CAR_Public/181029.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, October 29, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 216

                            Headlines

18301-1/2E. 5TH AVE: Underpays Dancers, Kappella Suit Alleges
AAA TOWING: Ugarde Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
ABIGAEL'S ON BROADWAY: Baez et al. Sue over Tip-Pooling
ADMIRAL SECURITY: Underpays Private Guards, Lacap & Gerez Say
AHRC HOME: Villar Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime under FLSA

AIRMEDIA GROUP: Court Dismisses Huang Class Action in New York
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Appeal in Security Breach Suit Still Pending
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Parties Agree to Dismiss Akile Class Suit
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Worne Sues over Unwanted Phone Calls
ALPHABET INC: Wicks Sues over Google+ Breach, Misleading Reports

AMCOL SYSTEMS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
AMERICAN ACADEMIC: Dissemination of Class Notice Sought
AMERICAN FAMILY CARE: Smiley Seeks OT Pay for Lab Technicians
AMERICAN LOGISTICS: Delbosque Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
AMIRA NATURE: Plaintiff Bid for Relief from Dismissal Order Denied

ANT HILL: Woodard Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
APPLE INC: Zaragosa and Coyle Allege False TV Season Bundle
ARIZONA BEVERAGE: Faces Kubilius et al. Suit in S.D. New York
AXLEHIRE INC: Underpays Drivers, De Leon and Lopez Suit Allege
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Flores Suit in District of Colorado

BANK OF AMERICA: IPERS Lawsuit Will Continue, Federal Judge Rule
BAXTER HEALTHCARE: De Vega Seeks Unpaid OT & Minimum Wage
BIN INSURANCE: Ortiz et al. Seek Certification of FLSA Class
CANCER GENETICS: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action
CAPITAL STACK: McQuaid Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA

CELLULAR SALES: Holick Seeks to Certify Class
CHART INDUSTRIES: Defends Stainless Steel Cryobiological Tank Suit
CHART INDUSTRIES: Suit over Aluminum Cryobiological Tank Pending
CHEGG INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
CITIGROUP INC: Dec. 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC: Lawsuits by Wabush Pensioners Resolved
CLIENT SERVICES: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
COCHLEAR AMERICAS: Alexander's Class Certification Bid Denied
COOKUNITY LLC: Vazquez et al. Seek Minimum Wages under FLSA
CSX CORP: Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation Ongoing

CSX CORP: West Lumberton Baptist Church et al. Sue over Flooding
DEL TACO: Discovery Still Ongoing in Former Cal. Employee Suit
DELIV INC: Lawson et al Seek to Certify Class of Drivers
DIGITAL ALTITUDE: Marketing & Business Courses A Sham, Doty Says
DOLGENCORP OF NEW YORK: Riley Seeks Unpaid Overtime

DOS REALES: FLSA Class Conditionally Certified in Pena Olivera Suit
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Perea Sues over Debt Collection Practices
EAGLE DINER: Flores and Goold Seek Approval of Class Notice
EEOC: U.S. Pastor Council et al. Allege Gender, Religious Bias
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Rivera Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA

ETTAIN GROUP: Udoewa Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Ellis Seeks to Certify Class
FACEBOOK INC: Fails to Secure Users' Personal Info, McGuire Says
FLOWERS FOODS: Carr et al. Seek to Certify 3 Classes
FLYFIT HOLDINGS: Thurston Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA

FRONTLINE ASSET: Williams Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
GATEWAY ONE: Anderson Sues over Repossession of Vehicles
GEORGIA: Department of Corrections Faces Harris et al. Suit
GIGA WATT INC: Refael Sofair Alleges RICO Act Violation
GRAY TV: Walley's Auto Sales Alleges Price-Fixing of TV Ad Rates

HENRY SCHEIN: Kramer Alleges Dental Supplies Pricing Conspiracy
HERITAGE-CRYSTAL CLEAN: Continues to Defend Adelphia Class Suit
HERTZ CORP: Mahe Seeks Overtime Wages under Labor Code
HESKA CORP: Agreement in Principle Reached in Fauley TCPA Suit
HK ENTERPRISES: Underpays Hair Stylists, Benitez et al. Allege

ILLINOIS: Powell et al. Suit Alleges Disabilities Act Violations
ILLUMINA INC: Faces Van Der Wall and Romanoff Securities Suit
J.R. SIMPLOT: Arroyo Sues over Use of Consumer Credit Reports
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class as Moot
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Rodriguez Sues over Sale of Talcum Powder

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Vassell Sues over Sale of Talcum Powder
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Zachary Sues over Sale of Talcum Powder
JONATHAN NEIL: Can File Objections to Brown FDCA Suit Notice
JP MORGAN CHASE: Sandel Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
K2M GROUP: Preliminary Injunction Sought in Brown Class Suit

KINDER MORGAN: Brinckerhoff Class Action Concluded
KINDER MORGAN: Says Landowner Litigation Settled and Dismissed
KINDER MORGAN: Wisconsin Purchasers Class Action Ongoing
KRAFT FOODS: Ploss Seeks to Certify Class
LIONBRIDGE TECH: Pension Fund Seeks to Certify Stockholders Class

LOANCARE LLC: Sanders Sues over Debt Collection Practices
LOOMIS INTERNATIONAL: Eisenberg Seeks Unpaid OT under Labor Code
LOS ANGELES, CA: Certification of Collective Action Sought
LYFT INC: Underpays and Misclassifies Drivers, Wickerberg Says
MACY'S WEST: Removes Tessitore & Mallon Suit to S.D. California

MARYLAND MARKETSOURCE: Esparza Suit Moved to E.D. California
MCGOWEN ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Class Certification Bid as Moot
MCLAUGHLIN RESEARCH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hardy Suit Says
MDL 2792: Kennedy Suit over Samsung Washing Machine Consolidated
MDL 2792: Orenstein Suit over Washing Machine Samsung Consolidated

MDL 2804: Lopez Suit vs. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al, Consolidated
MED-PHARMEX INC: Lopez Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
MEPHISTO INC: Faces Wu Suit in Southern District of New York
MERCK & CO: Flynns Sue over Zostavax
MERCK & CO: Sansone et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania

MERCURY PLASTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Torres Suit Alleges
METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER: Underpays Production Crew Members, Suit Says
METROPOLITAN 58TH: Faces Byron Breeze Suit in S.D. New York
MICHAELS STORES: Armstrong Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
MIDWAY INDUSTRIES: Shepardson Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA

MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Underwood Suit Moved to District of Minnesota
MOBIS NORTH AMERICA: Traynum and Carroll Seek Overtime Pay
MONDA WINDOW: Ping Lin Suit Moved to Northern District of Illinois
MONSANTO COMPANY: Fuller Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MT. VIEW FARMING: Bustos Removes Own Suit to E.D. California

MYEXPERIAN INC: Chavers Added as Plaintiff in Vinsant et al. Suit
NATIONAL POLISHING: Charles Barkley Seeks Unpaid Wages
NEW PRIME INC: Underpays Truck Drivers, Ratajesak Alleges
NPAS INC: Collazo Sues over Debt Collection Practices
OLD DOMINION: Saenz Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA

OLYMPIA MANAGEMENT: Dickerson Seeks OT Pay under FLSA
OS RESTAURANT: Removes Lloyd Briggs Suit to C.D. California
PEP BOYS MANNY: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Jimenez Suit Alleges
PINDUODUO INC: Roger Webb Sues over July 2018 IPO
PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Court Denies Certification of 5 Classes

PJ IOWA: Court Certifies FLSA Collective Action
PPG INDUSTRIES: Trevor Mild Securities Class Action Underway
PRECISION GROUP: Elizondo Suit Moved to Southern District of Texas
PRIDE N' LIVING: Reed Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
PVH RETAIL: Venieris Suit Goes to District of Arizona

RAYMOND JAMES: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Class Action
RED LION HOTELS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alcaraz Suit Alleges
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces Alexander Suit in Kern California
RH INC: Court Certifies Class in Teacher Retirement Fund Suit
RICHANI RESTAURANT: Certification of Collective Action Sought

RISTORANTE LA BUCA: Wright Seeks to Certify Classes
RIVER CITY CONDO ASSOC: Robles et al. Sue Board Members over Sale
RMJV LP: Amador Suit Moved to Southern District of California
ROBERT GILMORE: Court Denies Class Certification in Pelino Suit
S&T HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suarez Camacho Says

S. BRAVO SYSTEMS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Parra Claims
SANMINA CORPORATION: Spalliero Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
SHATOS AUTO: Roberts-Glover Sues over Predelivery Service Fee
SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Miller Suit over TV Ad Rates Moved to Illinois
SIRY INVESTMENTS: Underpays Managers, Supervisors, & Technicians

SODEXO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rivera Suit Alleges
SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT: Certification of Employees Class Sought
STAR WAY: Fails to Pay Wages, Vashkovskyi Says
STATE STREET: Law Firm Reaches Truce with Special Master
STITCH FIX: Sawicki Alleges Securities Law Violation

SUNOCO LOGISTICS: Wants Pipeline Damage Class Action Narrowed
SUPERVALU INC: Appeal in Data Security Breach Suit Underway
SYNDER'S-LANCE: Mason Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Sechrest et al. Seek Unpaid Wages under FLSA
TG THERAPEUTICS: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit

TRACTOR SUPPLY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sweeney Suit Claims
TRUST FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Kam Suit Alleges
TSR INC: Paskowitz Sues over "Change in Control"
UNITED MANAGEMENT: Burgains Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
UNITED TECH: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Sullivan Says

UNITEDHEALTHCARE: K.H.B. Suit Moved to District of Utah
USA DIVING: Harvard Diving Coach Resigns Amid Sex Misconduct
VELO ASSOCIATES: Huff Seeks to Certify 4 Classes
VELOX EXPRES: Motion for Conditional Certification Denied as Moot
VITAL RECOVERY: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed

WALMART INC: Violated Video Privacy Protection Act, Capello Says
WARNER MUSIC: Williams Seeks Cut from International Sales
WESTCHESTER AMBULETTE: McCallum Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT
WESTMINSTER PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Yachera Suit in M.D. Florida
WILMAR OILS: Flores Seeks Payment of OT & Minimum Wage

ZOE'S KITCHEN: Mary Toth Balks at Merger Deal with Cava Group
ZOE'S KITCHEN: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action

                            *********

18301-1/2E. 5TH AVE: Underpays Dancers, Kappella Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE SCARLETT KAPPELLA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 18301-1/2E. 5TH AVE. CORP.
D/B/A JUMBO'S CLOWN ROOM; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Case
No. BC723618 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 1, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay wages, minimum and
overtime wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Kappella was employed by the Defendants as dancer.

18301-1/2E. 5th Ave. Corp. d/b/a Jumbo's Clown Room operates an
adult entertainment club in Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erik S. Velie, Esq.
          VICTORY LAW GROUP, LLP
          26707 Oak Ave., Ste. D
          Canyon Country, CA 91351
          Telephone: (213) 422-5061
          Facsimile: (855) 640-7962
          E-mail: erikvelie@victorvlawllp.com

               - and -

          Kevin W. Chiang, Esq.
          EQUITY LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
          201 S. Lake Ave., Ste. 506
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (818) 928-5677
          E-mail: kchiang@equitvlegalgroup.com


AAA TOWING: Ugarde Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
YANSELL C. UGARDE, and other similarly-situated individuals, the
Plaintiffs, vs. AAA TOWING & RECOVERY, LLC, d/b/a M.I.A. TOWING &
RECOVERY, and EDWING RODRIGUEZ, individually, the Defendants, Case
No.: 1:18-cv-24078-JEM (S.D. Fla., Oct. 3, 2018), seeks to recover
from the Defendants overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
the costs and reasonably attorney's fees under the provisions of
Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and all
other current and former employees similarly situated to the
Plaintiff and who worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more
weeks on or after September 2015, without being compensated minimum
and overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempt
employee to perform non-exempt work as a tow- truck driver. The
Defendants promised to pay Plaintiff 30% from every service
performed by him.

Defendants never honored the agreement, and approximately after 3
weeks, of work and too much conflict about the 30%, Defendants
changed the payment method to $12.50 an hour or $500.00 weekly for
a workweek of 5 days with 40 hours, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


ABIGAEL'S ON BROADWAY: Baez et al. Sue over Tip-Pooling
-------------------------------------------------------
MOISES LORENZI, GLORIMAR BAEZ, OSBIN ESCOBAR, and RICHARD
ROMAGNOLO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ABIGAEL'S ON BROADWAY, INC. JEFFREY
NATHAN, individually, HARVEY RIEZENMAN, individually, and ROBERT
ROSS, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 519930/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Oct. 4, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime
compensation, misappropriated tips, call-in pay, uniform purchase
and maintenance violations, unlawful deductions and other damages
for the Plaintiffs and their similarly situated co-workers --
servers, bartenders, bussers, barbacks, food runners, and other
similarly situated non-managerial employees -- who work or have
worked at Abigael's on Broadway located at 1407 Broadway, New York,
New York 10018.

According to the complaint, during the Plaintiffs' employment, the
Defendants applied a tip credit to Tipped Workers' wages and paid
Tipped Workers a reduced minimum wage rate.  The Defendants,
however, did not satisfy the requirements under the New York Labor
Law or the Fair Labor Standards Act by which it could take a tip
credit towards the hourly rates paid to Tipped Workers.

The Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiffs and other Tipped
Workers with proper notification of the tipped minimum wage rate or
tip credit provisions of the NYLL or the FLSA, or of their intent
to apply a tip credit to Plaintiffs' and other Tipped Workers'
wages.  Additionally, the Defendants require the Plaintiffs and
other Tipped Employees to engage in a tip distribution scheme
wherein they must share a daily portion of their total tips with
managers and expediters -- tip ineligible employees under the NYLL
and the FLSA -- the lawsuit says.

Abigael's on Broadway is "the world's largest and most prestigious
Kosher restaurant" that offers its customers "an array of globally
eclectic American fare, Latin comfort foods and Sushi & Pan Asian
specialties.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Carolyn D. Richmond, Esq.
          Bryn Goodman, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          101 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 905-2305
          E-mail: crichmond@foxrothschild.com
                  bgoodman@foxrothschild.com


ADMIRAL SECURITY: Underpays Private Guards, Lacap & Gerez Say
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD LACAP and ERNESTO GEREZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ADMIRAL SECURITY
SERVICES, INC.; and Does 1—50, the Defendants, Case No.
1BCV336103 (Cal. Super. Ct.,  Oct. 11, 2018), seeks restitution and
compensation on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
employees for unpaid meal and rest period, statutory penalties, and
interest.

The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees were hired as
private security guards. As part of their employment, the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees were assigned to
job sites where there were no other guards or relievers to work
with them.  The Defendants required their guards, including the
Plaintiffs, to execute on-duty meal agreements without respect to
whether the nature of guard duties is appropriate for such
agreements.

The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees who worked
alone at their assigned job sites were not afforded complaint meal
and rest breaks because they worked alone. Additionally, the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees never received
any compensation for the breaks that were not provided, the lawsuit
says.

Admiral Security provides security guard services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class

          Tomas E. Margain, Esq.
          Huy Tran, Esq.
          JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP, LLP
          84 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 790
          San Jose, CA 951 13
          Telephone: (408) 317-1100
          Facsimile: (408) 351-0105
          E-mail: T0mas@JAWLaWGroup.com
                  Huy@JAWLaWGroup.com

               - and -

          Kevin R. Allen, Esq.
          Daniel Velton, Esq.
          VELTON ZEGELMAN P.C.
          525 W. Rcmington Drive, Suite 106
          Sunnyvalc, CA 94087
          Telephone: (408) 505-7892
          Facsimile: (408) 228-1930
          E-mail: kallen@vzfirm. com
                  dvelton@vzfirm.com


AHRC HOME: Villar Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO VILLAR, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, the Plaintiff, v.
AHRC HOME CARE SERVICES, INC. and NYSARC, INC., the Defendants,
Case 1:18-cv-09174 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, unpaid wages for travel time, liquidated damages
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants had a policy and
practice of failing to pay the Plaintiff and Class members for all
hours worked due to the Defendants' policy not to compensate for
travel time.  The Defendants willfully violated the Plaintiff's and
the Class members' rights by failing to pay them their overtime
compensation at rates not less than one and one-half times the
regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, the lawsuit says.

AHRC Home offers home health care assistance.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


AIRMEDIA GROUP: Court Dismisses Huang Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
AirMedia Group Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2018, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the Court has granted
the motion to dismiss filed in the case entitled, Huang v. AirMedia
Group Inc. et al., and entered a judgment dismissing the Amended
Complaint with prejudice.

The Company and two of its officers were named as defendants in a
putative securities class action filed on June 25, 2015 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York: Huang v.
AirMedia Group Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-04966-ALC
(S.D.N.Y.).

The complaint in this putative class action alleges that certain of
the defendants' financial statements and other public statements
and disclosures contained misstatements or omissions, including
with respect to the alleged sale of an equity interest in the
Company's advertising subsidiary, in violation the U.S. securities
laws. The complaint states that plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of
their trading activities related to the Company's ADRs between
April 15 and June 15, 2015, and alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On November 10, 2015, the Court appointed China Xiayuan
Transportation Co. Ltd. as the lead plaintiff and appointed a lead
counsel. On January 15, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, advancing similar allegations and claims as the
previously filed complaint and seeking to represent a class of
persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading
activities related to the Company's ADRs between April 7 and June
15, 2015. On March 10, 2016, the Company and one of its officers
filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On March 27, 2017,
the Court granted the motion to dismiss and entered a judgment
dismissing the Amended Complaint with prejudice.

As of December 31, 2017, the Group did not record a provision for
this matter as management believes the possibility of adverse
outcome of the matter is remote and any liability it may incur
would not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated
financial statements.

AirMedia Group Inc. operates out-of-home advertising platforms in
the People's Republic of China. The company operates a network of
digital (television) TV screens on planes operated by 7 airlines;
and gas station media network, as well as other outdoor media
advertising platforms in gas stations. AirMedia Group Inc. was
founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Beijing, the People's
Republic of China.


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Appeal in Security Breach Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 18, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 8, 2018, that the appeal in the
security breach related suit is still pending.

On August 14, 2014, the Company announced that it had experienced a
criminal intrusion by installation of malware on a portion of its
computer network that processes payment card transactions for its
retail store locations, including the Company's Shaw's, Star
Market, Acme, Jewel-Osco and Albertsons retail banners. On
September 29, 2014, the Company announced that it had experienced a
second and separate criminal intrusion. The Company believes these
were attempts to collect payment card data.

Relying on its IT service provider, SuperValu, the Company took
immediate steps to secure the affected part of the network. The
Company believes that it has eradicated the malware used in each
intrusion. The Company notified federal law enforcement
authorities, the major payment card networks and its insurance
carriers and is cooperating in their efforts to investigate these
intrusions.

As required by the payment card brands, the Company retained a firm
to conduct a forensic investigation into the intrusions. The
forensic firm has issued separate reports for each intrusion
(copies of which have been provided to the card networks). Although
the Company's network had previously been found to be compliant
with the Payment Card Industry (PCI) Data Security Standard issued
by the PCI Council, in both reports the forensic firm found that
not all of these standards had been met at the time of the
intrusions, and some of this non-compliance may have contributed to
or caused at least some portion of the compromise that occurred
during the intrusions.

As a result of the criminal intrusions, two class action complaints
were filed against the Company by consumers, Mertz v. SuperValu
Inc. et al, filed in federal court in the state of Minnesota and
Rocke v. SuperValu Inc. et al, filed in federal court in the state
of Idaho, alleging deceptive trade practices, negligence and
invasion of privacy. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. The
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated the
class actions and transferred the cases to the District of
Minnesota.

On August 10, 2015, the Company and SuperValu filed a motion to
dismiss the class actions, which was granted without prejudice on
January 7, 2016. The plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend
the court's judgment, which was denied on April 20, 2016. The court
also denied leave to amend the complaint. On May 18, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals and defendants filed a cross-appeal.

In a decision dated August 30, 2017, the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the District Court's dismissal of the case as to
one of the 16 named plaintiffs, affirmed the dismissal as to the
remaining 15 named plaintiffs and remanded the case to the District
Court for further proceedings. On November 3, 2017, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss with respect to the remaining named
plaintiff's claims on the basis that the plaintiff was not a
customer of any of the Company's stores, and on March 7, 2018, the
Company's motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. On March
14, 2018, the named plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Eight Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal is currently pending.

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

Albertsons Companies, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a
food and drug retailer in the United States. Its food and drug
retail stores offer grocery products, general merchandise, health
and beauty care products, pharmacy, fuel, and other items and
services.  The company is headquartered in Boise, Idaho. Albertsons
Companies, Inc. is a subsidiary of Albertsons Investor Holdings
LLC.


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Parties Agree to Dismiss Akile Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 18, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 8, 2018, that Mel Aklile and the
defendants in the putative class action suit with case number Del.
C.A. No. 2018-0305-AGB, have stipulated to the dismissal of the
action with prejudice and with each party agreeing to bear its own
fees and expenses, which the Delaware  Chancery Court granted.

On April 24, 2018, Mel Aklile, a Rite Aid stockholder, (the
"Plaintiff") brought a putative class action in Delaware Chancery
Court against Rite Aid, the Company, certain of the Company's
subsidiaries and each of the Rite Aid directors, Del. C.A. No.
2018-0305-AGB. The complaint alleged that Rite Aid stockholders had
appraisal rights under Section 262 of the Delaware General
Corporate Law ("DGCL").

The defendants opposed the Plaintiff's claims on the ground that
Rite Aid stockholders had no right of appraisal under the DGCL
because they had a right to receive all stock consideration as
described in the proxy statement/prospectus filed by the Company on
April 6, 2018. On May 7, 2018, the Chancery Court held a hearing on
the Plaintiff's motion to expedite, finding that the Plaintiff
failed to assert a colorable claim of relief. On May 16, 2018, the
defendants filed motions to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint.

On August 8, 2018, while defendants' motions to dismiss were still
pending and before any putative class had been certified, the
Company and Rite Aid mutually agreed to terminate the proposed
transaction thereby mooting the Plaintiff's claims.

As a result, Mr. Aklile and defendants stipulated to the dismissal
action with prejudice and with each party agreeing to bear its own
fees and expenses, which the Chancery Court granted on August 14,
2018.

Albertsons Companies, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a
food and drug retailer in the United States. Its food and drug
retail stores offer grocery products, general merchandise, health
and beauty care products, pharmacy, fuel, and other items and
services.  The company is headquartered in Boise, Idaho. Albertsons
Companies, Inc. is a subsidiary of Albertsons Investor Holdings
LLC.


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Worne Sues over Unwanted Phone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD WORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-08508 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 3, 2018), seeks to recover damages
and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from
the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection, thereby causing the
Plaintiff to incur charges for incoming calls and invading the
Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around November of
2017, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff on his cellular
telephone number ending in -0772, in an attempt to collect on an
alleged debt.  The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were
not for emergency purposes.

The Defendant did not possess the Plaintiff's "prior express
consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular
telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A).  The
Plaintiff received numerous collection calls from the Defendant
within a 12-month period, the lawsuit says.

Allied Interstate provides accounts receivable, customer retention
and debt collection services to blue-chip companies.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


ALPHABET INC: Wicks Sues over Google+ Breach, Misleading Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM WICKS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALPHABET, INC., LAWRENCE E. PAGE,
SUNDAR PICHAI and RUTH M. PORAT, the Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-06245-JSW (N.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 2018), seeks to recover
compensable 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.

According to the complaint, between 2015 and March 2018, a software
glitch in the Google+ website permitted outside developers to
access the personal profile data of Google+ members who had not
opted to permit their data to be shared publicly.  The Defendants
discovered this glitch in March 2018, ran tests to determine the
impact of the glitch, and determined that the data of nearly half
of a million users had been exposed to third parties.  Google's
legal and policy staff drafted a memorandum regarding the security
failure and shared it with senior executives. Throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants repeatedly made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the security failure affecting
users personal data.

Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's
security measures had failed recently and massively, as Google had
exposed the private data of hundreds of thousands of users of
Google+ to third parties; (2) damage to the Company's reputation
and operating results and loss of customers from this failure of
the Company's security measures were imminent and inevitable; (3)
the Company's security protections did not shield personal user
data against theft and security breaches; and (4) the Company's
security measures had been breached due to employee error,
malfeasance, system errors or vulnerabilities. As a result of the
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages, the lawsuit says.

Alphabet was incorporated in 2015 and is the parent company of its
leading subsidiary Google Inc. Google was founded in 1998. Alphabet
and Google are headquartered in Mountain View, California. The
Company's common stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select under the
ticker symbol "GOOG." Alphabet, through its subsidiary Google,
operates a social networking website called "Google+" that allows
people to communicate with their family, friends, and coworkers.
Google+ users ostensibly have the ability to share and restrict the
sharing of personal information according to their preferences by
changing privacy settings.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Austin P. Van, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          468 North Camden Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (818) 532-6499
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  avan@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


AMCOL SYSTEMS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned PAMELA SLOGASKI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
AMCOL SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.: 18-cv-1604 (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying
classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir.
2017).[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


AMERICAN ACADEMIC: Dissemination of Class Notice Sought
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOELLE LEONE and MICHAEL
WINN, for themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. AMERICAN ACADEMIC HEALTH SYSTEM, L.L.C., TENET
HEALTHCARE CORP. and HAHNEMANN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-03769-PD (E.D. Pa), the Plaintiffs move the Court
to enter their proposed Order authorizing the dissemination of
Class Notice to:

     "all persons who have worked as a full-time hourly employee
with hands-on patient care responsibilities at Hahnemann University
Hospital during the past three years under the "opt-in" mechanism
for collective actions provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. section 216(b)".[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          604 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 873 4836


AMERICAN FAMILY CARE: Smiley Seeks OT Pay for Lab Technicians
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY SMILEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, THE Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN FAMILY CARE, INC., a Tennessee
Corporation, and AMERICAN FAMILY CARE OF TENNESSEE, LLC, a
Tennessee Limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-00994 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 3, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
the Plaintiff for all the hours she worked at the rate of time and
one-half her regular rate of pay for all the hours worked over 40
hours in one workweek.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly, willfully, or
with reckless disregard carried out their illegal pattern or
practice of failing to pay overtime compensation with respect to
Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendants received complaints
from the Plaintiff or Class Members regarding these excessive hours
and the failure to compensate for all hours worked but failed to
redress these concerns, necessitating this lawsuit.

The Plaintiff and "Class Members" are Defendants' current and
former hourly-paid Lab Technicians and/or Medical Assistants who
were not paid for all their hours worked and who were not paid
overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek as
required by the FLSA, the lawsuit says.

American Family operates a network of family care/urgent care
clinics. It provides primary care, urgent care, family medicine,
and occupational health services for various acute conditions,
non-life threatening illness, and injuries.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754 8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759 1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com


AMERICAN LOGISTICS: Delbosque Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIELA DELBOSQUE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and the general public of California, the
Plaintiff, vs AMERICAN LOGISTICS COMPANY, LLC; CAREPLUS INVESTMENT
INC.; BC TEA TIME INC.; STEPHEN A. MALOY; GLORIA MONTES DE OCA;
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC723989
(Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 4, 2018), alleges that the Defendants made
unlawful deductions from Plaintiff and the rest of the class
members' remuneration and failed to reimburse them for business
expenses including, but not limited to, vehicle use, fuel, mileage,
etc; failed to pay Plaintiff and the rest of the class overtime
compensation; failed to provide Plaintiff and the rest of the class
with required meal and rest periods; failed to pay Plaintiff  and
the rest of the class who have separated from their employment with
Defendants, all earned wages; and failed to provide Plaintiff and
the rest of the class with accurate itemized wage statements by
failing to include the information required by Labor Code.

The Defendants provide passenger transportation services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Stephen Glick, Esq.
          M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK
          1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 387-3400
          Facsimile: (213) 387-7872
          E-mail: sglick@glicklegal.com
                  ajenkins@glicklegal.com


AMIRA NATURE: Plaintiff Bid for Relief from Dismissal Order Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amira Nature Foods Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2018, for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018, that the motion of a class
action plaintiff for relief from the court's order on the motion to
dismissed has been denied.

On February 10, 2015, two shareholder class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California. The complaints, which were subsequently
consolidated, named the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors as defendants. The consolidated
lawsuit purported to state claims for violation of Section 11 and
Section 15 of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act, generally alleging that certain
statements in the Company's Registration Statement and certain
subsequent Exchange Act filings were false and misleading and
seeking damages in an unspecified amount.

The company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's amended
complaint on October 2, 2015, and on July 18, 2016 the Court
granted the company's  Motion to Dismiss the complaint in its
entirety. The second amended class action complaint was also
dismissed on August 12, 2016. The Plaintiffs did not file a third
amended complaint in the time permitted by the judge. On August 26,
2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from the Court's
order on the motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's motion was denied
on December 18, 2017.

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

Amira Nature Foods Ltd. engages in processing, sourcing, and
selling packaged Indian specialty rice. The company provides
various types of basmati rice, other specialty rice and other food
products, ready-to-eat snacks, edible oils, and organic products
for retailers under the Amira brand; and non-basmati rice. Amira
Nature Foods Ltd. was founded in 1915 and is based in Dubai, the
United Arab Emirates.


ANT HILL: Woodard Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------
NYGERIA WOODARD 9109 Connecticut Avenue Cleveland, Ohio, 44105, On
behalf of herself and all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. ANT HILL, LLC D.B.A Magic City Lounge 2309 St Clair Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114; KIZELLA, LLC D.B.A Magic City Lounge 2309 St
Clair Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114; ELEARE KINNEY 1810 Robindale
Street Wickliffe, OH 44092; and ANTWAND HILL P.O. Box 18216
Cleveland, OH 44118, the Defendants, Case No.: 1:18-cv-02291 (N.D.
Ohio, Oct. 3, 2018), alleges that the Defendants misclassified Ms.
Woodard and other exotic dancer employees in their adult
entertainment club, "Magic City Lounge," as "independent
contractors" and paid these employees zero wages, instead requiring
Woodard and those similarly-situated to pay a share of their income
from dancing, which was derived solely from tips, to Magic City
Lounge, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]

Attorneys for Nygeria Woodard:

          Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
          Chris P. Wido, Esq.
          Tina M. Scibona, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAW FIRM , LLC
          25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 291 4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291 5744
          E-mail: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com


APPLE INC: Zaragosa and Coyle Allege False TV Season Bundle
-----------------------------------------------------------
GABRIELA ZARAGOZA and JOSEPH COYLE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. APPLE INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-06139 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 5, 2018), seeks
damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and all
other remedies the court deems appropriate as a result of the
Defendant's false and misleading business practices with respect to
the marketing and sale of television season bundles offered on
Apple's iTunes store on the Apple TV 4 and 4k devices.

According to the complaint, 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 2 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.

Had the 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, the
Plaintiffs and consumers have suffered injury in fact as a result
of Apple's deceptive practices, the lawsuit says.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and
sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          Joshua Nassir, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256.2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256.2885
          E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
                  jnassir@faruqilaw.com


ARIZONA BEVERAGE: Faces Kubilius et al. Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AriZona Beverage
Company LLC. The case is captioned as LUKAS KUBILIUS; VANESSA
KAILEY; and MAKAYLO VAN PEEBLES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARIZONA BEVERAGE COMPANY
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09075-AT (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2018).
The case is assigned to Judge Analisa Torres.

AriZona Beverage Company LLC engages in producing and supplying
ready-to-drink tea beverages. The company was founded in 1971 and
is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.  AriZona Beverage Company LLC
operates as a subsidiary of Hornell Brewing Co., Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


AXLEHIRE INC: Underpays Drivers, De Leon and Lopez Suit Allege
--------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE DE LEON, and LUCIA LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AXLEHIRE, INC. d/b/a
AXLEHIRE; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-08500-CJC-PLA (C.D. Cal., Oct. 3, 2018) is an action
against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours,
minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as drivers.  Mr. De
Leon was employed from March 2017 to November 2017, Ms. Lopez from
August 2017 to January 2018.

AxleHire, Inc. provides same-day delivery services for e-commerce,
and brick and mortar retailers. The company was incorporated in
2015 and is based in Berkeley, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Nunes , Esq.
          NUNES WORKER RIGHTS LAW, APC
          15260 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1200
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (530) 848-1515
          Facsimile: (424) 252-4301
          E-mail: tony@nunesworkerrightslaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Flores Suit in District of Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America, N.A.
The case is captioned as Victoria Flores, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bank of
America, N.A., Case No. 1:18-cv-02527-WJM-KLM (D. Colo., Oct. 3,
2018).  The case is assigned to Judge William J. Martinez and
referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix.

Bank of America, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans. Bank
of America serves client worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIEL, PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com


BANK OF AMERICA: IPERS Lawsuit Will Continue, Federal Judge Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Hardy, writing for Des Moines Register, reports that an IPERS
lawsuit alleging Wall Street banks engaged in a wide-ranging
conspiracy to maintain exclusive control of the $1-trillion-plus
stock loan market can continue, a federal judge ruled.

The Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System filed a federal class
action suit in August 2017 in the Southern District of New York.
IPERS was joined by Los Angeles County Employees Retirement
Association, the Orange County Employees Retirement System, the
Sonoma County Employees Retirement Association and Torus Capital,
LLC, a trading firm.

The lawsuit alleged that six investment banks -- Bank of America,
Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and UBS --
"took collective, illegal action to boycott, attack and acquire
multiple entities who tried to increase competition and lower costs
in the stock loan market."

In a January 2018 motion, attorneys representing the six banks
asked for the case to be dismissed, arguing that the plaintiffs
failed to state a claim that could be granted relief under the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

But U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied that
motion on September 27.

"While it remains to be seen whether Plaintiffs' factual
allegations will be borne out in discovery," the New York judge
wrote, "the Court is not permitted to dismiss them at this early
stage of the litigation."

The defendants have until Oct. 26 to file an answer to the lawsuit.


Five of the banks declined to comment on the litigation when
contacted by the Register on September 28. Morgan Stanley officials
did not respond to a request for comment.

"IPERS is pleased to see that the judge is allowing this to
proceed," IPERS Spokeswoman Judy Akre said on September 28.

Unlike other financial markets, the suit claims that the stock loan
market has not kept up with technological advancements. Without a
central marketplace, the suit says borrowers and lenders face "an
inefficient, antiquated, and opaque" system that requires
intermediaries, known as prime brokers, who are predominantly large
banks.

The six investment banks named in the suit are the nation's
dominant prime brokers, the suit claims, controlling 60 percent of
market revenues in 2016. The suit says the IPERS fund has "lent
significant volumes of stock," to the defendants and their stock
borrower clients since 2009.

The suit says banks have prevented participants from accessing
marketplaces where they could benefit from direct trading and
secure the best prices. Borrowers and lenders are essentially
trading securities blindly, he said, in the dark on the true cost
of transactions and fees.

The retirement systems allege that big banks have colluded to
pocket higher profits, depriving investors of money that should
flow to retirees, said plaintiff's attorney Michael Eisenkraft,
Esq.-- meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com

"This retirement fund supports thousands of thousands of retirees.
So anything that hurts the fund hurts them," Eisenkraft told the
Register in 2017. "The pension funds are making money. They're just
not making as much money as they should because of this practice."

In a statement on September 28, Eisenkraft reiterated that point,
claiming the banks' conspiracy was aimed at preventing the
"antiquated stock loan market from evolving" in order to preserve
profits.

The retirement systems are seeking damages and injunctive relief.

IPERS is the state's largest public employee retirement program,
with more than 350,000 state, city, county and school district
employees, plus former Iowa public employees and retirees.

The pre-paid fund issued $2 billion in retirement benefits during
the last fiscal year, with $1.7 billion paid out in Iowa.[GN]


BAXTER HEALTHCARE: De Vega Seeks Unpaid OT & Minimum Wage
---------------------------------------------------------
IMELDA DE VEGA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff. vs BAXTER
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG18923256 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Oct. 3, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid meal
period premiums, unpaid rest period, and unpaid minimum wages under
the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed the Plaintiff
and other persons as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the
State of California. The Defendants continue to employ hourly-paid
or non-exempt employees within the Plaintiff and other class
members worked over eight hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week
during their employment with the Defendants.

The Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse
against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State
of California. This scheme involved, failing to pay them for all
hours worked, missed meal periods, and missed rest breaks in
violation of California law, the lawsuit says.

Baxter Healthcare develops, manufactures, and markets healthcare
equipment and instruments.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          Daniel J. Park, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          North Central Avenue, Suite 500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone (818) 230 7502
          Facsimile (818) 230 7502


BIN INSURANCE: Ortiz et al. Seek Certification of FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Ortiz, Joy Morales, and Jeanette Valdez, on behalf of
themselves and all other plaintiffs known and unknown, the
Plaintiffs v. BIN Insurance Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Insureon, Inc.,
Insureon Agent Solutions, Techinsurance, Business Insurance, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02119 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs move
the Court on Oct. 11, 2018, for an order:

   1. granting class certification of their overtime wage claims
under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and for certifying a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for Defendants' failure
to pay for hours worked beyond 40 hours per week and to pay an
overtime premium for those same hours, on behalf of workers class:

      "all current and former employees of Defendant BIN during the
statutory period, who were Account Managers and/or Client Service
Representatives in BIN's Illinois office, who worked at least one
hour of overtime, and who were not paid for these hours nor paid an
overtime premium for them because BIN misclassified them as
exempt.

   2. authorizing notice to issue to putative class and collective
members at the Plaintiffs' expense;

   3. appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel, and
Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and

   4. directing the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiffs'
counsel the names and last known postal addresses, telephone
numbers, and e-mail addresses of all individuals who fall within
the class definition and who worked for the Defendant BIN, from
March 22, 2015, to the present, to be produced in a usable
electronic format within 10 days of the date of the order.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
          LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP
          77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 420-6784

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Tiffany Fordyce, Esq.
          Elizabeth Ralph, Esq.
          Tiffany Andras, Esq.
          Greenberg Traurig, LLP
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60601


CANCER GENETICS: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that
purchasers of Cancer Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CGIX) have filed a
class action complaint against the company's officers and directors
for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
between March 23, 2017 and April 2, 2018. Cancer Genetics,
develops, commercializes, and provides molecular and
biomarker-based tests and services in the U.S., Europe, and Asia.

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

According to the complaint, beginning on March 23, 2017 and
continuing through the class period, Cancer Genetics reaffirmed in
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that "our
disclosure controls and procedures were effective."

On April 2, 2018, after the market closed, Cancer Genetics revealed
that its "disclosure controls and procedures were not effective at
December 31, 2017 as a result of the material weaknesses in
internal controls¦ [and] may not prevent or detect
misstatements."

On this news, Cancer Genetic's shares fell $0.55, or over 33.3% per
share on April 3, 2018, and have yet to recover.

Cancer Genetics Shareholders Have Legal Options

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

         Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         Telephone: (619)525-3990
         Toll Free: (800) 350-6003
         Website: www.robbinsarroyo.com
         Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


CAPITAL STACK: McQuaid Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
KIERAN MCQUAID, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs CAPITAL STACK,
LLC, and EPRODIGY ACH, LLC, and EPRODIGY OPERATIONS, LLC, and DAVID
RUBIN, individually, and BRIAN STULMAN, individually, the
Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-09230 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 9, 2018), seeks to
recover overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
-- three Manhattan-based limited liability companies that operate
as a single enterprise and/or joint employer that lend money to
small and medium-sized businesses, as well as their Chief Executive
Officer and Executive Vice President, both of whom served as the
Plaintiff's direct supervisors -- in various positions from on or
about August 1, 2014 until November 5, 2015. Throughout the
Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants willfully failed to pay
Plaintiff the wages lawfully due to him under the FLSA and the
NYLL.

Specifically, for the entirety of his employment, the Defendants
required the Plaintiff to work, and the Plaintiff did in fact work,
in excess of 40 hours each week or virtually each week, yet the
Defendants willfully misclassified him as an exempt "manager" and
paid him a flat weekly salary, and therefore failed to compensate
the Plaintiff at any rate of pay, let alone at the statutorily
required rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for
all hours that he worked in excess of 40 each week, in violation of
the FLSA and the NYLL.  Moreover, the Plaintiff's weekly wages fell
below the minimum that either the FLSA or the NYLL or both required
at various points of his employment for each hour worked, resulting
in minimum wage violations under either or both statutes, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 279 5000
          Facsimile: (212) 679 5005


CELLULAR SALES: Holick Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAN P. HOLICK, JR., STEVEN
MOFFITT, JUSTIN MOFFITT, GURWINDER SINGH, JASON MACK, WILLIAM
BURRELL and TIMOTHY M. PRATT, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs CELLULAR SALES OF NEW
YORK, LLC, and CELLULAR SALES OF KNOXVILLE, INC., the Defendants,
Case 1:12-cv-00584-NAM-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:

   1. certifying a class consisting of:

      "all persons who: (a) worked as a Sales Representative for
Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc. and Cellular Sales of New York,
in New York State; (b) were classified as non-employee independent
contractors; (c) were paid, in whole, or in majority, on a
commission basis";

   2. designating Jan P. Holick, Steven Moffitt, Justin Moffitt,
Gurwinder Singh, Jason Mack, and Timothy Pratt as Class
Representatives; and

   3. appointing Gleason, Dunn, Walsh & O'Shea as Class
Counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Christopher M. Silva, Esq.
          Ronald G. Dunn, Esq.
          Daniel A. Jacobs, Esq.
          GLEASON, DUNN, WALSH & O'SHEA
          40 Beaver Street, 4th Floor
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 599-7538
          Facsimile: (518) 432-5221

Attorneys for Defendants:

          C. Lany Carbo, III, Esq.
          Julie R. Offerman, Esq.
          David T. Luntz, Esq.
          Chamberlain Hrdlicka
          E-mail: Larry.carbo@chamberlainlaw.com
                  Julie.offerman@chamberlainlaw.com
                  dluntz@hinmanstraub.com

CHART INDUSTRIES: Defends Stainless Steel Cryobiological Tank Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chart Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 18, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself from a purported class action lawsuit
related to the alleged failure of stainless steel cryobiological
storage tank.

During the second quarter of 2018, Chart was named in lawsuits
(including a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California) filed against Chart and
other defendants with respect to the alleged failure of a stainless
steel cryobiological storage tank (model MVE 808AF-GB) at the
Pacific Fertility Center in San Francisco, California.  

No monetary damages related to the alleged failure have been
specified or communicated to Chart at this point, and the company
is evaluating the merits of such claims in light of the limited
information available to date regarding use, maintenance and
operation of the tank which has been out of the company's custody
for the past six years when it was sold to the Pacific Fertility
Center through an independent distributor. Accordingly, an accrual
related to any damages that may result from the lawsuits has not
been recorded because a potential loss is not currently probable or
estimable.

Chart Industries said, "We plan to assert various defenses against
the claims in the lawsuits, including a defense that since
manufacture, we were not in any way involved with the installation,
ongoing maintenance or monitoring of the tank or related fertility
center cryogenic systems at any time since the initial delivery of
the tank."

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

Chart Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells engineered equipment,
packaged solutions, and value-add services for the industrial gas,
energy, and biomedical industries worldwide. It operates in three
segments: Energy & Chemicals (E&C), Distribution & Storage (D&S),
and BioMedical. The company was incorporated in 1992 and is
headquartered in Ball Ground, Georgia.


CHART INDUSTRIES: Suit over Aluminum Cryobiological Tank Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chart Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 18, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a purported class action suit related to the
alleged failure of an aluminum cryobiological storage tank.

Chart has been named in purported class action lawsuits filed in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and other
defendants with respect to the alleged failure of an aluminum
cryobiological storage tank (model FNL XC 47/11-6 W/11) at The
Toronto Institute for Reproductive Medicine in Etobicoke, Ontario.


Chart Industries said, "We have confirmed that the tank in question
was part of the aluminum cryobiological tank recall commenced on
April 23, 2018. We are currently evaluating the merits of the
claims and plan to assert various defenses against the claims in
the lawsuits. Accordingly, an accrual related to any damages that
may result from the lawsuit has not been recorded because a
potential loss is not currently probable or estimable."

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

Chart Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells engineered equipment,
packaged solutions, and value-add services for the industrial gas,
energy, and biomedical industries worldwide. It operates in three
segments: Energy & Chemicals (E&C), Distribution & Storage (D&S),
and BioMedical. The company was incorporated in 1992 and is
headquartered in Ball Ground, Georgia.


CHEGG INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Chegg Inc. ("Chegg" or the
"Company") (NYSE:CHGG) on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired Chegg securities between July 30, 2018 and
September 25, 2018, (the "Class Period").  Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/chgg.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Chegg lacked adequate security measures to
protect users' data; (2) Chegg lacked the internal controls and
procedures to detect unauthorized access to its systems and to its
data; (3) consequently, the Company would incur additional expenses
and litigation risks; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On September 25, 2018, Chegg said that it had "learned that on or
around April 29, 2018, an unauthorized party gained access to a
Company database that hosts user data for chegg.com and certain of
the Company's family of brands such as EasyBib." Chegg also said
that roughly 40 million users' data, including username, email
address, shipping address, and hashed password, could have been
stolen and that they are currently investigating the situation.
Following this news, Chegg stock dropped over 12% to close at
$28.42 on September 26, 2018.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/chgg or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Chegg
you have until November 26, 2018 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Telephone; 212-697-6484
         Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


CITIGROUP INC: Dec. 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

BENJAMIN MICHAEL MERRYMAN, AMY
WHITAKER MERRYMAN TRUST, AND B
MERRYMAN AND A MERRYMAN 4TH
GENERATION REMAINDER TRUST,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITIGROUP, INC., CITIBANK, N.A., and
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-09185-CM-KNF

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) FINAL APPROVAL HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: All persons or entities (1) who received cash distributions
from the Depositary-sponsored American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs")
listed in Appendix 1 to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
dated August 20, 2018 ("Stipulation")1 from January 1, 2006 to
September 4, 2018, inclusive, and were damaged thereby (the
"Damages Class"); and/or (2) who currently own the
Depositary-sponsored ADRs listed in Appendix 1 to the Stipulation
(the "Current Holder Class" and, together with the Damages Class,
the "Class").

Certain persons and entities are excluded from the definition of
the Class as set forth in detail in the Stipulation and the Notice
described below.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE
CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
PENDING IN THIS COURT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE
SETTLEMENT DESCRIBED BELOW.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned
litigation ("Litigation") has been provisionally certified as a
class action for the purposes of settlement only and that the
parties to the Litigation have reached a proposed settlement for
$14,750,000 in cash and certain additional non-monetary relief
("Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Litigation.  A hearing will be held on
December 21, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Colleen
McMahon at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse,
500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, to determine: (i) whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the Litigation should be dismissed with
prejudice against Citibank, N.A. ("Defendant" or "Depositary"), and
the releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the
Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv)
whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE
IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. A detailed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class
Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Final Approval Hearing; and
(III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation
Expenses ("Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim
Form") (or Validation Letter for those Class Members who hold (or
held) their eligible ADRs directly and are listed on the records of
the Depositary's transfer agent) are currently being mailed to
Class Members explaining their rights in connection with the
Settlement and the process, for certain Class Members, to submit a
Claim Form in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the
Settlement. If you have not yet received the detailed Notice and
Claim Form (or Validation Letter), you may obtain copies of these
documents by visiting www.CitibankADRSettlement.com, or by
contacting the Claims Administrator at:

         Citibank ADR Settlement
         c/o KCC Class Action Services
         P.O. Box 404077
         Louisville, KY 40233-4077
         1-866-680-6138
         info@CitibankADRSettlement.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Court-appointed Lead Counsel:

         Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         (610) 667-7706
         info@ktmc.com

If you are a member of the Damages Class (i.e., you received cash
distributions from the Depositary-sponsored ADRs listed in Appendix
1 to the Stipulation from January 1, 2006 to September 4, 2018,
inclusive, and were damaged thereby) and, as explained in the
Notice, you hold (or held) your Depositary-sponsored ADRs directly
and are listed on the records of the Depositary's transfer agent,
you are a Registered Holder Damages Class Members and do not have
to take any action in order to be eligible to receive a payment
from the Settlement. Your losses (if any) will be calculated using
the information provided by the Depositary's transfer agent.
However, if you hold (or held) your Depositary-sponsored ADRs
through a bank, broker or other nominee and are not listed on the
records of the Depositary's transfer agent, you are a
Non-Registered Holder Damages Class Member and, in order for you to
be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must
submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than March 15, 2019.  If
you are a Non-Registered Holder Damages Class Member and do not
submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you
will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Litigation.

If you are a member of the Current Holder Class (i.e., you
currently own the Depositary-sponsored ADRs listed in Appendix 1 to
the Stipulation), the Settlement also provides additional
non-monetary relief related to the conversion of foreign currency
of cash distributions paid by any Depositary-sponsored ADR issuer
pursuant to a deposit agreement, the terms of which are fully set
forth in the Stipulation and mailed Notice.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
received no later than November 16, 2018, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Litigation and if you are a
member of the Damages Class, you will not be eligible to share in
the net proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendant's Counsel such that they
are received no later than November 16, 2018, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, the
Depositary, or its counsel regarding this notice. All questions
about this notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or
the Claims Administrator.

DATED: September 4, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
Southern District of New York

1 The securities listed in Appendix 1 to the Stipulation are: (1)
ABB Ltd. (CUSIP: 000375204); (2) Advanced Semiconductor
Engineering, Inc. (CUSIP: 00756M404); (3) BHP Billiton Ltd. (CUSIP:
088606108); (4) British American Tobacco (CUSIP: 110448107); (5)
Compania Energetica de Minas Gerais – CEMIG (Preferred) (CUSIP:
204409601); (6) Delhaize Group (CUSIP: 29759W101); (7) Diageo PLC
(CUSIP: 25243Q205); (8) GDF Suez (k/n/a/ Engie) (CUSIPs: 36160B105
/ 29286D105); (9) Imperial Tobacco Group PLC (k/n/a Imperial Brands
plc) (CUSIPs: 453142101 / 45262P102); (10) KT Corp. (f/k/a Korea
Telecom Corp.) (CUSIP: 48268K101); (11) Nestle S.A. (CUSIP:
641069406); (12) Nokia (CUSIP: 654902204); (13) POSCO (f/k/a Pohang
Iron and Steel Co.) (CUSIP: 693483109); (14) SK Telecom Co., Ltd.
(f/k/a Korea Mobile Telecommunications Corp.) (CUSIP: 78440P108);
(15) Singapore Telecommunications Ltd. (CUSIP: 82929R304); (16)
Taiwan Semiconductor (CUSIP: 874039100); (17) Tata Motors (CUSIP:
876568502); (18) Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Ericsson) (CUSIP:
294821608); (19) Telefonica S.A. (f/k/a Telefonica de Espana S.A.)
(CUSIP: 879382208); (20) Unilever PLC (CUSIP: 904767704); and (21)
WPP PLC (CUSIP: 92933H101).


CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC: Lawsuits by Wabush Pensioners Resolved
------------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 1, 2018, that the defendants in
Wabush Pensioners related suits have been released from claims and
the suits have been discontinued.

On May 31, 2017, an action captioned Johnson, et al. v. Cliffs
Mining Company, et al. was filed in the Supreme Court of
Newfoundland and Labrador, Trial Division (General) (the
"Newfoundland Court") under the Class Actions Act (Newfoundland) by
certain former employees of Wabush Mines on behalf of all non-union
employees and retirees of Wabush Mines, against the defendants
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., Cliffs Mining Company, and certain
former and current officers, directors and employees (the "Salaried
Employees Action").

The Salaried Employees Action sought, among other things, various
declarations and damages relating to the "Contributory Salaried
Plan for Salaried Employees of Wabush Mines, Cliffs Mining Company,
Managing Agent, Arnaud Railway Company and Wabush Lake Railway
Company, Limited".

On or about June 23, 2017, a separate action captioned Skinner, et
al. v. Cliffs Mining Company, et al. was filed in the Newfoundland
Court under the Class Actions Act (Newfoundland) by certain former
employees of Wabush Mines on behalf of all unionized employees and
retirees of Wabush Mines against the same defendants (the "Union
Employees Action").

The Union Employees Action sought, among other things, declarations
and damages relating to the "Pension Plan for Bargaining Unit
Employees of Wabush Mines, Cliffs Mining Company, Managing Agent,
Arnaud Railway Company and Wabush Lake Railway Company, Limited."

On May 10, 2018, the parties reached a settlement of both the
Salaried Employees Action and the Union Employees Action (together
the "Employee Actions") which were implemented as part of the
Amended Plan within the CCAA proceedings involving the Bloom Lake
Group and the Wabush Group.

Cleveland-Cliffs said, "Under the terms of the Amended Plan, we and
certain of our wholly-owned subsidiaries have made a C$19.0 million
cash contribution to the Wabush Group pension plan and will
contribute into the CCAA estate any distributions or payments we
may be entitled to receive as creditors of the Bloom Lake Group and
the Wabush Group for distribution to other creditors within the
CCAA proceedings. Upon implementation of the Amended Plan on July
31, 2018, each of the Employee Actions was discontinued and the
defendants in the Employee Actions were released from those claims
contained in or which could have been raised in the Employee
Actions."

Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. operates as an iron ore mining company in the
United States. The company operates four iron ore mines in Michigan
and Minnesota; and Koolyanobbing iron ore mining complex located in
Western Australia. It sells its products to integrated steel
companies and steel producers in the United States and the Asia
Pacific. The company was formerly known as Cliffs Natural Resources
Inc. and changed its name to Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. in August 2017.
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. was founded in 1847 and is headquartered in
Cleveland, Ohio.


CLIENT SERVICES: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned TROY NORTON, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CLIENT SERVICES INC., the Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-1601 (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying
classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that the Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support
of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir.
2017).[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


COCHLEAR AMERICAS: Alexander's Class Certification Bid Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONALD K. ALEXANDER, the
Plaintiff, v. COCHLEAR AMERICAS, the Defendant, Case No.
18‐00498‐CV‐W‐HFS (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Howard F.
Sachs entered an order on Oct. 11, 2018:

   1. granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint; and

   2. denying as moot the Plaintiff's motions for demand for jury
trial, court ruling, leave to file amended complaint, to certify
class, and for default judgment.

The Court said, "A careful review of plaintiff's allegations in the
proposed Amended Complaint reveals a mirror image of those claims
initially asserted. In fact, the plaintiff repeats that he is not
asserting claims based on any type of product liability, federal
statutes or case law, FDA oversight, or fraud upon the FDA, but
rather, that his claims are based on Missouri consumer fraud and
false advertising.  Consequently, as amended, the allegations do
not cure the preemption issues related to his claims, and leave to
file this pleading will not be granted. Williams v. Bayer Corp.,
541 S.W.3d, at 614. 2."[CC]


COOKUNITY LLC: Vazquez et al. Seek Minimum Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
RAMIRO VAZQUEZ, DANIEL TORRES RAMOS, JUAN OLIVARES DE LA TORRE,
RIGOBERTO ATLATENCO AMARO, MARIO CAMPOS, ABRAHAM GUTIERREZ
OLIVARES, MARCOS ALCANTARA HERNANDEZ, LUIS MIGUEL BARRERA PEREZ,
PEDRO LAZARO FORTIS, WILLIAM PALADINES, JUAN PALACIOS, RICARDO
TRUJILLO GOMEZ, CARMELLO RAMIREZ MARTINEZ, JOSE IVAN ISLAS RAMIREZ,
and MIGUEL ANGEL GALICIA JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. COOKUNITY, LLC
(D/B/A COOKUNITY), MATEO MARIETTI, MATIAS SEREBRINSKY, and LUCIA
CISILOTTO, the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-09301-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Oct.
11, 2018), seeks unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs are both current and former employees of Defendants
CookUnity, LLC. The Defendants own, operate, or control a meal
delivery service/food distributer, whose principal executive office
is located at 1 North 4th Place Apt. 34G, Brooklyn, New York, 11249
under the name "CookUnity".

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to maintain
accurate record keeping of the hours worked and have failed to pay
the Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked. In or around
2018, the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants without appropriate
minimum wage compensation for the hours that they worked. Instead
the Plaintiffs were paid by the amount of deliveries they were
delivering instead of being paid an hourly rate, specifically they
were receiving $4.00 per delivery when they made over a certain
amount of deliveries per day. Furthermore, the Defendants have
repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis. In
addition, the Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of
unlawfully basis appropriating the Plaintiffs' and other tipped
employees' tips and have made unlawful deductions from the
Plaintiffs' and other tipped employees' wages, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


CSX CORP: Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 15, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself in the Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and
three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws. In November 2007, the class action
lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in the District of
Columbia, where they are now pending. The suit seeks treble damages
allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as
attorneys' fees and other relief. Plaintiffs are expected to allege
damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges at issue.

In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class
action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs'
claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to
prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads petitioned the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to appeal
the District Court's class certification decision. In August 2013,
the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the class certification
decision and remanded the case to the District Court to reconsider
its class certification decision. On October 10, 2017, the District
Court issued an order denying class certification.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is reviewing the
District Court's denial of class certification and held oral
argument on September 28, 2018, with a decision yet to be issued.
The District Court has delayed proceedings on the merits of the
case pending the outcome of the class certification proceedings.

CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at and
applied lawfully and that the case is without merit. Accordingly,
the Company intends to defend itself vigorously. However, penalties
for violating antitrust laws can be severe, and resolution of this
matter or an unexpected adverse decision on the merits could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or liquidity in that particular period.

CSX Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
rail-based transportation services in the United States and Canada.
The company offers rail services, as well as transports intermodal
containers and trailers. CSX Corporation was founded in 1978 and is
based in Jacksonville, Florida.


CSX CORP: West Lumberton Baptist Church et al. Sue over Flooding
----------------------------------------------------------------
WEST LUMBERTON BAPTIST CHURCH; CURRIE CHAIN SAW, INC.; C.J.M.
VENTURES, INC.; WILLIAM LOCKLEAR D/B/A STRICKLAND'S BARBERSHOP; TBL
ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY, INC.; SAMMY'S AUTO SALES, INC.; LINDA
SAMPSON; and ERIC CHAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CSX CORPORATION; CSX
TRANSPORTATION, INC.; and CSX INTERMODAL TERMINALS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-00178 (E.D.N.C., Oct. 4, 2018),
alleges that since 2003, the Defendants have been on notice that an
underpass at Interstate 95 owned by the Defendants and running
through the levee system of the City of Lumberton ("City") creates
a substantial risk of destructive flooding to the southern and
western portions of the City. Nonetheless, the Defendants have
taken no steps to correct the problem.  As a direct result of the
Defendants' disregard of the risk, flooding of the southern and
western parts of the City occurred when the Lumber River rushed
through the ungated underpass during 2016's Hurricane Matthew. The
damage was extensive.

Although the Defendants could not have had a more compelling
demonstration of the damage that its underpass could cause, they
still failed and refused to work with the City and other
governmental bodies to take steps -- such as building a
long-recommended floodgate -- to ensure that the flooding resulting
from Hurricane Matthew was not repeated.  Just two years later,
Hurricane Florence threatened the City. Governmental officials –
recognizing that the City was potentially facing a repetition of
Matthew's devastating loss – pleaded with the Defendants to allow
the City to build a temporary sandbag berm to try to fill the hole
created by the I-95 underpass. The Defendants repeatedly refused,
threatening legal action if the City acted without permission. Only
when the Governor signed an emergency order could volunteers,
government workers, and the National Guard attempt to construct the
berm just as Hurricane Florence struck. When the berm ultimately
failed, after protecting the City for two days, the Lumber River
again rushed through the I-95 underpass, precisely as it had two
years earlier.

Once again, flooding forced evacuations, has left people homeless,
closed businesses, and destroyed personal property and inventory.
The Defendants have twice ignored foreseeable risks, and rejected
cooperating with local governments and building a floodgate. Their
willful, wanton, or reckless disregard was compounded in 2018, when
the Defendants prevented the City from having the necessary time to
build a more formidable temporary berm when Hurricane Florence hit
the U.S. on September 2018.

CSX Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
rail-based transportation services in the United States and Canada.
The company offers rail services, as well as transports intermodal
containers and trailers. It also serves production and distribution
facilities through track connections. CSX Corporation was founded
in 1978 and is based in Jacksonville, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martha Geer, Esq.
          Jay Chaudhuri, Esq.
          Adam Langino, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          150 Fayetteville Street, Suite 980
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 890-0560
          Facsimile: (919) 890-0567
          E-mail: mgeer@cohenmilstein.com
                  jchaudhuri@cohenmilstein.com
                  alangino@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS
          & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 220
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 515-1400
          Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
          E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Gary K. Shipman, Esq.
          SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, LLP
          575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106
          Wilmington, NC 28405
          Telephone: (910) 762-1990
          Facsimile: (910) 762-6758
          E-mail: gshipman@shipmanlaw.com

               - and -

          K. Robert Davis, Esq.
          THE BRITT LAW FIRM, P.C.
          107 N. Court Square, Suite 22
          Lumberton, NC 28358
          Telephone: (910) 671-4500
          Facsimile: (866) 780-8245
          E-mail: thebrittlawfirm@yahoo.com


DEL TACO: Discovery Still Ongoing in Former Cal. Employee Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 18, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 11, 2018, that that discovery is
still ongoing in former employee's class suit in California.

In March 2014, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class
action complaint alleging that Del Taco has not appropriately
provided meal breaks and failed to pay wages to its California
hourly employees. Discovery is in process and Del Taco intends to
assert all of its defenses to this threatened class action and the
individual claims. Del Taco has several defenses to the action that
it believes could prevent the certification of the class, as well
as the potential assessment of any damages on a class basis.

Del Taco said, "Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and
the Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of
the unresolved matter. However, based on management's current
understanding of the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company
does not believe that these proceedings give rise to a probable or
estimable loss and should not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position, operations or cash flows. Therefore,
Del Taco has not recorded any amount for the claim as of September
11, 2018.

Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. operates a chain of fast food
restaurants. The company consists of two separate Mexican fast-food
groups, 79 Del Taco units and 36 Taco Villa restaurants. The
company offers Mexican food items, such as tacos, burritos,
quesadillas, burgers, French fries, and soft drinks. The company
was incorporated in 1983 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Del Taco
Restaurants, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co.


DELIV INC: Lawson et al Seek to Certify Class of Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Raef Lawson and Joshua
Albert, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. DELIV, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-03632-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on
January 10, 2019, for an order to certify a class that includes all
California Deliv Drivers.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com


DIGITAL ALTITUDE: Marketing & Business Courses A Sham, Doty Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JALLEH DOTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIGITAL ALTITUDE, LLC; and DOES 1 THROUGH
10, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. BC723964 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Oct. 3, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of falsely advertising their services.

According to the complaint, the Defendant represents that it will
provide a digital marketing and business mastery course along with
training, course materials, and customer service support. However,
the Defendants failed to provide no concrete information on how to
proficiently and successfully market and run a business. Despite
the fact that the Defendants do not provide mastery courses on
marketing and business that will allow consumers to make six figure
incomes in six steps, the Defendants nonetheless represents to
consumers that it does in order to entice them to give the
Defendants thousands of dollars.

Digital Altitude, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
engaged in the sale of marketing and business education courses and
business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DOLGENCORP OF NEW YORK: Riley Seeks Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------
ANTOINETTE RILEY individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. DOLGENCORP OF NEW YORK,
INC. d/b/a DOLLAR GENERAL, and related or affiliated entities, the
Defendant, Case No. 159417/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 11, 2018),
seeks to recover for unpaid wages, unpaid minimum wage, and unpaid
overtime compensation pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant maintained a policy and
practice of deducting 30 minutes for lunch even when Plaintiff
would not take all or parts of her lunch break. This policy and
practice applied to her co-workers, to each member of the putative
class. The Plaintiff routinely worked through her lunch break. Even
when Plaintiff did not work through her entire lunch break, she
rarely had 30 uninterrupted minutes for lunch. She would regularly
be interrupted to assist a fellow sales associate or a customer,
the lawsuit says.

Dollar General is an American chain of variety stores headquartered
in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. As of July 2018, Dollar General
operates 15,000 stores in 45 of the 48 contiguous United
States.{BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943 9082
          E-mail: jnewhouse@vandallp.com


DOS REALES: FLSA Class Conditionally Certified in Pena Olivera Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANATOLIO PENA OLIVERA and
MARIA FERNANDA MARTINEZ Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DOS REALES, INC. and ALVARO
QUEZADA, the Defendants, Case No. 17-2203-KGS (D. Ks.), the Hon.
Judge K. Gary Sebelius entered an order on Oct. 11, 2018:

   1. granting conditional Fair Labor Standards Act certification
and approval of notice of a class of similarly situated restaurant
workers;

   2. directing the Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs with a
list of employees who fall within the putative class and provide
the plaintiffs with these individuals' addresses, telephone
numbers, and email addresses, if known; and

   3. directing the parties to submit jointly proposed deadlines
for remaining case management activities.[CC]


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Perea Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mario Perea, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC; and
Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-06706 (N.D. Ill.,
Oct. 3, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to
Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.

Dynamic Recovery Services, Inc. provides collection services to the
commercial sector. The company was founded in 1990 and is based in
Farmers Branch, Texas. [BN]

The case is represented by:

          Mario Kris Kasalo, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD.
          20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 726-6160
          E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com


EAGLE DINER: Flores and Goold Seek Approval of Class Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEXIS FLORES AND VIRGINIA GOOLD, for themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. EAGLE DINER
CORP., JAMES ROKOS, MARIA ROKOS AND MARKO ROKOS, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01206-AB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs move the Court
to enter their proposed Order authorizing the dissemination of
Class Notice to:

     "all persons who have worked as Eagle Diner Servers during the
past three years under the "opt-in" mechanism for collective
actions provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section
216(b)".[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          604 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 873-4836


EEOC: U.S. Pastor Council et al. Allege Gender, Religious Bias
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Pastor Council, on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated; Hotze Health & Wellness Center, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission; Victoria A. Lipnic, Chai R. Feldblum, and
Charlotte A. Burrows, in their official capacities as chair and
commissioners of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission;
Jefferson B. Sessions III, in his official capacity as Attorney
General of the United States; United States of America, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00824-O (N.D. Tex., Oct. 6, 2018),
seeks to enjoin the federal government from enforcing
anti-discrimination policies against any employer that objects to
homosexual or transgender behavior on religious grounds.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that Title VII
outlaws employment discrimination on account of sexual orientation
or gender identity. See Baldwin v. Foxx, EEOC Doc. No. 0120133080,
2015 WL 4397641 (EEOC July 16, 2015); Macy v. Holder, EEOC Doc. No.
0120120821, 2012 WL 1435995 (EEOC Apr. 20, 2012).  According to the
complaint, neither the text of Title VII nor the EEOC's regulatory
guidance makes any exemptions or accommodations for churches or
corporations that oppose homosexual or transgender behavior on
religious grounds. The failure to provide a religious exemption to
this supposed anti-discrimination requirement violates the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes:

          Charles W. Fillmore, Esq.
          H. Dustin Fillmore, Esq.
          THE FILLMORE LAW FIRM L.L.P.
          1200 Summit Avenue, Suite 860
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 332-2351
          Facsimile: (817) 870 1859
          E-mail: chad@fillmorefirm.com
          dusty@fillmorefirm.com

               - and -

          Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
          MITCHELL LAW PLLC
          106 East Sixth Street, Suite 900
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 686 3940
          Facsimile: (512) 686 3941
          E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Rivera Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services, LLC. The case is captioned as Francisco Joel Rivera,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-04639-AT-JSA (N.D. Ga., Oct. 4, 2018). The lawsuit alleges
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to
Judge Amy Totenberg and referred to Magistrate Judge Justin S.
Anand.

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
          SKAAR AND FEAGLE
          2374 Main Street, Suite B
          Tucker, GA 30084
          Telephone: (404) 373-1970
          Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
          E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com

               - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Micah S. Adkins, Esq.
          THE ADKINS FIRM, P.C.
          7100 Executive Center Drive, Suite 110
          Brentwood, TN 37027
          Telephone: (615) 370-4099
          E-mail: MicahAdkins@ItsYourCreditReport.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Sola, Esq.
          ROBERT S. SOLA, P.C.
          1500 SW First Avenue, Suite 800
          Portland, OR 97201
          Telephone: (503) 295-6880
          Facsimile: (503) 243-4546
          E-mail: rssola@msn.com


ETTAIN GROUP: Udoewa Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------
PATRICK UDOEWA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ETTAIN GROUP, INC. the Defendant, Case
No.: 3:18-cv-00535 (W.D.N.C., Oct. 3, 2018), contends that the
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, by
knowingly suffering and/or permitting the Plaintiff and the
putative Class members to work in excess of 40 hours per week
without properly compensating them at an overtime premium rate for
these overtime hours.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant
as a Consultant, Trainer, Go-Live Support staff, and Instructional
Designer. The Plaintiff assisted with the implementation and
administration of integrated health computer systems. The
Defendant's main function was to recruit and hire individuals to
assist hospitals and healthcare organizations with their
implementation and administration of an integrated health computer
system.

The Plaintiffs were all compensated on an hourly basis. Mr Udoewa
was paid approximately $50.00 to $85.00 an hour. The Plaintiffs
were paid only straight time for all hours they worked, including
all overtime hours worked each week, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant provides staffing services to customers throughout
the United States, including Virginia.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Collective:

          Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
          Craig L. Leis, Esq.
          Corporate Place, Suite 325
          Charlotte, NC 28277
          Telephone: (704) 612 0038
          E-mail: phil@gibbonsleis.com
                  craig@gibbonsleis.com

               - and -

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  aficzko@stephanzouras.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Ellis Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned TERRACE ELLIS, the Plaintiff,
v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case
5:17-cv-07092-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on
December 13, 2018, for an order certifying this class of
consumers:

"all natural persons who requested a copy of their consumer
disclosure from Experian between May 30, 2013, through the present;
(2) received a disclosure in response that included a tradeline
with the name "Advanta Bank" or "Advanta Credit Cards"; (3) did not
identify Cardworks Servicing, Inc. as a source of the information
for the Advanta Bank or Advanta Credit Cards tradeline; and (4)
whose "date of status" or "date last reported" field for the
tradeline reflected a date of August 2010 or later."[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES , P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930 3660
          Facsimile: (757) 257 3450
          E-mail: craig@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          483 Ninth Street, Suite 200
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile (202) 973-0950
          E-mail apersinger@tzlegal.com


FACEBOOK INC: Fails to Secure Users' Personal Info, McGuire Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHI MCGUIRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs FACEBOOK, INC., the Defendant, Case
3:18-cv-06172 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 9, 2018), alleges that Facebook
failed to secure its users' Personally Identifiable Information,
and for its misrepresentations and omissions in its public
statements about its information security practices.

According to the complaint, to establish a Facebook account one is
required to share one's name, gender, date of birth, and email
address or mobile phone number. After that, Facebook tracks and
stores any personally identifiable information users add to their
accounts, including schools, maiden name, hometown, current city,
employment, and group affiliations such as political clubs, and
alumni associations; every IP address from which the user logs in;
every friend in the network, including deleted friends; all of the
user's activity on Facebook -- ever. That includes every post,
every "like," every status change, and every search for another
person on Facebook.  Some users' accounts also contain credit or
debit card information. All of this information is "Personally
Identifiable Information" or "PII", which is information that can
be used on its own or with other information to identify, contact,
or locate a single person, or to identify an individual in
context.

The collection of massive amounts of PII is central to Facebook's
business model. Most of Facebook's revenues, which exceeded $40
billion in 2017, were from the sale of targeted advertising; that
is, advertising delivered to Facebook users selected on the basis
of the PII the company maintains about them. On September 28, 2018,
Facebook disclosed that a breach of the company's computer network
resulted in hackers obtaining direct access to the accounts of 50
million Facebook users and all of the information accessible in and
through those accounts.  In addition, once they had access to the
users' Facebook accounts, "the attackers could have gained access
to apps like Spotify, Instagram and hundreds of others that give
users a way to log into their systems through Facebook," the
lawsuit says.

Facebook is the world's largest social networking website, with
more than two billion monthly active users as of June 2017.
Facebook operates a social networking website that allows people to
communicate with their family, friends, and coworkers by sharing
(or "posting") information, including text, photographs, website
links, and videos.  Facebook is also widely used by companies and
organizations to advertise and promote their products and
causes.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          David Azar, Esq.
          MILBERG TADLER PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
          11766 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (212) 594 5300
          Facsimile: (212) 868 1229
          E-mail: dazar@milberg.com

               - and -

          Ariana J. Tadler, Esq.
          Henry J. Kelston, Esq.
          atadler@milberg.com
          hkelston@milberg.com
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1920
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594 5300
          Facsimile: (212) 868 1229


FLOWERS FOODS: Carr et al. Seek to Certify 3 Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW CARR, TERRY CARR,
DAVID TUMBLIN, and GREGORY BROWN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FLOWERS FOODS, INC.
and FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF OXFORD, LLC, the Defendants., Case No.:
2:15-cv-06391-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
certify three classes:

     -- "all persons who, at any time from December 1, 2012
continuing through entry of judgment in this case, worked as
distributors for Flowers Foods, Inc. and/or Flowers Baking Company
of Oxford, Inc. in the State of Pennsylvania and were classified as
independent contractors under their distribution agreements";

     -- "all persons who, at any time from December 12, 2012
continuing through entry of judgment in this case, worked as
distributors for Flowers Foods, Inc. and/or Flowers Baking Company
of Oxford, Inc. in the State of Maryland and were classified as
independent contractors under their distribution agreements"; and

     -- "all persons who, at any time from March 24, 2014
continuing through entry of judgment in this case, worked as
distributors for Flowers Foods, Inc. and/or Flowers Baking Company
of Oxford, Inc. in the State of New Jersey and were classified as
independent contractors under their distribution agreements".[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          Christopher D. Jozwiak, Esq.
          Scott A. Moriarity, Esq.
          BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
          100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 252 3570
          Facsimile: (612) 252 3571
          E-mail: samoriarity@baillonthome.com
                  sjwanta@baillonthome.com
                  cdjozwiak@baillonthome.com

               - and -

          Gordon Rudd, Esq.
          David Cialkowski, Esq.
          REED PLLP
          111 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          E-mail: Gordon.Rudd@zimmreed.com
                  David.Cialkowski@Zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884 2491
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
                  mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592 1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592 4663
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Susan E. Ellingstad, Esq.
          Rachel A. Kitze Collins, Esq.
          Brian D. Clark, pro hac vice
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339 6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339 0981
          E-mail: seellingstad@locklaw.com
                  rakitzecollins@locklaw.com
                  bdclark@locklaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Christopher E. Humber, Esq.
          Michael J. Murphy, Esq.
          Margaret Santen Hanrahan, Esq.
          Mark Diana, Esq.
          Robin Kosky, Esq.
          K. Clark Whitney, Esq.
          Julie A. Donahue, Esq.
          Aaron Warshaw, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          1909 K Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20006
          E-mail: chris.humber@ogletreedeakins.com
                  michael.murphy@ogletreedeakins.com
                  maggie.hanrahan@ogletreedeakins.com
                  mark.diana@ogletreedeakins.com
                  robin.koshy@ogletreedeakins.com
                  clark.whitney@ogletreedeakins.com
                  julie.donahue@ogletreedeakins.com
                  aaron.warshaw@ogletreedeakins.com

FLYFIT HOLDINGS: Thurston Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER RAY THURSTON, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the PLaintiff, vs. FLYFIT HOLDINGS, LLC (D/B/A
FLYFIT GLOBAL) and BRIAN CHAPPON, the Defendants, Case
1:18-cv-09044 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 3. 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Mr. Thurston was employed as an
executive assistant of the CEO at the company located at 221 West
29th Street, Apt 22B, New York, New York 10001. The Plaintiff
worked for the Defendants without appropriate compensation for the
hours that he worked.

Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate record-keeping
of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately
for all hours worked. Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed
to pay the Plaintiff wages on a timely basis, the lawsuit says.

FlyFit Holdings, LLC operate Manhattan fitness company FlyFit
Global.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


FRONTLINE ASSET: Williams Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL WILLIAMS, pleading
on his own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated
consumers, the Plaintiff, vs. FRONTLINE ASSET STRATEGIES; VELOCITY
INVESTMENTS, LLC, the Defendants, Case 2:17-cv-03119-JD (E.D. Pa.),
the Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order certifying this case to
proceed as a class action on behalf of a class of:

     "consumers with a Pennsylvania address that have received
collection letters from Defendant concerning debts incurred for
primarily personal, household, or family purposes during a period
beginning one year prior to the filing of this complaint that a)
fails to provide a partial payment disclosure, b) fails to disclose
that the consumer cannot be sued on the debt, and c) falsely
threatens the accrual of interest."[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          Elizabeth Apostola, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          1373 Broad Street, Suite 203-C
          Clifton, NJ 07013
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
                  ea@zemellawllc.com


GATEWAY ONE: Anderson Sues over Repossession of Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------
LAURENDA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GATEWAY ONE LENDING & FINANCE,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 27-CV-18-16743 (Minn. Dist., Hennepin
Cty., Oct. 4, 2018) seeks injunctive and monetary relief over the
Defendant's alleged practice of repossessing and selling borrowers'
vehicles in the State of Minnesota.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants sent to
the Plaintiff a form post-repossession notice which misstates
important consumer rights provided under the Uniform Commercial
Code, including the borrower's true liability for a deficiency
following the sale of a vehicle.

Gateway One Lending & Finance, LLC manages and services indirect
auto financing products for auto dealers in the United States. The
company was incorporated in 2006 and is based in Anaheim,
California with sales and credit locations in Northern California,
Illinois, New Jersey, and Georgia. As of November 30, 2011, Gateway
One Lending & Finance, LLC operates as a subsidiary of TCF National
Bank. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark L. Heaney, Esq.
          HEANEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          601 Carlson Parkway, Suite 1050
          Minnetonka, MN 55305
          Telephone: (952) 933-9655
          Facsimile: (952) 487-0189
          E-mail: mark@heaneylaw.com


GEORGIA: Department of Corrections Faces Harris et al. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Georgia Department of
Corrections. The case is captioned as RICARDO HARRIS; BRANDON COBB;
TOMMY GREEN; TONY MOORE, JR.; CHRISTOPHER SHIELDS; DARRELL SMITH,
JR.; JORAE SMITH; LEROY HENDERSON; ANDREW SMITH, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEORGIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF PARDONS AND
PAROLES; GREGORY C DOZIER, in his official capacity as COMMISSIONER
OF THE GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; TERRY BARNARD, in his
official capacity as CHAIRMAN OF THE GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF PARDONS
AND PAROLES; TIMOTHY C. WARD, in his official capacity as the Chief
of Staff of the GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CLAY NIX in his
official capacity as the DIRECTOR OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS OF THE
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; RICKY MYRICK, in his official
capacity as the ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF THE FACILITIES DIVISION
OF THE GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JACK RANDY SAULS, in his
official capacity as the ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH SERVICES
FOR THE GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JAY SANDERS, in his
official capacity as the ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INMATE SERVICES
OF THE GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Warden TOMMY BOWEN, in
his official capacity as WARDEN OF CENTRAL STATE PRISON; Warden
ANTOINE CALDWELL, in his official capacity as Warden of JOHNSON
STATE PRISON; TED PHILBIN, in his official capacity as WARDEN OF
AUGUSTA STATE MEDICAL PRISON, Case No. 5:18-cv-00365-TES (M.D. Ga.,
Oct. 3, 2018). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The Case is referred to Judge Timan E. Self,
III.

Georgia Department of Corrections is an agency of the U.S. state of
Georgia operating state prisons. The agency is headquartered in
Forsyth, in the former campus of Tift College.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexandria E. G. Swette, Esq.
          767 Fifth Ave.
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8339
          E-mail: alexandria.swette@weil.com

               - and -

          Anna Bitencourt, Esq.
          8630 Fenton St., Suite 820
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-1789
          Facsimile: (301) 587-1791

               - and -

          Audrey E. Stano, Esq.
          WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          201 Redwood Shores Pkwy 6th Floor
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065
          E-mail: audrey.stano@weil.com

               - and -

          Claudia Center, Esq.
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 343-0762
          E-mail: ccenter@aclu.org

               - and -

          Kosha S. Tucker, Esq.
          PO BOX 77208
          Atlanta, GA GA 30357
          Telephone: (678) 271-0073
          E-mail: ktucker@acluga.org

               - and -

          Nigar Shaikh, Esq.
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153-0119
          Telephone: (212) 310-8000

               - and -

          Ralph I. Miller, Esq.
          2001 M St NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20036
          E-mail: ralph.miller@weil.com

               - and -

          Susan Mizner, Esq.
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 343-0762
          E-mail: smizner@aclu.org

               - and -

          Talila A. Lewis, Esq.
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 343-0781
          Facsimile: (415) 395-0950

               - and -

          Zoe Brennan-Krohn, Esq.
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 343-0762
          E-mail: zbrennan-krohn@aclu.org

               - and -

          Sean Jengwei Young, Esq.
          PO Box 77208
          Atlanta, GA 30357
          Telephone: (678) 981-5295
          E-mail: syoung@acluga.org


GIGA WATT INC: Refael Sofair Alleges RICO Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
REFAEL SOFAIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Paintiff v. GIGA WATT INC.; DAVID MATTHEW CARLSON;
GIGAWATT PTE LTD; and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:18-cv-00308-SMJ (E.D.
Wash., Oct. 2, 2018) alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The case is assigned to Judge
Salvador Mendoza, Jr.

Gigawatt, Inc. operates a crowdfunding platform that enables clubs,
teams, and others living in the United States to launch blitz
fundraising campaigns. The company is based in San Mateo,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas A Hofmann, Esq.
          WILLIAMS KASTNER& GIBBS-SEA
          601 Union Street, Suite 4100
          P.O. Box 21926
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 628-6600
          Facsimile: (206) 628-6611
          E-mail: dhofmann@williamskastner.com

               - and -

          John Alan Knox, Esq.
          WILLIAMS KASTNER& GIBBS-SEA
          601 Union Street, Suite 4100
          P.O. Box 21926
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 233-2965
          Facsimile: (206) 628-6611
          E-mail: jknox@williamskastner.com


GRAY TV: Walley's Auto Sales Alleges Price-Fixing of TV Ad Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
WALLEY'S AUTO SALES, INC. d/b/a WALLEY'S MARINE & AUTO SALES, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. GRAY TELEVISION, INC.; HEARST COMMUNICATIONS; HEARST TELEVISION,
INC.; NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC.; TEGNA INC.; TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY;
and SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-06740 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 5, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants unlawfully coordinated efforts and shared information to
artificially inflate prices for television commercials in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to represent a
Class consisting of all persons and entities in the United States
who paid for all or a portion of advertisement time on local TV
provided by Gray Television, Inc., Hearst Communications, Inc.,
Hearst Television, Inc., Nexstar Media Group, Inc., Tegna Inc.,
Tribune Media Company, or Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. from at
least January 1, 2014 until the effects of their unlawful conduct
cease.

Rather than compete for advertising sales on price, as competitors
are supposed to do, the Defendants and their co-conspirators shared
proprietary information and conspired to fix prices and reduce
competition in the market, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          Michael J. Freed, Esq.
          Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
                  mfreed@fklmlaw.com
                  rwozniak@fklmlaw.com


               - and -

          Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq.
          WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
          100 South Broad Street, Suite 705
          Philadelphia, PA 19096
          Telephone: (215) 545-7200
          E-mail: kitchenoff@wka-law.com


HENRY SCHEIN: Kramer Alleges Dental Supplies Pricing Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------------
NATHANIEL DYLAN KRAMER, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff,  vs HENRY SCHEIN, INC.;
PATTERSON CO., INC.; BENCO DENTAL SUPPLY CO.; AND UNNAMED
CO-CONSPIRATORS, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-06183 (N.D. Cal.,
Oct. 9, 2018), alleges that the Defendants have violated the
Cartwright Act and California Unfair Competition Act with their
agreement not to compete as to price and margins. This allows them
to charge California dental practices well above competitive prices
for dental supplies. This overcharging is in turn passed  on, all
or in part, to members of the proposed California Class of Dental
Purchasers in their dental bills.

According to the complaint, in aid of their pricing conspiracy, the
Defendants have pursued four strategies. First, they have sought to
fix pricing through an effort to reach agreed margins on sales
across these major distributors. As Henry Schein's Regional Manager
Mark Lowery has put it, the aim of the margin-fixing scheme is to
ensure that dentists "get dental products for the same price no
matter who they buy it from" so that "we all get paid," and the
scope of this margin-fixing scheme has run "unanimously across the
industry for as long as I have been in the dental business."
Second, the Defendants have conspired to boycott the entry and
expansion of competing distributors offering lower supply prices by
boycotting, or threatening to boycott, manufacturers supplying the
discounters by denying the manufacturers essential distribution by
the Defendants. They have also boycotted, or threatened to boycott,
(a) the trade shows of state dental trade associations, (b) dental
practices, and (c) other industry participants dealing with, or
promoting, lower-priced distributors. Third, the Defendants have
divided among themselves the relevant market by agreeing not to
"poach" one another's sales representatives and the dental
practices serviced by these sales representatives.

The Defendants' conduct is per se illegal under the Cartwright Act
by fixing prices, boycotting, and dividing the relevant market.
Overcharges inflicted on the California dental practices by the
conspiracy have been passed on, all or in part, to their customers,
members of the proposed Class of Dental Purchasers.  The
Defendants' conduct also constitutes unfair competition under the
California Unfair Competition Act. Each Defendant is jointly and
severally liable for all damages inflicted on the proposed Class,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Jason H. Kim, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
            KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  jkim@schneiderwallace.com


HERITAGE-CRYSTAL CLEAN: Continues to Defend Adelphia Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heritage-Crystal Clean, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 8, 2018, that the company
has petitioned the Illinois Court of Appeals for an interlocutory
appeal on the Circuit Court's grant of class certification in the
case entitled, Adelphia, Inc. d/b/a/ Village Auto and Dan's One
Stop Shop, LLC v. Heritage-Crystal Clean, Inc. and Heritage-Crystal
Clean, LLC.

The Company is currently defending the putative class action
lawsuit, Adelphia, Inc. d/b/a/ Village Auto and Dan's One Stop
Shop, LLC v. Heritage-Crystal Clean, Inc. and Heritage-Crystal
Clean, LLC, Case No. 15-L-386, in the Circuit Court for the
Sixteenth Judicial Circuit in Kane County, Illinois, alleging that
the Company charged fees in violation of both its contracts and
applicable state laws.

The case involves claims brought under the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq., as
well as claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The
case has been brought as a putative class action on behalf of all
customers of HCC who entered into a written contract and have paid
a fuel surcharge from 2005 to present. The Circuit Court granted
Plaintiffs' request for class certification on August 28, 2018.

Heritage-Crystal Clean said, "We have petitioned the Illinois Court
of Appeals for an interlocutory appeal of this order. As of
September 9, 2018, no liability was accrued related to this
lawsuit."

Heritage-Crystal Clean, Inc., through its subsidiary,
Heritage-Crystal Clean, LLC, provides parts cleaning, and hazardous
and non-hazardous containerized waste services to small and
mid-sized customers in the vehicle maintenance and manufacturing
services industries in North America. It operates in two segments,
Environmental Services and Oil Business. Heritage-Crystal Clean,
Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in Elgin,
Illinois.


HERTZ CORP: Mahe Seeks Overtime Wages under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------
ANAFOLIAKI MAHE, individually, and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 18CV335826 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 4, 2018),
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay commission wages in
breach of contract and failed to pay overtime wages in violation of
the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants hired Plaintiff and the
other class members as hourly-paid and commissioned sales
employees, and failed to compensate them for all commission wages
and overtime earned.

The Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff and the class
members a commission plan that was applicable to their employment.
The Plaintiff and the putative class members did not know how their
commissions were calculated and had to ask their managers for
copies of the Defendants' existing commission plan, the lawsuit
says.

Hertz Corporation, a subsidiary of Hertz Global Holdings Inc., is
an American car rental company based in Estero, Florida that
operates 9,700 international corporate and franchisee
locations.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Yse Kuzucuoglu, Esq.
          AK EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE
          9 Pier, The Embarcadero, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-9471
          E-mail: ayse@aklaw.co


HESKA CORP: Agreement in Principle Reached in Fauley TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heska Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on October 16, 2018, that
an agreement in principle has been entered between the company and
Shaun Fauley.

On October 10, 2018, Heska Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), entered into an agreement in principle to settle the
complaint that was filed against it on March 12, 2015 by Shaun
Fauley in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (the "Court") alleging the Company's
transmittal of unauthorized faxes in violation of the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "TCPA"), as a putative class action
seeking stated damages of the greater of actual monetary loss or
five hundred dollars per violation.

The litigation is described in the Company's periodic reports filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), including
in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed for the
quarter ended June 30, 2018. On August 24, 2018, the Court entered
an order certifying a class in the case, and on September 7, 2018
the Company filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Order, which
remains pending. The parties agreed to mediate the dispute before
the Hon. James Holderman (ret.) of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois and the agreement in
principle to settle the case was reached at the mediation.

Heska said, "The settlement of this lawsuit remains subject to the
execution of a written settlement agreement executed by the parties
and the approval of such settlement by the Court. If approved by
the Court, the Company would receive a full release from the
settlement class, other than from those class members who timely
elect to opt out of the settlement, concerning the claims asserted,
or that could have been asserted, with respect to the conduct
alleged in the complaint, and would make available a total of $6.75
million to pay class members, an incentive payment to the class
representative, notice and administration costs in connection with
the settlement, and attorneys' fees and expenses to legal counsel
to the class. The Company has recorded an estimated loss provision
of approximately $6.9 million in the third quarter of 2018 in
connection with the settlement agreement and expenses associated
with the matter; such amounts were not contemplated in the
Company's original outlook range for the quarter(s) or full year of
2018."

The Company has denied and continues to deny the allegations of
Shaun Fauley and that it violated the TCPA. Nothing in this report
or any settlement agreement shall be deemed to assign or reflect
any admission of fault, wrongdoing or liability as to the Company,
or of the appropriateness of a class action in such litigation.

Heska Corporation manufactures, sells, and markets veterinary
diagnostic and specialty products for canine and feline healthcare
markets in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.
Heska Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in
Loveland, Colorado.


HK ENTERPRISES: Underpays Hair Stylists, Benitez et al. Allege
--------------------------------------------------------------
DILCIA BENITEZ; TANIA FUENTES; and DANIEL EKINE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HK
ENTERPRISES, INC.; CORONADO GROUP LLC; and BEANTOWN GROUP, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 18-3105A (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., Oct. 4,
2018) seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation.

Ms. Benitez and Mr. Ekine were employed by the Defendants as hair
stylists. Ms. Fuentes was employed as administrative staff.

The Defendants operate Supercuts Salons in California,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. The Defendants are
family-owned and operated since 1981. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Summer, Esq.
          100 State Street, Suite 900
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 695-0050
          Facsimile: (617) 695-0055


ILLINOIS: Powell et al. Suit Alleges Disabilities Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The State of
Illinois. The case is captioned as DEMETRIA POWELL, as guardian ad
litem and on behalf of her son D.P.; TANYA REESE, as guardian ad
litem and on behalf of her son M.R.; and TYWANNA PATRICK, as
guardian ad litem and on behalf of her granddaughter J.C.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS; BRUCE RAUNER, Governor of the
State of Illinois; ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE; LEO P
SCHMITZ, Director of the Illinois Department of State Police,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06675 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 3, 2018). The
lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case is assigned to Honorable Joan B. Gottschall.

The State of Illinois is located in the Midwestern region of the
United States. The State provides a full range of services
including education, health, safety, and transportation. Illinois
has an economy that is primarily based on manufacturing,
agriculture, and coal mining. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Howard Geoghegan, Esq.
          Michael Schorsch, Esq.
          Michael Paul Persoon, Esq.
          DESPRES SCHWARTZ & GEOGHEGAN
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 711
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-2511
          E-mail: admin@dsgchicago.com
                  mschorsch@dsgchicago.com
                  mpersoon@dsgchicago.com


ILLUMINA INC: Faces Van Der Wall and Romanoff Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRADEN VAN DER WALL and STEVEN ROMANOFF, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, vs.
ILLUMINA, INC., FRANCIS A. DESOUZA, and MARC A. STAPLEY, the
Defendants, Case No.: 3:18-cv-02307-JLS-JLB (S.D. Cal., Oct. 4,
2018), seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws.

According to the complaint, the case is a federal securities class
action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities,
other than the Defendants, Illumina's directors and officers, and
their families and affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired
Illumina common stock between July 26, 2016, and October 10, 2016,
inclusive.  The Defendants provided investors with material
information concerning Illumina's revenue and sales for the third
quarter of fiscal 2016.  The Defendants' statements included, among
other things, that Illumina's pipeline of sales supported
Defendants' decision to forecast revenue of $625 million to $630
million for the quarter and increase its earnings-per-share
estimates from between $3.35 per share and $3.45 per share to
between $3.48 per share and $3.58 per share.  The Defendants'
statements in this regard prompted an immediate and dramatic
increase in the price of Illumina's common stock. From a closing
price of $150.10 per share on July 26, 2016 at the start of the
Class Period, Illumina's stock price climbed to $162.25 the
following day on July 27 on unusually high volume.

The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to
investors while, at the same time, omitting to tell the public that
Illumina's internal controls and forecasting processes were
materially flawed. Prior to and during the third quarter of fiscal
2016, Illumina had been experiencing a material decline in sales of
its traditional "HiSeq" sequencing instrument. The decline in
sales, which the Defendants would later refer to as a "trend" that
had been "building" for some time and "didn’t show up suddenly"
during the third quarter, went unnoticed during the forecasting
process. The fact that the Defendants failed to account for this
"trend" when providing investors with materially strong guidance
shows that the Defendants deliberately disregarded the "trend"
during the Class Period and, therefore, acted with scienter, the
lawsuit says.

Attorneys for Braden Van Der Wall and Steven Romanoff and Lead
Counsel for Class:

          Adam M. Apton, Esq.
          Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 985 7290
          E-mail: aapton@zlk.com
                  nporritt@zlk.com


J.R. SIMPLOT: Arroyo Sues over Use of Consumer Credit Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS ARROYO, on behalf of himself others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY, a Nevada corporation; and DOES
I through 50, inclusive, the Defedants, Case No. 18CV335800 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Oct. 4, 2018), Seeks compensatory and punitive damages
due to the Defendants' systematic and willful violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Investigative Consumer Reporting
Agencies Act, and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies
Act

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Segal, Esq.
          Farrah Grant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  thornas@setarehlaw.com
                  farrah@setarehlaw.com


JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class as Moot
----------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE MIGUEL PALACIOS and JESUS EDUARDO CARDENAS LOZOYA, the
Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00026-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert J.
Conrad., Jr. entered an order on September 29, 2018:

   1. adopting the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and
Recommendation;

   2. granting the Federal Defendants-Respondents' motion to
dismiss;
   
   3. denying as moot the Defendant White's motion to dismiss;

   4. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class; and


   5. directing the Clerk of Court to close this case.

The Court said, "Defendants have moved to dismiss this case
alleging that (1) Plaintiffs' release from detention renders their
claims moot and deprives them of standing to bring this action and
(2) this Court lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs' case. The Magistrate Judge disagreed with Defendants'
first argument and found that the relation back doctrine applies in
this case, giving Plaintiffs standing. No parties challenged this
determination, so the Court need not analyze the M&R's standing
determination. Regarding Defendants' second argument, the
Magistrate agreed with Defendants and held that this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims. Specifically,
the Magistrate held that, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1226(e) as
well as 8 U.S.C. section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), this Court lacks
jurisdiction over the Immigration Judges' ("IJs") discretionary
determination that the Charlotte Immigration Court is an improper
venue for Plaintiffs' bond motions. Because the M&R recommended
that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs' claims on jurisdictional
grounds, it found that "it is not necessary for the Court to reach
the merits of [Defendant] White's Motion" and recommended that it
be denied as moot. The Plaintiff now objects to the Magistrate
Judge's M&R, arguing that the M&R erred in the following ways: (1)
the M&R mischaracterized the challenged policy and erred in finding
Plaintiffs' claims are based on discretionary determinations; (2)
due to the M&R's mischaracterization of the challenged policy as
discretionary, the M&R incorrectly found that this Court does not
have jurisdiction; and (3) the M&R incorrectly neglected to
adjudicate Defendant White's Motion to Dismiss."[CC]


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Rodriguez Sues over Sale of Talcum Powder
------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGINIA RODRIGUEZ, the Plaintiffs, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New
Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV335766 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 4, 2018), seeks to recover damages as a result of the
Defendants' negligence, negligent failure to warn strict liability
failure to warn, and design defect.

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

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Vassell Sues over Sale of Talcum Powder
----------------------------------------------------------
BARRINGTON VASSELL, the Plaintiffs, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New
Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV335761 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 4, 2018), seeks to recover damages as a result of the
Defendants' negligence, negligent failure to warn strict liability
failure to warn, and design defect.

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

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Zachary Sues over Sale of Talcum Powder
----------------------------------------------------------
ERIN ZACHARY, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV335760 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 4, 2018), seeks to recover damages as a result of the
Defendants' negligence, negligent failure to warn strict liability
failure to warn, and design defect of their talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


JONATHAN NEIL: Can File Objections to Brown FDCA Suit Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERI BROWN, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN NEIL AND
ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00675-SAB (E.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley E. Boone of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California ordered the Defendant to
file any objections to the proposed class action notice within five
days of the date of entry of the Order.

On Aug. 29, 2018, an order issued granting the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification.  The order directed the Plaintiff to file
a proposed class action notice for the Court's approval within 20
days.  On Sept. 18, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a proposed class
action notice.  Thus, the Magistrate Judge provided the Defendant
with the opportunity to file objections to the notice to the
class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 18, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/3RZt4w from Leagle.com.

Teri Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Ari H. Marcus --
Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman, LLC, pro hac vice,
Yitzchak Zelman -- Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman,
LLC, pro hac vice & Tammy L. Hussin -- Tammy@HussinLaw.com --
Hussin Law.

Jonathan Neil and Associates, Inc., Defendant, epresented by
Christopher Michael Egan -- cegan@porterscott.com -- Porter Scott,
APC, Derek Joseph Haynes -- dhaynes@porterscott.com -- Porter
Scott, PC & Lynette Mary Komar -- lkomar@porterscott.com -- Porter
Scott.


JP MORGAN CHASE: Sandel Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
---------------------------------------------------------
JOEL SANDEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JP MORGAN CHASE & CO. & MRS ASSOCIATES,
Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-09062-KMK (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2018)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. As of October 1, 2018, the company operated through a
network of approximately 5,100 branches. JPMorgan Chase & Co. was
founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward B. Geller, Esq.
          EDWARD B. GELLER, ESQ., P.C.
          M. HARVEY REPHEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          15 Landing Way
          Bronx, NY  10464
          Telephone: (914) 473-6783


K2M GROUP: Preliminary Injunction Sought in Brown Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
K2M Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on October 18, 2018, 2018,
that a motion for a preliminary injunction has been filed in the
case Brown vs K2M Group Holdings, Inc. et al., seeking to enjoin
the shareholder vote on the Merger pending the disclosure of
additional information.

As part of the parties' continuing cooperation with the U.S.
Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and in order to provide the FTC
with additional time for review, on October 17, 2018, Stryker
Corporation ("Stryker") re-filed its premerger notification with
the FTC and the U.S. Department of Justice under the
Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (the "HSR
Act") in connection with the previously announced Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of August 29, 2018 (the "Merger
Agreement"), by and among K2M Group Holdings, Inc. ("K2M"),
Stryker, and Austin Merger Sub Corp., a Delaware corporation and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Stryker ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to
which, on the terms and subject to the conditions therein, Merger
Sub will merge with and into K2M, with K2M surviving the merger as
a wholly owned subsidiary of Stryker (the "Merger"). The
notification initiated a new waiting period under the HSR Act that
will expire on November 16, 2018, unless extended by a request for
further information or terminated earlier.

On October 11, 2018, two purported class action lawsuits were filed
in in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, challenging the Merger.

These actions, Brown vs K2M Group Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-01567-UNA (filed Oct. 11, 2018) and Franchi vs K2M Group
Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01568-UNA (filed Oct. 11,
2018), name K2M and individual officers and members of the K2M
Board of Directors as defendants. These lawsuits allege, among
other things, that the defendants failed to disclose certain
information relating to K2M's financial projections set forth in
the proxy statement filed with the SEC.

On October 17, 2018, plaintiff in the Brown lawsuit filed a motion
for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote
on the Merger pending the disclosure of additional information.

The defendants believe these lawsuits are wholly without merit, and
intend to vigorously defend against them.

K2M Group said, "As previously announced, a special meeting of K2M
stockholders to, among other things, consider and vote on a
proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement will be held on November 7,
2018. K2M continues to anticipate completing the Merger in the
fourth quarter of 2018."

K2M Group Holdings, Inc., a medical device company, provides spine
and minimally invasive solutions in the United States and
internationally. The company offers implants, disposables, and
instruments primarily to hospitals for use by spine surgeons to
treat spinal pathologies, such as deformity, trauma, and tumor. The
company was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Leesburg,
Virginia.


KINDER MORGAN: Brinckerhoff Class Action Concluded
--------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 1, 2018, that the Court dismissed
the class action lawsuit filed by Peter Brinckerhoff, in its
entirety, and that dismissal is final.

In April 2017, a purported class action suit was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery by Peter Brinckerhoff, a former El Paso
Pipeline Partners, L.P. (EPB) unitholder on behalf of a class of
former unaffiliated unitholders of EPB, seeking to challenge the
$9.2 billion merger of EPB into a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc.
(KMI) as part of a series of transactions in November 2014 whereby
KMI acquired all of the outstanding equity interests in Kinder
Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (KMP), Kinder Morgan Management, LLC
and EPB that KMI and its subsidiaries did not already own. The suit
alleged that the merger consideration did not sufficiently
compensate EPB unitholders for the value of three derivative suits
concerning drop down transactions which the derivative plaintiff
lost standing to pursue after the merger.

The suit claimed that the alleged failure to obtain sufficient
merger consideration for the drop down lawsuits constituted a
breach of the EPB limited partnership agreement and the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The suit also asserted
claims against KMI and certain individual defendants for allegedly
tortiously interfering with and/or aiding and abetting the alleged
breach of the limited partnership agreement.

In November 2017, the Court dismissed the suit in its entirety. On
June 8, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal.
Also in November 2017, counsel for Brinckerhoff filed a separate
lawsuit against Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (KMEP) and KMI
seeking to recover up to $44 million in attorneys' fees allegedly
incurred in connection with the assertion of derivative claims that
Brinckerhoff lost standing to pursue. On April 9, 2018, the Court
dismissed the suit in its entirety, and that dismissal is final.

Kinder Morgan, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company in
North America. It operates through Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2,
Terminals, Products Pipelines, and Kinder Morgan Canada segments.
The company was formerly known as Kinder Morgan Holdco LLC and
changed its name to Kinder Morgan, Inc. in February 2011. Kinder
Morgan, Inc. was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in Houston,
Texas.


KINDER MORGAN: Says Landowner Litigation Settled and Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 1, 2018, that all pending lawsuits
relating to the Union Pacific Railroad Company Easements Landowner
Litigation, have been settled and dismissed on terms that are not
material to KMI's results of operations, cash flows or dividends to
shareholders.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed in 2015 in a U.S.
District Court in California against Union Pacific Railroad Company
(UPRR), SFPP, KMGP and Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D" by private
landowners who claimed to be the lawful owners of subsurface real
property allegedly used or occupied by UPRR or SFPP for pipeline
easements on rights-of-way held by UPRR.

Substantially similar follow-on lawsuits were filed in federal
courts by landowners in Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. These
suits, which were brought purportedly as class actions on behalf of
all landowners who own land in fee adjacent to and underlying the
railroad easement under which the SFPP pipeline is located in those
respective states, asserted claims against UPRR, SFPP, KMGP, and
Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D" alleging that the defendants'
occupation and use of the subsurface real property was improper.
Plaintiffs' motions for class certification were denied by the
federal courts in Arizona and California.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied interlocutory review of
the class certification decisions. The New Mexico and Nevada
lawsuits were stayed.

All pending lawsuits have been settled and dismissed on terms that
are not material to KMI's results of operations, cash flows or
dividends to shareholders.

Kinder Morgan, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company in
North America. It operates through Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2,
Terminals, Products Pipelines, and Kinder Morgan Canada segments.
The company was formerly known as Kinder Morgan Holdco LLC and
changed its name to Kinder Morgan, Inc. in February 2011. Kinder
Morgan, Inc. was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in Houston,
Texas.


KINDER MORGAN: Wisconsin Purchasers Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 1, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself from a Wisconsin class action suit
involving the purchase of natural gas.

Beginning in 2003, several lawsuits were filed by purchasers of
natural gas against El Paso Corporation, El Paso Marketing L.P. and
numerous other energy companies based on a claim under state
antitrust law that such defendants conspired to manipulate the
price of natural gas by providing false price information to
industry trade publications that published gas indices. Several of
the cases have been settled or dismissed.

The remaining cases, which are pending in a U.S. District Court in
Nevada, include a lawsuit brought by an industrial consumer in
Kansas in which approximately $500 million in damages plus interest
has been alleged against all defendants, and a Wisconsin class
action in which approximately $300 million in damages plus interest
has been alleged against all defendants.

In the Wisconsin class action, the U.S. District Court denied
plaintiff's motion for class certification, but on appeal the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case with instructions to the
U.S. District Court to provide a more detailed analysis of class
certification issues.

Kinder Morgan said, "There remains significant uncertainty
regarding the validity of the causes of action, the damages
asserted and the level of damages, if any, which may be allocated
to us in the remaining lawsuits and therefore, our legal exposure,
if any, and costs are not currently determinable."

Kinder Morgan, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company in
North America. It operates through Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2,
Terminals, Products Pipelines, and Kinder Morgan Canada segments.
The company was formerly known as Kinder Morgan Holdco LLC and
changed its name to Kinder Morgan, Inc. in February 2011. Kinder
Morgan, Inc. was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in Houston,
Texas.


KRAFT FOODS: Ploss Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARRY PLOSS, as Trustee
for the HARRY PLOSS TRUST DTD 8/16/1993, on behalf of Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs KRAFT FOODS GROUP,
INC. and MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC, the Defendants, Case: 1:15-cv-02937
(N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an Order:

   1. certifying this case as a class action on behalf of all
persons who or which:

      a. purchased a CBT December 2011 or a CBT March 2012 futures
contract after October 31, 2011 except that purchases of CBT March
2012 futures contracts made after December 14, 2011, qualify for
inclusion in the Class only to the extent they were made in
liquidation of a short position in the CBT March 2012 contract
(whether an outright short position or as part of a spread
position) which was sold between November 1 and December 14, 2011
inclusive; or

      b. sold put options or purchased call options on the CBT
December 2011 contract or on the CBT March 2012 contract after
October 31, 2011 except that sales of put options or purchases of
call options on the CBT March 2012 contracts made after December
14, 2011, qualify for inclusion in the Class only to the extent
they were made in liquidation of a position in the CBT March 2012
contract (whether an outright position or as part of a spread
position) which was initiated between November 1 and December 14,
2011 inclusive.

      Excluded from the Class are Cargill, Inc., the Defendants and
any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or Confidential agent of any
Defendant.

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as the representative of the Class;
and

   3. appointing Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP and Lowey
Dannenberg, P.C. as Class Counsel. [CC]
       
Interim Class Counsel:

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          Christopher McGrath, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
          61 Broadway, Suite 501
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900

               - and -

          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Lee J. Lefkowitz, Esq.
          Raymond Girnys, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997 0500


LIONBRIDGE TECH: Pension Fund Seeks to Certify Stockholders Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LABORERS' LOCAL No. 231
PENSION FUND, the Plaintiff. vs. RORY J. COWAN, et al., the
Defendants, Case 1:17-cv-00478-CFC (D. Del.), the Court on Oct. 5,
2018, entered an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all holders of Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., common stock
on the record date, January 27, 2017, who were entitled to vote on
the merger of Lionbridge and HIG and suffered loss as a result of
Defendants violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the merger of Lionbridge and HIG as alleged in the
litigation."

      Excluded from the class are Defendants, the officers and
directors of Lionbridge at all relevant times, members of their
immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors, or assignees, and any entity in which Defendants have
or had a controlling interest.

   2. appointing Laborers' Local No. 231 Pension Fund as class
representative and appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as
class counsel; and

   3. directing parties to provide Court with a proposed form of
notice to the class by October 26, 2018.[CC]


LOANCARE LLC: Sanders Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA S. SANDERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOANCARE, LLC; CIT BANK, N.A.; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC723967 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 3, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Loancare, LLC is a Virginia limited liability company provides loan
servicing solutions [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (877) 500-8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
          E-mail: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com


LOOMIS INTERNATIONAL: Eisenberg Seeks Unpaid OT under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
TRACIE EISENBERG individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. LOOMIS INTERNATIONAL (US)
INC., VIA MAT INTERNATIONAL (USA) INC. d/b/a LOOMIS INTERNATIONAL
(US) INC., and related or affiliated entities, the Defendants, Case
No.: 159217/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 4, 2018), seeks to recover
for unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff and a putative class consist of salaried non-exempt
employees who worked for and on behalf of the Defendants within the
state of New York from October 4, 2012 to the present. The
Defendants maintained a policy and practice of paying the Plaintiff
on a salary basis even when she performed non-exempt work.
According to the complaint, this misclassification did not just
occur to  Plaintiff. The Defendants would also compensate
individuals who worked in other departments on a salary basis even
though they performed non-exempt work. These workers include, but
are not limited to, customer service representatives and order
fulfillment workers In weeks when Named Plaintiff and members of
the putative class worked in excess of 40 hours in a week, the
Defendants failed to pay them overtime at a rate of one and one
half times their regular rate of pay, the lawsuit says.

Loomis International, Inc. provides internal tubular testing
services to the oil and gas industry. The company offers tubular
make-up, torque turn, and torque monitoring services; and internal
and external hydro and helium testing services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: jnewhouse@vandallp.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Certification of Collective Action Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS FERGUSON, and MIGUEL ORTEGA, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, vs. COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06861-DSF-KK (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on November 5, 2018, for
an order conditionally certifying collective action for violations
by the Defendant of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and granting
leave to notify similarly situated class members, as authorized by
the United States Supreme Court in Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v.
Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) ("Hoffmann-La Roche").[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Harry S. Stern, Esq.
          Timothy K. Talbot, Esq.
          Jacob A. Kalinski, Esq.
          Peter A. Hoffman, Esq.
          Nicole R. Castronovo, Esq.
          RAINS LUCIA STERN ST. PHALLE & SILVER, PC
          1428 2nd Street, Suite 200
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 393 1486
          Facsimile: (310) 395 5801
          E-mail: HStern@RLSlawyers.com

               - and -

          William B. Aitchison, Esq.
          PUBLIC SAFETY LABOR GROUP
          3021 NE Broadway Street
          Portland, OR 97232
          Telephone: (866) 486-5556
          Facsimile: (866) 401-2201
          E-mail: Will@PSLGlawyers.com


LYFT INC: Underpays and Misclassifies Drivers, Wickerberg Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC WICKBERG, on behalf of himself and and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LYFT, INC., the Defendant, Case
1:18-cv-12094-RGS (D. Mass., Oct. 5, 2018), alleges that Lyft has
misclassified its drivers, including Plaintiff Eric Wickberg, in
violation of Mass. Gen. Law.

According to the complaint, as a result of this misclassification,
the drivers have had to bear expenses that should be borne by the
employer. For example, drivers have had to pay expenses to own or
lease a vehicle and maintain and fuel it, as well as phone/data
expenses. Lyft has also failed to ensure that its drivers are paid
at least the full minimum wage in violation of Mass. Gen. Law.
Finally Lyft has also failed to pay its drivers the overtime
premium for all hours worked beyond 40 per week, the lawsuit says.

Lyft is a car service which engages drivers across the state of
Massachusetts to transports riders.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
          Anne Kramer, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994 5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  apagano@llrlaw.com
                  akramer@llrlaw.com


MACY'S WEST: Removes Tessitore & Mallon Suit to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Macy's West Stores, Inc. removed the case captioned as CRAIG
TESSITORE and SARAH MALLON, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MACY'S WEST STORES, INC.,
and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
37-2018-00044691-CU-OE-CTL, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego, to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.  The
Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-02343-DMS-KSC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to timely pay all
wages to putative class members following their termination of
employment because, among other allegations, it had previously
deducted wages from their earned commissions pursuant to its
"illegal Price Adjustment Chargeback policy" and its "illegal Even
Exchange Chargeback policy" and did not pay them "these wages at
the time of termination or resignation."[BN]

Attorney for Defendant:

          Maria C. Roberts, Esq.
          GREENE & ROBERTS, LLP
          402 West Broadway, Suite 1025
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-398-3400
          Facsimile: 619-330-4907
          E-mail: mroberts@greeneroberts.com


MARYLAND MARKETSOURCE: Esparza Suit Moved to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Esparza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Petitioner, vs. Maryland Marketsource, Inc., a
Maryland corporation; Allegis Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation;
and Allegis Group Holdings, Inc., a Maryland corporation, the
Respondents, Case No. 3:18-cv-02971, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S.
District Court Eastern District of California (Sacramento) on Oct.
3, 2018. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 18-cv-02688-TLN-KJN. The lawsuit alleges consumer credit
related violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Troy L.
Nunley.[BN]

Attorneys for Petitioner:

          Chaim Shaun Setareh
          LAW OFFICES OF SHAUN SETAREH
          9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com

               - and -

          Howard Scott Leviant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: scott@setarehlaw.com

Attorneys for Respondents:

          Alison Sue Hightower, Esq.
          Kurt R. Bockes, Esq.
          Rod M. Fliegel, Esq.
          LITTLER, MENDELSON PC
          650 California St., 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 288 6309
          Facsimile: (415) 743 6642
          E-mail: ahightower@littler.com
                  kbockes@littler.com
                  rfliegel@littler.com


MCGOWEN ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Class Certification Bid as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALISON LEARY & TIMOTHY LEARY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
MCGOWEN ENTERPRISES, INC., the Defendant, Case 2:17-cv-02070-BMS
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Berle M. Schiller entered an order on
October 4, 2018, denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification as moot.[CC]


MCLAUGHLIN RESEARCH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hardy Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER HARDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MCLAUGHLIN RESEARCH CORPORATION; and DOES 1
to 50, Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00049648-CU-0&CTL (Cal. Super.,
San Diego Cty., Oct. 1, 2018) alleges that the Defendants failed to
pay all wages due at the time of termination or resignation, and
have engaged in unfair competition and unlawful business
practices.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in California.

McLaughlin Research Corporation provides engineering services for
military and aerospace equipment, and military weapons. The company
was formerly known as McLaughlin-Carr Associates and changed its
name to McLaughlin Research Corporation in January 1947. McLaughlin
Research Corporation was founded in 1941 and is based in New
London, Connecticut with locations in Middletown, Rhode Island;
Keyport, Washington; San Diego, California; Lexington,
Massachusetts; and Arlington, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          DARREN M. COHEN, Esq.,
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com


MDL 2792: Kennedy Suit over Samsung Washing Machine Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Colleen Kennedy and David Foster, on behalf of themselves
and all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, and
Suzanne Moore, Jerry Wells, and Rose Wagner, the Intervenor
Plaintiffs, vs Samsung Electronics America Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:14-cv-04987, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City) on Oct. 4, 2018.
The Western District of Oklahoma Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:18-cv-00975-D to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Timothy D. DeGiusti. The suit alleges Breach of Contract related
violation. The lead case is Case No. 5:17-ml-02792-D.

The Kennedy case is being consolidated with MDL 2792 re: SAMSUNG
TOP-LOAD WASHING MACHINE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 4,
2017. This litigation arises from allegations that certain Samsung
top-load washing machines have design and manufacturing defects
that may cause machine parts to detach, break apart, or explode
during the spin cycle, and that a voluntary recall issued in
November 2016 fails to provide adequate relief to consumers.

In its October 4, 2017 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. These putative class actions share complex factual
questions arising from allegations that Samsung top-load washing
machines subject to a voluntary recall issued November 4, 2016,
suffer from design and manufacturing defects that manifest during
the spin cycle and cause components, such as the top and drain
pump, to detach, break apart, or explode. The shared factual
questions include: (1) Samsung's design, testing, and manufacturing
of the recalled washing machines; (2) whether defendants knew or
should have known of the alleged defects; and (3) the adequacy of
the recall. These common issues clearly are raised by Wagner, which
alleges many of the same design flaws as the other actions,
involves the same washing machine models, and presents overlapping
issues concerning the adequacy of the recall remedy. Thus, Wagner
will be included in the MDL. Additionally, there is substantial
overlap in the putative nationwide and statewide classes in these
actions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          Bruce Heller Nagel, Esq.
          Randee M. Matloff, Esq.
          NAGEL RICE, LLP
          103 Eishenhower Parkway, Suite 201
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 618 0400
          Facsimile: (973) 618 9194
          E-mail: rmatloff@nagelrice.com

Attorneys for Intervenor Plaintiffs:

          Jason Louis Lichtman, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          250 Hudson River Street, 8th Floor
          New York, New York 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355 9500
          E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com

Attorneys for Samsung Electronics America Inc.:

          Joseph P. Lasala, Esq.
          MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP
          1300 Mount Kemble Avenue, P.O. Box 2075
          Morristown, NJ 07962-2075
          Telephone: (973) 993-8100

               - and -

          Paul Myung Han Kim, Esq.
          Sean Patrick Neafsey, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          30 Rockfeller Plaza, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10112
          Telephone: (212) 872-9800


MDL 2792: Orenstein Suit over Washing Machine Samsung Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Orenstein, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, and Suzanne Moore, Jerry Wells,
and Rose Wagner, the Intervenor Plaintiffs, vs Samsung Electronics
America Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-04054, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma (Oklahoma City) on Oct. 4, 2018. The Western District of
Oklahoma Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-00977-D to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Timothy D. DeGiusti.
The lead case is Case No. 5:17-ml-02792-D.

The Orenstein case is being consolidated with MDL 2792 re: SAMSUNG
TOP-LOAD WASHING MACHINE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 4,
2017. This litigation arises from allegations that certain Samsung
top-load washing machines have design and manufacturing defects
that may cause machine parts to detach, break apart, or explode
during the spin cycle, and that a voluntary recall issued in
November 2016 fails to provide adequate relief to consumers.

In its October 4, 2017 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. These putative class actions share complex factual
questions arising from allegations that Samsung top-load washing
machines subject to a voluntary recall issued November 4, 2016,
suffer from design and manufacturing defects that manifest during
the spin cycle and cause components, such as the top and drain
pump, to detach, break apart, or explode. The shared factual
questions include: (1) Samsung's design, testing, and manufacturing
of the recalled washing machines; (2) whether defendants knew or
should have known of the alleged defects; and (3) the adequacy of
the recall. These common issues clearly are raised by Wagner, which
alleges many of the same design flaws as the other actions,
involves the same washing machine models, and presents overlapping
issues concerning the adequacy of the recall remedy. Thus, Wagner
will be included in the MDL. Additionally, there is substantial
overlap in the putative nationwide and statewide classes in these
actions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          Bruce Heller Nagel, Esq.
          Randee M. Matloff, Esq.
          NAGEL RICE, LLP
          103 Eishenhower Parkway, Suite 201
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 618 0400
          Facsimile: (973) 618 9194
          E-mail: rmatloff@nagelrice.com

Attorneys for Intervenor Plaintiffs:

          Jason Louis Lichtman, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          250 Hudson River Street, 8th Floor
          New York, New York 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355 9500
          E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com

Attorneys for Samsung Electronics America Inc.:

          Joseph P. Lasala, Esq.
          MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP
          1300 Mount Kemble Avenue, P.O. Box 2075
          Morristown, NJ 07962-2075
          Telephone: (973) 993-8100

               - and -

          Paul Myung Han Kim, Esq.
          Sean Patrick Neafsey, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          30 Rockfeller Plaza, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10112
          Telephone: (212) 872-9800

MDL 2804: Lopez Suit vs. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al, Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lopez, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc.;
Cephalon Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Johnson &
Johnson; Noramco Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutical
Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Endo Health
Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergan PLC, formerly
known as: Actavis PLS; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as
Actavis Inc.; Watson Laboratories Inc.; Actavis Pharma, Inc.,
formerly known as: Watson Pharma, Inc.; Actavis LLC; Mallinckrodt
PLC; Mallinckrodt LLC; McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.;
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company,
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00719, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on
Oct. 5, 2018.  The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:18-op-46122-DAP to the proceeding.

The Lopez House case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in re:
NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on December 5, 2017. These cases concern the alleged
improper marketing of and inappropriate distribution of various
prescription opiate medications into cities, states and towns
across the country. Responding plaintiffs' positions on
centralization vary considerably. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or
potential tag-along actions support centralization. Plaintiffs in
15 actions or potential tag-along actions oppose centralization
altogether or oppose transfer of their action. In addition to
opposing transfer, the State of West Virginia suggests that the MDL
Panel delay transferring its case until the Southern District of
West Virginia court decides its motion to remand to state court.
Third party payor plaintiffs in an Eastern District of Pennsylvania
potential tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers Health and
Welfare Fund) oppose centralization of third partypayor actions.
Western District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes
centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case.
Northern District of Illinois tag-along Plaintiff City of Chicago
asks the Panel to defer transfer of its action until document
discovery is completed.  The Presiding Judge in the MDL is Sarah S.
Vance, United States District Judge. The lead case is
1:17-md-02804-DAP.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

Richard Eric Shelton, Esq.
DEWSNUP KING OLSEN WOREL HAVAS MORTENSEN
36 S State St. STE 2400
Salt Lake City  UT 84111-0024
Telephone: (801) 257-1554
E-mail: rshelton@dkowlaw.com


MED-PHARMEX INC: Lopez Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRA LOPEZ, an individual, individually, and on behalf of all
other similarly situated aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, v.
MED-PHARMEX INC., a California corporation; GERALD PETER MACEDO, an
individual; ANN MELINDA MACEDO, an individual; VINAY RANGNEKAR, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. BC724141 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 3, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants have had a consistent policy of:

     (1) failing to provide aggrieved employees with uninterrupted,
off-duty meal periods, or paying compensation in lieu thereof;

     (2) failing to provide uninterrupted, off-duty rest periods
periods, or paying compensation in lieu thereof;

     (3) failing to provide inadequate wage statements;

     (4) failing to pay employees by the appropriate pay period;

     (5) failing to provide paid sick days;

     (6) failing to pay all wages by the appropriate pay period;
and

     (7) failing to reimburse all necessary job-related expenses,
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Med-Pharmex, Inc. engages in the research and development,
manufacture, and formulation of generic human and veterinary drug
products.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Kyle Todd, Esq.
          Shelby Miner, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KYLE TODD
          1055 West Seventh Street, Suite 1920
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (323) 208 9171
          Facsimile: (323) 693 0822
          E-mail: kyle@kyletodd.com
                  shelby@kyletodd.com


MEPHISTO INC: Faces Wu Suit in Southern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mephisto, Inc. The
case is captioned as KATHY WU, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEPHISTO, INC., and MEPHISTO
CONCEPT STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09119-AJN
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2018). The lawsuit alleges violation of the
American with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge
Alison J. Nathan.

Mephisto, Inc. engages in the manufacture and sells shoes. The
company offers leisure, sports, and sandal footwear; leather
handbags, briefcases, wallets, and key-holders; shoe accessories;
and sportswear for men and women. It also provides apparel,
accessories, and watches. The company was founded in 1987 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. Mephisto, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Mephisto S.A. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          Gottlieb & Associates
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (917) 796-7437
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com


MERCK & CO: Flynns Sue over Zostavax
------------------------------------
SUSAN FLYNN, an individual; JOHN FLYNN, an individual. the
Plaintiffs, vs. MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., the
Defendants, Case 2:18-cv-14883 (D.N.J., Oct. 11, 2018), alleges
that Merck failed to warn the Plaintiffs and other consumers of the
defective condition of Zostavax, as manufactured and/or supplied by
Merck.

According to the complaint, Ms. Flynn was inoculated with the
Defendants' Zostavax vaccine on or about late 2016 in New York for
routine health maintenance and for the prevention of shingles. The
vaccine did not prevent shingles, but rather caused Plaintiff to
contract a persistent strain of herpes zoster. Shortly after
receiving the Zostavax vaccine, Ms. Flynn developed a blisters on
her on chin, a rash on her left ear and scalp, both of which were
accompanied by pain, weakness and fatigue.

In response to these complaints, the Plaintiff presented to her
primary care physician in New York and was diagnosed as suffering
from herpes zoster. As a direct and proximate result of these
malfunctions, Ms. Flynn suffered painful injuries and damages, and
required extensive medical care and treatment. As a further
proximate result, the Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to
suffer significant medical expenses, and pain and suffering, and
other damages, the lawsuit says.

Merck developed, tested, designed, set specifications for,
licensed, manufactured, prepared, compounded, assembled, packaged,
processed, labeled, marketed, promoted, distributed, and/or sold
the Zostavax vaccine to be administered to patients throughout the
United States, including New Jersey.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Mark T. Sadaka, Esq.,
          Michael H. Bowman, Esq.
          SADAKA ASSOCIATES, LLC
          155 North Dean Street, Suite 4-D
          Englewood, NJ 07631
          Telephone: (201) 266-5670
          Facsimile: (201) 266-5671
          E-mail: mark@sadakafirm.com


MERCK & CO: Sansone et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
EMILY SANSONE and JOHN SANSONE, the Plaintiffs, vs. MERCK & CO.,
INC., MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., the Defendants, Case No.
8:18-cv-02324, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on Oct. 10, 2018.
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-20114-HB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Harvey Bartle III.

Merck & Co. is an American pharmaceutical company and one of the
largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

          Michael Goetz, Esq.
          Nicole Georges, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 222 4737
          E-mail: MGoetz@ForThePeople.com
                  NGeorges@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          Virginia E. Anello, Esq.
          DOUGLAS & LONDON, P.C.
          59 Maiden Lane, 6th floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 566-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 566-7501
          E-mail: vanello@douglasandlondon.com

MERCURY PLASTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Torres Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAUL TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MERCURY PLASTICS, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH
10, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. BC723631 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Oct. 3, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

Mr. Torres was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt hourly
employee in California.

Mercury Plastics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets custom
thermoplastic extrusions, extruded plastic profiles, and
specialized fabrications for industrial, commercial, and
residential applications. Mercury Plastics, Inc. was founded in
1965 and is based in Middlefield, Ohio. As of December 31, 2017,
Mercury Plastics, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Masco
Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          Kristina De La Rosa, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.CQm
                  kdelarosa@ckslaw.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER: Underpays Production Crew Members, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A. SIMMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS, INC.; BABA-G
PRODUCTIONS, LLC, and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10,
Defendants, Case No. BC 723616 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles, Oct. 1,
2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and
rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Simms was employed by the Defendants as a crew member
for the television program entitled Lucha Underground.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. was founded in 1919. The company's
line of business includes the production of theatrical and
nontheatrical motion pictures and video tapes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          David Garrett, Esq.
          Lin Zhan, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor
          Glendale CA 91203
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          Facsimile; (323) 962-3004
          E-mail: barrisa@harrisandruble.com
                  dgarrett@harrisandruble.com
                  lzhan@harrisandruble.com


METROPOLITAN 58TH: Faces Byron Breeze Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metropolitan 58th
Street Associates, LLC. The case is captioned as BYRON BREEZE, JR.,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
METROPOLITAN 58TH STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-09097-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2018).  The case is assigned
to Judge Jesse M. Furman.

Metropolitan 58th Street Associates, LLC is engaged in the hotel
industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nolan Keith Klein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          39 Broadway, Ste. 2250
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (646) 560-3230
          Facsimile: (877) 253-2691
          E-mail: klein@nklegal.com

               - and -

          Erik Mathew Bashian, Esq.
          BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C
          500 Old Country Road, Suite 302
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 279-1555
          Facsimile: (516) 213-0339
          E-mail: eb@bashpaplaw.com


MICHAELS STORES: Armstrong Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERESA ARMSTRONG,
individually, the Plaintiff, vs. MICHAELS STORES, INC., and DOES
1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-06540-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on January 3, 2019, for an
order:

1. certifying a Store Opening Class defined as:

   "all persons employed as hourly-paid employees by Defendant in
any store in California at any time on or after October 10, 2013
through the date of class certification who worked on an opening
shift and was responsible for unlocking the door and other opening
store tasks";

2. certifying, a "Security Check Class" defined as:

   "all persons employed as hourly-paid employees by Defendant in
any store in California at any time on or after October 10, 2013
through the date of class certification who went through a security
check when leaving the store";

3. certifying Reporting Time Class defined as:

   "all persons employed as hourly-paid employees by Defendant in
any store in California at any time on or after October 10, 2013
through the date of class certification who were scheduled to work
at least one shift where they were not furnished at least half that
scheduled day's work";

4. appointing Teresa Armstrong as representative of the proposed
classes or later proposed and approved by the Court and any other
sub-class the Court may devise; and

5. appointing Shaun Setareh, and Thomas Segal of Setareh Law Group
as Class Counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Segal, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  thomas@setarehlaw.com

MIDWAY INDUSTRIES: Shepardson Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
DALE SHEPARDSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, vs. MIDWAY INDUSTRIES, INC., and TOOL STEEL SERVICE OF
CALIFORNIA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-03105-TLB (W.D.
Ark., Oct. 4, 2018), seeks to recover declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, prejudgement interest, civil penalties and costs
as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other
hourly-paid employees proper overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid
employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week.  It was
the Defendants' common applied policy to not pay Plaintiff and
other other hourly-paid employees a lawful overtime premium for all
hours worked over 40 in a given week, the lawsuit says.

Midway Industries, Inc. manufactures window system products. The
Company offers metal doors, sash, and trim products.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Underwood Suit Moved to District of Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------------
Loren Underwood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs City of Minneapolis, Minneapolis Police
Officers, and John Does 1 through 8, the Defendants, Receipt No.
AMNDC-6417578, was removed from the Hennepin County Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on Oct 9, 2018.
The District of Minnesota assigned Case No. 18-cv-2884 (PJS/HB) to
the proceeding. The suit alleges Civil Rights Act related
violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Patrick J.
Schiltz.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          A. L. Brown, Esq.
          CAPITOL CITY LAW GROUP, LLC
          287 East Sixth Street, Suite 20
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 705-8580
          Facsimile: (651) 705-8581
          E-mail: a.l.brown@cclawg.com

               - and -

          Joshua R Williams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA R. WILLIAMS
          2836 Lyndale Avenue South, Suite 160
          Minneapolis, MN 55408
          Telephone: (612) 486 5540
          E-mail: jwilliams@jrwilliamslaw.com

Attorneys for City of Minneapolis:

          Burt T. Osborne, Esq.
          Brian Scott Carter, Esq.
          MINNEAPOLIS CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          350 South 5th Street-Room 210
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 554 3913
          E-mail: burt.osborne@minneapolismn.gov
                  brian.carter@minneapolismn.gov


MOBIS NORTH AMERICA: Traynum and Carroll Seek Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Traynum and Tiffany Carroll, On behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MOBIS North America,
LLC c/o CT Corporation System 4400 Easton Commons Way Suite 125
Columbus, Ohio 43219, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02312-JGC
(N.D. Ohio, Oct. 4 2018), alleges that the Defendant failed to
fully pay employees overtime wages seeking all available relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant suffered and permitted
the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated Timeclock Associates to
work more than 40 hours per workweek, while not fully compensating
them for all such hours worked over 40 at a rate of at least one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay, at a minimum, as a
result of Defendant's rounding policy and/or practice.

Mobis North America, LLC is engaged in the sale of auto-parts and
also provides after-sales services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and those similarly situated:

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

               - and -

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


MONDA WINDOW: Ping Lin Suit Moved to Northern District of Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
JIAN PING LIN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MONDA WINDOW & DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.
d/b/a Monda Windows & Doors d/b/a Monda Window & Door Systems,
MONDA WINDOW & DOOR, CORP. d/b/a Monda Windows & Doors, MONDA
WINDOW & DOOR MFG. LTD. d/b/a Monda Window & Door d/b/a Monda
Window & Door Systems, WONDA LLC d/b/a Monda Window & Door d/b/a
Monda Window & Door Systems, RIBIAO WANG a/k/a Ri Biao Wang, DENIS
WANG, MIN OUYANG a/k/a Mindy Ouyang, DANCY LIN, and ELIAS ABUBEKER,
the Defendants, Case 1:17-cv-03737, was transferred from the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago) on Oct 11, 2018. The Northern District of Illinois Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-06848 to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jorge L. Alonso.

This action is brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of himself as well
as other similarly situated employees, against the Defendants for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
Labor Law, and of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act, arising from the Defendants'
various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or
practices.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, the proposed FLSA Collective, and
potential Rule 23 class:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          TROY LAW , PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com
                  johntroy@sbcglobal.net

Attorneys for Defendants:

         Richard A. Chen, Esq.
         LAW OFFFICES OF RICHARD ALAN CHEN, ESQ.
         41-60 Main Street, Suite 203
         Flushing, NY 11355
         Telephone: (718) 886-8181
         E-mail: raclawoffice3@gmail.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Fuller Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA FULLER, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01726-CAS (E.D. Mo., Oct. 10, 2018), seeks to
recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate
result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          Joseph B. Carnduff, Esq.
          156 N. Main St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659-9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com
                  jcarnduff@gorijulianlaw.com


MT. VIEW FARMING: Bustos Removes Own Suit to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case of Samuel Bustos, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mt. View
Farming, Inc., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Tulare County
(Case No. 275173) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on October 4, 2018.  The complaint has been
assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-01380-AWI-SKO (E.D. Cal., Oct. 4, 2018).
The case is assigned to District Judge Anthony W. Ishii, and
referred to Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto.

Mt. View Farming, Inc. markets and sells grapes in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Henry Schelly, Esq.
          Lipeles Law Group, APC
          880 Apollo Street, Suite 336
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 322-2211
          Facsimile: (310) 322-2252
          E-mail: thomas@kallaw.com

               - and -

          Christina Cusimano Tillman, Esq.
          McCormick Barstow Sheppard
          Wayte and Carruth LLP
          7647 N. Fresno Street
          Fresno, CA 93720
          Telephone: (559) 433-1300
          Facsimile: (559) 433-2300


MYEXPERIAN INC: Chavers Added as Plaintiff in Vinsant et al. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Naguishea Chavers consent to becoming a party-plaintiff on Oct.
9, 2018 to a lawsuit captioned CHARLES VINSANT, TARA BEAL, CHELSEA
DYER, ASHLEY HAMILTON, ANTWAN HNEDRY, BELINDA MAXWELL, BRITTANY
MORRIS, KIMBERLY ROLAND, and BETTY FULLER, Each Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
MYEXPERIAN, INC., the Defendant, Case 2:18-cv-02056-PKH (W.D.
Ark.).

Mr. Chavers said, "I am or was employed by MyExperian, Inc., on or
after April 13, 2015, as an hourly-paid customers care specialist
or customer service representative. I understand that a lawsuit is
being brought against Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act
for overtime compensation and other relief. As a current or former
employee of Defendant, I consent to becoming a party-plaintiff to
this lawsuit, to be represented by Sanford Law Firm PLLC, and to be
found by any settlement of this action or adjudication of the
Court."[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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


NATIONAL POLISHING: Charles Barkley Seeks Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES BARKLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL POLISHING SYSTEMS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-02377 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 11, 2018), seeks
unpaid wages, including overtime wages, and all other available
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant performs concrete work in
multiple states. The Defendant employed the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals as non-exempt laborers. Laborers performed the
manual tasks associated with Defendant's concrete polishing
services. Defendant paid laborers on an hourly basis. Laborers were
required to report to jobsites to perform the Defendant's concrete
services in various states. These jobsites were frequently located
hundreds of miles away from laborers' home communities. Laborers
typically work at least 40 hours per workweek. Laborers typically
worked multiple-day shifts away from their home communities.
Because the worksites were away from their home communities,
laborers typically stayed overnight in hotels during the scheduled
work shifts. Laborers spent most of the day before and after their
shifts driving hundreds of miles to and from the jobsites. This
travel cut across Laborers' normal working hours during both
regular working days and nonworking days.

The Defendant did not count time spent traveling as hours worked
for purposes of determining overtime eligibility. Consequently, the
Defendant failed to pay proper wages, including overtime wages to
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. The
Defendant willfully deprived laborers of proper wages, including
overtime wages. Defendant knew that laborers were working overtime
hours and hours for which they were not compensated at an overtime
rate when they traveled to jobsites, the lawsuit says.

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, NW, Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


NEW PRIME INC: Underpays Truck Drivers, Ratajesak Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
PAUL RATAJESAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW PRIME, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25,
Defendants, Case No. BC723954 (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, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Ratajesak was employed by the Defendants as truck
driver.

New Prime, Inc., doing business as Prime Inc., operates as a
refrigerated, flatbed, tanker, and intermodal trucking company. It
serves customers in North America and internationally. The company
was founded in 1970 and is based in Springfield, Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq.
          Rebecca G. Gundzik, Esq.
          GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP
          15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (213) 542-2100
          Facsimile: (213) 542-2101
          E-mail: agundzik@gghslaw.com
                  rgundzik@gghslaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
          LEBE LAW, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90021
          Telephone: (213) 358-7046
          Facsimile: (310) 820-1258
          E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com


NPAS INC: Collazo Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------
NYDIA REYES COLLAZO, Plaintiff, vs. NPAS, INC., a Tennessee
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-02508-WFJ-AEP (M.D.
Fla., Oct. 11, 2018), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and costs
and attorney's fees under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices
Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, resulting in the
Defendant's failure to provide the debtors with certain information
required by law and failed to disclose that it is a debt collector.
In so failing, the Defendant has violated the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

According to the complaint, on or about April 28, 2018, NPAS sent
Ms. Collazo a dunning letter by mail. That letter purports to
relate to medical treatment obtained by Ms. Collazo at Largo
Medical Center in Pinellas County, Florida, on or about February
17, 2018, in the amount of $254.96. The collection letter states
that it was placed with NPAS for collection on April 28, 2018. The
debt allegedly owed to Largo Medical Center was for personal,
household, or family purposes and was therefore a "debt" pursuant
to 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5) and Section 559.55(6), Florida
Statutes.

The debt owed to Largo Medical Center was in default at the time it
was placed for collection with NPAS. On information and belief,
Largo Medical Center requires payment promptly after services are
rendered and no later than on receipt of its invoice. Ms. Collazo
had not paid the debt before April 28, 2018. In the April 28, 2018
collection letter, NPAS did not identify itself as a debt collector
or state that any information obtained would be used for the
purpose of collecting the debt, the lawsuit says.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Katherine E. Yanes, Esq.
          KYNES, MARKMAN & FELMAN, P.A.
          P.O. Box 3396
          Tampa, FL 33601
          Telephone: (813) 229 1118
          Facsimile: (813) 221 6750
          E-mail: kyanes@kmf-law.com

               - and -

          Brian L. Shrader, Esq.
          Gus M. Centrone, Esq.
          DUNLAP, BENNETT & LUDWIG, PLLC
          612 W. Bay Street
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 360-1529
          Facsimile: (813) 336-0832
          E-mail: bshrader@dbllawyers.com
                  gcentrone@dbllawyers.com


OLD DOMINION: Saenz Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO A. SAENZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC., the
Defendant, Case 1:18-cv-04718-CAP (N.D. Ga., Oct. 11, 2018), seeks
to obtain full and complete relief for the Defendant's failure to
pay overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FLSA by
failing to pay the Plaintiff and the Collective Class overtime
(i.e., time and one-half their regular hourly rates of pay) for all
hours worked over 40 in a week. The Defendant required the
Plaintiff and the Collective Class to work more than 40 hours in a
week.

Old Dominion Freight Line -- http://www.odfl.com-- is a
less-than-truckload ("LTL") national freight and global
transportation company. [BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Collective Class:

          Louise N. Smith, Esq.
          William J. Smith, Esq.
          SMITH LAW, LLC
          3611 Braselton Highway, Suite 202
          Dacula, GA 30019
          Telephone: (678) 889-2898
          Facsimile: (844) 828-5615
          E-mail: louise@smithlaw-llc.com
                  william@smithlaw-llc.com


OLYMPIA MANAGEMENT: Dickerson Seeks OT Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
STACEY VANDERGRIFF, VICKIE DICKERSON, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. OLYMPIA MANAGEMENT
INC., the Defendant, Case 4:18-cv-01635-ACA (N.D. Ala., Oct. 5,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation
and liquidated damages owed to Stacey Vandergriff, Vickie Dickerson
and all other current and former employees similarly situated of
Olympia Management Inc. for the past three years, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated were required and are presently required by Defendant to
treat this time as off-duty time, although such time constitutes
on-duty time within the meaning of 49 C.F.R. section 395.2.

The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were not paid and at
the present time are not being paid their minimum wages or overtime
compensation due them by Defendant for these hours worked, in
violation of 29 U.S.C.A. sections 206, 207, the lawsuit says.

Olympia Management provides affordable housing community with top
quality living conditions, friendly management, and security.[BN]

          Jeremy Schatz, Esq.
          THEA PATTON FIRM
          3720 4th Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35222
          E-mail: jschatz@thepattonfirmal.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Beeman, II, Esq.
          BEEMAN LAW FIRM
          3720 4th Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35222
          E-mail: rlbsportsmgnt12@att.net


OS RESTAURANT: Removes Lloyd Briggs Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of LLOYD T. BRIGGS III, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OS
RESTAURANT SERVICES, LLC; BLOOMIN BRANDS, INC., and DOES 1 through
20, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles
(Case No. BC719069) to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on October 1, 2018.  The clerk of court for
the Central District of California assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-08457-JAK-AFM (C.D. Cal., Oct. 1, 2018). The case is
assigned to Judge John A. Kronstadt and referred to Magistrate
Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon.

OS Restaurant Services, LLC owns and operates as a restaurant in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen B Felahy, Esq.
          FELAHY EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
          550 South Hope Street Suite 2655
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (323) 645-5197
          Facsimile: (323) 645-5198
          E-mail: afelahy@felahylaw.com

               - and -

          Yashdeep Singh, Esq.
          YASH LAW GROUP
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (714) 494-6244
          Facsimile: (714) 406-2722
          E-mail: ysingh@yashlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jason C Ross, Esq.
          Kyle William Nageotte, Esq.
          James M Peterson, Esq.
          HIGGS FLETCHER AND MACK LLP
          401 West A Street Suite 2600
          San Diego, CA 92101-7913
          Telephone: (619) 236-1551
          Facsimile: (619) 696-1410
          E-mail: rossj@higgslaw.com
                  nageottek@higgslaw.com
                  peterson@higgslaw.com


PEP BOYS MANNY: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Jimenez Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN A. JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE PEP BOYS MANNY MOE & JACK OF CALIFORNIA;
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. BC723630 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles 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.

Mr. Jimenez was employed by the Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt
employee from November 11, 2016 to July 19, 2018.

Pep Boys Manny, Moe & Jack Of California, Inc. offers automobile
repair services. The company provides wheel alignment, oil change,
and engine tune-up services. Additionally, it markets and
distributes automotive parts and components. Pep Boys Manny, Moe &
Jack Of California, Inc. was founded in 1932 and is headquartered
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack Of
California, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Pep Boys - Manny, Moe
& Jack. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Joshua Webster, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  jwebster@lelawfirm.com

               - and –

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


PINDUODUO INC: Roger Webb Sues over July 2018 IPO
-------------------------------------------------
Roger Webb, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PINDUODUO INC., QI LU, GEORGE
YONG-BOON YEQ,ZHENWEI ZHENG, JUNYUN XIA0, HAIIFENG LIN, ZHENG
HUANG, TIAN XU, LEI CHEN, ZHEN ZHANG; NANPENG SHEN, JIANMING YU,
CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION, HONG KONG SECURITIES
LIMITED, CHINA 19 RENAISSANCE SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LIMITED,
CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, and GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA)
L.L.C., the Defendants, Case No. 18CIV05509 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct.
11, 2018), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933.

According to the complaint, on a day mid-July 2018 investment
bankers from Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse hosted a meeting with
investors in New York to sell the IPO of Pinduoduo, a fast growing
and very young Chinese e-commerce company that some think could be
the next JD.com or even Alibaba. Shortly afterwards, the stock
priced at the top of its IPO range and leap 45% within a few days.
But it wans't long before the hype began to wear off. After peaking
a massive valuation of $35 billion, or 125 times its 2017 sales,
shares of Pinduoduo began a steady decline towards the IPO price of
$19. Thereafter, the stock declined below thew IPO price, making it
a "broken IPO" in Wall Street jargon.

The nail in the coffin was news that Chinese Regulators announced
an investigation into the sale of counterfeit goods and items
infringing on copyrights that have been sold on Pinduoduo's
platform. Pinduoduo deals mainly in very cheap items sold between
third parties, fertile ground for fake goods to be exchanged. These
recent events have made it clear that Pinduoduo, its officers and
directors, and the investment banks that brought the Company public
made false and misleading statements in the Company's Prospectus
and Registration Statement, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

          Francis A, Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
          Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914 2001
          Facsimile: (858)-914 2002


PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Court Denies Certification of 5 Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD L. ALLEN, et
al., the Plaintiffs, vs. PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 17-00374-CV-W-GAF (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Gary A. Fenner entered an order on October 1, 2018, denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 Class Certification of Missouri
common law classes:

   -- Missouri Minimum Wage Law (MMWL) Unlawful Tip Pool Class:

      "all persons currently and formerly employed by Defendants
within the state of Missouri in hourly positions who participated
in a tip pool at any time during the two-year period preceding the
filing of the instant lawsuit";

   -- MMWL Time-Clock Rounding Class:

      "all persons currently and formerly employed by Defendants
within the state of Missouri in hourly positions who worked at any
time during the two-year period preceding the filing of the instant
lawsuit";

   -- MMWL Table Games Supervisor Class:

      "all persons currently and formerly employed by Defendants
within the state of Missouri as Table Games Supervisors, and others
with similar job titles, duties, and compensation structures who
were subjected to a policy of denying compensation at a rate of one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of forty in a workweek, who worked at any time during the
two-year period preceding the filing of the instant lawsuit";

   -- Missouri Unjust Enrichment Class:

      "all persons currently and formerly employed by Defendants
within the state of Missouri in hourly positions or as a Table
Games Supervisor who worked at any time during the five-year period
preceding the filing of the instant lawsuit.

   -- Missouri Breach of Contract Class:

      "all persons currently and formerly employed by Defendants
within the state of Missouri in hourly positions or as a Table
Games Supervisor who worked at any time during the five-year period
preceding the filing of the instant lawsuit".

The Court said, "Plaintiffs have not established that questions of
law or fact predominate over individualized questions for the
proposed MMWL Time-Clock Rounding Class. The proposed MMWL Unlawful
Tip Pool Class is not ascertainable or, in the alternative, lacks
commonality. Mesplay and Kobermann are not members of the proposed
MMWL Table Games Supervisor Class. For all of these reasons, the
proposed Missouri common law classes fail."[CC]

PJ IOWA: Court Certifies FLSA Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BILLY D. FRAZIER and
ANGELA KEARNS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. PJ IOWA, L.C., the Defendant, Case
No. 4:17-cv-00160-JEG-HCA (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge James E.
Gritzner entered an order on Oct. 9, 2018:

     1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion as to conditional
certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act collective action
claims, but denying as to Rule 23 certification of Iowa Minimum
Wage Law and Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law class action claim;

     2. directing to send notice of pendency of collective action
to all individuals who worked for PJ Iowa as a delivery driver
between March 16, 2015, and the present time;

     3. approving notice and consent form, with the exception of
the changes ordered above;

     4. giving the Plaintiffs' counsel to have 10 days from receipt
of to circulate the Notice and Consent Form via U.S. Mail; and

     5. giving the Putative opt-in plaintiffs to have 60 days from
the circulation of the Notice and Consent Form to opt in to this
action.[CC]


PPG INDUSTRIES: Trevor Mild Securities Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 19, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the putative
securities class action suit entitled, Trevor Mild v. PPG
Industries, Inc., Michael H. McGarry, Vincent J. Morales, and Mark
C. Kelly, remains pending.

On May 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against the Company and certain of its current or former
officers. On September 21, 2018, an Amended Class Action Complaint
was filed in the action. The Amended Complaint, captioned Trevor
Mild v. PPG Industries, Inc., Michael H. McGarry, Vincent J.
Morales, and Mark C. Kelly, asserts securities fraud claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on
behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired stock of the Company during various time periods between
January 19, 2017 and May 10, 2018.

The allegations relate to, among other things, allegedly false and
misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about
the Company's business, operations and prospects. This action
remains pending. The Company believes this action is without merit
and intends to defend itself vigorously.

PPG Industries, Inc. manufactures and distributes paints, coatings,
and specialty materials in the United States and internationally.
It operates through Performance Coatings and Industrial Coatings
segments. The company was founded in 1883 and is headquartered in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


PRECISION GROUP: Elizondo Suit Moved to Southern District of Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE ELIZONDO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PRECISION GROUP ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
and HAROEEL A. GODINEZ, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00597, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District Western
of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern  District of
Texas (Laredo) on Oct. 12, 2018. The Southern District of Texas
assigned Case No.: 5:18-cv-00151. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo.

According to the complaint, Mr. Felipe Elizondo brought this action
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated who
worked for Precision Group Energy Services, Inc., seeking all
available relief, including compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.[BN]

Attorneys for Felipe Elizondo Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated:

          Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
          ANDERSON2X, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey W. Hastings, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY W. HASTINGS
          1773 Westborough Drive, Suite 105
          Katy, TX 77449
          Telephone: (281) 844-8436
          Facsimile: (877) 373-1962
          E-mail: Jeff@Jwh.Law

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Carlos Evaristo Flores, Esq.
          Adolfo Gerardo Martinez, Esq.
          PERSON WHITWORTH BORCHERS MORALES, LLP
          602 E. Calton Road, 2nd Fl
          Laredo, TX 78041
          Telephone: (956) 727-4441
          E-mail: cflores@personwhitworth.com
                  amartinez@personwhitworth.com


PRIDE N' LIVING: Reed Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLE REED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PRIDE N' LIVING HOME CARE, INC., the
Defendant, Case No.: 0:18-cv-02906-PJS-DTS (D. Minn., Oct. 11,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the
Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Danielle Reed, was employed by Defendant as a home care
worker, specifically a Personal Care Assistant, from approximately
June 2015 to June 2017.  The Defendant has willfully engaged in a
pattern, policy, and practice of unlawful conduct, in violation of
the federal and state rights of the Plaintiff, those similarly
situated, and members of the proposed Minnesota Rule 23 Class, the
lawsuit says.

The Defendant provides personal care, skilled and private duty
nursing, pediatric services, companionship, and respite care
services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative FLSA Collective and
Minnesota Rule 23 Class:

          Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
          Neil D. Pederson, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256 3200
          Facsimile: (612) 215 6870
          E-mail: fisher@nka.com
                  npederson@nka.com


PVH RETAIL: Venieris Suit Goes to District of Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------
PVH Retail Stores LLC removed the case captioned, PATRICK VENIERIS,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. PVH RETAIL STORES LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability
Company d/b/a TOMMY HILFIGER COMPANY STORE and/or TOMMY HILFIGER,
the Defendants, Case No. CV 2018-005427, filed in the Superior
Court in the State of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa, to
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on Oct. 4, 2018.
The District of Arizona Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-03161-ESW to the proceeding.

On August 30, 2018, the Plaintiff Patrick Venieris filed his Class
Action Complaint on behalf of himself and an alleged putative
class. The Plaintiff alleges that PVH Retail deceptively and
misleadingly advertises and displays its Tommy Hilfiger brand
apparel as being sold at a discounted price by including a
pre-discounted price on the tags.

PVH Retail, doing business as Tommy Hilfiger. It was formerly known
as PVH CK Stores, Inc. and changed its name to PVH Retail Stores,
Inc. in February 2008.[BN]

Attorneys for PVH Retail Stores LLC:

          Joshua Grabel, Esq.
          Heather Stanton, Esq.
          LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
          201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2595
          E-mail: jgrabel@lrrc.com
                  hstanton@lrrc.com


RAYMOND JAMES: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida federal
judge denied Raymond James' bid to toss a putative class action
alleging the financial services company charges unauthorized
commissions via a "processing fee".[GN]


RED LION HOTELS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alcaraz Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
STACIE ALCARAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RED LION HOTELS CORPORATION; and DOES 1
THROUGH 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-570310 (Cal.
Super., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 4, 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 Plaintif Alcaraz was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employee from September 2014 to November 2017.

Red Lion Hotels Corporation, doing business as RLH Corporation,
operates as a hospitality and leisure company the United States.
The company was formerly known as WestCoast Hospitality Corporation
and changed its name to Red Lion Hotels Corporation in September
2005. Red Lion Hotels Corporation was founded in 1937 and is
headquartered in Denver, Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces Alexander Suit in Kern California
----------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Republic Services, Inc. The case is captioned as JIMMY ALEXANDER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.; ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.
D.B.A. REPUBLIC SERVICES OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY; and SOLANO GARBAGE
COMPANY, Case No. BCV-18-102520 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., Oct. 3,
2018). The case is assigned to Judge David R. Lampe.

Republic Services, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
non-hazardous solid waste collection, transfer, recycling,
disposal, and energy services for small-container, large-container,
municipal and residential, and energy services customers in the
United States and Puerto Rico. The company was founded in 1996 and
is based in Phoenix, Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Douglas Han, Esq., at Justice Law
Corporation.


RH INC: Court Certifies Class in Teacher Retirement Fund Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL
EMPLOYEES' & SANITATION EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT TRUST, ET AL., the
Plaintiffs, vs. RH, INC., ET AL., the Defendants, Case No.
4:17-cv-00554-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzales
Rogers entered an order on October 11, 2018:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the common stock of Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc. during the
period from March 26, 2015 through June 8, 2016, inclusive;

   2. appointing lead plaintiffs Public School Teachers Pension &
Retirement Fund of Chicago and Arkansas Teacher Retirement System
as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP as Class
Counsel.[CC]


RICHANI RESTAURANT: Certification of Collective Action Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
in the class action lawsuit captioned as MELONIE COLEMAN, On Behalf
of HERSELF and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
RICHANI RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC d/b/a JOHNNY BRUSCO’S NEW YORK
STYLE PIZZA, the Defendant, Case No.: 2:18-cv-00114 (E.D. Tenn.),
the parties move the Court for an order:

     1. conditionally certifying action as a collective action with
the class of potential opt-ins described as:

          "each person who worked as a server at Defendant's three
store locations at any time during the previous three years"'

     2. requiring the Defendant to provide the Plaintiff's counsel
with the name and last-known home address for each member of the
class within 14 days from an order from this Court granting this
Motion;

     3. requiring the Plaintiff's counsel to mail the notice
attached to this consent motion to each member of the class within
seven days from receipt of the potential class members' contact
information from Defendant;

     4. staying, pending the parties' mediated settlement
conference, the discovery period in this case, except for discovery
focused on aiding the parties in negotiating a settlement of this
case,  as well as the deadlines for the parties to file the Rule
26(f) Report, and to exchange initial disclosures; and

     5. requiring the parties to file a status report regarding the
results of their efforts to settle the
dispute within seven days immediately following the conclusion of
their mediated settlement conference.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Bank of America Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244 2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252 3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

Counsel for Defendant:

          Edward N. Boehm, Jr., Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3500
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 231-1400
          Facsimile: (404) 240-4249
          E-mail: tboehm@fisherphillips.com

               - and -

          Mark S. Dessauer, Esq.
          HUNTER, SMITH & DAVIS
          1212 N. Eastman Road, PO Box 3740
          Kingsport, TN 37664
          Telephone: (423) 378-8840
          Facsimile: (423) 378-8840
          E-mail: dessauer@hsdlaw.com


RISTORANTE LA BUCA: Wright Seeks to Certify Classes
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS J. WRIGHT, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. RISTORANTE LA BUCA INC. d/b/a RISTORANTE LA BUCA; JEANIE
GIULIANI; ANTHONY GIULIANI; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, the
Defendant(s), Case 2:18-cv-02207-MAK (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff move
the Court for an Order:

   1. granting certification of proposed Class consisting of:

      "all current and former Tipped Employees who have worked for
Defendant in the State of Pennsylvania at any point from May 25,
2015 through the present; and

   2. granting conditional certification of a collective class,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b),
consisting of:

      "all persons employed by Defendant as Tipped Employees during
the last three years, and (iii) the production to Plaintiffs of all
names and addresses of members of the collective class in
accordance with Hoffman-La Roche v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165
(1989).[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes:

          Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
          Stephen E. Connolly, Esq.
          CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
          2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 275
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: 610-822-3700
          Facsimile: 610-822-3800
          E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com
                  sconnolly@cwglaw.com

               - and -

          Arkady "Eric" Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364-5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com

RIVER CITY CONDO ASSOC: Robles et al. Sue Board Members over Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DAN PEPPER, ROY ROBLES, NIHAD ALSAFWEH , FRANK
DEBRECZENYI, FENGYUN LIU, XIAOSONG SHEN, BIN JIANG, ELANA RIVERA,
BOB OLSEN, DONALD MOORE, RAPHAELA RAE PATERNO, ERIC XIE, PEIMING
CHANG, MEITING CHANG, HZ RENTAL LLC, and TOM STAPPAS, individually
and derivatively on behalf of themselves and all other unit owners
of the RIVER CITY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, the Plaintiffs, vs.
MICHELINE MAGHARIOUS, STACEY ANDERSON, RYAN PALIDER, DAVID COHEN,
and MARK MITREV, individually and as members of the Board of
Directors of the River City Condominium Association, and the RIVER
CITY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, an Illinois Not-For-Profit
Corporation, the Defendants, Case No.: 2018CH12423 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty., Oct. 3. 2018), seeks an order barring the Board from
taking further actions towards consummation of a Section 15 sale of
the entire River City Condominium Association upon 449 Unit
Owners.

The lawsuit alleges that the Board:

     (1) failed to produce documentation validly requested per the
Illinois Condominium Property Act that the sale was approved by 75%
of the Unit Ownership as required to enforce a sale of the entire
condominium association under Section 15 of the Illinois
Condominium Property Act, 765 ILCS 605/15;

     (2) illegally conducted a vote to approve or reject the
Section 15 sale by conspiring with the Buyer to arrange multiple
"side deals," (i.e. bribes) to individual Unit Owners through which
those owners will receive a premium payment for their units in
contravention of Section 15, Section 18, and Section 18.4 of the
Act; and

     (3) materially misrepresented the terms of the Agreement while
threatening to increase the monthly assessments to unsustainable
rates if the Unit Owners rejected the sale.

According to the complaint, these overtly coercive and misleading
actions in furtherance of consummating the sale by the Board render
any such action towards closing of the "proposed sale" meaningless.
The Board must produce evidence that the Unit Owners approved the
sale by a vote of 75% or more of the total unit ownership, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          David J. Bloomberg, Esq.
          James R. Stevens, Esq.
          Adam K. Beattie, Esq.
          CHUHAK & TECSON, P.C.
          30 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 444 9300
          E-mail: dbloomberg@chuhak.com
                  jstevens@chuhak.com
                  abeattie~chuhak.com
                  service@chuhak.com


RMJV LP: Amador Suit Moved to Southern District of California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Amador, individually and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs RMJV, LP
doing business as: Fresh Creative Foods an unknown business entity
and Does 1 Through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
37-02018-00045893-CU-OE-NC, was transferred from the Superior Court
of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California (San Diego) on Oct. 12, 2018.
The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.:
3:18-cv-02351-JM-KSC to the proceeding. The suit alleges labor
law-related violations, seeking to recover $5,000,000. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Jeffrey T. Miller.[BN]

Attorneys for Alejandro Amador:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com

Attorneys for RMJV, LP:

          Evelyn F. Wang, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 633-6800
          Facsimile: (213) 633-6899
          E-mail: evelynwang@dwt.com


ROBERT GILMORE: Court Denies Class Certification in Pelino Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
VITO A. PELINO, the Plaintiff, vs ROBERT GILMORE, MICHAEL ZAKEN,
and STEPHEN DURCO, the Defendants, Case 2:18-cv-01232-MPK (W.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Maureen P. Kelly entered an order denying the
motion for class certification on October 1, 2018.

The Court said, "Plaintiff fails to satisfy at least one of these
elements. As this Court has explained: It is well established that
a prisoner proceeding pro se, is unable to satisfy the fourth
element of a class action suit. See Awala v. New Jersey Dept. of
Corrections, 227 Fed. Appx. 133, 134 (3d Cir. 2007) (affirming the
District Court where the "District Court dismissed Awala's
complaint and amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. sections
1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b), concluding that as a pro se prisoner
without formal training in the law. Awala would not be able to
adequately represent the interests of the class and maintain the
suit as a class action"); Bricker v. McVey, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
30387, 2009 WL 960383 at 8 n.11 (M.D. Pa. April 7, 2009), quoting
Carter v. Taylor, 540 F. Supp. 2d 522, 527 (D. Del. 2008) ("When
confronting such a request from a prisoner, courts have
consistently held that a prisoner acting pro se 'is inadequate to
represent the interests of his fellow inmates in a class
action.'"); Caputo v. Fauver, 800 F. Supp. 168, 170 (D.N.J. 1992),
aff'd, 995 F.2d 216 (3d Cir. 1993) (table decision) (stating that
"[e]very court that has considered the issue has held that a
prisoner proceeding pro se is inadequate to represent the interests
of his fellow inmates in a class action"). Mearin v. Swartz, Civ.
A. No. 11-669, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54339, at 3-4 (W.D. Pa. Apr.
18, 2012)."[CC]


S&T HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suarez Camacho Says
------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL ISHMAEL SUAREZ CAMACHO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. S&T HEALTH TRANSPORTATION
INC and TIGRAN AVETISYAN, the Defendants, Case No. 18-2911 (Mass.
Super. Ct., Oct. 11, 2018), seeks to recover all unpaid wages under
the Massachusetts wage laws and regulations.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants habitually refuse to pay
Suarez and other employees overtime wages in violation of the
Massachusetts wage laws and regulations. Further, Suarez claims
that the Defendants refuse to compensate Suarez and other employees
for all travel time when they are assigned to travel to another
location by Defendants. Finally, Suarez claims that the Defendants
refuse to pay him and other employees for all hours worked at
straight wages.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          John R. Yasi, Esq.
          David J. Relethford, Esq.
          Michael Forrest, Esq.
          Brian P. McNiff, Esq.
          FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH,
          YASI & YASI, P.C.
          2 Salem Green, Suite 2
          Salem, MA 01970
          Telephone: (617) 231-7829
          E-mail: bmcniff@forrestlamothe.com
                  drelethford@forrestlamothe.com
                  jyasi@bmcniff@forrestlamothe.com
                  mforrest@bmcniff@forrestlamothe.com


S. BRAVO SYSTEMS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Parra Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
IGNACIO PARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. S. BRAVO SYSTEMS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC723626 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
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, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Parra was employed by the Defendant as an hourly,
non-exempt employee from November 11, 2016 to July 19, 2018.

S. Bravo Systems is a certified woman-owned and Made in the USA
accredited manufacturer of high performance secondary containment
systems for the petroleum equipment industry. The Company provides
products and support that incorporate innovative engineering,
industry feedback and customer service. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Joshua Webster, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  jwebster@lelawfirm.com

               - and –

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


SANMINA CORPORATION: Spalliero Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT SPALLIERO, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. SANMINA
CORPORATION, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV336145 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 11, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid meal
period premiums, unpaid rest period, and unpaid minimum wages under
the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants new or should have known that the Plaintiff and other
class members were entitled to receive all timely and complete meal
periods or payment of one additional hour of pay at the Plaintiff's
and other class members' regular rate of pay when a meal period was
missed, late or interrupted, and they did not receive all timely
and proper meal periods or payment of one additional hour of pay at
the Plaintiff's and other class members' regular rate of pay when a
meal period was missed.

Specifically, the applicable Wage Order provides that the
Defendants are and were required to pay the Plaintiff and other
class members employed by the Defendants, who work(ed) more than 8
hours in a day or more than 40 hours in a workweek, at the rate of
time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours in a
day or more than 40 hours in a workweek, the lawsuit says.

Sanmina Corporation is an American electronics manufacturing
services provider headquartered in San Jose, California that serves
original equipment manufacturers in communications and computer
hardware fields.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile (818) 230-7259


SHATOS AUTO: Roberts-Glover Sues over Predelivery Service Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
DERLYN ROBERTS-GLOVER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHATOS AUTO SALES & TRANSPORT LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 78800125 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Oct.
3, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful act of charging
predelivery service fee to the Plaintiff and the class without
prior disclosure.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant charges the Plaintiff
predelivery service fee upon purchase of the 2006 Mercedes-Benz
E-Class without disclosing it to her. The Defendant thus violated
Florida Statutes when it charged the predelivery service fee
without having printed on all documents that include a line item
for such predelivery service fee the following disclosure: "This
charge represents costs and profit to the dealer for items such as
inspecting, cleaning, and adjusting vehicles, and preparing
documents related to the sale."

Shatos Auto Sales & Transport LLC is a Florida limited liability
company engaged as a car dealer. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger D. Mason, II, Esq.
          Joseph V. Nemeh, Esq.
          John S. Valenti, Esq.
          ROGER D. MASON, II, P.A.
          5135 West Cypress Street, Suite 105
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 304-2131
          E-mail: rmason@flautolawyer.com
                  jnemeh@flautolawyer.com
                  jvalenti@flautolawyer.com
                   admin@flautolawyer.com


SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Miller Suit over TV Ad Rates Moved to Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LAW OFFICES OF PETER MILLER, P.A., 1601 South Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72206 Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP,
INC. 10706 Beaver Dam Road Hunt Valley, MD 21030 Baltimore County;
TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY 515 North State Street Chicago, IL 60654;
TRIBUNE BROADCASTING COMPANY, LLC 435 N. Michigan Avenue Chicago,
IL 60611; and DOES 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02316,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Chicago) Oct. 12, 2018. The Northern District of Illinois
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-06789. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge  Virginia M. Kendall.

According to the complaint, the case is an antitrust class action
arose from a conspiracy among Defendants and their co-conspirators
to fix prices for commercials to be aired on broadcast television
stations throughout the United States in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, by sharing competitively sensitive information
through their advertising sales teams. Defendants' and their
co-conspirators' unlawful collusion led to supracompetitive prices
in the market for the sale of television advertising. Specifically,
instead of competing with each other on price for advertising sales
as horizontal competitors typically would, Defendants and their
co-conspirators shared proprietary information and conspired to fix
prices and stifle competition in the market.[BN]

Attorneys for Law Offices of Peter Miller, P.A.:

          Alicia Leigh Shelton, Esq.
          Cyril Vincent Smith , III, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          100 E Pratt St Ste 2400
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 332-0444
          E-mail: ashelton@zuckerman.com
                  csmith@zuckerman.com

               - and -

          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          Asher S Alavi, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: kjustice@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Lee Greenblatt, Esq.
          SHEARMAN AND STERLING LLP
          401 Pe 9th St. NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 508-8070
          E-mail: jgreenblatt@shearman.com

Attorneys for Tribune Media Company and Tribune Broadcasting
Company, LLC:

          John Augustine Bourgeois, Esq.
          KRAMON AND GRAHAM PA
          One South St Ste 2600
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 752-6030
          E-mail: jbourgeois@kg-law.com

               - and -

          Daniel H. Levi, Esq.
          Jay Cohen, Esq.
          William B. Michael, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019-6064
          Telephone: (212) 373-3497
          E-mail: dlevi@paulweiss.com
                  jaycohen@paulweiss.com
                  wmichael@paulweiss.com


SIRY INVESTMENTS: Underpays Managers, Supervisors, & Technicians
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS DELGADO PENA; MAURILIO DE LOS SANTOS; and AGUSTIN VARGAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SIRY INVESTMENTS, L.P. D/B/A PORTO VISTA HOTEL AND
SUITES; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No.
37-2018-00050219-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Oct. 3,
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.

Mr. Pena was employed by the Defendants as front desk manager from
February 2017 to July 2017; Mr. De Los Santos as maintenance
technician supervisor from April 2017 to August 2017; and Mr. Varas
maintenance technician from March 2017 to August 2017.

Siry Investments, L.P. is engaged in the construction business.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
          Amir Seyedfarshi, Esq.
          RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
          22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 200
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (310) 961-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 961-9094
          E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com
                  amir@rastegarlawgroup.com


SODEXO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rivera Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
ESTEVAN RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SODEXO, INC.; SDH EDUCATION WEST LLC; and
DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18STCV00292 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 4, 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 Rivera was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt,
hourly paid employee.

Sodexo, Inc. provides integrated food, facilities management, and
other services that enhance organizational performance and improve
the quality of life daily in North America. Sodexo, Inc. was
formerly known as Sodexho, Inc. and changed its name to Sodexo,
Inc. in April 2008. The company was founded in 1966 and is based in
Gaithersburg, Maryland. Sodexo, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Sodexo S.A. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Starr, Esq.
          Eric S. Mintz Esq.
          Manny Starr, Esq.
          FRONTIER LAW CENTER, APC
          23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2074
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 914-3433
          Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
          E-mail: robert@frontierlawcenter.com
                  eric@frontierlawcenter.com
                  marmv@,fTontierlawcenter.com


SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT: Certification of Employees Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned JOSHUA CAUDLE and KRYSTLE
WHITE, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a
Kansas corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case
3:17-cv-06874-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court
on Nov. 29, 2018, for an order:

   1. certifying three California-only classes consisting of
employees of Defendant Sprint/United Management Company:

      Class 1 (Unlawful Deductions - SPS Class):

      "all current and former employees of Sprint who worked at
Sprint's retail store location(s) in California and whose
compensation was based in full or in part on incentive compensation
(also called "commissions"), and whose commissions were reduced by
a Sprint Promoter Score Adjustment, at any time from February 2016
to March 2017";

      Class 2 (Wage Statement Class):

      "all members of the Unlawful Deductions – SPS Class whose
commissions were reduced by a Sprint Promoter Score Adjustment at
any time from September 29, 2016 through March 2017"

      Class 3 (Waiting Time Class):

      "all members of the Unlawful Deductions – SPS Class who
separated their employment from Sprint at any time from September
29, 2014 through the present"

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives; and

   3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel, Paul K. Haines, Tuvia
Korobkin, and Stacey M. Shim of Haines Law Group, APC, as Class
Counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          Stacey M. Shim, 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: tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
                  phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  sshim@haineslawgroup.com


STAR WAY: Fails to Pay Wages, Vashkovskyi Says
----------------------------------------------
KOSTIANTYN VASHKOVSKYI, the Plaintiff, vs. STAR WAY TRANSPORT INC,
INTER TEAM INC., SERGIY BAZYL YUK, TETY ANA BAZYL YUK, the
Defendants, Case No.: 2018CH12778 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. Oct.
12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.

According to the complaint, Kostiantyn Vashkovski is a resident of
Florida and worked as a truck driver in Illinois, compensated on a
per hauled cargo load non-exempt employee for Defendants in the
State of Illinois.

The Defendants failed and refused to pay Plaintiff and others
similarly situated for some or all work performed, the lawsuit
says.

Star Way is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking
company running freight hauling business from Sun Prairie,
Wisconsin.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Julia Bikbova, Esq.
          3400 Dundee Road, Suite 150
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: (847) 541-8100


STATE STREET: Law Firm Reaches Truce with Special Master
--------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that securities class action firm Labaton
Sucharow has reached a tentative truce with the special master
investigating questionable activities that include a $4.1 million
referral fee paid to a lawyer who did no work but served as the
middleman between Labaton and an Arkansas pension fund that served
as lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against State Street Bank and
Trust.

The mysterious fee, plus earlier examples of double-counting in a
so-called "lodestar" report Labaton submitted to the court to
justify its $75 million fee in the State Street case, sparked a
wide-ranging investigation that continues. Columbia Law School
Professor John Coffee, in a recent article, said the case could be
a "Legal Watergate" that could reshape class action practice by
forcing lawyers to disclose how they distribute their fees,
especially to rainmakers who connect class action lawyers with the
institutional investors they need to establish control of a case.

The proposed settlement, released shortly after midnight on Oct.
10, represents a remarkable retreat for Labaton, which previously
maintained an aggressive stance including seeking the recusal of
U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf, who is overseeing the State
Street case. When that gambit failed, State Street asked the judge
to turn over any communications between Judge Wolf and the special
master, retired federal judge Gerald E. Rosen, in search of
evidence Rosen had injected bias against Labaton into the judge's
mind.

In the proposed agreement, Labaton said it "deeply regrets" paying
a "bare referral" fee to Damon Chargois, a Texas lawyer who
introduced the New York firm to Arkansas politicians and officials
of the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System.

Labaton fought to keep the payment secret, but it emerged in an
investigation Judge Wolf ordered after the Boston Globe uncovered
more than $4 million in double-billing in the lodestar report
Labaton submitted to the court to justify its fee in the case.

The firm said it would pay as much as $4.8 million to class members
and other lawyers in the case as well as shouldering its cost of
the special master's investigation, which has cost millions of
dollars so far.

Labaton was awarded $75 million in fees for negotiating a $300
million settlement with State Street in a lawsuit over foreign
exchange fees. The special master concluded the fee was reasonable,
but chastised Labaton for shoddy recordkeeping practices and
failing to disclose the referral fee to Chargois, who did no work
on the case and didn't accept responsibility as a legal
representative of the pension fund.

Professional ethics rules in Massachusetts allow for such bare
referral fees, but they are prohibited nearly everywhere else,
including most federal courts. Rosen also recommended Labaton
retain its lead counsel role in the case.

"Labaton acknowledges that the non-traditional nature of the
Chargois fee agreement, and the facts that he neither worked on nor
assumed responsibility for the State Street case, constitute
important factors that would likely have contributed to a more
robust decision-making process by the Court in the fee award
process," the firm said in a statement accompanying the proposed
settlement.

The firm agreed to return $700,000 of the fee attributable to
Chargois to class members, repay as much as $1.4 million to class
members for double-counting, and shift $2.75 million in fees to
lawyers representing ERISA clients. Those lawyers complained they
were shortchanged on fees because of Labaton's incorrect lodestar
calculations and the undisclosed referral fee to Chargois.

Labaton formally adopted a policy prohibiting "bare referral" fees
and an internal policy requiring the firm to disclose to all courts
any fee-sharing agreement with other lawyers, following the ethics
rules of the Eastern and Southern districts of New York. Labaton
failed to disclose the Chargois fee because, it argued,
Massachusetts, unlike other states, doesn't prohibit such referral
fees.

Labaton also agreed to halt the practice of allowing other firms to
pay for Labaton staff attorneys working in its office, as well as
allowing other firms to claim the time of Labaton staff lawyers on
their lodestar petitions. Class action lawyers frequently share the
costs of litigation, but also engage in undisclosed agreements to
share lodestar hours, a practice critics say can mask
anticompetitive behavior.

By agreeing to split fees with competing law firms, class action
lawyers can avoid noisy fights over the job of lead counsel as well
as potential price competition over fees to get the work.

To ensure future compliance, Labaton will hire James Holderman,
former chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, to monitor the firm's fee practices for a
year. Labaton agrees to withdraw all pending motions, including its
objections to the report, and waive its right to appeal. It will
also pay its share of the special master's costs and cooperate with
the investigation and federal or state inquiries that may arise.

They can renew their objections if Judge Wolf rejects the special
master's recommendations. Labaton lead partner Larry Sucharow --
lsucharow@labaton.com -- has been ordered to attend an Oct. 15
hearing with the judge over the proposed settlement. [GN]


STITCH FIX: Sawicki Alleges Securities Law Violation
----------------------------------------------------
GREG SAWICKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STITCH FIX, INC., KATRINA LAKE, PAUL
YEE and MIKE C. SMITH, the Defendants, Case 3:18-cv-06208 (N.D.
Cal., Oct. 11, 2018), seeks remedies under sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, Stitch Fix is an online retail fashion
subscription service. Stitch Fix purchases clothing, shoes and
accessories from name-brand manufacturers and designs more in-house
that it has manufactured. Stitch Fix personnel then select and
deliver curated boxes of items to "clients" to try on, buy what
they like, and return the rest. While some or all of the items can
be returned free of charge, clients are incentivized to accept the
entire selection through a 25% price discount that is only applied
if the client accepts the entire shipment. This business model
exposes Stitch Fix to a substantial risk of being forced to write
off unsaleable inventory, a risk magnified by how quickly fashion
trends change. Stitch Fix mitigates this risk by accumulating large
troves of data about its clients' sizes, style preferences and
purchasing habits, and runs that data through complex algorithms to
match client preferences.

For subscription businesses like Stitch Fix, the most important
business metric to investors is the number and growth rate of its
"active clients," which Stitch Fix defines as a client who has
responded to shipments at least once during the preceding 12-month
period. In connection with its efforts to market its November 2017
initial public stock offering, Stitch Fix emphasized that its
active client base had grown dramatically from 867,000 at August 1,
2015, to 1,674,000 at July 2, 2016, to 2,194,000 at July 29, 2017,
representing year-over-year growth rates of 93.1% and 31.1%,
respectively. Stitch Fix focused investors on the growth of its
active clients, stating that "the number of active clients [was] a
key indicator of [its] growth and the overall health of [its]
business." Stitch Fix's dramatic active client growth during 2017
and 2018, which served as a proxy for its revenue and profit growth
during those same periods, was in large part the result of its
prolific television advertising campaign. Though Stitch Fix was
founded in 2011, it did not launch its first television advertising
campaigns until 2017.

Throughout the Class Period, Stitch Fix made materially false and
misleading statements about the strength of its active client
growth and its continued investment in television advertising and
its impact on the Company's financial prospects, setting high
investor growth expectations far beyond what the Company was
actually then experiencing. In particular, Stitch Fix materially
misrepresented the strength of its sales growth prospects by
concealing that its active client growth rate had plummeted from 8%
in the third quarter of 2018 to 2% in the fourth quarter of 2018,
and claiming, among other things, that its strong 3Q18 results
demonstrated the continued positive momentum of its business cycle
while failing to disclose that the historical rates of growth
reported in the Company's financial statements and reports to
investors had actually slowed dramatically. In truth, Stitch Fix's
active client growth rate had plummeted by the time it reported its
3Q18 financial results on June 7, 2018 -- already a third of the
way through 21 4Q18, which would end on July 28, 2018. Stitch Fix
also misstated its commitment to its television advertising
campaign, concealing that the Company had already determined it
would cease running television advertising for 10 of the 13 weeks
in 4Q18, further negatively impacting new client additions, the
lawsuit says.

Stitch Fix is an online subscription and personal shopping service
in the United States. Founded in 2011, Stitch Fix went public in
2017. As of November 2017, immediately after the initial offering,
Stitch Fix was valued at $1.6 billion and as of February 2018, the
company was valued at $2 billion.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Shawn Williams, Esq.
          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415/288-4545
          Facsimile: 415/288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
                  srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

               – and -

          Franks J. Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1400
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619/230-0063
          Facsimile: 619/255-1856


SUNOCO LOGISTICS: Wants Pipeline Damage Class Action Narrowed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Rhodes, writing for Law360, reports that Sunoco Logistics
Partners on Oct. 9 urged a Pennsylvania federal judge to trim a
proposed class action claiming that construction of its
controversial Mariner East 2 pipeline caused significant property
damage. [GN]


SUPERVALU INC: Appeal in Data Security Breach Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUPERVALU INC. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 15, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 1, 2018, that an appeal is ongoing
in the case entitled, In Re: SUPERVALU Inc. Customer Data Security
Breach Litigation.

In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were
filed against the company relating to the Criminal Intrusion. The
cases were centralized in the Federal District Court for the
District of Minnesota under the caption In Re: SUPERVALU Inc.
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. On June 26, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

The company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint and the hearing took place on November 3, 2015. On
January 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Motion to Dismiss
and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that the
plaintiffs did not have standing to sue as they had not met their
burden of showing any compensable damages.

On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the
District Court's dismissal of the complaint or in the alternative
to conduct discovery and file an amended complaint, and we filed
our response in opposition on March 4, 2016. On April 20, 2016, the
District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the District
Court's dismissal or in the alternative to amend the complaint. On
May 18, 2016, plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit and on May 31,
2016, the company filed a cross-appeal to preserve its additional
arguments for dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint.

On August 30, 2017, the 8th Circuit affirmed the dismissal for 14
out of the 15 plaintiffs finding they had no standing. The 8th
Circuit did not consider the company's cross-appeal and remanded
the case back for consideration of the company's additional
arguments for dismissal against the one remaining plaintiff. On
October 30, 2017, the company filed its motion to dismiss the
remaining plaintiff and on November 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed a
motion to amend its complaint.

The court held a hearing on the motions on December 14, 2017, and
on March 7, 2018, the District Court denied plaintiff's motion to
amend and granted the company's motion to dismiss. On March 14,
2018, plaintiff appealed to the 8th Circuit.

SUPERVALU INC. said, "We had $50 of cyber threat insurance above a
per incident deductible of $1 at the time of the Criminal
Intrusion, which we believe should cover any loss related to this
litigation."

SUPERVALU INC., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
grocery wholesaler and retailer in the United States and
internationally. It operates through two segments, Wholesale and
Retail. The company was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in
Eden Prairie, Minnesota.


SYNDER'S-LANCE: Mason Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Mason, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs Snyder's-Lance, Inc. and
S-L Snacks National, LLC, doing business as: Kettle Foods, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06423, was transferred from the  U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of the New York, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (West Palm
Beach) on Oct. 4, 2018. The Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 9:18-cv-81338-DMM to the proceeding. The suit alleges
fraud related violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Donald M. Middlebrooks.

Snyder's-Lance, Inc. is the second largest salty snack maker in the
United States. It was formed by the 2010 merger of Lance and
Snyder's of Hanover. As of 2018, it is a subsidiary of the Campbell
Soup Company.[BN]


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Sechrest et al. Seek Unpaid Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
DRAVEN SECHREST, and ALANDA SHACKELFORD, AND ALL OTHER EMPLOYEES OR
FORMER EMPLOYEES OF THE DEFENDANT, SIMILARLY-SITUATED, the
Plaintiffs, vs., TENNESSEE VALLEY FAMILY SERVICES, INC, the
Defendants, Case 5:18-cv-01678-HNJ (N.D. Ala.), seeks to recover
unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, TVFS employ hourly employees within the
Northern District of Alabama. TVFS serves a safe house for at
homeless, abused and at-risk victims of trafficking. The Plaintiffs
worked as Youth Advisors at TVFS.  Plaintiffs were required to stay
overnight several times a week to supervise the residents. They
were not allowed to leave the premises and had to get up several
times a night to check on and the residents.

Some of the residents are not required to return until 1:00 am and
have to get up at 5:00 a.m. in the morning and Plaintiffs were
expected to stay up and insure the residents came in and to be up
at 5 am when the residents woke up. The Plaintiffs routinely worked
60 hours per week on behalf of Defendant, but were only paid for 40
hours in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the lawsuit
says.

Tennessee Valley is a nonprofit agency formed in 1977 by a group of
concerned citizens and is focused on helping youth become
successful.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Teri Ryder Mastando, Esq.
          Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
          MASTANDO & A RTRIP, LLC
          301 Washington St., Suite 302
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 532-2222
          Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
          E-mail: teri@mastandoartrip.com
          artrip@mastandoartrip.com


TG THERAPEUTICS: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), a national
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, is notifying
investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against TG
Therapeutics, Inc., ("TG" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TGTX) and
other defendants, related to alleged violations of federal
securities laws.  If you purchased TG Therapeutics securities
between June 4, 2018 and September 25, 2018, you are encouraged to
contact a Scott+Scott attorney at (844) 818-6982 for more
information.

TG is a developmental biopharmaceutical company focused on
treatments for B-cell malignancies and autoimmune diseases. The
Company has been developing two therapies targeting hematologic
malignancies: TG-1101 (ublituximab) and TGR-1202 (umbralisib).

During the class period, TG was engaged in a randomized controlled
Phase 3 trial to evaluate TG-1101 in combination with TGR-1202 for
patients with front-line and previously treated Chronic Lymphocytic
Leukemia ("CLL"), known as the UNITY-CLL Trial.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding TG's business and prospects and the UNITY-CLL
Trial.

On September 25, 2018, pre-market, TG announced that it would not
be releasing the data from the UNITY-CLL Trial and that it had
failed to meet the trial's stated goal.

On this news, the price of TG stock fell from $9.25 per share to
$5.15 per share – a drop of over 44%.

What You Can Do

If you purchased TG Therapeutics securities between June 4, 2018
and September 25, 2018, inclusive, or if you have questions about
this notice or your legal rights, please contact attorney Joe
Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982, or at jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.  The
lead plaintiff deadline is December 3, 2018.

           About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices
in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio. [GN]


TRACTOR SUPPLY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sweeney Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA SWEENEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18CV335670 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara 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 Sweeney was employed by the Defendants as an hourly,
non-exempt employee from April 1, 2017 to June 22, 2018.

Tractor Supply Company operates rural lifestyle retail stores in
the United States. Tractor Supply Company was founded in 1938 and
is headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                  kagnew@diversitylaw.com
                  nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
          E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com


TRUST FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Kam Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Kam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Trust Financial, LLC; and Wilkerson & Bremer
Law Group, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00421-DCN (D. Idaho,
Oct. 2, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to
Judge David C. Nye.

Trust Financial, LLC provides financial consulting services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Adam Ballard, Esq.
          Ballard Law, PLLC
          147 N. 2nd East, Suite 3
          Rexburg, ID 83440
          Telephone: (208) 359-5532
          E-mail: ryanballardlaw@gmail.com


TSR INC: Paskowitz Sues over "Change in Control"
------------------------------------------------
SUSAN PASKOWITZ On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs.  AMES J. HILL, REGINA DOWD,
CHRISTOPHER HUGHES, BRIAN J. MANGAN, RAYMOND A. ROEL, JOSEPH H.
HUGHES, WINNIFRED M. HUGHES, ERIC STEIN; ZEFF CAPITAL, LP; QAR
INDUSTRIES, INC., FINTECH CONSULTING LLC and TSR, INC., the
Defendants, Case No.: 715541/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 11, 2018),
alleges breach of fiduciary duty committed by these Defendants:

     (a) the members of the Board of Directors of TSRI;

     (b) Joseph H. Hughes, the former Chairman and CEO of the
Company, who sold his controlling block of 41.8% of TSRI's shares
at a premium price to the Zeff Group on July 23, 2018, effectively
precluding the Company from auctioning itself to the highest
bidder, despite the fact that just weeks earlier Joseph Hughes had
set in motion a process to sell the Company for the benefit of all
shareholders; and

     (c) Zeff Capital LP, QAR industries, Inc. and Fintech
Consulting, LLC, an investor group led by investment fund Zeff
Capital and its founder Daniel Zeff, who on July 23,2018 purchased
819, 491 shares from Joseph Hughes at a premium price, and then
additional shares, triggering what the Company has described in
public filings as a "change in control" by reason of their present
collective ownership of 48.8% of TSRI's common shares, under
Securities laws.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a stockholder of a
publicly traded company primarily engaged in the business of
providing IT staffing for various companies. Due to the actions of
Joseph Hughes and the Zeff Group, and the knowing inaction of the
TSRI Board, the public shareholders have been damaged and will
continue to be damaged, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
          ROY L. JACOB ASSOCIATES
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2440
          New York, NY
          Telephone: (212) 867-1156
          Facsimile: (212) 504-8343
          E-mail: Rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com


UNITED MANAGEMENT: Burgains Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
Barry Burgains, and other similarly-situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, vs Sprint/United Management Company, a Foreign Profit
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 18-029342-CA-01, was moved
from the 11th Judicial Circuit Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the
U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami) on Oct.
10, 2018.  The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:18-cv-24176-UU to the proceeding. The suit alleges Fair
Labor Standards Act violation.  The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Ursula Ungaro.

Sprint/United Management Company, Inc. is based in Overland Park,
Kansas.  Sprint/United Management operates as a subsidiary of
Sprint Nextel Corp.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Nancy A. Johnson, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          111 N. Magnolia Avenue, Suite 1250
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 393 2936
          E-mail: najohnson@littler.com


UNITED TECH: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Sullivan Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP SULLIVAN, JR., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case 1:18-cv-09306-ER (S.D.N.Y., Oct.
11, 2018), contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
and/or own or operate its website -- https://www.utc.com -- to be
fully accessible to, and independently usable by, deaf and
hard-of-hearing people.  According to the lawsuit, deaf and
hard-of-hearing people watch videos just as aurally capable people
do. The lack of closed captioning means that deaf and
hard-of-hearing people are excluded from the rapidly expanding
Internet media industry and from independently accessing videos
posted on the Website.  Despite readily available accessible
technology, such as the technology in use at other heavily
trafficked websites, which makes use of closed captioning for
hard-of-hearing individuals, such as YouTube and Netflix, the
Defendant has chosen to post videos without closed captioning, or
with limited closed captioning, that are inaccessible to deaf and
hard-of-hearing individuals. Without closed captioning, deaf and
hard-of-hearing people cannot comprehend the audio portion of the
videos on the Website. By failing to make the Website accessible to
deaf and hard-of-hearing persons, the Defendant is violating basic
equal access requirements under both state and federal law, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

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


UNITEDHEALTHCARE: K.H.B. Suit Moved to District of Utah
-------------------------------------------------------
K.H.B. by and through his father, K.D.B., individually, and on
behalf of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v.
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-04175, was transferred from the US District Court for the
Northern District of California, to the US District Court for the
District of Utah (Central) on Oct 10, 2018. The District of Utah
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-00795-RJS to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert J. Shelby.

This lawsuit seeks remedies under the Employee Retirement and
Income Security Act of 1974 arising out of UHC's failure to comply
with the terms of its insured ERISA plans, specifically its denial
of coverage for licensed Wilderness Programs that treat documented
mental illnesses and substance use disorders. In addition, the
lawsuit seeks remedies due to UHC's violations of the Federal
Parity Act, which form an enforceable part of the terms of UHC's
ERISA-governed plans. It further seeks, inter alia, to recover the
benefits that have been wrongfully denied to plaintiff and the
class he sought to represent. Finally, it seeks to require UHC to
provide accurate information to all ERISA insureds concerning the
coverage of outdoor/wilderness behavioral healthcare programs.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
          Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
          SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2560
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 223-0303
          Facsimile: (206) 223-0246
          E-mail: ele@sylaw.com
                  rspoonemore@sylaw.com

               - and -

          Jordan Lewis, Esq.
          JORDAN LEWIS, P.A.
          4473 N.E. 11th Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
          Telephone: (954) 616-8995
          Facsimile: (954) 206-0374
          E-mail: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Nina Wasow, Esq.
          Catha Worthman, Esq.
          FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW, LLP
          2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 269-7998
          Facsimile: (510) 269-7994
          E-mail: nina@feinbergjackson.com
                  catha@feinbergjackson.com


USA DIVING: Harvard Diving Coach Resigns Amid Sex Misconduct
------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Helsel, writing for NBC News, reports that a Harvard
University diving coach who had been placed on leave after a
class-action lawsuit alleged sexual misconduct has resigned, the
university said on Oct. 9.

Harvard Athletic Director Bob Scalise said in a brief statement
that Chris Heaton, 31, "has decided to step down from his role."

"Tracey Bird will step in as the new interim coach, effective
immediately," Harvard said, and "a national search for a successor
will be conducted."

Mr. Heaton was not named as a defendant in the class-action
lawsuit, but the suit alleges that he solicited nude photographs
from young female athletes at an Indiana diving school. He
allegedly sent photos of his penis to female athletes while at the
Ripfest Diving Camp in Indiana in 2015, according to the suit.

Fifty women are listed as defendants, all but one are listed as
Jane Does. Mr. Heaton did not respond to requests from NBC News,
and an attempt to reach him on Oct. 9 was not successful.

Harvard has said that it was unaware of any allegations of sexual
misconduct when Mr. Heaton was hired as the head coach for diving
in August of 2018. After learning of the allegations from media
reports, the university said it immediately placed him on leave.

The suit names USA Diving, a national governing body of the U.S.
Olympic Committee (USOC), and its state-level administrative body
the Indiana Diving Association in failing to protect athletes
abused at the Indiana Diving Academy (Ripfest). Ripfest owner John
Wingfield, and former coach Johel Ramirez Suarez are also
defendants.

Mr. Suarez was arrested in November of 2017 after three women
accused him of rubbing their vaginal areas when he was supposed to
help them stretch at diving camps operated by Ripfest, the
Indianapolis Star reported. Court records show Mr. Suarez pleaded
guilty to three counts of battery this past September and was
sentenced to about a year and half in jail.

Neither Ripfest nor Mr. Wingfield responded to NBC News' request
for comment. Neither USA Diving nor the U.S. Olympic Committee
responded to NBC's request for comment on the allegations against
Mr. Heaton and Ripfest. [GN]


VELO ASSOCIATES: Huff Seeks to Certify 4 Classes
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT HUFF, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. VELO
ASSOCIATES, PLC, et al., the Defendants, Case 2:17-cv-13556-SFC-EAS
(E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying four classes:

      Fair Debt Collection Practices Act – Illegal Interest
Class:

      "all persons, where Velo Associates, PLC, and/or Scott Renner
filed a state court lawsuit in Michigan, in the name of Sun Homes
Inc., against the person, in which interest was sought in the state
court complaint, during a time period from October 31, 2016, to
October 31, 2017";

      Fair Debt Collection Practices Act – Improper Named Entity
Class:

      "all persons, where Velo Associates, PLC, and/or Scott Renner
filed a state court lawsuit in Michigan, in the name of Sun Homes
Inc., against the person, during a time period from October 31,
2016, to October 31, 2017, where Account Adjustment Bureau, Inc.
had entered into a written agreement, a Suit Authorization, with
Sun Homes Inc.";

      State Law – Illegal Interest Class:

      "all persons, where Velo Associates, PLC, and/or Scott Renner
filed a state court lawsuit in Michigan, in the name of Sun Homes
Inc., against the person, in which interest was sought in the state
court complaint, during a time period from October 31, 2011, to
October 31, 2017";

      State Law – Improper Named Entity Class:

      "all persons, where Velo Associates, PLC, and/or Scott Renner
filed a state court lawsuit in Michigan, in the name of Sun Homes
Inc., against the person, during a time period from October 31,
2011, to October 31, 2017, where Account Adjustment Bureau, Inc.
had entered into a written agreement, a Suit Authorization, with
Sun Homes Inc."

      Excluded from these four classes are: All persons who have
filed suit against any of the Defendants alleging similar improper
interest and/or improper name of entity allegations, including but
not limited to the following plaintiffs in the following
litigation: Hudson v. Velo Legal Services, et al.,
2:17-cv-10345-SJM- SDD (E.D. Mich.); Swan v. Velo Associates,
1:17-cv-00544-RJJ-PGJ (W.D. Mich.); Weber v. Velo PLC, et al.,
1:17-cv-00493-PLM-PJG (W.D. Mich.); McLane v. Velo Associates,
1:17-cv-00272-JTN-ESC (W.D. Mich.); Vargas v. Velo Legal Services
PLC, 1:17-cv-00295-JTN-ESC (W.D. Mich.); and Trick v. Velo
Associates PLC, 17-80069-jwb (W.D. Bk. Mich.).

   2. appointing Plaintiff as the class representative; and

   3. appointing Curtis C. Warner as class counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
          WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
          350 S. Northwest Hwy., Ste. 300
          Park Ridge, IL 60068
          Telephone: (847) 701-5290
          E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal

               - and -

          John A. Evanchek, Esq.
          KELLEY & EVANCHEK PC
          43695 Michigan Ave.
          Canton, MI 48188
          Telephone: (734) 397-4540
          E-mail: john@kelawpc.com


VELOX EXPRES: Motion for Conditional Certification Denied as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA YORK, MARSHALL EMMERLING, and MATTHEW MOSS, Each
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
PLAINTIFFS, vs. VELOX EXPRES, INC., the DEFENDANT, Case
3:18-cv-00481-CRS (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Charles R. Simpson III
entered an order on Oct. 9, 2018, granting the Defendants' renewed
motion to dismiss and denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for
conditional certification as moot.[CC]


VITAL RECOVERY: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned CYNTHIA JOHNSON, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
VITAL RECOVERY SERVICES LLC, the Defendant, Case No.: 18-cv-1603
(E.D. Wisc.),  the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying
classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules’ automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir.
2017).[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


WALMART INC: Violated Video Privacy Protection Act, Capello Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALICIA CAPPELLO and CATHERINE MOSQUEDA, for themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Planitffs, vs. WALMART, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. RG18923367 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Oct. 4, 2018), alleges that
Walmart violated the Video Privacy Protection Act, by disclosing
walmart.com customers' identities and video media purchases to
Facebook, Inc.

According to the complaint, VPPA prohibits "video tape service
providers" like Walmart from knowingly disclosing consumers'
personally-identifiable information, including "information which
identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video
materials or services from a video tape service provider," without
express written consent in a stand-alone consent form.

Walmart installed an advertising tool called a Facebook pixel on
its retail website walmart.com that systematically disclosed to
Face book: (1) walmart.com customers' Face book ID's, and (2) the
Walmart product ID's of the products those customers purchased, the
lawsuit says.

Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Ray E. Gallo, Esq.
          Dominic R. Valerian, Esq.
          Nathaniel M. Simons, Esq.
          GALLO LLP
          1604 Solano Ave., Suite B
          Berkeley, CA 94707
          Telephone: (415) 257 8800
          E-mail: rgallo@gallo.Jaw
                  dvalerian@gallo.law
                  nsimons@gallo.law


WARNER MUSIC: Williams Seeks Cut from International Sales
---------------------------------------------------------
LEONARD WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP.; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18STCV00006 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 4, 2018) is an action against the Defendant
for failure to properly account to the Plaintiff for income derived
from the exploitation of the Plaintiff's musical works.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is
contractually required to pay artists a portion of the
international revenue it receives from the exploitation of the
Plaintiff's artistic works from digital streaming. The Compensation
Agreements entered by the Plaintiff and the Defendant do not allow
the Defendant to assess an "intercompany charge" for international
sales reported by the Defendant through its wholly owned
subsidiaries. Despite this fact, the Defendant did, and continues
to, assess an intercompany charge for international sales. By
assessing an intercompany charge for international sales, the
Defendant impermissibly takes up to 40% off the top of the
international revenue earned from streaming sales and bases the
artist's royalty rate on the remainder, which methodology directly
violates the terms of the Compensation Agreements.

The Defendant is underreporting revenue generated from foreign
sales by improperly assessing an intercompany charge on revenues
collected through its wholly owned foreign affiliates, thereby
reducing the share owed to the Plaintiff by the same amount.

Warner Music Group Corp. operates as a music-based content company
in the United States, the United Kingdom, and internationally. The
company was founded in 1929 and is headquartered in New York, New
York. Warner Music Group Corp. is a subsidiary of Access
Industries, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neville L. Johnson, Esq.
          Douglas L. Johnson, Esq.
          Arun Dayalan, Esq.
          JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP
          439 North Canon Drive, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 975-1080
          Facsimile: (310) 975-1095
          E-mail: njohnson@jjllplaw.com
                  djohnson@jjllplaw.com
                  adayalan@jjllplaw.com

               - and -

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
          Nicole Ramirez, Esq.
          KIESEL LAW LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444
          Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
          E-mail: kiesel@kiesel.law
                  koncius@kiesel.law
                  ramirez@kiesel.law

               - and -

          Clifford H. Pearson, Esq.
          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          Bobby Pouya, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: cpearson@pswlaw.com
                  dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
                  bpouya@pswlaw.com


WESTCHESTER AMBULETTE: McCallum Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALISHA MCCALLUM, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. WESTCHESTER AMBULETTE
SERVICE, INC., COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION, INC., and any other
affiliated entities that employed Plaintiff and members of the
putative class, the Defendants, Case No. 159209/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Oct. 4, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages including unpaid
wages, minimum wages, overtime compensation, spread-of-hours
compensation, call-in pay, and uniform maintenance wages pursuant
to New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the putative class of
individuals are or were formerly employed by Defendants as drivers
and matrons from October 4, 2012 to the present. The Defendants are
in the ambulette transportation business.

Like Plaintiff, members of the putative class were paid less then
the applicable minimum wage rate. They were not paid overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 in a week, lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative class:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
          Joel L. Goldenberg, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


WESTMINSTER PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Yachera Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westminster
Pharmaceuticals, LLC. The case is captioned as Kim Yachera,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Westminster Pharmaceuticals, LLC; and CVS Pharmacy,
Inc., Case No. 8:18-cv-02463-MSS-AAS (M.D. Fla., Oct. 3, 2018). The
case is assigned to Judge Mary S. Scriven and referred to
Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone.

Westminster Pharmaceuticals, LLC was founded in 2012. The company's
line of business includes the wholesale distribution of
prescription drugs, proprietary drugs, and toiletries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, PA
          888 Seventh Ave.
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 989-9113
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com


WILMAR OILS: Flores Seeks Payment of OT & Minimum Wage
------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL FLORES, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs WILMAR OILS &
FATS (STOCKTON) LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
STK-CV-VOE-2018-12758, Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 11, 2018), seeks
unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant hired Plaintiff and other
class members and classified them as hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees, and failed to compensate them for all hours worked,
missed meal periods and/or missed rest breaks.  The Defendants knew
or should have known that Plaintiff and other class members were
entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation and
that they were not receiving wages for overtime compensation, the
lawsuit says.

Wilmar Oils & Fats offers vegetable oil storage and processing
services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230 7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230 7259


ZOE'S KITCHEN: Mary Toth Balks at Merger Deal with Cava Group
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARY TOTH, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. ZOE'S  KITCHEN, INC., GREG DOLLARHYDE, THOMAS
BALDWIN, SUE COLLINS, CORDIA HARRINGTON, KEVIN MILES, and ALEC
TAYLOR, the Defendants, Case 4:18-cv-00706 (E.D. Tex., Oct. 5,
2018), alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and breached
fiduciary duty as a result of the Defendants' efforts to sell the
Company as a result of an unfair process for an unfair price to
Cava Group, Inc. and Pita Merger Sub, Inc.

According to the complaint, the action seeks to enjoin a
stockholder vote in which Cava, through its affiliates, will
acquire each outstanding share of Zoe's Kitchen common stock for
$12.75 per share in cash, with a total valuation of approximately
$300 million. The terms of the Proposed Transaction were
memorialized in an August 20, 2018 filing with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 8-K attaching the
definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger. Under the terms of the
Merger Agreement, Zoe's Kitchen will become an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of Cava, and Zoe's Kitchen stockholders will
receive $12.75 in cash for each share of Zoe's Kitchen common stock
they own.

Thereafter, on September 25, 2018, Zoe's Kitchen filed a
Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule Prem14A with the Securities
and Exchange Commission in support of the Proposed Transaction. The
Proposed Transaction is unfair and undervalued for a number of
reasons. Significantly, the Preliminary Proxy describes an
insufficient sales process in which the Board only paid lip service
to its fiduciary duties by creating a committee of the Board to
serve as a "Special Committee."  However, the Preliminary Proxy
reveals that the Special Committee was inherently conflicted as
Defendant Dollarhyde, the Company Chairman of the Board, former
Chief Executive Officer, and an inside Director, was selected to
sit on the Special Committee. Moreover, the Preliminary Proxy does
not indicate what powers, if any this Special Committee would have
to veto a proposed strategic alternative, the lawsuit says.

Zoes Kitchen is a fast casual restaurant chain headquartered in
Plano, Texas.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
          THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 227-7720

               - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667 6200
          E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
                  mackerman@brodskysmith.com


ZOE'S KITCHEN: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC on Oct. 10 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-01536-MN, on behalf of public
common shareholders of Zoe's Kitchen, Inc. ("Zoe's Kitchen" or the
"Company") (NYSE: ZOES) who held Zoe's Kitchen securities on the
record date October 22, 2018 (the "Class Period"), and have been
harmed by Zoe's Kitchen 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
sale of the Company to Cava Group, Inc. ("Cava Group").

Under the terms of the agreement, Zoe's Kitchen shareholders are
only anticipated to receive $12.75 in cash (the "Merger
Consideration") for each share of Zoe's Kitchen common stock they
hold. The complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration is
inadequate and that the Proxy Statement provides shareholders with
materially incomplete and misleading information about the
Company's financials and the Proposed Transaction, in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  In particular, the
complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) financial
projections for Zoe's Kitchen and Cava Group; (ii) the valuation
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor in support of
its fairness opinion; and (iii) the background process leading up
to the Proposed Transaction. The special meeting of Zoe's Kitchen
stockholders to vote on the Proposed Transaction is scheduled for
November 20, 2018.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 4, 2018.  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.

Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/zoes-kitchen-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm committed that has recovered
millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and
consumers from corporate wrongdoing.  Monteverde & Associates PC
lawyers have significant experience litigating mergers &
acquisitions and securities class actions, whereby they protect
investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.
Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013 and 2017, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field.  He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017 Top Rated Lawyer.

Contact:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          United States of America
          jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
          Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***