first trial day, and after the parties
examined several witnesses, including the Plaintiffs' main expert
witness, the parties met with Magistrate Judge Greenberg and
renewed settlement discussions.  After additional negotiations
supervised by Judge Greenberg, the parties reached a settlement.

Under the settlement, the class members can receive a $72.50 credit
towards the purchase of one of three Tristar products.
Additionally, the settlement gives class members a one-year
warranty extension.  To submit a claim, the class members must
verify that they have watched (or read a transcript of) a safety
video intended to teach users about the safe operation of the
pressure cookers.

The settlement agreement also allowed the class counsel to apply
for attorney fees.  Under the settlement agreement, the Plaintiff
attorneys could not seek fees greater than the Class Counsel's
lodestar and expenses.  The Plaintiff attorney would not seek any
success addition.

In the settlement agreement, Tristar agreed that it would not
object to the Plaintiff class counsel's fee application if the fee
application was based upon a lodestar calculation and was less than
an agreed amount.  The settlement agreement acknowledged that the
Court, not the parties, would determine what the class fees were
recoverable.

Despite widespread notice of settlement to the class members, no
class members objected to the proposed settlement.  The Department
of Justice and eighteen state attorneys general filed an amici
brief opposing the proposed settlement.

Although styled as objecting to the settlement, the Arizona Movants
more truly only objected to the attorney fee application.
Restating, that settlement agreement limited the Plaintiff counsel
to seeking no more than a lodestar fee and the settlement agreement
recognized that the Court, not the parties, would determine any fee
award.

At the July 12, 2018, hearing, the U.S. Department of Justice and
the Arizona attorney general's office argued against settlement
approval.  They argued that the proposed settlement
disproportionately benefited class counsel and surmised that the
class members would receive greater settlement benefits if class
counsel received less.

The Court approved the settlement and certified a nationwide class,
finding that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate.  It
also approved a reduced fee award of $1,980,382.59 in attorney's
fees.

Because the Arizona Movants do not allege an injury giving rise to
Article III standing, Judge Gwin denied their motion to intervene
of right.  For the same reason, he also denied their request that
the Court deems them a formal objector to the settlement.  He holds
that permitting the Movants to intervene for the purposes of appeal
would significantly delay the distribution of relief to class
members.  For this reason, he declined their request to intervene
as a matter of discretion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/X1ZasM from Leagle.com.

Kenneth Chapman, Jessica Vennel & Jason Jackson, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Adam A. Edwards -- adam@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Law
Office of Greg Coleman, Arthur M. Stock -- astock@bm.net -- Berger
& Montague, Drew T. Legando, Landskroner Grieco Merriman, Edward A.
Wallace, Wexler Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- pro hac vice,
Gregory F. Coleman -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Law Office of Greg
Coleman, pro hac vice, Jack Landskroner, Landskroner Grieco
Merriman, Lisa A. White -- lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Law Office of
Greg Coleman, Mark E. Silvey, Law Office of Greg Coleman, pro hac
vice, Shanon J. Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- Berger & Montague &
Tyler J. Story -- tjs@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace.

Edwina Pinon, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated (Plaintiff in Member Case 1:17-cv-02298), Plaintiff,
represented by David B. Levin , Law Office of Todd M. Friedman,
Gregory F. Coleman , Law Office of Greg Coleman, Jack Landskroner,
Landskroner Grieco Merriman, Meghan E. George & Todd M. Friedman .

Tristar Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Roger A. Colaizzi
-- racolaizzi@venable.com -- Venable, pro hac vice,  Brian E. Roof,
Esq. -- broof@sutter-law.com -- Sutter O'Connell, Brian Douglas
Sullivan, Esq. -- bsullivan@reminger.com -- Reminger & Reminger,
Hugh J. Bode, Esq. -- hbode@reminger.com -- Reminger & Reminger,
John Q. Lewis, Esq. -- john.lewis@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis,
Jonathan F. Feczko, Esq. -- jonathan.feczko@tuckerellis.com --
Tucker Ellis, Madeline Dennis, Esq. --
madeline.dennis@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis, Mark F. Ram,
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, Matthew C. O'Connell --
moconnell@sutter-law.com -- Sutter O'Connell, Nathan F. Studeny,
Esq. -- nstudeny@sutter-law.com -- Sutter O'Connell, Pamela M.
Ferguson, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Shawn A. Toliver --
Shawn.Toliver@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
& Zachary J. Adams -- zachary.adams@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker
Ellis.

Arizona Attorney General's Office & State of Arizona, Movants,
represented by Barry H. Uhrman, Office of the Attorney General,
Dana R. Vogel, Office of the Attorney General & Oramel H. Skinner,
Office of the Attorney General.

United States, Interested Party, represented by Alan J. Phelps ,
Civil Division - Consumer Protection Branch U.S. Department of
Justice & Brenna E. Jenny, U.S. Department of Justice - Civil
Rights Div Disability Rights Section.


TWIN HILL ACQUISITION: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Zurbriggen Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOR ZURBRIGGEN, DENA CATAN, HALEY JOHNSON, LYNNETTE
CHESTER, KIMBERLY JOHNSON, JOSEPH CATAN, BARBARA BELL, LAURA
URQUHART, DOUG CRUMRINE, LUJUAN PRESTON, and TIMOTHY TERRY, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
TWIN HILL ACQUISTION COMPANY, INC. and AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 17 C 5648 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John J. Tharp,
Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted American's motion to dismiss
but denied Twin Hill's motions to dismiss and strike.

American Airlines, Inc. rolled out a new line of uniforms for its
worldwide workforce in late 2016.  The uniform change was
American's first in almost 30 years and was the product of several
years of planning and development.  What it hoped would be a
seamless transition was anything but.  According to the amended
complaint, the new uniforms created a plague of health problems for
American's workforce; within weeks, employees across the company
reported developing skin rashes, respiratory problems, vertigo, and
other ailments.  The number of complaints supposedly grew so large
so quickly that American backpedaled on the rollout two months
later and permitted employees to revert back to their old uniforms.


Within a year, the airline announced that it would cut ties with
the uniform manufacturer, Twin Hill.  In the aftermath of the
rollout, 11 American employees filed suit against their employer
and Twin Hill on behalf of themselves and all other American
employees who have been exposed to the uniforms.  The Plaintiffs
contend that both the Defendants are liable for battery and
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and that Twin Hill
also is liable in negligence and products liability.

The Plaintiffs individually seek damages and on behalf of the class
seek injunctive relief, including an order requiring Twin Hill to
recall the uniforms it has provided to American employees and
directing both companies to establish a medical monitoring fund to
mitigate any possible long-term health effects to class members.  

American and Twin Hill responded to the amended complaint by moving
to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).  American argues that the
Plaintiffs' claims against it are barred by state workers'
compensation statutes, which provide the exclusive remedy for
on-the-job injuries.  Twin Hill contends that the Plaintiffs fail
to state a plausible claim for relief against it largely because
there is no basis to conclude its uniforms are the source of the
harm alleged.  Twin Hill further asks the Court to strike the class
allegations in the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(f) and Rule 23 on
the basis that the Plaintiffs will be unable to establish that
their claims merit class treatment.

Judge Tharp finds that the complaint plausibly alleges that the
uniforms are unreasonably dangerous.  And he agrees with the
Plaintiffs that the allegations of the complaint, taken as true,
provide a basis to conclude that American knew something was amiss
with the uniforms even before September 2016.  Nevertheless, where
the complaint falls short in alleging an intentional tort is that
it fails to give rise to the inference that American knew with
requisite certainty that any particular employees, much less the
named Plaintiffs, would be harmed by the Twin Hill uniforms.
Because that the Plaintiffs' claims against American are precluded
by the applicable exclusivity statutes, American's motion to
dismiss is granted.

Turning to Twin Hill's motion to dismiss, because he concludes that
the Plaintiffs state a claim under a product liability theory, Twin
Hill's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint must be
denied.  He concludes that each of the Plaintiffs has pleaded
sufficient facts to maintain a design defect theory at this stage.
There are a number of allegations in the complaint that plausibly
suggest Twin Hill uniforms were defectively designed so as to
render them unreasonably dangerous.  At bottom, the complaint
presents a plausible, factual-based story that Twin Hill uniforms
are unreasonably dangerous in their design and so meets the
pleading standards set forth in Rule 8.

Finally, Twin Hill moves to strike the Plaintiffs' class
allegations on the grounds that they have not, and cannot at a
later stage, meet the requirements for class treatment.  Because
the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' proximity theory is not
implausible based on the facts alleged, the Plaintiffs sufficiently
plead on-going or future harm.  Whether the Plaintiffs can
establish a likelihood of future harm is again an issue for another
day.  Therefore, the Judge denies Twin Hill's motion to strike
class allegations.

For these reasons, Judge tharo granted American's Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss is granted.  The dismissal, however, is without
prejudice; the Plaintiffs have leave to re-plead their claims to
address the issues set forth in the Opinion, if they are able.  Any
amended complaint is due no later than Oct. 4, 2018.  The Judge
denide Twin Hill's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and Rule 12(f)
motion to strike.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/yB8Rcz from Leagle.com.

Thor Zurbriggen, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Jacob Gower --
jgower@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest LLP, pro hac vice, Korey
Arthur Nelson -- knelson@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest LLP, pro
hac vice, Todd Lawrence McLawhorn -- tmclawhorn@siprut.com --
Siprut PC, Warren T. Burns -- wburns@burnscharest.com -- Burns
Charest LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Matthew Chang --
mchang@siprut.com -- Siprut Pc, Nada Djordjevic, Boodell &
Domanskis LLC & Stewart M. Weltman -- sweltman@siprut.com -- Siprut
PC.

Dena Catan, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Todd Lawrence
McLawhorn , Siprut PC, Charles Jacob Gower, Burns Charest LLP,
Michael Matthew Chang, Siprut Pc, Nada Djordjevic, Boodell &
Domanskis LLC & Stewart M. Weltman, Siprut PC.

Haley Johnson, Joseph Catan, Timothy Terry, LuJuan Preston, Barbara
Bell, Lynnette Chester, Doug Crumrine & Kimberly Johnson,
Plaintiffs, represented by Charles Jacob Gower, Burns Charest LLP,
Nada Djordjevic, Boodell & Domanskis LLC & Todd Lawrence McLawhorn,
Siprut PC.

Twin Hill Acquisition, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant,
represented by Francis A. Citera -- citeraf@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig, LLP. & Caitlyn E. Haller -- hallerc@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig.

American Airlines, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark W.
Robertson -- mrobertson@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac
vice, Larry S. Kaplan, Kaplan, Massamillo & Andrews, LLC, Matthew
J. Obiala -- mobiala@kmalawfirm.com -- Kaplan Massamillo & Andrews
& Susannah K. Howard -- showard@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
pro hac vice.


UNITED COLLECTION: Sprei Files FDCPA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Esther Sprei on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United
Collection Bureau, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05627 (E.D.
N.Y., Oct. 9, 2018).

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

United Collection Bureau, Inc. provides debt collection services
for companies (government, healthcare, utility, financial service,
communication, and student markets) and individuals in the United
States. United Collection Bureau, Inc. was formerly known as UCB,
Inc. and changed its name to United Collection Bureau, Inc. in
August 1979. The company was founded in 1959 and is based in
Toledo, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED STATES: El Paso County Joints PILT Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Riley, writing for The Gazette, reports that El Paso County
is joining a class-action lawsuit, seeking to recover about $5,000
from the federal government for payment it doesn't receive in
property taxes on federal land.

County commissioners unanimously voted on Sept. 11 to opt into the
2017 lawsuit, in which Utah's Kane County argued that the United
States has underpaid local governments when doling out payments in
lieu of taxes.

Local jurisdictions with non-taxable federal lands get the payments
to offset the loss of property tax revenues, per a 1976 law.

The lawsuit alleges that from 2015 to 2017, Congress did not
adequately compensate local governments.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has granted summary judgment in
favor of Kane County and other local governments in the class,
ruling that the U.S. is obligated to make up for the underpayments,
says a notice from the court.

El Paso County is owed more than $7,000, Senior Assistant County
Attorney Peter Lichtman wrote in a memo to county commissioners.

About a third of that payout will go to attorney fees and
litigation costs, though, county spokesman Dave Rose said.

"Most Colorado counties have already or will be joining the class,
just as El Paso County did, because it's necessary to receive the
amount they were 'shorted' when Congress did not fully appropriate
for the PILT (payment in lieu of taxes) legislation during the past
couple of budget years," Mr. Rose said. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: Sued Over Mishandled Rape Reports
---------------------------------------------------------
Fern Shen, writing for Baltimore Brew, reports that a federal
lawsuit charging that the University of Maryland Baltimore County
worked in concert with Baltimore County police and prosecutors to
cover up sexual assaults has sparked a furious reaction among
students and alumni, including calls for UMBC Police Chief Paul
Dillon to resign.

"When students are here tomorrow it's going to be crazy. Since this
broke on Sept. 14, online it's just been general outrage," said
Julia Arbutus, editor-in-chief of The Retriever, the student
newspaper.

"There are fliers all over campus calling for Dillon to resign,"
Mr. Arbutus said. "They were taken down, but more get put up,
especially on the smoking shelter nearest to the police station."

"As a UMBC alumn, I'm disgusted and infuriated," Owen Silverman
Andrews wrote on Twitter. "This is why we need a state-level Title
IX compliance office and much more."

A statement issued on Sept. 15 by two leaders of the Student
Government Association said Dillon should resign immediately.

"Following a report in The Baltimore Brew of the litigation. . . we
are appalled and disgusted with the alleged inaction of Officer
Dillon and the Campus Police," wrote SGA President Collin Sullivan
and Executive Vice President Vrinda Deshpande.

According to one allegation detailed in the complaint, Mr. Dillon
persuaded a freshman who said she had been drugged -- and woke up
bleeding in a dormitory bathroom -- not to report the assault to
Baltimore County police.

University officials later cleared the suspect of wrongdoing.

The victim was thwarted in a second attempt to report the rape to
county police when she learned that evidence from the rape kit
examination she had submitted to had been destroyed because UMBC
had misclassified the assault as "a suspicious condition."

"Silenced, discouraged"
The incident is just one detail in a 56-page class-action suit that
also describes an alleged 2017 gang rape of two Towson University
students by three UMBC baseball team members that was covered up by
county police, prosecutors and UMBC officials.

According to a story published in The Retriever, "athletic
department officials were aware of the allegations against the
players."

"But despite this knowledge, they were allowed to participate in
games anyway," the Retriever reported, citing "a source affiliated
with the athletic department."

Spokeswoman Lisa Akchin said UMBC "does not take actions to remove
students from educational or extracurricular activities unless and
until there is a finding of responsibility."

According to the lawsuit, the complaint by one of the victims,
plaintiff Anna Borkowski, was "inexplicably closed" less than 24
hours after the assault.

County police later did interview the suspects -- "together, at a
Chick-fil-A."

But ultimately, the prosecutor declined to prosecute, even though
she acknowledged there was probable cause, the lawsuit says.

Student leaders Sullivan and Deshpande, in their letter to UMBC
President Freeman A. Hrabowski, III, said the university had failed
in its duty to protect all students in its handling of these and
other reported rapes.

"No student should ever feel silenced, discouraged or unsafe," they
wrote.

Mr. Dillon, who has been a university system employee since 1987
and worked at UMBC since 2010, has not responded to several
messages left with his office.

Students planned a campus protest on Sept. 14 at noon near the
Commons building.

Safety and Respect

In a statement emailed on Sept. 14 to students, faculty and alumni,
University officials declined to address the specific charges.

"UMBC received notice of a civil lawsuit by two women alleging that
the campus, Baltimore County Police, and others failed to properly
respond to their reports of sexual assault in 2015 and 2017," the
statement signed by Mr. Hrabowski and Provost Philip Rous began.

"While it is not appropriate for us to comment on specific
litigation, it is essential to state that our campus is committed
to safety and respect for all people and takes matters related to
sexual misconduct very seriously," they wrote.

UMBC's overall handling of sexual assault reports is a key
component of the class action suit, filed in U.S. District Court in
Baltimore by plaintiffs Mr. Borkowski and Katelyn Frank.

Defendants, in addition to Mr. Dillon, Shellenberger and UMBC,
include Baltimore County, the Baltimore County Police Department,
the Board of Regents for the University System of Maryland and a
number of other individuals.

The complaint alleges a long-term pattern by the defendants of
"unfounding" rape allegations, destroying rape kits as little as 30
days after the examinations, and mis-classifying rape reports as
"suspicious circumstances."

In their email, Mr. Hrabowski and Mr. Rous note that more than 125
faculty, staff and students gathered on Sept. 14 for UMBC's annual
Title IX Sexual Misconduct Seminar.

The seminar "is designed to continue to build our capacity to
support all UMBC community members affected by sexual misconduct,"
their statement said.

Bruises and Bite Marks

Like dozens of other U.S. colleges and universities, UMBC has been
under scrutiny in recent years for its handling of sexual assault
under the Title IX gender equity law.

In 2016, the U.S. Department of Education investigated its UMBC's
handling of rape reports after an attorney filed a complaint
charging the university with improperly responding to a student's
case.

The alleged victim was "drugged without her knowledge and subjected
to a particularly violent sexual attack, which left her with
significant bruises, bite marks, and other injuries on her body,"
her attorney said at the time.

Ms. Akchin said UMBC "has not received notice of a determination
from the Federal Office for Civil Rights" in that case.

In another incident the previous year, UMBC expelled two students
for violating the student code of conduct after an investigation
into the 2014 sexual assault of another student.

No one was criminally charged in the case and county police said
there was not enough evidence a crime occurred. [GN]


US BANK: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Deceptive Bank Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Wallace, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
bank fees are growing rapidly, and consumers are feeling the pinch.
Furthermore, many customers feel that they are somehow being
hoodwinked into paying hidden, undisclosed costs. On August 2,
2018, Reyna McGovern filed a class action excessive bank fees
lawsuit against U.S. Bank, N.A. (US Bank). Her lawsuit tackles two
thorny issues: out-of-network ATM fees and overdraft fees charged
when her account showed a sufficient account balance.

These practices do not, at least today, seem to break federal
banking law. But they are arguably deceptive, and ripe for
California breach of contract and consumer law claims.

OUT-OF-NETWORK ATM FEES

US Bank is one of the nation's very largest banks. Size, however,
is not measured by branches, convenience or customer happiness. It
is measured by revenue. At some larger regional banks, customer
fees account for as much as 40 percent of total bank revenues.

Customers who have checking accounts at US Bank can easily find
themselves without an in-network cash machine nearby. Should they
make a withdrawal at an out-of-network bank, they will pay at least
two fees: first, a $2.95 fee to the non-bank affiliated owner that
operates the out-of-network ATM; and second, a $2.50 fee to US Bank
for the withdrawal.

If they check their balance before making the withdrawal, there is
a third $2.50 fee to US Bank. That totals $7.95. For an impulsive
$20 cash machine run, the bank makes a profit of more than 25
percent. Small dollars multiplied many times mean big profits for
the bank.

SURPRISE OVERDRAFT FEES HIT SMALL ACCOUNT HOLDERS ESPECIALLY HARD

The second, and more tangled situation involves overdraft fees. It
is only complicated because of the fine distinction that US Bank
and many other banks make between two terms: "available balance"
and "account balance."

An "account balance" as defined in the US Bank customer agreement
reflects a running total of funds in the account, including
deposits and withdrawals. A customer's "available balance,"
however, will not reflect funds held from deposits and funds held
for debit card authorizations.

Here is the operational difference:

   * Banking customers who check their balances to ensure that they
will not over draw, see their account balance:
   * Because of debit and deposit holds, however, the available
balance may be less than the account balance;
   * The bank assesses overdraft fees based on the available
balance;
   * Even careful, well-meaning customers who are working with
small accounts can fall into overdraft because they relied on the
wrong information;
   * Banks' practice of maintaining debit holds for as long as
several days actually means that the available balance in an
account may not be determinable until well after a debit card
transaction occurs;
   * In addition, because banks frequently re-order transactions
from highest to lowest amount, one over-the-limit transaction can
ultimately trigger several overdraft fees;
   * Customers, especially those with limited funds, rarely sue big
banks because of the cost of individual litigation, which is why
class action litigation is essentially the only remedy in these
situations today.

Very few customers read the fine print on the deposit agreements
they sign when opening a checking account, and even those who do
can find these distinctions confusing.

US BANK'S STANDARDIZED DEPOSIT CONTRACT

The essence of Ms. McGovern's lawsuit against US Bank is that its
standardized customer deposit agreement is deceptive with respect
to both the balance inquiry ATM fee and the way in which overdraft
fees are assessed.

The standardized contract allegedly describes only one
out-of-network fee, not the additional fee charged for an
out-of-network balance inquiry. Further, Ms. McGovern claims that
customers are misled because experience has taught them to expect a
free opportunity to check an account balance before proceeding with
a cash withdrawal from an out-of-network ATM. ATM screens do not
typically disclose that a balance inquiry alone will incur a usage
fee, and few ATMs in the United States charge usage fees for
balance inquiries.

The dispute about overdraft fees is familiar from many bank
overdraft fees lawsuits. Ms. McGovern's lawsuit makes the point
that most banking customers reasonably assume that debit
transactions are debited from their accounts immediately -- not
that they may be held for several days and then bundled in a way to
maximize bank profits.

Furthermore, the Consumer Financial Protection Board has flagged
the practice of debit holds as deceptive when:

"a financial institution authorized an electronic transaction,
which reduced a customer's available balance but did not result in
an overdraft at the time of authorization; settlement of a
subsequent unrelated transaction that further lowered the
customer's available balance and pushed the account into overdraft
status; and when the original electronic transaction was later
presented for settlement, because of the intervening transaction
and overdraft fee, the electronic transaction also posted as an
overdraft and an additional overdraft fee was charged."

IS LEGISLATIVE RELIEF ON THE (DISTANT) HORIZON?

U.S. Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) have
introduced federal legislation that would regulate the overdraft
fees that banks charge consumers. The Stop Overdraft Profiteering
Act of 2018 would ban overdraft fees on debit card transactions and
ATM withdrawals and limit fees for checks and recurring payments.
It would also require banks to post transactions in a manner to
minimize overdraft and nonsufficient fund charges. The bill is
still in the very early stages of the legislative process, but
might ultimately bring relief to bank customers, who currently have
few remedies. [GN]


USA TECH: Faces Class Action After Internal Probe Announcement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Santoni, writing for Law360, reported that USA Technologies
Inc. announced on Sept. 11 that it would delay its annual report
for the 2017-18 fiscal year due to an internal financial
investigation, setting off an investor class action. [GN]


USA TECH: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 11
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of USA Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:
USAT) from November 9, 2017 through September 11, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for USA
Technologies investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the USA Technologies class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1413.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) USA Technologies'
treatment of contractual arrangements in its financial statements
would result in an internal investigation and delay the filing of
its annual report for fiscal year 2018; (2) consequently, USA
Technologies' internal controls over financial reporting were weak
and deficient; (3) as a result, defendants' statements about USA
Technologies' 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-1413.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.

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]


VALLEY BROOK, OK: Motorists File Class Action Against Police
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Shaw, writing for News9, reported that a Class Action lawsuit
filed on Sept. 10 accuses Valley Brook Police of arresting
motorists outside of their jurisdiction.

Guthrie Defense Attorney Marvel Lewis says Valley Brook Police have
been pulling people over on a stretch of Southeast 59th Street that
Oklahoma City annexed 61 years ago.

Valley Brook's Police referred all questions to town attorney Ray
Vincent, who says he hasn't seen the lawsuit.

Mr. Vincent also said an "inter-local agreement" between Valley
Brook and Oklahoma City Police allows officers from both
departments to arrests motorists on either side of the boundary
line.

However, Attorney Lewis says Oklahoma City terminated that
agreement more than a decade ago.

"Valley Brook knew or should have known that they should not have
been on 59th Street and Eastern.  I have no explanation why they
keep enforcing stuff on roads that they shouldn't have been," Mr.
Lewis said. [GN]


VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Imran Files Class Action Over False Ad
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ismail Imran, an individual and on behalf others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Does 1
through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05758, (N.D.
Cal., September 19, 2018) brings claims for fraud, unjust
enrichment and breach of express warranty under California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law
and California's False Advertising Law.

Vital Pharmaceuticals operates as VPX Sports, a manufacturer of
nutritional supplements including, but not limited to, the BANG (R)
product line. Imran asserts that the product's claimed nutritional
value as represented in its label is not backed up by an
independent laboratory testing. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
      NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
      600 W. Broadway, Suite 700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 272-7014
      Facsimile: (619) 330-1819
      Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Canada's Response to Emissions Scandal Criticized
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ainslie Cruickshank, writing for The Star Vancouver, reports that
in the three years since the Volkswagen emissions-cheating scandal
was uncovered, governments in the U.S., Germany and elsewhere have
fined the company billions of dollars and sent some of its top
executives to jail for breaking environmental laws -- but not in
Canada.

"There has been nothing done," said David Boyd, the United Nations'
newly appointed human rights and environment watchdog.

Mr. Boyd, who is also an expert in environmental law at the
University of British Columbia, is concerned the Volkswagen scandal
is on its way to becoming another example of Canada's "absolutely
scandalous" failure to enforce environmental laws.

"There has not been any indication that Volkswagen's going to be
held responsible for their environmental crimes here," he said.

"It's pretty alarming," said Tim Gray, executive director of
Environmental Defence. It was "a massive scandal perpetrated on the
public."

While federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna said she is
hopeful there will be progress on the case soon, the Canadian
investigation into the emissions-cheating scandal remains ongoing
three years in.

"The legal and regulatory environments vary between Canada and the
U.S., and a court settlement and fines in the U.S. are not simply
replicated in Canada," said department spokesperson Gabrielle
Lamontagne.

"Volkswagen Group Canada Inc. . . . has not publicly admitted to
being guilty of an alleged offence in Canada," she said, adding
that the company in Canada is a separate legal entity from its
parent company in Germany and affiliates in the U.S., where
Volkswagen has already paid significant fines.

The scandal became public in 2015 -- roughly a month before the
Liberal government came to power in Ottawa. Volkswagen and
subsidiaries Audi and Porsche had been caught selling roughly 11
million diesel cars worldwide that were fitted with a "defeat
device." It enabled the cars to cheat emissions testing, but on the
road, they spewed significantly higher emissions than allowed -- 35
times the legal standard in Canada, according to Environmental
Defence.

Diesel emission standards are in place for good reason. The fumes
are "highly toxic," Boyd said. A recent Health Canada study
estimated diesel emissions alone were responsible for the premature
deaths of more than 700 Canadians in 2015.

In a statement, Volkswagen Canada spokesperson Thomas Tetzlaff said
the company "is committed to making things right for our customers,
dealers, regulators and the Canadian public."

The company said in a statement it is implementing two settlements
worth a combined $2.4 billion with customers who purchased one of
125,000 affected diesel vehicles sold in Canada -- as it did
elsewhere in the world -- Volkswagen hasn't faced any charges under
the Canadian Environmental Protection Act so far.

There is concern among some observers that the federal government
may not act, continuing what Mr. Boyd said is a longtime trend of
leniency.

"Three years have gone by and Canada has a track record of not
enforcing environmental laws," he said.

In 2004, Petro-Canada was fined $290,000 for the spill that saw
1,000 barrels of oil flow into the Atlantic Ocean from the Terra
Nova offshore production vessel. By comparison, Brazil's petroleum
regulator fined Chevron $17.3 million (U.S.) for a 3,600-barrel oil
spill in 2011, and the company also agreed to pay $150 million to
settle civil lawsuits related to the case, according to Reuters.

Mr. Boyd said Canada levied $2.47 million (Canadian) in fines for
environmental infractions under the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act between 1988 and 2010 -- less than the $3.65 million
the Toronto Public Library collected in overdue book fines in
2012.

In contrast, the U.S. -- where Mr. Boyd said enforcement of
environmental laws has been "much more aggressive" -- the
Environment Protection Agency levied $204 million (U.S.) in civil
fines and won court cases securing another $44 million in criminal
fines from environmental lawbreakers in 2012 alone.

"It's just indicative of how absolutely scandalous Canada's failure
to enforce environmental laws has been over the past 25 years," he
said.

The Canadian government launched its own investigation into the
Volkswagen emissions-cheating issue in September 2015, after the
U.S. EPA issued a notice to Volkswagen alleging the company had
violated the Clean Air Act.

In a statement at the time, Environment Canada said Canadian laws
and regulations "prohibit vehicle manufacturers and importers from
equipping a vehicle with a defeat device."

The department is still investigating Volkswagen for alleged
environmental infractions, said Eric Campbell, director of
communications for Environment Minister Catherine McKenna.

"Investigations relating to alleged violations of the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act are often highly complex and we must
be certain that we have gathered and analyzed all of the necessary
evidence and supporting information before any charges are filed,"
he said in a statement.

Meanwhile, the company has been fined billions of dollars in the
U.S. and Germany, and millions in Brazil and South Korea in the
wake of the emissions scandal.

Volkswagen paid the equivalent of $1.5 billion (Canadian) in fines
in Germany and $12 billion in the U.S., according to an analysis by
Environmental Defence, which is launching a public campaign to
pressure Ottawa to take action against the company.

In the U.S. case, Volkswagen also agreed not to contradict anything
outlined in the plea agreement or statement of facts in other
jurisdictions.

South of the border, that money was earmarked for initiatives to
reduce nitrogen oxide emissions, which are harmful to human health,
and improve infrastructure for zero-emission vehicles.

In Canada, Mr. Campbell said that "the government's investigation
is proceeding in a comprehensive and methodical manner."

"This is a complex case involving both domestic and foreign
organizations, and a number of alleged offences under (the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act)," he said.

But it's not clear to Mr. Boyd or Mr. Gray why the investigation
would take longer in Canada than the U.S.

"We have politicians who like to talk about the polluter pays, but
we really don't make polluters pay in this country," Mr. Boyd said.
"It really is almost unbelievable the extent to which Canada treats
corporate environmental criminals with kid gloves."

Environmental Defence, the Canadian Association of Physicians for
the Environment and their lawyers at Ecojustice hope that won't be
the case this time.

They made an official request for the environment minister to take
charge of the government's probe into Volkswagen due to the
"slowness" of Environment Canada's investigation. The request was
denied because the federal department was already investigating the
allegations, but the organizations have continued to fight in court
for disclosure of records relevant to the Volkswagen
investigation.

"This is an easy and necessary way to help advance our climate
agenda and at the same time send a clear message to corporate
polluters that if you violate Canadian laws, you will be prosecuted
and you will pay the price for that," Mr. Gray said.

Correction -- Sept. 17, 2018: This article was edited from a
previous version that mistakenly said Volkswagen settled one
lawsuit, a $2.1-billion class action lawsuit in 2017. In fact, the
company is implementing two settlements worth a combined $2.4
billion. This article also misstated the name of Petro-Canada.
[GN]


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Braunschweig Court Criticizes Ex-CEO Behavior
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xinhua reported that the Braunschweig Higher Regional Court has
criticized the response of former Volkswagen chief executive
officer (CEO) Martin Winterkorn to the "dieselgate" scandal during
a closely-watched class action trial on Sept. 11.

Christian Jaede, the presiding judge, questioned why Winterkorn had
not told Volkswagen shareholders about potential issues surrounding
the installation of illicit software to understate nitrogen oxide
(NOx) from diesel vehicles after he was informed internally in July
2015.

The trial which opened on Sept. 10 centers on allegations by
investors that Volkswagen failed to inform about its involvement in
emissions-cheating practices in adequate and timely fashion. The
so-called "template lawsuit", in which several plaintiffs unite to
press charges collectively and resolve key questions to set a legal
precedent, was only recently enabled by new legislation passed by
the federal government in Berlin in response to the "dieselgate"
scandal.

In total, the group of mainly institutional investors who
participate in the German "template lawsuit" is now demanding the
repayment of 9 billion euros (10.4 billion U.S. dollars) in
compensation from the carmaker.

A key question of interest to the Braunschweig judges as well as
German public is from which point onwards Volkswagen managers at
the DAX-listed firm became aware of illicit emissions-cheating
practices and would have hence been legally obliged to issue a
warning to shareholders.

Volkswagen has argued that there was no substantive evidence to
justify such a step prior to the publication of accusations by U.S.
environmental regulators in September 2015, whereas the plaintiffs
claim that senior staff had detailed knowledge about the illegal
practices as early as June 2008.

The Braunschweig State Prosecution Office currently lists 49
suspects in its investigations into emissions-cheating at German
carmakers. A small number of senior Volkswagen executives,
including ex-CEO Winterkorn, his successor Diess and board chairman
Hans Dieter Poetsch are hereby believed to have potentially
committed "market manipulation" offenses under German laws that
govern the conduct of publicly-listed companies.

Speaking on Sept. 11, judge Jaede suggested that a
technically-versed Winterkorn should have known about the defeat
devices from 2008 onwards. In the same year, Volkswagen organized a
"diesel strategy" summit in the United States shortly after the
German Environmental Aid (DUH) group first flagged ongoing
manipulations of test-setting emission readings from the automotive
producer's diesel exhaust systems. [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: German Consumer Body to File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hans-Edzard Busemann and Jan Schwartz, writing for Reuters,
reported that Volkswagen will face another class action lawsuit
over its rigging of diesel emissions tests, this time at home when
Germany introduces a new law in November.

State-financed consumer protection organization vzbv said on Sept.
12 it would undertake "pioneering work" with motorists' lobby group
ADAC by filing for damages on behalf of car owners.

The class action was made possible after the German cabinet
approved a draft law in May that will allow consumer protection
organizations to litigate on behalf of the consumers they
represent, avoiding the high legal costs that might otherwise put
people off bringing legal action.

Vzbv said it would aim to show that owners of VW, Audi, Skoda and
Seat cars with so-called type EA 189 diesel engines had been
intentionally harmed by the Volkswagen's use of software that was
used to cheat emissions tests

Volkswagen said the possibility did not change its view that there
was no legal basis for consumers to make claims in connection to
the diesel issue in Germany.

Vzbv said it wanted to get compensation for some 2 million owners
of diesel cars that were not as environmentally friendly as VW said
they were at the time of purchase.

VW admitted in 2015 it had used illegal engine control devices to
cheat U.S. emissions tests.

Nearly all U.S. owners of affected cars agreed to take part in a
$25 billion settlement in 2016 in the United States that addressed
claims from them, environmental regulators, U.S. states and dealers
and included buyback offers and additional compensation for about
500,000 owners.

VW had rejected criticism that the compensation for U.S. car owners
was not extended to other jurisdictions.

Consumers have brought lawsuits in countries including Switzerland,
Australia and Belgium.

Information for motorists on how to join the German action is due
to be posted at https://www.musterfeststellungsklagen.de/ [GN]


WELLS FARGO: $480MM Settlement in Hefler Suit Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARY HEFLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO &
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-05479-JST (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted both (i) the Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement and
for class certification; and (ii) the parties' motion to file under
seal a confidential supplemental agreement.

The Plaintiffs bring the federal securities class action against
Wells Fargo and several of its officers and directors for
violations of sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities and Exchange Commission's
Rule 10b-5.

Union alleges that the Defendants made repeated misrepresentations
and omissions about a core element of Wells Fargo's business: its
acclaimed 'cross-selling' business model artificially inflating its
stock price.  Union seeks damages related to this inflation of
Wells Fargo's stock price and its subsequent decline when the truth
about Wells Fargo's practices came to light through a series of
disclosures in September 2016.

Hefler filed the initial complaint in the action on Sept. 26, 2016.
Several related lawsuits based on the same misconduct were
subsequently filed against Wells Fargo.  On Jan. 5, 2017, the Court
granted Union's motion to consolidate Hefler v. Wells Fargo & Co.,
Case No. 16-cv-5479, with Klein v. Wells Fargo & Co., Case No.
16-cv-5513, and to appoint Union as the Lead Plaintiff, Motley Rice
LLC as the Lead Counsel, and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as
the Liaison Counsel.  The Court later granted Union's motion to
substitute Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP as the Lead
Counsel.

Wells Fargo and the Individual Defendants filed a set of eight
motions to dismiss, which the Court granted in part and denied in
part on Feb. 27, 2018.  Shortly thereafter, Union filed the
operative second amended class action complaint.

On July 31, 2018, Union filed an unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of a settlement, and the parties filed a motion to file
under seal a confidential supplemental agreement to the proposed
settlement.

As part of its preliminary approval motion, Union requests
certification for the class, for settlement purposes, of all
persons and entities who purchased Wells Fargo common stock from
Feb. 26, 2014 through Sept. 20, 2016, inclusive.

Union further requests that the Court appoint Union and four other
Named Plaintiffs -- Hefler, Marcelo Mizuki, Guy Solomonov, and City
of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System -- as the class
representatives and the Lead Counsel as the class counsel.

Under the Settlement, Wells Fargo has agreed to pay $480 million
into the Settlement Fund within 15 days of the entry of a
preliminary approval order.  The following amounts will be
subtracted from the Settlement Amount: (1) taxes; (2) notice costs;
(3) attorneys' fees and expenses; and (4) service awards to the
class representatives.  Pursuant to the proposed plan of
allocation, the class members who submit timely claims will receive
payments on a pro rata basis based on the date(s) class members
purchased and sold Wells Fargo common stock, as well as the total
number and amount of claims filed.

Nine months after the initial distribution, the Claims
Administrator will make additional re-distributions to the class
members if it is cost effective to do so.  Any Settlement Funds not
distributed to the class will be paid to a cy pres recipient: the
Investor Protection Trust.

In order to inform class members of the Settlement, Union proposes
the following notice plan.  Within 15 days of the Court's
preliminary approval order, the Claims Administrator will begin
mailing the Notice and Claim Form to those members of the
Settlement Class as may be identified through reasonable effort.
To facilitate this process, Wells Fargo will provide the Claims
Administrator with Wells Fargo's shareholder lists of the holders
of Wells Fargo common stock during the Class Period.

No more than 25 days after preliminary approval, the Claims
Administrator will also publish the Summary Notice in the Wall
Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times, and transmit it over the
PR Newswire.  Union estimates that the Claims Administrator's
administrative costs will be $2.5 million, which it proposes to pay
from the Settlement Fund.

The Lead Counsel also intends to seek attorneys' fees for all the
Named Plaintiffs' counsel in an amount not to exceed 20% of the
Settlement Fund, an award of litigation expenses of no more than
$750,000, and an award to the class representatives not to exceed
an aggregate total of $50,000.

Judge Tigar (1) conditionally certified the proposed class for
settlement purposes; (2) granted the motion to file the
confidential supplemental agreement under seal; (3) and
preliminarily approved the class action settlement, notice plan (as
modified), and allocation plan.  The fairness hearing will be held
on Dec. 18, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.  All other dates and deadlines will
be calculated pursuant to the terms of the Settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 4, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/6ZSkVJ from Leagle.com.

Gary Hefler, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, represented by Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Aelish Marie Baig --
aelishb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Jason C.
Davis -- jdavis@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Union Asset Management Holding AG, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn
A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Adam H. Wierzbowski
-- adam@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro
hac vice, Aelish Marie Baig, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Angus Fei Ni -- angus.ni@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Blair Allen Nicholas --
blairn@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann,
Danielle Suzanne Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jason C. Davis, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Jeroen Van Kwawegen -- jeroen@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein
Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Rebecca E. Boon --
Rebecca.Boon@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann
LLP, pro hac vice & Salvatore J. Graziano -- sgraziano@blbglaw.com
-- Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice.

Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago,
Plaintiff, represented by Blair Allen Nicholas, Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann.

Marcelo Mizuki, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn A. Williams,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Guy Solomonov, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn A. Williams, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Steve Klein, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti,
Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy A.
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Wells Fargo & Company, Defendant, represented by Brendan P. Cullen
-- cullenb@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Christopher M.
Viapiano -- viapianoc@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro
hac vice, Nicolas Bourtin -- bourtinn@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Richard H. Klapper --
klapperr@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice &
Sverker Kristoffer Hogberg -- hogbergs@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP.

John G. Stumpf, Defendant, represented by Grant P. Fondo --
gfondo@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, Lloyd Winawer --
lwinawer@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, Nicholas A. Reider
-- nreider@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP & Richard M.
Strassberg -- rstrassberg@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP,
pro hac vice.

John R. Shrewsberry, Defendant, represented by Ismail Jomo Ramsey,
Ramsey & Ehrlich LLP -- izzy@ramsey-ehrlich.com -- Katharine Ann
Kates -- katharine@ramsey-ehrlich.com -- Ramsey & Ehrlich LLP &
Miles F. Ehrlich -- miles@ramsey-ehrlich.com -- Ramsey & Ehrlich
LLP.

Carrie L. Tolstedt, Defendant, represented by Enu A. Mainigi,
Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey E. Faucette, Skaggs
Faucette LLP & Leslie Cooper Vigen -- lvigen@wc.com -- Williams &
Connolly LLP, pro hac vice.

Oregon Public Employees Retirement System, Defendant, represented
by Cadio R. Zirpoli -- cadio@saveri.com -- Saveri & Saveri, Inc..

Timothy J. Sloan, Defendant, represented by Josh Alan Cohen --
jcohen@clarencedyer.com -- Clarence Dyer & Cohen LLP, Adam F.
Shearer -- ashearer@clarencedyer.com -- Clarence Dyer & Cohen LLP &
Nanci L. Clarence -- nclarence@clarencedyer.com -- Clarence Dyer &
Cohen LLP.

David M. Carroll, Defendant, represented by James Neil Kramer --
jkramer@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Lily
Irene Becker -- lbecker@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and
Sutcliffe & Walter F. Brown -- wbrown@orrick.com -- Orrick
Herrington & Suutcliffe LLP.

David Julian, Defendant, represented by Timothy Paul Crudo --
tcrudo@coblentzlaw.com -- Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP & Rees
Ferriter Morgan -- rmorgan@coblentzlaw.com -- Coblentz Patch Duffy
& Bass LLP.

Hope A. Hardison, Defendant, represented by Edward W. Swanson --
ed@smllp.law -- Swanson & McNamara LLP & Mary Geraldine McNamara --
mary@smllp.law -- Swanson & McNamara LLP.

Michael J. Loughlin, Defendant, represented by Ted W. Cassman --
cassman@achlaw.com -- Arguedas Cassman & Headley, LLP & Laurel L.
Headley -- headley@achlaw.com -- Arguedas Cassman & Headley, LLP.


WELLS FARGO: Dec. 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY HEFLER et al.,    
Plaintiffs,

vs.

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cv-05479-JST
CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD
OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:  All persons and entities who, during the period from February
26, 2014 through September 20, 2016, inclusive, purchased the
common stock of Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo") (the
"Settlement Class"):

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class
Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III)
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached
a proposed settlement of the Action for $480,000,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.

The Action involves allegations that Wells Fargo and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Plaintiffs allege that, during the period from February 26, 2014
through September 20, 2016, Wells Fargo and certain of its officers
and directors made misrepresentations and omissions about Wells
Fargo's "cross-selling" business model, including failing to
disclose that thousands of Wells Fargo employees were opening
unauthorized deposit and credit card accounts without the knowledge
or consent of Wells Fargo's customers, in violation of Sections
10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").  Plaintiffs also allege that certain Individual
Defendants sold Wells Fargo common stock while in possession of
material non-public information, in violation of Section 20A of the
Exchange Act.  Defendants deny the allegations in the Action and
deny any violations of the federal securities laws.  Issues and
defenses at issue in the Action included (i) whether Defendants
made materially false statements; (ii) whether Defendants made the
statements with the required state of mind; (iii) whether the
alleged misstatements caused class members' losses; and (iv) the
amount of damages, if any.  

A hearing will be held on December 18, 2018 at 2:00 p.m., before
the Honorable Jon S. Tigar at the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, Courtroom 9 of the Phillip
Burton Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue,
San Francisco, CA 94102, to determine (i) whether the proposed
Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated July 30, 2018 (and in
the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv)
whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Wells Fargo
Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq, P.O. Box 3770, Portland, OR
97208-3770, 1-855-349-6457.  Copies of the Notice and Claim Form
can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims
Administrator, www.WellsFargoSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than January 23, 2019.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be
bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than November 27, 2018,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be submitted to the Court no later
than November 27, 2018, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Wells Fargo,
any other Defendants or their counsel regarding this notice.  All
questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

         BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
         Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
         1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
         New York, NY 10020
         Tel: (800) 380-8496
         settlements@blbglaw.com

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

         Wells Fargo Securities Litigation
         c/o Epiq
         P.O. Box 3770
         Portland, OR 97208-3770
         855-349-6457
         www.WellsFargoSecuritiesLitigation.com

By Order of the Court

WESTERN UNION: Judge Cuts Attorney's Fees in TCPA Case Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DM Herra, writing for Cook County Record, reported that a federal
judge gave a blistering condemnation of Chicago class action
attorney Joseph Siprut's request for fees in a settlement in which
he had requested more than $2 million for obtaining class members
settlements around $95 each.

Mr. Siprut, of Siprut P.C., will instead receive $425,000 for his
work representing a class of 54,315 people who allegedly received
unsolicited text messages from Western Union in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Within three months of the
litigation's filing, the two sides had entered into mediation. A
year later, a settlement had been reached in principle, which was
confirmed with little difficulty.

In approving the settlement, U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman
said he was given "great pause, not about the appropriateness of
class certification or the size of the class settlement, but about
the conduct and representations of lead class counsel." Judge
Feinerman said he deliberately waited for the conclusion of a
similar class action suit in which Siprut represented the
plaintiffs and had made what the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals called "rapacious requests for fees."

In the settlement, Western Union agreed to pay $8.5 million. The
original agreement called for about $5.2 million to be divided
among the plaintiffs. The lead plaintiff would receive a $5,000
incentive award and more than $481,000 will be set aside for notice
and administration costs. The agreement asked for the remaining
$2.8 million, about 35 percent of the total, to be paid to Mr.
Siprut for attorney fees.

Judge Feinerman certified the class and approved the total
settlement amount, calling both appropriate. He clarified the
language describing the class and ordered a second email notice be
sent to class members who had not filed claims.

When it came to the attorney fees, Judge Feinerman wrote that it
appeared Siprut had attempted to make it appear his team did more
work than they possibly could have done in order to justify a
larger fee. In a class action settlement, the court is free to set
attorney fees based on either a percentage of the award or on an
estimate of how many hours the attorney likely spent negotiating
the award.

Judge Feinerman said Mr. Siprut "started off on the wrong foot"
when he challenged an objector's credibility based on a nonexistent
felony history, then refused to apologize. Mr. Siprut did apologize
after several more hearings, though the judge felt the apology
lacked sincerity and any real admission of wrongdoing.

"If that were the extent of Siprut's missteps . . . this would have
remained an ordinary case," Judge Feinerman continued. "But it was
not."

To support his request for fees, Mr. Siprut attested that he and
his staff spent more than 2,164 man-hours on the settlement.
According to court documents, Mr. Siprut provided a chart breaking
down the time he and four staffers spent on each of 15 categories.
Each person's time was recorded to the tenth of an hour in each
category. But when the court tried to get actual time records, Mr.
Siprut said they did not exist.

Because the number of reported hours "seemed excessive for a case
that was barely litigated before going to mediation," the court
asked the defendant's attorneys how many hours they had billed on
the case and learned it was less than 1,000.

The law does not require attorneys to maintain records of the hours
spent on a case as they go, and permits them to reconstruct their
hours at a later date, as Mr.Siprut did. But Judge Feinerman
theorized that by providing a detailed chart breaking time down to
the tenth of an hour, Mr. Siprut intended to create a false
impression that his staff had spent many hours and kept detailed
records.

The fruit of this labor is underwhelming, Judge Feinerman wrote,
noting that it was difficult for him to believe the few boilerplate
documents entered into the record took hundreds of hours to create.
According to Mr. Siprut's chart, more than 385 hours were spent on
"post-mediation communications and drafting settlement agreement,"
but no post-mediation communications were provided and the
settlement agreement is largely boilerplate.

"It is simply impossible that Siprut and his colleagues spent
anywhere near 385 hours on those tasks," Judge Feinerman wrote. "In
the extremely unlikely event that they did, the time they spent was
wholly unreasonable."

Given his belief that the hours had been inflated, leaving a
smaller pool of money for the class members, the judge said he
would have been within his rights to deny attorney's fees
altogether. But given the positive outcome for the class and the
fact that Mr. Siprut will be responsible for any administrative
expenses over and above the amount set aside for them, Judge
Feinerman set the fees at $425,000 -- just 5 percent of the total
settlement and millions less than Mr. Siprut requested.

"This substantial reduction is warranted in light of the uniquely
distressing circumstances of this case," Judge Feinerman wrote.
"The difference between Siprut's requested fees and costs and the
fees and costs awarded will revert to the class." [GN]


WHIRLPOOL: Sued Over AquaLift Self-Cleaning Technology
------------------------------------------------------
Chris Rickert, writing for State Journal, reports that Jan Rohde's
monthslong dispute with Whirlpool over her not-so-self-cleaning
self-cleaning Whirlpool oven is coming to a close.

On Sept. 3, she wrote to say she'd received a $1,410 refund for the
oven, including taxes.

SOS has fielded some 20 complaints from Whirlpool customers upset
that Whirlpool's low-heat AquaLift self-cleaning technology doesn't
work. Attorneys are also seeking class-action status for a suit
against Whirlpool claiming the technology doesn't work. [GN]


YVES SAINT LAURENT: Diaz Files ADA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yves Saint Laurent
America, Inc. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Yves Saint Laurent
America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09248 (S.D. N.Y., Oct.
9, 2018).

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

Yves Saint Laurent manufactures fashion products for men and
women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


[*] Gerry Brownlee Accused of Intimidating Class Action Lawyer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Newstalk ZB reported that Gerry Brownlee is being accused of
bullying and intimidating a lawyer involved in a class action.

Auckland law firm Adina Thorn is planning a class action against
manufacturers of non-compliant steel mesh.

The firm says Mr. Brownlee telephoned and confronted a junior
solicitor with a number of allegations and complaints, and made
bullying comment in a 15-minute call.

Ms. Thorn herself says she's appalled a senior member of Parliament
would attempt to intimidate anyone planning a legal action.

She says the motivation for his call seems unclear.

Mr. Brownless denies he was bullying the solicitor. [GN]


[*] JND Legal Administration Named #1 Claims Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------
JND Legal Administration, a legal management and administration
company serving law firms, companies and government entities, on
Oct. 9 disclosed that it has been recognized as the best claims
administrator according to the Ninth Annual New York Law Journal
Best of Survey.  JND was ranked #1 among 11 other service provider
nominees in the claims administrator category, one of the top three
legal notice and advertising services, and among the top three
end-to-end eDiscovery providers.

"It is an honor to be voted the #1 claims administrator and among
the top three service providers in two other categories by the New
York Law Journal readership and legal community at large," comments
David Isaac, executive co-chairman and co-founder of JND Legal
Administration.  "We truly appreciate this noteworthy recognition
for the comprehensive range of services and resources we provide to
meet our clients' diverse legal administration needs."

This award makes the third year in a row that JND has been voted
the top legal administration firm by the readers of leading legal
publications, further enhancing its reputation as an industry
leader that is one of the fastest-growing companies in this space.
Under the direction of industry veterans Jennifer Keough, Neil Zola
and David Isaac, the firm has recently expanded its core service
lines to include lien resolution management alongside its existing
mass tort, class action administration, eDiscovery, corporate
restructuring, and government services divisions.

The New York Law Journal Best of Survey, formerly known as Reader
Rankings, is an annual survey of lawyers, legal support staff and
other legal personnel who vote on a range of companies nominated as
the best providers of legal products and services.  The 2018 survey
launched on June 25 and concluded on July 24, featuring companies
in dozens of categories.  The full results of the ranking were
published in a special print supplement to The New York Law Journal
on Sept. 24.

                 About JND Legal Administration

JND Legal Administration -- http://www.jndla.com-- is a legal
management and administration company led by industry veterans who
are passionate about providing superior service to clients.  Armed
with decades of expertise and a powerful set of tools, JND has deep
experience expertly navigating the intricacies of multiple,
intersecting service lines including class action settlements,
corporate restructuring, eDiscovery, mass tort claims and
government services.  JND is trusted by law firms, government
agencies and Fortune 500 companies across the nation.  The company
is backed by Stone Point Capital and has offices in California,
Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Washington and Washington, D.C.


[*] South Korea Justice Minister to Expand Class Action System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yonhap reported that Justice Minister Park Sang-ki said on Sept. 17
the government will try to expand the class action lawsuit system
so as to enable consumers to file such suits not only in
stock-related cases, but also in other areas.

Justice Park made the remark during a meeting with victims of
high-profile consumer cases, such as a series of fires involving
BMW cars and deaths caused by humidifier sterilizers. The meeting
was set up to discuss expanding the class action suit system.

A class action lawsuit refers to a system where not only those
participating in a suit, but also other consumers can receive
damages without filing separate suits. In South Korea, the system
is allowed only in stock-related cases, but calls have risen for
its expansion, especially in the wake of the BMW fires.

"We're going to introduce the class action lawsuit system in areas
where group damage can occur in a repetitive manner, while
improving the criteria for such suits and procedures in a
reasonable way," Justice Park said during the meeting.

Justice Park also said the government will put together detailed
measures to expand the system. [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 ***