CAR_Public/181026.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, October 26, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 215

                            Headlines

3M CO: Class Action Seeks Funding for PFAS Studies
4218 REST GROUP: Rios Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
ALLEN HOTEL: Nixon Files ADA Suit in New York
ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE: Elwert TCPA Suit Deal Has Final Approval
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Alderman Sues Over Collection Calls

ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Violates FDCPA, Teplitskaya Suit Says
APARTMENT MANAGEMENT: Accused by Readus Suit of Violating RLTO
APPLE INC: Customers File Class Action Over TV Bundles
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit
BALTIMORE, MD: Police Chief Seeks Dismissal of Class Action

BANK OF AMERICA: Court Denies Bid to Amend Jackson Suit
BASIN ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages, Noggle Says
BEIT ALMAQDIS: Violates FLSA, Sanchez Suit Says
BODUM USA: Crosson Files ADA Class Action
BOSTON EXECUTIVE: Rizzo Seeks Overtime Compensation

BP: Asks Oregon Supreme Court to Review Suit Over Gas Charges
BRADLEY PARK: Sierra Files ADA Suit in Florida
BROOKLYN HOP: Faces Williamson Suit Over "No-Hire" Agreements
BROOKS BROTHERS: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Ables Class Suit
BURGER KING: Kessler Topaz Files Consumer Class Action

CAPE FEAR: Faces Class Action Over System Development Charges
CARLYLE LLC: Breeze Suit Asserts Civil Rights Breach
CARNEGIE HOTEL: Faces Civil Rights Class Suit in New York
CINEFLIX MEDIA: Workers File Class Action Over ESA Violations
CLEAN & GREEN: Nixon Suit Asserts ADA Violation

COAST PROFESSIONAL: Petrou Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Superannuation Savers File $100MM Class Action
DAKOTA ACCESS: 8th Cir. Hears Oral Arguments in Pipeline Case
DELAMOUNT INC: Sean Williams Seeks Unpaid Wages
DENVER, CO: Judge Sets Parameters for Homeless Case Sweep Trial

DR. SMOOD: Fischler Suit Asserts ADA Breach
DUN & BRADSTREET: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
DUNKIN' BRANDS: Proskauer Rose Attorney Discuss Suit Dismissal
EASTON DIAMOND: Must Face Bat Labeling Class Action
EQUILON ENTERPRISES: $7.75MM Deal in Berlanga Has Prelim Approval

ESA MANAGEMENT: Court Issues Show Cause Order in Arizmendi Suit
FACEBOOK INC: 9th Cir. Has Yet to Rule on Patient Spying Case
FAITH AND FREEDOM: Faces TCPA Class Action in Florida
FIRST NATIONAL: Gutierrez Suit Remanded to Md. State Court
FORD MOTOR: Settles Defective Airbag Class Action

FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces Sykes' FDCPA Suit in New York
FOSTER DAIRY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Willie Lee Dampier Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Brakes
GENUINE PARTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hill Suit Alleges
GOOGLE INC: Consumer Activist to Appeal Safari Class Suit Ruling

GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES: Summary Judgment Bid in Liberty Suit Denied
GUEST SERVICES: West Files Suit Asserting ADA Violation
HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL: 2 Law Firms File Sexual Assault Case
INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL: Caro Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
JACK RESNICK: Violates Disabilities Act, Fischler Says

JERICHO RESTAURANT: Pollier Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
JUST BORN: Dentons Attorneys Discuss Slack Fill Suit Ruling
KANYE WEST: Challenges Class Action Over Life of Pablo Album
KISS MY FACE: Court Narrows Claims in Gasser TAC Suit
LEAF COMMERCIAL: Alves Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls

LOGITECH INC: Appeals Dist. Ct. Order in Porath Suit to 9th Cir.
MARK HOTEL: Breeze Files Civil Rights Suit in New York Ct.
MASTEC INC: Sued for Allegedly Docking Employee Wages
MICHIGAN: State Supreme Court Hears UIA Fraud Class Action
MILBERG LLP: Supreme Court Refuses to Review Class Action

MORTON COUNTY, ND: Thunderhawk Files Civil Rights Class Action
MPM ENTERPRISES: Violates ADA, Nixon Suit Claims
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Treviso Appeals Order in Herrick to 6th Cir.
NISSAN NORTH: Court Extends Lohr Class Certification Deadlines
NUDGE LLC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Gets 90-Day Extension

OFF LEASE: Florida Judge Closes TCPA Class Action
OPKO HEALTH: Robins Geller Files Securities Class Action
PCL CONSTRUCTION: $3.4MM Attys' Fees Awarded in Power Outage Suit
PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY: Underpays Production Employees, Green Says
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: OBrien Files FDCPA Suit in New York

POSTMATES INC: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Lee
PRIDESTAR STUDENT: Fails to Properly Pay for Overtime, Rosanos Say
REVERSE MORTGAGE: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Ruling in Lavis Suit
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Covington Atty Discusses Smart TV Suit Ruling
SCG AMERICA: Fischler Files Suit Over ADA Breach

SIMON BARON: Fischler Files Suit in New York for ADA Breach
SIRTEX: Ordered to Notify Class Action Lawyers on Asset Move
SOUTH CAROLINA: Stoudemire Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
STRATEGIES TO EMPOWER: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
SUNRUN INC: Dec. 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

SYMANTEC CORP: Claims in Defective Antivirus Suit Narrowed
TEK-COLLECT INC: Ross Files FDCPA Class Action
TELENAV INC: Womble Bond Atty Discuss Approval of $3.5MM Settlement
TEMSA: Navaho Tour Brings Class Suit in California
TG THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Fraud Suit

TOOTSIE ROLL: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Gordon Class Suit
TRANS UNION LLC: Faces Heath FCRA Suit in Virginia
UBER TECH: Blank Rome Attorneys Discuss 9th Cir. Ruling
UNITED SERVICES: Did Not Pay Proper Insurance Claims, Spears Says
UNITED STATES: Asylum Interviews Ordered for Separated Families

VAILS GATE CLEANERS: Aguilo Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
VILLA ITALIA: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in Florida
WARNER CHILCOTT: 1st Cir. Flips Class Cert in Asacol Antitrust Suit
WARNER MUSIC: Leonard Williams Files Royalties Class Action
WEBASTO: Settles Class Action Over Parking Heaters for $15MM

WESTSIDE SUPERMARKET: Nixon Suit Asserts ADA Violation
WPX ENERGY: Appeal in Anderson Class Certification Denial Nixed
XOOM ENERGY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Mirkin Suit
YELLOWSTONE CLUB: H-2B Jamaican Workers File Class Action
YOSSI'S FISH: Faces Milian Suit in Eastern District of New York


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $43.1MM Asbestos Death Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $850K Deal From G-I Holdings Meets Resistance
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Case Remanded to District Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Report Not Covered by Legal Privilege
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Settlement Money Plan Pushed Back

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Trust Representative Beats Objection
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Businessman Prosecuted for Asbestos in Building
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks Appeal of All NYCAL Cases Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of O'Brien Claims vs. County Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Employer Had Duty to Protect Workers' Family

ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 7 Suits, Claims for $334K
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hillshire Brands Appeals $13MM Asbestos Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hull Trawlerman Dies of Asbestos Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Japan Responsible for Asbestos Health Damage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Livernois Voluntarily Dismissed Claims vs. NASSCO

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Production of Dempster Settlement Document Allowed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RJ Reynolds Directed to Pay $3.5MM to Florida Man
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Salesman Claims Exposure to Asbestos in Talc
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SCOTUS Hears Arguments on Naval Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SEC Probes Honeywell's Asbestos Accounting

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sponsor to Present Revisions to SB 315


                            *********

3M CO: Class Action Seeks Funding for PFAS Studies
--------------------------------------------------
5 EYEWITNESS NEWS reports that a class-action lawsuit filed in Ohio
against 3M and other manufacturers of chemicals linked to adverse
health conditions seeks to have the companies fund studies on the
aforementioned chemicals.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Ohio firefighter Kevin Hardwick,
who came into contact with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or
PFAS, via firefighting foams and other equipment which contained
the chemicals.

The lawsuit alleges 3M and the other companies knowingly exposed
people to these chemicals and have refused to fund studies on their
effects or publicly acknowledge the adverse effects of PFAS.

The companies claim a "lack of definitive evidence" of a link
between PFAS and adverse health effects, according to the lawsuit.

However, the lawsuit cites the work of a C8 Science Panel, whose
research found PFAS found in drinking water had "probable links"
with certain cancers and other diseases.

The proposed class in the lawsuit is anyone in the United States
with a "detectable level" of PFAS materials in their blood.
According to the lawsuit, PFAS can be found in the blood of 99
percent of U.S. residents.

In lieu of any compensatory damages, the lawsuit asks for the
establishment of an independent panel of scientists to study and
publish the health effects of PFAS.

3M gave 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS the following statement:

"We are aware of the lawsuit, but have not yet had an opportunity
to review the allegations. Nevertheless, 3M acted responsibly in
connection with its manufacture and sale of PFAS and will
vigorously defend its record of environmental stewardship."

In February, 3M agreed to pay the state of Minnesota $850 million
as part of a settlement agreement in a lawsuit over the company's
disposal of perfluorinated chemicals, which include PFAS. [GN]


4218 REST GROUP: Rios Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANTINO RIOS, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. 4218 REST GROUP LLC d/b/a SPYCE ASTORIA, SAPITOS
RESTAURANT, INC., CAJUN NY, LLC d/b/a SAPITO'S, YAIRTON GARCIA, and
VOJISLAVA TATIC, Case No. 1:18-cv-05633 (E.D.N.Y., October 9,
2018), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Plaintiff and the class are entitled to recover from the Defendants
(1) unpaid overtime (2) liquidated damages and (3) attorneys' fees
and costs.

4218 Rest Group LLC, doing business as Spyce Astoria, is a domestic
limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of
New York with a principal place of business in Astoria, New York.
Sapito's Restaurant Inc. is a domestic corporation organized under
the laws of the state of New York with a principal place of
business in Bronx, New York.

Cajun NY, LLC, is a domestic limited liability company organized
under the laws of the state of New York with a principal place of
business in New York City.  The Individual Defendants are both
principals and owners of each of the Corporate Defendants.

The Defendants operate three New York restaurant and bar locations
in Astoria, Bronx (closed 2018), and New York City (closed
2018).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          Taimur Alamgir, 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
                  anne@leelitigation.com
                  taimur@leelitigation.com


ALLEN HOTEL: Nixon Files ADA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------
The Allen Hotel, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Donald Nixon
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. The Allen Hotel, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05863 (E.D.
N.Y., Oct. 19, 2018).

The oriental-inspired Allen Hotel is located in the lower east side
of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     Shalom Law, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748
     Email: jonathan.shalom25@gmail.com


ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE: Elwert TCPA Suit Deal Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TODD S. ELWERT, INC., DC, an Ohio corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants. SANDUSKY WELLNESS
CENTER, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. WOODLAND DIAGNOSTIC IMAGINING, LLC; ALLIANCE
HEALTHCARE SERIVES, INC.; ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE, INC.; ALLIANCE
HEALTHCARE, LLC; AND JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Consolidated Into
Case No. 5:15-cv-2223, Case No. 3:15-cv-2673 (N.D. Ohio), Judge
Sara Loi of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed (i)
motion for final approval of the class action settlement agreement,
and (ii) motion for attorneys' fees.

In these consolidated class action cases brought pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated
the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended
by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, by sending unsolicited
advertisement to their fax machines on Sept. 14, 2015, without an
opt-out notice required by the Act.  The fax advertisement received
by the Plaintiffs is attached as Exhibit A to their respective
complaints.

Elwert's complaint alleges that the Defendants sent the Fax Ad and
other unsolicited faxes to more than 40 other persons.  Elwert
describes the class as all persons who (1) on or after four years
prior to the filing of the action (2) were sent material
advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property,
goods, or services (3) by or on behalf of Alliance HealthCare (4)
via facsimile (5) that did not display a proper opt-out notice.

Sandusky Wellness' complaint alleges that the Defendants sent the
Fax Ad and other unsolicited faxes to more than 25 other persons,
and describes the class as all persons who (1) on or after four
years prior to the filing of the action, (2) were sent telephone
facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial
availability or quality of any property, goods, or services by or
on behalf of the Defendants, and (3) which the Defendants did not
have prior express permission or invitation, or (4) which did not
display a proper opt-out notice.

The parties notified the Court that they had reach a settlement
agreement on Feb. 26, 2018.  Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed a
motion for certification of the class and motion for preliminary
approval of the class settlement agreement.  The Court granted the
certification of the class and preliminary approval of the class
settlement agreement, subject to the fairness hearing.

The Plaintiffs filed their motion for final approval of the class
settlement agreement and motion for attorneys' fees.  The fairness
hearing was held on Aug. 30, 2018, and the class counsel submitted
unreacted billing records.  The Defendants filed a statement of
non-objection to the class counsel's submitted attorneys' fees
bills.  

Under the class settlement agreement, each class member who
submitted a valid claim form will receive $500, for a total of
$237,500 from the settlement fund.  The class counsel has requested
an attorneys' fee award of $288,833.33, which is equal to one-third
of the settlement fund.  Additionally, the class counsel requests
$6,590.72 for reimbursement of expenses incurred in the pursuit of
the action.  Dahl Administration will receive $24,000 under the
settlement agreement.  Each of the named Plaintiffs will receive an
"Incentive Award" of $8,250 from the settlement fund.  The
remaining amount in the settlement fund ($292,715.95) will be
returned to Alliance Healthcare.

Judge Loi granted the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the
class settlement agreement and their motion for attorneys' fees.
She approved settlement agreement in as much as it is a fair,
reasonable, and adequate resolution of the litigation.  All terms
of the proposed settlement are approved.  

The Judge dismissed the case with prejudice.  The Clerk is directed
to close the file.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 21, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/C3ugkW from Leagle.com.

Todd S. Elwert, DC, Inc., individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by
George D. Jonson -- GJonson@mrjlaw.com -- Montgomery, Rennie &
Jonson & Matthew Elton Stubbs -- MStubbs@mrjlaw.com -- Montgomery,
Rennie & Jonson.

Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J.
Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, Matthew
Elton Stubbs , Montgomery, Rennie & Jonson, Ross M. Good --
rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca & Ryan M. Kelly --
rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca.

Alliance Healthcare Services, Inc. & Woodland Diangostic Imaging,
LLC, Defendants, represented by Eileen R. Ridley --
eridley@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner.


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Alderman Sues Over Collection Calls
------------------------------------------------------
James Alderman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Alltran Financial Limited Partnership,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-14396 (S.D. Fla., September 27, 2018),
seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Alltran Financial, LP is a debt collection company. It violated
provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it failed
to provide meaningful disclosure of the debt collector's identity
when it left a voice message on Alderman's phone, notes the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
      Sovathary K. Jacobson, Esq.
      DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
      Vero Beach, FL 32963
      Telephone: (772) 231-9600
      Facsimile: (772) 231-0300
      Email: jacobson@desmondlawfirm.com
             lwd@desmondlawfirm.com


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Violates FDCPA, Teplitskaya Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP. The case is styled as Natalya Teplitskaya on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alltran Financial,
LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05904 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 22, 2018).

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

Alltran Financial, LP specializes in revenue cycle, accounts
receivable, and contact center solutions within healthcare,
financial services, higher education, and government industries in
the Unites States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



APARTMENT MANAGEMENT: Accused by Readus Suit of Violating RLTO
--------------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE READUS, Individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. APARTMENT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, LLC and 6807 N
SHERIDAN PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, Case No. 2018CH12626 (Ill. Cir., Cook
Cty., October 9, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the
City of Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance,
Municipal Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to attach to the
Plaintiff's and the class members' written rental agreements a copy
of the then current RLTO summaries, including the version of the
RLTO summary that was updated on March 17, 2016, and the then
current separate summary describing the respective rights,
obligations, and remedies of landlords and tenants with respect to
security deposits required by the RLTO and made available by the
City of Chicago for public inspection and copying (the "RLTO
Summaries").

AMC is a Utah corporation registered with the Illinois Secretary of
State to conduct business in Illinois.  The apartment building of
the tenants at issue in this lawsuit, Vivian (formerly, Sheridan
Court), located at 6807 N. Sheridan Road, in Chicago, Illinois, is
listed on AMC's Web site as one of the buildings for which it is
the property manager.

Property Owner is a Delaware corporation registered with the
Illinois Secretary of State to conduct business in Illinois.
Property Owner is listed as the "Landlord or Authorized Management
Agent" on the Plaintiff's lease for Unit #518 at Vivian.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Sobek, Esq.
          JS LAW
          29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 756-1330
          E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com


APPLE INC: Customers File Class Action Over TV Bundles
------------------------------------------------------
Patently Apple reports that Joseph Coyle of New York and Gabriela
Zaragoza of California have filed a new Class Action against Apple
for tricking them and customers in general into buying season
bundles of TV shows only to find out that Apple is making them pay
for some promotional clips considered as TV episodes.

Nature of the Action

The following is directly from the class action lawsuit under the
"Nature of the Action": "Plaintiffs bring this consumer protection
and false advertising class action lawsuit against Apple, based on
its false and misleading business practices with respect to the
marketing and sale of television show ("TV show(s)") season bundles
offered on Apple's iTunes store on the Apple TV 4 and 4k devices
("Apple TVs").

Through Apple's iTunes store, consumers can browse a variety of TV
shows on their Apple TVs. Each TV show offered on Apple's iTunes
store has its own home page, providing consumers with general
information regarding their selected TV show.

On the home page for each TV show on iTunes, Apple offers consumers
three purchasing options at set prices. First, consumers may
purchase episodes individually. Second, consumers can purchase
completed seasons ("Buy Season"). Third, if the TV show's season
has remaining episodes, a season pass can be purchased, offering
all current and future episodes for the season ("Season Pass")
(collectively, with "Buy Season", the "Season Features").

On each home page, Apple conspicuously represents the number of
episodes available in the season. However, unbeknownst to
consumers, many of the "episodes" offered by Apple are not
standard, plot-based episodes of the TV show, but promotional
clips.

Consumers purchase the Season Features, reasonably believing that
each episode is a standard, plot-based episode and that, by
purchasing the Season Features, they are receiving a significant
discount over purchasing each episode individually. However,
because many of the episodes in the Season Features are promotional
clips, consumers are not receiving the number of episodes and the
discount they expected.

Had Plaintiffs and other consumers known that the Season Features
provided fewer standard, plot-based episodes than Apple
represented, they would not have purchased the Season Features or
would have paid significantly less for them. Therefore, Plaintiffs
and consumers have suffered injury in fact as a result of Apple's
deceptive practices.

Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated. Plaintiffs seek to represent a
California Subclass, a California Consumer Subclass, a New York
Subclass, and a Nationwide Class (defined infra in paragraphs
44-48) (collectively referred to as "Classes").

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other consumers, are
seeking damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief,
and all other remedies the court deems appropriate."

Causes for Action

Count 1: Violation of California Civil Code

Count 2: Violation of California Business and Professions Code Sec.
17200

Count 3: Violation of California Business and Professions Code Sec.
17500

Count 4: Breach of Express Warranty

Count 5: Breach of Implied Warranty

Count 6: Common Law Fraud

Count 7: Quasi-Contract/Restitution

Count 8: Violation of New York General Business Law Sec. 349

Count 9: Violation of New York General Business Law Sec. 350 [GN]


APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 10 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. ("Optoelectronics"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ:  AAOI) and certain of its officers.  
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of Texas, and index under 18-cv-03722, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants
and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired
Optoelectronics securities between August 7, 2018 and September 27,
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 Optoelectronics securities
between August 7, 2018, and September 27, 2018, both dates
inclusive, you have until November 30, 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.

Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. develops and manufactures advanced
optical products which are the building blocks for broadband and
fiber access networks primarily for Internet data center, cable
television (CATV), and fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) networking
end-market.

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) certain
of the Company's lasers were susceptible to fail prematurely; (ii)
certain of the Company's transceivers utilizing these lasers would
be materially affected; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing,
Optoelectronics' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.   

On September 27, 2018, an analyst with Loop Capital Markets
downgraded the Company's 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 the Company would start
procuring lasers externally through 2019.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.98 per share, or
more than 9%, to close at $28.36 per share on September 27, 2018,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

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]


BALTIMORE, MD: Police Chief Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Rentz, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that the
police chief at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, is
seeking dismissal of a claim against him in a class-action lawsuit
that alleges Baltimore County law enforcement and prosecutors
fostered a culture to dismiss and cover up complaints of sexual
assault.

According to the civil lawsuit, two women say they were sexually
assaulted by UMBC students in separate incidents. The case alleges
that authorities then humiliated, intimidated and deceived them as
part of an intentional effort to "cover up justifiable complaints
of sexual assault."

The lawsuit alleges that Paul Dillon, then deputy chief of police
at UMBC, "improperly persuaded" a UMBC student to not report her
alleged assault to police. It also contends that UMBC failed to
record the assault in federal reporting statistics or forward the
assault to the Baltimore County Police Department, as required in a
memorandum of understanding between the two institutions.

In a memorandum in support of Mr. Dillon's motion to dismiss,
Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh stated that Mr. Dillon never
tried to dissuade the plaintiff from reporting to police, and
included an affidavit from a UMBC employee who was in a meeting
between Dillon and the student.

"At no time did Deputy Chief Dillon attempt to influence [the
student] in her choice as to whether to file University Title IX
charges, criminal charges or both," wrote Rina Rhyne, who was then
the program coordinator for Voices Against Violence and whose job
it was to provide support to sexual assault victims.

In his own affidavit, Mr.  Dillon stated that he explained the
differences between filing a criminal complaint with the police and
one under Title IX with UMBC. The criminal process involves a
higher legal standard -- that a prosecutor must show the alleged
perpetrator is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." UMBC's Title IX
process, Mr.  Dillon stated, has a lesser standard, whereby the
complainant would need to prove that the alleged perpetrator
violated UMBC's sexual misconduct policy by a "preponderance of the
evidence."

The memorandum in support of Mr. Dillon's motion to dismiss also
includes an email from Mr. Dillon to a Michael Peterson, who was
then a Baltimore County police lieutenant in charge of the sex
crimes division, informing him of the report of alleged sexual
assault, but leaving out the student's name as she had not yet
decided to come forward.

Defendants in the lawsuit also include Baltimore County State's
Attorney Scott Shellenberger, the Baltimore County Police
Department, UMBC and the Board of Regents for the University System
of Maryland, among others.

According to a 2015 Clery crime report included in the filing, the
UMBC student's case was one of 10 cases of alleged forcible rape at
the university. The Clery Act is a federal law requiring disclosure
of crimes on or near campus. According to the court documents, two
of the 10 were reported to Baltimore County police and both were
classified as "unfounded."

In response to the filing, the plaintiffs' lawyer Rignal W. Baldwin
V said, "I'm reviewing the motion and look forward to responding."
[GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Denies Bid to Amend Jackson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BOBBI JACKSON and MATTHEW JACKSON, Plaintiffs, v. BANK
OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-787-FPG-HBS (W.D.
N.Y.), Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for
the Westedn District of New York denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Amend the Complaint to add Illinois residents McKinley and Angel
Moses as Plaintiffs to the case.

Plaintiffs Jacksons filed a putative class action complaint on
Sept. 30, 2016 against the Defendant under the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, its implementing regulations, and
Section 349 of New York's General Business Law.  On Dec. 6, 2016,
the Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint.  On Nov. 21, 2017,
the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss and referred the case to Magistrate Judge Hugh B.
Scott.

On Feb. 28, 2018, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend the
Complaint to add Illinois residents McKinley and Angel Moses as
Plaintiffs to the case.  The Defendant opposed the Motion to Amend
chiefly on jurisdictional grounds.  The parties conducted oral
argument on the Motion to Amend before Magistrate Judge Scott on
May 3, 2018.  On May 25, 2018, Magistrate Judge Scott denied the
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, finding that the Court lacked personal
jurisdiction over Bank of America with respect to the Moseses.

On June 22, 2018, Plaintiffs filed objections to Magistrate Judge
Scott's decision, arguing that he failed to correctly interpret
U.S. Supreme Court precedent.  The Defendant filed a memorandum in
opposition to the Plaintiffs' objections on July 13, 2018.57.

After reviewing Magistrate Judge Scott's order and the parties'
positions, Judge Geraci upholds the order under the clearly
erroneous standard.  As Magistrate Judge Scott noted in his
decision, amendment would be futile because the Court lacks both
specific and general personal jurisdiction over the Moseses'
proposed claims.  The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Daimler AG
v. Bauman firmly supports Magistrate Judge Scott's decision
regarding general jurisdiction, and his analysis of specific
jurisdiction is also unassailably supported by law.  Additionally,
the Judge will not allow the Plaintiffs to conduct jurisdictional
discovery because they have not made a sufficient start towards
establishing personal jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2018 Decision and Order
is available at https://is.gd/Ot3cvG from Leagle.com.

Bobbi Jackson & Matthew Jackson, Plaintiffs, represented by
Catherine Creighton -- ccreighton@cpjglaborlaw.com -- Creighton
Johnsen & Giroux, Ian H. Hayes -- ihayes@cpjglaborlaw.com --
Creighton Johnsen & Giroux, Katherine Aizpuru --
kaizpuru@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, pro hac vice, Annick
Persinger -- apersinger@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, pro
hac vice, Geoffrey G. Bestor -- gbesq@bestorlaw.com -- The Bestor
Law Firm & Jonathan K. Tycko -- jtycko@tzlegal.com -- Tycko &
Zavareei LLP.

Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by Keith E. Levenberg
-- klevenberg@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, Courtney L.
Hayden -- chayden@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP & James W.
McGarry -- jmcgarry@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP.


BASIN ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages, Noggle Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GORDON NOGGLE, ANTHONY CURTIS MONTOYA, JOHN SHIELDS, and TIM L.
WALKER on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BASIN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, Case No.
2:18-cv-00169-ABJ (D. Wyo., October 9, 2018), alleges that the
Defendant failed to pay their operations personnel, including the
Plaintiffs, required minimum and overtime wages for all hours
worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Basin Electric Power Cooperative is a non-profit corporation
organized under the laws of North Dakota, with a principal business
address in Bismark, North Dakota.  The Defendant operated at least
nine power plants located in Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Montana and Iowa

The Defendant generated and transmitted wholesale bulk electric
power to customers located in at least nine states, including
Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North
Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas B. Jubin, Esq.
          JUBIN & ZERGA, LLC
          2614 Pioneer Ave.
          Cheyenne, WY 82001
          Telephone: (307) 637-4965
          Facsimile: (307) 637-4788
          tom@jubinzerga.com

               - and -

          Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
          THE KELMAN BUESCHER FIRM
          600 Grant Street - Suite 825
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 333-7751
          Facsimile: (303) 333-7758
          E-mail: aturner@laborlawdenver.com


BEIT ALMAQDIS: Violates FLSA, Sanchez Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beit Almaqdis Live
Poultry Mkt Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Salas Sanchez
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Beit Almaqdis Live Poultry Mkt Inc. doing business as: Bay Ridge
Live Poultry, Abdulsalam Mused Mohamed, Jeayb Muthana, Ahmed
Muthana, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05857 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 19,
2018).

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

Bay Ridge offers live poultry and meat, including chicken, duck,
rabbit, fowl, turkey, beef, veal, lamb, and goat.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


BODUM USA: Crosson Files ADA Class Action
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bodum USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Aretha Crosson individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Bodum USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05891-ENV-ST (E.D.
N.Y., Oct. 22, 2018).

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

Bodum, Inc. is engaged in the online retail of coffee and tea
making, tabletop, kitchen, storage, textile, and home and office
products worldwide. It offers coffee and tea brewers, travel
presses and tumblers, espresso machines, milk frothers, mugs and
cups, thermo jugs and carafes, accessories, storage jars, coffee
beans and tea, and spare parts; and kettles, grinders, mixers and
blenders, juicers, toasters, and electric grill products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOSTON EXECUTIVE: Rizzo Seeks Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------
Roberto Rizzo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Boston Executive Limousine Service,
Inc. & Nuriya G. Eroshkina, the Defendants, Case No. 182838
(Mass.Super. Ct., Oct. 3, 2018), seeks to recover damages arising
from Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek, failure to pay all gratuities and
service charges, and failure to pay all wages earned in a timely
manner in violation of M.G.L.

According to the complaint, all individuals who have worked as a
driver for the Defendants within the three years preceding the
filing of the complaint in this matter have been paid a set hourly
rate for each hour they work.

The Defendants never paid Rizzo or any individuals who have worked
as a driver within the three years preceding the filing of the
complaint in this matter, time and one half their hourly rate for
hours worked over forty in a workweek, the lawsuit says.

Boston Executive provides Boston Logan airport limo services.[BN]

          Adam J. Shiflan, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Schneider, Esq.
          RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP
          92 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 723-7700
          Facsimile: (617) 227-0313
          E-mail: ashafran@rflawyers.com
                  nschneidercurflawvers.com


BP: Asks Oregon Supreme Court to Review Suit Over Gas Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trish Glose, writing for News10, reports that a class action
lawsuit involving Oregon gas stations heads to the state's highest
court. The lead counsel in the case says consumers were illegally
charged at the pump.

The case started after a man noticed he was overcharged at an Arco
gas station in southwest Portland. David Sugarman is the lead
attorney on the case. He says it happened to two million customers
who used a debit card at Arco stations in Oregon from 2011 to 2013.
He says customers weren't made aware of the $0.35 surcharge from
British Petroleum or BP.

Mr. Sugarman says when the case went to trial, BP continued to
illegally overcharge consumers, about 13,000 times a day. He says
that went on until the trial ended in January of 2014.

The jury decided under the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act,
that the customer was right in this case. BP was ordered to pay
$400,000,000 to those customers, which comes out to $200 per
person.

"Once that was done and a judgement was entered, BP appealed to the
Oregon Court of Appeals. And the Oregon Court of Appeals in May of
this year fully confirmed that the trial and the result were
correct under Oregon law," Mr. Sugarman says. "They confirmed the
judgement is the legal language, but it basically just says, yeah,
you followed all the rules, you did this right, the jury properly
considered all the evidence and we give a lot of weight to their
verdict."

BP has now asked the Oregon Supreme Court to review the case. It's
completely up to the state court whether it will even review it and
there's no timeline or deadline on that decision. If the supreme
court decides not to review it, the case could be closed at that
point. Mr. Sugarman says BP could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to
review the case. He says the odd thing about drawing out this case,
however, is that judgments earn interest. Under Oregon state law,
it's 9% a year.

"This judgement is really, really big, right. $400 million is a lot
of money. So if you do the math and you figure it out, it's
actually costing $100,000 a day in interest. So if BP wins, of
course, they don't pay anything and they don't pay the interest and
so on. But, if they lose, the judgement has gotten a lot bigger
over the time they've delayed," Mr. Sugarman says.

Mr. Sugarman has been a consumer protection lawyer in Oregon for
years and says it's hard to know BP's angle in this case. He says
for now, they'll just keep fighting and moving forward. In the
meantime, he's providing updates to the case via his Facebook page
for those who are looking for more information. [GN]


BRADLEY PARK: Sierra Files ADA Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bradley Park Owner,
LLC. The case is styled as Luis Sierra individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bradley Park Owner,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
0:18-cv-62528-BB (S.D. Fla., Oct. 22, 2018).

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

Bradley Park Owner, LLC offers premier commercial real estate
services to clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
     Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
     200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 282-1858
     Fax: (844) 786-3694
     Email: service@advocacypa.com


BROOKLYN HOP: Faces Williamson Suit Over "No-Hire" Agreements
-------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL WILLIAMSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BROOKLYN HOP 2 LLC, DINEEQUITY, INC.,
INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKES, LLC, IHOP FRANCHISOR LLC, IHOP
RESTAURANTS LLC, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
1:18-cv-05615-AMD-SMG (E.D.N.Y., October 9, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants engaged in per se violations of New York Antitrust laws
and the Sherman Antitrust Act by entering into no-hire and
non-solicitation agreements, for the express purpose of depressing
and/or reducing market-based wages and benefit increases for class
members that are typically associated with the active recruitment
of employees and workers in a competitive industry.

While protecting and enhancing their profits, the Defendants --
through their no-hire and non-solicitation agreements -- robbed the
Class Members millions of dollars-worth of wages for which the
Plaintiff and the Class now seek relief, according to the
complaint.

Brooklyn Hop 2 LLC is a New York limited liability company.
Brooklyn Hop 2 does business in New York as IHOP, with its
principal place of business located at 276 Livingston Street, in
Brooklyn, New York.  Brooklyn HOP 2 operates approximately three
stores in New York doing business as IHOP.

DineEquity, Inc., is a Delaware corporation in California with its
principal place of business located at 450 North Brand Boulevard,
in Glendale, California.  DineEquity is the parent company of
International House of Pancakes, LLC, IHOP Franchisor LLC, and IHOP
Restaurants LLC.

International House of Pancakes, LLC, is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business located in Glendale.
International House of Pancakes franchises and operates IHOP
restaurants.

IHOP Franchisor LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Glendale.  IHOP Franchisor franchises
and operates IHOP restaurants.

IHOP Restaurants LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Glendale.  IHOP Restaurants franchises
and operates IHOP restaurants.  The true names and capacities of
the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Defendants are in the business of franchising or operating IHOP
restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi Mermelstein, Esq.
          MERMELSTEIN LAW
          3625 Johnson Avenue, Suite 202
          Bronx, NY 10463
          Telephone: (646) 470-2105
          E-mail: avi@mermelaw.com

               - and -

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          1180 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277-0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com


BROOKS BROTHERS: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Ables Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Scott Ables, Steven J. Brett and America Munson filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Steven Brett, et
al. v. Brooks Brothers Group, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-04309-DMG-E,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from alleged breach
of implied contract, negligence and violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code
and constitutional invasion of privacy.

Brooks Brothers sells high-end suits through 223 store locations
nationwide.  The Company experienced a security breach compromising
its store customers' name, credit and debit card account numbers,
card expiration dates, card verification codes, which included
personal identifying information.

The appellate case is captioned as Steven Brett, et al. v. Brooks
Brothers Group, Inc., Case No. 18-56316, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellants Scott Ables, Steven J. Brett and America
      Munson's opening brief is due on December 7, 2018;

   -- Appellee Brooks Brothers Group, Inc.'s answering brief is
      due on January 7, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants STEVEN J. BRETT, AMERICA MUNSON and SCOTT
ABLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Thomas Vincent Girardi, Esq.
          GIRARDI KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-1904
          Telephone: (213) 262-6777
          E-mail: tgirardi@girardikeese.com

               - and -

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee BROOKS BROTHERS GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation, is represented by:

          Kenneth Chernof, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 942-5940
          E-mail: kenneth.chernof@arnoldporter.com


BURGER KING: Kessler Topaz Files Consumer Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Oct. 10
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Burger
King Worldwide, Inc. and Burger King Corporation ("BKC") (together,
"Burger King") for violating federal antitrust laws by, among other
things, incorporating an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring
clause in the standard form franchise agreement all Burger King
franchisees are required to sign.  The complaint, which was filed
in the Southern District of Florida, asserts claims on behalf of
the following Class: All persons in the United States who are
current or former employees of a Burger King restaurant operated by
Burger King or a franchisee from at least 2010 forward (the
"Class").

Individuals who were employed at a Burger King restaurant at any
time from 2010 through present, and who wish to discuss their legal
rights or interests are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP (James Maro, Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888)
299-7706 or (610) 667-7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com. For
additional information please visit:
www.ktmc.com/burger-king-worldwide-inc-burger-king-corporation

Burger King is the world's fifth largest fast-food chain, with
7,226 Burger King restaurants within the United States.  Pursuant
to Burger King's standard franchise agreement, BKC and Burger King
franchisees agreed not to solicit, poach, or hire workers employed
at Burger King restaurants owned by BKC or other Burger King
franchisees during their employment and for six months after the
termination of their employment (the "No-Hire Clause). The No-Hire
Clause was intended to restrict competition between and among BKC
and franchisees and suppress employee wages.

The complaint asserts that Burger King violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1, by entering into and engaging in
unlawful contracts, combinations in the form of trust or otherwise,
or conspiracies, in restraint of trade or commerce -- in the form
of the no-poach agreements, including the No-Hire Clause.  The
complaint further asserts that Burger King's conduct caused members
of the Class to suffer injuries by suppressing their wages below
competitive levels, restricting their benefits, and limiting their
ability to seek employment at competing Burger King Restaurants.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP -- http://www.ktmc.com--
prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the
country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP 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). [GN]


CAPE FEAR: Faces Class Action Over System Development Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Schachtman, writing for PortCityDaily, reports that a
familiar name in the Wilmington development and construction
industry is part of a class action lawsuit that alleges the Cape
Fear Public Utility Authority has been illegally charging millions
of dollars in "arbitrary" and "capricious" fees.

The lawsuit was filed in August by Mecklenburg-based J.A.C.K.
Development, LLC, and the Wilmington-based Coastal Cypress Building
Company, founded by Steve Swain, who formerly worked with his
uncle, Wilmington developer David Swain of Swain and Associates.

The plaintiffs, who also seek to represent others potentially
harmed by CFPUA's actions, seek "collection action to obtain
redress arising from the unlawful collection of 'System Development
Charges,'" according to the suit, filed by attorney Daniel Bryson
-- dan@wbmllp.com -- of Whitfield, Bryson, and Mason, LLP, a
Raleigh-based law firm.

At the heart of the lawsuit are what CFPUA calls "system
development charges," also known as impact fees. These fees aren't
related to the direct cost of sewer or water service, nor are they
related to the cost of physically connecting new properties to the
utility network. Instead, they are charges issued to new customers,
often as a prerequisite for a building permit, designed to help pay
for future CFPUA projects.

Under state law, impact fees must be calculated for specific
capital improvement projects and charged proportionately to new
customers.

Plaintiffs cite state law requirements that impact fees be
developed as part of a concrete plan, including a detailed
breakdown of what the costs of future development will be. The
aspect of the law prevents the fees from being speculative — that
is, CFPUA cannot charge customers an arbitrary amount.

The suit alleges that CFPUA's impact fees violate state law,
specifically House Bill 426, passed last June, and taking effect
October 1, 2017. Plaintiffs further allege that CFPUA is using
impact fees as "'operating revenue' to pay for 'operating
expenses,'" instead of capital projects (i.e. new pipelines,
expanded facilities, new filtration plants, etc.). The lawsuit is
similar to one filed against the town of Leland, which operates its
own utilities, last month.

According to CFPUA's Comprehensive Financial Annual Report for
fiscal year 2017, the utility collected $6,277,464 in system
development charges, income CFPUA listed under "operating revenue,"
separate from its capital fund.

"The principal operating revenues of the Authority are charges to
customers including those for water and wastewater service, system
development charges, connection fees, penalties, and others," the
report states.

According to the report, these impact fees were the "most notable"
of revenue from new customers, and "outperformed budgeted estimates
by $2,677,464."

Alleged violations of state law
Plaintiff's cite state law requiring utilities like CFPUA to base
impact fees on the detail calculation of what it will cost to
deliver a specific set of projects and services in the future; they
cannot be used as a general fund for day-to-day operations.

Plaintiffs allege that CFPUA violated both of these aspects of
state law.

"CFPUA's action in collecting impact fees from Plaintiffs and Class
Members shocks the conscience and/or has no rational relation to a
valid state objective as the fees were charged without a
pre-existing concrete plan, and/or not used pursuant to a concrete
plan as provided by applicable law," the suit argues.

Further, because CFPUA requires payment of impact fees before it
will authorize a New Hanover County building permit, Plaintiffs
claim their rights were violated, calling the move "arbitrary and
capricious" and saying it "constitutes an abuse of discretion."

State law sets a statute of limitations of three years for claims
against public utilities for impact fees. J.A.C.K. Development
seeks redress for $10,100 in water and sewer impact fees charged
for three properties. Coastal Cyprus seeks $23,760 it paid for six
properties.

CFPUA Chief Communication Officer Peg Hall Williams issued a
statement from the utility.

"CFPUA believes the method of calculation of SDC's referenced in
the lawsuit is compliant with the law. Since this is in litigation,
we cannot further comment," Ms. Hall Williams wrote. [GN]


CARLYLE LLC: Breeze Suit Asserts Civil Rights Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Carlyle, LLC. The
case is styled as Byron Breeze, Jr. on behalf of himself, and all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. The Carlyle, LLC a
Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-09635 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 19, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

The Carlyle, LLC operates as a hotel in the New York. The company
provides guest rooms, restaurant, dining and entertainment,
gallery, Cafe Carlyle, bar, fitness center, and banquet rooms. It
also offers a menu of massage therapy and other spa services; and
assortment of treatments, including Swedish, shiatsu, deep-tissue,
and stone massages.[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


CARNEGIE HOTEL: Faces Civil Rights Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carnegie Hotel LLC.
The case is styled as Byron Breeze, Jr., Jesus Gonzalez on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Carnegie Hotel LLC a New York limited liability company, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-09676 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 22, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

The Carnegie Hotel LLC is a premier new hotel near Central Park.
With sleek and modest boutique NYC hotel accommodations towering
above 56th Street, the modern exterior of The Carnegie Hotel leads
guests into an experience of classic New York hospitality.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


CINEFLIX MEDIA: Workers File Class Action Over ESA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Pinto, writing for RealScreen, reports that following a
groundswell of activism in the factual space regarding worker
rights, a $35-million class-action lawsuit has been filed against
Montreal-headquartered production company Cineflix Media.

The suit has been filed by Toronto law firm Cavalluzzo, and alleges
improper hiring and loss of pay for workers on unscripted projects.
According to Canadian Media Guild (CMG) and parent union CWA
Canada, which released a statement of support, the suit represents
"hundreds of factual and reality TV workers."

The lawsuit is based on a statement of claim made by story editor
Anna Bourque, and was filed with the Ontario Supreme Court on
Friday, Oct. 5. It alleges, broadly, that Cineflix violated the
rights of workers and the terms of the Ontario Employment Standards
Act (ESA) by classifying non-managerial employees as independent
contractors.

The filing comes in the wake of a five-year campaign by the CMG and
CWA Canada to organize workers in the factual and unscripted space
in Canada, echoing a similar movement in the U.S. As recently as
late last month, documents outlining pay and associated working
conditions have been circling around the industry.

Cineflix Media is one of the largest companies of its kind in
Canada, and produces a slew of factual and unscripted properties,
including Property Brothers and Mayday.

As with labor disputes impacting the unscripted production industry
in the U.S., the key issue is the classification of workers and the
characterization of the employment relationship. Arguing that the
duties performed by "class members" (which the suit defines as "All
non-managerial persons who, since 2000, worked or continue to work
for the Cineflix Defendants in Ontario in pre-production, and/or
production, and/or post-production job classifications") and the
"supervision and control imposed" on them by the production company
creates an employment relationship with it, the lawsuit
specifically alleges that Cineflix was negligent in classifying
class members as independent contractors, and thereby violated the
terms of the Ontario Employment Standards Act (ESA), resulting in
financial loss for those class members.

The lawsuit claims that, among other things, the company failed to:
ensure that class members were "properly classified as employees";
advise class members of their entitlement to compensation equal to
or above the minimum wage as set out in the ESA of 2000; advise
class members of their entitlement to overtime pay if they had
worked more than 44 hours in a week; ensure class members' hours of
work were monitored or accurately recorded; and advise class
members of their entitlement to public holiday pay and premium pay
in accordance with the ESA.

As a result, reads the claim, Cineflix has been "unjustly enriched"
due to "receiving the benefit of the unpaid hours worked by the
class members."

The allegations have not been proven in court. Hours after news of
the filing was made public, Cineflix issued the following statement
to realscreen: "Cineflix was formally served with a statement of
claim shortly before 2:00 p.m. EST today. Cineflix has demonstrated
a solid history of ethical standards and respect for the creative
community for over 20 years. Cineflix will be vigorously contesting
this claim."

Bourque, the claimant on whom the suit is based, worked on Property
Brothers season six from September 2017 to February 2018 as a story
editor. The claim is based on her work during that time. The
lawsuit, however, alleges violations of the ESA date back to 2000.

The CMG -- which has for the past five years been running the
"Fairness in Factual TV" campaign alongside CWA Canada -- called
the lawsuit a "big step forward" for factual and reality TV
workers.

"Since these workers aren't covered by union contracts, production
companies often use them as a way to create less expensive but
still lucrative programming," said CMG organizer Denise O'Connell.
[GN]


CLEAN & GREEN: Nixon Suit Asserts ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clean & Green Organic
Market, Inc. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Clean &
Green Organic Market, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05860 (E.D.
N.Y., Oct. 19, 2018).

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

Clean & Green Organic Market is a Health Food Store founded in 2016
in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     Shalom Law, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748
     Email: jonathan.shalom25@gmail.com



COAST PROFESSIONAL: Petrou Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
ANDREAS PETROU, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, vs. COAST
PROFESSIONAL INC., the Defendant, Case No.: 519865/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Oct. 3, 2018), seeks to recover damages and equitable relief
based upon Defendant's violations of the New York Labor Law and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a
debt collector at a call center from on or about April 18, 2016 to
on or about December 12, 2016. The Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiff the wages lawfully due to him under the NYLL.

Specifically, for the entirety of his employment, the Defendant
failed to pay Plaintiff for the time it took for him to clock-in,
despite being ready, willing, and able to clock-in at an earlier
time. Plaintiff and the Class Action Plaintiffs were not paid from
anywhere from 2-12 minutes per day due to Defendant's delayed
clock-in procedure, the lawsuit says.

Coast Professional offers educational receivable collection
services. The company provides loan consolidation, default account
rehabilitation, contingency collection, borrower tracing, password
assistance, and online account management services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          J. R. Stevenson, Esq.
          STEVENSON MARINO LLP
          75 Maiden Lane, Suite 402
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 939 7588
          Facsimile: (212) 531 6129
          E-mail: jrs@stevensonmarino.com


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Superannuation Savers File $100MM Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Johnson for Daily Mail Australia and Australian Associated
Press report that Australia's biggest financial institution
Commonwealth Bank is facing a $100million class action bill, with
legal proceedings filed against it on behalf of angry
superannuation savers.

Commonwealth Bank's subsidiary Colonial First State is accused of
badly investing the retirement savings of its members in its parent
company, CBA, where they received very low returns.

Class action law firm Slater and Gordon, which has launched Federal
Court proceedings, said its 'Get Your Super Back' campaign could
net $100million for hundreds of thousands of superannuation
members.

"We will allege that by dumping members' super with its parent
bank, the CBA, Colonial First State failed to obtain the most
competitive interest rate available for its members invested in
cash-only investment options and balanced options where there is a
cash component," Slater and Gordon head of class actions Ben
Hardwick told reporters in Melbourne on Oct. 10.

Up to five million Australians have some form of super in cash with
retail funds owned by banks, with it being viewed as a safer option
-- especially among older Australians.

The banking royal commission has galvanised Slater and Gordon,
which said Colonial First State members had been paid between 0.5
and one per cent less interest than they would normally receive.

Mr Hardwick said Colonial First State investors were receiving
interest of as little as 1.25 per cent a year, which is even lower
than the Reserve Bank of Australia's record-low cash rate of 1.5
per cent.

He flagged action too against AMP, with about 18 other cases to
follow.

As Mr Hardwick explained, some industry and retail super funds are
paying members interest similar to that of standard term deposits
-- between 2.0 and 2.5 per cent.

It's estimated that about 55 per cent -- or 8.2million -- of
Australians have at least one retail account with some form of cash
component.

While it's difficult to gauge the exact payout figure, the law firm
estimates that for someone with $100,000 in cash at 0.5 per cent
over six years the payout is $3000.  

The law firm has created the website getyoursuperback.com for
anyone whose super is invested in cash. [GN]


DAKOTA ACCESS: 8th Cir. Hears Oral Arguments in Pipeline Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dionne Cordell-Whitney, writing Courthouse News Service, reported
that the Eighth Circuit heard oral arguments on Oct. 18 over
whether pipeline company Dakota Access pressured landowners into
easement agreements and lied to them about how much money they
could get for sections of their property.

Twenty-one landowners in Morton County, North Dakota, and one
partnership filed a lawsuit last year accusing Dakota Access LLC
and Contract Land Staff LLC of coercing them into easement
agreements when they were approached by the companies in 2014.

Dakota Access needed the easements to run a pipeline carrying crude
oil from oilfields in western North Dakota to a terminal in
Illinois.

According to the lawsuit, Dakota Access offered the landowners $180
per 16.5 feet (or one rod) per easement in addition to a 20 percent
signing bonus, for a total of $216 per rod if the owners signed up
within 30 days.

"Dakota Access informed the Morton County landowners that $216 per
rod was the best price that would ever be offered and the price
would never be more for other landowners in Morton County," the
complaint states.

In reality, however, the landowners allege Dakota Access paid other
landowners as high as $2,000 per rod.

They also claim they were told that if they did not sign the
easement agreement, their land would be condemned by eminent domain
or the pipeline would simply be moved to different land.

Chief U.S. District Judge Daniel L. Hovland dismissed the case in
October 2017, finding that the landowners did not identify any
specific misrepresentation of material fact.

He also ruled that their claims were barred by the integration
clause in the easement agreements.

Representing the landowners, attorney Peter Zuger --
pzuger@serklandlaw.com -- with Serkland Law Firm tenaciously argued
on Oct. 18 before an Eighth Circuit panel that while fraud requires
proof of actual intent, North Dakota's unfair-tactics statute is
not grounded in fraud.

The majority of his argument relied on that statute, which was
enacted in the 1970s to protect landowners from being treated
unfairly by public utility companies trying to acquire easements
from landowners.

"The statue in this particular case says it prohibits a plethora of
actions. One of those is fraud. But the statue says any unfair
tactics, any intimidation, any harassment, cannot occur. It is not
allowed in North Dakota," he said.

However U.S. Circuit Judge David R. Stras said the lawsuit contains
numerous allegations of fraud.

"My understanding of the other allegations, unfair competition,
harassment, etc. . . there is less specificity as to those
allegations," Judge Stras said. "Am I wrong about that?"

"Less specificity would be required to meet the standard,"
Mr. Zuger replied.

"I guess what I am really getting at," Judge Stras continued, "is
that when you get to the complaint itself, all it does from what I
can see, is it repeats the language of the statute. In other words,
I don't see any specific allegations other than the fraud
allegations."

"I don't see those allegations. I see a bunch of fraud allegations
that are trying to pigeon hole into those other categories," like
negligent misrepresentation, he added.

Mr. Zuger responded sharply, saying he disagreed.

"Landowners were deceptively told that their land could be
condemned and were deceptively told $216 per rod was the best price
that would ever be offered," he said.

In addition to other allegations in the complaint, Mr. Zuger
continued, "those acts were intimidating, harassing and unfair."

Dakota Access' attorney, Amy Miller -- amy.miller@bipc.com -- with
Buchanan & Ingersoll, said the district court did not find the
North Dakota statute as a whole sounded in fraud, but that the
specific allegations in this case sounded in fraud.

"I think this is a very important distinction," she said.

Ms. Miller continued, "In terms of the counsel's point, if you
don't plead with particularity, certain claims that are fraud-like,
then you basically eviscerate the policy reasons for having this
requirement in the first place."

She also said it is "very telling that in this case there are 21
plaintiffs and there are many, many right-of-way agents who act on
behalf Dakota Access and not one single name is mentioned."

The "who said what to whom is not addressed at all in this
complaint," Ms. Miller said.

U.S. Circuit Judges Bobby Shepherd and Jane Kelly rounded out the
panel. It is unclear when a ruling will be issued.


DELAMOUNT INC: Sean Williams Seeks Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------
SEAN WILLIAMS, an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DELAMOUNT, INC., a
California Corporation; JAMES MOUNTAIN, an Individual; an
Individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No.: BC724239 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 3, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants violated the California Labor Code for failure to pay
all wages due upon termination of employment relationship.

According to the complaint, the Defendants were owner operators of
O'Connell's Bar.  The Plaintiff was paid $8.75 per hour, only for
hours he was scheduled to work, irrespective of whether he worked
after his scheduled shift. Throughout his period of employment, Mr.
Williams and other similarly situated employees were paid under the
table and misclassified as exempt, independent contractors.

Additionally, throughout his period of employment. The Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees were required to work
off-the-clock and continued to work, past their eight-hour
scheduled shift if patrons were still at the bar. When this
occurred, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees would not get
paid any hourly wage for the extra time spent working for
Defendants, when Plaintiff was entitled to overtime compensation
for anytime worked in excess of eight-hours for his shift, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          C.E. Kimberly Lind, Esq.
          Ashleigh N. Stone, Esq.
          KO LEGAL, INC.
          100 Oceangate, 12th Floor
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 628 5548
          Facsimile: (714) 242 1590
          E-mail: Kim@KO-Legal.com



DENVER, CO: Judge Sets Parameters for Homeless Case Sweep Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Walker, writing for Westword, reports that a new order by the
judge overseeing the federal homeless class action case in Denver,
in which the entire homeless community is suing the city, has set
some parameters for the upcoming trial, which is still slated to
begin next March.

At issue in this case, which was filed back in August 2016, is
whether the City of Denver violated constitutional rights --
specifically the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments (protection
against unlawful searches and seizures and the equal-protection
clause, respectively) -- when it dismantled homeless encampments
during a number of sweep operations.

Confident in their respective positions, both the homeless
plaintiffs and the city had asked for summary judgment in the case,
but U.S. District Court Judge William Martinez denied those motions
in spring of this year, setting the stage for next year's jury
trial. Since then, occasional hearings and rulings have defined the
scope and contours of next year's showdown in federal court.

Here's the latest:

On Friday, October 5, Judge Martinez defined some terms that will
be used during the trial, and ruled on conflicting motions by the
plaintiffs and the city about what historical incidents could be
referenced in arguments in court.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Jason Flores-Williams. Brandon Marshall
Most notably, the federal court defined a "sweep" -- a term Mayor
Michael Hancock's administration has vigorously avoided using when
speaking to the press, but is nevertheless used in internal Denver
Police Department documents.

"For purposes of this lawsuit, those sweeps are defined as 'the
City and County of Denver's alleged custom or practice (written or
unwritten) of sending ten or more employees or agents to clear away
an encampment of multiple homeless persons by immediately seizing
and discarding the property found there,'" Judge Martinez wrote in
his latest order.

The rest of the order concerns the range and number of alleged
sweeps that can be explored at the trial, with the city trying to
limit the number of incidents that can be discussed and the
plaintiffs trying to bring in as much evidence as possible.

Judge Martinez's order, included below, is technical, but it
reveals constant counter-maneuvers between the plaintiffs, led by
attorney Jason Flores-Williams and supported by the civil-rights
firm Killmer, Lane & Newman, and the City of Denver when it comes
to arguing whether certain witnesses and certain alleged sweeps can
be discussed at trial.

Judge Martinez appears to walk a fine line, granting the plaintiffs
some added evidence, including a video that was taken this summer
of Denver employees throwing out a homeless person's shopping cart,
but denying other incidents from being explored in court, including
a December 15, 2015, sweep (which Westword also wrote about).

But Judge Martinez was firm that nothing after July 9, 2018 -- the
date the shopping cart video was filmed -- could be included in the
trial.

Asked for his opinion about the court allowing some alleged sweeps
to be discussed at trial but not others, Mr. Flores-Williams
emailed Westword: "All you can do is adapt to the system's version
of reality without losing sight of what you know is the truth."

Denver is no longer the only city facing a class action lawsuit
concerning homeless sweeps. On September 27, a federal judge in
California allowed advocates to bring a similar class-action
lawsuit against the City of Berkeley. [GN]


DR. SMOOD: Fischler Suit Asserts ADA Breach
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr. Smood New York
LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dr.
Smood New York LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05907 (E.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 22, 2018).

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

Dr Smood LLC owns and operates an organic food cafe. The company
was founded in 2015 and is based in Miami, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


DUN & BRADSTREET: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, case No. 1:18-cv-01455, on behalf of shareholders of The
Dun & Bradstreet Corporation ("Dun & Bradstreet" or the "Company")
(NYSE: DNB) who have been harmed by Dun & Bradstreet's and its
board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed acquisition of the
Company by an investor group (the "Investor Group") led by CC
Capital, Cannae Holdings and funds affiliated with Thomas H. Lee
Partners, L.P. ("THL").

On August 8, 2018, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger ("Proposed Transaction") under which
Dun & Bradstreet stockholders will receive $145 in cash for each
share of Dun & Bradstreet common stock they hold (the "Merger
Consideration"). The shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction
is expected to occur on November 7, 2018.

The complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A (the
"Proxy") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
on September 12, 2018, violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act because it provides materially incomplete and
misleading information about the Company and the Proposed
Transaction, including information concerning the Company's
financial projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to
recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to Dun & Bradstreet
shareholders.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can
do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/DNBnotice.

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California,
Georgia, and Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from October 9, 2018, the date of this notice.
Any member of the putative 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.  If you wish to discuss
this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com
          Website: http://www.faruqilaw.com[GN]


DUNKIN' BRANDS: Proskauer Rose Attorney Discuss Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Kaplan, Esq. -- akaplan@proskauer.com -- Daniel Werb,
Esq. -- dwerb@proskauer.com -- and Carl Mazurek, Esq. --
cmazurek@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for
National Law Review, report that a federal court in the Eastern
District of New York recently dismissed a putative class action
filed against Dunkin' Brands alleging deceptive advertising with
respect to its Angus Steak & Egg Breakfast Sandwich and Angus Steak
& Egg Wake-Up Wrap. Judge Carolyn Amon dismissed the claims by
out-of-state plaintiffs on jurisdictional grounds, and found the
challenged product names were not misleading as a matter of law.
The case clarified the standard that class-action plaintiffs must
meet for the court to find specific personal jurisdiction, and
demonstrated yet another court's willingness to rule as a matter of
law on whether advertising is misleading to a reasonable consumer.

The four named plaintiffs in this case were residents of New York,
California, Massachusetts, and Florida, and sued on behalf of a
purported nationwide class. They claimed that they had each
purchased the products after viewing advertisements that featured
actors repeating the word "steak," and on-screen text displaying
the words "Angus" and "steak." The complaint alleged: 1) that the
product names and advertisements represented that the products
contained an intact, single piece of meat, when in fact the meat
was ground; and 2) that the term "Angus Steak" indicated a pure
beef patty, when the products in question contained preservatives
and other ingredients. The plaintiffs claimed that as a result of
the allegedly deceptive product names and advertisements, they were
induced to pay a "premium" for the Angus products over other
comparable sandwiches or wraps.

Before reaching the merits, Judge Amon ruled that the court lacked
jurisdiction over the non-New York plaintiffs' claims. Refusing to
find general personal jurisdiction over Dunkin' Brands in a state
in which it was neither incorporated nor had its principal place of
business, the court analyzed whether the plaintiffs' claims were
sufficient to merit a finding of specific personal jurisdiction.
The court held that, under the Supreme Court's 2017 Bristol Myers
Squibb decision, each named plaintiff in a class action must show
in-state contacts specific to their claim that give rise to
jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. The court found that
the out-of-state plaintiffs had not done so, and that their claims
should therefore be dismissed.

The court also dismissed the New York plaintiff's claim on the
grounds that the product names and advertising in question were not
misleading as a matter of law. Judge Amon noted that the
advertisements clearly showed the ground beef patties, and
therefore fully disclosed to a reasonable consumer that the
products did not contain intact, single pieces of meat. She also
rejected plaintiffs' argument that the use of the term "Angus
Steak" indicated that the beef patty contained no additives,
preservatives, or other ingredients; rather, a reasonable consumer
would understand the term to mean only that the product contained
some Angus beef. [GN]


EASTON DIAMOND: Must Face Bat Labeling Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Ryan Boysen, writing for Law360, reports that Easton Diamond Sports
LLC has whiffed on its bid to exit a proposed class action alleging
it mislabels the weights of its expensive youth baseball bats.
[GN]


EQUILON ENTERPRISES: $7.75MM Deal in Berlanga Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID BERLANGA, BRANDON EHRESMAN, CHARLES GAETH,
MICHAEL GONZALEZ, JOHN LANGLITZ, and CHRISTOPHER PALACIO,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated current and
former employees, Plaintiffs, v. EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC dba SHELL
OIL PRODUCTS US, CRI U.S. LP, CRI CATALYST COMPANY LP, and SHELL
PIPELINE COMPANY LP, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
17-cv-00282-MMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted the
Parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of settlement
agreement.

On Jan. 19, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their complaint in the
Northern District of California, captioned as David Berlanga, et
al., v. Equilon Enterprises LLC, Case No. 17cv-00282-MMC
("Lawsuit").  The Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on May
19, 2017.  The Lawsuit alleges the following causes of action: (1)
Failure to authorize and permit duty free rest periods; (2) Failure
to furnish accurate wage statements; (3) penalties under the
Private Attorneys General Act; and (4) violation of the Unfair
Competition Law, Business & Professions Code Section 17200.  The
Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, statutory and civil penalties,
restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, interest, injunctive
relief, and declaratory relief, and such other relief as the Court
deems just and proper, for the time period from Jan. 19, 2013 to
the present.

Following an extensive investigation and arm's-length and
good-faith negotiations, including a full-day mediation with Barry
Winograd on April 19, 2018, the Parties reached a tentative
settlement agreement, which was subsequently reduced to their Joint
Stipulation of Settlement and has been filed with the Court.

The Parties move for the Court to (i) preliminarily approve the
class action Settlement for $7.75 million; (ii) preliminarily and
conditionally certify the class for purposes of settlement; (iii)
preliminarily appoint Plaintiffs David Berlanga, Brandon Ehresman,
Charles Gaeth, Michael Gonzalez, John Langlitz, and Christopher
Palacio as the class representatives for purposes of settlement;
(iv) preliminarily appoint Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP and
Gilbert & Sackman, A Law Corporation, as the class counsel for
purposes of settlement; (v)  preliminarily approve the application
for payment to class counsel of reasonable attorneys' fees of up to
$1,937,500 (25% of the common fund) and reasonable costs up to
$25,000; (vi) preliminarily approve the payment of an "incentive
award" in the amount of $7,500 to each of the six class
representatives; (vii) approve as to form and content the Proposed
Notice of Class Action Settlement; (viii) direct that the Notice of
Class Action Settlement be mailed to the Settlement Class members;
and (ix) schedule a fairness hearing on the question of whether the
proposed Settlement should be finally approved as fair, reasonable,
and adequate as to the members of the Settlement Class.

That motion came on regularly for hearing before the Court on Sept.
14, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.

Judge Chesney granted the Parties' joint motion for preliminary
approval of settlement agreement.  She certified the following
class for purposes of settlement: Current and former employees of
any Defendant or any affiliate of a Defendant who worked as
Operators at one or more of the following facilities: (a) Shell
Pipeline Company LP's terminal facility in Carson, California (the
Carson Terminal facility); (b) Equilon Enterprises LLC, doing
business as Shell Oil Products US's oil refinery in Martinez,
California (the Martinez Refinery), and/or (c) CRI Catalyst Company
LP's catalyst production facilities in Martinez and Pittsburg,
California (Criterion Catalyst plants) during the period beginning
Jan. 19,2013 and ending the date of Preliminary Approval.

The Judge appointed Plaintiffs David Berlanga, Brandon Ehresman,
Charles Gaeth, Michael Gonzalez, John Langlitz, and Christopher
Palacio as the class representatives; Hadsell Stormer & Renick, LLP
and Gilbert & Sackman, A Law Corporation, as the class counsel; and
(iii) AC Services Group, LLC, to act as the Claims Administrator.

In connection with her preliminary approval of the Settlement, the
Judge preliminarily approved the application for payment to the
Class Counsel of reasonable attorneys' fees of up to $1,937,500
(25% of the common fund) and reasonable costs up to $25,000.

Judge Chesney granted the Parties' motion to set a settlement
hearing for final approval of the Settlement.  She ordered the
following schedule of dates for further proceedings:

     a. Mailing of Settlement Documents to the class will be
completed by Oct. 22, 2018;

     b. Filing of the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and
costs and posting on the Claims Administrator's website will be
completed by Nov. 21, 2018;

     c. The deadline for the class members to file and serve
objections will be 45 calendar days from the mailing of the
Settlement Documents; and

     d. The deadline for the class members to file and serve
requests for exclusion will be 45 calendar days from the mailing of
the Settlement Documents.

The Fairness Hearing will be held on Jan. 18, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.
The Plaintiffs will file a memorandum of points and authorities in
support of final approval of the Settlement two weeks prior to the
hearing.

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

David Berlanga, Brandon Ehresman, Charles Gaeth, Michael Gonzalez,
John Langlitz & Christopher Palacio, Plaintiffs, represented by
Cornelia Dai -- cdai@hadsellstormer.com  -- Hadsell Stormer &
Renick, LLP, Jay Edward Smith -- jsmith@steptoe.com -- Gilbert &
Sackman, A Law Corporation, Randy R. Renick, Hadsell Stormer &
Renick, LLP & Joshua Finley Young -- jyoung@gslaw.org -- Gilbert &
Sackman, A Law Corporation.

Equilon Enterprises LLC, doing business as, CRI U.S. LP, Shell
Pipeline Company LP & CRI Catalyst Company LP, Defendants,
represented by Rebecca Kim Kimura -- lkimura@lkclaw.com --
Lafayette & Kumagai LLP & Gary T. Lafayette --
glafayette@lkclaw.com -- Lafayette & Kumagai LLP.


ESA MANAGEMENT: Court Issues Show Cause Order in Arizmendi Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SANDRA ARIZMENDI, Plaintiff, v. ESA MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05821 NC (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Nathanael M. Cousins of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California directed the

Defendant ESA removed the putative class action case from Santa
Clara County Superior Court, asserting that the Court has subject
matter jurisdiction over the case under the Class Action Fairness
Act ("CAFA").  ESA asserts that diversity of citizenship is
established because Arizmendi is a California citizen and ESA has
its principal place of business in North Carolina.  

Magistrate Judge Cousins finds that ESA is applying the wrong
standard.  ESA is a limited liability company.  Like a partnership,
an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its owners/members are
citizens.  ESA's removal notice does not show that its members are
citizens of states other than California.

Consequently, ESA must show cause in a writing filed by Oct. 5,
2018, as to why the case should not be remanded to state court for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  If Arizmendi wishes to
respond, she may file a responding brief by Oct. 12.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/BfVcEl from Leagle.com.

Sandra Arizmendi, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Justin Ackermann
-- cja@ackermanntilajef.com -- Ackermann & Tilajef, P.C. & Jonathan
Melmed -- jm@melmedlaw.com -- Melmed Law Group P.C.

ESA Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kurt Bockes --
kbockes@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Deborah Olaleye --
dolaleye@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C. & Lindbergh Porter,
Jr. -- lporter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.


FACEBOOK INC: 9th Cir. Has Yet to Rule on Patient Spying Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that A Ninth Circuit panel gave little indication on Oct. 16
whether it will revive a proposed class action accusing Facebook of
spying on cancer sufferers to target them with medical
advertising.

U.S. Circuit Court Chief Judge Sidney Thomas peppered Facebook's
lawyer with questions hinting that he was undecided about whether
user information -- such as searches for medical terms -- collected
by Facebook from healthcare and nonprofit websites is protected
from disclosure under the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA).

But U.S. Circuit Judge Susan Graber appeared to side firmly with
the social media company's contention that the information is
generic and consequently not protected under the 1996 statute
enacted to safeguard patient medical information.

"If I were a journalist and I wanted to write an article about
stomach transplants, heart transplants -- I would visit all those
websites," Judge Graber told plaintiffs' counsel Jay Barnes, who is
with Barnes & Associates in Jefferson City, Missouri. "It isn't
necessarily private information in the way you're describing."

Lead plaintiff Winston Smith sued Facebook, the American Cancer
Society, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and five other
cancer care providers and organizations in March 2016, claiming
Facebook collects private user information from their websites,
including whether a user clicked on Facebook "like" or "share"
buttons embedded on the sites.

Mr. Smith claims the information lets Facebook identify individual
users and track the specific website pages they visit. He says the
company uses the data to sell targeted medical advertising to third
parties, in violation of the federal Wiretap Act, the California
Invasion of Privacy Act and other statutes.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose dismissed the case in
May 2017 because the plaintiffs consented to Facebook's privacy
policy, which notifies users when setting up an account the company
collects information from third-party websites.

He also rejected Mr. Smith's argument the information in question
is protected under HIPAA.

On Oct. 16, Mr. Barnes argued that whether or not the information
is legally protected, no "reasonable user" reading Facebook's
privacy policy would assume Facebook tracks communications with
healthcare providers "who expressly promised to keep them
private."

But Judge Graber said the plaintiffs' issue seemed to be with the
healthcare defendants -- which weren't included in the appeal.

"That's really your beef, it's with the medical providers that
ought not be putting this stuff out on Facebook where it can be
shared," Judge Graber said. "It strikes me that if there's a
problem, it isn't with Facebook; it's with the healthcare
providers."

Goldman -- lrgoldman@mayerbrown.com -- Facebook's attorney,
countered the company's data policy does in fact tell users it
collects information about them "on and off Facebook."

"Facebook is describing exactly what the plaintiffs are claiming it
did in this case," said Goldman, who is with Mayer Brown in Los
Angeles. "Facebook is saying we received this information and this
is how we are using it."

Echoing Mr. Barnes, however, Judge Thomas said if the information
is protected under HIPAA, users have a "reasonable expectation" the
information will be kept private, given Facebook's privacy policy.

Judge Thomas also appeared concerned that Facebook allows users to
restrict the information it collects about them but not to opt out
of collection completely.

"If this court rules in Facebook's favor, it is giving it a blank
check to collect anything and everything it wants, regardless of
any contrary privacy promises, regardless of any laws to the
contrary," Mr. Barnes said.

Facebook had no immediate comment on Oct. 16.

U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik of the Western District of
Washington joined the panel, which did not indicate when it will
rule.


FAITH AND FREEDOM: Faces TCPA Class Action in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
Eric Troutman, Esq., of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that apparently the
Faith and Freedom Coalition ("FFC") -- allegedly some sort of
Conservative-leaning PAC -- blasted Florida residents with texts
urging Senator Bill Nelson to support the Kavanaugh confirmation.
The text (allegedly) read as follows:

This is Ralph Reed. A good man is under attack & needs your help.
Call Sen Bill Nelson TODAY & tell him to confirm Brett Kavanaugh.

Subtle.

Similar texts were allegedly blasted to a bunch of folks in the
area, none of whom -- according to the lawsuit -- consented to
receive those texts.

The complaint -- filed on Oct. 8 in the Southern District of
Florida by an agitated citizen named Shehan Wijesinha and found
here Wijensinha v FFC -- alleges a class of all persons within the
United States that were sent a text message by the Defendant
without prior express consent. It is brought by noted TCPA class
action attorney Manuel Hiraldo of Hiraldo, P.A.

The TCPA prevents text messages -- including political texts -- to
cellular phones without consent. If the Defendant is found liable
for sending the texts under the TCPA it may face exposure as high
as $1,500.00 per text. Given the number of texts allegedly at issue
in the suit this may cost the FFC many millions of dollars to
resolve, a fact that may prompt the FFC to need a Devil's Triangle
this afternoon to unwind. (What? Its a drinking game!)

A recent Wyoming lawsuit found a state corollary law similar to the
TCPA unconstitutional as applied to political messages -- and you
can bet your bottom dollar that the folks at FFC will assert a
First Amendment challenge. [GN]


FIRST NATIONAL: Gutierrez Suit Remanded to Md. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge George J. Hazel of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland, Southern Division, denied as moot the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the case, JULIA GUTIERREZ et al., Plaintiffs, v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Case No.
GJH-18-479 (D. Md.).

Gutierrez and Maria Gomez filed an amended class action complaint
in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland against First
National Bank of America ("FNBA"), Cenlar FSB, and Equity Prime
Mortgage LLC for violations of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act ("RESPA"), and the Federal Truth in Lending Act
("TILA").  They allege that the Defendants failed to comply with
the notification requirements of these statutes as their mortgage
was transferred between the entities, causing them uncertainty,
fear, and worry.

The Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss for lack of
standing and failure to state a claim.  FNBA contends that because
the Plaintiffs do not allege an injury in fact, they do not have
standing and the Court does not have jurisdiction over this claim.

The Plaintiffs refinanced their personal residence with Defendant
Equity Prime Mortgage in November 2015.  In January 2016, the
servicing rights to the loan were transferred to Defendant Cenlar.
In February 2016, the Plaintiffs received correspondence from
Freddie Mac stating that it had acquired their loan.  They never
received correspondence thereafter that Freddie Mac had sold the
loan.  Cenlar then "reversed" the Plaintiffs' November 2016
payment, and also wrongly sent a correspondence to them
acknowledging that the loan had been "paid in full."  The
Plaintiffs were then informed by Defendant Equity Prime, both
orally and in a Nov. 9, 2016 letter, that it was their new
"temporary servicer," and they should make payments to Equity
Prime.

Cenlar never sent the Plaintiffs any correspondence notifying them
that Cenlar was no longer going to service the loan.  Nor did
Equity Prime's Nov. 9, 2016 letter, or any other correspondence
with the Plaintiffs, contain the information required by 12
U.S.C.A. 2605(b)(3).

In December 2016, Cenlar once more sent the Plaintiffs
correspondence stating that the mortgage loan had been paid in
full.  But in January 2017, Equity Prime sent a statement claiming
the loan was in late.  On Jan. 25, 2017, Defendant FNBA notified
the Plaintiffs their loan was being transferred as of Feb. 2, 2017.
On February 3, FNBA informed the Plaintiffs that it had purchased
Equity Prime's interest in their loan on Dec. 1, 2016.

The Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in the Circuit Court
for Montgomery County, Maryland on Dec. 19, 2017.  They filed an
Amended Complaint in the same court on Jan. 30, 2018.  The
Defendants filed a notice of removal on Feb. 15, 2018.  They
Defendants timely filed separate motions to dismiss.

Judge Hazel finds that while the Plaintiffs' claimed injury
involves worry and confusion about who owned their loan, they
continually made payments on the loan without interruption, or risk
of added costs or fees, and have alleged no impact on their credit
decisions.  Thus, there was no risk of harm to an interest
protected by RESPA or TILA.  Because the Plaintiffs have not pled
an injury in fact, they do not have standing pursuant to Article
III.

Because the case was removed from state court, 28 U.S.C. Section
1447 governs post-removal procedure.  That statute reads in part
that if at any time before final judgment it appears that the
district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case will be
remanded.  The Fourth Circuit makes no exception to the rule.
Finding the Plaintiffs have no standing to sue in federal court,
Judge Hazel remanded the case to the Circuit Court for Montgomery
County, Maryland, and denied as moot the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.  A separate Order will issue.

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

Julia Gutierrez & Maria Gomez, Plaintiffs, represented by Phillip
R. Robinson, Consumer Law Center LLC.

First National Bank of America, Defendant, represented by James P.
Ulwick -- julwick@kg-law.com -- Kramon and Graham PA & Thomas M.
Schehr -- tschehr@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC, pro hac vice.

Cenlar FSB, Defendant, represented by Thomas Francis Lucchesi, III
-- tlucchesi@stradley.com -- Stradley Ronon & Joe N. Nguyen --
jnguyen@stradley.com -- Stradley Ronon Stevens and Young LLP, pro
hac vice.

Equity Prime Mortgage LLC, formerly known as, Equity Loans LLC,
Defendant, represented by Scott David Burke --
sburke@morrisonmahoney.com -- KREINER & KREINER LLC.


FORD MOTOR: Settles Defective Airbag Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit alleging
that consumers sustained economic losses because they purchased or
leased vehicles from Ford Motor Company containing allegedly
defective airbags manufactured by Takata Corporation and its
affiliates. The Settlement includes certain vehicles made by Ford
(the "Subject Vehicles"). Ford denies any and all allegations of
wrongdoing and the Court has not decided who is right.

Owners or lessees of Subject Vehicles who have already received a
separate "Parts Available" recall notice for their Ford vehicle and
have not yet had their Takata airbag repaired should do so as soon
as possible. When recalled Takata airbags deploy, they may spray
metal debris toward vehicle occupants and may cause serious injury.
However, many Ford vehicles affected by this settlement have not
been recalled. Please see www.AirBagRecall.com for further details
about which vehicles have been recalled, and what owners or lessees
of recalled vehicles should do.

The Settlement includes the following persons and entities:
   
   -- Owners or lessees, as of September 5, 2018, of a Subject
Vehicle that was distributed for sale or lease in the United States
or any of its territories or possessions, and
   -- Former owners or lessees of a Subject Vehicle that was
distributed for sale or lease in the United States or any of its
territories or possessions, who, between June 19, 2014 and
September 5, 2018, sold or returned pursuant to a lease, a Subject
Vehicle that was recalled before September 5, 2018.
A full list of the Subject Vehicles can be found at
www.AutoAirbagSettlement.com. The Settlement does not involve
claims of personal injury.

Ford has agreed to a Settlement with a value of approximately
$299.1 million, including a 20% credit for the Enhanced Rental
Car/Loaner Program. The Settlement Funds will be used to pay for
Settlement benefits and cover the costs of the Settlement over an
approximately four-year period.

The Settlement offers several benefits for Class Members, including
(1) payments for certain out-of-pocket expenses incurred related to
a Takata airbag recall of a Subject Vehicle, (2) a Rental
Car/Loaner Program while certain Subject Vehicles are awaiting
repair, (3) an Outreach Program to maximize completion of the
recall remedy, (4) additional cash payments to Class Members from
residual settlement funds, if any remain, and (5) a Customer
Support Program to help with repairs associated with affected
Takata airbag inflators and their replacements. The Settlement
website explains each of these benefits in detail.

Class Members must file a claim to receive a payment during the
first four years of the Settlement. If a Class Member still owns or
leases a Subject Vehicle, they must also bring it to an authorized
dealership for the recall remedy, as directed by a recall notice,
if they have not already done so. Class Members can visit
www.AutoAirbagSettlement.com and file a claim online or download
one and file by mail. The deadline to file a claim will be at least
one year from the date the Settlement is finalized and will be
posted on the website when it's known.

Class Members who do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement
must exclude themselves by November 26, 2018. If Class Members do
not exclude themselves, they will release any claims they may have
against Ford, in exchange for certain settlement benefits. The
potential available benefits are more fully described in the
Settlement, available at the settlement website.  Class Members may
object to the Settlement by November 26, 2018. Class Members cannot
both exclude themselves from, and object to, the Settlement. The
Long Form Notice for the Settlement available on
www.AutoAirbagSettlement.com explains how Class Members can exclude
themselves or object. The Court will hold a fairness hearing on
December 11, 2018 to consider whether to finally approve the
Settlement and a request for attorneys' fees of up to 25% of the
total Settlement Amount and incentive awards of $5,000 for each of
the Class Representatives. Class Members may appear at the fairness
hearing, either by themselves or through an attorney they hire, but
don't have to. For more information, including the relief,
eligibility and release of claims, in English or Spanish, call
1-888-735-5596 or visit www.AutoAirbagSettlement.com. [GN]


FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces Sykes' FDCPA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP, et al. The case is styled as Thelma Sykes on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus,
LLP, LVNV Funding LLC, Resurgent Capital Services L.P., Sherman
Financial Group, LLC, Mark A. Garbus, Ronald Forster, Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-05855 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 19, 2018).

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

Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company
specializes in collecting debts.

LVNV Funding LLC, purchases portfolios of both domestic (U.S.) and
international consumer debt owned by credit grantors including
banks and finance companies, and by other debt buyers.

Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. manages and services domestic and
international consumer debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt
buyers. It manages accounts across the credit spectrum, including
performing accounts, sub- and non-performing accounts, secured
accounts, and unsecured accounts.

Sherman Financial Group LLC, through its subsidiaries, originates,
purchases, and services consumer and commercial debt in the United
States, Canada, Mexico, and the United Kingdom. The company
specializes in the development of solutions that optimize long term
value.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
     775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
     Huntington, NY 11743
     Phone: (631) 335-1107
     Email: mpash@verizon.net


FOSTER DAIRY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Willie Lee Dampier Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIE LEE DAMPIER SR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOSTER DAIRY FARMS A/K/A CRYSTAL
CREAMERY; BALANCE STAFFING WORKFORCE, LLC; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. BC723625 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Oct. 2, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal
and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Dampier Sr. was employed by the Defendants as an
hourly, non-exempt employee.

Foster Dairy Farms Inc., doing business as Crystal Creamery,
produces and markets dairy products to consumers in California. The
company was founded in 1901 and is based in Modesto, California.
Foster Dairy Farms Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Foster Poultry
Farms, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Brakes
--------------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer, writing for Law360, reports that a California couple
on Oct. 9 filed a putative class action in a California federal
court alleging General Motors knowingly sold Cadillacs, Chevrolets
and GMC SUVs and pickups with dangerously defective brakes. [GN]


GENUINE PARTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hill Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GENUINE PARTS COMPANY D/B/A NAPA AUTO PARTS; and DOES
1-100, Defendants, Case No. 18CECG03659 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty.,
Oct. 2, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff Hill was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employee in Fresno, California.

Genuine Parts Company distributes automotive replacement and
industrial parts, electrical and electronic materials, and business
products in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Australasia, France,
the United Kingdom, Germany, and Poland. The company was founded in
1928 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan Selik, Esq.
          MCCATHERN LLP
          423 West Sixth Street, Suite 830
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (213) 225-6150
          Facsimile: (213) 225-6151
          E-mail: ESelik@mcccathernlaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Consumer Activist to Appeal Safari Class Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Finance Journal reports that Richard Lloyd is a consumer
activist representing 4.4 million claimants in a multi-billion
pound claim against Google. The Tech giant is alleged to have
bypassed privacy settings -- in what has since been termed the
"Safari workaround" -- to unlawfully collect personal information
on millions of iPhone users from 2011-2012. A UK High Court has
ruled that the claim fails to pass muster, and will not be served.
Lloyd is vowing to appeal the decision. [GN]


GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES: Summary Judgment Bid in Liberty Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LIBERTY SALAD, INC., et al, v. GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES,
INC., Civil Action No. 17-CV-226 (E.D. Pa.), Judge J. William
Ditter, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (i) denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment
and granted the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

The Defendant does business as Merchant Lynx Services.  In the late
summer of 2015, Joseph P. Cattie, the owner of Liberty and Eighth
Street Salad, Inc., was approached by Mike Lisetski, a sales
representative of Merchant Lynx.  Lisetski proposed that Cattie use
Lynx to process his credit card services.  After receiving
information about Cattie's current credit card costs, Lisetski
prepared a written analysis that showed Cattie how a switch to Lynx
would save Cattie money -- basically, there would be a flat rate
fee of 1.99% on all Visa, Master Card, and Discover transactions
and two small monthly fees, but Lisetski assured Cattie no
additional fees would be charged throughout the life of the
contract.

Cattie agreed to make the switch and without reading it, on Aug.
10, 2015, signed a four-page application that included by reference
a voluminous Program Guide and Cattie's acknowledgment that he had
received a copy.  Neither Lisetski nor Mitchell Reisbcrg,
Lisetski's boss who was present for one of the meetings with
Cattie, ever mentioned the Program Guide or gave a copy to Cattie.
In fact, the Program Guide had never been mentioned during their
training, nor had Lisetski or Reisberg ever seen a copy of it.

The Program Guide's terms allowed Lynx to charge Cattie additional
fees and Lynx did so despite Cattie's objections.

The case comes before the Court on cross-motions for summary
judgment.  In essence the Defendant asks the Court to find that its
contract of adhesion governed the business conduct of the parties.
The Plaintiffs seek a ruling that the contract never became
effective and that an implied contract should be found, together
with its terms, from the parties' conduct.

Judge Ditter denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and
granted the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.  First, he
reminded the parties that his findings and conclusions apply to
both Liberty and Eighth Street.  Second, he denied Lynx's motion
for summary judgment on its claim that the parties entered into an
express written contract.  He found find that there was an implied
contract with the terms set forth.  Third, Liberty's claims for
unjust enrichment (Count two), fraud (Count five), and a breach of
an implied covenant (Count three) are denied.  The Judge's explicit
instruction to the parties was to conduct discovery and briefing on
the narrow issue of whether there was a written contract or an
implied contract, and if the latter, its terms.  In short, Lynx's
motion is premature.  An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 21, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/jws0tW from Leagle.com.

LIBERTY SALAD, INC. & 18TH STREET SALAD, INC., ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs,
represented by KENNETH J. GRUNFELD -- kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com --
GOLOMB & HONIK PC., DAVID J. STANOCH -- dstanoch@golombhonik.com --
GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. & RICHARD M. GOLOMB -- rgolomb@golombhonik.com
-- GOLOMB & HONIK.

GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES, INC., doing business as MERCHANT LYNX
SERVICES, Defendant, represented by ANDREW H. RALSTON, Jr. --
ralstona@whiteandwilliams.com -- White and Williams LLP, EDWARD M.
KOCH -- kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com -- WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP &
NELSON E. CANTER -- ncanter@mclaughlinstern.com -- CANTER LAW FIRM
PC.


GUEST SERVICES: West Files Suit Asserting ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guest Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Mary West on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Guest Services, Inc. doing
business as: Bear Mountain Inn, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09604
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 19, 2018).

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

Guest Services, Inc. is a hospitality management company in the
United States. It offers food, lodging, and leisure services across
various client sites, including government and business dining
facilities, museums, hotels, resorts, conference centers, luxury
condominiums, senior living centers, health care systems, state and
national parks, school and university dining facilities, specialty
retail stores, and full-service restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street
     2nd Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 465-1188
     Fax: (212) 465-1181
     Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL: 2 Law Firms File Sexual Assault Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Sauder Schelkopf LLC
have filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of women who were
sexually assaulted and harassed during treatment by longtime
Huntington Hospital ob/gyn Patrick Sutton. The complaint was filed
by three women who allege assault and harassment by Sutton, and
notes that the hospital had received numerous complaints about
Sutton's behavior dating back 20 years, yet continues to allow him
to practice there. Dr. Sutton has worked at Huntington Hospital
since 1989.

As detailed in the complaint, plaintiffs referred to as Jane Doe
K.G. Jane Doe T.F., and Jane Doe B.S. allege that Sutton used his
position of authority and trust to sexually abuse them and
potentially thousands of other women who were patients of Dr.
Sutton and Huntington Hospital.

"When I started seeing recent news reports about the doctor's
inappropriate treatment of other patients, I ultimately realized
that standing up and speaking out is the only way to bring justice
and give power to all the other women who were victimized, while at
the same time forcing hospitals to put their patients first and
stop harboring and even sheltering sexual predators," said Jane Doe
T.F.

The lawsuit further alleges that Huntington Hospital routinely
disregarded complaints about Sutton's behavior, complaints that
date back to the 1990s, actively and deliberately concealing
Sutton's sexual abuse and continuing to grant him uncontrolled
sexual access to female patients at the hospital, all to protect
Huntington Hospital's reputation and income stream.

"Medical institutions that recklessly place sexual predators in
positions of trust and authority, empowering them with unfettered
access and opportunity to molest patients, fully share the blame
for the abuse and trauma that results," notes Annika K. Martin, one
of the Lieff Cabraser partners who filed the class action lawsuit.
"What's worse is when a trusted hospital follows up by burying
complaints and covering up -- a hospital should be protecting its
patients, not sexual predators."

As noted in the lawsuit, the plaintiffs and other class members had
no reason to suspect that Sutton was anything other than an ethical
and competent physician. Sutton used his position of trust and
authority to prey on his patients by conducting improper and
intrusive sexual touching as well as to make inappropriate and
sexually harassing comments during exams.

"This is absolutely unacceptable conduct toward vulnerable,
trusting patients in a medical setting," states attorney Joe Sauder
of Sauder Schelkopf, who also represents the plaintiffs. "Our
clients have been empowered to speak about this abuse and
mistreatment, and we look forward to making sure their voices will
finally be heard."

As alleged in the complaint, Huntington Hospital began to receive
complaints about Sutton's behavior in the late 1990s -- complaints
that continued for the next several decades. But the Hospital
failed to take any action in response to the complaints, continuing
to employ and even promote Sutton. The complaint further alleges
that instead of taking disciplinary or other action such as
terminating Sutton's employment in response to the myriad
complaints against him, Huntington continued to protect Sutton and
continually provide him with full access to new and existing
patients.

"Dr. Sutton should never have been allowed to continue as an OB-GYN
for decades in the face of all the complaints," stated Jane Doe
K.G. "The hospital, some administrators, the state medical board,
someone, should have stopped him from continuing to sexually harass
and abuse his patients. I hope that my role in this case will
provide me and other patients with some closure."

                  About Sauder Schelkopf LLC

Sauder Schelkopf LLC is a nationally recognized class action and
personal injury law firm. The firm's partners have been selected by
the National Trial Lawyers Association as some of the Top 100 Trial
Lawyers in Pennsylvania since 2012. As former state prosecutors,
the attorneys at Sauder Schelkopf have significant experience
investigating and aggressively prosecuting hundreds of sexual
assault cases on behalf of victims of all ages.

         About Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP

Recognized as "one of the nation's premier plaintiffs' firms" by
The American Lawyer, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is a
seventy-plus attorney law firm with offices in San Francisco, New
York, Nashville, and Seattle. Since our founding 46 years ago in
1972, Lieff Cabraser has litigated and resolved hundreds of class
action lawsuits and thousands of individual cases, including the
successful representation of thousands of women across America in
class action lawsuits involving gender discrimination and in
individual lawsuits due to the injuries they suffered from
defective medical devices and defective prescription drugs. [GN]


INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL: Caro Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW CARO, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
37-2018-00051052-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., October 9,
2018), arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay their
employees all minimum and overtime wages, as well as meal and rest
period premium wages.

The Defendants did (and continue to do) business by specializing in
industrial and commercial mechanical systems by delivering
innovative design and construction services to some of California's
leading companies.

Specifically, among other things, the Defendants repair HVAC units
and boilers.  The Plaintiff does not know the true names or
capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          Milan Moore, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322-4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322-4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com
                  mmoore@lidmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com


JACK RESNICK: Violates Disabilities Act, Fischler Says
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jack Resnick & Sons,
Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jack
Resnick & Sons, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09713 (S.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 22, 2018).

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

Jack Resnick & Sons, Inc. owns, builds, leases, and manages
residential, retail, and commercial office properties in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


JERICHO RESTAURANT: Pollier Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jericho Restaurant
Associates LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kristal Pollier,
Joanna Castaldo on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Jericho Restaurant Associates LLC, d/b/a
RARE650, Smith Steakhouse LLC, d/b/a Insignia Steakhouse, One North
106 LLC, d/b/a One North Restaurant, Melville Steakhouse LLC, d/b/a
Blackstone Steakhouse, Scotto, LLC, Arthur Viana, Anthony Scotto,
Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-05856 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 19, 2018).

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

Rare650 is a Long Island prime steakhouse & sushi restaurant
Located in Syosset, featuring prime-aged steaks and an
award-winning wine list.

Insignia Steakhouse is the newest fine dining restaurant from
Anthony Scotto. Following in the tradition of Blackstone and
Rare650 – Insignia redefines the traditional steakhouse by
offering a dining experience with a taste and flair all its own.

One North is a casual dining/sports themed restaurant whose focus
is quality food, personalized service and to create an exciting
environment for customers.

Blackstone Steakhouse is a Long Island Steakhouse located in
Melville, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


JUST BORN: Dentons Attorneys Discuss Slack Fill Suit Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Duvall, Esq., Bety Javidzad, Esq., Anastasiya Menshikova,
Esq., and Gregory Wolf, Esq., of Dentons, in an article for
JDSupra, report that a Missouri federal judge recently denied
certification of a proposed "slack fill" class action against the
maker of "Mike and Ike" candy. The suit claimed that candy company
Just Born, Inc. tricked consumers into thinking they were getting
more product than they actually paid for by virtue of empty space
("slack fill") at the top of the boxes when they are opened. The
court, however, held that because many putative class members knew
and did not care about the extra space in the box and purchased the
products anyway, individualized issues of knowledge, injury, and
standing would predominate the action.

In White v. Just Born, Inc., 2018 WL 3748405 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 7,
2018), the plaintiff asserted claims under the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) and for unjust enrichment based
on the alleged slack fill in the defendant's candy packaging.
According to the plaintiff, Mike and Ike box sizes lead purchasers
to believe that they are getting more candy than they actually
receive. The plaintiff moved to certify multistate and Missouri
classes of candy purchasers.

District Judge Nanette Laughrey refused to certify the classes for
a number of reasons. Primarily, Judge Laughrey reasoned that
because an MMPA violation must still cause an ascertainable loss
(i.e., an injury), to be redressable, determining whether putative
class members knew about the alleged slack fill and purchased the
products anyway was a predominating, individualized issue.
Likewise, purchasers who bought the candy with knowledge of the
alleged slack fill did not confer an "unjust" benefit on the
defendant, rendering the unjust enrichment class unfit for class
certification as well. Judge Laughrey further held that the
proposed classes' inclusion of persons who purchased the candy
despite knowing how much space was in each box rendered the classes
impermissibly overbroad and containing persons who lacked Article
III standing to sue, given the absence of injury.

Judge Laughrey further noted the difficulty of identifying putative
class members as most, if not all, purchases were made from
third-party retailers and thus, no "master list" existed.  As a
result, individualized evidence of whether a putative class member
made a purchase would be required.  Further, whether each class
member bought the candy for personal or household purposes--a
requirement of the MMPA--presented predominating individualized
issues as well. Judge Laughrey noted that the absence of a master
listed impacted the ascertainability element.

The White decision adds to the growing line of cases refusing to
certify putative "slack fill" classes. See, e.g., Spacone v.
Sanford, L.P., 2018 WL 4139057 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2018) (refusing
to certify a statewide class and holding that the plaintiff lacked
standing because he failed to establish that he suffered an injury
caused by alleged improper slack fill). Just Born also successfully
moved to dismiss three putative slack-fill class action cases filed
in 2017, and it currently is defending another slack-fill case
filed in the Central District of California.

The plaintiff in White has petitioned for immediate appeal under
Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [GN]


KANYE WEST: Challenges Class Action Over Life of Pablo Album
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Cooke, writing for Complete Music Update, reports that while
Kanye West was busying doing all of those Kanye West-esque things
that Kanye West does whenever there's a new Kanye West album to
promote, he also found time to submit some legal papers in relation
to an ongoing lawsuit over the way he promoted a previous record.

This is the super fun litigation that stemmed from West's Twitter
pledge in 2016 that his album 'The Life Of Pablo' "will never,
never, never be on Apple" and that "you can only get it on Tidal".
In the end Jay-Z's streaming service only had an exclusive on the
LP for six weeks, it subsequently popping up everywhere else.
Although the record had evolved a little during Tidal's exclusive
period.

Even though Tidal's exclusivity on 'The Life Of Pablo' was short
lived, it provided quite a boost in sign-ups to its free trials.
But one such new subscriber -- Justin Baker-Rhett -- was mightily
pissed off when, despite West's "never, never" remark, it turned
out he didn't in fact need to sign up to Tidal to hear the new
record. He then sued claiming that the rapper and his streaming
service partner had deliberately misled consumers with the "never,
never" claim.

When filing the lawsuit back in 2016, Baker-Rhett's lawyer told
reporters that West and Jay-Z had "duped consumers into signing up
for Tidal subscriptions -- which required handing over troves of
valuable personal data including credit card information -- under
the false pretence that doing so was the only way they would be
able to hear 'The Life Of Pablo'. Consequently, Tidal unjustly
benefitted in myriad ways from this collection of consumers'
personal data and the accompanying increase in its subscriber and
streaming numbers".

The lawsuit, which has always seemed somewhat ambitious, got
bounced from California to New York and was then trimmed down to
size. However, earlier this year a judge ruled that Baker-Rhett's
core allegation -- that he was misled into signing up for Tidal by
West's "never, never" tweet -- could proceed to court.

The latest developments in this case relate to efforts by the
Baker-Rhett side to have the litigation declared a class action, so
that anyone who signed up to Tidal to access 'The Life Of Pablo'
after West's "never, never" tweet could benefit if the lawsuit is
successful.

In a legal filing, the West side argued that this case is too
complicated to be granted class action status, because the
motivations of each potential class member would have to be
individually assessed.

Which is to say, did each person who signed up to Tidal to access
'Pablo' actually do so because of West's "never, never" remark. Did
they even see the tweet? And even if they did, maybe they were
aware via other coverage at the time that Tidal's exclusive was
temporary, meaning they signed up because they wanted to be among
the first to hear the new music.

With all that in mind, this particular lawsuit should only relate
to Baker-Rhett's Tidal subscription, they reckon, so that the court
can consider his specific motivations when signing up for the free
trial after West's tweet.

It remains to be see what the judge reckons. [GN]


KISS MY FACE: Court Narrows Claims in Gasser TAC Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREW GASSER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KISS MY FACE,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-01675-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' third amended
complaint ("TAC").

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's representations on its
products' labels are likely to deceive a reasonable consumer into
thinking the products do not contain any synthetic ingredients.  On
April 24, 2018, the Plaintiff filed its TAC, bringing eight claims:
(1) California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, (2) California's
Unfair Competition Law, (3) California's False Advertising Law, (4)
New York's Deceptive Acts or Practices, (5) New York's False
Advertising Law, (6) breach of express warranty, (7) unjust
enrichment, and (8) fraud.

On July 16, 2018, Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6).
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Defendant moves to dismiss the
Plaintiffs': (a) Body Wash claims; (b) Body Lotion claims; (c)
Sunscreen claims; and (d) breach of express warranty, unjust
enrichment, and fraud claims.  Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), it moves
to dismiss all claims as to the putative nationwide class of
consumers for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Magistrate Judge Corley (1) granted the Defendant's motion for
judicial notice of the exhibit attached to the Paffrath
Declaration; (2) denied the Defendant's motion for judicial notice
of the exhibits attached to the Halpern Declaration; and (3)
granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the TAC.  

The Magistrate Judge (1) denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction; (2) granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Body Wash claims without leave to
amend; (3) denied Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Body Lotion claims; (4) denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' Sunscreen claims; and (5) denied the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' nationwide unjust enrichment,
breach of express warranty, and fraud claims.

She finds that while the Court took judicial notice of the website
attached to the Declaration of Stephen Paffrath, it cannot take
judicial notice that the content of the website is true.  Thus, on
this motion to dismiss, the Magistrate must accept as true
Plaintiffs' allegation that caprylic/capric triglyceride is a
synthetic ingredient that "nourishes."  Whether the evidence will
support that allegation is an issue for summary judgment.

Relying on the exhibits attached to the Declaration of Heather
Halper, as well as her declaration testimony, the Defendant
contends that its product labels contradict the Plaintiffs' claims.
In particular, it argues that the only synthetic ingredient in its
Body Wash products is phenoxyethanol—a preservative rather than
an active or "nourishing" ingredient.

The Plaintiffs respond that the Defendant appears to be correct
when it states that butyloctyl salicylate and caprylic/capric
triglyceride were not included in the Body Wash products.  Rather,
they respectfully stand by their position that the presence of
phenoxyethanol and ethylhexylglcyerin supports their claims, and do
not seek reconsideration of the Court's prior ruling on that issue,
but instead reiterate their position here only to preserve the
issue for appeal.

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Body Wash Claims without leave to amend, but preserving
the Plaintiffs' argument that the Court incorrectly ruled that the
presence of the preservative alone would not deceive a reasonable
consumer.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 21, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/aBrh7C from Leagle.com.

Andrew Gasser, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Dashiell Smith --
jsmith@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Lawrence Timothy Fisher
-- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Reuben D. Nathan
-- rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com -- Nathan & Associates, APC &
Yeremey O. Krivoshey -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- Bursor Fisher,
P.A.

Noriko Ikeda & Melinda Kelly, Plaintiffs, represented by Reuben D.
Nathan, Nathan & Associates, APC & Joel Dashiell Smith, Bursor &
Fisher, P.A.

Kiss My Face, LLC, Defendant, represented by Angela Lee Diesch --
angela@dieschforrestlaw.com -- Diesch Forrest, APC, Emma Lynn
Forrest -- emma@dieschforrestlaw.com -- Diesch Forrest, APC &
Stephen Edward Paffrath -- stephen@dieschforrestlaw.com -- Diesch
Forrest APC.


LEAF COMMERCIAL: Alves Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Alves, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Leaf Commercial Capital, Inc. and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-08383 (C.D. Cal.,
September 28, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages,
treble damages and all other relief under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Leaf Commercial Capital, Inc. is realtor equipment financing
company. Alves received calls from Leaf using an automatic
telephone dialing system offering its services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOGITECH INC: Appeals Dist. Ct. Order in Porath Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Logitech, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled JAMES PORATH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LOGITECH, INC., Case No.
3:18-cv-03091-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The Defendant filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the
District Court.

The appellate case is captioned as IN RE LOGITECH INC., Petitioner
v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent, JAMES PORATH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Real Party in
Interest, Case No. 18-72732, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

According to the Petition, both parties to this false-advertising
class action agree that it should be settled, and settled now.
Petitioner Logitech Inc. says it has already begun the process of
revising the advertisements that gave rise to the lawsuit, and has
told Plaintiff James Porath that it is committed to finalizing a
class settlement that will make all similarly affected purchasers
whole.  At present, however, the parties are required to continue
litigating the case on an adversarial basis, even though they both
want to end it, Logitech contends.

The Hon. William H. Alsup of the District Court has entered a
standing order -- as it apparently does in every putative class
action -- prohibiting the parties from even discussing a class-wide
settlement, let alone agreeing to one, until after the parties
engage in discovery and brief class certification adversarially,
and the District Court rules on the class certification motion,
Logitech asserts.

Logitech contends that the Order cannot stand because it infringes
the parties' First Amendment rights to communicate with one another
and to seek relief from the court.  The Order runs contrary to
well-established judicial policy favoring the settlement of
disputes, particularly class actions, and the settlement ban is not
necessary to serve the District Court's stated purpose of weeding
out "collusive" class actions, Logitech argues.

Hence, Logitech asserts, the Appeals Court should issue a writ of
mandamus ordering the District Court to permit the parties to
pursue settlement negotiations immediately.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner Logitech Inc. is represented by:

          Dale J. Giali, Esq.
          Keri Borders, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
          E-mail: dgiali@mayerbrown.com
                  kborders@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Donald M. Falk, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          3000 El Camino Real #300
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 331-2000
          Facsimile: (650) 331-2060
          E-mail: dfalk@mayerbrown.com

Plaintiff James Porath is represented by:

          Todd M. Logan, Esq.
          Rafey Sarkis Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: tlogan@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com


MARK HOTEL: Breeze Files Civil Rights Suit in New York Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mark Hotel LLC
asserting civil rights violation. The case is styled as Byron
Breeze, Jr. on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. Mark Hotel LLC a New York limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09627 (S.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 19, 2018).

The Mark Hotel is a luxury hotel, situated at 25 East 77th Street,
at Madison Avenue, on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York
City. Originally constructed in 1927 in the Renaissance Revival
style, the building was purchased by Izak Senbahar of Alexico Group
and Simon Elias in 2006 and the building's interiors were
reimagined by French designer Jacques Grange in 2009.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MASTEC INC: Sued for Allegedly Docking Employee Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Alison Noon, writing for Law360, reports that  DirecTV's largest
installation partner, MasTec Inc., was hit with a class action on
Oct. 9 claiming the Florida-based service provider docks employee
wages when customers complain about technical glitches to DirecTV.
[GN]


MICHIGAN: State Supreme Court Hears UIA Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Carol Thompson, writing for Lansing State Journal, reports that
neither party in the Michigan Supreme Court hearing room on Oct. 10
disagreed over whether a faulty computer system wrongfully accused
thousands of state residents of defrauding the Unemployment
Insurance Agency.

At issue instead was whether a lawsuit filed over the fines that
followed those accusations hit the courthouse on time.

Roughly 40,000 Michigan residents were accused of insurance fraud
by a defective computer program -- the Michigan Integrated Data
Automated System, known as MiDAS -- which the UIA used from 2013 to
2015. The state has previously acknowledged MiDAS had a 93% error
rate.

Those errors led to lost benefits, fines, garnished wages and
seized tax returns. Some residents declared bankruptcy, lost
property and were denied jobs as a result of the broken computer
system, attorneys said.

Attorneys for the UIA and unemployment recipients appeared before
the court on Oct. 10 to argue the timeliness of a lawsuit filed by
three men -- Grant Bauserman, Karl Williams and Teddy Broe -- who
contend they were denied their due process rights because their
money was seized without an opportunity to plead their cases.

Under Michigan law, the plaintiffs had six months to file such due
process claims.

Attorneys disagreed on when that six-month period started. If the
clock started ticking when payments were seized, as the plaintiffs
argue, the case was filed on time. If it started when the state
sent notices about fraud and possible seizure, as the state
contends, the case was late.

The case's original plaintiff, Mr. Bauserman, "did everything the
agency told him to do" to appeal the wrongful fraud claim and his
tax returns were still seized, attorney Jennifer Lord said.

Mr. Bauserman received unemployment benefits in late 2013 and early
2014, court records state. He was notified in late 2014 that the
UIA's MiDAS system had accused him of fraud. He wrote a letter of
appeal shortly after.

A few months later, the UIA seized his state and federal income
taxes, Lord said. She argued that was the moment the damage was
done and the 6-month window to file a case started.

Lord contended her clients couldn't have sued before the seizures
because the court would have found their lawsuits premature. They
had to lose property before they could have a case.

"These tens of thousands of people are in a position where they're
damned if they do and damned if they don't," she said.

Michigan Solicitor General Aaron Lindstrom disagreed.

He contended those thousands should have filed claims when they
were told they would be penalized, not when the penalties were
actually collected. They could have filed notices of intent to sue
by the deadline and full-fledged complaints later on, he said.

A strict timeline encourages people to act on their claims quickly,
Lindstrom said. It also helps state officials keep find and fix
problems with agencies or programs.

Justice Bridget Mary McCormack questioned whether starting the
clock with the notice would open up the state to more lawsuits. She
gave an example -- since her identity was stolen five years ago,
she gets annual letters at tax time accusing her of owing more than
she really does.

"Are you saying I can now file a lawsuit every time I get that
letter?" she asked Lindstrom.

Justice McCormack and her fellow justices are charged with
determining whether the Michigan Court of Appeals was correct in
its ruling last July, when it sided with the UIA and agreed the
suit was filed too late. The appeals court reversed the Court of
Claims' May, 2016 decision in favor of the plaintiffs that denied
the state's motion to dismiss the case.

The state case isn't the only ramification of the years-long MiDAS
debacle. Former UIA director Sharon Moffett-Massey was re-assigned
early last year, about a month before the state settled a federal
lawsuit over the faulty program instituting changes aimed at
safeguarding future fraud claims.

The state has returned about $21 million to approximately 20,000
people, UIA spokesman Chris DeWitt said on Oct. 10.

Lord argued the figure doled out so far is smaller and said "the
vast majority" of claimants haven't received any reimbursements.

If the case is remanded back to the Court of Claims, attorneys'
first move will be to certify it as a class action suit, that could
include between 20,000 and 30,000 people affected by the faulty
MiDAS program, Lord said.

In a press release sent on Oct. 9, Attorney General Bill Schuette
described the hearing as a difficult one. He blamed the computer
system for failing Michigan.

"It is my responsibility to defend all of Michigan's laws, whether
I personally agree or not, and regardless of whether the law is a
good one," he said. [GN]


MILBERG LLP: Supreme Court Refuses to Review Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court on Oct. 9 declined to review a putative class action suing
Milberg LLP over an allegedly botched securities suit, upholding a
Ninth Circuit ruling. [GN]



MORTON COUNTY, ND: Thunderhawk Files Civil Rights Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
A civil rights class action has been filed against officials of the
County of Morton, in North Dakota.  The case is styled as Cissy
Thunderhawk, Waste'Win Young, Reverend John Floberg on behalf of
themselves and all similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs v.
Morton, County of, North Dakota, Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier, Governor
Doug Burgum, Former Governor Jack Dalrymple, Director Grant Levi,
Superintendent Michael Gerhardt, Jr., Tigerswan LLC, Does 1 to 100,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00212-CSM (D. N.D., Oct. 19, 2018).

Morton County is a county located in the U.S. state of North
Dakota. As of the 2010 census, the population was 27,471, making it
the seventh-most populous county in North Dakota. Its county seat
is Mandan. The county was originally created in 1873 and later
organized in 1878.

TigerSwan LLC provides global instability, operational risk
management, training, logistics, crisis management, business
intelligence, and security consulting services for military, law
enforcement, and corporate organizations in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Noah Smith-Drelich, Esq.
     3431 A Pestalozzi Street
     St. Louis, MO 63118
     Phone: (605) 863-0707
     Email: noah.smith.drelich@gmail.com

          - and -

     Bernard E Harcourt, Esq.
     Columbia University
     435 West 116th Street, Suite 603
     New York, NY 10027
     Phone: (212) 854-1997
     Email: beh2139@columbia.edu
     Columbia Law School


MPM ENTERPRISES: Violates ADA, Nixon Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mpm Enterprises, Inc.
The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mpm Enterprises, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05862 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 19, 2018).

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

MPM Enterprises, Inc. is in the grocery Stores, independent
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     Shalom Law, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748
     Email: jonathan.shalom25@gmail.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Treviso Appeals Order in Herrick to 6th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Carmelo Treviso filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Greg Herrick v. National Football League, et
al., Case No. 5:17-cv-00472, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio at Akron.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the putative
class action takes aim at an unsafe football field, a cancelled
preseason game, and over a million dollars in alleged consumer
class damages.

The 2016 Pro Football Hall of Fame preseason game between the Green
Bay Packers and Indianapolis Colts was scheduled to take place on
August 7, 2016.  But due to compromised painting of logos and other
markings on the turf, the field was deemed unsafe and unplayable.
That call, and the related call to scrap the game entirely, was
made, according to filings in the case, at 5:00 p.m. on the day of
the game.  Fans attending the game, however, were allegedly
intentionally kept in the dark and were not informed of the game's
cancellation until three hours later.  In the meantime, fans
purportedly were ushered into the stadium and encouraged to buy
food, drinks, and merchandise.  The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself
and "thousands" of putative class members, now seeks to recover not
only the cost of the tickets, but also related out-of-pocket
incidentals, such as travel and lodging expenses.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Carmelo Treviso, Case No.
18-316, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner CARMELO TREVISO, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated, is represented by:

          Michael J. Avenatti, Esq.
          GREEN, BROILLET, PANISH & WHEELER LLP
          100 Wilshire Boulevard, 21st Floor
          Santa Monica, CA 90401-1162
          Telephone: (310) 576-1200
          E-mail: mavenatti@eaganavenatti.com

               - and -

          Romney B. Cullers, Esq.
          THE BECKER LAW FIRM
          1301 E. Ninth Street, Suite 1000
          Cleveland, OH 44114-0000
          Telephone: (216) 241-2466
          E-mail: rcullers@beckerlawlpa.com

Defendant-Respondent NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE is represented by:

          R. Thaddeus Behrens, Esq.
          HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
          2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 651-5000
          E-mail: thad.behrens@haynesboone.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Pressment, Esq.
          HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
          30 Rockefeller Plaza, 26th Floor
          New York, NY
          Telephone: (212) 918-8961
          E-mail: jonathan.pressment@haynesboone.com

               - and -

          Kerri L. Keller, Esq.
          Paul Anthony Rose, Esq.
          BROUSE MCDOWELL, A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
          388 S. Main Street, Suite 500
          Akron, OH 44311
          Telephone: (330) 535-5711
          E-mail: kkeller@brouse.com
                  prose@brouse.com

               - and -

          David Sporar, Esq.
          BROUSE MCDOWELL, A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
          600 Superior Avenue, E., Suite 1600
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 830-6830
          E-mail: dsporar@brouse.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. Pasquarella, Esq.
          KRUGLIAK, WILKINS, GRIFFITHS & DOUGHERTY CO., L.P.A.
          P.O. Box 36963
          Canton, OH 44735
          Telephone: (330) 497-0700
          E-mail: jpasquarella@kwgd.com

Defendant-Respondent NATIONAL FOOTBALL MUSEUM, INC., dba Pro
Football Hall of Fame, is represented by:

          Aletha M. Carver, Esq.
          Amanda M. Connelly, Esq.
          Joseph J. Pasquarella, Esq.
          James Matthew Williams, Esq.
          KRUGLIAK, WILKINS, GRIFFITHS & DOUGHERTY CO., L.P.A.
          P.O. Box 36963
          Canton, OH 44735
          Telephone: (330) 497-0700
          E-mail: acarver@kwgd.com
                  aconnelly@kwgd.com
                  jpasquarella@kwgd.com
                  jwilliams@kwgd.com


NISSAN NORTH: Court Extends Lohr Class Certification Deadlines
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAMARA LOHR and RAVIKIRAN SINDOGI, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NISSAN
NORTH AMERICA, INC., and NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-01023-RSM (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle, has issued an order extending the class certification
deadlines.

The proposed class action involves allegations that panoramic
sunroofs installed in seven models of Nissan vehicles suffer from a
uniform defect.  Nissan denies these allegations.  On July 16,
2017, the Court adopted its first scheduling order based on dates
the parties proposed in a Joint Status Report.  That Order set
class-related deadlines beginning with a May 25, 2018, deadline for
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and expert
disclosures.

On March 28, 2018, the Court amended the scheduling order following
a joint request from the parties premised on the status of document
collection, review, and production.  The amended schedule set
class-related deadlines beginning with a Dec. 3, 2018, deadline for
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and expert
disclosures.

The parties have engaged in written discovery, document production,
and third-party discovery.  They respectfully request an extension
of the deadlines in the case.  They've worked diligently and
amicably to resolve issues regarding the scope of discovery,
production of electronically stored information, the terms of the
Stipulated Protective Order, and the coordination of the matter
with a related case filed in the Northern District of California,
Sherida Johnson et. al. v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-00517 (N.D. Cal. Filed Feb. 1, 2017).

One particular challenge has been the scheduling of the deposition
of a witness from Japan-based Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. ("NML"),
which is a named-but-unserved defendant in the Lohr case.  The
parties have agreed through a stipulation entered in the Johnson
case (in which NML is also unserved) that certain discovery to NML
may be served on counsel for NNA, and further that such discovery
may be used by the Plaintiffs in both Lohr and Johnson.  The NML
deponent, however, is unavailable for deposition until Nov. 8,
2018.  The current Lohr deadline of Dec. 3, 2018 for the Plaintiffs
to file their class certification papers and expert reports is now
highly compressed.

The parties have coordinated with the counsel in Johnson, and the
proposed extension of deadlines, if entered, would place both Lohr
and Johnson on the same track for class briefing, class-related
expert reports, and class-related expert depositions.

For these reasons, they stipulated and agreed, and Judge Martinez
approved that the scheduling order in the case is amended as
follows:

            Event                    Current Deadline  Proposed
Deadline

    Deadline for Plaintiffs to file    Dec. 3, 2018      Jan. 15,
2019
     motion for classcertification
    and to serve expert disclosures
         and reports:  

      Deadline for Plaintiffs to       Jan. 11, 2019     Feb. 26,
2019
    produce experts for deposition

       Deadline for NNA to file        Feb. 13, 2019     April 2,
2019
    opposition to motion for class
      certification and to serve
    expert disclosures and reports

    Deadline for NNA to produce        March 6, 2019     April 23,
2019
        experts for deposition

      Deadline to file reply           March 18, 2019    May 14,
2019
    regarding Motion for Class
        Certification

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/osHsAC from Leagle.com.

Tamara Lohr, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
& Ravikiran Sindogi, Plaintiffs, represented by Beth E. Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
Charles J. Crueger -- cjc@cruegerdickinson.com -- CRUEGER DICKINSON
LLC, pro hac vice, Edward A. Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com --
WEXLER WALLACE LLP, pro hac vice, Erin Dickinson --
ekd@cruegerdickinson.com -- CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC, pro hac vice,
Gregory F. Coleman -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- GREG COLEMAN LAW
PC, pro hac vice, Lisa A. White -- lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com -- GREG
COLEMAN LAW PC, pro hac vice, Mark E. Silvey, GREG COLEMAN LAW PC,
pro hac vice, Amanda M. Steiner -- ASteiner@terrellmarshall.com --
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC & Benjamin Drachler --
bdrachler@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.

Nissan North America, Inc, Defendant, represented by Amir Nassihi
-- anassihi@shb.com -- SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP, pro hac vice,
Andrew L. Chang -- achang@shb.com -- SHOOK, HARDY, & BACON LLP, pro
hac vice, Holly Pauling Smith -- hpsmith@shb.com -- SHOOK HARDY &
BACON, pro hac vice, William R. Sampson -- wsampson@shb.com --
SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP, pro hac vice & Heather A. Hedeen --
hhedeen@shb.com -- SHOOK HARDY & BACON.


NUDGE LLC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Gets 90-Day Extension
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUST US REALTORS, LLC, on Behalf of Itself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NUDGE, LLC, BUYPD, LLC,
INCOME PROPRTY USA, LLC et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-128 TC
(D. Utah), Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah, Central Division, granted in part
the Plaintiff's motion for an order amending the Memorandum
Decision and Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File
Motion for Certification.

In that order, the Court weighed the need for determining whether
to certify an action as a class action at an early practicable
time, against the drawback of making that decision prematurely.  It
found that efficiencies will be gained in the instant case by
postponing the class certification decision until after the motions
to dismiss are decided.

Based on the language in that order, the parties disagree as to the
deadline for filing a motion for certification.  The Plaintiff
seeks a revised order expressly stating that the due date of filing
for filing the class certification motion will be determined in
connection with a pretrial scheduling process after this Court
rules on the pending motions to dismiss and pursuant to DUCivR
16-1, whereby the appropriate timing for a motion for class
certification may be best evaluated and determined in light of the
posture of the case and scope of the class claims.  The Defendants
strongly oppose any open-ended undefined extension.

The Court once again agrees that the extension should not be
open-ended.  Based upon the reasoning found in the Court's prior
order, and in clarifying that order, Judge Wells intends that the
deadline for a class certification motion is moved until 90 days
after the pending motions to dismiss are decided.  

Therefore, he granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Extension
of Time to File Motion for Class Certification.  The deadline to
file a motion for class certification is extended to 90 days after
the pending motions to dismiss are decided.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2018 Memorandum Decision
and Order is available at https://is.gd/01rBir from Leagle.com.

Just Us Realtors, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Hutton, HUTTON LAW
GROUP, Jon V. Harper -- jharper@jonharperlaw.com -- HARPER LAW PLC
& M. Denise Dalton, HARPER LAW PLC.

Nudge LLC, BuyPD, Income Property USA & Ryan Poelman, Defendants,
represented by Graden P. Jackson -- gjackson@strongandhanni.com --
STRONG & HANNI & H. Scott Jacobson, Jr. --
sjacobson@strongandhanni.com -- STRONG & HANNI.

Insiders Cash, Defendant, represented by Matthew C. Barneck --
matthew-barneck@rbmn.com -- RICHARDS BRANDT MILLER NELSON & John
Edward Keiter, Jr. , RICHARDS BRANDT MILLER NELSON.

Guardian Law, Defendant, represented by G. James Christiansen --
jchristiansen@goodwin.com -- GUARDIAN LAW.

American Legal & Escrow, Invictus Law & Blair R. Jackson,
Defendants, represented by Adam M. Pace -- amp@scmlaw.com -- SNOW
CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU & Keith A. Call -- kcall@scmlaw.com -- SNOW
CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU.


OFF LEASE: Florida Judge Closes TCPA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida federal
judge on Oct. 9 administratively closed a consumer class action
accusing used car dealer Off Lease Only Inc. of sending unsolicited
text messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act. [GN]


OPKO HEALTH: Robins Geller Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Oct. 8 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of OPKO Health,
Inc. ("Opko") (NASDAQ:OPK) common stock during the period between
October 8, 2013 and September 7, 2018 (the "Class Period"). This
action was filed in the Southern District of Florida and is
captioned Camhi v. Opko Health, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-24137.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Opko 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
September 12, 2018. If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Brian E. Cochran 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/opko-health-inc/.

The complaint charges Opko and its Chairman and CEO, Phillip Frost,
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Opko is a
healthcare company engaged in the diagnostics and pharmaceuticals
businesses in the United States and internationally. For years,
Opko has been closely associated with Frost, a prominent healthcare
investor and entrepreneur, who has served as the Company's Chairman
and CEO since March 2007. Frost's reputation as a successful
healthcare entrepreneur was extremely valuable to Opko and of
material importance to the Company's investors.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding Opko's business and prospects.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose that defendant Frost had participated as a central member
in an illegal pump and dump scheme; that defendants Frost and Opko
invested in two companies that were part of the scheme in order to
enrich Frost and his associates and not to benefit Opko or the
Company's shareholders; that Opko's investments in these companies
were worth considerably less than represented because of
defendants' involvement in the scheme; that defendant Frost had
taken efforts to conceal his control over target companies in the
scheme, including by falsely stating that he was acting as a
passive investor in SEC filings and by concealing his concerted
efforts to facilitate illegal stock manipulation with other members
of the scheme; that defendant Frost had facilitated the publication
of false and misleading promotional materials in order to
artificially inflate the stock of target companies in the scheme;
and that, as a result, Opko was subject to significant and
undisclosed legal, regulatory, reputational and financial risks
should defendant Frost's involvement in the scheme come to light.
As a result of this information being concealed from the market,
the price of Opko stock was artificially inflated to more than $19
per share during the Class Period.

Then on September 7, 2018, the SEC issued a press release that
named defendants Frost and Opko as key figures in the illegal pump
and dump scheme. The press release stated that the SEC had "charged
a group of 10 individuals and 10 associated entities for their
participation in long-running fraudulent schemes that generated
over $27 million from unlawful stock sales and caused significant
harm to retail investors who were left holding virtually worthless
stock." The press release further stated that, according to the
SEC's complaint, from 2013 to 2018, "a group of prolific South
Florida-based microcap fraudsters led by Barry Honig manipulated
the share price of the stock of three companies in classic
pump-and-dump schemes. Miami biotech billionaire Phillip Frost
allegedly participated in two of these three schemes. Honig
allegedly orchestrated the acquisition of large quantities of the
issuer's stock at steep discounts, and after securing a substantial
ownership interest in the companies, Honig and his associates
engaged in illegal promotional activity and manipulative trading to
artificially boost each issuer's stock price and to give the stock
the appearance of active trading volume. According to the SEC's
complaint, Honig and his associates then dumped their shares into
the inflated market, reaping millions of dollars at the expense of
unsuspecting investors." On this news, the price of Opko stock fell
to $4.58 per share before trading was halted by the SEC, an 18%
decline from the prior day's close. When trading resumed on
September 14, 2018, the stock fell an additional 15% to close at
$3.90 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Opko 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.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is one of the world's
leading law firms representing investors in securities litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For five
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of
class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped
shape the securities laws and recovered tens of billions of dollars
on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial
recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes
in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve
the financial markets for investors worldwide. [GN]


PCL CONSTRUCTION: $3.4MM Attys' Fees Awarded in Power Outage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James C. Dever, III of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards
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.).

The Parties entered into their Settlement Agreement and General
Release of Claims intended to resolve the action.  In the action,
the Plaintiffs contend that as a result of an incident in which a
primary power line was cut and a power outage occurred affecting
the Outer Banks Islands of Hatteras and Ocracoke, the defendants
are liable for certain damages.  The Defendants contest various
allegations and raise various defenses.

On May 2, 2018, the Curt granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement Agreement, preliminarily certified a settlement class
for settlement purposes only, and directed class counsel to submit
their application for attorneys' fees, expenses, and incentive
awards.  On Aug. 27, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for final
approval of the settlement.  On the same day, the class counsel
filed an unopposed motion for attorneys' fees, expenses, and
incentive awards and a memorandum in support.  The Class counsel
also filed certain declarations and supporting exhibits and
materials.

On Sept. 21, 2018, the Court held a final approval hearing.  After
reviewing the record, Judge Dever granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for final approval of the class action settlement and entered a
final approval order.  The Plaintiffs now seek attorneys' fees,
costs, and service awards.  The class counsel requests for an award
of attorneys' fees, expenses, and incentive awards for the Named
Plaintiffs in an amount not to exceed a total of $72,500 in
incentive awards, and $3,415,500 in attorneys' fees, as well as no
more than $100,000 in class counsel costs and expenses; to be paid
from the $10.35 million settlement fund.

Having considered the entire record, Judge Dever finds that the
requested fee-and-expense award is reasonable and awards fees and
expenses to the class counsel in the amount of $3,415,500.  He also
finds that an award of $100,000: in costs and expenses is
reasonable.

The Judge further finds that the requested incentive awards are
reasonable and fit within the range of reasonable incentive awards.
Absent incentive awards, the class representatives would not be
rewarded for their participation or for the risk of pursuing the
action with no promise of a successful outcome.  It is fair,
reasonable, and appropriate for the court to grant the requested
service awards to reward the Named Plaintiffs for their
participation in this action.

For these reasons, Judge Dever granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
attorney's fees, expenses, and incentive awards.  He approved (i)
an attorneys' fee award of $3,415,500 to the class counsel; (ii)
the $100,000 in costs and expenses, payable pursuant to the terms
of the Settlement Agreement; and (iii) an incentive awards in the
amount of $2,500 each to the class representatives, payable
pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

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


PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY: Underpays Production Employees, Green Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC723615 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct.
1, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and
rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff Green was employed by the Defendants as a production
employee.

Phillips 66 Company owns and operates gasoline stations that
retails automotive fuel in Illinois. The company was incorporated
in 1964 and is based in Houston, Texas. Phillips 66 Company
operates as a subsidiary of Phillips 66. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          Michael Calvo, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: OBrien Files FDCPA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Marlena Obrien on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC, PRA Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-05884 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 22, 2018).

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

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor
Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts. It serves
customers through account representatives. The company was
incorporated in 1996 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC operates as a subsidiary of PRA Group,
Inc.

Portfolio Recovery Associates Inc. provides outsourced receivables
management and related services in the U.S. It purchases, collects,
and manages portfolios of defaulted consumer receivables—the
unpaid obligations of individuals to banks, credit unions, consumer
and auto finance companies, and retail merchants.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



POSTMATES INC: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Lee
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration in the case captioned DORA LEE, Plaintiff, v. POSTMATES
INC., Defendant. Case No. 18-cv-03421-JCS. (N.D. Cal.).

Defendant Postmates Inc. seeks to compel arbitration of Plaintiff
Dora Lee's claims under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

Lee alleges that she worked as a courier for Postmates delivering
food and other merchandise to Postmates' customers at their homes
and businesses. She claims that Postmates willfully misclassified
her and other drivers as independent contractors rather than
employees, failed to pay minimum wage and reimburse expenses as
required by the California Labor Code, and in doing so, engaged in
unlawful business practices in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL).

Legal Standard

Under the FAA, a written provision in a contract evidencing a
transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a
controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction
shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such
grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any
contract.

Lee Agreed to the Fleet Agreement and Arbitration Clause

At the hearing, Lee's counsel raised for the first time arguments
that Postmates acted improperly in presenting the 2018 Fleet
Agreement to Lee directly when she was represented by counsel and
had filed this action, that the 2017 Fleet Agreement was limited to
a one-year term, and that Lee's attempt to opt out of arbitration
should have been effective. None of those arguments are included in
Lee's opposition brief. Counsel contended that the arguments were
proper because Postmates presented for the first time with its
reply brief evidence regarding the nature of the Fleet Agreement
acceptance process and the fact that Lee attempted to opt out in
2018. That contention is unavailing. It is true that some of the
evidence presented with Postmates' reply doubtless should have been
included with its motion, and Postmates should not have incorrectly
or perhaps misleadingly asserted that Lee never opted out, at least
without acknowledging her attempt to opt out in 2018.  

Nevertheless, the text of both the 2017 and 2018 Fleet Agreements
were presented with the motion, as was the assertion that Lee
accepted the 2018 Fleet Agreement on May 15, 2018.  Lee's attempt
to opt out, while not addressed in Postmates' motion or
accompanying declaration, is of course within Lee's own knowledge.
Lee therefore waived the arguments raised for the first time at the
hearing by failing to address them in her brief.

Based on the evidence submitted by Postmates and the lack of
evidence to the contrary from Lee, the Court concludes for the
purpose of this order that, under California law, Lee validly
consented to the Fleet Agreement and its arbitration provision, and
did not effectively opt out of that provision.

Lee May Not Avoid Arbitration Based on Other Putative Class
Members

Lee may not avoid arbitration on the basis that other putative
class representatives opted out of the arbitration agreement, when
Lee herself did not. In the decision on which Lee relies for that
proposition, the Georgia Supreme Court held in Bickerstaff v.
Suntrust Bank that the filing of a class action complaint tolled
the deadline for putative class members to opt out of an
arbitration requirement, analogizing to precedent tolling statutes
of limitations. 299 Ga. 459 (2016). Notably, the Georgia court
rested its decision on the fact that the lead plaintiff filed his
complaint within the deadline for rejecting arbitration for
existing depositors, the class he seeks to represent and the
complaint could therefore be viewed as tolling the deadline from
the date of filing.  

Here, the deadline for Lee to opt out of the Fleet Agreement's
arbitration clause has passed, and under the logic of Bickerstaff
the filing of a new complaint now by someone who opted out of
arbitration could no more save Lee's claim than it could revive the
claims of someone for whom the statute of limitations already
expired.

The Court finds no basis to decline to enforce the parties'
arbitration agreement. Postmates' motion to compel arbitration of
all of Plaintiff Dora Lee's claims is GRANTED.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 15, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycduwww4 from Leagle.com.

Dora Lee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com
-- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.

Postmates Inc., Defendant, represented by Theane Evangelis --
tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dhananjay
Saikrishna Manthripragada -- dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Michele Leigh Maryott --
mmaryott@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Peter C.
Squeri -- psqueri@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.


PRIDESTAR STUDENT: Fails to Properly Pay for Overtime, Rosanos Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
JILLIAN ROSANO; and CHRISTINE ROSANO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PRIDESTAR STUDENT
TRANSPORT; and DAVID T. DALY, Defendants, Case No. 18-2811 (Mass.
Super., Middlesex Cty., Oct. 1, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants were employed by the Defendants who provide services
in connection with student transportation in Lowell,
Massachusetts.

Pridestar Student Transport provides transportation services to
students in Lowell, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony M. Metaxas, Esq.
          D. Scott Dullea, Esq.
          METAXAS BROWN PIDEON LLP
          900 Cummings Center, Suite 207T
          Beverly, MA 01915
          Telephone: (978) 927-8000
          E-mail: ametaxas@metaxasbrown.com
                  sdullea@metaxasbrown.com


REVERSE MORTGAGE: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Ruling in Lavis Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Teresa Lavis v. Reverse
Mortgage Solutions Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-00209, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at
Beckley.

The appellate case is captioned as Teresa Lavis v. Reverse Mortgage
Solutions Inc., Case No. 18-2180, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on November 19, 2018;
      and

   -- Response Brief is due on December 18, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee TERESA LAVIS, On behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Bren Joseph Pomponio, Esq.
          Gary Michael Smith, Esq.
          MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE
          1031 Quarrier Street
          Charleston, WV 25301-0000
          Telephone: (304) 344-3144
          E-mail: bren@msjlaw.org
                  gary@msjlaw.org

Defendant-Appellant REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC., is
represented by:

          Megan Burns, Esq.
          Jason E. Manning, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          222 Central Park Avenue
          Virginia Beach, VA 23462-0000
          Telephone: (757) 687-7778
          E-mail: megan.burns@troutman.com
                  jason.manning@troutmansanders.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Covington Atty Discusses Smart TV Suit Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jadzia Pierce, Esq. -- jpierce@cov.com -- of Covington & Burling
LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that on
September 26, 2018, New Jersey federal district judge Madeline Cox
Arleo dismissed an eight-count class action complaint in its
entirety against three smart TV makers: Samsung, LG, and Sony.  The
plaintiffs alleged that defendants' smart TVs continuously
monitored and tracked their viewing habits, recorded their voices,
and then transmitted that information to defendants' servers, after
which the information was shared with third-party advertisers and
content providers.  The judge dismissed all counts: Federal Law
Claims: Plaintiffs made two federal law claims: one under the Video
Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA") and one under the Wiretap Act
(which is part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, or
"ECPA").

VPPA: Under the VPPA, plaintiffs must allege that a Video Tape
Service Provider ("VTSP") "knowingly disclosed" "personally
identifiable information" ("PII") concerning a consumer of such
provider.  The statute defines "PII" as "information which
identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video
materials or services from a video tape service provider,"  and the
Third Circuit construes the VPPA as prohibiting "disclosures of
information that would, with little or no extra effort, permit an
ordinary recipient to identify a particular person's video-watching
habits."  See In re Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy Litigation (3d
Cir. 2016).  Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants disclosed
"extensive information about plaintiffs' and consumers' digital
identities, namely, consumers' video-viewing history, consumers'
computer addresses, and information about other devices connected
to the same Wi-Fi network."  The Court held that under In re
Nickelodeon, the appropriate standard, plaintiffs failed to allege
how an "ordinary recipient" of the data at issue could use it to
"identify a particular person" "with little or no extra effort."

Wiretap Act: The Wiretap Act prohibits "interceptions" of
electronic communications, but also provides that it is not
unlawful for a person to intercept an electronic communication
where such a person is a party to that communication.  As such,
when plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated the Wiretap Act by
intercepting electronic communications (specifically, electronic
communications that the defendants' smart TVs transmitted to
plaintiffs, and communications that plaintiffs sent to defendants'
servers), defendants argued that they had not violated the Wiretap
Act, among other reasons, because they were parties to the alleged
communications.  The court agreed with the defendants, finding that
plaintiffs' focus on whether defendants took plaintiffs' and
consumers "identifying information in real-time" could not overcome
the fact that any communications to the smart TV manufacturers
would not violate the Wiretap Act.

Other Claims
Plaintiffs also alleged four contract-based claims and two
fraud-based claims:

Contract-based claims: Plaintiffs' contract-based claims were for
(1) breach of contract, (2) breach of duty of good faith and fair
dealing, (3) breach of express warranty, and (4) unjust enrichment.
Defendants argued that the first three claims failed because
plaintiffs did not identify any actual contract or specific
affirmation, promise, or guarantee made to them by the smart TV
manufacturers.  In addition, defendants argued that plaintiffs
failed to identify a loss sustained by the plaintiffs or a benefit
received by defendants, and therefore failed to state a claim for
unjust enrichment.  The court agreed and dismissed all four
claims.

Fraud-based claims: Plaintiffs' two fraud-based claims (unfair and
deceptive tracking and transmission, and deceptive omissions) were
brought under New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act.  However, with the
plaintiffs being from New York and Florida respectively, the only
connection that they alleged between their claims and New Jersey
was the defendant smart TV manufacturers' allegedly "super-massive"
presence in New Jersey.  However, the Third Circuit has
consistently maintained that a non-resident plaintiff cannot bring
a Consumer Fraud Act claim where the sole connection to New Jersey
is the defendants' location, and the court therefore dismissed both
fraud claims.

(White, et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al.). [GN]


SCG AMERICA: Fischler Files Suit Over ADA Breach
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SCG (America) Co.,
LTD. The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCG
(America) Co., LTD doing business as: Manhattan View MiMA,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05877 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2018).

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

SCG America, a wholly owned subsidiary of Shanghai Construction
Group and headquartered in New York City, has decades of experience
in the United States. Their services range from general
contracting, construction management, real estate development, and
real estate fund management.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SIMON BARON: Fischler Files Suit in New York for ADA Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simon Baron
Construction LLC under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Simon Baron
Construction LLC doing business as: Alta LIC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-09648 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2018).

Simon Baron Construction LLC is in the Single-family Housing
Construction business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


SIRTEX: Ordered to Notify Class Action Lawyers on Asset Move
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
the new Chinese owner of Sirtex has been ordered to notify class
action lawyers when it plans to remove the local biotech's assets
from Australia after a Federal Court judge found the shareholder
case had a real prospect of success.

Justice Bernard Murphy issued orders earlier this month to ensure
that Sirtex's new owners CDH Genetech and China Grand
Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Holdings must give the lawyers
running the class action at Maurice Blackburn three days notice
before reducing the group's liquid assets to less than $80
million.

"I consider there is a reasonable prospect that the applicants'
case will succeed and Sirtex may be required to pay substantial
damages, and I am persuaded there is a danger that Sirtex's assets
will be removed from the jurisdiction," Justice Murphy said.

Justice Murphy also took into account Sirtex's low level of
corporate insurance in issuing the orders.

"Sirtex has insufficient insurance to meet any substantial agreed
settlement or damages award."

He said Sirtex had only $10 million of insurance cover. The company
had as at June 30 already spent $2 million on defence costs,
Justice Murphy said.

"I expect most or all of the insurance cover to be expended on
defence costs if the class action proceeds to judgment," he said.

The orders cover any dividend or return of capital by Sirtex that
would reduce its $127.9 million war chest of liquid assets to below
$80 million.

Justice Murphy placed the $80 million limit on the orders after
Sirtex's own expert accountants argued the loss could be as much as
$283 million or lower at $82.7 million.

Justice Murphy said the lower estimate was "more reasonable"
assessment of shareholder loss in Sirtex as a result of the group's
alleged breach of its continuous disclosure requirements.

Sirtex had argued the request was tantamount to an injunction
against the $1.9 billion deal that was sealed by the China-based
group.

Shareholders involved in the class action allege Sirtex breached
its continuous disclosure obligations ahead of its December 2016
downgrade of the company's sale growth forecasts for its cancer
treating microspheres. Sirtex's downgrade sparked a 37 per cent
fall in Sirtex's shares.

Last month former Sirtex chief executive Gilman Wong was charged
with insider trading offences over trades he allegedly made ahead
of the troubled biotechnology group's downgrade.

Maurice Blackburn senior associate Jessica Naimo welcomed the court
orders.

"The court has suggested our case is strong and has accepted that
we are rightly concerned about the possibility that under the new
ownership structure, Sirtex could easily move its assets outside of
the jurisdiction of the court," Ms Naimo said.

"This is a prudent step to ensure our group members aren't further
neglected or damaged by the actions of the company." [GN]


SOUTH CAROLINA: Stoudemire Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed in South Carolina asserting
prisoner civil rights. The case is styled as Hazel Stoudemire, Jr.
and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. James K Robertson,
Cobourn & Saleeby LLP, Spartanburg County Clerk of Court, N Douglas
Brannon, Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-02839-JFA-MGB (D. S.C., Oct.
19, 2018).

James K. Robertson and N. Douglas Brannon are lawyers in
Spartanburg, South Carolina focusing on various areas of law.

Cobourn & Kyriakakis, L.L.P. is a personal injury firm serving
clients in both North Carolina and South Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


STRATEGIES TO EMPOWER: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Sacramento employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action complaint alleging that
Strategies to Empower People, Inc., failed to provide their
California employees with meal and rest periods as required by
California law. The Strategies to Empower People, Inc., class
action lawsuit, Case No. 34-2018-00240703, is currently pending in
the Sacramento County Superior Court for the State of California.

According to the lawsuit filed in the Sacramento County Superior
Court, Strategies to Empower People, Inc., allegedly failed to
provide their employees with meal and rest breaks because
allegedly, Strategies to Empower People, Inc., did not have a
policy to provide their hourly employees thirty (30) minute
uninterrupted meal breaks prior to their fifth (5th) hour of work.
California labor laws require an employer to provide an employee
required to perform work for more than five (5) hours during a
shift with, a thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal break prior to
the end of the employee's fifth (5th) hour of work.

Additionally, the complaint further alleges Strategies to Empower
People, Inc., committed acts of unfair competition in violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Sec.Sec. 17200, et seq. (the "UCL"), by engaging in a company-wide
policy and procedure which failed to accurately calculate and
record all missed meal and rest periods by PLAINTIFF and other
CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. As a result of DEFENDANT's intentional
disregard of the obligation to meet this burden, DEFENDANT
allegedly failed to properly calculate and/or pay all required
compensation for work performed by the members of the CALIFORNIA
CLASS and violated the California Labor Code.

If you would like to know more about the Strategies to Empower
People, Inc., lawsuit, please contact Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw
today by calling (858) 952-0354.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is an employment law
firm with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento,
Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. [GN]


SUNRUN INC: Dec. 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP and Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP regarding the In re
Sunrun Inc. Shareholder Litigation.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

In re SUNRUN INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION

This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS.

Lead Case No. CIV538215

CLASS ACTION

Assigned to: Hon. Marie S. Weiner

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SUNRUN INC.
("SUNRUN" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK BEFORE FEBRUARY 1, 2016
PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE COMPANY'S REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND
PROSPECTUS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH SUNRUN'S AUGUST 5, 2015
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING ("IPO") ("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS")

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT.  IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION.  PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on December 14,
2018, at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable Marie S. Weiner at the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Department 2,
Courtroom 2E, 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063, to
determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement")
of the above-captioned action as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement ("Stipulation")1 for $32,000,000 in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the
Final Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered;
(3) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out
of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below);
(4) to pay Plaintiffs for the time and expenses they incurred in
representing the Class out of the Settlement Fund; and (5) the Plan
of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable
and adequate.

This Action is a consolidated securities class action brought on
behalf of those Persons who purchased or acquired the common stock
of Sunrun pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus for Sunrun's IPO, against Sunrun, certain of its key
executives, directors and underwriters of Sunrun's IPO, and
Sunrun's venture capital partners (collectively, "Defendants") for,
among other things, allegedly misstating and omitting material
facts from the Registration Statement filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the IPO.
Plaintiffs allege that these purportedly false and misleading
statements inflated the price of the Company's stock, resulting in
damage to Class Members when the truth was revealed.  Defendants
deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SUNRUN COMMON STOCK BETWEEN AUGUST 5,
2015 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JANUARY 31, 2016, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than January
3, 2019) or electronically (no later than January 3, 2019).  Your
failure to submit your Proof of Claim by January 3, 2019, will
subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of
the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action.  If
you are a member of the Class and do not request exclusion
therefrom, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and
release entered in the Action, including, but not limited to, the
Final Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim form, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of
the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions
for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other
settlement documents, online at www.SunrunSecuritiesLitigation.com,
or by writing to:

         Sunrun Shareholder Litigation Settlement
         c/o GCG
         P.O. Box 10559
         Dublin, OH 43017-4521

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim form, may be made to Plaintiffs' Counsel:

         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: 800-449-4900

         COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
         Mark C. Molumphy
         840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
         Burlingame, CA 94010
         Telephone: 650-697-6000

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY DECEMBER 4,
2018, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.  ALL MEMBERS
OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL
BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY
PROOF OF CLAIM.  IF YOU PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE
CLASS YOU DO NOT NEED TO DO SO AGAIN.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFFS'
COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND/OR THE
PAYMENT TO PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR TIME AND EXPENSES.  ANY OBJECTIONS
MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL BY
DECEMBER 4, 2018, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.

DATED: September 14, 2018    

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
HONORABLE MARIE S. WEINER

1 The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.SunrunSecuritiesLitigation.com.


SYMANTEC CORP: Claims in Defective Antivirus Suit Narrowed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MONTGOMERY BEYER, Plaintiff, v. SYMANTEC CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02006-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M.
Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part Symantec's motion to
dismiss.

Beyer brings the instant action alleging that certain network
security software products sold by Symantec, specifically network
security software products sold or licensed to consumers under the
Norton brand and to businesses under the Symantec brand, contained
critical defects.  Beyer's allegations arise out of a report by
Google Inc.'s team of expert cybersecurity analysts, Project Zero,
which detail alleged vulnerabilities in a component of Symantec's
software, the AntiVirus Decomposer Engine.

Beyer argues that Symantec advertises that the Affected Products
protects against the latest online threats or protects against
viruses, spyware, hackers, rootkits, identity theft, phishing
scams, and fraudulent Web sites while knowing that its products
suffered from a core decomposer engine defect that exposed entire
computer operating systems to various security vulnerabilities.  He
further argues that Symantec failed to disclose that it did not
implement patches for third-party source code that it used
throughout its product line, and various Symantec
misrepresentations and omissions form the basis for his causes of
action.

Beyer asserts five causes of action, namely (i) a California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") claim, (ii) a California
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act claim, (iii) a California False
Advertising Law ("FAL") claim, (iv) a California Unfair Competition
Law ("UCL") claim, and (v) a claim for "Quasi-Contract/Unjust
Enrichment."  

Beyer purports to represent a nationwide class combining persons
who purchased and/or licensed an Affected Product between Dec. 21,
2005 and Sept. 19, 2016.  He further asserts a consumer subclass
for purposes of the claims under the CLRA and the Song-Beverly Act.


Symantec has moved to dismiss for (i) failure to plead the facts
and circumstances of the alleged fraud with particularity under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), (ii) failure to state a claim under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and (iii) lack of Article III standing under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

Judge Chen granted in part and denied in part Symantec's motion to
dismiss.  He dismissed without prejudice the CLRA, FAL, UCL, and
unjust enrichment claims as to the Third Software.  He also
dismissed without prejudice Beyer's Song-Beverly Act claim.  He
otherwise denied the motion to dismiss.  The Judge also denied the
motion to strike.

The Judge finds that Symantec's only argument against the unjust
enrichment claim is that it fails because Beyer's other claims
fail.  Because Beyer's other claims do survive as to the Second
Software, the unjust enrichment claim also survives as to that
software.  The motion is denied to that extent. But because the
claims as to the Third Software do not survive for lack of
specificity under Rule 9(b), the unjust enrichment claim is
dismissed without prejudice as to the Third Software.

Beyer states in his brief that he bought the Second Software on
Symantec's website, and that Symantec "shipped" the product to him
from California by electronic delivery, so that titled passed --
and thus was "sold at retail" -- in California.  However, the Judge
finds, as Symantec correctly points out, these facts are missing
from Beyer's complaint.  Neither does he allege that the product
was electronically delivered to him from California.  The
Song-Beverly claim is therefore dismissed with leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 21, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/2WOk3J from Leagle.com.

Montgomery Beyer, Individually and on behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Cassidy Kim --
ckim@sjk.law -- SchubertJonckheerKolbeLLP, Noah M. Schubert --
nschubert@sjk.law -- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, Robert C.
Schubert -- rschubert@sjk.law -- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP &
Willem F. Jonckheer -- wjonckheer@sjk.law -- Schubert Jonckheer &
Kolbe LLP.

Symantec Corporation, Defendant, represented by Laurence F. Pulgram
-- lpulgram@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP, Ciara Nicole McHale
-- cmchale@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West LLP, Molly Roberta
Melcher -- mmelcher@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West LLP & Tyler
Griffin Newby -- tnewby@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP.


TEK-COLLECT INC: Ross Files FDCPA Class Action
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tek-Collect, Inc. The
case is styled as Mary Ross individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tek-Collect, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01248-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla., Oct. 22,
2018).

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

TekCollect is an innovative accounts receivable management company
serving over 30,000 businesses across the nation. They partner with
companies of all sizes to optimize accounting practices, limit and
control delinquencies, and improve positive cash flow for the
long-term.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jon Paul Dubbeld, Esq.
     Berkowitz & Myer
     4900 Central Ave
     St Petersburg, FL 33707
     Phone: (727) 344-0123
     Fax: (727) 344-0185
     Email: Jon@Berkmyer.com



TELENAV INC: Womble Bond Atty Discuss Approval of $3.5MM Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tania Seanpanah, Esq. -- tania.seanpanah@wbd-us.com -- of Womble
Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that the District Court for the Northern District of
California recently granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval
of a $3.5 Million class settlement in Gergetz v. Telenav, Inc., No.
16-CV-04261-BLF, 2018 WL 4691169 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2018).  The
$3.5M settlement provides for a whopping $800+ per claim recovery
to the class, and an award of $1.05M in fees (after the Court took
a teensy haircut).

The parties in Gergetz had inked a deal back in April 2018 to
settle this text message class action for $3.5M, and to certify two
subclasses -- a "no consent" subclass, and a "stop" text message
subclass.  Per the court's ruling, the administrator estimated
there were 200,000 potential class members, out of which 145,984
class members (72%) were sent notice.  Claims by those class
members -- about 2,000 of them -- would be valued based on an
"award unit" system that would give "units" worth a specified
dollar amount based on the number and type of text received by each
claimant, with each "award unit" worth an estimated $810.  The
court found that these figures -- when compared to recoveries from
other TCPA class actions -- to be "exceptionally good".

So how does this stack up with the recently-rejected Snyder
settlement we reported on last month?  It's tough to draw
comparisons since we're not exactly comparing apples to apples.
Aside from the fact that the cases involved different scenarios (a
debt collection class action versus a text message telemarketing
class action), Snyder had 8.5 times more class members, 95% of
which were sent notice, with an enormous 16% claims rate -- far
higher than the usual TCPA settlement.  By comparison, just over
70% of the relatively small 200,000 person class was sent notice in
Gergetz, and a paltry 1% of those class members actually submitted
a claim.  So it's no wonder the per-claim award here -- starting at
about $810 and going up from there depending on the number of texts
claimed -- was so high.

The only hiccup encountered here was in the court's approval of the
$1,155,000 fee award requested by class counsel (33% of the fund).
The court found that the "benchmark" for a reasonable award in
common fund settlements is 25% of the funds, and the 33% that
counsel was asking for was "slightly overreaching".  However, the
court recognized the 25% amount could be increased due to "special
circumstances".  And the court found that an increase from 25% to
30% was justified based on the "exceptional results achieved, the
risk of litigation, the fine quality of Class Counsel's work, and
the contingent nature of the fee."

The court then performed a "lodestar cross-check" to ensure that
the 5% increase was reasonable.  According to class counsel, their
total hourly fees on the case amounted to $383,102 based on an
hourly rate that the court found was "below market", so the court
rounded that figure up to $400,000 in performing its cross-check.
To get to $1,050,000 from $400,000, the Court applied a 2.625
multiplier.  The court found that multipliers between 1 to 4 are
typical for common fund cases, and found a 2.625 multiplier was
appropriate since class counsel was working on a contingent fee
basis, had to decline other work to litigate this case, and got an
"excellent result" for the class members.  And the court's exercise
here ultimately resulted in about a $100,000 haircut off the fees
requested by counsel from $1,155,000 to $1,050,000.

But in any event, I don't think we'll hear much complaining from
class counsel since -- according to the court's ruling -- this case
was settled while still at the pleading stage.

There's no doubt the Gergetz settlement provided for an
exceptionally high per-claim recovery, although much of that was
driven by the small size of the class, and the miniscule claims
rate.  However, when examining the settlement on a per-class member
basis, the settlement wasn't too far off from what was proposed in
Snyder.  Snyder involved $1.7M class members and a $17.5M fund,
amounting to $10.29 per class member.  Gergetz involved 200,000
class members, and a $3.5M fund, amounting to $17.50 per class
member.  Given the fact that Ocwen was trying to settle claims for
a class that was 8.5 times larger than Gergetz -- and because "the
potential for individual issues regarding consent loomed relatively
large" in Snyder -- we'd even say that the deal reached in Snyder
was in many respects better than the one reached in Gergetz.  And
yet, the settlement in Gergetz received final approval, while the
court in Snyder rejected the class settlement, and wondered aloud
whether class counsel "sold the class short." [GN]


TEMSA: Navaho Tour Brings Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Temsa North America,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Navaho Tour, Inc. on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Temsa North
America, Inc., Temsa Global Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S., Temsa Ulasim
Araclari Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S., Temsa Europe NV, Haci Omer Sabanci
Holding A.S., Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-06401-KAW (N.D. Cal.,
Oct. 19, 2018).

TEMSA Global is a coach, bus and light truck manufacturer located
in Adana, Turkey. The company is part of the Sabancı Group, a
large Turkish industrial and commercial conglomerate. TEMSA is a
member of the Turkish Automotive Manufacturers Association. Temsa's
Adana plant has an annual production capacity of 11500 vehicles;
4000 buses and coaches and 7500 light trucks.

TEMSA Global Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. manufactures and distributes
buses and coaches for automotive markets in Turkey and
international markets. The company offers coaches, midi-coaches,
and city buses for urban public transport systems; tourist coaches;
and light trucks. It also provides after sales and spare parts.

Temsa Europe NV provides buses and coaches to businesses. The
Company produces touring buses, intercity buses, and city buses.
Temsa Europe offers 24-hour road assistance, service, training,
spare parts, and total quality management. Temsa Europe offers its
buses and services throughout Europe.

Haci Omer Sabanci Holding A.S. operates primarily in the finance,
manufacturing, and trading sectors worldwide. It operates through
Finance/Banking, Industry, Retail, Cement, and Other segments. The
company offers corporate, investment and private, commercial, SME,
retail, and international banking services, as well as payment
systems, treasury transactions, and insurance brokerage services;
and capital market and investment, asset management, and financial
leasing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas V Girardi, Esq.
     Girardi Keese
     1126 Wilshire Boulevard
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Phone: (213) 977-0211
     Email: tgirardi@girardikeese.com


TG THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that
purchasers of TG Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: TGTX) have filed a
class action complaint against the company's officers and directors
for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
between
June 4, 2018 and September 25, 2018. TG is a biopharmaceutical
company that develops treatments for cancer and autoimmune diseases
in the U.S. The company is developing two therapies targeting
hematologic malignancies TG-1101 and TGR-1202.

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

TG Accused of Misleading Investors Regarding Trial Results

The actions concerns TG's UNITY-CLL Trial. The trial is a
randomized controlled Phase 3 trial under Special Protocol
Assessment that is evaluating TG-1101 in combination with TGR-1202,
the company's development stage PI3K delta inhibitor, for patients
with front line and previously treated Chronic Lymphocytic
Leukemia. Enrollment in the trial began in May 2017, and by
September 2017, TG announced its target enrollment had been met. TG
also announced that it expected to report top-line overall response
rate ("ORR") data from the study in 2018. According to the
complaint, TG thereafter touted positive earnings and business
outlook for the company, as well as a positive outcome of its
UNITY-CLL Trial, "which is expected to support full approval and a
very broad label for the treatment of CLL." Despite these prior
assurances, on September 25, 2018, TG announced that it would not
be releasing the data from the UNITY-CLL study and that the drugs
had failed to meet the ORR stated goal. On this news, the price of
TG stock declined from $9.25 per share to $5.15 per share on
September 26, 2018, a fall of nearly 45%.

TG 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]


TOOTSIE ROLL: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Gordon Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ketrina Gordon filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled KETRINA GORDON, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. TOOTSIE ROLL INDUSTRIES, INC.; DOES, 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-02664-DSF-MRW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
sought certification of a class of consumers of:

    "all persons who purchased opaque boxes of 3.5-oz Junior
     Mints and 6-oz. box of Sugar Babies in the State of
     California for personal use and not for resale during the
     time period February 10, 2013, through the present.

     Excluded from the Class are Defendants' officers,
     directors, and employees, and any individual who received
     remuneration from Defendants in connection with that
     individual's use or endorsement of the Product."

The appellate case is captioned as KETRINA GORDON, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated v. TOOTSIE ROLL
INDUSTRIES, INC.; DOES, 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 18-56315,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- January 16, 2019 -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts
      of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and
      9th Cir. R. 31-2.1;

   -- February 19, 2019 -- Appellee's answering brief and
      excerpts of record shall be served and filed pursuant to
      FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1;

   -- November 7, 2019 -- Transcript shall be ordered;

   -- December 9, 2019 -- Transcript shall be filed by court
      reporter; and

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
      served within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief,
      pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1.[BN]


TRANS UNION LLC: Faces Heath FCRA Suit in Virginia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trans Union, LLC. The
case is styled as Marsha Heath, Scott Rogers, Robert Kemery, Sean
Lawrence on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Trans Union, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-00720-JAG (E.D. Va., Oct. 19, 2018).

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

TransUnion LLC operates as a credit reporting agency that provides
data/insights and information to help consumers and businesses make
informed decisions. The company provides customer credit reporting,
portfolio management, marketing and audience segmentation,
healthcare revenue cycle management, customer acquisition,
investigations and collections, fraud detection and prevention,
identity verification and authentication, customer analytics and
consulting, data breach, and customer engagement solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
     Kelly & Crandall PLC
     3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
     Fairfax, VA 22030
     Phone: (703) 424-7570
     Fax: (703) 591-9285
     Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com

          - and -

     Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
     Kelly & Crandall PLC
     3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
     Fairfax, VA 22030
     Phone: (703) 424-7576
     Fax: (703) 591-0167
     Email: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

          - and -

     Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
     Kelly & Crandall PLC
     3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
     Fairfax, VA 22030
     Phone: (703) 640-3334
     Fax: (703) 591-9285
     Email: casey@kellyandcrandall.com


UBER TECH: Blank Rome Attorneys Discuss 9th Cir. Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Alameddine, Esq. -- nalameddine@blankrome.com -- and
Caroline Powell Donelan, Esq. -- cdonelan@blankrome.com -- of Blank
Rome LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that in a significant
blow to claims that gig economy workers are entitled to pursue
disputes on a class or collective basis, and possibly whether those
workers will be able to establish that they are employees and not
independent contractors, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals unanimously decertified a class of 240,000 Uber
drivers. The decision in O'Conner v. Uber is a victory for the
ride-share company, which will now be able to defend claims that it
misclassified employees as independent contractors on an individual
basis—one arbitration at a time.

For the past five years, there has been an ongoing and contentious
dispute over whether Uber drivers (and similarly, Lyft and other
ride-share drivers) are independent contractors or employees. If
the workers are deemed to be employees, Uber could face hundreds of
millions of dollars in alleged California labor code violations and
business expense claims. To combat the possibility of having to
litigate this issue on a class-wide basis, Uber entered into
arbitration agreements with each driver, requiring that any
driver's claims be arbitrated and that each case had to be
arbitrated individually (rather than as a class action).

The court's validation of Uber's arbitration agreement, and
reversal of the lower court's 2015 certification of the class of
drivers, is consistent with the United States Supreme Court's May
2018 ruling in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, in which the Court
confirmed the validity of arbitration agreements that contain class
action waivers.

Key Takeaways

While employee-side attorneys have regularly argued that
arbitration agreements containing class or collective action
waivers are unconscionable and/or violate the Section 7 rights of
employees under the National Labor Relations Act, O'Conner is
consistent with recent decisions at the federal level which
demonstrate the judiciary's commitment to stand by the legislative
intent of the Federal Arbitration Act and compel litigants to abide
by their agreements to arbitrate. Indeed, amid a flurry of new
legislation aimed at giving teeth to the #MeToo movement,
California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a controversial "arbitration
bill" (Assembly Bill 3080) that would have effectively rendered
such agreements unlawful by statute.

Time will tell how workers will respond to this ruling. Plaintiffs'
attorneys are nothing if not enterprising, so it is possible that
hundreds, if not thousands, of individual arbitrations may be filed
on behalf of gig economy workers claiming to be employees.

While O'Conner v. Uber gives employers further comfort in
implementing arbitration agreements containing class action
waivers, we caution California employers to remain mindful of the
California Supreme Court's decision with respect to
"representative" claims brought under the state's Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA"). PAGA authorizes private citizens to file
lawsuits to recover civil penalties for labor code violations on
behalf of themselves, other "aggrieved" employees, and the State of
California. So long as representative employees have suffered at
least one labor code violation, they are even permitted to bring
claims on behalf of other aggrieved employees for labor code
violations that they have not personally suffered. Currently, PAGA
claims cannot be forced into arbitration in light of a prior case
(Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014)), meaning
employers in the Golden State continue to face an uptick in
representative PAGA actions notwithstanding the existence of
otherwise enforceable agreements requiring disputes be resolved by
individual arbitration. [GN]


UNITED SERVICES: Did Not Pay Proper Insurance Claims, Spears Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALICIA SPEARS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 78689724 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Oct. 1,
2018) is an action for breach of contract to recover the damages
suffered by the Plaintiff and the Class as a result of the
Defendant's use of the CCC ONE electronic system in adjusting and
settling loss claims, and for refusal to pay dealer fees.

According to the complaint, the CCC ONE electronic system used by
the Defendant in adjusting and settling loss claims does not comply
with Florida statute. It is not "a generally recognized used motor
vehicle industry source" for the "retail cost" of used motor
vehicles. No participants in the used motor vehicle industry use
the CCC system—not dealers, not wholesalers, not buyers' agents,
not banks, not vehicle lenders, and not consumer buyers. Indeed,
the CCC system is not available to consumers, and it is not even
marketed to the motor vehicle industry as whole. Rather, CCC only
offers the CCC system as a subscription service to insurance
companies, which are not part of the used motor vehicle industry.
Second, its selective exclusion of the "comparable vehicles" with
the highest advertised prices and its use of systematic downward
"Uniform Condition Adjustments" does not result in retail costs.

The Defendant also committed breach in automobile insurance policy
and violates Florida law by failing to pay the "Dealer Preparation
Fee and/or Document Fee" required to be disclosed by every used car
dealer in Florida. Those fees constitute part of the "actual cost
to purchase a comparable motor vehicle," just like sales tax. The
Defendant's failure to pay these fees further damages each of its
Florida policyholders who suffers a total loss by hundreds of
dollars.

United Services Automobile Association provides a range of
financial products and services to the military community and their
families primarily in the United States. United Services Automobile
Association was founded in 1922 and is headquartered in San
Antonio, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott R. Jeeves, Esq.
          THE JEEVES LAW GROUP, P.A.
          954 First Avenue North
          St. Petersburg, FL 33705
          Telephone: (727) 894-2929
          E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Craig E. Rothburd, Esq.
          CRAIG E. ROTHBURD, P.A.
          320 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33606
          E-mail: crothburd@e-rlaw.com
          Telephone: (813) 251-8800

               - and -

          Casim Adam Neff, Esq.
          NEFF INSURANCE LAW, PLLC
          P.O. Box 15063
          St. Petersburg, FL 33733-5063
          Telephone: (727) 342-0617
          E-mail: cneff@neffinsurancelaw.com


UNITED STATES: Asylum Interviews Ordered for Separated Families
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge on Oct. 18 ordered the Justice Department to start
conducting asylum interviews for families separated at the
U.S.-Mexico border, noting it is required to do so per the terms of
a settlement negotiated with the families' attorneys last month and
by "statutory obligation."

The schism over whether the government should be required to
implement the terms of a deal reached in the consolidated family
separation litigation in the Southern District of California
started when attorneys for the families' filed an emergency request
with U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw.

According to the families' attorneys, the Justice Department
refuses to start the asylum process for at least 60 people who have
signed the settlement waiver, binding them to the terms the parties
reached last month.

The government's refusal to conduct asylum interviews led more than
40 detained families to opt for deportation "because they simply
could not wait in detention any longer," according to the families'
attorneys.

But Justice Department attorney Scott Stewart told Judge Sabraw at
a hearing on Oct. 16 the government could not be ordered to start
carrying out the asylum process until the settlement agreement is
formally approved at a hearing scheduled for Nov. 15.

Mr. Stewart claimed the government faces a "significant legal risk"
in implementing the settlement prior to final approval, noting "the
government needs to be careful" because some objections to the
settlement could come in that would prevent approval.

Judge Sabraw knocked down Stewart's contention in a five-page order
on Oct. 18, noting the asylum process was triggered once election
forms were signed by class members – not when the court grants
final approval of the agreement.

"The provision of notice and reviews and interviews under this
paragraph are not dependent on the court's ‘approval' of the
agreement. Rather, they are triggered by the class member's
execution of the election form," Judge Sabraw found.

"Those are the plain terms of the agreement, and they are
consistent with defense counsel's repeated representations to the
court and plaintiffs' counsel that defendants wanted to proceed
expeditiously and ‘get moving on this,'" Judge Sabraw added.

The agreement requires the government to provide notice of
orientation for class members' credible fear interview process "no
later than three days" from when a parent or child signs the waiver
to pursue asylum. Those interviews must be conducted within 48
hours after the class member receives orientation about the
process, according to the settlement.

The judge also found Stewart's concern the settlement might not be
approved "is a theoretical possibility" that "there is no
indication will occur," noting the only objection filed so far was
actually a request to be included in the settlement and "not an
objection to the merits of the agreement."

Judge Sabraw found no prejudice to the government in implementing
the credible fear interviews under the asylum process for the 60
people who have opted into the settlement, noting: "Defendants have
a statutory obligation to provide class members access to asylum
procedures."

He added: "Providing that access now as opposed to later does not
prejudice defendants."

A status conference in the family separation litigation is
scheduled for Nov. 9.


VAILS GATE CLEANERS: Aguilo Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Mireya Aguilo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Vails Gate Cleaners Inc., Exit 9, LCC and
Richard Massimi, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-08850, (S.D. N.Y., September 27, 2018) seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime premium pay owed pursuant to both
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
claims for unpaid spread-of-hours premiums, unlawfully withheld
gratuities and for failure to provide proper wage notices and wage
statement violations.

Defendants operate laundry and dry cleaning locations in Orange
County, New York, where Aguilo is a former clothing folder and
ironing employee. She typically worked well in excess of 40 hours
each week and was paid an hourly rate that did not include overtime
premiums for hours worked over 40 in a given workweek and was not
paid the statutory minimum wage. Plaintiff also did not receive
accurate wage notices or wage statements, says the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
      PELTON GRAHAM LLC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Email: pelton@peltongraham.com
             graham@peltongraham.com
      Website: www.PeltonGraham.com


VILLA ITALIA: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Villa Italia
Management LLC. The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Villa
Italia Management LLC a Florida limited liability company,
Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-62526-WPD (S.D. Fla., Oct. 22, 2018).

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

Villa Italia is located near South Beach.  Their hotel and private
villa are located in a listed building dating back to Miami's Art
Deco period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
     Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
     200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 282-1858
     Fax: (844) 786-3694
     Email: service@advocacypa.com


WARNER CHILCOTT: 1st Cir. Flips Class Cert in Asacol Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, issued an
Opinion reversing the District Court's judgment granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned IN
RE: ASACOL ANTITRUST LITIGATION. UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS
UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS MIDWEST HEALTH BENEFITS FUND, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated; MARK ADORNEY, Plaintiffs,
TEAMSTERS UNION 25 HEALTH SERVICES & INSURANCE PLAN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; NECA-IBEW WELFARE
TRUST FUND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; WISCONSIN MASONS' HEALTH CARE FUND, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated; MINNESOTA LABORERS HEALTH AND
WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated; AFSCME HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND; PENNSYLVANIA EMPLOYEES
BENEFIT TRUST FUND; AHOLD U.S.A., INC.; ROCHESTER DRUG
CO-OPERATIVE, INC.; VALUE DRUG COMPANY; MEIJER, INC.; MEIJER
DISTRIBUTION, INC., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. WARNER CHILCOTT
LIMITED; ALLERGAN, INC., f/k/a Actavis, PLC; ALLERGAN USA, INC.;
ALLERGAN SALES, LLC; ALLERGAN, PLC, Formerly known as Actavis, PLC,
Defendants, Appellants, ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC.; CADILA
HEALTHCARE LIMITED; WARNER CHILCOTT (US), LLC; WARNER CHILCOTT
SALES (US), LLC; WARNER CHILCOTT COMPANY, LLC, Defendants. No.
18-1065. (1st Cir.).

Drug manufacturer Warner Chilcott Limited pulled one of its
products, Asacol, from the market just months before the drug's
patent protection expired. Warner simultaneously introduced a
similar but not exactly identical substitute drug called Delzicol,
the patent protection for which ran years longer.

This coordinated withdrawal and entry of the two drugs allegedly
precluded generic manufacturers from introducing a generic version
of Asacol, which would have provided a lower-cost alternative to
Warner's drugs Delzicol and Asacol HD, a version of Asacol that was
also still under patent protection. Crying foul, the named
plaintiffs in this case filed a class action alleging a violation
of the consumer protection and antitrust laws of twenty-five states
and the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiffs moved for class certification on behalf of a class
of all similarly situated indirect purchasers, including any
individual consumers who purchased the relevant Warner products
from drug retailers in the twenty-six jurisdictions.

The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. Rejecting Warner's argument to the contrary, the
district court concluded that the named plaintiffs had standing to
prosecute claims on behalf of class members under various state
laws even if the named plaintiffs themselves had not made purchases
in all those states.
Warner presents two primary challenges.

First, it argues that, because the named plaintiffs only made
purchases in four states, they lack Article III standing to assert
claims under the laws of states in which they did not make
purchases.

Second, Warner takes issue with the district court's decision to
certify a class containing uninjured class members.

The claims of the named plaintiffs parallel those of the putative
class members in the sense that, assuming a proper class is
certified, success on the claim under one state's law will more or
less dictate success under another state's law. Even while arguing
that there may be a few subtle differences in the attitudes of some
state courts toward such claims, Warner concedes that the parties
do agree that Plaintiffs' liability theories as to monopolization
are limited to a construction of state antitrust laws that parallel
the federal Sherman Act.

Under those parallel laws, all plaintiffs who were forced to pay a
higher price in the absence of generic competition have a
substantial and shared interest in proving that the higher price
was the result of unlawful monopolizing conduct that is redressable
by an award of damages. And the fact that judgments for some class
members will nevertheless enter under the laws of states other than
the states under which any of the class representatives' judgments
will enter, where those laws are materially the same, has no
relevant bearing on the personal stake of the named plaintiffs in
litigating the case to secure such judgments.  

It is true that, in order to prevail on their claims, the named
plaintiffs need not prove where a class member resides, or where
the class member made a purchase. But that same thing could be said
of the named plaintiffs' need to prove that any class member made a
purchase anywhere, even in the states under which the named
plaintiffs' claims arise. As the Court have previously observed, in
a properly certified class action, the named plaintiffs regularly
litigate claims of other class members based on transactions in
which the named plaintiffs played no part.

In any event, having reviewed the parties' competing critiques, the
Court finds no clear material error in the district court's factual
approximation. So, the question thus becomes: Can a class be
certified in this case even though injury-in-fact will be an
individual issue, the resolution of which will vary among class
members?

Here, though, the record is clear that plaintiffs do not propose to
rely on unrebutted testimony to eliminate the question of
injury-in-fact before trial. And, unlike in Nexium, defendants have
expressly stated their intention to challenge any affidavits that
might be gathered. Nor do plaintiffs point to any basis in the
record for deeming all such challenges to be so implausible as to
warrant a finding that we can consider the issue to be uncontested.
Warner has explained that some class members stopped taking and
will therefore have no record of purchasing Asacol anywhere between
2009 and 2012, and some class members when asked will admit a
preference for DBP-free medication such as Delzicol.

"Our inability to fairly presume that these plaintiffs can rely on
unrebutted testimony in affidavits to prove injury-in-fact is fatal
to plaintiffs' motion to certify this case. Testimony that is
genuinely challenged, certainly on an element of a party's
affirmative case, cannot secure a favorable summary judgment ruling
disposing of the issue. And the affidavits would be inadmissible
hearsay at trial, leaving a fatal gap in the evidence for all but
the few class members who testify in person. Nor have the
plaintiffs provided any basis from which we could conclude that the
number of affidavits to which the defendants will be able to mount
a genuine challenge is so small that it will be administratively
feasible to require those challenged affiants to testify at trial,"
the Court held.

Relatedly, this is not a case in which a very small absolute number
of class members might be picked off in a manageable,
individualized process at or before trial. Rather, this is a case
in which any class member may be uninjured, and there are
apparently thousands who in fact suffered no injury. The need to
identify those individuals will predominate and render an
adjudication unmanageable absent evidence such as the unrebutted
affidavits assumed in Nexium, or some other mechanism that can
manageably remove uninjured persons from the class in a manner that
protects the parties' rights. And, as the Court have already
explained, the process on which the district court relied is not
such a mechanism.

The Plaintiffs' fallback argument, urged most prominently on
appeal, is that, at trial, they will prove class-wide impact with
the testimony of their expert, Dr. Conti, and with defendants' own
documents and admissions. But plaintiffs point to no documents or
admissions that would support a finding that all class members
suffered injury. So this argument on appeal comes down to their
claim that they will prove class-wide impact at trial with the
testimony of their expert, Dr. Conti.

The Plaintiffs argue that we should nevertheless approve of their
proposed approach because it protects Warner from any practical
harm that might otherwise be caused by removing questions of
individual injury-in-fact from the jury. Warner would only be found
liable and forced to pay damages if the jury found that Warner's
actions unlawfully raised the price paid by consumers by a
specified amount, and if the jury also determined the percentage of
sales for which that price surcharge would not have been paid but
for the illegal conduct. The total aggregate damages award would
therefore in theory net out all purchases by brand loyal consumers
as a group. The fact that some of that money might then be paid to
uninjured people should be of no concern to Warner, say
plaintiffs.

This argument confuses different types of aggregate damages
scenarios.  In some cases, the total damage caused by the defendant
is independent of the number and identity of people harmed. Newberg
gives as an example a trustee's theft of money from a pension fund.
Id. Such a case perhaps might be tried as a class action without
causing any harm to the defendant no matter how the recovered funds
are allocated among the beneficiaries (although there would still
be the question whether Article III nevertheless precludes per se
the knowing use of a civil suit to make an award to an uninjured
person.

In many other instances, as here, the aggregate damage amount is
the sum of damages suffered by a number of individuals, such that
proving that the defendant is not liable to a particular individual
because that individual suffered no injury reduces the amount of
the possible total damage. Furthermore, here the district court has
reasonably presumed that determining whether any given individual
was injured (and therefore has a claim) turns on an assessment of
the individual facts concerning that person. In such a case, the
defendant must be offered the opportunity to challenge each class
member's proof that the defendant is liable to that class member.
Whether that opportunity precludes class certification turns on
whether such challenges are reasonably plausible in a given case
and whether the plaintiff cannot demonstrate that allowing for such
challenges in a manner that protects the defendant's rights will be
manageable and superior to the alternatives.  

Accepting plaintiffs' proposed procedure for class litigation would
also put us on a slippery slope, at risk of an escalating disregard
of the difference between representative civil litigation and
statistical observations of tendencies and distributions. Once one
accepts plaintiffs' no harm, no foul position there would be no
logical reason to prevent a named plaintiff from bringing suit on
behalf of a large class of people, forty-nine percent or even
ninety-nine percent of whom were not injured, so long as aggregate
damages on behalf of the class were reduced proportionately. Such a
result would fly in the face of the core principle that class
actions are the aggregation of individual claims, and do not create
a class entity or re-apportion substantive claims.  

Accordingly, the First Circuit reverses the decision of the
district court granting class certification, and remands for
further proceedings in accord with this opinion.

A full-text copy of the First Circuit's October 15, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd5orns3 from Leagle.com.

J. Mark Gidley -- mgidley@whitecase.com -- with whom Peter J.
Carney -- pcarney@whitecase.com -- Dana Foster --
defoster@whitecase.com -- Matthew S. Leddicotte --
mleddicotte@whitecase.com -- Jaclyn Phillips --
jaclyn.epstein@whitecase.com -- Maxwell J. Hyman --
maxwell.kalmann@whitecase.com -- Robert A. Milne --
rmilne@whitecase.com -- Jack E. Pace III -- jpace@whitecase.com --
Bryan D. Gant -- bgant@whitecase.com -- Kelly Newman --
kelly.newman@whitecase.com -- and White & Case LLP were on brief,
for appellants.

Richard A. Samp and Marc B. Robertson on brief for Washington Legal
Foundation, amicus curiae.

Justin N. Boley -- jnb@wexlerwallace.com -- jnb@wexlerwallace.com
-with whom Kenneth A. Wexler -- kaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Tyler J.
Story -- tjs@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP, Tyler W.
Hudson --  THUDSON@WCLLP.COM -- Eric D. Barton -- EBARTON@WCLLP.COM
-- David Barclay, Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP, Nathaniel L. Orenstein,
Todd A. Seaver, Berman Tabacco, Daniel E. Gustafson, Karla M.
Gluek, Michelle J. Looby, Joshua J. Rissman, Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
Jeffrey L. Kodroff -- jkodroff@srk-law.com -- William G. Caldes --
bcaldes@srkattorneys.com -- John A. Macoretta --
jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com -- Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis,
P.C., Peter J. Mougey -- pmougey@levinlaw.com -- Levin, Papantonio,
Thomas, Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor, P.A., Jonathan D. Karmel, and
Karmel Law Firm, were on brief, for appellees.


WARNER MUSIC: Leonard Williams Files Royalties Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Leonard Williams (Tower of Power) filed a class action against
Warner Music Group, claiming it uses Hollywood accounting to
defraud musicians of royalties from international streaming, in
L.A. Superior Court.


WEBASTO: Settles Class Action Over Parking Heaters for $15MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Transport Topics reports that two settlements worth up to $15
million have been reached with Webasto and Espar in a class-action
lawsuit, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York announced.

Named as defendants were: Webasto Products North America Inc.,
Webasto Thermo & Comfort North America Inc. and Webasto Thermo &
Comfort, Eberspaecher Climate Control Systems GmbH & Co. KG, Espar
Inc. and Espar Products Inc.

At issue was whether Webasto and Espar participated in an unlawful
conspiracy to raise, fix, maintain and/or stabilize the price of
aftermarket parking heaters -- heaters and accessories used to heat
commercial vehicles -- at artificially high levels, according to
the court.

Webasto and Espar denied the allegations in the lawsuit but agreed
to settle.

The court will hold a fairness hearing Jan. 9 to consider whether
to finally approve the settlements.

The settlements include all persons or entities that purchased
aftermarket parking heaters in the United States, its territories
or possessions, directly from Webasto or Espar, or from any of
their parents, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries or
affiliates, from Oct. 1, 2007, through Dec. 31, 2012.

The settlements offer automatic payments to class members. If a
class member received a notice in the mail and the settlement is
approved, a claim does not need to be filed to receive a payment.
Estimated payments will be calculated based on available purchase
data.

Anyone who believes they are a class member and did not receive a
notice in the mail should visit DirectParkingHeaterSettlement.com
or call toll-free 1-888-396-9582. [GN]


WESTSIDE SUPERMARKET: Nixon Suit Asserts ADA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westside Supermarket,
LLC. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Westside Supermarket,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05859 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 19, 2018).

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

Westside Supermarket LLC was founded in 2004. The company's line of
business includes the retail sale of a range of canned foods and
dry goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



WPX ENERGY: Appeal in Anderson Class Certification Denial Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THE ANDERSON LIVING TRUST, f/k/a The James H. Anderson
Living Trust; ROBERT WESTFALL; MINNIE PATTON SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION
TRUST, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and THE PRITCHETT LIVING TRUST;
CYNTHIA W. SADLER; LEE WILEY MONCRIEF 1988 TRUST; KELLY COX
TESTAMENTARY TRUST 7/1238401; SWMF PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiffs, v.
WPX ENERGY PRODUCTION, LLC, f/k/a WPX Energy San Juan, LLC and
Williams Production Company, LLC; WPX ENERGY ROCKY MOUNTAIN, LLC,
f/k/a Williams Production RMT Company, LLC, Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 17-2029 (10th Cir.), Judge Gregory A. Phillips of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal from
the district court's denial of class certification.

The Trusts and more than 1,000 putative class members (as lessors),
and WPX (as lessee), are signatories to 507 separate gas leases
covering 3,157 gas wells in the San Juan Basin -- 2,889 in New
Mexico and 268 in Colorado.  WPX holds the working interests in
these leases, entitling it to develop and produce the hydrocarbons
beneath the leased land.  For their part, the Trusts and putative
class members retain royalty interests, overriding royalty
interests, or both, in the hydrocarbons produced.

On Dec. 5, 2011, the Trusts filed a putative class action against
WPX in New Mexico state court, alleging seven claims: (1) that WPX
underpaid royalties and overriding royalties; (2) that WPX
committed fraud, misstated the value of the hydrocarbons, and
wrongly participated in affiliate sales;4 (3) that WPX breached its
duty to market the hydrocarbons developed from the leases; (4) that
WPX violated the New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act; (5)
that WPX breached the lease contracts by acting in bad faith; (6)
that WPX unjustly enriched itself; and (7) that WPX converted the
Trusts' and putative class members' royalties and overriding
royalties. WPX removed the case to the United States District Court
for the District of New Mexico.

Two years into the litigation, the Trusts moved to certify their
claims as a class action.  WPX opposed the motion.  On March 19,
2015, the district court declined to certify the class.  The Trusts
filed a Motion to Reconsider, which the court also denied.

Four months later, the Trusts filed a Fifth Amended Complaint,
alleging an additional class claim: that WPX had breached its duty
to sell the Trusts' and putative class members' hydrocarbons at the
highest obtainable price and to pay them royalties and overriding
royalties based on that price.  

Citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1)(D), WPX moved to strike the Fifth
Amended Complaint's class allegations bearing on the new claim --
the duty to sell the hydrocarbons at the highest obtainable price
-- arguing that the court had already denied class certification.
But, noting that the Trusts hadn't asserted this
highest-obtainable-price claim in their first certification motion,
the court refused to strike the class allegations based on this
additional claim.  The district court said the Trusts could move to
certify the new claim.

Instead of moving to certify the additional class claim, the Trusts
settled with WPX.  The parties jointly moved to enter a stipulated
judgment dismissing the Trusts' individual claims, advising that
all of the Plaintiffs' claims for relief alleged in the Action are
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the settlement between the
parties.

In the judgment, the Trusts reserved any rights they may have to
appeal the Court's Order denying their motion for class
certification, including the Court's denial of the Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration thereof.  A month later, the Trusts
appealed the orders denying class certification and
reconsideration.

After oral argument in the Trusts' appeal, the Appellate Court
ordered supplemental briefing on whether it has jurisdiction to
decide the appeal.  The parties timely submitted their briefs.

The Trusts contend (1) that the parties settled for full and fair
value; (2) that the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1291 to review their appeal without transgressing Baker; and (3)
that the Court has have Article III jurisdiction to review their
appeal.

WPX disputes the Trusts' claims, arguing (1) that whether the
settlement figure constituted full and fair value for the Trusts'
individual claims can't be determined; (2) that Baker establishes
that we have no statutory appellate jurisdiction under Section
1291; and (3) that the Court lacks Article III jurisdiction over
the Trusts' appeal.

Judge Phillips finds that like the named plaintiffs in Microsoft
Corp. v. Baker, the Trusts seek appellate review under Section 1291
of an order denying class certification.  But unlike the named
plaintiffs in Baker, the Trusts didn't act unilaterally -- they
first settled their individual claims against WPX for
consideration, and then voluntarily dismissed their claims with
prejudice. Emphasizing this distinction, the Trusts contend that
Baker doesn't control the case.  The settlement, they claim, puts
them in no different posture than had they litigated their claims
to a positive, final judgment by jury trial.

Guided by Baker's three-drawback framework, the Judge disagrees.
First, as in Baker, the danger of protracted litigation and
piecemeal appeals remains even when named plaintiffs have settled
their individual claims.  Second, like the Baker named plaintiffs'
voluntary-dismissal tactic, the Trusts' settlement approach would
disturb Rule 23(f)'s discretionary appellate-review regime.  Third,
the Trusts' settlement approach, like the voluntary-dismissal
tactic, gives the Plaintiffs the advantage.

Finding daylight between the Baker named plaintiffs'
voluntary-dismissal tactic and the Trusts' settlement approach
requires splitting hairs.  Voluntary dismissal is functionally a
settlement for nothing.  That the Trusts managed to procure a price
for the dismissal of their individual claims is simply a new take
on the old voluntary-dismissal tactic.  The Trusts can't turn the
district court's class-certification denial, an inherently
interlocutory order, into a final, appealable order within the
compass of 28 U.S.C. Section 1291 by settling their individual
claims.  To hold otherwise would disrupt Rule 23(f)'s careful
calibration.

For the reasons stated, Judge Phillips dismissed the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.  He denied the Trusts' motion to certify.  He
granted WPX's motion for leave to file the settlement agreement in
support of their response to the Trusts' motion to certify; denied
WPX's motion to file a sur-reply to the Trusts' reply brief; and
denied the Trusts' motion for leave to file a reply to WPX's
response to the Trusts' Rule 28(j) letter.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 21, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/h8dJHV from Leagle.com.

Bradley Brickell, Brickell & Associates, P.C., Norman, Oklahoma,
for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Mark F. Sheridan -- msheridan@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart
LLP, Santa Fe, NM, (Stephen G. Masciocchi --
smasciocchi@hollandhart.com -- Denver, CO, and Robert J. Sutphin,
Jr. -- rsutphin@hollandhart.com -- with him on the briefs), for
Defendants-Appellees.


XOOM ENERGY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Mirkin Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, SUSANNA MIRKIN and BORIS MIRKIN, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. XOOM
ENERGY, LLC and XOOM ENERGY NEW YORK, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-2949-ARR-RER (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Allyne R. Ross of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety.

The Plaintiffs Susanna Mirkin and Boris Mirkin, a married couple
residing together in Brooklyn, bring the putative class action
against XOOM.  They assert claims for breach of contract, breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust
enrichment arising out of their March 2013 agreement to obtain
residential electricity services from XOOM, an independent energy
service company.

In March 2013, Boris Mirkin created an application on XOOM's
website to begin receiving residential electricity services through
the company's SimpleFlex Variable Rate Plan.  Shortly thereafter,
XOOM sent the Plaintiffs an Electricity Sales Agreement which
described the company's pricing policies and services.  The
Plaintiffs began receiving electricity supplied by XOOM two months
later, in May 2013.  For the first month of the agreement, XOOM
charged the Plaintiffs a teaser rate of 8.99¢/kWh.  During the
months that followed, it increased its rates to "exorbitant"
levels.  

The Plaintiffs do not object to the fact that their rates increased
per se, but they allege that the extent of the increase and the
subsequent rates they were charged did not comply with their
reasonable expectations under the agreement.  Pursuant to the
agreement, XOOM stated that it would provide energy services to the
Plaintiffs at a variable rate, per kWH, that may change on a
monthly basis.  Yet instead of reflecting the price of electricity
on the wholesale market, XOOM's monthly variable rates were not
commensurate with XOOM's supply costs.

After growing increasingly dissatisfied with XOOM's rates, the
Plaintiffs cancelled their service with the company in November
2013.  In April 2018, they filed the complaint in New York State
Supreme Court in Kings County.  A month later, the Defendants
removed the case to the Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
Act.

XOOM's motion to dismiss argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  Specifically, they
argue that the agreement gave them the authority to set variable
rates based on a non-exhaustive set of factors, and not, as the
Plaintiffs have invented, an unknown yet somehow hyper-specific
Market Supply Rate that is nowhere to be found in the four corners
of the parties' contract.

Judge Ross does not agree with XOOM that the Plaintiffs' failure to
use the disputeresolution provisions compels dismissal of their
claims.  Read in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, he
finds that the dispute-resolution clause of the agreement does not
impose a mandatory exhaustion requirement upon XOOM's customers.
Furthermore, it is not even entirely clear that the dispute
resolution provision would apply to the Plaintiffs' complaints,
which allege systemic violations rather than a discrete billing
dispute.

Analyzing each of the Plaintiffs' three causes of action separately
to determine whether the complaint alleges sufficient facts to
support each claim, he finds that the Plaintiffs fail to state a
claim for (i) breach of contract, a breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.

For these reasons, Judge Ross granted XOOM's motion to dismiss in
its entirety.  The clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment
accordingly and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 21, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/0Ch9rc from Leagle.com.

Susanna Mirkin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Boris Mirkin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Steven L. Wittels --
slw@wittelslaw.com -- Law Offices of Steven L. Wittels, Andrey
Belenky -- abelenky@kheyfits.com -- Kheyfits Belenky LLP, Daniel
Hymowitz -- daniel@hymowitzlaw.com -- Hymowitz Law Group, PLLC,
Dmitry Kheyfits -- dkheyfits@kheyfits.com -- Kheyfits Belensky LLP,
James Burkett McInturff, III -- jbm@wittelslaw.com -- Law Offices
of Steven L. Wittels & Tiasha Palikovic --
tpalikovic@wittelslaw.com -- Wittels Law, P.C.

XOOM Energy, LLC & XOOM Energy New York, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Christopher Andrew Rojao, McCarter & English LLP,
Jean Paige Patterson , McCarter & English LLP, Gateway Four & Zane
Christian Riester -- zriester@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English.


YELLOWSTONE CLUB: H-2B Jamaican Workers File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
David Madison, writing for Lone Peak Lookout, reports that for many
on "team Jamaica," last winter was the beginning of a mutually
beneficial relationship. Around 84 Jamaicans relocated to Montana
for the 2017-18 ski season in order to fill a variety of
hospitality positions at the Yellowstone Club.

In an email from the YC this past June, the private club begins
with an enthusiastic "Hello team Jamaica!" before promising, "We
will be in touch regarding next winter season soon."

The club reports "a significant number" of Jamaican workers will
return for the 2018-19 ski season.

A handful who won't return are part of a recently filed lawsuit
over tips allegedly owed to servers and bartenders.

"We are constantly running short of Bartenders . . . this is a
critical position we need to fill," states an employment document
included in the lawsuit submitted to federal U.S. District Court in
Montana on Sept. 20.

The suit goes on to allege the YC recruited Jamaican workers using
the H-2B program, but then denied these staffers the full
compensation owed to them. The Yellowstone Club refutes the
allegations raised in the lawsuit and it's unclear how many
Jamaican staffers support the suit.

"During their employment at the Yellowstone Club," asserts the
class action complaint, "Plaintiffs and those similarly situated
suffered from illegal pay practices."

The suit only names five ex-employees -- Nicholas Douglas, Tasheka
Bryan, Junior Harris, Marcus Richards and Stephanie Smith -- before
alleging they were intentionally denied "$400-$600 a night at the
nicest restaurants" where tips are automatically factored in as a
service charge.

At the end of last winter, the Jamaican YC staffers approached the
Southern Poverty Law Center in Alabama, which referred the case to
another legal nonprofit -- Towards Justice -- in Denver. The YC's
Jamaican staff told their attorneys they complained all winter
about the missing wages. These bartenders and servers reportedly
watched as their non-Jamaican coworkers collected tips while they
received only hourly wages in their paychecks.

On Oct. 1, the Yellowstone Club responded to the suit in a
statement, saying, "The H-2B visa workers were not employed by
Yellowstone Club, and instead, were employed by a widely used
hospitality staffing company with expertise in the H-2B visa
programs for resorts, hotels, and private clubs throughout the
United States."

Hospitality Staffing Solutions based in Atlanta, Ga., according to
court documents, "was hired by Yellowstone (Club) to assist in
acquiring, supervising and administering Jamaican workers."

Through spokesperson Chris Tofalli, HSS declined to comment "due to
pending litigation."

In its email to the Jamaican workers, the YC tried to clear up any
confusion, stating some of the missing wages were covered in bonus
payments the workers received. The YC then told the Jamaicans,
"Unfortunately, HSS also took money out on some of you which we did
not expect them to do… in cases where there was damage to your
cabins, HSS took money out. We can't do anything about that."

HSS housed their employees at the 320 Guest Ranch.

After asking about the missing wages last winter, the court
documents allege, "Those who complained were threatened with being
sent back to Jamaica if the complaints continued."

Meanwhile, the cycle repeated following each paycheck, according to
the complaint, as the, "Defendants blamed the other, with
Yellowstone claiming HSS was responsible for payroll and HSS
claiming the decisions governing payroll were made by Yellowstone."
Those Jamaican staff returning this winter will be employed
directly by the YC.

At some point in the middle of the 2017-18 ski season, alleges the
complaint, "There was a meeting between HSS CEO Tim McPherson and
the Jamaican servers, cooks, and bartenders… In that meeting, Mr.
McPherson stated that black Jamaican H-2B would not receive tips
because '[they] were not from here.'"  

The suit continues: "For example, black Jamaican H-2B workers were
denied transportation on Yellowstone Club employee shuttles. One
shuttle driver (identified only by a first name), an agent of
Yellowstone, refused to allow black Jamaican H-2B workers to ride
his hourly shuttle to and from the nearby town of Big Sky. (Shuttle
driver) claimed that the Yellowstone Club policy was to refuse to
take black Jamaican H-2B workers back to town on the shuttle
because they were Jamaican."

When challenged about how attorneys at Towards Justice vetted these
incendiary charges, a spokesperson said the same claims were made
by multiple witnesses.

There's no specific evidence presented in the current court file
showing the Jamaicans' alleged trouble with the shuttle driver was
anything more than an unfortunate encounter with a difficult
shuttle driver.

The file does offer another anecdote about the shuttle driver: "On
another occasion, Plaintiff Douglas was told by (shuttle driver)
that black Jamaicans should 'speak English' when they rode the bus,
or he would 'run this f*&^%g bus over the cliff.' He was angry
because he could not understand the black Jamaicans' accented
English."

The Jamaicans' suit alleges it all adds up to "a fraudulent scheme
to induce Jamaican workers to work at the Yellowstone Club by
making false representations" to not only the workers but the
Jamaican Ministry of Labor and U.S. Dept. of Labor.

On the job, one plaintiff was allegedly "required to clean fryers
while non-black, non-Jamaican, non-H-2B cooks were not required to
do this dangerous and unpleasant job."

There were other alleged unpleasantries, including the charge that
Jamaicans were relegated to the "low-end Yellowstone Club
restaurant" and not allowed to work high-paying special events.
However, other than observations made by the plaintiffs, nothing in
the complaint shows management decisions were based on a bias
instead of the skills and seniority of available staff.

David Seligman, attorney and director at Towards Justice, described
his Jamaican clients as a courageous group of workers who came
forward via the Southern Poverty Law Center to vindicate their
rights.

"This case illustrates how low-wage immigrant workers are
constantly exploited, even under the noses of the very rich and the
very powerful," said Seligman.

"The black Jamaican workers we represent allege they were paid
worse than the non-black, non-Jamaican workers they worked shoulder
to shoulder with every day," added Mary Jo Lowrey, managing
attorney at Lowrey Parady, a law firm in Denver working with
Towards Justice on the case. "We believe this alleged uniform poor
treatment of black Jamaicans warrants certification and trial as a
class action so that every black Jamaican H-2B worker at the
Yellowstone Club can be paid the same as their co-workers."

So far, the class action only names five of the more than 80
Jamaican staff who worked at the YC last winter.

In its initial statement responding to the suit, the Yellowstone
Club doesn't address each charge specifically. That could come
later in a formal legal refutation and filing of evidence
countering the Jamaicans' claims.

For now, the YC sums up the situation like this: "We find these
allegations deeply disturbing. Yellowstone Club values all of our
employees as well as those individuals providing services to
Yellowstone Club as an employee of a third party contractor, and we
continue to strive to be the work place of choice in Southwest
Montana. We take any claims related to employment and work place
issues very seriously and are currently investigating the
allegations in the complaint."[GN]


YOSSI'S FISH: Faces Milian Suit in Eastern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Yossi's Fish Market, Corp. d/b/a Yossi's Fish Market. The case is
captioned as ISMAEL HERNANDEZ MILIAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YOSSI'S FISH MARKET,
CORP. D/B/A YOSSI'S FISH MARKET, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05485
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2018).

Yossi's Fish Market, Corp. d/b/a Yossi's Fish Market is a pet store
in Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented pro se.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $43.1MM Asbestos Death Verdict
-----------------------------------------------
Benzinga reported that a lawsuit brought against both asbestos and
tobacco defendants resulted in a substantial verdict for the
Plaintiff, Joanna Summerlin. After four days of deliberation, the
eleven-member jury delivered a verdict in favor of the Summerlin
family that totaled $43.1 million. The judgement, against cigarette
maker R.J. Reynolds, encompassed $5.3 million for pain and
suffering, $3.5 million for loss of consortium, $4.3 million for
wrongful death, and $30 million in punitive damages. The jury found
that the products of co-defendants Philip Morris and Hampden
Automotive Sales Corporation were defective, but were not a cause
of Mr. Summerlin's lung cancer.

When Louis Summerlin was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2015, he and
wife Joanna Summerlin filed suit against cigarette makers Philip
Morris and R.J. Reynolds, and several asbestos-containing brake
companies, including Hampden Automotive Sales Corporation. Louis
had been a heavy smoker, having started smoking menthol cigarettes
as a teenager in the 1950s. He had also worked for many years as an
automobile brake mechanic, at one point doing 3-4 brake jobs a day,
six days a week. He passed away 7 months after his diagnosis.
Before he died, he gave videotaped trial testimony that was shown
to the jury during trial.

Summerlin's lawyers, Michael Shepard of Shepard Law, P.C. and Jerry
Block of Levy Konigsberg, LLP, presented evidence to the jury over
the course of five weeks showing Mr. Summerlin's addiction to
menthol cigarettes and his exposure to asbestos dust from grinding
brake linings. Neither the cigarettes nor the asbestos brake
linings came with a warning about their health hazards.

The jury heard evidence about what tobacco companies knew regarding
cigarette smoking by the 1950s and were shown internal company
documents revealing that the amount of nicotine was precisely
calculated and manipulated to initiate and sustain addiction in
smokers. Documents also revealed that tobacco companies knew that
adding menthol to cigarettes made it more likely for teenagers to
start smoking, easier to create addiction in smokers, and harder
for smokers to quit.

The jury also heard evidence that Hampden Automotive had ignored
the dangerous nature of asbestos dust and had neglected to test
their brake linings to see if they released toxic asbestos fibers.
Michael Shepard presented evidence showing that the hazards of
asbestos were well established in the medical and scientific
literature by the late 1950s, and that Mr. Summerlin's work
grinding Hampden Automotive's brake linings exposed him to billions
of asbestos fibers each year.

The jury was swayed by the evidence of the manipulation of nicotine
and menthol and by evidence that the tobacco companies had created
confusion and controversy for decades by publicly debating the
health effects of smoking. Internal company documents showed that
tobacco companies understood the true nature of those health
effects and the jury found RJ Reynolds fraudulent in what they told
their customers about the nature of their cigarettes.

"This was the result of a tremendous team effort between the
lawyers and support staff at Shepard Law and Levy Konigsberg," said
Shepard. "The amount of work needed to try both a tobacco and an
asbestos case at the same time was staggering." Shepard also
commended the jury on staying focused during the five-week trial.
"We appreciate the attention that the jury gave to the evidence.
They saw through the defendants' attempts to blame our client for
his cancer and clearly recognized the role of nicotine addiction
and menthol additives in keeping him hooked on cigarettes."

The case was tried in Suffolk Superior Court in Boston, in front of
Judge Heidi Brieger. Jury selection began on September 5, 2018, and
trial started on September 7.

The Summerlin family was represented at trial by Michael Shepard,
Michael McCann and Erika O'Donnell from Massachusetts-based Shepard
Law, P.C. and Jerry Block, Bobby Ellis and Amber Long from New York
City-based Levy Konigsberg LLP.

Philip Morris was represented by Bill Geraghty and a team of
attorneys from Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Mayer Brown LLP, and local
counsel from Latham & Watkin's Boston office.

RJ Reynolds was represented by Mark Belasic and Kaitlyn Kline from
Jones Day's Cleveland office along with local counsel Conn
Kavanaugh Rosenthal Peisch & Ford LLP.

Hampden Automotive Sales Corporation was represented by David
Governo and Vincent DePalo from Smith Duggan Buell & Rufo in
Boston.

Shepard Law is a Boston-based law firm and one of the top personal
injury law firms in Massachusetts focusing on major asbestos claims
involving mesothelioma or lung cancer, tobacco, dangerous drugs,
and defective product liability. The firm has been litigating
mesothelioma lawsuits in both state and federal courts for over 20
years and has represented victims of asbestos exposure throughout
New England and across the United States.

Michael Shepard is the founder of Shepard Law and was appointed
this year as Plaintiff's Liaison Counsel in the Massachusetts
Asbestos Litigation Docket.

Michael McCann is an Associate at Shepard Law and specializes in
representing victims of asbestos exposure throughout
Massachusetts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $850K Deal From G-I Holdings Meets Resistance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tena Starr of Barthon Chronicle reported that a plan to spend
$850,000 in set­tle­ment money from G-I Hold­ings, a for­mer
owner of the big, long de­funct as­bestos mine in Low­ell and
Eden has met with re­sis­tance.

The money, paid in full early this year, is sup­posed to off­set
en­vi­ron­men­tal dam­age by im­proving nat­ural re­sources
sim­i­lar to those that as­bestos tail­ings from the mine might
have con­t­a­mi­nated.

The money went to the Ver­mont Agency of Nat­ural Re­sources
(ANR) and the De­part­ment of the Inte­rior.
Rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the Ver­mont De­part­ment of
En­vi­ron­men­tal Con­ser­va­tion and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Ser­vice were des­ig­nated trustees of the
set­tle­ment and had to come up with a plan for how to spend the
money.  That plan largely con­sists of re­plac­ing cul­verts,
with roughly half the set­tle­ment go­ing to each town.

Lau­ren Ben­nett of the Fish and Wildlife Ser­vice said in an
e-mail that the pro­jects pri­mar­ily fo­cus on re­plac­ing
cul­verts "in or­der to im­prove in-stream habi­tat for aquatic
or­gan­isms, improve fish pas­sage, and im­prove flood
re­siliency for lo­cal com­mu­ni­ties."

The set­tle­ment can't be used for cleanup at the mine site
it­self.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Case Remanded to District Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Charmaine Little of Legal News Line reported that on Sept. 27, the
Supreme Court of Ohio reversed an appeals court judgment that
denied Union Carbide's motion for dismissal of an asbestos
lawsuit.

The company is challenging whether a man's alleged smoking habit
contributed to his lung cancer diagnosis. Justice Patrick Fischer
authored the opinion.

The major question of the case is whether the plaintiff, Bobby
Turner, is a smoker. The Supreme Court pointed out plaintiffs that
are labeled smokers and suffer from lung cancer after being exposed
to asbestos have the burden of proving that it was the asbestos
that contributed to the lung cancer.

The proof can be fulfilled with a diagnosis from a medical expert.
Those who don't smoke don't have to fulfill the requirement.

While Turner didn't attempt to meet this burden of proof in his
case, Union Carbide said medical records prove Turner has smoked.
The company wanted him to be required to submit a written medical
report to prove he's a nonsmoker.

The Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County denied this argument and
the Supreme Court reversed. The Supreme Court remanded the case to
the trial court for that court to decide if Union Carbide properly
applied law that would call for a written report from a medical
expert that specified Turner smoked what would equal to a pack a
year for the last 15 years.

The Supreme Court went on to point out the text in the statutory
scheme says a defendant can oblige a plaintiff to satisfy certain
requirements like the ones stated previously (proof that he smoked
a pack a year for the last 15 years).

Turner filed the lawsuit after he was diagnosed with lung cancer in
2013. He alleged the cancer diagnosis was because he was exposed to
asbestos when he worked as a drywall finisher from 1962 to 1978.
Union Carbide is the manufacturer of a product that allegedly
included asbestos that Turner used during those years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Report Not Covered by Legal Privilege
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennie Curtin Blue Mountains Gazette reported that council's
attempts to keep secret its asbestos reports have been dealt a blow
after a freedom of information victory by a Mt Victoria resident.

Mark Lipscombe, who applied to see the reports and was knocked back
by council, appealed to the Information and Privacy Commission
(IPC), which has ordered council to reconsider its decision.

"This is a major victory for the community of the Blue Mountains
who want to know what our council actually did and didn't do with
regard to asbestos," said Mr Lipscombe. "The council declared in
December 2017 that the reports would be made public and that this
was a reason they should not be sacked by the minister. Then they
changed their minds and have cloaked these reports in secrecy."

Council had argued before the IPC that the reports, which were
prepared by Michael Tooma of Clyde and Co, constituted
"confidential communications between council and its legal
representative" and so were protected under legal professional
privilege.

But the IPC review officer, Catherine Nguyen, said she was "not
satisfied that Mr Tooma was engaged as a lawyer to provide legal
advice and/or services. Rather, he was engaged to conduct an
independent investigation. This does not constitute a client/lawyer
relationship."

She also noted that at an extraordinary meeting on December 15,
2017, council agreed to make the reports public.

Council subsequently backed down from that undertaking. After much
to-ing and fro-ing, councillors eventually resolved to release
summaries of the reports, 31 days after the May 29 council
meeting.

Just days before that June deadline, the local government minister,
Gabrielle Upton, announced the public inquiry into council.

Council reacted again, saying: "The release of the summary could be
seen to conflict with the conduct of the Inquiry."

Its final position was that a summary of the reports would be
prepared but that council would seek the views of the inquiry
commissioner, Richard Beasley, SC, before deciding to release the
information publicly.

Council has been given until October 25 to respond.

Cr Kerry Brown has called for an extraordinary meeting to consider
the IPC findings. It will be held tonight.

She said: "As the IPC has made clear, council cannot have its cake
and eat it too. Either this was an investigation into matters of
public interest and the ... community has the right to know or it
was for legal advice on council liabilities and must therefore be
kept secret.

"I voted on the investigation for the first purpose and I am
delighted that the IPC have upheld this as the primary intent."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Settlement Money Plan Pushed Back
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Gribkoff of vtdigger.org reported that state and federal
government representatives have unveiled a plan to direct asbestos
mine settlement money toward replacing culverts in Eden and Lowell,
but locals want to see the spending better align with the towns'
roadwork priorities.

"This is not fish versus Homo sapiens," wrote members of the Eden
Selectboard in a letter commenting on the plan. "It is absolutely
critical to balance economic and practical needs with the need to
maintain conservation efforts."

The closed asbestos mine on the flanks of Belvidere Mountain in
Eden and Lowell remains a gray scar on an otherwise forested
landscape. The state Agency of Natural Resources and the Department
of the Interior jointly received $850,000 from the mine's prior
owner, G-I holdings, as the result of a settlement reached in
2009.

Representatives from the Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, designated as
trustees under the settlement, had to come up with a plan for how
to spend the money.

Per the terms of the settlement, the money — paid in full this
year — must offset damage caused by the mine by improving natural
resources similar to those that were contaminated, said Molly
Sperduto, a biologist with U.S. FWS. As tailings from the mine had
contaminated nearby streams, destroying habitat for fish and other
wildlife, the trustees were looking for projects that would improve
other nearby aquatic habitat, she said. Following a series of
public meetings, the agencies unveiled a draft plan at the end of
June to replace culverts in Eden and Lowell.

John Schmeltzer, a hazardous waste project manager with the DEC,
said that, in addition to addressing priorities for Eden and
Lowell, "replacement of culverts can have a (positive) impact on
habitat, especially for fish passage."

"So what we were thinking is that culvert projects are pretty
clear, defined projects that I think are beneficial to the town and
also provide an ecological benefit."

A common concern expressed in the 13 public comments to the plan
was that the lion's share of Eden's portion of the settlement money
would replace two culverts on Square Road — a class four,
infrequently used road. Schmeltzer said the trustees had initially
selected to replace culverts on Square Road based on assessments
from fisheries biologists that this would reconnect "a long
stretch" of blocked fish habitat.

Leslie White, an Eden resident, was among the residents who
requested that the trustees spend the money in a way more in line
with town needs. "This is one-time money, which they have made it
very clear . . . so to spend it on a road that's only a seasonal
road" doesn't make sense, she said.

Rep. Mark Higley, R-Lowell, and Sen. Bobby Starr, D-Essex-Orleans,
sent a joint comment to the trustees requesting they spend the
money on projects more line with the towns' priorities. The Eden
Selectboard is content with the trustees' plan to put $60,000
toward replacing a double culvert on Knowles Flat Road, but want to
see the rest of the money go toward replacing other culverts on
that road, according to their letter.

Higley described Knowles Flat Road as "a major thoroughfare" that
"has been out of commission for a couple years" due to the failing
culverts. This has created a safety problem for the town as
emergency vehicles cannot get through, he said.

Meanwhile, the Lowell Selectboard wrote that they would like the
trustees to use the money for erosion control projects instead of
replacing culverts on Irish Hill Road, noting that the town needed
to reduce erosion to comply with roads permits. Schmeltzer said
they would look into the possibility of spending more of the money
on projects requested by the Selectboard that could mitigate runoff
into streams.

Members of the Eden Selectboard wrote in their letter that spending
the settlement in a way that meets existing town needs is
especially important given the more than 15,000 acres of conserved
land in town that pay reduced taxes. "As long-time residents of
Eden, the community is not oblivious to the importance of the
natural world. That is why many of us live here."

But, the board notes, "for a small town of 1400 residents, the vast
amount of land that others can come and enjoy is made possible in
part by the Eden taxpayer. This is yet another reason to fully
maximize what the settlement funds can accomplish."

When asked whether the lower tax base was a problem for the towns
of Eden and Lowell, Higley said that "it is going to be a concern,
of course, when property taxes continue to rise for everybody."

"When these sorts of things get taken off the tax rolls, everybody
else has to pick up the tab," he added.

The $850,000 is not the only money going toward asbestos
remediation efforts. In 2013, the Vermont Attorney's General
Office, along with the EPA, reached a settlement with current mine
owner Vermont Asbestos Group.

VAG, which is owned Morrisville businessman Howard Manosh, was
found to be financially unable to cover the full remediation costs.
The settlement obligates VAG to pay $5,000 a year until 2023 and to
try to obtain as much as possible in insurance claims. The state
manages a a fund,with money from insurance claims and the mine's
original owner that currently has $1.26 million, said Schmeltzer.
He noted that this falls far short of even the low-end of estimates
for cleaning up the mine.

VAG also has to continue maintaining the temporary mitigation
structures put in place by the EPA since 2007 — environmental
features such as water bars, diversion trenches and berms to
minimize runoff — for a decade after the settlement.

The DEC had hoped to designate the site as a Superfund site, said
Schmeltzer, to provide federal cleanup money. He noted that natural
resources damages, which is the class of settlement that the
$850,000 belongs to, "are typically done after a Superfund site has
been remediated," meaning they are structured to go "above and
beyond" a cleanup that, in this case, never happened.

Residents of Lowell and Eden both voted against designating the
Superfund designation, and Gov. Shumlin honored their request.
White said she had been against the designation because of the
stigma associated with it — and skepticism that the state would
have been able to cough up its share of the costs. "I felt it was
wrong to label us as a Superfund site and then never be able to
complete it."

In a comment letter from his lawyer, Manosh requested that the
trustees set aside the $850,000 for any unforeseen future cleanup.
Under CERCLA, the federal law that governs how the trustees can
spend the settlement money, the money cannot go toward cleaning up
the mine, said Sperduto.

"I know it's kind of counterintuitive," said Schmeltzer. "I would
love to be able to use that money to put it into a rainy day fund,
if you will."

He added that the state did not want to spend the money for
projects in the "immediate watershed" of the mine. "Given the fact
that we don't have a long-term remedy, I don't want to go in and do
some type of restoration that is, in the future, going to get
re-contaminated."

Manosh's attorney, Adrian Otterman, says he agrees that "the cash
that they are holding cannot be used for direct on-site
remediation," but believes, based on researching similar
settlements, that it could be "held for future contingencies."

"There are dilapidated buildings and there's this mountain of
asbestos tailings that, as hard as they may try, there are half a
dozen scenarios that could cause future runoff and future
contamination," he said. "It would be nice if there were a small
fund available to clean this up."

White and others had fought against a Vermont Department of Health
report released in 2008, which originally concluded that living
near the mine posed a health risk. "I'm not going to die because
I'm sitting up at my picnic table looking up . . . at the waste
pile," said White. "You don't want to be making it into powder and
inhaling it, but that's not what's happening up there."

The revised report now says that people who died from asbestosis in
the surrounding towns had all worked in the mine. Schmeltzer said
that nearby air quality monitoring found that fibers were not
migrating off-site.

The state and federal trustees are still in the process of
reviewing the public comments and will draft a formal response,
said Schmeltzer. "I understand where everybody is coming from on
this, and we're going to try to look at what people are looking
for, and going back and seeing where we could potentially
accommodate some of the requests."

"But again, our filter is, we have to go by what that criteria is
for using that money which is . . . something that we believe has
an ecological benefit for that area," he added.

The trustees will meet again with members of the town selectboards
to provide an update in November and solicit more feedback. The
final plan for the money is slated to come out in January.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Trust Representative Beats Objection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wolf of Law360 reported that New Jersey bankruptcy judge
firmly overruled objections to the appointment of a future
claimants representative in the Chapter 11 case for Duro Dyne
National Corp.

On September 26, for the first time, the Justice Department's U.S.
Trustee Program (USTP) filed an objection to a debtor company's
proposed candidate for appointment as the Future Claimants'
Representative (FCR) in a case involving an asbestos bankruptcy
trust.  An FCR is appointed to represent the possible future
interests of individuals who are not yet, but may become, sick from
exposure to asbestos from a company's operations.  The interests of
future claimants can be adverse to the interests of current
claimants who are paid first and may deplete trust funds available
to pay to future claimants.

In the objection filed in the Duro Dyne case, the USTP asserts that
the candidate's apparent conflicts of interest and close
connections with lawyers representing current claimants may
compromise his independence in serving as the FCR.  The proposed
FCR was selected by the plaintiffs' and debtors' lawyers under a
pre-negotiated trust plan that lacks protections against fraudulent
claims (allowing depletion of the trust funds), but that provides
the FCR with a long-term position that will continue long after
confirmation of a bankruptcy plan.  The USTP seeks further
discovery to determine if the apparent conflicts and connections
are disqualifying.


According to Acting Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio,
“In recent years, evidence has emerged that asbestos trusts lack
the transparency and rigorous auditing necessary to prevent fraud,
waste, and abuse.  To best protect all victims, those appointed in
asbestos cases should be held to the same conflicts prohibitions
and standards of independence that are required of other
fiduciaries appointed under the Bankruptcy Code.”

The U.S. Trustee Program is the component of the Justice Department
that protects the integrity of the bankruptcy system by overseeing
case administration and litigating to enforce the bankruptcy laws.
The Program has 21 regions and 92 field office locations.  Learn
more on the Program at: https://www.justice.gov/ust.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Businessman Prosecuted for Asbestos in Building
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Business Desk reported that a Manchester-based businessman has
been prosecuted after failing to check whether asbestos was present
in a building he owned before starting major refurbishment works.

Manchester Magistrates' Court heard how Mr Whaid Ahmed did not
survey his property at 1-3 Stephenson Square, Manchester, for
asbestos before carrying out renovations to the building between 1
April 2012 and 12 October 2017.

Following a routine inspection from a Health and Safety Executive
(HSE) inspector, a survey was subsequently carried out.

Large amounts of asbestos, some of which was in very poor
condition, was discovered on the premises, indicating that asbestos
could have previously been removed without any controls in place
from areas of the building already renovated.

The HSE investigation found Mr Ahmed failed to identify the risks
involved, and put appropriate measures in place to prevent exposure
to asbestos.

Mr Ahmed has had previous enforcement action from HSE over a
similar issue, so was well aware of his duties under the law.

Mr Whaid Ahmed of Hale Barns, Altrincham, pleaded guilty to
breaching Regulations 5(a), 11(1)(a) and 16 of the Control of
Asbestos Regulations 2012.

Mr Ahmed was given a six months prison sentence, suspended for two
years, sentenced to 250 community service hours and ordered to pay
costs of GBP5,742.14.

HSE inspector Matt Greenly said after the case: "This case
highlights the importance of surveying a property for asbestos to
prevent risk to anyone occupying or working in that building and to
reduce the risk of exposure to asbestos and contracting incurable
diseases as a result of that exposure."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks Appeal of All NYCAL Cases Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of New York dismissed the appealed case In The
Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation. (All NYCAL Cases.)
Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., et al., Appellants, (N.Y. App. Div.) on the
ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine an
action or proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.

A copy of the Decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8hp7kdy
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of O'Brien Claims vs. County Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2012, the plaintiff filed a Workers' Compensation claim
alleging that he had been exposed to asbestos while working at the
Nassau Coliseum. On April 30, 2012, the plaintiff filed a notice of
claim against the County of Nassau and the Nassau County Department
of Public Works, alleging that he sustained severe and permanent
injuries to both lungs and other internal organs, and that he
suffered from extreme and severe distress due to his fear of
developing cancer, arising from exposure to asbestos while working
at the Nassau Coliseum. The notice of claim also asserted that the
plaintiff discovered, on March 24, 2012, that asbestos
contamination at Nassau Coliseum had been confirmed through
laboratory reports, and that he had reason to believe that he had
come into direct contact with and had ingested asbestos while
working at the Nassau Coliseum. On September 18, 2012, the
plaintiff learned that a breathing test and CT scan that he had
undergone revealed that he had mild restriction of breathing,
nodules on his lungs, and a cyst on his liver.

The plaintiff commenced the instant action on November 12, 2015,
against the County Defendants and the New York Islanders Hockey
Club, L.P., and another entity, alleging asbestos-related injuries.
The County Defendants and the Islanders separately moved, inter
alia, to dismiss the first, third, fifth, and sixth causes of
action, which alleged unsafe workplace, premises liability,
negligent infliction of emotional distress, and general negligence,
respectively, insofar as asserted against each of them. The County
Defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the
complaint insofar as asserted against them as time-barred. The
Islanders moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss all causes
of action except the second cause of action, which alleged
fraudulent concealment, insofar as asserted against it as
time-barred.

The Supreme Court granted both motions. The plaintiff appeals from
so much of the order as granted those branches of the County
Defendants' motion which were to dismiss the first, second, third,
fifth, and sixth causes of action as time-barred, and those
branches of the Islanders' motion which were to dismiss the first,
third, fifth, and sixth causes of action as time-barred.

The Second Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court of New York affirmed the order of the Supreme Court granting
those branches of the motion. The Court explains that generally, an
action to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the
latent effects of exposure to any substance or combination of
substances must be commenced within three years of the date of
discovery of the injury by the plaintiff or from the date when,
through the exercise of reasonable diligence, such injury should
have been discovered by the plaintiff, whichever is earlier. For
purposes of CPLR 214-c, discovery occurs when, based upon an
objective level of awareness of the dangers and consequences of the
particular substance, the injured party discovers the primary
condition on which the claim is based.

The Court finds defendants demonstrated that, by September 18,
2012, the plaintiff had been made aware, through laboratory
reports, that asbestos was present at the Nassau Coliseum and that
he had come into direct contact with asbestos during his
employment; that the plaintiff had filed a Workers' Compensation
claim alleging injuries sustained from exposure to asbestos; that
the plaintiff had filed a notice of claim alleging severe and
permanent injuries, including injuries to both lungs and other
organs, and emotional distress, as a result of exposure to
asbestos; that a breathing test had shown that the plaintiff was
suffering from mild restriction of breathing; and that a CT scan
had revealed nodules on the plaintiff's lungs and a cyst on his
liver. Thus, the defendants established that, more than three years
prior to the commencement of the instant action on November 12,
2015, the plaintiff had an objective level of awareness of the
dangers and consequences of asbestos exposure sufficient to place
him on notice of the primary condition on which his claims were
based.

The Court has also addressed that branch of the County defendants'
motion which was to dismiss the second cause of action, which
alleged fraudulent concealment. Insofar as asserted against the
County defendants, the Court sustains that the statute of
limitations begins to run on a fraud claim when a plaintiff attains
knowledge of facts from which the fraud could have been discovered
with reasonable diligence. Here, the fraud alleged was the
concealment of the presence of asbestos at the Nassau Coliseum, of
which the plaintiff admitted he became aware on March 24, 2012.
Since the plaintiff commenced this action more than 1 year and 90
days after his discovery of the alleged fraud, the County
defendants demonstrated that the second cause of action was
time-barred.

In opposition to the defendants' separate motions, the Court finds
that plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact as to the
applicability of an exception to the statute of limitations, or as
to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or whether the
causes of action were interposed within the applicable limitations
period. Accordingly, the record supports the Supreme Court's
determination to grant those branches of the defendants' separate
motions which were to dismiss the first, third, fifth, and sixth
causes of action insofar as asserted against each of them, and its
determination to grant that branch of the County defendants' motion
which was to dismiss the second cause of action insofar as asserted
against them.

The appealed case is Frank O'brien, Appellant, v. County of Nassau,
et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant, 2016-02295, Index No.
604993/14, (N.Y. App. Div.)

A copy of the Decision and Order dated August 15, 2018, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycj96cu3 from Leagle.com.

Dell & Dean, PLLC (Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, NY [ Scott T.
Horn and Naomi M. Taub ], of counsel), for appellant.

Spolzino, Smith, Buss & Jacobs, LLP, Yonkers, NY ( Robert A.
Spolzino -- rspolzino@ssbjlaw.com -- of counsel), for respondents
County of Nassau and Nassau County Department of Public Works.

Farrell Fritz, P.C., Uniondale, NY ( John P. McEntee --
jmcentee@farrellfritz.com -- Kathryn C. Cole --
kcole@farrellfritz.com -- and Sarah M. Baird of counsel), for
respondent New York Islanders Hockey Club, L.P.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Employer Had Duty to Protect Workers' Family
-------------------------------------------------------------
WorkCompCentral reported that the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that
an employer has a duty to protect its employees' family members
from potential exposure to asbestos fibers that the employee may
carry home on his work clothes. Courts in different states have
split on the issue of "take-home" liability. Virginia joins courts
in California, Washington, Louisiana and Delaware in recognizing a
duty on the part of employers, but courts in Pennsylvania,
Illinois, Maryland, Michigan and New York have rejected it.

Holding: "In response to a certified question of Virginia law from
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia requesting that this Court exercise jurisdiction pursuant
to Article VI, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia and Rule
5:40, the question as restated being: Does an employer owe a duty
of care to a family member who alleges exposure to asbestos from
the work clothes of an employee, where the family member alleges
the employer's negligence allowed asbestos fibers to be regularly
transported away from the place of employment to the employee's
home? The restated question is answered in the affirmative.

Facts: "In December 2013, Wanda Quisenberry was diagnosed with
malignant pleural mesothelioma, caused by exposure to asbestos dust
and fibers. She died from the disease three years later. Her son,
Wesley Quisenberry, administrator of her estate, brought this
action in the Circuit Court of the City of Newport News. As is
relevant to this certified question, the complaint alleges that in
the years Wanda was exposed to asbestos, particularly between 1950
and 1969, the Shipyard knew or had reason to know of the dangers
that asbestos posed to workers' family members and members of the
public, including Wanda. The complaint alleges 3 the Shipyard was
negligent in choosing not to exercise reasonable care to, among
other things, sufficiently warn workers not to wear work clothes
home; educate workers about safeguards such as coveralls; provide a
locker room, showers, or laundry service; and adhere to various
statutes, regulations, and guidelines. The complaint further
alleges that this negligence proximately resulted in Wanda's death.
A separate count alleges gross negligence and wanton and willful
conduct on the part of the Shipyard.

"As pled, workers accumulated asbestos dust on their clothes. As
pled, in the absence of on-site laundry, lockers, or warning to the
contrary, these individuals would regularly wear those clothes into
their home environment and have them laundered there. As pled, the
fibers traveled on the clothes of persons who worked with asbestos,
and the fibers posed a danger to individuals who breathed in the
asbestos dust in the home environment. The pleadings support a
"recognizable risk of harm" to a class of persons "within a given
area of danger" of defendant's conduct, including Wanda and the
class of persons similarly situated.

Analysis: "Nobody is permitted by the law to create with impunity a
stumbling block, a trap, a snare or a pitfall for the feet of those
rightfully proceeding on their way."  RGR, 288 Va. at 279- 80, 764
S.E.2d at 19 (quoting Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 119 Va. at
627, 89 S.E. at 866). The innocent cohabitator represents the
quintessential class of persons "rightfully proceeding on their
way" yet placed in a "given area of danger." Id. "Because we find a
duty does indeed lie to such persons in the recognizable and
foreseeable area of risk, we answer the certified question, as
restated, in the affirmative."

Law.com reported that in a 4-3 ruling, the majority said that while
there's little precedent from the courts or guidance from the state
legislature on the issue, it was clear that if the employer knows
or should have known that employees' clothing dusted with asbestos
could be handled by others, there is a clear duty of care.

"This duty is not abstract: a specific course of conduct gives rise
to a specific duty extended to specific persons," wrote Senior
Justice LeRoy Millett Jr. for the majority in Quisenberry v.
Huntington Ingalls.

Justices William Mims, Cleo Powell and Stephen McCullough joined in
the ruling.

Chief Justice Donald Lemons issued a dissent, which was joined by
Justices Elizabeth McClanahan and Denham Kelsey. McClanahan also
issued a separate dissent, which Lemons and Kelsey joined.

The court agreed to hear the case at the request of U.S. District
Judge Arenda Allen of the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting in
Newport News. Allen asked the court to answer whether Virginia law
mandates that employers owe a duty of care to nonemployees who
become ill after coming into contact with employees’
asbestos-covered clothing.

The lawsuit will now return to Allen.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 7 Suits, Claims for $334K
--------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company reported that for the nine months ended
September 1, 2018, seven asbestos-related lawsuits and claims were
settled for US$334,000, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 1, 2018.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits
in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 30 years ago.  The plaintiffs
generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek
damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts.  In many
cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered
any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the
result of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are typically
dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment. If the
plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable injury
occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case is
generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of
the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to
products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other
defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has
been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage
for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs. Historically,
insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and
settlements in asbestos-related litigation. However, certain of our
insurers are insolvent. We have entered into cost-sharing
agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of
defense costs and settlements and judgments in asbestos-related
lawsuits. These agreements require, among other things, that we
fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in
which the responsible insurer is insolvent.

"We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the
aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us
because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured.
Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of
lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the plaintiff.
To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of our probable
liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we establish a
financial provision and a corresponding receivable for insurance
recoveries.

"Based on currently available information, we have concluded that
the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related
litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/IZ8XEL



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hillshire Brands Appeals $13MM Asbestos Verdict
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Kim of Lompoc Record reported that Hillshire Brands, which was
found liable in a mesothelioma negligence case in 2017, has filed
an appeal to overturn the $13 million verdict, claiming the trial
lacked sufficient evidence to hold the company accountable for the
decedent’s longtime exposure to asbestos.

Mark Lopez died July 2015 from mesothelioma at the age of 61, as a
result of asbestos exposure growing in the small company town of
Betteravia, six miles west of Santa Maria, which surrounded the
Union Sugar Plant in the 1950s.

Jeffrey Kaiser and Lawrence Gornick represented Lopez’s surviving
family members, Lanette Lopez, Pilar Nabb and Seth Lopez and filed
a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court against numerous
companies, accusing them of negligence that resulted in Lopez’s
exposure to asbestos.

Orcutt family wins $13M wrongful death suit against Hillshire
Brands Co.

After a three-week trial, in August 2017 the jury found Hillshire
acted negligently while operating the refinery in the 50s, but
never laid any blame on manufacturers and suppliers of asbestos
products.

Despite never working at the Union Sugar plant, Lopez was
reportedly exposed to asbestos in the pipes, gaskets, insulation
and packing inside the plant, while he lived in a residential area
just a few hundred yards from the plant, owned by Hillshire Brands
which closed in 1993. The plant used vast amounts of asbestos
insulation as it turned beets into sugar.

Most of the year, the asbestos was contained in the piping and
boiler room walls of the plant; twice a year the plant closed for
maintenance during which workers removed the asbestos using claw
hammers and other tools, or fed it through a grinder to be reused
as stucco.

According to trial testimony, workers often had to saw off asbestos
from pipes, which were then dumped on site where children including
Lopez, would frequently play. Lopez's father and grandfather worked
at the plant, and often carried asbestos on their clothing,
according to trial testimony. Mark lived in the town from
1954-1972.

The appeal, filed in July 2018 by attorneys David Carpenter, Andrew
Talai of Sidley Austin LLP, argues that the mere presence of
asbestos at the plant was insufficient to hold Hillshire
accountable, as there was limited knowledge about the effect of
asbestos through 1964. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) officials released regulatory standards in
later years.

"Plaintiffs lacked substantial evidence to show exposure itself or
that Hillshire caused [Lopez or other workers, visitors, residents]
to be foreseeably at risk of harm," the appeal argues, adding that
Hillshire's operations were consistent with the custom and practice
of others for insulation work.

However, "even if [using a grinder was] dangerous for workers,
there was no evidence that neighborhood asbestos levels" reached
anywhere near what could be foreseen as harmful.

Asbestos exposure risks for bystanders (people who are at a job
site but don't work directly with asbestos containing products),
weren't released until 1979, the appeal added. There was no data
provided regarding how much contaminant was released in the air
around Betteravia from the plant, the appeal noted.

Lopez could have been exposed from other sources outside of
Hillshire which were never ruled out, the appeal added. For
example, "Mark worked for UPS in 1972, where brake jobs occurred at
the warehouse in which he worked and where he saw visible dust,"
the appeal maintained.

Furthermore, the appeal states, the jury was wrongly instructed on
negligence and causation, when they were told that in order to hold
Hillshire liable for negligence, the plaintiffs just had to prove
"Mark had essentially any exposure to asbestos from the plant at
any level," the appeal said, and that his exposure from the
Hillshire plant or operations contributed to his cancer.

At the very least, the appeal noted, Hillshire should be allowed a
new trial, and apportionment of fault to asbestos-product
manufacturers that were part of the refinery operation now known as
Johns-Manville, Fibreboard/Pabco, Anchor Packing and Garlock, as
they failed to provide adequate warnings to users.

The asbestos-product manufacturers had greater knowledge of dangers
associated with their own products, sold the products and made
profit and could have controlled the asbestos content in those
products, the appeal stated.

"Even [Lopez] placed at least some blame on the manufacturers," the
appeal noted, adding that nothing absolves any of their duties to
warn.

The plaintiffs attorneys Kaiser, Gornick and appellate lawyer
Sharon Arkin have until mid-November to file a response to
Hillshire's appeal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hull Trawlerman Dies of Asbestos Cancer
--------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Robinson of Hull Daily Mail reported that the family of a
Hull trawlerman are appealing for his former workmates to come
forward after he died from asbestos-related cancer.

Brian Commander was a staunch campaigner for the rights of Hull
trawlermen, and was one of a number of members of the British
Fishermen's Association to be praised by then Prime Minister Tony
Blair for their efforts in winning GBP18m compensation from the
government in relation to employment rights they had been denied.

Sadly, Mr Commander died from mesothelioma, a form of cancer caused
by inhaling asbestos fibres, at his Hull home in October 2017, aged
79.

Now his widow, Maureen Commander, is appealing for his former
workmates to help her find answers as to how her husband contracted
the fatal illness.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Japan Responsible for Asbestos Health Damage
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Japan Times reported that a recent series of court rulings have
found the state responsible for the health damage caused to
construction workers who were exposed to asbestos dust. In its
ruling on one of the damages suits filed by former construction
workers and their relatives, the Osaka High Court determined that
the government was able -- by 1975 at the latest -- to recognize
the concrete risk of construction workers contracting illnesses
linked to asbestos and accused the state of failing to exercise its
regulatory power to protect their health, such as requiring them to
wear masks to prevent them from inhaling asbestos fibers.

It appears the judiciary decision on the issue has been established
-- given that the government has been held liable for the health
damage in 10 rulings by district and high courts. Still, the
government continues to dispute its responsibility. It rejected a
high court recommendation for a settlement in one of the rulings
earlier this year, and appealed the Osaka High Court ruling to the
Supreme Court. The government needs to realize that time is running
short for the plaintiffs, many of whom are aging and ailing, and
explore ways for settling the cases out of court, such as by
creating a joint fund with construction materials makers and other
parties to provide relief for the victims.

Asbestos was widely used as low-cost and fire-proof construction
and heat-insulation material, particularly during Japan's postwar
rapid economic growth period. However, inhaling its tiny fibers --
each roughly one-5,000th the breadth of a hair -- while cutting the
materials at construction sites and spraying it on walls and
ceilings exposed the workers to the risk of contracting such
illnesses as lung cancer and mesothelioma. It takes decades for the
symptoms to emerge after inhaling asbestos dust -- the reason why
many of the plaintiffs in the damages suits filed in recent years
across the country are aging. About 70 percent of the more than 700
former construction workers who sued the government and
construction materials makers have already died. The plaintiffs are
calling for relief while the workers are alive.

The responsibility of the materials makers for the workers'
illnesses, which was initially dismissed by the courts, has also
come to be recognized in recent rulings since the 2016 decision by
the Kyoto District Court. Since many of the construction workers
move from one site to the other -- making it difficult to identify
which maker's products harmed their health -- the courts determine
the responsibility of each materials maker on the basis of its
market share and the period when it was making the products.

The government has already provided relief to victims of
asbestos-linked health damage other than construction workers.
Following the Supreme Court order in 2014 for the state to pay
damages to people who worked at asbestos plants in Osaka from the
1950s to 1970s and their relatives for the illnesses they sustained
after inhaling asbestos dust at the plants, the government created
a program to settle the cases and provide them with relief.
However, it has maintained that asbestos-related health damage to
people who worked at outdoor construction sites is a "different
issue" and disputed their calls for state compensation.

In the series of rulings on the suits filed by former construction
workers since 2012, the Yokohama District Court turned down their
demands for damages from both the state and the materials makers.
However, subsequent decisions by district courts in Tokyo, Fukuoka,
Osaka and Sapporo found the state liable for damages to the former
workers and their bereaved relatives. The Kyoto District Court in
2016 for the first time found the materials makers responsible for
the health problems -- a decision also followed by the Yokohama
District Court as well as Tokyo and Osaka high courts. The Osaka
High Court ruling last month determined that the construction
materials makers, along with the government, were able to foresee
the risks of health impairment caused by their products.

When the Osaka High Court recommended a court-mediated settlement
of the suit, the government rejected the idea and the makers named
in the case did not respond in time for the talks to go on. But
given that the state's responsibility has been determined in so
many court rulings, it seems unlikely that the Supreme Court would
rule otherwise. It is time for the government to work with other
parties in the lawsuits to explore out-of-court ways of providing
relief to the plaintiffs.

Even today, there are said to be about 2.8 million buildings using
construction materials containing asbestos across the country --
and their demolition will reach a peak in the future. Measures must
be taken to protect the health of workers involved in the
demolishment of such buildings to ensure they’re not exposed to
asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Livernois Voluntarily Dismissed Claims vs. NASSCO
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California has entered an order granting
Plaintiff William Livernois' motion to voluntarily dismiss the
action styled William Livernois, Plaintiff, v. National Ship and
Shipbuilding Company, Defendant, Case No. 18cv1326 JM(JMA), (S.D.
Cal.).

On May 4, 2018, Plaintiff brought an asbestos personal injury
action in Alameda County Superior Court against 80 defendants,
including National Ship and Shipbuilding Company ("NASSCO"),
alleging the same claims as asserted in the instant case. On June
4, 2018, NASSCO informed Plaintiff that it intended to remove the
action to the United States District Court for the Northern
District based upon a federal contractor defense.

On June 5, 2018, fearing that it [NASSCO] might remove the entire
case to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1),
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed NASSCO.

On June 19, 2018, Plaintiff commenced this diversity action by
alleging four claims for relief: negligence, breach of express and
implied warranties, strict liability, and premises owner/contractor
liability. Plaintiff, diagnosed with mesothelioma, seeks
compensation as a result of his exposure to asbestos during the
course of his service in the United States Navy aboard multiple
ships between 1957 and 1978. Plaintiff alleges that NASSCO, over
the years, "manufactured, modified, failed to retrofit, serviced
and/or repaired asbestos-containing ships and vessels." Plaintiff
attributes his disease to exposure to asbestos fibers.

On June 22, 2018, one of the defendants, Fryer-Knowles, Inc.,
removed the state court action to the Northern District of
California. On July 17, 2018, Fryer-Knowles, Inc. filed a motion
for a convenience transfer to the Court. In response, on July 20,
2018, Plaintiff filed two motions: (1) a motion to amend to remove
the basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) a motion
to remand to state court.

Plaintiff now moves for a court order to voluntarily dismiss the
instant action without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2).
NASSCO opposes the motion. In large part, NASSCO argues that
Plaintiff is engaged in a futile and blatant effort of forum
shopping. NASSCO posits that all work it performed on vessels of
the United States gives rise to colorable federal defenses under
government contractor immunity, thereby giving rise to federal
subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1).

Plaintiff acknowledges that he intends to amend the complaint in
the Northern District of California action to eliminate federal
subject matter jurisdiction, and then seek to remand the action to
state court.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2) permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an
action upon obtaining a court order to do so. The voluntary
dismissal will be "on terms the court considers proper." The Court
quoting Stevedoring Services of Am. v. Armilla Int'l B.V., 899 F.2d
919, 921 (9thy Cir. 1989) says that "the purpose of the rule is to
permit a plaintiff to dismiss an action without prejudice so long
as the defendant will not be prejudiced, or unfairly affected by
dismissal."

While NASSCO identifies Plaintiff's forum shopping activities, the
Court finds that NASSCO fails to identify any cognizable prejudice
should Plaintiff's motion be granted. As Plaintiff is master of his
own complaint, and NASSCO fails to identify cognizable prejudice,
the Court grants the motion to voluntarily dismiss this action
without prejudice.

William Livernois, an individual, Plaintiff, represented by Robert
Allen Green , Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Josiah William Parker ,
Weitz & Luxenberg PC.

National Steel and Shipbuilding Company, Defendant, represented by
Paul Morgan Bessette -- bes@darlaw.com -- Demler, Armstrong &
Rowland, LLP.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Production of Dempster Settlement Document Allowed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Janis Van Meerveld of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the Motion to Quash
Subpoena filed by the plaintiff Callen L. Dempster because the
settlement documents, with settlement amounts redacted, are
discoverable.

Plaintiff seeks to prevent defendants Albert Bossier, Jr. and J.
Melton Garrett from obtaining a copy of documents reflecting Mr.
Dempster's settlement of claims in connection with alleged
asbestos-related illness or other occupational disease.

Mr. Dempster alleges that from 1962 through 1994, he was employed
by a company now known as Huntington Ingalls Inc. ("Avondale"). He
alleges that during his employment, he was exposed to asbestos that
resulted in his asbestos-related cancer and/or lung/cancer, which
did not manifest until 2017. He alleges that prior to 1975, he was
exposed to asbestos on a daily basis. In addition to alleging the
liability of Avondale, Mr. Dempster alleges that the executive
officers of Avondale from 1962 through 1994 are personally liable.
Most of them have died, but Mr. Dempster has joined two of them,
Mr. Bossier and Mr. Garrett, as defendants to this lawsuit. The
other defendants in this action include manufacturers of asbestos
related products, companies that provided contract work with
Avondale where asbestos-containing products were allegedly used,
and insurance companies.

Mr. Dempster filed his petition for damages in state court on March
14, 2018. It appears the state court litigation began quickly. Mr.
Dempster was deposed on April 23, 2018. A notice of records
deposition was served by Mr. Bossier on non-party the Wilson Law
Firm for the same settlement documents at issue here. A motion to
quash the Notice of Records Deposition was filed and set for
hearing on June 15, 2018, and the records deposition was stayed
pending resolution of the motion.

Before the state court motion to quash could be fully resolved, on
June 21, 2018, defendants Avondale, Bossier, Garrett, and Lamorak
Insurance Company removed the case, invoking the Court's
jurisdiction over actions relating to conduct under color of
federal office commenced in state court against persons acting
under one or more federal officers. The Defendants assert that this
provision applies because during his term of employment, Mr.
Dempster worked on construction of United States Navy Destroyer
Escorts under contracts between Avondale and the United States. On
June 22, 2018, Mr. Dempster filed a motion to remand, which is
pending before the District Judge.

Meanwhile, on July 26, 2018, Mr. Bossier and Mr. Garrett served a
subpoena for documents on the Wilson Law Firm requesting: "any and
all documents concerning or reflecting settlements, compromises,
and agreements to settle or compromise any claims asserted by
Callen Dempster: SSN: XXX-XX-7703, YOB: 1932, in connection with
Mr. Dempster's alleged asbestos related illness or any occupational
diseases, whether or not the settlement or agreement to settle or
compromise is related to the lawsuit filed by Mr. Callen Dempster
entitled Callen L. Dempster v. Lamorak Insurance Company, et al.,
CDC No. 2018-02513. Please note that documents provided may have
any amounts paid pursuant to any settlement or compromise
deleted."

On the other hand, Mr. Dempster filed the present Motion to Quash
Subpoena, arguing that the sought after settlement agreements are
not relevant because they do not concern Mr. Dempster's lung
cancer. He insists that even if the settlement documents contained
statements of exposure, they would not be discoverable. He adds
that settlement agreements will not be admissible at trial.

Mr. Bossier and Mr. Garrett oppose the Motion to Quash asserting
that the sought after information is relevant. They say it may
contain statements by Mr. Dempster regarding his exposure to
asbestos at Avondale or inconsistent with the position he is taking
here with regard to his exposure to asbestos at Avondale. They
argue they must be allowed to know the specific identity of all
released entities because non-settling defendants are entitled to a
credit for a settling joint-tortfeasor's virile share of any
damages awarded if the settling co-defendant is proven to be at
fault at trial. They also say the documents may indicate whether
Mr. Dempster reserved or waived his rights with respect to
potential recoveries from the remaining parties. They argue that
the Court should not address admissibility at this stage, noting
that only discoverability is at issue now.

In reply, Mr. Dempster points the Court to his pending Motion to
Remand and argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over his claim.
The Court notes that, while it will lose jurisdiction if the Motion
to Remand is granted, at this time, it is the state court that
lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Dempster's claim. Further, at oral
argument, Mr. Dempster's counsel made clear that if the Motion to
Remand is granted, counsel will try to hold the November 2018 trial
date that the state court had ordered.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that "parties may
obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the
needs of the case." In assessing proportionality of discovery, the
following should be considered: "the importance of the issues at
stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties'
relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources,
the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and
whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs
its likely benefit."

The Court explains that settlement agreements, although
inadmissible in evidence for some purposes, are both discoverable
and admissible for other purposes. While settlement documents will
not be admissible to prove liability, they might be admissible for
other purposes. For example, the fact of settlement of a joint
tortfeasor might be admissible to show that the damages owed by the
non-settling defendants should be reduced by the virile share of
the settling joint tortfeasors.

The subpoena at issue here seeks more than just settlement
agreements where Mr. Dempster compromised claims for
asbestos-related illness or other occupational diseases. The
subpoena seeks all documents "concerning or reflecting" such
settlements. At oral argument, counsel for Mr. Bossier and Mr.
Garrett explained that the subpoena seeks any affidavits that Mr.
Dempster might have executed in conjunction with settlement of
earlier claims arising out of asbestos exposure. It does not appear
that any confidential settlement negotiations (like a mediation
position statement) are being sought.

The Court finds it useful to divide the sought after documents into
categories. The first category is the settlement agreements
themselves, with any settlement amounts redacted as the defendants
have requested. The Court finds these are relevant and
discoverable. The identity of any parties that settled asbestos
exposure claims with Mr. Dempster is relevant because these parties
may bear some responsibility for the injuries alleged here. The
terms of any settlement agreement are also relevant. If the
settlement extends to the asbestos caused lung cancer that Mr.
Dempster claims here and the defendants can prove those settling
parties bear some responsibility for Mr. Dempster's lung cancer,
then the defendants may be entitled to a reduction of any damages
award against them.

Indeed, the fact of settlement would likely be admissible at trial
if the settlements concerned joint tortfeasors and the joint
tortfeasors had settled the same claim at issue here. Plaintiffs
argue, however, that Mr. Dempster has not settled any
asbestos-related lung cancer claims like the one raised here, and
therefore any settlement by Mr. Dempster related to his nonlung
cancer claims would not be admissible. The settlement agreements
themselves are relevant to a determination of the accuracy of Mr.
Dempster's assertions about the extent of his previous settlements.
Again, the question at this stage is not whether the agreements
will be admissible at trial. Accordingly, the Court finds the
settlement agreements, with any settlement amounts redacted, are
relevant and discoverable.

The other category to consider is settlement related documents. It
does not appear that Mr. Bossier and Mr. Garret seek rejected
settlement offers, settlement drafts, or mediation position
statements. They are seeking affidavits or claim forms that might
contain assertions by Mr. Dempster regarding his exposure to
asbestos. The Court finds this information is also relevant to the
present case. While Mr. Dempster's prior statements about his
asbestos exposure claim might not be admissible at trial for
purposes of disproving his claim here or impeaching him, prior
statements by Mr. Dempster regarding his asbestos exposure are
relevant to a full understanding of Mr. Dempster's asbestos
exposure, which is the basis for the present lawsuit.

Accordingly, since Mr. Dempster did not identify any particular
prejudice he would suffer if the sought after documents were
disclosed during discovery and counsel for Mr. Dempster did note at
oral argument that the documents contained confidentiality
provisions, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Subpoena.
However, to the extent maintaining confidentiality is necessary to
protect the parties to the settlement agreements, the Court allows
the production of the requested documents subject to a protective
order limiting disclosure and use of the documents to the
litigation.

The case is entitled Callen L. Dempster, v. Lamorak Insurance Co.,
et al. Section: "G"(1), Civil Action No. 18-6158, (E.D. La.).

A copy of the Order and Reasons dated August 16, 2018, is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y8fxdjbp from Leagle.com.

Callen L. Dempster, also known as Callen L. Dempster, Sr.,
Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel , Roussel &
Clement, Benjamin Peter Dinehart , Roussel & Clement, Jonathan
Brett Clement , Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement , Roussel
& Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr. , Roussel & Clement.

Lamorak Insurance Company, As Successor in Interest to the
liability for policies of insurance issued by Commercial Union
Insurance Company, Employers Commercial Union Insurance Company,
and American Employers Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Samuel Milton Rosamond, III , Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC
& Adam Devlin deMahy , Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, formerly known as Avondale Marine
Ways, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian C. Bossier --
bbossier@bluewilliams.com -- Blue Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas
Grace, III -- cgrace@bluewilliams.com -- Blue Williams, LLP, Edwin
A. Ellinghausen, III -- eellinghausen@bluewilliams.com -- Blue
Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd -- eboyd@bluewilliams.com -- Blue
Williams, LLP, Jasmine Najee Brown -- jnbrown@bluewilliams.com --
Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M. Gillen -- lgillen@bluewilliams.com --
Blue Williams, LLP & Patrick Kevin Shockey --
pshockey@bluewilliams.com -- Blue Williams, LLP.

Albert Bossier, Jr. & J. Melton Garrett, Defendants, represented by
Gustave A. Fritchie, III -- gfritchie@irwinllc.com -- Irwin
Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Alex Tyler Robertson --
arobertson@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC,
Alexander R. Saunders -- asaunders@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie
Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Christopher Thomas Whelen --
cwhelen@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC, David
Michael Melancon -- dmelancon@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie
Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Edward Winter Trapolin --
etrapolin@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC &
Timothy Farrow Daniels -- tdaniels@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie
Urquhart & Moore, LLC.
Eagle Inc., formerly known as Eagle Asbestos & Packing Company,
Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn --
suek@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Bayer Cropscience, Inc., Successor to Rhone Poulenc AG Company,
formerly Amchem Products, Inc., formerly Benjamin Foster Company,
Defendant, represented by McGready Lewis Richeson --
mricheson@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey,
Francis Xavier deBlanc, III -- fdeblanc@pugh-law.com -- Pugh,
Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, Milele Milele N. St. Julien --
mstjulien@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey &
Perrey S. Lee , Pugh, Accardo, LLC.

Foster-Wheeler LLC, formerly known as Foster-Wheeler Corporation,
Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III --
jhainkel@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin --
abowlin@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr. --
jbrown@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long --
klong@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan --
keagan@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Lacey Taylor McCoy --
LMcCoy@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin --
mpuente@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C.

General Electric Company & CBS Corporation, formerly known as
Westinghouse Electric Corporatioin, Defendants, represented by John
Joseph Hainkel, III -- jhainkel@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Angela
M. Bowlin -- abowlin@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown,
Jr. -- jbrown@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann
Puente-Martin -- mpuente@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C.

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brittney Bullock
Ankersen -- bankersen@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer &
Sommers, LLC, Kaye N. Courington -- kcourington@courington-law.com
-- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore --
bmoore@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC,
Mathilde Villere Semmes -- msemmes@courington-law.com --
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell --
tbell@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

McCarty Corporation, Successor to McCarty Branton, Inc., and
Predecessor and Successor to McCarty Insulation Sales, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn -- suek@spsr-law.com --
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, April Ann McQuillar --
aprilm@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP,
Douglas Kinler -- douglask@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Watson Redfearn -- douglasr@spsr-law.com --
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Janice M. Culotta --
janicec@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith and Redfearn, LLP,
Louis Oliver Oubre -- louiso@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith
& Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup , Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Kelly Lightfoot -- klightfoot@hmhlp.com -- Hailey, McNamara, Hall,
Larmann & Papale, LLP, David C. Bach , Hailey, McNamara, Hall,
Larmann & Papale LLP, Edward J. Lassus, Jr. , Hailey, McNamara,
Hall, Larmann & Papale, LLP & Richard J. Garvey, Jr. --
jgarvey@hmhlp.com -- Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale,
LLP.

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary Reeves Arthur --
mimi.arthur@formanwatkins.com -- Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP &
Amy Louise Maccherone -- amy.maccherone@formanwatkins.com --
Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP.

International Paper Company, As Successor to U.S. Plywood,
Defendant, represented by Mary Reeves Arthur --
mimi.arthur@formanwatkins.com -- Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP,
Walter G. Watkins, III -- wg.watkins@formanwatkins.com -- Forman,
Watkins & Krutz LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn --
elizabeth.penn@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP,
Jason K. Elam -- jason.elam@cs-law.com -- Cosmich Simmons & Brown,
PLLC & Thomas Peyton Smith -- peyton.smith@formanwatkins.com --
Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP.

Houston General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by James
R. Sutterfield -- info@swslaw.com -- Sutterfield & Webb, LLC.

Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance Company, formerly known as
Stonewall Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Paula
Marcello Wellons , Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Jared A.
Davidson , Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Jonathan B.
Womack , Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company & Travelers Indemnity
Company, Defendants, represented by Kristopher T. Wilson --
kwilson@lawla.com -- Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard &
Katherine Osborne Hannan -- khannan@lawla.com -- Lugenbuhl,
Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard.

First State Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Lauren Ann
McCulloch -- lauren.mcculloch@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius & Mitchell F. Tedesco -- mitchell.tedesco@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

American Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Julia Ann
Dietz -- jdietz@degan.com -- Degan, Blanchard & Nash, Jill R.
Menard -- jmenard@degan.com -- Degan, Blanchard & Nash, Keith A.
Kornman -- kkornman@degan.com -- Degan, Blanchard & Nash & Renee F.
Smith Auld -- rsmithauld@degan.com -- Degan, Blanchard & Nash.

Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association, Defendant, represented by
Kaye N. Courington -- kcourington@courington-law.com -- Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Dawn Danna Marullo , Courington, Kiefer &
Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg -- jburg@courington-law.com --
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell --
tbell@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

J. Melton Garrett & Albert Bossier, Jr., Third Party Plaintiffs,
represented by Gustave A. Fritchie, III -- gfritchie@irwinllc.com
-- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Alex Tyler Robertson --
arobertson@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC,
Alexander R. Saunders -- asaunders@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie
Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Christopher Thomas Whelen --
cwhelen@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC, David
Michael Melancon -- dmelancon@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie
Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Edward Winter Trapolin --
etrapolin@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC &
Timothy Farrow Daniels -- tdaniels@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie
Urquhart & Moore, LLC.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant,
represented by Kaye N. Courington -- kcourington@courington-law.com
-- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore --
bmoore@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC,
Brittney Bullock Ankersen -- bankersen@courington-law.com --
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg --
jburg@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC,
Mathilde Villere Semmes -- msemmes@courington-law.com --
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell --
tbell@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

J. Melton Garrett & Albert Bossier, Jr., Cross Claimants,
represented by Gustave A. Fritchie, III -- gfritchie@irwinllc.com
-- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Alex Tyler Robertson --
arobertson@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC,
Alexander R. Saunders -- asaunders@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie
Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Christopher Thomas Whelen --
cwhelen@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC, David
Michael Melancon -- dmelancon@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie
Urquhart & Moore, LLC, Edward Winter Trapolin --
etrapolin@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, LLC &
Timothy Farrow Daniels -- tdaniels@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie
Urquhart & Moore, LLC.

Bayer Cropscience, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by McGready
Lewis Richeson -- mricheson@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas,
Radecker & Carey, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III --
fdeblanc@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey,
Kathleen Erin Jordan -- kjordan@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo,
Haas, Radecker & Carey & Milele N. St. Julien --
mstjulien@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey.

Foster-Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III -- jhainkel@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Angela M.
Bowlin -- abowlin@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr.
-- jbrown@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long --
klong@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan --
keagan@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Lacey Taylor McCoy --
LMcCoy@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin --
mpuente@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C.

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington -- kcourington@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer
& Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore -- bmoore@courington-law.com
-- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Brittney Bullock Ankersen --
bankersen@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC,
Jeffrey Matthew Burg -- jburg@courington-law.com -- Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Mathilde Villere Semmes --
msemmes@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC &
Troy Nathan Bell -- tbell@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer
& Sommers, LLC.

International Paper Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Walter
G. Watkins, III -- wg.watkins@formanwatkins.com -- Forman, Watkins
& Krutz LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn --
elizabeth.penn@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP,
Mary Reeves Arthur -- mimi.arthur@formanwatkins.com -- Forman,
Watkins, & Krutz, LLP & Thomas Peyton Smith --
peyton.smith@formanwatkins.com -- Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP.

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington -- kcourington@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer
& Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore -- bmoore@courington-law.com
-- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Brittney Bullock Ankersen --
bankersen@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC,
Jeffrey Matthew Burg -- jburg@courington-law.com -- Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Mathilde Villere Semmes --
msemmes@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC &
Troy Nathan Bell -- tbell@courington-law.com -- Courington, Kiefer
& Sommers, LLC.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: RJ Reynolds Directed to Pay $3.5MM to Florida Man
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes of Bloomberg BNA reported that R.J. Reynolds and a
filter maker must pay $3.5 million to the estate of a Florida man,
the state's top court held.  It's a ruling that draws renewed
attention to another, lesser known, deadly aspect of some
cigarettes of the 1950s for which RJR is still being sued.

Kents were once touted as the safest smokes on the market because
of their "extraordinary Micronite" filters which made them pure
enough for even the "sensitive smoker" who worried about potential
adverse health effects.

"The exclusive MICRONITE FILTER removes 7 times more nicotine and
tars than any other leading cigarette filter" one ad in the now
defunct New York Daily News touted. Don't just try it once, the ad
went on, try it for one or two weeks, to give yourself "time enough
to allow your taste to adjust to so much less irritants in the
smoke."

Nowhere does the ad mention that "micronite" is crocidolite
asbestos and that, from 1952 through 1956, the Lorillard Tobacco
Co., now owned by R.J. Reynolds, used it as a filter in Kents.

That legacy showed itself again Oct. 15 when the Florida Supreme
Court affirmed that the filters were one of several "causative
factors" in Richard DeLisle's development of mesothelioma.

The court upheld a jury's finding that Lorillard and filter maker
Hollingsworth & Vose each had to pay $1.76 million to DeLisle's
estate, which amounts to 44 percent of the total $8 million award
in the case. The rest of the verdict is to be paid by industrial
product makers who the jury found were other sources of his
asbestos exposure.

The suit is one of several that, more than 60 years after the
cigarette maker stopped using asbestos filters, is still playing
out in federal and state courts.

As of the beginning of this year, a total of 29 cases involving
micronite filters were scheduled for trial, according to financial
statements of Reynolds American Inc., which acquired Lorillard in
2014.

This compares to 34 filter cases set for trial a year earlier.

The context of these numbers might become clearer soon. A
Pennsylvania appeals court in August said Lorrilard must comply
with a Philadelphia-area judge's order that the company produce a
list of suits it compiled in 2011.

That list is to include not only Kent smokers who used the
micronite filters, but also another category of plaintiffs -- the
workers at the plants that once produced the asbestos filters. The
list was compiled during the cigarette maker's prior defense of a
Kentucky plant worker's suit.

Whatever that list reveals, it's unlikely the number of cases
headed to trial will go up much in the years ahead because the
number of people still alive who smoked with the filters, and
worked with them, is dwindling, attorneys who have litigated the
suits say.

Other Verdicts
But the trials will continue because Lorillard has been fighting
the micronite-filter cases as hard as it has been fighting the many
regular cancer-causing tobacco suits pending against it.

Not only that, the company has won many cases, like this one in
2010, where it successfully argued the smokers' asbestos-related
diseases came from any of a number of other potential sources.

The Florida verdict, however, is far from the first in plaintiffs'
favor. Back in 1997, a California appeals court upheld a $1.3
million compensatory verdict and a $700,000 punitive award against
Lorillard and H&V.

That award went to a clinical psychologist who a jury found
switched to Kents because he thought the filters were safer than
what he had smoked. He died in 1996 of mesothelioma.

And, in2011, a San Francisco jury awarded nearly $1.4 million to
Donat Lenney, another former Kent smoker.

Lenney's attorney said something that helped his client with that
award was the absence of anything else that could have contributed
to his client's asbestos disease.

"In the case we tried, we didn't have other defendants," said
attorney William Levin with Levin Simes LLP in San Francisco.

He said Lenney was a bit of an unusual plaintiff in that, unlike
many other former military members and industrial workers who have
sued, Lenney was a white-collar worker, an insurance agent whose
only asbestos exposure during his life came from Kents.

That helped sway the jurors, Levin said, to see past Lorrilard's
arguments that the filters must not have been too bad. After all,
it said, they were once even used in hospitals and, like the
newsapaper ad from 1952 touted, even "to purify the air in atomic
energy plants."

A Lorillard spokesman declined Bloomberg Law's request for comment
about this story Oct. 19.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Salesman Claims Exposure to Asbestos in Talc
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Martine Jenkins of Chemical Watch reported that just two weeks
after a previous case in California ended in mistrial, a jury has
failed to reach a verdict on whether Johnson & Johnson's baby
powder caused a plaintiff's mesothelioma.

In the case -- the sixth mesothelioma trial against the company --
Kirk Von Salzen, a retired computer salesman, claimed exposure to
asbestos fibres in J&J's powder caused his cancer. He had been
using the baby product for 30 years when he was diagnosed in 2017.
He was seeking over $12m in damages.

The Los Angeles jury was deadlocked 8-4 against J&J -- one juror
short of victory for Mr Von Salzen. The state judge declared a
mistrial.

This comes hot on the heels of a similar case -- concerning a woman
with mesothelioma in Pasadena -- that also ended in a mistrial. The
last case that had a conclusive result came in St Louis, Missouri
in July. Then the jury ordered J&J to pay nearly $4.7bn in damages
to 22 women who claimed to have contracted ovarian cancer after
using the product.

The evidence on the presence of asbestos in J&J talcum powder is
mixed, and the company continues to maintain that their products
are free of the carcinogen.

In a statement after the latest mistrial, J&J representative Kim
Montagnino said: "We look forward to a new trial to present our
defence -- which rests on decades of independent, non-litigation
driven scientific evaluations, none of which have found that
Johnson's Baby Powder contains asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SCOTUS Hears Arguments on Naval Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------
Emily Field of Law360 reported that the U.S. Supreme Court heard
arguments in a suit over whether naval equipment manufacturers are
liable for injuries caused by asbestos-containing parts added after
their products are made.

SCOTUSblog wrote that the justices got a rare opportunity to ponder
basic principles of tort law, as they closed the October session
with the argument in Air and Liquid Systems v. DeVries.

The case involves equipment sold by various manufacturers
(including petitioner Air and Liquid Systems) that was installed
many years ago on Navy ships. The equipment depended on asbestos
insulation, which was installed shortly after the equipment reached
the ships, to regulate its temperature. There also were asbestos
gaskets between the parts, which on some occasions came with the
original equipment, but were frequently replaced during the use of
the equipment. The plaintiffs are a group of sailors (including
respondent John DeVries) injured by the asbestos used with the
equipment. This particular dispute is limited to injuries that
cannot be attributed to any asbestos that the manufacturers
supplied; all the relevant asbestos was applied to the equipment by
third parties after the Navy acquired it.

Because the injuries in question occurred at sea, the liability of
the manufacturers cannot be determined under the law of any
particular state. Rather, it arises under the general "maritime"
law, judge-made federal law for which the Supreme Court is the
final authority. The case comes to the justices after the lower
court found that the manufacturers could be liable because the
injuries were foreseeable. Arguing on behalf of the manufacturers,
Shay Dvoretsky contended that the justices should adopt a
bright-line "bare-metal" rule, absolving the manufacturers from
liability for any asbestos that they did not themselves make, sell
or distribute.

Dvoretsky's time was dominated by a group of justices pressing the
idea that the manufacturers should be held responsible, at least if
the sailors can prove that the manufacturers directed or required
the use of asbestos with the equipment that they sold. Several
justices seemed to think that the facts of the case made liability
almost straightforward. For example, almost immediately after
Dvoretsky began his presentation, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
interrupted him to ask whether it "make[s] a difference" that the
manufacturers were "making a product that is useless unless the
asbestos is added."

In the same vein, Justice Sonia Sotomayor interjected her view that
under "normal" principles of "tort law, if you create a car that
has a spark in the tank, and the gasoline . . . . explodes, the
consumer is not going to sue the gasoline company. It's going to
sue you because you, the car manufacturer, produced a defective
product that caused an injury that the gasoline would otherwise not
cause. Why are you any different than the bare-metal car seller?"

Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to share Sotomayor's perspective,
saying: "Normally, you run a car with gasoline and it's normally
perfectly safe. Here, you normally run your product with asbestos
and it's not perfectly safe."

Offering his own hypothetical, Justice Stephen Breyer commented
that for him, the case is just "not that complicated." Explaining
with his usual expansiveness, he continued: It's the case in the
Restatement. Judy loans her car for the evening to Grant, whom she
knows is a very dangerous driver. The least-cost avoider, of
course, is Grant. But, nonetheless, Judy is negligent. And the
negligence that they're claiming here is taking a thing, a physical
thing which the manufacturer knows is dangerous and unreasonably
putting it out into interstate commerce. And that's why if you tell
the user he's got to use asbestos, knowing all the relevant things,
that's a negligent act.

Taking a somewhat different tack, Justices Elena Kagan and Neil
Gorsuch spent a considerable portion of Dvoretsky's time debating
the problem as a matter of basic tort theory. Kagan started the
discussion by interrupting Dvoretsky to ask: "When you say that
even when this manufacturer is . . . direct[ing the buyers] to use
asbestos, you are not liable, are you making a fairness argument?
Are you making an efficiency argument? What kind of argument is
that?" She offered Dvoretsky an "opportunity to tell me what sense
would it make to say, even though you direct the use of asbestos,
you can't be liable for its harms."

Dvoretsky repeatedly offered his position that a bright-line rule
exempting the manufacturers was sensible, but Roberts seemed to
share Kagan's concerns, as he evinced skepticism about the breadth
of the rule necessary for Dvoretsky to prevail: What if you are the
only one who knows about it? I mean, the asbestos manufacturer --
their scientists haven't discovered yet that it's going to kill
you, but you have, and . . . you still don't have a duty to warn? .
. . I know it's not this case. But your position is even if you . .
. are telling people to use asbestos with your product, [and] they
don't know that it's harmful but you do, you have no duty to warn?

At that point, Gorsuch weighed in, explicitly aligning himself with
the desire of "Justice Kagan [to address this] as a matter of
doctrine and policy." For Gorsuch, the key problem seemed to be the
difficulty of defining any reason why we should be worried about
obligating the manufacturers to warn their customers: "Besides the
costs of having an additional warning, do you see any other
downsides to expanding the scope of the duty to warn in this way?"
He acknowledged that "[w]e normally do, you're right, put the duty
to warn with the lowest cost avoider." But he added that "sometimes
it's expanded" and went on to agree with the sailors that "it has
been expanded in this area," which prompted him to "wonde[r] what
are the negatives associated with that? Why is that bad?" Justice
Brett Kavanaugh joined in on that point as well, asking at the very
close of Dvoretsky's presentation: "Why are too many warnings bad?
. . . Explain that to me."

The presentation of Thomas Goldstein on behalf of the sailors had
quite a different texture, as the justices allowed him to talk
without interruption for an extended period at the beginning of his
presentation, which hinged on the contention that it was
appropriate to hold the manufacturers responsible for the
foreseeable consequences of the use of asbestos at their direction.
As time went on, however, it became clear that several of the
justices were concerned about defining the boundaries of a rule
favoring the sailors. The discussion revolved around a series of
hypotheticals, each of which involved the manufacturer of a product
that foreseeably would be used in connection with another product
that might be dangerous. The principal hypotheticals involved the
manufacturers of ashtrays -- presumptively not responsible for the
harms to tobacco users; flashlights -- presumptively not
responsible for the harms from leaking batteries; and aircraft --
presumptively not responsible for the harms from exploding
engines.

Goldstein offered two principal responses. One was that the
equipment here was necessarily integrated with the asbestos -- it
could not be used without it.  That seemed to work well as an
answer for the ashtray hypothetical (at least in theory you could
use an ashtray for something other than a tobacco receptacle). It
did not go over nearly so well for the flashlight hypothetical --
as it led Gorsuch to quip "I haven't used a flashlight without a
battery very often."

Goldstein's second answer was that the equipment itself contributed
to the injury from the asbestos, something less likely to be true
in the listed hypotheticals. Sotomayor was particularly receptive
to this idea, as she had asked early on in the argument "[h]ow is
[the asbestos] not the cause of the injury? The asbestos as sold is
perfectly safe. It's integrated. It's whole. It doesn't release
molecules. What causes it to degrade is [the equipment, which]
heats up to such an extreme degree that it degenerates the
asbestos." It was less clear, though, that the other justices
accepted that response from Goldstein.

About the only thing that can be said to summarize is that the
justices as a group seemed far from settled by the end of the
morning.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SEC Probes Honeywell's Asbestos Accounting
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emily Field of Law360 reported that the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission is investigating Honeywell International Inc.'s
accounting of liability for asbestos claims after the company
raised its estimate earlier this year by $1.1 billion.

Reuters reported that the industrial conglomerate's revised
estimate for asbestos-related liabilities was $2.61 billion as of
end-2017, some $1.09 billion higher than a prior estimate, a
regulatory filing.

The liabilities are related to Bendix Friction Materials, a
business previously owned by Honeywell and sold in 2014, which made
automotive brake linings containing asbestos.

Thousands of individuals have alleged personal injury from exposure
to asbestos from the brakes.

The company has also revised its 2017 reported earnings per share
lower by 14 cents to $2.00.

Honeywell reported quarterly results and said trade tariffs would
squeeze profit margins and potentially cost it "hundreds of
millions" of dollars in 2019.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sponsor to Present Revisions to SB 315
-------------------------------------------------------
John Blodgett of The Western News reported that revisions to Senate
Bill 315, which in 2017 established the Libby Asbestos Superfund
Advisory Team, will be presented by the Montana Environmental
Quality Council during Montana's 2019 legislative session.

"The [revised] bill was approved [Sept. 12] and will be submitted
to the next legislative session in its current form," Sen. Chas
Vincent (R-Libby), council chair and SB315's sponsor during the
2017 legislative session, said by email.

The revisions resulted from the team's inability to fill a
state-funded staff position that local team members have said
should pay more than what the state offered.

The five-person team, formed last May after Gov. Steve Bullock
signed SB315 into law, provides oversight of the Libby Asbestos
Superfund site as the Montana Department of Environmental Quality
assumes management of the site by January 2020.

The five team members are Montana DEQ Director Tom Livers, who
serves as the team chair; Lincoln County Commissioner Mark Peck;
Rep. Steve Gunderson (R-Libby); Vincent; and Lincoln County citizen
George Jamison.

The staff position, called a liaison, was intended to coordinate
among county, state and federal agencies and to report to the
advisory team. Though Lincoln County was tasked with recruiting,
the person was to be an employee of the DEQ.

Two rounds of applicants produced only one far-and-away preferred
candidate, who sought $10,000 more than the maximum $64,850 the
job's classification allows.

The pay issue was raised at a quarterly meeting of the Advisory
Team on June 28 in Libby. Peck asserted at the time that the job as
described didn't exist within the state's classification system,
and that it exceeded the expectations of the classification it was
placed in.

Livers responded that he was hesitant to reclassify the job, or to
make an exception, due to concern about other state employees doing
comparable work for less money.

After subsequent discussions, the advisory team proposed changes to
SB315 that included eliminating the liaison position, renaming the
advisory team as oversight committee, and assigning the oversight
committee new roles and responsibilities, including those that had
been expected of the liaison.

The revisions were drafted by Joe Kolman, the Environmental Quality
Council's legislative environmental analyst, presented to the
council on Sept. 12, and accepted as presented.

Vincent, whose second term ends later this year, wrote that he
assigned the bill to fellow council member Gunderson to carry.



                            *********

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 ***