CAR_Public/181018.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, October 18, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 209

                            Headlines

ABILITY INC: Levy Appeals Judgment in Securities Suit to 2nd Cir.
ABM INDUSTRIES: Bucio Class Suit Underway in California
ABM INDUSTRIES: Dec. 5 Final Approval Hearing on Hussein Accord
ABM INDUSTRIES: Mediation in Castro Class Action Underway
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Faces St. Clair Securities Suit in M.D. Tenn.

ALTRA INDUSTRIAL: Bid to Enjoin Investor Meeting on Merger Denied
AMERICA'S INTERNATIONAL: Valle Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Ferreras Suit
AMERICAN CUSTOM: Navid Aslam Sues over Meal & Rest Periods
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in Knowlton Suit

APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in iPhone Device Performance Suit
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Taneja Seeks Remedies Under Exchange Act
BARNES & NOBLE: Appeal in Bernardino Class Action Underway
BARNES & NOBLE: PIN Pads Litigation Ongoing
BARNES & NOBLE: Still Defends Cafe Managers' Class Suit

BEDDING PROS: "100 Night In-Home Trial" Dubious, Wheelers Claim
BRMCM INTERNATIONAL: Faces PT Consultants Suit in New York
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Castillo TCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
CALAVO GROWERS: Pays $0.4 MM in Wage & Hour Class Suits
CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces Marder Securities Class Suit in New Jersey

CASEY'S GENERAL: Miscalculates Overtime Pay, Wenell Claims
CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Faces Muldowney Suit in N.D. New York
CIENA CORP: Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund Suit Ongoing
CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Diaz Suit Alleges ADA Violation
CK RICHTON: 7th Circuit Appeal Filed in Sanchez-Lagunes Suit

CLARKSON & HALE: Claims in 1st Amended Erekson FDCA Suit Narrowed
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING: Cranor Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
COMMERCE BANK: Faces Costello et al. Suit in S.D. Illinois
CORNERSTONE FINANCIAL: Farrel Seeks Damages for FDCPA Breach
DAVITA INC: Diaz Suit Alleges ADA Violation

DIMI GYRO: Candia Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
DIRECT ENERGY: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Sevugan Suit
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Bailey Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
ELA AREA PUBLIC: Victor Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
ENROLL CAROLINA: City Plating Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads

FEDEX GROUND: $13MM Settlement in ERISA Suit Has Prelim Approval
FH CANN: Illegally Collects Debts in Florida, Lee Suit Alleges
FINISAR CORP: 9th Cir. Declines to Hear Investors' Appeal
FIRST ENERGY: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Rice Suit
FLORIDA FARM: MSP Sues over Medicare Reimbursement

GEORGIA: Jones Files Suit v. Board of Public Education
GLOBALSCAPE: Rejects Offer Following Class Action Settlement
GOLDEN TOUCH: Failed to Give Sufficient Lay Off Notice, Says Chua
GOLDSTONE FINANCIAL: Sued for Selling 1 Global Securities
HD SUPPLY: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit in Ga. Still Pending

HENRI BENDEL: Burbon Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Website
HOOVESTOL INC: Prelim Approval of Terry Suit Settlement Denied
HUNTER WARFIELD: Steven Sears Seeks Class Certification Under FDCPA
ILLINOIS: Court Allows Count 1 in Oden Prisoners Suit to Proceed
INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: Securities Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend

JC PENNEY: Court Sets Oct. 24 Joint Status Conference in Campbell
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: McKiernans Sue over Sale of Talcum Powder
KALIDA MANUFACTURING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Harsh Suit Says
LEAD INDUSTRIES: Ill. App. Flips Summary Judgment in Lewis Suit
MACON BEDROOM: Boan Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

MAGRANN INSULATION: Gonzalez Alleges Disability Discrimination
MATRIX BUSINESS: Cretsinger Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
MB FINANCIAL: Parshall Agrees to Dismiss Stockholder Suit
MC RESTAURANT: Osorio Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MDL 2034: $15.5MM Settlement in Antitrust Suit Has Prelim Approval

MDL 2670: Court Dismisses Cherokee Nation Antitrust Suit
MDL 2670: Court Partly Grants Lion's Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Suit
MED FOODS: Ference Appeals Ruling in Koller Suit to 9th Circuit
MGT CAPITAL: Faces Klingberg Securities Suit in New Jersey
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Wolf Popper Files Securities Class Action

MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS: Court Certifies Class in Brown Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Accused by Josephs Suit of Violating FDCPA
MJM STRUCTURAL: Gonzales Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
MONSANTO COMPANY: Davis Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Lamb Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD: Worker Seeks Accidental Disability Benefits
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, NY: Former Inmates File Class Action
MORTGAGE DEFAULT: Aikens FDCA Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
NEIMAN MARCUS: Court Approves $902K Settlement in Rubenstein Suit
NISSAN NORTH: Motion to Compel Arbitration in Sunroof Suit Denied

OCWEN LOAN: Bid to Dismiss Amended Christianson TCPA Suit Denied
OHIO STATE: Conditional Certification of Oakley Class Denied
OOMA INC: Faces Dolemba Class Action in Illinois
OOMA INC: Still Faces Barnett Consolidated Class Action
OPKO HEALTH: Brennan Hits Share Price Drop in Pump-and-Dump Scheme

OREGON: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over SB 833 Rejection
PACIFIC BUSINESS: Cunningham Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
PATTERSON COS: Faces Plymouth County Retirement System's Suit
PATTERSON COS: Settlement Talks Underway in Dental Supplies Suit
PEARLSTONE RESTAURANT: Tendilla et al Seek Unpaid Wages under FLSA

PENNSYLVANIA CORRECTIONS DEPT: Faces Pelino Class Suit
PENNSYLVANIA: Court Denies Class Certification in Prisoners' Suit
PERFECT BAR: Clark Suit Seeks to Stop False Ads
PFIZER INC: MSP Suit Moved to New Jersey District Court
PLACER COUNTY, CA: Settlement in Bangert Suit Has Prelim Approval

PREMIMUM PARKING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Mendoza Suit Says
PROGRESSUS THERAPY: $1.5MM Shelton Settlement Has Final Approval
RH: Discovery Underway in Securities Litigation
ROUND SKY: Dotson Sues over Unwanted Phone Calls
RUSS DARROW: Underwood Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA

SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Court Narrows Claims in Norcia Suit
SCHWAN'S COMPANY: Can File Summary Judgment Bid Under Seal
SCOTTRADE INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Kevari Class Suit
SEI INVESTMENTS: Sued by Stevens for Violating Duties Under ERISA
SHILOH INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY

SIGNET JEWELERS: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss NY Class Suit
SIGNET JEWELERS: Awaits Court's Decision on Claimants' Appeal
SOUTH CAROLINA: Baker Appeals Decision in PPSAT Suit to 4th Circuit
SYNCHRONY BANK: Court Lifts Temporary Stay in Mott Suit
SYNCHRONY BANK: Court Lifts Temporary Stay in Neal Suit

TD AMERITRADE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Klein Suit to 8th Cir.
TEVA PHARMA: Kassab Sues over Health Insurance Premium Increase
TEXAS: 5th Cir. Appeal Filed in Fountain's Civil Rights Suit
TICKETMASTER L.L.C.: Lee Sues over Ticket Resale Partner Program
TOPGOLF INTERNATIONAL: Banks Suit Alleges TCPA Violation

TORRANCE MEMORIAL: Cal. App. Affirms Certification Denial in Sumo
TORRENT PHARMA: Valsartan Contaminated with Carcinogen, Suit Says
TOYOTA MOTOR: Garrett Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
TWITTER INC: Doshier Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
TYLER TRADITIONS: Goss Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

UNITED FEDERAL: Summary Judgment Bid in Gunter Suit Denied
UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Affirms Prelim Injunction in Saravia Suit
UNITED STATES: Cancino-Castellar Fifth Amendment Claim Reinstated
VERINT SYSTEMS: Mediation Ongoing in Consolidated Suit in Tel Aviv
WALLACE RUSH: Appeals Order in Bankruptcy Suit to E.D. Louisiana

YAHOO! INC: $80MM Settlement in Securities Suit Has Final Approval

                            *********

ABILITY INC: Levy Appeals Judgment in Securities Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Brian Levy filed an appeal from a District Court judgment
entered on September 14, 2018, in the lawsuit styled In re Ability
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 16-cv-3893, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 25, 2016, the
lawsuit was filed against the Company, Anatoly Hurgin and Avi Levin
in the District Court.  The complaint asserts claims pursuant to
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder on behalf of a putative class of all
purchasers of the Company's ordinary shares between September 8,
2015, and April 29, 2016.

The complaint broadly alleges that certain of the Company's public
statements were false, and that the Company materially overstated
its income and failed to disclose that it had material weaknesses
in its internal controls.  The complaint does not specify the
amount of damages sought.

On July 25, 2016, a second purported class action lawsuit was filed
in the District Court.  These two putative class actions have been
consolidated into one action and co-lead plaintiffs have been
appointed.

The appellate case is captioned as In re Ability Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 18-2772, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Theodore Zwicker, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and Ametren L.P. are represented
by:

          Stephen Douglas Bunch, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: dbunch@cohenmilstein.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Theodore Zwicker, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          45 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10111
          Telephone: (212) 589-4200
          E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund LLC is
represented by:

          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

Objector-Appellant Brian Levy is represented by:

          Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
          THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          29 Broadway
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 952-0602
          E-mail: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee Ability Inc. is represented by:

          Jason P. Gottlieb, Esq.
          MORRISON COHEN LLP
          909 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 735-8600
          E-mail: jgottlieb@morrisoncohen.com

Defendant-Appellee Avi Levin is represented by:

          Joshua D. Glatter, Esq.
          FLEISCHMAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          565 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 880-9567
          E-mail: jglatter@fleischmanlawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee Benjamin Gordon is represented by:

          Kara Berard Rockenbach, Esq.
          LINK & ROCKENBACH, PA
          1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 847-4408
          E-mail: kara@linkrocklaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Anatoly Hurgin is represented by:

          Zoe Bunnell, Esq.
          KOBRE & KIM LLP
          800 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 488-1246
          E-mail: zoe.bunnell@kobrekim.com

Defendant-Appellee BDO Ziv Haft is represented by:

          John H. Eickemeyer, Esq.
          VEDDER PRICE P.C.
          1633 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 407-7700
          E-mail: jeickemeyer@vedderprice.com


ABM INDUSTRIES: Bucio Class Suit Underway in California
-------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in
the Consolidated Cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial
Services filed on April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco (the "Bucio case")

The Bucio case is a class action pending in San Francisco Superior
Court that alleges that the company failed to provide legally
required meal periods and make additional premium payments for such
meal periods, pay split shift premiums when owed, and reimburse
janitors for travel expenses. There is also a claim for penalties
under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act.

On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing, the
trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. On May
11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which was
denied.

The plaintiffs appealed the class certification issues. The trial
court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the decision in the
appeal. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First
Appellate District (the "Court of Appeal"), heard oral arguments on
November 7, 2017. On December 11, 2017, the Court of Appeal
reversed the trial court's order denying class certification and
remanded the matter for certification of a meal period, travel
expense reimbursement, and split shift class.

The case was remitted to the trial court for further proceedings on
class certification, discovery, dispositive motions, and trial.

ABM Industries Incorporated provides integrated facility solutions
in the United States and internationally. The company operates
through five segments: Business & Industry, Aviation, Emerging
Industries Group, Technical Solutions, and GCA Services. ABM
Industries Incorporated was founded in 1909 and is headquartered in
New York, New York.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Dec. 5 Final Approval Hearing on Hussein Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2018, that a final settlement approval hearing in
the case, Hussein and Hirsi v. Air Serv Corporation, is set for
December 5, 2018.

The case, Hussein and Hirsi v. Air Serv Corporation filed on
January 20, 2016, is pending in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington at Seattle.  The case, Isse
et al. v. Air Serv Corporation filed on February 7, 2017, is
pending in the Superior Court of Washington for King County.

The Hussein case was a certified class action involving a class of
certain hourly Air Serv employees at Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport in SeaTac, Washington. The plaintiffs alleged that Air Serv
violated a minimum wage requirement in an ordinance applicable to
certain employers in the local city of SeaTac (the "Ordinance").
Plaintiffs sought retroactive wages, double damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees.

This matter was removed to federal court. In a separate lawsuit
brought by Filo Foods, LLC, Alaska Airlines, and several other
employers at SeaTac airport, the King County Superior Court issued
a decision that invalidated the Ordinance as it applied to workers
at SeaTac airport.

Subsequently, the Washington Supreme Court reversed the Superior
Court's decision. On February 7, 2017, the Isse case was filed
against Air Serv on behalf of 60 individual plaintiffs (who would
otherwise be members of the Hussein class), who alleged failure to
comply with both the minimum wage provision and the sick and safe
time provision of the Ordinance. The Isse plaintiffs sought
retroactive wages and sick benefits, double damages for wages and
sick benefits, interest, and attorneys' fees. The Isse case later
expanded to approximately 220 individual plaintiffs.

In mediations on November 2 and 3, 2017, and without admitting
liability in either matter, the company agreed to settle the
Hussein and Isse cases for a combined total of $8.3 million,
inclusive of damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and employer
payroll taxes.

Eligible employees will be able to participate in either the
Hussein or Isse settlements, but cannot recover in both
settlements. The settlements in both cases require court approval
because of the nature of the claims being released. On December 8,
2017, the Superior Court of Washington for King County approved the
settlement agreement for the 220 Isse plaintiffs, and the company
subsequently made a settlement payment of $4.5 million to the Isse
plaintiffs in January 2018.

On July 30, 2018, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington at Seattle preliminarily approved the
settlement in the Hussein case. The final approval hearing is set
for December 5, 2018, and, if approved, the settlement proceeds
will be distributed thereafter.

ABM Industries Incorporated provides integrated facility solutions
in the United States and internationally. The company operates
through five segments: Business & Industry, Aviation, Emerging
Industries Group, Technical Solutions, and GCA Services. ABM
Industries Incorporated was founded in 1909 and is headquartered in
New York, New York.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Mediation in Castro Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2018, that mediation is ongoing in Castro and
Marmolejo v. ABM Industries, Inc., et al., filed on October 24,
2014, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (the "Castro" case).

On October 24, 2014, Plaintiff Marley Castro filed a class action
lawsuit alleging that ABM did not reimburse janitorial employees in
California for using their personal cell phones for work-related
purposes, in violation of California Labor Code section 2802. On
January 23, 2015, Plaintiff Lucia Marmolejo was added to the case
as a named plaintiff.

On October 27, 2017, plaintiffs moved for class certification
seeking to represent a class of all employees who were, are, or
will be employed by ABM in the State of California with the
Employee Master Job Description Code "Cleaner" (hereafter referred
to as "Cleaner Employees") beginning from October 24, 2010. ABM
filed its opposition to class certification on November 27, 2017.

On January 26, 2018, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. The court rejected plaintiffs' proposed
class, instead certifying three classes that the court formulated
on its own: (1) all employees who were, are, or will be employed by
ABM in the State of California as Cleaner Employees who used a
personal cell phone to punch in and out of the EPAY system and who
(a) worked at an ABM facility that did not provide a biometric
clock and (b) were not offered an ABM-provided cell phone during
the period beginning on January 1, 2012, through the date of notice
to the Class Members that a class has been certified in this
action; (2) all employees who were, are, or will be employed by ABM
in the State of California as Cleaner Employees who used a personal
cell phone to report unusual or suspicious circumstances to
supervisors and were not offered (a) an ABM-provided cell phone or
(b) a two-way radio during the period beginning four years prior to
the filing of the original complaint, October 24, 2014, through the
date of notice to the Class Members that a class has been certified
in this action; and (3) all employees who were, are, or will be
employed by ABM in the State of California as Cleaner Employees who
used a personal cell phone to respond to communications from
supervisors and were not offered (a) an ABM-provided cell phone or
(b) a two-way radio during the period beginning four years prior to
the filing of the original complaint, October 24, 2014, through the
date of notice to the Class Members that a class has been certified
in this action.

On February 9, 2018, ABM filed a petition for permission to appeal
the district court's order granting class certification with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was
denied on April 30, 2018. On March 20, 2018, ABM moved to compel
arbitration of the claims of certain class members pursuant to the
terms of three collective bargaining agreements.

In response to that motion, on May 14, 2018, the district court
modified the class definition to exclude all claims arising after
the operative date(s) of the applicable collective bargaining
agreements (which is June 1, 2016 for one agreement and May 1, 2016
for the other two agreements). However, the district court denied
the motion to compel arbitration as to claims that arose prior to
the operative date(s) of the applicable collective bargaining
agreements. ABM has appealed to the Ninth Circuit the district
court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration with respect
to the periods preceding the operative dates of the collective
bargaining agreements.

The parties have a court ordered mediation scheduled for October
15, 2018.

ABM Industries Incorporated provides integrated facility solutions
in the United States and internationally. The company operates
through five segments: Business & Industry, Aviation, Emerging
Industries Group, Technical Solutions, and GCA Services. ABM
Industries Incorporated was founded in 1909 and is headquartered in
New York, New York.


ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Faces St. Clair Securities Suit in M.D. Tenn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ST. CLAIR COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ACADIA HEALTHCARE
COMPANY, INC., JOEY A, JACOBS, BRENT TURNER and DAVID DUCKWORTH,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00988 (M.D. Tenn., October 1, 2018), accuses the
Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing false and misleading statements causing Acadia's stock to
trade at artificially inflated prices during the class period.

Prior to and during the Class Period, the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
Acadia's business and operations, the Plaintiff alleges.
Specifically, the Defendants falsely stated that the quality of
Acadia's U.K. operations gave it a "competitive strength" that
would drive future growth and profitability, says the complaint.

Acadia is one of largest publicly traded behavioral healthcare
companies in the country.  Acadia's corporate headquarters are
located in Franklin, Tennessee.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Acadia is a for-profit healthcare company focused on operating
inpatient psychiatric facilities, residential treatment centers,
group homes, substance abuse facilities, and facilities providing
outpatient behavioral healthcare services in the United States, the
United Kingdom and Puerto Rico.  Acadia has two operating segments,
U.S. Facilities, with more than 200 behavioral healthcare
facilities and approximately 8,900 beds in 39 states and Puerto
Rico, and U.K. Facilities, with over 375 behavioral healthcare
facilities and also approximately 8,900 beds in the
U.K.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
          Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2203
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: jmartin@rgrdlaw.com
                  cwood@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          David C. Walton, Esq.
          Danielle S. Myers, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: davew@rgrdlaw.com
                  danim@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
          VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
          79 Alfred Street
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-1200
          Facsimile: (313) 578-1201
          E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com


ALTRA INDUSTRIAL: Bid to Enjoin Investor Meeting on Merger Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Altra Industrial Motion Corp. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on September 6, 2018,
that the Superior Court of Norfolk County, Massachusetts, has
denied plaintiff's motion to preliminarily enjoin a special
shareholders' meeting.

On March 7, 2018, Altra Industrial Motion Corp. ("Altra") and
Fortive Corporation ("Fortive") announced that they and certain
affiliates had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and
Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement"), dated March 7, 2018, among
Altra, Fortive, McHale Acquisition Corp. ("Merger Sub") and Stevens
Holding Company, Inc. ("Newco"), pursuant to which, subject to the
terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement and a Separation and
Distribution Agreement, dated March 7, 2018, among Altra, Fortive
and Newco, (1) Fortive will transfer certain assets, liabilities
and entities within its Automation & Specialty platform, but
excluding its Hengstler and Dynapar businesses (such businesses to
be transferred, the "A&S Business") to Newco, (2) Fortive will
distribute to its stockholders all of the issued and outstanding
shares of Newco common stock held by Fortive by way of an exchange
offer or a combination of an exchange offer and a pro rata dividend
and (3) Merger Sub will merge with and into Newco, with Newco as
the surviving corporation, and the issued and outstanding shares of
Newco common stock will be converted into shares of Altra common
stock (the "Merger").

On August 8, 2018 a purported class action was filed against Altra
and each of the members of its board of directors and Fortive in
the Superior Court of Norfolk County, Massachusetts, by an
individual who purports to be a stockholder of Altra. In connection
with the complaint, the plaintiff, among other things, filed a
motion to preliminarily enjoin the stockholders' vote on matters
related to the Merger at the special meeting of stockholders of
Altra (the "special meeting").

On August 31, 2018, the Superior Court of Norfolk County,
Massachusetts denied plaintiff's motion to preliminarily enjoin the
special meeting. On September 4, 2018, Altra held the special
meeting and its stockholders approved the issuance of shares of
Altra common stock required to complete the Merger.

Altra Industrial Motion Corp. designs, produces, and markets
mechanical power transmission components worldwide. The company
operates through three segments: Couplings, Clutches and Brakes;
Electromagnetic Clutches and Brakes; and Gearing. The company was
founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Braintree, Massachusetts.


AMERICA'S INTERNATIONAL: Valle Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO CARLOS MARTINEZ VALLE, and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, vs. AMERICA'S INTERNATIONAL
TRADE SERVICES, INC., JOSE - SALMON SERVICES CORP, JORGE J. SAM,
and JOSE A MORENO, the Defendants,Case 1:18-cv-24012-KMM (S.D.
Fla., Sept. 28, 2018), alleges that the Defendants have employed
several other similarly situated employees like the Plaintiff who
have not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed
in excess of 40 hours weekly pursuant to The Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, between the period of June 13, 2016
through September 21, 2018, the Plaintiff worked an average of 76
hours a week for the Defendants and was paid an average of $9.16
per hour but was not paid the extra half time rate for hours worked
over 40 hours in a week as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff
therefore claims the half-time overtime rate for each hour worked
above 40 in a week.

The Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the FLSA as the
Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the FLSA and
recklessly failed to investigate whether their payroll practices
were in accordance with the FLSA. The Defendants remain owing the
Plaintiff these wages since the commencement of his employment with
the Defendants, the lawsuit says.

America's International Trade Services Inc. is a full service
freight forwarder, specializing in imports, exports, freight
consolidation and logistics solutions.[BN]

Attorney For Plaintiff:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71 st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Ferreras Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant American Airlines Inc. filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Daniel Ferreras, et al. v. American
Airlines Inc., Case No. 2-16-cv-02427, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Jose L.
Linares (i) granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
and (ii) denied American's cross-motion for summary judgment
without prejudice.

American Airlines has a timekeeping system that records the hours
that its employees work and links those hours to their pay.  The
system automatically pays the employees for their scheduled shifts
if they are clocked in, and accounts for a 30-minute meal break for
full-time shifts.  The system also has pre-programmed "grace
periods," where an employee may clock into the system before a
shift starts, and may stay after the shift ends before clocking
out.

The Plaintiffs allege that American Airlines, as a matter of
company policy, regularly violates the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law
by denying them compensation for work performed: (1) before and
after their scheduled shifts, even if they clock in early or clock
out late to finish their work; (2) during their unpaid meal
periods; and (3) before clocking in for their shifts, and after
clocking out for their shifts.

The named Plaintiffs are all employed by American Airlines at
Newark Liberty International Airport as hourly-paid: (1) Fleet
Service Clerks, who load bags and freight into airplanes, unload
the same off of airplanes, operate towlines to pull aircraft into
and out of hangars, and assist with water and lavatory services; or
(2) Aircraft Maintenance Technicians, who perform repairs and
service updates on aircraft systems.

The appellate case is captioned as Daniel Ferreras, et al. v.
American Airlines Inc., Case No. 18-3143, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents RUEBEN RAMIREZ, MASOUD ZABIHIALAM, DOUG
BILLITZ, RAMON COCA, SCOTT ELLENTUCK, CHRISTOPHER FAUST, EDWIN
GONZALEZ and DENIS LIPPENS, On Behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Steven J. Hyman, Esq.
          MCLAUGHLIN & STERN LLP
          260 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 448-1100
          E-mail: shyman@mclaughlinstern.com

Defendant-Appellant AMERICAN AIRLINES INC. is represented by:

          Jeffrey I. Kohn, Esq.
          Anton Metlitsky, Esq.
          Mark W. Robertson, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MEYERS, LLP
          7 Times Square
          Time Square Tower, 33rd Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 326-2000
          E-mail: jkohn@omm.com
                  ametlitsky@omm.com
                  mrobertson@omm.com


AMERICAN CUSTOM: Navid Aslam Sues over Meal & Rest Periods
----------------------------------------------------------
NAVID ASLAM, as an indiviual, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs AMERICAN CUSTOM PRIVATE SECURITY, INC.,
a California Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, in inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2018-12080 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept.
26, 2018), alleges that the Defendants failed to provide meal
periods, failed to provide rest periods, failed to provide
reimbursements, and failed to provide accurate wage statements.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
during 2015 and from June 2018 to August 15, 2018 as an hourly,
non-exempt security guard. The Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees regularly worked 8 hours a day or more.

When Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked more than 10
hours in a day the Defendant did not authorize and permit them to
take second meal periods or third rest periods.  The Defendants did
not pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees all meal or
rest period premiums owed to them, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Galen Tadashi 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


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in Knowlton Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Nancy J. Anderson, Mr. Richard F. Angevine, Andy
Fichthorn, Brian Knowlton, Gary Lensenmayer, Donald W. Mills, Jr.,
Douglas Minerd, Joe Mullins and Charles R. Wetesnik filed an appeal
from a court order dated August 24, 2018, in their lawsuit titled
Brian Knowlton, et al. v. Anheuser-Busch Co. Pension, et al., Case
No. 4:13-cv-00210-SNLJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri - St. Louis.

The appellate case is captioned as Brian Knowlton, et al. v.
Anheuser-Busch Co. Pension, et al., Case No. 18-3099, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 4, 2018, Judge
Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of attorney fees and incentive
awards for the named Plaintiffs.

The Class Counsel requested that the Court awards attorney fees on
a percentage basis: one-third of the first $10 million and 25% of
the balance of the gross amount recovered by the class.  The
counsel expects that the gross amount, based upon current data,
will be between $56 million and $65 million.  The class
representatives had signed contingency fee contracts with the Class
Counsel, and the percentages requested by the Counsel reflect the
lowest percentage fee negotiated by the Class Counsel and any Class
member.  Notably, under the proposal, the percentage of the Class
Fund recovered as attorney fees will be effectively reduced by
(among other things) the application of ERISA's fee-shifting
statute as an offset against the fees owed by the Class.  The
parties are attempting to agree on the amount of statutory fees due
under the fee-shifting statute.

The Plaintiffs requested that the Court order incentive payments be
made to the Class representatives as follows: $50,000 each to Brian
Knowlton, Nancy Anderson, Richard Angevine, and Douglas Minerd, and
$5,000 each to Andy Fichthorn, Gary Lensenmayer, Donald W. Mills,
Jr., Joe Mullins, and Charles Wetesnick, for a total
incentive-award package of $225,000.

This request, though, is premature until the full amount of damages
has been determined, Judge Limbaugh held.  In any event, as the
Eighth Circuit held in Tussey, any incentive award is not part of
the attorney fees calculation.  Incentive awards will be taken from
the total amount of damages for all the class participants.

Accordingly, Judge Limbaugh denied without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of attorney fees and
incentive awards for the named Plaintiffs in the class action at
this time.

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

   -- Appendix is due on November 13, 2018;

   -- Brief of Appellants Nancy J. Anderson, Richard F. Angevine,
      Andy Fichthorn, Brian Knowlton, Gary Lensenmayer, Donald W.
      Mills Jr., Douglas Minerd, Joe Mullins and Charles R.
      Wetesnik is due on November 13, 2018;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Brian Knowlton, individually, and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated; Douglas Minerd, individually, and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; Gary Lensenmayer,
individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated;
Charles R. Wetesnik, individually, and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated; Nancy J. Anderson; Richard F. Angevine; Joe
Mullins; Andy Fichthorn; and Donald W. Mills, Jr., are represented
by:

          Joseph R. Dulle, Esq.
          Paul J. Puricelli, Esq.
          STONE, LEYTON & GERSHMAN
          7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 500
          Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000
          Telephone: (314) 721-7011
          E-mail: jdulle@stoneleyton.com
                  ppuricelli@stoneleyson.com

               - and -

          Joe David Jacobson, Esq.
          Allen P. Press, Esq.
          JACOBSON PRESS P.C.
          168 N. Meramec Avenue, Suite 150
          Saint Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 899-9789
          E-mail: Jacobson@ArchCityLawyers.com
                  Press@ArchCityLawyers.com

               - and -

          Scott Joseph Stitt, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          175 S. Third Street, Suite 520
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 358-9717
          E-mail: scottstitt@tuckerellis.com

Defendants-Appellees Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan,
Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension
Plan Appeals Committee and Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan
Administrative Committee are represented by:

          James F. Bennett, Esq.
          DOWD BENNETT, LLP
          7733 Forsyth, Suite 1900
          Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000
          Telephone: (314) 889-7300
          E-mail: jbennett@dowdbennett.com

               - and -

          Albert L. Hogan, III, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          155 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60606-1720
          Telephone: (312) 407-0700
          E-mail: al.hogan@skadden.com

               - and -

          Peter B. Morrison, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-0000
          Telephone: (213) 687-5000
          E-mail: peter.morrison@skadden.com


APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in iPhone Device Performance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned IN
RE: APPLE INC. DEVICE PERFORMANCE LITIGATION. Case No.
18-md-02827-EJD. (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs allege that, in an effort to fix battery life
issues, Apple included code in updates to its mobile operating
system (iOS) that significantly reduced the performance of certain
models of the iPhone. The Plaintiffs also allege that Apple failed
to adequately disclose that the iOS updates would affect the
performance of their iPhones and, more broadly, that Apple made
representations and omissions regarding the capacity of iPhone and
iPad devices.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency
of claims alleged in the complaint. The complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.

Computer Intrusion Claims (Counts 1, 5-6)

The Plaintiffs bring three causes of action based on allegations
that Apple did not have authorization to reduce the performance of
the Plaintiffs' iPhones via the iOS updates.

iPhone 5 and iPad Devices

The Plaintiffs' allegations as presently pled do not warrant
computer-intrusion claims on behalf of the Plaintiffs with iPhone
5, 5c, or 5s or iPad models. All three of the Plaintiffs'
computer-intrusion claims are premised upon Apple's having included
the reduced-speed feature in the iOS updates sent to the
Plaintiffs' devices. While the Complaint provides that this feature
operates on iPhone SE, 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, 7, and 7 Plus
devices. The Complaint is devoid of any allegations that the
feature runs on any iPhone 5, 5c, or 5s or iPad models. Thus, the
Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Count 1 (violation of
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), Count 5 (violation of the
California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act), and Count 6
(trespass to chattels) with respect to iPhone 5, 5c, or 5s or iPad
models.

The Court therefore grants with leave to amend Apple's motion to
dismiss these claims for this limited set of devices.

Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (Count 1)

The Plaintiffs allege that Apple violated Section 1030(a)(5)(A) and
(C), which create liability for whoever: "(5)(A) knowingly causes
the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and
as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without
authorization, to a protected computer or(C) intentionally accesses
a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such
conduct, causes damage and loss."

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is a federal criminal
statute that also authorizes civil actions for any person who
suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of the statute.

Here, Apple had permission to access Plaintiffs' iPhones. Indeed,
Plaintiffs gave Apple permission by choosing to voluntarily
download and install the iOS updates. Although Plaintiffs plead
that they must use Apple's operating software in order to use their
iPhones, they admit that they have a choice about whether to
download an update. Courts in this district have reasoned that
users who voluntarily installed software would have serious
difficulty pleading unauthorized access under the CFAA.  

The Plaintiffs seek to remove themselves from these cases by
arguing that their consent was not voluntary because Apple
concealed the true nature of the software at the time consent was
requested. Although the Court does not necessarily foreclose a
Section 1030(a)(5)(C) claim based on ill-gotten consent, Plaintiffs
do not sufficiently plead such a claim here. Plaintiffs do not, for
example, allege that Apple posed as someone else or blatantly
misdescribed the nature of the iOS updates in order to gain access
to Plaintiffs' iPhones.

Rather, Apple's message stated that the updates included bug fixes
and improved the security of the iPhone or included bug fixes and
improvements and Plaintiffs allowed the update. As Plaintiffs' own
authority acknowledges, consent to an entry is often given legal
effect even though the entrant has intentions that if known to the
owner of the property would cause him to revoke his consent. The
critical inquiry is the extent to which the intrusion infringes
upon the specific interests that the underlying cause of action
seeks to protect.  

Here, the CFAA was enacted primarily to address the growing problem
of computer hacking and the Ninth Circuit has resisted efforts to
expand the statute beyond that core. Permitting Plaintiffs' §
1030(a)(5)(C) claim to proceed on such thin allegations of vitiated
consent would expand the CFAA too far.4 However, the Court will
grant Plaintiffs leave to amend their claim under Section
1030(a)(5)(C) to add additional allegations about whether Apple's
access was without authorization.

California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (Count 5)

The California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA) is the
California state analogue to the federal CFAA. The CDAFA, codified
in the California Penal Code, permits civil redress for any person
who suffers damage or loss by reason of the commission of certain
computer-related offenses. Cal. Penal Code § 502(c), (e)(1).

Plaintiffs allege that Apple violated Section 502(c)(4) and (5),
which impose liability on any person who:

"(4) Knowingly accesses and without permission adds, alters,
damages, deletes, or destroys any data, computer software, or
computer programs which reside or exist internal or external to a
computer, computer system, or computer network.

(5) Knowingly and without permission disrupts or causes the
disruption of computer services or denies or causes the denial of
computer services to an authorized user of a computer, computer
system, or computer network."

As to the substance of the alleged Section 502 violations,
Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to state a plausible claim
for violations of both Section 502(c)(4) and Section 502(c)(5).
Under Section 502(c)(4), Apple knowingly accessed a computer
system, namely, Plaintiffs' iPhones by providing and installing the
iOS updates.  

Moreover, Plaintiffs plead that Apple did not inform Plaintiffs
that installation of the iOS updates would slow the performance of
their iPhones' processors and, therefore, that Plaintiffs did not
consent to these changes. These allegations are adequate to
conclude that Apple without permission added, altered, damaged,
deleted, or destroyd any data, computer software, or computer
programs on Plaintiffs' iPhones. Cal. Penal Code Section
502(c)(4). Plaintiffs also state a viable claim under Section
502(c)(5) based upon the alleged knowing and unconsented-to
disruption of data processing caused by the iOS updates to their
iPhones.

The Court denies Apple's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' CDAFA
claim.

Trespass to Chattels (Count 6)

The Plaintiffs plausibly plead facts establishing each of these
elements. First, the Complaint contains sufficient allegations that
Apple intentionally and without authorization interfered with
Plaintiffs' possession of their iPhones. California case law has
long recognized that consent to enter may be limited and that a
trespass claim may lie when the scope of consent is exceeded.  

Here, Plaintiffs' allegations fit that paradigm. Plaintiffs allege
that the iOS updates were designed to slow their iPhones'
processing speed. And they allege that Apple did not inform
consumers that the updates would do so. Instead, Apple's
accompanying message told users that the updates included bug fixes
and improvements and improved power management during peak
workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on iPhone.

Second, the Complaint includes the requisite allegations that
Apple's unauthorized use caused injury. The California Supreme
Court has recognized that the California tort of trespass does not
encompass an electronic communication that neither damages the
recipient computer system nor impairs its functioning.

Plaintiffs plead their trespass to chattels claim with its
attendant damages separate and apart from any breach of contract.
For these reasons, the Court rejects Apple's final challenge to
Plaintiffs' trespass to chattels claim and therefore DENIES Apple's
motion to dismiss this claim.

California Consumer Protection Claims (Counts 2-4)

California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law
Fraudulent Prong, and False Advertising Law (Counts 2-4)

Plaintiffs assert misrepresentation and concealment theories under
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the fraudulent
prong of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and the
California False Advertising Law (FAL).   

Plaintiffs raise an affirmative misrepresentation theory and a
fraudulent omissions theory. The Court examines each theory in
turn.

Affirmative Misrepresentation

Plaintiffs' first theory of liability under the CLRA, the
fraudulent prong of the UCL, and the FAL is that Apple
affirmatively misrepresented the characteristics of Plaintiffs'
devices. In spite of the length of Plaintiffs' complaint, their
allegations in this regard are relatively skimpy and unfocused. The
most specific allegation is that Apple represented that its Devices
were continually improving in speed and battery life and performed
better than other devices on the market.

Plaintiffs' affirmative misrepresentation claim falters on another
front: Plaintiffs do not plead exposure to Apple's allegedly
misleading advertising statements. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
9(b) requires that Plaintiffs specify which statements the
plaintiff actually saw and relied upon. Plaintiffs do not come
close to fulfilling that high burden here. At best, Plaintiffs
present a conclusory allegation that their devices did not operate
as promised in Apple's advertisements, representations, and the
information publicly available in the marketplace. That allegation
is not enough.

Nor can Plaintiffs escape this conclusion merely by pointing to the
allegation that Apple conducted a multiple year, consistent
marketing plan. Even if Plaintiffs are able to amend the
Complaint's allegations to show that Apple's advertising campaign
is false or misleading, Plaintiffs are still obligated under Rule
9(b) to plead separately and with particularity their individual
exposure to the purportedly deceptive advertising campaign so as to
put defendant on notice what' the alleged misrepresentations were.
Without any exposure allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiffs'
affirmative misrepresentation claim fails.

The Court GRANTS with leave to amend Apple's motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' claims under the CLRA, the fraudulent prong of the UCL,
and the FAL to the extent those claims are predicated upon an
affirmative misrepresentation theory.

Fraudulent Omissions

Plaintiffs' second theory of liability under the CLRA, the
fraudulent prong of the UCL, and the FAL is that Apple fraudulently
omitted information about Plaintiffs' devices. Omissions may give
rise to liability under California consumer-protection laws.

First, Plaintiffs do not adequately allege that Apple's omission
was material. A fact is material if a reasonable consumer would
deem it important in determining how to act in the transaction at
issue.  Because the test focuses on the reasonable consumer,
Plaintiffs cannot overcome this requirement with their uniform
allegation that all Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Device,
or would have paid substantially less for it had they been told
about the defects. Instead, Plaintiffs must plead facts sufficient
to raise the plausible inference that Apple's disclosure of the
alleged defects would be important in the reasonable consumer's
decision about whether to purchase the Apple device at the stated
price.

The Court GRANTS with leave to amend Apple's motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' claims under the CLRA, the fraudulent prong of the UCL,
and the FAL to the extent those claims are predicated upon a
fraudulent omissions theory.

California Unfair Competition Law Unlawful Prong (Count 3)

Plaintiffs predicate their claim under the unlawful prong of the
UCL in part on Apple's alleged violation of the CDAFA. The unlawful
prong of the UCL covers any business practice that violates an
independent statutory duty. Because the Court has already concluded
that Plaintiffs have stated a claim against Apple under the CDAFA
for all devices except iPhone 5 and iPad devices, they have also
stated a claim against Apple for violation of the UCL unlawful
prong except with respect to iPhone 5 and iPad models.

The Court GRANTS with leave to amend Apple's motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's UCL claim under the unlawful prong with respect to
iPhone 5 and iPad models, but otherwise DENIES Apple's motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' UCL claim under the unlawful prong.

California Unfair Competition Law Unfair Prong (Count 3)

Apple challenges Plaintiffs' claim under the UCL's unfair prong on
the ground that the unlawful and fraudulent prongs do not survive.
The Court has already ruled that Plaintiffs' claim under the UCL's
unlawful prong may proceed as to all devices except iPhone 5 and
iPad models. Thus, Apple's argument falls away on that front. The
allegations that would apply to the iPhone 5 and iPad concern
whether Apple concealed the asserted defects from consumers. But
Apple's failure to disclose information it had no duty to disclose
in the first place is not substantially injurious, immoral, or
unethical and has not been alleged to violate any manifest
legislative policy.

The Court GRANTS with leave to amend Apple's motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's UCL claim under the unfair prong with respect to iPhone
5 and iPad models, but otherwise DENIES Apple's motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' UCL claim under the unfair prong.

Apple's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
Specifically, the Court rules as follows:

   -- The Court grants with leave to amend Apple's motion to
dismiss the non-U.S. Plaintiffs' FAL claims.

   -- The Court denies Apple's motion to dismiss the U.K.
Plaintiffs' claims under either the doctrine of international
comity or forum non conveniens.

   -- The Court grants with leave to amend Apple's motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' CFAA claim with respect to iPhone 5 and iPad
models. The Court also GRANTS with leave to amend Apple's motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' CFAA claim to the extent that it is based on
Section 1030(a)(5)(C). The Court otherwise denies Apple's motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' CFAA claim.

   -- The Court grants with leave to amend Apple's motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' CLRA claim.

   -- The Court grants with leave to amend Apple's motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' UCL claim under the unlawful and unfair prongs
with respect to iPhone 5 and iPad models, but otherwise denies
Apple's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' UCL claim under the unlawful
and unfair prongs.

   -- The Court grants Apple's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' UCL
claim under the fraudulent prong

   -- The Court grants with leave to amend Apple's motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' FAL claim.

   -- The Court grants with leave to amend Apple's motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' CDAFA claim with respect to iPhone 5 and iPad
models, but otherwise DENIES Apple's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
CDAFA claim.

   -- The Court grants with leave to amend Apple's motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' trespass to chattels claim with respect to
iPhone 5 and iPad models, but otherwise denies Apple's motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' trespass to chattels claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 1, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y95jacme from Leagle.com.

Keaton Harvey, Plaintiff, represented by Dina Elizabeth Micheletti,
Fazio & Micheletti LLP &Jeffrey Louis Fazio, Fazio & Micheletti
LLP, Nicole Gallmann, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence D. King --
lking@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Mario Man-Lung
Choi -- mchoi@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Matthew
B. George -- mgeorge@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP,
Aaron L. Schwartz -- mgeorge@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox and
Kilsheimer LLP, pro hac vice, Amy E. Keller -- akeller@dlcfirm.com
-- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, David A. Straite --
dstraite@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Donald R.
Hall -- dhall@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer, Frederic
S. Fox -- ffox@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, Joseph W.
Cotchett  -- jcotchett@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy
LLP, Mark Dearman , Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP & Mark
Cotton Molumphy -- mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy LLP.

Apple Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher Chorba --
cchorba@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, George
Charles Nierlich, III -- gnierlich@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Rachel S. Brass-  rbrass@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theane Evangelis-  tevangelis@gibsondunn.com
-- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. --
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney at
Law & Timothy William Loose -- tloose@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP.


APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Taneja Seeks Remedies Under Exchange Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GAURAV TANEJA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS, INC., THOMPSON LIN, and STEFAN
MURRY, Case No. 4:18-cv-03544 (S.D. Tex., October 1, 2018), seeks
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Defendants' issuance of materially false and
misleading statements.

The Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that certain of
the Company's lasers were susceptible to fail prematurely; (2) that
certain of the Company's transceivers utilizing these lasers would
be materially affected; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis, according to the complaint.

Applied Optoelectronics is incorporated under the laws of Delaware
with its principal executive offices located in Sugar Land, Texas.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

Applied Optoelectronics purports to design and to manufacture
fiber-optic networking products, primarily for four networking
end-markets: internet data center, cable television,
telecommunications, and fiber-to-the-home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 643-6011
          Facsimile: (281) 254-7789
          E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com
                  clinehan@glancylaw.com

               - and -

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


BARNES & NOBLE: Appeal in Bernardino Class Action Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended July 28, 2018, that an appeal is still
ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Bernardino v. Barnes &
Noble Booksellers, Inc.

On June 16, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. (B&N Booksellers) in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging violations of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act and
related New York law. The plaintiff, who seeks to represent a class
of subscribers of Facebook, Inc. (Facebook) who purchased DVDs or
other video media from the Barnes & Noble website, seeks damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees, among other things, based on
her allegation that B&N Booksellers supposedly knowingly disclosed
her personally identifiable information to Facebook without her
consent when she bought a DVD from Barnes & Noble's website.

On July 10, 2017, the plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction
requiring Barnes & Noble to change the operation of its website,
which motion B&N Booksellers opposed. On July 31, 2017, B&N
Booksellers moved to compel the case to arbitration, consistent
with the terms of use on Barnes & Noble's website. On August 28,
2017, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
injunction.

On January 31, 2018, the court granted B&N Booksellers' motion to
compel arbitration, and the clerk of court closed the case on
February 1, 2018. On March 5, 2018, the plaintiff filed an appeal
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from
the district court's grant of B&N Booksellers' motion to compel
arbitration.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. primarily operates as a bookseller in the
United States. The company operates through two segments, B&N
Retail and NOOK. The company was founded in 1986 and is based in
New York, New York.


BARNES & NOBLE: PIN Pads Litigation Ongoing
-------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended July 28, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself from a consolidated class action suit in connection
to tampered PIN Pads.

The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had
been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN
numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals.

Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012, the
Company was served with four putative class action complaints
(three in federal district court in the Northern District of
Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of
which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers
who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores
common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and
invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach notification
statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices statutes.

The actions sought various forms of relief including damages,
injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and interest.

All four cases were transferred and/or assigned to a single judge
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, and a single consolidated amended complaint was filed.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court granted
the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs then filed
an amended complaint, and the Company filed a second motion to
dismiss. On October 3, 2016, the Court granted the second motion to
dismiss, and dismissed the case without prejudice; in doing so, the
Court permitted plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint by
October 31, 2016.

On October 31, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, and on January 25, 2017, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint. On June 13, 2017, the Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss with prejudice.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On April 11, 2018, the Court of
Appeals reversed the District Court's decision granting the motion
to dismiss the case, and remanded the case to the District Court
for further proceedings. The Company filed with the Court of
Appeals a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc; that
petition was denied on May 10, 2018. The case is currently pending
in the District Court.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. primarily operates as a bookseller in the
United States. The company operates through two segments, B&N
Retail and NOOK. The company was founded in 1986 and is based in
New York, New York.


BARNES & NOBLE: Still Defends Cafe Managers' Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended July 28, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself from a class action complaint initiated by Kelly
Brown involving Cafe Managers.

On September 20, 2016, Kelly Brown filed a complaint against Barnes
& Noble in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York in which she alleges that she is entitled to unpaid
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Illinois
law. Ms. Brown seeks to represent a class of allegedly similarly
situated employees who performed the same position (Cafe Manager)
under the FLSA, as well as an Illinois-based class under Illinois
law.

On November 9, 2016, Ms. Brown filed an amended complaint to add an
additional plaintiff named Tiffany Stewart, who is a former Cafe
Manager who also alleges unpaid overtime compensation in violation
of New York law and seeks to represent a class of similarly
situated New York-based Café Managers under New York law.

On May 2, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Certification, without prejudice. The Plaintiffs filed a renewed
motion for Conditional Certification on November 17, 2017, which
the Court denied on June 25, 2018. There are currently 23 former
Cafe Managers who have joined the action as opt-in plaintiffs.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. primarily operates as a bookseller in the
United States. The company operates through two segments, B&N
Retail and NOOK. The company was founded in 1986 and is based in
New York, New York.


BEDDING PROS: "100 Night In-Home Trial" Dubious, Wheelers Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Wheeler and Beth Wheeler, on behalf of themselves and all
other members of the general public similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. BEDDING PROS LLC d/b/a/ US-MATTRESS, and DOES 1-10
Inclusive, the Defendant, Case 8:18-cv-01739 (S.D. Cal., Sept. 25,
2018), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of falsely
advertising that they will provide a "100 Night In-Home Trial" for
purchases of their mattresses, implying that consumers have 100
days to try out and return the product if dissatisfied, when in
fact they had no intention to honor this advertisement.  The
Wheelers seek to obtain redress for a nationwide class of consumers
who were misled, within the applicable statute of limitations
period, by the Defendant.

According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently advertised to
consumers that their mattresses came with a "100 Night In-Home
Trial" for the purchase of their mattresses. The Plaintiffs and
others similarly situated viewed and relied on these advertisements
on the Defendant's webpages, which continue to carry these
advertisements to this day. The Defendant misrepresented and
falsely advertised to the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated
that they would provide a "100 Night In-Home Trial" to ensure
customers were satisfied with the mattresses.

The Defendant's misrepresentations to Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated caused them to purchase mattresses from
Defendant, and then to pay additional money to the Defendant to
further exchange the mattresses once it was discovered that there
was no "100 Night In-Home Trial" that provided a refund, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Thomas Wheeler & Beth Wheeler:

          Steven Soliman, Esq.
          THE SOLIMAN FIRM
          245 Fischer Avenue D-1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 491-4111
          Facsimile: (714) 491-4111
          E-mail: ssoliman@thesolimanfirm.com


BRMCM INTERNATIONAL: Faces PT Consultants Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
PT CONSULTANTS, INC., ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs BRMCM INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION
CONSULTANTS, INC., REGINA HELLUM, MICHAEL PORTARO, COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORP., E.W. HOWELL CO., LLC, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
AND "JOHN DOE NO. 1" THROUGH JOHN DOE NO. 100, the Defendants, Case
No. 100211/2012 (N.Y. Sup., Sept 25, 2018). The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Orlando Marrazzo, Jr.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          AGOVINO & ASSELTA, LLP
          333 Earle Ovington Blvd, No. 110
          Uniondale, NY 11553
          Telephone: (516) 248 9880

Attorneys for Defendants:

          STIM & WARMUTH, P.C.
          2 Eight Street
          Famingvile, NY 11738
          Telephone: (631) 732-2000

CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Castillo TCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Justin Castillo, as an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Caesars
Entertainment Corporation and Desert Palace, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. CIV-1802716, (Cal. Super., August 2, 2018), was removed to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on September 21, 2018, and assigned Case No.
18-cv-05781.

On August 2, 2018, Castillo filed a complaint alleging violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Samuel Greenstone, Esq.
      GREENSTONE LAW APC
      1925 Century Park E., Ste 2100
      Los Angeles, CA, 90067
      Tel: (310) 201-9156
      Email: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com

             - and -

      Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq.
      David Zelenski, Esq.
      JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
      114 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 200
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 630-7280
      Facsimile: (888) 879-1697
      Email: michael@jlglawyers.com
             david@jlglawyers.com

             - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Danielle Leigh Manning, Esq.
      Marc Lawrence Godino, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY AND MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (301) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (301) 201-9160
      Email: info@glancylaw.com
             dmanning@glancylaw.com
             mgodino@glancylaw.com

             - and -

      Abigail Ameri Zelenski, Esq.
      JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
      300 W Glenoaks Blvd., Suite 300
      Glendale, CA 91202
      Tel: (818) 630-7280
           (888) 879-1697
      Email: abigail@jlglawyers.com

Defendant is represented by:

      Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq.
      LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
      505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 391-0600
      Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
      Email: melanie.blunschi@lw.com

             - and -

      Matthew T. Murchison, Esq.
      Natalie Hardwick Rao, Esq.
      Adam J. Tuetken, Esq.
      LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
      555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20004-1304
      Telephone: (202) 637-2200
      Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
      Email: matthew.murchison@lw.com
             natalie.rao@lw.com
             adam.tuetken@lw.com


CALAVO GROWERS: Pays $0.4 MM in Wage & Hour Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Calavo Growers, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2018, that the company paid the court-approved settlement
in the amount of $0.4 million to resolve two class action lawsuits
involving wage and hour claims.

Calavo Growers, Inc. was a named defendant in two class action
lawsuits filed in Superior state courts in California alleging
violations of California wage-and-hour laws, failure to pay
overtime, failure to pay for missed meal and rest periods, failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay all
wages due at the time of termination or resignation, as well as
statutory penalties for violation of the California Labor Code and
Minimum Wage Order-2014.

In August 2017, the parties reached a tentative settlement of the
case (pending court approval), whereby the company agreed to pay
$0.4 million to resolve the allegations and avoid further
distraction that would result if the litigation continued. The
Company recorded $0.4 million as a selling, general and
administrative expense in the third quarter of fiscal 2017.

Calavo Growers said, "In August 2018, the court approved the
settlement, and we paid $0.4 million."

Calavo Growers, Inc. markets and distributes avocados, prepared
avocados, and other perishable foods to grocery retailers, food
services, club stores, mass merchandisers, food distributors,
wholesalers, supermarkets, specialty/natural retailers, and
convenience stores worldwide. It operates in three segments: Fresh
Products, Calavo Foods, and RFG. Calavo Growers, Inc. was founded
in 1924 and is headquartered in Santa Paula, California.


CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces Marder Securities Class Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARISA MARDER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, DENISE M. MORRISON, and ANTHONY
P. DISILVESTRO, Case No. 1:18-cv-14385 (D.N.J., September 28,
2018), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 alleging that, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.

Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that: (i) the Defendants failed
to disclose known trends that were negatively impacting the
profitability of the Campbell Fresh division; and (ii) as a result,
the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's and the
Campbell Fresh division's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Campbell is a New Jersey corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Camden, New Jersey.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.

Campbell is a global food company that sells soups, packaged meals,
beverages, snacks, and packaged fresh foods.  Through its "Campbell
Fresh" division, the Company sells refrigerated beverages, salad
dressings, and fresh carrots and carrot ingredients under the
Bolthouse Farms brand name, and salsa and hummus under the Garden
Fresh Gourmet brand name.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, PC
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  decklund@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Davidson, Esq.
          Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com
                  jrdavidson@ktmc.com
                  rdegnan@ktmc.com


CASEY'S GENERAL: Miscalculates Overtime Pay, Wenell Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
SARAH WENELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CASEY'S GENERAL STORES, INC. and
CASEY’S MARKETING COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00774
(W.D. Mo., Sept. 28, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, and related penalties and damages resulting from
Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, it is the Defendants' practice and
policy to willfully fail and refuse to properly pay all overtime
compensation due and owing and doing so is in direct violation of
the FLSA.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants, was paid on an hourly
basis, and worked at the Defendants' location on North Oak
Trafficway in North Kansas City, Missouri as well as other Casey's
locations. The Plaintiff worked as an hourly employee.  The
Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. As
part of her compensation structure, the Plaintiff regularly
received non-discretionary bonuses, shift differentials, and other
increases in her compensation structure. However, those increases
to her regular rate were not included when calculating overtime
premiums. Instead, the Defendants solely based overtime
compensation on the Plaintiff's base hourly rate, the lawsuit
says.

Casey's General Stores, Inc., is a chain of convenience stores in
the Midwestern United States, primarily within the states of Iowa,
Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, South Dakota, North Dakota,
Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan, Tennessee,
Kentucky, and Wisconsin.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael Hodgson, Esq.
          THE HODGSON LAW FIRM
          3699 SW Pryor Road
          Lee's Summit, MO 64082
          Telephone: (913) 890 3529
          E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
          John Doyle, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON, LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 945 7110
          Facsimile: (816) 945 7118
          E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com
                  jdoyle@williamsdirks.com


CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Faces Muldowney Suit in N.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cawley & Bergmann,
LLC.  The lawsuit is captioned as Martin Muldowney, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs
Cawley & Bergmann, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
5:18-cv-01158-LEK-ATB (N.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2018).  The case is
assigned to the Hon. Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn. The suit
alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation.

Cawley & Bergmann, LLC is a debt collection company specializing in
the recovery of delinquent consumer debt.[BN]

Attorneys for Martin Muldowney:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
          E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com


CIENA CORP: Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ciena Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a
consolidated class action suit entitled, Beaver County Employees
Retirement Fund, et al. v. Cyan, Inc. et al.

As a result of the acquisition of Cyan in August 2015, Ciena became
a defendant in a securities class action lawsuit. On April 1, 2014,
a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, against
Cyan, the members of Cyan's board of directors, Cyan's former Chief
Financial Officer, and the underwriters of Cyan's initial public
offering.

On April 30, 2014, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the
same court against the same defendants.

The two cases were consolidated as Beaver County Employees
Retirement Fund, et al. v. Cyan, Inc. et al., Case No.
CGC-14-538355. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of
federal securities laws on behalf of a purported class consisting
of purchasers of Cyan's common stock pursuant or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus for Cyan's initial public
offering in April 2013, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages
and other relief. On May 19, 2015, the proposed class was
certified.

On August 25, 2015, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings based on an alleged lack of subject matter
jurisdiction over the case, which motion was denied on October 23,
2015. On May 24, 2016, the defendants filed a petition for a writ
of certiorari on the jurisdiction issue with the U.S. Supreme
Court, which petition was granted on June 27, 2017. The matter was
stayed by the Superior Court pending the outcome of the Supreme
Court's decision.

On March 20, 2018, the Supreme Court held that the Superior Court
had subject matter jurisdiction over the case. A case management
conference was held before the Superior Court during the third
quarter of fiscal 2018.

Ciena believes that the consolidated lawsuit is without merit and
intends to defend it vigorously.

Ciena Corporation provides hardware, software, and services that
support the transport, switching, aggregation, service delivery,
and management of voice, video, and data traffic on communications
networks worldwide. Ciena Corporation was founded in 1992 and is
headquartered in Hanover, Maryland.


CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Diaz Suit Alleges ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Citizens Financial Group, Inc. dba Citizens Bank, Case No.
1:18-cv-07583 (S.D. N.Y., August 20, 2018), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually impaired people.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Bronx, New York. The Plaintiff is a
blind, visually-impaired handicapped person.

The Defendant is and was at all relevant times a Delaware FDIC Bank
doing business in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
      COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
      300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel: (929) 575-4175
      Fax: (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
      Tel: (212) 228-9795
      E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
              danalgottlieb@aol.com


CK RICHTON: 7th Circuit Appeal Filed in Sanchez-Lagunes Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants AG RP, Incorporated, and Peter Kanavos filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Juan Sanchez-Lagunes, et
al. v. AG RP, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-02504, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks unpaid overtime compensation for all hours worked by the
Plaintiff in excess of 40 hours per week, statutory interest
damages in the amount of two percent per month of the amount of
underpayments, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
filing and prosecuting this action, and such other and further
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.

The appellate case is captioned as Juan Sanchez-Lagunes, et al. v.
AG RP, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 18-3113, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellant's brief is due on or before November 13, 2018, for AG RP,
Incorporated and Peter Kanavos.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ-LAGUNES, on behalf of
himself and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown, is represented by:

          Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
          NOLAN LAW OFFICE
          53 W. Jackson Boulevard
          Chicago, IL 60604-0000
          Telephone: (312) 322-1100
          Facsimile: (312) 322-1106
          E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com

Defendants-Appellants AG RP, INCORPORATED, an Illinois Corporation,
and PETER KANAVOS are represented by:

          Peter A. Papoutsis, Esq.
          PAPOUTSIS LAW, INC.
          1250 W. Lake Street
          Addison, IL 60101
          Telephone: (630) 543-2400
          E-mail: info@peterpapoutsis.com

Defendants-Appellees CK RICHTON PARK, INCORPORATED, an Illinois
Corporation, doing business as Athens Gyros, and CONSTANTINE
KANAVOS are represented by:

          Peter G. Limperis, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. LIMPERIS
          5624 W. 79th Street
          Burbank, IL 60459
          Telephone: (708) 857-9787


CLARKSON & HALE: Claims in 1st Amended Erekson FDCA Suit Narrowed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GALE EREKSON, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CLARKSON & HALE, LLC, Defendant,
C/A No. 3:18-cv-0032-CMC (D. S.C.), Judge Cameron McGowan Currie of
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina,
Columbia Division, granted in part and denied in part Clarkson's
motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.

Erekson filed the action on Jan. 4, 2018.  The Original Complaint
asserted a single claim for violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g
based on Clarkson's inclusion of the following sentence in two
letters mailed to Erekson on July 24, 2017.  The letters were part
of Clarkson's effort to collect debts owed to creditor Midland
Funding, LLC on credit cards identified as the "Sam's Club Debt"
and the "QCard Debt."  Erekson alleges she is a "consumer" and
Clarkson is a "debt collector" as defined by 15 U.S.C. Sections
1692a(3), (6).

Erekson alleged the challenged language violated Section 1692g(b)
because it overshadowed Clarkson's otherwise proper disclosure of
Erekson's statutory rights to challenge the debt, seek additional
information, or both during the 30 days following receipt of
notification of these rights.

Clarkson moved to dismiss the Original Complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Erekson's
Response.  Erekson responded with both a motion to amend her
complaint and a memorandum in opposition to dismissal.

Erekson's motion to amend sought to add factual allegations in
support of both the existing overshadowing claim (alleging
violation of Section 1692g(b)) and a second cause of action for
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e), which prohibits use of any
false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in
connection with the collection of any debt.

In its reply in support of dismissal, Clarkson argued Bartlett's
requirement for safe-harbor language has not been adopted by the
Fourth Circuit.  It separately opposed Erekson's motion to amend as
futile, arguing that Erekson's allegations regarding the letters
dated on and after July 31, 2017, and their attachments, did not
cure the deficiencies in Erekson's original overshadowing claim
(Section 1692g(b)) because, to state such a claim, Erekson must
show both a demand for payment or threat of litigation and an
unduly confusing obligation on behalf of the Plaintiff.

In her reply in support of amendment, Erekson noted the proposed
added allegations address multiple communications following
Erekson's receipt of the two July 24, 2017 letters, including her
telephonic agreement to make six $10 payments on each of the debts,
which she alleges Clarkson repeatedly misrepresented in subsequent
written communications.

Following the briefing, the Court, having fully considered the
Defendant's motion to dismiss and the Plaintiff's motion to amend,
finds the proposed amended complaint includes significant
allegations of additional communications that may (1) cure alleged
deficiencies in the Plaintiff's original cause of action for
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g, (2) support an additional
claim for violation of Section 1692e, or (3) both.  Without ruling
on the viability of either claim, it grants the motion to amend
and, consequently, finds the motion to dismiss moot.  Within seven
days of entry of the order, the Plaintiff will file her amended
complaint.

Consistent with the instructions in this order, Erekson filed her
Amended Complaint on April 16, 2018, attaching referenced written
communications and summarizing oral communications.  The Amended
Complaint seeks certification of a "Template" class consisting of
persons with South Carolina addresses to whom Clarkson sent a
letter based on the same form or template used for the two letters
Clarkson directed to Erekson dated July 24, 2017.  It also seeks
certification of a "Confession Templates Subclass" consisting of
persons with South Carolina addresses to whom Clarkson sent one or
more letters based upon the same forms or templates used for
multiple letters Clarkson directed to Erekson dated July 31, 2017,
Aug. 10, 2017, Aug. 16, 2017, and Aug. 21, 2017.

Clarkson answered and later moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint
on July 11, 2018.  Its arguments are similar to those made in
support of its motion to dismiss the Original Complaint and
opposition to Erekson's motion to amend.  Erekson filed a response
on Aug. 8, 2017, opposing the motion with arguments similar to
those made in her prior memoranda.  No further memoranda were
filed.

Judge Currie granted Clarkson's motion to dismiss to the extent
Erekson's first cause of action is founded on the July 24, 2017
letters.  she denied it in all other respects.  The Judge finds the
allegations sufficient to support a claim for violation of Section
1692g(b) to the extent such claim is based on the letters dated on
and after July 31, 2017.  In addition, the Amended Complaint
alleges the July 31, 2017 letters and attachments substantially
misstated the agreement reached during a telephone conversation,
suggesting Erekson had agreed to these terms.  The potential for
violation of Section 1692e is further supported by the potentially
misleading use of subject lines on letters and captions on
attachments.  Whether or not this use falls precisely within what
is prohibited by Section 1692e(9), it raises similar concerns as it
might mislead the least sophisticated consumer to believe
litigation was imminent or had been initiated or the documents were
issued by a court.  At this stage, she finds the combination of
actions and this usage sufficient to state a claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/Nua7oR from Leagle.com.

Gale Erekson, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Holly Elizabeth Dowd --
hdowd@consumerlawinfo.com -- Thompson Consumer Law Group & David N.
McDevitt -- dmcdevitt@thompsonconsumerlaw.com -- Thompson Consumer
Law Group, pro hac vice.

Clarkson & Hale, LLC, Defendant, represented by Martin S. Driggers,
Jr. -- msd@swblaw.com -- Sweeny Wingate and Barrow & Richard Edward
McLawhorn, Jr. -- rem@swblaw.com -- Sweeny Wingate and Barrow.


CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING: Cranor Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Cranor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Classified Advertising Ventures, LLC and Tradeco Media
Group, LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-00651 (W.D. Mo., August 20, 2018), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Joplin, Missouri.

The Defendant Classified Advertising Ventures, LLC is a Nevada
limited liability company with its principal office or headquarters
in Carson City, Nevada. Classified operates an online, nationwide
classifieds service that lists its clients' vehicles and equipment
in this District and throughout the country on various websites
operated by it and its agents. Classified holds itself out as an
advertising and finance company.

The Defendant Tradeco operates an online, nationwide classifieds
service that lists its clients' vehicles and equipment in this
District and throughout the country on various websites operated by
it and its agents. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMMERCE BANK: Faces Costello et al. Suit in S.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Commerce Bank. The
lawsuit is captioned Emily Smith Costello and Dawn M. Greathouse,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, vs Commerce Bank, the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-01765-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill., Sept. 25, 2018). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Staci M. Yandle.

Commerce Bank offers personal and business banking, checking,
mortgages, loans, investing, and credit cards.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Evan D. Buxner, Esq.
          BUXNER LAW FIRM
          230 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 1400
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863 6000
          Facsimile: (888) 851 4940
          E-mail: ebuxner@buxnerlaw.com


CORNERSTONE FINANCIAL: Farrel Seeks Damages for FDCPA Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Farrell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cornerstone Financial Services
and Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02932 (D. Md., September
21, 2018), seeks damages arising from violations of Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Cornerstone Financial is a debt collection agency who attempted to
collect a consumer debt incurred by Farrel via a collection letter
that threatened to list her account in their data base as bad debt.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Aryeh E. Stein, Esq.
     MERIDIAN LAW, LLC
     600 Reisterstown Rd, Ste. 700
     Baltimore, MD 21208
     Tel: (443) 326-6011
     Fax: (410) 653-9061
     Email: astein@meridianlawfirm.com


DAVITA INC: Diaz Suit Alleges ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------
Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. DaVita Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-07589 (S.D. N.Y., August 20,
2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually impaired people.

The Plaintiff, a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person, is a
resident of Bronx, New York.

The Defendant operates DaVita Kidney Health Centers as well as the
DaVita website, and offers it to the public and offers features
that should allow all consumers to access the facilities and
services that Defendant offers regarding its Health Centers. The
Defendant operates DaVita Centers across the United States,
including its location in New York City at 1622 Bruckner Blvd,
Bronx, NY 10473. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
      COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
      300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel: (929) 575-4175
      Fax: (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
      Tel: (212) 228-9795
      E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
              danalgottlieb@aol.com


DIMI GYRO: Candia Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Tranquilino Candia, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Dimi Gyro LLC dba Chirping Chicken et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-07627 (S.D. N.Y., August 21, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff is a resident of New York County, New York. The
Defendants hired Plaintiff Candia to work as a cook at Defendants'
Chirping Chicken restaurant located at 940 Columbus Avenue, New
York, NY 10025, in or around July 2016. In January 2018, the
Plaintiff Candia was transferred to Defendants' Chirping Chicken
restaurant located at 219 West 145th Street, New York, NY 10039 to
work as a cook.

The Defendants operate a restaurant enterprise under the name
"Chirping Chicken" at six locations in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DIRECT ENERGY: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Sevugan Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Chetty Sevugan filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Chetty Sevugan v. Direct Energy Services, LLC,
Case No. 1:17-cv-06569, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Eastern Division.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 11, 2018, Judge
Virginia M. Kendall granted Direct Energy's Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Chetty Sevugan v. Direct Energy
Services, LLC, Case No. 18-3082, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellant's brief is due on or before November 7, 2018, for Chetty
Sevugan.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CHETTY SEVUGAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          QUANTUM LEGAL LLC
          513 Central Avenue
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          E-mail: richard@Qulegal.com

Defendant-Appellee DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware
Corporation, is represented by:

          Michael D. Matthews, Jr., Esq.
          MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP
          1001 Fannin Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 337-8859
          E-mail: matt.matthews@mhllp.com


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Bailey Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
--------------------------------------------------
Katie Bailey (a.k.a. Katie Kozlarek), individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC, Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC and John Does 1-25,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02721 (D. Minn., September 21, 2018),
seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all
other relief for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Defendants are debt collectors assigned to collect an alleged
obligation by Bailey to Verizon Wireless. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Avraham Zvi Cutler, Esq.
      Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler
      729 7th Ave., 17th Fl.
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (718) 578-7711
      Fax: (212) 764-5060
      Email: avicutler@gmail.com


ELA AREA PUBLIC: Victor Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
SANDRA VICTOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ELA AREA PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT, MATT
WOMACK, an individual and MEGAN CREEL, an individual, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06624 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 28, 2018),
alleges that ELA failed to pay the Plaintiff for all time worked,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Sandra Victor served as an Information
Desk Assistant and then the Popular Materials Department Supervisor
at ELA. During her employment, Victor routinely performed off the
clock work for which she was not compensated.

ELA has a policy and practice of automatically deducting 30 minutes
from all non-exempt employees' pay for a meal break. During her
employment, Victor, and other similarly situated employees,
routinely performed work during her 30 minute meal breaks and were
not compensated for such work, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Peter M. Katsaros, Esq.
          Laura A. Balson, Esq.
          GOLAN CHRISTIE TAGLIA LLP
          70 West Madison Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 263 2300
          E-mail: pmkatsaros@gct.law
                  labalson@gct.law


ENROLL CAROLINA: City Plating Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
City Plating and Polishing, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Enroll Carolina, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02170, (N.D. Ohio, September 21, 2018),
seeks actual and statutory damages, disgorgement of any ill-gotten
funds acquired, injunction requiring Defendant to cease all
unsolicited prerecorded calling activities, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs, and such further and other relief under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005.

Enroll Carolina operates as "You Select Health Insurance Inc." You
Select sells health insurance plans for individuals, families, and
small businesses. In order to boost sales and increase its
revenues, You Select Health sends numerous faxes advertising its
health insurance plans, usually without their permission or
consent.

Starting at least as early as December 6, 2017, and continuing
through at least July 24, 2018, You Select Health used a telephone
facsimile machine to send at least eight unsolicited fax
advertisements to City Plating, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam T. Savett, Esq.
      SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC
      2764 Carole Lane
      Allentown PA 18104
      Telephone: (610) 621-4550
      Facsimile: (610) 978-2970
      Email: adam@savettlaw.com


FEDEX GROUND: $13MM Settlement in ERISA Suit Has Prelim Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, IN RE: FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. EMPLOYMENT
PRACTICES LITIGATION (MDL 1700), This Document Relates to: CARLENE
M. CRAIG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYS., INC.
Defendant, Cause Nos. 3:05-MD-527 RLM, 3:05-CV-530 RLM (N.D. Ind.),
Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the proposed ERISA
class action settlement.

The Plaintiffs filed the suit, the Kansas ERISA class action, in
2004, and amended their complaint in January 2006 to include an
ERISA national class action.  The Court granted their motion to
certify a nationwide ERISA class in October 2007.

The class included all persons who: 1) entered into a FXG Ground or
FXG Home Delivery Form Operating Agreement (now known as a Form
OP-149 and Form OP-149 RES); 2) drove a vehicle on a full-time
basis (meaning exclusive of time off for commonly excused employmet
absences) during the class period to provide package pick-up and
delivery services pursuant to the Operating Agreement; and 3) were
eligible for ERISA Plan benefits, absent their mischaracterization
as independent contractors.

On June 28, 2010, the Court granted FedEx Ground's motion for
partial summary judgment, and dismissed the Plaintiffs' ERISA
claims without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.  Pursuant to the order, only the named Plaintiffs in the
Craig case were required to exhaust their administrative remedies.
Administrative review was completed in February 2011, while the
Craig case was on appeal.  When the Court of appeals remanded the
case in July 2015, the parties moved for an immediate stay, so they
could engage in settlement negotiations.

Michael Dickstein was selected to serve as the mediator, and
successfully negotiated the settlement of the non-ERISA claims.
Mediation on the ERISA claims was set for June 6, 2016.  The
parties didn't reach an agreement on June 6, 2016, but they
continued to work with Mr. Dickstein toward resolution of the ERISA
claims, and on June 7, 2017 executed a "Deal Point Memorandum"
setting forth the terms of a tentative settlement.

On June 19, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their Fifth Amended
Complaint reasserting the ERISA claims and related state law
claims, and in late August/early September 2017 they executed the
Settlement Agreement for which the Plaintiffs now seek preliminary
approval.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, FedEx Ground would pay
$13,325,000 to resolve all ERISA class claims (and similar state
laws) that were brought, or could have been brought, against FedEx
Ground during the release period, which runs from the beginning of
the class period (Feb. 11, 1998 for Kansas class members and Jan.
9, 2001 for all other class members) through Sept. 8, 2017.  In
exchange, the named Plaintiffs and all tje class members who don't
opt out would be required to execute a general release of any claim
they had or may have had during that 15-year period.

The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel propose to distribute the $13,325,000
settlement this way: (1) Administration and notice costs
-approximately $125,000; (2) Service awards to the 13 named
Plaintiffs - totaling $67,500; (3) Attorneys' fees - a maximum of
$4,377,062 (33.33% of the Total Settlement Fund after deductions
for administrative costs and service awards); (4) Life Insurance
Fund - 52.5% of the net common fund (an estimated $4,527,659.20)
will be allocated to resolve claims for life insurance benefits
presented by the legal heirs or estates of deceased class members
who died while their FedEx Ground contracts were active, with any
remaining balance reverting to FedEx Ground; (5) General Settlement
Fund - 47.5% of the net common fund (an estimated $4,104,251.97)
will be allocated to resolve the ERISA benefit claims under the
other employee benefit plans that were in effect during the release
period, which include the FedEx Ground medical, dental, vision,
long term disability, short term disability, and 401(k) plans, with
no reversion; and (6) Reserve Fund — $131,325 (1% of the Total
Settlement Fund after deductions for administrative costs and
service awards).

Yhe Counsel estimated that the average recovery per class member
will be around $197.01 (ranging between $10.07 to $764.93), and
asserted that the $13,325,000 settlement represents approximately
127% of net expected settlement value and approximately 25% of the
Plaintiffs' maximum damages (including interest under ERISA - well
within the range of reasonable settlement value.

Two of the named plaintiffs, Ronald Perry and Alan Pacheco, filed
an objection to the motion for preliminary approval, contending
that the proposed settlement is premised on the assumption that
there is no possibility of the Plaintiffs prevailing on any ERISA
claims after 2001 and 2002 but requires class members to release
FedEx from liability for any ERISA claims that may have arisen in
the 15 years since the plans were amended, without providing any
compensation for the extended release.  The objecting Plaintiffs'
counsel provides no evidentiary basis for her calculations and only
a cursory statement regarding her IRC theory of liability; she
hasn't shown that the proposed settlement is unreasonable.  Based
upon the limited record before it, Judge Miller finds that neither
Mr. Perry, nor Mr. Pacheco, has presented any evidence to the
contrary.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the Judge finds that the terms of
the Settlement Agreement are: (a) fair, reasonable, and adequate in
light of the relevant factual, legal, practical and procedural
considerations of the action; (b) free of collusion to the
detriment of the class members; and (c) within the range of
possible final judicial approval, subject to further consideration
thereof at the Fairness Hearing described in the Order and granted
the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Proposed ERISA Class
Action Settlement.  The Fairness Hearing is set for March 11, 2019
at 9:30 a.m.

The Judge Approved the proposed form of Notice of Settlement to
Class Members.  The Notice shall be mailed on Nov. 5, 2018.  Any
newly-identified class member who wishes to be excluded from and
not be bound by the Settlement Agreement must complete and mail a
request for exclusion to the Settlement Administrator postmarked no
later than 30 days after transmittal of the Notice with certain
exceptions identified in the parties' Settlement Agreement.

Any class member who does not opt out and who wishes to object to
the settlement, in whole or in part, must file a written objection
with the Court by Jan. 4, 2019 (60 days after mailing of the
Settlement Notices), and send copies to the Plaintiffs' Co-Lead
Counsel and FedEx Ground.

The Judge designated and approved Rust Consulting, Inc. as the
Settlement Administrator.  He directed that the applications for
awards of attorneys' fees, costs, settlement administration
expenses, and any service awards, must be filed with the court on
Oct. 20, 2018.  The objections shall be filed on Jan. 4, 2019.  The
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval and Memoranda in support of
the settlement shall be filed by April 4, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/Nh1Ek4 from Leagle.com.

Dean Alexander, Northern District of California, Suzanne Andrade,
Northern District of California, Jarrett Henderson, Northern
District of California, Ely Ines, Northern District of California,
Jorge Isla, Northern District of California, Paul Infantino,
Northern District of California, Bernard Mendoza, Northern District
of California, Jesse Padilla, Northern District of California, Joey
Rodriguez, Northern District of California, Allan Ross, Northern
District of California & Sergei Selenskikh, Plaintiffs, represented
by Beth A. Ross -- bross@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder LLP,
Lynn R. Faris -- lfaris@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder LLP,
Peter J. Agostino -- agostino@aaklaw.com -- Anderson Agostino &
Keller PC & Susan E. Ellingstad -- seellingstad@locklaw.com --
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

Carlene M Craig, District of Kansas, Plaintiff, represented by Beth
A. Ross, Leonard Carder LLP, George A. Barton , Law Offices of
George A Barton PC, pro hac vice, Robert I. Harwood --
rharwood@hfesq.com -- Harwood Feffer LLP, Peter J. Agostino,
Anderson Agostino & Keller PC & Susan E. Ellingstad, Lockridge
Grindal Nauen PLLP.

Janie L Foster, District of Kansas, Plaintiff, represented by
George A. Barton, Law Offices of George A Barton PC, pro hac vice,
Peter J. Agostino, Anderson Agostino & Keller PC & Susan E.
Ellingstad, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

Leo Rittenhouse, District of Kansas, Jeff Bramlage, District of
Kansas, Lawrence Liable, District of Kansas, Kent Whistler,
District of Kansas, Mike Moore, District of Kansas, Keith Barry,
District of Kansas & Sylvia O'Brien, Plaintiffs, represented by
Beth A. Ross, Leonard Carder LLP, George A. Barton, Law Offices of
George A Barton PC, pro hac vice, Lynn R. Faris, Leonard Carder
LLP, Peter J. Agostino, Anderson Agostino & Keller PC & Susan E.
Ellingstad, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

Gary Terrio, District of New Hampshire & Donald Swazey, District of
New Hampshire, Plaintiffs, represented by Lynn R. Faris, Leonard
Carder LLP, Robert E. McDaniel, McDaniel Law Offices, Peter J.
Agostino, Anderson Agostino & Keller PC & Susan E. Ellingstad,
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

FedEx Ground Package System Inc, Northern District of California,
Defendant, represented by C. Victor Pyle, III , Ogletree Deakins
Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Chris A. Hollinger -- chollinger@omm.comm
-- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Evelyn L. Becker , O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
pro hac vice, Karen P. Kruse -- k2@karenkruselaw.com -- Jackson
Lewis PC, pro hac vice, Kenneth Lee Blalack, II -- lblalack@omm.com
-- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Michael J. Puma --
michael.puma@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac
vice, R. Jay Taylor, Jr. -- JTAYLOR@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis
Garvin Light Hanson & Feary PC, Robert I. Harwood, Harwood Feffer
LLP, Robert M. Schwartz, Irell & Manella LLP, pro hac vice, Steve
Dennis -- sdennis@reiddennis.com -- Reid & Dennis PC, pro hac vice,
Alison G. Fox, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Thomas J. Brunner, Jr.,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.  

FedEx Ground Package System Inc, District of Kansas & FedEx Ground
Package System Inc, Western District of Texas, Defendants,
represented by Evelyn L. Becker, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac
vice, Karen P. Kruse, Jackson Lewis PC, pro hac vice, Michael J.
Puma, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Robert M. Schwartz,
Irell & Manella LLP, pro hac vice, Steve Dennis, Reid & Dennis PC,
pro hac vice, Alison G. Fox, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Thomas J.
Brunner, Jr., Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

FedEx Ground Package System Inc, District of New Hampshire,
Defendant, represented by Evelyn L. Becker, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
pro hac vice, Karen P. Kruse, Jackson Lewis PC, pro hac vice,
Michael J. Puma, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Robert
M. Schwartz, Irell & Manella LLP, pro hac vice, Alison G. Fox,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Lawrence J. Rosenfeld, Greenberg Traurig
LLP & Thomas J. Brunner, Jr., Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

FedEx Ground, and its Officers and/or Employees District of New
Jersey, Defendant, represented by Carolyn J. Kubota, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Chris A. Hollinger, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Evelyn L.
Becker, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice, Robert M. Schwartz,
Irell & Manella LLP, pro hac vice, Scott Voelz, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, Steve Dennis, Reid & Dennis PC, pro hac vice, Alison G. Fox,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Aparna B. Joshi, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Cameron H. Biscay, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Dulany Lucetta Pope,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Guy Brenner, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Jeffrey A. Trimarchi, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jennifer Lee Merzon,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Kenneth Lee Blalack, II, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, Laura E. Robinson, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Lesley A. Pate,
Venable LLP, Michael W. Garrison, Jr., O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Michael W. Kopp, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Michael G. McGuinness ,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Nora M. Puckett, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Robert G. Ames, Venable LLP, Robin Dean, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Rosemary J. Bruno , Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Thomas J.
Brunner, Jr., Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Victor H. Jih, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP.

Tyrone Gaskins, District of New Jersey, Albert Rettinger, District
of New Jersey & Jim Gelhausen, District of New Jersey, Defendants,
represented by Dulany Lucetta Pope, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP &
Alison G. Fox, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.


FH CANN: Illegally Collects Debts in Florida, Lee Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
GRIFFIN LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. F.H. CANN & ASSOCIATES, Inc., Case No.
0:18-cv-62325-PCH (S.D. Fla., September 29, 2018), accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

FHC has dispatched thousands of consumer debt collection letters to
Florida consumers without first obtaining a license to collect
consumer debts in the state of Florida as mandated by the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act, the Plaintiff contends.

FHC is a Massachusetts corporation, with its principal place of
business located in North Anover, Massachusetts.  FHC engages in
interstate commerce by regularly using telephone and mail in a
business whose principal purpose is the collection of debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


FINISAR CORP: 9th Cir. Declines to Hear Investors' Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Finisar Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended July 29, 2018, that the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals denied the petition for permission to appeal a ruling in
the consolidated class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

Several securities class action lawsuits related to the Company's
March 8, 2011 earnings announcement alleging claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 have been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on behalf of a purported class of persons who
purchased stock between December 2, 2010 through March 8, 2011.

The named defendants are the Company and Jerry Rawls, its former
Chief Executive Officer and former Chairman of the Board, and Eitan
Gertel, its former Chief Executive Officer.

To date, no specific amount of damages has been alleged. The cases
were consolidated, lead plaintiff was appointed and a consolidated
complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
case. On January 16, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss and granted the lead plaintiffs leave to amend
the consolidated complaint.

An amended consolidated complaint was filed on February 6, 2013.
Thereafter, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss the case.
On September 30, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's
motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, and plaintiff
appealed. On January 8, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the judgment in part for further proceedings in the
District Court. On July 15, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a Second
Amended Complaint in the District Court. On August 19, 2016, the
Company moved to dismiss.

On May 1, 2017, the District Court denied the motion and a case
scheduling order has been issued. On December 5, 2017, the District
Court issued an order denying class certification. On February 1,
2018, the plaintiff filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals for permission to appeal the denial of class
certification and, on July 13, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals denied the petition for permission to appeal.

Finisar Corporation provides components and subsystems to
networking equipment manufacturers, data center operators, telecom
service providers, consumer electronics, and automotive companies
in the United States, China, Malaysia, and internationally. Finisar
Corporation was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Sunnyvale,
California.


FIRST ENERGY: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Rice Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HOLLY RICE, individually and as parent and natural
guardian of N.R., D.W., D.W., K.W., minor children; RUDOLPH SMITH
and YMA SMITH; GARY J. KUKLISH and KIMBERLY KUKLISH; GEORGE and
URSULA C. MARKISH; and DARREL REDMAN and GINA REDMAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
FIRST ENERGY CORP., NRG ENERGY, INC., and MATT CANESTRALE
CONTRACTING, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-489-LPL (W.D. Pa.),
Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, granted (i) FEC's
Motion for Summary Judgment, (ii) NRG's Motion for Summary
Judgment, and (iii) the Plaintiffs leave to file an amended
complaint for the purpose of adding proper party Defendants.

Currently pending before the Court for disposition are the Motions
for Summary Judgment filed by FEC and NRG Energy.  In the motions,
they ask the Court to dismiss all claims in the Plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint against them because they do not own or operate
the power stations at issue in this action, and under Pennsylvania
law, a parent corporation is not liable for the conduct of its
subsidiaries.

The Plaintiffs, who are owners and/or residents of private property
in LaBelle and Luzerne Townships, instituted the class action to
assert claims arising out of alleged environmental contamination
and polluting of their property and persons by coal ash emanating
from the LaBelle Refuse Site, which is owned and operated by
Defendant Matt Canestrale Contracting, Inc.  The coal ash at the
LaBelle Site came from several closed power plants in Western
Pennsylvania allegedly owned and/or operated by the Energy
Defendants.

Essentially, the Plaintiffs assert four claims against the Energy
Defendants: (1) Medical Monitoring; (2) Negligence; (3) Private
Nuisance; and (4) Trespass.  However, the Energy Defendants
disclaim ownership of the closed power stations and seek dismissal
from the action.

At the initial case management conference on March 6, 2018, the
Court instructed the Plaintiffs to conduct discovery regarding
whether FEC and NRG Energy are proper party Defendants in the next
60 days.  The Plaintiffs did not commence discovery against NRG
Energy within the 60-day period, but counsel for the Plaintiffs
stated during the May 8, 2018 telephone conference that he intended
to serve RFPs on NRG Energy that week.  The counsel for the
Plaintiffs did serve RFPs on FEC on May 8, 2018.  During the May 8,
2018 telephone conference, the Plaintiffs' counsel requested an
additional 60 days to complete discovery on the issue, so that he
would have time to depose one or two 30(b)(6) witnesses after he
received the responses to his discovery requests.  The Court
extended the discovery deadline to July 6, 2018 on the issue of
whether FEC and NRG Energy were proper party Defendants.

The Plaintiffs did not serve RFPs on NRG Energy the week of May 8,
2018 or any time thereafter.  Nor did the Plaintiffs serve
discovery requests of any kind on NRG Energy, or notice a
deposition of NRG Energy.

Magistrate Judge Lenihan finds that the Plaintiffs' arguments and
evidence fail to establish any of the factors delineated by the
courts as indicative of alter ego, or raise material questions of
fact on the issue.  She notes that the Plaintiffs were afforded an
opportunity to conduct discovery to obtain information to satisfy
their burden of proof on the issue, but failed to proffer any
evidence to satisfy their burden of proof.  Accordingly, she holds
that based on the record evidence, no reasonable jury could find
that FEC owns and operates the Hatfield Ferry and Mitchell Power
Plants, and that Defendant FEC is entitled to summary judgment in
its favor as a matter of law.

The Magistrate Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs' arguments and
evidence have failed to establish (1) that NRG Energy is the
successor by merger and therefore directly liable to the
Plaintiffs, (2) that NRG Energy is the owner of the Elrama Power
Plant, or (2) any of the factors delineated by the courts as
indicative of alter ego, or raise material questions of fact on the
issue.  The Plaintiffs were afforded an opportunity to conduct
discovery to obtain information needed to satisfy their burden of
proof on whether NRG Energy is a proper party Defendant, yet failed
to avail themselves of that opportunity.  Accordingly, she holds
that based on the record evidence, no reasonable jury could find
that NRG Energy owns and/or operated the Elrama Power Plant, and
Defendant NRG Energy is entitled to summary judgment in its favor
as a matter of law.

The Plaintiffs suggest, in the alternative, that the proper
solution would be to allow them to amend their Complaint, leaving
FEC and NRG Energy as the Defendants, and to add as Defendants, AE
Supply, including several other entities that may be in the process
of concluding a recent bankruptcy proceeding, including but not
limited to Allegheny Energy Service Co. and FirstEnergy Generation,
LLC, NRG Power Midwest, as well as several other entities that are
in the process of concluding a bankruptcy proceeding, including
GenOn Energy, Inc.  Leave to amend will be granted as far as adding
new Defendants, but any such amendment may not name either FEC or
NRC Energy as the Defendants, for the reasons set forth.

For the reasons set forth, Magistrate Judge
Lenihan granted FEC's Motion for Summary Judgment, as well as
NRG's Motion for Summary Judgment.  An appropriate order will
follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 7, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/UwNOCy from Leagle.com.

HOLLY RICE, Individually and as parent and natural guardian of
N.R., D.W., D.W., D.W., Minor children, YMA SMITH, RUDOLPH SMITH,
GARY J. KUKLISH, KIMBERLY KUKLISH, GEORGE MARKISH, URSULA C.
MARKISH, DARREL REDMAN & GINA REDMAN, individually and o behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by William
Steven Berman -- wsberman@napolilaw.com -- Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC.

FIRST ENERGY CORP., Defendant, represented by Kathy K. Condo --
kcondo@babstcalland.com -- Babst Calland Clements & Zomnir & Joshua
S. Snyder -- jsnyder@babstcalland.com -- Babst Calland.

NRG ENERGY, INC., Defendant, represented by David Jacobson --
djacobson@blankrome.com -- Blank Rome LLP & Jayme L. Butcher, Blank
Rome.

MATT CANESTRALE CONTRACTING, INC., Defendant, represented by Thomas
P. McGinnis -- tmcginnis@tthlaw.com -- Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP,
William T. Gorton, III -- wgorton@stites.com -- Stites & Harbison,
William B. Pentecost, Jr. -- wpentecost@c-wlaw.com -- Cipriani &
Werner, P.C., Gerard J. Cipriani -- gcipriani@c-wlaw.com --
Cipriani & Werner, Jennifer M. Swistak -- jswistak@c-wlaw.com --
Cipriani & Werner, Karin M. Romano, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, Louis
C. Long -- llong@tthlaw.com -- Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, Philip
J. Sbrolla -- psbrolla@c-wlaw.com -- Cipriani & Werner, P.C. &
Thomas E. Zumpella -- tzumpella@tthlaw.com -- Thomas, Thomas &
Hafer LLP.


FLORIDA FARM: MSP Sues over Medicare Reimbursement
---------------------------------------------------
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity, and SERIES
16-05-456, a series of MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, the
Plaintiff, v. FLORIDA FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Florida Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case
1:18-cv-00196-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., Sept. 26, 2018), seeks damages the
Medicare Secondary Payer Act or the MSP Law, arising from the
Defendant's systematic and uniform failure to reimburse conditional
Medicare payments.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to fulfill its
statutory duties under the MSP Law as a "no-fault" insurer.
Specifically, the Defendant has repeatedly failed to provide
primary payment, or reimburse secondary payments made by the
Plaintiffs' assignors and Class Members, on behalf of Medicare
beneficiaries enrolled in Part C of the Medicare Act for medical
expenses resulting from injuries sustained in automobile accidents.
The Enrollees were enrolled in Medicare Advantage health plans
offered by the Plaintiffs' assignors and Class Members, i.e.,
Medicare Advantage Organizations, which suffered an injury-in-fact
from the Defendant's failure to reimburse, and accordingly, have
standing to sue.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Frank C. Quesada, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          5000 S.W. 75th Avenue, Suite 300
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614-2239
          E-mail: serve@msprecovery.com
                  fquesada@msprecovery.com


GEORGIA: Jones Files Suit v. Board of Public Education
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Board Of Public
Education For The City Of Savannah And The County Of Chatham and
the Teacher's Retirement System Of Georgia. The case is styled as
Jasmine Jones, Sonya Cooper, Bernell Fudge, Tameela Johnson,
Vernita Johnson, Melvin King, Edward Sams, Gwendolyn Scott, Barbara
Sheppard, Gertie Taylor, Alex Taylor, Anthony Wright, Mary Grant
and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. The Board
Of Public Education For The City Of Savannah And The County Of
Chatham, Teacher's Retirement System Of Georgia, Defendants, Case
No. SPCV1801059 (Ga. Super. Ct., Chatham Cty., Oct. 10, 2018).

The case type is stated as "General Civil Other".

Savannah-Chatham County Public School System (SCCPSS) is a school
district based in Chatham County, Georgia, United States. SCCPSS is
run by an elected Board of Public Education and operates most
public schools in the Chatham County, including those in the city
of Savannah. The current superintendent is Dr. M. Ann Levett.

Teacher's Retirement System Of Georgia, the fund from which
teachers in the state's public schools, many employees of the
University System of Georgia, and certain other designated
employees in educational-related work environments receive
retirement benefits. TRS offers a defined benefit plan,
guaranteeing a monthly benefit - based on a member's final average
salary and service - which is payable for the life of the member,
and when applicable, transferable to a member's spouse or
beneficiary(ies).[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Mulherin, Joseph A., III, Esq.
     Phone: 912-691-4686

          - and -

     Owens, Wilbur D., III, Esq.

The Defendants appear pro se.

GLOBALSCAPE: Rejects Offer Following Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
San Antonio Business Journal reports that san Antonio-based
Globalscape, a secure file transfer company, rejected an
unsolicited offer to buy all its shares. The offer was for $4.15
per share, while Globalscape's stock has been hovering around $3.95
since August 21st. The buyout offer comes about a month after
Globalscape announced a round of layoffs and less than four weeks
after it settled an investors' class action lawsuit for $1.4
million. [GN]


GOLDEN TOUCH: Failed to Give Sufficient Lay Off Notice, Says Chua
-----------------------------------------------------------------
George Chua, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Golden Touch Transportation of New York
Inc. and Transdev Bus on Demand, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-05338, (E.D. N.Y., September 21, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, an additional amount as liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as part of the lay-off for
violations of the Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification
Act, Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Defendant Golden Touch Transportation of NY, Inc. operates the NYC
Airporter express bus services between New York's Airports where
Chua worked as a driver. He was laid off on or about April 6, 2018
as part of the termination of the agreements and permits which were
effective May 6, 2018, only 30 days after receiving notice, the
complaint relates. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jesse C. Rose, Esq.
      THE ROSE LAW GROUP, PLLC
      3109 Newtown Ave., Suite 309
      Astoria, NY 11102
      Tel: (718) 989-1864
      Email: jrose@theroselawgroup.com


GOLDSTONE FINANCIAL: Sued for Selling 1 Global Securities
---------------------------------------------------------
MARK R. HARRAH ROTH IRA, on behalf itself and all others similarly
situated v. GOLDSTONE FINANCIAL GROUP, L.L.C., PELL CORP. BROTHERS,
INC. ANTHONY PELLEGRINO, and MICHAEL PELLEGRINO, Case No.
1:18-cv-06643 (N.D. Ill., September 29, 2018), is brought under the
Securities Act of 1933 Act and the Illinois Securities Act due to
the alleged unlawful sale of unregistered securities by the
Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants actively promoted,
marketed and sold the unregistered securities of 1 Global Capital
L.L.C.  The action is brought on behalf of the customers of the
Defendants, who were sold securities in 1 Global.

1 Global was a fraudulent scheme in which more than 3,400 retail
investors invested more than $287 million, the Plaintiff alleges.
The Plaintiff contends that more than one third of the investors
were investing retirement funds, but the money was not used by 1
Global for its stated purpose and millions of dollars were
misappropriated by insiders.  1 Global has filed for bankruptcy and
is being sued for fraud by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Goldstone Financial Group, L.L.C., is an Illinois limited liability
company with its principal office located in Oakbrook Terrace,
Illinois.  Goldstone's managers are Anthony and Michael Pellegrino.
Pell Corp. Brothers, Inc. was an Illinois corporation that was
involuntarily dissolved on May 12, 2017.

Goldstone is an investment advisor that holds itself out as a
retirement planner and promises to "develop a tactful and
comprehensive financial strategy just for you, putting your needs
first to help you capture gains while minimizing loss."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard B. Prossnitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD B. PROSSNITZ
          1014 Ontario Street
          Oak Park, IL 60302
          Telephone: (708) 203-5747
          E-mail: prossnitzlaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Adam Szulczewski, Esq.
          BIRNDORF AND BIRNDORF, P.C.
          225 West Washington Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 201-9300
          E-mail: szulcze@outlook.com


HD SUPPLY: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit in Ga. Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
HD Supply, 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 motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia remains pending.

On July 10, 2017 and August 8, 2017, shareholders filed putative
class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, alleging that HD Supply and certain senior
members of its management (collectively, the "defendants") made
certain false or misleading public statements in violation of the
federal securities laws between November 9, 2016 and June 5, 2017,
inclusive (the "original securities complaints").

Subsequently, the two securities cases were consolidated, and, on
November 16, 2017, the lead plaintiffs appointed by the Court filed
a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended
Complaint") against the defendants on behalf of all persons other
than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between November 9, 2016 and June 5, 2017, inclusive.


The Amended Complaint alleges that defendants made certain false or
misleading public statements, primarily relating to the Company's
progress in addressing certain supply chain disruption issues
encountered in the Company's Facilities Maintenance business unit.


The Amended Complaint asserts claims against the defendants under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 10b-5, and seeks class certification under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as unspecified monetary damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
other costs.  

Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint in
December 2017. That motion is pending.

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

HD Supply, Inc. operates as an industrial distribution company in
North America. The company operates in two segments, Facilities
Maintenance and Construction & Industrial. The company was formerly
known as The Home Depot Supply, Inc. and changed its name to HD
Supply, Inc. in December 2006. HD Supply, Inc. is headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia. HD Supply, Inc. is a subsidiary of HD Supply
Holdings, Inc.


HENRI BENDEL: Burbon Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
LUC BURBON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. HENRI BENDEL, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-08952 (S.D.N.Y., September
30, 2018), arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Web site --
http://www.henribendel.com/-- to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

Henri Bendel, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability Company licensed
to do business and doing business in the state of New York.  The
Company operates HENRI BENDEL stores.  The Company advertises,
markets, distributes, and sells leather bags, shoes and accessories
in the state of New York and worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


HOOVESTOL INC: Prelim Approval of Terry Suit Settlement Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD TERRY, Plaintiff, v. HOOVESTOL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-05183-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge John S.
Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California denied the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval
of a class action settlement.

Terry is a former Hoovestol truck driver.  Hoovestol is a company
which hauls bulk mail for the United States Postal Service ("USPS")
and employs truck drivers in California.  Terry brings the putative
wage and hour class action for violations of California Labor Code
Sections 226(b), 226.7, 510, 512, 515, 558, and 1194 as well as
California Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 11090.  He alleges
causes of action for: failure to pay all straight time wages;
failure to pay overtime; failure to provide meal periods; failure
to authorize and permit rest periods; knowing and intentional
failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions;
failure to pay all wages due at the time of termination of
employment; and violation of Unfair Competition Law.

Terry filed the initial complaint in the action in the Alameda
County Superior Court on July 20, 2016.  On Sept. 8, 2016,
Hoovestol removed the case to the Court pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act.  On Feb. 2, 2018, Terry filed a motion for
class certification, proposing seven subclasses.  After Hoovestol's
opposition and Terry's reply were filed, the Court ordered
supplemental briefing regarding whether the subclasses satisfied
the numerosity requirement of Rule 23.  On March 30, 2018, Terry
filed a supplemental brief and a motion to strike.  Hoovestol also
provided supplemental briefing.

After the exchange of discovery, mediation, and continued
negotiation following mediation, the parties reached a proposed
class action settlement.  On June 14, 2018, Terry filed the instant
motion seeking preliminary approval of the proposed class action
settlement including conditional certification of the settlement
class.  Terry's motions for class certification and to strike were
terminated as moot on June 18, 2018 in light of this motion.
Pursuant to CAFA, Hoovesto sent notice of the proposed settlement
to the United States Attorney General and the Attorney General of
the State of California on June 22, 2016.  No Attorney General has
submitted a statement of interest or objection in response to these
notices.

Under the terms of the agreement, the Defendant agrees to pay no
more than $100,000 as a gross settlement amount, without admitting
liability.  This amount includes the Plaintiff's attorneys' fees
and costs, the cost of class notice and settlement administration,
the class representative's enhancement award, and employer/employee
payroll taxes on the portion of the settlement payments deemed
wages.

The Plaintiff's counsel will seek $25,000 in attorney's fees and no
more than $20,000 in litigation costs.  The gross settlement amount
includes $3,000 for settlement administration costs.  In addition,
Terry will be paid an enhancement award of $2,500 in exchange for
the general release of all his claims against Hoovestol.

After these deductions from the gross settlement amount,
approximately $49,500 will remain to be distributed among the
participating class members.  Each participating class member will
receive a proportion of the amount equal to (i) the number of weeks
he or she worked for Hoovestol in California divided by (ii) the
total number of weeks worked by all Participating Class Members.
Sixty percent of each individual's share is intended to settle
claims for unpaid wages and forty percent is intended to settle
claims for interest and penalties.  The portion for unpaid wages
will be reduced by applicable payroll tax withholdings and
deductions.

The class members that wish to object must mail a written objection
to the court no later than 45 days after the settlement
administrator mails the class notices.  They may opt-out of the
settlement by mailing a written request for exclusion to the
settlement administrator no later than 45 days after the settlement
administrator mails the class notices.

The Settlement Agreement further provides that when checks mailed
to participating class members are not redeemed or deposited within
90 days, the settlement administrator will mail a reminder
postcard.  Ninety days after notice is mailed and within 200 days
after the checks were initially mailed, funds from any unredeemed
checks will be paid to the State Treasury for the Trial Court
Improvement and Modernization Fund and the Equal Access Fund of the
Judicial Branch.

In exchange for the settlement awards, participating class members
will release Hoovestol from liability as to all known and unknown
state law claims that were alleged or that could have been alleged
based on the facts of the complaints filed in the matter.

Judge Tigar denied the Plaintiff's motion.  She finds that the
settlement agreement must be denied based on the following
deficiencies: (i) the parties have not met their burden to show a
driving nexus between the Plaintiff class and the cy pres
beneficiaries; (ii) the release in the Settlement Agreement is
overbroad and goes beyond the scope of the present litigation
because it releases all state law claims based on the facts of the
complaint without regard to the breadth of the Plaintiffs'
allegations in the complaint; and (iii) Terry's proposed schedule
sets the deadline to opt-out or object to the settlement at 45 days
after the initial notice is mailed.  The Judge concludes that any
period shorter than 60 days is too short a time to allow class
members to properly respond.

The parties may correct the deficiencies noted and re-file their
motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/7sZsRb from Leagle.com.

Richard Terry, Plaintiff, represented by Jill Marie Vecchi --
jvecchi@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC,
David Thomas Mara -- dmara@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley Law
Firm, APLC, Gwendolyne Nicole Ousdahl, The Turley & Mara Law Firm,
Matthew Evan Crawford -- mcrawford@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley
and Mara Law Firm & William David Turley --
bturley@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley Law Firm, APLC.

Hoovestol, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cathy L. Arias --
carias@burnhambrown.com -- Burnham Brown A Professional
Corporation, Kristy Ann Fahland -- kfahland@messerlikramer.com --
Messerli & Kramer P.A., pro hac vice & Raymond A. Greene, III --
rgreene@burnhambrown.com -- Burnham Brown.


HUNTER WARFIELD: Steven Sears Seeks Class Certification Under FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Sears asks the Court to certify the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act lawsuit titled STEVEN SEARS, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. HUNTER WARFIELD, INC., Case No.
4:18-cv-04079-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), as a class action:

The class is defined as:

     All persons (a) with an Illinois address (b) to whom,
     between April 11, 2017 and April 11, 2018, (c) in connection
     with the collection of a consumer debt, (c) Hunter Warfield,
     Inc. mailed an initial written communication not returned to
     Hunter Warfield, Inc. as undeliverable, (d) that (1) did not
     state the amount of the debt that is due or allegedly due,
     or (2) stated "[p]lease be advised that your delinquency in
     the amount of $ which is owed to our client," but omitted an
     amount after the dollar sign.

Mr. Sears also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative, and to appoint his counsel as class counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          106 E. 6th Street, Suite 913
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          William Breedlove, Esq.
          BREEDLOVE LEGAL LLC
          3610 25th Street, Suite 3
          Moline, IL 61265
          Telephone: (309) 517-0704
          Facsimile: (309) 517-0678
          E-mail: william@breedlovelegal.com

Defendant Hunter Warfield, Inc., is represented by:

          David J. Kaminski, Esq.
          CARLSON & MESSER LLP
          5901 West Century Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 242-2200
          E-mail: kaminskid@cmtlaw.com


ILLINOIS: Court Allows Count 1 in Oden Prisoners Suit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER W. ODEN, RANDALL PETERSON, TIMOTHY LOGHRY,
SR., BRAD MONKMAN, JEFFERY BROTHERS, DAVID HOFFARTH, JAMES SAY,
CORY CUNNINGHAM, ADAM TURNER, and MARTIN JONASSEN Plaintiffs, v.
WILLIAM B. TRUE, DONALD S. BOYCE, JEFF SESSIONS, and MARK INCH,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-600-MJR (S.D. Ill.), Judge Michael J.
Reagan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois

The Plaintiffs, who are inmates in the United States Penitentiary
in Marion, Illinois, bring the action for alleged violations of
their constitutional rights by persons acting under the color of
federal authority.  

In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs make the following allegations:
in Marion USP X, L, Y, and N units, two additional bunks have been
added to single' man cell[s] that are less than 70 sq. ft. in size.
This causes duress, stress, overcrowding, cell conflicts,
assaults, privacy, due process violation[s], and affects the mental
soundness of inmates.  The configuration of the cells also results
in various types of injuries to inmates.  USP Marion has up to 480
extra inmates.  This affects inmates' access to the law library,
jobs and pay, re-entry classes, and proper ventilation.  It also
causes a high rate of assaults, the spread of infectious diseases,
and other safety and security issues.  There is also black mold and
extreme humidity in certain cells.  Additionally, 45 sq. ft. single
occupancy cells in the Special Housing Unit are being used to house
two men.

The case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A.  Upon careful review
of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits, Judge Reagan finds it
appropriate to allow the case to proceed past the threshold stage.
Based on the allegations of the Complaint, he finds it convenient
to designate a single count in the pro se action.  The Defendants
subjected the Plaintiffs to unconstitutional conditions of
confinement in Marion USP by overcrowding cells designed for single
occupancy, preventing cell doors from closing when they have been
opened, and failing to remedy black mold in the vents and extreme
humidity in the cells (Count 1).

Count 1 will be allowed to proceed past threshold.  Any other
intended claim that has not been recognized by the Court is
considered dismissed with prejudice as inadequately pleaded under
the Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly pleading standard.  At this
early stage, the Plaintiffs have stated a claim under this standard
against DefendantTrue, the Warden at USP Marion, for maintaining
the allegedly unconstitutional conditions.   The Plaintiffs have
failed to state a claim against the remaining Defendants, however.
Merely invoking the name of a potential defendant is not sufficient
to state a claim against that individual.  Because the Plaintiffs
have failed to allege personal involvement on the part of
Defendants Boyce, Sessions, and Inch, Count 1 will be dismissed as
against them.

The Judge will deny without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Traverse for
Class Action/Motion to Certify Class.  A prisoner proceeding pro se
is inadequate to represent the interests of his fellow inmates in a
class action.

He also denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Writ of
Praecipe and for Appointment of Counsel.  To the extent the motion
requests approval for the Plaintiffs to proceed without prepayment
of fees and costs, it is moot, as the Plaintiffs' motions to
proceed in forma pauperis have properly been granted.  To the
extent the motion seeks appointment of counsel, the Judge denied it
without prejudice.  here is no constitutional or statutory right to
appointment of counsel in federal civil cases.

Finally, with regard to the first step of the inquiry, the
Plaintiffs claim that they have written numerous letters to
different attorneys with no response.  The Judge finds that they
failed to specify the attorneys they requested assistance from or
the dates on which they sent the letters, however.  They also
failed to attach copies of the letters to their motion.  He
therefore does not find that they made a reasonable attempt to find
counsel.  Notably, the motion is being denied without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs may therefore choose to file another motion for
recruitment of counsel at a later stage in the litigation.

For these reasons, Count 1 will proceed against True and is dmissed
without prejudice against Boyce, Sessions, and Inch.  These
Defendants are dismissed from the action without prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The Judge directed the Clerk of Court to complete, on the
Plaintiffs' behalf, a summons and form USM-285 for service of
process on Defendant TRUE; the Clerk will issue the completed
summons.  The United States Marshal will Defendant True pursuant to
Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  All costs of
service will be advanced by the United States, and the Clerk will
provide all necessary materials and copies to the United States
Marshals Service.

In addition, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i), the
Clerk will (1) personally deliver to or send by registered or
certified mail addressed to the civil-process clerk at the office
of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois
a copy of the summons, the Complaint, and this Memorandum and
Order; and (2) send by registered or certified mail to the Attorney
General of the United States at Washington, D.C., a copy of the
summons, the Complaint, and the Memorandum and Order.
Defendant True is ordered to timely file an appropriate responsive
pleading to the Complaint and will not waive filing a reply
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(g).

Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), Judge Reagan referred the action
to U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams for further pre-trial
proceedings.  Further, the entire matter will be referred to U.S.
Magistrate Judge Williams for disposition, pursuant to Local Rule
72.2(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c), if all parties consent to
such a referral.

If judgment is rendered against tge Plaintiffs, and the judgment
includes the payment of costs under Section 1915, the Plaintiffs
will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, even though
their applications to proceed in forma pauperis were granted.

Finally, the Judge advised the Plaintiffs that they are under a
continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing
party informed of any change in their addresses; the Court will not
independently investigate their whereabouts.  This will be done in
writing and not later than 7 days after a transfer or other change
in address occurs.  Failure to comply with the order will cause a
delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in
dismissal of a Plaintiff from the action for want of prosecution.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 7, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/1EeiYZ from Leagle.com.

Christopher W. Oden, Plaintiff, pro se.

Randall Peterson, Plaintiff, pro se.

Timothy Loghry, Sr., Plaintiff, pro se.

Brad Monkman, Plaintiff, pro se.

Jeffery Brothers, Plaintiff, pro se.

David Hoffarth, Plaintiff, pro se.

James Say, Plaintiff, pro se.

Cory Cunningham, Plaintiff, pro se.

Adam Turner, Plaintiff, pro se.

Martin Jonassen, Plaintiff, pro se.


INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: Securities Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE INNOCOLL HOLDINGS PUBLIC LTD. CO. SEC. LITIG,
Civil Action No. 17-341 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gene E.K. Prater of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied
the Plaintiffs' motion to convert and granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

The Plaintiffs in the securities class action allege that Innocoll,
CEO Anthony Zook, and Chief Medical Officer Dr. Lesley Russell made
misleading statements or omissions about XaraColl, a collagen
product the pharmaceutical company was developing during the class
period.  The Defendants allegedly made positive statements about
the New Drug Application for XaraColl even though they knew, or
recklessly failed to know, that XaraColl contained device
components that had not yet been tested.  The Plaintiffs contend
that, by making such statements, the Defendants misled investors
who relied on the positive statements.

The Plaintiffs present securities fraud claims against all the
Defendants under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5.  They also make individual control liability
claims against Mr. Zook and Dr. Russell under Section 20(a).

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all the claims under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  In doing so, they attached to their motion a
declaration from the Plaintiffs' confidential witness, which then
prompted the Plaintiffs to file a motion to convert the motion to
dismiss into one for summary judgment.  The Court heard oral
argument on both motions on March 2, 2018.

Judge Prater finds that the Plaintiffs lack direct evidence that
the Defendants were aware of XaraColl's device components.
Instead, the Plaintiffs rely on circumstantial evidence they
believe leads to the conclusion that the defendants knew, or should
have known, that XaraColl's collagen matrix was a device.  Because
the Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead scienter specifically
as to Mr. Zook and Dr. Russell (the human actors on behalf of
Innocoll), they have failed to plead scienter for Innocoll as
well.

Based on the totality of the circumstances in the complaint, he
cannot find a more cogent or compelling answer to that question
than the Defendants simply made a very expensive and unintended
mistake.  He is loath to jump to the conclusions the Plaintiffs ask
of it at this time because the complaint lacks specificity and
particularity in the key areas that would hold their narrative
together.  In particular, the confidential witness' statement
amounts to generalized allegations that non-defendants knew of
XaraColl's device components.  Furthermore, the Plaintiffs failed
to explain the similarities between XaraColl and Innocoll's other
collagen technologies.

For the reasons set out in his Memorandum, Judge Prater denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to convert and granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss with leave to amend.  An appropriate order follows.

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

RUSSEL BLEILER, ASHOK CHAINANI & CARL BAYNEY, Lead Plaintiffs,
represented by GONEN HAKLAY -- ghaklay@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen
Law Firm, JACOB A. GOLDBERG -- jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- THE
ROSEN LAW FIRM & JONATHAN HORNE -- jhorne@rosenlegal.com -- THE
ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA.

JIANMIN HUANG, Lead Plaintiff, represented by EVAN J. SMITH ,
BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC, GONEN HAKLAY, The Rosen Law Firm, JACOB A.
GOLDBERG, THE ROSEN LAW FIRM & JONATHAN HORNE, THE ROSEN LAW FIRM,
PA.

ANTHONY PEPICELLI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by ALESSANDRA CRISTINA
PHILLIPS , THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A., JACOB A. GOLDBERG, THE ROSEN
LAW FIRM & JONATHAN HORNE, THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA.

INNOCOLL HOLDINGS PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, ANTHONY P. ZOOK, JOSE
CARMONA & LESLEY RUSSEL, Defendants, represented by DREW W.
MARROCCO -- drew.marrocco@dentons.com -- DENTONS US LLP, KENNETH J.
PFAEHLER -- kenneth.pfaehler@dentons.com -- DENTONS US LLP & HAYLEY
MILLER LENAHAN -- HLenahan@ashbygeddes.com -- ASHBY & GEDDES PA.


JC PENNEY: Court Sets Oct. 24 Joint Status Conference in Campbell
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, Charlotte Division, in the case captioned ROY CAMPBELL,
Plaintiffs, v. J.C. PENNEY COMPANY INC., J.C. PENNEY CORPORATION,
INC., SYNCHRONY BANK, Defendants, Civil Action No.
3:18-CV-00501-GCM. (W.D.N.C.), orders a status conference to be
held on October 24, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. Before this Court are three
separate class action suits against Synchrony Bank for alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Court
intends to hold a joint status conference with the parties from
each of those three cases to determine whether consolidation for
purposes of discovery is needed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 1, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ya88b7kr from Leagle.com.

Roy Campbell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Sergei Lemberg, Lemberg Law,
LLC & Stephen F. Taylor, Lemberg Law, LLC.

Synchrony Bank, Defendant, represented by Julia B. Strickland --
jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, pro hac
vice, Julieta Stepanyan -- jstepanyan@stroock.com -- Stroock &
Stroock & Lavan LLP, pro hac vice, Michael D. DeFrank --
mdefrank@wyrick.com -- Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton LLP & Samuel
Allen Slater -- sslater@wyrick.com -- Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton
LLP.

Curtis Neal, Amicus, represented by Aaron David Radbil –
aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com - Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: McKiernans Sue over Sale of Talcum Powder
------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA MCKIERNAN AND JAMES MCKIERNAN, 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.
18CV335037 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 24, 2018), seeks to recover
damages as a result of the Defendants' negligence, negligent
failure to warn strict liability failure to warn, and design
defect.

According to the complaint, the Defendants were engaged in the
business of placing the Products into the stream of commerce by
designing, manufacturing, marketing, packaging, labeling,
distributing and/or selling the Products Californians, including
Plaintiff, and that JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.
designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted,
marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and sold the PRODUCTS
to consumers, and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
PRODUCTS to JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. for sale, without
substantial change, to the general public worldwide and in the
state of California.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
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


KALIDA MANUFACTURING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Harsh Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald F. Harsh, Sr., On behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. Kalida Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-02239-JJH
(N.D. Ohio, September 28, 2018), arises from the Defendant's
alleged failure to pay employees overtime wages.

The Plaintiff seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Kalida Manufacturing, Inc., is a domestic for-profit corporation
authorized to do business in Ohio.  The Company was founded in 1996
and is headquartered in Kalida, Ohio.  Kalida operates as a
subsidiary of KTH Parts Industries, Inc. Kalida offers stamping,
welding, and subassembly of automotive frame sub-components.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 704-0546
          Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
          E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com


LEAD INDUSTRIES: Ill. App. Flips Summary Judgment in Lewis Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY LEWIS, TASHSWAN BANKS, and KATHLEEN O'SULLIVAN,
Plaintiffs, (Mary Lewis and Tashswan Banks, Plaintiffs-Appellants),
v. LEAD INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, INC., ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY,
CONAGRA GROCERY PRODUCTS, INC., NL INDUSTRIES, INC., and THE
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, Defendants, (Atlantic Richfield Company,
ConAgra Grocery Products Inc., NL Industries, Inc., and
Sherwin-Williams Company, Defendants-Appellees), Case No. 1-17-2894
(Ill. App.), Judge Thomas E. Hoffman of the Appellate Court of
Illinois for the First District, Fifth Division, reversed the
summary judgment entered against Lewis and Banks on April 20, 2017,
and remanded the cause back to the circuit court for further
proceedings.

Lewis, Banks and O'Sullivan, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, maintained the instant class-action suit
against the Defendants, seeking to recover the costs of blood lead
screening which their children underwent as required by the
Illinois Lead Poisoning Prevention Act.

As certified, the class consists of the parents or legal guardians
of children who, between Aug. 18, 1995 and Feb. 19, 2008, were
between six months and six years of age and during that age bracket
lived in zip codes identified by the Illinois Department of Public
Health as "high risk" areas pursuant to section 6.2(a) of the Act
and had a venous or capillary blood test for lead toxicity,
excluding such parents and legal guardians who incurred no expense,
obligation or liability for the lead toxicity testing of their
children.

On Oct. 6, 2016, Defendants Atlantic Richfield Co., ConAgra Grocery
Products, Inc., NL Industries, Inc., and The Sherwin-Williams Co.
filed a motion for summary judgment against Lewis, Banks and
O'Sullivan, contending that none of the three incurred any expense,
obligation or liability for the lead toxicity testing of their
children.  Supported by the deposition testimony of Lewis and
Banks, the Defendants asserted that both were Medicaid recipients
when their children were tested and neither paid for those tests.
As to O'Sullivan, the Defendants supported the motion with her
deposition, establishing that her family was insured by Blue Cross
Blue Shield and that she had no recollection of paying for blood
testing of her children.

On April 20, 2017, the circuit court entered a Memorandum Order,
granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment against Lewis,
Banks and O'Sullivan.  It found that neither Lewis nor Banks is a
member of the class previously certified as neither incurred any
expense, obligation or liability for the lead toxicity testing of
their children.  As to O'Sullivan, the circuit court found that she
failed to show that she was a member of the certified class by
reason of her failure to present facts tending to show that she
incurred an expense, obligation, or liability for the testing of
her children.

On Oct. 19, 2017, the circuit court entered a written order finding
that there is no just reason to delay enforcement of, or appeal
from, the summary judgment entered against Lewis and Banks on April
20, 2017.  It declined, however, to make similar findings as to the
summary judgment entered against O'Sullivan.

On Nov. 6, 2017, Lewis and Banks filed their notice of appeal from
the summary judgment entered against them, invoking the court's
jurisdiction pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a).
O'Sullivan is not a party to the appeal.

Judge Hoffman explains that the collateral source rule provides
that benefits received by an injured party from a source wholly
independent of, and collateral to, the tortfeasor will not diminish
the damages which are recoverable from the tortfeasor.  The
Defendants do not deny that the payments by Medicaid for the lead
toxicity testing of Lewis' and Banks' minor children was
independent of, and collateral to, them.  He disagrees however with
the Defendants' contention that the collateral source rule does not
apply in a case involving a purely economic injury.

He says one of the justifications for the collateral source rule is
that a tortfeasor should not benefit from, or take advantage of,
the contracts or other relations that may exist between an injured
party and third persons.  That justification is no less compelling
in a case involving a purely economic injury than in a case
involving personal injury.  And it matters little that the benefit
bestowed upon the injured party is the result of a relationship
with the government such as her entitlement to Medicaid benefits.

Lewis and Banks seek recovery for the cost of the lead toxicity
testing of their minor children which they allege was the proximate
result of the defendants' civil conspiracy.  As parents, they were
statutorily liable for the cost of that testing.  The Judge
concludes, therefore, that they have a cause of action for the
reasonable value of the testing services, without regard to the
fact that Medicaid paid the entire cost.

Based on the foregoing analysis, he reversed the summary judgment
entered against Lewis and Banks on April 20, 2017, and remanded the
cause back to the circuit court for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 7, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/8Qt63y from Leagle.com.


MACON BEDROOM: Boan Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------
Jason A. Boan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Macon Bedroom & Mattress, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-00305
(M.D. Ga., August 21, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff resides in Macon, Georgia and is a citizen of the
United States. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a
salesperson at Defendant's Macon and Warner Robins locations.

The Defendant owns and operates a business providing mattresses and
bedroom furniture to the general public.  The Defendant maintains
its principal place of business at 3815 Mercer University Drive,
Macon, GA 31204. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tyler B. Kaspers, Esq.
      THE KASPERS FIRM, LLC
      152 New Street, Suite 109B
      Macon, GA 31201
      Tel: (404) 944-3128
      E-mail: tyler@kaspersfirm.com


MAGRANN INSULATION: Gonzalez Alleges Disability Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR GONZALEZ, the Plaintiff, vs. MAGRANN INSULATION, and JOHN
DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, the Defendants,
Case No. CAM-L-003683-18 (N.J. Sup. Ct., Sept. 28, 2018), demands
judgment against the Defendants for disability discrimination,
perception of disability discrimination and failure to accommodate,
all arising under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

According to the complaint, a determinative and/or motivating
factor in Plaintiff's termination was that he had requested a
"reasonable accommodation," to wit, a second day off to
aggressively treat his persistent cellulitis infection, for which
he suffered retaliation.

Additional motivating and/or determinative factors in his discharge
was the Plaintiff's disability and it would somehow substantially
interfere with Defendant's operations and/or would cause the
Defendant some degree of annoyance in the future. The Plaintiff has
suffered both economic and non-economic harm as a result of his
wrongful discharge, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727-9700


MATRIX BUSINESS: Cretsinger Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Cretsinger, individually and for others similarly situated
v. Matrix Business Concepts, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00238 (S.D.
Tex., August 20, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
overtime violation under Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Cretsinger was an hourly employee of Matrix from July
2016 to April 2017.

The Defendant Matrix provides project management and cost controls
services to its customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

          - and -

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 751-0025
      E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com


MB FINANCIAL: Parshall Agrees to Dismiss Stockholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
MB Financial, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that the plaintiff in the case,
Parshall v. MB Financial, Inc., et. al., has agreed to dismiss the
action with prejudice as to his individual claims and without
prejudice to the claims of the members of the putative class in
exchange for an additional disclosure provided by the company.

On or about August 13, 2018, a purported individual stockholder of
MB Financial, Inc. ("MB Financial") filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland (the "Court"), under
the caption Parshall v. MB Financial, Inc., et. al., Case No.
1:18-cv-02474 (the "Action").  

The complaint, which was filed as a putative class action on behalf
of the individual plaintiff and the public stockholders of MB
Financial, alleges that the proxy statement/prospectus (the "Proxy
Statement/Prospectus") forming a part of Form S-4 Registration
Statement filed by Fifth Third Bancorp ("Fifth Third") in
connection with the proposed merger of MB Financial and Fifth Third
does not contain certain information alleged to be material to the
stockholders of MB Financial concerning the proposed merger.  

The complaint asserts claims against MB Financial, the members of
its board of directors, and Fifth Third under federal securities
laws for distributing the Proxy Statement/Prospectus with allegedly
false or misleading statements or omissions. The complaint seeks,
among other things, injunctive relief against consummation of the
merger and additional, allegedly corrective disclosures as well as
attorneys' and expert fees.

MB Financial said, "Solely to avoid the costs, risks, nuisance and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and to allow MB Financial
stockholders to vote on the proposals required in connection with
the proposed merger with Fifth Third at the special meeting of MB
Financial stockholders to be held on September 18, 2018 (the
"Special Meeting"), MB Financial supplements the disclosures
contained in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus (the "Additional
Disclosures")."

In light of the Additional Disclosures, plaintiff has agreed to
dismiss the Action with prejudice as to his individual claims and
without prejudice to the claims of the members of the putative
class. In dismissing the Action, plaintiff has reserved the right
to seek an award of attorneys' fees from the Court.

The agreement to make the Additional Disclosures will not affect
the merger consideration to be paid to MB Financial stockholders or
the timing of the Special Meeting.

MB Financial and the other defendants, including Fifth Third,
vigorously deny that the Proxy Statement/Prospectus is deficient in
any respect and that the Additional Disclosures are material or
required. MB Financial and Fifth Third believe that the claims
asserted in the Action are without merit, and that the Additional
Disclosures do not provide information required by the federal
securities laws or that is material to the decision of the MB
Financial stockholders as to how to vote their shares at the
Special Meeting.  As noted above, the Additional Disclosures are
being made solely to eliminate the burden, expense, and nuisance of
further litigation, and to avoid any possible delay to the closing
of the merger that might arise from further litigation.  

A copy of the additional disclosure is available at
https://goo.gl/rgNvCa.

MB Financial, Inc. operates as a bank holding company for MB
Financial Bank, N.A. that provides various financial services to
small and middle market businesses, and individuals in the United
States. The company operates through three segments: Banking,
Leasing, and Mortgage Banking. MB Financial, Inc. was founded in
1911 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


MC RESTAURANT: Osorio Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Andres Osorio, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. MC Restaurant, LLC dba Jay Jay Cafe, Case No. 4:18-cv-00693
(N.D. Tex., August 21, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a cook and restaurant worker for JJC's
restaurant at one of its locations in Arlington, Texas.

The Defendant is a company that owns and operates restaurants in
Arlington, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
      BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY COWAN
      HECKAMAN PLLC
      Marathon Oil Tower
      5555 San Felipe Street, Suite 900
      Houston, TX 77056
      Tel: (713) 425-7100
      Fax: (713) 425-7101
      E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com


MDL 2034: $15.5MM Settlement in Antitrust Suit Has Prelim Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: COMCAST CORP. SET-TOP CABLE TELEVISION BOX
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 09-md-2034 (E.D. Pa.), Judge
Anita B. Brody of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Certification of a Settlement Class and Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement.

In 2008, individuals began filing lawsuits against Comcast,
alleging that Comcast unlawfully tied the sale of Premium Cable to
the rental of a Set-Top Box from Comcast.  On June 17, 2009, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred and
consolidated these lawsuits before me as a multidistrict
litigation,  In total, 24 civil actions were consolidated into the
MDL.

On Nov. 23, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint.  On Sept. 30, 2010, they filed a Second
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.  On June 10, 2011, the
Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.  On Oct. 24, 2017, they filed the currently operative
Fourth Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, alleging that
Comcast's unlawful tying arrangement violates Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, the antitrust and consumer protection laws of
Washington, the Business & Professions Code of California, and the
Consumer Credit and Protection Act of West Virginia.

From the outset of the class action, Comcast sought arbitration of
certain claims.  On Jan. 6, 2010, Comcast moved to compel
arbitration. On July 22, 2011, after the filing of the Plaintiffs'
Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, Comcast filed a
new motion to compel arbitration.  During 2010 and 2011, the
parties engaged in discovery only regarding arbitration.

From January 2012 through September 2012, the parties engaged in
five formal mediation sessions before Thomas Rutter, Esquire, of
ADR Options in Philadelphia.  Thereafter, the parties continued to
engage in settlement negotiations.

During the pendency of the class action, the Supreme Court of the
United States issued two important opinions on arbitration -- AT&T
Mobility LLC v. Concepcion and American Express Co. v. Italian
Colors Restaurant.  While the parties awaited the Supreme Court's
decisions in these cases, significant delay occurred in the
litigation and the settlement negotiations.

On Nov. 12, 2014, Comcast filed a renewed motion to compel
arbitration, reflecting the recent Supreme Court jurisprudence of
Concepcion and American Express.  This renewed motion to compel
arbitration is pending.  Although Comcast previously sought only to
compel individual arbitration of the Sherman Act claim, it now
seeks to compel individual arbitration of the Sherman Act and
Washington state law claims.

Now, nearly nine years after the inception of the MDL and several
failed settlement attempts, the parties have reached a Fourth
Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement.  The parties define the
Settlement Class as all persons who (i) resided in and subscribed
to Premium Cable in California, Washington, or West Virginia during
the Class Period, or (ii) subscribed to Premium Cable in any state
in the United States during the Class Period and elected to opt out
of Comcast's arbitration clause as reflected in Comcast's records;
and paid Comcast a rental fee for a Set-Top Box at any time during
the Class Period.

The Settlement is a claims-made settlement.  Comcast will pay all
claims made in the aggregate that do not exceed $15.5 million in
value.  If the Class Members submit more than $15.5 million worth
of claims, then benefits will be distributed on a pro rata basis.
If they submit less than $15.5 million worth of claims, then
Comcast will retain the balance.

All the Class Members will be entitled to a cash payment and
Current Subscribers will have the choice of either a cash payment
or in-kind relief.  They will be entitled to a cash payment in
accordance with the length of time they rented a Set-Top Box from
Comcast, regardless of the number of Set-Top Boxes they rented.
The Current Subscribers will be entitled to elect to receive
in-kind relief in lieu of a cash payment.  They'll be entitled to
in-kind relief in accordance with the length of time they rented a
Set-Top Box from Comcast, and will receive additional in-kind
relief if they rented more than one Set-Top Box.

Judge Brody granted the motion in part and preliminarily approved
the Settlement Agreement and preliminarily certified the Settlement
Class.  Because of deficiencies in the proposed Notice and proposed
Claim Form, she denied the portion of the motion that seeks
approval of the proposed Notice and proposed Claim Form, the
appointment of a Claims Administrator, and the establishment of a
schedule for completion of the Settlement approval process.  In
order to cure these deficiencies, she ordered the Plaintiffs to
submit an amended motion that only seeks approval of revised
proposed forms of Notice, a revised proposed Claim Form,
appointment of a Claims Administrator, and a revised proposed
schedule for completion of the Settlement approval process.

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

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


MDL 2670: Court Dismisses Cherokee Nation Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Janis L. Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted Defendants StarKist Co.,
Dongwon Industries, Co., Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Del Monte
Corporation, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC d/b/a Chicken of the Sea
International Inc., and Thai Union Group PCL's Joint Motion to
Dismiss the case, IN RE: PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 15-MD-2670 JLS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.).

The case concerns an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of
packaged seafood throughout the United States.  Plaintiff the
Cherokee Nation is a federally recognized sovereign Indian nation
and brings this action in its proprietary capacity and under its
parens patriae authority against the Defendants as part of a
broader multi-district litigation ("MDL") currently pending before
the Court.  This particular aspect of the MDL concerns whether the
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims.

In 2015, various plaintiffs across the country brought civil suits
concerning Defendants StarKist, Chicken of the Sea, and Bumble
Bee's conduct.  The several civil actions relating to this alleged
conspiracy were consolidated in an MDL and the judicial panel on
MDLs centralized pretrial proceedings to the Court on Dec. 9, 2015.


The Cherokee Nation was a latecomer to the litigation and filed
suit on Nov. 16, 2017, which was then consolidated with the MDL.
The Plaintiff originally requested the Court create a track solely
for itself, but later amended its motion to request placement in
the indirect End Purchaser Payer ("EPP") track, while also
maintaining its own complaint.  On Feb. 5, 2018, the Plaintiff
filed a First Amended Complaint, and on Feb. 23, 2018, the Court
granted the Plaintiff's amended motion and assigned the Plaintiff
to the EPP track.

The Plaintiff's amended Complaint sets forth detailed allegations
concerning alleged price-fixing schemes in the packaged seafood
industry, which has resulted in a Department of Justice
investigation into the Defendants' activities and guilty pleas by
several packaged seafood executives.  The Defendants are major
producers of packaged seafood.

The complaint presents allegations of increased packaged seafood
prices resulting from anticompetitive behavior on the part of the
Defendants.  The Plaintiff's citizens, members of the Cherokee
Nation, are indirect purchasers of packaged tuna.  The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants' anticompetitive behavior has resulted
in fixed or higher prices of packaged seafood, that indirect
purchasers of packaged seafood have been deprived of free and open
competition, and that indirect purchasers paid artificially
inflated prices.

The Amended Complaint brings the following claims.  First, the
Plaintiff asserts a cause of action under section 1 of the Sherman
Act, which is the Plaintiff's only federal cause of action.
Second, the Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of
State law; specifically, California, Kansas, Arizona, Colorado, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, and Florida.  Third, the Plaintiff brings two
causes of action under Cherokee Nation law—Unfair and Deceptive
Practices Act ("CNUDPA"), and unjust enrichment.

The Defendants have filed the present joint motion to dismiss,
challenging the Court's jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiff's claims
under Rule 12(b)(1) and asserting, in the alternative, that the
amended Complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

The Court heard oral argument on July 30, 2018.

Judge Sammartino granted the Defendants' Motion, and dismissed
without prejudice the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, except
to the extent that the Plaintiff seeks to bring parens patriae
claims under state law, such claims are dismissed with prejudice.

Among other things, Judge finds that (i) the Antitrust Improvement
Act does not supply the requisite standing for Plaintiff to request
injunctive relief; (ii) it is not enough that Cherokee Nation law
authorizes the Attorney General to bring suit; the Nation must also
demonstrate that it meets the prudential standing requirements of
the state or federal substantive law in question, i.e., that it is
within the class of persons who can sue under a statute; (ii) the
Plaintiff fails to meet its burden to demonstrate it has standing
to bring an injunctive relief claim under federal antitrust law;
(iv) the Plaintiff does not have standing to seek declaratory
relief because the Plaintiff has no basis for standing under the
Sherman Act; and (v) the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claims
because Plaintiff has not demonstrated prudential standing, but
perhaps could amend its complaint to meet the standing
requirements.

She granted leave to amend the Plaintiff's Complaint.  The
Plaintiff may file an amended Complaint within 30 days of the date
on which thw Order is electronically docketed.  The Judge
acknowledges that the Defendants raise challenges to the
retroactivity and legislative jurisdiction of Cherokee Nation law.
At this stage, it is not clear that the Cherokee Nation Code causes
of action are futile such that no set of facts could constitute a
valid cause of action.  Because she allowed amendment of the
Cherokee Nation's complaint, the factual allegations regarding the
Cherokee Nation Code may shift and is better suited to a briefing
on a future motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/X5ivb5 from Leagle.com.

Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc.,  on behalf of itself and
all others similarly, Plaintiff, represented by Bonny E. Sweeney --
bsweeney@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Christopher L. Lebsock --
clebsock@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Emily Catherine Aldridge --
ealdridge@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Irving Scher --
ischer@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Lesley E. Weaver
-- lweaver@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Samantha Stein
-- sstein@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP & Michael Lehmann --
mlehmann@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP.

Beverly Youngblood, Plaintiff, represented by Susan Rogers
Schwaiger -- sschwaiger@nussbaumpc.com -- Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.
& Whitney E. Street -- whitney@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton
LLP.

Pacific Groservice Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Barbara J. Hart
-- bhart@lowey.com -- Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., Bonny E. Sweeney,
Hausfeld LLP, Mark I. Labaton -- hello@cypressllp.com -- Motley
Rice LLP & Sung-Min Lee -- SLee@lowey.com -- Lowey Dannenberg,
P.C..

Capitol Hill Supermarket, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Davidow --
Joel@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, pro hac vice, John
H. Donboli, Del Mar Law Group, LLP, John Barton Goplerud, Shindler,
Anderson, Goplerud & Weese, P.C., pro hac vice, Jonathan W. Cuneo
-- jonc@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro hac vice,
Maxwell M. Blecher -- mblecher@blechercollins.com -- Blecher and
Collins, Michael James Flannery -- mflannery@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca LLP & Peter Gil-Montllor --
pgil-montllor@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP.

Louise Ann Davis Matthews, Plaintiff, represented by Kimberly A.
Kralowec -- kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com -- The Kralowec Law Group.

James Walnum, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T. Micheletti
-- cmicheletti@zelle.com -- Zelle LLP, Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Zelle
LLP & Judith A. Zahid -- jzahid@zelle.com -- Zelle LLP.

Colin Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Chad Saunders --
csaunders@kraloweclaw.com -- Sundeen Salinas & Pyle, Kathleen
Styles Rogers -- krogers@kraloweclaw.com -- The Kralowec Law Group
& Kimberly A. Kralowec, The Kralowec Law Group.

Jennifer A. Nelson, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold
-- manifold@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz,
Brittany Nicole DeJong -- dejong@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz, Carl Malmstrom -- malmstrom@whafh.com -- Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Fred T. Isquith, Jr. --
FIsquith@lshllp.com -- Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP,
Michelle L. Kranz, Zoll & Kranz, LLC, Nancy A. Kulesa --
nkulesa@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Rachele R. Rickert --
rickert@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz,
Theodore Bell, One South Dearborn St. & Thomas H. Burt --
burt@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz.

Elizabeth Davis-Berg, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy Carol
Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Brittany Nicole
DeJong, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Carl Malmstrom, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Fred T. Isquith, Jr., Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Michelle L. Kranz, Zoll & Kranz,
LLC, Nancy A. Kulesa, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Rachele R. Rickert,
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Theodore Bell, One South
Dearborn St. & Thomas H. Burt, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and
Herz.

Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Defendant, represented by Kenneth A. Gallo --
kgallo@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
LLP, Michelle Parikh -- mparikh@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & William Baly Michael --
wmichael@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
LLP.

Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, Defendant, represented by Erik Raven-Hansen
-- erik.raven-hansen@allenovery.com -- Allen & Overy LLP, pro hac
vice, John Roberti -- john.roberti@allenovery.com -- Allen & Overy
LLP, pro hac vice, John Terzaken, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP,
pro hac vice, Keith R. Solar, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney LLP,
William E. White -- william.white@allenovery.com -- Allen & Overy
LLP & Robert J. Parks, Parks & Solar LLP.

Starkist Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Lee --
andrew.j.lee@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, J. Robert
Robertson -- robby.robertson@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS US
LLP, Justin W. Bernick -- justin.bernick@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP & Jeffrey Michael Goldman -- goldmanj@pepperlaw.com
-- Pepper Hamilton LLP.

Tri Marine International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Shylah
Renee Alfonso -- SAlfonso@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, pro
hac vice.

King Oscar, Inc., Defendant, represented by Erik Raven-Hansen --
erik.raven-hansen@allenovery.com -- Allen & Overy LLP, pro hac
vice, John Roberti -- john.roberti@allenovery.com -- Allen & Overy
LLP, pro hac vice, John Terzaken -- john.terzaken@stblaw.com --
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Keith R. Solar,
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney LLP, William E. White --
william.white@allenovery.com -- Allen & Overy LLP & Robert J.
Parks, Parks & Solar LLP.

Del Monte Foods Company, Defendant, represented by Barak Bassman --
bassmanb@pepperlaw.com -- pro hac vice, Barbara Sicalides --
sicalidesb@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey Michael Goldman, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Barak Bassman, pro
hac

vice, Barbara Sicalides, Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey
Michael Goldman, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Barak Bassman, pro hac vice,
Barbara Sicalides, Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice & Jeffrey
Michael Goldman, Pepper Hamilton LLP.

Thai Union Group Public Company, Defendant, represented by Robert
J. Parks, Parks & Solar LLP.

Thai Union Group Public Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Robert J. Parks, Parks & Solar LLP & Robert J. Parks, Parks & Solar
LLP.

Dongwon Industries Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Andrew J.
Lee, Hogan Lovells US LLP, J. Robert Robertson, HOGAN LOVELLS US
LLP, Justin W. Bernick, Hogan Lovells US LLP & Jeffrey Michael
Goldman, Pepper Hamilton LLP.

Del Monte Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Michael
Goldman, Pepper Hamilton LLP.


MDL 2670: Court Partly Grants Lion's Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Janis L. Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants Lion Capital LLP, Big Catch Cayman LP, and Lion
Capital (Americas), Inc.' Joint Motions to Dismiss the case, IN RE:
PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 15-MD-2670
JLS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.).

Presently before the Court are three motions to dismiss: the Lion
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Cherokee Nation's Complaint; the
Lion Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Bashas' Plaintiffs'
Complaint; and the Lion Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the operative
complaints filed by the Indirect Purchaser End Payer Plaintiffs
("EPPs"), the Commercial Food Preparer Plaintiffs ("CFPs"), the
Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs ("DPPs"), and the Direct Action
Plaintiffs ("DAPs").  The Court heard oral argument for all three
motions on July 30, 2018.

The case concerns an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of
packaged seafood throughout the United States.  Plaintiffs Bashas'
Inc., Marc Glassman, Inc., and 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC are
businesses that have purchased packaged seafood from the three
largest domestic producers of packaged seafood products.  Plaintiff
the Cherokee Nation is a federally recognized sovereign Indian
nation and brings this action in its proprietary capacity and under
its parens patriae authority.

The remaining Plaintiffs have been divided into four tracks: (1)
DAPs, who are direct purchasers proceeding against the Defendants
individually; (2) DPPs, who are direct purchasers proceeding on
behalf of a putative class; (3) Indirect Purchaser Commercial Food
Preparer Plaintiffs ("CFPs"), who are indirect purchasers
proceeding on behalf of a putative class; and (4) EPPs, who are
indirect purchasers proceeding on behalf of a putative class.  The
various civil actions relating to this conspiracy were consolidated
in a multi-district litigation ("MDL") and centralized pretrial
proceedings to the Court on Dec. 9, 2015.

Judge Sammartino granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss.  She granted the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6)
Motions with regard to Lion Capital, LLC and Big Catch and
dismissed without prejudice those claims.  The Judge denied the
Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motions as to the claims against Lion
Capital (Americas), Inc., and denied the Defendants' Rule 12 (b)(2)
Motions as to all Lion Defendants.  She granted leave to amend the
respective Complaints to all the Plaintiffs.

The Judge agrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiffs
impermissibly attempt to engage in group pleading without
differentiating between who was employed by what entity.  She finds
that the Complaint contains no factual matter concerning Big
Catch's participation in the conspiracy, which is not surprising
given its role as a holding company.  Further, because the
Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to state a claim
against Lion Capital, it does not matter that the Court has found
that Big Catch is the alter ego of Lion Capital for personal
jurisdiction purposes.  Accordingly, she finds that the Plaintiffs
fail to state a claim with regard to Big Catch

The Plaintiffs may file amended Complaints within 30 days of the
date on which the Order is electronically docketed.  They will
consolidate and coordinate filings to the maximum extent possible.

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

Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc.,  on behalf of itself and
all others similarly, Plaintiff, represented by Bonny E. Sweeney --
bsweeney@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Christopher L. Lebsock --
clebsock@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Emily Catherine Aldridge --
ealdridge@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Irving Scher --
ischer@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Lesley E. Weaver
-- lweaver@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Samantha Stein
-- sstein@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP & Michael Lehmann --
mlehmann@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP.

Beverly Youngblood, Plaintiff, represented by Susan Rogers
Schwaiger -- sschwaiger@nussbaumpc.com -- Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.
& Whitney E. Street -- whitney@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton
LLP.

Pacific Groservice Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Barbara J. Hart
-- bhart@lowey.com -- Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., Bonny E. Sweeney,
Hausfeld LLP, Mark I. Labaton -- hello@cypressllp.com -- Motley
Rice LLP & Sung-Min Lee -- SLee@lowey.com -- Lowey Dannenberg,
P.C..

Capitol Hill Supermarket, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Davidow --
Joel@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, pro hac vice, John
H. Donboli, Del Mar Law Group, LLP, John Barton Goplerud, Shindler,
Anderson, Goplerud & Weese, P.C., pro hac vice, Jonathan W. Cuneo
-- jonc@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro hac vice,
Maxwell M. Blecher -- mblecher@blechercollins.com -- Blecher and
Collins, Michael James Flannery -- mflannery@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca LLP & Peter Gil-Montllor --
pgil-montllor@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP.

Louise Ann Davis Matthews, Plaintiff, represented by Kimberly A.
Kralowec -- kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com -- The Kralowec Law Group.

James Walnum, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T. Micheletti
-- cmicheletti@zelle.com -- Zelle LLP, Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Zelle
LLP & Judith A. Zahid -- jzahid@zelle.com -- Zelle LLP.

Colin Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Chad Saunders --
csaunders@kraloweclaw.com -- Sundeen Salinas & Pyle, Kathleen
Styles Rogers -- krogers@kraloweclaw.com -- The Kralowec Law Group
& Kimberly A. Kralowec, The Kralowec Law Group.

Jennifer A. Nelson, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold
-- manifold@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz,
Brittany Nicole DeJong -- dejong@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz, Carl Malmstrom -- malmstrom@whafh.com -- Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Fred T. Isquith, Jr. --
FIsquith@lshllp.com -- Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP,
Michelle L. Kranz, Zoll & Kranz, LLC, Nancy A. Kulesa --
nkulesa@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Rachele R. Rickert --
rickert@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz,
Theodore Bell, One South Dearborn St. & Thomas H. Burt --
burt@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz.

Elizabeth Davis-Berg, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy Carol
Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Brittany Nicole
DeJong, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Carl Malmstrom, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Fred T. Isquith, Jr., Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Michelle L. Kranz, Zoll & Kranz,
LLC, Nancy A. Kulesa, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Rachele R. Rickert,
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Theodore Bell, One South
Dearborn St. & Thomas H. Burt, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and
Herz.

Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Defendant, represented by Kenneth A. Gallo --
kgallo@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
LLP, Michelle Parikh -- mparikh@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & William Baly Michael --
wmichael@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
LLP.

Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, Defendant, represented by Erik Raven-Hansen
-- erik.raven-hansen@allenovery.com -- Allen & Overy LLP, pro hac
vice, John Roberti -- john.roberti@allenovery.com -- Allen & Overy
LLP, pro hac vice, John Terzaken, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP,
pro hac vice, Keith R. Solar, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney LLP,
William E. White -- william.white@allenovery.com -- Allen & Overy
LLP & Robert J. Parks, Parks & Solar LLP.

Starkist Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Lee --
andrew.j.lee@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, J. Robert
Robertson -- robby.robertson@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS US
LLP, Justin W. Bernick -- justin.bernick@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP & Jeffrey Michael Goldman -- goldmanj@pepperlaw.com
-- Pepper Hamilton LLP.

Tri Marine International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Shylah
Renee Alfonso -- SAlfonso@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, pro
hac vice.

King Oscar, Inc., Defendant, represented by Erik Raven-Hansen --
erik.raven-hansen@allenovery.com -- Allen & Overy LLP, pro hac
vice, John Roberti -- john.roberti@allenovery.com -- Allen & Overy
LLP, pro hac vice, John Terzaken -- john.terzaken@stblaw.com --
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Keith R. Solar,
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney LLP, William E. White --
william.white@allenovery.com -- Allen & Overy LLP & Robert J.
Parks, Parks & Solar LLP.

Del Monte Foods Company, Defendant, represented by Barak Bassman --
bassmanb@pepperlaw.com -- pro hac vice, Barbara Sicalides --
sicalidesb@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey Michael Goldman, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Barak Bassman, pro
hac

vice, Barbara Sicalides, Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey
Michael Goldman, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Barak Bassman, pro hac vice,
Barbara Sicalides, Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice & Jeffrey
Michael Goldman, Pepper Hamilton LLP.

Thai Union Group Public Company, Defendant, represented by Robert
J. Parks, Parks & Solar LLP.

Thai Union Group Public Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Robert J. Parks, Parks & Solar LLP & Robert J. Parks, Parks & Solar
LLP.

Dongwon Industries Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Andrew J.
Lee, Hogan Lovells US LLP, J. Robert Robertson, HOGAN LOVELLS US
LLP, Justin W. Bernick, Hogan Lovells US LLP & Jeffrey Michael
Goldman, Pepper Hamilton LLP.

Del Monte Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Michael
Goldman, Pepper Hamilton LLP.


MED FOODS: Ference Appeals Ruling in Koller Suit to 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Justin Ference filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Scott Koller, et al. v. Med Foods, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-02400-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.

The appellate case is captioned as Scott Koller, et al. v. Med
Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-16872, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 10, 2018, Objector
Wanda Cochran filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.
That appellate case is styled as Scott Koller, et al. v. Med Foods,
Inc., et al., Case No. 18-16812.

Defendant Deoleo USA, Inc., formerly known as Med Foods, Inc.,
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate
case is styled as Scott Koller v. Deoleo USA, Inc., Case No.
17-80188.

The Plaintiff brought the action seeking to establish on behalf of
purchasers of Bertolli and Carapelli brand olive oil that certain
of those oils are misleadingly labeled.  Specifically, Scott Koller
first alleges that several products marketed as "extra virgin"
olive oil do not warrant that designation because they do not meet
the applicable quality standards when bottled and/or degrade too
quickly as the result of defendants' packaging, handling, and
storage practices.  Second, the Plaintiff contends that both "extra
virgin" and non-extra virgin olive oil products are deceptively
marketed as "imported from Italy," when in fact the olives used to
make the oil come from any of a number of other countries.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 29, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on November 26, 2018;

   -- Appellant Justin Ference's opening brief is due on
      January 8, 2019;

   -- Appellees Deoleo USA, Inc., Scott Koller and Med Foods,
      Inc.'s answering brief is due on February 11, 2019; and

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

Objector-Appellant JUSTIN FERENCE is represented by:

          Caroline V. Tucker, Esq.
          TUCKER POLLARD
          2102 Business Center Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 253-5710
          E-mail: ctucker@tuckerpollard.com

Plaintiff-Appellee SCOTT KOLLER, an individual, on behalf of
himself, the general public and those similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Adam Joshua Gutride, Esq.
          Seth Adam Safier, Esq.
          Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Telephone: (415) 271-6469
          E-mail: adam@gutridesafier.com
                  seth@gutridesafier.com
                  Kristen@gutridesafier.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 615-3948
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

               - and -

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

Defendants-Appellees MED FOODS, INC., and DEOLEO USA, INC., are
represented by:

          Jeffrey B. Margulies, Esq.
          FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP
          555 South Flower Street, 41st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 892-9200
          E-mail: jeff.margulies@nortonrosefulbright.com

Defendant-Appellee MED FOODS, INC., is represented by:

          Stephanie Anne Stroup, Esq.
          FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
          2601 Main Street, Suite 340
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 862-4585


MGT CAPITAL: Faces Klingberg Securities Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
NATHANAEL KLINGBERG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. MGT CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, INC., ROBERT B.
LADD, JOHN MCAFEE, ROBERT S. LOWREY, BARRY C. HONIG, JOHN STETSON,
MICHAEL BRAUSER, JOHN O'ROURKE III, and MARK GROUSSMAN, Case No.
2:18-cv-14380 (D.N.J., September 28, 2018), alleges that throughout
the Class Period, MGT Capital's stock was manipulated in
furtherance of a pump-and-dump scheme, in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
Ladd, Honig, Stetson, Brauser, O'Rourke, and Groussman carried out
a plan, scheme and course of conduct, which was intended to and,
throughout the Class Period, did: (1) deceive the investing public,
including the Plaintiff and other Class members; (2) engaged in a
scheme to inflate the price of MGT Capital's securities; and (3)
mislead and caused the Plaintiff and other members of the Class to
purchase MGT Capital's securities at artificially inflated prices.

From 2013 until April 2016, MGT Capital described itself primarily
as "engaged in the business of acquiring, developing and monetizing
assets in the online and mobile gaming space as well as the social
casino industry."  In May 2016, MGT Capital announced it was
transforming itself into a cybersecurity company.

MGT Capital currently engages in bitcoin mining, with operations in
the state of Washington and Sweden.  The Company is incorporated in
Delaware and headquartered in Durham, North Carolina.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Wolf Popper Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP on Sept. 17 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Microchip Technology Inc. (NASDAQ: MCHP) and
certain of its officers, in the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona (2:18-cv-02914-ESW) on behalf of all
persons who purchased or acquired Microchip common stock on the
open market, during the period March 2, 2018 through August 9,
2018, and were damaged thereby.  This action alleges claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

If you are a member of the Class, you may file a motion no later
than November 16, 2018 to be appointed lead plaintiff.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation.  Investors who purchased
Microchip common stock during the Class Period and suffered losses
are urged to contact Wolf Popper to discuss their rights.

On March 1, 2018, Microchip announced that it would acquire
Microsemi Corp. for $8.35 billion.  On May 29, 2018, Microchip
announced the completion of the Microsemi acquisition.

During the Class Period, Microchip represented that the Microsemi
acquisition would be "immediately accretive" by increasing
Microchip's earnings per share as it "will add further operational
and customer scale to Microchip."  Microchip's CEO Steven Sanghi
represented that the "deal is accretive on day one without doing
anything, without any synergy," and was "strategically and
financially, a very compelling transaction."

On August 9, 2018, Mr. Sanghi admitted that Microsemi "was
extremely aggressive in shipping inventory into the distribution
channel" which "will provide some headwind for revenue for the next
couple of quarters" for Microchip.  As a result, Microchip common
stock declined $10.67 or nearly 11% on August 10, 2018.   

Wolf Popper -- http://www.wolfpopper.com-- has successfully
recovered billions of dollars for defrauded investors.  The firm's
reputation and expertise have been repeatedly recognized by the
courts, which have appointed the firm to major positions in
securities litigation.  

For more information, please contact:

         Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
         Tel.: 877.370.7703
         Fax: 877.370.7704
         Email: irrep@wolfpopper.com [GN]


MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS: Court Certifies Class in Brown Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NATHANAEL BROWN, for himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS, LP, as successor in
merger to POST APARTMENT HOMES, LP d/b/a POST SOUTH LAMAR, POST
EASTSIDE, POST PARK MESA, POST GALLERY, POST WEST AUSTIN, POST
SIERRA AT FRISCO BRIDGES, POST KATY TRAIL, POST ABBEY, POST ADDISON
CIRCLE, POST COLE'S CORNER, POST BARTON CREEK, POST HEIGHTS, POST
LEGACY, POST MERIDIAN, POST MIDTOWN SQUARE, POST SQUARE, POST
UPTOWN VILLAGE, POST VINEYARD, POST VINTAGE; and MID-AMERICA
APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC., as general partner of MID-AMERICA
APARTMENTS, LP; Defendants, Case No. 1:17-CV-307-RP (W.D. Tex.),
Judge Robert Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas, Austin Division, granted Brown's Motion for
Class Certification.

Before the Court is the report and recommendation of U.S.
Magistrate Judge Mark Lane concerning Brown's Motion for Class
Certification.  Also before the Court are the timely objections
filed by the Defendants.

The case concerns apartment late fees.  Brown is a former tenant in
of the Defendants' apartment properties in Austin, Texas.  The
Defendants (and their predecessors-in-interest, Post Properties,
Inc. and Post Apartment Homes, L.P.) have used a uniform, fixed
late-fee policy under which tenants are charged a late fee equal to
10% of their rent.  Brown was assessed a 10% late fee in December
2015.  He alleges that the late fee was charged in violation of
Texas Property Code Section 92.019, which requires that a late fee
be a reasonable estimate of uncertain damages to the landlord that
are incapable of precise calculation and result from late payment
of rent.

Brown filed his Motion for Class Certification on Feb. 9, 2018.  In
his motion, Brown asks the Court to certify the class of all
persons during the class period who (i) were residential lease
tenants of Postbranded apartment properties in the State of Texas
under written leases (such properties being formerly owned by Post
Apartment Homes LP and affiliates and now owned by MAA LP through
merger), and (ii) were charged (and which the Defendants' records
show as paid) at least one fixed rent late fee equal to 10% of
their monthly rent.  The proposed Class Period is defined as April
10, 2013, through Sept. 30, 2017.

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Lane for a report and
recommendation on the merits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b),
Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 1(d) of
Appendix C of the Local Rules of the Court.  In his report and
recommendation, Magistrate Judge Lane recommended that the Court
grants Brown's motion and certify the proposed class.  He found
sufficient grounds to certify Brown's proposed class.

The Defendants then timely filed objections to parts of the report
and recommendation.  They objected to portions of the Magistrate
Judge's report and recommendation, and they are entitled to de novo
review of those parts of the report and recommendation.  Having
conducted a de novo review of the record and applicable law where
appropriate, Judge Pitman agrees with the Magistrate Judge's
factual findings and legal conclusions and adopted the report and
recommendation in its entirety.

Accordingly, the Judge granted Brown's Motion for Class
Certification and overruled the Defendants' objections.

He certified the class, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(3) and 23(c)(1)(B), of all persons during
the class period who (i) were residential lease tenants of
Postbranded apartment properties in the State of Texas under
written leases (such properties being formerly owned by Post
Apartment Homes LP and affiliates and now owned by MAA LP through
merger), and (ii) were charged (and which the Defendants' records
show as paid) at least one fixed rent late fee equal to 10% of
their monthly rent.  The class period is defined as April 10, 2013,
through Sept. 30, 2017.

He appointed Brown as the Class Representative; and the Monts Firm,
the Snell Law Firm, PLLC, and R. Martin Weber, Jr. and Richard E.
Norman of Crowley Norman LLP as the class counsel, finding that
they are adequate after considering the factors provided in Rule
23(g).  The Court finds that the Class Representative and the Class
Counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the
class.

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

Nathanael Brown, for himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Britton D. Monts --
bmonts@themontsfirm.com -- The Monts Firm, Jason W. Snell --
jsnell@snellfirm.com -- The Snell Law Firm, PLLC, Richard E. Norman
-- rnorman@crowleynorman.com -- Crowley Norman LLP & Ronald Martin
Weber, Jr. -- mweber@crowleynorman.com -- Crowley Norman LLP.

Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc., as general partner of
Mid-America Apartments, LP & Mid-America Apartments, L.P., as
successor in merger to Post Apartment Homes, LP, Defendants,
represented by Barry Goheen -- bgoheen@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding
LLP, pro hac vice, J. Anthony Love -- tlove@kslaw.com -- King &
Spalding LLP, Kathy L. Poppitt -- kpoppitt@kslaw.com -- King and
Spalding LLC & Katherine McFarland Stein -- kstein@kslaw.com --
King and Spalding LLP.

Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. & Mid-America Apartments,
L.P., Counter Plaintiffs, represented by Barry Goheen, King &
Spalding LLP, pro hac vice, J. Anthony Love, King & Spalding LLP,
Kathy L. Poppitt, King and Spalding LLC & Katherine McFarland
Stein, King and Spalding LLP.

Nathanael Brown, Counter Defendant, represented by Britton D.
Monts, The Monts Firm, Jason W. Snell, The Snell Law Firm, PLLC,
Richard E. Norman, Crowley Norman LLP & Ronald Martin Weber, Jr.,
Crowley Norman LLP.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Accused by Josephs Suit of Violating FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------
Racquel Josephs a/k/a Racquel Vassell, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management,
Inc., Midland Funding, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No.
8:18-cv-02404-MSS-TGW (M.D. Fla., September 28, 2018), accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

MCM and Midland Funding are "debt collectors" with an address in
San Diego, California.  The Corporate Defendants are companies that
use the mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly engage in
business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect
debts alleged to be due another.  The true names and capacities of
the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (754) 217-3084
          Facsimile: (954) 272-7807
          E-mail: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


MJM STRUCTURAL: Gonzales Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
Bismarck Jose Frech Gonzalez and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MJM Structural Corp., Henry Lew, Benay Lew,
Defendants, Case 18-cv-23919 (S.D. Fla., September 21, 2018)
requests compensatory and liquidated damages and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
for unpaid overtime, as well as prejudgment interest and any and
all other relief.

MJM Structural is a concrete contractor in Miami-Dade where
Plaintiff worked. He claims to have rendered an average of 55 hours
a week but was not paid for approximately 10 hours of the average
15 hours worked over 40 hours in a week. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: zabogado@aol.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Davis Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN C. DAVIS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01651 (E.D. Mo., Sept. 28, 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.

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.

The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's 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, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Lamb Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM A. LAMB, and SARAH E. LAMB, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00552-KKC (E.D. Mo., Sept.
28, 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.

The Plaintiffs maintain 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.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's 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, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ashton Rose Smith, Esq.
          Jennifer A. Moore, Esq.
          GROSSMAN & MOORE, PLLC
          One Riverfront Plaza
          401 West Main Street, Suite 1810
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 657 7100
          Facsimile: (502) 657 7111
          E-mail: jmoore@gminjurylaw.com
                  asmith@gminjurylaw.com

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD: Worker Seeks Accidental Disability Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ernie Brandenburg, for himself and others similarly situated v.
Montgomery County Public Schools, Case No. 8:18-cv-02583 (D. Md.,
August 21, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The Plaintiff is challenging the MCPS Employees' Retirement and
Pension System Plan's policy of denying accidental disability
retirement benefits to employees, like Brandenburg, who became
disabled because of a work-related accident at age 62 or older.

The Plaintiff worked for MCPS for approximately 11 years as a
maintenance worker.

The Defendant Montgomery County Public Schools established the MCPS
Employees' Retirement and Pension Systems through a series of
mergers and consolidations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elliott Andalman,, Esq.
      ANDALMAN & FLYNN, P.C.
      8601 Georgia Ave, Suite 206
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Tel: (301) 563-6685
      E-mail: eandalman@a-f.net


MONTGOMERY COUNTY, NY: Former Inmates File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Briana O'Hara, Writing for The Leader-Herald, reports that a
class-action lawsuit and a conditions-of-confinement case was filed
by former inmates Perry Hill and James Rogers against Montgomery
County, Sheriff Michael Amato and now-retired Montgomery County
Correctional Facility administrator Michael Franko alleging the
Montgomery County Jail failed to provide adequate nutritional
sustenance while Mr. Rogers and Hill were in the jail.

According to the case, Mr. Hill was detained at MCJ from September
2013 to March 2014 for a parole violation and in that time he lost
26 pounds, along other medical conditions including hair loss,
receding and bleeding of his gums, dizziness and nausea all while
at MCJ.

The case states, "Hill stated that he believed that the diet
provided, including meat, was soy-based. He was 'always' hungry.
Hill testified that he complained '[a]ll the time' to corrections
officers about there being 'so little food' but never received a
response."

According to the case, Mr.  Rogers was detained at MCJ from June
2014 to February 2015 and in that time he lost approximately 15
pounds and had hair loss.

The case states, "Rogers testified that he and others filed
grievances 'that the food wasn't healthy enough.' Rogers testified
that he was hungry 'most of the day' while at MCJ even though he
received three meals per day."

The food provider for MCJ since 2010, Trinity Services Group
(Trinity) sets the menu and specifies the serving sizes for the
inmates who are suppose to receive three meals a day with 2,900
calories per day. Trinity requires the jail to make a substitution
if an item on the menu is unavailable.

According to the case, Lynn Dumar who is an employed cook at the
jail, "explained an item might be substituted if they were out of
stock or it was winter and the food delivery truck did not arrive
on time. Ms. Dumar stated that, generally, a vegetable is replaced
with another type of vegetable and starch is replaced with another
starch."

The case states that Ms. Dumar testified that she instructs inmates
who work in the kitchen, to use specific utensils to measure the
right proportions.

According to the case, "Kenneth Crouse, an inmate who worked in the
kitchen, testified that three or four times each week he was
instructed to ladle out less than the prescribed amount of food
because they were running low."

According to the case, several other individuals who had been at
MCJ also testified. The case states, "Eric Engle testified that he
portions were 'incredibly small and he was . . . extremely hungry.'
Engle stated that he complained but that 'the only answers I was
getting from the kitchen staff, most of the guards didn't know that
it is what was decided by the jail administrator, it was enough
calorie intake and you are not going to get any more.'"

Another inmate, Robert Pettit testified that between 2012 and 2013
when he was in the jail, "the meals did not fill him up, he was
hungry all day every day, he felt weak, and he lost hair due to
'[l]ack of food.'"]

According to the case, Sheriff Amato did testify that he was aware
of the inmates complaining they of hunger. "He stated that as of
2013 he was aware that inmates had complained about the portion
sizes of food at MCJ. Amato believed, however, that the inmates
were complaining about portion sizes because they wanted the
commissary back, which had been removed."

The case states that Mr. Franko, MCJ jail administrator, testified
that he was also aware of inmates complaining of hunger. "Franko
stated that MCJ prepares 'meals within caloric range,' on average
2,900 calories, but 'how much [inmates] actually eat is up to
them.'"[GN]


MORTGAGE DEFAULT: Aikens FDCA Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DELIA AIKENS, Plaintiff, v. MORTGAGE DEFAULT SERVICES,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. C17-1519RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S.
Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement Between Delia
Aikens and Mortgage Default Services, LLC.

Based on his review of the Agreement and all of the files, records,
and proceedings herein, Judge Lasnik concludes that, with the
conditions for approving the Agreement provided for in the Order,
the motion should be granted.  For the parties' clarity, the Order
departs from the Agreement in the following two ways.  First, the
Order requires that the Class Administrator provide email notice to
persons in the Settlement Class for whom an email address is
available.  Second, the Order requires that any excess costs of
notice and administration will not be paid from the Settlement
Fund. With those conditions, the Court otherwise finds as follows:

Based upon the Settlement Agreement and all of the files, records,
and proceedings herein, and it appearing to the Court that, upon
preliminary examination, the proposed settlement appears fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and that a hearing should and will be
held on Jan. 10, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., after Notice to the Class
Members, to confirm that the proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and to determine whether a Final Approval
Order and Judgment should be entered in the Lawsuit.

In compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, the Judge
directed the Defendant to serve the written Notice of the proposed
class settlement on the United States Attorney General and the
Attorneys General of the states of Washington and California.

Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Judge preliminarily certified, for settlement purposes only,
the Lawsuit as a class action on behalf of the class of the
Plaintiffs with respect to the claims asserted in the Lawsuit
defined as all persons (1) with a Washington or California address,
(2) to whom Mortgage Default Services, LLC sent an initial written
communication, (3) between Oct. 10, 2016 and Oct. 10, 2017, (4) in
connection with the collection of a consumer debt, (5) that did not
disclose that Mortgage Default Services, LLC is a debt collector
who is attempting to collect a debt and that any information
obtained would be used for that purpose, and/or (6) that demanded
payment on the debt within 30 days of the date of the written
communication, and/or (7) that failed to include: (i) a statement
that unless the consumer, within 30 days after receipt of the
notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof,
the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; and/or
(ii) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector
in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any
portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain
verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the
consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed
to the consumer by the debt collector; and/or (iii) a statement
that, upon the consumer's written request within the 30-day period,
the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and
address of the original creditor, if different from the current
creditor.

MDS represents that there are a total of 62 Class Members,
including the Class Representative.

Pursuant to Rule 23, Judge Lasnik appointed Delia Aikens as the
Class Representative; Jesse S. Johnson of Greenwald Davidson Ragbil
PLLC as the Class Counsel.

With the additional conditions provided for in the Order, the Judge
preliminarily finds that the settlement of the Lawsuit, on the
terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, is in
all respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the
best interest of the Class Members.

A third-party class administrator acceptable to the parties will
administer the settlement and notification to Class Members.  The
costs of administration will be paid by MDS separate and apart from
the settlement funds to the Class Members, as provided in the
Settlement Agreement.  The Settlement provides that MDS will be
responsible for paying the costs of notice and administration of
the settlement, up to $2,610.  Should the costs of notice and
administration exceed $2,610, such excess costs over $2,610 will
not be paid from the Settlement Fund.  Upon the recommendation of
the parties, Judge Lasnik appointed First Class, Inc. as the class
administrator.

He approved the form and substance of the Notice of Class Action
Settlement.  In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the class
administrator will mail the notice to the Class Members as
expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than 21 days after
the Court's entry of the order, i.e., no later than Sept. 28, 2018.
Any Class Member who desires to be excluded from the class must
send a written request for exclusion to the Class Counsel with a
postmark date no later than 60 days after the Court's entry of this
order, i.e., no later than Nov. 6, 2018.  Any Class Member who
intends to object to the fairness of this settlement must file a
written objection with the Court within 60 days after the Court's
entry of the Order, i.e., no later than, Nov. 6, 2018.  Further,
any such Class Member must, within the same time period, provide a
copy of the written objection to the Class Counsel, attention:
Jesse S. Johnson, Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC, 5550 Glades Road,
Suite 500, Boca Raton, Florida 33431; and counsel for MDS: J. Scott
Miller, Law Offices of J. Scott Miller, PS, 201 W. North River
Drive, Suite 305, Spokane, Washington 99201-2266.

Upon final approval by the Court, the class administrator will mail
a settlement check to each Class Member who elects to participate
in the settlement. Each Class Member will receive a pro-rata
portion of the $3,600 Settlement Fund.  Additionally, MDS will pay
to the Class Representative the sum of $1,000 as statutory damages
pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Court will conduct a fairness hearing on Jan. 10, 2019, at 1:30
p.m.  Consistent with In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig.,
618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010), submissions by the Parties must be
filed within 30 days after the deadline for dissemination of class
notice, i.e., no later than Oct. 28, 2018.  Any opposition to any
of the foregoing must be filed with the Court no later than 14 days
prior to the final fairness hearing, i.e., no later than Dec. 27,
2018.  Reply memoranda in support of the foregoing, including
responses to any objections, must be filed with the Court no later
than 7 days prior to the final fairness hearing, i.e., no later
than Jan. 3, 2019.

Judge Lasnik set the following schedule:

     i. Sept. 7, 2018 - Preliminary Approval Order Entered

     ii. Sept. 28, 2018 - Notice Sent (21 days after entry of
Preliminary Approval Order)

     iii. Oct. 28, 2018 - Filing of Motion for Final Approval and
Attorneys' Fees Petition (30 days after deadline for dissemination
of class notice)

     iv. Nov. 6, 2018 - Deadline to Send Exclusion or File
Objection (60 days after entry of Preliminary Approval Order)

     v. Dec. 27, 2018 - Filing of Opposition to Final Approval or
Attorneys' Fees Petition (14 days prior to final fairness hearing)


     vi. Jan. 3, 2019 - Filing of Replies in support of Final
Approval and Attorneys' Fees Petition, and responses to any
objections (7 days prior to final fairness hearing)

     vii. Jan. 10, 2019 - Final Fairness Hearing Held At Court's
discretion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ajN6Sz from Leagle.com.

Delia Aikens, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Wieting --
chris@dclglawyers.com -- DC LAW GROUP NW LLC, Drew Davis --
drew@dclglawyers.com -- DC LAW GROUP NW LLC, Jesse S. Johnson --
jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com -- GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC, pro hac
vice, Milena Marie Vill -- milena@dclglawyers.com -- DC LAW GROUP &
Mathew J. Cunanan -- matthew@dclglawyers.com -- DC LAW GROUP NW
LLC.

Mortgage Default Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bruce
John Blohowiak & J. Scott Miller, MILLER DEVLIN & MCLEAN.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Court Approves $902K Settlement in Rubenstein Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued a Judgment granting Final Approval of Class
Settlement Agreement in the case captioned LINDA RUBENSTEIN, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
THE NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
and DOES: 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.
2:14-CV-07155-SJO-JPR. (C.D. Cal.).

This Court has jurisdiction over the subjection matter of the
Action, the Class Representative, the Settlement Class, and Neiman.
Final approval of the Settlement and entry of a final judgment and
order of dismissal is granted.

The Court finds that the class proposed for purposes of the
Settlement meets the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), and
23(b)(2) and (3), and hereby certifies a Settlement Class in the
Action as follows:

     All natural persons who purchased one of more products
advertised with a Compared to price, where such purchase was made
from August 7, 2010 through the date of the Preliminary Approval
Order, at any of Neiman's Last Call stores in California or on Last
Call's e-commerce website if the purchaser provided a California
billing address.

Having reviewed the submissions of Settlement Class Counsel, the
Court finds that the sum of $902,574.41 is reasonable compensation
for Settlement Class Counsel's Fees and Litigation Expense Payment.
Within thirty (30) days after the Settlement Effective Date, ARX
Management shall pay Settlement Class Counsel the Settlement Class
Counsel's Fees and Litigation Expense Payment.

Having reviewed the submissions of Settlement Class Counsel, the
Court finds that a $5,000 Settlement Class Representative Payment
is reasonable compensation for the Class Representative's services
in this matter. Within thirty (30) days after the Settlement
Effective Date, ARX Management shall pay the Class Representative
the Settlement Class Representative Payment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 1, 2018 Judgment
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7z8saqq from Leagle.com.

Linda Rubenstein, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Behram V. Parekh --
bvp@kirtlandpackard.com -- Kirtland and Packard LLP, Heather Marie
Baker Dobbs -- hmb@kirtlandpackard.com -- Kirtland and Packard LLP,
Joshua Adam Fields -- jf@kirtlandpackard.com -- Kirtland and
Packard LLP & Michael L. Kelly -- mlk@kirklandpackard.com --
Kirtland and Packard LLP.

The Neiman Marcus Group LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, represented by Kevin S. Asfour --
kevin.asfour@klgates.com -- K and L Gates LLP, Paul W. Sweeney, Jr.
-- paul.sweeney@klgates.com -- K and L Gates LLP & Kathryn G.
Hummel, K&L Gates LLP.


NISSAN NORTH: Motion to Compel Arbitration in Sunroof Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Petrick, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal
judge on Sept. 14 denied Nissan North America Inc.'s attempt to
compel arbitration for a consumer in a potential class action
accusing the carmaker of selling vehicles with defective sunroof.
[GN]


OCWEN LOAN: Bid to Dismiss Amended Christianson TCPA Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Donoval W. Frank of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case,
Shelly Christianson, Plaintiff, v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,
Defendant, Civil No. 17-1525 (DWF/TNL) (D. Minn.), in its
entirety.

The Plaintiff brings the action alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and common law
negligence claims.  She alleges that the Defendant called her at
frequent and unreasonable times in an attempt to collect a debt she
allegedly owed.  Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant called her on her cellular telephone via an automatic
telephone dialing system ("ATDS"), as ATDS is defined under the
TCPA, and/or using an artificial or prerecorded voice as prohibited
by the TCPA.  She alleges that she received at least 1,459 calls
despite clearly revoking any type of prior express consent and
multiple requests to stop.  The alleged calls occurred between
April 2, 2011 and April 7, 2014, and again after Dec. 15, 2015.

On Oct. 27, 2014, between the time the alleged calls began and the
Plaintiff filed suit, a proposed class action alleging claims
similar to hers was filed against the Defendant in Illinois, Snyder
v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Civ. No.14-08461 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27,
2014).  A limited class was certified on June 28, 2017 and
settlement preliminarily approved on Oct. 5, 2017.  The Plaintiff
did not join the class, but filed the action before the class
certification was approved.

The Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief for the alleged
violations of the TCPA, invasion of privacy, and harm and distress
caused by the Defendant's repeated calls despite her pleas to stop
being harassed.  In her Amended Complaint, she asserts the
following claims: (1) negligent violations of the TCPA; (2) knowing
and/or willful violations of the TCPA; and (3) common law
negligence.

The Defendant now moves to limit the Plaintiff's TCPA claims based
on the TCPA's four-year statute of limitations and to dismiss her
negligence claim with prejudice because the Defendant did not owe
the Plaintiff a duty of care and the Plaintiff failed to adequately
allege damages caused by any alleged breach of duty.

Judge Frank finds that the Plaintiff was a putative class member.
The fact that she chose to file her own suit prior to certification
of the class does not negate her tolling benefit.  The Defendant
was put on notice of its TCPA violations when the Snyder action was
filed on Oct. 27, 2014.  Pursuant to the four-year statute of
limitations, any potential violation by the Defendant after Oct.
27, 2010 is subject to liability.  Therefore, all of the
Plaintiff's claims are properly pled.

The Judge also finds that while the Defendant is correct that
Minnesota does not recognize a special relationship between lenders
and borrowers, the Plaintiff's claim is not based on such a
relationship.  It is based on the common law duty of reasonable
care.  The Defendant's alleged conduct repeatedly calling the
Plaintiff despite her request that it stop-created a foreseeable
risk of harm.  It is plausible that a reasonable person would have
foreseen those calls would cause the Plaintiff harm.  Therefore,
the Judge holds the Plaintiff has properly alleged that that the
Defendant breached its ordinary duty of reasonable care to her.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's description of
injuries including intrusion, invasion of privacy, wasting the
battery life of her cell phone, and emotional distress caused by
the unwanted calls to be sufficient.  He can reasonably infer from
the Plaintiff's allegations that the Defendant's continuous
collection calls proximately caused her alleged injuries.  He finds
that the Plaintiff has satisfied her pleading obligation and her
negligence claim will proceed.

Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and
proceedings, Judge Frank denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the First Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 7, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/tUuW21 from Leagle.com.

Shelly Christianson, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony P. Chester
-- tony@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart & Robert L. Hyde
-- bob@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Margaret Ann
Santos -- asantos@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.


OHIO STATE: Conditional Certification of Oakley Class Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES OAKLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE OHIO STATE
UNIVERSITY WEXNER MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 2017-00845JD
(Ohio Ct. Cl.), Judge Holly True Shaver of the Court of Claims of
Ohio (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file their
second notice of supplemental evidence; and (ii) denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification.

The Plaintiffs are employed by the Defendant's medical center in
various positions, including as Registered Nurses, a Unit Clerk
Associate, and an Electroneurodiagnostic Technician.  The
Plaintiffs seek conditional class certification regarding their
claims that they and other similarly-situated current and former
hourly, non-exempt employees have not been paid for all time spent
working due to defendant's practice and policy of improperly
rounding the starting and stopping times of their shifts, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA:).

According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant's hourly, non-exempt
employees, are required to clock in and clock out for their shifts,
which begin and end either at the top or middle of the hour.  The
Defendant's hourly, non-exempt employees are also subject to its
"Clock-In and Clock-Out Rounding Policy."  The employees' actual
clock-in and clock-out times, as well as the rounded clock-in and
clock-out times, are reflected on Punch Detail Reports that have
been submitted to the Court.  The Defendant's hourly, non-exempt
employees are also subject to Attendance Policy 02-22, which
permits them to clock in or clock out up to six minutes prior to
the start and up to six minutes after the end of their scheduled
shifts.  

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant's Clock-In and Clock-Out
Rounding Policy rounds to the nearest tenth of an hour, as
permitted in 29 CFR 785.48(b), except for the six minutes before
and after the start and end of an employee's shift.  In those
circumstances, the employee's work time is always rounded to the
start or end of a shift.  The effect of the rounding policy is that
if an employee clocks in during the six-minute window prior to his
or her shift, that employee is not paid for any minutes worked
during the six-minute, pre-shift window.  Likewise, if the employee
works a shift and clocks out during the six-minute window after the
shift, the employee is not paid for any minutes worked during the
six-minute, post-shift window.  Thus, an employee could potentially
work 8 hours and 12 minutes per day, but only be paid for 8 hours
of work.  The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant's rounding
policy violates the FLSA in that it amounts to a systematic
underpayment of its hourly, non-exempt employees.

The Plaintiffs seek an order from this court, pursuant to 29 USC
216(b), conditionally certifying a collective FLSA class defined as
all current or former hourly, non-exempt employees of The Ohio
State University Wexner Medical Center employed between Oct. 18,
2014 and the present, who are or were subject to the Clock In and
Clock Out Rounding Policy.  They also seek Court approval of the
proposed Court-supervised Notice to the Putative Class members, and
ask for an order for the Defendant to identify potential opt-in
Plaintiffs within 14 days of the date of the certification order.

In response, the Defendant urges the Court to deny the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional class certification because the Plaintiffs
in the proposed collective class are not similarly situated.  It
argues that the 22,000 employees who would comprise the proposed
class worked in 90 locations in the State of Ohio, across 730
departments, in 311 different job positions, were supervised by
hundreds of different managers and supervisors, and include both
non-union employees and employees who were covered by three
separate collective bargaining agreements.  The Defendant also
argues that many RNs are exempt from the FLSA under the learned
professional exemption, and, as such, are not similarly situated to
non-exempt employees in the putative collective action.

In the Plaintiffs' reply, they argue that since the Defendant
admits that the rounding policy and the attendance policy both
apply to all putative class members, and since they have submitted
uncontroverted evidence showing that the rounding practice results
in employees being systematically undercompensated, they have met
the requirements for conditional class certification.

Magistarte Judge Shaver finds that on July 2, 2018, the Plaintiffs
filed a second notice of supplemental evidence in support of their
motion.  On July 13, 2018, the Defendant filed a response in
opposition.  On July 19, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to file their previously submitted second notice of
supplemental evidence.  On July 23, 2018, the Defendant filed a
response to the motion for leave.  She notes that the briefing
period for the Plaintiffs' motion was closed as of April 30, 2018,
and that the only additional material the Court requested to be
filed was Joint Exhibit 1.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file their second notice of supplemental evidence is
denied.

Turning to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class
certification, the Magistrate Judge finds that (i) the potential
Plaintiffs have been identified; (ii) the affidavits of the
potential Plaintiffs were submitted; (iii) the Plaintiffs have
failed to present evidence that conduct in conformity with both the
rounding and the attendance policy proves a violation as to all the
Plaintiffs; and (iv) the fact that the Plaintiffs have failed to
show that their claims are unified by common theories of the
Defendant's statutory violations also prevent the collective action
from being conditionally certified.  For these reasons, Magistarte
Judge Shaver recommended that the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional class certification be denied.

A party may file written objections to the Magistrate's decision
within 14 days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the
court has adopted the decision during that 14-day period as
permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i).  If any party timely files
objections, any other party may also file objections not later than
10 days after the first objections are filed.  

A party will not assign as error on appeal the Court's adoption of
any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not
specifically designated as a finding of fact or conclusion of law
under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and
specifically objects to that factual finding or legal conclusion
within 14 days of the filing of the decision, as required by Civ.R.
53(D)(3)(b).

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 7, 2018 Decision is available
at https://is.gd/16U54S from Leagle.com.


OOMA INC: Faces Dolemba Class Action in Illinois
------------------------------------------------
Ooma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2018, that the company is facing a putative
class action complaint filed by Scott Dolemba.

On September 4, 2018, plaintiff Scott Dolemba filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.  The complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, costs, attorneys' fees and other appropriate
relief.

Ooma, Inc. provides communications solutions and other connected
services to small business, home, and mobile users in the United
States and Canadian markets.  Ooma, Inc. was incorporated in 2003
and is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California.

OOMA INC: Still Faces Barnett Consolidated Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Ooma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 6, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2018, that the Company remains a defendant in
a consolidated class action lawsuit initiated by Michael Barnett.

On January 14, 2016, Michael Barnett filed a purported stockholder
class action in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of
California (Case No. CIV536959) against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain of the underwriters of the
Company's Initial Public Offering (IPO) on July 17, 2015.

Since that time two additional purported class actions making
substantially the same allegations against the same defendants were
filed, and on May 18, 2016, all three complaints were combined into
a "consolidated complaint" filed in the same court (the "Securities
Litigation").

The consolidated complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased shares of common stock in the Company's IPO
in reliance upon the Registration Statement and Prospectus the
Company filed with the SEC. The consolidated complaint alleges that
the Company and the other defendants violated the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the "Securities Act") by issuing the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, which the plaintiffs allege contained
material misstatements and omissions in violation of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and such other relief
as the court may deem proper.

On November 29, 2017, the Superior Court dismissed the claims that
were based on Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act with
prejudice, but denied the Company's motion to stay the case pending
the United States Supreme Court's decision in Cyan v. Beaver Cnty.
Emp. Ret.' Fund.

On March 20, 2018, the United States Supreme Court published its
decision in the Cyan case, holding that state courts have subject
matter jurisdiction to hear claims brought under the Securities
Act, such as the claims alleging violations of Section 11 of the
Securities Act (the only remaining claims in the Securities
Litigation) brought against the Company in the Superior Court.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
the Company is vigorously defending against the Securities
Litigation and will continue to do so. However, litigation is
unpredictable and there can be no assurances that the Company will
obtain a favorable final outcome or that it will be able to avoid
unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of
litigation that may significantly add to the expense of its defense
and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources.


Based on the Company's current knowledge, the Company has
determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any
losses that is reasonably possible to result from the Securities
Litigation is not estimable.

Ooma, Inc. provides communications solutions and other connected
services to small business, home, and mobile users in the United
States and Canadian markets.  Ooma, Inc. was incorporated in 2003
and is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California.


OPKO HEALTH: Brennan Hits Share Price Drop in Pump-and-Dump Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Brennan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. OPKO Health, Inc., Phillip Frost, Adam
Logal and Juan F. Rodriguez, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv- 23924
(S.D. Fla., September 21, 2018), seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

OPKO, a healthcare company, engages in the diagnostics and
pharmaceuticals business in the United States and internationally.
Phillip Frost has been its Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
since March 2007.

Defendants failed to disclose that Frost and OPKO were involved in
orchestrating the acquisition of large quantities of stock at steep
discounts and after securing a substantial ownership interest in
them, engaged in illegal promotional activity and manipulative
trading to artificially boost its stock price and to give the stock
the appearance of active trading volume and eventually dump their
shares into the inflated market, reaping millions of dollars at the
expense of unsuspecting investors, notes the complaint.

On this news, shares of OPKO fell $1.01 or over 18%, before NASDAQ
halted the trading of OPKO on September 7, 2018 at $4.58. To date,
trading in OPKO remains halted, making the stock illiquid and
virtually worthless. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
      David W. Hall, Esq.
      HEDIN HALL LLP
      1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (305) 357-2107
      Fax: (305) 200-8801
      Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
             dhall@hedinhall.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

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

             - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


OREGON: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over SB 833 Rejection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Paez of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case, M.S.,
an individual; V.V., an individual; J.H., an individual; E.D., an
individual; M.B., an individual; FAMILIAS EN ACCION, a domestic
non-profit corporation; LOS NINOS CUENTAN, a domestic non-profit
corporation, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KATE BROWN, in her official
capacity as Governor of the State of Oregon; TAMMY BANEY, in her
official capacity as Chair of the Oregon Department of
Transportation Commission; DAVID LOHMAN, in his official capacity
as member of the Oregon Department of Transportation Commission;
SUSAN MORGAN, in her official capacity as member of the Oregon
Department of Transportation Commission; ALANDO SIMPSON, in his
official capacity as member of the Oregon Department of
Transportation Commission; SEAN O'HALLORAN, in his official
capacity as member of the Oregon Department of Transportation
Commission; MATTHEW L. GARRETT, in his official capacity as
Director, Oregon Department of Transportation; TOM MCCLELLAN, in
his official capacity as Administrator of Driver and Motor Vehicles
Division, Oregon Department of Transportation,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-35431 (9th Cir.), for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

The Oregon Constitution grants the people of Oregon the power of
referendum to approve or reject bills passed by the Oregon
Legislature before they become law.  In 2014, the people exercised
this power by rejecting Senate Bill 833, which would have afforded
Oregon residents access to driving privileges through the issuance
of driver cards without requiring proof of their legal presence in
the United States.

The Plaintiffs, five Oregon residents who cannot prove their legal
presence and two non-profit corporations, subsequently brought the
action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against various state officials
who are responsible for the issuance of Oregon driver's licenses.
The Plaintiffs allege that the voters' rejection of SB 833 was
motivated by discriminatory animus, and that the state officials'
consequent refusal to issue driver cards violates their Fourteenth
Amendment rights to equal protection and due process.  They do not,
however, challenge the initial invocation of the referendum power,
which suspended the future operation of SB 833 pending voter
approval.

In the context of this unchallenged and ongoing suspension of the
bill's operation, the district court dismissed the Plaintiffs'
claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of
Article III standing.  In particular, it concluded that the
Plaintiffs failed to establish the redressability element of
standing because the court could not order the state officials to
implement SB 833 and thus issue driver cards.

On the circumstances presented in the case, Judge Paez agrees with
the district court that it cannot provide redress for the
Plaintiffs' claimed injury, their inability to obtain or renew
driving privileges.  He recognizes that his Opinion reflects an
asymmetry in federal judicial power: federal courts have the power
to remedy injuries flowing from a discriminatory law, but not the
power to remedy injuries that exist after the discriminatory
rejection of a law -- at least where fundamental rights or other
similarly vested rights are not at stake.  

That asymmetry, however, is the product of the constitutional
structure and the democratic system of government it establishes.
Injuries that exist following the discriminatory rejection of a law
are, by definition, injuries that already existed in our society.
Those injuries may be just as severe as any that flow from a duly
enacted law.  But unless the state action that causes an existing
injury is itself unlawful, any redress must lie exclusively in the
democratic process.

For all of these reasons, Judge Paez concludes that M.S. has not
established the redressability element of Article III standing.
The district court did not err in dismissing the case for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.  Accordingly, he affirmed the district
court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 5, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/7RjQ8l from Leagle.com.

David Henretty (argued), Monica Goracke , and Stephen S. Walters --
swalters@reminger.com -- Oregon Law Center, Portland, Oregon, for
Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Jona J. Maukonen (argued) and Susan Yorke, Assistant Attorneys
General; Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General; Ellen F. Rosenblum,
Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, Salem, Oregon;
for Defendants-Appellees.

Michael M. Hethmon, Senior Counsel; Dale L. Wilcox, Executive
Director & General Counsel; Immigration Reform Law Institute,
Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae Oregonians for Immigration
Reform.


PACIFIC BUSINESS: Cunningham Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Cunningham, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pacific Business Management, Inc.
and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-08128
(C.D. Cal., September 21, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory
damages, treble damages and all other relief for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Pacific Business Management is a nationwide debt restructuring
company who attempted to contact Plaintiff using an automatic
telephone dialing system offering its services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PATTERSON COS: Faces Plymouth County Retirement System's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended July 28, 2018, that the company is defending against a
securities class action lawsuit initiated by Plymouth County
Retirement System.

On March 28, 2018, Plymouth County Retirement System ("Plymouth")
filed a federal securities class action complaint against Patterson
and its former CEO Scott P. Anderson and former CFO Ann B. Gugino
(together, the "Individual Defendants") in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota in a case captioned Plymouth County
Retirement System v. Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson
and Ann B. Gugino, Case No. 0:18-cv-00871 MJD/SER.

On behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Patterson's common stock between June 26, 2015 and
February 28, 2018, Plymouth alleges that Patterson violated federal
securities laws by "failing to disclose that Patterson's revenue
and earnings were fraudulently inflated by an illegal and
fraudulent price-fixing scheme aimed at prohibiting sales to and
price negotiations by GPOs (group purchasing organizations) that
represented small and independent dental practices."  

The company vehemently deny these allegations.  

In its class action complaint, Plymouth asserts one count against
Patterson for violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and a second,
related count against the Individual Defendants for violating
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plymouth seeks compensatory
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and reasonable attorneys'
fees and experts' witness fees and costs.  

On August 30, 2018, Gwinnett County Public Employees Retirement
System and Plymouth County Retirement System, Pembroke Pines
Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers, Central Laborers
Pension Fund were appointed lead plaintiffs.  

Patterson  said, "While the outcome of litigation is inherently
uncertain, we believe that the class action complaint is without
merit, and we are vigorously defending ourselves in this
litigation. We do not anticipate that this matter will have a
material adverse effect on our financial statements."

Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal
health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments.
Patterson Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered
in St. Paul, Minnesota.


PATTERSON COS: Settlement Talks Underway in Dental Supplies Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended July 28, 2018, that the company has entered into a settlement
discussions with the named plaintiffs in the case entitled, In re
Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation.

Beginning in January 2016, purported antitrust class action
complaints were filed against defendants Henry Schein, Inc., Benco
Dental Supply Company and Patterson Companies, Inc. Although there
were factual and legal variations among these complaints, each
alleged that defendants conspired to foreclose and exclude
competitors by boycotting manufacturers, state dental associations,
and others that deal with defendants' competitors.

On February 9, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York ordered all of these actions, and all other
actions filed thereafter asserting substantially similar claims
against defendants, consolidated for pre-trial purposes.

On February 26, 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was
filed by Arnell Prato, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., d/b/a Down to Earth
Dental, Evolution Dental Sciences, LLC, Howard M. May, DDS, P.C.,
Casey Nelson, D.D.S., Jim Peck, D.D.S., Bernard W. Kurek, D.M.D.,
Larchmont Dental Associates, P.C., and Keith Schwartz, D.M.D., P.A.
(collectively, "putative class representatives") in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled In re
Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB.

Subject to certain exclusions, the putative class representatives
seek to represent all persons who purchased dental supplies or
equipment in the U.S. directly from any of the defendants, since
August 31, 2008. In the consolidated class action complaint,
putative class representatives allege a nationwide agreement among
Henry Schein, Benco, Patterson and non-party Burkhart Dental Supply
Company, Inc. not to compete on price. The consolidated class
action complaint asserts a single count under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, and seeks equitable relief, compensatory and treble
damages, jointly and severally, interest, and reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees.

Patterson Companies said , "While we continue to believe such
claims are without merit, we do not admit to any liability, and
there has been no finding of any violation of law, we entered into
settlement discussions with the named plaintiffs in August 2018,
and anticipate entering into a definitive settlement agreement,
based upon our desire to avoid the time, expense, distraction and
inherent uncertainty of litigation. Based upon such discussions,
although we have not yet entered into a definitive settlement
agreement and any such settlement agreement would be subject to
preliminary and final court approval, we currently estimate that
the cost of resolving the claims in this litigation will be
$28,263, and have recorded a legal settlement reserve in such
amount for the quarter ended July 28, 2018 in our Corporate
segment."

Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal
health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments.
Patterson Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered
in St. Paul, Minnesota.


PEARLSTONE RESTAURANT: Tendilla et al Seek Unpaid Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
HERMELINDO TENDILLA, RENE SANTIAGO, and NAPOLEON BRAVO HERRERO, on
behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, the
Plaintiffs, vs PEARLSTONE RESTAURANT, LLC d/b/a ULYSSES FOLK HOUSE,
ONE HANOVER, LLC d/b/a HARRY’S NYC, PETER POULAKAKOS, HARRY
POULAKAKOS, IVAN MITANKIN, MICHAEL DUFFY, PAUL LAMAS, FRANK CASANO,
DANIEL MCDONALD, TONY VEBER, and SANTIAGO [LNU], the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-08900 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 28, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages due to invalid tip credit and invalid meal
credit, unpaid wages due to time shaving, unpaid overtime,
unlawfully retained gratuities, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs bring claims for relief
as a collective action pursuant to FLSA, on behalf of all
non-exempt employees (including, but not limited to, cooks, food
preparers, butchers, dishwashers, porters, bussers, food runners,
bartenders, barbacks and waiters) employed by Defendants.

The Plaintiffs and other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have
been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job
requirements and pay provisions, and have been subjected to
Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices,
procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a
willful failure and refusal to pay them their proper overtime wages
for all hours worked over 40, failure to pay for all hours worked
due to time-shaving, and taking improper meal credits, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the
Class:

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


PENNSYLVANIA CORRECTIONS DEPT: Faces Pelino Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections.  The case is, VITO A. PELINO, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs
JOHN E. WETZEL and ROBERT GILMORE, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-01308-MPK (W.D. Pa., Sept 26, 2018).  The suit alleges
Prisoner Civil Rights violation, and is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Maureen P. Kelly.

The lawsuit alleges violation of Prisoner Civil Rights.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


PENNSYLVANIA: Court Denies Class Certification in Prisoners' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned VITO A. PELINO, Plaintiff, v.
ROBERT GILMORE, MICHAEL ZAKEN, and STEPHEN DURCO, Defendants. No.
18-1232. (W.D. Pa.).

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

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

It is well established that a prisoner proceeding pro se, is unable
to satisfy the fourth element of a class action suit. When
confronting such a request from a prisoner, courts have
consistently held that a prisoner acting pro se `is inadequate to
represent the interests of his fellow inmates in a class action.  

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, cannot meet the fourth
element to obtain class certification. Accordingly, this Motion
will be denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 1, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7xr2sj8 from Leagle.com.

VITO A. PELINO, Plaintiff, pro se.


PERFECT BAR: Clark Suit Seeks to Stop False Ads
------------------------------------------------
HOWARD CLARK and MICHAEL SIMS on behalf of themselves, those
similarly situated and the general public v. PERFECT BAR, LLC, Case
No. 3:18-cv-06006 (N.D. Cal., September 30, 2018), challenges the
Defendant's deceptive conduct alleging violations of California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, False
Advertising Law, New York's Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices
Law, and False Advertising Law.

Despite the compelling evidence that sugar acts as a chronic liver
toxin, detrimentally affecting health, and despite that as much as
24% of the calories in "Perfect Bars" (the "Products") come from
added sugar, the Defendant markets and label these so-called
"health food" bars with health and wellness claims with the goal of
increasing the price and sales of its high-sugar bars, the
Plaintiffs allege.  The Plaintiffs primarily seek an order
compelling Defendant to cease marketing the high-sugar Products
using deceptive claims.

Perfect Bar, LLC, is a Delaware Corporation with its principal
place of business located in San Diego, California.  Perfect Bar
manufactures, distributes, and markets the Products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC
          4125 W. Pt. Loma Blvd., No. 309
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 767-0356
          Facsimile: (619) 331-2943
          E-mail: paul@pauljosephlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          Hillcrest Professional Building
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com


PFIZER INC: MSP Suit Moved to New Jersey District Court
-------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC et al vs.
Pfizer Inc., PFIZER INC., PFIZER IRELAND PHARMACEUTICALS,
WARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY, RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED, RANBAXY INC.,
and Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-23767, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
District for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for District of New Jersey. The New Jersey District Court
assigned Case No.: 3:18-cv-14414 to the proceeding.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          James L. Ferraro, Esq.
          Janpaul Portal, Esq.
          THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
          600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3800
          Miami, FL 33131-3073
          Telephone: (305) 375-0111
          Facsimile: (305) 379-6222

               - and -

          Louise R. Caro, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC
          360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 843-7603


PLACER COUNTY, CA: Settlement in Bangert Suit Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BEAU BANGERT, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF PLACER, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01667-KJN (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Kendall J. Newman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California, Sacramento Division, granted the
Plaintiff's Unopposed Application for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement,

The Magistrate Judge finds that, subject to the Final Approval
Hearing, the proposed Settlement Class is appropriate for class
certification for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  

She provisionally certified the Action to proceed as a class action
for settlement purposes only pursuant to Rule 23(e), with the
Settlement Class defined as:

     i. the Jail Changes Settlement Class comprises all individuals
incarcerated in Placer County Jail at any point during the Class
Period (Aug. 11, 2015 through Aug. 14, 2018).

     ii. The Force Settlement Class comprises all individuals,
except for the Related Actions Plaintiffs, incarcerated in Placer
County Jail at any point during the Class Period (Aug. 11, 2015
through Aug. 14, 2018) who submitted a Claim Form by the Claim
Deadline.

     iii. The Force Settlement Award Class comprises all Force
Settlement Class Members whose Claims are deemed Compensable under
the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement.

She approved the Class Notice and Claim Form, and further approved
the method by which notice is proposed in the Settlement Agreement
to be given to the Settlement Class.  The Class Notice and Claim
Form will be distributed to the Class pursuant to the notice
provision terms in the Settlement Agreement.  She approved the
procedure set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and reflected in
the Class Notice, with which Settlement Class Members must comply
in order to validly object to the Settlement or exclude themselves
from the Settlement.  All Objections, supporting papers and/or
notices of intent to appear at the Final Approval Hearing must be
filed/postmarked by the Objection/Exclusion Deadline as
specifically set forth in the Class Notice pursuant to the terms of
the Settlement Agreement.

The Magistrate Judge appointed the Plaintiff as the representative
Plaintiff of the Class; the Plaintiff's Counsel to serve as the
Class Counsel; and Rust Consulting as the Settlement
Administrator.

A Final Approval Hearing is scheduled to be held before the Court
on March 28, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.  The Action is stayed pending
Final Approval, except for any activities set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/pdspN2 from Leagle.com.

Beau Bangert, Plaintiff, represented by Mark E. Merin --
mark@markmerin.com -- Law Office of Mark E. Merin, Paul Hajime
Masuhara, III, Law Office of Mark E. Merin & Patrick H. Dwyer,
Attorney at Law.

County of Placer, Placer County Sheriff's Office & Devon M. Bell,
Defendants, represented by Blake Phillip Loebs, Meyers Nave Riback
Silver & Wilson, Julia Reeves -- jreeves@placer.ca.gov -- Placer
County Counsel, David Mehretu -- dmehretu@meyersnave.com -- Meyers
Nave & Robert S. Moutr ie -- rmoutrie@meyersnave.com -- Meyers Nave
Riback Silver & Wilson.

Robert L. Madden, Defendant, represented by Bruce Alan Kilday --
bkilday@akk-law.com -- Angelo, Kilday & Kilduff, LLP.

Megan C. Yaws, Defendant, represented by Jonathan B. Paul --
thefirm@jmr-law.net -- Rivera & Associates.


PREMIMUM PARKING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Mendoza Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE JAVIER MENDOZA, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated employees v. PREMIMUM PARKING LLC, and MANUEL A. FUENTES
ALVAREZ, individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-06613 (N.D. Ill., September
28, 2018), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act,
for:

   1) Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages for
      all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in
      violation of the FLSA and the IMWL;

   2) Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff earned wages for
      all hours worked in violation of the IWPCA; and

   3) Defendants' practice of taking unlawful deductions from
      the Plaintiff's wages in violation of the IWPCA.

Premium Parking LLC is a corporation organized under the laws of
the state of Illinois and conducted business in Illinois.  Manuel
A. Fuentes Alvarez owns and operates Premium Parking.  The
Defendants operate a valet parking business in Chicago,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Javier Castro, Esq.
          Lydia Colunga-Merchant, Esq.
          RAISE THE FLOOR ALLIANCE - LEGAL DEPT.
          1 N. LaSalle, Suite 1275
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 795-9115
          E-mail: jcastro@raisetheflooralliance.org
                  lcmerchant@raisetheflooralliance.org


PROGRESSUS THERAPY: $1.5MM Shelton Settlement Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERRI SHELTON, LAURA THOMPSON individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PROGRESSUS
THERAPY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, PROGRESSUS
THERAPY, INC., a Florida Corporation, PROGRESSUS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, INVO HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATES Liability Company, INVO
HEALTHCARE, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, THERAPY
STATION ASSOCIATES, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00518-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy
L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") and Class Action Settlement.

On Aug. 23, 2018, the Plaintiffs' Motion came before the Court.
Judge Nunley finds that consistent with the definitions provided in
the Agreement and the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, the class
is defined as all current and former hourly non-exempt individuals
employed by the Defendants within the State of California who
provided occupational therapy, speech-language pathology, physical
therapy, psychology and behavior, early intervention, special
education, audiology, and/or social work treatment and services who
worked during the period from Oct. 28, 2012, through March 16,
2018.

He approved the Settlement as set forth in the Agreement, and
directed the Parties to effectuate the Settlement according to the
terms outlined in the Agreement.  The Released Claims will include
all the above claims from the period beginning Oct. 28, 2012,
through March 16, 2018.

Finding that the $1,464,000 Gross Settlement Amount provided for
under the Agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by,
or collusion between, the negotiating parties, the Judge ordered
the Individual Settlement Awards be made and administered to the
Class Members in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and as
set forth in the Court's Preliminary Approval Order to each Class
Member who has submitted a Claim Form in accordance with the
Agreement.

He confirmed Gurnee, Mason & Forestiere, LLP, as the Class Counsel.
He further approved and ordered that the Class Counsel's fee of
$322,000 and its costs of $5,370.40 be paid to the Class Counsel
and deducted from the Maximum Settlement Amount.

The Judge confirmed the Named Plaintiffs as the Class
Representatives and authorized a class representative payment to
each Named Plaintiff in the amount of $10,000 from the Maximum
Settlement Amount (for a total of $20,000).  He also approved and
ordered that the amount of $11,652 be paid to the Class
Administrator, CPT Group, Inc., and deducted from the Maximum
Settlement Amount for the costs of administration.

The Judge also approved and ordered that a PAGA Penalty Payment in
the amount of $15,000 be deducted from the Maximum Settlement
Amount to be distributed as follows: $11,250 to the California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and $3,750 to be
distributed to Participating Class Members on a pro rata basis.

In accordance with the Agreement, any Class Member's Individual
Settlement Payment checks not cashed within 180 days will be voided
and the funds will be sent to the California Department of
Industrial Relations' Unclaimed Wages Fund, and the failure to cash
any check within 180 days will in no way affect the binding nature
of the settlement or the biding nature of any release of claims.

Judge Nunley awarded and entered the Judgment of the entire Action
based upon the terms of the Agreement and the Final Approval Order,
ordered the Parties to act in accordance with and pursuant to the
terms set forth in the of the Final Approval Order and the
Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/seUmIN from Leagle.com.

Terri Shelton & Laura Thompson, Plaintiffs, represented by John A.
Mason -- info@gurneelaw.com -- Gurnee Mason & Forestiere LLP &
Nicholas P. Forestiere, Gurnee Mason & Forestiere Llp.

Progressus Therapy, LLC, Progressus Therapy, Inc., Progressus,
Inc., Invo Healthcare Associates, LLC, Invo Healthcare, LLC &
Therapy Station Associates, LLC, Defendants, represented by Jason
S. Campbell -- jscampbell@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP.


RH: Discovery Underway in Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------
RH said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended August 5, 2018,
that the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re RH, Inc.
Securities  Litigation, is still in discovery.

On February 2, 2017, City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation
Employees' Retirement Trust filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California,
against the Company, Gary Friedman, and Karen Boone.

On March 16, 2017, Peter J. Errichiello, Jr. filed a similar class
action complaint in the same forum and against the same parties.

On April 26, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions. The
consolidated action is captioned In re RH, Inc. Securities
Litigation. An amended consolidated complaint was filed in June
2017 asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act").

The complaint asserts claims purportedly on behalf of a class of
purchasers of Company common stock from March 26, 2015 to June 8,
2016. The alleged misstatements relate to statements regarding the
roll out of the RH Modern product line and the Company's inventory
levels. The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages,
and other appropriate relief, including an award of costs and
attorneys' fees.

On February 26, 2018, the Court filed an order denying the
Company's motion to dismiss the complaint and the case is in
discovery.

RH said, "While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain,
the Company and its officers intend to vigorously defend the claims
and believe the complaint lacks merit."

RH is a leading luxury retailer in the home furnishings
marketplace. The company offers dominant merchandise assortments
across a growing number of categories, including furniture,
lighting, textiles, bathware, décor, outdoor and garden,
tableware, and child and teen furnishings. The company is based in
Corte Madera, California.


ROUND SKY: Dotson Sues over Unwanted Phone Calls
------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DOTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ROUND SKY, INC. dba CASH ADVANCE USA,
LTD., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-08316-DMG-E (C.D. Cal., Sept. 26,
2018), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant, in
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting the Plaintiff
on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby invading his privacy.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around April 2017, the
Defendant contacted the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, number
ending in -9844, in an effort to sell or solicit its services. The
Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined
12 by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its call to the
Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. At one or more instance
during these calls, the Defendant utilized an "artificial or
prerecorded voice" as prohibited by 47 U.S.C. section
227(b)(1)(A).

The Defendant called Plaintiff at least 15 times from April 21,
2017 until November 8, 2017. The Defendant contacted or attempted
to contact the Plaintiff from telephone number (312) 392-4195.  The
Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency
purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). The
Defendant did not possess the Plaintiff's "prior express consent"
to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant
to 47 U.S.C. section 24 227(b)(1)(A), the lawsuit says.

Round Sky offers advertising services for financial institutions.
The company provides lead buying and delivering services for
online, banner, and display advertising. It caters to payday,
installment, and title loan lending institutions. Round Sky, Inc.
is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


RUSS DARROW: Underwood Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY UNDERWOOD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RUSS DARROW GROUP, INC. W133 N8569
Executive Parkway Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin 53051; RUSS DARROW
GREENFIELD, LLC 3520 South 108th Street Greenfield, Wisconsin
53228; and RUSS DARROW DODGE, LLC 7676 North 76th Street Milwaukee,
Wisconsin 53223, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01527-JPS (E.D.
Wisc., Sept. 28, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or
injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem
appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendants operated (and continue
to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived current
and former BDC Representatives of their wages earned for all
compensable work performed each workweek, including at an overtime
rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, by improperly classifying these BDC Representatives as
"exempt" for compensation purposes under the FLSA and WWPCL.

Specifically, Defendants' unlawful compensation system failed to
include all non-discretionary compensation, such as bonuses,
commissions, incentives, and/or other monetary rewards, in all
current and former non-exempt BDC Representatives' regular rates of
pay for overtime calculation purposes, the lawsuit says.

Russ Darrow Group, Inc. operates automotive dealerships in
Wisconsin. It offers new, used, certified, one-owner, and special
vehicles, including cars, trucks, vans, and sport utility
vehicles.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780 1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565 6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com


SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Court Narrows Claims in Norcia Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and  denying in part
Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the case
captioned DANIEL NORCIA, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AMERICA, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No. 14-cv-00582-JD. (N.D.
Cal.).

No reasonable person could disagree that speed and performance go
to the heart of a smartphone's central function. Manufacturers like
Samsung and its competitors typically highlight speed and
performance features as reasons to buy their phones and not someone
else's products, particularly when new models hit the market. The
Plaintiff has clearly alleged that representations about the
Samsung phone's speed and performance were exactly the statements
he relied upon to buy the Galaxy S4 when it debuted in 2013.

Samsung intentionally cheated on benchmarking apps to create a
false perception regarding the speed and performance of the Galaxy
S4, to thereby create PR buzz to increase the demand for its new
devices, and to support a high price-point for these devices all to
the detriment of the buying public. Plaintiff also alleges that
after the Galaxy S4 was announced, and in advance of purchasing he
read online reviews of the Galaxy S4, including reviews that
discussed the Galaxy S4's speed and performance on benchmark tests.
He quotes several articles that discussed the results of these
benchmark tests, and the Galaxy S4's speed and performance
generally, which demonstrate just how important these features are
in a smartphone.  

Consequently, there is no reason to disturb the Court's conclusion
in the motion to dismiss order that Samsung's failure to disclose
its alleged manipulation of the Galaxy S4's performance on
benchmarking apps is actionable. That manipulation was a material
fact not known to plaintiff and, as alleged, was within the
exclusive knowledge of Samsung. Plaintiff has adequately alleged an
omission of a fact that Samsung was obliged to disclose, a
conclusion strongly supported by our circuit's guidance in
Hodsdon.

The Plaintiff has also adequately alleged that Samsung's conduct
was unfair under the UCL. As Hodsdon noted, the proper definition
of unfair conduct against consumers 'is currently in flux' among
California courts. 891 F.3d at 866. In that case, the parties had
argued unfairness under the competing tests in both Cel-Tech
Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company, 20
Cal.4th 163 (1999), and South Bay Chevrolet v. General Motors
Acceptance Corporation, 72 Cal.App.4th 861 (1999). But Hodsdon
expressly observed that the Cel-Tech test did not apply to actions
by consumers, even though some California courts have extended the
Cel-Tech definition of unfairness to consumer actions anyway.

Samsung's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied for
plaintiff's unfair claim under the UCL. The Court grants
defendants' motion for plaintiffs' Consumer Legal Remedies Act
claim, common law fraud claim, and unlawful and fraudulent UCL
claims, solely on the basis of plaintiff's express non-opposition
to defendants' motion for those claims.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 1, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yaug9dxd from Leagle.com.

Daniel Norcia, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Hurley,
Prometheus Partners L.L.P., Thomas Alexander Cierny, The Cierny
Firm, Daniel Chris Quintero, Prometheur Partners L.L.P. & Eduardo
Gregory Roy, Prometheus Partners L.L.P.

Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, a New York Corporation,
Defendant, represented by John Paul Phillips --
johnphillips@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, Michael J.
Mueller -- mmueller@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP & Sean
David Unger -- seanunger@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by John Paul Phillips, Paul Hastings LLP,
Michael J. Mueller, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, pro hac vice,Sean
David Unger, Paul Hastings LLP & Thomas Richard Waskom --
twaskom@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, pro hac vice.


SCHWAN'S COMPANY: Can File Summary Judgment Bid Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendant's motion for
leave to file a sealed motion for summary judgment with declaration
and exhibits in the case captioned SHATEQUA LEGUETTE, JOANNE
MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SCHWAN'S COMPANY, SCHWAN'S FOOD SERIVCE
INC., SCHWAN'S CONSUMER BRANDS, INC., SFC GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAIN,
INC., Defendants. No. 17-CV-07599. (E.D.N.Y.).

This putative class action is based on a claim that the defendant's
pies were advertised as being made with butter, but they contained
insufficient amounts of that ingredient to warrant such a
characterization.

Motions for summary judgment are being made. The Defendant moves
for leave to file a sealed motion for summary judgment with
declaration and exhibits. This motion will probably reveal
ingredients and methods of manufacture of the product. Trade
secrets will probably need to be revealed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 27, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8pjn8og
from Leagle.com.

Shatequa Leguette & Joanne Miller, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Spencer
I. Sheehan -- spencer@spencersheehan.com -- Sheehan & Associates,
P.C. & Joshua Levin-Epstein -- JoshuaL@Shiboleth.com --
Levin-Epstein & Associates.

Schwan's Company, Schwan's Consumer Brands, Inc., Schwan's Food
Service, Inc. & SFC Global Supply Chain, Inc., Defendants,
represented by August Theodore Horvath -- ahorvath@foleyhoag.com --
Foley Hoag LLP.


SCOTTRADE INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Kevari Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Janice Kevari filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Janice Kevari v. Scottrade, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-00819-JFW-GJS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

The nature of suit is stated as civil rights jobs.

The appellate case is captioned as Janice Kevari v. Scottrade,
Inc., et al., Case No. 18-56287, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Janice Kevari's opening brief is due on
      November 26, 2018;

   -- Appellees Does, Scottrade Financial Services Inc.,
      Scottrade Investment Management, Inc., Scottrade, Inc. and
      TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      December 26, 2018; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant JANICE KEVARI, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated and aggrieved, is represented by:

          Maryann P. Gallagher, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARYANN P. GALLAGHER
          205 S. Broadway
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 626-1810
          E-mail: mail@mpg-law.com

Defendants-Appellees SCOTTRADE, INC., and TD AMERITRADE, INC., are
represented by:

          Joshua Byron Norton, Esq.
          Melanie L. Ronen, Esq.
          KEESAL, YOUNG & LOGAN
          400 Oceangate
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 436-2000
          E-mail: joshua.norton@kyl.com
                  melanie.ronen@kyl.com


SEI INVESTMENTS: Sued by Stevens for Violating Duties Under ERISA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Stevens, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the SEI Capital
Accumulation Plan v. SEI Investments Company, SEI Investments
Management Corporation, SEI Capital Accumulation Plan Design
Committee, SEI Capital Accumulation Plan Investment Committee, SEI
Capital Accumulation Plan Administration Committee, and John Does
1-30, Case No. 2:18-cv-04205-NIQA (E.D. Pa., September 28, 2018),
alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.

The Defendants, which are fiduciaries of the Plan, have breached
their fiduciary duties under ERISA, to the detriment of the Plan
and its participants and beneficiaries, by imprudently selecting
and monitoring the Plan's investment options and by retaining
affiliated investment products in the Plan where doing so was not
warranted by their merits relative to non-proprietary alternatives,
says the complaint.

SEIC is a provider of investment processing, investment management,
and investment operations platforms headquartered in Oaks,
Pennsylvania.  SEIC is the "plan sponsor."  SIMC is a registered
investment advisor firm and an indirect subsidiary of SEIC.  SIMC
is the Plan's fiduciary investment advisor.

Design Committee is a committee of SEI employees appointed and
overseen by SEIC.  Investment Committee is a committee of SEI
employees appointed and overseen by the Design Committee.
Defendant Administration Committee is a committee of SEI employees
appointed and overseen by the Design Committee or SEIC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          Twining Office Center, Suite 211
          715 Twining Road
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
                  mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          Kai H. Richter, Esq.
          Brock Specht, Esq.
          Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
          Sarah J. Demers, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: lukas@nka.com
                  krichter@nka.com
                  cengstrom@nka.com
                  sdemers@nka.com


SHILOH INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shiloh Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a
securities class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

A securities class action lawsuit was filed on September 21, 2015
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company and certain of its officers (the
President and Chief Executive Officer and Vice President of Finance
and Treasurer).

As amended, the lawsuit claims in part that the company issued
inaccurate information to investors about, among other things, the
company's earnings and income and its internal controls over
financial reporting for fiscal 2014 and the first and second fiscal
quarters of 2015 in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The amended complaint seeks an award of damages in an
unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class consisting of
persons who purchased our common stock between January 12, 2015 and
September 14, 2015, inclusive.

The Company and such officers filed a Motion to Dismiss this
lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on April 18, 2016. The District Court rendered
an opinion and order granting the company's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit on March 23, 2017.

On April 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
of the dismissal order. The company, in opposition to the
plaintiff's motion, filed a motion for consideration of the
dismissal on April 20, 2017 and the plaintiffs filed a reply motion
in opposition for reconsideration on April 27, 2017.

On July 7, 2017, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' request
to vacate the District Court's March 23, 2017 order of dismissal
and granted the plaintiff's request to further amend their
complaint. The plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on
August 4, 2017.  

The company filed its Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Compliant on August 18, 2017. The plaintiffs' filed their
opposition brief on November 2, 2017 and the company filed its
reply in support of defendants' motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint on November 22, 2017.

On March 16, 2018, the plaintiffs' filed a Notice of Supplemental
Authority and the company filed its response to such notice on
March 23, 2018. On July 18, 2018, the company filed a Notice of
Supplemental Authority.

Shiloh Industries, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
lightweighting, noise, and vibration solutions to automotive,
commercial vehicle, and other industrial markets worldwide. Shiloh
Industries, Inc. was founded in 1950 and is headquartered in Valley
City, Ohio.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss NY Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 4, 2018, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the fifth
amended complaint in a shareholder class action has been fully
briefed and awaiting the court's decision.

In August 2016, two alleged Company shareholders each filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its
then-current Chief Executive Officer and current Chief Financial
Officer (Nos. 16-cv-6728 and 16-cv-6861, the "S.D.N.Y. cases"). On
September 16, 2016, the Court consolidated the S.D.N.Y. cases under
case number 16-cv-6728.

On April 3, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
purportedly on behalf of persons that acquired the Company's
securities on or between August 29, 2013, and February 27, 2017,
naming as defendants the Company, its then-current and former Chief
Executive Officers, and its current and former Chief Financial
Officers.

The second amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by,
among other things, misrepresenting the Company's business and
earnings by (i) failing to disclose that the Company was allegedly
having issues ensuring the safety of customers' jewelry while in
the Company's custody for repairs, which allegedly damaged customer
confidence; (ii) making misleading statements about the Company's
credit portfolio; and (iii) failing to disclose reports of sexual
harassment allegations that were raised by claimants in an ongoing
pay and promotion gender discrimination class arbitration (the
"Arbitration").

The second amended complaint alleged that the Company's share price
was artificially inflated as a result of the alleged
misrepresentations and sought unspecified compensatory damages and
costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

In March 2017, two other alleged Company shareholders each filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas against the Company and its
then-current and former Chief Executive Officers (Nos. 17-cv-875
and 17-cv-923, the "N.D. Tex. cases"). Those complaints were nearly
identical to each other and alleged that the defendants' statements
concerning the Arbitration violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The N.D. Tex. cases were
subsequently transferred to the Southern District of New York and
consolidated with the S.D.N.Y. cases (the "Consolidated Action").

On July 27, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel in the Consolidated Action. On August 3, 2017,
the Court ordered the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action to
file a third amended complaint by September 29, 2017. On September
29, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended complaint that
covered a putative class period of August 29, 2013, through May 24,
2017, and that asserted substantially similar claims to the second
amended complaint, except that it omitted the claim based on
defendants' alleged misstatements concerning the security of
customers' jewelry while in the Company's custody for repairs. The
defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on December
1, 2017.

On December 4, 2017, the Court entered an order permitting the lead
plaintiff to amend its complaint as of right by December 22, 2017,
and providing that the lead plaintiff would not be given any
further opportunity to amend its complaint to address the issues
raised in the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

On December 15, 2017, Nebil Aydin filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and its current Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (No. 17-cv-9853). The
Aydin complaint alleged that the defendants made misleading
statements regarding the Company's credit portfolio between August
24, 2017, and November 21, 2017, in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sought
unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including
attorneys' and experts' fees. On January 7, 2018, the Aydin case
was consolidated into the Consolidated Action.

On December 22, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action
filed its fourth amended complaint, which asserted substantially
the same claims as its third amended complaint for an expanded
class period of August 28, 2013, through December 1, 2017. On
January 26, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint. This motion was fully briefed as of March 9,
2018.

On March 20, 2018, the Court granted the lead plaintiff leave to
file a fifth amended complaint. On March 22, 2018, the lead
plaintiff in the Consolidated Action filed its fifth amended
complaint which asserts substantially the same claims as its fourth
amended complaint for an expanded class period of August 29, 2013,
through March 13, 2018. The prior motion to dismiss was denied as
moot.

The defendants motion to dismiss the fifth amended complaint is
fully briefed and awaiting decision.

Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond
jewelry, watches, and other products in the United States, Canada,
the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, and the Channel
Islands. Its Sterling Jewelers division operates stores in malls
and off-mall locations primarily under the Kay Jewelers, Kay
Jewelers Outlet, Jared The Galleria Of Jewelry, Jared Vault, and
various mall-based regional brands, as well as JamesAllen.com, an
online jewelry retailer Website. Signet Jewelers Limited was
founded in 1950 and is based in Hamilton, Bermuda.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Awaits Court's Decision on Claimants' Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 4, 2018, that SJI, a company subsidiary, still awaits the
Second Circuit's decision on claimants' notice of appeal.

In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants")
filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI,
a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging that US store-level employment
practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional
activities with respect to gender.

In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private
arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide
basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI
opposed the motion.

On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination
Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants'
disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim
under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date
of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7,
2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims. The
arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a
disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a
disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII,
and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay
Act.

On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To
Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective
Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' emergency motion on
February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015.
Claimants' motion was granted in part and denied in part in an
order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants filed a Motion for
Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for Disparate Treatment
in Compensation on February 11, 2015, which SJI opposed. April 27,
2015, the arbitrator issued an order denying the Claimants' Motion.


SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification
Award on March 3, 2015, which Claimants opposed. On November 16,
2015, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted SJI's Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification
Award in part and denied it in part. On December 3, 2015, SJI filed
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
SJI's Notice of Appeal of the District Court's November 16, 2015
Opinion and Order.

On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the American
Arbitration Association (AAA) Proceedings while SJI appeals the
decision of the US District Court for the Southern District of New
York to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
which Claimants opposed.

The arbitrator issued an order denying SJI's Motion to Stay on
February 22, 2016. SJI filed its Brief and Special Appendix with
the Second Circuit on March 16, 2016. The matter was fully briefed
and oral argument was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit on November 2, 2016. On April 6, 2015, Claimants
filed in the AAA Claimants' Motion for Clarification or in the
Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect of the Class
Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional Discrimination
Claims, which SJI opposed.

On June 15, 2015, the arbitrator granted the Claimants' motion. On
March 6, 2017, Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional
Certification of Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization
of Notice, which SJI opposed The arbitrator heard oral argument on
Claimants' Motion on December 18, 2015 and, on February 29, 2016,
issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification
Award and Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations
Period, conditionally certifying Claimants' Equal Pay Act claims as
a collective action, and tolling the statute of limitations on EPA
claims to October 16, 2003 to ninety days after notice issues to
the putative members of the collective action.

SJI filed in the AAA a Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The
District Court's Consideration Of Respondent's Motion To Vacate
Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional
Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of
EPA Limitations Period on March 10, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a
Renewed Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court's
Resolution Of Sterling's Motion To Vacate Arbitrator's Equal Pay
Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re
Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March
31, 2016, which Claimants opposed.

On April 5, 2016, the arbitrator denied SJI's Motion. On March 23,
2016 SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District
of New York a Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act
Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re
Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, which
Claimants opposed. SJI's Motion was denied on May 22, 2016.

On May 31, 2016, SJI filed a Notice Of Appeal of Judge Rakoff's
opinion and order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which
Claimant's opposed. On June 1, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals dismissed SJI's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Claimants filed a Motion For Amended Class Determination Award on
November 18, 2015, and on March 31, 2016 the arbitrator entered an
order amending the Title VII class certification award to preclude
class members from requesting exclusion from the injunctive and
declaratory relief class certified in the arbitration.

The arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management Plan on April 5,
2016, and ordered into effect the parties' Stipulation Regarding
Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action And Related Notice
Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a
Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016, which Claimants
opposed.

The matter was fully briefed and oral argument was heard on July
22, 2016. The motion was granted in part on January 27, 2017.
Notice to EPA collective action members was issued on May 3, 2016,
and the opt-in period for these notice recipients closed on August
1, 2016.

Approximately, 10,314 current and former employees submitted
consent forms to opt in to the collective action; however, some
have withdrawn their consents. The number of valid consents is
disputed and yet to be determined. SJI believes the number of valid
consents to be approximately 9,124.

On July 24, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit issued its unanimous Summary Order that held that the
absent class members "never consented" to the Arbitrator
determining the permissibility of class arbitration under the
agreements, and remanded the matter to the District Court to
determine whether the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by
certifying the Title VII class that contained absent class members
who had not opted in the litigation.

On August 7, 2017, SJI filed its Renewed Motion to Vacate the Class
Determination Award relative to absent class members with the
District Court. The matter was fully briefed and an oral argument
was heard on October 16, 2017.

On January 15, 2018, District Court granted SJI's Motion finding
that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by binding non-parties
(absent class members) to the Title VII claim. The District Court
further held that the RESOLVE Agreement does not permit class
action procedures, thereby, reducing the Claimants in the Title VII
matter from 70,000 to 254. Claimants dispute that the number of
claimants in the Title VII is 254.

On January 18, 2018, the Claimants filed a Notice of Appeal with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The
appeal was fully briefed and oral argument before the Second
Circuit occurred on May 7, 2018.

SJI currently awaits the Second Circuit's decision on this appeal.


On November 10, 2017, SJI filed in the arbitration motions for
summary judgment, and for decertification, of Claimants' Equal Pay
Act and Title VII promotions claims.

On January 30, 2018, oral argument on SJI's motions was heard. On
January 26, 2018, SJI filed a Motion to Vacate The Equal Pay Act
Collective Action Award And Tolling Order asserting that the
Arbitrator exceeded her authority by conditionally certifying the
Equal Pay Act claim and allowing the absent claimants to opt-in the
litigation.

On March 12, 2018, the Arbitrator denied SJI's Motion to Vacate The
Equal Pay Act Collective Action Award and Tolling Order. SJI still
has a pending motion seeking decertification of the EPA Collective
Action before the Arbitrator. On March 19, 2018, the Arbitrator
issued an Order partially granting SJI's Motion to Amend the
Arbitrator's November 2, 2017, Bifurcated Seventh Amended Case
Management Plan resulting in a continuance of the May 14, 2018
trial date. A new trial date has not been set.

Signet Jewelers said, "SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants
and has been defending the case vigorously. At this point, no
outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from
the litigation is able to be estimated."

Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond
jewelry, watches, and other products in the United States, Canada,
the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, and the Channel
Islands. Its Sterling Jewelers division operates stores in malls
and off-mall locations primarily under the Kay Jewelers, Kay
Jewelers Outlet, Jared The Galleria Of Jewelry, Jared Vault, and
various mall-based regional brands, as well as JamesAllen.com, an
online jewelry retailer Website. Signet Jewelers Limited was
founded in 1950 and is based in Hamilton, Bermuda.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Baker Appeals Decision in PPSAT Suit to 4th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Joshua Baker filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, et al. v.
Joshua Baker, Case No. 3:18-cv-02078-MGL, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina at Columbia.

Joshua Baker is sued in his official capacity as Director of the
South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the putative
class action lawsuit was filed on July 27, 2018.

The South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
administers the Medicaid program, a joint state-federal program
that provides health care for about 1 million low-income, elderly
and disabled residents each year.

The appellate case is captioned as Planned Parenthood South
Atlantic, et al. v. Joshua Baker, Case No. 18-2133, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTH ATLANTIC and JULIE
EDWARDS, on her behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Mary Malissa Burnette, Esq.
          Kathleen McColl McDaniel, Esq.
          BURNETTE SHUTT & MCDANIEL, PA
          912 Lady Street
          P. O. Box 1929
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803) 850-0912
          Facsimile: (803) 904-7910
          E-mail: mburnette@burnetteshutt.law
                  kmcdaniel@burnetteshutt.law

               - and -

          Alice Clapman, Esq.
          PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA
          1110 Vermont Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 973−4830
          E-mail: alice.clapman@ppfa.org

               - and -

          Jennifer R. Sandman, Esq.
          PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA
          123 William Street
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 541−7800
          E-mail: jennifer.sandman@ppfa.org

Defendant-Appellant JOSHUA BAKER, in his official capacity as
Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services,
is represented by:

          Kelly M. Jolley, Esq.
          Ariail Burnside Kirk, Esq.
          JOLLEY LAW GROUP, LLC
          P. O. Box 22230
          Hilton Head Island, SC 29925
          Telephone: (803) 748-1259
          E-mail: kmj@jolleylawgroup.com
                  abk@jolleylawgroup.com


SYNCHRONY BANK: Court Lifts Temporary Stay in Mott Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, Charlotte Division, issued an Order granting Parties'
Joint Motion to Lift the Temporary Stay in the case captioned
BARBARA MOTT, Plaintiffs, v. SYNCHRONY BANK, Defendants. Civil
Action No. 3:18-CV-00221-GCM. (W.D.N.C.).

This matter comes before this Court on the Joint Motion of the
parties to lift the temporary stay in this case. Additionally, this
matter is before this Court on the Court's own motion to hold a
status conference to address pre-trial management issues.

As to the Joint Motion to lift the temporary stay in this case,
this Court finds that the parties have shown good cause for the
termination of the stay. Therefore, the parties' Joint Motion is
granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 1, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yck32op5 from Leagle.com.

Barbara Mott, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adrienne D. McEntee --
amcentee@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC,
pro hac vice, Beth Ellen Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com --
Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Robert W. Murphy,
Law Office of Robert W. Murphy, pro hac vice & Wesley Steven White,
Law Offices of Wesley S. White.

Synchrony Bank, Defendant, represented by Julia B. Strickland --
jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, pro hac
vice, Julieta Stepanyan -- jstepanyan@stroock.com -- Stroock &
Stroock & Lavan LLP, pro hac vice, Michael D. DeFrank --
mdefrank@wyrick.com -- Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton LLP & Samuel
Allen Slater -- sslater@wyrick.com -- Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton
LLP.

Roy Campbell, Movant, represented by Tamra Carsten Givens, Lemberg
Law LLC.


SYNCHRONY BANK: Court Lifts Temporary Stay in Neal Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, Charlotte Division, issued an Order granting Parties'
Joint Motion to Lift the Temporary Stay in the case captioned
CURTIS NEAL, Plaintiffs, v. SYNCHRONY BANK, WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-00022-GCM. (W.D.N.C.).

This matter comes before this Court on the Joint Motion of the
parties to lift the temporary stay in this case. Additionally, this
matter is before this Court on the Court's own motion to hold a
status conference to address pre-trial management issues.

As to the Joint Motion to lift the temporary stay in this case,
this Court finds that the parties have shown good cause for the
termination of the stay. Therefore, the parties' Joint Motion is
granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 1, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybj2cp8e from Leagle.com.

Curtis Neal, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Aaron David Radbil --
aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com -- Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC, pro hac
vice & Wesley Steven White, Law Offices of Wesley S. White.

Synchrony Bank, Defendant, represented by Julia B. Strickland --
jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, pro hac
vice, Julieta Stepanyan -- jstepanyan@stroock.com -- Stroock &
Stroock & Lavan LLP, pro hac vice, Michael D. DeFrank --
mdefrank@wyrick.com -- Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton LLP & Samuel
Allen Slater -- sslater@wyrick.com -- Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton
LLP.


TD AMERITRADE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Klein Suit to 8th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, TD Ameritrade, Inc.
and Frederic J. Tomczyk filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Gerald Klein, et al. v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp.,
et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00396-JFB, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nebraska - Omaha.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 26, 2018, the
Hon. Joseph F. Bataillon entered a memorandum and order in the
lawsuit certifying a class consisting of:

     All clients of TD Ameritrade between September 15, 2011 and
     September 15, 2014 who placed orders that did not receive
     best execution, in connection with which TD Ameritrade
     received either liquidity rebates or payment for order flow,
     and who were thereby damaged (the "Class").

Judge Bataillon ruled that Plaintiff Roderick Ford's objection to
the Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge is sustained.  The Findings and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge are adopted in part and rejected in part as
set forth in the Order.

The appellate case is captioned as Gerald Klein, et al. v. TD
Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 18-8013, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]


TEVA PHARMA: Kassab Sues over Health Insurance Premium Increase
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM C. KASSAB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.;
CEPHALON, INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and AMERISOURCEBERGEN
CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No.: GD-18-012337 (Penn. Court of
Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Sept. 24, 2018), seeks redress for
the Defendants' alleged illegal acts that have caused the
Plaintiff's health insurance premiums to increase.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufacture, market,
sell, and distribute prescription opioids, which are powerful,
highly addictive narcotic painkillers. The Defendants have engaged
in a cunning and deceptive marketing scheme to encourage doctors
and patients to use opioids to treat chronic pain. In doing so, the
Defendants falsely minimized the risks of opioids, overstated their
benefits, and generated far more opioid prescriptions than there
should have been.

"The opioid epidemic is the direct result of the Defendants'
deliberately crafted, well-funded campaign of deception. For years,
they misrepresented the risks posed by the opioids they manufacture
and sell, misleading susceptible prescribers and vulnerable patient
populations. As families and communities suffered from the scourge
of opioid abuse, the Manufacturer Defendants earned billions in
profits as a direct result of the harms they imposed", the lawsuit
says.

The Manufacturer Defendants knew that their misrepresentations
about the risks and benefits of opioids were not supported by, and
sometimes were directly contrary to, the scientific evidence.
Certain opioid manufacturers, including Defendant Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., have entered agreements prohibiting them
from making misrepresentations identified in this Complaint in
other jurisdictions. Nonetheless, the Manufacturer Defendants
continue to misrepresent the risks and benefits of long-term opioid
use in Pennsylvania, and they have not corrected their past
misrepresentations.

Prescription opioids have devastated communities across the country
and in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Since 1999, there have
been more than 183,000 reported opioid-related deaths nationwide --
more than three times the number of U.S. soldiers who died in the
Vietnam War. In addition to the tragic loss of life and the
heartbreaking impact on children and loved ones, some estimates
state that the opioid crisis is costing governmental entities and
private companies as much as $500 billion per year.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Scott M. Hare, Esq.
          1806 Frick Building
          437 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 338 8632

               - and -

          Ashley Keller, Esq.
          Travis Lenkner, Esq.
          Seth Meyer, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 5100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 506 5641
          E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com
                  tdl@kellerlenkner.com
                  sam@kellerlenkner.com

               - and -

          William S. Consovoy, Esquire
          Thomas R. McCarthy, Esquire
          CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
          3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Telephone: 703 243 9423
          E-mail: will@consovoymccarthy.com
                  tom@consovoymccarthy.com

               - and -

          Michael H. Park, Esq.
          CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Telephone: (212) 247 8006
          E-mail: park@consovoymccarthy.com


TEXAS: 5th Cir. Appeal Filed in Fountain's Civil Rights Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Freddie Fountain filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Freddie Fountain v. John Rupert, et al., Case
No. 6:15-CV-100, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Tyler.

The lawsuit arose from alleged violations of prisoner civil
rights.

The appellate case is captioned as Freddie Fountain v. John Rupert,
et al., Case No. 18-40920, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant FREDDIE FOUNTAIN, and all others similarly
situated, is incarcerated at CID Coffield Prison, in Tennessee
Colony, Texas, and appears pro se.

The Defendants-Appellees are JOHN RUPERT, Warden, Coffield Unit;
GAYE KARRIKER, Law Library Supervisor, Coffield Unit; JANE/JOHN
DOES, Titles Unknown, Coffield Unit; BRYAN COLLIER, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; SENIOR WARDEN
JEFFERY CATOE; ASSISTANT WARDEN JEFFREY RICHARDSON; FOOD SERVICE
CAPTAIN MODESTO URBINA; GRIEVANCE INV. BENNIE COLEMAN; BRAD
LIVINGSTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE; MEDICAL DOCTOR PAUL SHRODE; NURSE PRACTITIONER JACINTA
ASSAVA; LVN DEADRA MARTIN; PAMELA PACE; CARRI STEVENSON; and SUSAN
MULLINAX.[BN]


TICKETMASTER L.L.C.: Lee Sues over Ticket Resale Partner Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEN LEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs TICKETMASTER L.L.C., a Virginia corporation, LIVE
NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:18-cv-05987 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2018), alleges that
Ticketmaster has actually facilitated the sale of tickets to the
secondary market by secretly implementing a "Resale Partner
Program" supported by TradeDesk, which Ticketmaster acknowledges it
"built expressly for professional resellers." Ticketmaster does
this in order to receive a second cut on tickets -- that is even
more than the original cut Ticketmaster receives.

For example, "if Ticketmaster collects $25.75 on a $209.50 ticket
on the initial sale, when the owner posts it for resale for $400 on
the site, the company stands to collect an additional $76 on the
same ticket." No wonder it isn't content to just sell each ticket
once. And all this despite a code of conduct for resellers that
specifically prohibits them "from purchasing tickets that exceed 23
the posted ticket limit for an event," and prohibits the creation
of fictitious user accounts for the purpose of circumventing ticket
limit detection in order to amass tickets intended for resale, the
lawsuit says.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has suffered injury in
fact, including loss of money, as a result of defendants' unfair
practices. Plaintiff and members of the class were directly and
proximately injured by Defendants' conduct and lost money as a
result of defendants' conduct, because they paid more for
Ticketmaster tickets on the secondary market and/or paid a cut that
went to Ticketmaster after it secretly permitted, facilitated,
and/or actively encouraged the sale of its tickets by scalpers on
the secondary market using its TradeDesk platform.

Live Nation is an American events promoter and venue operator based
in Beverly Hills, California. Formed in 1996 by Robert F. X.
Sillerman as SFX Entertainment, the company's business was built
around consolidating concert promoters into a national
company.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Ave, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  elaine@hbsslaw.com


TOPGOLF INTERNATIONAL: Banks Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Emily Banks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Topgolf International, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-61958 (S.D.
Fla., August 21, 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 a global sports entertainment company, whose
principal office is located at 8750 N Central Expressway Suite
1200, Dallas Texas 75231. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


TORRANCE MEMORIAL: Cal. App. Affirms Certification Denial in Sumo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Seven, issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment
denying Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the case
captioned EVELYN SUMO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TORRANCE
MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant and Respondent. No. B279369.
(Cal. App.).

Sumo appeals the court's denial of class certification under the
death knell doctrine.

Plaintiff Evelyn Sumo filed a wages and hours class action alleging
that Torrance Memorial Medical Center had violated Labor Code
provisions governing overtime pay and meal periods. The complaint
also alleged a representative claim under the Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA) seeking civil penalties for these statutory
violations.

The trial court denied class certification, concluding that Sumo
had failed to establish common issues would predominate over
individual issues.

Sumo appeals the denial of her motion for class certification
pursuant to the death knell doctrine, a judicially created
exception to the one final judgment rule that treats an order that
dismisses class claims while allowing individual claims to survive
as an appealable order.

Torrance, however, argues that the death knell doctrine is
inapplicable because Sumo's PAGA claim remains pending in the trial
court, rendering the order nonappealable.

In Munoz, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th 291, Division One of this District
addressed this precise issue, holding that the presence of PAGA
claims following a trial court's denial of class certification
precludes application of the death knell doctrine. In its analysis,
the court explained that the rationale of the death knell doctrine
is that absent immediate review, the plaintiff would have no
financial incentive to pursue his or her case to final judgment
just to preserve the ability to appeal the denial of the
plaintiff's class certification motion.  

Accordingly, denial of such a class certification motion is in
effect a final judgment. The court further explained that this
rationale does not apply when the plaintiff retains a
representative PAGA claim: Given the potential for recovery of
significant civil penalties if the PAGA claims are successful, as
well as attorney fees and costs, plaintiffs have ample financial
incentive to pursue the remaining representative claims under the
PAGA and, thereafter, pursue their appeal from the trial court's
order denying class certification.

While Sumo's appeal was pending, this court decided Cortez, supra,
15 Cal.App.5th 1, which joined Munoz and several subsequent
decisions in holding that the death knell exception to the one
final judgment rule does not apply when a PAGA claim remains
pending in the trial court following termination of the class
claims. Based on our holding in Cortez, we conclude that the
certification order is not appealable in this case because Sumo
still has a PAGA claim remaining in the trial court.

Sumo contends extraordinary circumstances exist here because the
trial court's order denying class certification includes erroneous
legal findings that could impact the merits of her wage and hour
claims. Sumo argues it would be more efficient to review these
legal questions now, rather than await entry of a final judgment.
The court's certification order, however, did not evaluate or
determine the merits of Sumo's claims. Rather, the order concluded
that class treatment would be inappropriate because: (1) Sumo's
claims would require individualized inquiry; and (2) Sumo claims
were not typical of the class.  

The Court finds no unusual or extraordinary circumstance that
justifies departure from the one final judgment rule.

The appeal is dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 1, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8wf4cmu from Leagle.com.

Law Office of Neal J. Fialkow, Neal J. Fialkow, and James S. Cahill
-- jscahilllaw@aol.com -- Law Office of J.D. Henderson and J.D.
Henderson -- jdlaw@charter.net -- Law Offices of Sahag Majarian and
Sahag Majarian for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, Richard J. Simmons, Derek R.
Havel, Jonathan P. Barker and Cassidy M. English, for Defendant and
Respondent.


TORRENT PHARMA: Valsartan Contaminated with Carcinogen, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIC STIMMA, MARGOTH STRAND, and JYNONA GAIL LEE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
TORRENT PHARMA, INC., HETERO USA INC., CAMBER PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
THE KROGER CO., QUALITY FOOD CENTERS, INC., CVS HEALTH CO. f/k/a
CVS CAREMARK, and WAL-MART STORES, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-14318-BRM-LHG (D.N.J., Sept. 26, 2018), seeks to recover
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages resulting from the
Defendants' manufacturing and distribution of valsartan-containing
generic prescription medications contaminated with
N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a carcinogenic and liver-damaging
impurity.

According to the complaint, originally marketed under the brand
name Diovan, valsartan is a prescription medication mainly used for
the treatment of high blood pressure and congestive heart failure.
However, due to manufacturing defects originating from overseas
laboratories in China and India, certain generic formulations have
become contaminated with NDMA. In turn, the Kroger, QFC, CVS, and
Walmart sold this contaminated generic medication to Plaintiffs and
other similarly-situated consumers.

NDMA is a semivolatile organic chemical. According to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, NDMA "is a member of
N-ni-trosamines, a family of potent carcinogens." While NDMA is not
currently produced in the United States other than for research
purposes, it was formerly used "in production of liquid rocket
fuel," among other uses. NDMA is listed as a "priority toxic
pollutant" in federal regulations. Exposure to NDMA, such as
through the contaminated valsartan medications, can cause liver
damage and cancer in humans. NDMA is classified as a probable human
carcinogen, and animal studies have shown that "exposure to NDMA
has caused tumors primarily of the liver, respiratory tract, kidney
and blood vessels", the lawsuit says.

Torrent Pharma manufactures, fabricates, and processes drugs in
pharmaceutical preparations for human and veterinary use. The
Company markets its products in the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 837 7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989 9163
          E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Garrett Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carla Garrett, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00542, (E.D. Ky., September 21, 2018)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Toyota is a vehicle manufacturing plant with facilities in
Georgetown, Kentucky, where Garrett worked as a Production Team
Member, performing moderate lifting, use of machinery and working
with small vehicle components. She claims to have worked through
her 45-minute lunch break and performed off-the-clock duties
without compensation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      Nicholas R. Conlon, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd St., Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Tel: (877) 561-0000
      Fax: (855) 582-5297
      Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
             nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com

             - and -

      Trent Taylor, Esq.
      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Tel: (800) 274-5297
      Fax: (614) 744-2300
      Email: ttaylor@barkanmeizlish.com
             bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
             jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com


TWITTER INC: Doshier Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned William F. Doshier and dotStrategy, Co., on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Twitter, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 23CV-18-1102 (Arkansas Circuit Court, Faulkner
County, July 25, 2018), was removed to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on September 21, 2018,
and assigned Case No. 18-cv-00700.

Doshier seeks redress for violations of the Deceptive Trade
Practices Act and Unfair Practices Act under Arkansas Common Law
and for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment
and for fixing prices of advertising placed on the Twitter
platform. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David A. Hodges, Esq.
     DAVID HODGES LAW OFFICE
     212 Center Street, Suite 500
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Tel: (501) 374-2400
     Fax: (501) 374-8926
     Tel: david@hodgeslaw.com

Twitter is represented by:

     Jennifer H. Doan, Esq.
     J. Randy Roeser, Esq.
     HALTOM & DOAN
     6500 Summerhill Road, Suite 100
     Texarkana, TX 75503
     Telephone: (903) 255-1000
     Facsimile: (903) 255-0800
     Email: jdoan@haltomdoan.com
            rroeser@haltomdoan.com


TYLER TRADITIONS: Goss Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Jason Goss, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Tyler Traditions, Inc. dba Traditions, and Kandice Owens, Case
No. 6:18-cv-00423 (E.D. Tex., August 20, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Tyler Texas and worked as a server
for the Defendants.

The Defendants operate a restaurant and catering business in Tyler,
Texas. The restaurant is called Traditions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
      Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
      HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
      801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Tel: (817) 479-9229
      Fax: (817) 887-1878
      E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
              pamela@herrmannlaw.com


UNITED FEDERAL: Summary Judgment Bid in Gunter Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TONYA GUNTER, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION, DOES 1-5 inclusive and ROE CORPORATIONS 6-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-00483-MMD-WGC (D. Nev.), Judge Miranda
M. Du of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (i)
granted Gunter's motion for leave to file a surreply, (ii) denied
United's motion for partial summary judgment, and (iii) denied
Gunter's Report Regarding Proposed Class Notice and Notice Plan;
Exhibits; Proposed Order without prejudice.

The case is a class action regarding debit card overdraft fees.
Gunter has a checking account with United, a credit union.  Gunter
alleges that United charged her overdraft fees when she had
sufficient funds in her checking account to cover the transactions.
Although her "actual balance" was high enough to cover the
transactions, her "available balance" was not.

Gunter advances two claims.  The first is that United's practice
violates its contractual agreements with its clients.  The second
is that United failed to adequately disclose its practice pursuant
to Regulation E, a federal regulation implementing the Electronic
Fund Transfer Act.  United's disclosure was contained in its opt-in
agreement, and Gunter alleges that the opt-in agreement fails to
satisfy Regulation E's requirements.  The Court certified the
Positive Balance Class and the Regulation E Class to prosecute the
claims.

Gunter argues that the Court should consider her surreply for two
reasons: (1) United introduced new material evidence in its reply
-- a supplemental declaration of a corporate executive—to which
Gunter did not have an opportunity to respond; and (2) United
violated ABA  Model Rule 3.3 by attaching the supplemental
declaration.

Judge Du will consider the surreply because the supplemental
declaration United attaches to its reply raises significant
questions about the date of Gunter's most recent overdraft fee.
The declaration attached to United's Motion states that Gunter's
most recent overdraft fee was assessed on Sept. 6, 2012.  However,
the declaration attached to United's reply states that Gunter's
most recent overdraft fee was assessed on Aug. 25, 2012.
Accordingly, she will grant Gunter's Surreply Motion.

United moves for partial summary judgment on Gunter's Regulation E
claim on the ground that it is time-barred.  In the alternative, it
seeks an order narrowing the Regulation E class.  The Judge agrees
with Gunter that the case is different because each fee required an
independent determination that an overdraft has occurred.  Given
that the most recent of these fee assessments ostensibly occurred
on July 23, 2015 (construing the facts in the light most favorable
to Gunter), the statute of limitations does not bar Gunter's
claim.

Having determined that the statute of limitations does not bar
Gunter's claim, the Judge turns to United's request for the Court
to narrow the class.  It requests that the class be narrowed to
only members who opted in to United's Courtesy Pay program and were
charged an overdraft fee after Sept. 21, 2014.  The Judge finds
that it is improper to narrow the class as United requests.
Individuals who opted in to United's overdraft service prior to
Sept. 21, 2014, may have incurred overdraft fees in violation of
the EFTA within the year preceding the filing of the Complaint in
the action.  Accordingly, she will deny United's request.

Finally, Gunter proposes providing notice to all existing United
customers and former customers who had a checking account with
United since Aug. 15, 2010.  The Judge agrees that the notice plan
as proposed is overinclusive and will deny Gunter's Class Notice
Motion without prejudice on this basis.

The Judge notes that the parties made several arguments and cited
to several cases not discussed.  She has reviewed these arguments
and cases and determines that they do not warrant discussion as
they do not affect the outcome of the motions before the Court.

She therefore (i) denied United's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment; (ii) denied as moot Gunter's motion to strike; and (iii)
denied without prejudice Gunter's motion regarding class notice.
The parties are instructed to work together to resolve
disagreements about the class notice plan and file an amended
motion to approve class notice within 30 days of the date of the
Order.  Judge Du (i) granted Gunter's motion for leave to file
surreply, and (ii) granted Gunter's motion to seal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/1Xgqua from Leagle.com.

Tonya Gunter, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jae K. Kim --
jkk@mccunewright.com -- McCuneWright LLP, pro hac vice, James
Strenio -- james@kicklawfirm.com -- The Kick Law Firm, APC, Richard
D. McCune -- rdm@mccunewright.com -- McCuneWright LLP, pro hac
vice, Taras Kick -- taras@kicklawfirm.com -- pro hac vice, Thomas
A. Segal, The Kick Law Firm, APC, pro hac vice & Gregory G. Gordon,
Gregory G. Gordon, Ltd..

United Federal Credit Union, Defendant, represented by James A.
Kohl -- jkohl@howardandhoward.com -- Howard & Howard Attorneys,
PLLC & Robert W. Hernquist -- rhernquist@howardandhoward.com --
Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC.


UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Affirms Prelim Injunction in Saravia Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the case captioned
ILSA SARAVIA, as next friend for A.H., a minor, and on her own
behalf; LORENZA GOMEZ, as next friend for A.H., a minor, and on her
own behalf; WILFREDO VELASQUEZ, as next friend for F.E., a minor,
and on his own behalf, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JEFFERSON B.
SESSIONS, III, Attorney General; JAMES McHENRY, Acting Director of
the United States Executive Office for Immigration Review; THOMAS
E. PRICE, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services
of the United States; STEVEN WAGNER, Acting Assistant Secretary of
the Administration for Children and Families; SCOTT LLOYD, Director
of the Office of Refugee Resettlement of the United States; ELICIA
SMITH, Federal Field Specialist of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement of the United States; ELAINE C. DUKE, Acting Secretary
of the Department of Homeland Security of the United States; THOMAS
HOMAN, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
James McCament, Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, Defendants-Appellants. No. 18-15114. (9th Cir.).

This case involves noncitizen minors who entered the United States
unaccompanied by a parent or guardian and were then placed in the
custody of the United States Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).
ORR subsequently released the plaintiffs to a parent or sponsor
after concluding that each minor was not dangerous to himself or
the community nor a flight risk. The government arrested plaintiffs
because of alleged gang membership and transferred them to secure
juvenile detention facilities.

The district court granted a preliminary injunction, requiring a
prompt hearing before a neutral decisionmaker at which the minors
could contest the gang allegations.

The Legal Framework

The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), requires the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) to transfer an unaccompanied noncitizen
minor to the custody of the Secretary of Health and Human Services
(HHS) within 72 hours of determining that the minor is
unaccompanied, absent exceptional circumstances.

Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

The Court do not determine the ultimate merits, but rather
determine only whether the district court correctly distilled the
applicable rules of law and exercised permissible discretion in
applying those rules to the facts at hand.

While agreeing that the minors are entitled to a hearing to contest
the gang allegations, the government contends that the district
court abused its discretion in entering the preliminary injunction
because (1) the relief ordered conflicts with the TVPRA and the
Flores settlement and (2) existing procedures provide the minors an
adequate opportunity to challenge the revocation of their
placements.  

The TVPRA mandates that ORR place unaccompanied children in the
least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the
child.

The preliminary injunction therefore orders the minor's release to
the previous custodian if a neutral adjudicator determines, after a
hearing, that the minor poses no danger to the community or himself
and is not a flight risk.  

Although the preliminary injunction requires a hearing within seven
days of a minor's arrest, it provides the government significant
flexibility in deciding whether and where to detain the minor in
the interim. Contrary to the government's assertions on appeal,
nothing in the order prohibits the government from transferring the
minors to ORR custody within 72 hours, as required by the TVPRA.
Moreover, the government concedes that it can avoid the 72 hour
rule when appropriate under the exceptional circumstances'
exception to the TVPRA.

The government argues in passing that the preliminary injunction's
requirement to hold the hearing in the jurisdiction where the minor
has been arrested or where the minor lives, is burdensome, because
the government only maintains juvenile immigration detention
facilities in limited locations. But, at the preliminary injunction
stage, the district court was well within its discretion to
conclude that the cost of transporting minors to the hearing
location was not likely to outweigh the benefits provided by its
order, given that witnesses and evidence concerning the gang
allegations that led to the minor's current predicament are most
likely to be found where they lived.  

Adequacy of Existing Procedures

The government next contends that the district court failed to
consider two existing procedural protections allegedly available to
the minors: (1) an internal review process mandated by the TVPRA
and (2) the bond hearings required by the Flores settlement.  

The district court did not abuse its discretion in so concluding.
The TVPRA requires ORR to review a minor's placement in a secure
facility on a monthly basis. But, the process is entirely
unilateral; the juvenile is not provided with notice of the reason
for incarceration or an opportunity to answer any charges.  

Flores hearings provide minors in ORR custody the right to a bond
hearing before an immigration judge to challenge the agency's
determination that the minor is a danger to himself or the
community. But, these hearings were designed to consider ORR's
initial determination under the TVPRA that a minor should be
detained in a secure facility. Thus, a favorable finding in a
Flores hearing does not entitle minors to release because the
government must still identify a safe and secure placement into
which the child can be released. This requires a verification of
the custodian's identity and relationship to the child, if any, as
well as an independent finding that the individual has not engaged
in any activity that would indicate a potential risk to the child.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
Flores hearings were not sufficient to protect the TVPRA rights of
the members of the plaintiff class, each of whom had initially been
found to qualify for placement with a parent or sponsor previously
approved by ORR.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's October 1, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybplgrda from Leagle.com.

Scott G. Stewart (argued), Attorney; Sarah B. Fabian and Nicole N.
Murley, Senior Litigation Counsel; William C. Silvis, Assistant
Director; William C. Peachey, Director, District Court Section;
Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellants.

Julia Harumi Mass (argued) and William S. Freeman, ACLU Foundation
of Northern California, San Francisco, California; Martin S.
Schenker, Nathaniel R. Cooper, Kathlyn A. Querubin, and Trevor M.
Kempner, Cooley LLP, San Francisco, California; Judy Rabinovitz,
ACLU Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project, New York, New York;
Holly S. Cooper, Law Offices of Holly S. Cooper, Davis, California;
Stephen B. Kang, ACLU Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project, San
Francisco, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees.


UNITED STATES: Cancino-Castellar Fifth Amendment Claim Reinstated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE ORLANDO CANCINO-CASTELLAR, et al.,
Plaintiff-Petitioners, v. KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendant-Respondents,
Case No. 17-cv-0491-BAS-BGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge Cynthia Bashant of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the Court's Feb. 8, 2018 order dismissing the
Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action complaint and habeas
petition, alleging that the Defendants have a policy and practice
of detaining individuals for extended periods without promptly
presenting them for an initial hearing before an immigration judge
or promptly seeking judicial review of probable cause for
detention.  Each Plaintiff was taken into custody by various
immigration enforcement agencies and detained pursuant to the
Defendants' alleged policy.  The Plaintiffs alleged that many
individuals who have claims to relief from removal routinely
languish in detention for two months or longer before they see a
judge because of the Defendants' alleged policy.

The Complaint challenged the Defendants' conduct as violating (1)
detained individuals' Fifth Amendment procedural and substantive
due process rights by causing detention without prompt presentment,
(2) their Fourth Amendment rights to a prompt judicial
determination of whether probable cause justifies their detention,
and (3) the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA").  The Plaintiffs
requested declaratory relief, an injunction, and the issuance of a
writ of habeas commanding the release of Plaintiff-Petitioners and
class members from detention to the extent necessary for
Defendants-Respondents to comply with the Plaintiffs' view of the
law.  The Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6).

On Feb. 8, 2018, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.  The Court determined that it
lacks jurisdiction over Gonzalez's Fourth Amendment probable cause
claim pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(g) because he was initially
placed into mandatory detention as a result of expedited removal
proceedings.  It concluded that the statutory provisions require
the Plaintiffs to raise these claims in in a petition for review
("PFR").  Lastly, the Court determined that the Plaintiffs' request
for habeas relief did not prevent the channeling of their claims.
The Court dismissed the Complaint, but granted the Plaintiffs leave
to amend to assert claims over which the Court may properly
exercise jurisdiction.

On Feb. 27, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Jennings v. Rodriguez.
Because the decision provides new analysis on Section 1252(b)(9),
the Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the Order's Section
1252(b)(9) conclusions.  Their deadline to file an amended
complaint is vacated pending resolution of the motion.

Judge Bashant considers whether Section 1252(b)(9) bars
jurisdiction over the particular legal questions raised by the
Plaintiffs' Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims.  She rejects the
Plaintiffs' contention that the Court may exercise jurisdiction
over their Fourth Amendment claim on the ground that it is
effectively unreviewable because it also involves detention.  She
finds that a court must decide whether the legal or factual
question a plaintiff raises arises from an action taken to remove
or the removal process.  At its core, the Plaintiffs' Fourth
Amendment probable cause claim does so.  The Plaintiffs' Fourth
Amendment claim does not seek a procedural safeguard to justify
continued detention pending removal proceedings.  Accordingly, th
Judge affirms that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment probable cause claim pursuant to
Section 1252(b)(9).

The Judge concludes that Section 1252(b)(9) does not bar
jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment claim
.  At the heart of the Plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment claim is the
notion that unreasonable delays in the presentment of detained
aliens seeing an immigration judge unconstitutionally extends their
detention.  Treating the Plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment claim
regarding alleged prolonged detention resulting from delays in
presentment as arising from an action taken to remove an alien
would make their claim effectively unreviewable.  Allegedly
excessive detention caused by delays in presentment cannot be
remedied in a PFR because by the time a final order was eventually
entered, the allegedly excessive detention would have already taken
place.  Accordingly, the Judge concludes that reconsideration of
its dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment claim is
warranted, grants the Plaintiffs' motion as to that claim, and
reinstates the claim.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Bashant granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.  She affirmed
that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' Fourth
Amendment claim.  However, Section 1252(b)(9) does not bar
jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment claim and she
reinstated the Complaint as to that claim and the Plaintiffs' APA
claim, to the extent it is based on the same alleged failure to
promptly present.

Consistent with the Court's prior Order, the Plaintiffs are
nevertheless granted leave to amend to assert a challenge to the
conditions of confinement at detention facilities in the District.
They may file an amended complaint no later than Oct. 1, 2018.  If
they do not file one, the  Defendants may answer or move to dismiss
the Fifth Amendment claim for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) no later than Oct. 15, 2018.

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

Jose Orlando Cancino Castellar, Ana Maria Hernandez Aguas & Michael
Gonzalez, Plaintiffs, represented by Bardis Vakili --
bvakili@aclusandiego.org -- ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial
Counties, Aleksandr Gelberg -- gelberg@fr.com -- Fish & Richardson,
P.C., Craig E. Countryman -- countryman@fr.com -- Fish and
Richardson, Joanna M. Fuller -- jfuller@fr.com -- Fish &
Richardson, P.C., John David Loy, ACLU Foundation of San Diego and
Imperial Counties, Leonard B. Simon -- lens@rgrdlaw.com -- The Law
Offices of Leonard B. Simon & Megan Alexandra Chacon --
chacon@fr.com -- Fish & Richardson.

Thomas Homan, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection, Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General
of the United States, Juan P. Osuna, Director, Executive Office for
Immigration Review & Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, Defendants, represented by Elianis N. Perez,
United States Department of Justice, Sarah L. Vuong, Office of
Immigration Litigation Department of Justice-Civil Division,
Carlton Frederick Sheffield, III, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil
Division, Colin A. Kisor, United States Department of Justice,
Kathleen Connolly, Ben Franklin Station & Samuel William Bettwy, U
S Attorney's Office Southern District of California.

Gregory J. Archambeault, Director, San Diego Field Office, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Defendant, represented by
Elianis N. Perez, United States Department of Justice, Sarah L.
Vuong, Office of Immigration Litigation Department of Justice-Civil
Division, Carlton Frederick Sheffield, III, U.S. Department of
Justice, Civil Division, Kathleen Connolly, Ben Franklin Station &
Samuel William Bettwy, U S Attorney's Office Southern District of
California.


VERINT SYSTEMS: Mediation Ongoing in Consolidated Suit in Tel Aviv
------------------------------------------------------------------
Verint Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2018, that mediation is still ongoing in the consolidated
class action suit pending in the Tel Aviv District Court.

On March 26, 2009, legal actions were commenced by Ms. Orit
Deutsch, a former employee of the company's subsidiary, Verint
Systems Limited ("VSL"), against VSL in the Tel Aviv Regional Labor
Court (Case Number 4186/09) (the "Deutsch Labor Action") and
against CTI in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number 1335/09)
(the "Deutsch District Action").

In the Deutsch Labor Action, Ms. Deutsch filed a motion to approve
a class action lawsuit on the grounds that she purported to
represent a class of the company's employees and former employees
who were granted Verint and CTI stock options and were allegedly
damaged as a result of the suspension of option exercises during
the period from March 2006 through March 2010, during which the
company did not make periodic filings with the SEC as a result of
certain internal and external investigations and reviews of
accounting matters discussed in our prior public filings.

In the Deutsch District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Deutsch was seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise Verint and CTI stock options as a result of alleged
negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class
certification motions did not specify an amount of damages. On
February 8, 2010, the Deutsch Labor Action was dismissed for lack
of material jurisdiction and was transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court and consolidated with the Deutsch District Action.

On March 16, 2009 and March 26, 2009, respectively, legal actions
were commenced by Ms. Roni Katriel, a former employee of CTI's
former subsidiary, Comverse Limited, against Comverse Limited in
the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 3444/09) (the
"Katriel Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District
Court (Case Number 1334/09) (the "Katriel District Action").

In the Katriel Labor Action, Ms. Katriel was seeking to certify a
class of plaintiffs who were granted CTI stock options and were
allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option exercises
during an extended filing delay period affecting CTI's periodic
reporting discussed in CTI's historical SEC filings.

In the Katriel District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Katriel was seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by CTI
in its financial reporting. The class certification motions did not
specify an amount of damages. On March 2, 2010, the Katriel Labor
Action was transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court, based on an
agreed motion filed by the parties requesting such transfer.

On April 4, 2012, Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel filed an uncontested
motion to consolidate and amend their claims and on June 7, 2012,
the District Court allowed Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel to file the
consolidated class certification motion and an amended consolidated
complaint against VSL, CTI, and Comverse Limited. Following CTI's
announcement of its intention to effect the distribution of all of
the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of its former
subsidiary, Comverse, Inc. (the "Comverse Share Distribution"), on
July 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the
District Court order CTI to set aside up to $150.0 million in
assets to secure any future judgment.

The District Court ruled at such time that it would not decide this
motion until the Deutsch and Katriel class certification motion was
heard. Plaintiffs initially filed a motion to appeal this ruling in
August 2012, but subsequently withdrew it in July 2014.

Prior to the consummation of the Comverse Share Distribution, CTI
either sold or transferred substantially all of its business
operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests in
the company and its then-subsidiary, Comverse, Inc.) to Comverse,
Inc. or unaffiliated third parties. On October 31, 2012, CTI
completed the Comverse Share Distribution, in which it distributed
all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Comverse, Inc. to
CTI's shareholders.

As a result of the Comverse Share Distribution, Comverse, Inc.
became an independent company and ceased to be a wholly owned
subsidiary of CTI, and CTI ceased to have any material assets other
than its equity interest in the company. As of February 28, 2017,
Mavenir Inc. became successor-in-interest to Comverse, Inc.

On February 4, 2013, the company merged with CTI. As a result of
the merger, the company has assumed certain rights and liabilities
of CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the Deutsch
District Action and the Katriel District Action.

However, under the terms of the Distribution Agreement between CTI
and Comverse, Inc. relating to the Comverse share distribution, the
company, as successor to CTI, are entitled to indemnification from
Comverse, Inc. (now Mavenir) for any losses we suffer in the
company's capacity as successor-in-interest to CTI in connection
with the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District Action.

Following an unsuccessful mediation process, the proceeding before
the District Court resumed. On August 28, 2016, the District Court
(i) denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a class
action with respect to all claims relating to Verint stock options
and (ii) approved the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a
class action with respect to claims of current or former employees
of Comverse Limited (now Mavenir) or VSL who held unexercised CTI
stock options at the time CTI suspended option exercises. The court
also ruled that the merits of the case and any calculation of
damages would be evaluated under New York law.

On December 15, 2016, CTI filed with the Supreme Court a motion for
leave to appeal the District Court's August 28, 2016 ruling. The
plaintiffs did not file an appeal of the District Court's August
28, 2016 ruling. On February 5, 2017, the District Court approved
the plaintiffs' motion to appoint a new representative plaintiff,
Mr. David Vaaknin, for the current or former employees of VSL who
held unexercised CTI stock options at the time CTI suspended option
exercises in replacement of Ms. Deutsch.

On August 8, 2017, the Supreme Court partially allowed CTI's appeal
and ordered the case to be returned to the District Court to
determine whether a cause of action exists in this case under New
York law, based on CTI's previously submitted expert opinion and
the opinion of any expert the plaintiffs elect to introduce.

On November 28, 2017, the plaintiffs submitted an expert opinion
regarding New York law. On January 3, 2018, CTI filed a motion to
dismiss the motion to certify the class action on the basis that
the New York law opinion submitted by the plaintiffs did not
directly address the causes of action in question, or
alternatively, to dismiss the portions of the opinion that did not
specifically relate to CTI's expert opinion. On January 22, 2018,
the court ruled that the plaintiffs should submit a motion to amend
their class certification motion and that CTI's motion to dismiss
would remain pending. Based on input from the court, the parties
have agreed to enter into a further round of mediation in an effort
to settle the matter, which remains ongoing.

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

Verint Systems Inc. provides actionable intelligence solutions and
value-added services worldwide. The company was founded in 1994 and
is headquartered in Melville, New York.


WALLACE RUSH: Appeals Order in Bankruptcy Suit to E.D. Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
Debtor Wallace, Rush, Schmidt, Inc., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in its bankruptcy case titled In re: Wallace, Rush, Schmidt,
Inc., Case No. 17-10698, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.

The nature of suit is stated as bankruptcy appeal.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Wallace, Rush, Schmidt,
Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-09080-MVL-DEK, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans).[BN]

Debtor-Appellant Wallace, Rush, Schmidt, Inc., doing business as:
Wallace Resource Systems of Leachville, LLC, doing business as:
Wallace Staffing and Labor, LLC, is represented by:

          Richard Theodore Haik, Jr., Esq.
          MORROW, MORROW, RYAN & BASSETT
          324 W. Landry St.
          P.O. Drawer 1787
          Opelousas, LA 70571
          Telephone: (337) 948-4483
          E-mail: richardh@mmrblaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip Wallace, Esq.
          PHILLIP K. WALLACE, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          4040 Florida Street, Suite 203
          Mandeville, LA 70448
          Telephone: (985) 624-2824
          E-mail: philkwall@aol.com

Interested Party De'Marcus Thomas, Individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons, is represented by:

          David Paul Vicknair, Esq.
          SCOTT, VICKNAIR, HAIR & CHECKI, LLC
          909 Poydras St., Suite 1100
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 684-5200
          Facsimile: (504) 613-6351
          E-mail: david@svhclaw.com

U.S. Trustee is represented by:

          Mary Sprague Langston, Esq.
          MARY SPRAQUE LANGSTON, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          400 Poydras St., Suite 2110
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 589-4018
          E-mail: mary.langston@usdoj.gov


YAHOO! INC: $80MM Settlement in Securities Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE YAHOO! INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case Nos.
17-CV-00373-LHK, 17-CV-01525-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, granted the Motion for Final Approval of the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement.

On Sept. 6, 2018, a hearing was held to determine whether the terms
and conditions of the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated
March 2, 2018 are fair, reasonable, and adequate for the settlement
of all claims asserted by the Settlement Class against the
Defendants.  

The Judge approved the Settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate,
and in the best interests of the Settlement Class.  The $80 million
settlement fund constitutes a good result for the class.  Pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) and for the purposes of the
Settlement only, she certified the Settlement Class, and appointed
Plaintiffs Ben Maher, Sutton View Partners LP, and Nafiz Talukder
as the Class Representative, and Lead Counsel Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP and Pomerantz LLP as the Class Counsel.

Except with respect to individual claims by persons who have
requested exclusion from the Settlement Class, all of the claims
asserted in the Second Amended Complaint or the Action against the
Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.  The Court's orders
entered during the Action relating to the confidentiality of
information will survive the Settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Mfoww8 from Leagle.com.

Mark Madrack, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & J. Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.

Ben Maher, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz
LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Joshua L. Crowell --
jcrowell@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Adam G.
Kurtz -- agkurtz@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom
and Gross LLP, pro hac vice, Emma Gilmore -- egilmore@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Grunfeld --
mgrunfeld@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Robert
Vincent Prongay -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP.

Nafiz Talukder, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti ,
Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Joshua L.
Crowell, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Emma Gilmore, Pomerantz LLP &
J. Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.

Sutton View Partners LP, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A.
Lieberman  Pomerantz LLP, Joshua L. Crowell, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Emma Gilmore, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer
Michelle Leinbach, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP & Michael
Grunfeld, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.

Yahoo! Inc., Defendant, represented by Jordan Eth -- jeth@mofo.com
-- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Craig David Martin -- cmartin@mofo.com
-- Morrison & Foerster LLP, David Jeremy Wiener -- dwiener@mofo.com
-- Morrison and Foerster LLP & Judson Earle Lobdell --
jlobdell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLp.

Marissa A. Mayer, Defendant, represented by Jordan Eth, Morrison &
Foerster LLP, David Jeremy Wiener, Morrison and Foerster LLP &
Judson Earle Lobdell, Morrison & Foerster LLp.

Kenneth A. Goldman, Defendant, represented by Judson Earle Lobdell,
Morrison & Foerster LLp.

Ronald S Bell, Defendant, represented by Edward Andrew Bayley --
ebayley@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP & Jo W. Golub --
jgolub@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP.

Alex Stamos, Defendant, represented by Martha A. Boersch --
mboersch@boerschshapiro.com -- Boersch Shapiro LLP, Kathryn
Elizabeth Ross , Kathryn Ross, Attorney at Law & Lara Kollios --
lkollios@boerschshapiro.com -- Boersch Shapiro LLP.



                            *********

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 ***