CAR_Public/181017.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, October 17, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 208

                            Headlines

ABBVIE INC: Class Certification Bid in Rubinstein Suit Underway
ABILITY RECOVERY: Court Denies Baum's Bid to Conduct Discovery
ADROIT HEALTH: Becker Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
BLUE CROSS: Response Deadline Extended to Nov. 3
C.TECH COLLECTIONS: Genovese's FDCPA Suit Filed in New York Ct.

CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT IT: Fierro Sues over Recording of Phone Calls
CARMAZZI INC: Faces Chapman Suit in California Superior Court
CHICO'S FAS: Settlement Agreement Reached in Altman Suit
CHOICE FARM: Banda Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
CITIGROUP INC: Court Denies Certification of Two Classes

CNA NATIONAL: Court Awards $32K Attorney's Fees in USERRA Suit
COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL: Stone & Co. Sues over Unsolicited Fax Ads
COMPREHENSIVE QUALITY: Ristick Files Class Suit Under FLSA
CONDUENT INC: Faces Crockett Suit in Cal. State Court
CONTAINER STORE: Rodono Sues over Gift Card Policy

CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class
CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: Court Won't Certify Class in Heisler Suit
CSX CORP: Lumberton Residents Sue over Flooding
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE: Whitaker et al. File Appeal in 2nd Circuit
DITECH FINANCIAL: Capito Suit Alleges Truth in Lending Act Breach

DNA DIAGNOSTICS: Advantage's Bid to Certify TCPA Class Denied
DOLLAR TREE: Continues to Defend Illinois Class Action
DOLLAR TREE: Court Certifies State-Wide Class Action
DOLLAR TREE: Former Store Manager Appeals Verdict
DOLLAR TREE: Parties in Dress Code Suit to Consider Settlement

DYSON DIRECT: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Burbon Says
EMPIRE STRUCTURAL: Valencia Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Eisen Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
FILTREX SERVICE: Blount Suit Transferred to N.D. Oklahoma
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Heaton Brings FDCPA Suit in New York Ct.

FLORIDA HEALTH: Womble Bond Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
FORD MOTOR: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification
G. FAZIO CONSTRUCTION: Gutama Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
GC SERVICES: Class Certified Under FDCPA in Dickens Suit
GONGOS INC: Kraft Moves to Certify Class of Research Coordinators

HAIN CELESTIAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
HAIN CELESTIAL: Stockholder Class and Derivative Suit Still Stayed
HALLRICH INC: Jefferis Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage under FLSA
HANLEES FREMONT: Court Dismisses Chaiwong UCL Suit
HAYT HAYT: Velez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida

HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Faces Faust's FDCPA Suit in New York
HILTON HOTELS: White's Bid for Class Certification Denied
ILLINOIS DHS: Davis Sues over Medical Leave of Absence
IM USA CORP: Violates ADA, Fischler Suit Says
INDIANA: Court Won't Review Approval of Class Certification

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Age Discrimination Class Action
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Holt Sues over Sale of Talcum Powder
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Rowtons Sue over Sale of Talcum Powder
KROGER CO: Court Refuses to Certify Ohio Class in Hardesty Suit
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend Gathmann-Landini Suit

MARBREN TIRE: Valverde Suit Asserts FLSA Breach
MBR MANAGEMENT: Court Grants Arbitration in Tourville FLSA Suit
MDL 2873: 3M Asks Panel to Transfer PFAS Cases to Mass or S.D.N.Y.
MEDTRONIC PLC: Agreement Reached in INFUSE Bone Graft Related Suit
MEDTRONIC PLC: Continues to Defend St. Paul Teachers' Suit

MEDTRONIC PLC: Still Defends Covidien Acquisition Related-Suit
MICHAELS COMPANIES: Settlement of FCRA Suits Pending
MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Rules Class Certification Deemed Moot
MODERNIZE INC: Bid for Class Certification Dismissed as Moot
MONSANTO COMPANY: Martinez Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Wins Prelim. Approval of Gadime Suit Settlement
NATROL LLC: Jensen Moves to Certify UCL and CLRA Classes
NEOKLIS VASILIADES: Alvarez Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
NEUROBRANDS LLC: Young & Goodwin Sue over Product Misbranding
NEW AGE: Bailey Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

NEWELL BRANDS: Court Consolidates Securities Suits
NURSE FORCE: Class of Therapists and Nurses Certified in "Pinard"
OASIS RETIREMENT: Clark Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Court Denies Class Certification in CFPB Suit
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Court Denies Class Certification in Florida Case

PLAINS ALL: Court Denies Dismissal of Oil Spill Damages Suit
PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: FLSA Settlement in McKeen-Chaplin Suit Okayed
PRUCO LIFE: Behfarin Seeks Certification of Class and Sub-Class
QUALCOMM: Court Grants Class Certification in Antitrust Litigation
RADISYS CORP: Rosenblatt and Shemali Cases Voluntarily Dismissed

RALPH LAUREN: Faces Gilmore Suit in California State Court
RELATED COMPANIES: Faces Diaz ADA Suit in New York
RESOLUTE SECURITY: Faces Thornton Suit in California State Court
ROBERT BOSCH: Berry et al. Sue over CP4 Fuel Injection Pump Defect
ROCKLER RETAIL: Faces Murphy Suit in California Superior Court

SALESFORCE.COM INC: $6.25MM Accord in Simms Suit Awaits Final OK
SAMARITAN LLC: Gaytan Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
SERVICESOURCE DELAWARE: Patton Moves to Certify Sales Reps Class
SHELTER MUTUAL: Baggett Suit Moved to Eastern District of Arkansas
SONIC REFERENCE: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SPRINT CORP: Oliphant Seeks to Certify Operation Specialists Class
SSMB PACIFIC: Faces Alatorre Suit in California Superior Court
ST. MATTHEWS BAPTIST: Tasco Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
STILLMAN LAW: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Bencosme FDCPA Suit
SUNRUN INC: Preliminary Approval of Slovin Case Settlement Sought

SVB FINANCIAL: Violates ADA, Diaz Suit Says
TATA CONSULTANCY: Court Refuses to Reconsider Sept. 10 Ruling
TELELINK LLC: Awad et al. Seek Unpaid Wages under FLSA
TENNECO INC: Cryar Suit Dismissed
TERRA VISTA: Mendrella Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

TILLY'S INC: Court Grants Final Approval of Minniti Case Accord
TILLY'S INC: Gonzales Class Action Complaint Dismissed
TILLY'S INC: Oral Argument in Ward Case Appeal to Begin November
TOLL GLOBAL: Marquez Seeks Minimum Wage and OT under Labor Code
TOTAL LOOK: Johnson Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA

TRIPLE S. PROPERTIES: Court Denies Bid for Negative Inference
UNITED STATES: Certification of Classes Sought in Suit v. HHS
UNITED STATES: Serrano Suit vs. CBP Tossed; Bid to Certify Denied
VAN RU CREDIT: Driscoll Sues over alleged Excess Collection Calls
VIMO INC: Miholich Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls

WAG LABS: Provisional Certification of FLSA Collective Sought
WAL-MART STORES: Court Narrows Claims in Garcia Suit
WICKED GOOD: Kiler Brings ADA Suit v. Cupcake Bakery

                            *********

ABBVIE INC: Class Certification Bid in Rubinstein Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned MURRAY RUBINSTEIN, et al.
Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD GONZALEZ and ABBVIE, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:14-cv-09465 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow,
Jr. entered an order directing the parties to file supplemental
materials on the Daubert issues relating to the pending motions for
class certification in this case.

The Court said, "Defendants are given until Oct. 12, 2018 to file a
formal motion to exclude the portions of Coffman's proposed
testimony to which they object, along with a memorandum in support.
The Plaintiffs are given until Oct. 31, 2018 to file a response.
The Defendants are given until Nov. 9, 2018 to file a reply if they
wish to do so. The Plaintiffs' original motion for class
certification is stricken as it has been superseded by the amended
motion."[CC]


ABILITY RECOVERY: Court Denies Baum's Bid to Conduct Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned JOSEPH BAUM, the Plaintiff,
vs ABILITY RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
17-CV-5799-ARR-JO (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge James Orenstein
entered an order on Sept. 27, 2018, denying Plaintiff's motion for
leave to serve subpoena seeking documents and testimony in order to
gather evidence that he hopes will support a motion to certify a
class.

Judge Orenstein said, "I conclude that permitting the discovery
Baum now proposes would do nothing more than put him into a
position to seek a class certification that the court would likely
have strong reason to deny. Moreover, denying Baum the requested
discovery would not impair either his own interests or those of the
putative class members. Each would in any event be in a position to
seek an award of full statutory damages on an individual basis --
and if Ability's response to the instant action provides any useful
indication of its likely reaction to future actions, each is likely
to prevail. Thus, allowing class discovery would impose a burden on
Ability that is not necessary to protect any person's cognizable
interest in prosecuting a viable legal claim. For that reason, I
deny the motion."[CC]


ADROIT HEALTH: Becker Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Cody Becker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Adroit Health Group, LLC, Case No. 0:18-cv-61931 (S.D.
Fla., August 17, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Broward County, Florida.

The Defendant is an insurance marketing agency that sells health
and wellness benefits. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE CROSS: Response Deadline Extended to Nov. 3
------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order Extending Time to Respond in
the case captioned J.R., by and through his parents and guardians,
Ju.R, and Ja.R., individually, on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS;
CATHOLIC HEALTH INITIATIVES MEDICAL PLAN; and CATHOLIC HEALTH
INITIATIVES, Defendants. Cause No. 18-cv-1191 JLR. (W.D. Wash.)

The Court finds no party will suffer prejudice in allowing the
extension the time for which the CHI Defendants have to respond to
the Class Action Complaint.  The Court finds there is good cause to
grant the extension.  Accordingly, the CHI Defendants' time in
which to answer the Class Action Complaint or file a motion for
relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 is extended to November 3, 2018.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9zlfaa8
from Leagle.com.

J. R., by and through his parents and guardians, Ju.R. and Ja.R.,
individually, on behalf of similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, represented by Richard E. Spoonemore, SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER & Eleanor Hamburger, SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE
HAMBURGE.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, Defendant, represented by
Gwendolyn C. Payton -- gpayton@kilpatricktownsend.com -- KILPATRICK
TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP.

Catholic Health Initiatives Medical Plan & Catholic Health
Initiatives, Defendants, represented by Lars S. Golumbic --
lgolumbic@groom.com -- GROOM LAW GROUP, CHTD., pro hac vice, Paul
J. Rinefierd -- prinefierd@groom.com -- GROOM LAW GROUP, CHTD., pro
hac vice & Jeffrey G. Maxwell, MCKENZIE ROTHWELL BARLOW & COUGHRAN,
P.S.


C.TECH COLLECTIONS: Genovese's FDCPA Suit Filed in New York Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C.Tech Collections,
Inc. The case is styled as Leonard Genovese individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C.Tech
Collections, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05660 (E.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 10, 2018).

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

C.Tech Collections, Inc. is a collection agency focusing on
delinquent receivables.[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


CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT IT: Fierro Sues over Recording of Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDGARDO FIERRO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT IT, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability company; FIRST CALL RESOLUTION, LLC, an Oregon
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UNC-2018-12053 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept.
25, 2018), alleges that the Defendants violated the California's
Invasion Privacy Act by unlawful recording phone calls made to the
Defendants from the Plaintiff and other California consumers at
telephone number 1-844-607-9355 and other customer service
telephone numbers for CLWI.

According to the complaint, the Defendants intentionally record all
telephone calls made to CLWI.  The Defendants have a policy and
practice of recording telephone conversations without caller
consent. Specifically, the Defendants practice violates Penal Code
section 632, which prohibits the recording of confidential
communications made by telephone without the consent of all parties
to the communication, the lawsuit says.

Can't Live Without It, LLC, doing business as S'well Bottle,
designs and manufactures stainless steel bottles.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq.
          Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
          Alex P. Katofsky, Esq.
          Sepideh Ardestani, Esq.
          GAINES & GAINES, APLC
          27200 Agoura Road, Suite 101
          Calabasas, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 703 8985
          Facsimile: (818) 703 8984
          E-mail: ken@gaineslawfirm.com
                  daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
                  alex@gaineslawfirm.com
                  sepideh@gaineslawfirm.com


CARMAZZI INC: Faces Chapman Suit in California Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carmazzi Inc. The
lawsuit is captioned as Kristen Chapman, Rick Frame, Ana Maria
Guillen, Mary Naufel, Eleni O'Leary, and Mark Sitterson, on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs Carmazzi Inc.,
Angela Carmazzi, and James Carmazzi, the Defendants, Case No.
34-2018-00241370-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Sup. Ct., Sept. 25, 2018).

Carmazzi, Inc. was founded in 1998. The company's line of business
includes providing various business services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Jeffrey Robert Krinsk, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK
          550 W C St Ste 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101-3545
          Telephone: (619) 238 1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238 5425


CHICO'S FAS: Settlement Agreement Reached in Altman Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, 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, Altman v.
White House Black Market, Inc., have reached a class settlement
agreement.

In July 2015, White House Black Market, Inc. (WHBM) was named as a
defendant in Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., a putative
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia. The complaint alleges that WHBM, in
violation of federal law, willfully published more than the last
five digits of a credit or debit card number on customers'
point-of-sale receipts. The plaintiff seeks an award of statutory
damages of $100 to $1,000 for each alleged willful violation of the
law, as well as attorneys' fees, costs and punitive damages. The
Company denies the material allegations of the complaint and
believes the case is without merit. On February 12, 2018, the
District Court issued an order certifying the class.

On April 9, 2018, the District Court, sua sponte, issued an order
granting WHBM's earlier 2016 request to appeal, to the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals, the District Court's ruling that the
plaintiff has standing to maintain the lawsuit. On April 19, 2018,
WHBM filed a petition for review in the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals.

In the meantime, the District Court stayed all further proceedings
in the case pending the outcome of the appeal in the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals.

On July 12, 2018, the plaintiff and WHBM notified the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals that the plaintiff and WHBM reached a
class settlement on all claims and therefore voluntarily dismissed
WHBM's appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. On August
2, 2018, the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia reopened the proceedings on the case for purposes of
reviewing/approving the proposed settlement.

WHBM and the plaintiff have until September 17, 2018 to file their
settlement motion with the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia. The proposed settlement would not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial condition or results of operations.

Chico's FAS sad, "However, no assurance can be given that the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
will approve the proposed settlement. If the proposed settlement is
rejected and the case were to proceed as a class action and the
Company were to be unsuccessful in its defense on the merits, then
the ultimate resolution of the case could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results
of operations."

Chico's FAS, Inc. operates as an omni-channel specialty retailer of
women’s private branded, casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates,
and complementary accessories. The company's portfolio of brands
consists of the Chico's, White House Black Market (WHBM), and Soma.
Chico's FAS, Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Fort
Myers, Florida.


CHOICE FARM: Banda Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Tomas Banda Banda, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Choice Farm Fruits & Vegetables dba Choice
Farm Inc., Woo Hyung Lee, Yun Kwon Park, and Jane Doe Lee, Case No.
1:18-cv-04656 (E.D. N.Y., August 17, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff is residing in Queens County, New York. The Plaintiff
was employed as a salad preparer at the grocery store located at
4520 46th Street, Sunnyside, New York 11104, from approximately May
3, 2005 until August 11, 2018.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a grocery store, located at
4520 46th Street, Sunnyside, New York 11104 under the name "Choice
Farm Inc." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CITIGROUP INC: Court Denies Certification of Two Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO TOMEO; JOSEPH MORDEN; PAMELA SLAUGHTER; and FRANK LOPEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CITIGROUP, INC. and CITIMORTGAGE, the INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-04046 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Sara
L. Ellis entered an order on September 27, 2018:

     1. denying Tomeo's motion for class certification of:

        Cease and Desist Class:

        "all persons (1) during the period of October 27, 2010 to
November 30, 2014 (2) to whom Citi placed two or more voice calls
or short message service (SMS) calls (3) using the Aspect UIP or
Genesys dialers (4) and Citi’s business records indicate the
person requested not to be called"; and

        Wrong Number Class:

"all persons (1) during the period of October 27, 2010 to November
30, 2014 (2) to whom Citi placed two or more voice calls, (3) using
the Aspect UIP dialer, (4) and Citi’s business records indicate
that Citi was told that it had called the wrong number"; and

     2. granting in part and denying in part Citi's motion to
strike Jeffrey Hansen's expert opinion and testimony.

The Court said, "Tomeo seeks certification under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Citi responds that individual issues
concerning consent predominate, that Tomeo is neither an adequate
nor a typical class representative, and that a class action is not
a manageable or superior way to proceed; thus, the Court should not
certify either class Tomeo proposes. Citi also seeks to strike
Jeffrey A. Hansen's expert and rebuttal reports. Because Tomeo has
not satisfied his burden of establishing that common issues of fact
or law predominate, the Court denies Tomeo's motion for class
certification. Additionally, the Court grants in part and denies in
part Citi's motion to strike."[CC]


CNA NATIONAL: Court Awards $32K Attorney's Fees in USERRA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia, Charleston, issued an Order Awarding Attorney's Fees in
the case captioned LORI D. JUSTICE, individually, and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. CNA NATIONAL
WARRANTY CORPORATION, Defendant. Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-01997.
(S.D.W.V.).

After a successful court trial and appeal, Ms. Mace now seeks an
award of attorney's fees.

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Kieshia Mace's
complaint alleging a violation of the Uniformed Services Employment
and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).

Ms. Mace now seeks an award of attorney's fees as follows:

   Appellate Fees              $14,819.48
   District Court Fees         $20,957.86
   District Ct. Paralegal Fees    $266.00
                               ----------
   TOTAL FEES REQUESTED:       $36,043.34

The Lodestar Method

The lodestar is figured by multiplying the number of hours
reasonably expended by the reasonable hourly rates.  

Once the lodestar is calculated, there are twelve factors (the
Johnson factors),2 that are relevant in considering whether that
figure should be adjusted up or down:

(1) the time and labor required;
(2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions;
(3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly;
(4) the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to acceptance
of the case;
(5) the customary fee;(6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent;
(7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances;
(8) the amount involved and the results obtained;
(9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys;
(10) the undesirability of the case;
(11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with
the client; and
(12) awards in similar cases.

Reasonable Hourly Rate is the Prevailing Rate in the District of
South Dakota

Experienced, partner-level trial counsel in this community have
received awards of attorney's fees ranging from $210.00 per hour to
$250.00 per hour in lawsuits involving claims related to the
workplace. Other solidly experienced mid-level lawyers with
experience in federal court in that case were awarded attorney's
fees of $200 to $250 per hour. In addition, rates of $90 and $80
per hour for paralegal time have been approved in labor cases.  

In awards of attorneys' fees as sanctions for motions to compel,
the hourly rates of attorneys' fees have ranged from $145 per hour
to $250 per hour.  

The court concludes on the basis of its own knowledge of prevailing
rates in the District of South Dakota, based on recent awards of
attorney's fees in this district, and based on the nature of the
legal issues in this case that $250.00 per hour should be the
prevailing reasonable hourly rate for Mr. Hagen, Ms. Mace's
counsel. There have been some outliers in terms of approved
attorney's fee rates, but $250 per hour has been repeatedly
approved. Also, many of the cases cited above are becoming dated,
but the rate of $250 per hour is at the upper end of approved rates
in the heartland of ranges of those rates and many of the cited
cases are from the Sioux Falls metro area.

Reasonable Hours

The first thing the court notes is that Mr. Hagen voluntarily
reduced his 2hours by 1.5 hours.

He spent 71.5 hours meeting his client, researching, drafting the
complaint, holding a Rule 16 scheduling meeting with opposing
counsel, drafting Ms. Mace's initial Rule 26 disclosures, drafting
a bare minimum of written discovery requests, drafting responses to
defendants' discovery requests, attending four depositions, and
trying a day-long trial. The court finds this case was tried with
an admirable level of economy. The time spent on the case could
have been even more reduced had defense counsel accepted Mr.
Hagen's offer not to take any depositions. There appears to be no
excess or duplicate hours contained in counsel's time spent trying
Ms. Mace's case before this court.

As for the appeal, counsel spent 50.6 hours. Again, a review of the
detailed billing on appeal reveals no excess or duplication. The
court approves the hours expended at all levels of this case as
reasonable.

The Johnson Factors

Kickbox argues no appellate attorney's fees should be awarded
because it appealed in good faith. However, there is no exception
to the attorney's fee statute for defenses or appeals taken in good
faith. Furthermore, the court notes that one key issue raised by
Kickbox on appeal whether a military employee who had no guaranteed
hours in her civilian job was required to be reemployed under
USERRA was answered definitively by a duly promulgated regulation:
20 C.F.R. Section 1002.41. That regulation provided that USERRA
rights are not diminished because an employee holds a temporary,
part-time, probationary, or seasonal employment position. Thus, to
a large extent, Kickbox authored its own plight in requiring Ms.
Mace's counsel to incur attorney's fees unnecessarily on appeal.

Kickbox argues that this was an ordinary case requiring no special
expertise. To the contrary, USERRA cases are relatively rare in
this court's experience. Federal court is the logical place for
filing such claims and in 25 years of practice and judging, this
case is only the second USERRA case this court has encountered.
Furthermore, USERRA is a unique statutory scheme which is different
from many of the discrimination civil rights statutes—for
example, it provides nearly strict liability for a failure to
reemploy a military person after a military absence so long as
proper pre- and post-absence notice is given. No other civil rights
statute provides such a scheme. The court finds this case
represents a need for novel expertise. The novelty of USERRA cases,
combined with the fact an attorney may not get paid at all for
taking such a case, makes such cases undesirable from the
standpoint of attorney profitability.

The experience, especially in federal court, and the reputation and
abilities of Mr. Hagen are well known. He has a high degree of
regard among lawyers and judges. The court finds ample reason to
leave the lodestar calculation undisturbed in this case. There is
certainly no reason to diminish the hours spent or the hourly rate.
There may be reasons to apply a multiplier, but because Mr. Hagen
does not urge such a result, this court will not do so.

Plaintiff Kieshia Mace's request for attorney's fees  is granted.
The court awards Ms. Mace attorney's fees as follows against
defendants Corey Willis and Kickbox Dakota, LLC, jointly and
severally:

   Appellate Fees             $13,472.25
   District Court Fees        $19,036.88
   District Ct. Paralegal Fees   $266.00
                              ----------
   TOTAL FEES AWARDED:        $32,775.13

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7brvc4v from Leagle.com.

Lori D. Justice, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by J.
Christopher White, WOLFE WHITE & ASSOCIATES, Jonathan R. Marshall
-- jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER, Maigreade
Bridget Burrus -- mburrus@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER,
Raymond S. Franks, II -- rfranks@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY &
GLASSER & Steven S. Wolfe, WOLFE LAW OFFICE.

CNA National Warranty Corporation, an Arizona foreign corporation,
Defendant, represented by Brent R. Austin -- baustin@eimerstahl.com
-- EIMER STAHL, pro hac vice, Jacob M. Hamann --
jhamann@eimerstahl.com -- EIMER STAHL, pro hac vice, Karen E. Klein
-- kklein@moorebiserlaw.com -- MOORE & BISER & W. Michael Moore --
mmoore@moorebiser.com -- MOORE & BISER.


COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL: Stone & Co. Sues over Unsolicited Fax Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
WENDELL H. STONE COMPANY, INC. d/b/a STONE & COMPANY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL ROOFING, LLC, an Ohio limited liability
company, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02212 (N.D. Ohio, Sept.
26, 2018), seeks to stop its practice of sending unsolicited fax
advertisements to consumers and businesses, and to obtain redress
for all persons or entities similarly injured by its unlawful
conduct.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's actions caused damages
to the Plaintiff and the other class members. Receiving the
Defendant's junk faxes caused the recipients to lose paper and
toner consumed in the printing of the Defendant's faxes. Moreover,
the Defendant's faxes used the Plaintiff's fax machine. The
Defendant's faxes cost the Plaintiff time, as the Plaintiff and its
employees wasted their time receiving, reviewing, and routing the
Defendant's unauthorized faxes. That time otherwise would have been
spent on the Plaintiff's business activities.

The Defendant's faxes unlawfully invaded the Plaintiff's and other
No Consent Class members' privacy interests in being left alone.
Finally, the injury and property damage sustained by Plaintiff and
the other members of the No Consent Class from the sending of
Defendant's advertisements occurred outside of Defendant's
premises, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Classes:

          William McAllum Harrelson, II, Esq.
          HARRELSON & HARRELSON LLP
          9 West Water Street
          Troy, OH 45373
          Telephone: (937) 552-9400
          Facsimile: (937) 552-9361
          E-mail: Will@HarrelsonLLP.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213 0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927 0809
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                  ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
                  tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com


COMPREHENSIVE QUALITY: Ristick Files Class Suit Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Comprehensive Quality Care, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
in Illinois.

The case is styled as Chris Ristick and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Comprehensive Quality Care, Inc, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06805 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 10, 2018) filed pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Comprehensive Quality Care, Inc. is a modern home-health care
agency in Chicago, IL.  Home Health Services  offered includes
nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology,
medical social, home health aide.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CONDUENT INC: Faces Crockett Suit in Cal. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conduent
Incorporated. The lawsuit is captioned Dawn Crockett, On behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs Conduent Incorporated, a New York corporation, Does
1-10, and MMC Group LP, a Texas limited partnership, the
Defendants, Case No.: 34-2018-00241324-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sept. 24, 2018).

Conduent, Inc. is a technology-led business process services
company headquartered in New Jersey.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

          Arnab Banerjee, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 4877
          Facsimile: (310) 943 0396
          E-mail: Arnab.Banerjee@CapstoneLawyers.com


CONTAINER STORE: Rodono Sues over Gift Card Policy
--------------------------------------------------
NANCY RODONO, on behalf of herself, the General Public, and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs THE CONTAINER STORE,
INC., and DOES 1 through 20, Case No. 37-2018-00046218-CU-BT-CTL
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 24, 2018), alleges that the Defendant has
become unjustly enriched by retaining actual cash paid for gift
cards and by requiring consumers to redeem gift cards for the
Defendant's items only, even when the Plaintiff and other
California consumers do not wish to purchase the Defendant's items.


According to the complaint, "Gift Card" means an electronic
promise, plastic card, or other payment code or device that is: (i)
redeemable by the Defendant; (ii) issued in a specified amount,
whether or not that amount may be increased in value or reloaded at
the request of the holder; 28 (iii) purchased on a prepaid basis in
exchange for payment; and (iv) honored upon presentation by the
Defendant. The terms "Gift Card" and "Gift Certificate" are
interchangeable.

The Defendant sells gift cards in California to consumers that
contain various stored values, which represent the "balance" on the
gift card. Within the last 12 months, the Plaintiff visited a
California TCS location with a TCS gift card and the Plaintiff
purchased items Plaintiff wanted using the TCS gift card to pay for
the items. After paying for the items selected using the TCS gift
card, the Plaintiff's gift card balance was less than $10.  The
Plaintiff did not want any other items offered by the Defendant;
instead, the Plaintiff wanted the cash value of the gift card. The
Plaintiff asked the TCS employee if she could obtain the cash
balance of the card. The employee informed the Plaintiff that she
could not get the balance in cash and the balance had to remain on
the card for future use at TCS. The Plaintiff was denied the cash
balance of the gift card despite the fact that the balance on the
card was less than $10.00 and the Defendant's employee was aware of
the balance on the card at the time of the request.

Prior to filing this lawsuit, investigations were performed on the
Plaintiff's behalf to determine if this particular TCS employee's
failure to comply with California's gift card law was an isolated
incident. The results of the investigations revealed that TCS
employees frequently refused to honor valid requests for cash back
on gift cards with a balance of less than $10.

By the Defendant's actions in not having an existing policy of
complying with Civil 24 Code section 1749.5(b)(2), or in failing to
comply with such a policy to provide California consumers cash for
gift cards with a stored value of under $10.00, (e.g., failing to
have a consistent practice of honoring requests for cash pursuant
to Civil Code section 1749.5(b)(2)), all current and future holders
of gift cards with a balance of less than $10.00 are denied certain
consumer protections afforded to consumers under the laws of this
State, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant is an American specialty retail chain company that
operates The Container Store, which offers storage and organization
products. The company has made Fortune's list of "100 Best
Companies to Work For" in each of the past 17 years, through
2016.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Phillip R. Poliner, Esq.
          Neil B. Fineman, Esq.
          FINEMAN 0 POLINER LLP
          155 North Riverview Drive
          Anaheim Hills, CA 92808-1225
          Telephone: (714) 620-1125
          Facsimile: (714) 701-0155
          E-mail: Phillip@FinemanPoliner.com
                  Neil@FinemanPoliner.com


CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAD H. HEISLER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE RECOVERIES, INC., And JOHN AND JANE DOES Nos.
1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-1344 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon.
Judge Nancy Joseph entered an order on Sept. 27, 2018:

     1. denying Plaintiff's motion to certify class;

     2. granting Defendant's motion to seal; and

     3. denying Defendant's motion for leave to file response to
Plaintiff's supplemental authority.

The Court said, "The parties dispute the application of judicial
estoppel in this case; however, I need not determine the validity
of the defense at this stage. Rather, for purposes of Heisler's
motion to certify class, my focus is on whether CHRI has posited
"an arguably defense peculiar to" Heisler which may "bring into
question the adequacy of the named plaintiff's representation."
Again, CHRI argues that Heisler's cause of action should be barred
by judicial estoppel based on actions taken during the course of
Heisler's bankruptcy proceedings. Heisler disputes that judicial
estoppel applies in his case and raises both factual and legal
arguments in support of his position. This judicial estoppel
argument is both legally and factually specific to Heisler and his
bankruptcy proceedings. Thus, I find that CHRI has presented at
least an "arguable" defense to Heisler's claim and therefore
conclude that Heisler is an inadequate representative of the class.
Plaintiffs who are subject to a defense that would not defeat
unnamed class members are not adequate class representatives."[CC]


CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: Court Won't Certify Class in Heisler Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin issued a Decision and Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification in the case captioned CHAD H. HEISLER, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE RECOVERIES, INC., And JOHN AND JANE DOES Nos.
1-25, Defendants. Case No. 16-CV-1344. (E.D. Wis.).

Chad H. Heisler filed a single count complaint against Convergent
Healthcare Recoveries, Inc. (CHRI) alleging that a debt collection
letter sent to him violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA).

There are four threshold requirements applicable to class
certification: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact
common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.

The crux of CHRI's argument is that Heisler is not an adequate
class representative because he is subject to a defense that could
not be sustained against other class members, namely judicial
estoppel.

CHRI argues Heisler should be judicially estopped from pursuing
this action because he failed to list this class action as an asset
and showed no signs of being confused by CHRI's letter, namely, he
was able to identify Elmbrook Memorial as a creditor and CHRI as
the entity collecting the account on Elmbrook Memorial's behalf.
Heisler was then able to secure a discharge of the debt.  

Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine, invoked to protect the
integrity of the courts by preventing a party who prevails on one
ground in a lawsuit from repudiating that ground in a subsequent
lawsuit. In the context of a bankruptcy, judicial estoppel is used
to bar a debtor from pursuing a cause of action after the
bankruptcy ends that he or she failed to disclose to the bankruptcy
court during the course of the bankruptcy proceedings.

In other words, a debtor in bankruptcy who denies owning an asset,
including a chose in action or other legal claim, cannot realize on
that concealed asset after the bankruptcy ends. Although this
doctrine is seemingly harsh, the theory behind it is that it
induces debtors to be truthful in their bankruptcy filings which
will assist creditors in the long run though it will do them no
good in the particular case  and it will assist most debtors too,
for the few debtors who scam their creditors drive up interest
rates and injure the more numerous honest borrowers.

CHRI argues that Heisler's cause of action should be barred by
judicial estoppel based on actions taken during the course of
Heisler's bankruptcy proceedings. Heisler disputes that judicial
estoppel applies in his case and raises both factual and legal
arguments in support of his position. This judicial estoppel
argument is both legally and factually specific to Heisler and his
bankruptcy proceedings. Thus, the Court finds that CHRI has
presented at least an arguable defense to Heisler's claim and
therefore conclude that Heisler is an inadequate representative of
the class

Because Heisler fails to meet one of the necessary elements for
class certification, the Court need not address the remaining
elements.

Heisler has failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a). Thus,
Heisler's motion to certify class is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018
Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7zuul6b
from Leagle.com.

Chad H Heisler, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Edelman ,
Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Francis R. Greene, Stern
Thomasson LLP, Andrew T. Thomasson, Stern Thomasson LLP, Philip D.
Stern, Stern Thomasson LLP & Heather B. Jones, Stern Thomasson
LLP.

Convergent Healthcare Recoveries Inc, Defendant, represented by
Avanti D. Bakane, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP & Chirag Haresh
Patel, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP.


CSX CORP: Lumberton Residents Sue over Flooding
-----------------------------------------------
JIMMY EDWARDS, ROBERT HUNT and DOLORES HUNT, and CLIFFORD MCKELLAR,
JR. and EMMA MCKELLAR on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the PLAINTIFFS, vs. CSX CORPORATION, CSX
TRANSPORTATION, INC., and CSX INTERMODAL TERMINALS, INC., Case No.:
7:18-cv-169 (E.D.N.C., Sept. 24, 2018), seeks to recover damages as
a result of the Defendants' gross negligence, willful misconduct,
and reckless disregard for human life and the safety and health of
the environment and the Plaintiffs by, recklessly refusing to allow
Lumberton city officials to take adequate measures to guard against
anticipated flooding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is the owner of real
property located at 66 National Avenue, Lumberton, North Carolina,
which was damaged by flooding after Hurricane Florence. On or about
September 10, 2018, and for days thereafter following Hurricane
Florence, the city of Lumberton experienced devastating flooding.
Numerous homes and vehicles in South Lumberton and West Lumberton
were damaged or destroyed by water which poured through a gap in
city levees. This gap was created by a railway underpass owned by
CXS Corporation, CSX Transportation, Inc., and CSX Intermodal
Terminals, Inc. The result was extensive flooding and damage to
homes and businesses in Lumberton, North Carolina and displacement
of hundreds of residents in what has been called "one of the
poorest populations in what is arguably the least developed part of
the state."

CSX is an American holding company focused on rail transportation
and real estate in North America, among other industries. The
company was established in 1980 as part of the Chessie System and
Seaboard Coast Line Industries merger.[BN]

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          Matthew Lee, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 West Morgan St.
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
                  scott@wbmllp.com
                  matt@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: 202-429-2290
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
                  dperry@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
          RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1612 Military Cutoff Road, Ste. 300
          Wilmington, NC 28403
          Telephone: (910) 772-9960
          Facsimile: (910) 772-9062
          E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: 865-247-0080
          Facsimile: 865-522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE: Whitaker et al. File Appeal in 2nd Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Whitaker and David Gram, all other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff - Appellants, vs United States
Department of Commerce, the Defendant - Appellee, Case No. 18-2819
(2nd Cir), is an appeal filed in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit from a lower court decision in Case No.
17-cv-192 (D. Vt.) on Sept. 25, 2018.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Freedom of Information
Act.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff - Appellants:

          Robert J. Appel, Esq.
          ROBERT APPEL LAW
          30 Main St.
          Burlington, VT 05401
          Telephone: 802 881 0379

Attorneys for Defendant - Appellee:

          Nikolas P. Kerest, Esq.
          Gregory L. Waples, Esq.
          UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S
          OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT
          11 Elmwood Avenue
          P.O. Box 570
          Burlington, VT 05401
          Telephone: (802) 951 6725


DITECH FINANCIAL: Capito Suit Alleges Truth in Lending Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Capito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ditech Financial LLC, Case No. 0:18-cv-61931 (N.D.
Calif., August 17, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Truth in Lending Act.

Mortgage lenders and mortgage loan servicers, including Ditech,
often require homeowners to maintain escrow accounts as part of
their mortgage agreements in order to ensure funds are available
for the payment of property tax, insurance, and other assessments
on the mortgaged property. These deposited funds remain in escrow
until their respective payments become due and payable. The
Defendant routinely and willfully violates the laws of California
and thirteen other states by not paying interest on putative class
members' funds held in escrow, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has resided at 17135 Castroville Blvd., Salinas,
California 93907.

The Defendant Ditech Financial LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business located at 1100
Virginia Drive, Suite 100A, Fort Washington, Pennsylvania 19034.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
      Anna Haac, Esq.
      Sabita Soneji, Esq.
      Rebecca Azhdam, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      483 Ninth Street, Suite 200
      Oakland, CA 94706
      Tel: (510) 254-6808
      Fax: (202) 973-0900
      E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
              ahaac@tzlegal.com
              ssoneji@tzlegal.com
              razhdam@tzlegal.com


DNA DIAGNOSTICS: Advantage's Bid to Certify TCPA Class Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sharon Johnson Coleman entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled ADVANTAGE HEALTHCARE, LTD., an Illinois corporation,
individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons v. DNA DIAGNOSTICS CENTER, INC., Case No.
1:17-cv-09001 (N.D. Ill.):

   -- denying without prejudice Advantage's motion for class
      certification;

   -- granting Advantage's motion for leave to pursue class
      discovery;

   -- striking as moot DDC's motion to deny class certification;
      and

   -- denying DDC's motion to stay participation in the MIDP
      process pending resolution of the class issue.

Advantage has moved to certify this class over claims under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act:

     Each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone
     facsimile messages after October 12, 2013 offering
     laboratory testing services available through
     1-800-DNACenter (1-800-362-2368) that did not inform the fax
     recipient that he or she may make a request to the sender of
     the advertisement not to send any future facsimile
     advertisements and that failure to comply with the request
     within 30 days in[sic] unlawful.

Advantage contends that class certification is proper since all of
the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are superficially met.
However, by Advantage's own admission, "additional discovery is
necessary for the court to determine whether to certify the class
[Advantage] seeks to represent," according to the Order.

"Considering the lack of information available to either party at
this stage, it is the interest of justice to permit discovery on
what class evidence exists before reaching a determination about
the appropriateness of class certification," Judge Johnson opines.
Furthermore, the Court finds that DDC's motion to deny class
certification is premature and accordingly stricken as moot.[CC]


DOLLAR TREE: Continues to Defend Illinois Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
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 class action
suit filed in the federal court in Illinois.

In January 2017, a customer filed a class action in federal court
in Illinois alleging the Company violated various state consumer
fraud laws as well as express and implied warranties by selling a
product that purported to contain aloe when it did not. The
requested class is limited to the state of Illinois.

Dollar Tree said, "The Company believes that it is fully
indemnified by the entities that supplied it with the product."

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.


DOLLAR TREE: Court Certifies State-Wide Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
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 a court has certified the case as a state-wide
class action.

In April 2015, a distribution center employee filed a class action
in California state court with allegations concerning wages, meal
and rest breaks, recovery periods, wage statements and timely
termination pay. The employee filed an amended complaint in which
he abandoned his attempt to certify a nation-wide class of
non-exempt distribution center employees for alleged improper
calculation of overtime compensation. The Company removed this
lawsuit to federal court.

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.


DOLLAR TREE: Former Store Manager Appeals Verdict
-------------------------------------------------
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 a plaintiff has filed an appeal from the
jury's verdict favoring the company.

In April 2015, a former store manager filed a class action in
California federal court alleging, among other things, that the
Company failed to make wage statements readily available to
employees who did not receive paper checks.

On November 7, 2017, the jury found in favor of the Company. The
plaintiff has filed an appeal from the verdict.

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.


DOLLAR TREE: Parties in Dress Code Suit to Consider Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 parties in the lawsuit over the company's
dress code are reconsidering the terms of the settlement.

In July 2017, two former employees filed suit in federal court in
California, seeking to represent a class of current and former
non-exempt employees alleging that the Company's dress code
required them to purchase such distinctive clothing that it
constituted a uniform and the Company's failure to reimburse them
for the clothing violated California law.

The former employees seek restitution, damages, penalties and
injunctive relief. The Company entered into a settlement agreement
which was recently rejected by the court. The parties are
reconsidering the terms of the settlement. The Company has accrued
the amount in the rejected agreement.

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.


DYSON DIRECT: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Burbon Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUC BURBON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. DYSON DIRECT, INC., the Defendant, Case
1:18-cv-08880 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2018), alleges that the
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
read website content using her computer. The plaintiff uses the
terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with
visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in
that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or
equal to 20/200. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report,
approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually
impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the
American Foundation for the Blind’s 2015 report, approximately
400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its Products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because the Defendant's website, www.dyson.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA.  The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228 9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


EMPIRE STRUCTURAL: Valencia Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL ORTIZ VALENCIA, ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ, JOSE LUIS BENITO
RODRIGUEZ, VICTORINO VAZQUEZ, SERGIO ARMIJOS, JUAN JIMENEZ
RODRIGUEZ, JULIO G. TORRES, PETRONILLO ORTIZ, ARTURO VAZQUEZ, OMAR
IVAN CHAVEZ CONTRERAS, and CANDIDO GOMEZ, on behalf of themselves
and similarly situated individuals, vs. EMPIRE STRUCTURAL GROUP,
LLC, BAY BRIDGE ENTERPRISES LTD., BAY BRIDGE CONTRACTING, LLC,
NICOLE FRANTELLIZZI, and ANTHONY FRANTELLIZZI, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-08848 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages at the overtime wage rate under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully failed to pay
the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals the overtime wage
rate for all hours worked over 40 hours in week in contravention of
the FLSA and NYLL.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN, P.C.
          52 Duane Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 374 0009
          Facsimile: (212) 374 9931





ENHANCED RECOVERY: Eisen Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Bracha Eisen on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05657
(E.D. N.Y., Oct. 10, 2018).

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

Enhanced Recovery Company LLC provides business process outsourcing
services that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research
primarily for Fortune 500 companies in the United States and
internationally. Its outsourcing services include customer service,
customer acquisition, and technical support through inbound and
outbound call handling, virtual chat, and email communications.
Recovery services comprise pre charge off and post charge off.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FILTREX SERVICE: Blount Suit Transferred to N.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT AVERY WILSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFF, v. FILTREX SERVICE GROUP, INC.,
and CHRISTOPHER BLOUNT, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00491, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Oklahoma (Tulsa) on Sept. 26, 2018.  The Northern District of
Oklahoma Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-00499-JED-FHM to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John E Dowdell.

The Plaintiff brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act for declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil
penalties and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, as a
result of Defendants' commonly applied policy and practice of
failing to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated overtime
wages as required by the FLSA and the AMWA.[BN]

Attorneys for Scott Avery Wilson:

          Christopher Wesley Burks, Esq.
          Daniel D. Ford, Esq.
          Joshua Jon Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC
          650 S Shackleford STE 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221 0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787 2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Gregory James Northen, Esq.
          CROSS GUNTER WITHERSPOON & GALCHUS PC
          PO BOX 3178
          Little Rock, AR 72203-3178
          Telephone: (501) 371 9999


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Heaton Brings FDCPA Suit in New York Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Stephanie Heaton on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Cach, LLC, Resurgent Capital
Services L.P., Sherman Financial Group LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-05664 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 10, 2018).

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

Financial Recovery Services, Inc. provides debt collection services
to consumer creditors, finance companies, and debt buyers. It
serves bank and retail credit card, installment loan and DDA,
payday loans, purchased debt service contracts, and utility
markets. The company was founded in 1996 and is based in Edina,
Minnesota.

CACH, LLC operates as a subsidiary of SquareTwo Financial
Corporation.

Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. manages and services domestic and
international consumer debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt
buyers. It manage accounts across the credit spectrum, including
performing accounts, sub- and non-performing accounts, secured
accounts, and unsecured accounts. The company also provides credit
reporting services; and performs collection activities on accounts
directly, or outsources the recovery activities to other
independently owned collection agencies and law firms. It was
formerly known as Alegis Group, L.P.

Sherman Financial Group LLC, through its subsidiaries, originates,
purchases, and services consumer and commercial debt in the United
States, Canada, Mexico, and the United Kingdom. The company
specializes in the development of solutions that optimize long term
value. Its services include direct origination of credit cards and
consumer loans, servicing of various types of consumer assets,
investment in performing and non-performing consumer debt
originated by financial institutions, credit card companies,
retailers, and others, and investment in real estate, corporate
debt, and structured asset purchases. Sherman Financial Group LLC
was founded in 1998 and is based in New York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FLORIDA HEALTH: Womble Bond Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tania Seanpanah, Esq. -- tania.seanpanah@wbd-us.com -- of Womble
Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
wrote that in Doyle v. Fla. Health Sol., Inc., No. 17-12231 (JMV)
(MF), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148340 (D.N.J. Aug. 29, 2018), the
court had to determine -- at the pleading stage -- whether a pro se
plaintiff who is a licensed attorney could represent a putative
nationwide class.

The self-represented plaintiff in that case was a New York lawyer
who claimed that the defendant violated the TPCA by calling his
cell phone without consent, and sought to represent a putative
class defined as:

All persons within the United States who received messages [*6]
soliciting Defendant's services, from Defendant or its agents, to
said person's residential or cell telephone, initiated by Defendant
through the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice within the
four years prior to the filling [sic] of the Complaint.

The court in Doyle had previously dismissed the plaintiff's
complaint on the basis that his allegations failed to show he could
adequately represent the putative class. In his original complaint,
plaintiff had alleged that he had already retained counsel, but
none had appeared in the case. In the amended complaint, it appears
the plaintiff tried to cure this issue by alleging he was an
attorney licensed in New York, who would himself "fairly,
adequately, and tenaciously represent and protect the interests of
the class."

According to the ruling in Doyle, plaintiff argued that it was
"unfair" and "premature" to rule on the adequacy of counsel at the
pleading stage because (1) "there is not yet any class so there
does not have to be class counsel" and (2) the court should not
make this ruling until a motion for certification is made. But the
court rejected the argument, noting that courts are empowered at
the pleading stage to consider whether a self-represented litigant
has plausibly pled the requirements of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)
class action. Indeed, the court noted an apparent consensus that
"pro se plaintiffs cannot represent and protect the interests of
the class fairly and adequately."

The court went on to address whether plaintiff had plausibly pled
adequacy of counsel. First, it found that although plaintiff
alleged he was a licensed attorney, he failed to specify what if
any general or TCPA class action experience he had. But according
to the court, the plaintiff had also applied to proceed in forma
pauperis, and in support of his application stated he "is not able
to work as an attorney at this time," which suggested to the court
that -- even aside from the lack of allegations establishing class
action experience -- plaintiff would not be able to perform the
necessary duties in representing the class. According to the court,
plaintiff had also stated in his in forma pauperis application that
he could not afford the filing fees for his complaint, which made
it "clear to the Court that [plaintiff] does not have the resources
necessary to handle class action litigation," considering such
litigation usually involves "massive costs" and "requires large
amounts of resources."

Thus, the court was left unpersuaded that that plaintiff had
plausibly alleged that he could adequately represent the interests
of the class. However, the court gave plaintiff one last shot, and
while dismissing the class claims in his amended complaint without
prejudice, allowed plaintiff 30 days to retain adequate class
counsel. [GN]


FORD MOTOR: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIE VAN, et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, the Defendant, the Case No.:
1:14-cv-08708 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.
entered an order on Sep. 27, 2018:

   1. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   2. denying Defendant's motion to deny class certification
without prejudice;

   3. denying without prejudice as premature Defendant's motion to
exclude testimony, reports, and opinions of Dr. Louise Fitzgerald
and Plaintiffs' motion to bar the testimony and expert reports of
Dr. Liza Gold, M.D. and Dr. Gregory Mitchell, PhD.;

   4. granting Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file supplemental
memorandum in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, and deferring consideration of the supplemental
materials until they can be assessed through the adversary
process—presumably in the briefing on a renewed motion for class
certification; and

   5. scheduling status hearing on October 17, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.

The court said, "Although the Court has significant questions
regarding whether a class action can be certified in this case, the
Plaintiffs will be given another opportunity to move for class
certification as the denial of the instant motion for certification
is without prejudice. The serious allegations in this case warrant
a complete and fulsome class certification analysis, which cannot
be made based on the record and arguments before the Court. That
being said, Plaintiffs cannot be given unlimited opportunities to
move for class certification. With the Court having identified its
major concerns, the Court expects that any renewed motion that
Plaintiffs may file will make their best case for class
certification, not only on the issue of adequate of class counsel
on which this motion founders, but also on all of the other issues
expressed in this opinion and at the hearing last week. The Court
recognizes that the both sides may well prefer a conclusive ruling
on the class certification issue at this time, but a denial without
prejudice is not uncommon, especially after one try."[CC]


G. FAZIO CONSTRUCTION: Gutama Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
AURELIA GUTAMA on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class, the Plaintiff, vs. G. FAZIO CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.,
AUCAY GENERAL CONSTRUCTION INC, HUGO AUCAY, GINO FAZIO and JANY
[LNU], the Defendants, Case No.: 1:18-cv-05444 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 27,
2018), seeks unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the claim, the Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a
collective action on behalf of all construction workers, including,
but not limited to, porters, drivers, laborers, installers,
helpers, machine operators and painters employed by the Defendants
on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the
Complaint in this case.

The Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have been
similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements
and pay provisions, and are and have been subjected to the
Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices,
procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a
willful failure and refusal to pay them minimum wage and overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one half times the regular
hourly rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the
lawsuit says.

G. Fazio Construction offers construction management services. The
company provides construction services for supportive housing,
commercial projects, nursing homes, religious buildings, and other
residential sectors.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the
Class:

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


GC SERVICES: Class Certified Under FDCPA in Dickens Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
James S. Moody, Jr., entered an order in the lawsuit styled TERRI
E. DICKENS, on behalf of the estate of Ronnie E. Dickens and others
similarly situated v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No.
8:16-cv-00803-JSM-TGW (M.D. Fla.):

   1. granting the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class
      Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel; and

   2. denying the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Motion to
      Dismiss and Compel Arbitration.

In the original lawsuit, Ronnie Dickens sued GC Services Limited
Partnership for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.  He alleged that the Defendant failed to notify him
and other similarly situated debtors that if they disputed their
debt, they would have to notify the Defendant in writing to trigger
its legal obligation to verify the debt.

On October 20, 2017, the Defendant filed a suggestion of death
reporting that Ronnie Dickens had passed away.  Terri Dickens,
Ronnie Dickens' widow, filed an unopposed motion to substitute
herself as named plaintiff in the case, on behalf of the estate of
Ronnie Dickens.  The Court granted her motion after concluding that
Ronnie Dickens' FDCPA claims did not extinguish with his death.
Terri Dickens ("Plaintiff") filed a renewed motion for class
certification and Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or compel
arbitration.

In her renewed Motion, the Plaintiff proposes the same class
definition Ronnie Dickens proposed:

     (1) All persons with a Florida address, (2) to whom GC
     Services Limited Partnership mailed an initial communication
     that stated: (a) "if you do dispute all or any portion of
     this debt within 30 days of receiving this letter, we will
     obtain verification of the debt from our client and send it
     to you," and/or (b) "if within 30 days of receiving this
     letter you request the name and address of the original
     creditor, we will provide it to you in the event it differs
     from our client, Synchrony Bank," (3) between April 4, 2015
     and April 4, 2016, (4) in connection with the collection of
     a consumer debt, (5) that was not returned as undeliverable
     to GC Services Limited Partnership.[CC]


GONGOS INC: Kraft Moves to Certify Class of Research Coordinators
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned HEATHER KRAFT, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. GONGOS, INC., GONGOS
RESEARCH, INC., and DEBRA POMORSKI, Case No. 2:18-cv-10745-VAR-SDD
(E.D. Mich.), moves the Court to conditionally certify a Fair Labor
Standards Act collective action, and order notice sent to members
of a class of:

     all current and former individuals employed by Defendants as
     research coordinators after March 6, 2015, who worked hours
     in excess of 40 per week for which they were not paid 1 1/2
     times their regular rate for overtime hours.

Ms. Kraft also asks the Court to order the Defendants to provide
contact information for all potential opt-in plaintiffs within four
weeks of conditional certification.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maia Johnson Braun, Esq.
          Caitlin E. Malhiot, Esq.
          GOLD STAR LAW, P.C.
          2701 Troy Center Dr., Suite 400
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 275-5200
          E-mail: mjohnson@goldstarlaw.com
                  cmalhiot@goldstarlaw.com

Defendants Gongos, Inc. and Debra Pomorski are represented by:

          Brett A. Rendeiro, Esq.
          VARNUM LLP
          39500 High Pointe Blvd., Suite 350
          Novi, MI 48375
          Telephone: (248) 567-7400
          E-mail: barendeiro@varnumlaw.com


HAIN CELESTIAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend
itself from a consolidated securities class action suit filed in
the Eastern District of New York.

On August 17, 2016, three securities class action complaints were
filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Company
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The three complaints are: (1) Flora v. The Hain Celestial Group,
Inc., et al. (the "Flora Complaint"); (2) Lynn v. The Hain
Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Lynn Complaint"); and (3)
Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Spadola
Complaint" and, together with the Flora and Lynn Complaints, the
"Securities Complaints").

On June 5, 2017, the court issued an order for consolidation,
appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of selection of
co-lead counsel. Pursuant to this order, the Securities Complaints
were consolidated under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group,
Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Consolidated Securities Action"),
and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel were appointed as
Co-Lead Plaintiffs.  

On June 21, 2017, the Company received notice that plaintiff
Spadola voluntarily dismissed his claims without prejudice to his
ability to participate in the Consolidated Securities Action as an
absent class member.  The Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Securities Action filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on August
4, 2017 and a Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint on September
7, 2017 on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities
between November 5, 2013 and February 10, 2017 (the "Amended
Complaint").  

The Amended Complaint names as defendants the Company and certain
of its current and former officers (collectively, the "Defendants")
and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly materially false
or misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press
releases and SEC filings regarding the Company's business,
prospects, financial results and internal controls.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 3, 2017. Co-Lead
Plaintiffs filed an opposition on December 1, 2017, and Defendants
filed the reply on January 16, 2018. On April 4, 2018, the Court
requested additional briefing relating to certain aspects of
Defendants' motion to dismiss.

In accordance with this request, Lead Plaintiffs submitted their
supplemental brief on April 18, 2018, and Defendants submitted an
opposition on May 2, 2018. Lead Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on
May 9, 2018, and Defendants submitted a sur-reply on May 16, 2018.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes,
and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in
seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's
Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate. The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake
Success, New York.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Stockholder Class and Derivative Suit Still Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2018, that the case entitled, In re The Hain
Celestial Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation,
remains stayed.

On April 19, 2017 and April 26, 2017, two class action and
stockholder derivative complaints were filed in the Eastern
District of New York against the Board of Directors and certain
officers of the Company under the captions Silva v. Simon, et al.
(the "Silva Complaint") and Barnes v. Simon, et al. (the "Barnes
Complaint"), respectively. Both the Silva Complaint and the Barnes
Complaint allege violation of securities law, breach of fiduciary
duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.

On May 23, 2017, an additional stockholder filed a complaint under
seal in the Eastern District of New York against the Board of
Directors and certain officers of the Company. The complaint
alleges that the Company's directors and certain officers made
materially false and misleading statements in press releases and
SEC filings regarding the Company's business, prospects and
financial results. The complaint also alleges that the Company
violated its by-laws and Delaware law by failing to hold its 2016
Annual Stockholders Meeting and includes claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. On August 9,
2017, the Court granted an order to unseal this case and reveal
Gary Merenstein as the plaintiff (the "Merenstein Complaint").

On August 10, 2017, the court granted the parties stipulation to
consolidate the Barnes Complaint, the Silva Complaint and the
Merenstein Complaint under the caption In re The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation (the
"Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action") and to
appoint Robbins Arroyo LLP and Scott+Scott as Co-Lead Counsel, with
the Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon as Liaison Counsel for
Plaintiffs.   

On September 14, 2017, a related complaint was filed under the
caption Oliver v. Berke, et al. (the "Oliver Complaint”), and on
October 6, 2017, the Oliver Complaint was consolidated with the
Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action. The
Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint under seal on
October 26, 2017. On December 20, 2017, the parties agreed to stay
Defendants' time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the
consolidated amended complaint through and including 30 days after
a decision is rendered on the motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the consolidated Securities Class Actions.

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

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes,
and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in
seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's
Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate. The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake
Success, New York.


HALLRICH INC: Jefferis Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Jefferis, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Hallrich Incorporated, and A.E. Szambecki, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00687-SJD (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 27, 2018),
seeks monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on the
Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and
similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Ohio Constitution.

According to the complaint, the Defendants operate approximately
132 Pizza Hut Pizza franchises in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, and Indiana. The Defendants willfully violated the FLSA
by failing to reimburse delivery drivers their delivery-related
expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally
mandated minimum wage for all hours worked.

All delivery drivers at the Hallrich stores, including the
Plaintiff, have been subject to the same employment policies and
practices, including policies and practices with respect to wages
and reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the putative class:

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


HANLEES FREMONT: Court Dismisses Chaiwong UCL Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant Ally Financial,
Inc.'s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Weerachai Chaiwong's second
amended complaint in the case captioned WEERACHAI CHAIWONG,
Plaintiff, v. HANLEES FREMONT, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No.
16-cv-04074-HSG. (N.D. Cal.).

The SAC alleges three claims against Ally, including (1) violation
of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) Business and Professions Code
Section 17200 by committing unfair and unlawful acts, violation of
the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and (3)
declaratory relief. The SAC also asserts claims against Hanlees
arising out of Hanlees' alleged misrepresentation to Plaintiff that
it would pay off the balance of the Equinox after the Plaintiff
traded the vehicle in for the Hyundai.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint
contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief. A defendant may move to dismiss a
complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Ally's Motion to Dismiss the SAC

The Plaintiff claims that Ally's actions were unlawful or unfair
under the UCL.

To state a claim based on unlawful business practices under the
UCL, a plaintiff must allege that a defendant violated an
underlying law. But Ally cannot have violated the VLA as alleged,
because the sections of the VLA Plaintiff relies upon apply only to
leases that were terminated early.

Nor has the Plaintiff adequately alleged that Ally's actions were
unfair. Although California courts are split as to the definition
of unfair under the UCL, because Ally was complying with the
express terms of the contract when it treated Plaintiff's return of
the vehicle as a scheduled termination, the Plaintiff has alleged
no facts that could establish that Ally's conduct was unfair.

Just as before, the Plaintiff contends that Ally violated the FDCPA
by making false representations to the Plaintiff of the character,
amount, or legal status of the alleged debt of $9,187.76, making
false representations to the Law Offices of Patenaude & Felix of
the character, amount, or legal status of the alleged debt and
attempting to collect the alleged debt owed by the Plaintiff that
was not permitted by the California VLA. Because the Court has
already found that the Plaintiff terminated the lease on time, his
claim that Ally improperly charged and attempted to collect the
fees owed to it for excess wear and mileage fails as a matter of
law.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y83twtou from Leagle.com.

Weerachai Chaiwong, Plaintiff, represented by Sharon Elizabeth
Glassey -- sharon@californiaconsumerattorneys.com -- Glassey Smith,
Christopher T. Smith, Glassey/Smith & Joshua Charles Anaya, Glassey
Smith.

Hanlees Fremont, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant,
represented by Martin Stevens Putnam -- martin@putnamlaw.com -- Law
Offices of Martin Putnam.

Ally Financial Inc., Defendant, represented by Erik Wayne Kemp --
ek@severson.com -- Severson & Werson A Professional Corporation,
Andrew S. Elliott -- ase@severson.com -- Severson & Werson, A
Professional Corporation & Mary Catherine Kamka -- mkk@severson.com
-- Severson and Werson, PC.

Hanlees Fremont, Inc., a California corporation, Cross-claimant,
represented by Martin Stevens Putnam, Law Offices of Martin
Putnam.

Ally Financial Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Andrew S.
Elliott, Severson & Werson, A Professional Corporation & Mary
Catherine Kamka, Severson and Werson, PC.


HAYT HAYT: Velez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hayt, Hayt & Landau,
P.L. The case is styled as Joel Velez individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hayt, Hayt & Landau,
P.L., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-24178-MGC (S.D. Fla., Oct. 10,
2018).

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

Hayt, Hayt & Landau, P.L. has been practicing law in the state of
Florida for over 25 years specializing in the area of collections.
In 2017, Hayt, Hayt & Landau, P.L. expanded its creditors' rights
practice to the state of Georgia.[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


HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Faces Faust's FDCPA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthcare Revenue
Recovery Group, LLC. The case is styled as Cathy Faust individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-05659 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 10, 2018).

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

Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC provides collection services
to the healthcare sector. The company is based in Plantation,
Florida with an additional office in Lathrop, California.
Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC operates as a subsidiary of
Team Health Holdings, Inc.[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


HILTON HOTELS: White's Bid for Class Certification Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly denies without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit captioned
VALERIE R. WHITE, et al. v. HILTON HOTELS RETIREMENT PLAN, et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00856-CKK (D.D.C.).

The Court will decide separately the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave
to Amend Complaint to Add Additional Named Representative ("Second
Motion to Amend"), according to the Order.  The Court will set a
schedule for a renewed motion upon deciding on the Second Motion to
Amend.

"While Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification was ripe and
under advisement, Plaintiffs proceeded -- without the Court's
authorization -- to file their [58] Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint to Add Additional Named Representative," Judge
Kollar-Kotelly held.  "The Court observed that this second motion
to amend was untimely, under the terms of the Court's [29]
Scheduling and Procedures Order, but that the Court would permit
briefing, in part due to the intervention arguments."

"In the Court's view, a decision as to Plaintiffs' Second Motion to
Amend will affect the disposition of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification," Judge Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her order.  Judge
Kollar-Kotelly opines that further briefing of a renewed Motion for
Class Certification also would assist the Court's review.

"That briefing likely would not differ drastically from that
associated with the present Motion for Class Certification, but it
would differ enough to guide the Court's assessment -- to the
limited extent necessary at the class certification stage -- of the
employee benefits issue that lies at the intersection of the
presently pending Motion for Class Certification and the Second
Motion to Amend," Judge Kollar-Kotelly concluded.[CC]


ILLINOIS DHS: Davis Sues over Medical Leave of Absence
------------------------------------------------------
URBANA DIVISION DYAMOND DAVIS on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02246-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.,
Sept. 27, 2018), alleges that the Defendant denied the Plaintiff's
request for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff resides in Tinley Park,
Illinois, and worked at the DHS location at the Shapiro
Developmental Center, 100 East Jeffery St., Kankakee, Illinois.
DHS is an interstate governmental agency.

In late April 2017, Davis had consecutive absences or left work
early due to illness. After leaving work early on or about April
29, Davis went to urgent care where she learned she was pregnant.
On or about June 2, 2017, Davis was approved for FMLA effective May
4, 2017. During the prior three years, other employees at Shapiro
have been approved for FMLA. On May 12, 2017, Davis told the
assistant to the dietary manager, Rebecca Irby that she was sick
and unable to work because of her pregnancy. Irby told Davis she
would document her request as FMLA. Davis later learned the missed
time May 12 was treated as 3 hours of holiday leave and 30 minutes
as an unexcused absence. No time was designated as FMLA leave.
Davis had 12 weeks of FMLA time available at the time of her
absence on May 12. During the prior three years, other employees at
Shapiro were approved for FMLA 2017. and with FMLA time available
had FMLA qualifying absences. However, when the employee requested
FMLA leave for qualifying absences, DHS denied the employee FMLA
leave; and instead, DHS used the employees' other available paid
leave time or designated the absences as unexcused, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Tammy J. Lenzy, Esq.
          LEGAL COUNSEL PC
          1018 W. Madison, Suite 3
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: (312) 624-9973


IM USA CORP: Violates ADA, Fischler Suit Says
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IM USA CORP. et al.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IM USA CORP.,
YNAP Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-09292 (S.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 10, 2018).

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

YNAP Corporation designs and sells fashion products under the Karl
Lagerfeld brand name worldwide. The company offers ready-to-wear
for men and women, accessories, bags, watches, and eyewear, urban
menswear and fragrances, and kids wear. It also operates Karl.com,
an online store for women. YNAP Corporation offers products through
its retail stores and wholesale locations. The company was
incorporated in 2002 and is based in New York, New York. YNAP
Corporation operates as a subsidiary of YOOX Net-A-Porter Group
S.p.A.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


INDIANA: Court Won't Review Approval of Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, New Albany Division, issued an Order denying Defendants'
Motion for Reconsideration of the ruling granting class
certification in the case captioned BRANDON McFARLANE, Plaintiff,
v. MIKE CAROTHERS, Defendant. No. 4:15-cv-00176-SEB-DML. (S.D.
Ind.).

This putative class action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 seeks to
recover for injuries resulting from the overdetention of pretrial
detainees at the Jackson County, Indiana, jail, allegedly caused by
the policies of Defendant Jackson County Sheriff, contrary to
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991), and Gerstein
v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975).

In Ewell, relying on Bridewell v. Eberle, 730 F.3d 672 (7th Cir.
2013), and Ramos v. City of Chicago, 716 F.3d 1013 (7th Cir. 2013),
the Seventh Circuit stated, A section 1983 plaintiff may not
receive damages for time spent in custody, if that time was
credited to a valid and lawful sentence.

First, Judge Lynch observed that the Seventh Circuit noted in Ramos
and Bridewell that the plaintiff had failed to respond to the
defendants no damages arguments. Defendant objects he cannot be
faulted for presenting an issue that Ramos did not.

Second, the Defendant objects that Judge Lynch impermissibly
elevated Judge Wood's concurrence in the judgment in Bridewell to
controlling precedent.  

Third, the Defendant objects that Judge Lynch distinguished Ewell,
Bridewell, and Ramos based on the plaintiffs' failure to sue the
proper defendant. But the pronouncement in Ewell is not dependent
on the identity of the defendant; it is a statement of law.

Fourth, the Defendant renews his argument that what matters for
Riverside's purposes is not the detainee's entitlement to release,
but his financial capacity to afford it. The Court rejects that
argument for the reasons stated by Judge Lynch, who has now
rejected it twice.  

Fifth, the Defendant reasserts his unshakeable conviction that an
overdetained plaintiff who subsequently receives sentencing credit
for time served has already recovered for his injury.  
Defendant's argument sounds in the law of discharge and
satisfaction. But the rule is that only tortfeasors may satisfy
their tort debts. Any other benefit that arguably makes the
plaintiff whole is subject to the collateral-source rule. As
applied to this case, the alleged tortfeasor is Defendant Sheriff.
But the actor that awards credit against sentences for time served
are the sentencing judges of Jackson Circuit and Superior Courts.
And, whereas Section 1983 must mean the same thing no matter in
which state suit is brought, this regime varies across
jurisdictions.   

To allow named defendants, who would otherwise be mulcted for their
torts, to go free from liability because a different actor
satisfied their tort debt, by choice or legal necessity, would be
contrary to bedrock tort law and represent a windfall to
constitutional tortfeasors.

Accordingly, Defendant's objections to Judge Lynch's Report and
Recommendation are overruled.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yabaq6za from Leagle.com.

BRANDON MCFARLANE, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Carson
Myers -- cmyers@myers-law.com -- CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES
& Ilene M. Smith -- ismith@meyers-law.com -- CHRISTOPHER MYERS &
ASSOCIATES.

MIKE CAROTHERS, Jackson County Sheriff, Defendant, represented by
James S. Stephenson -- jstephenson@stephlaw.com -- STEPHENSON MOROW
& SEMLER & Pamela G. Schneeman, STEPHENSON MOROW & SEMLER.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Age Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy, writing for Rockland/Westchester
Journal News, reports that a class-action lawsuit was filed on
Sept. 17 against IBM on behalf of three former employees alleging
age discrimination.

Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- a partner at Lichten &
Liss-Riordan in Boston, filed the lawsuit in federal court in
Manhattan on behalf of Edvin Rusis, Henry Gerrits and Phil
McGonegal, who were all laid off in June.

"IBM has discriminated, and continues to discriminate, against its
older workers, both by laying them off disproportionately to
younger workers and by not hiring them for open positions," the
lawsuit alleges.

Mr. Rusis, 59, of Laguna Niguel, California; Mr. Gerrits, 67, of
Cary, North Carolina; and Mr. McGonegal, 55, of Atlanta, Georgia,
had worked for IBM for 15, 33 and 34 years respectively.

The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiffs are among thousands of IBM
employees to be laid off recently as the result of a shift in IBM's
focus to recruit millennials "in order to make the face of IBM
younger, while at the same time pushing out older employees."  

IBM denied the allegations.

"Changes in our workforce are about skills, not age. In fact, since
2010 there is no difference in the age of our U.S. workforce, but
the skills profile has changed dramatically," said IBM spokesperson
Edward Barbini, in an emailed statement. "That is why we have been
and will continue investing heavily in employee skills and
retraining -- to make all of us successful in this new era of
technology."

In May, Armonk-based IBM was sued for age discrimination by a
60-year-old employee from Texas. The lawsuit followed an
investigative report by ProPublica and Mother Jones, which alleged
that over five years, IBM had targeted its older American employees
for layoffs. Since 2013, the report estimated that IBM eliminated
more than 20,000 employees ages 40 and older in the U.S.

Mr. Rusis worked as a solution manager for IBM's global system
integrator alliances.

After being notified that he would be laid off in June, Mr. Rusis
used IBM's internal hiring platform to apply for five positions for
which he was qualified, including one position on his former Global
System Integrator Sales team. Mr. Rusis did not receive a response
regarding any of these job applications

Mr. Gerrits, who was a global commodity manager, also applied to
several positions through IBM's internal hiring platform for which
he was qualified, also did not receive any response to his
applications.

Mr. McGonegal, worked as a second line manager of its asset
management organization when he was laid off.

In 2006, one of IBM's consulting arms issued a paper that referred
to workers in the Baby Boom generation as "gray hairs" and "old
heads," and stated that "successor generations . . . are generally
much more innovative and receptive to technology than baby
boomers," the lawsuit alleged.

According to the lawsuit, IBM shields its youngest employees from
layoff, exempting recent college graduates from reduction for nine
months from their hire date.

Prior to 2014, IBM, provided lists to any workers who were laid
off, which disclosed the positions and ages of all the employees
laid off from their business units at the same time, as well as a
list showing the positions and ages of all those in the business
units that were not being laid off.

IBM distributed this information, presumably, in order to comply
with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act which requires
disclosure of this information if an employer seeks to obtain a
release of age discrimination claims from a group of employees.

The lawsuit charges that, starting in 2014, in an apparent effort
to conceal its systematic effort to shed its older workers, IBM
stopped disclosing this information to the employees.

Instead, the company required its employees to agree to binding
individual arbitration of those claims, in order to receive a small
severance payment.

Many IBM employees who were laid off, including the named
plaintiffs in this action, rejected the severance offer and did not
sign the arbitration agreement.

The plaintiffs are demanding a trial by jury. [GN]


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Holt Sues over Sale of Talcum Powder
-------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN HOLT, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV335356 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sept. 24, 2018), contends that, despite the mounting scientific and
medical evidence regarding talc use and ovarian cancer development
over the past several decades, none of the warnings on the
Defendants' product labels or in other marketing materials informed
users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the talcum
products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Lee Cirsch, Esq.
          Michael Akselrud, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
          21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (310) 277 5100
          Facsimile: (310) 277 5103
          E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com
                  michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Rowtons Sue over Sale of Talcum Powder
---------------------------------------------------------
HARON KAY ROWTON AND C. R. ROWTON, the Plaintiffs, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with
its principal place of business, the Defendants, Case No.:
18CV335343 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 24, 2018), contends that,
despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on the Defendants' product labels or in other
marketing materials informed users, or similarly situated
individuals, that use of the talcum products in the genital area
could lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. For example, the
only warnings on the Baby Powder label are to "keep powder away
from child's face to avoid inhalation, which can cause breathing
problems," and to "avoid contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Lee Cirsch, Esq.
          Michael Akselrud, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
          21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (310) 277 5100
          Facsimile: (310) 277 5103
          E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com
                  michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com


KROGER CO: Court Refuses to Certify Ohio Class in Hardesty Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Timothy S. Black denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and Kroger's motion for decertification of the
Plaintiffs' collective action in the lawsuit titled JOSEPH
HARDESTY, et al. v. THE KROGER CO., et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-00298-TSB (S.D. Ohio).

Also pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion to vacate
the discovery deadline, which was previously scheduled for November
17, 2017, according to the Order.  The Plaintiffs wish to extend
the discovery deadline for the purpose of conducting any discovery
that might be necessary after class certification.

As the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
their motion to vacate the discovery deadline is similarly denied,
Judge Black ruled. The Court will schedule a status conference
forthwith, at which point both parties may address the need for
additional discovery, if desired.

In the motion for class certification, the Plaintiff asked that the
Court certify their Ohio wage claims and approve notice to be sent
to the Ohio class: "All employees classified as recruiters, who i)
were employed at Kroger's Center of Recruiting Excellence ('CoRE')
in Blue Ash, Ohio, at any time from the beginning of CoRE's
operations in 2014 to December 1, 2016, and ii) worked in excess of
forty (40) hours during any given workweek."

The Court concluded that class certification is not proper under
Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the
Plaintiffs have not shown that their claims are capable of
classwide resolution as required by the "commonality" requirement
set forth in Rule 26(a)(2).  Specifically, Judge Black states,
there is conflicting testimony from proposed class members
regarding whether they exercise discretion in performing their
duties as CoRE Recruiters, and if so, how much.

Additionally, Rule 23(b)(3) requires the Court to consider, inter
alia, the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the
litigation of the claims in the particular forum, and the likely
difficulties in managing a class action.  The Plaintiffs claim
their proposed class consists of 180 members.

Given the factual differences in the testimony from CoRE Recruiters
relevant to the main legal issue in this case -- whether CoRE
Recruiters were properly exempted from the FLSA -- the Court finds
this class certification to be undesirable and unmanageable, Judge
Black opines.

Also pending before the Court is Kroger's motion to decertify the
Plaintiffs' FLSA collective action, which was conditionally
certified by the Court on July 19, 2016.

Judge Black states that the third prong on considering Kroger's
motion weighs in favor of the Plaintiffs because allowing this case
to proceed as a collective action is both fair and procedurally
appropriate.  To the extent Kroger complains about the burden of
presenting individualized defenses in this collective action, that
burden is a direct result of its own decision to uniformly classify
all CoRE recruiters as exempt from the FLSA.

"If CoRE recruiters were similarly situated enough for Kroger to
uniformly exclude all of them from the FLSA's overtime provisions,
they are similarly situated enough for Kroger to defend that
decision (against a collective much smaller than Plaintiffs'
proposed Rule 23 class) in this collective action," Judge Black
notes.[CC]


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend Gathmann-Landini Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended July 29, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself
from a class action lawsuit filed by Rebecca Gathmann-Landini.

On October 9, 2015, certain current and former hourly employees of
the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of
New York entitled Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA
inc. On December 2, 2015, the case was moved to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various New York
labor codes by failing to pay all earned wages, including overtime
compensation. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of
damages.

Lululemon athletica said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend
this matter."

Lululemon athletica inc., an athletic apparel company, together
with its subsidiaries, designs, distributes, and retails athletic
apparel and accessories for women, men, and female youth. It
operates through two segments, Company-Operated Stores and Direct
to Consumer. lululemon athletica inc. was founded in 1998 and is
based in Vancouver, Canada.


MARBREN TIRE: Valverde Suit Asserts FLSA Breach
-----------------------------------------------
Marbren Tire Co., Inc. is facing a a class action lawsuit styled as
Oswaldo Valverde on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Marbren Tire Co., Inc., Mark
Brenner, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05677 (E.D. N.Y. Oct. 10,
2018).

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

Marbren Tire offers tires for sale, tire repair, and auto services.
It is located at 32-16 Hunters Point Ave, Long Island City, NY
11101.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

MBR MANAGEMENT: Court Grants Arbitration in Tourville FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendants' Motion
to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned JESSE TOURVILLE, for
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MBR
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendant. Case No. 17-CV-373-SMY-SCW.
(S.D. Ill.).

MBR has moved to compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's individual
claims and to dismiss the Plaintiff's class claims or, in the
alternative, stay all further proceedings in this action until
arbitration has been completed.

Plaintiff Jesse Tourville filed this collective and class action
against his former employer, MBR Management Corporation (MBR),
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA),
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. Section
105/1 et seq. (IMWL), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act., 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. Section 115/3 et seq. (IWPCA).

Legal Standard

Under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), an arbitration clause
within a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce shall
be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as
exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.

The parties agree that during his employment with MBR, the
Plaintiff signed an Agreement providing that he would bring any
legal claim against MBR (1) only in arbitration and (2) only on an
individual basis.

Here, it is undisputed that the Plaintiff signed an Arbitration
Agreement which covered all employment related claims. The
Plaintiff's FLSA claim alleging minimum wage violations is a
dispute relating to his employment. The primary dispute between the
parties is whether the Agreement is enforceable and valid given the
inclusion of the waiver. The law is now clear following Epic;
Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like the one
executed by Plaintiff must be enforced as written. Epic Sys. Corp.,
138 S. Ct. at 1632. As such, the Court must compel arbitration of
the Plaintiff's FSLA claim.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb55sccz
from Leagle.com.

Jesse Tourville, for himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Jeremiah L. Frei-Pearson --
jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson
& Garber, LLP, pro hac vice, C. Ryan Morgan
--RMorgan@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan PA, pro hac vice,
Chantal Khalil -- ckhalil@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein, Blankinship,
Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, pro hac vice & Todd S. Garber --
tgarber@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson &
Garber, LLP, pro hac vice.

MBR Management Corporation, Defendant, represented by David L.
Schenberg -- david.schenberg@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash
Smoak & Stewart PC, Meredith A. Lopez --
meredith.lopez@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart PC & Rodney A. Harrison -- rodney.harrison@ogletree.com --
Ogletree, Deakins, et al.


MDL 2873: 3M Asks Panel to Transfer PFAS Cases to Mass or S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In Re: PFAS Products Liability and Environmental
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, 3M Company moves the MDL Panel
for an order transferring the currently-filed cases listed in
Supplemental Schedule of Actions, as well as any cases subsequently
filed involving similar facts or claims, to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts or, in the
alternative, to the Southern District of New York.

According to the complaint, in light of the additional cases that
are encompassed by this Motion, the Tyco/Chemguard Motion proposes
that the MDL be captioned "re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF)
Products Liability Litigation."

3M Company, formerly known as the Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company, is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, health care, and
consumer goods.[BN]

Attorneys for 3M Company:

          Timothy S. Bishop, Esq.
          Michael A. Olsen, Esq.
          Richard F. Bulger, Esq.
          Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
          Gary A. Isaac, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782 0600
          Facsimile: (312) 701 7711
          E-mail: tbishop@mayerbrown.com
                  molsen@mayerbrown.com
                  rbulger@mayerbrown.com
                  dring@mayerbrown.com
                  gisaac@mayerbrown.com


MEDTRONIC PLC: Agreement Reached in INFUSE Bone Graft Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the parties in the Infuse Bone
Graft-related lawsuit have reached an agreement to settle the
case.

West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27, 2013 and July
3, 2013, respectively, filed putative class action complaints
against Medtronic, Inc. and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the
defendants made false and misleading public statements and engaged
in a scheme to defraud regarding the INFUSE Bone Graft product
during the period of December 8, 2010 through August 3, 2011.

The matters were consolidated in September 2013, and in the
consolidated complaint plaintiffs alleged a class period of
September 28, 2010 through August 3, 2011.

On September 30, 2015, the District Court granted defendants'
motion for summary judgment in the consolidated matters. Plaintiffs
appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit, and in December of 2016 the Eighth Circuit Court reversed
and remanded the case to the District Court for further
proceedings. On January 30, 2018, the District Court issued an
order certifying a class for the period of September 8, 2010
through June 28, 2011. In July of 2018, the parties reached an
agreement to settle this matter.

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.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Continues to Defend St. Paul Teachers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
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 the company continues to defend
itself in a putative class action lawsuit filed by the St. Paul
Teachers' Retirement Fund Association in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

On January 22, 2016, the St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund
Association filed a putative class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
HeartWare on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of HeartWare from June 10, 2014 through
January 11, 2016 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint was amended on June 29, 2016 and claims HeartWare and
one of its executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
statements about, among other things, HeartWare's response to a
June 2014 U.S. FDA warning letter, the development of the
Miniaturized Ventricular Assist Device (MVAD) System and the
proposed acquisition of Valtech Cardio Ltd. The Complaint seeks to
recover damages on behalf of all purchasers or acquirers of
HeartWare's stock during the Class Period.

In August of 2016 the Company acquired HeartWare.

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.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Still Defends Covidien Acquisition Related-Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 the company continues to defend
itself in a consolidated class action suit involving the
acquisition of Covidien plc.

On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking
to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien. The lawsuit
named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the Medtronic,
Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and alleged that
the directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders with
regard to the then-potential acquisition.

On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also
seeking an injunction to prevent the potential Covidien
acquisition. In September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters
were consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien
transaction.

On December 30, 2014, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction and on defendants' motion to dismiss. On
January 2, 2015, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary injunction and on January 5, 2015 issued its
opinion. On March 20, 2015, the District Court issued its order and
opinion granting Medtronic's motion to dismiss the case.

In May of 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January of
2016, the Minnesota State Court of Appeals affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.

In February of 2016, the Company petitioned the Minnesota Supreme
Court to review the decision of the Minnesota State Court of
Appeals, and on April 19, 2016 the Minnesota Supreme Court granted
the Company's petition on the issue of whether most of the original
claims are properly characterized as direct or derivative under
Minnesota law. In August of 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court
affirmed the decision of the Minnesota State Court of Appeals,
sending the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings.


Medtronic PLC said, "The Company has not recognized an expense
related to damages in connection with this matter, because any
potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable
under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably
estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these
matters."

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.


MICHAELS COMPANIES: Settlement of FCRA Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, 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 is awaiting the
court's decision approving, on a final basis, the settlement of
lawsuits over the Company's background checks.

On December 11, 2014,  Michaels Stores, Inc. (MSI) was served with
a lawsuit, Christina Graham v. Michaels Stores, Inc., filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by a former
employee. The lawsuit is a purported class action, bringing
plaintiff's individual claims, as well as claims on behalf of a
putative class of applicants who applied for employment with
Michaels through an online application, and on whom a background
check for employment was procured.

The lawsuit alleges that MSI violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") and the New Jersey Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to
provide the proper disclosure and obtain the proper authorization
to conduct background checks.

Since the initial filing, another named plaintiff joined the
lawsuit, which was amended in February 2015, Christina Graham and
Gary Anderson v. Michaels Stores, Inc., with substantially similar
allegations. The plaintiffs seek statutory and punitive damages as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Following the filing of the Graham case in New Jersey, five
additional purported class action lawsuits with six plaintiffs were
filed, Michele Castro and Janice Bercut v. Michaels Stores, Inc.,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Michelle Bercut v. Michaels Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court of
California for Sonoma County, Raini Burnside v. Michaels Stores,
Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Sue Gettings v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, and Barbara
Horton v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

All of the plaintiffs alleged violations of the FCRA. In addition,
the Castro, Horton and Janice Bercut lawsuits also alleged
violations of California's unfair competition law. The Burnside,
Horton and Gettings lawsuits, as well as the claims by Michele
Castro, have been dismissed. The Graham, Janice Bercut and Michelle
Bercut lawsuits were transferred for centralized pretrial
proceedings to the District of New Jersey.

On January 24, 2017, the Company's motion to dismiss for lack of
standing was granted, and the court declined to rule on the merits
of plaintiffs' claims. The dismissal order was stayed for 30 days
to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaints. Because there
were no amendments filed, two of the three centralized cases were
dismissed and subsequently appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, and the remaining case (Michelle Bercut) was
remanded to California Superior Court.

The Michaels said, "We reached a tentative settlement on all
pending lawsuits and a preliminary approval of the settlement was
granted by the Court on April 18, 2018. The final approval hearing
[wa]s scheduled for September 19, 2018. We do not believe the
resolution of the lawsuits will have a material effect on our
consolidated financial statements."

More information is available at
http://www.michaels-fcra-settlement.com/

The Michaels Companies, Inc. the largest arts and crafts specialty
retailer in North America (based on store count) providing
materials, project ideas and education for creative activities
under the retail brands of Michaels, Aaron Brothers and Pat
Catan's. The company also operates an international wholesale
business under the Darice brand name and a market-leading
vertically-integrated custom framing business under the Artistree
brand name. The company is based in Irving, Texas.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Rules Class Certification Deemed Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned BARRY STIMPSON, on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND
CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., a Kansas corporation, and MIDLAND FUNDING,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendant, Case
4:17-cv-00431-BLW (D. Idaho), the Hon. Judge B. Lynn Winmill
entered an order on Sept. 27, 2018:

1. granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment;

2. denying Plaintiff's Motion for leave to amend; and

3. ruling  Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification deemed
moot.

The Court will address the plaintiff’s motion for class
certification. This motion is not fully briefed, as the parties
agreed that it made more sense to first decide defendant's motion
for summary judgment, and to then address class certification.
Given the Court's ruling in defendants' favor, the motion for class
certification will be deemed moot.[CC]


MODERNIZE INC: Bid for Class Certification Dismissed as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------
SYLVIA MORRIS, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MODERNIZE, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00963-SS (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Sam Sparks entered
an order on September 27, 2018:

   1. granting Modernize's motion for leave to file under seal
exhibits in support of motion for summary judgment;

   2. granting  Modernize's motion for summary judgment;

   3. dismissing as moot Morris's motion for class certification;

   4. dismissing as moot Morris's motion to strike declaration of
Cohn Weir; and

   5. dismissing as moot Non-Party Mike Morris's motion for
reconsideration of order denying motion to quash.[CC]


MONSANTO COMPANY: Martinez Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIANNE MARTINEZ, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01645-AGF (E.D. Mo., Sept. 27, 2018),
seeks to recover damages suffered by 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


MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Wins Prelim. Approval of Gadime Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Joan M. Azrack grants preliminary approval to the
Class Settlement Agreement between the parties in the lawsuit
styled as NILGUN GADIME, an individual; on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. LAW OFFICE MULLOOLY, JEFFREY,
ROONEY & FLYNN, LLP, Case No. 2:17-cv-00777-JMA-AKT (E.D.N.Y.).

The "Settlement Class" is defined as:

     All persons with addresses in the State of New York, to whom
     The Law Office Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP mailed
     a written communication between February 10, 2016, and
     March 2, 2017, which sought to collect a medical debt from
     the parent of an adult child.

The "Class Claims" are defined as those claims arising from MJRF's
collection letters, which (i) combines one or more accounts
belonging to an adult child into a single account, and (ii) MJRF
sends the dunning letter to the parent of adult child, who is not
legally responsible for payment of the debt, and which allegedly
violate 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e, 1692e(2), and 1692e(10).

Judge Azrack appoints the Plaintiff as the Class Representative,
appoints Abraham Kleinman, Esq., as Class Counsel, and appoints
Heffler Claims Group as the Settlement Administrator to administer
notice to Class Members and administer the Settlement.

The Court approves the Parties' proposed Class Notice and directs
that it be mailed to the last known address of each member of the
Settlement Class as shown in MJRF's business records.  Class
Counsel will cause the Class Notice to be mailed to Class Members
on or before October 19, 2018.  Class Members will have until
December 3, 2018, to return a claim form seeking a payment from the
Class Recovery, or to exclude themselves from, or object to, the
Settlement.  Class Members, who wish to object to the Settlement
must submit an objection in writing to the Clerk of the Court and
serve copies of the objection on the Settlement Administrator.

Any lawyer, who intends to appear at the Final Fairness Hearing
must enter a written Notice of Appearance of Counsel with the Clerk
of the Court no later than December 3, 2018.  To be effective, any
claim form, request for exclusion, or objection must be postmarked
by December 3, 2018.

A final hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the Agreement
and whether final approval will be given to it and the requests for
fees and expenses by Class Counsel will be held on January 3, 2019,
at 3:00 p.m.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.,
          KLEINMAN LLC
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
          Telephone: (516) 522-2621
          Facsimile: (888) 522-1692
          E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com


NATROL LLC: Jensen Moves to Certify UCL and CLRA Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JAIME JENSEN, On Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. NATROL, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:17-cv-03193-VC (N.D.
Cal.), seeks certification of these Classes under Rule 23(b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

   * Nationwide UCL Class:

     All consumers who, within the applicable statute of
     limitations period until the date notice is disseminated,
     purchased Biotin Products in the United States; or

   * Multi-State UCL Class:

     All consumers who, within the applicable statute of
     limitations period until the date notice is disseminated,
     purchased Biotin Products in California, Illinois,
     Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey,
     New York, and Washington; or

   * California-Only UCL Class:

     All California consumers who, within the applicable statute
     of limitations period until the date notice is disseminated,
     purchased Biotin Products; and

   * California-Only CLRA Class:

     All California consumers who, within the applicable statute
     of limitations period until the date notice is disseminated,
     purchased Biotin Products.

Excluded from all Classes are Defendant and its officers,
directors, and employees, and those persons who purchased the
Products for the purpose of resale.

Ms. Jensen also asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative and the firms of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman &
Balint, P.C., and Siprut, PC as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on January 17, 2019, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 798-4593
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com
                  mmuecke@bffb.com

               - and -

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Carrie A. Laliberte, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Rd. Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
                  claliberte@bffb.com

               - and -

          Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
          Michael Chang, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          E-mail: sweltman@siprut.com
                  mchang@siprut.com


NEOKLIS VASILIADES: Alvarez Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL ALVAREZ, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated, the vs CAMBRIDGE KITCHENS MFG INC.
and NEOKLIS VASILIADES, an individual, the Defendant, Case
2:18-cv-05419-JFB-AYS (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 26, 2018), seeks damages and
equitable relief based upon the Defendants' willful violations of
the Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by the overtime provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the
Minimum Wage Order for Miscellaneous Industries and Occupations.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant
from September 2016 until March 19, 2018, as a cabinet installer.
The Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the wages lawfully
due to him under the FLSA and the NYLL.  Specifically, throughout
his employment, the Defendants routinely required the Plaintiff to
work beyond 40 hours in a workweek but paid him, always at his
straight-time rate, for only some of the hours over 40 that the
Plaintiff worked each week while paying him nothing for many other
of those hours. Thus, the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff
at the statutorily-required overtime rate of time and one-half his
straight-time rate of pay for any hours that he worked per week in
excess of 40.

Additionally, in violation of New York law, the Defendants failed
to pay the Plaintiff a spread of hours premium when his shift
exceeded ten hours from beginning to end; provide the Plaintiff
with accurate wage statements on each payday; or provide the
Plaintiff with any wage notice at hire.  The Defendant paid and
treated all of their hourly employees in the same manner, the
lawsuit says.

The Defendant is a Hicksville-based construction company that
offers luxury kitchen design, manufacture, and installation
services, and its owner, chief executive officer, and day-to-day
overseer.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027


NEUROBRANDS LLC: Young & Goodwin Sue over Product Misbranding
-------------------------------------------------------------
RENEE YOUNG and JOYCETTE GOODWIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NEUROBRANDS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, the Defendant, Case
3:18-cv-05907 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 26, 2018), alleges that certain
products manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised, distributed
and sold by the Defendant are misbranded and falsely advertised and
otherwise violate consumer protection laws.

According to the complaint, the Products are labeled as if they are
flavored only with natural ingredients when they in fact contain an
undisclosed artificial flavor, malic acid, in violation of state
and federal law.  The Defendant's packaging, labeling, and
advertising scheme is intended to give consumers the impression
that they are buying a premium, all-natural product with only
natural flavoring ingredients instead of a product that contains
artificial chemicals and that is artificially flavored.

The Plaintiffs, who were deceived by the Defendant's unlawful
conduct and purchased the Products in California, bring this action
on their own behalf and on behalf of consumers to remedy the
Defendant's unlawful actions, the lawsuit says.

Neurobrands develops and produces premium functional beverages. It
sells its products online; and through premium retailers and stores
in the United States and the United Kingdom. The company was
founded in 2007 and is based in Santa Monica, California.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumeradvocates.com
                  mike@consumeradvocates.com


NEW AGE: Bailey Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------
Mario Bailey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. New Age Distributing, Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-00538
(E.D. Ark., August 17, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work as a delivery
driver, helper, and driver and helper from approximately November
of 2016 until March of 2018.

The Defendant is a for-profit, domestic corporation, created and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Arkansas,
providing business-to-business beverage distribution services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEWELL BRANDS: Court Consolidates Securities Suits
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff Hampshire County
Council Pension Fund (Hampshire)'s Motion to Consolidate in the
case captioned BUCKS COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
NEWELL BRANDS, INC., et al., Defendants, MATTHEW BARNETT,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. NEWELL BRANDS, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action
Nos. 18-10878, 18-11132 (JMV) (JBC) (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund filed a class
action complaint alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (1934 Act). Bucks County alleged that Defendant Newell
Brands, Inc. (Newell Brands) and certain of its officers made false
and misleading statements about Newell Brands' financial
performance and that Newell Brands artificially inflated its stock
price.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) provides that
if more than one action on behalf of a class asserting
substantially the same claim or claims arising under this chapter
has been filed, a court must decide the motion to consolidate
before appointing a lead plaintiff.  

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), cases may be
consolidated if they involve a common question of law or fact.
Here, the two suits at issue rely on the same public statements and
reports regarding Newell Brands' alleged material misstatements and
omissions, and both cases assert claims arising out of § 10(b)
(and the corresponding Rule 10b-5) and Section 20(a) of the 1934
Act against the same Defendants. The two matters clearly involve
common questions of law and fact, and consolidation will promote
efficiency and avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

As a result, Hampshire's motion to consolidate is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9sx7yew from
Leagle.com.

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL as ADMINISTERING AUTHORITY of the
HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL PENSION FUND, Movant, represented by CHAD
A. CARDER -- ccarder@barrack.com -- BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE,
JEFFREY B. GITTLEMAN -- jgittleman@barrack.com -- BARRACK, RODOS &
BACINE & ROBERT A. HOFFMAN -- jgittleman@barrack.com -- BARRACK,
RODOS & BACINE.

IRON WORKERS DISTRICT COUNCIL (PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY)
RETIREMENT AND PENSION PLAN, Movant, represented by DAVID ANDREW
BOCIAN -- dbocian@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP.

Timothy Lopatofsky, Movant, represented by THOMAS W. ELROD --
telrod@kmllp.com  -- KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP.

Electricity Pensions Trustee Limited as Scheme Trustee of the
Electricity Supply Pension Scheme & Construction Laborers Pension
Trust for Southern California, Movants, represented by JAMES E.
CECCHI -- jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN
BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.

Sheet Metal Workers 19 Pension Fund & Yong Ahn, Movants,
represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE
ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA.

Northeast Carpenters Benefit Funds, Movant, represented by DANIEL
S. SOMMERS -- dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN, MILSTEIN,
SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC.

BUCKS COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES
E. CECCHI, CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.

NEWELL BRANDS, INC., MICHAEL B. POLK, RALPH J. NICOLETTI & JAMES L.
CUNNINGHAM, III, Defendants, represented by ISRAEL DAHAN --
idahan@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP.


NURSE FORCE: Class of Therapists and Nurses Certified in "Pinard"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John A. Jarvey grants the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification and court-authorized notice in the
lawsuit captioned SAMANTHA PINARD, individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. NURSE FORCE, INC., Case No.
4:17-cv-00434-JAJ-RAW (S.D. Iowa).

The class is defined as:

     All hourly Physical, Occupational, and Speech Therapists;
     Registered Nurses; Licensed Practical Nurses; Certified
     Nursing Assistants; Home Health Aides; Live-In Aides; and
     Companions employed by Nurse Force, Inc. from February __,
     2015 to the present whose work in a single workweek,
     including at least one in-home visit, resulted in, or would
     have resulted in excess of forty (40) hours.

Judge Jarvey directs the Defendant to produce a list of names,
last-known mailing addresses, e-mail addresses, and telephone
numbers for all current and former employees of Nurse Force, Inc.
that meet the definition of the conditionally certified class.

Notice will be issued to all current and former Nurse
Force employees that meet the definition of the class by first
class mail, e-mail, and by visibly posting the notice on the
premises of Nurse Force.

The Court further orders that notices be issued to all potential
class members, who have not responded to opt-in to this matter,
within 45 days of the first issuance of the notice.[CC]


OASIS RETIREMENT: Clark Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Andre Clark, Kevin Erny, Kristin Richeimer, Llarallynan Sutherland,
and Murry Wynes, individually and as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Oasis Retirement
Savings Plan v. Oasis Outsourcing Holdings Inc., Oasis Outsourcing
Inc., Oasis Retirement Savings Plan Investment Committee, Debra
Bathurst, Barbara Drames, and Terry Mayotte, Case No. 9:18-cv-81101
(S.D. Fla., August 17, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants did not satisfy ERISA's
standard of care, and did not comply with ERISA's prohibited
transaction rules, in their management and administration of the
Plan's service provider relationships and investment menu options.
Until 2017, the Defendants utilized higher cost service vendors
that provided business benefits to Oasis, notes the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are former and current participants of the Oasis
Retirement Savings Plan.

The Defendant Oasis Outsourcing Holdings Inc. is a business
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida. Oasis
Outsourcing Holdings Inc. was incorporated as Wackenhut Resources
Inc. in January 1997, and changed its name to Oasis Outsourcing
Holdings Inc. in March 2003. Oasis Outsourcing Holdings Inc. has
its principal place of business in West Palm Beach, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      John Yanchunis, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Tel: (813) 223-5505
      Fax: (813) 223-5402
      E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Court Denies Class Certification in CFPB Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION
BUREAU, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION; OCWEN MORTGAGE
SERVICING, INC.; and OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, the Defendants,
Case 9:17-cv-80495-KAM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth A. Mara
entered an order on September 26, 2018:

1. denying pro se putative intervenors' motion to intervene;

2. denying motion to certify class of:

   "potentially thousands of individuals who are defendants in
foreclosure proceedings initiated by LNV around the country";

3. denying appointment of class counsel;

4. denying motion to add MGC Mortgage Inc. and LNV Corporation as
Defendants; and

5. directing Clerk to terminate the proposed Intervenors from the
docket.

The Court said, "the Motion to Intervene must be denied because the
proposed Intervenors have not met their burden of showing that the
requirements of Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for
intervention by right are met. Their request for permissive
intervention also fails because intervention at this time would
prejudice the parties and unduly delay the proceedings. Because
their intervention request is denied, the Court concludes that the
proposed Intervenors' request to certify a class, appoint class
counsel, and add defendants is moot.[CC]


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Court Denies Class Certification in Florida Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Department of Legal Affairs, and
OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION, THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Division of
Consumer Finance, the Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
OCWEN MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC. and OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, the
Defendants, Case 9:17-cv-80496-KAM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Kenneth A. Marra entered an order on Sept. 26, 2018:

1. denying pro se putative intervenors' motion to intervene;

2. denying motion to certify class of;

   "potentially thousands of individuals who are defendants in
foreclosure proceedings initiated by LNV around the country";

3. denying appointment of Class Counsel;

4. denying and motion to add MGC Mortgage Inc. and LNV Corporation
as Defendant; and

5. directing Clerk to terminate proposed Intervenors from the
docket.

The Court said, "The Motion to Intervene must be denied because the
proposed Intervenors have not met their burden of showing that the
requirements of Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for
intervention by right are met. Their request for permissive
intervention also fails because intervention at this time would
prejudice the parties and unduly delay the proceedings. Because
their intervention request is denied, the Court concludes that the
proposed Intervenors' request to certify a class, appoint class
counsel, and add defendants is moot.[CC]


PLAINS ALL: Court Denies Dismissal of Oil Spill Damages Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois issued a Memorandum and Order denying Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss the case captioned KEVIN NODINE, CHERYL MORR, and DAVID
MEDLOCK, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P., PLAINS PIPELINE,
L.P., and JOHN DOES, Defendants. Case No. 17-CV-163-SMY-DGW. (S.D.
Ill.).

Plaintiffs Kevin Nodine, Cheryl Morr, and David Medlock filed the
instant putative class action lawsuit against Defendants Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P. and Plains Pipeline, L.P., arising from an
oil spill that occurred on July 10, 2015.

Legal Standards

When considering a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1), the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual
allegations as true, draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's
favor, and dismiss the case without ever reaching the merits if it
concludes that it has no jurisdiction.  

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Complaint
need only contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.

Rule 12(b)(1) - Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the
mandatory presentment clause of the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), and
that therefore, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
the Plaintiffs' claim brought under the Act.  

In their demand letter, the Plaintiffs detailed how the oil spill
affected land use, property values, surface water and sediments,
and soil and groundwater in the Highland community. While the
Defendants requested more specificity regarding the Plaintiffs'
claimed damages in subsequent letters, the OPA merely requires
claimants to present all claims and damages to the responsible
party; the statute does not require claimants to itemize damages
individually.

The OPA does not define the term sum certain. However, the Seventh
Circuit has addressed what is needed to satisfy the requirements
for a sum certain in the context of the Federal Tort Claims Act. In
Khan v. U.S., 808 F.3d 1169, 1172-73 (7th Cir. 2015), the Court
noted, all that must be specified is facts plus and demand for
money; if those two things are specified, the claim encompasses any
cause of action fairly implicit in the facts. But as 'facts plus a
demand for money' must be specified, failure to ask for any damages
any money is fatal.  The Court finds the Seventh Circuit's ruling
in Khan instructive, and further finds that the Plaintiffs' demand
letter requested damages in a sum certain.

Because the Plaintiffs' satisfied the presentment clause, this
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over their claims under the
OPA. Therefore, the Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1) is denied.

Rule 12(b)(6) - Failure to State a Claim

Recoverable Damages Under the OPA

The Defendants also assert that the Plaintiffs have stated a viable
claim under the OPA because they have not sufficiently pleaded that
they sustained an actual injury to their property or loss.

Conversely, the Plaintiffs maintain that allegations give the
defendants fair notice of the nature of the claim asserted under
the OPA and state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face
as required by Iqbal and Twombly.

The Plaintiffs make the following allegations in the Complaint:
their property was affected by the oil contamination when polluting
matter entered upon the surface of their land; the ruptured
pipeline caused well over 4,000 gallons of crude oil to spill into
the surrounding waterways in and near Highland, Illinois, including
into the creek adjacent to David Medlock's property, over which he
has exclusive possession; the release of thousands of gallons of
crude oil into Silver Lake caused harm to soil and groundwater,
surface water and sediments, land use, and property value; the oil
spill created and will create uncertainty and stigma as to the
safety of occupying Plaintiffs' properties and has reduced and will
reduce the properties' market value; there are an estimated 380
residential parcels and 120 agricultural parcels in the impacted
area, which are subject to market resistance resulting in
diminished property values  and the socioeconomic and environment
damages and damages to affected properties are in the millions of
dollars.

These specific allegations belie Defendants' argument that
Plaintiffs are merely seeking damages for stigma and nebulous
losses. When read as a whole, Plaintiffs' Complaint states a viable
claim for damages under the OPA.

Thus, Defendants' motion to dismiss this claim for failure to
sufficiently plead actual injuries is denied.

State Law Claims

As an initial matter, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs' state law
claims are all insufficiently pleaded under Iqbal and Twombly.
Specifically, they assert Plaintiffs' descriptions of their claims
under trespass, negligence, and nuisance (Counts II, III, IV, V,
and VI) consist largely of generic, conclusory allegations.
Plaintiffs have made no attempt to plead any facts that show that
these claims are plausible that is, Plaintiffs have not pleaded
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

Instead, the Complaint contains bare allegations that merely
conclude liability is present without any factual development to
support that ultimate conclusion.

The Court disagrees. F.R.C.P. 8(a)(2) requires only a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief. Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need
only give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.  

Plaintiffs' Complaint satisfies these requirements as to the
asserted state law claims.
Under Illinois law, the violation of a statute or ordinance
designed for the protection of human life or property is prima
facie evidence of negligence, and that the party injured thereby
has a cause of action, provided he comes within the purview of the
particular ordinance or statute, and the injury has a direct and
proximate connection with the violation.

In this case, Plaintiffs rest their negligence per se claim on
Defendants' alleged violation of the OPA. In addition to arguing
that Plaintiffs' negligence per se claim is subject to dismissal
for pleading deficiencies (an argument this Court has rejected),
Defendants argue that the claim should be dismissed because
Plaintiffs' OPA claim fails. Because the Court has concluded that
Plaintiffs' OPA claim survives at this juncture, Plaintiffs'
negligence per se claim survives as well.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaawkc52
from Leagle.com.

Cheryl Morr, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated & David Medlock, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by John J. Driscoll,
Driscoll Firm, P.C., Christopher J. Quinn, Driscoll Firm, P.C. &
Gregory J. Pals, Driscoll Firm, P.C.

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
& Plains Pipeline, L.P., a Texas limited partnership, Defendants,
represented by Alphonse J. Pranaitis, Jr. -- apranaitis@rssclaw.com
-- Rynearson, Suess et al, David A. Schott, Rynearson, Suess et al,
Heather J. Hays -- hhays@rssclaw.com -- Rynearson, Suess et al.,
Lewis C. Sutherland -- lsutherland@velaw.com -- Vinson & Elkins,
LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew C. Hoffman -- mhoffman@velaw.com --
Vinson & Elkins, LLP, pro hac vice & Taylor R. Pullins, Vinson &
Elkins, LLP, pro hac vice.

John Doe, 1 through 10, Defendant, pro se.


PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: FLSA Settlement in McKeen-Chaplin Suit Okayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Provident Financial Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, that the District Court has
approved the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) portion of the
settlement in the class action lawsuit filed by Gina
McKeen-Chaplin.

On December 17, 2012, a class and collective action lawsuit, Gina
McKeen-Chaplin, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated vs. the Bank was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California (the "Court") against the
Bank claiming damages, restitution and injunctive relief for
alleged misclassification of certain employees as exempt rather
than non-exempt, resulting in a failure to pay appropriate overtime
compensation, to provide meal and rest periods, to pay waiting time
penalties and to provide accurate wage statements (the
"McKeen-Chaplin lawsuit").

On August 12, 2015, the Court issued an order denying the
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granting the Bank's
motion for summary judgment affirming that the plaintiffs were
properly classified as exempt employees and denying the federal
claims. On August 18, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the
order. On July 5, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit") reversed the Court's ruling
granting the Bank's motion for summary judgment, instead ruling the
plaintiffs were improperly classified as exempt employees and were
entitled to overtime compensation. The Ninth Circuit remanded the
case back to the Court with instructions to enter summary judgement
in favor of the plaintiffs.

As a result of the Ninth Circuit's unfavorable ruling, the Bank
filed on September 7, 2017, a petition for writ of certiorari to
the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on November 27,
2017.

On May 22, 2013, counsel in the McKeen-Chaplin lawsuit filed
another class action called Neal vs. Provident Savings Bank, F.S.B.
(the "Neal lawsuit") in California Superior Court in Alameda County
(the "State Court"). The Neal lawsuit is virtually identical to the
McKeen-Chaplin lawsuit alleging that mortgage underwriters were
misclassified as exempt employees.

On December 18, 2017, the Bank entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs' representatives to memorialize
an agreement in principle to settle the pending McKeen-Chaplin and
Neal Lawsuits. The Memorandum of Understanding assumes class
certification for purposes of the settlement only and provides for
an aggregate settlement payment by the Bank of $1.8 million, which
includes all settlement funds, the named plaintiff service
payments, and class counsel's attorneys' fees and costs.

Any additional costs and expenses related to employer-side payroll
taxes will be paid by the Bank. The parties since have successfully
negotiated a mutually acceptable long-form agreement which has been
fully executed.

On February 21, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion in McKeen-Chaplin
asking the District Court to approve the  Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) portion of the settlement. The parties also worked together
to jointly request that the Court of Appeal in Neal pass
jurisdiction back to the trial court to oversee the settlement
process. The Neal court granted the motion for preliminary approval
on May 15, 2018.

Subsequently, on July 18, 2018 the District Court approved the FLSA
portion of the settlement which will allow the parties to begin the
process of providing notice of the settlement to the Neal class.

Provident Financial said, "The Bank's decision to settle these
lawsuits was the result of the unfavorable ruling by the United
States Supreme Court in the McKeen-Chaplin lawsuit and the
significant legal costs, distraction from day-to-day operating
activities and substantial resources that would be required to
defend the Bank in protracted litigation if the Neal lawsuit would
proceed. In addition, the Bank determined that the settlement would
reduce the Bank's potential exposure to damages, penalties, fines
and plaintiffs' legal fees in the event of an unfavorable outcome
in the Neal lawsuit. The settlement will include the dismissal of
all claims against the Bank and related parties in the
McKeen-Chaplin and Neal Lawsuits without any admission of liability
or wrongdoing attributed to the Bank. The settlement described in
the long-form agreement remains subject to court approval and other
customary conditions, including a limitation on the number of
plaintiffs in each lawsuit that may opt out of the proposed
settlement. If the opt out number for either lawsuit is exceeded,
the Bank may at its sole and absolute discretion void the
settlement within 30 days of receiving notice of the number of
plaintiff’s electing to opt out of the settlement."

Provident Financial additionally said, "Based on the proposed
settlement, the Corporation recorded a litigation settlement
expense accrual of $650,000 in the second quarter of fiscal 2018 to
fully reserve for the agreed upon settlement amount."

Provident Financial Holdings, Inc. operates as the holding company
for Provident Savings Bank, F.S.B. that provides community and
mortgage banking services to consumers and small to mid-sized
businesses in the Inland Empire region of Southern California.  The
company was founded in 1956 and is based in Riverside, California.


PRUCO LIFE: Behfarin Seeks Certification of Class and Sub-Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled RICHARD BEHFARIN,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals v. PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-05290-MWF-FFM (C.D. Cal.), moves the
Court for an order granting certification of these class and
sub-class:

   1. A National Class consisting of all persons who held
      universal or variable universal Pruco Life Insurance
      Company policies during the period July 18, 2013 to
      present, whose policies lapsed, and who upon default or
      lapse received notice that to cure or reinstate, they would
      have to pay sums that exceeded three months of insurance
      charges at then current rates; and

   2. A California Sub-Class consisting of all persons who held
      universal or variable universal Pruco Life Insurance
      Company policies during the period July 18, 2013 to
      present, whose policies lapsed, and who upon default or
      lapse received notice that to cure or reinstate, they would
      have to pay sums that exceeded three months of insurance
      charges at then current rates.

Mr. Behfarin also asks the Court to appoint him as the Class
Representative for the National Class and the California Subclass,
and to appoint Steven C. Shuman, Esq., of Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack
as Lead Counsel for the Class and Subclass, and the Law Offices of
Robert B. Mobasseri P.C. as additional class counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 11, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Walter J. Lack, Esq.
          Steven C. Shuman, Esq.
          ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB & LACK
          10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4113
          Telephone: (310) 552-3800
          Facsimile: (310) 552-9434
          E-mail: wlack@elllaw.com
                  sshuman@elllaw.com

               - and -

          Robert Mobasseri, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT B. MOBASSERI, P.C.
          1055 W 7th St. Suite 2140
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2676
          Telephone: (213) 282-2000
          Facsimile: (213) 282-3000
          E-mail: robert@lawyer.com

Defendant PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by:

          Steven H. Frankel, Esq.
          Laura Leigh Geist, Esq.
          Douglas A. Scullion, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1300
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 882-5000
          Facsimile: (415) 882-0300
          E-mail: steven.frankel@dentons.com
                  laura.geist@dentons.com
                  douglas.scullion@dentons.com


QUALCOMM: Court Grants Class Certification in Antitrust Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: QUALCOMM ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case
5:17-md-02773-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh entered
an order on Sept. 27, 2018:

1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and denying
Qualcomm's motion to strike the declaration of Kenneth Flamm;

2. certifying a class of:

   "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 for their own use and not for
resale from February 11, 2011, through the present 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";

3. appointing Sarah Key, Terese Russell, Carra Abernathy, Leonidas
Miras, and James Clark as representatives of the class; and

4. appointing Kalpana Srinivasan of Susman Godfrey L.L.P. and
Joseph W. Cotechett of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, as class
counsel.

Qualcomm suggests that the Plaintiffs' proposed class is not
sufficiently cohesive to warrant the same injunctive relief for the
entire class.  The Court disagrees.  The Plaintiffs have shown, the
Court explains, that Qualcomm's allegedly anticompetitive conduct
has market-wide application and effect. Because Qualcomm's
practices "are generally applicable to the class as a whole,"
Plaintiffs may pursue an injunction on behalf of a Rule 23(b)(2)
class.  Qualcomm's remaining arguments repeat the same arguments
made above with respect to Rule 23(b)(3) predominance.  In addition
to the fact that Rule 21 23(b)(2) class actions have no
predominance requirement, In re Yahoo Mail, 308 F.R.D. at 587, 22
the Court has already rejected Qualcomm's predominance arguments in
the preceding section, the Court says.[CC]


RADISYS CORP: Rosenblatt and Shemali Cases Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Radisys Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that each named plaintiffs in
the case, Jordan Rosenblatt v. Radisys Corporation, et al. and
Shemali v. Radisys Corporation, et al., filed voluntary dismissals
of their respective complaints.

On August 14, 2018, a shareholder class action complaint was filed
in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of
Washington on behalf of a putative class of  Radisys Corporation
(RSYS) shareholders and naming as defendants Radisys Corporation,
Michael G. Hluchyj, Brian Bronson and Steve Domenik: Jordan
Rosenblatt v. Radisys Corporation, et al., Case No. 18CV36192.

On August 17, 2018, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division naming
as defendants Radisys Corporation, Brian Bronson, Steve Domenik and
Michael G. Hluchyj: Elie Shemali v. Radisys Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 3:18-cv-01525.

After RSYS made supplemental disclosures to the proxy statement, on
August 29, 2018 and August 28, 2018, respectively, each of the
named plaintiffs in the Rosenblatt and Shemali cases filed
voluntary dismissals of their respective complaints. The named
plaintiff in the Rosenblatt case requested dismissal with prejudice
as to the named plaintiff, but not as to the class. The plaintiff
in the Shemali case, which was not a class action, requested
dismissal with prejudice. Counsel for plaintiffs in both of the
cases have stated their intent to seek mootness fees from RSYS,
whether pursuant to a subsequent agreement or, if an agreement
cannot be reached, in accordance with the respective court’s
rulings after an opportunity for briefing by plaintiffs and RSYS.

Radisys Corporation provides telecom solutions worldwide. It
operates in two segments, Software-Systems and Hardware Solutions.
Radisys Corporation was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in
Hillsboro, Oregon.


RALPH LAUREN: Faces Gilmore Suit in California State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ralph Lauren
Corporation. The lawsuit is captioned as Charone Gilmore on behalf
of herself all others similarly situated and on behalf of the
general public, the Plaintiff, vs. Ralph Lauren Corporation and
Ralph Lauren Retail Inc., the Defendant, Case No.:
56-2018-00518077-CU-OE-VTA (Cal. Sup. Ct., Sept. 25, 2018).

Ralph Lauren Corporation is an American corporation producing
mid-range to luxury fashion products. They are known for the
clothing, marketing and distribution of products in four
categories: apparel, home, accessories, and fragrances.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          William David Turley, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade St
          San Diego, CA 92121-2410
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234 4048
          E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com


RELATED COMPANIES: Faces Diaz ADA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Related
Companies, L.P. under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Related Companies,
L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09291 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 10,
2018).

The Related Companies, L.P. develops, acquires, owns, operates,
manages, finances, markets, sells, and leases real estate
properties in the United States and internationally. Its portfolio
includes luxury residential properties, mixed-use properties,
Hudson yards, retail properties, office properties, hotels and
resorts, and trade show and exhibition spaces, as well as housing
properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RESOLUTE SECURITY: Faces Thornton Suit in California State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resolute Security
Group Inc. The case is captioned as Allen Thornton individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Resolute Security
Group Inc., Does 1-100, John Harris Gimple, Scott David Gimple, and
Scott Patrick Jenkins, Case No. 34-2018-00241293-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Sup. Ct., Sacramento County, Sept. 24, 2018).

Resolute Security Group is a global threat management firm.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
          SHIMODA LAW GROUP
          9401 East Stockton Blvd., Suite 200
          Elk Grove, CA 95624
          E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com


ROBERT BOSCH: Berry et al. Sue over CP4 Fuel Injection Pump Defect
------------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN BERRY; DARREN BARSNESS; CHRISTOPHER BESTOR; RON CROWLEY;
ROGER W. DUNAGAN; DARYLE CRAIG EAGLE; JOHN FISHER; JARED GEUDER;
BLAKE GRESSETT; TANNER GRIFFIN; RICHARD TERRELL HAYDOCK; ROBERT
HEARNE; CHARLES DALE HOYT; CEDRIC JONES; JACK LANDRY MANN; MICHAEL
MATHEWS; SHANE MCCASLIN; OROZCO; JIMMY JOSE ORTIZ; CHRISTOPHER LEE
PERRY; TODD ROBINSON; RAY ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ; SARA ROOK; JOSHUA
SCHATZEL; JOSEPH ANTHONY STALLONE; CHARLEY TANNER; DAVID WALKER;
RUDY ZEPEDA; ALDO GRANILLO; MICHAEL JEFFCOAT; individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROBERT BOSCH
GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH, LLC; GENERAL MOTORS LLC; FORD MOTOR COMPANY;
FCA US LLC F/K/A CHRYSLER GROUP; VM ITALY; and VM NORTH AMERICA,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00318 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 1, 2018)
alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants saw Bosch's CP4 fuel
injection pump as another way to make money -- to take advantage of
consumers' desire to drive diesel vehicles that were reliable,
durable, fuel-efficient, and powerful. After the CP4 fuel injection
system worked successfully in vehicles in Europe, the Defendants
sought to use the CP4 system in American vehicles, promising
consumers exactly what they were looking for -- improvements in
torque, horsepower, durability, and fuel economy. But the
Defendants couldn't deliver that promise for American vehicles
because the CP4 fuel pump is not compatible with American diesel
fuel.

Unbeknownst to consumers, the improved fuel efficiency of the Bosch
CP4 Pump in American vehicles comes at the cost of running the pump
nearly dry so that it destroys itself, and ultimately and
catastrophically, destroys the fuel injection system and the
engine. American diesel fuel is cleaner, which means that it also
provides less lubrication than European diesel fuel. The lubricity
specifications of American diesel are incompatible with the
specifications of the CP4 system. When American diesel fuel is run
through the fast moving, high pressure, lower volume CP4 pump, it
struggles to maintain lubrication. The cleaner, thinner diesel
allows air pockets to form inside the pump during operation,
causing metal to rub against metal, ultimately generating metal
shavings which are dispersed throughout, contaminate and destroy
the fuel system. Contrary to the Defendants' claims that the CP4
fuel injection system is more reliable, more durable, more
powerful, and more fuel-efficient, the CP4 fuel injection system is
costly and destructive. The Bosch CP4 Pump often fails when a
vehicle nears 100,000 miles, and requires repair or replacement of
the entire high-pressure fuel system, costing consumers, on
average, between $8,000 and $15,000.

The Defendants knew, from the specifications of the pump as
compared to the specifications of American diesel, that the Bosch
CP4 Pump was not compatible with American diesel fuel before they
ever chose to incorporate it in American vehicles. The Defendants
had experience with widespread catastrophic fuel injection pump
failures when cleaner diesel standards were first implemented in
the 1990s. By 2002, the Defendants, through the Engine
Manufacturers Association, acknowledged the lower lubricity of
American diesel could cause catastrophic failure in fuel injection
system components that are made to European diesel specifications.
Not only did the Defendants fail to inform American consumers and
fail to stop touting the fabricated benefits of the vehicles
containing CP4 pumps, they actively attempted to shift the blame to
the American consumers.

Robert Bosch GmbH provides technology and services worldwide. It
operates through Mobility Solutions, Industrial Technology,
Consumer Goods, and Energy and Building Technology segments. The
company was formerly known as Workshop for Precision Mechanics and
Electrical Engineering and changed its name to Robert Bosch GmbH in
1937. Robert Bosch GmbH was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in
Stuttgart, Germany. Robert Bosch GmbH is a subsidiary of Robert
Bosch Stiftung Gmbh. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
          Rudy Gonzales, Jr., Esq.
          John B. Martinez, Esq.
          Marion Reilly, Esq.
          Bradford P. Klager, Esq.
          HILLIARD MARTINEZ GONZALES LLP
          719 S. Shoreline Blvd.
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 882-1612
          Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
          E-mail: bob@hmglawfirm.com
                  rudy@hmglawfirm.com
                  john@hmglawfirm.com
                  marion@hmglawfirm.com
                  brad@hmglawfirm.com

               - and -

          T. Michael Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 North Orange Ave., Ste. 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 418-2081
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3392
          E-mail: mmorgan@forthepeople.com


ROCKLER RETAIL: Faces Murphy Suit in California Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rockler Retail Group.
The lawsuit is captioned Michael Murphy, on behalf of himself and
on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs Does
1-50 and Rockler Retail Group, Case No.: 34-2018-00241374-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 25, 2018).[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
          ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
          5850 Oberlin Dr, Ste 230A
          San Diego, CA 92121-4711
          Telephone: (619) 892 7095
          Facsimile: (858) 404 9203
          E-mail: shani@zakaylaw.com

               - and -

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com


SALESFORCE.COM INC: $6.25MM Accord in Simms Suit Awaits Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case is, Simms v. ExactTarget, LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-00737-WTL-DLP (S.D. Ind.), Magistrate Judge Pryor on
October 2, 2018, issued a Report and Recommendation that the
Motions for Final Approval and for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and
Incentive Award be granted. The Settlement will not be finally
approved until the District Judge rules on the Report and
Recommendation.

The Defendant has agreed to pay $6,250,000 to settle the lawsuit.
After deducting costs of notice and claims administration,
attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, and an incentive payment to
the Class Representative, the remaining amount will be divided on a
pro rata basis (equally) among everyone who files a valid claim, up
to a limit of $1,500 per person.

Salesforce.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2018, that in September 2013, one of the Company's
subsidiaries, ExactTarget, Inc., was added as a defendant in a
purported class-action lawsuit that alleged that ExactTarget and
one of its customers, Simply Fashion Stores, Ltd. ("Simply
Fashion"), violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA")
as a result of Simply Fashion's text messaging campaigns and
alleged failure to opt-out certain Simply Fashion customers from
receiving messages.

The complaint was subsequently amended to remove Simply Fashion as
a defendant and the lawsuit is currently before the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The complaint
seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief. While disputing the
allegations of wrongdoing, the Company reached a settlement of the
lawsuit for approximately $6 million in fiscal 2018. The parties
submitted the settlement agreement to the Court for approval and
the Court entered the preliminary approval order.

The Court held the final approval hearing on July 20, 2018. The
Court has not yet entered a final judgment.

Additional information is available at
http://www.simmstcpasettlement.com/

Class counsel is:

     Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
     Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
     Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
     The Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron
     651 Arroyo Drive
     San Diego, CA 92108

Heffler Claims Group is the settlement administrator.

Salesforce.com, Inc. develops enterprise cloud computing solutions
with a focus on customer relationship management. The company
offers Sales Cloud to store data, monitor leads and progress,
forecast opportunities, and gain insights through analytics and
relationship intelligence, as well as deliver quotes, contracts,
and invoices. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.


SAMARITAN LLC: Gaytan Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA GAYTAN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs SAMARITAN, LLC dba GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV335311 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sept. 26, 2018), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay minimum
wages and overtime pay under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a resident of
California and was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
hourly employee at their facilities and offices in San Jose,
California. The Plaintiff and the other Class members worked for
the Defendants as certified nurse assistants in Santa Clara County,
and in other nonexempt positions, throughout California and, and
consistently worked at the Defendants' behest without being paid
all wages due.

The Defendants required Plaintiff and the Employees in the Class to
perform work while remaining under the Defendants' control before
and after being on the clock for their daily work shift, and the
Defendants further failed to accurately record time worked by
Plaintiff and the Employee Class members by rounding hours worked
to the nearest quarter hour to their detriment, the Case says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
                  roman@yeremianlaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
          5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (310) 652-2242
          E-mail: whaines@uelg.com


SERVICESOURCE DELAWARE: Patton Moves to Certify Sales Reps Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned SARAH PATTON, ERICA KITTS,
and MARILEE HARRISON, individually and on behalf of all
similarly-situated persons v. SERVICESOURCE DELAWARE, INC. d/b/a
SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-01013 (M.D.
Tenn.), move the Court for entry of an order certifying the case as
a class action on behalf of a class consisting of:

     all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees at
     Defendant ServiceSource Delaware, Inc. d/b/a ServiceSource
     International, Inc.'s ("Defendant") Nashville, Tennessee
     office, from September 21, 2009 to the present, who were
     employed, hired as, or held a position titled Sales Account
     Representative, Senior Sales Representative, Strategic
     Representative, Renewal Sales Representative, Renewal Sales
     Specialist, Strategic Sales Specialist, Customers Success
     Associate, Customers Success Representative, Customer
     Success Specialist, Sales Associate, Sales Representative,
     or Channel Engagement Specialist (collectively "Class
     Members").

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to name them and their counsel as
representatives of all putative Class Members.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Martin D. Holmes, Esq.
          Joshua L. Burgener, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          424 Church Street, Suite 800
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-6538
          E-mail: mdholes@dickinsonwright.com
                  jburgener@dickinsonwright.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Craig A. Cowart, Esq.
          Eileen Kuo, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          999 Shady Grove Road, Suite 110
          Memphis, TN 38120
          Telephone: (901) 462-2600
          Facsimile: (901) 462-2626
          E-mail: craig.cowart@jacksonlewis.com
                  eileen.kuo@jacksonlewis.com


SHELTER MUTUAL: Baggett Suit Moved to Eastern District of Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Baggett On Behalf of Himself and all Similarly Situated
Persons and Entities, the Plaintiff, vs Shelter Mutual Insurance
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 60CV-18-01542 (Pulaski County Cir.
Ct.), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas (Little Rock) on Sept. 25, 2018. The Eastern
District of Arkansas Court clerk assigned Case No.
4:18-cv-00739-BRW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Billy Roy Wilson. The suit alleges Insurance Contract
violation.

Shelter Insurance Company is a mutual insurance company which
focuses on auto, property, business, and life insurance. It
operates in fifteen U.S. states and the headquarters is in
Columbia, Missouri.[BN]

Attorneys for Samuel Baggett:

          David S. Mitchell, Esq.
          DAVID S. MITCHELL, P.A.
          Prospect Building
          1501 North University, Suite 640
          Little Rock, AR 72207
          Telephone: (501) 663-3322
          Facsimile: (501) 663-3320
          E-mail: DavidMitchell@DavidMitchellLaw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth Jerald Mitchell, Esq.
          TAYLOR KING & ASSOCIATES P.A.
          5209 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
          North Little Rock, AR 72116
          Telephone: (870) 246-0505
          E-mail: rustymitchell@taylorkinglaw.com

               - and -

          Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374 1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374 2222
          E-mail: mbozeman@thrashlawfirmpa.com

Attorneys for Shelter Mutual Insurance Company:

          James Melton Sayes, Esq.
          MATTHEWS, SANDERS & SAYES
          825 West Third Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 378 0717
          E-mail: msayes@msslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sarah E. Greenwood, Esq.
          MUNSON, ROWLETT, MOORE & BOONE, P.A.
          Regions Center, Suite 1900
          400 West Capitol Avenue
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374 6535
          E-mail: sarah.greenwood@mrmblaw.com


SONIC REFERENCE: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sonic Reference
Laboratory, Inc. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sonic
Reference Laboratory, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09288 (S.D.
N.Y., Oct. 10, 2018).

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

Sonic Reference Laboratory is a CLIA certified and CAP accredited
state-of-the-art esotericlaboratory specializing in Analytical
Chemistry, Molecular, Hematology, Immunology and Clinical Chemistry
testing.[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


SPRINT CORP: Oliphant Seeks to Certify Operation Specialists Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned DAKOTA OLIPHANT, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SPRINT
CORPORATION, a Kansas Corporation, and SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, a Kansas Corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
8:18-cv-00353-JMG-MDN (D. Neb.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:

   a. granting conditional class certification regarding
Plaintiff's claims under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act regarding all employees who performed as Operation Specialists
(or other similarly situated job positions paid on an hourly basis)
from three years from the date of the Court's order;

   b. directing the Defendants to provide a list of names of these
persons, within 14 days of the Court's order, along with their last
known home address, phone numbers, and email addresses, all in a
workable electronic format for mailing purposes;

   c. providing social security numbers for all class members whose
mailed notices are returned so Plaintiff can locate a viable
mailing address;

   d. approving and authorizing Plaintiff to send the notice of
opportunity to join and consent to become a party Plaintiff forms;
and

   e. granting other relief the Court deems just and proper.[CC]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          William B. Zastera, Esq.
          VANDENACK WEAVER LLC
          17007 Marcy Street, Suite 3
          Omaha, NE 68118
          Telephone: (402) 504 1300
          Facsimile: (402) 504 1935
          E-mail: wzastera@vwattys.com


SSMB PACIFIC: Faces Alatorre Suit in California Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SSMB Pacific Holding
Company Inc. The lawsuit is captioned as Jonathan Jaime Alatorre,
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs Does
1-100, Harry Mamizuka, and SSMB Pacific Holding Company Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 34-2018-00241404-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sept. 25, 2018).

SSMB Pacific Holding Company, Inc., doing business as NorCal
Kenworth, operates as a new and used trucks dealer in Northern
California.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
          SHIMODA LAW CORP.
          9401 E Stockton Blvd Ste 200,
          Elk Grove, CA 95624
          Telephone: (916) 525 0716
          Facsimile: (916) 760 3733
          E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com

ST. MATTHEWS BAPTIST: Tasco Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL TASCO, Individually and on behalf of similarly situated
Maintenance Department employees, the Plaintiff(s), vs ST. MATTHEWS
BAPTIST CHURCH 245 Glassboro Road, Route 322 Williamstown, NJ
08094; and Dr. RAYMOND GORDON, SR. 245 Glassboro Road, Route 322
Williamstown, NJ 08094, Case No. 1:18-cv-14216-RBK-JS (D.N.J.,
Sept. 24, 2018), the Defendants seek for relief and compensation
for overtime worked and not paid while employed by St. Matthews
Baptist Church under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
Maintenance Department employees of St. Matthews Baptist Church,
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek but were not paid
overtime. The Plaintiff recalls beginning work for the Defendant in
February of 2010. The Plaintiff's last day actually working for
Defendant was in late September or early October 2016.

An interoffice correspondence of May 31, 2011 offers Plaintiff
full-time employment with the Defendant in the Maintenance
Department, and offers: $15.00 an hour; two 15-minute breaks; a
30-minute lunch break; and, that "paychecks are distributed on
alternate Fridays for the two-weeks worked prior to the pay
period," the lawsuit says.

St. Matthews Baptist Church is located in Williamstown, New Jersey,
30 miles from Philadelphia. Established in 1924, it is stated to be
a church where Jesus and community development are the main
focus.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Christopher J. Delgaizo, Esq.
          DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1601
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (610) 844 1779
          Facsimile: (215) 501 5911
          E-mail: Chris@dereksmithlaw.com


STILLMAN LAW: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Bencosme FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned ESTIBALY BENCOSME, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STILLMAN LAW OFFICES, LLC,
Defendant. Civil Action No. 18-cv-03304 (PGS)(DEA). (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff Estibaly Bencosme, brings a class action on the
Plaintiff's behalf and on behalf of similarly situated individuals,
against Defendant, Stillman Law Office, LLC, to redress the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices
Act (FDCPA) and seeks damages, along with declaratory and
injunctive relief.

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court is required to accept as true
all allegations in the Complaint and all reasonable inferences that
can be drawn therefrom, and to view them in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. 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.

Congress enacted the FDCPA in response to the abundant evidence of
the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices
by many debt collectors. Here, Plaintiff alleges a letter from an
attorney who is collecting a debt by itself places the least
sophisticated consumer under duress.

In its motion to dismiss, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's
Complaint asserts that all lawyer collection letters violate FDCPA
when, in fact, some courts have required that certain language be
placed in the letter to overcome that duress. Here, the Defendant
argues the Stillman letter included language that other courts have
accepted to overcome a FDCPA claim alleging duress by receiving a
letter from a lawyer. As such, Defendants assert Plaintiffs' cause
of action should be dismissed.

In Greco v. Trauner, Cohen & Thomas, LLP, 412 F.3d 260 (2d Cir.
2005), the Court held that the FDCPA does not prohibit attorneys
from acting as debt collectors, rather the statute mandates that
lawyers must make their role clear in the collection of a debt. In
Greco, the Court found that a sufficient disclaimer explaining the
limited involvement of the attorneys is necessary, and is
sufficient. The Court found a letter that stated "At this time, no
attorney with this firm has personally reviewed the particular
circumstances of your account." is satisfactory because it advises
that a legal action has been considered.  

The Plaintiff rebuts by citing to Lesher v. Law Office of Mitchell
N. Kay, P. C., 650 F.3d 993, 1000 (3d Cir. 2011), wherein the court
found that an unsophisticated consumer will be more likely to
respond to a letter from an attorney because of the additional
weight conveyed by the letter. In Lesher, the Third circuit found
that the disclaimer was negated by the language found on the front
of the letter, and the additional fact that the disclaimer was set
on the back side of the letter, thus, it was less prominent.

Here, the disclaimer was featured on the front of a one-page letter
in normal font and clear phrasing. Thus, the statement sufficiently
disclaims meaningful attorney involvement.

The statute (15 U.S.C. 1692e(10)) prohibits the use of any false
representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect
any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.

The case law under the FDCPA and the Joint Opinion appear to
contradict each other. In the Joint Opinion it was pointed out that
while the FDCPA arguably permits a law firm to send debt collection
letters in a lay capacity, New Jersey ethics rules have always
prohibited the practice. Defendant argues that Stillman's firm is
not a New Jersey firm; and thus, Opinion 48 does not apply to it.

Generally, Rule 1:14 of the New Jersey Rules of Court, The Rules of
Professional Conduct shall govern the conduct of the members of the
bar and the judges and employees of all courts of this state, but
it is uncertain whether a firm like Stillman can send a letter to a
New Jersey resident without engendering the applicability of the
rationale under the Joint Opinion.

At any rate, there is a factual dispute over whether or how the
Rules of Professional Conduct should apply or whether the language
asserted in Greco is sufficient. Those questions are better
resolved at summary judgment.  

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

ESTIBALY BENCOSME, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by YITZCHAK ZELMAN --
Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus Zelman, LLC & ARI HILLEL MARCUS
-- Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS ZELMAN LLC.

STILLMAN LAW OFFICE, LLC, Defendant, represented by MITCHELL L.
WILLIAMSON -- mwilliamson@bn-lawyers.com -- Barron & Newburger,
P.C..


SUNRUN INC: Preliminary Approval of Slovin Case Settlement Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned LYNN SLOVIN, an individual,
on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. SUNRUN, INC., a California corporation, CLEAN
ENERGY EXPERTS, LLC, a California limited liability company doing
business as SOLAR AMERICA, and DOES 1-5, inclusive, the Defendants,
the Case 4:15-cv-05340-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move
the Court on November 27, 2018, for an order:

     1. appointing Plaintiffs as the representatives of the
Settlement Class;

     2. appointing Class Counsel;

     3. preliminarily approving Settlement Agreement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate;

     4. approving Settlement Agreement's provisions for providing
notice to the Settlement Class;

     5. setting deadlines for Settlement Class Members to opt out
and object, for Plaintiffs and Class Counsel to file their
application for attorney's fees, costs, and service award, and for
the parties to file for final approval of the settlement; and

     6. scheduling a final approval hearing.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Lynn Slovin, Samuel Katz, Jeffery Price,
and Justin Birkhofer, on their own behalf, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated:

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
          dcparisi@parisihavens.com
          shavens@parisihavens.com
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          212 Marine Street, Suite 100
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501-7852

               - and -

          Yitzchak H. Lieberman, Esq.
          PARASMO LIEBERMAN LAW
          7400 Hollywood Blvd, #505
          Los Angeles, CA 90046
          Telephone: (917) 657-6857
          Facsimile: (877) 501-3346
          E-mail: ylieberman@parasmoliebermanlaw.com

               - and -

          Ethan Preston
          PRESTON LAW OFFICES
          4054 McKinney Avenue, Suite 310
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (972) 564-8340
          Facsimile: (866) 509-1197
          E-mail: ep@eplaw.us

               - and -

          Alan Himmelfarb, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ALAN HIMMELFARB
          80 W. Sierra Madre Blvd. No. 304
          Sierra Madre, California 91024
          Telephone: (626) 325-3104
          E-mail: consumerlaw1@earthlink.net


SVB FINANCIAL: Violates ADA, Diaz Suit Says
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SVB Financial Group.
The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SVB Financial Group,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09287 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 10, 2018).

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

SVB Financial Group, a diversified financial services company,
provides various banking and financial products and services.[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


TATA CONSULTANCY: Court Refuses to Reconsider Sept. 10 Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Request for Leave to
File a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's September 10, 2018
Order in the case captioned CHRISTOPHER SLAIGHT, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD, Defendant. Case No.
15-cv-01696-YGR. (N.D. Cal.).

The Court clarifies that its September 10, 2018 order requires
return of severance payment as a condition to participate in the
instant class action. The Plaintiffs have not presented newly
discovered evidence, shown that the Court committed a clear error,
or pointed to an intervening change in the controlling law.  

The Plaintiffs' reiteration of their arguments in support of their
initial motion to invalidate the release agreements do not warrant
this extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of
finality and conservation of judicial resources.

Accordingly, the Court denies plaintiffs' request for leave to file
a motion for reconsideration of the Court's September 10, 2018
order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9q6y3ew
from Leagle.com.


Brian Buchanan & Christopher Slaight, Plaintiffs, represented by
Daniel A. Kotchen -- dkotchen@kotchen.com -- Kotchen & Low LLP,
Daniel Lee Low -- dlow@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low LLP, Michael
J. Von Klemperer -- mvonklemperer@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low
LLP, Amy McCann Roller -- aroller@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low,
Lindsey Grunert -- ltremaine@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low LLP,
Michael F. Brown -- mbrown@dvglawpartner.com -- DVG Law Partner LLC
& Steven Gregory Tidrick -- sgt@tidricklaw.com -- The Tidrick Law
Firm.

Seyed Amir Masoudi & Nobel Mandili, Plaintiffs, represented by Amy
McCann Roller -- aroller@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low, Lindsey
Grunert -ltremaine@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low LLP, Michael J.
Von Klemperer, Kotchen and Low LLP & Daniel A. Kotchen, Kotchen &
Low LLP.

Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Michelle
M. LaMar -- mlamar@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb LLP, Bernard Robert
Given, II -- bgiven@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb, Erin Michelle Smith --
esmith@loeb.com -- Loeb and Loeb LLP, Laura Ann Wytsma --
lwytsma@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb LLP, Patrick Norton Downes --
pdownes@loeb.com -- Loeb And Loeb LLP, Terry D. Garnett --
tgarnett@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb LLP & William Michael Brody --
wbrody@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb.

Apple Inc., Movant, represented by Danielle Conley –
DANIELLE.CONLEY@WILMERHALE.COM -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP, Kathryn Diane Zalewski -- kathryn.zalewski@wilmerhale.com
-- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP & Kimberly A. Parker --
KIMBERLY.PARKER@WILMERHALE.COM --  Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP.


TELELINK LLC: Awad et al. Seek Unpaid Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIE HERNANDEZ, AMY AWAD, and PHILLIP KUTA, On behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs,
vs. TELELINK, LLC, the Defendant, Case: 4:18-cv-02203-BYP (N.D.
Ohio, Sept. 25, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
and Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant operates a call center
facility located at 1839 Elm Rd. NE, Warren Ohio. The Plaintiffs
and Putative Class Members are former and current Sales
Representatives who worked for Defendant out of the Defendant's
call center facility. However, the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members the full and proper overtime
compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek because the
Defendant failed to include bonus payments into the regular rate
calculation for purposes of overtime, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
          GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
          250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221 4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744 2300
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
                  jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com


TENNECO INC: Cryar Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------
Judge Richard G. Andrews signed an order granting a stipulation and
order concerning the Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of the case,
Cryar v. Tenneco Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01052 (D. Del., July
17, 2018).

Tenneco Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission that on July 17, 2018, a putative class
action complaint was filed by a purported stockholder of the
Company, captioned Cryar v. Tenneco Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-01052-RGA (the "Class Action Complaint"), in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of the
Company's stockholders against the Company and board of directors
of the Company.

The Class Action Complaint alleges that the proxy statement
authorized by the board of directors of the Company failed to
disclose certain allegedly material information. The Class Action
Complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the Company from
proceeding with a stockholder vote on the issuance of the stock
consideration to be issued in the Transaction.

On August 31, 2018, the parties to the Class Action Complaint
entered into a confidential Memorandum of Understanding (the
"Memorandum of Understanding") providing for the dismissal of the
Class Action Complaint with prejudice as to the plaintiff in the
Class Action Complaint and without prejudice as to the putative
class.

Tenneco said, "While the Company believes that the Class Action
Complaint lacks merit and that the disclosures in the Definitive
Proxy Statement comply fully with applicable law, in order to avoid
the expense and distraction of litigation, the Company has agreed,
pursuant to the terms of the confidential Memorandum of
Understanding, to supplement the Definitive Proxy Statement with
the supplemental disclosures. The confidential Memorandum of
Understanding also outlines the terms of the plaintiff's agreement
in principle to dismiss the Class Action Complaint and release all
claims which it has, has ever had, or could have asserted related
to the Transaction and disclosures related to the Transaction.
Nothing in the Supplemental Disclosures shall be deemed an
admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable
law of the Supplemental Disclosures. To the contrary, the Company
specifically denies all allegations that any of the Supplemental
Disclosures, or any other additional disclosures, were or are
required. The defendants have vigorously denied, and continue
vigorously to deny, that they have committed any violation of law
or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were alleged in the
Class Action Complaint."

Tenneco additionally said, "The Supplemental Disclosures will not
affect the consideration to be paid in connection with the
Transaction or the timing of the special meeting scheduled for
September 12, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., Central Time, at the Company’s
headquarters, 500 North Field Drive, Lake Forest, IL 60045."

A copy of the Supplemental Disclosure is available at
https://goo.gl/QeDyrp.

Tenneco Inc. designs, manufactures, and distributes clean air and
ride performance products and systems for light vehicle, commercial
truck, off-highway, and other vehicle applications worldwide.
Tenneco Inc. was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Lake
Forest, Illinois.


TERRA VISTA: Mendrella Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------
KRISTI MENDRELLA, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs TERRA VISTA
MANAGEMENT, INC., a California corporation; MICHAEL GELFAND, an
individual; BRIAN ROSS, an individual; RICHARD NEWMAN, an
individual and DOES 1 through 35, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. BC722777 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 26, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff as a
Sales Manager from on or about February 26, 2016 until her wrongful
termination on or about September 29, 2017. Throughout her
employment with Defendants, Plaintiff performed her duties in a
competent and satisfactory manner. Indeed, Defendants frequently
recognized Plaintiff as their top sales person throughout her
employment with them. From approximately February 2016 until
approximately March 2016, the Defendants classified Plaintiff as an
exempt employee. In or around March of 2016, the Defendants began
classifying the Plaintiff as a non­-exempt hourly employee.
Despite changing Plaintiff's classification, the Defendants failed
to provide the Plaintiff with training regarding rest and meal
periods for non-exempt employees, and failed to actually provide
the Plaintiff with 30-minute meal periods relieved of all duties
after working for five and ten consecutive hours.

Throughout her employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff earned
regular base wages and commissions based on the Defendants' sales.
The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and her colleagues all
of their earned wages and commissions. Instead, the Defendants
unlawfully deducted monies and secretly withheld wages from the
Plaintiffs and her colleagues' paychecks without explaining why or
on what basis they were doing so, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Douglas N. Silverstein, Esq.
          Mia Munro, Esq.
          KESLUK, SILVERSTEIN, & JACOB, P.C.
          9255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 411
          Los Angeles, CA 90069-3309
          Telephone: (310) 273-3180
          Facsimile: (310) 273-6137
          E-mail: dsilverstein@califomialaborlawattomev.com
                  mmunro@califomialaborlawattomev.com


TILLY'S INC: Court Grants Final Approval of Minniti Case Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, 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 court has granted final approval of the
settlement in Lauren Minniti, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, v. Tilly's, Inc., United States District Court,
Southern District of Florida, Case No. 0:17-cv-60237-FAM.

On January 30, 2017, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company, alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA").

Specifically, the complaint asserted a violation of the TCPA for
allegedly sending unsolicited automated messages to the cellular
telephones of the plaintiff and others.  The complaint sought class
certification and damages of $500 per violation plus treble damages
under the TCPA.

In March 2017, the company filed its initial response to this
matter with the court. In June 2017, the parties attended a
mediation. In July 2017, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle this matter, subject to court approval, and the
company recorded an estimated loss provision of $6.2 million in
connection with the proposed settlement during the second quarter
of fiscal 2017.

In March 2018, the parties executed a settlement agreement, subject
to final court approval. In April 2018, the court preliminarily
approved the settlement agreement and certified a class for
settlement purposes.

In May 2018, the class members were sent notice of the settlement
and in August 2018, the court granted final approval of the
settlement.

Tilly's said, "As a result, we recorded a $1.5 million reduction in
our original accrual estimate to reflect the final required cash
payments to be made as part of this settlement. Additionally, we
are required to issue non-transferable discount coupons to
approximately 612,000 existing Tillys customers not covered by the
cash payments in early September 2018. These coupons entitle the
recipient to a one-time 50% discount on a single purchase
transaction of up to $1,000. Any unused coupons will expire upon
the one year anniversary of the date of issuance. We cannot
reasonably estimate the number of coupons that will be utilized,
the timing of any coupon usage, the average transaction value
utilizing these coupons, or the potential impact of their usage on
our reported comparable store net sales, product margins and
earnings per share over the course of the next twelve months, but
the potential impact could be material and adverse. In particular,
we generally expect that the usage of these coupons will have a
positive impact on our comparable store net sales, and a negative
impact on our product margins, although we cannot reasonably
estimate the magnitude of such impacts. The potential impact on our
operating income will depend on a variety of factors that cannot be
reasonably estimated at this time."

Tilly's, Inc. retails casual apparel, footwear, and accessories for
young men and women, and boys and girls in the United States. Its
apparel merchandise includes tops, outerwear, bottoms, and dresses;
and accessories merchandise comprises backpacks, hats, sunglasses,
headphones, handbags, watches, jewelry, and others. Tilly's,
Inc.was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Irvine,
California.


TILLY'S INC: Gonzales Class Action Complaint Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 4, 20188, that the plaintiff's class action complaint
entitled, Juan Carlos Gonzales, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. Tilly's Inc. et al., Superior Court of
California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2017-00948710-CU-OE-CXC,
was dismissed.

In October 2017, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
against the company, alleging various violations of California's
wage and hour laws. The complaint seeks class certification,
unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.  

In December 2017, the company filed an answer to the complaint,
denying all of the claims and asserting various defenses. In April
2018, the plaintiff filed a separate action under the Private
Attorneys General Act (PAGA) against the company seeking penalties
on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees for the
same alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws.  

The company requested the plaintiff to dismiss the class action
claims based on an existing class action waiver in an arbitration
agreement which plaintiff signed with the company's co-defendant,
BaronHR, the staffing company that employed plaintiff to work at
the Company. In June 2018, the plaintiff's class action complaint
was dismissed.

Tilly's said, "We have defended this case vigorously, and will
continue to do so."

Tilly's, Inc. retails casual apparel, footwear, and accessories for
young men and women, and boys and girls in the United States. Its
apparel merchandise includes tops, outerwear, bottoms, and dresses;
and accessories merchandise comprises backpacks, hats, sunglasses,
headphones, handbags, watches, jewelry, and others. Tilly's, Inc.
was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


TILLY'S INC: Oral Argument in Ward Case Appeal to Begin November
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended August 4, 20188, that oral arguments have
been scheduled by the court in the case entitled, Skylar Ward, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's,
Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No.
BC595405, for November 2018.

In September 2015, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company alleging, among other things, various
violations of California's wage and hour laws. The complaint sought
class certification, unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties,
restitution, and attorneys' fees.

In June 2016, the court granted the company's demurrer to the
plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to
state a cause of action against Tilly's and dismissed the
complaint. Specifically, the court agreed with the company that the
plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay fails as a
matter of law as the plaintiff and other putative class members did
not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which the
plaintiff's claims are based.

In November 2016, the court entered a written order sustaining the
company's demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint and dismissing all
of plaintiff's causes of action with prejudice. In January 2017,
the plaintiff filed an appeal of the order to the California Court
of Appeal. In October 2017, the plaintiff filed her opening
appellate brief, and the company's responding appellate brief was
filed in December 2017. In May 2018, the plaintiff filed her reply
appellate brief.

Later in May 2018, an amicus brief was filed by Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores, Inc., in support of Tilly's position in this appeal. Oral
arguments have been scheduled by the court for November 2018.

"We have defended this case vigorously, and will continue to do
so," the Company said.

Tilly's, Inc. retails casual apparel, footwear, and accessories for
young men and women, and boys and girls in the United States. Its
apparel merchandise includes tops, outerwear, bottoms, and dresses;
and accessories merchandise comprises backpacks, hats, sunglasses,
headphones, handbags, watches, jewelry, and others. Tilly's, Inc.
was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


TOLL GLOBAL: Marquez Seeks Minimum Wage and OT under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS MARQUEZ, as an individual, and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiff, vs. TOLL GLOBAL FORWARDING
(USA), a New York corporation; TGF MANAGEMENT GROUP HOLDCO INC.,
Delaware corporation; INSPERITY EXPENSE MANAGEMENT, INC,, a and
EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. BC722779 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 26,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have consistently
maintained and enforced against Aggrieved Employees the following
unlawful practices and policies: willfully refusing to pay
Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked, including
both regular and overtime; willfully refusing to permit Plaintiff
and Aggrieved Employees from taking meal and/or rest periods or
compensation in lieu thereof; willfully refusing to compensate
Plaintiff and certain members of the Aggrieved Employees wages due
and owing at the time Plaintiffs and Aggrieved Employees'
employment with Defendants ended; and willfully refusing to furnish
to Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees accurate itemized wage
statements upon payment of wages.

Toll Global, doing business as, Baltrans Logistics Inc., operates
as a freight forwarding and logistics company.[BN]

Attorneys for Carlos Marquez, individually, and on behalf of all
aggrieved employees:

          Cevin Mahoney, Esq.
          George B. Singer, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kmahonev@mahonev-law.net
                  esinger@mahonev-law.net


TOTAL LOOK: Johnson Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------
NICOLE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, the PLAINTIFF, v. TOTAL LOOK SALON & SPA AND
CHER ANDERSON, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 3:18-cv-01630-RNC (D.
Conn., Sept. 27, 2018), seeks unpaid wages for hours worked,
liquidated damages, wages withheld from final paychecks, attorney's
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, Total Look failed to pay its non-exempt
employees for training sessions, training-related assignments and
office meetings, in violation of the FLSA and CMWA.

The Defendants have engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of
violating the provisions of the FLSA by failing to pay Johnson and
other similarly situated employees and former employees in
accordance with the provisions of the FLSA by failing to pay those
employees for their time spent training, completing training
assignments and attending staff meetings and by withholding wages
from some employees' final paychecks, the lawsuit says.

Total Look Salon & Spa is a full service hair salon and day
spa.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Gary Phelan, Esq.
          Reese Mitchell, Esq.
          MITCHELL & SHEAHAN, P.C.
          80 Ferry Blvd., Suite 216
          Stratford, CT 06615
          Telephone: (203) 873-0240
          E-mail: gphelan@mitchellandsheahan.com
                  reesemitchell@mitchellandsheahan.com


TRIPLE S. PROPERTIES: Court Denies Bid for Negative Inference
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Southern Division, issued an Order denying Plaintiffs'
Motion for Negative Inference Due to Spoliation of Evidence by
Defendant in the case captioned ELIZABETH MARTINEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. TRIPLE S. PROPERTIES, Defendant. Case No.
6:17-03195-CV-RK. (W.D. Mo.).

In their putative class action complaint, the Plaintiffs allege the
Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, (FCRA). The
Complaint alleges that the Defendant, an owner of residential
rental properties, failed to give disclosures under the FCRA that
it took adverse action based on credit reports.

Motion for Negative Inference

The Plaintiffs request that the Court (1) approve an instruction
advising the jury of the Defendant's document destruction and the
jury's ability to infer certain facts in the Plaintiffs' favor
based on this destruction; (2) make an evidentiary finding that the
Plaintiffs' proposed class meets the requirements for class
certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure; and (3) impose a rebuttable presumption that, for each
rental application Defendant received from May 19, 2012 to May 19,
2017, Defendant obtained a credit report and failed to provide the
applicant with the necessary notice under the FCRA.  

To give an adverse inference instruction for spoliation that occurs
before litigation starts (1) there must be a finding of intentional
destruction indicating a desire to suppress the truth, and (2)
there must be a finding of prejudice to the opposing party.

The Court finds that there is no evidence of bad faith or
intentional destruction of documents to suppress the truth.
Defendant's regular business practice was to periodically burn
files to avoid inadvertently disclosing confidential information on
lease applications and credit reports. Although it is possible
Defendant continued this practice for a short time after litigation
commenced, the Court finds that the particular facts and
circumstances of this case do not suggest Defendant destroyed
documents for the purpose of suppressing the truth. This finding is
primarily based on the Court's credibility determination of the
live witness testimony, but the Court has also taken into
consideration the parties' briefs, arguments, exhibits, and
supplemented evidence.

As to the prejudice prong, any prejudice Plaintiffs may have
suffered from the document destruction has been lessened because
they obtained the missing credit reports from Equifax. The reports
provide a list of potential class members identified by name, last
known address, place of employment, and phone number. Furthermore,
Plaintiffs' additional prejudice argument lacks merit. They now
assert the document destruction prevented them from identifying and
naming as defendants other people and an affiliated entity.
However, their pending motion to add parties seeks only to add the
additional entity among others, but no people. Contrary to
Plaintiffs' assertion that this entity could not have been
discovered sooner, Plaintiffs had access to an investigation report
from the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR) that referenced
the additional entity's relationship with Defendant. This document
was available to Plaintiffs well before their deadline to add
parties.  

Accordingly, the Court will not exercise its discretion to impose
the harsh sanction of a negative inference.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y75aluwz from Leagle.com.

Elizabeth Martinez, Elizabeth Bolden & Jesus Rios, Jr., Plaintiffs,
represented by Craig R. Heidemann, Douglas, Haun & Heidemann,
Nathan Duncan, Douglas, Haun & Heidemann & Nickolas W. Allen,
Douglas, Haun & Heidemann.

Triple S Properties, Defendant, represented by Brett W. Roubal --
broubal@blmlawyers.com -- Baird Lightner Millsap, PC, Rachel A.
Riso -- rriso@blmlawyers.com -- Baird Lightner Millsap, PC &
Patrick R. Baird -- pbaird@blmlawyers.com -- Baird Lightner
Millsap, PC.


UNITED STATES: Certification of Classes Sought in Suit v. HHS
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled LUCAS R., et al. v. ALEX AZAR,
Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-05741-DMG-PLA (C.D. Cal.), move the Court for an
order certifying the case as a class action pursuant to Rule
23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of these
classes of similarly situated persons:

   All children in the custody of the Office of Refugee
   Resettlement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
   Services ("ORR") pursuant to 6 U.S.C. Section 279 and/or
   8 U.S.C. Section 1232 --

   1) who are or will be placed in a secure facility,
      medium-secure facility, or RTC, or continued in any such
      facility for more than thirty days, without being afforded
      notice and an opportunity to be heard before a neutral and
      detached decisionmaker regarding the grounds for such
      placement; or

   2) whom ORR is refusing or will refuse to release to parents
      or other available custodians within thirty days of the
      proposed custodian's submitting a complete family
      reunification packet on the ground that the proposed
      custodian is or may be unfit; or

   3) who are or will be prescribed or administered one or more
      psychotropic medications without procedural safeguards,
      including but not limited to obtaining informed consent or
      court authorization prior to medicating a child, involving
      a neutral decisionmaker in the initial determination of
      whether to prescribe psychotropics to a child in ORR
      custody, and involving a neutral decision-maker to conduct
      periodic reviews of those medications as treatment
      continues; or

   4) who are natives of non-contiguous countries and to whom ORR
      is impeding or will impede legal assistance in legal
      matters or proceedings involving their custody, placement,
      release, and/or administration of psychotropic drugs.

   5) who have or will have a behavioral, mental health,
      intellectual, and/or developmental disability as defined in
      29 U.S.C. Section 705, and who are or will be placed in a
      secure facility, medium-secure facility, or Residential
      Treatment Facility because of such disabilities.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 2, 2018, at 9:30
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carlos R. Holguin, Esq.
          CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
          256 South Occidental Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90057
          Telephone: (213) 388-8693
          E-mail: crholguin@centerforhumanrights.org

               - and -

          Holly S. Cooper, Esq.
          Carter C. White, Esq.
          UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW
          One Shields Ave. TB 30
          Davis, CA 95616
          Telephone: (530) 754-4833
          E-mail: hscooper@ucdavis.edu
                  ccwhite@ucdavis.edu

               - and -

          Leecia Welch, Esq.
          Neha Desai, Esq.
          Poonam Juneja, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
          405 14th Street, 15th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 835-8098
          E-mail: lwelch@youthlaw.org
                  ndesai@youthlaw.org
                  pjuneja@youthlaw.org

               - and -

          Crystal Adams, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
          1313 L St. NW, Suite 130
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 868-4785
          E-mail: cadams@youthlaw.org

               - and -

          Summer Wynn, Esq.
          Mary Kathryn Kelley, Esq.
          Jon F. Cieslak, Esq.
          Megan L. Donohue, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121-1909
          Telephone: (858) 550-6000
          E-mail: swynn@cooley.com
                  mkkelley@cooley.com
                  jcieslak@cooley.com
                  mdonohue@cooley.com


UNITED STATES: Serrano Suit vs. CBP Tossed; Bid to Certify Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Alia Moses overrules the Plaintiff's objections and adopts
the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Collis White entered in the lawsuit entitled GERARDO SERRANO v.
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, KEVIN
McALEENAN, Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Sued in His Official Capacity; JUAN ESPINOZA, Fines,
Penalties, and Forfeiture Paralegal Specialist, Sued in His
Individual Capacity; JOHN DOE I-X, Unknown U.S. Customs and Border
Protection Agents, Sued in their Individual Capacities, JUAN
ESPINOZA, Case No. 2:17-cv-00048-AM-CW (W.D. Tex.).

In his report, Judge White recommends that the Court deny the
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class; grant the Motion to Dismiss
filed by Defendants United States of America, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, and Kevin McAleenan; and grant the Motion to
Dismiss filed by Defendant Juan Espinoza.  The Plaintiff filed his
objections to Judge White's report within the 14 days specified in
Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, the Court orders that:

   1. the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied as
      moot;

   2. the Motion to Dismiss by Defendants United States Customs
      and Border Protection, United States of America, and Kevin
      McAleenan is granted, the Rule 41(g) Motion is dismissed as
      moot, and the class claims against them is dismissed with
      prejudice to refiling by the Plaintiff, but without
      prejudice as to any other potential plaintiffs;

   3. Defendant Espinoza's Motion to Dismiss is granted and the
      claims against him are dismissed with prejudice; and

   4. the claims against the unknown defendants are dismissed
      without prejudice.  Assuming the Plaintiff could identify
      any of the unknown defendants at a later time, amendment of
      the Complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure to name the specific agents would
      be futile, since a Bivens claim against them would have no
      merit.

On September 21, 2015, the Plaintiff, a resident of Kentucky, drove
his 2014 Ford F-250 truck to the United States-Mexico border
through Eagle Pass, Texas, with the intent of driving to Mexico.
After paying the toll to enter Mexico, but while still in the
United States, the Plaintiff began using his cellular telephone to
film activity at the border, which garnered the attention of the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents on duty.

After a tense encounter, the agents handcuffed the Plaintiff and
searched his vehicle, finding a .38 caliber magazine and five
bullets in it.  The agents detained the Plaintiff for several
hours, continuously pressuring him to reveal the passcode for his
phone without success.  They then released him, but seized his
vehicle and its contents, including the magazine and the bullets.

After 23 months of waiting, without (1) the return of his property;
(2) a post-seizure hearing, or (3) the institution of a forfeiture
action, the Plaintiff filed the present cause of action against the
United States, seeking return of his property pursuant to Rule
41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure based on
violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.  The Plaintiff
argues that return of his property is proper because he was not
provided with a post-seizure hearing and because the United States
waited too long to institute forfeiture proceedings.[CC]


VAN RU CREDIT: Driscoll Sues over alleged Excess Collection Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Driscoll, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs Van Ru Credit Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 18-1212 (Mass. Sup. Ct., Norfolk Cty., Sept.
24, 2018), seeks injunction preventing the Defendant from placing
in excess of two collection calls within any seven days to any
Massachusetts consumer's telephone.

According to the complaint, in or around August 2018, Van Ru began
calling Plaintiff's residential telephone
in an attempt to collect the Debt. Van Ru called Plaintiff's
residential telephone. Van Ru called Plaintiff at an excessive and
harassing rate, placing more than two calls to Plaintiff within a
seven-day period. Indeed, Van Ru consistently called Plaintiff
twice in a single day, the lawsuit says.

Van Ru Credit Corporation provides accounts receivable management
solutions for education, energy, financial services, government,
healthcare, and telecommunications industries.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653 2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653 3424
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


VIMO INC: Miholich Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------
Kyle Miholich, Individually and on Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Vimo, Inc., DOES 1-10, ABC
CORPORATIONS 1-10, ZYZ, LLC's 1-10, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-02256-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal., Sept. 27, 2018), seeks to recover
damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendants Vimo, Inc. in negligently or intentionally contacting
the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby seriously invading his
privacy.

The Plaintiff has suffered an invasion of privacy, additional phone
charges, lost minutes on phone plan and additional utility bills.
The Plaintiff lost time at work while having to answer the
solicitation call or decipher the pre-recorded voicemail of the
Defendants and thus the Plaintiff has lost income that could have
been earned working instead of wasted time on the sale call in
order to ascertain the identity of the telemarketer. The Defendants
failed to properly scrub their telemarketing lead lists against the
national do not call registry in order to delete and redact
protected numbers like his cell phone, the Case says.

Attorneys for Kyle Miholich:

          Alex S. Madar, Esq.
          MADAR LAW CORPORATION
          1763 Missouri St.
          San Diego, CA 92109
          Telephone: (858) 299-5879
          Facsimile: (619) 354-7281
          E-mail: alex@madarlaw.net


WAG LABS: Provisional Certification of FLSA Collective Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled GARY D. DARSEY, et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. WAG LABS, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case
2:17-cv-07014-FMO-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court on November 1, 2018, for an order:

1. preliminary approving proposed class settlement of California
law claims in this action;

2. provisionally certifying a class defined as:

   "all individuals who performed dog walks in California during
the Settlement Class Period using the Wag app (for settlement
purposes only);

3. preliminary approving proposed collective settlement of Fair
Labor Standards Act claims in this action;

4. provisionally certifying an FLSA collective defined as:

   "all individuals who performed dog walks in California during
the Settlement Class Period using the Wag app who submit a timely
and valid election to opt in to this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b) (for settlement purposes only);

5. appointing Plaintiff as class and collective action
representative and of his counsel as class and collective counsel
(for settlement purposes only);

6. approving notice to the class and collective and opt-out/opt-in
form; and

7. scheduling a hearing to consider whether the class and
collective settlement should be finally approved.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Gary D. Darsey, individually, and on behalf
of others similarly situated:

          Nicholas T. Hua, Esq.
          Giacomo Gallai, Esq.
          Steven C. Gonzalez, Esq.
          HUA GALLAI, LLP
          433 N. Camden Drive, 4 Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 279-5239
          Facsimile: (480) 393-4433
          E-mail: Nick@hua-gallai.com
                  gg@hua-gallai.com
                  Steve@hua-gallai.com


WAL-MART STORES: Court Narrows Claims in Garcia Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Terry J. Hatter, Jr., granted in part the motion for class
certification in the lawsuit entitled JUAN GARCIA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Case No. 5:16-cv-01645-TJH-RAO (C.D. Cal.).

The Motion is granted as to Subclasses 1a, 2, 3, and 4.  The Motion
is denied as to Subclass 1b.

Judge Hatter opines that the Plaintiff has not established that
class issues predominate over individual issues with regard to
Subclass 1b.

On April 24, 2017, Mr. Garcia filed a Third Amended Complaint in
this putative class action against his former employer, Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., for, inter alia, various alleged violations of the
California Labor Code.  In 2004 and 2005, Wal-Mart allowed its
employees to hold an election as to whether to enact an Alternative
Workweek Schedule ("AWS") at its Apple Valley Distribution Center.
The employees voted to enact the following workweek schedules: (1)
Four 10 hour shifts; (2) Three 10 hour shifts; or (3) Three 10-hour
shifts and one 6 hour shift.  Under those scheduling options, no
employee's regular weekly schedule would exceed 40 hours a week.

In the Motion, Mr. Garcia sought to certify a class of all hourly
Wal-Mart Apple Valley Distribution Center employees, excluding
dispatchers and truck shop employees, who worked at least one day
between May 17, 2012, and the present.

Within the class, Mr. Garcia sought to certify four subclasses.  He
advanced two alternative theories for the first subclass.  Subclass
1a is premised on the theory that the AWS was invalid and is
composed of those employees who worked under the invalid AWS and
were not paid overtime ["Subclass 1a"].  Subclass 1b, pled in the
alternative to Subclass 1a, is premised on the theory that the AWS
was valid and is composed of those employees who were required to
leave a ten hour shift early but were not paid overtime for their
short shift ["Subclass 1b"].

Subclass 2 is composed of those employees who worked a 10 hour
shift but were not given a second meal period based on an invalid
meal waiver form ["Subclass 2"]; Subclass 3 is a derivative
subclass and is composed of those employees who were not provided
an accurate wage statement ["Subclass 3"].  Subclass 4 is, also, a
derivative subclass and is composed of those employees who were not
paid all their earned wages upon termination of employment
["Subclass 4"].[CC]


WICKED GOOD: Kiler Brings ADA Suit v. Cupcake Bakery
-----------------------------------------------------
Marion Kiler has filed a class action lawsuit under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

The case is styled as Marion Kiler individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Wicked Good Cupcakes, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05648
(E.D. N.Y., Oct. 10, 2018).

Wicked Good Cupcakes is a Boston-based cupcake bakery that sells
cupcakes in jars both in-store and online.[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



                            *********

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 ***