CAR_Public/181025.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, October 25, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 214

                            Headlines

377 GREENWICH: Faces Nixon Suit in NY Asserting ADA Breach
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Dec. 3 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set
ALL MARKET: Judge Dismisses Coconut Water Class Action
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Taylor Denied
ALNYLAM PHARMA: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Fraud Suit

ALPHA RECOVERY: Finell Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
AMAZON.COM INC: Dismissal of Arizona Claims in Labor Suit Affirmed
AMCOR RIGID PLASTICS: Faces Cornejo Class Action in Illinois
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Action Over Late Check-Ins Tossed
APPLE INC: Court Partly Grants Bid to Certify Class in Grace Suit

APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Nov. 30 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
ASSET RECOVERY: Amelchenko Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
AT&T: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Coaxial Cable Contamination
BEACON HOTEL: Breeze Files Civil Rights Class Suit
BLUE LINE: Seeks Dismissal of Speed Camera Ticket Class Action

BRISTOL-MYERS: Barnes & Thornburg Attorneys Discuss Ruling
BURGERVILLE: Faces Class Action Over Cybersecurity Breach
CANADA: Ex-Inmates File Class Action Over Solitary Confinement
CATHOLIC GUARDIAN: Fernandez Class Has Conditional Certification
CHEGG INC: Kaskela Law Files Class Action Lawsuit

CHEGG INC: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
CHEGG INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
CHICKEN OF THE SEA: Faces Class Action Over Tuna Price-Fixing
CITIGROUP INC: Averts TCPA Class Action in Illinois
COLACEM CANADA: Jan. 28 Settlement Approval Hearing

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement in Backer Law Suit Has Prelim Approval
DAMYE GROUP: Gonzales Garcia Files Labor Class Suit in New York
DOORDASH INC: Bessard Suit Seeks Payment of Overtime Wages
DOORDASH INC: Workchow Development Files Suit in Tennessee
ELITE MGT: Dismissal of Unjust Enrichment Claim in Barger Flipped

EVENTBRITE: Faces Class Action Over Ticketfly Cyber-Attack
EXCELSIOR HOTEL: Faces Civil Rights Suit in New York
FAITH AND FREEDOM: Wijesinha Sues Over Unsolicited Text Campaign
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: American Express Can Intervene in Brown Suit
FORESTRY MGMT: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in Montford Denied

GLENMORE & CENTRE: To Pay $2MM in Partial Class Action Settlement
GLOBAL DOC: Benhayon Files Suit in Florida Court
GLOBAL POWER: Shareholder Class Action Dismissed
GMRI INC: Liggins Files Labor Class Action California
GOOGLE INC: Averts UK Suit Over iPhone User Data Collection

GOOGLE INC: Google+ to Shut Down Following User Data Exposure
GOOGLE INC: Matic Sues Over Data Leak Exposing Users' Info
GOOGLE INC: Settles Applicants' Age Discrimination Class Action
HALSTON OPERATING: Figueroa Files ADA Suit in NY Ct.
HASBRO INC: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Class Action Suit

HUAZHU GROUP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Class Action
HYCROFT MINING: Class of Shareholders Certified in Canada
IMPINJ INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Fraud Suit
INSURANCE SERVICES: Lap Seeks to Stop Sending of Unwanted Fax Ads
JIA XING: Settlement in Kang FLSA Suit Has Court Approval

JOY GLOBAL: Settlement in Duncan Suit Has Prelim Approval
JPMORGAN CHASE: Employees File Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Corwin Sues Over Akebia Merger
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Bryce Suit Removed to C.D. California
KKW TRUCKING: $550K Deal in Demmings FCRA Suit Has Final Approval

LIVING INTENTIONS: Ruiz Files Class Suit Over Product Mislabeling
MACMAHON HOLDINGS: Settles Class Action for $6.7MM
MACY'S RETAIL: Can Compel Arbitration in Davis FLSA Suit
MAINE: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Gladu Prisoners Suit
MGT CAPITAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit

MGT CAPITAL: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Gaspar Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WI: Court Dismisses Bogan Prisoners Suit
MISSISSIPPI: Bryant Seeks Writ of Mandamus in Stallworth Suit
MOORE LAW: Violates FDCPA, Black Suit Asserts

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Slater & Gordon Files Insurance Class Action
NAVIENT: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Forgiveness Obstructions
NERIUM INT'L: Can Compel Arbitration in Jia RICO Suit
NEW PRIME: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Arbitration Dispute
NFL: Court to Consider Super Bowl Ticketing Claims

OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Class in Menaldi Securities Fraud Suit Certified
OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $28.75MM
ODWALLA INC: Court Narrows Claims in Casey FDCA Suit
PCL CONSTRUCTION: Final Judgment in Power Outage Suit Entered
PETSMART INC: Nov. 6 Hearing on Milburn Deal Prelim Approval Bid

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Madinya FDCPA Suit
PROFESSIONAL FRAME: Accused by Ventura of Not Paying Overtime Wages
PROFLOWERS: 9th Cir. Vacates $8.7MM Attorneys' Fees Award
PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS: Faces Consumer Credit Suit in Ca.
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Mitchell Dismissed from Jones TAC

PROLOG CORP: Podzemelnyy Seeks to Recoup Minimum & Overtime Wages
SCHARFMAN ORGANIZATION: Tenants File Rent Fraud Class Action
SCHWAB INVESTMENTS: Dismissal of Northstar Suit Partly Affirmed
SENTRY LIFE: Emerson Suit Stayed Pending Resolution of Maxon Suit
SHELL OIL: Class Action Over Ski Slopes Coupons Settled

SHERMAN'S 1400: Faces Disabilities Breach Suit in New York
SHILOH INDUSTRIES: Thomas SACAC Dismissed with Prejudice
SNSA INC: Daniels Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, AMWA
STARBUCKS CORP: Marten Sues Over White Choco Drink Deceptive Ad
SYRACUSE, NY: Settles Class Action Over Water Shut-Off Policy

TESLA INC: Must Face Foreign Workers' Labor Class Action
TICKETFLY: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over Data Breach
TINTRI INC: Relief from Stay Bid V. Non-Debtors in Tuller Denied
U-TEC: 2 More Potential Class Suits Filed Under Illinois BIPA
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Schnader Harrison Discusses Arbitration Ruling

UNDER ARMOUR: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Securities Suit
UNION PACIFIC: Settlement in Hollis Labor Suit Has Final Approval
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Enters Judgment in Teva Antitrust Suit
USA DIVING: Faces Class Action Over Diving Coach Sexual Abuse
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action

USA TECHNOLOGIES: Nov. 13 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
WAFFLE HOUSE: Court Sustains Bid to Dismiss Amended Diamond Suit
YIN WALL CITY: Settlement in Baumann Farms Suit Has Prelim Approval
ZILLOW GROUP: Judge Tosses Securities Fraud Class Action

                            *********

377 GREENWICH: Faces Nixon Suit in NY Asserting ADA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Donald Nixon has filed a class action lawsuit against 377 Greenwich
LLC.  The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 377 Greenwich LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05861 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 19, 2018).

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

The Greenwich Hotel LLC was founded in 2008. The company's line of
business includes operating public hotels and motels. It is located
at 377 Greenwich St, New York, NY 10013, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Dec. 3 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notified investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Acadia Healthcare Company,
Inc. ("Acadia" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ACHC) on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Acadia securities
between February 23, 2017 and October 24, 2017,(the "Class
Period").  Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/achc.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, specifically:
(1) misleading statements regarding Acadia's business and
operations, including by falsely stating that the quality of
Acadia's U.K. operations gave it a "competitive strength" that
would drive future growth and profitability; (2) misleading
guidance regarding its actual and projected 2017 revenue, earnings
before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization ("EBITDA")
and earnings per share ("EPS"); and (3) consequently, Acadia stock
traded at artificially inflated prices of over $52 per share during
the Class Period. While Acadia stock was trading at these
artificially inflated prices, Company CEO and President sold
706,000 shares of their Acadia stock for roughly $35 million.

On October 24, 2017, Acadia revealed its financial results for the
third quarter of 2017, exposing a severe deficit in EBITDA for its
U.K. operations, resulting from "lower census and higher operating
costs." As a result, Acadia lowered its 2017 financial guidance,
and lowered its EPS guidance as much as $0.24 per share. Following
these revelations, Acadia stock dropped 26%, from to close at
$32.68 per share on October 25, 2017.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/achc or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Acadia
you have until December 3, 2018 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. [GN]


ALL MARKET: Judge Dismisses Coconut Water Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Raychel Lean, writing for Law.com, reports that Robert N. Scola, a
federal judge in the Southern District of Florida, dismissed a
lawsuit and class action certification against All Market Inc.
(AMI), the parent company of coconut water manufacturer Vita Coco,
which plaintiffs claimed had misled the public with Brazil-themed
packaging.

Things got hairy for the coconut water manufacturer in April 2016
when plaintiffs Joshua Wasser, Ila Gold and Alyssa Rechtman filed a
lawsuit alleging that "Born in Brazil," a slogan printed on certain
containers, was "deceptive" because many of the company's coconuts
came from other countries, including the Philippines, Indonesia,
Thailand, Sri Lanka and Malaysia.

As a result, the "plaintiffs purchased and drank Vita Coco that was
not sourced or manufactured in Brazil, and that was made with
non-Brazilian coconuts," the complaint said.

Vita Coco argued that "Born in Brazil" referred to the birth of the
company itself, not the origin of its ingredients.

"Brazil is where the brand and the idea for Vita Coco was born. It
quite literally was born on the beaches of Brazil," said Melissa
Pallett-Vasquez, who defended Vita Coco with the help of Lori
Lustrin, Raquel M. Fernandez, Jennifer Junger and Jerry Goldsmith
of Bilzin Sumberg in Miami.

Judge Scola ruled that the plaintiffs had not proved sufficient
"injury" and therefore lacked standing.

"AMI has not forced the plaintiff to buy Vita Coco," Judge Scola
wrote. "If and when the plaintiffs choose to purchase Vita Coco in
the future, they will do so with knowledge that the "born in
Brazil" slogan does not reflect the location the beverage was
manufactured in or sourced from."

Judge Scola also noted that the plaintiffs didn't supply records or
data of any other consumers of Vita Coco, or receipts of their own
purchases that would have shown their experiences were "typical of
the injuries suffered by other members" of the proposed class
action.

Richard I. Segal -- rich@segalzuckerman.com -- of Segal Zuckerman
in Miami represented the plaintiffs with Philippe Lieberman and
Steve I. Silverman of Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen & Levine in
Miami, neither of whom responded to requests for comment before
deadline.

According to Ms. Pallett-Vasquez, the premise of the lawsuit was
"troubling" for Vita Coco.

"The idea that somehow a product from Southeast Asia was 'less
than' is absolutely and categorically not correct," she explained.
"They are incredibly proud of the partnership that they have with
their farmers in Southeast Asia. It's something they tout very
proudly on their website. The suggestion that somehow the company
was trying to hide that is just categorically false."

Vita Coco containers no longer include the slogan due to a
rebranding effort that the company said began before the lawsuit.

"There was a move away from having a lot of wording on the
packaging," Ms. Pallett-Vasquez said. She also noted that the
company had complied with a federal regulation that dictates that
country of origin must be clearly marked on packaging.

The plaintiffs also alleged that Vita Coco had used the Brazil link
to elevate its prices, and they "would not have paid as much for
the product" if they'd known.

"Because of this deception, AMI is able to sell Vita Coco at prices
substantially higher than those of other coconut water brands that
are manufactured in other parts of the world," the complaint said.

But Ms. Pallett-Vasquez disputed that. "We know that that not only
wasn't true before but it's not true today, because even in the
absence of that statement on the packaging the pricing continues to
be the same."

The most "surprising" aspects of the case, she added, were "the
factual positions" taken by the named plaintiffs.

"In one of the depositions, a woman took everything that was on the
package as absolute truth, including a catchy phrase that said,
'More potassium than a banana (don't tell the monkeys),' " Ms.
Pallett-Vasquez said.  "I inquired as to whether or not she thought
that Vita Coco was asking her to talk to monkeys, or not to tell
the monkeys, and she said, 'Yes, I do.'" [GN]


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Taylor Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDWARD TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. ALLTRAN FINANCIAL, LP,
LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00306-JMS-MJD (S.D.
Ind.), Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, denied the
Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

Taylor and a class of similarly situated people received a form
debt collection letter from Defendant Alltran.  On Feb. 1, 2018,
they brought suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA"), contending that the letters are unclear as to whether
Alltran was collecting on behalf of Defendant LVNV Funding, LLC or
nonparty Springleaf Financial Services.  Mr. Taylor brought suit on
his own behalf and on behalf of a class of others who received the
same debt collection letter, alleging that the letter fails to
effectively identify the current creditor and therefore violates
the FDCPA.  

On July 27, 2018, Defendants, Alltran and LVNV, filed their Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings.  They argue that Mr. Taylor's FDCPA
claim fails as a matter of law because the letter clearly
identifies LVNV as the current creditor.  They further argue that
an unsophisticated consumer would realize that the letter was sent
on behalf of LVNV because the "Privacy Notice" on the second page
lists LVNV and does not include Springleaf.

Judge Magnus-Stinson concludes that Mr. Taylor has plausibly
alleged that the dunning letter he received from the Defendants
failed to clearly identify LVNV as the creditor to whom his debt
was owed.  Rather, the unsophisticated consumer may read the letter
and believe based upon the reference to the "judgment awarded on
your Springleaf Financial Services Inc. account" that Springleaf,
rather than LVNV, was the current creditor.  The Defendants also
gloss over dispositive differences between the cases they cite and
the facts of the case.  Mr. Taylor's allegations state a claim
under the FDCPA.  For these reasons, the Judge denied
theDefendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2018 Entry is available
at https://is.gd/M8J9l8 from Leagle.com.

EDWARD TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Angie K. Robertson , PHILIPPS
AND PHILIPPS, LTD., Carissa Rasch -- carissa@philippslegal.com --
PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD., David J. Philipps --
davephilipps@aol.com -- PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD., John Thomas
Steinkamp, JOHN T. STEINKAMP AND ASSOCIATES & Mary E. Philipps --
mephilipps@aol.com -- PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD.

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL, LP, a Texas limited partnership & LVNV FUNDING,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, represented
by Daniel C. Fanaselle -- FANASELLED@BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD
SPAHR LLP & Kevin Dale Koons -- kkoons@kgrlaw.com -- KROGER GARDIS
& REGAS LLP.


ALNYLAM PHARMA: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 26 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Alnylam" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:  ALNY) and certain of its officers.   The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, and index under 18-cv-08845, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Alnylam securities between February 22, 2017 and
July 19, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Alnylam securities between
February 22, 2017, and July 19, 2018, both dates inclusive, you
have until November 26, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact
Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Alnylam is a global biopharmaceutical company developing
therapeutics based on RNA interference ("RNAi").  RNAi is a
naturally occurring biological pathway within cells for
sequence-specific silencing and regulation of gene expression.
Alnylam purports to harness the RNAi pathway to develop a potential
new class of innovative medicines, known as RNAi therapeutics.
RNAi therapeutics are comprised of small interfering RNA, or siRNA,
and function upstream of today's medicines by potently silencing
messenger RNA, or mRNA, that encode for disease-causing proteins,
thus preventing them from being made.

In December 2017, Alnylam submitted its first new drug application
and marketing authorization application for Onpattro (patisiran) to
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). Patisiran is an
intravenously administered RNAi therapeutic targeting transthyretin
("TTR") for the treatment of hereditary ATTR amyloidosis. It is
designed to target and silence specific messenger RNA, potentially
blocking the production of TTR protein before it is made.

In August 2018, patisiran received FDA approval for the treatment
of the polyneuropathy of hereditary transthyretin-mediated
amyloidosis in adults, having been reviewed by the FDA under
Priority Review and previously granted Breakthrough Therapy and
Orphan Drug Designations.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Alnylam overstated the efficacy
and safety of its Onpattro (patisiran) lipid complex injection; and
(ii) as a result, Alnylam's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 12, 2018, Nomura/Instinet analyst Christopher Marai
stated that a review document released by the FDA's Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research "highlights greater risk" with respect to
certain trials of Alnylam's ONPATTRO (patisiran) lipid complex
injection, as well as "a limited market opportunity in
TTRcardiomyopathy, and a potential platform safety risk."
Specifically, Marair asserted that "[t]he document highlights FDA
reviewers' concerns over cardiac deaths in patients treated with
ONPATTRO and suggests that the drug should be limited to patients
with polyneuropathy only (i.e., not patients with cardiac
manifestations and polyneuropathy).  Furthermore, we believe some
comments on the lack of cardiac efficacy call into question claims
made by [Alnylam] in this regard."

On this news, Alnylam's stock price fell $5.60 per share, or over
5.5%, to close at $94.75 per share on September 12, 2018.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. [GN]


ALPHA RECOVERY: Finell Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpha Recovery Corp.
The case is styled as Debbie Finnell on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alpha Recovery Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05832-DLI-ST (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 18,
2018).

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

Alpha Recovery Corp was established in 2010 as a full service
Accounts Receivable Management (ARM) firm located in Greenwood
Village, CO.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel C Cohen, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (929) 575-4175
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: dan@cml.legal


AMAZON.COM INC: Dismissal of Arizona Claims in Labor Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, IN RE: AMAZON.COM, INC., FULFILLMENT CENTER FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) AND WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION. JESSE
BUSK; LAURIE CASTRO; SIERRA WILLIAMS; MONICA WILLIAMS; VERONICA
HERNANDEZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INTEGRITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS,
INC.; AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 17-5784,
17-5785 (6th Cir.), Judge Eric L. Clay of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit (i) reversed the district court's summary
judgment with regard to the Nevada claims, and (ii) affirmed the
district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Arizona claims.

The Plaintiffs in the purported class action seek compensation
under Nevada and Arizona law for time spent undergoing or waiting
to undergo mandatory onsite security screenings at the Amazon
facilities where they worked.  Integrity provides warehouse labor
services to businesses throughout the United States where hourly
workers fill orders, track merchandise, and process returns.  It
employs thousands of hourly warehouse employees like the Plaintiffs
at each of Defendant Amazon's facilities.  Some Plaintiffs in the
case were hourly employees of Integrity at warehouses in Nevada and
Arizona.  Other Plaintiffs were directly employed by Amazon.

According to the Plaintiffs, Amazon.com exercises direct control
over the hours and other working conditions of all the Plaintiffs
and all similarly-situated hourly shift employees who are paid on
the payroll of Integrity working at all Amazon.Com's warehouse
locations nationwide.

The case concerns a security clearance policy that is enforced by
both Integrity and Amazon at all Amazon locations throughout the
United States.  Under the policy, the Plaintiffs and all other
hourly paid, non-exempt employees were required to undergo a daily
security clearance check at the end of each shift to discover
and/or deter employee theft of the employer's property and to
reduce inventory shrinkage.  

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' policy of requiring
hourly warehouse employees to undergo a thorough security clearance
before being released from work and permitted to leave the
employer's property was solely for the benefit of the employers and
their customers.  They further allege that this screening process
took approximately 25 minutes each day.  They were also required to
undergo the same security clearance prior to taking their lunch
breaks, thereby reducing the full thirty-minute break they were
supposed to receive.  Because employees were required to "clock
out" before undergoing the security screening, they were not
compensated for their time spent waiting in line for and then
undergoing the screenings.

In 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the
District Court of Nevada against Integrity on behalf of similarly
situated employees in the Nevada warehouses for alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Nevada labor laws.
The district court dismissed the Plaintiffs' first amended
complaint for failure to state a claim, holding that the time spent
waiting for and undergoing the security screenings was not
compensable under the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the
dismissal of the meal-period claims but reversed as to the
security-check claims.  The case was then appealed to the Supreme
Court, which held that the time related to the security checks was
not compensable under the FLSA.

Following the Supreme Court's reversal, the Ninth Circuit remanded
the remainder of the Plaintiff's state law claims to the district
court.  The Plaintiffs again amended their complaint, and the case
was then transferred to an ongoing multidistrict litigation in the
Western District of Kentucky.

Consistent with the Supreme Court's decision, the Plaintiffs' third
amended complaint eliminates the claims for compensation under
federal law and asserts claims under Nevada and Arizona law for
unpaid wages and overtime, as well as minimum wage violations.
The Plaintiffs asserted their claims as a class action under Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the
following persons:

      a. Nevada Class: All person employed by the Defendants,
and/or each of them, as hourly paid warehouse employees who worked
for the Defendant(s) within the State of Nevada at anytime within
three years prior to the original filing date of the complaint in
the action.

      b. Arizona Class: All person employed by the Defendants,
and/or each of them, as hourly paid warehouse employees who worked
for the Defendants within the State of Arizona at any time from
within three years prior to the filing of the original complaint
until the date of judgment after trial, and will encompass all
claims by such persons for the entire tenure of their employment as
provided in A.R.S. 23-364 (G).

The Nevada Plaintiffs allege claims on behalf of themselves and the
Nevada Class for failing to pay for all the hours worked, daily and
weekly overtime, and a minimum wage claim under the Nevada
Constitution.  They seek continuation wages in the amount of
30-days of additional wages for failing to pay employees all their
wages due and owing at the time of separation from employment.

The Arizona Plaintiffs allege claims on behalf of themselves and
the Arizona Class for failing to pay regular and minimum wages.
These Plaintiffs also seek continuation wages under A.R.S. Section
23-353 et seq.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims, which the
district court granted.  The district court dismissed the Nevada
claims on three grounds: first, there was no private right of
action to assert claims under Nevada's wage-hour statutes; second,
Nevada law incorporated the FLSA in relevant part and the
Plaintiffs' Nevada state claims were barred by Nevada's
incorporation of the Portal-to-Portal Act and the Supreme Court's
decision in Busk; and third, the Plaintiffs' claims for minimum
wages failed because they failed to identify any workweek in which
they were paid less than the minimum wage.

The district court concluded the same with respect to the Arizona
claims, holding that Arizona impliedly adopted the Portal-to-Portal
Act and thus the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are
entitled to compensation under Arizona law for time spent
undergoing, or waiting to undergo, security screenings.  It also
concluded that Arizona minimum wage claims failed because the
Plaintiffs had failed to identify a particular workweek in which
they were paid less than the minimum wage.

The Plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal.

Because Judge Clay concluded that time spent undergoing mandatory
security checks is compensable under Nevada law, he reversed the
district court's judgment with regard to the Nevada claims and
remanded for further proceedings.  Because he concluded that the
Arizona Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy Arizona's "workweek
requirement," he affirmed the district court's dismissal of the
Plaintiffs' Arizona claims.

The Judge found that (i) the Nevada Plaintiffs do have a private
cause of action for unpaid wages; (ii) because there is no reason
to believe that the Nevada legislature intended to adopt the
Portal-to-Portal Act, he's reluctant to infer an entirely
unsupported legislative intent; and (iii) there is insufficient
reason to hold that Nevada adopted the federal workweek
requirement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/ryeVDh from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Joshua D. Buck, THIERMAN BUCK LLP, Reno, Nevada, for
Appellants.

Rick D. Roskelley -- rroskelley@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON,
Las Vegas, Nevada, for Appellee Integrity Staffing Solutions.

Richard G. Rosenblatt -- richard.rosenblatt@morganlewis.com --
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, Princeton, New Jersey, for Appellee
Amazon.com.

ON BRIEF: Joshua D. Buck , Mark R. Thierman, THIERMAN BUCK LLP,
Reno, Nevada, for Appellants.

Rick D. Roskelley, LITTLER MENDELSON, Las Vegas, Nevada, Cory G.
Walker --  cgwalker@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, Phoenix,
Arizona, for Appellee Integrity Staffing Solutions.

Richard G. Rosenblatt, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, Princeton, New
Jersey, for Appellee Amazon.com.


AMCOR RIGID PLASTICS: Faces Cornejo Class Action in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amcor Rigid Plastics
USA, LLC. The case is styled as David Cornejo individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Amcor Rigid
Plastics USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07018 (N.D. Ill.,
Oct. 19, 2018).

Amcor Rigid Plastics USA, Inc. manufactures and delivers packaging
solutions for beverages, food, pharmaceuticals, spirits, wine and
beer, and personal and home care markets in the United States and
Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Action Over Late Check-Ins Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
David Matthews, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois
federal judge has struck down class action allegations over
American Airlines' alleged unwritten policy of booting passengers
who check in too close to their departure time. [GN]


APPLE INC: Court Partly Grants Bid to Certify Class in Grace Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTINA GRACE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-00551-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, (i) granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and (ii) denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to strike the report of Apple's technical
expert.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Apple for
trespass to chattels and violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL") on Feb. 2, 2017.  Grace sought to represent
a class consisting of all owners of Apple iPhone 4 or Apple iPhone
4S devices in the United States who on April 16, 2014, had the iOS6
or earlier operating system on their iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S.  The
complaint alleged causes of action against Apple for (1) trespass
to chattels, and (2) violations of the UCL, each based on Apple's
intentional disabling of FaceTime on iOS 6 and earlier operating
systems.

On March 22, 2017, Apple moved to dismiss the complaint. According
to Apple, Grace lacked standing under Article III and the UCL
because Grace had no right to uninterrupted FaceTime service under
the terms of Apple's Software License Agreement.  Further, Apple
argued that Grace lacked standing to bring claims based on the use
of iPhone 4S, which Grace did not own, and that Grace lacked
standing to raise issues relating to the upgrade to iOS 7, which
Grace never alleged that she downloaded.  In addition, it argued
that Grace failed to state a claim for trespass to chattels or
violations of the UCL.

Rather than oppose Apple's motion to dismiss, Grace filed the FAC
on April 5, 2017. The FAC added Potter as a named Plaintiff.
Potter alleged that he upgraded to iOS 7 on one of his iPhone 4
devices, and that Potter experienced lost functionality as a result
of his upgrade.

Grace's amendment of the complaint on April 5, 2017 was an
amendment as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(1)(B) because Grace amended the complaint within 21 days of
Apple's motion to dismiss the original complaint.  Accordingly, on
April 6, 2017, the Court denied as moot Apple's motion to dismiss
the original complaint.

On April 19, 2017, Apple filed a motion to dismiss the FAC, which
largely raised the same arguments that Apple raised in its motion
to dismiss the original complaint. On May 3, 2017, the Plaintiffs
filed an opposition to Apple's motion to dismiss.  On May 10, 2017,
Apple filed a reply.

On July 28, 2017, the Court denied Apple's motion to dismiss.  It
found that the Plaintiffs possessed Article III standing, that the
Plaintiffs had stated claims for violation of the UCL's "unfair"
prong and trespass to chattels, and that the Plaintiffs had
adequately alleged entitlement to restitution and injunctive
relief.

On May 4, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  They seek to certify the nationwide class under
Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3).  The class is defined as all
owners of Apple iPhone 4 or Apple iPhone 4S devices in the United
States who on April 16, 2014, had iOS 6 or earlier operating
systems on their iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S devices.  

In the alternative, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a California
class under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3).  The class is defined
as all owners of Apple iPhone 4 or Apple iPhone 4S devices in
California who on April 16, 2014, had iOS 6 or earlier operating
systems on their iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S devices.

On June 15, 2018, Apple filed its opposition.  On July 13, 2018,
the Plaintiffs filed their reply.

On July 19, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the
Declaration of Dr. Avi Rubin, Apple's technical expert.  On Aug. 2,
2018, Apple filed its opposition.  On Aug. 9, 2018, tje Plaintiffs
filed their reply.  On July 20, 2018, Apple filed objections to
evidence submitted in connection with the Plaintiffs' reply.

Apple opposes the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on
four main grounds.  First, Apple argues that the Plaintiffs cannot
demonstrate Rule 23(a)(3) typicality because the proposed class
representatives' iPhone usage is not typical of the class.  Second,
Apple advances a series of challenges to Rule 23(b)(3)
predominance.  Third, Apple briefly argues that the Plaintiffs
cannot demonstrate Rule 23(b)(3) superiority.  Fourth, Apple argues
that no Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class can be certified.

Judge Koh rejects Apple's Rule 23(a)(3) typicality argument.  She
also rejects most of Apple's Rule 23(b)(3) arguments.  In
particular, she finds that individual inquiries are not necessary
for the Plaintiffs' trespass to chattels claim and the Plaintiffs'
UCL claim, and the Judge rejects Apple's Comcast challenge to the
Plaintiffs' damages model.  However, she agrees with Apple that
California's choice of law test precludes certification of a
nationwide class, and agrees further that no Rule 23(b)(2) class is
warranted.  Finally, the Judge closes by denying the Plaintiffs'
motion to strike the report of Apple's expert and rejecting Apple's
evidentiary objections.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Koh granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  She certified
the class seeking restitution and damages for violation of the UCL
and trespass to chattels pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) defined as all
owners of non-jailbroken Apple iPhone 4 or Apple iPhone 4S devices
in California who on April 16, 2014, had iOS 6 or earlier operating
systems on their iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S devices.

The Jduge appointed Ken Potter, only as to his 16 GB iPhone 4, and
Grace as the representatives of the class.  As Apple does not
challenge the adequacy of proposed class counsel, she also
appointed as the class counsel Jill M. Manning of Steyer Lowenthal
Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Daniel L. Warshaw of Pearson, Simon
& Warshaw LLP, John Austin Curry of Caldwell Cassady & Curry LLP,
and David F.E. Tejtel of Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 18, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/2kKsTa from Leagle.com.

Christina Grace, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Lee Simon --
asimon@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bradley Wayne
Caldwell -- bcaldwell@caldwellcc.com -- Caldwell Cassady Currry
P.C., pro hac vice, Bruce Lee Simon -- bsimon@pswlaw.com -- Pearson
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Christopher S. Stewart, Caldwell Cassady
Curry, pro hac vice, Daniel Rollins Pearson, Caldwell Cassady and
Curry, Daniel L. Warshaw -- dwarshaw@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon &
Warshaw, LLP, David F.E. Tejtel -- dtejtel@fotpllc.com -- Friedman
Oster & Tejtel PLLC, Donald Scott Macrae -- smacrae@steyerlaw.com
-- Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Jason Dodd
Cassady -- jcassady@caldwellcc.com -- Caldwell Cassady and Curry,
pro hac vice, Jill Michelle Manning -- jmanning@steyerlaw.com --
Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, John Austin Curry
-- acurry@caldwellcc.com -- Caldwell Cassady Curry P.C., pro hac
vice, John Summers, Caldwell Cassady Curry, pro hac vice, Suneel
Jain, Steyer Lowenthal, Warren Joseph McCarty, III, Caldwell
Cassady Curry P.C. & Allan Steyer -- asteyer@steyerlaw.com --
Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP.

Ken Potter, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Lee Simon, Pearson
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw,
LLP, Daniel Rollins Pearson, Caldwell Cassady and Curry, Daniel L.
Warshaw, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Donald Scott Macrae, Steyer
Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Jill Michelle Manning,
Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Suneel Jain,
Steyer Lowenthal, Warren Joseph McCarty, III, Caldwell Cassady
Curry P.C. & Allan Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez &
Smith LLP.

Apple, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Alexander Pilmer --
alexander.pilmer@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Ashley
Elizabeth Neglia -- ashley.neglia@kirkland.com -- Kirkland and
Ellis LLP, Eugene Novikov -- enovikov@durietangri.com -- Durie
Tangri LLP, Jacob Johnston -- jacob.johnston@kirkland.com --
Kirkland Ellis LLP, Joseph Allen Loy -- joseph.loy@kirkland.com --
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua H. Lerner --
jlerner@durietangri.com -- Durie Tangri LLP, Sonal N. Mehta --
smehta@durietangri.com -- Durie Tangri LLP, Stephen J. Elkind,
Durie Tangri LLP, pro hac vice & Tanya Louise Greene --
tanya.greene@kirkland.com -- Kirkland and Ellis LLP.

BrightStar Corporation, Non-Party, Miscellaneous, represented by
Joseph M. Wahl -- Joseph.Wahl@btlaw.com -- Barnes and Thornburg
LLP.

Akamai Technologies, Inc., Miscellaneous, represented by James L.
Day -- jday@fbm.com -- Farella Braun Martel.


APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Nov. 30 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, disclosed that
a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
(Houston Division) against Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. (Nasdaq:
AAOI) ("Applied Optoelectronics") on behalf of purchasers of
Applied Optoelectronics securities between August 7, 2018 and
September 27, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Important Deadline:  Investors who purchased Applied
Optoelectronics securities during the Class Period may, no later
than November 30, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class. For additional information or to learn
how to participate in this action please visit
www.ktmc.com/applied-optoelectronics-securities-class-action

According to the complaint, 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.

The Class Period commences on August 7, 2018, when Applied
Optoelectronics published a press release announcing the second
quarter 2018 financial results.

The complaint alleges that, on September 27, 2018, an analyst with
Loop Capital Markets downgraded Applied Optoelectronics stock,
reporting that the company was experiencing product quality issues
with certain transceivers in which its lasers fail after thousands
of hours of operation. The analyst also lowered gross margin and
revenue expectations because the product quality issues suggested
that Applied Optoelectronics would start procuring lasers
externally through 2019. Following this news, Applied
Optoelectronics' share price fell $2.98 per share, more than 9%, to
close at $28.36 per share on September 27, 2018.

Then, on September 28, 2018, Applied Optoelectronics cut its
revenue guidance for the third quarter 2018 because it had
identified an issue with its lasers that caused them to temporarily
suspend shipments of certain transceivers. Following this news,
Applied Optoelectronics' share price fell $3.70 per share, more
than 13%, to close at $24.66 per share on September 28, 2018, on
unusually high trading volume.

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

If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888)
299–7706 or (610) 667–7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com.

Applied Optoelectronics investors may, no later than November 30,
2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A
lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all
class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by
the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check -- http://www.ktmc.com-- prosecutes
class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country
involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other
violations of state and federal law.  Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has
recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.
The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers
(private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the
government and share in the recovery of government dollars).  The
complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check. [GN]


ASSET RECOVERY: Amelchenko Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a facing a class action lawsuit in
New York under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  

The case is captioned Yuriy Amelchenko on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Asset Recovery Solutions,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05864-DLI-SMG (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 19,
2018).

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a debt collection agency located
in Des Plaines , Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel C. Cohen, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West
     12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (929) 575-4175
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: dan@cml.legal


AT&T: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Coaxial Cable Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Curriden, writing for Dallas Business Journal, reports that a
federal judge in Houston has refused to grant class action
certification to a lawsuit claiming that hundreds of property
owners between Dallas and Houston were contaminated by 200 miles of
coaxial cable buried 70 years ago by AT&T (NYSE: T).

U.S. District Judge Alfred H. Bennett ruled on Sept. 25 that the
lawsuit filed by prominent Houston trial attorney Tony Buzbee
against the Dallas-based telecomm giant lacked "commonality" of
issues and damages and does not qualify for class action status.

The lawsuit, Kenneth Cook, et al, v. AT&T Corp., claims that the
coaxial cable that AT&T placed underground "is deteriorating and
leaking lead and copper onto plaintiffs' properties." The suit says
the cable is polluting the property. Buzbee sought to have the
class action case to include all people and companies owning
property between Houston and Dallas with the AT&T cable under its
ground. He sought $35 million in damages.In an 11-page decision,
Judge Bennett found that the questions of law and fact -- such as
whether individual properties have actually been contaminated --
were not common enough among the hundreds of potential members of
the proposed class.

"Highly individualized issues of both causation and damages that
predominate over common issues make class certification
inappropriate," Judge Bennett wrote. "Class action is not the
proper vehicle to resolve this case."

AT&T is represented in the case by Haynes and Boone partner Thad
Behrens -- thad.behrens@haynesboone.com -- of Dallas. Mark
Trachtenberg, a partner in the Houston office of Haynes and Boone,
and associates Michelle Jacobs and Billy Marsh --
william.marsh@haynesboone.com -- also worked on the matter for
AT&T. David McAtee, AT&T's general counsel, is a former partner at
Haynes and Boone.

This is AT&T's third big courtroom victory in the past four months.
In August, a federal judge dismissed most of the Federal Trade
Commission's $4 billion false advertising case against AT&T. In
June, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. rejected the U.S. Justice
Department's antitrust case seeking to block AT&T's acquisition of
Time Warner. [GN]


BEACON HOTEL: Breeze Files Civil Rights Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Byron Breeze, Jr. filed a civil rights class action lawsuit against
Beacon Hotel L.L.C. in New York.  The case is styled as Byron
Breeze, Jr. on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. Beacon Hotel L.L.C. a New York limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09615 (S.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 19, 2018).

Located at the corner of Broadway and W 75th, Beacon Hotel is the
jewel of the Upper West Side. It's one of the few remaining
residential hotels, and one of the few places in Manhattan where
you can find spacious rooms and numerous two-bedroom suites.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Erik Mathew Bashian, Esq.
     Bashian & Papantoniou, P.C
     500 Old Country Road, Suite 302
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 279-1555
     Fax: (516) 213-0339
     Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com


BLUE LINE: Seeks Dismissal of Speed Camera Ticket Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Phillips, writing for The Vindicator, reports that Blue
Line Solutions, a Tennessee-based speed camera operation company,
contends it should not be included in a class-action lawsuit
regarding drivers who, an attorney alleges, were wrongfully issued
speed camera tickets.

The company argued in Trumbull County Common Pleas Court in a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit that the city issued the speed camera
tickets, not BLS, so the company should be dropped from the
complaint.

The litigation against the city and BLS revolves around the
contested speed limit on a portion of Interstate 80 between Dec. 7,
2017, and Jan. 8, 2018, after construction ended. The city still
enforced the temporary lower speed limit.

The class-action suit was filed by Atty. Marc Dann on behalf of
drivers he maintains shouldn't have been ticketed for abiding by
the normal speed limit.

Mr. Dann said communities are cash-starved because of the state
cutting local government funds, and turn to methods such as speed
cameras to supplement the lost revenue.

"This is about enriching people in Tennessee," he said. "The state
of Ohio has failed to properly fund local governments . . . I
understand why Girard needs the money, but I think the people
should be really skeptical of a for-profit company exploiting that
problem and taking 40 to 50 percent of the profits."

Copies of the traffic tickets that were issued to the drivers
involved in the lawsuit prove fines were issued by Girard, the
court document says, and the fines were paid to the city. The
citations have Girard's address on them.

The company used that argument in attempt to disparage Mr. Dann and
the drivers' claims in the lawsuit.

Mr. Dann disagrees with the company's assertions. He said Blue
Line, which supplies the speed cameras, is responsible for sending
tickets to drivers, and receives payments directly from drivers.

The Vindicator's calls to Blue Line Solutions were not returned on
Sept. 25. The motion was filed by Robert Yallech with
Youngstown-based Reminger Co., serving as legal counsel for the
company. The Vindicator's calls to Mr. Yallech were not returned.

The city's motion to dismiss in August was at odds over the claims
made by drivers, including that their due process rights had been
violated.

Robert Cahill -- rcahill@sutter-law.com -- an attorney with Sutter
O' Connell Co. who is representing the city, had no comment about
the litigation. [GN]


BRISTOL-MYERS: Barnes & Thornburg Attorneys Discuss Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Christine E. Skoczylas, Esq. and Amy R. Michelau, Esq., of Barnes &
Thornburg LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report
that whether a non-resident defendant may be hauled into court to
defend itself against non-resident plaintiffs who have no
connection to the forum can have enormous implications, whether
tactical, financial, or otherwise. Last year, in Bristol
Myers-Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (BMS), the U.S. Supreme Court
addressed the issue of whether a state court may exercise personal
jurisdiction over non-resident defendants in a mass tort action.
137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017). In BMS, a group of mostly non-resident
plaintiffs brought product liability claims in California state
court against BMS, a non-resident defendant, relating to Plavix, a
blood-thinning drug manufactured by BMS.

The non-resident plaintiffs did not purchase or use Plavix in
California, and BMS's only connection to the state was that it sold
Plavix in California. The California Supreme Court found that it
had "case-linked" specific personal jurisdiction over the
non-resident plaintiffs' claims because they mirrored the claims
brought by the California plaintiffs. The U.S. Supreme Court
disagreed, holding that continuous activity in a state, alone, does
not create jurisdiction; instead, there must be a link between the
forum and the individual lawsuit for a court to assert jurisdiction
over a non-resident defendant.

The BMS decision provides clear guidance for mass tort actions
involving non-resident plaintiffs. The U.S. Supreme Court, however,
declined to address whether the BMS holding extends to class
actions. Indeed, in her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that
whether the BMS decision "[w]ould also apply to a class action in
which a plaintiff injured in the forum State seeks to represent a
nationwide class of plaintiffs" remained an open question. 137 S.
Ct. at 1789 n.4 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). Unsurprisingly,
following BMS, there has been discord among lower federal courts
regarding the application of the BMS holding to class action
claims. Despite the split in authority, thus far, the District
Courts that have extended the BMS holding to class action claims
outnumber the District Courts that have declined to do so.

Those courts applying the BMS holding have refused to exercise
personal jurisdiction over the claims of unnamed, non-resident
class members against non-resident defendants. The U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois has been leading the
charge. For example, in January 2018, the DeBernardis court held
that it is more likely than not that courts will apply BMS to
"outlaw nationwide class actions" in forums in which general
jurisdiction does not exist over foreign defendants. DeBernardis v.
NBTY, Inc., No. 17 C 6125, 2018 WL 461228 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 18,
2018). In fact, federal courts in Illinois have consistently held
that BMS prevents federal courts from exercising specific
jurisdiction over non-resident class members whose claims have no
connection to the forum state. See, e.g., Am.'s Health & Res. Ctr.,
Ltd. v. Promologics, Inc., No. 16 C 9281, 2018 WL 3474444 (N.D.
Ill. July 19, 2018); Al Haj v. Pfizer Inc., No. 17 C 6730, 2018 WL
1784126 (N.D. Ill. April 13, 2018); Practice Mgmt. Support Servs.,
Inc. v. Cirque du Soleil, Inc., 301 F. Supp. 3d 840 (N.D. Ill.
2018); LDGP, LLC v. Cynosure, Inc., No. 15 C 50148, 2018 WL 439122
(N.D. Ill. Jan. 16, 2018); McDonnell v. Nature's Way Prods., LLC,
No. 16 C 5011, 2017 WL 4864910 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 26, 2017).

Federal courts in various other jurisdictions have also rejected
arguments that personal jurisdiction requirements should be relaxed
in the class action context. See, e.g., In re Dental Supplies
Antitrust Litig., No. 16 Civ. 696, 2017 WL 4217115 (E.D.N.Y. Sept.
20, 2017); Spratley v. FCA US LLC, No. 3:17-CV-0062, 2017 WL
4023348 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2017); Maclin v. Reliable Reports of
Texas, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-2612, 2018 WL 1468821 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 26,
2018); Wenokur v. AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co., No. CV-17-165, 2017
WL 4357916 (D. Ariz. Oct. 2, 2017).

Other federal District Courts, relying upon a panoply of
justifications and led by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit and other California federal courts, have declined to
extend BMS to nationwide class actions. In Fitzhenry-Russell, for
example, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California held that absent class members are not parties, or fully
"present," for purposes of personal jurisdiction evaluation and,
thus, need not be considered. Fitzhenry-Russel v. Dr. Pepper
Snapple Group, Inc., No. 17-cv-00564, 2017 WL 4224723 (N.D. Cal.
Sept. 22, 2017). The same court later held that BMS did not require
the dismissal of claims by non-resident plaintiffs who did not have
a case-specific connection to the forum, relying upon the
conclusion that the federalism rationale outlined in BMS applies
only to state court cases. Sloan v. General Motors, LLC, 287 F.
Supp. 3d 840 (N.D. Cal. 2018).

In In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products, the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana held that procedural
differences between mass actions and class actions rendered BMS
inapplicable to class actions. See In re Chinese-Manufactured
Drywall Prod. Liab. Litig., No. MDL 09-2047, 2017 WL 5971622 (E.D.
La. Nov. 30, 2017). These justifications, however, seem to ignore
the underlying question of whether a defendant's due process rights
are implicated by the claims of absent class members. Other
district courts have been reluctant to address the question in
similar actions, perhaps waiting until the various appeals courts
further consider the issue.

We anticipate that the case law surrounding application of the BMS
decision to class action claims will continue to evolve. At first
blush, the post-BMS trends observed in the District Courts should
be encouraging to companies conducting business across the country
and seeking to evade nationwide class actions claims brought in
plaintiff-friendly forums. However, the BMS decision may ultimately
result in a decrease in the consolidation of claims, prompting more
plaintiffs to bring numerous state-specific class action cases and
resulting in a multiplication of cases that a defendant may be
forced to litigate. Either way, the inconsistency in the
application of BMS by the federal courts creates uncertainty for
defendants and creates a dangerous opportunity for forum-shopping
plaintiffs. We will continue to monitor the shifting landscape in
order to evaluate the evolving implications of BMS in the class
action context. [GN]


BURGERVILLE: Faces Class Action Over Cybersecurity Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Molly Solomon, writing for OPV, reports that Burgerville says it
has discovered a "sophisticated" cybersecurity breach that may have
affected customers who paid with a credit card at any restaurant
location in the last year.

Shortly after the company announced the breach on Oct. 3, a
customer sought a class-action lawsuit against Burgerville.

The Vancouver, Washington-based burger chain is urging all
customers who used a debit or charge card between September 2017 to
September 2018 to review their statements for suspicious activity.
Compromised customer information could include names, card numbers,
expiration dates and the CVV numbers on the back of most cards.

It's not clear exactly how many customers could have had their data
compromised, according to a Burgerville spokesperson.

"The tactics of this particular group of hackers make it very
difficult to know exactly how many people were directly affected
and exactly which card numbers were stolen. They are adept at
concealing their digital footprints," spokesperson Chris Crabb
wrote in an email to OPB.

The group behind the attack is called Fin7, a cyber-crime ring out
of Eastern Europe that has attacked more than 100 U.S. companies.
The U.S. Justice Department arrested three members of Fin7 in
August. The group is believed to have stolen more than 15 million
customer card records in 47 states and has been linked to other
major hacks at Chipotle, Arby's and other restaurants.

In a news release, Burgerville said it first learned of the breach
from the FBI on Aug. 22. The company agreed to keep the hack from
the public so the FBI could fully investigate,
Mr. Crabb said.

"Burgerville agreed to maintain the confidentiality of the breach
as part of an active law enforcement investigation," she explained.
"Though this investigation, Burgerville was able to provide
valuable evidence to the FBI."

That investigation revealed what was originally believed to be a
brief intrusion by hackers was actually still active. On Sept. 19,
Burgerville began removing the malware from its payment system. The
company said it finished removing malware from its system Sept.
30.

Mr. Crabb said the company did not let the public know because
hackers could have created a backdoor into Burgerville's system if
they had known the problem was being addressed.

Within hours of the hack being announced, Oregon resident Cassandra
Nelson filed a class-action complaint in Multnomah County court.

The complaint alleges that Ms. Nelson had her financial card
information compromised by Burgerville after purchasing food at
various restaurants around the Portland metro area. It also alleges
that the restaurant "collected and stored credit and debit card
information" from Nelson at its sale systems.

"In an attempt to increase profits, Burgerville negligently failed
to maintain adequate technological safeguards to protect
plaintiff's information from unauthorized access by hackers,"
Nelson's complaint states.

The complaint also alleges that Burgerville violated Oregon law by
not informing customers as soon as it learned about the hack.
Nelson is seeking monetary damages and a full accounting of how
hackers gained access to customer information.

"We realize that this intrusion was not only on Burgerville's
system, but also on your life. This isn't what you expected to
happen when you came to visit one of our locations," wrote interim
Burgerville CEO Jill Taylor in a statement about the attack on the
restaurant's website.

The company is advising people who may have been impacted to obtain
a copy of their credit report and consider freezing their credit
out of an "abundance of caution." A customer support line has been
set up at 1-855-336-6688. [GN]


CANADA: Ex-Inmates File Class Action Over Solitary Confinement
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that around-the-clock electric light, even at
night. Mats on the floor in place of beds. Robes instead of
clothing.

These are some of the conditions that former inmates say exist in
solitary confinement at Nova Scotia's jails, conditions that have
prompted them to file a proposed class-action lawsuit against the
province.

The claim alleges that the use of solitary confinement for more
than 15 days at a time constitutes cruel and unusual punishment,
breaching the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"They never turn the lights off, and so there's no windows, you
never see the outside, you never go to yard, you never get a breath
of fresh air," Robert Bailey, one of two plaintiffs involved in the
class action, told CBC's Information Morning. "It changes you."

'You lose track of time'
Mr. Bailey, who has been incarcerated in provincial institutions at
different points for charges including breach of conditions, said
he was first placed in solitary confinement at the Burnside jail
because he was found in possession of a controlled substance.

Every subsequent time he went back to jail, he said he was put in
solitary confinement. The nature of solitary confinement makes it
difficult to say how long he spent there, he said.

"You lose track of time," he said. "I [went] into a different state
of mind."

Mr. Bailey said he was placed in solitary confinement without
anything to occupy his mind, such as a pencil or book, and was
given a robe designed to prevent a suicide attempt, instead of his
own clothes.

"[You're] completely left with nothing and ridiculed."

Department policies violate charter
Michael Dull, the lawyer for the proposed class action, said the
focus on the case is to shine a light on what's happening in Nova
Scotia's jails -- including the way that practices around the use
of solitary confinement constitute torture, according to the U.N.'s
definition of confinement exceeding 15 days.

Nova Scotia's Correctional Services division does have policies
dictating the allowable limits for some kinds of solitary
confinement. A report in May by Auditor General Michael Pickup
found that in nine of 47 cases, offenders were placed in solitary
confinement longer than allowed by department policy.

Nova Scotia puts hundreds of inmates in segregation each year
But Dull said that since "administrative segregation" -- solitary
confinement that's not for disciplinary purposes -- can be extended
indefinitely, even the allowable limit for the use of solitary
confinement violates the charter.

"Corrections has a policy that the auditor general found is not
being met, so that speaks to negligence," said Dull. "But if the
policy in and of itself is in breach of the charter -- then the
policy should be changed."

Solitary confinement counterproductive
Mr. Bailey said at the moment, the way solitary confinement is
being used is putting inmates' well-being at risk.

"People that I've met, you know, at one time and then talked to
them three months later, after they've been [in solitary
confinement], they're not the same person."

"If there's no threat to anyone, and no violence, I don't believe
putting [offenders] in such a severe, traumatizing situation is
going to help them in any way."

In May, the Department of Justice agreed to all 12 recommendations
made by Pickup.

As part of that, Nova Scotia's Office of the Ombudsman was to do
regular review and audits to make sure the use of "close
confinement" is properly approved and that inmates have access to
recreation and showers.

In a statement, Justice spokesperson Heather Fairbairn said "close
confinement is a measure of last resort. It is utilized in
situations that protect inmates and staff."

She said once the province is served with the legal action it will
consider what to do next. [GN]


CATHOLIC GUARDIAN: Fernandez Class Has Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THANIA FERNANDEZ, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CATHOLIC GUARDIAN
SERVICES, CRAIG LONGLEY, individually, GRACE POPPE, individually,
and DOLORES ORTIZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 17 Civ. 03161
(ER) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted the Plaintiff's
Motion for Conditional Certification and Leave to Distribute Notice
Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Fernandez brings the putative collective action on behalf of all
similarly situated employees against the Defendants, alleging
failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA").  The Plaintiff also alleges violations of New York
Labor Law ("NYLL").

From July 2007 until May 2014, the Defendants employed the
Plaintiff as a foster care case planner.  The Plaintiff alleges
that, as a case planner, she worked 48 hours a week at least one
week a month between April 2011 and May 2014 and did not receive
overtime pay.

In May 2014, the Plaintiff became a case manager.  As was true when
she was a case planner, the Plaintiff also worked 48 hours a week
at least one week a month between May 2014 and December 2016 and
did not receive overtime pay.  From 2014 and 2016, Plaintiff also
responded to emergencies after hours.

On April 28, 2017, the Plaintiff commenced the instant FLSA
collective action, seeking to vindicate her rights and those of
similarly situated employees.  Between March 2017 and June 2018, 14
people, including the Plaintiff, signed the Plaintiff consent
forms.  Of the 14 people who signed the Plaintiff consent forms,
four submitted declarations to describe their employment in more
detail.  According to their declarations, all four declarants,
including the laintiff, worked as case managers with the same
duties, hours, and compensation scheme that did not provide for
overtime pay.  Two of the declarants, Plaintiff and Jissette A.
Vargas, also had worked as case planners with the same duties,
hours, and compensation system that did not include overtime
wages.

On Aug. 30, 2017, the Plaintiffs moved for (a) a conditional
certification of an FLSA collective action composed of all current
and former foster care case planners and case managers employed by
the Defendants from April 28, 2011 until the present; (b) an order
requiring the Defendants to provide the Plaintiff with information
about potential class members; and (c) an order granting the
Plaintiff leave to disseminate notice to potential class members.

Among other things, the Defendants claim that the Court should not
grant the Plaintiff's motion because the FLSA does not cover either
the Plaintiff or the Defendants.  Judge Ramos finds that he does
not regard the argument as convincing at this stage in the
proceedings.  The Court only examines the pleadings and affidavits
to determine whether the named Plaintiffs and putative class
members are similarly situated.

The Defendants also argue that the Court should stay the Motion for
Conditional Class Certification until the parties have complete[d]
limited and/or expedited discovery as to FLSA coverage and the
professional exemption.  The Judge declines this invitation because
it misconstrues the collective action certification process in the
FLSA context.

Next, the Defendants ask the Court to order the Plaintiff to remove
the references to the NYLL in the proposed notice because the
Plaintiff seeks a conditional collective action certification
pursuant to FLSA's collective action provision, and because that
provision can only combine FLSA claims.  The Judge agrees, as other
courts have as well.  Accordingly, the Proposed Notice and Consent
must be revised to remove the references to the NYLL.  As a result,
the Plaintiff should remove references to New York law on pages 2,
3, and 4 of the notice.  If the Plaintiff wishes to create a class
action of related state claims, she may move for a Rule 23 class
action in accordance with the Rules.

The Defendants assert that the Court may not conditionally certify
a collective action dating back six years even though Plaintiff has
brought claims under both FLSA and NYLL before the Court.  However,
three years is the maximum time period to join FLSA collective
actions, and no New York state class action has been certified.

The Defendants write that the Plaintiffs' request for e-mail
addresses and cell/text numbers is overly broad.  The Judge
disagrees.  He holds that courts in the District commonly grant
requests for the production of names, mailing addresses, email
addresses, telephone numbers, and dates of employment in connection
with the conditional certification of an FLSA collective action.
He will therefore grant the Plaintiff's request for the email
addresses and cellular telephone numbers of potential collective
action members.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Ramos granted the Plaintiff's
request for conditional certification of her FLSA collective action
and approves the notice, as set forth.  The Clerk of Court is
respectfully directed to terminate the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/AHaZKI from Leagle.com.

Thania Fernandez, on behalf of herself, Plaintiff, represented by
Alexander Todd Coleman -- atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com -- Law
Offices of Borrelli & Associates, Jeffrey Robert Maguire --
jrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com -- Borelli & Associates P.L.L.C. &
Michael John Borrelli -- mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com -- Law
Offices of Borrelli & Associates.

Thania Fernandez, On behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Robert Maguire, Borelli &
Associates P.L.L.C.

Catholic Guardian Services, formerly known as, Craig Longley,
individually, Grace Poppe, individually & Dolorez Ortiz,
individually, Defendants, represented by Joseph Blaise Cartafalsa
-- joseph.cartafalsa@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins.


CHEGG INC: Kaskela Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC disclosed that an investor class action lawsuit has
been filed against Chegg, Inc. (NYSE: CHGG) ("Chegg" or the
"Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s securities
between July 30, 2018 and September 25, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

IMPORTANT DEADLINE:  Investors who purchased Chegg’s securities
during the Class Period and suffered a financial loss may, no later
than November 26, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the investor class.

Chegg investors with financial losses in excess of $50,000 are
encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at
(888) 715-1740, or via email at skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, to discuss
this action and their legal rights and options.  For additional
information or to learn how to participate in this action please
visit http://kaskelalaw.com/case/chegg/.

Chegg is a direct-to-student learning platform that provides
educational materials and services to high school and college
students.

On September 25, 2018, the Company reported that an unauthorized
party had gained access on or around April 29, 2018 to
approximately 40 million users' data, including username, email
address, shipping address, and hashed Chegg password.  On this
news, the Company’s share price fell $3.91, or approximately 12%,
to close at $28.42 per share on September 26, 2018, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

The investor class action complaint alleges that defendants
violated the federal securities laws during the Class Period by
making false and misleading statements and failing to disclose to
investors that: (i) the Company lacked adequate security measures
to protect users’ data; (ii) the Company lacked the internal
controls and procedures to detect unauthorized access to its
systems and to its data; and (iii) at as a result, the Company
would incur additional expenses and litigation risks.  The
complaint further alleges that, as a result of the foregoing,
investors purchased Chegg’s securities at artificially inflated
values during the Class Period, and have suffered financial damages
as a result of defendants’ actions.

Chegg investors with financial losses in excess of $50,000 are
encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC to discuss this action and
their legal rights and options.  Kaskela Law LLC exclusively
represents investors in state and federal courts throughout the
country.  For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please
contact:

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         201 King of Prussia Road
         Suite 650
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (484) 258-1585
                    (888) 715-1740
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]


CHEGG INC: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquire Chegg, Inc. ("Chegg" or the
"Company") (NYSE:CHGG) securities between July 30, 2018 and
September 25, 2018 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
November 26, 2018 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that on September 25, 2018, Chegg reported that
it had "learned that on or around April 29, 2018, an unauthorized
party gained access to a Company database that hosts user data for
chegg.com and certain of the Company’s family of brands such as
EasyBib." The Company reported that approximately 40 million
users’ data could have been obtained and that an investigation
into the incident was ongoing. On this news, the price of Chegg
shares fell $3.91, or over 12%, to close at $28.42 on September 26,
2018.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Chegg securities during the
Class Period, have information, or would like to learn more about
these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP
at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by
filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests
with respect to these matters without any cost to you.

         Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
         Kirby McInerney LLP
         Telephone: 212-371-6600
         Website: www.kmllp.com
         Email: investigations@kmllp.com [GN]


CHEGG INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., disclosed that a complaint has been filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the
common stock of Chegg, Inc. (Chegg or the Company) (NYSE: CHGG)
between July 30, 2018 and September 25, 2018, inclusive (the Class
Period), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the Company and certain of its officers (the Complaint).

If you purchased shares of Chegg during the Class Period, or
purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Chegg,
and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Seth D.
Rigrodsky or Timothy J. MacFall at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300
Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, or by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted
materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations
and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) the
Company lacked adequate security measures to protect users data;
(2) the Company lacked the internal controls and procedures to
detect unauthorized access to its systems and to its data; (3) as a
result, the Company would incur additional expenses and litigation
risks; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.. As a result of defendants alleged false and misleading
statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on September 25, 2018, Chegg reported
that it had learned that on or around April 29, 2018, an
unauthorized party gained access to a Company database that hosts
user data for chegg.com and certain of the Company's family of
brands such as EasyBib. The Company reported that approximately 40
million users data, including username, email address, shipping
address, and hashed password, could have been obtained and that an
investigation into the incident was ongoing.

On this news, shares of Chegg declined over 12%, closing at $28.42
per share on September 26, 2018, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 26, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. [GN]


CHICKEN OF THE SEA: Faces Class Action Over Tuna Price-Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Ritenbaugh, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports
that dozens of grocers, wholesalers, restaurants and other
businesses across the country are seeking to create three separate
class-action certifications in the lengthy legal fight with the
"big three" tuna companies, alleging that they have been
overcharged for canned and packaged seafood.

Lawyers for Chicken of the Sea and Bumble Bee Foods argued that the
plaintiffs shouldn't get that green light.

It's the latest round in an ongoing court battle alleging price
fixing in the tuna industry.

Pittsburgh-based StarKist Co, which is owned by South Korea's
Dongwon, is accused of colluding with Bumble Bee Foods and
Tri-Union Seafoods, which trades under Chicken of the Sea. The
latter companies are both based in San Diego.

Company executives have been accused of spending years conspiring
to keep the price of packaged tuna artificially high.

The packaged seafood market, which also includes salmon, shrimp,
clams and the like, is a multi-billion dollar industry in the
United States. Tuna represents about 73 percent of the market and
generates about $1.7 billion in annual sales, according to court
documents.

The three big tuna players combined controlled 80 to 85 percent of
the U.S. market between 2003-2015, according to legal documents.

The civil case, which began as many individual lawsuits in 2015 and
was later consolidated, is underway in U.S. District Court of
Southern District of California under Judge Janis Sammartino.

The plaintiffs -- among whom are familiar names like O'Hara-based
Giant Eagle; national retailers Dollar General, Target, and
Walmart; food distribution giants U.S. Foods and Sysco -- want to
be certified in separate classes: commercial food preparers;
end-payer consumers and direct purchasers.

Class-action certifications generally allow multiple plaintiffs to
combine their efforts and handle their cases more efficiently.

Some of the details of the fight are being kept out of the public
eye.

In court documents with large blocks of text redacted, lawyers for
Chicken of the Sea argued, that the commercial food preparers class
-- a group that would include companies that indirectly purchased
large sizes of tuna products from one of six distributors -- "fall
short of carrying their heavy burden of proving that they satisfy
all of the prerequisites for class certification . . ."

"The [commercial food preparers] now acknowledge that their
putative class would include members as disparate as distributors
who bought the product for resale; restaurants, delis, nursing
homes, and caterers who buy and use the product for commercial food
preparation; and individuals who bought the product for personal
consumption," the attorneys wrote in documents filed Oct. 2.

Meanwhile, in another partially redacted document, lawyers for
Bumble Bee Foods argued the "end-payer plaintiffs" failed to show
whether there was an antitrust violation; whether all the class
members were "injured by the violation"; and "how much each member
was injured by the violation." Those arguments also were filed Oct.
2.

Judge Sammartino is expected to weigh the arguments in December.

The U.S. Department of Justice has launched its own investigation
into the issue.

In May, a federal grand jury indicted Christopher Lischewski,
former president and CEO of Bumble Bee Foods LLC, on a one-count
felony charge that he carried out the conspiracy by agreeing to fix
the prices of packaged seafood during meetings and other
communications between 2010 and 2013.

Mr. Lischewski stepped down from the company. He has pleaded not
guilty.

Three former executives at tuna companies were previously charged
and have pleaded guilty: W. Scott Cameron, a former senior vice
president of sales for Bumble Bee; Kenneth Worsham, a former senior
vice president of trade marketing for Bumble Bee; and Stephen
Hodge, former senior vice president of sales for StarKist.

In August 2017, Bumble Bee Foods pleaded guilty to its role in the
conspiracy and agreed to pay a $25 million criminal fine. [GN]


CITIGROUP INC: Averts TCPA Class Action in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
Artin Betpera, writing for TCPAland, reports that CitiGroup, Inc.
("Citi") just defeated certification in a massive class action in
the consumer-friendly Northern District of Illinois in the case of
Tomeo v. CitiGroup, Inc., No. 13-C-4046, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
166117 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2018).  The lawyers and experts for
Citi did a clinical job of dismantling Plaintiff's bid to certify
potentially massive revocation and wrong number classes, both of
which were ultimately felled based on the predominance of
individualized issues of consent.  Below is our play-by-play of
Citi's huge win in this case.

The Putative Classes

Plaintiff sought to represent two classes in this case.  The first
-- a revocation class -- defined as all persons who were called by
Citi using its Aspect UIP or Genesys dialers between October 27,
2010 and November 30, 2014 where Citi's business records indicate
the person requested not to be called.  The second -- a wrong
number class -- defined as all persons who were called by Citi
using its Aspect UIP or Genesys dialers between October 27, 2010
and November 30, 2014 where Citi's business records indicate that
Citi was told that it had called the wrong number.

The size of these potential classes were massive.  Just based on a
limited universe of dialer data spanning calls made from October
2013 to August 2015, there were 138.7 million outbound calls made
by Citi with just its Aspect UIP dialer.  And even if a small
fraction of these calls were made without consent, in the aggregate
that spells hundreds of millions, if not over a billion in
potential exposure to statutory damages.

The Records

As is the case with most (if not all) TCPA class actions,
certification came down to whether consent could be determined by
common proof based on Citi's own business records.  According to
the Court's ruling, three different types of computerized records
contained information relevant to whether Citi had the necessary
consent to contact a phone number.

The first, the CitiLink loan system, which contains basic
accountholder information and Individual Note Screens where Citi
representatives record the details of their interactions with the
accountholder.

The second, Citi's default-related loan servicing system which
contains similar information as CitiLink, but only for accounts in
default.

The third, FileNet -- the imaging system used by Citi to store
digital versions of correspondence, contracts, and other paper
documents relevant to accounts.

These documents contained not only records and documentation
concerning consent, but also revocation of consent.  

Specifically, Citi had three types of flags relating to TCPA
compliance: a "Do Not Call" flag, which is placed when an
accountholder asks Citi to stop contacting a specific number, a
"Cease and Desist" and "Case 998" flag relating to requests to stop
all communications, and subsequent investigations relating to those
requests, and a "WRNG" flag for when a Citi representative is
informed that Citi called the wrong number.

Within this universe of documents, records, and data, the experts
fought out whether issues of consent could be determined by common
proof.  And Citi's experts ultimately won the day.

The Experts

In Plaintiff's corner -- Jeff Hansen.  And if you're a regular
reader of this site, or involved in TCPA class litigation, then
you've heard of the guy.

In Citi's corner -- Ken Sponsler and John Taylor.  As you'll see
below, these experts packed a potent 1-2 punch.  Taylor broadly
analyzed and opined on class data, while Sponsler drilled deep into
the files for the four class representatives to show that there was
no way to determine consent on a class-wide basis without a
file-by-file review.

The Opinions

The Court started by addressing Citi's challenge to the Hansen's
opinions.  Long story short, the Court threw out the portion of
Hansen's opinion relating to ATDS use.  It found that his opinions
were not reliable because he never inspected or tested the system,
and that his report contained impermissible legal conclusions that
the dialers used by Citi were an ATDS.  Hmm . . . . That sounds
familiar.

However, it found that the other, more critical aspects of Mr.
Hansen's report concerning class data passed the Daubert relevance
and reliability tests, as they were "reasoned and founded on data",
and would assist the trier of fact because the report "identifies
which calls and texts Citi made to cell phones using the Aspect and
Genesys dialers, and which of those calls and texts occurred after
the individual associated with that phone number requested that
Citi stop contacting them or told Citi that it had the wrong
number."  And in this part of the report, Mr. Hansen opined that
consent could be determined on a class-wide basis by reference to
the codes contained in Citi's records described above.

But not so fast.  In rebutting Hansen's opinions, Citi presented
"specific evidence establishing that a significant percentage of
the putative class consented to receiving calls."  Through Taylor's
opinion, Citi established that the existence of each of the three
flags/codes in its records did not necessarily constitute
individuals who did not consent to be called.

Mr. Taylor started with a sample of over 1,000 Individual Note
Screens, and established that consumers frequently went back and
forth between consenting, and revoking consent, so the only way to
determine consent for each accountholder was to individually review
Citi's files.  Mr.  Taylor pointed to data which showed that in 17%
of the files reviewed by Mr. Hansen, the accountholder had later
re-consented to contact.  And with respect to the "WRNG" (wrong
number) codes, Taylor similarly found that 15% of the time the
number actually belonged to a borrower (whether indicated by a
later incoming call by the borrower from the same number, or where
multiple phone numbers for an account were flagged as wrong
number).

Then to back up Mr. Taylor's opinions, Citi introduced the report
of Sponsler, who had done a more exhaustive review of the four
original named plaintiffs and found that Citi had consent to call
three of four Plaintiffs.  And with respect to the fourth
Plaintiff, Citi had obtained the phone number when it was provided
by the Plaintiff's mother.  Thus, Sponsler opined, it would be
necessary to consider information in the files beyond the
Individual Notes Screens to determine whether there was consent.

The Court agreed, finding that "[t]he level of potential error
within both classes is significant."

Plaintiff's Response

In response to the Taylor/Sponsler opinions, Plaintiff argued that
Hansen had provided a common way of addressing the issue of consent
because "he could automatically search the Individual Note Screens
for evidence that the accountholder re-consented to a phone call,"
by devising a keyword search for "re-consent phrases".  But the
Court rejected the idea, finding that "Hansen was unable to execute
this mass-search to show that it could be done," and that in any
event "there is no one word that Hansen could search to determine
the consent status for each potential class member at the time of
each potential violation."

The Court found this approach to be "equally problematic" with
respect to the wrong number class, and was not convinced that
Hansen had developed a common way to isolate those who had already
consented to calls.  This is due to a circumstance present in many
wrong number debt-collection classes: many customers would falsely
claim that Citi had called the wrong number to avoid calls, and if
the customer provided a number belonging to another person -- say a
family member -- an inquiry into that customer's authority to
provide consent to call that number would be required.

But above it all, the Court was left unpersuaded by Hansen's
proposals because he "ha[d] not actually executed any of the
methods that he proposes for determining consent or actual wrong
numbers," and Plaintiff could not "establish predominance based on
Hansen's proposed, but unexecuted and unproven analysis."

Key Findings by the Court

After reviewing, analyzing, and digesting the parties' respective
evidence and expert reports, the Court denied class certification
because "individualized issues of consent predominate, and thus
[Plaintiff] has not carried his burden under Rule 23(b)(3)".  And
in reaching its holding, the Court made five key findings:

It didn't matter that consent was an affirmative defense versus an
element of Plaintiff's claim: "The need for individualized inquires
with respect to an affirmative defense may still defeat the
predominance requirement."

The issue of consent eclipsed any other common issues because "most
or even all class members will require this inquiry," and the issue
directly affected "whether [Citi] was liable for some violation of
the law."

Consent is inextricably intertwined with the primary issue of
liability to the point where it predominates over the other common
issues in the case, and other common issues would not "sufficiently
drive the resolution of the litigation to convince the Court to
look past the issue of consent."

Although the Taylor report was based on a statistical sampling
which found consent issues with 15-17% of the class, the purpose of
those reports were to identify some flaws in the potential classes,
not all the flaws.  The point being, is these samplings were enough
to establish that that individualized inquiries into consent would
be required.

As explained above, in the face of Citi's evidence that it had
consent for a significant percentage of the potential class
members, Plaintiff failed to establish a way to determine consent
on a classwide basis.

As we've seen before, weak showings of individualized issues of
consent are bound to result in class certification.  Defeating
certification in revocation or wrong number TCPA class actions
instead requires a robust showing -- supported by "specific
evidence" -- not only that members of the class consented, but that
those issues of consent cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis
without individualized inquiries.  Citi and its lawyers put on
quite the clinic in this case on how that can -- and should -- be
done in these sorts of cases. [GN]


COLACEM CANADA: Jan. 28 Settlement Approval Hearing
---------------------------------------------------
Siskinds, Desmeules s.e.n.c.r.l., disclosed that on September 19,
2018, a settlement agreement was reached in a class action against
Colacem Canada inc. ("Colacem") alleging inter alia neighborhood
disturbances. Colacem has denied and continues to deny any
misconduct or liability of any kind in relation to the exercise of
this class action.

The rights of residents and owners or lessees of a piece of land,
an immoveable or a business in the municipalities of
Grenville-sur-la-Rouge and Harrington, between June 8, 2008 and
January 29, 2015, might be affected.

Under the settlement agreement, an amount of $1,3 million will be
paid to resolve these claims, as well as an amount of $135 000 to
cover the cost of disbursements incurred by Class Counsel (defined
below) in litigating this class action. Colacem has also agreed to
pay notice costs and the costs of administering the settlement
agreement.

An information meeting about the settlement agreement will take
place on Sunday, October 14, 2018, at Harrington Golden Age Center
(HGAC), located at 259, Harrington Road, Grenville-sur-la-Rouge, at
1:00 PM.

The settlement agreement is conditional on approval by the Superior
Court of Québec. The approval hearing will take place on January
28, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., in room 1.156 of the Montréal Courthouse.
At this hearing, Class Counsel will also be asking the Court to
approve a protocol for distributing the settlement funds to class
members and to approve their legal fees.

If you would like to submit comments on/or object to the proposed
settlement agreement or distribution protocol, you must send your
written submissions to Class Counsel at the email or mailing
address provided below so that they are received on or before
January 14, 2019.

For more information and/or to view copies of the proposed
settlement agreement and distribution protocol, visit :
www.siskinds.com/colacem-canada/.

For further information: Please contact:

   Siskinds, Desmeules, s.e.n.c.r.l.
   43, rue de Buade, bureau 320
   Quebec G1R 4A2
   Tel: (418) 694-2009
   Email: recours@siskindsdesmeules.com

For media inquiries, please contact:

   Karim Diallo
   Tel: (418) 694-2009
   Email: karim.diallo@siskindsdesmeules.com [GN]


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement in Backer Law Suit Has Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THE BACKER LAW FIRM, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:15-CV-00327-SRB (W.D. Mo.),
Judge Stephen R. Bough of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, Western Division, granted the Plaintiff's
Amended Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement.

The Judge ordered that the action will be maintained as a class
action under Rule 23, on behalf of the Plaintiff class of all
persons or entities appearing in the List of Class Members to whom
the Defendant sent one or more facsimiles promoting its products,
services, or memberships between April 2, 2011 and April 2, 2015.

Plaintiff The Backer Law Firm, LLC remains the appointed Class
Representative; and Noah K. Wood and Ari N. Rodopoulos of Wood Law
Firm, LLC remain the appointed counsel for the Class.

The Judge approved the Class Notices.  The Administrator is
directed to issue the Class Notices no later than 10 days after
entry of the Order.  The long notice will be posted on the website
for the class members to review as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.  The short notice will be mailed to the class members.
If the Administrator is unable to provide the short notice to any
class members by mail, the Administrator will send the short notice
by facsimile to such class members.

As stated in the Settlement Agreement, Class members will be
entitled to exclude themselves by written statement requesting
exclusion from the settlement on or before the applicable
Objection/Opt-Out Date.  To be valid, the Request for Exclusion
must contain the name and address (telephone number is optional) of
the person or business requesting exclusion and must be returned by
First Class Mail to the Administrator, postmarked on or before the
Objection/Opt-Out Date.  The Class members will be entitled to
object to the proposed settlement on or before Oct. 29, 2018.

The Final Approval Hearing is set for Nov. 13, 2018, at 2:30 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/YJwBiq from Leagle.com.

The Backer Law Firm, on behalf of itself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Aristotle N. Rodopoulos --
ari@woodlaw.com -- Wood Law Firm LLC & Noah K. Wood --
noah@woodlaw.com.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, Defendant, represented by Rebecca J.
Schwartz -- rschwartz@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP & Todd
W. Ruskamp -- truskamp@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP.


DAMYE GROUP: Gonzales Garcia Files Labor Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Damye Group Corp., et
al. The case is styled as Melquiades Gonzalez Garcia individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Damye
Group Corp. doing business as: Subsational, Ralab-232 Corp. doing
business as: Subsational, SBSP Corp. doing business as:
Subsational, Gary Gani, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05870 (E.D.
N.Y., Oct. 19, 2018).

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

Subsational is a Glatt Kosher meat restaurant established in 1998
serving Brooklyn NYC. It is located at 2901 Campus Road, Brooklyn,
NY 11210.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


DOORDASH INC: Bessard Suit Seeks Payment of Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
SHAZAE BESSARD, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DOORDASH, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:18-cv-03846 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 16, 2018), seeks minimum wages
for all hours worked up to 40 per week; overtime compensation for
all hours worked in excess of forty 40 per week at the rate of one
and a half times the regular rate of pay; an equal amount as
liquidated damages; reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses of this action; and such other and further
relief as may be required by law.

The complaint says DOORDASH does not pay Plaintiff or its other
delivery drivers (a/k/a Dashers) an hourly wage or a salary.
Rather, the Plaintiff receives the "delivery fee" that is paid by
DOORDASH'S customers, as well as any gratuity that the customer
pays to the Dasher. The Defendant misclassifies Plaintiff and its
Dashers as "independent contractors" rather than "employees" and
fails to pay them for all hours worked. It also fails to pay
appropriate overtime wages when Dashers work more than forty 40
hours in a workweek as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
In addition, the Defendant has required Plaintiff and its other
Dashers to pay business expenses (including expenses incurred to
own/lease a vehicle, maintain it, and fuel it) causing Plaintiff to
be paid less than the statutory minimum and overtime wage required
by Sections 206 and 207 of the FLSA. As a result, Defendant
violates the minimum and overtime wage provisions of the FLSA, says
the complaint.

DOORDASH is a food delivery service which provides home and office
food delivery to its customers. Plaintiff was hired to work as a
delivery driver/Dasher for Defendant.

Plaintiff Shazae Bessard lives in the Southern District of Texas.
Plaintiff is currently employed by Defendant as a Dasher and has
worked there since August 2016.

The class of similarly situated employees consists of all delivery
drivers (i.e. Dashers) who worked for Defendant within the last
three years.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq.
     Todd Slobin, Esq.
     Ricardo Prieto, Esq.
     SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
     Houston, TX 77046
     Telephone: (713) 621-2277
     Facsimile: (713) 621-0993


DOORDASH INC: Workchow Development Files Suit in Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------
Doordash, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit in Tennessee. The
case is styled as Workchow Development, LLC, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Doordash, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01142 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 18, 2018).

DoorDash, Inc. provides on-demand restaurant food delivery services
connecting customers with local businesses in Honolulu and Ottawa
areas. It also serves customers in Rochester, Greenville, and Reno.
DoorDash, Inc. was formerly known as Palo Alto Delivery and changed
its name to DoorDash, Inc. in October 2014.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     E. Adam Webb, Esq.
     Webb & Porter, LLC
     2625 Cumberland Parkway, SE, Suite 220
     Atlanta, GA 30339
     Phone: (770) 444-0773
     Email: eadamwebb@hotmail.com

          - and -

     William F. Burns, Esq.
     Watson Burns, PLLC
     11 S Idlewild Street
     Memphis, TN 38104
     Phone: (901) 529-7996
     Fax: (901) 529-7998
     Email: bburns@watsonburns.com


ELITE MGT: Dismissal of Unjust Enrichment Claim in Barger Flipped
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICOLE McCLENDON BARGER, Individually, and on behalf
of those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELITE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Appeal No. C-170322
(Ohio App.), Judge Charles M. Miller of the Court of Appeals of
Ohio First District, Hamilton County, (i) affirmed the trial
court's dismissal of Barger's claims for breach of contract,
violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act ("OCSPA") and
the Ohio Planned Community Law ("OPCL"), and for declaratory
judgment; and (ii) reversed trial court's the dismissal of Barger's
unjust enrichment claim.

Barger owned a home in the Fairfield Ridge Subdivision.  As such,
she was a member of the Fairfield Ridge Homeowners Association
("HOA").  The HOA is not a party to the lawsuit.  As is customary,
Barger was required to pay HOA assessments to cover the costs of
operating, maintaining and governing the subdivision.  According to
Barger's complaint, to sell her house, Barger had to provide the
title company a letter certifying the amount of any HOA fees Barger
may have owed, or the sale would not have closed.  Under the HOA's
Declaration, the HOA could levy a "reasonable charge" to provide
such certification letters to its members.

The HOA had contracted with EMS to provide certain management
services for the HOA.  EMS provided Barger with the required
certification letter.  EMS allegedly charged Barger $395 for the
letter, along with a $100 fee to expedite the letter for the
closing.  According to Barger, other companies typically charged
$25 to $50 for this service, making EMS's fee unreasonable.

Barger sued EMS on behalf of herself and others similarly situated.
In pertinent part, she claimed that the fee breached EMS'
management contract with the HOA and the HOA's Declaration,
violated the OPCL and the OCSPA, and constituted unjust
enrichment.

EMS moved for and was granted dismissal of Barger's complaint under
Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for the failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted.  In a sole assignment of error, Barger contends
that the trial court erred, and its judgment must be reversed.

Judge Miller affirmed in part and reversed in part.  He sustained
in part and overruled in part Barger's assignment of error.  He
reversed that part of the judgment dismissing her unjust enrichment
claim, and remanded the cause for further proceedings.  In all
other respects, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

He found that the trial court incorrectly dismissed the unjust
enrichment claim on the basis that Barger was not a party to the
management agreement between the HOA and EMS, and was also not a
third-party beneficiary of it.  Thus, the court determined EMS did
not breach a duty to Barger by charging an allegedly exorbitant fee
for the letter.  While this was the proper basis for dismissing
Barger's breach of the management agreement claim, Barger's unjust
enrichment claim lies outside of that agreement.  The claim is
sufficiently plead and stands on its own.  He therefore reversed
that part of the trial court's judgment dismissing Barger's unjust
enrichment claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/yzji1x from Leagle.com.

Montgomery, Rennie & Jonson, George D. Jonson -- GJonson@mrjlaw.com
-- and Anthony P. McNamara -- AMcNamara@mrjlaw.com -- and Statman,
Harris & Eyrich, L.L.C.,, Alan J. Statman --
ajstatman@statmanharris.com -- and Sylvie Derrien --
sderrien@statmanharris.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Stagnaro, Saba, & Patterson Co., L.P.A., Jeffrey M. Nye --
jmn@sspfirm.com -- and Christopher R. Jones -- crj@sspfirm.com --
for Defendant-Appellee.


EVENTBRITE: Faces Class Action Over Ticketfly Cyber-Attack
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Haworth, writing for Portswigger.net, reports that
Eventbrite is facing a class action lawsuit over a cyber-attack on
its subsidiary website Ticketfly, which exposed the details of up
to 27 million users.

The website was compromised by unknown hackers at the end of May,
who left the ticketing site's homepage defaced with the message:
'Your Security Down im (sic) Not Sorry'.

Ticketfly admitted that "some client and customer information" had
been compromised, and later said that this figure was close to 27
million.

Now, the US company is facing further drama as angry victims
launched a class action lawsuit.

The suit reportedly states that Eventbrite 'failed to prevent,
detect, or otherwise act in a reasonable manner or within a
reasonable time' with regards to the breach.

It also alleges that information including names, phone numbers,
passwords, email addresses, and home addresses were accessed in the
hack.

The plaintiff, reported to be a woman named Shanice Kloss, claims
that Eventbrite did not put adequate safety measures in place in an
effort to save money.

Eventbrite has not yet commented on the lawsuit.

So far, the culprit has not been formally identified, and in a
message to Ticketfly named themselves only as 'IsHaKdZ'.

The hackers spoke to Motherboard in June and alleged that they had
reached out to Ticketfly alerting them of a vulnerability and
demanded one bitcoin in exchange for details.

Ticketfly failed to respond to emails, the hackers said, leading to
the attack. [GN]


EXCELSIOR HOTEL: Faces Civil Rights Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Excelsior Syndicate
Inc. asserting civil rights violation. The case is styled as Byron
Breeze, Jr. on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. Excelsior Syndicate Inc. a New York
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09622 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 19,
2018).

Excelsior Syndicate Inc. (trade name Excelsior Hotel) is in the
Residential Hotel Operation business. It is located at 45 W 81st St
New York, NY 10024-6025.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Erik Mathew Bashian, Esq.
     Bashian & Papantoniou, P.C
     500 Old Country Road, Suite 302
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 279-1555
     Fax: (516) 213-0339
     Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com


FAITH AND FREEDOM: Wijesinha Sues Over Unsolicited Text Campaign
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHEHAN WIJESINHA individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FAITH AND FREEDOM COALITION, INC., Case No.
1:18-cv-24134-CMA (S.D. Fla., October 8, 2018), arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act by embarking on an unsolicited text message campaign, causing
the Plaintiff and class members injuries, including invasion of
their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion,
trespass, and conversion.

FFC is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization with its principal
office located in Duluth, Georgia.  FFC is a political non-profit
organization whose goals are to "influence public policy and enact
legislation that strengthens families, promotes time-honored
values, protects the dignity of life and marriage, lowers the tax
burden on small business and families, and requires government to
tighten its belt and live within its means."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: American Express Can Intervene in Brown Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAYO BROWN, pleading on his own behalf and on behalf
of all similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff, v. FIRSTSOURCE
ADVANTAGE, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-5760 (E.D. Pa.),
Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granted American Express Bank, FSB's
motion to intervene as a Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 24(a)(2).

Brown sued Firstsource alleging improper and deceptive debt
collection activity in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA").  Brown's claims arise from Firstsource's
efforts to collect his American Express credit card debt.  Between
Dec. 30, 2016 and April 3, 2017, Brown received four letters signed
by "American Express Global Collections" inviting him to settle his
debt.  He alleges that Firstsource mailed and sent those letters,
intentionally masquerading as American Express.  Brown brought a
putative class action against Firstsource on Dec. 18, 2017,
alleging unfair and deceptive acts in violation of the FDCPA.

When Brown opened his Gold Delta SkyMiles credit card account on
Jan. 30, 2015, he entered into a Cardmember Agreement with American
Express that contains an arbitration provision.

American Express moved to intervene as a Defendant on Feb. 21,
2018.  It contends that Brown's claim threatens its ability to use
third-party vendors like Firstsource to collect consumer debt.  It
also argues that Brown's Cardmember Agreement with American Express
governs disputes between consumers and third-party vendors, and
Brown's putative class action thus threatens American Express'
ability to enforce the Agreement's arbitration provision.

Brown opposes the Motion.  Firstsource does not.

Judge Pappert finds that American Express has alleged sufficient
interest in the litigation, namely an interest in defending its
ability to collect debt using third-party vendors and its interest
in enforcing the arbitration provision of its contract with Brown.
The fact that Brown's claim does not directly target American
Express does not render its interests insufficient or general.  As
Brown's creditor, American Express is uniquely positioned between
Brown and Firstsource. Brown's claim challenges the way American
Express's vendors communicate with consumers.  And if the
arbitration provision of the Cardmember Agreement does govern
disputes between consumers and vendors, American Express has a
specific interest in ensuring that those claims are resolved in its
chosen forum.

He also finds that American Express has demonstrated a tangible
threat that its interests will be impaired, as a practical matter,
by the disposition of the case.  Regardless of the outcome, its
interest in arbitrating these types of disputes with not only
Brown, but all American Express cardholders, will be impaired if it
is not given the chance to argue that the arbitration provision of
its Cardmember Agreement applies to FDCPA claims against its
vendors.  A ruling for Brown that Firstsource violated the FDCPA
would also directly affect the way American Express uses vendors to
communicate with consumers and collect debt.

Finaly, he finds that American Express has met its burden to show
that Firstsource may not adequately represent its interests in the
case.  Firstsource has an interest in defending its own compliance
with the FDCPA.  That interest is distinct from and narrower than
American Express' interest in defending the way its vendors
communicate with its cardholders using American Express' name.
Moreover, only American Express can enforce the arbitration
provision of its contract with Brown.  Brown's argument that the
parties cannot have divergent interests if they are represented by
the same counsel also misses the mark.  While it may show that
American Express and Firstsource's interests are not adverse,
American Express could still raise defenses, like the arbitration
provision of the Cardmember Agreement, that Firstsource is unable
to invoke.

For these reasons, Judge Pappert granted American Express' Motion.
An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 21, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/TAsUhV from Leagle.com.

DAYO BROWN, PLEADING ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER
SIMILAR SITUATED CONSUMERS, Plaintiff, represented by ALEXANDER R.
FERRANTE -- arf@goldferrantelaw.com -- GOLD & FERRANTE & DANIEL
ZEMEL, ZEMEL LAW LLC.

FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE, LLC, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER
R. FREDRICH -- cfredrich@stroock.com -- STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN
LLP, DAVID W. MOON -- dmoon@stroock.com -- STROOCK & STROOCK &
LAVAN LLP & CASEY GREEN -- cg@greatlawyers.com -- SIDKOFF, PINCUS &
GREEN, P.C.

AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB, Movant, represented by CASEY GREEN,
SIDKOFF, PINCUS & GREEN, P.C..


FORESTRY MGMT: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in Montford Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN MACK MONTFORD, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated who consent to their inclusion in a collective
action, Plaintiffs, v. FORESTRY MANAGEMENT SERVICE, LLC and BRANDAN
SPILLERS, Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:18-CV-19 (MTT) (M.D. Ga.),
Judge Marc T. Treadwell of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia, Macon Division, denied as premature the
Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.

The case is a putative class action asserting claims for overtime
violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  On March
23, 2018, the Court issued its Scheduling Order, setting Sept. 24,
2018 as the deadline for discovery.  

On July 11, 2018, the Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment
as to liability for overtime for themselves as well as all
similarly situated employees and ex-employees of the Defendants.
In response, the Defendants point out that the Court recently
granted conditional certification of the FLSA collective action,
the potential opt-in Plaintiffs have not yet been added to the
case, and discovery is ongoing.  They also note that the
depositions have not yet begun, and the facts (uncontested and
otherwise) have yet to be developed.  Thus, the Defendants contend
that the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is
premature at this stage.

Judge Treadwell agrees.  He explains that as acknowledged by the
Plaintiffs in the parties' joint supplemental discovery status
report, which was filed on Aug. 24, 2018, the parties have not yet
conducted depositions and expect to seek an extension of the
discovery deadline to allow the additional Plaintiffs sufficient
time to opt in and appropriate written and deposition discovery to
take place.  In fact, on Sept. 21, 2018, the parties filed a joint
motion seeking to extend the discovery period for 60 days after the
end of the opt-in period.  The Judge granted that motion.

Clearly, at this stage, the Defendants have not had an adequate
opportunity to develop the facts necessary to oppose the
Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.  Accordingly,
Judge Treadwell denied the Plaintiffs' motion as premature.  The
Plaintiffs may move for summary judgment after the discovery period
ends and after the additional Plaintiffs have opted in.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 21, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Oc8jDQ from Leagle.com.

JOHN MACK MONTFORD, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated who consent to their inclusion in a collective
action, WINIFRED WORSHAM, RICHARD TURNER, LAFONZA TOWNS, ALDWIA
TOOKES, DAVID COLBERT, JEREMY KENNINGTON & JAMIE KENNINGTON,
Plaintiffs, represented by MCNEILL STOKES --
mcstokes@bellsouth.net.

FORESTRY MANAGEMENT SERVICE LLC & BRANDAN SPILLERS, formerly known
as BRAND SPILLER, Defendants, represented by ALYSSA K. PETERS --
apeters@constangy.com -- Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete, LLP &
William J. Martin, II -- jmartin@constangy.com -- Constangy Brooks
Smith & Prophete, LLP.


GLENMORE & CENTRE: To Pay $2MM in Partial Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reid Southwick, writing for CBC News, reports that a company owned
by real estate developer Riaz Mamdani will pay more than $2 million
in a partial settlement over a class-action lawsuit, allowing
investors to recoup roughly half of what they lost in an alleged
conspiracy.

But the deal states Mr. Mamdani and his companies don't accept any
guilt or liability in the alleged scheme at the centre of the case,
which involved a complex web of investments in a southeast Calgary
strip mall.

As a result of the settlement, approved by Court of Queen's Bench
Justice Alan Macleod earlier in September, all of the claims
against Mr. Mamdani and his companies are dismissed.

Partner denies allegations
The class action continues against the remaining defendants,
including Shariff Chandran, Mr. Mamdani's former business partner
who denies the allegations against him.

"We see it as a real win for class members," said Andrew Sunter, a
lawyer representing investors in the lawsuit.

"In a lot of these types of cases, they get pennies on the dollar,
and this is a partial settlement with one of the defendants, and
we're seeing a recovery of close to 50 per cent [of lost
investments]."

But Frank Percival, a Calgary man who claims he lost $50,000 in the
strip mall investment in 2008, said he has mixed emotions about the
settlement.

"We can say we're happy that we won, but what did we win? We got
half our money or less, and it's taken 10 years to do it," Percival
said.

Mr. Mamdani declined an interview request. In a statement, he said
he hopes investors will recoup their losses from the remaining
defendants.

The real estate developer was shot six times outside his Upper
Mount Royal mansion in December 2016 in what police later called an
attempted murder, but investigators have made no arrests.

A long list of people had grievances against Mr. Mamdani, given
that he, his wife and his companies have been involved in dozens of
lawsuits. But it's unknown whether those cases had anything to do
with the shooting.

The partial settlement involves a strip mall called Glenmore &
Centre, located at 6624 and 6626 Centre Street S.E. According to
the lawsuit, people who invested in the development were told
they'd get steady returns every three months and would also receive
a share of revenues from an eventual sale of the property.

Mr. Sunter said several investors put up hundreds of thousands of
dollars for the project -- in some cases their life savings -- and
allegedly never saw their initial investment again.

According to Mr. Sunter, an estimated 110 investors are owed
roughly $4.5 million. His firm filed the lawsuit in 2012 and it was
certified as a class action more than a year later.

None of the claims have been proven.

Mr. Mamdani and Mr. Chandran are named in a separate omnibus class
action lawsuit that alleges 2,200 investors lost $180 million in a
conspiracy involving 21 other projects. They both deny the
allegations.

The Glenmore & Centre case was carved out of the larger class
action by court order.

Mr. Chandran said in an interview the strip mall case has been
dragging through the courts.

"If [the plaintiffs] want to continue with it, we'll see where it
goes," he said, adding he'll keep fighting the allegations.

According to court records, the partial settlement over the
Glenmore & Centre lawsuit is a "compromise of disputed claims."

Strategic Group says case 'fully resolved'
The Strategic Group, Mr. Mamdani's flagship real estate firm, noted
in a press release the case is now fully resolved against the
company and its chief executive.

"It is our hope the plaintiffs will recover their losses," Mr.
Mamdani said in the statement.

The release doesn't mention the multimillion-dollar settlement but
notes the court approved a "mechanism" allowing for the payment of
legal fees.

Glenmore & Centre Ltd., another of Mr. Mamdani's companies, agreed
to pay $2.25 million in the partial settlement. While lawyers will
take roughly $357,000, plus administrative costs, the remaining
funds will go to investors.

They have until the end of November to file claims, which Mr.
Sunter will review to ensure they're valid before submitting them
to court for approval.

Mr. Sunter expects investors will start receiving money by late
January 2019.

"Once we have administered this payout, we'll focus on seeing what
additional recovery we can get for our clients," he said. [GN]


GLOBAL DOC: Benhayon Files Suit in Florida Court
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Doc Prep, Inc.
The case is styled as Michael Benhayon individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Global Doc Prep,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-62516-RNS (S.D. Fla., Oct. 19,
2018).

Global Doc Prep was founded with the sole purpose of providing the
essential services needed in order to navigate, prepare and follow
through with the Federal Student Loan documentation process.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
     Hiraldo P.A.
     401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 1400
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
     Phone: (954) 400-4713
     Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com



GLOBAL POWER: Shareholder Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
Ambrogio Visconti, writing for Global Legal Chronicle, reports that
a Cahill litigation team has prevailed on behalf of Global Power
Equipment Group Inc. (now Williams Industrial Services Group Inc.)
in obtaining the dismissal with prejudice of a putative shareholder
class action.

Williams Industrial Services Group Inc. provides general and
specialty construction, maintenance and modification, and plant
management support services to the nuclear, hydro and fossil power
generation, pulp and paper, refining, petrochemical, and other
process and manufacturing industries.

The action was filed in 2015 following Global Power's announcement
of its intent to restate certain of its prior financial statements.
The complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On September 11, 2018, Chief Judge
Barbara Lynn of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in
its entirety with prejudice.

Cahill advised with a team including Bradley J. Bondi, David G.
Januszewski, Tammy L. Roy and John Cycon. [GN]


GMRI INC: Liggins Files Labor Class Action California
-----------------------------------------------------
A labor class action lawsuit has been filed against GMRI, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Adrienne Liggins individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff v.
GMRI, INC., a Florida corporation doing business as Olive Garaden
Italian Restaurant, Olive Garden Holdings, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, Olive Garden, LLC a California limited liability
Company, Darden Restaurants, Inc. a Flordia corporation, Olive
Garden Italian Restaurant-Manhattan Beach an entity of unknown
form, and Olive Garden Italian Restaurant-Huntington Beach an
entity of unknown form, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-09000 (C.D.
Cal., Oct. 18, 2018).

GMRI, Inc. owns and operates a network of fresh grill and wine bars
in the United States. Its wine bars offer custom flatbreads, mini
indulgences, lunch and dinner menus, bar menus, private dining
services, chef's table menus, and alternative menus; and various
organic and biodynamic wines. GMRI, Inc. was formerly known as
General Mills Restaurants Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



GOOGLE INC: Averts UK Suit Over iPhone User Data Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
Deutshce Well reports that the UK's High Court ruled on Oct. 8 not
to go ahead with a mass lawsuit against internet giant Google for
allegedly collecting sensitive data from 4.4 million iPhone users
in England and Wales.

The High Court judgement stated, "there is no dispute that it is
arguable that Google's alleged role in the collection, collation,
and use of data obtained via the Safari Workaround was wrongful,
and a breach of duty."

Justice Mark Warby overseeing the case said it had been blocked
because the claim that people had suffered damages were not
supported by the facts, as well as the impossibility of calculating
the number of iPhone users affected.

The collection of data was "wrongful and a breach of duty," he
said, but ruled that there was insufficient evidence "damages" had
been incurred.

Allegations

The legal challenge from a group calling itself Google You Owe Us
was a representative action -- a claim brought by an individual on
behalf of a group of people. It alleged that Google, a unit of the
US tech company Alphabet, had bypassed privacy settings on iPhones
between August 2011 and February 2012 to collect data for
advertisers. It launched legal action last November.

The group said it had hoped to win GBP1 billion (EUR1.1 billion,
$1.3 billion) in compensation. A lawyer for the group told the
judge in the case that the same alleged activity had been exposed
in 2012 and that Google had already paid millions to settle claims
in the US.

Its leader, Richard Lloyd, called the decision "extremely
disappointing" and said there were plans to appeal.

"The judgement effectively leaves millions of people without any
practical way to seek redress and compensation when their personal
data has been misused," he said.

Google happy

"The privacy and security of our users is extremely important to
us. This claim is without merit, and we're pleased the Court has
dismissed it," a Google spokesperson said. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Google+ to Shut Down Following User Data Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Corbett, writing for Fortune, reports that a Google+ security
bug gave outside developers access to the private data of hundreds
of thousands of the social network's users between 2015 and March
2018, according to a Wall Street Journal report. Google neglected
to report the issue to the public, allegedly out of fear that the
company would face regulations and damage to its reputation,
according to sources and documents obtained by the Journal.

In a memo cited by the paper, Google's legal and policy staff
warned against disclosing the bug, fearing it would draw
comparisons to Facebook's mishandling of user data, when more than
50 million Facebook users had their personal information leaked to
the data firm Cambridge Analytica.

The information exposed in the Google+ incident included full
names, email addresses, birth dates, gender, profile photos, places
lived, occupation, and relationship status.

Though this incident wasn't technically a breach -- there was no
hack or signs of abuse -- Google has recently been at the center of
a number of privacy breaches. The company was the target of a
massive class action lawsuit in the U.K. after 4 million users had
their personal data collected and allegedly used for targeted
advertising. The lawsuit was blocked in the High Court on Oct. 8.

The Google+ data vulnerability was discovered in March of this year
during an audit of the company's APIs, conducted by a privacy task
force codenamed Project Strobe. A bug in the API could have allowed
outside developers to access the data of 496,951 users who had only
opted to share their private profile data with friends.

Google was expected to announce the bug on Oct. 8, as well as its
plans shut down Google+, according to the Journal. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Matic Sues Over Data Leak Exposing Users' Info
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Matic, an individual and California Resident, and Zak Harris,
an individual and California Resident v. GOOGLE, INC. and ALPHABET,
INC., Case No. 5:18-cv-06164 (N.D. Cal., October 8, 2018), is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated users alleging violations of the Consumer Records Act,
Online Privacy Protection Act and Federal Trade Commission Act.

The case involves the data leak Google and Alphabet announced on
October 8, 2018, wherein the Personal Information of up to 500,000
users was exposed due to a software glitch that gave third-party
application developers access to private Google+ profile data
between 2015 and March 2018.  The Plaintiff contends that while
this information was supposed to be protected, and shared only with
expressed permissions and limitations, the Defendants allowed
third-party application developers to improperly collect the
Personal Information of up to 500,000 Google+ users.

Google, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal
headquarters in Mountain View, California.  Alphabet, Inc., is a
Delaware corporation with its principal headquarters in Mountain
View.  Alphabet is a public holding company formed in a corporate
reorganization by Google.  Through the corporate restructuring,
Google is now a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Alphabet.

Launched in June 2011, Google+ (or Google Plus) is a social network
owned and operated by Google for consumers with Google accounts.
Google+ facilitates the sharing of information, photographs,
weblinks, conversations, and other shared content similar in many
respects to the Facebook news feed or Twitter stream.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: carnold@justice4you.com
                  jwatson@justice4you.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Jean S. Martin, Esq.
          Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                  jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
                  rmcgee@ForThePeople.com


GOOGLE INC: Settles Applicants' Age Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that Google has
reached a tentative deal with a class of older job applicants to
settle claims that the tech giant interviewed them to give the
impression that it cared about diversity, but then passed them over
for engineering jobs because of their age.

U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman in San Jose, California on
Oct. 5 granted a joint motion filed earlier in the day by Google
and the plaintiffs to stay the case pending a final deal. They did
not disclose any details of the tentative settlement, and said they
would file a proposal in the next 90 days. [GN]


HALSTON OPERATING: Figueroa Files ADA Suit in NY Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Halston Operating
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Halston
Operating Company, LLC doing business as: Halston Heritage,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09583 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 18, 2018).

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

Halston Operating Company, LLC, doing business as Halston Heritage,
designs, manufactures, and retails apparel. The Company offers
dresses, tops, sweaters, skirts and shorts, pants, jumpsuits,
jackets, coats, and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HASBRO INC: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a class action has
been commenced by an institutional investor on behalf of purchasers
of Hasbro, Inc. (NASDAQ:HAS) common stock during the period between
April 24, 2017 and October 23, 2017 (the "Class Period"). This
action was filed in the District of Rhode Island and is captioned
City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. Hasbro, Inc.,
et al., No. 18-cv-00543.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Hasbro common stock during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on
behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from
today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of
Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
djr@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/hasbro/

The complaint charges Hasbro and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Hasbro is a global play and entertainment company that promotes its
brands through immersive storytelling across mediums, including
television, film, digital and more. Hasbro's biggest customers are
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Toys "R" Us, Inc. and Target Corporation,
which accounted for approximately 18%, 9%, and 9% respectively, of
its consolidated net revenues in fiscal year 2016.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse
information regarding Hasbro's business and prospects.
Specifically, defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that
Hasbro's relationship with Toys "R" Us was becoming increasingly
important to Hasbro's business, as Toys "R" Us was the primary
retail brick-and-mortar toy store in the United States, and that
Toys "R" Us was in far worse financial condition than was being
publicly reported and it would have to dramatically scale back its
operations or file for bankruptcy and liquidate. In addition,
Hasbro was experiencing significant undisclosed adverse sales
issues in two key markets -- the United Kingdom and Brazil -- which
were negatively impacting the Company's efforts to grow sales in
those markets. As a result of this information being withheld from
the market, the price of Hasbro common stock was artificially
during the Class Period to over $115 per share and Hasbro insiders
were able to sell $147 million worth of their personally held
Hasbro stock to the public at inflated prices.

Then on October 23, 2017, Hasbro announced its third quarter 2017
financial results for the period ended October 1, 2017. Hasbro
reported that the United States and Canada were negatively impacted
by the Toys "R" Us bankruptcy. This contributed to a 5% decline in
the U.S. and Canada segment quarterly operating profit to $217.3
million, or 21.9% of net revenues, compared to $228 million, or
24.4% of net revenues in 2016. Hasbro's CEO stated that, "[a]s a
result of the Toys "R" Us bankruptcy filing in the U.S. and Canada,
there was a negative impact on our quarterly revenues and operating
profit." And the Company's CFO warned that the challenges in the
U.K. and Brazil were anticipated to continue for the remainder of
the year and sales would be up only 4% to 7% from a year ago in the
fourth quarter. On this news, the price of Hasbro common stock
declined from $92.69 per share to $89.75 per share, a 22% decline
from the stock's Class Period high of $115.95 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Hasbro common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

Visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.

         Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
         David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Telephone: 800-449-4900
         Email: djr@rgrdlaw.com
                SRudman@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


HUAZHU GROUP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
National law firm Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (GPM) on Oct. 8
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of persons and/or entities that acquired Huazhu Group
Limited (Huazhu or the Company) (NASDAQ: HTHT) securities between
May 14, 2018 and August 28, 2018, inclusive (the Class Period).
Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants, under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Huazhu investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from
October 8, 2018, to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in
this action.

On August 28, 2018, media outlets reported that Chinese police were
investigating a possible leak of client information from Huazhu,
stating that nearly 500 million pieces of customer-related
information, including registration information, personal data, and
booking records, had emerged in an online post. On this news, the
Companys share price fell $1.55 per share, or approximately 4.36%,
to close at $33.98 per share on August 28, 2018.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Companys business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company lacked adequate security measures
to protect customer information; (2) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company would be susceptible to increased litigation
risk and higher expenses; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
the Companys goodwill would potentially suffer, leading to lower
revenues; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants
positive statements about the Companys business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased Huazhu securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than 60 days from October 8, 2018, to ask
the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the
Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action,
or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased. [GN]


HYCROFT MINING: Class of Shareholders Certified in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------
THE CLASS:

This Notice is directed to:

All persons, other than Excluded Persons, who purchased common
shares of Hycroft Mining Corporation ("Hycroft") between May 9,
2013 and May 17, 2013 pursuant to its May 17, 2013 secondary public
offering ("SPO") under the Canadian Prospectus, and who continued
to hold some or all of those common shares on July 22, 2013 (the
"Class" and "Class Member(s)").

Excluded Person means Hycroft, Cormark Securities Inc. and Dundee
Securities Ltd.'s subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors,
senior employees, legal representatives, heirs, predecessors,
successors and assigns, and any member of the immediate families of
Scott A. Caldwell and Robert M. Buchan (collectively, the
"Individual Defendants") and any entity in which any of the
foregoing has or had an interest during the distribution period for
the Prospectus, or at any time that a document incorporated by
reference in the Prospectus was released, and, with respect to the
Class definition found at paragraph 1(g) of the Second Fresh as
Amended Statement of Claim, means United States citizens or
residents who acquired Hycroft's securities in the SPO in a trade
under the U.S. prospectus.

SUMMARY OF THE LAWSUIT:

In 2014, a proposed securities class action was commenced against
Hycroft and its former Presidents and Chief Executive Officers,
Scott A. Caldwell and Robert M. Buchan, in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice (the "Court"). The lawsuit alleges that Hycroft
and the Individual Defendants released documents and made other
statements in the period leading up to the SPO and released the
Prospectus for the SPO containing misrepresentations about the
Company’s business and operations concerning: (1) its ability to
process and leach ore placed on Hycroft's Lewis Leach Pad and
resulting unreasonable gold-production and cash-cost guidance
projections; and (2) the retention of a third-party engineering
firm to investigate material problems with the Lewis Leach Pad
weeks prior to releasing the Prospectus for the SPO. The lawsuit
further alleges that when the Company issued statements correcting
these misrepresentations on July 22, August 6, and August 7, 2013,
the price of Hycroft's stock declined to reflect the true state of
events, thereby harming Class Members.

The lawsuit asks the Court to award monetary damages to Class
Members for the alleged misrepresentations in Hycroft's public
disclosures. If the Plaintiff is successful in its lawsuit, you may
be eligible to receive compensation from Hycroft or the Individual
Defendants for damage or loss which you may have incurred as a
result of the alleged misrepresentations. A copy of the latest
version of the Statement of Claim, as well as other legal documents
associated with this action, can be found at www.morgantico.com.

THE CERTIFICATION ORDER:

On October 24, 2017, the Honourable Justice Perell of the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice certified the action: LBP Holdings Ltd. v
Hycroft Mining Corporation, et al., Court File No.:
CV-14-50851300-CP (the "Class Action") as a class proceeding
against Hycroft and the Individual Defendants on consent, and
appointed LBP Holdings Ltd. as the representative plaintiff.

The Class Action has been certified on behalf of the Class
(described above) composed of "Class Members" other than Excluded
Persons.

WHAT DOES CERTIFICATION MEAN:

The Certification Order means that the lawsuit may proceed to
pre-trial discovery and may eventually advance to trial as a class
action on behalf of all Class Members for damages arising out of
alleged misrepresentations in certain Hycroft disclosure
documents.

Certification is a procedural step that defines the form of the
litigation, allowing it to be pursued on behalf of the Class.

The substance of the litigation (i.e. the allegation that the
Defendants made misrepresentations in their public disclosure
documents) has not been adjudicated by the Court. The Defendants
deny the allegations.

WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE LAWSUIT:

YOU DO NOT NEED TO DO ANYTHING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CLASS ACTION

Class Members are automatically included in a class action once
certified, and you do not need to do anything at this time if you
wish to participate in this Class Action. This includes Class
Members who reside anywhere in Canada, not just in Ontario.

As a Class Member, you will not be required to pay any costs in the
event that this Class Action is unsuccessful.

YOU MUST OPT-OUT IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE BOUND BY THE OUTCOME OF
THE CLASS ACTION

Class Members who wish to pursue their own action or who do not
want to be bound by the outcome of the Class Action MUST OPT-OUT of
the Class Action.

If you want to opt-out of the Class Action, you must send an
OPT-OUT FORM stating that you elect to opt-out of the Class in the
Hycroft Mining Corporation Class Action.

The Opt-Out Form is available at www.morgantico.com, or by calling
Morganti & Co., P.C. at (647) 344-1900. Any Class Member who wishes
to opt-out of the Class Action shall deliver a completed Opt-Out
Form by email to hdavarinia@morgantilegal.com or by regular mail or
courier to:

Morganti & Co., P.C.
One Yonge Street, Suite 1506
Toronto Ontario, M5E 1E5

The Opt-Out Form must be postmarked if sent by mail, or received if
sent by e-mail or courier, on or before November 30, 2018 at 5:00pm
E.S.T.

Each Class Member who does not opt-out of the Class Action will be
bound by the terms of any judgement or settlement, whether
favourable or not, and will not be allowed to pursue an independent
action. If the Class Action is successful, you may be entitled to
share in the amount of any award or settlement recovered. In order
to determine if you are entitled to share in the award or
settlement and the amount, if any, of your share, it may be
necessary to conduct an individual determination. There may be
costs payable by you if you submit a claim and it is determined
that you are not entitled to share in the award or settlement.

You will have the opportunity to decide if you wish to proceed with
your individual entitlement determination before it begins.

No person may opt-out a minor or mentally incapable Member of the
Class without permission of the courts after notice to the
Children's Lawyer and/or the Public Guardian and Trustee, as
appropriate.

If you wish to pursue other claims against the Defendants relating
to the matters at issue in the Class Action, you should immediately
seek independent legal advice. If you do not exclude yourself from
participating in this Class Action, all of your claims relating to
the subject matter of this litigation will be determined by the
result obtained in the Class Action, whether by settlement or
judgement.

Please see the "Additional Information" section for directions to
obtain further detail on the scope of the certified Class Action
and the claims that will be advanced against the Defendants.

CLASS COUNSEL AND LEGAL FEES:

The Plaintiff and the Class in this Class Action are represented by
Morganti & Co., P.C. ("Class Counsel").

Morganti & Co., P.C. is acting on a contingency basis, such that
legal fees, disbursements and applicable taxes will only be payable
in the event of success in the Class Action. Morganti & Co., P.C.
is also paying all disbursements incurred in the Class Action,
subject to reimbursement in the event of success.

In the event of success in the Class Action, Class Counsel will
make a motion to the Court to have their fees and disbursements
approved.

As stated above, as a Class Member, you will not be required to pay
any costs in the event that the Class Action is unsuccessful.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

This Notice was approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
The Court office cannot answer any questions about the matters in
this Notice. The order of the Court and other information are
available at www.morgantico.com.

Questions relating to the Class Action should be directed by email
or telephone to Class Counsel:

         Contact:
         Morganti & Co., P.C.
         Attn: Hadi Davarinia, Esq.
         One Yonge Street, Suite 1506
         Toronto Ontario, M5E 1E5
         Telephone: 647-344-1900 ext. 5
         Website: www.morgantico.com.
         Email: hdavarinia@morgantilegal.com

Personal Legal Advice:

Class Members who seek the advice or guidance of their personal
lawyers may do so at their own expense.

The publication of this notice was authorized by the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice.
Questions about this Notice should NOT be directed to the Court.

         Contacts:
         Hadi Davarinia, Esq.
         Morganti & Co., P.C.
         Email: hdavarinia@morgantilegal.com [GN]


IMPINJ INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that
purchasers of Impinj, Inc. (NasdaqGS: PI) have filed a class action
complaint against the company's officers and directors for alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between November
3, 2016 and February 15, 2018. Impinj operates a platform that
enables wireless connectivity to everyday items by delivering each
item's unique identity, location, and authenticity to business and
consumer applications.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
https://www.robbinsarroyo.com/impinj-inc-oct-2018/

Impinj Accused of Misleading Investors Regarding Product Demand

According to the complaint, Impinj told investors that the company
was increasing inventory levels to meet rising market demands. In
reality, the increased sales Impinj boasted about were the result
of customers temporarily purchasing more inventory to account for
longer production lead times.

On August 3, 2017, the company reduced its full-year forecasts,
projecting approximately half the growth of its endpoint ICs from
what it provided the prior quarter, blaming customers' delayed
expansion as opposed to decline in demand. Then, on November 1,
2017, the company lowered fourth quarter guidance due to "a decline
in endpoint IC demand" attributable to customers "adjusting from a
transition where we had constrained supply and long lead times to
us having a buffer stock in short lead times now." This news caused
the price of Impinj stock to decline approximately 34%.

On February 1, 2018, Impinj pre-announced its fourth quarter 2017
earnings, disclosing a revenue miss, causing its stock to drop
nearly 47%. After the company's February 15, 2018, earnings call
noted a reduction in order backlog and a further reduction in
inventory by Impinj's partners, the stock fell another 18%.

Impinj Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov
at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its
clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and
the companies in which they have invested. [GN]


INSURANCE SERVICES: Lap Seeks to Stop Sending of Unwanted Fax Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAP DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INSURANCE
SERVICES FOR YOU INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
1:18-cv-01267-TSE-IDD (E.D. Va., October 8, 2018), seeks to stop
the Defendant's alleged practice of sending unauthorized and
unwanted fax advertisements, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Insurance Services is a corporation incorporated and existing under
the laws of the state of Delaware and maintains its principal
office in Fairfax, Virginia 22030.

Insurance Services is a national company that markets health
insurance plans for individuals, families, and small
businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq.
          THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM PLLC
          1100 N Glebe Rd., Suite 1010
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Telephone: (703) 665-9529
          E-mail: MBKaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com

               - and -

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


JIA XING: Settlement in Kang FLSA Suit Has Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, QI JUN KANG, Plaintiff, v. JIA XING 39th INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 18 Civ. 1 (HBP) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Henry
Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted the  parties' joint application to approve their
settlement.

On Sept. 11, 2018, the Judge presided over a settlement conference
attended by the parties and their counsel at which a settlement was
reached.  The matter is now before the Court on the parties' joint
application to approve their settlement.

The Plaintiff, who alleges that he worked at the Defendants'
restaurant, brought the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").  The Plaintiff
claims that the Defendants failed to pay him the minimum wage
during his employment and failed to pay him overtime premium pay.
He also asserts claims based on the Defendants' alleged failure to
maintain certain payroll records and to provide certain notices as
required by the NYLL.  He claims that he is entitled to a total of
approximately $34,000 in damages, plus attorney's fees.  He
calculates his total unpaid wages and overtime pay to be
approximately $11,000.

The Defendants dispute all of the Plaintiff's claims.  Although the
Plaintiff claims that he worked for the Defendants for six days a
week from January through July 2015, the Defendants claim that the
Plaintiff worked a total of only 23 days over 7 weeks during that
period.  They claim that the total amount of any unpaid wages or
overtime is negligible.

Following a protracted discussion at the settlement conference of
the strengths and weaknesses of the parties' respective positions,
the parties agreed to resolve the dispute for the total amount of
$11,000, to be paid thirty days after the entry of an Order
approving the settlement.  The parties also agreed that an amount
between $500 and $600 will be paid to the Plaintiff's counsel to
reimburse her for the filing fee and the cost of service and that
one-third of the remainder -- an amount between $10,400 and $10,500
-- will be paid to the Plaintiff's counsel as a fee.  The net
remainder -- approximately $6,966.67 -- will be paid to the
Plaintiff.

Judge Pitman finds that the FLSA settlement is appropriate.  First,
the total settlement represents approximately all of the
Plaintiff's allegedly unpaid wages and overtime pay, exclusive of
pre-judgment interest and liquidated damages.  Given the risks
these issues present, the settlement amount is reasonable.  Second,
the settlement will entirely avoid the expense and aggravation of
litigation.  Third, the settlement will enable the Plaintiff to
avoid the risk of litigation.  Fourth, because he presided over the
settlement conference that immediately preceded the Plaintiff's
acceptance of the settlement, he knows that the settlement is the
product of arm's-length bargaining between experienced counsel.
Fifth, there are no factors here that suggest the existence of
fraud.  Finally, the settlement provides that 33.3% of the net
settlement fund -- approximately $3,483 -- will be paid to the
Plaintiff's counsel as a contingency fee.

Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, Judge Pitman approves
the settlement in the matter.  In light of the settlement, the
action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs.  The Clerk is
respectfully requested to mark the matter closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 21, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/fZw5GV from Leagle.com.

Qi Jun Kang, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Keli Liu --
kliu@hanglaw.com -- Hang & Associates, PLLC.

Jia Xing 39th Inc., Li Xing Inc., Xing Wong Gourmet Inc., Xing Yue
Inc., Cheng Zhong Huang, Zheng Jing Huang, Xing Huang, Liao Lili &
Xue Yan Wang, Defendants, represented by Joey Tsai --
dmin@tsaipllc.com -- Tsai PLLC.


JOY GLOBAL: Settlement in Duncan Suit Has Prelim Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN DUNCAN, et al., Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. JOY GLOBAL INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-1229-pp (E.D. Wis.), Judge Pamela
Pepper of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin granted the parties' motions to preliminarily approve the
settlement agreement.

The Plaintiffs filed the class-action complaint on Sept. 13, 2016,
alleging a breach of fiduciary duties and violations of Sections 14
(a) and 20(A) of the Securities Exchange Act. Dkt.  They filed an
amended complaint on April 26, 2017.  The Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.

Post-briefing -- while the Court had the motion under advisement --
the parties informed the Court that they had reached a settlement
agreement.  On May 23, 2018, the parties filed an unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of settlement agreement, along with a
proposed order.  The Court somehow missed this in the press of its
docket, and failed to act.  So the parties filed another motion,
and provided the Court with an amended proposed order.

Judge Pepper has read and considered the settlement agreement and
the attached exhibits.  She granted the parties' motions to
preliminarily approve the settlement agreement.  The Final Approval
Hearing is set for Dec. 20, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.

Under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and for purposes of the settlement only, the Judge
preliminarily certified the litigation as a class action on behalf
of all those who purchased, sold or held Joy Global common stock
during the period from and including Sept. 1, 2016, the record date
for Joy Global's special stockholder meeting regarding the
acquisition of Joy Global by Komatsu Ltd. and certain of its
subsidiaries, through and including April 5, 2017, the date the
Acquisition closed.

The Judge appointed the Lead Plaintiffs as the class
representatives; Robbins Geller Rudman 85 Dowd LLP and Bronstein,
Gewirtz 85 Grossman, LLC as the Lead Counsel; and the firm of
Gilardi 85 Co., LLC as the Claims Administrator.

She approved the form, substance, and requirements of the Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Proof of Claim
and Release; and the form of the summary notic.

The Judge ordered that the Claims Administrator (i) will make
reasonable efforts to identify all Persons who are Members of the
Class and not later than seven calendar days after the court signs
and enters the Order (the "Notice Date"), and (ii) will commence
mailing of the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release to the Class
Members.  Not later than 10 calendar days after the Notice Date,
the Claims Administrator will cause the Summary Notice to be
published once in the national edition of The Wall Street Journal
and once over a national newswire service.

She also ordered that not later than seven business days prior to
the Final Approval Hearing, the Lead Counsel will serve on the
Defendants' Counsel and file with the court proof, by affidavit or
declaration, of such mailing and publishing.  Those Nominees who
held, purchased or acquired Joy Global common stock for the benefit
of another Person during the Class Period will be requested to send
the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release to such beneficial owners
of Joy Global common stock within 15 calendar days after receipt
thereof, or, send a list of the names and addresses of such
beneficial owners to the Claims Administrator within 15 calendar
days of receipt thereof, in which event the Claims Administrator
will promptly mail the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release to
such beneficial owners.

The date and time of the Final Approval Hearing will be included in
the Notice and Summary Notice before they are mailed and published,
respectively.  All fees, costs, and expenses incurred in notifying
Class Members will be paid from the Settlement Fund and in no event
will any of the Defendants or Related Parties bear any
responsibility for such fees, costs or expenses.

The Lead Counsel will provide to the Defendants' Counsel copies of
all Requests for Exclusion and a list of all Class Members who have
requested exclusion, and any written revocation of Requests for
Exclusion, as expeditiously as possible and in any event no later
than 17 calendar days prior to the Final Approval Hearing.

All funds held by the Escrow Agent will be deemed and considered to
be in custodia legis of the Court, and will remain subject to the
jurisdiction of the Court, until such time as such funds will be
distributed pursuant to the Stipulation and/or further order(s) of
the court.

Judge Pepper directed that all papers in support of the settlement,
Plan of Allocation, and any application by the Lead Counsel for
attorneys' fees and expenses and payment of time and expenses to
the Lead Plaintiffs will be filed and served no later than 35
calendar days prior to the Final Approval Hearing and any reply
papers will be filed and served no later than seven calendar days
prior to the Final Approval Hearing.  At or after the Final
Approval Hearing, the court will determine whether the Plan of
Allocation proposed by Lead Counsel, and any application for
attorneys' fees and expenses, should be approved.  All reasonable
expenses incurred in identifying and notifying Class Members as
well as administering the Settlement Fund will be paid as set forth
in the Stipulation.

The Judge stayed all proceedings in the Litigation until further
order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/wpoSQH from Leagle.com.

Steven Duncan, Lead Plaintiff, represented by David T. Wissbroecker
-- DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Edward M. Gergosian, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Frank J.
Johnson -- FrankJ@JohnsonFistel.com -- Johnson & Weaver LLP, Shimon
Yiftach -- shimony@bgandg.com -- Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman LLC,
William Scott Holleman -- ScottH@JohnsonFistel.com -- Johnson &
Weaver LLP, David A. Knotts -- dknotts@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Peretz Bronstein -- peretz@bgandg.com --
Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, Philip C. Babler --
pcbabler@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP & K. Scott Wagner --
ksw@wagner-lawgroup.com -- Mallery & Zimmerman SC.

Charles Caparelli & Peter Cahill, Lead Plaintiffs, represented by
David T. Wissbroecker, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Edward M.
Gergosian, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Frank J. Johnson,
Johnson & Weaver LLP, Shimon Yiftach, Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman
LLC, William Scott Holleman, Johnson & Weaver LLP, David A. Knotts,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Eugene Bykhovsky, Bykhovsky Law
LLC, Peretz Bronstein, Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, Philip C.
Babler, Foley & Lardner LLP & K. Scott Wagner, Mallery & Zimmerman
SC.

Joy Global Inc, Defendant, represented by Catherine B. Schumacher
-- catherine.schumacher@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer LLP, Daphne Morduchowitz --
daphne.morduchowitz@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer LLP, Elissa J. Preheim -- elissa.preheim@arnoldporter.com
-- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Kate E. Gehl --
kgehl@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Philip C. Babler --
pcbabler@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Thomas L. Shriner, Jr.
-- tshriner@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Vincent A. Sama --
vincent.sama@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP &
Bryan B. House -- bhouse@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP.

Edward L Doheny, II, John Nils Hanson, Steven L Gerard, Mark J
Gliebe, John T Gremp, Gale E Klappa, Richard B Loynd, P Eric
Siegert & James H Tate, Defendants, represented by Kate E. Gehl,
Foley & Lardner LLP, Peter C. Hein, Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz,
Philip C. Babler, Foley & Lardner LLP, Thomas L. Shriner, Jr.,
Foley & Lardner LLP & Bryan B. House, Foley & Lardner LLP.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Employees File Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a proposed
class action challenging the funds in JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s 401(k)
plan could involve the retirement benefits of about 300,000 people,
court documents show.

The JPMorgan employees who filed suit in 2017 asked a federal judge
on Oct. 1 to certify their case as a class action. The proposed
class contains between 266,439 and 301,076 people who had assets in
JPMorgan's 401(k) plan, the employees said in their motion.

The lawsuit claims JPMorgan and its affiliates profited at the
expense of workers' retirement savings by filling the company's
401(k) plan with funds managed by JPMorgan or by affiliated
entities like BlackRock Institutional Trust Co. Judge Jesse M.
Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York in March issued a one-paragraph order allowing most of the
lawsuit to proceed over the bank's motion to dismiss.

Dozens of recent cases have challenged financial companies that
offer affiliated funds in their 401(k) plans, with workers claiming
these funds carry higher fees and perform worse than unaffiliated
funds. The lawsuits so far have been largely allowed to advance,
except in cases against Wells Fargo, Capital Group, and Putnam
Investments. Financial giants such as Deutsche Bank, Allianz SE,
TIAA, New York Life Insurance Co., and Principal Life Insurance Co.
have settled.

JPMorgan's 401(k) plan had more than $27 billion in assets in 2017,
making it one of the largest plans targeted in this litigation
wave.

The employees are represented by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
Nichols Kaster PLLP, Keller Rohrback LLP, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, and Levi & Korinsky LLP. JPMorgan is represented by
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP.

The case is Beach v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, S.D.N.Y., No.
1:17-cv-00563-JMF, motion for class certification 10/1/18. [GN]


KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Corwin Sues Over Akebia Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY CORWIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC., KEVIN J.
CAMERON, MARK J. ENYEDY, STEVEN C. GILMAN, MICHAEL T. HEFFERNAN,
JODIE MORRISON, DANIEL P. REGAN, and MICHAEL ROGERS, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01589-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 16, 2018) is a class
action against Keryx and the members of the Company’s board of
directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the acquisition of Keryx by Akebia
Therapeutics, Inc.

On June 28, 2018, Keryx, Akebia, and Alpha Therapeutics Merger Sub,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Akebia, entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger. To convince Keryx's public common
shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
Defendants authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and
misleading Registration Statement on a Form S-4 with the SEC, in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, says the
complaint. In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete
and misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections
for Keryx; (ii) the valuation analyses conducted by MTS Securities,
LLC an affiliate of the Company's financial advisor, MTS Health
Partners, L.P., in support of its fairness opinion; and (iii) the
Board's potential conflict of interest.

The special meeting of Keryx's public common shareholders to vote
on the Proposed Transaction is forthcoming. It is imperative that
the material information that has been omitted from the Proxy is
disclosed to the Company's shareholders prior to the forthcoming
shareholder vote so that they can properly exercise their corporate
suffrage rights, says the Plaintiff. For these reasons, the
Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9.
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to
consummate the Proposed Transaction unless and until the material
information is disclosed to Keryx's public common shareholders
sufficiently in advance of the upcoming shareholder vote or, in the
event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages
resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff is a shareholder of Keryx common stock.

Defendant Keryx is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices at One Marina Park Drive, 12th Floor, Boston,
Massachusetts 02210. Keryx is a commercial stage biopharmaceutical
company focused on bringing innovative medicines to people with
kidney disease.

The individual defendants are directors and officers of Keryx.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
     Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
     COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
     The Brandywine Building
     1000 West Street, 10th Floor
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel.: (302) 984-3800
     Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

        - and -

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
     New York, NY 10118
     Tel.: (212) 971-1341
     Fax: (212) 202-7880
     Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com



KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Bryce Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Jeffrey Bryce individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kindred
Healthcare Operating, Inc., newly converted to Kindred Healthcare
Operating, LLC, THC-Orange County, LLC a California limited
liability corporation, as separate entities erroneously sued as
THC-Orange County, LLC and THC-Orange County, Inc., Does 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. BC722120, was removed from the Los Angeles
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on October 18, 2018, and assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-09019-SJO-FFM.

The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights and was filed for
Employment Discrimination.

Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc. owns, operates, and manages
Cordova Rehabilitation and Nursing Center. It was formerly known as
Vencor Operating, Inc. and it changed its name to Kindred
Healthcare Operating, Inc. in April 2001.

THC - Orange County, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Kindred
Healthcare Operating, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Danny Yadidsion, Esq.
     Labor Law PC
     100 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 700
     Santa Monica, CA 90401
     Phone: (213) 689-0404
     Fax: (877) 775-2267
     Email: danny@laborlawpc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Jyoti Mittal, Esq.
     Littler Mendelson PC
     2049 Century Park East 5th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
     Phone: (310) 553-0308
     Fax: (310) 553-5583
     Email: jmittal@littler.com
     
          - and -

     Elizabeth Staggs Wilson, Esq.
     Littler Mendelson PC
     633 West Fifth Street 63rd Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 443-4300
     Fax: (213) 443-4299
     Email: estaggs-wilson@littler.com
     
          - and -

     James Elliot Bangert Payer, Esq.
     Littler Mendelson PC
     633 West 5th Street 63rd Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 443-4300
     Fax: (213) 443-4299
     Email: jpayer@littler.com
     
          - and -

     Maggy Mokhles Athanasious, Esq.
     Littler Mendelson PC
     2049 Century Park East 5th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
     Phone: (310) 553-0308
     Fax: (310) 553-5583
     Email: mathanasious@littler.com


KKW TRUCKING: $550K Deal in Demmings FCRA Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RODERICK DEMMINGS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KKW TRUCKING, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:14-cv-0494-SI (D. Or.), Judge Michael H. Simon of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (i) granted the
Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement,
and (ii) granted in part his motion for fees and costs.

The case is a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure brought by Demmings individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated.  The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
KKW violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").  He alleges
that KKW obtained consumer reports without providing proper notice
or obtaining appropriate consent and took adverse action against
Class Members based on the content of the consumer reports without
providing appropriate notice.

On March 25, 2014, Neil C. Scott filed the original complaint in
this case, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.
On June 12, 2015, the complaint was amended to add Roderick C.
Demmings as a named Plaintiff and purported class representative.
Mr. Scott later withdrew as a named Plaintiff, leaving only Mr.
Demmings.  Mr. Demmings filed his Second Amended Complaint on Nov.
9, 2016.

KKW filed a motion to dismiss, primarily based on standing and the
Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.  The Court
denied KKW's motion, primarily based on the Ninth Circuit's
then-recent decision in Syed v. M-I, LLC.  The Court found the
reasoning of Syed to be persuasive and that the provisions under
which the Plaintiff brought his claims created similar rights to
information and privacy.

The parties engaged in formal discovery.  KKW provided the Class
Counsel with thousands of pages of documents.  These documents
included, among other things, its hiring practices, the applicants
who were the subject of Consumer Reports during the Class Period,
and the documents used by KKW to obtain applicants' Consumer
Reports.  The parties conducted depositions.

The parties also participated in three mediations.  The first
mediation took place on March 30, 2015, with Jeff Batchelor in
Portland, Oregon.  The second mediation occurred on Nov. 2, 2015,
with Judge Terry Lukens in Seattle, Washington.  The third
mediation was on Nov. 10, 2017, with Rodney Max in Los Angeles,
California.

The parties continued to discuss settlement after the third
mediation with the assistance of Mr. Max. The parties first
negotiated a $330,000 "Class Recovery Fund" to pay the Class
Members, the settlement administrative fees, the incentive award
for the Class Representative, and approved litigation costs up to
$50,000.  The parties then separately negotiated a $220,000 amount
to pay attorney's fees, with the understanding that any amount not
awarded by the Court to counsel would go the Class Recovery Fund.
The $550,000 total comprises the Settlement Fund.

On March 30, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.  The Court denied
the motion on April 16, 2018, identifying a number of issues,
concerns, and deficiencies raised by the proposed settlement
agreement and notice process.  After the Court's denial of the
first motion for preliminary approval, the parties participated in
further negotiations and reached the Amended Stipulation.

On May 17, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for
preliminary approval.  The Court granted the motion, preliminarily
approving the Amended Stipulation and the Settlement Class;
appointing Matthew A. Dooley, Anthony R. Pecora, and Justin Baxter
as Class Counsel; authorizing the Class Counsel to hire a
third-party claims administrator; approving the Class Notice for
distribution; and requiring that the Class Notice be mailed and
posted on the internet on a website dedicated to the settlement.
The Court also set deadlines for opting out of the Settlement Class
and objecting to the Settlement Agreement or proposed attorney's
fees and incentive award.  The Class Counsel hired Dahl
Administration, LLC  as the claims administrator.

Dahl mailed the Class Notice to all 942 Class Members. The post
office returned 118 notices as undeliverable and 851 Class Members
received the Class Notice.

These actions sufficiently notified the Class Members of the
proposed settlement of the alleged FCRA violations, the proposed
attorney's fees and incentive awards, the right to opt out of the
settlement, the right to object to the Settlement Agreement or fee
or incentive awards, the process and deadline for lodging an
objection, that a final approval hearing on the proposed settlement
was scheduled for Sept. 5, 2018, and the process and deadline for
requesting participation in the final approval hearing.

The Plaintiff also filed his unopposed motions for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement and for Attorney's Fees, Costs, and
Service Award before the deadline for objections.  Only six Class
Members opted-out of the Settlement Class.  No objections were
filed to the Amended Stipulation,  proposed attorney's fees or
expenses, or proposed incentive award.

After considering the relevant factors and circumstances, Judge
finds that the Amended Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Class Members and that each Class Member (except
those six who have timely submitted a valid request for exclusion)
will be bound by the Amended Stipulation and the Opinion and Order.
The six individuals who have timely requested exclusion from the
Settlement Class are not Class Members, will have no rights or
interests with respect to the Amended Stipulation, and will not be
bound by any orders or judgments entered in respect to the Amended
Stipulation.  They are identified in the Opt-Out list that was
filed in the case.

Considering all of the factors, the Judge finds that an upward
departure to 30% of the common fund is appropriate in the case.
The Judge acknowledges that this results in a greater negative
multiplier than the 40% fee requested by the Plaintiff.  At the
Plaintiff's requested 40 award of $220,000, the negative multiplier
would be 0.6763.  The 30% award of $165,000 results in a negative
multiplier of 0.5072.  Nonetheless, he finds that the fee of
$165,000 is fair, reasonable, and adequate compensation given all
of the circumstances of the case.

The Judge will award attorney expenses in the amount of $18,908.50.
He finds these expenses have been reasonably and necessarily
incurred and are recoverable from the proceeds of the common fund.


Finally, the Judge finds that the requested costs in the amount of
$10,338 have been reasonably and necessarily incurred and are
recoverable from the proceeds of the common fund.  Further, payment
of these costs was already factored into the allocation and
communicated to the Class Members.

For these reasons, Judge Simon granted the Plaintiff's unopposed
motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and granted
in part the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs
and Service Award.  The Plaintiff is awarded $165,000 in attorney's
fees.  The remaining funds set aside for attorney's fees will
revert to the Class Recovery Fund.  The Plaintiff is additionally
awarded, to be paid from the Class Recovery Fund, the following:
$18,908.50 in attorney expenses; $7,500 to the Class Representative
as an incentive award; and $10,338 to pay the claims administrator.


The case is dismissed, but the Court retains jurisdiction over the
parties and all matters relating to the Lawsuit and the Amended
Stipulation, including the administration, interpretation,
construction, effectuation, enforcement, and consummation of the
settlement and this Opinion and Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/64qB4Y from Leagle.com.

Roderick Demmings, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Justin M. Baxter --
justin@baxterlaw.com -- Baxter & Baxter, LLP & Matthew A. Dooley --
mdooley@omdplaw.com -- at O'Toole McLaughlin Dooley & Pecora Co.

KKW Trucking, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam E. Brauner --
abrauner@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, Chad J. Kaldor --
ckaldor@littler.com -- Little Mendelson PC, pro hac vice, Rod M.
Fliegel -- rfliegel@littler.com -- Little Mendelson PC, pro hac
vice & LeiLani J. Hart --  lhart@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson,
PC.


LIVING INTENTIONS: Ruiz Files Class Suit Over Product Mislabeling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARID RUIZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LIVING INTENTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-09200
(S.D.N.Y., October 8, 2018), is a consumer protection action
arising out of the alleged deceptive and otherwise improper
business practices that the Company engages in with respect to the
labeling of their Activated Superfood Nut Blend White Chocolate.

According to the complaint, the Product is advertised and sold to
mislead consumers into believing that it contains white chocolate,
when in fact, it does not, the Plaintiff alleges.  The Product is
marketed extensively throughout the United States, numerous retail
stores, and on the Defendant's online Web sites.

Living Intentions, LLC, is a limited liability company organized
under the laws of California, with its headquarters in Richmond,
California.  The Defendant distributes, markets and sells their
Product throughout the 50 states and the District of Columbia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MACMAHON HOLDINGS: Settles Class Action for $6.7MM
--------------------------------------------------
Rachael Jones, writing for Finance News Network, reports that
underground mining company Macmahon Holdings (ASX:MAH) has reached
an agreement to settle the class action proceedings that started
against them in the Federal Court of Australia in November 2015.

The proceedings related to market disclosures by Macmahon in 2012
regarding a construction project in that year.

Macmahon's Chairman, Mr Jim Walker, said: "The decision to settle
was a purely commercial matter, taken in the best interests of our
shareholders.

He said Macmahon continues to deny any wrongdoing in this matter
and it is important to note that the settlement is not an admission
of any liability, nor a finding against the company or any
individuals."

Macmahon will pay $6.7 million in full and final settlement of the
proceedings, inclusive of interest and the applicant's legal costs.
[GN]


MACY'S RETAIL: Can Compel Arbitration in Davis FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Andrew Davis, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc.,
a/k/a Macy's Inc., Defendant, Civil No. 3:17-cv-1807 (JBA) (D.
Conn.), Judge Janet Bond Arterton of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut granted the Defendant's motion to stay
all claims and compel individual arbitration based on an
arbitration agreement to which the Plaintiff and the Defendant are
parties.

Davis brings suit against his former employer Macy's individually
and as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), alleging failure to properly compensate the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week (Count One), and as a class action pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) alleging unlawful classification of the
Plaintiff and the members of the Class as exempt employees and
failure to pay proper overtime compensation under the Connecticut
Minimum Wage Act (Count Two).

The Defendant uses a four-step employment dispute resolution
program called "Solutions InSTORE."  The first three steps are
internal, but the fourth step is binding arbitration administered
by the American Arbitration Association ("AAA").  Within 30 days of
hire, employees must choose whether they wish to participate in the
arbitration step in any future employment disputes.  If employees
want to retain their right to litigate in court, they must complete
an election form provided by Defendant and mail it to Solutions
InSTORE, postmarked within thirty days of hire.  If they agree to
resolve any future disputes by arbitration under the InSTORE
program and relinquish their right to litigate those disputes in
court, the employee simply refrains from completing and returning
the election form within the 30-day period.

The Plaintiff electronically signed the acknowledgement form when
he was hired, but subsequently did not return a completed election
form opting out of the arbitration step.

The Defendant moves to stay all claims and compel individual
arbitration based on an arbitration agreement to which the
Plaintiff and the Defendant are parties.  It maintains that the
Court should compel arbitration because the InSTORE program
materials constitute a valid agreement to arbitrate employment
disputes which covers the FLSA and Connecticut Minimum Wage Act
claims asserted by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff maintains that the purported arbitration agreement is
not an enforceable contract and that there exist such grounds at
law or in equity for the revocation of the agreement under the
savings clause of the FAA.  Specifically, he argues that any assent
to the agreement was induced by the Defendant's fraudulent
misrepresentations.  The Plaintiff does not dispute that the
agreement covers the asserted claims.

Judge Arterton finds that the Defendants' documents plainly state
the terms of the InSTORE Program.  Although the InSTORE program
materials emphasize the benefits of arbitration while minimizing
the consequences in a manner somewhat akin to an advertisement, and
although certain phrases in those materials might better have been
avoided, those rhetorical choices do not render the materials so
incomprehensible or ambiguous that they constitute an invalid
offer.

Davis signed the acknowledgement form, reflecting his understanding
that if he did nothing, i.e., if he did not return the election
form within 30 days of his hire date, he would be agreeing to
resolve all future disputes in arbitration.  Thus, the Judge finds
that the Plaintiffs circumstance is not, as he argues, the same as
a person receiving an unsolicited item in the mail, doing nothing
about it, and then receiving an invoice from the sender.  While the
Plaintiff was silent, he was specifically informed of the
consequence of silence and the Court finds his inaction to
constitute acceptance.

The Judge holds that the arbitration agreement is supported by
valid consideration as it requires both parties to arbitrate
employment-related disputes.  That the Defendant was free to
unilaterally modify or cancel the InSTORE program with 30 days'
notice to employees does not invalidate that consideration because,
upon cancellation or modification, the arbitration obligation still
applies to all claims arising during the notification period.  The
Plaintiff, therefore, cannot avoid arbitration on the grounds that
the agreement is not supported by consideration.

As to other grounds of unenforceability, the Judge finds that
because there is no evidence that the Defendant was then aware of
any falsity in its representation, the Plaintiff's fraudulent
misrepresentation defense fails as to the ACLU endorsement even if
the representation was false and induced the Plaintiffs reliance.
The Plaintiff also has not demonstrated that any of the alleged
misrepresentations were "known to be untrue" by the Defendant, as
is required for the contract defense of fraudulent
misrepresentation.  In the absence of evidence that the program
materials were false and that the Defendant knew they were false,
the Plaintiff's claims of fraudulent inducement fail.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Arterton granted the Defendant's
Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings.  The clerk is
directed to stay the case pending arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2018 Ruling is available
at https://is.gd/6eQOhj from Leagle.com.

Andrew Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Sobelsohn --
dsobelsohn@sobelsohnlaw.com -- The Sobelsohn Law Firm.

Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc., also known as Macy's, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by David R. Golder --
David.Golder@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, Mara E. Finkelstein
-- Mara.Finkelstein@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC & Michael
C. Christman -- michael.christman@macys.com -- Macy's Law
Department.


MAINE: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Gladu Prisoners Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICHOLAS A. GLADU, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH FITZPATRICK,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00274-GZS (D. Maine), Judge
Magistrate John C. Nivison of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maine recommended that the Court dismisses the
Plaintiff's class action allegations and all of his claims except
for his claim against Defendant Manning.

In the action, the Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Maine
Department of Corrections at the Maine State Prison, alleges the
Defendants violated his constitutional rights following an incident
in February 2018.  He also attempts to assert a class action on
behalf of others who are similarly situated.  The Plaintiff filed
an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which application the
Court granted.

The Plaintiff alleges that on Feb. 11, 2018, he received two heavy
applications of pepper spray when he refused to "cuff up" for a
cell extraction, and that he was subsequently denied access to a
shower for three days after he was placed in Emergency Observation
Status ("EOS").  In particular, he alleges that Defendant Manning,
identified as a sergeant at the Maine State Prison, denied his
request for a shower for a period of three days, even though he
reported to the Defendant that his skin was burning from
head-to-toe.

Additionally, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Manning denied
him access to other means of decontamination in his cell (i.e.,
wash cloths and towels), even though prison policy does not deny
EOS prisoners access to such items.  He asserts that Defendants
Liberty and Ross, alleged to be the warden and deputy warden of
security, are liable as supervisors.  He further alleges that
Defendants Fitzpatrick and Thornell have supervisory liability
because they are, respectively, Commissioner and Deputy
Commissioner of the Maine Department of Corrections.

The Plaintiff asserts that Department of Corrections' policy
requires officers to provide reasonable opportunity for a prisoner
to be decontaminated, by means of a shower and clean change of
clothing, following any direct exposure to chemical agents.  He
also alleges that the supervisory Defendants nevertheless tolerate
or condone a practice in which prisoners are denied the ability to
decontaminate after exposure to pepper spray because, based on
information and belief, other prisoners have had experiences
similar to Plaintiff's experience.

The Plaintiff seeks to assert a class action on behalf of all male
prisoners at MSP who were or will be exposed to chemical agents and
then deprived of meaningful opportunity to decontaminate by means
of a shower and clean change of clothing.

Magistrate Nivison holds that the Plaintiff cannot assert a claim
on behalf of other individuals.  As a pro se litigant, the
Plaintiff cannot represent other prisoners in the Court, though he
may provide advice and assistance to his fellow inmates on their
legal matters.  To the extent the Plaintiff proposes not only to
serve as the representative of the class, but also as a legal
representative of the other class members, his request to certify a
class fails.

The Plaintiff's request to certify a class also fails because he
has not otherwise satisfied the requirements for class
certification.  Significantly, the Plaintiff, as the sole proposed
representative of the class, has not alleged that he has claims
that are "typical" of all of the class.  Although he has not
established the prerequisites for class certification, the
Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support an individual
claim.  Specifically, the Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to
state a plausible Section 1983 claim against Defendant Manning
based on the alleged denial of means by which to decontaminate from
the application of pepper spray.  He has not, however, alleged
facts to state plausible claims against any of the other
Defendants.  His allegations against the supervisory Defendants are
conclusory and not fact-based.

Based on the foregoing analysis, Magistrate Judge Nivison
recommended the Court dismisses the Plaintiff's class action
allegations, dismisses the Plaintiff's claims against Defendants
Fitzpatrick, Thornell, Liberty, Ross, Cassese, and Burns, and
permit the Plaintiff, based on the alleged denial of means by which
to decontaminate from the application of pepper spray, to proceed
on a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against Defendant Manning.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2018 Recommended Decision
is available at https://is.gd/fzxla7 from Leagle.com.

NICHOLAS A GLADU, and Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, pro
se.


MGT CAPITAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities
of MGT Capital Investments, Inc. ("MGT" or the "Company") (OTCMKTS:
MGTI) between October 9, 2015 and September 7, 2018, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover MGT
shareholders' investment losses.

If you purchased MGT securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options, please visit MGT Shareholder Class Action
Lawsuit or contact Daniel Sadeh toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
dsadeh@bernlieb.com.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) defendants were engaged in a pump-and-dump scheme to
artificially inflate MGT's stock price; (2) this illicit scheme
caused MGT to make false and misleading statements, which would
result in governmental scrutiny, including from the SEC; (3)
certain of the scheme defendants exercised control over MGT and its
management; (4) consequently, the illicit scheme would ultimately
cause MGT's stock to become delisted from the NYSE MKT; and (5) as
a result, defendants' statements about MGT's business and prospects
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

On September 7, 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") filed a lawsuit against a former officer of MGT as well as
other individuals and corporations, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws. The SEC complaint alleges that defendants
were participants in "highly profitable 'pump-and-dump' schemes . .
. . from 2013 through 2018" in the stock of three public companies,
including MGT. The SEC complaint further alleges that the schemes
"enrich[ed] Defendants by millions of dollars, [and] left retail
investors holding virtually worthless shares."

On this news, MGT stock fell $0.195 per share, or over 33%, over
the next two trading days to close at $0.395 per share on September
10, 2018, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 27, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased MGT securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options, please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/mgt-capital-investments-inc-mgti-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-85/
or contact Daniel Sadeh toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
dsadeh@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

         Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Website: www.bernlieb.com
         Email: dsadeh@bernlieb.com [GN]


MGT CAPITAL: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against MGT Capital Investments, Inc. ("MGT Capital" or
the "Company") (OTC: MGTI) in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired MGT Capital
securities between October 9, 2015 through September 7, 2018, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants were
engaged in a pump-and-dump scheme to artificially inflate MGT
Capital's stock price; (2) this illicit scheme caused MGT Capital
to make false and misleading statements, which would result in
governmental scrutiny, including from the SEC; (3) certain of the
scheme Defendants exercised control over MGT Capital and its
management; (4) consequently, the illicit scheme would ultimately
cause MGT Capital's stock to become delisted from NYSE MKT; and (5)
as a result, Defendants' statements about MGT Capital's business
and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.  When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the November 27, 2018
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action please contact:

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


MIDLAND CREDIT: Gaspar Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Keoni Gaspar individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-06411
(N.D. Cal., Oct. 19, 2018).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector, assists
customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through
various education and payment plans. The company was founded in
1953 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland Credit
Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group,
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan A Stieglitz, Esq.
     11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 750
     Los Angeles, CA 90064
     Phone: (323) 979-2063
     Fax: (323) 488-6748
     Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WI: Court Dismisses Bogan Prisoners Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted Bogan's motion to dismiss
the case, ANTWAN BOGAN, Plaintiff, v. MILWAUKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-1204 (E.D. Wis.).

Bogan, who is confined at the Milwaukee County House of Correction,
is representing himself.  He filed a "class action complaint" which
also named as the Plaintiffs 10 other individuals.

On Aug. 8, 2018, the Court assessed Bogan an initial partial filing
fee, determined that Bogan was the only Plaintiff who filed the
"class action complaint" because he was the only Plaintiff who
signed it, and advised Bogan that he probably would not be
permitted to proceed with a class action because he does not have
an attorney.  The Court advised him of the implications of joint
prisoner litigation and ordered that, if he and the other
individuals named as the Plaintiffs wanted to file a joint amended
complaint, they should file it by Aug. 29, 2018.  The Court stated
that, if a joint amended complaint was not filed by Aug. 29, 2018,
it would screen the current complaint once Bogan paid the initial
partial filing fee.

On Aug. 22, 2018, Bogan filed an amended complaint on his own, and
two days later the Court received his initial partial filing fee.
On Sept. 13, 2018, Bogan filed a motion to dismiss the case.  He
states that he thinks the case is premature.  

Judge Duffin notes that on Aug. 27, 2018, five individuals who were
named as Plaintiffs in the original complaint filed a proposed
joint amended complaint.  They attached to the pleading two pages
from the Court's Aug. 8, 2018 order that advised Bogan and other
individuals named as the Plaintiffs that they could file a joint
amended complaint if they wanted to proceed jointly.  However,
while these five individuals were named as the Plaintiffs in the
original complaint, the Court did not consider them Plaintiffs
because they had not signed the original complaint.  Moreover, the
Court ordered that Bogan and the other individuals named as the
Plaintiffs could file a joint amended complaint, not just the other
individuals named as the Plaintiffs.  These Plaintiffs' proposed
amended complaint is not properly before the Court in the case and
the Judge will therefore not consider it.  They may file a new case
if they want to proceed on their joint amended complaint.

For these reasons, Judge Duffin granted Bogan's motion to dismiss.
The case is dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1).  He ordered the Clerk's Office mail copies of the Order
to the other individuals named as the Plaintiffs in the original
complaint for whom the Court has addresses.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/fGYHEJ from Leagle.com.

Antwan Bogan, Plaintiff, pro se.


MISSISSIPPI: Bryant Seeks Writ of Mandamus in Stallworth Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Dewey Phillip "Phil" Bryant filed with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit a petition for writ of mandamus in
connection with a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Jeffery A.
Stallworth v. Bryant, et al., Case No. 3:16-CV-246, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson.

Mr. Bryant is the Governor of the state of Mississippi.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Dewey Bryant, Case No.
18-60703, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Jeffery A.
Stallworth filed the lawsuit to challenge Senate Bill 2162, a
proposed law that at the time was working its way through the
Mississippi Legislature.  His suit claims that SB 2162 will, among
other things, violate his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.  Mr. Stallworth seeks
monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief.

Other parties have intervened and filed an appeal in the
lawsuit.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner GOVERNOR DEWEY PHILLIP "PHIL" BRYANT is
represented by:

          Justin Lee Matheny, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          550 High Street
          Walter Sillers Building
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 359-3825
          Facsimile: (601) 359-2003
          E-mail: Jmath@ago.state.ms.us

               - and -

          Krissy C. Nobile, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 220
          Jackson, MS 39205
          Telephone: (601) 359-3824
          E-mail: knobi@ago.state.ms.us

Respondent TATE REEVES, in his Official Capacity as Lieutenant
Governor of the State of Mississippi, is represented by:

          Phil B. Abernethy, Esq.
          Patrick Ryan Beckett, Esq.
          Charles E. Griffin, Esq.
          BUTLER SNOW, L.L.P.
          1020 Highland Colony Parkway
          Ridgeland, MS 39158
          Telephone: (601) 985-4536
          E-mail: phil.abernethy@butlersnow.com
                  ryan.beckett@butlersnow.com
                  charles.griffin@butlersnow.com

Respondent MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, is represented by:

          Katherine Bryant Snell, Esq.
          BUTLER SNOW, L.L.P.
          1020 Highland Colony Parkway
          Ridgeland, MS 39158
          Telephone: (601) 985-4578

Respondent RANKIN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, is represented by:

          William Trey Jones, III, Esq.
          Leland K. Williams, Esq.
          BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, P.L.L.C.
          P.O. Drawer 119
          Jackson, MS 39205-0000
          Telephone: (601) 948-3101
          E-mail: tjones@brunini.com
                  kwilliams@brunini.com

               - and -

          Craig Lawson Slay, Esq.
          ADAMS & EDENS PA
          2101 Courtside Drive
          Brandon, MS 39042-0000
          Telephone: (601) 825-9505

Respondents JOSH HARKINS, DEAN KIRBY, PHILLIP MORAN, CHRIS
CAUGHMAN, NICKEY BROWNING, JOHN A. POLK, MARK BAKER and ALEX
MONSOUR are represented by:

          Charles Edward Cowan, Esq.
          Michael Brunson Wallace, Esq.
          WISE CARTER CHILD & CARAWAY, P.A.
          401 E. Capitol Street
          Heritage Building
          Jackson, MS 39201-2688
          Telephone: (601) 968-5500
          E-mail: cec@wisecarter.com
                  mbw@wisecarter.com

Respondent MAYOR TONY T. YARBER, Mayor of the City of Jackson,
Mississippi on behalf of the Citizens of the City of Jackson,
Mississippi, is represented by:

          Kimberly C. Banks, Esq.
          P.O. Box 471
          Jackson, MS 39205
          Telephone: (601) 316-3600
          E-mail: cantoncityattorney1@gmail.com

Respondents MAYOR TONY T. YARBER, Mayor of the City of Jackson,
Mississippi on behalf of the Citizens of the City of Jackson,
Mississippi; MELVIN V. PRIESTER, JR., in his official capacity as
elected member of the City Council of the City of Jackson,
Mississippi, from his respective ward; ASHBY FOOTE, in his official
capacity as elected member of the City Council of the City of
Jackson, Mississippi, from his respective ward; KENNETH I. STOKES,
in his official capacity as elected member of the City Council of
the city of Jackson, Mississippi, from his respective ward; DE'
KEITHER STAMPS, in his official capacity as elected member of the
City Council of the City of Jackson, Mississippi, from his
respective ward; CHARLES TILLMAN, in his official capacity as
elected member of the City Council of the City of Jackson,
Mississippi, from his respective ward; TYRONE HENDRIX, in his
official capacity as elected member of the City Council of the City
of Jackson, Mississippi, from his respective ward; and MARGARET
BARRETT-SIMON, in her official capacity as elected member of the
City Council of the City of Jackson, Mississippi, from her
respective ward, are represented by:

          Kristen N. Blanchard, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
          455 E. Capitol Street
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 960-1799
          E-mail: kblanchard@city.jackson.ms.us

               - and -

          LaShundra Jackson-Winters, Esq.
          CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          P.O. Box 2779
          Jackson, MS 39207-2779
          Telephone: (601) 960-1799
          E-mail: lwinters@city.jackson.ms.us

Respondents MELVIN V. PRIESTER, JR., individually as citizen of the
City of Jackson, MS, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated; ASHBY FOOTE, individually as citizen of the City of
Jackson, MS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated;
KENNETH I. STOKES, individually as citizen of the City of Jackson,
MS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; DE'KEITHER
STAMPS, individually as citizen of the City of Jackson, MS, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated; CHARLES TILLMAN,
individually as citizen of the City of Jackson, MS, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated; and TYRONE HENDRIX,
individually as citizen of the City of Jackson, MS, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, are represented by:

          LaToya Cheree Merritt, Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR, L.L.P.
          4270 I-55, N.
          Jackson, MS 39211-6391
          Telephone: (601) 352-2300
          E-mail: merrittl@phelps.com

               - and -

          Aisha Arlene Sanders, Esq.
          Everett T. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          604 Franklin Street
          Natchez, MS 39120
          Telephone: (601) 445-5570
          E-mail: asanders@sanlaw.net
                  esanders@sanlaw.net

Respondents MARGARET BARRETT-SIMON, individually as citizen of the
City of Jackson, MS, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated; JACKSON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY; BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS OF THE JACKSON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, each in
his or her official capacity as a Commissioner on the Board of
Commissioners of the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority; DOCTOR
ROSIE L. T. PRIDGEN, in her official capacity as a Commissioner on
the Board of Commissioners of the Jackson Municipal Airport
Authority; REVEREND JAMES L. HENLEY, JR., in his official capacity
as a Commissioner on the Board of Commissioners of the Jackson
Municipal Airport Authority; LAWANDA D. HARRIS, in her official
capacity as a Commissioner on the Board of Commissioners of the
Jackson Municipal Airport Authority; VERNON W. HARTLEY, SR., in his
official capacity as a Commissioner on the Board of Commissioners
of the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority; and EVELYN O. REED, in
her official capacity as a Commissioner on the Board of
Commissioners of the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority, are
represented by:

          Fred L. Banks, Jr., Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR, L.L.P.
          4270 I-55, N.
          Jackson, MS 39211-6391
          Telephone: (601) 352-2300
          E-mail: fred.banks@phelps.com

               - and -

          John L. Walker, Esq.
          WALKER GROUP, P.C.
          P.O. Box 22489
          Jackson, MS 39225
          Telephone: (601) 948-4589
          E-mail: jwalker@walkergrouppc.com

Respondents DOCTOR ROSIE L. T. PRIDGEN, individually as citizen of
the City of Jackson, MS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated; LAWANDA D. HARRIS, individually as citizen of
the City of Jackson, MS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated; VERNON W. HARTLEY, SR., individually as citizen
of the City of Jackson, MS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated; and EVELYN O. REED, individually as citizen of
the City of Jackson, MS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Tylvester O. Goss, Esq.
          GOSS & WILLIAMS, P.L.L.C.
          1441 Lakeover Road
          Jackson, MS 39213
          Telephone: (601) 981-2800
          E-mail: tgoss@dgwlaw.com


MOORE LAW: Violates FDCPA, Black Suit Asserts
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moore Law Group. The
case is styled as Alicia Black individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Moore Law Group, The Moore
Law Group A Professional Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
5:18-cv-06408 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 19, 2018).

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

The Moore Law Group is a full service business, business litigation
and creditor’s rights law firm with clients that range from
Fortune 500 lenders to regional and local businesses and
individuals.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Slater & Gordon Files Insurance Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Misa Han, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that
National Australia Bank has been sued in a consumer class action
for selling junk credit card insurance to students and welfare
recipients, with more banks likely to be hit by similar actions.

Class action law firm Slater and Gordon said on Sept. 27 it has
filed a class action in the Federal Court against NAB and MLC for
selling worthless credit card insurance to customers.

The action comes on the eve of the banking royal commission's
interim report, which will identify policy issues in consumer
credit.

The action alleges NAB and its wealth arm MLC acted unconscionably
in breach of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission
Act by pushing credit card insurance to customers who would be
ineligible to claim the main benefits from the policy.

These customers included students, unemployed people and people on
disability pensions.

Slater and Gordon is running the action on a no win, no fee basis
and there is no litigation funder involved. It is also considering
further actions against the other banks.

Slaters does not have a dollar value attached to this particular
action, however it says it had registrations from "hundreds of
customers" and "believe that there are thousands out there with
similar claims".

When Commonwealth Bank was pinged for similar conduct, it refunded
$10 million to more than 65,000 customers in 2017.

Pressure selling
Joining the class action will be customers such as Jessica Purcell,
who was a full-time university student when she was pressured to
take out consumer credit insurance.

She was a casual employee at the time and therefore ineligible to
claim the policy if she became unemployed.

"It was sold to me like it was something that I had to take out,"
she said.

The class action comes after Slater and Gordon announced in March
it is investigating potential class actions against banks for
selling tens of millions of dollars worth of insurance that offered
people little or no coverage.

The action also comes after the banking royal commission revealed
Commonwealth Bank had been selling CreditCard Plus insurance since
at least 2003 to people who couldn't claim the policy as they were
already unemployed when they took out the policy.

Little or no benefit
Slater and Gordon's Andrew Paull said NAB pushed the insurance
policy, "reaping millions in premiums while doing so".

"Most were existing NAB customers and the bank should have known
the insurance was likely to be of little or no benefit to them," he
said.

Mr Paull said NAB admitted in the royal commission the life cover
for the policy provided minimal value to many customers.

"Both NAB and MLC were in much stronger bargaining positions than
any of the people they were contacting and selling this insurance
to.

"They have taken advantage of hundreds, potentially thousands of
their loyal customers."

Rolling litigation
NAB is the first bank to be hit by a consumer class action
following the banking royal commission hearings.

Slaters said in September it will sue CBA and AMP on behalf of
their super fund members to recover at least $500 million, however
it has not filed a lawsuit yet.

This is likely to be only the beginning of years of rolling
litigation and potentially billions of dollars out of the Hayne
royal commission, as Slaters' rival Maurice Blackburn is going
after the bigger pie of banks over mortgage lending.

NAB chief legal and commercial counsel Sharon Cook said the bank
has not been served with any legal documents from Slaters yet.

"We will consider carefully any allegations when we receive the
claim. We encourage NAB customers who have questions regarding our
products and services to talk to their banker or contact us," she
said.

The bank has a dedicated hotline for NAB credit card insurance
customers, the bank said. [GN]


NAVIENT: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Forgiveness Obstructions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colby Hamilton, writing for Law.com, reports that kike so many
teaching professionals, New York City public school teacher Melissa
Garcia says she took out loans to help meet the expense of earning
a master's degree. And like so many students everywhere, those
loans were ultimately serviced by Navient, the legacy student loan
behemoth.

Born out of the privatization of its predecessor Sallie Mae,
Navient held a portfolio of nearly $88 billion worth of federally
backed student loans at the end of 2016. Ms. Garcia says that she
trusted Navient to provide truthful, accurate information about her
loan repayment options, specifically because, as a teacher, she
hoped to become eligible for the federal Public Service Loan
Forgiveness program.

The program is marketed to employees of government and
not-for-profit entities who make 120 monthly payments, under
specific conditions, who are then potentially able to have their
remaining balance forgiven.

According to a complaint in a new class-action suit filed in
Manhattan federal court on Oct. 3, Ms. Garcia and eight other
borrowers working in public service positions that they hoped
qualified them for forgiveness later claim Navient failed in its
duties to help them and others remain in good standing on their
loans.

Ms. Garcia claims that over the years the loan servicing company
made suggestions that hurt her ability to eventually realize loan
forgiveness. She claims Navient's suggestion in 2013 to consolidate
her loans would help her save money. In reality, she alleges, the
consolidation caused her to lose 37 qualifying payments she'd make
toward to PSLF program.

A year later in 2014, Ms. Garcia asked Navient about her
eligibility for loan forgiveness, and she was told by the company
that PSLF would be her best bet. Yet when she told Navient she'd
completed her employment certification form for the program, she
claims the company told her not to submit the form until she was
through with all 120 qualified payments.

According to the complaint, Navient's suggestion hid a self-serving
motive. Once the employment certification form is submitted, loans
are no longer serviced by Navient, which means a loss of servicing
fees. By not submitting the form, she missed an opportunity to
qualify for PSLF, Garcia claims.

These are among the numerous complaints made by the plaintiff's
against Navient, which they claim has been misleading borrowers in
ways that help Navient's bottom line but do substantial damage to
borrowers' prospects for receiving loan relief in the future.

"Since 1983, the cost of higher education has risen more than 700
percent and over 40 million people have taken out student loans
totaling over $1.5 trillion," Selendy & Gay name attorney
Faith Gay -- fgay@selendygay.com -- who leads the plaintiff's legal
team, said in a statement. "But Navient has obstructed loan
forgiveness at alarming rates, with horrifying effects on
borrowers, their families and communities."

A spokeswoman for Navient declined to comment on the suit.

Recent reports suggest that those seeking forgiveness under PSLF
are, at the very least, struggling to overcome the law's hurdles.
According to those reports, PSLF, which is just now seeing the
first wave of potentially eligible students seek forgiveness, has a
rejection rate of 99 percent. Out of the 28,000 loan borrowers who
submitted forgiveness requests as of June 30, only 300 have been
approved.

As a loan service provider, Navient has a material role in
assisting borrowers, something made clear through its contract with
the U.S. Department of Education, according to the complaint. This
holds for guiding those seeking assistance navigating the PSLF
process. As the complaint notes, through its company leadership and
public statements, Navient presents itself as being committed to
assist borrowers.

The reality, the complaint claims, is that Navient is incentivized
to prevent borrowers from enrolling in PSLF, as a way to keep
servicing fees coming to it and its profits on an upward
trajectory.

"Navient places Plaintiffs, along with those similarly situated, in
imminent danger of future irreparable harm by continuing its
pattern of providing false information to borrowers," the complaint
states.

The suit brings 15 causes of action against the company, including
breach of contract and fiduciary duties, negligent
misrepresentation, and violations of consumer laws in four
different states, including New York and California.

The suit is also being supported by the American Federation for
Teachers, which says many of its members are being harmed by
Navient's practices.

"We are proud to be represented by the powerful women-led team at
Selendy & Gay, a firm that shares AFT's commitment to the public
good," ATF president Randi Weingarten said in a statement. [GN]


NERIUM INT'L: Can Compel Arbitration in Jia RICO Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, HELEN JIA, an individual, and SARAH SORMILLON, an
individual, and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NERIUM
INTERNATIONAL LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-CV-03057-S
(N.D. Tex.) Judge Karen Gren Scholer of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, granted the
Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or Stay
Action.

The case was transferred from the docket of Judge Ed Kinkeade to
the docket of the Court on March 12, 2018.  Plaintiffs Jia and
Sormillon bring the action against the Defendants.

Jia became a Nerium Brand Partner in August 2013.  Sormillon became
a Brand Partner in September 2016.  Nerium sells skincare and other
products through a network of Brand Partners.  Brand partners are
independent, non-exclusive distributors of Nerium skincare
products.

According to the Defendants, Nerium's direct-sales model allows the
Brand Partners to earn money both by selling products and by
recruiting new Brand Partners who, in turn, also sell products.
The Brand Partners receive commissions from the sales of the Brand
Partners they recruit, and each Brand Partner whom those recruits
in turn recruit, and so forth.  the Plaintiffs, however, allege
that Nerium generates its revenue using a product-based pyramid
scheme.

The Defendants move to compel arbitration of all claims asserted
against them by the Plaintiffs and to dismiss the lawsuit, or in
the alternative, to stay the lawsuit pending resolution of the
arbitration process.  According to them, the Brand Partner
relationship is governed by a series of agreements, including
Nerium's Policies and Procedures and Terms of Agreement.  They
assert that enrollment as a Brand Partner requires submitting an
application to Nerium and executing an Electronic Signature
Agreement, which includes clicking "I agree" to, among other
things, the Agreements.  In addition, the Terms contained a Dispute
Resolution Provision reaffirming a Brand Partner's agreement to
arbitrate any dispute under Texas law.

When Jia enrolled online as a Brand Partner on Aug. 9, 2013, she
agreed to the same Arbitration Provision in the Policies as
Sormillon.  Additionally, the Terms contained an identical Dispute
Resolution Provision, except for a typographical error referencing
Section 11.06 of the Policies instead of Section 11.09.

The Plaintiffs oppose the Motion, alleging that their claims are
not subject to arbitration.  According to them, the Motion should
be denied because (1) the Plaintiffs did not assent to the
Arbitration Policy, (2) the Agreements are illusory, (3) Nerium's
right to compel arbitration expired, (4) the factual allegations
fall outside the scope of the Arbitration Policy, (5) the
Agreements are unconscionable, (6) contracts void against public
policy cannot be compelled to arbitration, and (7) the Arbitration
Policy improperly limits the Plaintiffs' statutory rights.

Judge Scholer finds that the Defendants have provided sufficient
evidence to establish that a contract, including an arbitration
provision, exists between the parties.  The Plaintiffs have
provided no reliable evidence to the contrary -- only highly
suspect, misleading, and conclusory allegations.  Assent through an
affirmative "click" is sufficient to bind the parties under Texas
law.

Given the plain language of the Arbitration Provision and her
finding that the Plaintiffs are not precluded from seeking
injunctive relief in arbitration, the Judge finds that there is a
plausible argument that the arbitration agreement requires the
merits of the claim to be arbitrated.  Both the Arbitration
Provision and Dispute Resolution Provision incorporate the AAA
Rules, evincing clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties'
intent to delegate threshold questions to an arbitrator, including
questions regarding the validity and scope of the arbitration
provision itself.  Therefore, it is for the arbitrator, and not the
Court, to decide threshold questions, including the scope of the
arbitration.

Finally, in the absence of a challenge specifically to a delegation
clause, validity and enforceability challenges must be sent to the
arbitrator.  Because she finds there is an agreement to arbitrate,
a delegation clause, and no specific challenge to that delegation
clause, the Plaintiffs' additional arguments are for an arbitrator
to resolve.

For the reasons outlined, Judge Scholer granted the Defendants'
Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or Stay Action.  She finds
that an agreement, including an arbitration provision, exists
between the parties.  The Arbitration Policy incorporates the AAA
Rules, evincing clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties'
intent to have the arbitrator decide whether a given claim must be
arbitrated.  Any challenges to the enforceability or scope of the
Arbitration Policy must be decided by the arbitrator.  The action
will be stayed and administratively closed pending the outcome of
arbitration.  She directed the Clerk of Court to administratively
close the case until such time as the Court orders it to be
reopened.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 18, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/2oBiDW from Leagle.com.

Helen Jia, an individual & Sarah Sormillon, an individual and all
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Blake J.
Lindemann -- blake@lawbl.com -- Lindemann Law Firm APC, pro hac
vice, Jamie Jean McKey -- jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com -- Kendall Law
Group PLLC & Joe Kendall -- jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com -- Kendall
Law Group PLLC.

Nerium International LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company, Jeff
Olson, an individual, Renee Olson, an individual & Amber Olson
Rourke, an individual, Defendants, represented by Joshua A. Huber,
Blank Rome LLP, Anahit Tagvoryan -- atagvoryan@blankrome.com --
Blank Rome LLP, pro hac vice, Harrison Maxwell Brown --
hbrown@blankrome.com -- Blank Rome LLP, pro hac vice, Mike Margolis
-- margolis@winlaw.com -- Blank Rome LLP, pro hac vice, Monica
Wiseman Latin, Carrington Coleman Sloman & Blumenthal LLP, Naki
Margolis -- nmargolis@blankrome.com -- Blank Rome LLP, pro hac vice
& Parker Lee Graham , Carrington Coleman Sloman & Blumenthal LLP.

Nerium Skincare Inc, a Texas Corporation, Nerium Biotechnology Inc
& Natural Technology Inc, doing business as Naturtech, Defendants,
represented by Jonathan R. Mureen , Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP,
Alexander J. Toney , Squire Patton Boggs LLP, Brian Matthew
Gillett, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP & Samuel Genovese, Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP.

Michael Shouhed, an individual, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
S. Jacobson -- jjacobson@KelleyDrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel H. Charest, Burns Charest LLP, Mallory
Toby Biblo, Burns Charest LLP & William James Jackson, Kelley Drye
& Warren LLP.


NEW PRIME: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Arbitration Dispute
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Noon, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court heard a truck driver's arguments on Oct. 3 that Congress had
the foresight in the 1920s to prohibit commerce employers such as
New Prime Inc. from forcing independent contractors. [GN]


NFL: Court to Consider Super Bowl Ticketing Claims
--------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the NFL's Super Bowl ticketing
policies will be put under a microscope when New Jersey's Supreme
Court considers claims that the league violated state consumer
fraud laws leading up to the 2014 game at MetLife Stadium.

If Josh Finkelman's challenge succeeds and the case ultimately
prevails as a class action, the NFL could be liable for millions in
damages to him and other ticketholders, his attorney said.

"He was forced to pay thousands of dollars a ticket where the face
value is $800," Bruce Nagel said. "People were paying five to 10
times the face value of the tickets. That's not right."

Mr. Finkelman's lawsuit, filed in the weeks after Super Bowl
XLVIII, cuts to the core of an issue that has bedeviled sports fans
for decades: the league's practice of releasing roughly 1 percent
of available tickets through a lottery, with the rest going to the
teams, sponsors and other insiders.

Mr. Finkelman claims the practice violates a New Jersey law --
since repealed -- that required 95 percent of tickets to be made
available to the public.

His suit was dismissed twice by a U.S. District judge sitting in
New Jersey who said Mr. Finkelman hadn't demonstrated the NFL's
policies had caused him economic harm, partly since he hadn't
entered the lottery.

But after Mr. Finkelman refiled the suit, the 3rd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled last December that the suit
could go forward and directed New Jersey's Supreme Court to hear
arguments on the applicability of the state law. Those arguments
were scheduled for Sept. 27.

Mr. Finkelman "has overcome a very significant hurdle in that he's
shown his legal standing to sue, meaning he's shown a cognizable
injury," said Daniel Wallach, a Miami-based attorney specializing
in sports industry law. "But he now has a second obstacle that must
be overcome."

In his amended suit, Mr. Finkelman cited research by University of
San Francisco sports economist Daniel Rascher alleging that
insiders are more likely to re-sell tickets through brokers, who
are more likely to charge higher prices than fans would charge to
other fans. The NFL prohibits fans who win tickets through a
lottery from re-selling tickets.

If more tickets were available to the public, the suit contends,
the prices on the secondary market would be lower.

The NFL called Mr. Rascher's theories speculative and wrote in a
court filing that "there is simply no way of knowing whether the
people and entities to whom the NFL distributed tickets to Super
Bowl XLVIII were any less likely to sell their tickets on the
secondary market than members of the general public would have
been."

An NFL spokesman didn't return a message seeking comment.

According to Mr. Nagel, 95 percent of the roughly 82,000 tickets to
the game could be subject to damages calculated by the difference
between their face value and what the secondary market charged.
That potential figure, well into the tens of millions, would be
trebled under rules governing class actions, he said.

More hurdles await Mr. Finkelman if the state Supreme Court sides
with him, however.

He would have to persuade a federal judge to grant class-action
status, and survive additional motions by the NFL to throw the case
out. Then he would have to prevail in front of a jury, unless the
league opts to settle out of court.

"To use a football phrase, the game is barely in the middle of the
first quarter, and the NFL remains a prohibitive favorite," Mr.
Wallach said. [GN]


OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Class in Menaldi Securities Fraud Suit Certified
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the
securities fraud class action, ARTHUR MENALDI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OCH-ZIFF
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, DANIEL S. OCH, and JOEL M. FRANK,
Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-3251 (JPO) (S.D. N.Y.).

The putative class consists of shareholders of Och-Ziff.  The
Plaintiffs claim that Och-Ziff misrepresented the impact of a
federal investigation into its bribery of African officials.  
Beginning in 2007, Och-Ziff employees allegedly bribed various
African officials.  The federal government subsequently launched an
investigation.  In 2012 and 2013, while the investigation was
ongoing, Och-Ziff's public filings suggested that it was not facing
any investigations that could have a material impact on the
company. Plaintiffs allege that these statements violated
securities laws.

The key factual issues relate mostly to dueling experts: Dr.
Zachary Nye for Plaintiffs, and Dr. Allan Kleidon for Och-Ziff.
After the last motion to dismiss, two claims remain: (1) a Rule
10b-5 claim against Och-Ziff and two of its executives based on
allegedly misleading statements regarding the government
investigation, and (2) a Section 20(a) control-person claim against
the two executives, also based on those statements.  

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the class of all persons other than
defendants who purchased Och-Ziff securities between Feb. 9, 2012
and Aug. 22, 2014, both dates inclusive.

Judge Oetken finds that the Plaintiffs' satisfy the Rule 23
requirements.  He also finds that both of the law firms
representing the proposed class are experienced securities
litigators.  Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. would
adequately represent the class.

Judge Oetken granted the motion for class certification.  The
motions at Docket Numbers 157 and 175 are also GRANTED.  He
appointed Ralph Langstandt and Julie Lemond as the lead Plaintiffs,
and Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as the class
counsel.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at Docket
Numbers 60, 157, and 175.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/uUB8zH from Leagle.com.

Ralph Langstadt & Julie Lemond, Lead Plaintiffs, represented by
Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP,
Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A.,
Emma Gilmore, Pomerantz LLP, Laurence Matthew Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Michele S.
Carino, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, &
Sara Esther Fuks -- sfuks@rosenlegal.com -- Milberg LLP.

Arthur Menaldi, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP, Michele S. Carino, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent
Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP & Tamar Aliza Weinrib, Pomerantz LLP.

Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC, Defendant, represented by
Robert F. Serio -- rserio@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP, Aric Hugo Wu -- awu@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP & Gabriel Herrmann -- gherrmann@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Daniel S. Och, Defendant, represented by Alan Mark Vinegrad --
avinegrad@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP & Stephen James Dee --
sdee@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP.

Joel M. Frank, Defendant, represented by Richard John Morvillo --
rmorvillo@morvillolaw.com -- Morvillo LLP, Elizabeth Anne Marshall
-- emarshall@morvillolaw.com -- Morvillo LLP & Ellen Marie Murphy
-- emurphy@morvillolaw.com -- Morvillo LLP.


OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $28.75MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Och-Ziff
Capital Management Group LLC has reached a $28.75 million
class-action settlement with shareholders who said the company
misled them about U.S. probes into its involvement in alleged
bribery in five African countries.

The settlement with one of the largest publicly-traded hedge fund
companies was made public on Oct. 2 in the U.S. District Court in
Manhattan and requires court approval.

It followed Och-Ziff's $412 million settlement in Sept. 2016 of a
U.S. Department of Justice criminal probe, and came 18 days after
U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken said the investors could sue the
New York-based company as a group.

The defendants also included Chief Executive Daniel Och and former
Chief Financial Officer Joel Frank. They denied wrongdoing in
agreeing to settle.

An Och-Ziff spokesman declined to comment. Och-Ziff now has $32.8
billion of assets under management.

Investors accused Och-Ziff of inflating its stock price by
concealing Justice Department and Securities and Exchange
Commission probes that uncovered bribes to government officials in
Libya, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chad, Guinea and Niger.

Och-Ziff entered a deferred prosecution agreement and its OZ Africa
Management unit pleaded guilty to a criminal conspiracy charge as
part of the Justice Department settlement.

Och, a former Goldman Sachs Group Inc trader, agreed to pay $2.2
million at the time to settle a SEC civil recordkeeping charge,
without admitting wrongdoing.

In July, another federal judge dismissed a separate SEC case
accusing former Och-Ziff executives Michael Cohen and Vanja Baros
of using bribes to win business in Africa.

The Oct. 2 settlement covers investors led by Ralph Langstadt and
Julie Lemond, who bought Och-Ziff securities from Feb. 9, 2012 to
Aug. 22, 2014. They could recover more than 41 cents per share,
before legal fees are deducted.

Och-Ziff had set aside $10 million for a possible settlement in the
second quarter.

The case is Menaldi v. Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC et al,
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 14-03251.
[GN]


ODWALLA INC: Court Narrows Claims in Casey FDCA Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, TARA CASEY, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ODW ALLA, INC. and THE COCA-COLA
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-2148 (NSR) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge
Nelson S. Roman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted in part and denied the Defendants'
motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), or in the
alternative for dismissal for failure to state a cause of action
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and for
dismissal of the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief pursuant
to Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of standing.

The Plaintiff instituted the putative class action by filing a
federal complaint on March 24, 2017, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated.  The Plaintiff asserts that the
Defendants violated the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1983
("FDCA") and the New York General Business Law ("GBL") Sections 349
and 350 and misled consumers when they labeled certain juice
products "100% Juice" with "No Added Sugar."  The Plaintiff also
asserts a claim for unjust enrichment.

Odwalla is a subsidiary of Coca-Cola that manufactures over 40
varieties of premium juices, smoothies, protein shakes and snack
bars.  Of the various products it produces, Odwalla manufactures
and sells premium Odwalla "100% Juice" juices which contain the
phrase "No Added Sugar" on the label.  The Plaintiff does not
dispute that the label is correct; as such, she concedes that the
Juices do not contain added sugar.

The Plaintiff is a health conscious New York resident who purchased
the Juices, including Groovin' Greens 100% and Berry Greens 100%
Juice.  In purchasing the Juices, she relied on the Defendants'
misleading statements that the product contained 'No Added Sugar.'
The Plaintiff would not have purchased the product in absence of
the "No Added Sugar" label.  She contends that the Defendants'
inclusion of this phrase is impermissible under the FDCA, because
the Juices do not resemble or substitute for a food that normally
contains added sugar because fruit and vegetable juices do not
normally contain added sugar.  Consequently, she contends that the
inclusion of "No Sugar Added" on the Juices is misleading, as it
makes consumers believe that other 100% Juices without the "No
Added Sugar" label contain added sugar and are therefore not as
healthy.  As a result of this deceptive labeling, consumers pay a
premium for the Defendants' products.

The Defendants' moved to transfer the matter to the Central
District of California, or in the alternative, to dismiss the
Complaint for failure to state a cause of action.  After the motion
was fully submitted, the Defendants filed a request asking the
Court to take judicial notice of a letter dated Aug. 31, 2017
written by Douglas A. Balentine, Director of the Office of
Nutrition and Food Labeling, Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, at the United States Food & Drug Administration.  

The letter was written to the Center for Science in the Public
Interest ("CSPI"), in response to the CSPI's May 24, 2017 letter
requesting that the FDA take action to enforce its regulation to
prohibit companies from labeling 100% juices as "No Added Sugar."
The letter is not published on the FDA's website, but was obtained
by the Defendants through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Judge Roman granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion.  He granted it insofar as it seeks dismissal of the
Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim and an Order precluding the
Plaintiff from seeking injunctive relief.  He denied it in all
other respects.

As venue would not be proper in the Central District of California,
transfer would not be appropriate.  Additionally, the Judge cannot
consider the FDA Letter on the motion to dismiss and it therefore
finds that, on the facts alleged and matters of which he may take
judicial notice, the Plaintiff's claims are not preempted by the
FDCA because the Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that the
Defendants' labeling violates the FDCA and the Defendants have not
convinced the Court that their labeling is in compliance therewith.


Nevertheless, the Judge acknowledges the potential import of the
FDA Letter and believes it is more properly considered on a motion
for summary judgment.  The Defendants must answer the Complaint on
or before Oct. 12, 2018.  The parties are also directed to appear
for a status conference on Oct. 19, 2018 at 11:30 a.m. at which
time the Defendants can seek leave to file a motion for summary
judgment if they so choose.  The Clerk of the Court is respectfully
directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 23.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/SxE0Dy from Leagle.com.

Tara Casey, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Gregory Blankinship --
gblankinship@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei- Pearson
& Garber, LLP & Todd Seth Garber -- tgarber@fbfglaw.com --
Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei- Pearson & Garber, LLP.

Odwalla, Inc. & The Coca-Cola Company, Defendants, represented by
Desiree Marie Ripo -- desiree.ripo@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, LLP
& Jeffrey A. Rosenfeld -- jeffrey.rosenfeld@alston.com -- DLA Piper
LLP, pro hac vice.


PCL CONSTRUCTION: Final Judgment in Power Outage Suit Entered
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James C. Dever, III of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, Eastern Division, has entered
the Final Judgment in the case, IN RE: OUTER BANKS POWER OUTAGE
LITIGATION, This Document Relates To: All Actions, Master File No.
4:17-CV-141-D (E.D. N.C.).

On Sept. 21, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of a class action settlement, and entered a Final
Approval Order.  It finds that the Settlement Class as defined in
the Settlement Agreement meets the requirements of Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a) & (b)(3).  Thus, it certified the Settlement
Class.  The Court finds that class notice satisfied the
requirements of Rule 23 and the Due Process Clause.  It also finds
that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).  Accordingly, the
Court approved the final class action settlement.

The Settlement Classes includes:

     A. Business Class: All businesses located and/or operating on
Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands during the time of the Incident.  The
class does not include persons or entities renting homes to
vacationers.

     B. Rental/Vacationer Class: All persons who rented a vacation
property on Hatteras or Ocracoke Islands during the time of the
Incident, together with all persons or entities that rented homes
to Vacationers.

     C. Resident Class: All permanent residents of Hatteras and
Ocracoke Islands at the time of the Incident.

Regardless of whether the Settlement Class Members make claims
under the Settlement Agreement, the Court's Final Approval Order
and Final Judgment dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' and
Settlement Class Members' claims and pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement.  All the Settled Claims as against the Defendants and
the Released Parties are dismissed with prejudice.

The Judge expressly directed the Clerk of Court immediately to
enter the Final Judgment.  Upon entry, the Court decreed that the
document be deemed a Final Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 21, 2018 Final Judgment is
available at https://is.gd/oCiZBe from Leagle.com.

Island Vibe Cafe, Morning Star Stables, TBM Construction & Michael
Janssen, Plaintiffs, represented by Jean S. Martin, Law Office of
Jean Sutton Martin, PLLC, John A. Yanchunis, Morgan & Morgan
Complex Litigation Group, Joseph G. Sauder -- jgs@mccunewright.com
-- McCune Wright Arevalo LLP & Daniel K. Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com
-- Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Rhonda Derring, Robert Case & Marissa Gross, d/b/a Down Creek
Galleries, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield,
Bryson & Mason, LLP, Matthew E. Lee -- matt@wbmllp.com --
Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP, Scott C. Harris -- scott@wbmllp.com
-- Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP & Joseph G. Sauder, McCune Wright
Arevalo LLP.

Miss Ocracoke, Inc., Stephen J Wilson, Hatteras Blue, Inc., Steven
J. Harris, Steven Wright, Charles Edward Hofmann & Alex Daniel
Garrish, Plaintiffs, represented by John R. Taylor, Zaytoun Law
Firm, PLLC, Matthew David Ballew, Zaytoun Law Firm, PLLC, Robert E.
Zaytoun, Zaytoun Law Firm, PLLC, Joseph G. Sauder, McCune Wright
Arevalo LLP & Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Matthew Breveleri, Plaintiff, represented by Jean S. Martin, Law
Office of Jean Sutton Martin, PLLC, Patrick Donovan --
donovan@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Alder Freeman & Herz LLP,
Thomas H. Burt -- burt@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Alder Freeman
& Herz LLP, Joseph G. Sauder, McCune Wright Arevalo LLP & Daniel K.
Bryson, Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Thomas Edgar, Nina Edgar, Edward Waas & Jack Lewis, Plaintiffs,
represented by J. Michael Malone, Hendren, Redwine & Malone, PLLC,
Joseph G. Sauder, McCune Wright Arevalo LLP & Daniel K. Bryson,
Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Briggs McEwan, Las Olas, Inc., Tri-V Conery, Inc., Tami Lynette
Gray, d/b/a Family Water Adventures, Daniel Spaventa, Karen
Fitzpatrick & Edwin Fitzpatrick, Plaintiffs, represented by Dennis
C. Rose, Rose Harrison & Gilreath, P.C., John S. Hughes, Wallace
and Graham, P.A., M. Peebles Harrison, Rose Harrison & Gilreath,
P.C., Mona Lisa Wallace, Wallace and Graham, P.A., Joseph G.
Sauder, McCune Wright Arevalo LLP & Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield,
Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Mike Warren, William Bailey & Kerry Fitzgerald, Plaintiffs,
represented by Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP.

PCL Construction Enterprises, Inc., PCL Civil Constructors, Inc.,
PCL Construction Services, Inc. & PCL Construction Resources
(U.S.A.), Inc., Defendants, represented by Alexandra L. Couch --
acouch@ymwlaw.com -- Yates, McLamb & Weyher, LLP, David Michael
Fothergill -- dfothergill@ymwlaw.com -- Yates, McLamb & Weyher, LLP
& Rodney E. Pettey -- rpettey@ymwlaw.com -- Yates, McLamb & Weyher,
LLP.


PETSMART INC: Nov. 6 Hearing on Milburn Deal Prelim Approval Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM L. MILBURN, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PETSMART, INC., and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-CV-00535-DAD-SKO
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, granted the
parties' Joint Stipulation for Further Extension of Time to File
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement.

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the filing deadline for the
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement, currently due Sept. 19, 2018, will be extended seven
days to Sept. 26, 2018.  In further accordance with the parties'
stipulation, the hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement is set for Nov. 6, 2018, at
9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 5 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A.
Drozd.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/eOnKa9 from Leagle.com.

William L. Milburn, individually and on behalf of all other current
and former similarly situated and aggrieved employees of Defendants
in the State of California, Plaintiff, represented by Geoffrey Drew
La Val, Graham Hollis APC & Graham S.P. Hollis, GrahamHollis, APC.

PetSmart, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alexander L. Grodan --
alexander.grodan@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP &
Carrie Anne Gonell -- carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Madinya FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SANDRA MADINYA, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-61138-BLOOM/Valle (S.D. Fla.), Judge
Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida denied both the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint
with Incorporated Memorandum of Law and Motion to Transfer Related
Case with Incorporated Memorandum of Law.

Madinya filed the putative class action against the Defendant under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), stemming from a
letter sent to the Plaintiff on Feb. 21, 2018 to collect on a
time-barred debt.  The Plaintiff alleges that she used a Capital
One Bank, N.A., credit card to purchase household items, incurring
a consumer debt under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692a(5).  The Defendant
was assigned to collect the debt.  At the time she received the
Letter in the mail related to the Capital One credit card debt, the
debt was time-barred.

The Plaintiff alleges that the letter violates the FDCPA because it
fails to disclose to her that should she make a partial payment on
the debt, the Defendant's right to sue for the debt would be
"revived" under Florida law.  The Complaint further includes
allegations on behalf of a putative class of all consumers in the
state of Florida who were sent a Collection Letter from PRA
substantially similar or materially identical to the Letter
delivered to the Plaintiff, within the applicable limitations
period.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff alleges in a single count
violations of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), and
1692f.  According to her, although it may not be improper for the
Defendant to seek repayment for a time-barred debt, in doing so,
the Defendant must avoid creating a misleading impression regarding
the consequences of making partial payment on a time-barred debt,
and clearly and prominently disclose that partial payment would
revive the statute of limitations.

The Defendant seeks to dismiss the Complaint, arguing that it fails
to state a claim under the FDCPA, and that in any event, it is
protected by the safe harbor provision in the FDCPA.  The Defendant
also seeks a transfer, based upon similarities between the instant
case and Gomes v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No.
18-cv-21872, currently pending before Judge Altonaga.

Judge Bloom is unpersuaded by the Defendant's argument that CFPB's
own research indicating that a disclosure regarding revival of the
statute of limitations may confuse consumers and suggesting instead
that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") issue a
regulation requiring collectors to actively waive the right to sue,
should be dispositive in the case.  

As alleged by the Plaintiff, notwithstanding the Disclaimer
Language, the Defendant's Letter may mislead the least
sophisticated consumer to believe that partial payment is better
than no payment at all, and entice unsuspecting consumers to make
partial payments in order to revive its ability to pursue legal
action.  While this may not be the only way to read Defendant's
Letter, it is certainly a plausible interpretation.  The mere
assertion that the law limits how long a consumer can be sued and
that Defendant will not sue, does not communicate the legal reality
that the Plaintiff, by making a partial payment may revive the
statute of limitations, and therefore, the Defendant's right to
sue.  As a result, contrary to the Defendant's assertion, the Judge
finds that the language in the Letter does not entitle the
Defendant to protection under the FDCPA's safe harbor provision.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Bloom denied the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Transfer.  The Defendant will file
its Answer to the Complaint by Sept. 28, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Wy1ZNR from Leagle.com.

Sandra Madinya, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Darren R. Newhart --
darren@cloorg.com -- Consumer Law Organization, P.A. & Jordan
Alexander Shaw -- jshaw@zpllp.com -- ZEBERSKY PAYNE.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, represented by Sara
F. Holladay-Tobias -- stobias@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods &
Brittney Lauren Difato -- bdifato@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
LLP.


PROFESSIONAL FRAME: Accused by Ventura of Not Paying Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBERATO VENTURA, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) v. PROFESSIONAL FRAME AND HOME and WILLIAM LINARES,
Case No. 3:18-cv-02659-B (N.D. Tex., October 8, 2018), accuses the
Defendants of willfully and intentionally refusing to pay the
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Professional Frame and Home is a company that regularly transacts
business within the Northern District of Texas.  William Linares is
a corporate officer, owner or manager of Professional Frame.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq.
          Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
          6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: (972) 233-2264
          Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
                  rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
                  josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


PROFLOWERS: 9th Cir. Vacates $8.7MM Attorneys' Fees Award
---------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins, writing for Law360, reports that a Ninth Circuit
panel on Oct. 3 vacated a $8.7 million attorneys' fees award in a
$38 million settlement resolving claims against the company behind
the websites Proflowers.com and RedEnvelope.com. [GN]


PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS: Faces Consumer Credit Suit in Ca.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Business
Funding, Inc. The case is styled as Virgil E. Brown Insurance for
itself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Modern
Hearing Solutions of Canton, Inc. for itself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Progressive Business
Funding, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02386-LAB-KSC (S.D.
Cal., Oct. 18, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit for unsolicited
telephone sales.

Virgil E. Brown Insurance is an independent Insurance agency on the
East Side of Cleveland, selling home, auto, umbrella, and small
business insurance.

Progressive Business Funding provides loan solutions including
working capital loans, small business loans, equipment financing &
merchant cash advance.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Bryan Kenton Theis, Esq.
     Theis Law Group
     533 Second Street, Suite 400
     Encinitas, CA 92024
     Phone: (213) 261-4240
     Fax: (833) 276-7001
     Email: bryan@theislaw.com


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Mitchell Dismissed from Jones TAC
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BOBBY JONES, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-06941-JD (N.D. Cal.),
Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted in part and denied in part the
remaining Defendants' motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint
("TAC") under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

In the putative class action, named Plaintiff Jones has sued
Defendants Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. and Progressive
Select Insurance Co., and Mitchell International, Inc., for fraud
and other consumer claims relating to automobile insurance.  Jones
alleges that Progressive and Mitchell, a provider of claim
services, surreptitiously used low-value salvage vehicles to
determine payments to insureds whose cars had been declared a total
loss.  Two other Progressive entities, Progressive Corp. and
Progressive Direct Dnsurance Co., have been dismissed without
prejudice.  The remaining Defendants move to dismiss the TAC under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

As alleged in the TAC, Jones bought a 1999 Chevrolet Venture in
2015 for $3,250.  He insured his car with Progressive.  Less than a
month after the purchase, Jones got into an accident that totaled
the car and sent him and his wife to the hospital.  He filed an
insurance claim with Progressive, which it eventually settled over
the "total loss" of his vehicle for $2,800.

The complaint focuses on Progressive's and Mitchell's conduct
during the claim settlement process.  To determine the coverage
payment to Jones, Progressive engaged Mitchell to find valuations
of "comparable vehicles."  Progressive gave Jones a search report
from Mitchell that stated a value of $2,413.41 for a car of the
same year, make, and model as Jones's.  The report did not disclose
that the vehicle in the report had a "salvage title," which meant
it was itself a total loss.  Another report listed other
low-valuation comparables from dealerships that Jones alleges were
never actually contacted by Mitchell.  Jones asked Progressive to
use the price of his own vehicle, which he had bought just a few
weeks before the accident, but Progressive declined.

Jones says the reports misled him about the value of his claim, and
that he relied on them to settle for less than he was entitled to
recover.  He alleges seven California state law claims on behalf of
himself and a putative class of Progressive policyholders in
California for fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional
interference with contractual relations, and violations of the
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and Consumers Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA").

Progressive and Mitchell move to dismiss all the claims against
them under Rule 12(b)(6).

Judge Donato granted in part and denied in part the motion.  The
CLRA claim against Progressive is dismissed without prejudice.
Progressive's motion to dismiss is denied in all other respects.
Because the TAC is the fourth complaint in the case, the Judge will
not automatically grant further leave to amend for the CLRA.  Jones
has had ample opportunity to tee up that claim.  If future
circumstances warrant, he may file a motion for leave to amend.

The Judge granted Mitchell's motion to dismiss , and all claims
against it are dismissed without prejudice.  Because this is the
fourth time around on the complaint, he would be well within his
discretion to dismiss with prejudice.  Even so, the Judge indicated
at the hearing that it would dismiss without prejudice and allow
Jones to request leave to amend if warranted by discovery.  The
Court will stick with that course of action.

Judge Donato finds that the TAC expressly alleges that Jones relied
on the valuation statements and reports provided by Progressive to
accept the payment it tendered.  Jones provides enough specificity
about the reports and statements he alleges were false or
misleading to give fair notice of the claim.  Progressive
challenges the veracity of these allegations, but that question is
reserved for summary judgment or trial.

He also finds that Jones' UCL claim is predicated on the fraud and
misrepresentations claims that Progressive settled coverage claims
on the basis of misleading valuation reports.  That is enough under
the UCL.  Progressive's argument under the Unfair Insurance
Practices Act ("UIPA") does not change this conclusion.  The
statute does not grant a private right to sue, and the California
Supreme Court has warned against UIPA claims dressed in other
robes.  Nevertheless, claims premised on fraud and breach of
contract may proceed under the UCL even if the relevant conduct
arguably violated the UIPA.  The UCL claim fits comfortably within
these parameters, and so dismissal is denied.

Jones acknowledges that he did not comply with these procedural
requirements but says he should be excused because the Defendants
had actual notice of the claims against them.  That is a
questionable proposition because the TAC is the first complaint to
assert a CLRA claim.  In any event, the statute requires a literal
application of the notice provisions.  Consequently, the CLRA claim
is dismissed.

In contrast to Progressive, the claims against Mitchell are not
sufficiently plausible to go forward.  To start, the complaint
generally lumps Mitchell together with Progressive, with no
meaningful distinctions drawn between them.  That will not do.
This problem is all the more striking in the TAC because Jones was
advised before filing it to clarify the misrepresentations
attributable to Mitchell.  Consequently, the fraud and
misrepresentation claims against Mitchell are dismissed.  The UCL
claim, which is predicated on the same conduct, is dismissed for
the same reason.

And becasuse Jones does not plausibly allege that Mitchell intended
to breach or disrupt his insurance contract with Progressive, or
knew its actions would likely lead to that result, the claim is
dismissed.  The CLRA claim against Mitchell suffers from the same
procedural deficiencies as the one against Progressive.  It too is
dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/kUYnD0 from Leagle.com.

Bobby Jones, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Alexander Kleczek --
david.kleczek@kleczeklaw.com -- Kleczek Law Office & Herbert Paul
Bryant -- hpaulbryantlaw@gmail.com -- Law Offices of H. Paul
Bryant.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company & The Progressive
Corporation, Defendants, represented by Julia Constance Barrett --
jbarrett@kslaw.com -- King and Spalding LLP, pro hac vice, Zachary
Andrew McEntyre -- jbarrett@kslaw.com -- King and Spalding LLP,
Jeffrey S. Cashdan -- jcashdan@kslaw.com -- pro hac vice & Timothy
Tully Scott -- tscott@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP.

Mitchell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott
Thomas Schutte -- scott.schutte@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis
and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory Thomas Fouts --
gregory.fouts@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP, Phillip
Jared Wiese -- phillip.wiese@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis and
Bockius & Tedd Macrae Warden -- tedd.warden@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP.


PROLOG CORP: Podzemelnyy Seeks to Recoup Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER PODZEMELNYY, and other similarly situated individuals v.
PROLOG CORP., VOLODYMYR HENDRIK, and NATALIYA HENDRIK, Case No.
0:18-cv-62395-FAM (S.D. Fla., October 8, 2018), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Prolog Corp. is a Florida company with its main place of business
located in Broward County, Florida.  The Corporate Defendant is a
trucking company.  The Individual Defendants are owners or officers
of the Corporate Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


SCHARFMAN ORGANIZATION: Tenants File Rent Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Will Parker, writing for The Real Deal, report that it's been a
slow march in the state courts, but two class action lawsuits
generated by the Housing Rights Initiative achieved class
certification -- the first of the group's cases to reach this
milestone.

Over the last two years HRI has organized more than 40 lawsuits
against landlords, most alleging "schemes" to up rents more than
prevailing laws allow.

The first of the two landlords in the class actions, Scharfman
Organization, is alleged to have defrauded tenants of 260 Convent
Avenue in Hamilton Heights. In the second, Richard Albert is
similarly accused by his tenants at 3045 Godwin Terrace in the
Bronx.

Both lawsuits allege the landlords' companies broke the law by
accepting the J-51 property tax benefit while deregulating
rent-stabilized apartments. Keeping apartments rent-stabilized is a
required condition of tax program, according to state law.

Should they win their cases, the more than 100 current and former
tenants of both buildings could receive rent overcharge refunds and
damages.

"My constituents living at 3045 Godwin Terrace deserve better!"
Bronx City Council member Andrew Cohen said in a statement. "They
deserve to have their rent-stabilized leases rightfully restored to
their apartments."

Albert was not reachable by phone and Mark Scharfman declined to
comment. This is the ninth complaint HRI has helped put together
against Mr. Scharfman's companies.

Apart from J-51 cases, HRI has ventured into less tested waters by
filing class actions against landlords alleged to have overcharged
on rent by exaggerating the cost of apartment renovations, or
"Individual Apartment Improvements." A couple of these cases were
dismissed by lower courts and then refiled. One, against Harlem
property owner Big City Realty, faced an appeals court panel in
July. The majority of the panel decided the complaint should have
survived a motion to dismiss so that discovery could first be
granted to the tenant plaintiffs to help prove their claims. [GN]


SCHWAB INVESTMENTS: Dismissal of Northstar Suit Partly Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NORTHSTAR FINANCIAL ADVISORS, INC., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
SCHWAB INVESTMENTS; MARIANN BYERWALER; DONALD F. DORWARD; WILLIAM
A. HASLER; ROBERT G. HOLMES; GERALD B. SMITH; DONALD R. STEPHENS;
MICHAEL W. WILSEY; CHARLES R. SCHWAB; RANDALL W. MERK; JOSEPH H.
WENDER; JOHN F. COGAN; CHARLES SCHWAB INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-15303 (9th Cir.), Judge Kathleen
M. O'Malley of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's
dismissal of all of Northstar's claims.

Northstar is a registered investment advisory and financial
planning firm that manages accounts on behalf of investors.  During
the relevant time period, Northstar traded through Charles Schwab's
Institutional Advisor Platform, where it purchased shares in the
Schwab Total Bond Market Fund ("Fund") for its clients.  The Schwab
Trust ("Trust") is a Massachusetts Business Trust having assets
held by a group of trustees who manage and supervise the Fund's
operations for the benefit of its shareholders, the Trust's
beneficiaries.  Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. ("Schwab
Advisor"), an investment advisory firm affiliated with the Trust,
has acted as the manager of, and investment advisor to, the Trust
in accordance with a June 1994 Investment Advisory Agreement
("IAA").  The Schwab Advisor oversees the dayto-day operations of
the Fund, including selection of investments.

Northstar's core allegations have remained the same across its five
complaints.  In a July 1997 Proxy Statement, the Trustees sought a
shareholder vote on two proposals relevant to the appeal.  Proposal
No. 2 would amend the Fund's fundamental investment objective to
track the investment results of the Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond
Index.  Proposal No. 3 would change the Fund's fundamental
investment policies and investment restrictions regarding the
concentration of investments to incorporate the SEC's
interpretation of concentration from the Investment Company Act of
1940 ("ICA"), which was and is 25% of the available assets in a
fund.  A majority of Fund shareholders voted to approve the
proposals.  As a result, the Trust was obligated to seek to track
the Index and to invest no more than 25% of the Fund's total assets
in any one industry.

From August 1997 through August 2007 -- which Northstar refers to
as the "Pre-Breach period" -- the Fund's investments performed in a
manner substantially consistent with the Index.  During this
period, the Fund continuously offered its shares to the public
pursuant to annual prospectuses, which affirmed to potential and
current shareholders that the Trust was following the fundamental
investment objectives set forth in the 1997 Proxy Statement.

From August 2007 until February 2009 -- which Northstar refers to
as the "Breach period" -- the Trust continued to represent in Fund
prospectuses and other public filings that the Fund would be
managed conservatively and passively, and would be invested in the
same securities as the Index, pursuant to its fundamental
investment objective.  In September 2007, however, the Trust caused
the Fund to deviate from its fundamental investment policies by
investing in collateralized mortgage obligations that were not part
of the Index, and by concentrating more than 25% of the Fund's
total assets in mortgage-backed securities and collateralized
mortgage obligations.  The Fund deviated from its fundamental
investment policies until about the end of February 2009.  Fund
shareholders suffered financial injury due to the Fund's deviation,
as the Fund underperformed the Index during this time.

The case has a lengthy procedural history that includes the
dismissal of successive amended complaints for failures to state
claims.  In June 2015, Northstar filed its Fourth Amended
Complaint.  In that complaint, Northstar asserted claims on behalf
of Fund shareholders who purchased shares during the Breach period,
as well as those who purchased shares during the Pre-Breach period
but held them during the Breach period.  The complaint alleges 14
causes of action: seven pertaining to the Pre-Breach class, and
seven pertaining to the Breach class.

With respect to each class, Northstar alleged breach of fiduciary
duties against both the Trust and the Trustees; breach of fiduciary
duty against the Schwab Advisor; aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty against the Trustees and the Schwab Advisor; breach
of contract as third-party beneficiary to the IAA against the
Schwab Advisor; breach of contract against the Trust; and breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against the Schwab
Advisor and the Trustees.  Northstar alleged that its claims, if
barred by Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act ("SLUSA"),
are nonetheless preserved by the Delaware carve-out.

The district court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.  In particular, it granted the
motion to dismiss, with prejudice, Northstar's claims for breach of
contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
concluding that SLUSA barred those claims and that they did not
fall within the Delaware carve-out.  The district court also
granted the motion to dismiss, with prejudice, Northstar's breach
of fiduciary duty claims insofar as these claims pertain to an
alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the Trust.  The district court
reasoned that any such duties were owed by the Trustees, rather
than by the Trust itself.  It further granted the motion to
dismiss, with prejudice, Northstar's third-party beneficiary
claims, breach of contract claims, and breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing claims, concluding that SLUSA also
barred those claims and that they did not fall within the Delaware
carve-out.

The district court denied the motion to dismiss the remaining
claims, however, which alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Trustees and the Schwab Advisor, and aiding and abetting such
breaches.  The district court reasoned that the Defendants could
not assert a SLUSA defense to these claims in a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion, but that they could raise such a defense by filing a motion
for judgment on the pleadings.  The Defendants subsequently moved
for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the breach of fiduciary
duty and aiding and abetting claims were barred by SLUSA, and the
district court granted the motion.  The appeal timely followed.

In the appeal, Judge O'Malley considers whether the SLUSA precludes
class claims brought under state law by Northstar against the
Defendants").  She concludes that SLUSA precludes all of
Northstar's claims, and that the district court therefore correctly
dismissed them.  The district court erred, however, in dismissing
the claims with prejudice.

She finds that the Pre-Breach class claims arise from more than the
alleged fact of the Defendants' breaches; their claims are only
possible because of their concealment of those breaches.  The
claims are no less tied to the Defendants' misstatements and
omissions during the Breach Period than are the Breach Class claims
themselves.  She therefore concludes that the Pre-Breach class
claims are barred by SLUSA.  And because the Breach class claims
depend on a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact, these
claims are barred by SLUSA.

The Breach class claims are also not permissible actions under the
statute, because they likewise do not involve any communication
that concerns decisions of those equity holders with respect to
voting their shares.  The Breach class claims that are subject to
SLUSA are based on misrepresentations that occurred between 2007
and 2009.  The only vote that occurred with respect to these
securities occurred in 1997.  The misrepresentations that underlie
the Breach class claims were thus not made to shareholders in
advance of, or to influence, any vote.  Those communications
therefore do not concern any decisions of shareholders with respect
to voting their securities.  The carve-out does not save
Northstar's claims.  The Judge therefore affirms the district
court's dismissal of all of Northstar's claims.

However, she finds that the district court erred in dismissing
Northstar's claims with prejudice.  Northstar should be granted
leave to amend its complaint.  To the extent that SLUSA bars a
plaintiff's claims, it does so by depriving the district court of
jurisdiction to hear his state-law claims on a class-wide basis.
Thus, it is error to dismiss such claims under Rule 12(b)(6); they
should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) without prejudice.  She
therefore reverses the district court's contrary ruling and remands
to give Northstar the opportunity to amend its complaint.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/fokvIm from Leagle.com.

Robert C. Finkel (argued), Wolf Popper LLP, New York, New York;
Joseph J. Tabacco Jr. -- jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com -- and
Christopher T. Heffelfinger -- cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com --
Berman DeValerio, San Francisco, California; Marc J. Gross --
mgross@greenbaumlaw.com -- Greenbaum Rowe Smith & Davis LLP,
Roseland, New Jersey; for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Matthew L. Larrabee (argued), Joshua D.N. Hess --
joshua.hess@dechert.com -- and Brian C. Raphel , Dechert LLP, San
Francisco, California; Richard A. Schirtzer , Karin A. Kramer --
karinkramer@quinnemanuel.com -- and Arthur M. Roberts --
arthurroberts@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
LLP, San Francisco, California; for Defendants-Appellees.


SENTRY LIFE: Emerson Suit Stayed Pending Resolution of Maxon Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, ANNELIESE EMERSON, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SENTRY LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant. PRUDENCE F. MAXON, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SENTRY LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case Nos. 18-cv-379-jdp, 18-cv-254-jdp (W.D.
Wis.), Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin (i) granted Sentry's motion to stay
Emerson's case pending the resolution of Maxon v. Sentry Life
Insurance Company, No. 18-cv-254 (W.D. Wis.), and (ii) denied
Emerson's cross-motion to consolidate her suit with Maxon.

Emerson filed a lawsuit against Sentry Life Insurance Company for
breach of contract on behalf of herself and a proposed class of
other Sentry life insurance policyholders.  Her case is
substantively identical to a previously filed proposed class
action, Maxon, which was filed in the Middle District of Florida in
August 2017 and transferred to the Western District of Wisconsin
this past April.

Maxon and Emerson are both longtime holders of Sentry universal
life insurance policies.  Both allege that Sentry has improperly
increased the cost of insurance ("COI") charges that Sentry deducts
from policyholders' accounts each month by considering factors
unrelated to mortality expectations.  Maxon filed first, bringing
class-wide claims for breach of contract, conversion, and
declaratory and injunctive relief.  The parties conducted
substantial discovery in the Middle District of Florida before a
motion to transfer landed the case here.

A little more than a month after the change of venue, and nine
months after the Maxon case was filed, Emerson filed a suit of her
own against Sentry in the district.  She pleaded the same
class-wide breach of contract claim as Maxon, and proposed an
identical briefing and trial schedule.

Neither Emerson nor Sentry disputes that the two proposed class
actions are substantively identical.  But they disagree about how
to proceed.  Sentry has moved for a stay, and asks the Court not to
allow the simultaneous prosecution of redundant lawsuits.  Emerson
has responded with a motion to consolidate under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 42(a), arguing that consolidation will serve
judicial economy and avoid undue prejudice.  The Court also
received briefing from Maxon, who opposes consolidation and joins
Sentry in advocating that Emerson be stayed while her first-filed
case is litigated.

Judge Peterson finds that all of the relevant factors in the case
counsel in favor of granting a stay and denying the motion to
consolidate.  First, Emerson is at an early stage of litigation,
whereas Maxon is considerably further along.  Second, Emerson is
unlikely to suffer prejudice as a result of a stay.  As to the
third and fourth factors, granting a stay seems likely to simplify
the issues, whereas consolidating the actions seems likely to
further complicate matters and increase the burdens of litigation.


These considerations militate in favor of a stay and against
consolidation.  The Judge holds that the Court has broad managerial
discretion to prevent unnecessary duplication of effort in related
cases through consolidation or other means.  Here, a stay provides
the other means to prevent the inevitable duplication that
Emerson's suit would create.

For these reasons, Judge Peterson (i) granted the Defendant
Sentry's motion to stay, and (ii) denied Emerson's cross-motion to
consolidate.  Case No. 18cv-379-jdp is stayed pending resolution of
No. 18-cv-254-jdp.  If the court denies class certification in No.
18-cv-254-jdp, Emerson may move to lift the stay at that time.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/tLyGxg from Leagle.com.

Prudence F. Maxon, Individually and On Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Angelica M. Ornelas,
Girard Gibbs LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP,
pro hac vice, Elizabeth A. Kramer -- eak@girardgibbs.com -- Girard
Gibbs, LLP, pro hac vice, Ethan M. Lange -- lange@stuevesiegel.com
-- Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, pro hac vice, Jason Toji Calabro --
calabro@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, pro hac vice,
John Schirger -- JSCHIRGER@MILLERSCHIRGER.COM -- Miller Schirger,
LLC, pro hac vice, John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Morgan & Morgan,
Tampa P.A., Joseph Michael Feierabend --
JFEIERABEND@MILLERSCHIRGER.COM -- Miller Schirger LLC, pro hac
vice, Matthew W. Lytle -- MLYTLE@MILLERSCHIRGER.COM -- Miller
Schirger LLC, pro hac vice, Norman E. Siegel --
siegel@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, pro hac vice,
Patrick J. Stueve -- stueve@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP, pro hac vice & Andrew W. Erlandson --
aerlandson@hurleyburish.com -- Hurley, Burish & Stanton, S.C.

Sentry Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamine
Reid -- breid@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA,
Clifton Richard Gruhn -- cgruhn@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt, P.A., Shaunda Patterson-Strachan --
spatterson-strachan@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden
Burt, PA, pro hac vice, Waldemar Jacob Pflepsen, Jr. --
wpflepsen@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, pro
hac vice & Kendall W. Harrison -- kharrison@gklaw.com -- Godfrey &
Kahn, S.C..


SHELL OIL: Class Action Over Ski Slopes Coupons Settled
-------------------------------------------------------
Beth Farnsworth, writing for KEYT, reports that false promises of a
free day on the ski slopes lead to a settlement in a class action
lawsuit.

Reporter Beth Farnsworth obtained a copy of a flyer posted several
years ago by a vendor at Shell gas stations near ski resorts in
Northern California.

"This advertising, they were coupons given out at Shell Oil gas
stations in California, Oregon, Washington and Michigan," said Rick
Coplan, President of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Ventura
Counties Better Business Bureau. "It had to do with skiing for
free; If you bought 10 gallons worth of gas, you got a free lift
ticket. However, the other important conditions weren't
disclosed."

Including the requirement that the consumer had to buy a
full-priced ticket as well, and that there were "blackout" day
restrictions, none of which was advertised.

Robert Curtis -- rcurtis@foleybezek.com -- an attorney with Foley
Bezek Behle & Curtis in Santa Barbara, handled the case and said
none of our local Shell stations were involved.

Mr. Curtis revealed details of the settlement in the amount of
nearly $600,000 dollars which will be split between two
organizations known for their devotion to fighting fraud: The
Better Business Bureau (BBB) and The Association of American
Retired People (AARP).

"(Misled) people who bought tickets were refunded $40 dollars per
person," Mr. Curtis said. "Whatever was left was distributed by
court order."

The BBB and AARP were the two charities chosen to split nearly
$600,000 dollars. Each will receive $287,771.50 from the 2016
settlement.

Mr. Coplan said the BBB funds will be divided between their
respective areas for the purpose of consumer education.

The funds were set to be handed over on Sept. 27 at 9:30 a.m.
during a presentation by Mr. Curtis under the arch at the historic
Santa Barbara County Courthouse. [GN]


SHERMAN'S 1400: Faces Disabilities Breach Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sherman's 1400
Broadway N.Y.C., LLC. The case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Sherman's 1400 Broadway N.Y.C., LLC doing business as: Nat Sherman,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09584 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 18, 2018).

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

Shermans 1400 Broadway NYC Ltd operates as a private company. The
Company works in the manufacturing and sales industry. Shermans
1400 Broadway NYC Ltd specializes in the production and sale of
cigarettes. Shermans 1400 Broadway NYC Ltd works from its
headquarters in the state of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SHILOH INDUSTRIES: Thomas SACAC Dismissed with Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAYMOND THOMAS and WILLIAM PORTER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SHILOH
INDUSTRIES, INC., RAMZI HERMIZ, and THOMAS M. DUGAN, Defendants,
Case No. 1:15-CV-7449 (KMW) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Kimba M. Wood of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Class Action Complaint ("SACAC").

The case arises from alleged fraudulent financial reporting by
Shiloh, a publicly-traded manufacturer of automotive materials.  In
2015, an accountant at Shiloh's Wellington, Ohio, Facility sounded
the alarm on possible fraudulent accounting.  In response, Shiloh
launched an internal investigation.  The investigation revealed
that the Wellington Facility's Controller, Eric Halterman, had been
intentionally understating the Facility's costs.  When Halterman's
data was consolidated into the Company's financial reports, the
effect was to falsely inflate Shiloh's net income.  After Shiloh
publicly announced the investigation, its share price fell.  The
share price dropped again after the Company restated its financials
and admitted to investors that its internal controls on reporting
were materially weak.  A putative class of Shiloh shareholders then
filed the suit.

The Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' initial complaint because it
failed to plead with particularity that any Defendant had the
requisite scienter to be held liable for securities fraud.  On a
motion for reconsideration, the Court declined to vacate the
dismissal, but granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend their initial
complaint for the limited purpose of alleging facts demonstrating
that Shiloh (as a corporate Defendant) had the requisite scienter.


The Plaintiffs filed the SACAC on Aug. 4, 2017, which the
Defendants now move to dismiss.  The new allegations in the SACAC
focus on the scienter of Halterman, the Wellington Facility
Controller, and on Brian Harvey, Halterman's boss at the time of
the alleged fraud.

As the Wellington Facility Controller, Halterman was responsible
for accounting at the Wellington Facility, overseeing four
employees.  Halterman reported to Group Controller Harvey.  In his
role as the Wellington Controller, Halterman was tasked with
providing updates on the Wellington Facility's financials during
weekly two-to-three hour meetings at which controllers from
Shiloh's various plants discussed their budgets and financial
forecasts with Shiloh's Vice President.  According to the
Plaintiffs, this task meant that Halterman "functionally" reported
directly to Shiloh's Vice President.  In 2014 and 2015, Halterman
perpetrated an accounting fraud that resulted in Shiloh overstating
its net income in public securities filings.  He was fired "after
it all blew up" at the Wellington Facility.

Turning now to Harvey, the Plaintiffs allege that he was complicit
in Halterman's fraud, or at least reckless in not discovering it.
As Group Controller, Harvey worked one step below senior
management, reporting directly to Shiloh's Vice President.  In his
role, Harvey oversaw approximately 25% to 30% of the company's
plants, including the Wellington Facility.  His responsibilities
included reviewing Halterman's reports.  The Plaintiffs allege that
the day after an accountant at Wellington confronted Harvey about
the fraud, Harvey stated that he was planning to resign; he did so
within the month.  A confidential witness stated that Harvey left
as a result the investigation into the Wellington Plant.

Taking the allegations as a whole, Judge Wood finds that the
Plaintiffs still have not demonstrated that Halterman was
sufficiently senior at Shiloh for his scienter to be imputed to the
Company.  In his role, Halterman was at least two levels removed
from Shiloh's executive-level management: He reported to Harvey,
the Group Controller, who in turn reported to the Company's Vice
President of Finance.  Far from being in charge of an entire
division or region, Halterman supervised accounting at just one of
Shiloh's twenty-one plants.  The fact that Halterman updated
Shiloh's executives on the Wellington Facility's financials during
weekly calls does not change the nature of his role within the
Company -- that is, he remained a low- to mid-level manager
responsible for just a slice of the Company's accounting.  The
Plaintiffs' assertion that Shiloh managed the Wellington Facility
(and thus Halterman) in a "hands-off' way does not alter this
conclusion.  Even crediting this conclusory allegation, the Judge
finds that the Plaintiffs fail to explain why hands-off management
would elevate Halterman's relative role within the company in a way
that changes the imputation analysis.

As to Harvey, the Judge finds that taken together the facts the
Plaintiffs allege about Harvey's conduct do not give rise to a
"strong inference" of scienter.  The logical conclusion from the
allegations in the SACAC is that Harvey was, at worst, negligent in
failing to detect Halterman's fraud.  Even assuming Harvey left as
a result of the Company's investigation into the Wellington plant,
that fact does not give rise to the inference that Harvey was aware
of the fraud before the accountants at the Wellington Plant alerted
him to it, or that he acted highly unreasonably in failing to
detect it.

He also finds that the Plaintiffs do not identify any reports,
statements, or the like to which Harvey had access that would have
alerted him to the Halterman's misreporting prior to one of the
Wellington Plant accountant bringing it to his attention.  Rather,
the inference that Shiloh' fraudulent public statements were the
result of merely careless mistakes at the management level based on
false information fed it from below is more plausible than the
inference of scienter that the Plaintiffs would have the Court
draw.  Such careless mistakes and poor oversight would have given
Harvey a reason to preemptively resign and seek other employment,
providing a more likely explanation for Harvey's departure than the
one the Plaintiffs offer.  In sum, the Plaintiffs fail to plead
facts that lend themselves to an inference of scienter that is
cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference as any
opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have not alleged that Shiloh had the
requisite scienter to be liable for securities fraud.

Finally, the Judge finds that leave to amend in the case would be
futile.  The Plaintiffs have already had one opportunity to amend,
and were made aware of the deficiency in the FACAC, namely, the
failure to plead corporate scienter.  This same deficiency persists
in the SACAC.  Because they have thus far been unable to cure this
defect, and offer no indication as to how they might do so in the
future, the Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend is denied.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wood granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the SACAC in its entirety.  He dismissed with
prejudice and withoout leave to amend the Plaintiffs' SACAC.  The
Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/WxxrWn from Leagle.com.

Raymond Thomas, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A., Robert Vincent
Prongay -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
pro hac vice, Charles H. Linehan -- clinehan@glancylaw.com --
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Sara Esther Fuks --
sfuks@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Lesley Frank
Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

William Porter, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles H. Linehan, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP & Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, pro hac vice.

Shiloh Industries, Inc., Ramzi Hermiz & Thomas M. Dugan,
Defendants, represented by Geoffrey J. Ritts --
gjritts@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice & Robert C.
Micheletto -- rmicheletto@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.


SNSA INC: Daniels Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, AMWA
----------------------------------------------------------
SHEQUITA DANIELS, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. SNSA, INC., FARHANA ALI, KNM HOLDINGS, LLC, KHALID
KHAN, and NASRULLAH MANJI, Case 4:18-cv-00771-SWW, (E.D. Ark., Oct.
16, 2018) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendant's failure to
pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

The complaint says the Defendant classified Plaintiff and those
similarly situated as hourly employees non-exempt from the overtime
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act. However, the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff
and other hourly employees overtime wages at a rate of one and
one-half times their regular rates of pay for hours worked over
forty per week, but rather pays overtime wages in a lesser amount.

The Plaintiff was an hourly-paid employee at Defendant's restaurant
in North Little Rock, Arkansas.

SNSA, Inc., is a Missouri, for-profit corporation, operating
Church's Chicken franchised restaurants in the State of Arkansas.
SNSA, Inc.'s registered agent for service of process is Farhana
Ali.

KMN Holdings, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company, operating
Church's Chicken franchised restaurants in the State of Arkansas.
KMN Holdings, LLC's registered agent for service of process is
Nasrullah Manji.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chris Burks, Esq.
     Josh Sandford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     ONE FINANCIAL CENTER
     650 SOUTH SHACKLEFORD, SUITE 411
     LITTLE ROCK, AR 72211
     Tel: (501) 221-0088
     Fax: (888) 787-2040
     Email: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
            josh@sanfordlawfirm.com



STARBUCKS CORP: Marten Sues Over White Choco Drink Deceptive Ad
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN RAFAEL MARTEN, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-09201-JGK
(S.D.N.Y., October 8, 2018), is a consumer protection action
seeking redress for, and a stop to, the Defendant's alleged unfair
and deceptive practice of advertising and marketing its Starbucks
White Chocolate Doubleshot Energy Drink.

The Product is advertised and sold to mislead consumers into
believing that the drink contains white chocolate, when it in fact
does not, Mr. Marten contends.  He points out that the Defendant
markets the Product in a way that is deceptive to consumers under
consumer protection laws of New York, the other 49 states, and the
District of Columbia.

Starbucks is a corporation organized under the laws of Washington
with its headquarters located in Seattle, Washington.  Starbucks
develops and markets the Products throughout the United States.
The Products are available at numerous retail and online
outlets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYRACUSE, NY: Settles Class Action Over Water Shut-Off Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Baker, writing for Syracuse.com, reports that the City of
Syracuse has ended its 10-year-old policy of shutting off a
tenant's water if a landlord doesn't pay the bill, following a
federal lawsuit.

The city also agreed to pay $35,000 in legal fees as well as $650
to Jacqueline Winston, a woman whose water was shut off for three
days in 2016 after her landlord fell behind on payments.

The policy change and payment are part of a settlement agreement in
a class action lawsuit filed against the city by Legal Services of
Central New York. The Common Council will vote on the settlement.

According to the settlement, the city will no longer shut off the
water in cases like Winston's. The city will also update its water
shut-off notices to include clear instructions for tenants to
contact the Syracuse Water Department or Legal Services of Central
New York to have water service restored.

The city will instead add an unpaid water bill to a property
owner's tax bill. If that bill goes unpaid, the city can seize the
house and turn it over to the Land Bank.

The policy change applies only to tenants in rental properties, not
to owner-occupied properties.

Kristen Smith, corporation counsel for the city, said the change is
the right thing to do. Officials will still work to collect water
bills, but won't punish tenants whose landlords are delinquent.

"Everyone really struggled with this internally, trying to balance
the rights of tenants," she said. "We view water as a human right
and our administration is focusing on housing stability. Shutting
off water to a tenant creates instability."

Ms. Winston's attorney, Joshua Cotter, said the settlement will
have an impact on other municipalities as well.

"We are delighted to have now resolved this matter in the U.S
District Court and applaud the City of Syracuse for its commitment
to holding landlords accountable for unpaid water bills," Mr.
Cotter said in a statement.

Ms. Winston sued the city in federal court in February 2016 after
her family went three days without water. She claimed the city
violated her Constitutional right to due process.

Ms. Winston received a notice from the city in January 2016 telling
her of a $473 outstanding water bill. She was told she had 30 days
to pay the bill.

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Winston informed her maintenance
person, who assured her the landlord would take care of it. A month
later, the city shut off her water. Her family had to use gallons
of bottled water to cook, clean and brush their teeth.

She became the lead plaintiff in the federal class action lawsuit
from Legal Services of Central New York, an agency that advocates
for things like housing justice through civil lawsuits. The lawsuit
said the city's policy of shutting off a tenant's water was
unjust.

Last September, a federal judge ruled against Ms. Winston. She
appealed. In April, the appeals court ruled Winston's case could
move forward. At that point, the city started negotiating a
settlement, Smith said.

The settlement amount includes $35,000 in attorneys fees to Legal
Services of Central New York. Ms. Winston will received $650, the
amount she lost in rent when she had to move out of her apartment.

After the appeal ruling in April, the city temporarily stopped
shutting off water for tenants whose landlords failed to pay their
water bill. That policy change will become permanent once the
council approves the settlement.

The water shut-off policy dates back to 2008, when the Common
Council decided to put pressure on bad landlords who didn't pay
water bills.

The new, more aggressive shut-off policy increased city revenue by
more than $1 million in its first year. But it often left tenants
dealing with the consequences, like a dry tap. Tenants then had to
navigate a confusing bureaucratic maze to have water service
reinstated.

Ms. Smith emphasized that despite the policy change, the city will
still work to collect water bills.

"This doesn't mean we're not collecting water any more," she said.
"We have one tool going away but we're going to be more aggressive
with other tools. We don't want taxpayers subsidizing the water of
a few property owners who don't want to pay their bills." [GN]


TESLA INC: Must Face Foreign Workers' Labor Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Clark Schultz, writing for Seeking Alpha, reports that a federal
district judge dismissed most of the seven claims against Tesla
(NASDAQ:TSLA) in a class action labor case, but allowed two claims
to survive. A RICO charge was one of the claims tossed.

Judge Lucy Koh ruled that the company must defend itself over the
allegation it knew foreign workers at the Fremont plant were
threatened with deportation if they reported labor violation laws.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 2016 on behalf of workers with
B-1 visas working at U.S. automobile factories. [GN]


TICKETFLY: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
David Matthews, writing for Law360, reports that a new proposed
class action in Illinois state court takes aim at Ticketfly,
accusing the concert ticketing service of shoddy cybersecurity and
failing to inform users they were hacked. [GN]


TINTRI INC: Relief from Stay Bid V. Non-Debtors in Tuller Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LANCE TULLER, Plaintiff, v. TINTRI, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-05714-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the Plaintiffs' motion for relief
from the stay with respect to their claims against the
Non-Debtors.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Defendants
Debtor Tintri and Ken Klein, Ian Halifax, and Kieran Harty, as well
as various underwriters for alleged material misrepresentations
related to Tinri's June 30, 2017 initial public offering ("IPO") in
violation of federal securities laws.  

Tuller filed his complaint, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, on Sept. 18, 2017 alleging that Tintri
and the Individual Defendants engaged in material
misrepresentations related to Tinri's June 30, 2017 IPO in
violation of federal securities laws.  On Oct. 6, 2017, the Court
issued an order relating the action to two similar lawsuits,
Clayton v. Tintri, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-05683-YGR and Nurlybayev v.
Tintri, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-05684-CRB.  

On Dec. 13, 2017, the Court granted the motion of Henrick Thørring
for appointment as the lead Plaintiff and approval of Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP as the lead counsel.  On Feb. 2, 2018, lead
Plaintiff Thørring filed a consolidated class action complaint
against Tintri, the Individual Defendants, and the Underwriter
Defendants for alleged material misrepresentations regarding
Tintri's June 30, 2017 IPO in violation of federal securities
laws.

On March 30, 2018, the Defendants' filed two motions to dismiss,
one by Tinri and the Individual Defendants and another by the
Underwriter Defendants.  These motions were set for hearing on Aug.
14, 2018.   

On July 10, 2018, the Tintri Defendants filed a Notice informing
the Court that Tinri had filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.
Subsequently, on July 12, 2018, the Court stayed the instant
lawsuit pending resolution of the Bankruptcy Action.  Shortly
thereafter, on July 30, 2018, lead Plaintiff Henrick Thørring
filed a motion for relief from the stay solely with respect to the
Plaintiffs' claims against the Non-Debtors.

Judge Rogers finds that the complaint does not attribute the basis
of the alleged misconduct, material misrepresentations made in the
registration statement accompanying Debtor Tintri's IPO, to
specific Defendants or groups of Defendants such that one could
parse between a determination as to the liability of the
Non-Debtors as compared to a determination as to the liability of
the Debtor Tintri.  There can be no determination as to the
liability of the Individual Defendants or the Underwriter
Defendants without first resolving whether Debtor Tintri has made a
material misrepresentation in violation of the securities laws at
issue.  Thus, any judgment against the Non-Debtors will in effect
be a judgment or finding against Debtor Tintri.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs' allegations present a special circumstance under which
the automatic stay under Section 362(a)(1) of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code may apply to the Defendants other than the Debtor.

Moreover, the Judge finds that a stay of the instant action as it
applies to Non-Debtors is in the interest of efficiency and will
avoid relitigation of the issues presented.

For the reasons discussed, Judge Rogers denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for relief from the stay with respect to their claims
against the Non-Debtors.  Her Order terminates Docket Number 69.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/0rOA9P from Leagle.com.

Lance Tuller, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm. P.A.

Tintri, Inc., Defendant, pro se.

Ken Klein, Ian Halifax & Kieran Harty, Defendants, represented by
Adam Christopher Trigg -- atrigg@be-law.com -- Bergeson LLP, Daniel
J. Bergeson -- dbergeson@be-law.com -- Bergeson, LLP & John D.
Pernick -- jpernick@be-law.com -- Bergeson LLP.

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Inc., Pacific Crest Securities, Needham & Co., LLC, Piper Jaffray &
Co., Raymond James & Associates, Inc. & William Blair & Co.,
L.L.C., Defendants, represented by Jonathan Rosenberg --
jrosenberg@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Matthew W. Close --
mclose@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Rustam Mustafin, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay --
RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Shimon
Yiftach -- shimony@bgandg.com -- Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman.

Fattorini and Dail, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen, The
Rosen Law Firm. P.A.

Henrik Thorring, Movant, represented by Kara M. Wolke --
kwolke@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Robert
Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.


U-TEC: 2 More Potential Class Suits Filed Under Illinois BIPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Burt, writing for Biometric Update.com, reports that proposed
class-action law suits have been filed under Illinois' Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA) against both fingerprint door-lock
maker U-Tec and the Chicago Loews hotel.

The plaintiff in the U-Tec suite alleges the company never provided
the required disclosures about how information would be stored, how
long for, or how it would eventually be disposed of. U-Tec provides
door locks and an associated smartphone app which can store up to
95 fingerprints, and the plaintiff alleges that the lack of legally
required disclosure led him to chose a lock which could allow a
criminal to enter his home in the case that U-Tec suffers a data
breach, and that he would not have done so if provided with the
necessary information.

The suit against Loews hotel was filed in federal court and, like
most BIPA suits, has been brought by an employee, who alleges that
the hotel never informed him that fingerprints collected as part of
a time and attendance system would be shared with a third party, or
how long it would be kept for.

A similar potential class action suit was filed against Loews was
filed in state court earlier this year, which has been stayed,
pending a decision by the Illinois Supreme Court in Rosenbach v.
Six Flags, according to an attorney involved in the case. The State
Supreme Court is expected to rule on what qualifies a plaintiff as
"aggrieved" under BIPA.

Around the same time as the earlier suit against Loews hotel was
announced, U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall said that notice
and consent violations, without disclosure of the information, do
not constitute injury under BIPA, though the court's decision to
throw out the suit was based on the pre-emptive authority of the
collected bargaining agreement in the labor dispute.

A BIPA suit was filed against burger chain Wendy's earlier this
month.[GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Schnader Harrison Discusses Arbitration Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott J. Wenner, Esq. -- swenner@schnader.com -- of Schnader
Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that
a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously
decided that a properly-drafted arbitration clause that waives
class actions and reserves to the arbitrator the determination of
whether a dispute is properly arbitrable, will defeat class action
certification and require the granting of an order compelling
arbitration, even in California, which is historically hostile to
class waivers and mandatory arbitration. The case was
closely-watched both because of the size of the class and to
understand the impact in California of the U.S. Supreme Court
decision last term in Epic Systems.

O'Connor v. Uber Technologies disposed of consolidated appeals in
multiple actions brought by Uber drivers on behalf of crisscrossing
putative classes. In that opinion the appellate panel reversed
orders of Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California,
who had denied Uber's motion to compel arbitration, certified a
class of 160,000 drivers and restricted Uber's use of arbitration
agreements for new drivers. Despite its facially striking
disposition of the issues presented, the panel broke no new ground
in enforcing Uber's arbitration agreement, relying principally on
its own 2016 decision in Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, 848 F.3d
1201, and on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent opinion in Epic
Systems, which the panel awaited before it published its decision.

The class that Judge Chen certified included drivers who had
entered into agreements with Uber to arbitrate their claims, and
who had waived their right to participate in a class action with
respect to those claims. The appellate panel observed that Judge
Chen's conclusion that the drivers satisfied Federal Rule 23's
class certification requirements was premised on his finding that
Uber's arbitration agreements were unconscionable and, therefore,
unenforceable. However, that conclusion ignored the holding in
Mohamed v. Uber -- binding precedent authored two years ago by the
same panel. That panel held that the enforceability of Uber's
arbitration agreements in question was not properly for the court
to answer, because the agreements specifically, and properly,
reserved the question of arbitrability for the arbitrator to
determine. The Ninth Circuit earlier had held in Momot v. Mastro,
652 F.3d 982 (2011) that language "delegating to the arbitrators
the authority to determine the validity or application of any of
the provisions of the arbitration clause[]constitutes an agreement
to arbitrate threshold issues concerning the arbitration
agreement."

In addition to arguing that the arbitration clause was
unconscionable, the drivers also contended that the class waiver
provision contravened Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act
-- an argument that the Supreme Court's Epic Systems decision
resolved against them.

The question raised by the result in O'Connor is "what now?" The
Massachusetts lawyer who represented the largest class and argued
the case on behalf of the various classes reportedly says she
already is prepared to present "thousands" of individual claims to
arbitrators and is urging drivers to contact her for
representation. Whether this will prove true and how Uber will
respond are left for the next chapter in this saga.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances. [GN]


UNDER ARMOUR: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re UNDER ARMOUR SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action
No.: RDB-17-0388 (D. Md.), Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland (i) granted the Under
Armour Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated
Amended Complaint, and (ii) granted the Underwriter Defendants'
Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs Aberdeen City Council as Administrating Authority for
the North East Scotland Pension Fund ("Exchange Act Plaintiff" or
"Lead Plaintiff") and Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund
("Securities Act Plaintiff") bring the putative class action
against Under Armour, Kevin A. Plank ("Plank"), Lawrence P. (Chip)
Molloy, Brad Dickerson, the named directors, and the named
underwriters ("Underwriter Defendants") alleging violations of
federal securities laws.

The Plaintiffs bring the federal class action under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against Under Armour, Plank, Molloy, and Dickerson ("Exchange Act
Defendants").  Separately, the Securities Act Plaintiff brings the
federal class action under the Securities Act of 1933, and the
rules promulgated thereunder, against Under Armour, Plank, Molloy,
the Director Defendants, and the Underwriter Defendants
("Securities Act Defendants").

Currently pending before the Court are two dismissal motions: (1)
the Under Armour Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Amended Complaint; and (2) the Underwriter Defendants'
Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint.

Under Armour, based in Maryland, is a large sports apparel company
that sells branded athletic apparel, footwear, and accessories
primarily in North America, although their products are available
worldwide.  Since its formation in 1996, Under Armour's market
share has grown to compete with the leaders in the sector, Nike and
Adidas.  By 2014, Under Armour surpassed Adidas and became the
number two sportswear brand by revenue in the United States.  By
capitalizing on its premium brand image and reputation for
state-of-the-art fabrics, Under Armour reported 26 consecutive
quarters of 20% or more compounded annual growth between 2010 and
2016.

Led by its founder, Plank, who also serves as CEO and Chairman of
the Board, Under Armour had an aggressive growth strategy,
declaring its intent to become the "No. 1" brand.  During the
Company's Investor Day on Sept. 16, 2015, Plank boasted that the
demand for their brand has never been stronger, and Under Armour's
net revenue was projected to grow 25% in 2016.

However, the Plaintiffs allege that by the fall of 2015, customer
demand for Under Armour's apparel products was declining, partly
due to the Company's failure to compete early in the athletic
leisure apparel trend.  Excess inventory in Under Armour's basic
sports apparel, which had historically provided the majority of
sales, led the Company to begin competing on price rather than
brand strength as it had done in the past.

At the same time, the trend away from consumer sports-apparel
purchases at traditional sporting goods stores towards online
shopping and large discount chains led to bankruptcies for some of
Under Armour's traditional sporting goods customers, which put
further pressure on sales and margins.  Under Armour expanded its
footwear and international sales, but with lower margins and high
promotional expenses, overall margins declined.

On Jan. 10, 2016, Morgan Stanley issued a detailed report with
point-of-sale data from Under Armour's retail customers
illustrating declines in the Company's growth, average sales price
("ASP"), and market share.  The next month, February 2016, Under
Armour's Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") Dickerson left the
Company.  However, the Company's first quarter 2016 financial
results, announced in an April 21, 2016 press release, were
positive.

In May 2016, the Company's Chief Merchandising Officer, Henry
Stafford, and the Chief Digital Officer, Robin Thurston, abruptly
departed.  As Under Armour's sales problems became publicly known,
stock prices declined.  On June 1, 2016, the Company announced a
reduced expectation of 2016 revenues related to the bankruptcy of
one of its major sporting goods customers, the Sports Authority,5
which triggered further stock price declines.

On June 6, 2016, Under Armour filed the Registration Statement with
the Securities Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with its
Bond offering.  It offered the Bonds pursuant to the Offering
materials, which incorporated Under Armour's 2015 Annual Report on
Form 10-K and first quarter 2016 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.
The Offering was completed on June 8, 2016 with the Company
receiving $593.6 million in total net proceeds.  Each of the
Underwriter Defendants allegedly acted as an underwriter of the
Offering.

On July 26, 2016, Under Armour reported growth below 20% for the
first time in more than seven years and forecast the slowest
quarterly growth in over six years.  On Oct.r 25, 2016, Under
Armour revealed a further slowdown in growth in the third quarter.
On Jan. 31, 2017, Under Armour revealed that the 2016 slowdown was
more severe than previously reported and also announced the sudden
departure of Molloy, who served as CFO after Dickerson.

The next day, on Feb. 1, 2017, S&P Global Ratings downgraded the
Company's Bonds to junk status, and Moody's Investors Service
changed Under Armour's rating outlook from stable to negative.  The
Bond price fell in response and slid further in August 2017 when
the Company revealed slow North American growth, reduced its 2017
guidance, and announced a massive restructuring.

The initial Complaints alleging violations of federal securities
law were filed in February and March 2017 and were consolidated on
March 23, 2017.  A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on Aug.
9, 2017.  The Plaintiffs claim four causes of action: (i) Count I -
For Violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act Against All of
the Securities Act Defendants; (ii) Count II - For Violation of
Section 15 of the Securities Act Against Plank, Molloy, and the
Director Defendants; (iii) Count III - Violations of Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder Against
All of the Exchange Act Defendants;a nd (iv) Count IV - For
Violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act Against the
Individual Defendants.

The Exchange Act Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all
persons or entities that purchased or acquired publicly traded
securities of Under Armour between Sept. 16, 2015 to Jan. 30, 2017,
inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.  The Securities Act
Plaintiff purports to represent all persons or entities that
purchased or acquired 3.250% senior unsecured notes of Under Armour
due June 15, 2026 pursuant or traceable to the Registration
Statement filed with the SEC on June 6, 2016.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants concealed their sales and
revenue problems during the Class Period, making false claims of
explosive growth and strong customer demand while downplaying the
ballooning inventory, liquidations, and gross margin compression.
They also allege that Plank personally cashed in on the artificial
inflation by selling shares of his Company stock for total proceeds
of $138.2 million during the Class Period.  Further, the Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants raised nearly $600 million from the sale
of then-investment grade Bonds by making various untrue and
misleading statements in the materials provided to the SEC on June
6-9, 2016.

By the instant motion, the Under Armour Defendants seek dismissal
with prejudice of all claims pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Procedure, and the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA").  The Underwriter Defendants join
in the motion, and separately move the Court to dismiss the claims
against them under Section 11 of the Securities Act for the
additional reason that the claims are barred by the Securities Act
one-year statute of limitations.

Judge Bennett granted the Defendants' motions.  He granted the
Under Armour Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated
Amended Complaint, and Counts III and IV of the Corrected
Consolidated Amended Complaint are dismissed without prejudice.  He
also granted the Underwriter Defendants' Notice of Motion to
Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and dismissed without
prejudice Counts I and II of Corrected Consolidated Amended
Complaint as to all the Defendants.

Among other things, the Judge finds that (i) the Section 11 claims
against all the Securities Defendants are time-barred; (ii) the
Securities Act Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege a
Section 11 violation as to all the Defendants in Count I; (iii)
because violations of Section 15 depend on an underlying violation
of the Securities Act, and the Securities Act Plaintiff fails to
state a claim for an underlying violation of the Securities Act,
Count Two is also subject to dismissal; (iv) the Plaintiffs fail to
plead sufficient facts to establish a cogent and compelling
inference that Under Armour or any of the Individual Defendants
acted knowingly or recklessly with intent to deceive, manipulate,
or defraud; and (v) the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead
a viable underlying 10(b) or Rule 10b-5 violation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/yjKcSt from Leagle.com.

Brian Breece, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles J. Piven --
piven@browerpiven.com -- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation,
Yelena Trepetin -- trepetin@browerpiven.com -- Brower Piven A
Professional Corporation, Austin P. Brane -- ABrane@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher R.
Kinnon -- ckinnon@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd
LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth A. Shonson -- eshonson@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Mark J. Dearman
-- mdearman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro
hac vice, Robert R. Henssler, Jr. -- bhenssler@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen R. Astley
-- SAstley@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro
hac vice & William Nelson Sinclair -- bsinclair@mdattorney.com --
Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White LLC.

Jodie Hopkins, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Heider Farra, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Daniel Stephen Sommers, Cohen
Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, Steven J. Toll, Cohen Milstein
Sellers and Toll PLLC, Austin P. Brane, Robbins Geller Rudman and
Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher R. Kinnon, Robbins Geller
Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth A. Shonson, Robbins
Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Mark J. Dearman, Robbins
Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Robert R. Henssler, Jr.,
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen R.
Astley, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice & William
Nelson Sinclair, Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White LLC.

Ben Stenger, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas Ian Porritt --
nporritt@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP, Austin P. Brane, Robbins
Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher R. Kinnon,
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth A.
Shonson, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Mark J.
Dearman, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Robert
R. Henssler, Jr., Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice,
Stephen R. Astley  Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice
& William Nelson Sinclair, Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White
LLC.

Aberdeen City Council as Administrating Authority for the North
East Scotland Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew C.
White, Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White LLC, Austin P. Brane,
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher R.
Kinnon, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth
A. Shonson, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Jack
Reise, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Mark J.
Dearman, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Pierce
Christopher Murphy, Silverman Thompson Slutkin & White LLC, Robert
R. Henssler, Jr., Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice,
Stephen R. Astley, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice
& William Nelson Sinclair, Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White
LLC.

Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher R. Kinnon, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Elizabeth A. Shonson, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro
hac vice, Stephen R. Astley, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice & William Nelson Sinclair, Silverman Thompson Slutkin
and White LLC.

Under Armour, Inc., Defendant, represented by G. Stewart Webb, Jr.
-- gswebb@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, James D. Wareham --
james.wareham@friedfrank.com -- Fried Frank Harris Shriver &
Jacobson LLP, Samuel P. Groner -- samuel.groner@friedfrank.com --
Fried Frank Harris Shriver and Jacobson LLP, pro hac vice & Michael
P. Sternheim -- michael.sternheim@friedfrank.com -- Fried Frank
Harris Shriver and Jacobson LLP, pro hac vice.

Kevin A. Plank, Defendant, represented by Scott R. Haiber --
scott.haiber@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP & Jon Myer
Talotta -- jon.talotta@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP,
pro hac vice.

Lawrence P. Molloy & Brad Dickerson, Defendants, represented by
Adam Abelson, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Eric Robert Delinsky,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP & Steven Mark Salky, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP.

Byron K. Adams, Jr., George W. Bodenheimer, Douglas E. Coltharp,
Anthony W. Deering, Karen W. Katz, A.B. Krongard, William R.
McDermott, Eric T. Olson & Harvey L. Sanders, Defendants,
represented by G. Stewart Webb, Jr., Venable LLP.

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, HSBC Securities (USA)
Inc., PNC Capital Markets, LLC, BB&T Capital Markets, SunTrust
Robinson Humphrey, Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Goldman
Sachs & Co. LLC, Regions Securities LLC & SMBC Nikko Securities
America, Inc., Defendants, represented by Amanda F. Davidoff ,
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.

Bernardo Medellin, Robert Ross & William Dent, Movants, represented
by Yelena Trepetin, Brower Piven A Professional Corporation.

Sacramento City Employees Retirement System, Movant, represented by
Thomas Joseph Minton, Goldman and Minton PC.


UNION PACIFIC: Settlement in Hollis Labor Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Rick Hollis, Plaintiff, v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. EDCV 17-02449 JGB (SHKx) (C.D. Cal.),
Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiff's
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

The Judge awarded (i) the Class Counsel attorneys' fees in the
amount of $361,321; (ii) the Class Counsel costs in the amount of
$6,592.05; and (iii) Plaintiff Hollis $7,500.  He ordered the
payment of (i) $37,500 to the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency, and (ii) $25,000 to the claims administrator.

The Judge dismissed the Complaint with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 19, 2018 Judgment is
available at https://is.gd/1uzk79 from Leagle.com.

Rick Hollis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Craig J. Ackermann, Ackermann
and Tilajef PC, David S. Winston, Winston Law Group PC, Jonathan
Melmed -- jmelmed@kslaw.com -- Melmed Law Group PC & Sam Vahedi,
Ackermann and Tilajef PC.

Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Koree Blyleven -- kblyleven@jonesday.com -- Jones
Day, Amanda C. Sommerfeld -- asommerfeld@jonesday.com -- Jones Day
& Donald J. Munro -- dmunro@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac
vice.


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Enters Judgment in Teva Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania has entered judgment in favor of
the Plaintiffs, the Cephalon Parties, and against the Defendant on
the entirety of the case, TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., et
al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Civil Action No.16-4870 (E.D. Pa.).

The question before the Court is whether a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") pertaining to a $125 million antitrust
resolution constitutes a binding settlement agreement.

United claims that it did not give the outside counsel authority to
settle, therefore, it is not bound to any settlement agreement.
The Cephalon Parties respond that the MOU is enforceable against
United on several bases.  First, they contend that United gave its
outside counsel authority to settle, both by (a) expressly granting
such authority and (b) cloaking outside counsel with apparent
authority. Second, they posit that United ratified outside
counsel's signatures on the MOU.

The dispute arises from several antitrust claims, brought pursuant
to FTC v. Actavis, Inc., involving reverse settlement payments
between the brand name manufacturer of the drug Provigil® and
various generic drug manufacturers.  On June 1, 2015, the Judge
denied class certification for the end-payor Plaintiffs in the case
of Vista Healthplan v. Cephalon, Inc. et al.  

Thereafter, the putative class Plaintiffs and a separate group of
third-party payers -- of which United was a part -- reached a
settlement agreement, memorialized in an MOU, with brand
manufacturer Cephalon, Inc. and two generic manufacturers Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries/Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Barr
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Cephalon Parties").  United has renounced
the settlement, claiming that the terms set out in the MOU did not
constitute a binding and enforceable contract and that its lawyers
were not authorized to enter into such an agreement.  The Cephalon
Parties have sued to enforce the agreement.  

The Cephalon Parties respond that the MOU is enforceable against
United on several bases.  First, they contend that United gave its
outside counsel authority to settle, both by (a) expressly granting
such authority and (b) cloaking outside counsel with apparent
authority.  Second, they posit that United ratified outside
counsel's signatures on the MOU.

In an opinion issued April 20, 2018, the Judge determined that the
MOU contained the essential terms of a settlement and constituted a
binding, enforceable, and unambiguous contract.  Thereafter, from
April 23-27, 2018, a bench trial was held on the issues of (a)
whether United's attorneys were cloaked with either express or
apparent authority to sign the MOU, and (b) whether UHS's actions
subsequent to the signing of the MOU constituted a ratification of
the MOU.

Upon consideration of the evidence presented at trial and
additional videotaped depositions and documentary evidence entered
into the trial record, Judge Goldberg concludes that the settlement
is binding upon United.

The Judge holds that United knew or should have known that outside
counsel was acting on its behalf, that the Cephalon Parties
reasonably believed that outside counsel were being permitted by
United to act on its behalf, and that United made affirmative
gestures to confirm outside counsel's apparent authority to settle
the case.  While United may now claim that it never intended that
outside counsel settle its claims, it remains bound because, under
the apparent authority doctrine, where one of two innocent parties
must suffer from the wrongful act of another, the loss should fall
upon the one who, by his conduct, created the circumstances which
enabled the third party to perpetrate the wrong and cause the loss.
As he findd that United was wholly responsible for the
circumstances that cloaked outside counsel with apparent authority
to settle, United must bear the consequences of its counsel's
actions

The Judge also holds that United ratified the MOU by failing to
repudiate counsel's authority to settle in a timely fashion.  He
concludes that United ratified the contract by delaying any dispute
of outside counsel's authority until after it decided to pursue
affirmative litigation.  The MOU was a brief, six-page,
double-spaced document containing unambiguous language expressly
indicating in plain language that the settlement was binding and
enforceable.  Once United's in-house lawyers had the MOU in hand,
United had full knowledge of the material facts and circumstances
regarding the transaction to be ratified.  United's failure to
promptly repudiate the settlement after receiving clear recitation
of its terms constitutes a ratification of the MOU and renders it
binding.

Having fully considered the trial testimony, exhibits, deposition
transcripts, and attorney argument, Judge Goldberg concludes that
United is bound to the MOU signed on its behalf.  Aside from the
fact that United clearly cloaked its outside counsel with apparent
authority to reach a settlement agreement, it also ratified the MOU
by failing to repudiate it despite having all of the relevant facts
in its possession.  Therefore, he entered judgment in favor of the
Plaintiffs the Cephalon Parties and against Defendant United on the
entirety of the Complaint.  An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 18, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/2yDb1k from Leagle.com.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., Plaintiff, represented by
BRADLEY H. WEIDENHAMMER -- radley.weidenhammer@kirkland -- KIRKLAND
& ELLIS LLP, BRITT CRAMER -- britt.cramer@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND
& ELLIS LLP, JAY P. LEFKOWITZ , KIRKLAND & ELLIS, JOSEPH E. WOLFSON
-- jwo@stevenslee.com -- STEVENS & LEE, ADAM T. HUMANN --
adam.humann@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP & BRENDAN E. RYAN
-- brendan.ryan@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. & BARR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
Plaintiffs, represented by BRADLEY H. WEIDENHAMMER, KIRKLAND &
ELLIS LLP, BRITT CRAMER, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, JOSEPH E. WOLFSON,
STEVENS & LEE, ADAM T. HUMANN, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP & BRENDAN E.
RYAN, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP.

CEPHALON, INC., Plaintiff, represented by BRADLEY H. WEIDENHAMMER,
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, BRITT CRAMER, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, JOSEPH E.
WOLFSON, STEVENS & LEE, ADAM T. HUMANN, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP &
BRENDAN E. RYAN, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP.

PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PENNSYLVANIA EMPLOYEES BENEFIT TRUST
FUND, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED &
DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 HEALTH & SECURITY PLAN, Intervenor Plaintiffs,
represented by DIANA J. ZINSER -- dzinser@srkattorneys.com --
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., JEFFREY L. KODROFF --
jkodroff@srkattorneys.com -- SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC, JOHN A.
MACORETTA -- jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com -- SPECTOR ROSEMAN &
KODROFF, P.C., JOSEPH H. MELTZER -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & TERENCE S. ZIEGLER , Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP.

SHIRLEY PANEBIANO, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by KEVIN B.
LOVE , HANZMAN CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A., DIANA J. ZINSER , SPECTOR
ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C., JEFFREY L. KODROFF , SPECTOR ROSEMAN &
KODROFF PC, JOHN A. MACORETTA , SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.,
JOSEPH H. MELTZER , Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & TERENCE S.
ZIEGLER -- tziegler@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP.

UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, represented by ABBY L.
DENNIS, BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, ERIC W. BUETZOW --
ebuetzow@zelle.com -- ZELLE LLP, HAMISH P.M. HUME --
hhume@bsfllp.com -- BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, JONATHAN M.
WATKINS, ZELLE LLP, JUDITH A. ZAHID -- jzahid@zelle.com -- ZELLE
LLP, KYLE SMITH -- ksmith@bsfllp.com -- BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
LLP, MARTHA L. GOODMAN, BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP & JONATHAN R.
MACBRIDE -- jmacbride@zelle.com -- ZELLE LLP.

VISTA HEALTHPLAN, INC., ON BEHALF OF ITLSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED & JEFFREY R. KRINSK, AN INDIVIDUAL, Movants,
represented by JEFFREY L. KODROFF, SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC &
JOHN A. MACORETTA, SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.


USA DIVING: Faces Class Action Over Diving Coach Sexual Abuse
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Nye, writing for WTHR, reports that two women have filed a
class action lawsuit against Indianapolis-based USA Diving, as well
as a local diving program and coaches. The lawsuit accuses former
Olympic diving coach John Wingfield of enabling sexual abuse at
RipFest, his Indiana Diving Academy with a dryland facility and
dormitory for athletes in Arcadia.

The lawsuit charges that USA Diving knew there was a problem, but
failed to adopt any policies, rules or procedures that would
protect its athletes from sexual abuse.

The lawsuit was filed by two women in U.S. District Court in
Indianapolis against USA Diving, RipFest Diving in Hamilton County
and owner John Wingfield, and Johel Ramirez Suarez. Mr. Ramirez
Suarez is the RipFest coach who was arrested last November on 32
counts of child sexual abuse against other teenage girls in the
program. Mr. Ramirez Suarez pled guilty last month to three counts
of battery.

The lawsuit claims Mr. Wingfield, RipFest president and 2008 U.S.
Olympic diving coach, received numerous complaints about Ramirez
Suarez sexually abusing divers. But Wingfield allegedly dismissed
the allegations.

RipFest issued a statement through spokesman Roger Harvey:

"Johel Ramirez's conduct is completely unacceptable, and RipFest
Diving has zero tolerance for this type of behavior. Last year,
when we became aware of allegations against Ramirez, we immediately
removed him from our program, instructed him not to return to our
facility pending the outcome of the investigation and terminated
him. RipFest Diving remains committed to providing the highest
quality training for our diving students in an extremely
professional and safe environment."

But the lawsuit claims the environment at RipFest actually enabled
sexual abuse.

One plaintiff who worked for RipFest says she was sleeping in the
dorm in the fall of 2016 when she awoke to Mr. Ramirez Suarez
sexually assaulting her. She fought Ramirez off of her.

The other plaintiff, Amy Stevens, was 16 years old in 2015 when she
says Mr. Ramirez Suarez recruited her to move from Michigan to join
the RipFest program. Within a couple of months, she says he was
routinely sexually assaulting her during stretching exercises at
the pool.

Ms. Stevens testified before a U.S. Senate subcommittee on Oct. 3.

The lawsuit also alleges that Ramirez Suarez was having sex with
another underage diver, which was widely known in the program. The
lawsuit also claims yet another coach sent nude photos of himself
to underage RipFest divers.

The lawsuit charges that USA Diving obstructed or covered up
complaints of sexual abuse and deferred or diverted
investigations.

Earlier this year, other divers filed a similar lawsuit against USA
Diving and the Ohio State Diving Club as the result of alleged
sexual abuse by coach Will Bohonyi, a former Indiana Diving Club
coach. [GN]


USA TECHNOLOGIES: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP disclosed that it has filed a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey against USA Technologies, Inc. ("USA Technologies" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq: USAT), its CEO and Chairman, Stephen P.
Herbert, and its CFO, Priyanka Singh.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, and is brought by
plaintiff on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly
traded common stock of USA Technologies between November 9, 2017
and September 10, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint further alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants "represented that the Company maintained adequate
controls over financial reporting, and that there were no changes
in internal controls over financial reporting that occurred that
materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect,
the Company's internal controls over financial reporting."

The complaint further alleges that on September 11, 2018, "before
the market opened, USA Technologies shocked investors when it
disclosed that it would delay the filing of its annual report for
the fiscal year 2018 (ended June 30, 2018)" and that the Company's
"Audit Committee of the Company's Board of Directors, with the
assistance of independent legal and forensic accounting advisors,
is in the process of conducting an internal investigation of
current and prior period matters relating to certain of the
Company's contractual arrangements, including the accounting
treatment, financial reporting and internal controls related to
such arrangements. The Audit Committee is working closely with its
advisors to complete its investigation in as timely a manner as
possible. The Company will not be in a position to file its Form
10-K until the Audit Committee completes its investigation and the
Company and its independent auditor assess the results of that
investigation."

On September 11, 2018, USA Technologies shares declined from a
closing price on September 10, 2018 of $15.30 per share, to close
at $9.20 per share, a decline of approximately 40% on heavier than
usual volume.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than NOVEMBER 13, 2018 to serve as a lead plaintiff for
the proposed Class.  You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff
in order to share in any possible recovery.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the proposed Class
and is represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
(www.kaplanfox.com).  Our firm, with offices in New York, San
Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New Jersey, has decades of
experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions
involving violations of the Federal securities laws.

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, please e-mail attorneys Jeff Campisi
(jcampisi@kaplanfox.com), or Larry King (lking@kaplanfox.com), or
contact them by phone, regular mail, or fax:

         Jeffrey P. Campisi
         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
         850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Toll-Free Telephone: (800) 290-1952
         Telephone: (212) 687-1980
         Fax: (212) 687-7714
         E-mail address: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

         Laurence D. King
         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
         350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 772-4700
         Fax: (415) 772-4707
         E-mail address: lking@kaplanfox.com [GN]

USA TECHNOLOGIES: Nov. 13 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until November 13, 2018 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against
USA Technologies, Inc. (NasdaqGM: USAT), if they purchased the
Company's securities between November 9, 2017 and September 11,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Get Help

USA Technologies investors should visit us at
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-usa-technologies-inc-securities-litigation-1
or call toll-free (844) 367-9658.  Lawyers at Kahn Swick & Foti,
LLC are available to discuss your legal options.

About the Lawsuit

USA Technologies and certain of its executives are charged with
failing to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

September 11, 2018, pre-market, the Company disclosed that it would
be unable to timely file its Form 10-K annual report for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2018 because it was "conducting an internal
investigation of current and prior period matters relating to
certain of the Company’s contractual arrangements, including the
accounting treatment, financial reporting and internal controls
related to such arrangements."

On this news, the price of USA Technologies’ shares plummeted.

About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]


WAFFLE HOUSE: Court Sustains Bid to Dismiss Amended Diamond Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL DIAMOND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WAFFLE HOUSE,
INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-49-HRW (E.D. Ky.),
Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, Northern Division, Ashland, sustained
Defendant WH Capital, L.L.C.'s Motion for Partial Dismissall; and
Defendants Waffle House, Inc., Riverside Restaurant Group, LLC, and
WH Capital, L.L.C.'s Motion for Partial Dismissal of the Amended
Complaint.

The class action is premised upon certain individuals' exposure to
Hepatitis A "(HAV") while dining at the Waffle House restaurants
#1808 and 1657, located in Ashland and Catlettsburg, Kentucky,
respectively.  The Plaintiffs allege that an employee of Waffle
House was infected with HAV and worked at both locations between
Feb. 12 and 28, 2018, thereby exposing all individuals who dined
there to Hepatitis A.

The Plaintiffs' filed a class action Complaint on March 20, 2018,
in Boyd Circuit Court asserting negligence/negligence per se and
strict liability against Waffle House, Inc., Riverside Restaurant
Group, LLC and WH Capital, L.L.C. ("Defendants").  The Defendants
filed their Notice of Removal on April 16, 2018.  Upon motion of
the Defendants, the Court entered an order extending their time for
filing a responsive pleading up to and including May 16, 2018, and
extending the Plaintiffs' time to file a Motion to Remand up to and
including June 15, 2018.

Following the filing of the Defendants' dispositive motion but
prior to any jurisdictional motion, the Plaintiffs sought leave to
file an Amended Complaint, which the Court granted.  Their Amended
Complaint asserts the aforementioned tort claims and adds a claim
for breach of implied warranty for merchantability pursuant to KRS
355.2-314.

The Plaintiffs name five subclasses in their Amended Complaint: (1)
those that were exposed to the Defendants' Hepatitis A positive
employee; (2) those who consumed food or drink that was
manufactured, served and/or sold by the Defendants' restaurants
between Feb. 12, 2018, and Feb. 28, 2018; (3) those who obtained an
Hepatitis A vaccination, an IG shot, or Hepatitis A blood test
because of their exposure; (4) individuals in (1), (2) and/or (3)
above that suffered physical symptoms or sickness; and/or (5)
individuals in (1), (2), and/or (3) above that contracted HAV a
result of their exposure.

The Defendants seek dismissal of the tort claims of Subclasses 1,
2, 3 and 4, the breach of implied warranty of merchantability
claims of Subclass 1, 4 and 5 as well as the breach of implied
warranty of merchantability claims of all the Subclasses against
Defendants Waffle House, Inc. and WH Capital, L.L.C. ("WH
Capital").  By separate motion, WH Capital also seeks dismissal of
all claims alleged against it.

Judge Wilhoit concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to
sufficiently allege (i) claims of Subclasses 1-4 premised on Strict
Liability and Negligence/Negligence Per Se; (ii) claims of Subclass
1 premised on Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability;
(iii) claims of Subclasses 4 and 5, who are members of Subclass 1
premised on Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability; (iv)
claims of Subclasses 1-5 against Defendants, WH Capital L.L.C., and
Waffle House, Inc., premised on Breach of the Implied Warranty of
Merchantability; and (v) all claims against Defendant WH Capital,
L.L.C.

Accordingly, he sustained the Motions.  His Order is an
interlocutory and non-appealable order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/l47SsG from Leagle.com.

Paul Diamond, Anne Diamond, Paul Diamond, a legally disabled adult,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated &
Rebekah Diamond, Plaintiffs, represented by Lee L. Coleman , Hughes
& Coleman, Mariana Torres Goff -- mgoff@hughesandcoleman.com --
Hughes & Coleman & Richard Wade Hartsock -- hartsock@boamlaw.com --
Hughes & Coleman.

Waffle House, Inc., Riverside Restaurant Group, LLC & WH Capital,
LLC, Defendants, represented by D.C. Offutt, Jr. --
dcoffutt@ofnlaw.com -- Offutt Nord Ashworth, PLLC & Ira Matthew
Mains -- immains@onalegal.com -- Offutt Nord Ashworth, PLLC.


YIN WALL CITY: Settlement in Baumann Farms Suit Has Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BAUMANN FARMS, LLP a Wisconsin limited liability
partnership; GLENN HEIER; and AARON KAISER, Plaintiffs, v. YIN WALL
CITY, INC., an Illinois corporation; SUT I. FONG; CHEONG SAT O; YIN
WALL CITY, DALLAS, INC., a Texas Corporation, Defendants, YIN WALL
CITY, INC. (Illinois), YIN WALL CITY, INC. (Texas), and YIN WALL
CITY DALLAS, INC., Counterclaim and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v.
BAUMANN FARMS, LLP; GLENN HEIER; and AARON KAISER, Counterclaim
Defendants, and GINSENG BOARD OF WISCONSIN, INC.; THOMAS HACK, JOE
HEIL and KURT BAUMANN, Third-Party Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-605
(E.D. Wis.), Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the
Parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement.

Upon review of the Declarations submitted by the counsel for the
parties, the Magistrate Judge is satisfied that the terms of the
Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Release ("SAR") entered into
between the parties are fair and reasonable.  The SAR provides a
minimum payment of approximately $350 to each member of the
Settlement Class, which he finds to be adequate and reasonable
given the claims presented and the evidence produced during
discovery.  To the extent individuals opt out of the settlement,
such additional funds will be divided among the remaining members
of the Settlement Class.  None of the $160,000 in settlement funds
will revert to the Defendants.

Consistent with the Court's prior class certification, the
Magistrate certified the Settlement Class defined as all
individuals and entities engaged in the business of cultivating
ginseng in the State of Wisconsin who have registered as ginseng
growers with Wisconsin's DATCP as mandated by Wis. Stats. Section
94.50(2), during the calendar years 2010 through 2015.

Because of the limited and known size of the Settlement Class, and
the Class Counsel's prior experience of mailing the initial Notice
of Class Action to the Certified Class members, the settlement will
be administered by the Class Counsel, Attorney Michael T. Hopkins.

A Notice of Proposed Settlement will be provided to the Settlement
Class by Oct. 15, 2018.  The Notice of Proposed Settlement will
include reference to a "Ginseng Class Action Settlement Webpage"
(URL: www.ip-lit.us/ginseng-ywc), which will contain downloadable
.pdf copies of the Order; the SAR; the Parties' Joint Motion for
Approval of Settlement; Class Counsel's Motion for an Award of
Attorney's Fees and Costs; the Class Representatives' Motion for a
Participation Award; and any other document or matter required by
the Court.  Said webpage will be operational as of the date the
Notice of Proposed Settlement is mailed.

The Class Counsel's Motion for an Award of Attorney's Fees and
Costs, and the Class Representatives' Motion for a Participation
Award will be filed (and posted on Ginseng Class Action Settlement
Webpage) by Oct. 15, 2018.

Any Settlement Class member wishing not to participate in the
proposed settlement may opt-out of the settlement no later than
Nov. 14, 2018.  Additionally, any Settlement Class member may
object to the terms of the Settlement; and/or may object to the
proposed attorney fee or class representative participation awards
no later than Nov. 14, 2018.

The Final Fairness Hearing will be conducted on Jan. 23, 2018, at
9:30 am.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 14, 2018 Decision and Order
is available at https://is.gd/gdhcBq from Leagle.com.

Baumann Farms LLP, Glenn Heier & Aaron Kaiser, Plaintiffs,
represented by Michael T. Hopkins -- mth@ip-lit.us -- IP-Litigation
US LLC.

Yin Wall City Inc, an Illinois Corporation, Sut I Fong, Choeng Sat
O, Yin Wall City Inc, a Texas Corporation & Yin Wall City Dallas
Inc, Defendants, represented by Peter J. Phillips --
pjphillips@lmiplaw.com -- Lucas & Mercanti LLP, Eric V.C. Jansson,
Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD, Molly H. McKinley, Jansson
Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD & Peter N. Jansson, Jansson Munger
McKinley & Kirby LTD.

Yin Wall City Inc, a Texas Corporation, Yin Wall City Dallas Inc &
Yin Wall City Inc, an Illinois Corporation, Third Party Plaintiffs,
represented by Peter J. Phillips, Lucas & Mercanti LLP, Eric V.C.
Jansson, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD, Molly H. McKinley,
Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD & Peter N. Jansson, Jansson
Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD.

Thomas Hack, Joe Heil, Ginseng Board of Wisconsin Inc. & Kurt
Baumann, Third Party Defendants, represented by Michael T. Hopkins,
IP-Litigation US LLC.

Yin Wall City Inc, a Texas Corporation, Yin Wall City Dallas Inc &
Yin Wall City Inc, an Illinois Corporation, Counter Claimants,
represented by Peter J. Phillips , Lucas & Mercanti LLP, Eric V.C.
Jansson, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD, Molly H. McKinley,
Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD & Peter N. Jansson, Jansson
Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD.

Baumann Farms LLP, Glenn Heier & Aaron Kaiser, Counter Defendants,
represented by Michael T. Hopkins, IP-Litigation US LLC.


ZILLOW GROUP: Judge Tosses Securities Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Guerin, writing for Housing Wire, reports that a federal
judge dismissed a securities fraud class action suit against Zillow
Group Inc. on Oct. 2.

The suit alleged that the real estate giant defrauded investors by
not disclosing that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was
investigating its co-marking program for possible violations of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour tossed out the suit, stating
that the investor plaintiffs, in their attempt to prove that Zillow
knowingly violated RESPA, actually proved otherwise.

"The Court concludes that the allegations in the amended complaint,
taken collectively, support a contrary and more compelling
inference -- that Defendants believed the co-marketing program did
not violate RESPA," Judge Coughenour wrote.

Judge  Coughenour said the plaintiffs can file again if they can
prove that Zillow designed the program to intentionally violate the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act; that it instructed third
parties to commit RESPA violations; that it made false or
misleading statements about the program being in compliance with
RESPA; and that its false statements led to the alleged loss in
stock value.

The decision comes after it was revealed in June that the CFPB had
closed its three-year investigation into Zillow's co-marketing
program.

Under the program, lenders paid Zillow to show their ads alongside
a real estate agent, making it appear as though the lenders or
agents were endorsing one another. At issue was whether Zillow's
program violated regulations against kickbacks by enabling lenders
and agents to funnel business to each other.

A spokesperson for Zillow said the company was pleased that the
court dismissed the meritless suit.

"We are pleased that the court agreed with our motion to dismiss
the claims of this lawsuit, which we believe to be without merit,"
the spokesperson said. "Our mission has always been to arm
consumers with information that helps them make decisions when
finding their next home, which this program does by providing
consumers with an easy, transparent way to connect with agents and
lenders." [GN]



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***