CAR_Public/181101.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, November 1, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 219

                            Headlines

A TO Z COATINGS: Kobesky Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
AETNA: Pays Civil Penalty to Settle Envelope Breach Claims
ALLERGAN PLC: Appeals Court Overturns Class Action Certification
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Ct. Stays Further Proceedings in "Voeks" Suit
ALLIED POWER: Actions in "Blackburn" Stayed to Allow Negotiations

AMERICAN FAMILY: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Anderson Suit
AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Class Certification Sought in Pincus Suit
ANTHEM CO: Settlement in Curtis Labor Suit Has Final Approval
ANTHEM: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $16MM
APPLE INC: iTunes Subscribers File Bait-and-Switch Class Action

AT&T CORP: Faces Suit Over Failure to Remit 911 Charges
AUSTRALIA: Sued Over Separation of Asylum Seeker Families
BARCLAYS PLC: "Dark Pool" Case Continues at New York Court
BELMONT CONFECTIONS: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Says Still
BIG BLOCK: Made Unsolicited Calls, Sousa Suit Says

BNY MELLON: Appeals Ruling in Henderson to First Circuit
BROTHERS MOTHERS: Gets OK to Send Class Notice in Buckler Suit
BURGER KING: Faces Class Action Over "No Poaching" Rule
CALIFORNIA CHECK CASHING: Gonzales Hits Illegal Account Debiting
CAMBIUM LEARNING: Law Firm Investigates Fiduciary Breach Claims

CAPITAL FITNESS: Sent Unauthorized Text Msgs, Says Abuisneineh
CELGENE: AMF Named Lead Plaintiff in Consolidated Securities Suits
CENTURYLINK: 401(k) Plan Investors Seek Class Certification
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Maceda Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Settles Class Action for $147MM

CONSUMER SAFETY: Johnson Sues Over Interlock Device Charges
CONWAY URBAN: Dey Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CULVER, CA: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Fines Clause
D & S RESIDENTIAL: Lockhart Files Labor Class Action
DA-VINCI HOTEL: Breeze Suit Asserts Civil Rights Breach

DELAWARE: Saunder's Request for Counsel in Inmates Suit Denied
DENKA PERFORMANCE: Butler Moves to Certify Class of Residents
DIRECT FLOW: Reynolds' Bid to Certify Class Nixed Due to Accord
DISH NETWORK: Challenges Uninjured Class Members' Certification
EMERGENCY CONSULTANTS: Keller Seeks Certification of FLSA Class

ENGEL & VOLKERS: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in New York
ERBA DIAGNOSTICS: Jan. 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
EVANGELINE PARISH, LA: Faces Class Suit Over Investigative Holds
EXCELSIOR TRANSPORTATION: McHenry Files Suit Over FLSA Breach
FACEBOOK INC: Colorado Residents Join Security Breach Class Suit

FANDUEL INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Fantasy Sports Case
FINISAR CORP: OK Firefighters Fund Move to Certify Securities Class
FIRE SPRINKLER: Faces Class Action Over Viking 457 Product
FIRST RESPONSE: Does Not Pay Minimum Wage, Cubias Suit Alleges
FUNKO: Scott & Scott Fails to Class Action Lead Counsel Role

FUYAO GLASS: Discovery Process Limited to 120 Opt-in Plaintiffs
GAP INC: Bid to Remand Coladonato Suit Over Bogus Discounts Nixed
GOOGLE INC: UK Court Ruling to Impact Large-Scale Class Actions
GRAIN PROCESSING: Court Documents Show Settlement Fund Details
HASBRO INC: Shareholders File Securities Class Action

HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Price Suit Says
HMS HOST: Flores Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
IMPERVA INC: RM Law Firm Investigates Fiduciary Breach Claims
IMPINJ INC: Baton Rouge Employees' Fund Files Securities Class Suit
JACOB TRANSPORTATION: Greene Suit Settlement Has Final Approval

JRC VENTURES: Smith Seeks to Certify Companionship Workers Class
JUST BORN: Escobar's Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Submission
KERYX BIOPHARMA: Investors Sue Over $1.3BB Akebia Merger
KMG CHEMICALS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Class Action Over Capri Sun Drinks

KRISHNA SCHAUMBURG: Biometric Privacy Lawsuit Reinstated
KURZ REAL ESTATE: Murias Suit Asserts Invasion of Privacy
LONDON TERRACE: Blech and Chassman Orderded to Pay $12K in Dugan
MARYSVILLE, CA: Faces Class Action Over Property Destruction
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Judge Certifies Class of Employees

MASSACHUSETTS: Gets Favorable Ruling in Homeless Class Action
MCKESSON CORP: Evanston Police Fund Files Securities Class Action
MIDLAND CREDIT: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Trichell Suit
MISSOURI: Ordered to Give Juvenile Lifers Parole Chance
NAVIGATORS GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Disclosure Violations

NESTLE USA: Must Face Child Slave Labor Class Action, Court Rules
NORTHLAND GROUP: Fleming Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court to Rule on Carlson's Bid to Certify Soon
NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Fights Antitrust Class Action
PAULS VALLEY: Employees Mull Class Action Over Job Loss

PFIZER INC: Settles Deceptive Co-Pay Coupon Class Action
POLARITYTE INC: Shareholders File Securities Class Action
POWERCOR: Seeks Dismissal of St. Patrick's Day Fire Class Action
PREMIER MORTGAGE: Fabricant Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
PUFFY LLC: Diamond Suit Alleges TCPA Violation

QED INTERNATIONAL: Felder Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
QUALCOMM: Challenges Cellphone Buyers' Class Action
SA GEAR: Voluntary Dismissal of Williamson Suit Denied
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Schilling Sues Over Defective Phone
SENSA PRODUCTS: Judge Denies Certification Without Prejudice

SERVICOM LLC: Did Not Provide Proper Termination Notice, Says Suit
SHAW COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over "Unlawful Pricing Scheme"
SIMM ASSOCIATES: Must Face Class Action Over Excessive Fees
SMALL PLANET: Evans Sues Over Deceptive Product Labels
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: 9th Cir. Hears Argument in Class Action

STATE STREET: Labaton Chastised Over $75MM Fee Request
STITCH FIX: Dec. 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
SUSHI 21: Bid to Preclude Witnesses at Trial in Chen Suit Denied
T.L. CANNON: Hicks Labor Suit Transferred to N.D.N.Y.
TD AMERITRADE: Krukever Seeks to Certify Class of Accountholders

TICKETMASTER: Ballard Spahr Attorneys Discuss Double Dipping Suit
TREVENA INC: Kaskela Law Files Shareholder Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action in Canada
UNITED STATES: 200+ Children from Immigrant Families in Custody
UNITED STATES: Young Immigrants Win Right to Seek Special Status

VITAL PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Energy Drink Claims
VIZIO: Settles Class Action Over Embedded TV Software
WELLS FARGO: Nakamura Moves for Prelim. Nod of Class Settlement
YAHOO! INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $50MM
[*] Companies Have Edge When Choosing Arbitrators, Report Says

[*] Skadden Arps Provides Mid-Year Class Action Update

                            *********

A TO Z COATINGS: Kobesky Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Scott Kobesky, on behalf of himself and similarly situated v. A to
Z Coatings Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-01705 (M.D. Pa., August 28,
2018), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff
and other hourly employees any overtime premium compensation for
hours worked over 40 per week.

The Plaintiff currently resides in Scranton, PA. The Plaintiff
worked for the Defendant as an hourly employee.

The Defendant is a contractor in the business of, inter alia,
applying insulations and sealants to buildings and structures in
Pennsylvania, New York, [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      Brian Petula, Esq.
      CROSSOVER LAW, PLLC
      1143 Northern Boulevard, No. 121
      Clarks Summit, PA 18411
      Tel: (570) 561-1080
      E-mail: brian@crossoverlaw.com


AETNA: Pays Civil Penalty to Settle Envelope Breach Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Susan Morse, writing for Healthcare Finance, reports that Aetna has
reached an agreement in
New Jersey to pay a $365,211.59 civil penalty to settle claims that
it allowed the private health information of individuals to be
viewed through transparent envelope windows. The insurer will also
reportedly pay $100,000 in Connecticut and $175,000 in the District
of Columbia for a total of $640,000.

Aetna inadvertently disclosed the HIV/AIDS-related information on
thousands of beneficiaries, including about 647 New Jersey
residents, according to New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir S.
Grewal, in an agreement announced October 10.

The fine is on top of the $17 million expected to be paid by the
insurer in compensation to individuals who filed a class action
lawsuit.

The settlement with New Jersey resolves two separate privacy
breaches. One occurred in 2017 and involved a mailing that
potentially revealed information about the recipients' HIV or AIDS
status.

The second was a mailing that may have revealed the identity of
patients with atrial fibrillation who were taking part in a study.


Aetna not only violated federal HIPAA law, but also state laws.

New Jersey conducted the investigation and negotiated the
resolution with Connecticut, Washington and the District of
Columbia.

WHY THIS MATTERS

Aetna promotes the safeguarding of private health information on
its website through "extensive operational and technical
protections," the AG's office said.

It slipped up on HIPAA law through a relatively simple mistake.

Aetna failed to ensure that the envelopes used by a claims
administrator it hired for sending out notices on the ability for
HIV/AIDS members to fill prescriptions in person or by mail were
secure. The third party, in turn, said Aetna knew the envelopes it
was using for the mailing had a transparent window. Lawsuits were
traded.

Whatever the resolution, the HIPAA violation is costing Aetna time,
money and the trust of affected beneficiaries.

THE TREND

In April, CVS Health suffered a similar security breach by allowing
letters containing information about HIV benefits to be sent in
envelopes that had a clear window.

In unrelated news, CVS Health and Aetna received conditional
approval to move forward with their $69 billion merger.

Under the terms of the New Jersey settlement, Aetna will put in
place policy, protocol and training reforms designed to safeguard
individuals' protected health information, and ensure the
confidentiality of mailings containing that information.

The company also will hire an independent consultant to evaluate
and report on its privacy protection practices, and to monitor its
compliance with the settlement's injunctive terms.

ON THE RECORD

"Companies entrusted with individuals' protected health information
have a duty to avoid improper disclosures," said Attorney General
Gurbir Grewal. "Aetna fell short here, potentially subjecting
thousands of individuals to the stigma and discrimination that,
unfortunately, still may accompany disclosure of their HIV/AIDS
status. I am pleased that our investigation has led Aetna to adopt
measures to prevent this from happening again." [GN]


ALLERGAN PLC: Appeals Court Overturns Class Action Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal appeals
court has overturned the certification of a class of purchasers of
Asacol, an ulcerative colitis drug, who accused drug manufacturer
Warner Chilcott, now owned by Allergan PLC, of suppressing generic
competition for the medication.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston on Oct. 15 ruled
the class could not be certified because many of the health plans
who would have been treated as class members may not have been
injured by the company's conduct. [GN]


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Ct. Stays Further Proceedings in "Voeks" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William E. Duffin grants the Plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings in the lawsuit captioned JULIE VOEKS, JOSEPH
FOTE, TROY NORTON, and MARLENE KANEHL, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. ALLIED INTERSTATE, LLC, Case
No. 2:18-cv-01567-WED (E.D. Wisc.).

On October 4, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint.
At the same time, she filed what the Court commonly refers to as a
"protective" motion for class certification.  In this motion, the
Plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the complaint but
also moved the court to stay further proceedings on that motion.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint," Judge
Duffin notes.  "The pendency of that motion protects a putative
class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."  However,
Judge Duffin adds, because parties are generally unprepared to
proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of a
case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the
district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional
discovery or investigation."

Accordingly, Judge Duffin grants the Plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings.  The parties are relieved from the automatic
briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c).

Moreover, Judge Duffin states, for administrative purposes it is
necessary that the Clerk terminate the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  However, Judge Duffin opines, this motion will be
regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under
Damasco.[CC]


ALLIED POWER: Actions in "Blackburn" Stayed to Allow Negotiations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on October 15, 2018, in the case
titled Jeffrey Blackburn Jr., et al. v. Allied Power Resources,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00347 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a
hearing held before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Parties' joint motion to stay all proceedings to facilitate
      settlement negotiations is granted to January 15, 2019;

   -- Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for Stage−One Conditional
      Certification and Notice to Putative Class Members is
      denied without prejudice with leave to reinstate at a later
      time if settlement is not reached;

   -- Motion hearing date of October 16, 2018 is stricken; and

   -- Status hearing previously set for October 23, 2018, is
      stricken and reset to January 23, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.[CC]


AMERICAN FAMILY: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Anderson Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Marc T. Treadwell granted the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment in the lawsuit styled GARTH ANDERSON v. AMERICAN
FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:15-cv-00475-MTT (M.D. Ga.).

AFIC moved for summary judgment on the claims of Plaintiff Garth
Anderson.  The motion is granted, and Mr. Anderson's claims are
dismissed with prejudice.  Accordingly, his motion to certify class
and the parties' Daubert motions are moot, according to the Order.

The lawsuit is one of several putative class action cases filed in
the Court by insureds, all represented by the same lawyers, who
claim that their insurers have failed to pay for the diminished
value their homes suffered as the result of a loss that is
otherwise covered by their insurance policies.  In this context,
the Court noted, diminished value has a very specific meaning: the
loss in value of a property notwithstanding full repairs due to an
intangible stigma owing to the circumstances of the loss.

Judge Treadwell opines that Mr. Anderson has not presented any
evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find that AFIC is
liable to him for failure to pay for diminished value due to
stigma.[CC]


AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Class Certification Sought in Pincus Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled STEVEN J. PINCUS, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS, INC., a Kansas corporation, Case No.
9:18-cv-80864-DMM (S.D. Fla.), seeks certification of a class
defined as:

     All persons who paid the $158 civil penalty along with an
     additional fee to American Traffic Solutions, Inc. in
     connection with a Notice of Violation for an alleged
     photo-enforced red light violation in Florida during the
     four-year period prior to the filing of the complaint in
     this action through the date of certification.

Mr. Pincus also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative and his counsel as class counsel.

American Traffic Solutions, Inc. ("ATS") is a government contractor
in the business of operating so-called "road safety cameras" for
governments throughout North America.  In 2008, ATS began
contracting with local governments in Florida to operate their
so-called "photo-enforced" red light programs.  One of ATS's
responsibilities in this role is to accept civil penalty payments
from alleged violators of photo-enforced red lights, and then
forward those payments to the appropriate government body.

Mr. Pincus alleges that for years, ATS has systematically abused
this position to unlawfully impose and collect a surcharge on civil
penalty payments made by Floridians photographed running red
lights.  He asserts that ATS collects these surcharges for its own
profit, even though it is separately paid for its services under
its contracts with local governments.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bret L. Lusskin, Esq.
          20803 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 302
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (954) 454-5841
          Facsimile: (954) 454-5844
          E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com


ANTHEM CO: Settlement in Curtis Labor Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WONDRA CURTIS AND REBECCA MIDLIK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE ANTHEM
COMPANIES, INC. and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
8:16-cv-01654-DOC-JCG (C.D. Cal.), Judge David O. Carter of the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted
the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order Granting Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement, Conditionally Certifying Proposed
Settlement Class, Approving Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs,
and granting Incentive Award.

On May 2, 2018, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Settlement, resulting in certification of the
provisional Settlement Class of any individual, currently or
formerly employed by Defendant as non-exempt hourly employees at
the 3080 Bristol Street, Suite 200, Costa Mesa, California 92626
from Jan. 1, 2014 through Dec. 31, 2017.

The Court further approved the form of, and directed the parties to
provide, the proposed Class Notice to the Class.  No objections had
been made, timely or otherwise, pursuant to the Class Notice sent
to the Settlement Class members, nor did any objectors appear at
the time of the hearing.

The matter having come before the Court for hearing pursuant to the
Order of the Court dated May 2, 2018, for approval of the
settlement set forth in the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement of
Class Action Claims, and due and adequate notice having been given
to the Putative Class Members as required in said Order, Judge
Carter granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order Granting Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement, Conditionally Certifying
Proposed Settlement Class, Approving Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Costs, and granting Incentive Award.

In addition to any recovery that the Plaintiffs may receive under
the Settlement, and in recognition of their efforts and risks taken
on behalf of the Settlement Class, the Judge approved the payment
of an incentive award to them, in the amount of $5,000 each.  He
approved the payment of (i) the attorneys' fees to the Class
Counsel in the sum of $45,000; (ii) the reimbursement of litigation
expenses to Class Counsel in the sum of $7,685.41; and (iii)
$10,000 to KCC for performance of its settlement claims
administration services.

Upon completion of administration of the Settlement, the parties
will file a declaration setting forth that claims have been paid
and that the terms of the settlement have been completed.  The
Judgment is intended to be a final disposition of the action in its
entirety, and is intended to be immediately appealable.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/KeOLN2 from Leagle.com.

Wondra Curtis, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Rebecca Midlik, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Todd M.
Friedman -- tfriedman@toddflaw.com -- Todd M Friedman Law Offices
PC & Adrian Robert Bacon -- abacon@toddflaw.com -- Law Offices of
Todd Friedman PC.

The Anthem Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Steven B.
Katz -- skatz@constangy.com -- Constangy Brooks Smith and Prophete
LLP & Matthew Aaron Scholl -- mscholl@constangy.com -- Constangy
Brooks Smith and Prophete LLP.


ANTHEM: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $16MM
--------------------------------------------------
Erica Teichert, writing for Modern Healthcare, reports that Anthem
has agreed to pay the federal government $16 million in a
settlement over its 2015 data breach that hit nearly 79 million
people, HHS said on Oct. 15.

The agreement is by far the largest settlement reached by HHS'
Office for Civil Rights for a Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act breach. Hackers stole the names, birth dates,
Social Security numbers, home addresses and other personal
information in the 2015 cyberattack.

As part of the settlement, Anthem agreed to a corrective action
plan where it will conduct a risk analysis and fix any
deficiencies. HHS will oversee Anthem's work.

Office for Civil Rights Director Roger Severino acknowledged that
healthcare companies are attractive targets for hacks, and they're
expected to have adequate cybersecurity defenses.

"The largest health data breach in U.S. history fully merits the
largest HIPAA settlement in history," Severino said in a statement.
"Unfortunately, Anthem failed to implement appropriate measures for
detecting hackers who had gained access to their system to harvest
passwords and steal people's private information."

Anthem did not admit liability for the incident. The insurer on
Oct. 15 said it isn't aware of any identity theft stemming from the
2015 attack.

"Anthem takes the security of its data and the personal information
of consumers very seriously," the company said in a statement. "We
have cooperated with (the government) throughout their review and
have now reached a mutually acceptable resolution."

In 2017, Anthem agreed to shell out $115 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit over the breach, the largest data-breach
settlement ever at the time. Anthem also offered class-action
members two years of credit protection -- in addition to the two
years of monitoring they already received -- and put $15 million
aside for customers' out-of-pocket costs stemming from the breach.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. [GN]


APPLE INC: iTunes Subscribers File Bait-and-Switch Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Howard, writing for NoCable, reports that no one likes to
feel like they're getting duped with the promise of a great deal,
only to find that the product isn't exactly what they paid for.
This is what allegedly happened to a group of iTunes subscribers
responsible for filing a class action lawsuit against Apple.

The focus of the lawsuit is on the way that Apple advertised their
season passes to the public. Users claim that the company used
promotional clips of complete seasons of their favorite shows to
entice them to purchase the season pass. After paying for access,
they were only able to watch a portion of what was initially
advertised.

The formal complaint states:

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

Joseph Coyle of New York, New York, is one of the primary
plaintiffs named in the class action suit. Mr. Coyle claims that he
purchased the season pass for "Killing Eve" from Apple's iTunes
store in May after seeing 11 episodes advertised for that season.
He paid $19.99, which seemed like a bargain as the individual
episodes sold for $2.99 apiece. Upon completing his purchase, Coyle
learned that there were only 5 full episodes of "Killing Eve"
included, and the rest were only partial promotional clips.

Gabriela Zaragoza of Davis, California, had a similar complaint
with her purchase of the season pass for "Genius: Einstein." Both
Zaragoza and Coyle claim that, had they known what was really
included in their purchases, they would've never completed them.
This is the primary basis for restitution. Consumers across the
country feel the same way, lending some social weight to the class
action lawsuit.

The complaint is written to include "all persons in the United
States who, within the relevant statute of limitations periods,
purchased for personal, family, or household, purposes any of the
Season Features on Apple TV 4 or 4k, for TV shows containing fewer
episodes than represented at the time of purchase."

The law offices of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP will be spearheading the
suit; which includes accusations of fraud, breach of warranty,
unfair competition practices, and several other violations.
Plaintiffs are looking for restitution, but the primary focus has
been on motivating Apple to change the language used to advertise
their season passes.

"Until Apple redesigns its iTunes store, or Apple is enjoined from
making further false and misleading representations, Plaintiffs and
other consumers will continue to bear this ongoing injury."

Apple has yet to respond publicly, but this lawsuit could set a
legal precedent for other similar cases involving the advertising
used by streaming services. There's little doubt that big names
like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon and HBO will defer to the decision in
the future. [GN]


AT&T CORP: Faces Suit Over Failure to Remit 911 Charges
-------------------------------------------------------
County of Dorchester, South Carolina, and Town of Summerville,
South Carolina, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
local governments in South Carolina v. AT&T Corp. and BellSouth
Telecommunications, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-02890 (D.S.C., October
25, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
911 charge statute, and for breach of statutory and fiduciary
duties.

This is a proposed class action for compensatory and punitive
damages, for injunctive relief, and for any other relief deemed
appropriate by this Court, arising out of Defendants' failure to
properly bill, collect, and remit 911 charges as required by South
Carolina law and local ordinances.

The Plaintiff County of Dorchester, South Carolina, is a county and
political subdivision of the State of South Carolina. It is a
"local government" as defined by applicable law.

The Plaintiff Town of Summerville, South Carolina, is a town and
political subdivision of the State of South Carolina, also residing
in Dorchester County. It is a "local government" as defined by
applicable law.

The Defendant AT&T Corp. is a telecommunications company and
"service supplier," as defined by applicable law.  AT&T Corp.
provides telecommunications services to subscribers in Dorchester
County, South Carolina and the Town of Summerville, South Carolina.
AT&T Corp. provides telecommunication services in at least
forty-one of South Carolina’s forty-six counties, as well as
various towns and cities that maintain their own PSAPs.

The Defendant BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC is a
telecommunications company and "service supplier," as defined by
applicable law.  BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC provides
telecommunications services to subscribers in Dorchester County,
South Carolina and the Town of Summerville, South Carolina.
BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC provides telecommunication
services in at least forty-one of South Carolina’s forty-six
counties, as well as various towns and cities that maintain their
own PSAPs. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Marlon E. Kimpson, Esq.
      Lance V. Oliver, Esq.
      Max Gruetzmacher, Esq.
      Annie E. Kouba, Esq.
      MOTLEY RICE LLC
      28 Bridgeside Blvd.
      Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
      Tel: (843) 216-9000
      Fax: (843) 216-9450
      E-mail: mkimpson@motleyrice.com
              loliver@motleyrice.com
              mgruetzmacher@motleyrice.com
              akouba@motleyrice.com


AUSTRALIA: Sued Over Separation of Asylum Seeker Families
---------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Cornish, writing for Devex, reports that more than 60 parents
and children seeking asylum have filed a complaint against the
Australian government with the United Nations Human Rights
Committee, asking for the body to rule on the legality of families
separated as part of Australia's policy of offshore detention.

The submission is expected to be followed by humanitarian groups
globally to determine how it could impact other immigration
policies.

Family separation has been under the spotlight in the United
States, where children have been taken from their parents as part
of harsh new immigration policies. While children are not separated
from both parents in Australia, it is not uncommon for them to be
separated from their fathers, who remain in Manus Island or Nauru
awaiting the procedure of refugee claims.

The case is being brought to the U.N. on behalf of 14 families --
63 people in total -- women, men, and children. It is one of the
largest ever U.N. actions brought against the Australian government
and is likely to take the shine off the government's first year as
a member of the U.N. Human Rights Council.

Families have been separated because they arrived in Australia on
different dates -- some just prior to the commencement of offshore
detention, a hardline policy brought into place in 2013 to deter
asylum seekers arriving by boat. For others, medical emergencies
have seen children on Nauru, along with their mothers, evacuated to
Australia while other family members stay behind.

The Human Rights Law Centre is spearheading the class action along
with barristers Kylie Evans, John Maloney, and Marion Isobel. The
barristers argue that the separation was designed to force those
women and children in Australia to return to offshore detention,
and to a life in limbo.

"The Department has repeatedly stated that individuals who have
temporarily transferred to Australia, including for medical
treatment, are expected to return to Nauru or PNG [Papua New
Guinea] when the reason they transferred is complete," a
spokesperson for the Department of Home Affairs said in a media
statement. "Medical transfer is not a pathway to settlement in
Australia."

Among those the action is to support, are five babies born in
Australia with fathers indefinitely detained on Nauru.
Daniel Webb, director of legal advocacy with the Human Rights Law
Centre, said the medical evidence of this separation is
"harrowing."

"Some of these kids are permanently grief-stricken -- in their
minds every single day it's like someone they love has died," he
said. "Imagine being a child and growing up permanently
grief-stricken, hearing your mum crying in bed every night because
she doesn't know if you will ever get to meet your dad. It's just
brutal."

The policy has been in place for five years.

Evidence as part of the petition that has been sent to the U.N.
Human Rights Committee includes the impact on families and argues
that the Australian government is violating the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in its actions.

The case will ask for the immediate reunion of each family in
Australia and will be assessed by 18 independent international law
experts from around the world, with Australia required to accept
the findings of the committee and act in accordance with the
findings -- a requirement under Australia's ratification of the
optional protocol to the convention.

"Every one of these families has a heartbreaking separation moment
-- a moment when they realized our government was permanently
tearing them apart," Mr. Webb said. "One of the dads told me he
felt like his entire body froze. He said he couldn't move or even
breathe and just collapsed to the floor and had to be carried
away."

The U.N. Human Rights Committee will next decide whether the cause
should be registered and seek a response from Australia if it
proceeds. The cause then needs to be assessed for admissibility and
merit before being considered in a closed session.

For the families that have been waiting to be reunited, there is
still a long way to go. But one worth the effort.

"Right now there are 14 families the Australian government has
deliberately and routinely kept apart between Australia and
offshore detention on Nauru or Manus," Freya Dinshaw, senior lawyer
with the Human Rights Law Centre, told Devex.

"Sixty-three mothers, fathers and children permanently separated.
These families just want what every family in the world wants —
to be together with the people they love the most."

Update, October 16, 2018: This article was updated to clarify the
complaint against the Australian government was made to the United
Nations Human Rights Committee. [GN]


BARCLAYS PLC: "Dark Pool" Case Continues at New York Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Nikolova, writing for Finance Feeds, reports that the "dark
pool" case against Barclays PLC (LON:BARC), its United States
subsidiary Barclays Capital Inc. and William White, former Head of
Equities Electronic Trading at Barclays Capital and currently the
Managing Director and Head of Product Development and Platforms for
Markets, within the Investment Bank at Barclays, continues at the
New York Southern District Court.

Earlier on Oct. 16, the lead plaintiffs in the action -- Mohit
Sahni and Joseph Waggoner, filed a number of documents that aim to
give notice to potential class members of the pendency of this
action.

If one has purchased Barclays plc American Depository Shares (ADSs)
during the period of August 2, 2011 through June 25, 2014, both
dates inclusive (the Class Period), he/she may be a member of the
Class.

The notice to potential class members offers a summary of the
action. It restates allegations made in the Second Amended
Complaint, according to which, during the Class Period, the
defendants issued misstatements concerning the operation of
Barclays' dark pool, known as Barclays' Liquidity Cross or LX. More
particularly, the Complaint alleges that Barclays continuously
misled investors by touting LX as a safe trading venue "built on
transparency," with "built in safeguards to manage toxicity of
aggressive traders" who could victimize other dark pool investors
by trading ahead of anticipated purchase and sell orders, thereby
rapidly capitalizing on proprietary information regarding trading
patterns.

The Complaint also says that Barclays touted its Liquidity
Profiling tool, which Mr White (who managed the business unit that
operated LX) described, as "a sophisticated surveillance framework
that protects clients from predatory trading activity in LX."

The Complaint further alleges that Barclays failed to disclose that
it did not in fact effectively protect LX clients from predatory
trading with Liquidity Profiling partly because Barclays applied
manual overrides to move "aggressive" clients to more "passive"
categories, failed to police LX to prevent/punish toxic trading,
intentionally altered marketing materials to omit reference to the
largest predatory high frequency trader in LX, preferentially
routed dark orders to LX where those orders rested for two seconds
seeking a "fill" vulnerable to toxic traders, and did not include
the NYSE and EDGX direct feeds to construct the national best bid
and best offer ("NBBO") used to update the prices of orders resting
in LX.

According to the Complaint, investors learned the truth on June 25,
2014, when the New York State Office of the Attorney General
commenced a lawsuit against Barclays over misrepresentations
regarding the operation of LX. The Complaint alleges that after the
announcement of the NYAG's action, Barclays' ADS fell 7.38% on June
26, 2014.

The defendants have denied all claims and wrongdoing asserted in
the complaint and any liability arising out of the conduct alleged
therein. Specifically, among other defenses, Barclays contended
that the alleged misstatements in the Complaint were immaterial and
that it had no duty to disclose the allegedly omitted information.

No trial has yet occurred in this Action, the notice to class
members says, and no findings of fault or liability have been made
as to any of the parties. There is no assurance that a judgment in
favor of the Class will be granted.

Those who fit the description of a Class Member, have a choice
whether or not to remain members of the Class. Those who wish to
remain a Class Member are not required to do anything at this time.
Those willing to be excluded will have to state so in writing.

Mohit Sahni and Joseph Waggoner on Oct. 16 moved the Court for an
order establishing the program and schedule for notice to the Class
of this pending class action. Under the proposed program, Class
Counsel shall cause to be mailed, by first class mail, the
individual Notice of Pendency of Class Action to all class members
who can be identified through reasonable effort within 20 calendar
days after the date of production of the class member
identification records.

The case is captioned Strougo v. Barclays PLC et al
(1:14-cv-05797). [GN]


BELMONT CONFECTIONS: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Says Still
------------------------------------------------------------
Alora Still, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Belmont Confections, Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-01990 (N.D. Ohio,
August 29, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated employees were not paid overtime compensation
for all of the hours they worked over forty each workweek.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Youngstown, Ohio. The Plaintiff was
employed by the Defendant through the temporary agency Peopleready,
Inc.

The Defendant is an Ohio corporation that is located in Youngstown,
Ohio and that specializes in the development and manufacturing of
private label nutritional bars. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BIG BLOCK: Made Unsolicited Calls, Sousa Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------
Karla Y. Sousa, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Big Block Realty, Inc., Luis Avalos and Cali Bear
Homes, Case No. 3:18-cv-02015 (S.D. Calif., August 29, 2018), seeks
damages and injunctive relief under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action for damages, and other legal and
equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendants in negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting
Plaintiff and the Class Members on their cellular telephones
without their prior express consent within the meaning of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff Karla Sousa is an individual citizen of the State of
California, who resides in San Diego, California.

The Big Block Realty, Inc. is a real estate brokerage firm. It is
headquartered in this district, at 2820 Camino Del Rio South, #314,
San Diego, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas J. Campion, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J. CAMPION, APC
      17150 Via Del Campo, Suite 100  
      San Diego, CA 92127  
      Tel: (619) 299-2091  
      Fax: (619) 858-0034
      E-mail: doug@djcampion.com


BNY MELLON: Appeals Ruling in Henderson to First Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Defendant BNY Mellon, N.A., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Henderson, et al. v. BNY Mellon, N.A., Case No.
1:15-cv-10599-PBS, in the U.S. District Court for the District
Court of Massachusetts, Boston.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 24, 2018, Judge
Patti S. Saris (i) granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; (ii) granted in part
and denied in part BNY Mellon's motion for summary judgment; and
(iii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.

The proposed class action claims that BNY Mellon breached its
fiduciary duty to its trust beneficiaries by charging excessive and
undisclosed fees for the preparation of the trusts' tax returns.
Plaintiffs Ashby Henderson and Thomas Hershenson both seek to
represent the proposed class.  Henderson is a beneficiary of the
Walter H. Wesson Trust, a trust created under Massachusetts law.
Hershenson is a beneficiary of T/D of Morris A. Hershenson Trust,
for the benefit of Lee M. Hershenson, a trust created under
Pennsylvania law.1 Both trusts are irrevocable trusts.  The trustee
of both trusts is BNY Mellon.  BNY Mellon administers thousands of
trusts, with tens of thousands of trust beneficiaries.

The appellate case is captioned as Henderson, et al. v. BNY Mellon,
N.A., Case No. 18-8018, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents ASHBY HENDERSON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and THOMAS J. HERSHENSON are
represented by:

          Derek G. Howard, Esq.
          DEREK G. HOWARD LAW FIRM, INC.
          42 Miller Ave.
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 432-7192
          E-mail: derek@derekhowardlaw.com

               - and -

          Derek G. Howard, Esq.
          MURRAY & HOWARD, LLP
          436 14th Street
          Oakland, CA 94612-0000
          Telephone: (510) 444-2660
          E-mail: dhoward@murrayhowardlaw.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Lajoie, Esq.
          John J. Roddy, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Ryan, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 439-6730
          E-mail: blajoie@baileyglasser.com
                  jroddy@baileyglasser.com
                  eryan@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Michael Murphy, Esq.
          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1054 31st St., NW, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone:  (202) 463-2101
          E-mail: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com
                  gporter@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Regina M. Markey, Esq.
          J. Brian McTigue, Esq.
          MCTIGUE & VEIS LLP
          4530 Wisconsin Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 364-6900
          E-mail: rmarkey@mctiguelaw.com
                  jmctigue@mctiguelaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner BNY MELLON, N.A.; and Interested Parties BANK
OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION and BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST
COMPANY, N.A., are represented by:

          Mary J. Hackett, Esq.
          Nellie E. Hestin, Esq.
          Melissa M. Taylor, Esq.
          K. Issac deVyver, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800, Tower Two-Sixty
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 667-7909
          E-mail: mhackett@mcguirewoods.com
                  nhestin@mcguirewoods.com
                  mmtaylor@mcguirewoods.com
                  kdevyver@mcguirewoods.com

Interested Parties JOHN BERNARD and WILLIAM BERNARD are represented
by:

          Kathryn C. Ellsworth, Esq.
          David J. Grais, Esq.
          GRAIS & ELLSWORTH LLP
          950 3rd Avenue, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 755-3590
          E-mail: kellsworth@graisellsworth.com
                  dgrais@graisellsworth.com

               - and -

          Peter E. Gelhaar, Esq.
          Alexander R. Zwillinger, Esq.
          DONNELLY CONROY & GELHAAR LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1600
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 720-2880
          E-mail: peg@dcglaw.com
                  arz@dcglaw.com


BROTHERS MOTHERS: Gets OK to Send Class Notice in Buckler Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Richard B. Farrer granted the Parties' Joint Motion for
Approval of Notice to Potential Class Members in the lawsuit titled
JUSTIN A. BUCKLER, AND LONDON MORTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHER EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY SITUATED ET AL., v. BROTHERS, MOTHERS,
AND OTHERS CORPORATION, D/B/A CYPRESS GRILLE AND PAUL G. THOMPSON,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00603-OLG-RBF (W.D. Tex.).

The Court approves the proposed Notice and Consent forms, attached
to the Parties' Joint Motion.  The Defendants shall produce to the
Plaintiffs' counsel the following information in electronic format:
the names, all known addresses, all known phone numbers, all known
e-mail addresses, and dates of employment of all current and former
employees of Brothers, Mothers & Others Corporation d/b/a Cypress
Grille who worked as wait staff at any time during the period of
June 25, 2015, to the present.

The Plaintiffs' counsel shall mail a copy of the "Notice of Rights"
and "Notice of Consent" forms via regular U.S. Mail and via
electronic mail to all persons contained on the list as soon as
possible but no later than 10 days after receiving the list from
the Defendants.  The Plaintiffs' counsel shall also include a
self-addressed stamped envelope in the mailing.  The Plaintiffs'
counsel will pay the up-front charges for said notice (postage,
copying, etc.).  The Plaintiffs' counsel may hire, if necessary, a
third-party class action administration company to conduct the
actual mailing of the notice and forms.

All consent forms shall be returned to Plaintiffs' counsel, who in
turn will be responsible for filing them with the Court.  The Class
Members shall have the option of either executing their consent
form electronically via Adobe E-Signature or mailing the form to
the Plaintiffs' counsel.

The Class Members shall have 60 days from the date of the mailing
of the Notice to file their Notice of Consent opting-in to this
action as plaintiffs, unless good cause can be shown as to why the
consent was not postmarked prior to the deadline.

Notice shall be sent to the putative class members twice, both via
regular mail and electronically.  The first time should be within
10 days after the Plaintiffs' counsel receives the list of putative
class members from the Defendants.  The second time should be
within 30 days after that same date, but this second notification
should go only to those individuals who have not opted-in to the
lawsuit.

Within 10 days from the date of this order, the parties shall
confer and jointly submit proposed scheduling recommendations to
govern the remainder of this action.[CC]


BURGER KING: Faces Class Action Over "No Poaching" Rule
-------------------------------------------------------
Ron Hurtibise, writing for South Florida Sun Sentinel, reports that
Burger King workers have been denied pay raises and opportunities
for advancement because the fast-food giant illegally required
franchise owners to agree not to hire each other's workers during
their employment or for six months afterward, a federal lawsuit
charges.

The so-called "no hire" and "no solicitation" rules have been
included in standard franchise agreements since at least 2010,
according to the suit filed in early October in U.S. District Court
in Miami.

The suit, which seeks class-action status on behalf of all U.S.
Burger King workers past and present since 2010, was filed by
Miami-based law firm Podhurst Orseck PA and Radnor, Pa.-based
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP. It names Burger King Corp. and
Burger King Worldwide Inc., both headquartered in Miami, as
defendants. Jarvis Arrington, a former line cook at a
Chicago-area Burger King restaurant, is the lead plaintiff.

Mr. Arrington was earning $10 an hour when he attempted "to
increase his pay rate and better his working conditions" by trying
and failing to get a job at another Burger King restaurant in
Chicago, the suit states. After being told his transfer would need
to be approved, he did not hear back from the restaurant to which
he had applied and sought employment outside of Burger King, the
suit said.

Burger King Corp. on Oct. 15 did not respond to requests for
comment about the lawsuit.

"No solicitation" clauses have been a common part of franchise
contracts within the fast-food industry and have recently come
under fire for suppressing wages and opportunities for already
low-paid workers throughout the United States. Unlike "non-compete"
clauses that employees are often required to sign when they begin a
job, workers are often unaware of the existence of "no
solicitation" clauses until they try to move to a location owned by
another franchisee.

In October 2016, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and
the Federal Trade Commission jointly issued guidance warning that
"naked wage-fixing or no-poaching agreements among employers,
whether entered into directly or through a third-party
intermediary, are per se illegal under the antitrust laws." The
guidance adds that "firms that compete to hire or retain employees
are competitors in the employment marketplace," and it is "unlawful
for competitors to expressly or implicitly agree not to compete
with one another, even if they are motivated by a desire to reduce
costs."

While all Burger King restaurants benefit from shared distribution,
operational and promotional strategies, franchisees are told by the
company that they are competitors of other franchisees and
company-owned restaurants, the suit states.

In September, Washington state's attorney general announced it had
forged agreements with 23 well-known, fast-food chains, including
Burger King, to stop enforcing no solicitation clauses, also known
as "no poaching" pacts, within their companies. The other companies
included McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Papa John's, Denny's, Cinnabon,
Arby's, Buffalo Wild Wings, and Jimmy John's.

Although Burger King said it agreed to immediately stop enforcing
the clause and would omit it from new and renewing franchise
agreements, the lawsuit asserts it remains in force within
"numerous franchises" continuing to operate under previous versions
of the company's standard franchise agreement.

Asked how the plaintiff's attorneys know this, Kimberly A. Justice
of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check said by phone: "It's more the
impact of the conspiracy. Just because they agreed to stop doesn't
mean wages have returned to a normal competitive level. [Plus]
they're not changing the language of the franchise agreements until
they are up for renewal."

Similar class-action lawsuits have been filed against McDonald's,
Jimmy John's and Little Caesars.

A Feb. 15 story posted by The Nation described how enforcement of
the clause hampered efforts by a plaintiff in the McDonald's suit
to advance through the company's ranks to a general manager job.
When managers at an Apopka, Fla., McDonald's franchise discovered
in 2015 that department manager of guest services Leinani Deslandes
was pregnant, they canceled her planned week-long training course
at the company's Hamburger University in Illinois, her suit
claims.

The franchise used the "no solicitation" clause to block Ms.
Deslandes from taking a job at another McDonald's for higher pay,
telling her she was "too valuable," her suit states.

In June, an Illinois federal judge denied McDonald's motion to
dismiss the case, stating Ms. Deslandes had adequately claimed that
the company's no solicitation clause was a violation of Sherman Act
antitrust law. [GN]


CALIFORNIA CHECK CASHING: Gonzales Hits Illegal Account Debiting
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. California Check Cashing Stores,
LLC and Does 1-10, Defendants, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-08482,
(C.D. Cal., October 2, 2018), seeks damages, restitution, and all
other relief resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

Sometime in September 2017, Plaintiff obtained a loan from
California Check Cashing Stores and provided her debit account
information for the purposes of automatically debiting her account
to make payments on the account upon signing up for the loan.

After a month, Gonzales then requested to stop the automatic debit
facility, thereby revoking consent for such withdrawals. However,
despite her clear revocation of authorization, Defendant continued
to deduct funds from her account.

California Check Cashing Stores, was a company engaged in the
business of providing loans to consumers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAMBIUM LEARNING: Law Firm Investigates Fiduciary Breach Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm
focused on representing shareholders nationwide, is investigating
potential breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Board of
Directors of Cambium Learning Group, Inc. (NASDAQCM: ABCD)
("Cambium Learning" or the "Company") relating to the sale of the
Company to private equity firm Veritas Capital ("Veritas"). On
October 12, 2018, the two parties signed a definitive merger
agreement pursuant to which Veritas will acquire Cambium Learning
in a merger worth approximately $685 million. As a result of the
merger, Cambium Learning's shareholders are only anticipated to
receive $14.50 per share in cash in exchange for each share of
Cambium Learning.

Our Firm's investigation has so far uncovered that the
consideration Cambium Learning shareholders are expected to receive
is inadequate. Andrews & Springer is also investigating whether
Cambium Learning's directors are breaching their fiduciary duties
by failing to adequately shop the company and maximize shareholder
value.

If you own shares of Cambium Learning and want to receive
additional information and protect your investments free of charge,
please visit us at
http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-investigations/cambium-learning-group-class-action-investigation/
or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013.
You may also follow us on:

   LinkedIn www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc
   Twitter www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer
   Facebook www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.

Andrews & Springer -- http://www.andrewsspringer.com-- is a
boutique securities class action law firm representing shareholders
nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having formerly defended
some of the largest financial institutions in the world, our
founding members use their valuable knowledge, experience, and
superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving positive results
for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of our innovative
approach to each case our Firm decides to prosecute. [GN]


CAPITAL FITNESS: Sent Unauthorized Text Msgs, Says Abuisneineh
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alaa Abuisneineh, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. Capital Fitness, Inc. dba X Sport
Fitness, Case No. 2018CH10924 (Ill. Cir., August 29, 2018), seeks
an injunction against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that in a misguided effort to re-enlist gym
members who had previously discontinued their membership, XSport,
an operator of gyms, engaged in an invasive and unlawful form of
marketing through the transmission of unauthorized text message and
calls to the cellular telephones of consumers throughout the
nation.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Illinois.

The Defendant is an operator of gyms across Illinois, Virginia and
New York, and offers gym memberships and other related services
such as personal training and massage therapy.  The Defendant is an
Illinois corporation with its principal place of business located
in Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
      William P.N. Kingston, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Flr.
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 893-7002
      Fax: (312) 275-7895
      E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com
              wkingston@mcgpc.com


CELGENE: AMF Named Lead Plaintiff in Consolidated Securities Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, CITY OF WARREN GENERAL, EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Plaintiff, v. CELGENE CORP., INC., et al., Defendants, CHARLES H.
WITCHCOFF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. CELGENE CORP., INC., et al., Defendants,
Civil Action Nos. 18-4772 (JMV)(JBC), 18-8785 (JMV)(JBC)(D. N.J.),
Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted AMF Pensionsforsakring AB's motion
to appoint the lead Plaintiff, for consolidation of related
actions, and approval or selection of the counsel.

On March 29, 2018, Plaintiff City of Warren General Employees'
Retirement System ("Warren") filed a class action complaint seeking
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Warren alleged
that Defendants Celgene and certain Celgene officers made false
statements that concealed adverse information and misled investors
about Celgene's current and prospective business.  Warren brought
suit on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Celgene
common stock between Sept. 12, 2016 and Feb. 27, 2018.

On May 3, 2018, Plaintiff Charles H. Witchcoff also filed a class
action complaint under the 1934 Act against Celgene and certain
Celgene executives, alleging that Celgene and certain Celgene
executive officers made false statements concerning Celgene's
current and long-term financial outlook.  Witchcoff brought suit on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired
Celgene common stock between Jan. 12, 2015 and Feb. 27, 2018.

On May 29, 2018, 10 separate motions were filed in the Warren case
and one was filed in the Witchcoff matter; each sought to
consolidate the two cases, and appoint a lead Plaintiff and a class
counsel.  By June 18, 2018, however, every movant except AMF had
withdrawn its motion or filed a notice of non-opposition to AMF's
motion.  As a result, only AMF's motion remains.

Judge Vazquez finds that the two suits at issue rely on the same
public statements and reports regarding Celgene's pipeline
products, name similar Defendants, and assert claims arising out of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act.  The two matters
clearly involve common questions of law and fact, and consolidation
will promote efficiency and avoid unnecessary costs or delay.  As a
result, the Judge will grant AMF's motion to consolidate.

The Judge will also grant AMF's motion to be appointed the lead
Plaintiff.  AMF is the presumptive lead Plaintiff.  It allegedly
lost $25,072,826 as a result of Celgene's material misstatements
and omissions.  Moreover, AMF also satisfies the requirements of
Rule 23(a) based on the information currently available.  Finally,
no party has made any argument suggesting that AMF will not fairly
and adequately protect the class interests, or that it would be
subject to any unique defenses.

AMF has selected and retained Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP to
serve as the Lead Counsel, and Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody &
Agnello, PC and Seeger Weiss, LLP to serve as the Co-Liaison
Counsel for the class.  The Judge finds that Kessler Topaz
specializes in prosecuting complex class actions and is currently
serving as lead or co-lead counsel in several securities class
actions.  Carella Byrne and Seeger Weiss also have substantial
experience litigating class actions.  As a result, he will grant
AMF's motion to appoint the lead counsel.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Vazquez granted AMF's motion to
appoint the lead Plaintiff, for consolidation of related actions,
and approval or selection of the counsel.  He consolidated the
securities class actions filed as Civil Action Nos. 18-4772 and
18-8785 will be consolidated for all purposes including trial under
Civil Action No. 18-4772, and will bear the following caption: IN
RE CELGENE CORPORATION, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil Action No.
18-cv-4772 (JMV) (JBC).

All papers filed in connection with the Consolidated Action need
only be filed in Civil Action No. 18-4772.  AMF is appointed as the
lead Plaintiff; Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP is appointed the
lead counsel; and Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, PC
along with Seeger Weiss, LLP will serve as the Co-Liaison Counsel
for the class.

The Judge designated the lead counsel as the spokesperson for the
Plaintiffs with respect to all substantive communications with the
Court and with opposing counsel.  No motion, request for discovery,
or other pretrial proceeding will be initiated or filed by any
Plaintiff without the approval of the lead counsel, so as to
prevent duplicative pleadings or discovery by the Plaintiffs.

The Judge denied the pending motions filed at D.E. 9, 10, 14, 17,
20, 21, 21, 22, and 23 in Civil Action No. 18-4772 and D.E. 10 in
Civil Action No. 18-8785 as either voluntarily withdrawn or due to
non-opposition to AMF's motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2018 Opinon and Order is
available at https://is.gd/rIg0gW from Leagle.com.

Chester County Employees' Retirement Fund, Movant, represented by
LAURENCE M. ROSEN -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM,
PA.

ALLEN E. DAVIS, Movant, represented by JEFFREY MORROW POLLOCK --
jmpollock@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP.

PHILIP K UEHISA, Movant, represented by EVAN JASON SMITH --
esmith@brodskysmith.com -- BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC.

City of St. Petersburg Police Retirement System, Movant,
represented by KENNETH MARK REHNS -- krehns@saxenawhite.com --
Saxena White P.A.

Celgene Investor Group, Movant, represented by EDUARD KORSINSKY --
ek@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP.

ERSTE-SPARINVEST KAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT M.B.H., Movant,
represented by JOSEPH J. DEPALMA -- jdepalma@litedepalma.com --
LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG, LLC.

GENERAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, Movant,
represented by GARY S. GRAIFMAN, KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN,
ESQS.

AMF Pensionsfrskring AB, Movant, represented by JAMES E. CECCHI --
JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY &
AGNELLO, P.C.

CITY OF WARREN GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by JAMES E. CECCHI, CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY
& AGNELLO, P.C.

DONALD J. FRITSCHIE, GEORGE MCGAHREN, KEVIN MATZKE, CHARLES
MATTHEWS & KRISTINE MATTHEWS, Plaintiffs, represented by ANDREW R.
WOLF -- awolf@wolflawfirm.net -- The Wolf Law Firm, LLC & MARK A.
FISHER -- MFisher@wolflawfirm.net -- THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC.

MENORA MIVTACHIM INSURANCE LTD. & MENORA MIVTACHIM PENSIONS AND
GEMEL LTD., Plaintiffs, represented by PETER S. PEARLMAN , COHN,
LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP.

CELGENE CORPORATION, MARK J. ALLES, PETER N. KELLOGG, SCOTT A.
SMITH, NADIM AHMED & TERRIE CURRAN, Defendants, represented by
LAWRENCE S. LUSTBERG -- llustberg@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS, PC &
CYMETRA MONIQUE WILLIAMS, GIBBONS PC.

JACQUALYN A. FOUSE & ROBERT J. HUGIN, Defendant Consolidateds,
represented by LAWRENCE S. LUSTBERG, GIBBONS, PC.

CHARLES H. WITCHCOFF, Defendant Consolidated, represented by
CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER -- cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- SEEGER WEISS
LLP.


CENTURYLINK: 401(k) Plan Investors Seek Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Lidgett, writing for Law360, reports that two investors in a
401(k) plan who have accused CenturyLink Inc. and the investment
fiduciary of mismanaging the retirement fund have urged a Colorado
federal court to certify the case as class action. [GN]


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Maceda Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Lynda Maceda, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Charter Communications, Inc. and Bright
House Networks, LLC dba Spectrum, Case No. 5:18-cv-00452 (M.D.
Fla., August 28, 2018), seeks damages against the Defendants for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants sent, or caused to be
sent unsolicited calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Sumter County, Florida.

The Defendant Charter Communications, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation whose principal office is located at 400 Atlantic
Street, Stamford, CT 06901.

The Defendant Bright House Networks, LLC is a Delaware limited
liability company whose principal office is located at 12405
Powerscourt Drive, St. Louis, MO 63131. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott D. Owens, Esq.
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste 235
      Hollywood, FL 33019
      Tel: (954) 589-0588
      Fax: (954) 337-0666
      E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Settles Class Action for $147MM
-----------------------------------------------------
Kelly Swanson, writing for Global Investigations Review, reports
that a group of financial backers for Cobalt International Energy,
including Goldman Sachs, have agreed to pay $147 million to settle
several claims including an allegation that the oil company misled
investors about the involvement of Angolan officials in an oil
deal. [GN]


CONSUMER SAFETY: Johnson Sues Over Interlock Device Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Johnson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Consumer Safety Technology, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2018CH12361 (Ill. Cir., October 2, 2018), seeks full
refund of all unfair amounts charged and collected, compensatory
and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief
under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

Consumer Safety Technology (CST) is engaged in the business of
selling ignition interlock devices, a device that determines blood
alcohol level and is installed on vehicles whose drivers were
charged with Driving While Intoxicated.

On April 24, 2015, Johnson was ordered to have said device
installed on his car for one year for a $10 installation cost and
CST would only charge $89.95 per month for use of the device. CST
would allow the consumer to cancel the contract at any time and
would recalibrate the device wirelessly and remove the device
without charging any additional fee. Johnson and CST did not enter
into a written agreement.

On or about November 30, 2015, Johnson attempted to terminate the
agreement but CST would not honor the termination and continued to
charge him for services, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith E. Allen, Esq.
      MANDELL MENKES LLC
      One North Franklin, Suite 3600
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 251-1000
      Email: kallen@mandellmenkes.com




CONWAY URBAN: Dey Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Emily Dey, Samantha McBride and Madison Barnhill, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Conway Urban Air, LLC
and UATP Management, LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-00790 (E.D. Ark.,
October 25, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs brought this action as a result of the Defendants'
failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other hourly-paid employees
lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.

The Plaintiffs are residents of the State of Arkansas and worked
for the Defendants' indoor amusement center in Conway.

The Defendant Conway Urban Air, LLC is a domestic limited liability
company located in Conway.

Defendant UATP Management, LLC is a Texas limited liability company
with a principal address of 317 S Jenkins Street, Suite C,
Grapevine, Texas 76051.

The Defendants Conway Urban Air and UATP constitute an integrated
enterprise because Defendants' related activities of jointly owning
and operating Urban Air indoor amusement centers. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


CULVER, CA: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Fines Clause
----------------------------------------------------------
Milt Policzer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
class-action complaint was filed in federal court in Los Angeles
over an alleged violation of the excessive fines clause. The fine
was $490. Is that excessive?

If nothing else, this is an interesting illustration of the fact
that time is not money. A
20-year sentence for jaywalking is a lot for anyone. A $1,000 fine
is a lot for some people and not for others. You can't compare the
two.

So should the excessiveness of a fine of $490 be determined by the
defendant's income level or spending habits? Would it be worth
imposing $490 fines if you had to investigate everyone's salaries,
side-gigs and bank accounts?

In case you're wondering, the class action was filed on behalf of
people caught making right turns in Culver City at red lights
without stopping first. Not only did this violate the Eighth
Amendment, according to the complaint, but it was also just plain
wrong, because state law set the fine for red light right turns at
$238. It seems, said the suit, that Culver City was automatically
charging the higher amount -- the amount for just plain running a
red light -- for anyone caught by intersection cameras.

"Typical of persons who received such citations, plaintiff trusted
the Culver City Police Department, and was ignorant of the fact
that defendants were grotesquely betraying the public's trust by
deliberately charging right hand turners with violating California
Vehicle Code Section 21453(a) as opposed to California Vehicle Code
Section 21453(b) for purposes of collecting $490 as opposed to
$238."

Anyway, this is not chump change. The complaint goes on to claim
that more than 75 percent of the violations caught by the cameras
are for right turns (in other words, there aren't all that many
people whizzing straight through red lights) and that the number of
class plaintiffs "is in the range of tens of thousands and probably
exceeds 50,000 individuals." [GN]


D & S RESIDENTIAL: Lockhart Files Labor Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Angela Lockhart, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. D & S Residential Services, LP, Case No. 2:18-cv-02586
(W.D. Tenn., August 28, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendant for unpaid
overtime compensation, working "off-the clock," and related
penalties and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Cordova, Shelby County, Tennessee
and is a former employee of the Defendant.

The Defendant D & S Residential Services, LP is a Limited
Partnership registered to do business in the State of Tennessee. D
& S Residential Services, LP's principal office is in Austin,
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan G. Crone, Esq.
      Laura Ann E. Bailey, Esq.
      Bailey H. Dorsey, Esq.
      THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
      88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor
      Memphis, TN 38103
      Tel: (901) 737-7740
      Fax: (901) 474-7926
      E-mail: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
              lbailey@cronelawfirmplc.com
              bdorsey@cronelawfirmplc.com


DA-VINCI HOTEL: Breeze Suit Asserts Civil Rights Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Byron Breeze, Jr. has filed a class action lawsuit against Da-Vinci
Hotel Corp. in New York.  The case is styled as Byron Breeze, Jr.
on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. Da-Vinci Hotel Corp. a New York corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09817 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Da Vinci Hotel is a European–style boutique hotel which is
located at 244 West 56th Street.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Byron Breeze, Jr., Esq.
     39 Broadway, Ste. 2250
     New York, NY 10006
     c/o Law Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A.
     PRO SE

DELAWARE: Saunder's Request for Counsel in Inmates Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT SAUNDERS a/k/a Shamsidin Ali, Plaintiff, v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al., Defendants, Civ. Action No.
15-1184-CFC (D. Del.), Judge Colm F. Connolly of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware denied the Plaintiff's (i) third
request for counsel, (ii) two motions to compel, and (ii) motion
for a revised scheduling order.

The Plaintiff, a prisoner housed at the James T. Vaughn
Correctional Center ("JTVCC") in Smyrna, Delaware, filed the action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Americans with
Disabilities Act.  Pending are several motions filed by the
Plaintiff including a third request for counsel, two motions to
compel, and a motion for a revised scheduling order.

The Plaintiff has filed a document titled "Class Action
Allegations."  His previous motions seeking class certification
were denied on Dec. 2, 2016.  The filing seeks no relief and,
therefore, it is not clear if he again seeks class certification,
if the allegations are intended to persuade the Court to reconsider
its previous denial of class certification, or if he is merely
briefing the issue.  Judge Connolly takes no action on the filing
but notes that, given the Complaint's allegations, the class
certification is not appropriate.

The Plaintiff appears pro se and has been granted permission to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915.  He
has previously been denied counsel.  He seeks counsel on the
grounds that he is unable to afford counsel, he has attempted to
secure counsel, the case involves investigations and obtaining
depositions, and records are required that are not available to him
based upon his inmate status.  He also indicates that he has
serious medical issues which result in pain and discomfort.

Assuming, solely for the purpose of deciding this motion, that the
Plaintiff's claims have merit in fact and law, the Judge finds that
several of the Tabron v. Grac factors militate against granting his
request for counsel.  After reviewing the Plaintiff's Complaint,
the Judge concludes that the case is not so factually or legally
complex that requesting an attorney is warranted.  In addition, the
Plaintiff has ably represented himself to date.  Further, nothing
has changed since the Court last denied the Plaintiffs requests for
counsel.  Therefore, he denied the Plaintiffs request for counsel
without prejudice to renew.  Should the need for counsel arise
later, one can be sought at that time.

The Court entered a scheduling order on Nov. 3, 2016, setting a
deadline for discovery to be initiated so that it would be
completed on or before May 3, 2017.  All deadlines have passed,
although the Plaintiff recently filed a motion to extend all
deadlines by 21 days.

The Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant Department of
Correction ("DOC") to respond to his first set of interrogatories.
This is the Plaintiffs second motion to compel responses to the
same interrogatories.  On Jan. 26, 2017, he sought to compel the
Defendants to answer interrogatories 4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16-23,
and 26-28.  The motion was denied.  In the instant motion, he again
seeks responses to the DOC's answers to many of same
interrogatories raised in the January 26, 2017 motion.  In
addition, he moves to compel answers to Interrogatories 10, 24, and
25.

The Court previously addressed many of the DOC's answers to the
interrogatories and found them adequate.  Judge Connolly finds that
the Plaintiff could have sought to compel answers to
Interrogatories 10, 24, and 25 in his second motion to compel filed
on Jan. 26, 2017.  He did not.  Nor did he file the instant motion
to compel until May 17, 2018, one year after the expiration of the
discovery deadline.  The Plaintiff provides no reason for the delay
in filing the motion.  Therefore, the Judge denide the motion as
duplicative and untimely.

The Plaintiff moves to compel answers to interrogatories propounded
upon Defendant Roxanne Kinlock on April 10, 2018.  He sought
discovery from Kinlock long after the expiration of the discovery
deadline and, when there was no response, filed a motion to compel.
The interrogatories were untimely served upon Kinlock, and she was
not required to respond to them.  Therefore, the Judge denied the
motion to compel.

Finally, the Plaintiff moves to revise the "Briefing or Scheduling
Order."  As mentioned, all deadlines have passed.  Currently
pending motion is a motion for summary judgment filed by State
Defendants.  The Judge denied the Plaintiff's motion without
prejudice to renew, following a ruling on the dispositive motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/cxTGvw from Leagle.com.

Shamsidin Ali, also known as, Plaintiff, pro se.

Department of Corrections & Dr. Vincent Carr, Defendants,
represented by Joseph Clement Handlon -- joseph.handlon@state.de.us
-- Department of Justice.

William Lynch, Dr. Laurie Spraga & Roxanne Kinlock, Defendants,
represented by Nicholas Robert Wynn -- wynnn@whiteandwilliams.com
-- White & Williams & Randall Shaw MacTough --
randall.mactough@saul.com -- Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP.

Dr. Vincent Carr, Cross Claimant, represented by Joseph Clement
Handlon, Department of Justice.


DENKA PERFORMANCE: Butler Moves to Certify Class of Residents
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JUANEA L. BUTLER, et al. v.
DENKA PERFORMANCE ELASTOMER LLC, et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-06685-MLCF-KWR (E.D. La.), move the Court for certification
to proceed as a class action on brought on behalf of a class
defined as:

    "(1) Those persons who, at any time from January 1, 2011
     through the present, have lived, worked, attended school,
     and/or actually resided within a geographical boundary of
     St. John the Baptist Parish (hereinafter referred to as "St.
     John"), starting at the northwest corner of zip code 70084,
     then proceeding eastward along I-10 through zip code 70084
     and the southside part of zip code 70068, to the northeast
     corner of the class boundary where Interstate-10 meets the
     St. John line within zip code 70068 of St. John, then
     proceeding southward within St. John along the St. John
     boundary line over the Mississippi River and through zip
     code 70057 in St. John to LA Hwy. 3127 within zip code
     70049, then proceeding west/southwest along LA Highway 3127
     within zip code 70049, to the southwest corner of the class
     boundary where LA Highway 3127 meets the St. John parish
     line within zip code 70049, then proceeding northward within
     St. John along the St. John parish line, through zip codes
     70049, 70090 70051, and 70084 to I-10 within zip code 70084
     (hereinafter referred to as "defined areas"); and

     (2) who experienced one or more of the following physical
     symptoms: headaches; sinus problems; dizziness; insomnia;
     trouble breathing, respiratory irritation, or other
     respiratory problems; chest pains; acute cardiac
     palpitations; acute gastrointestinal disorder; acute
     bronchitis; acute onset of asthma; exacerbation of
     pre-existing asthma; fatigue; nausea; skin rash; temporary
     hair loss; chronic coughing; chronic nasal discharge;
     chronic cardiovascular disorder; chronic throat irritation;
     chronic eye irritation; chronic thyroid disorder; anxiety;
     and depression, resulting from their exposure to chloroprene
     or other chemical substance released from the Pontchartrain
     Works Facility."

The Plaintiffs also move for appointment of Danny Russell, Esq.,
and the Russell Law Firm, LLC, as class counsel.  The Plaintiffs
further ask the Court to defer hearing until such time as the
parties have had a reasonable opportunity to obtain discovery on
class certification issues.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Danny Russell, Esq.
          RUSSELL LAW FIRM, LLC
          733 E. Airport Ave., Suite 201
          Baton Rouge, LA 70806
          Telephone: (225) 307-0088
          Facsimile: (225) 307-0087
          E-mail: danny@dannyrusselllaw.com


DIRECT FLOW: Reynolds' Bid to Certify Class Nixed Due to Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Kandis A. Westmore terminated the motion for class
certification in the lawsuit styled J. JASON REYNOLDS v. DIRECT
FLOW MEDICAL, INC., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-00204-KAW (N.D.
Cal.).

On September 21, 2018, Plaintiff J. Jason Reynolds filed a motion
for class certification, with the hearing set for December 20,
2018.  On October 11, 2018, the parties filed a joint notice of
settlement and request to continue the hearing on the motion for
class certification.

In light of the notice of settlement, the Court terminates the
motion for class certification.  This terminates the opposition and
reply dates, as well as the hearing date.  If the settlement is not
approved, the Court will re-open the motion and set a new briefing
and hearing schedule.[CC]


DISH NETWORK: Challenges Uninjured Class Members' Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a defense bar
organization is urging a federal appeals court to find that unnamed
members in a class action against Dish Network should not have been
certified because they did not have the same injuries as lead
plaintiffs in the case.

DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar, in an amicus brief filed on Oct.
10, urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to
de-certify the class and reverse judgment against Dish Network in a
Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action. The group seeks
clarity amid scattered case law on a key issue in class actions:
whether uninjured class members who are not the named plaintiffs
have standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

"There are some courts that have said that you can't have class
certification for proposed classes where some of the putative
unnamed class members are not injured," said Felix Shafir --
fshafir@horvitzlevy.com -- of Horvitz & Levy in Burbank,
California, who filed the brief for DRI. "And there are other
courts that have disagreed with that. There's been a circuit split
that's continuing to grow, and it doesn't appear the Fourth Circuit
has taken a position on this."

The Products Liability Advisory Council filed a separate brief in
the case in support of Dish Network.

Dish Network filed its opening brief on Oct. 4 after U.S. District
Judge Catherine Eagles of the Middle District of North Carolina
issued a $61.3 million final judgment against it. Eagles had
earlier granted certification of the case, which alleged that Dish,
through marketing company Satellite Systems Network, illegally made
several telemarketing sales calls to plaintiff Thomas Krakauer,
whose phone number was on the Do Not Call Registry. The complaint
sought statutory damages of at least $500 per call, which the TCPA
allows for individuals who receive "more than one telephone call
within any 12-month period" by the same company.

In 2017, a jury sided with the plaintiff, awarding $400 per
telephone call, which Eagles trebled for "willful or knowing
violations" of the TCPA. The judge noted that Dish had agreed in
2009 with 46 attorneys general to monitor its telemarketers,
including SSN. "The evidence shows that Dish's TCPA compliance
policy was decidedly two-faced," she wrote.

In its appeal, Dish argued the class included members who were not
telephone subscribers as described under the TCPA. Instead, Eagles
certified a class of anyone "associated with" a phone number that
SSN called.

"That impermissibly broad class definition encompasses au pairs,
former boyfriends, and children who have long since moved
away—indeed, potentially anyone ever linked to the phone number,"
wrote Dish attorney Eric Shumsky -- eshumsky@orrick.com -- a
partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe in Washington D.C.

Mr. Shumsky did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Krakauer's attorney, John Barrett of Bailey & Glasser, said in
an email, "The amicis' briefs presented one side of the story. When
all sides are presented, as they will be when we file our brief,
the issues will look very different, and we believe the district
court's rulings will be affirmed."

Mr. Shafir, DRI's attorney, said other appellate courts have split
on the issue of whether unnamed class members need to have the same
injuries as class representatives. The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit, in its 2013 decision in Halvorson v.
Auto-Owners Insurance, and the Second Circuit, in its 2006 ruling
in Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG, have found that judges can't certify
classes that include uninjured class members, he said. But other
courts, like the First Circuit's In re Nexium Antitrust Litigation
decision in 2015, found that classes could be certified so long as
the uninjured members are "de minimis."

"The courts are really all over the place on these issues," Mr.
Shafir said.

The Third Circuit, in a 2015 decision in Neale v. Volvo Cars of
North America LLC, ruled that only the lead plaintiffs need to have
standing, he said, and the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to address
the issue directly.

"What the Supreme Court previously indicated is if you have
variations of injury between the named plaintiff and unnamed class
members, that would be a problem from a constitutional standing
requirement and, in some cases, the court has indicated that goes
to class certification," he said. "In other cases, the court has
dealt with it in other ways. The Supreme Court has recognized the
case law in this area is a little bit of a mess, but has not been
entirely consistent with how it dealt with that issue."

The Products Liability Advisory Council, in its amicus brief,
addressed a different issue: Whether Dish was vicariously liable
for the actions of SSN, a "third party independent marketing
company." In its opening brief, Dish also argued that it lacked
complete control over SSN.

PLAC made a similar argument in an amicus brief before the Seventh
Circuit in a case brought by the Federal Trade Commission. In that
case, a federal judge last year ordered Dish to pay $200 million to
the FTC and four states: California, Illinois, North Carolina and
Ohio. U.S. District Judge Sue Myerscough of the Central District of
Illinois found that Dish, through independent contractors, violated
state and federal "Do Not Call" regulations.

The Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments in that case on Sept. 17.
[GN]


EMERGENCY CONSULTANTS: Keller Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled ROBERT M. KELLER, for himself
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EMERGENCY
CONSULTANTS, LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company (f/k/a
Emergency Consultants, Inc.) and DERIK K. KING, an individual, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00448-RJJ-RSK (W.D. Mich.), pursuant to Section 16(b)
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, moves for entry of an order from
the Court conditionally certifying a proposed collective FLSA class
defined as:

     All those individuals identified in plaintiff's Exhibit 1
     (ECI Bates No. 000132-000138).

Mr. Keller also asks the Court to:

   1) require the Defendants to, within 14 days of this Court's
      order, provide a list in electronic and importable format,
      of the names, addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses
      of all potential opt-in plaintiffs;

   2) implement a procedure whereby court-approved notice of the
      Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent via U.S. Mail and via
      e-mail to his proposed class; and

   3) preserve the equitable tolling the statute of limitations
      issue for the putative collective class members for later
      consideration when the record is more fully developed.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Blodgett, Esq.
          Anders J. Gillis, Esq.
          PARKER HARVEY PLC
          901 S. Garfield Avenue, Suite 200
          Traverse City, MI 49686
          Telephone: (231) 929-4878
          E-mail: ablodgett@parkerharvey.com
                  agillis@parkerharvey.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Wikander, Esq.
          Charissa Huang, Esq.
          SMITH HAUGHEY RICE & ROEGGE, P.C.
          100 Monroe Center NW
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2802
          Telephone: (616) 774-8000
          E-mail: mwikander@shrr.com
                  chuang@shrr.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Allan S. Rubin, Esq.
          Daniel C. Waslawski, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          2000 Town Center, Suite 1650
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 936-1900
          E-mail: rubina@jacksonlewis.com
                  daniel.waslawski@jacksonlewis.com


ENGEL & VOLKERS: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Engel & Volkers
Americas, Inc. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Engel &
Volkers Americas, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09794 (S.D.
N.Y., Oct. 24, 2018).

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

Engel & Volkers is one of the world's service companies
specialising in the brokerage of premium residential property,
commercial real estate, yachts and aircraft. Based in over 800
locations in total, Engel & Volkers offers both private and
institutional clients a professionally tailored range of
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



ERBA DIAGNOSTICS: Jan. 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Oct. 15 disclosed that the United
States District Court Southern District of Florida has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of securities of ERBA Diagnostics, Inc.
(OTCMKTS:ERBA):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SECURITIES OF
ERBA DIAGNOSTICS, Inc. ON NYSE FROM June 14, 2013 and November 20,
2015, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, that a hearing
will be held on January 23, 2019,  at 2:00 p.m. before the
Honorable Marcia G. Cooke, United States District Judge of the
Southern District of Florida, Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. United States
Courthouse, 400 North Miami Avenue, Room 11-2, Miami, Florida
33128, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for
consideration including the sum of $1,215,000 should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the
proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Class
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to one third of the
Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than
$35,000 and an incentive payment of no more than $5,000 to Class
Representative, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action
should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation
of Settlement dated June 28, 2018 (the "Settlement Stipulation").

If you purchased the securities of ERBA Diagnostics, Inc. ("ERBA")
on NYSE during the period from June 14, 2013 and November 20, 2015,
both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class"), your rights may be
affected by this Settlement, including the release and
extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership
interest in ERBA securities. If you have not received a detailed
Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you
may obtain copies by writing to or calling the Claims Administrator
at: In re ERBA Diagnostics, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o
Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O. Box
230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866)274-4004; (Fax) (610)565-7985;
info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website,
www.strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Settlement
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form postmarked
no later than December 10, 2018 to the Claims Administrator,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  Unless you submit
a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion in the manner and form explained in
the detailed Notice so that it is received no later than December
10, 2018, by the Claims Administrator. All members of the
Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the
Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the
Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Class
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and award to Class Representative must be in the manner
and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later
than January 9, 2019, by the following:

         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY  10016

         Class Counsel

         STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A
         David C. Pollack, Esq.
         Andrea N. Nathan, Esq.
         Museum Tower
         Suite 2200
         150 West Flagler Street
         Miami, FL 33130

         Counsel for ERBA Defendants

         MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
         Seth L. Friedman, Esq.
         340 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10173

         Counsel for Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to the Claims Administrator or Class Counsel at the addresses
provided above.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated: September 28, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA [GN]


EVANGELINE PARISH, LA: Faces Class Suit Over Investigative Holds
----------------------------------------------------------------
WRAL.com reports that six people who accused law enforcement
officers in a rural Louisiana community of illegally detaining and
secretly jailing them will share settlement proceeds totaling
nearly $50,000.

The settlement terms are disclosed in documents that The Associated
Press obtained through public records requests.

The six plaintiffs sharing $47,500 in settlement proceeds represent
a fraction of the cases in which law enforcement officers in
Evangeline Parish have been accused of using unconstitutional
"investigative holds" to detain people for questioning.

A Justice Department report said the Ville Platte Police Department
and Evangeline Parish Sheriff's Office used the practice more than
900 times between 2012 and 2014.

A settlement agreement resolved one of the lawsuits before a judge
could decide whether to certify it as a class action that could
benefit many more people. [GN]

EXCELSIOR TRANSPORTATION: McHenry Files Suit Over FLSA Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cornelle McHenry, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Excelsior Transportation, Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-02982
(S.D. Tex., August 28, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff filed this complaint on his behalf and on behalf of
other drivers and similar individuals who were not paid one and
one-half times their regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess
of forty in the workweek at any time from August 28, 2015, to the
present.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Harris County, Texas and worked as a
driver for the Defendant.

The Defendant Excelsior Transportation, Inc. is a Texas corporation
with its principal place of business in Harris County, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew W. Reed, Esq.
      G. Scott Fiddler, Esq.
      FIDDLER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      1004 Congress, 3rd Floor
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 228-0070
      Fax: (713) 228-0078
      E-mail: areed@fiddlerlaw.com
              scott@fiddlerlaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Colorado Residents Join Security Breach Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Oravetz, writing for 9NEWS.com, reports that several Facebook
users affected by the social media giant's latest security breach
have filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the company, a
release from Franklin D. Azar & Associates said.

The lawsuit alleges that a flaw that allowed hackers access to
personal data has exposed millions of people to the risk of
identity theft.

Franklin D. Azar & Associates filed the suit in the Northern
District of California on behalf of plaintiffs in Colorado,
California and New Jersey. Two Colorado residents are listed in the
lawsuit.

Facebook announced in late September that it had discovered a
vulnerability in its code that allowed hackers to access and take
over as many as 50 million user accounts, although it had not yet
determined the extent to which linked accounts, passwords, or
financial data were compromised or misused. (The company has since
estimated that the breach affects 30 million users, including 14
million who had personal information stolen from their profiles.)

The lawsuit complaint notes that the company had learned of the
breach, which involved a feature that lets users see what their
profile looks like to others, nearly two weeks before the public
announcement. It also accuses Facebook of "failing to maintain
adequate security measures." They're requesting a jury trial.

Attackers exploited a vulnerability in Facebook's code that
affected "View As," a feature that lets people see what their own
profile looks like to someone else. The feature was built to give
users more control over their privacy. Three software bugs in
Facebook's code connected to this feature allowed attackers to
steal Facebook access tokens they could then use to take over
people's accounts.

These access tokens are like digital keys that keep people logged
in to Facebook so they don't need to re-enter their password every
time they use Facebook. [GN]


FANDUEL INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Fantasy Sports Case
------------------------------------------------------------
David Wells, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the
Indiana Supreme Court ruled on Oct. 24 that fantasy sports websites
do not violate the state's publicity-rights law by using the names
and pictures of college athletes without their consent.

Akeem Daniels and Cameron Stingily both played football for
Northern Illinois University, and were joined as plaintiffs by
former Indiana University football player Nicholas Stoner in a
lawsuit claiming fantasy sports websites FanDuel and DraftKings
used their likenesses without permission.

FanDuel and DraftKings run fantasy sports games where users pay an
entry fee and assemble virtual sports teams to compete against
other users for cash prizes. The games use the names of real
athletes and use real-world stats to determine points for the
assembled teams.

Following the filing of the original lawsuit, DraftKings and
FanDuel suspended their offering of games based upon collegiate
sports, but brought back such contests this year.

Messrs. Daniels, Stingily and Stoner argued that the use of their
names in the fantasy games and advertisements violated their rights
to publicity as they did not agree to be involved with the
websites. They sought $5 million in damages.

The players associations for the NFL, NBA, WNBA, MLB, NHL, U.S.
Women's National  Soccer Team and Major League Soccer filed a joint
amicus brief with the Indiana Supreme Court in support of the
former college players, arguing that the fantasy contests are
"games, not a reference source."

"They differ substantially from products that courts have
previously found exempt as products designed to promote ‘the free
dissemination of information' about newsworthy matters of public
interest," the brief states.

The case made its way to the Seventh Circuit, but the Chicago-based
appeals court punted it back to the Indiana Supreme Court in
March.

On Oct. 24, the five-judge panel of the state's high court
unanimously ruled in favor of the websites, finding that the use of
the plaintiff's likenesses and the use of their statistics were
exempted from the state's publicity-rights law because that
information is considered "newsworthy."

Justice Steven David authored the 13-page opinion and wrote that
the websites' "use of players' names, images, and statistics in
conducting fantasy sports competitions bears resemblance to the
publication of the same information in newspapers and websites
across the nation."

David went on to write that the information was not "stripped" of
its news value simply because the information is being used in the
context of a fantasy sports game.

In regards to the use of the collegiate athletes' likenesses in
advertising, the court again ruled in favor of FanDuel and
DraftKings, finding that the information is not presented in a way
to make the public think that the athletes are endorsing the
product.

The court did not totally shut the door on future lawsuits
regarding advertisements, "Importantly, however, this finding does
not foreclose a court from closely scrutinizing the actions of a
particular defendant to ensure no unauthorized endorsements are
being made," David wrote.

David was joined by Chief Justice Loretta Rush and Justices Mark
Massa, Geoffrey Slaughter and Christopher Goff in handing down the
ruling.

A copy of the Opinion is available at https://is.gd/ghkYjX


FINISAR CORP: OK Firefighters Fund Move to Certify Securities Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System
moves the Court for an order certifying the case captioned In re
FINISAR CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
5:11-cv-01252-EJD (N.D. Cal.), as a class action pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Oklahoma Firefighters seeks certification of a class of all
persons and entities, who purchased or acquired the publicly traded
common stock of Finisar Corporation during the period from December
2, 2010, through March 8, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and
who were damaged thereby (the "Class").

The Plaintiff also ask the Court to appoint it as Class
Representative, and to designate Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP,
as counsel for the certified Class.  The Plaintiff requests oral
argument for this Motion, as well as an evidentiary hearing,
including examination of the experts.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 7, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Lead Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian D. Berg, Esq.
          Takeo A. Kellar, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
          11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 764-2580
          Facsimile: (858) 764-2582
          E-mail: iberg@aftlaw.com
                  tkellar@aftlaw.com

               - and -

          Mitchell M.Z. Twersky, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 279-5050
          Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
          E-mail: mtwersky@aftlaw.com


FIRE SPRINKLER: Faces Class Action Over Viking 457 Product
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Bartels, writing for KTNV, reports that the popular fire
sprinkler that some have dubbed "a ticking time bomb" is now at the
center of a new nationwide class action lawsuit.

The Viking 457 has been under investigation after multiple
homeowners have come forward with complaints the sprinkler head has
deployed without a fire or heat present.

The issue was first reported by 13 Action News when Megan Murray
came forward to explain how her home was heavily damaged.

"Nothing was on fire, and obviously that was a clue," Ms. Murray
told 13 Action News in September.

The fire sprinkler flooded the lower level of the Henderson home
with multiple inches of water, according to Ms.  Murray.

A new class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District
Court seeking damages and attorneys fees stemming from more claims
the same sprinkler head is to responsible for damages in additional
homes.

"We want a proactive program that we can implement through
litigation so everyone has the comfort and peace of mind that they
do not have a ticking time bomb in their homes and that [The Viking
457] can be removed at Viking's expense," said Attorney Joe
Sauder.

Mr. Sauder says the true number of homes with the Viking 457
installed nationwide is unknown.

Mr. Sauder estimates the sprinkler is installed in 'tens of
thousands' of homes.

13 Action News has confirmed the sprinkler head in question was
installed in at least 15,000 homes in California and Nevada.

Specifically in Nevada, there were at least 588 homes, according to
Fire Sprinkler Systems Inc., which installed the device in homes
between 2013 and 2015.

There are new claims of similar sprinkler deployments in Maryland,
California and Nevada that have caused damage.

"There is a failure internally, related to a deficiency in the
assembly," explained Mr. Sauder.

"So this is not something that can be blamed on excessive heat as
Viking has taken the position that it has tested some of these and
it is [caused by] excessive heat," added Mr. Sauder.

Viking Corp. has denied an claims their product is defective.

A company spokesperson released a statement regarding the class
action lawsuit to 13 Action News:

"Viking is aware of the class action. We strongly dispute the
claims and will defend ourselves vigorously. However, we cannot
comment further on pending legal matters."

Viking Corp. Spokesperson

Mr. Sauder says the next step in the legal process is for Viking to
issue a challenge to the complaint.

HERE'S WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE VIKING 457 SITUATION:

    * The sprinklers were installed between Jan. 1, 2013 and
December 31, 2015 by Fire Sprinkler Systems Inc. (could be
installed by other companies outside these dates)
    * Visit Fire Sprinkler Systems Inc.'s website to verify your
address if you have VK457 sprinklers installed
   * Viking no longer manufactures the sprinkler heads in question

13 Action News has learned the Viking 457 was at the center of a
civil lawsuit in Clark County District Court, in which the
sprinkler was blamed for damaging a multi-million dollar custom
home under construction. [GN]


FIRST RESPONSE: Does Not Pay Minimum Wage, Cubias Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Rodas Cubias, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. First Response Cleaning Corp., The Coastal
Group Inc., Carl Walsh, and Charlotte Walsh, Case No. 1:18-cv-06021
(E.D. N.Y., October 27, 2018), is brought against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay proper
minimum wage compensation required by the federal and state law and
regulations to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a laborer.

The Defendants are a damage restoration contractor servicing
Brooklyn and its environs.  The Defendants share employees and
provide joint restoration services to customers through Defendant
First. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
      FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
      225 Broadway, Suite 1700
      New York, NY 10007
      Tel: (212) 571-0700
      Fax: (212) 505-2001


FUNKO: Scott & Scott Fails to Class Action Lead Counsel Role
------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Seal, writing for Law360, reports that a Washington federal
judge on Oct. 15 denied an investor's lead plaintiff motion asking
for Scott & Scott Attorneys at Law LLP to be appointed lead counsel
in a proposed class action against Funko. [GN]


FUYAO GLASS: Discovery Process Limited to 120 Opt-in Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Gnau, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports that it appears
that the U.S. District Court in Cincinnati is setting up the rules
of the road for the discovery process in a workers' class-action
lawsuit against Fuyao Glass America.

According to a report filed with the court Monday, the discovery
process will be limited to 120 "opt-in" plaintiffs.

Fuyao, one of the Dayton area's fastest growing manufacturers, is
being sued by 636 current and former workers in a legal bid to
change the way the company schedules and pays employees.

For the "opt-in" class, Fuyao gets to choose 80 plaintiffs, the
plaintiffs themselves get to choose 20 opt-in plaintiffs and
another 20 will be randomly selected, the court said in the new
report.

In a lawsuit's discovery phase, before the trial happens, lawyers
for each side depose or interview participants in the case, request
documents and gather information to build their respective cases.

"It's customary to do what we call a discovery sample class," said
Bob DeRose, the Columbus attorney representing plaintiffs in the
case. The idea is to save time by selecting a set of
"representative" plaintiffs, avoiding the need to depose all of the
more than 600 plaintiffs in the case.

Tied to the case also are 4,000 plaintiffs in a possible "putative
Ohio class," a number that includes both current and former Fuyao
employees.

"They do (have 4,000 putative class members), because I can go back
three years," Mr. DeRose said. "Fuyao is a huge case."

According to the report, Fuyao can take up to 30 depositions of the
opt-in plaintiffs in the discovery class, as well as depose three
additional plaintiffs.

Depositions will not take more than four hours, the report also
says.

No trial has been scheduled yet.

Fuyao has about 2,300 workers today making automobile safety glass
at a plant in Moraine. The case goes back to the original
plaintiff, Julia Staggs, who filed her suit in June 2017 in
Dayton's federal court. Staggs worked at Fuyao from September to
December 2016, according to her suit.

Ms. Staggs has alleged that she worked overtime at Fuyao without
being paid a time-and-a-half wages for that overtime work. She also
claimed that she and others were not completely relieved of duties
during what were supposed to be breaks from work.

Mr. DeRose and the plaintiffs have said that Fuyao automatically
deducts from payroll for lunch breaks -- whether or not employees
actually take the breaks. Some employees work through lunch or they
don't take the entire 30 minutes as an uninterrupted break from
work, they claim.

"They're not paying for all the hours worked," DeRose has told the
Dayton Daily News. "We are maintaining this is a company-wide
policy."

Attorneys for Fuyao have denied the allegations. A message seeking
comment for this story was sent to them on Oct. 16.

In February 2018, a federal judge granted class-action status to
plaintiffs in the case. [GN]


GAP INC: Bid to Remand Coladonato Suit Over Bogus Discounts Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand the
case, CARON COLADONATO, Individually and on behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. THE GAP, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-11998 (D. N.J.).

The purported class action was filed in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, seeking injunctive relief
against the Defendants.  The Plaintiff alleges that she purchased
goods on numerous occasions from the Defendants' Gap Factory and
Banana Republic Factory stores in New Jersey and contends that the
Defendants violated New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act by allegedly
advertising arbitrary and false base prices for items in New Jersey
stores, advertising items for sale at percentages that
misrepresented the actual discounts received, and charging full
price on items advertised at discounted rates.

The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief whereby the Court adjudges
the Defendants' past conduct to be in violation of federal and
state pricing regulations and injunctive relief enjoining the
Defendants from continuing these complained of practices in their
Gap Factory and Banana Republic Factory stores in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff's Complaint defines the class to include herself as
well as a putative class consisting of all New Jersey citizens who
purchased any purportedly discounted item from a Gap Factory or
Banana Republic Factory store in New Jersey between Oct. 9, 2011
and the present.  She also alleges that the putative class is
composed of at least 1,000 persons.  The Defendants timely removed
the matter to the Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

The Plaintiff's complaint specifically states that the total amount
in controversy for its claims, including attorney's fees, is less
than $5 million.  She argues that the Complaint does not seek money
damages or any relief to remedy past misconduct, including refunds;
rather, declaratory and injunctive relief are sought prospectively
only.

Judge Rodriguez finds that to demonstrate that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million, the Defendants have submitted a
sworn statement from a Senior Director indicating that as of the
end of 2017, the Banana Republic Factory Stores located in New
Jersey had sales over $20 million since October 2011, the proposed
starting date for the putative class.  Based on the volume of sales
during the proposed class period and the Plaintiff's allegation
that she suffered damages in the amount of her purchase price, the
Defendants arrive at an amount in controversy exceeding $20
million.

While Plaintiff argues that this amount is speculative, she has put
forth no proof of the amount in controversy to counter the
Defendants' valuation of her claim.  As such, the Judge finds, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the amount-in-controversy
requirement has been satisfied.  Accordingly, Judge Rodriguez
denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand the matter.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/ZYIz2d from Leagle.com.

CARON COLADONATO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by JOSEPH A. OSEFCHEN, DeNITTIS
OSEFCHEN, P.C., ROSS H. SCHMIERER, DeNittis Osefchen Prince, P.C. &
STEPHEN PATRICK DENITTIS -- sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- DENITTIS
OSEFCHEN, PC.

THE GAP, INC., GAP (APPAREL) LLC, GAP INTERNATIONAL SALES, INC.,
BANANA REPUBLIC, LLC & BANANA REPUBLIC (APPAREL) LLC, Defendants,
represented by KRISTIN MCKEON HADGIS --
kristin.hadgis@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS BOCKIUS LLP.


GOOGLE INC: UK Court Ruling to Impact Large-Scale Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rory Lynch, writing for computing.co.uk, reports that a recent
decision by the English High Court has made large-scale class
actions for misuse of personal internet data more difficult to
litigate.

In Lloyd v Google LLC [2018] EWCH 2599 (QB), the consumer
protection campaigner and former Executive Director of Which?,
Richard Lloyd, started a class action against Google in relation to
their 'Safari Workaround' and 'Double-Click Cookie'.

Google's underhand activities in relation to the Safari Workaround
were identified back in 2012 by PhD researcher, Jonathan Mayer.
This led to litigation in both the US and UK, with Google paying
out $39.5 million in fines and damages in the United States alone.

The scandal involved the acquisition and use of browser generated
information ("BGI") from third party cookies that enabled the
placer of the cookies to track the internet activity of the device
in question. Such cookies can be used to monitor internet activity
so as to facilitate tailored advertising targeted at that user.
These are known as 'internet based adverts'.

In the period of June 2011 to February 2012, one of Google's third
party cookies was known as the 'Double-Click Cookie'. It would be
placed on a device if the user visited a website that contained
content from the company's 'Double-Click' domain.

During this period, Apple's Safari browser was set by default to
block third party cookies. However, Apple created some exceptions
to this default setting and Google created the 'Safari Workaround'
via their Double-Click Cookie to take advantage of this exception.

Consequently, until 2012 when Apple removed these exceptions,
Google were able to surreptitiously collect BGI via Safari and
aggregate this data into useful categories such as 'football
lovers' or 'current affairs enthusiasts'. Controversially, such BGI
could also reveal users' more intimate and personal likes and
dislikes. Google was then able to sell this data to marketers and
advertisers and profit from the deception.

Lloyd's claim related to the "secret tracking and collation by
Google" of information as to individuals' internet usage. He
claimed that this constituted the processing of personal data in
breach of the statutory duty imposed by section 4 of the UK Data
Protection Act.

This section of the Act stipulates that personal data should be
processed fairly and lawfully. In the case of sensitive personal
data, this should be obtained only for "specified and lawful
purposes" and "shall not be processed in any manner incompatible
with that purpose".

Mr Lloyd was not only suing Google on his own behalf, but also on
behalf of a class of other residents in England and Wales who he
deemed to be victims of the Safari Workaround. It was estimated
that, due to the ubiquity of iPhones, this 'class' of residents
would total approximately 4.4 million persons. Lloyd argued that
each of these residents should be entitled to GBP750 each in
damages, which would cost Google in the region of GBP1 and GBP3
billion. [GN]


GRAIN PROCESSING: Court Documents Show Settlement Fund Details
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Ecklund, writing for Muscatine Journal, reports that court
documents filed on Oct. 12 detail how money from the $45 million
settlement fund from the Grain Processing Corp. class action
lawsuit will be distributed and what claim forms look like.

The document also included a plain-language notice that will go to
class members and a request for the court to set a date for a
fairness hearing.

Plaintiffs previously asked for an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement that would provide a total $50 million
settlement. In addition to the settlement fund, GPC would pay
another $6.5 million in pollution controls at the plant.

Pending preliminary approval of the agreement, claims notices will
be distributed to class members. There are more than 2,000
households in the affected area surrounding GPC in the Southend.

A deadline for class members to object also is included for
preliminary approval.

"Toxic air has blanketed Muscatine for decades," resident and class
member Jessica Brackett said. "Harm caused by GPC far surpasses $51
million. I live on the edge of the class boundary and still have to
close my windows numerous times a week in attempts to keep the
smell of pollution out."

Ms. Brackett and 10,000 to 16,000 other residents who lived in the
1.5 mile radius of the plant between April 24, 2007 and Sept. 1,
2017 may file claims to receive a portion of the settlement fund,
settlement documents read.

According to the settlement, every person living in those homes
during that time -- adults and children -- are considered class
members unless they opted out of the class action or were only
guests in the affected residences.

The time frame for filing claims is proposed to be 120 days and
will begin 28 days after preliminary approval is granted.
Notification of the claims process will go out 35 days following a
mailing of the notice. The documents also advise claimants not wait
until the last minute to file.

The fairness hearing will determine if the settlement is "fair,
adequate and reasonable," according to the settlement documents. If
the court determines those criteria were not met, the settlement
will be void and the class will prepare for trial, the documents
read.

The class action began in 2012 by residents citing "smoke, odor and
haze" coming from GPC as a nuisance. [GN]


HASBRO INC: Shareholders File Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Oct. 16 disclosed
that purchasers of Hasbro, Inc. (NasdaqGS: HAS) have filed a class
action complaint against the company's officers and directors for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between
April 24, 2017 and October 23, 2017. Hasbro, together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a play and entertainment company.

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

Hasbro Accused of Misleading Investors About Impact of Toys "R" Us
Bankruptcy

According to the complaint, Toys "R" Us, Inc. is one of Hasbro's
biggest customers, accounting for 9% of the company's consolidated
net revenues in fiscal year 2016. Although Hasbro was experiencing
sales issues in two key markets and likely knew that Toys "R" Us
would file for bankruptcy and liquidate, Hasbro represented that
the company was well-positioned to deliver profitable growth.
Before the extent of the issues Hasbro faced became publicly known,
Hasbro insiders sold $147 million of their personally held Hasbro
stock. On September 19, 2017, Toys "R" Us filed for bankruptcy
protection. Then, on October 23, 2017, Hasbro admitted that the
company's financials had been negatively impacted by the Toys "R"
Us bankruptcy, including a 5% decline in Hasbro's U.S. and Canada
segment quarterly operating profit. On this news, Hasbro's stock
fell from the class period high of $115.95 to only $89.75 per share
on October 23, 2017, and has yet to recover. [GN]


HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Price Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cathryn-Lucy Price, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Healthsource Global Staffing, Inc. and Does 1-100, Case
No. RG18918770 (Calif. Super., August 29, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have for years, failed to
pay class and collective members for work performed including
regular hours, overtime hours, and minimum wage for hours worked.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Fremont in Alamaeda County. The
Plaintiff worked as a Traveling Credentialing Analyst for the
Defendants from May 2016 to August 2016.

The Defendant provides healthcare staffing for hospitals and other
medical facilities in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew S. Da Vega, Esq.
      Matthew Fisher, Esq.
      Ted Mechtenberg, Esq.
      DA VEGA FISHER MECHTENBERG, LLP
      232 E. Anapamu St.
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Tel: (805) 232-4471
      Fax: (877) 535-9358
      E-mail: mdavega@mdmflaw.com


HMS HOST: Flores Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
Rolando Flores, individually, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated current and former employees v. HMS Host
Corporation, HMS Host USA, Inc., Case No. 8:18-cv-03312 (D. Md.,
October 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the following
similarly situated persons: All current and former hourly-paid
non-exempt Warehouse Runner/Receiver/Utility employees of HMS Host
USA, Inc., and HMS Host Corporation employed in the United States
at any time during the applicable limitations period covered by
this Collective Action Complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt Warehouse
Runner/Receiver/Utility employee of Defendants, who performed
duties of unloading carts located within the airports where HMS
operates, and delivering to HMS owned restaurants/facilities.

The Defendant, HMS Host Corporation is a Delaware corporation with
its corporate headquarters located at 6600 Rockledge Drive,
Bethesda, Maryland 20817-1080. HMS Host Corporation is a
multinational, multibillion-dollar corporation. HMS Host USA, Inc.
owns and operates food and beverage franchises, including, but not
limited to, Starbucks, Moe's, P.F. Chang's, Pei Wei, Carrabba's,
Burger King, Outback Steakhouse, Longhorn Steakhouse, and
Chick-fil-A, in major airports across the United States and in
malls and travel centers located in the northeastern United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
      Alyse L. Prawde, Esq.
      JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE PA
      6404 Ivy Lane Suite 400
      Greenbelt, MD 20770
      Tel: (301) 220-2200
      Fax: (240) 553-1737
      E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
              aprawde@jgllaw.com


IMPERVA INC: RM Law Firm Investigates Fiduciary Breach Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. is investigating potential claims against the board of
directors of Imperva, Inc. ("Imperva" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
IMPV) concerning possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other
violations of law related to the Company's efforts to sell the
Company to Thoma Bravo LLC in a transaction valued at approximately
$2.1 billion.

If you own shares of Imperva and would like to learn more about
this class action or if you wish to discuss these matters and have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign
up online, click here.  You may also email Mr. Maniskas at
rm@maniskas.com.  

Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of Imperva will
receive $55.75 in cash for each share of Imperva common stock.

Our investigation concerns possible breaches of fiduciary duty and
other violations of state law by the board of directors of Imperva
for not acting in the Company's shareholders' best interests in
connection with the sale process.

RM LAW, P.C. -- http://www.rmclasslaw.com-- is a national
shareholder litigation firm.  RM LAW, P.C. is devoted to protecting
the interests of individual and institutional investors in
shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide. [GN]


IMPINJ INC: Baton Rouge Employees' Fund Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish
of East Baton Rouge, Plaintiff, v. Impinj, Inc., Chris Diorio, Evan
Fein and Eric Brodersen, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01447, (W.D.
Wash., October 2, 2018) alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish
of East Baton Rouge is a defined benefit pension plan that provides
retirement allowances and other benefits to regular employees of
the City of Baton Rouge. It purchased publicly traded securities of
Impinj between November 3, 2016 and February 15, 2018. The
Plaintiff claims that Impinj's stock traded at artificially
inflated prices due to continued concealment, and misrepresentation
of material facts regarding their business metrics, operations and
financial prospects.

Impinj sells integrated circuit tags that provides wireless
information about tagged items, usually for apparel, medical
supplies, automobile parts, driver's licenses, food and luggage.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradley S. Keller, Esq.
      BYRNES & KELLER LLP
      1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Telephone: (206) 622-2000
      Facsimile: (206) 622-2522
      Email: bkeller@byrneskeller.com

             - and -

      Avi Josefson, Esq.
      Michael D. Blatchley, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
      New York, NY 10020
      Tel: (212) 554-1493
      Fax: (212) 554-1444
      Email: avi@blbglaw.com
             mikeb@blbglaw.com


JACOB TRANSPORTATION: Greene Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT GREENE, THOMAS SCHEMKES, and GREGORY GREEN on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. JACOB TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC, a Nevada Corporation, doing
business as Executive Las Vegas; JAMES JIMMERSON, an individual,
CAROL JIMMERSON, an individual, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Lead Case No. 2:09-CV-00466-GMN-CWH, Member Case No.
2:11-CV-00355-JAD-NJK (D. Nev.), Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted the Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

On Sept. 21, 2018, the Court considered the Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement.  The counsel for the
Plaintiffs and the Defendants appeared at the hearing.  

Judge Navarro adopted the defined terms in the Settlement
Agreement.  

he confirmed as final the settlement class, pursuant to Nev. R.
Civ. P. 23(b)(2), defined as all Limousine Driver employees who
worked for Jacob Transportation Services, LLC, doing business as
Executive Las Vegas, at any time from March 10, 2006 through May
31, 2018.

She confirmed the appointment of Robert Greene, Thomas Schemkes,
and Gregory Green as the Class Representatives and the enhancement
payments of $20,000 to Robert Greene and $5,000 each to Thomas
Schemkes and Gregory Green.

She further confirmed the appointment of Thierman Buck LLP as the
class counsel for the settlement class and approved their requests
for attorneys' fees and litigation costs of $401,666.67 and
$80,000, respectively.

6. The class notice was distributed to class members, pursuant to
this Court's orders, and fully satisfied the requirements of Nev.
R. Civ. P. 23 and any other applicable law.

Pursuant to Nev. R. Civ. P. 23(e), the Judge granted final approval
to the settlement and finds that the settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate in all respects, including the attorneys'
fees, costs, and incentive award provisions.  

She finds that, as of the date of the Order, each and every class
member has waived and released claims as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and Notice of Class Action Settlement.  She
also finds that the settlement administrator Simpluris is entitled
to $40,000 for administrative fees.

The Judge directed the Parties to effectuate the settlement terms
as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the settlement
administrator to calculate and pay the claims of the class members
in accordance with the terms set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.

She finds that the following individuals are not included in the
class and are expressly excluded from the settlement: (1) Patrick
Nixon because his claim form was incomplete; (2) Mensur Maruff
because he was not employed with the company during the relevant
time period; (3) Abay Gebremariam because he did not meet the
extension deadline; (4) Tadele Wolderiam because he was a shuttle
bus driver and does not qualify for the class; and (5) Shimelis
Wube because he was a shuttle bus driver and does not qualify for
the class.

The Judge further finds that the following individuals are included
in the class: (1) Ellen Russell; (2) Vally Grigore, who is
deceased, but his estate will be included in the class; (3)
Francine Ferrero, who the Court finds has proof that she timely
submitted her claim form; and (4) Jon Ferguson, who was sent the
appropriate documents to his last known address and he failed to
provide notice to the parties of his change his address and to
submit a claim form before the deadline, but the Court will allow
him to submit his claim form, because he came to court, with his
current address, email, and/or phone number no later than Oct. 3,
2018, 5:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants will fund the
settlement by April 21, 2019.

The Clerk of Court will enter judgment accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Obu5EL from Leagle.com.

Robert Greene, Gregory Green & Thomas Schemkes, Plaintiffs,
represented by Mark R. Thierman -- mark@thiermanbuck.com --
Thierman Buck, LLP, Jason J. Kuller -- jason@kullerlaw.com --
Kuller Law PC, Joshua D. Buck -- josh@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman
Buck, LLP, Joshua R. Hendrickson, Thierman Buck, LLC & Leah Lin
Jones -- leah@thiermanbuck.com  -- Thierman Buck, LLP.

Carol Jimmerson & Jacob Transportation Services, LLC, doing
business as Executive Las Vegas, Defendants, represented by James
J. Jimmerson -- jjj@jimmersonlawfirm.com -- Jimmerson Hansen, P.C.
James Jimmerson, Defendant, pro se.

James Jimmerson, Defendant, represented by Kevin Hejmanowski , The
Jimmerson Law Firm PC.

Jacob Transportation Services, LLC, Unconsolidated (Order # 159),
Consol Counter Claimant, represented by Ikenna K. Odunze, Jimmerson
Hansen, PC & James J. Jimmerson, Jimmerson Hansen, P.C.

Thomas Thatcher Schemkes, Unconsolidated (Order # 159), Consol
Counter Defendant, represented by Jason J. Kuller, Kuller Law PC,
Joshua D. Buck , Thierman Buck, LLP & Mark R. Thierman, Thierman
Buck, LLP.


JRC VENTURES: Smith Seeks to Certify Companionship Workers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merrie Smith seeks an order conditionally certifying a collective
action in the matter styled MERRIE SMITH and JESSICA BROOKE
RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
JRC VENTURES, INC., JACQUE R. COLLETT, GRUBB & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
and JOSEPH GRUBB, Case No. 1:16-cv-00499-CHS (E.D. Tenn.).

Ms. Smith moves for class certification pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and seeks authority to send notice of the right to
join this lawsuit to all companionship employees, who worked for
JRC from January 1, 2015, through January 1, 2017.

The Plaintiff also requests a period of 90 days to distribute the
Notice and file consent forms with the Court.  She asks the Court
to enter an Order directing JRC to provide telephone numbers and
e-mail addresses of potential opt-in plaintiffs no later than seven
days after the date of the entry of the Order granting the Motion.
She further requests that the Court permit her to provide the
Notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs via e-mail, in addition to
U.S. mail.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank P. Pinchak, Esq.
          Doug S. Hamill, Esq.
          BURNETTE, DOBSON & PINCHAK
          711 Cherry Street
          Chattanooga, TN 37402
          Telephone: (423) 266-2121
          E-mail: fpinchak@bdplawfirm.com
                  dhamill@bdplawfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Wagner, Esq.
          WAGNER, NELSON & WEEKS
          701 Market Street, Suite 1418
          Chattanooga, TN 37402
          Telephone: (423) 756-7923
          E-mail: maw@wagnerinjury.com


JUST BORN: Escobar's Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Submission
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Terry J. Hatter, Jr., entered an order in the lawsuit
titled STEPHANIE ESCOBAR v. JUST BORN, INC., ET AL., Case No.
2:17-cv-01826-TJH-PJW (C.D. Cal.), and has taken under submission
these motions:

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification, filed on May 3,
      2018;

   -- Defendant's motion to exclude, filed on August 2, 2018;

   -- Defendant's motion to exclude opinions of Plaintiffs'
      proposed expert Forrest V. Morgeson III, filed on August 2,
      2018; and

   -- Defendant's motion to exclude opinions of Plaintiffs'
      proposed expert Claire K. Sand, filed on August 2,
      2018.[CC]



KERYX BIOPHARMA: Investors Sue Over $1.3BB Akebia Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Reenat Sinay, writing for Law360, reports that Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals Inc. misled investors about the company's
financial future in documents related to its $1.3 billion
acquisition by Akebia Therapeutics Inc., shareholders alleged in a
proposed securities class action. [GN]


KMG CHEMICALS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, on Oct. 15 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, No. 4:18-cv-00785, on behalf of
shareholders of KMG Chemicals, Inc. ("KMG" or the "Company")
(NYSE:KMG) who have been harmed by KMG's and its board of
directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
in connection with  the proposed merger of the Company with Cabot
Microelectronics Corporation ("Cabot").

On August 14, 2018, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Proposed Transaction") under which
each share of KMG common stock will be exchanged for $55.65 in cash
and 0.2 shares of Cabot common stock (the "Merger Consideration").
The shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction is expected to
occur on November 13, 2018.

The complaint alleges that the Form S-4 Registration Statement (the
"S-4") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on
September 12, 2018, violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act because it provides materially incomplete and
misleading information about the Company and the Proposed
Transaction, including information concerning the Company's
financial projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to
recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to KMG shareholders.

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

Take Action

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from the date of this notice.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action,
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact:

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


KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Class Action Over Capri Sun Drinks
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action
accuses Kraft Heinz of falsely claiming that its Capri Sun drinks
are free of preservatives when they actually contain citric acid, a
well-known preservative.

A copy of the Complaint is available at https://is.gd/BlRIVK


KRISHNA SCHAUMBURG: Biometric Privacy Lawsuit Reinstated
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey D Neuburger, Esq. -- jneuburger@proskauer.com -- of
Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that an Illinois appellate court reversed a lower court's
dismissal of biometric privacy claims against a tanning salon
franchisee that had collected the plaintiff's fingerprint to allow
entry in its own salon and any L.A. Tan salon location nationwide.
(Sekura v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 2018 IL App (1st) 180175
(Ill. App. Sept. 28, 2018)).  The plaintiff alleged that the
tanning salon violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act
(BIPA), which regulates the collection, retention, and disclosure
of personal biometric identifiers and biometric information, by
collecting her fingerprints without obtaining the required written
release and providing the required disclosure concerning its
retention policy, and further by disclosing her fingerprints to a
third-party vendor. [Note: In 2016, in a separate suit, the same
plaintiff settled BIPA claims with L.A. Tan Enterprises, Inc.,
operator (directly and through franchisees) of L.A. Tan tanning
salons].

In allowing the suit to go forward, the appellate court held that a
litigant may sue for a violation of BIPA without proving additional
harm.  BIPA expressly provides that "any person aggrieved by a
violation" of the statute may pursue money damages and injunctive
relief against the offending party.  Notably, the Sekura court
distinguished the Rosenbach decision -- the only Illinois state
appellate panel to rule on the "aggrieved" party issue under BIPA,
and which held that a person "aggrieved" by a violation of the Act
must allege an injury or harm in addition to the violation of the
Act. In Sekura, the court held that even it were to follow its
sister court's decision in Rosenbach, the plaintiff's allegations
that the tanning salon disclosed her fingerprint to a third-party
vendor constituted harm enough to make plaintiff an "aggrieved"
party.

"To be clear, we find that the statutory violations to plaintiff's
privacy constituted harm even without disclosure, but the
disclosure in the case at bar makes it distinguishable from
Rosenbach."

Interestingly, the Sekura court also stated that the plaintiff's
allegations of mental anguish over what would happen to her
biometric data if the tanning salon went bankrupt also constituted
an injury or adverse effect.

The outcome of Sekura is in line with the Dixon case from this
summer, where an Illinois federal court followed Rosenbach yet
still declined to dismiss a BIPA suit brought by a former employee
who asserted BIPA and negligence claims against a senior living
center, among others, over the scanning of her fingerprints onto an
employee biometric timekeeping device and the alleged disclosure of
the data to an out-of-state vendor.  The Dixon court noted that the
allegation that the defendant disclosed plaintiff's fingerprint
data to its third-party vendor without informing her distinguished
this case from others in which alleged violations of BIPA were
determined insufficiently concrete.

Looking ahead, it remains to be seen how courts will interpret the
meaning of "aggrieved" under BIPA (and how such interpretation will
affect class certification issues).  Regardless, we will likely see
more plaintiffs' lawyers drafting complaints, where factually
appropriate, to allege third-party disclosure of biometric data and
mental anguish claims to overcome standing and statutory
challenges.  Some clarity will presumably arrive soon, as this past
May the Illinois Supreme Court accepted the appeal of the Rosenbach
decision where the high court will answer the question of whether a
person "aggrieved" by a violation of BIPA must allege some injury
or harm beyond a procedural violation (Note: the appeal is fully
briefed, including numerous amicus briefs submitted in support of
both parties; oral argument has not been scheduled).

Still, even if the Illinois Supreme Court returns a
business-friendly ruling that an aggrieved party must show a harm
beyond a procedural violation of BIPA, we will likely be left with
a dichotomy of sorts -- what we might call Rosenbach claims and
Rosenbach+ claims.  The current appeal will likely resolve issues
of pure procedural violations (Rosenbach claims), where plaintiffs
are generally on notice about the collection and use of biometric
data but do not allege any purported harms beyond violations of
statutory rights under BIPA, but may not answer exactly what is a
concrete harm under the statute.  Indeed, as we've seen in the
Sekura decision, litigants have adapted since the decision and have
managed, in several instances, to survive dismissal motions by
asserting that employers or companies not only failed to follow
BIPA's procedural notice and consent requirements but also
disclosed biometric data to outside vendors for processing without
consent (Rosenbach+ claims).  It is the latter harm (and now
perhaps even claims of mental anguish as well) where courts may
distinguish Rosenbach to allow BIPA suits to survive dismissal.
Ultimately, perhaps the Sekura decision will be appealed and joined
with the Rosenbach appeal, but we will have to wait and see.

Proskauer Rose will continue to monitor these emerging developments
in biometric privacy litigation, including the important biometric
privacy litigation still ongoing in California. [GN]


KURZ REAL ESTATE: Murias Suit Asserts Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Murias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kurz Real Estate, Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-23494
(S.D. Fla., August 28, 2018), seeks damages against the Defendant
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal
conduct, in sending unsolicited marketing, which has resulted in
the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of
the daily life of thousands of individuals, notes the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Broward County, Florida.

The Defendant is a real estate company. The Defendant is a Florida
corporation whose principal office is located at 3692 Grand Ave,
Miami FL 33133. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Tel: (305) 479-2299
      E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

          - and -

      Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
      EDELSBERG LAW, PA
      19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Tel: (305) 975-3320
      E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


LONDON TERRACE: Blech and Chassman Orderded to Pay $12K in Dugan
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM DUGAN, MASHA D'YANS, GEORGETTE GAGNON, LOWELL
D. KERN, MICHAEL McCURDY, JOSE PELAEZ, TRACY SYNDER, MICHAEL J.
WALSH, LESLIE M. MACK, ANITA ZITIS and JAMES DOERR, ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. LONDON
TERRACE GARDENS, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 603468/2009 (N.Y. Sup.),
Judge Carmen Victoria St. George of the Supreme Court, New York
County granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion
for (1) judgment of possession for the premises in dispute and back
rent; (2) provisional relief in additional rent if it ultimately
satisfies its burden of proof on one additional issue; (3)
possession of the premises; and (4) use and occupancy of $15,198.44
per month during the pendency of the motion.

London Terrace began receiving J-51 tax benefits on July 1, 2003.
The benefits ended on June 30, 2014.  Because of these benefits,
all rental apartments in the building were deemed rent-stabilized
throughout this period.  

In 2009, William Dugan and others brought the lawsuit, a proposed
class action against London Terrace, alleging that the Defendant
had not treated the apartments as rent-stabilized units exempt from
luxury decontrol while the building received J-51 tax benefits and
therefore had overcharged their rent.  Justice Lucy Billings, who
then presided over the lawsuit, granted class certification and
consolidated the action with another lawsuit for the same relief,
which also had been brought as a proposed class action.

Justice Billings' defined the class as all past and current tenants
of London Terrace Gardens who have been charged or continue to be
charged deregulated rents during defendant's receipt of J-51 tax
benefits under New York Real Property Tax Law Section 489 (1) (a)
and New York City Administrative Code Sections 11-243 and 11-244.

Since 2005, tenants David Blech and Margie Chassman have been the
tenants of 16AB and 16EF.  A few years after Justice Billings
certified the class in the New York State Supreme Court, London
Terrace commenced a nonpayment proceeding in Housing Court against
Blech and Chassman, who rented apartments 16AB and 16EF  (London
Terrace Gardens, L.P. v Blech [L & T Index No. 059254/2015]).  Said
had been combined into one unit, as had apartments 16A and 16B.
All four apartments subsequently were combined into one unit,
16ABEF.

The tenants' answer to the Housing Court proceeding alleged as
affirmative defenses and counterclaims that 1) London Terrace
improperly treated the apartment as non-rent-stabilized from the
commencement of their tenancy, in 2005, onward, and the landlord
also did not reduce their rent when it discontinued their access to
the complex' swimming pool, and thus owed the tenant rent abatement
and treble damages; 2) the landlord increased the rent illegally
during their tenancy and filed false rent registrations; 3) the
landlord breached the warranty of habitability; and 4) pursuant to
the lease, the landlord owed the Defendant legal fees for
commencing the eviction proceeding.

In 2016, Justice Billings granted London Terrace's motion to remove
the Blech/Chassman proceeding from Housing Court and consolidate it
with the Dugan class action.

On Nov. 13, 2017, Justice Billings issued a decision which
established a formula for computing the rent overcharges and the
rent due for each apartment in the class.  As is relevant in the
case, the decision addressed the leases of tenants who rent
apartments which were subject to rent stabilization before London
Terrace began receiving J-51 tax benefits.  The court concluded
that these tenants were entitled to a rent stabilized lease
continuing after the J-51's expiration until London Terrace
lawfully deregulated the apartment under the Rent Stabilization
Code ("RSC")(Dugan v London Terrace Gardens, L.P., 2017 NY Misc
LEXIS 5391, ("Dugan 6")).

In Dugan v. London Terrace Gardens, (Index No. 603468/2008,
Billings, J. [2017] ("Dugan 10"), the Defendant moved for past due
rent against Blech and Chassman as well as ongoing use and
occupancy payments for their apartments.  The court held that
London Terrace had the right to collect payments from these tenants
during the pendency of the action.  The court therefore directed
that the Defendant must calculate the payments for use and
occupancy of apartments 16AB and 16EF separately, using the
computation she set forth in Dugan 6.  Both Dugan 6 and Dugan 10
have been appealed, with the litigants currently scheduled to
submit their papers in January 2019.  The orders, however, have not
been stayed.

In the current motion and cross-motion, the Defendant seeks (1)
judgment of possession for the premises in dispute and back rent;
(2) provisional relief in additional rent if it ultimately
satisfies its burden of proof on one additional issue; (3)
possession of the premises; and (4) use and occupancy of $15,198.44
per month during the pendency of the motion.  It seeks a hearing,
if necessary, to determine the base rent.

The Defendant alleges that not only have Blech and Chassman failed
to pay rent since the order in Dugan 10, but they have not paid any
rent since October 2014.  The papers continue to argue that when
the apartments were combined a "new" apartment was created, and the
computation therefore operates on the assumption that it was
appropriate to lease the units to Blech and Chassman at an initial
rent of $12,800.  London Terrace states that, if the rent increases
are calculated as mandated by the rent stabilization laws, Blech
and Chassman owe back rent of $479,598.75.

Blech and Chassman oppose the motion and cross-move for a money
judgment against London Terrace in the amount of $2,772,932.88
along with legal fees and interest.  They point out that Justice
Billings rejected the Defendants' argument that Units 16AB and 16EF
should be treated as one combined unit, and therefore the premise
of the Defendant's calculation is flawed.  Instead, pursuant to
Justice Billings' decision in Dugan 10, they claim that, using the
rents that should have been charged, the proper combined rents for
apartments 16AB and 16EF should be $5,738.70.  Using the amount
that they claim they owe under Owens 10, they state that they owe
London Terrace $188,040.51. Deducting this from the purported
amount due to them, they state they are owed $2,772,932.88.

Finally, the Court notes that there is conflicting case law in this
Department concerning the proper method to determine the legal base
rent.  More recently, in a 3-2 decision, the First Department
rejected its own precedent and found that absent evidence of fraud,
it is improper to consider rents charged prior to the four-year
limitations period to determine the base rent.  It also notes that,
as Justice Billings indicated in her rulings, Blech and Chassman
cannot seek treble damages in the context of the class action
litigation.

For all these reasons, and after consideration of all papers
submitted in connection with the motion, Judge St. George
determines that it is premature to make a final determination about
the rent, back rent, and overcharge issues at this time.  Any
determination would be inappropriate in light of the fact that
appeals are pending in two critical issues in the motion.  She does
note that the Defendant's proposed method of computation conflicts
with Justice Billings' conclusion that defendant has yet to
establish that combining the two apartments created a "new"
apartment and that the base rent should be that in the last
stabilized lease.  In addition, Blech and Chassman's proposed
judgment includes treble damages -- which, as the Dfendant notes,
are not available in the class action -- and also conflicts with
the First Department's ruling in Regina (which, in turn, is
inconsistent with the First Department's prior precedent).

Despite this, and consistent with Justice Billings' orders in Dugan
10 and Dugan 13, the latter of which determined the proper back
rent and monthly rent due to London Terrace for other apartments in
the class action, Blech and Chassman.  The Judge notes that, by
stipulation, the parties previously agreed that for four months
Blech and Chassman would pay a monthly use and occupancy of $12,000
from April 2018 through July 2018.  When the Court attempted to
mediate the issue of use and occupancy, Blech and Chassman did not
agree to extend the stipulation.  She determines that this is a
reasonable rent -- subject, of course, to its return if the
Defendant ultimately owes Blech and Chassman back rent and damages.


Accordingly, Judge St. George granted the motion is to the limited
extent that Blech and Chassman will pay London Terrace $12,000,
retroactive to Sept. 1, 2018; and denied the remainder of the
motion, and the cross-motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/KtSqh6 from Leagle.com.

Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Nahins & Goidel, P.C. --
dvernon@vgllp.com -- 377 Broadway, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10013,
for London Terrace Gardens, L.P., defendant.

Vernon & Ginsburg, LLP -- RGoldstein@borahgoldstein.com -- 261
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, for plaintiffs Blech and
Chassman.


MARYSVILLE, CA: Faces Class Action Over Property Destruction
------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Rosenbaum, writing for Appeal-Democrat, reports that a
Berkeley-based attorney stood on the steps of Marysville City Hall
on Oct. 15, reading aloud the story of Rhonda Thomson and how she
became homeless after her husband lost his job and couldn't find
work.

"We're telling stories in this complaint -- true stories," said
Anthony Prince, who filed a federal class-action lawsuit against
Marysville, Yuba County and others in connection with the
destruction of property when homeless encampments were cleared out
in 2016. It was filed in the U.S. District Court in Sacramento on
Oct. 14 and seeks monetary damages as well as an injunction against
the city and county from enforcing a no-camping ordinance. It also
seeks an injunction commanding both entities to declare a shelter
crisis and immediately make available city and county-owned
buildings to the homeless.

The 40-page complaint outlines the backgrounds of the 13 plaintiffs
and how they came to be homeless, ranging from loss of work, injury
and family circumstances. Those plaintiffs are Raelynn Butcher
(known as the "mayor" of the former Hollywood homeless encampment);
Billy Reid; Jolene Reid; Susan Extein; Stanley Extein; Michael
Elliott; Crystal Motley; Dennis Owens; Dereck Dempsey; Carrie
Antrapp; Wilbur Bartholomew; Dick Veit; and Annette Skeen. They
were listed as plaintiffs individually and as representatives of
all Yuba County homeless whose structures and personal belongings
have been or will be seized and destroyed by employees of the
defendants with little or no effective notice.

Defendants named in the suit include the city of Marysville; Yuba
County; Yuba County Water Agency; Marysville Mayor Ricky Samayoa;
City Council members Dale Whitmore and Chris Pedigo (who was listed
on the complaint as Don Pettigo); City Attorney Brant Bordsen
(listed in the complaint as Brent); Marysville Police Chief Chris
Sachs; H&H Trenching Company; Yuba County Code Enforcement Director
Jeremy Strang; and Yuba County Code Enforcement officers Chris
Monaco and Tracey Clark.

In 2016, it was alleged, hundreds of homeless people were "forcibly
removed" from a number of homeless encampments and their property
seized or destroyed when the city and county cleared out and
cleaned up the areas with bulldozers and dump trucks. The suit
called it "state-created danger" of exiling the homeless further
into the backroads and wilds of Yuba County, risking cold, hunger
and physical injury.

The suit also alleges that it was common practice for Marysville
police to "either suggest, order, and/or physically transport
people . . . to Hollywood Trailer Park and other encampments" and
in doing so, defendants acted like owners or de facto custodians
over the camps.

In April 2016, city officials posted 35-day eviction notices in the
former Hollywood Trailer Park and Horseshoe area, and cleaned out
the encampments that fall. Most people who left Hollywood simply
moved across town to the "Jungle" or "Thorntree" encampments,
according to Appeal-Democrat archives.

In 2017, work focused on Thorntree, southeast of Jack Slough, along
the Feather River near 14th Street and Ellis Lake Drive. The city
designated two respite sites -- one behind Juvenile Hall on the
other side of the levee, and the other on the south end of town
west of the railroad crossing -- where people must alternate
locations each day. The cleanups of the encampments stemmed from
health, safety and environmental concerns, officials had said. They
said the homeless were informed of the approaching cleanup, as well
as available services, according to archives.

The suit demands a jury trial and seeks a temporary restraining
order and injunction against the city and county, damages, attorney
fees and other relief. Though a specific monetary amount is not
listed, Prince said in an email it is seeking "millions of
dollars."

Yuba County spokesman Russ Brown, and Marysville Police Chief Chris
Sachs said they do not comment on pending litigation. Marysville
City Manager Marti Brown said the city does not have a comment at
this time. Yuba County Water Agency Communications Manager DeDe
Cordell said the agency hasn't had the chance to review the suit,
and can't address it at this time.

A group of around 30 people marched from Washington Square Park to
Marysville City Hall then the Yuba County Government Center on Oct.
15 wearing yellow California Homeless Union T-shirts. Butcher
addressed the group, saying the city and county have "got to stop
hurting my people."

Her partner, Bryan Brown, said this case would set a precedent.
Earlier this year, he filed a federal lawsuit against Marysville
also in connection with the 2016 clearing out of encampments. In
2017, he sued Yuba County for property lost in fall 2016.

Mr. Prince has filed similar cases involving homeless in Salinas.
He told the group on Oct. 15 that the homeless aren't looking for
charity, but solidarity. He also referenced 14Forward, temporary
emergency housing on 14th Street.

"Tuff Sheds are for tools, not human beings," Mr. Prince said.
[GN]


MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE: Judge Certifies Class of Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge certified a class of employees who claim that the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology charged excessive fees and
made poor investments in their retirement plan.


MASSACHUSETTS: Gets Favorable Ruling in Homeless Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christian M. Wade, writing for The Salem News, reports that the
state's highest court has buoyed Gov. Charlie Baker's effort to
reduce the use of hotel rooms to shelter homeless families by
tossing out a class-action lawsuit by a group of individuals who
say the program is illegal.

In a decision, the Supreme Judicial Court overturned a Suffolk
Superior Court order that temporarily blocked efforts to move
homeless families out of hotels.

Attorney Ruth Bourquin, who represented several families on behalf
of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, argued that
the state violates the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and
its own right-to-shelter law by eliminating the placements.

Ms. Bourquin said the high court's ruling is a mixed bag because it
at least acknowledges that hotels and motels can provide reasonable
shelter for families with disabilities "in appropriate cases."

The Baker administration has expanded the number of shelters to
reduce the use of hotels and motels for the homeless, though it
says they're still needed as a "safety valve."

A statement released by the state Department of Housing and
Economic Development on Oct. 15 said the SJC's ruling "validates
the department's efforts to work closely with individual families
to best meet their needs."

"The administration believes homelessness is a human tragedy and
that sheltering homeless families in motel rooms is the most
disruptive and least effective way of meeting this tragedy," the
statement read.

Last year, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Douglas H. Wilkins ruled
that efforts to move hundreds of families from hotels and motels
into shelters and permanent housing was too disruptive, especially
for people with disabilities. He ordered the state to house
families with disabilities in a hotel if shelters couldn't
accommodate their needs.

Baker, a Swampscott Republican, had vowed to reduce the number of
homeless families staying in motels to zero by the end of his first
term in office.

To that aim, his administration has added nearly 1,700 family
housing units over the last five years as part of a broader effort
to reduce homelessness.

It has also funded programs that help families at risk of becoming
homeless get child care, transportation and job training.

When Baker took office in January 2015, about 1,500 families were
living in hotels, at a cost of about $50 million a year. As of Oct.
15, 38 families were staying in one Waltham hotel, according to the
Office of Housing and Community Development.

The practice of lodging families in hotels dates to the late 1990s
and was revived by former Gov. Deval Patrick in 2011 as a path out
of homelessness for families with school-age children. The program
was supposed to be temporary.

But the policy led to friction between the state and city and town
officials who complained about the burden on schools and local
services. At one point, three hotels in Danvers housed 8 percent of
the state's homeless population.

State officials point out that Massachusetts, as the only
"right-to-shelter" state, is required to provide temporary housing
for homeless families even when its nearly 2,000 beds at permanent
shelters are taken, as they are most days.

On any given day, the state shelters an average of 3,500 families,
costing about $180 million a year, according to budget figures.

To qualify for temporary housing, a family's income must be close
to or below the federal poverty level. Its homelessness must stem
from a natural disaster or illegal eviction; a family member must
be a victim of domestic violence; or its members must face health
and safety risks in shelters.

The law requires homeless families to be housed within 20 miles of
their last address, and the state must attempt to keep children in
housing close to the school district in which they were previously
enrolled. Family members with disabilities must have proper
accommodations, such as wheelchair accessibility.

"Just reducing hotel usage doesn't resolve the issue of
homelessness," said Kelly Turley, associate director of the
Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless. "Right now, the capacity
of shelters doesn't meet the demand for families that have
disabilities but also those that are being placed far from their
home communities, schools and support network." [GN]


MCKESSON CORP: Evanston Police Fund Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Evanston Police Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. McKesson Corporation, John H.
Hammergren, and James Beer, Case No. 3:18-cv-06525 (N.D. Calif.,
October 25, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or acquired McKesson common stock between October 24,
2013 and January 25, 2017, inclusive.

The Plaintiff alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
participated in a price-fixing and anticompetitive scheme in the
sale and distribution of generic pharmaceutical drugs with
manufacturers and other wholesalers.  Specifically, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) McKesson and several of its industry peers colluded to
fix the price of certain generic drugs; (ii) the collusive conduct
constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws; (iii)
consequently, McKesson’s revenues during the Class Period were,
in part, the result of illegal conduct and were therefore
unsustainable; (iv) McKesson lacked effective internal controls
over financial reporting; and (v) as a result, McKesson’s public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

The Plaintiff Evanston Police Pension Fund provides and distributes
pension funds for retired police officers of the city of Evanston,
Illinois as well as the families of deceased police officers.

The Defendant McKesson delivers pharmaceutical and medical products
and business services to retail pharmacies and institutional
healthcare providers such as hospitals and health systems
throughout North America and internationally. The Defendant
McKesson is incorporated in Delaware and its corporate headquarters
are in San Francisco, California. McKesson’s common stock trades
on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "MCK."

The Individual Defendants are officers of McKesson. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Esq.
      BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
      555 12th Street, Suite 1600
      Oakland, CA 94607
      Tel: (415) 445-4003
      Fax: (415) 445-4020
      E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Trichell Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff John Trichell filed an appeal from a court ruling in his
lawsuit styled John Trichell v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., et
al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00132-ACA, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 15, 2018, Judge
Annemarie Carney Axon granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
case.

Mr. Trichell filed the putative class action suit on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, naming as the Defendants two
debt collectors: Midland Credit Management, Inc. and its sister
company Midland Funding, LLC.  He alleges that the Defendants
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending
deceptive or misleading debt collection letters seeking repayment
of legally unenforceable debts.

The appellate case is captioned as John Trichell v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-14144, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before November 7, 2018;
      and

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
      the appellant's brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN TRICHELL, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S Roberts Rd., Suite 1
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com

Defendants-Appellees MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., A Kansas
Corporation, and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, A Delaware Limited Company,
are represented by:

          Chase T. Espy, Esq.
          Jason Brent Tompkins, Esq.
          BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP
          1901 6th Avenue N, Suite 1500
          PO Box 306
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 251-8100
          E-mail: cespy@balch.com
                  jtompkins@balch.com


MISSOURI: Ordered to Give Juvenile Lifers Parole Chance
-------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has ordered
Missouri to develop a plan to provide inmates who were sentenced to
life in prison without the possibility of parole for crimes
committed as minors with "a meaningful and realistic opportunity"
for release, finding the state's current system unfair.

U.S. District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey issued her order on Oct. 12
and gave state officials 60 days in which to submit their plan, the
St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported. The order came as part of a
class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of four inmates who received
such sentences and who were later denied the possibility of parole
during hearings.

Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center of St. Louis, which
represents the inmates, said in a news release that the ruling
could affect more than 90 Missouri inmates, and that other inmates
could join the suit.

In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life sentences
without the possibility of parole for crimes committed as juveniles
were unconstitutional. Four years later, Missouri enacted a law
allowing inmates who received such sentences as juveniles to have
parole hearings.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that individuals who commit
crimes as juveniles must be provided a realistic opportunity for
release from prison based on demonstrated rehabilitation," Amy
Breihan, the center's director, said in a news release.

The lawsuit contends that the parole hearings have been stacked
against the prisoners. The judge noted that state officials won't
let inmates view their parole files. The inmate can only have one
attorney or delegate, who can't take notes and can only discuss the
inmate's transition to the community.

Victims may be accompanied by multiple supporters and get to speak
first for as long as they want. Prosecutors, who also can speak for
as long as they wish, are free to present arguments and unproven
theories regarding the crimes, the judge wrote.

Judge Laughrey wrote that the state needs to come up with revised
policies, procedures and customs that will ensure that inmates who
committed crimes as juveniles have a meaningful and realistic
opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and
rehabilitation. The ruling applies to inmates who already had
unsuccessful parole hearings. [GN]


NAVIGATORS GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Disclosure Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vince Sullivan, writing for Law360, reports that a shareholder of
The Navigators Group Inc. alleges in a Delaware federal court suit
filed on Oct. 15 that the insurance company and its directors
omitted important information from a proxy statement.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Oct. 17 disclosed that it is
investigating potential legal claims against the board of directors
of The Navigators Group, Inc. ("Navigators" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ GS: NAVG) regarding possible breaches of fiduciary duties
and other violations of law related to the Company's entry into an
agreement to be acquired by The Hartford Financial Services Group,
Inc. ("Hartford") (NYSE: HIG) in a transaction valued at
approximately $2.1 billion.  Under the terms of the agreement,
shareholders of Navigators will receive $70.00 in cash for each
share of Navigators common stock.

If you own common stock of Navigators and purchased any shares
before August 22, 2018, if you would like to learn more about this
investigation, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests, please contact Seth D.
Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300 Delaware
Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, by telephone at
(888) 969-4242, or by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware,
Garden City, New York, and San Francisco, California, has recovered
hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved
substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases
nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions, shareholder
class actions, and shareholder derivative actions. [GN]


NESTLE USA: Must Face Child Slave Labor Class Action, Court Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Nestle and Cargill must face claims they approved the use of
child slaves on Ivory Coast plantations and bribed slave masters to
get cheap cocoa, a panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled on Oct. 23.

Reversing a Los Angeles federal judge's dismissal of a proposed
class action brought by six anonymous plaintiffs who were forced to
work as slaves on Ivory Coast cocoa plantations, the unanimous
three-judge panel ruled the plaintiffs' claims for aiding and
abetting slavery abroad may be adjudicated in the United States
under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) if the challenged conduct
occurred in the United States.

"[T]he allegations paint a picture of overseas slave labor that
defendants perpetuated from headquarters in the United States,"
Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Dorothy Nelson wrote for the panel,
referring to allegations the defendants gave slave masters personal
spending money despite their use of child slaves. "We thus hold
that [the] foregoing narrow set of domestic conduct is relevant to
the ATS's focus."

The plaintiffs, identified in the lawsuit only as John Doe, were
kidnapped from Mali as children in the 1990s and forced to work on
Ivory Coast cocoa plantations for up to 14 hours per day, six days
per week. They say they were given only scraps of food to eat and
beaten and whipped with tree branches.

Children who tried to escape were forced to drink urine or had
their feet cut open and pepper rubbed into the wounds, they say.
They also claim representatives from Nestle and Cargill visited the
farms several times each year and knew farmers used child slave
labor.

U.S. District Judge Steven Wilson dismissed the case in March 2017,
finding the plaintiffs hadn't shown sufficient domestic conduct to
sue under the Alien Tort Statute.

He found the provision of spending money, along with advance
payments, equipment and training, and exclusive purchasing deals
were "activities that ordinary international businesses engage
in."

But Judge Nelson called the money "akin to ‘kickbacks'" under
Mastafa v. Chevron Corp., a 2014 decision by the Second Circuit,
and "outside the ordinary business contract and given with the
purpose to maintain ongoing relations with the farms so that
defendants could continue receiving cocoa at a price that would not
be obtainable without employing child slave labor."

Judge Nelson also noted the companies' employees routinely
inspected the plantations and reported back to headquarters in the
United States, where financing decisions originated.

The panel ordered the plaintiffs to drop the defendants' foreign
parent companies from the suit because they can't be sued under the
Alien Tort Statute in light of the Supreme Court's decision earlier
this year in Jesner v. Arab Bank, and to specify which domestic
company is potentially liable for what culpable conduct.

"We are mindful that this case has lingered for over a decade, and
that delay does not serve the interests of any party," Nelson wrote
of the remand. "But we cannot conclude that amendment would be
futile."

Plaintiffs' attorney Paul Hoffman, of Schonbrun Seplow Harris &
Hoffman in Los Angeles, agreed with Nelson about the delay.

"The former child slaves have waited too long for justice in this
case," Mr. Hoffman said by email, but added his clients were
pleased with the panel's decision.

Wilson first dismissed the case in 2010, reasoning a corporation
couldn't be sued under the Alien Tort Statute.

In 2014, a divided Ninth Circuit reversed in part and held the
violation of universal norms may be a basis for an Alien Tort
Statute claim against a corporation.

The ruling created a circuit split between the Fourth and Ninth
Circuits and the Second and Fifth Circuits.

A year later, the Ninth Circuit denied en banc review over the
dissent of U.S. Circuit Judge Carlos Bea and seven other judges,
who accused their colleagues of "substitut[ing] sympathy for legal
analysis."

The Supreme Court also denied review.

U.S. Circuit Judge Morgan Christen and U.S. District Judge Edward
Shea, sitting by designation from the Eastern District of
Washington, joined Nelson on the panel.

Nestle USA, represented by Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher in Los Angeles, says it may appeal yet again to the
Supreme Court.

"Plaintiffs' counsel should not be given a fourth opportunity to
try to manufacture a case against Nestle USA after having failed to
do so for more than a decade," the company said in an emailed
statement.

"Regrettably, in bringing such lawsuits, the plaintiffs' class
action lawyers are targeting the very organizations trying to fight
forced labor," the company said, adding, "Forced child labor is
unacceptable and has no place in our supply chain. We have explicit
policies against it and are working with other stakeholders to
combat this global social problem."

Cargill also says it may fight the decision.

"We are disappointed the Ninth Circuit rejected the district
court's well-reasoned dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims, and
intend to consider all legal options, including appeal, to continue
to defend against these unproven allegations," the company said in
an emailed statement. "We continue to strongly refute the
unsubstantiated claims, as we do not tolerate the use of human
trafficking, forced labor or child labor in our operations or
supply chains."

Andrew Pincus of Mayer Brown in Washington represents Cargill. He
had no immediate comment on Oct. 23.


NORTHLAND GROUP: Fleming Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Thomas Fleming, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Northland Group, LLC, now known as Radius Global
Solutions, LLC and John Does, Case No. 1:18-cv-01700 (E.D. Wis.,
October 25, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action for the illegal practices of the
Defendants when attempting to collect an alleged debt from them.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the City of Appleton, Outagamie
County, Wisconsin.

The Defendant maintains its principal place of business at 7831
Glenroy Road, Suite 250, Edina, Minnesota. The Defendant regularly
engages in the collection of defaulted consumer debts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis R. Greene, Esq.
      Philip D. Stern, Esq.
      Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
      STERN THOMASSON LLP
      150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Springfield, NJ 07081
      Tel: (973) 379-7500
      E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com
              Andrew@SternThomasson.com
              Francis@SternThomasson.com


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court to Rule on Carlson's Bid to Certify Soon
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Andrea R. Wood ruled that the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify class will be issued in short order in the lawsuit entitled
Alan K. Carlson, et al. v. Northrop Grumman Severance Plan, et al.,
Case No. 1:13-cv-02635 (N.D. Ill.).

Status hearing is set for November 6, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.[CC]


NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Fights Antitrust Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
NorthShore University Health System wants a judge to strip the
class-action status from an antitrust lawsuit against the hospital
chain, which alleges NorthShore's acquisition of a suburban
hospital rubbed out competition and jacked up prices for patients,
saying the sole remaining class representative has no standing to
push the suit, because he suffered no injury.

On Oct. 10 in Chicago federal court, Evanston-based NorthShore
filed a motion that asked Judge Edmond Chang to decertify the
suit's class action status, which had been granted in December
2013.

NorthShore, which already had hospitals in Evanston and Glenbrook,
merged in 2000 with Highland Park Hospital. In 2007, the Federal
Trade Commission ruled the addition of Highland Park breached
antitrust law by eliminating competition in that region, allowing
NorthShore to sharply raise prices.

NorthShore has since also acquired Skokie Hospital.

Soon after the FTC ruling in 2007, the suit was lodged against
NorthShore, with plaintiffs alleging patients and insurers were
forced to pay more than they would have if market competition had
been maintained. This alleged price increase came despite
NorthShore's promise the merger would benefit consumers, managed
care organizations and communities served by the hospitals, the
suit said.

NorthShore has unsuccessfully tried several times to have the case
thrown out, but has succeeded in having several class
representative eliminated, because they were not directly affected
by NorthShore's alleged wrongdoing.

NorthShore is now aiming at the last remaining class
representative, David Freedman, alleging he is "fatally flawed"
like the others.

Mr. Freedman was hit by a car in April 2013 and treated at
NorthShore's hospitals in Highland Park and Evanston, but said the
charges were too high, according to court papers. However, Mr.
Freedman negotiated a discount for part of the bill that "more than
wiped out any alleged overcharge," according to NorthShore.

As a consequence, Freedman suffered no alleged injury to serve as a
representative of the class or to even have a claim, in
NorthShore's view. Without Freedman having a claim, the class has
no claim, NorthShore asserted.

NorthShore presented other arguments why Freedman is not a
qualified representative.

Mr. Freedman sued the party he alleged hit him with the car, which
ended in settlement. Mr. Freedman's attorneys in that suit, Kupets
& DeCaro, of Chicago, negotiated another discount with NorthShore
and themselves paid the remainder of Mr. Freedman's bill, according
to court papers. Kupets & DeCaro recouped the payment through its
cut of Freedman's settlement. As a result, part of Freedman's bill
was covered by another party, further undercutting any alleged
injury Freedman suffered.

In addition, Mr. Freedman's insurer failed to renegotiate with
NorthShore pursuant to the FTC's 2008 order that entitled insurers
to such renegotiation of bills, NorthShore claimed.

The second discount arranged through and paid by Kupets & DeCaro
also disqualifies Freedman on grounds he is not typical of most
class members, who only experienced one discount and directly paid
NorthShore, NorthShore argued.  

Plaintiffs included Amit Berkowitz, Steven J. Messner, Henry W.
Lahmeyer and Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare
Fund.

Plaintiffs are represented by the Chicago firms of Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz, Miller Law and Grant Eisenhofer, as well as
by lawyers David Balto, of Washington, D.C., and Mary Jane Fait, of
Chicago.

Mr. Freedman is representing himself.

NorthShore is defended by Winston & Strawn, of Chicago. [GN]


PAULS VALLEY: Employees Mull Class Action Over Job Loss
-------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Stewart, writing for Kfor.com, reports that Pauls Valley City
Manager James Frizell went to Pauls Valley General Hospital on Oct.
15 to try and answer angry questions from employees who found out
on Oct. 12 they no longer had jobs.

The hospital authority, which is made up of the city council
members, voted late on Oct. 12 to close the hospital's doors,
saying there is no money left to keep it open.

"We couldn't pay bills. We couldn't meet the demands any more.
That's where we're at," Mr. Frizell told the employees gathered in
a conference room. "There's no money to pay. I mean there is no
money."

"Did you get a paycheck?" shouted someone in the crowd. "Because,
if you got a paycheck, we should all get a paycheck, also."

Employees taxes have not paid, and their insurance premiums have
not been paid for months either, even though the money has been
deducted from recent paychecks.

"I don't have PTOs. I don't have freaking insurance that I paid
for, and I don't have my short-term disability. You gonna tell me
what I'm supposed to do?" asked another employee.

"Ma'am, I don't have an answer for that," Mr. Frizell responded.

In July, Alliance Health stepped in to try and save the hospital
but they said part of the problem is the hospital's accounts
receivable money can't be touched. It's tied up in litigation with
the previous management company.

The CEO is calling on the attorney general to investigate.

"Until the state of Oklahoma steps up and starts licensing
management companies like mine, it's going to continue," said CEO
of Alliance Health Frank Avignone.

Mr. Avignone also said he's hearing reports of a death that could
be partially attributed to the abrupt closure of the hospital.

"My understanding was there was an elderly person here in town that
may have suffered some sort of cardiac event, be it a heart attack,
what have you. They were not able to raze EMS, and they had to go
to Purcell and, by the time they did get to Purcell hospital, the
patient had unfortunately expired," he said.

And, Mr. Avignone said that trend will likely continue. But, for
now, he's also worried about his former employees.

"We have employees who can't pay their electric bill, can't pay
their car payment, can't feed their children," he said.

"It's been very, very stressful for me and my family," said Melody
Williams, who was employed as a nurse at Pauls Valley General
Hospital.

Ms. Williams was recently diagnosed with an aggressive form of
breast cancer. Ten days before her double mastectomy a couple weeks
ago, she discovered she had no insurance because the premiums had
not been paid.

"I'm not in any physical shape to go to work. So, I don't know what
I'm supposed to do," she said.

Several employees talked about filing a class action lawsuit. They
plan to show up at the hospital authority's meeting. [GN]


PFIZER INC: Settles Deceptive Co-Pay Coupon Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Shannon M. McNulty, Esq., of Clifford Law Offices, in an article
for The National Law Review, reports that Pfizer Inc. settled a
case brought by New York's attorney general based on the world's
largest pharmaceutical company misleading consumers with its drug
co-payment coupon program. The global giant initiated a coupon
program that led consumers into thinking they would be paying far
less to fill prescriptions but then they ended up having to pay
more from 2015-18.

Pfizer agreed to pay $500,000 in fines and costs and to issue more
than $200,000 in new restitution coupons to help consumers
struggling with health insurance plans that carry high
co-payments and deductibles for prescriptions. Pfizer's coupons
would say in large print that consumers would "PAY NO MORE THAN"
$15, $20 or $25 for certain drugs like Estring for vaginal atrophy
and Flector patches for acute pain. New York's Attorney General
Barbara Underwood said the practice was deceptive because the true
price of the drugs was buried in fine print.

Pfizer now changed its text to read that consumers could "pay as
little as" certain specified amounts. Reimbursements would go to
New York consumers who used the coupons within three years of Sept.
21, 2018, and paid more than $15 to $25 out of pocket, but the New
York-based company did not admit or deny liability. [GN]


POLARITYTE INC: Shareholders File Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Oct. 15 disclosed
that purchasers of PolarityTE, Inc. (NasdaqCM: PTE) 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 31, 2017 and June 22, 2018. PolarityTE operates as a
commercial-stage biotechnology and regenerative biomaterials
company in the United States.

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

PolarityTE Accused of Lying About the Status of Its Patent

According to the complaint, on April 7, 2017, PolarityTE announced
that the company bought Dr. Denver Lough's pending Patent
#14/954,335 (the "Patent") in exchange for over $104 million of
PolarityTE stock. Although Dr. Lough received a notice of non-final
rejection of the Patent on March 31, 2017, PolarityTE never
disclosed this fact to investors, and even represented the Patent
was already patented. It therefore came as a surprise to investors
when Citron Research published a report on June 25, 2018, revealing
that PolarityTE failed to disclose that the U.S. Patent Trademark
Office had issued a final rejection of the Patent on June 4, 2018.
On this news, PolarityTE's stock plunged more than 27% to close at
$28.14 per share on June 25, 2018, and currently trades at just
about half that price.

PolarityTE Shareholders Have Legal Options

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

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


POWERCOR: Seeks Dismissal of St. Patrick's Day Fire Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Thomson, writing for The Standard, reports that Powercor has
filed an application to dismiss the Supreme Court class action
relating to the Gazette bushfire on St Patrick's Day this year.
[GN]


PREMIER MORTGAGE: Fabricant Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Premier Mortgage Resources, LLC and Does 1 through 10
inclusive, Case No. 2:18-cv-09165 (C.D. Calif., October 25, 2018),
seeks damages against the Defendants for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action over the illegal actions of the
Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the
TCPA, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby
invading the Plaintiff's privacy and causing him to incur
unnecessary and unwanted expenses.

The Plaintiff Terry Fabricant is a resident Winnetka, California.

The Defendant Premier Mortgage Resources, LLC is a housing mortgage
lending company. [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
      Tel: (323) 306-4234
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
              abacon@toddflaw.com
              mgeorge@toddflaw.com
              twheeler@toddflaw.com


PUFFY LLC: Diamond Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------
Greg Diamond, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Puffy, LLC, Case No. 9:18-cv-81457 (S.D. Fla., October
26, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that to promote its services, the Defendant
engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in
the process.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida.

The Defendant is an online vendor of luxury mattresses, pillows,
and bedframes. The Defendant is a California Limited Liability
Company whose principal office is located in Los Angeles,
California. Defendant directs, markets, and provides its business
activities throughout the State of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
      Miami, FL 33132
      Tel: (305) 479-2299
      E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

          - and -

      Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
      EDELSBERG LAW, PA
      19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Tel: (305) 975-3320
      E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


QED INTERNATIONAL: Felder Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Larry Felder, individually and for others similarly situated v. QED
International, LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-04081 (S.D. Tex., October 26,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff and other
workers overtime pay as required by the FLSA.

The Plaintiff worked as a commissioning manager for the Defendant.

The Defendant is an engineering firm providing design, consulting,
construction, and management services throughout the country. It is
headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
              adunlap@mybackwages.com

          - and -

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


QUALCOMM: Challenges Cellphone Buyers' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Matthew Perlman, writing for Law360, report that Qualcomm has asked
the Ninth Circuit to review the certification of a class estimated
to cover 250 million cellphone buyers who allegedly paid overages
stemming from the chipmaker's anti-competitive licensing practices.
[GN]


SA GEAR: Voluntary Dismissal of Williamson Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois denied the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) the case, TEVE WILLIAMSON and RHONDA
CHRISTINE LEMASTER, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. S.A. GEAR COMPANY, INC.,
AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE PARTS, INC., and AUTOZONE STORES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-365-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs Williamson and LeMaster, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons, filed a 15-Count Amended Class
Action Complaint against the Defendants, alleging that the
Defendants manufactured, distributed, advertised, and/or sold
defective timing chain tensioners.  After three years of
litigation, the Plaintiffs now move to voluntarily dismiss the
action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Defendants filed responses in
opposition.

Judge Yandle finds that the Defendants' efforts and expenses to
date militate against dismissal without prejudice when discovery
has already been well underway.  The case is over three years old,
and the Defendants have expended an enormous amount of time and
resources defending against the Plaintiff's claims and request for
class certification.  The parties have engaged in extensive
discovery, including voluminous written discovery, expert witness
disclosures and depositions, depositions of the Defendants'
corporate representative, and depositions of both the Plaintiffs.
The parties also submitted extensive briefing regarding class
certification and Daubert motions.

Significantly, only after the denial of the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and the Plaintiffs' unsuccessful interlocutory
appeal to the Seventh Circuit have the Plaintiffs moved to dismiss
their case without prejudice.  But, unfavorable rulings are not an
acceptable basis to grant a voluntary dismissal or to facilitate
the search for a perceivably more favorable state judicial
climate.

Finally, the Plaintiffs' primary argument for dismissal without
prejudice does not ring true, and the Judge suspects that their
true motive is to avoid the impending motions for summary judgment.
While the Plaintiffs assert that they should be permitted to
dismiss the action without prejudice because merit discovery is
still necessary, there is significant overlap between class
certification and merit discovery in the case.  To the extent that
the Plaintiffs actually require additional discovery to respond to
the Defendants' summary judgment motions, the Judge will refer the
matter to Magistrate Judge Wilkerson for entry of a revised
Scheduling Order.

For the foregoing reasons, the Judge holds that the voluntary
dismissal without prejudice is unwarranted.  Accordingly, she
denied the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
41(a)(2).

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/Qouikm from Leagle.com.

Steve Williamson, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated & Rhonda Christine LeMaster, Plaintiffs, represented by
Gregory J. Pals -- greg@thedriscollfirm.com -- Driscoll Firm, P.C.
& John J. Driscoll -- john@thedriscollfirm.com -- Driscoll Firm,
P.C.

S.A. Gear Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan H.
Garside -- jgarside@greensfelder.com -- Greensfelder, Hemker &
Gale, P.C.

AutoZone, Inc., AutoZone Stores, Inc. & AutoZone Parts, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Jonathan D. Jay -- jjay@hjlawfirm.com
--
Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC, Anne T. Regan -- aregan@hjlawfirm.com --
Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC &Michael R. Cashman --
mcashman@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Schilling Sues Over Defective Phone
--------------------------------------------------------
Anna Schilling, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. and Does 1-100, Case No. 3:18-cv-02297 (N.D.
Tex., August 29, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
strict product liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty,
negligent product liability, failure to warn and negligent
misrepresentation for the defective Samsung Galaxy Note 7 cell
phone she purchased.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Rockwall, Texas. On August 24, 2016
the Plaintiff purchased a Samsung Galaxy Note 7 cell phone from
Best Buy in Texas.

The Defendants are in the business of manufacturing, designing,
testing, assembling, supplying, selling, importing, and
distributing electronics, including the "Samsung Galaxy Note 7"
cell phone and its component parts that are the subject of this
lawsuit. The Defendants are registered to do business in Texas, and
transacted a substantial amount of business throughout the United
States, including Rockwall, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank L. Branson, Esq.
      Eugene A. "Chip" Broker, Jr., Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF FRANK L. BRANSON
      4514 Cole Avenue, Suite 1800
      Dallas, TX 75205
      Tel: (214) 522-0200
      Fax: (214) 521-5485


SENSA PRODUCTS: Judge Denies Certification Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm Spicer, writing for Rose Sheet, reports that a federal
judge denied certification without prejudice, allowing plaintiff's
attorneys to file an amended complaint with arguments and evidence
countering reasons for denying certification as a class. Two other
complaints were resolved in settlements following FTC's settlement
with Sensa Products and its parent firm in 2014 for $26.5m. [GN]


SERVICOM LLC: Did Not Provide Proper Termination Notice, Says Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Brown and Michelle Curtis, for themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Servicom, LLC and JNET
Communications, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-50323, (N.D. Ill.,
October 2, 2018), seeks to collect unpaid wages and benefits for
sixty calendar days pursuant to the Workers Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act of 1988.

Servicom provides next generation sales, customer care and billing
services. Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiffs at least 60
days' advance notice of their termination, says the complaint. On
or about September 29, 2018, the Defendants' Rockford Facility and
Machesney Park Facility was unexpectedly shut down. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary Martoccio, Esq.
      SPIELBERGER LAW GROUP
      202 S. Hoover Blvd.
      Tampa, FL 33609
      Tel: (800) 965-1570
      Fax: (866) 580-7499
      Email: gary.martoccio@spielbergerlawgroup.com


SHAW COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over "Unlawful Pricing Scheme"
--------------------------------------------------------
BIV reports that Shaw Communications Inc. and Shaw Cablesystems GP
face a class action over an alleged "unlawful pricing scheme" under
which the cable giant offered lower rates to Mandarin- and
Cantonese-speaking customers.

Martin Halliday filed a notice of civil claim under the Class
Proceedings Act in BC Supreme Court on October 1 on behalf of Shaw
customers "who were not the beneficiaries of the unlawful pricing
scheme."

Mr. Halliday claims Shaw operated the scheme through its
"Multicultural Customer Care team" in the two years leading up to
the lawsuit.

"The defendants routinely discriminates [sic] against existing and
potential customers by offering a discounted rate exclusively to
individuals who communicate with Shaw in either Mandarin and/or
Cantonese," the claim states. "Shaw has been providing its Chinese
Medium Customers with significantly lower prices for its internet
and/or cable services as compared to its customers who communicate
in languages other than Mandarin or Cantonese in order to negotiate
their prices."

Mr. Halliday claims he called Shaw customer service this summer and
a customer service employee allegedly described him the companies'
"best package," which was "demonstrably worse than the pricing
available to Chinese Medium Customers under the unlawful pricing
scheme."

"Shaw acquired additional monies from the class members as a result
of unfairly and inequitably charging higher prices for same, or
similar, services solely based on their choice not to speak
Mandarin or Cantonese in negotiating price for services," the claim
states.

The class action comes a month and a half after a former employee
sued Shaw for wrongful dismissal, detailing the alleged unlawful
pricing scheme in her claim. Kwok Bo Daisy Halliday's claim in BC
Supreme Court was filed on August 15, and both claimants are
represented by Martin Sheard with Tevlin Gleadle Curtis Employment
Law Strategies. (Sheard told Business in Vancouver on October 5
that he couldn't comment on either case absent instructions from
his clients.)

Mr. Halliday seeks class certification and damages for violations
of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

The allegations have not been tested or proven in court, and Shaw
had not filed a response to the claim by press time. [GN]


SIMM ASSOCIATES: Must Face Class Action Over Excessive Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida federal
judge on Oct. 15 denied Simm Associates' bid to dismiss a proposed
class action claiming Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations
for charging excessive fees. [GN]


SMALL PLANET: Evans Sues Over Deceptive Product Labels
------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Evans, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Small Planet Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-06009 (E.D.
N.Y., October 26, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
false, unfair, deceptive and misleading representations in
violation of the New York General Business Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's products falsely convey
they are made, from start to finish, from whole food ingredients --
"Food Made From Food".

The Plaintiff is a citizen of Kings County, New York.

The Defendant Small Planet Foods, Inc. manufactures, distributes,
markets, labels and sells food bars under the LARABAR brand. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
       SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
       891 Northern Blvd., Suite 201
       Great Neck, NY 11021
       Tel: (516) 303-0552
       E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: 9th Cir. Hears Argument in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetNews reports that Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges A.
Wallace Tashima and Mary H. Murguia are joined by Senior District
Court Judge Robert Neil Chatigny of the District of Connecticut,
sitting by designation, in hearing argument I a case in which the
appellants seek reinstatement of their dismissed action over
Southwest Airlines's policy with respect to future use of funds in
payment for unused non-refundable tickets

Judges of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have signaled at
oral argument that they have no intention of resuscitating a
lawsuit against Southwest Airlines alleging that it rooks
ticket-purchasers by proclaiming that if non-refundable tickets
aren't used, a credit toward future bookings will be applied for up
to one year, without advising, through conspicuous notice, of
exceptions.

The plaintiffs, attorney Jean Shrem and real estate agent Marni
Fischer, both of Contra Costa County, on Oct. 2, 2015, brought a
putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the airline on various theories.
District Court Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. whittled the case down
to an action for breach of contract, then, after the plaintiffs
replied, dismissed the action with prejudice.

Ms. Shrem and Ms. Fischer had purchased Southwest tickets on Aug.
24, 2014, but cancelled their plans and accepted credit for future
travel, with the credit expiring Aug. 23, 2015. On Feb. 21, 2015,
they bought two roundtrip tickets, paying $784 and using their $16
in credit.

Forfeit Declared

They then cancelled the new tickets. On Sept. 15, 2015, they
planned yet another trip and sought application of the credits from
the cancelled tickets—$16 and $784—but were told that they had
forfeited, entirely, the $800 in credits because the $16 credit had
expired 23 days earlier.

After suit was brought, Southwest agreed to honor the $800 credit
the plaintiffs claimed; they declined the offer; Gilliam held that
the matter was not moot.

Southwest relied on a provision in the contract of carriage
(available online) which says:

"If a Ticket is purchased with multiple travel credits, the
earliest expiration date will apply to the entire Ticket."

Skepticism Expressed

Attorney Peter Fredman presents argument to Ninth U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals.

At oral argument on Oct. 11 in San Francisco, Circuit Judges A.
Wallace Tashima and Mary H. Murguia provided clear signs of their
rejection of contentions by the plaintiffs' attorney, Peter B.
Fredman of Berkeley; Senior District Court Judge Robert Neil
Chatigny of the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation,
appeared to be in agreement with the regular members of the panel.

"What are you saying, now?" Judge Tashima asked Mr. Fredman after
he asserted that the 41-page contract would be difficult for the
average traveler to comprehend, if it were even read.

Was he contending, Judge Tashima asked, "[t]hat the contract
shouldn't be construed to mean what it says?"

Regulation Cited

Mr. Fredman's position was that what mattered was the wording on
the ticket. He pointed to a federal regulation (which Gilliam held
was not incorporated into the contract of carriage) providing:

"A carrier may not impose any terms restricting refunds of the
ticket price, imposing monetary penalties on passengers, or raising
the ticket price...unless the passenger receives conspicuous
written notice of the salient features of those terms on or with
the ticket."

The lawyer maintained that language in small print on the ticket
indicating that there were exceptions to the one-year availability
of credits constituted "the opposite of conspicuous written notice"
asserting:

"It's a hidden limitation on the right to use the reusable fund."

Murguia's Questioning

Judge Murguia declared:

"It's clear on the face of the ticket what the contract is."

With apparent reference to the ticket purchased on Sept. 15, 2015,
she asked:

"Isn't that expiration date clearly noted on the face of the
ticket, right next to the confirmation number?"

Mr. Fredman agreed that it was, but insisted the customer would not
understand the significance of the notation.

"Why wouldn't it mean the date the ticket expires?" she asked.

She went on to inquire:

"What should the more conspicuous notice look like?"

The lawyer replied:

"It should say something like Southwest says now, which is:

"'New reservations inherit the earliest expiration date from any
funds applied from the old ticket. Therefore, the expiration date
of your new reservation and all associated funds may be less than
12 months'—or something like that."

Southwest's Attorney

Dallas attorney Richard Barrett Phillips Jr., representing the
Texas-based Southwest Airlines, told the judges:

"It's clear on the face of the ticket what the contract is."

He said the plaintiffs cited as an example of a conspicuous warning
the statement in the ticket that reservations are forfeited if the
passenger does not check in at least 10 minutes before boarding.
That statement Mr. Phillips pointed out, is slightly above the
warning on forfeiture of unused ticket funds, in the same typeface
and same sized type. [GN]


STATE STREET: Labaton Chastised Over $75MM Fee Request
------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that the federal judge who unleashed a
wide-ranging investigation into the fee practices of Labaton
Sucharow was unimpressed by the class action firm's agreement to
install an ethics monitor and revamp its rules, saying he was more
concerned about getting to the bottom of misstatements Labaton and
some of its co-counsel made when applying for a $75 million fee.

In a lengthy and sometimes contentious hearing on Oct. 15 in
Boston, U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf expressed lingering anger
over inaccuracies in the documents and statements Labaton made to
support its fee application in the $300 million settlement of
foreign exchange claims against State Street Bank and Trust. He
also repeatedly brought up the firm's failure to disclose a $4.1
million finder's fee it agreed to pay a lawyer who did no work in
the case.

The judge reminded the plaintiff lawyers in the room that he had
the power to revisit the $75 million fee as well as decide how it
should be divided among them. He dismissed as "enlightened
self-interest" the measures Labaton agreed to in a tentative
settlement with retired federal judge Gerald Rosen, the special
master in charge of the investigation.

"Perhaps (Labaton) can make itself a model for the profession --
that would be fine," Judge Wolf said. "I'm concerned about what was
said to me and why."

Judge Wolf also repeated his concern about Labaton and the Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System's involvement in the State Street case,
saying "in my mind Labaton is only class counsel for the purposes
of administering the settlement."

"The way things have evolved, I would not appoint Arkansas Teacher
lead plaintiff, because of its relationship with Labaton, and I
wouldn't appoint Labaton" to represent the class, he said. In a
sign he is concerned about continuing improprieties with finder's
fees, he ordered the firm to supply a list of contracts involving
referral fees by Oct. 18, as well as any changes the firm has made
to those contracts in the wake of the State Street scandal.

Ted Frank, a lawyer with the Competitive Enterprise Institute who
was invited to file friend-of-the-court briefs in the case, said he
was worried no one is representing class members as the lawyers
fight with Rosen and the court over the $75 million fee. The money
legally belongs to class members until the judge makes a final
decision on what the lawyers should have been paid.

"There is nobody at the table in these negotiations representing
the class," Mr. Frank said. "All the pushing is in one direction."

Judge Wolf appointed Rosen to investigate Labaton and its
co-counsel, The Thornton Law Firm and Lieff Cabraser, after the
Boston Globe ran a series of stories detailing questionable
practices including more than $4 million in double-billing and
$400,000 in fees paid to a brother of a lead lawyer at Thornton who
normally works as a public defender.

Rosen began his probe by looking into the practices described in
the Boston Globe articles. Only later did he learn about the
finder's fee to Houston lawyer Damon Chargois, who arranged
meetings between the New York law firm and politicians with
influence over the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, which served
as lead plaintiff in the State Street case.

Class action firms compete aggressively to sign up institutional
investors as lead plaintiffs in financial lawsuits, mainly because
Congress reformed securities class action laws to require judges to
award control of such litigation to parties with the biggest stake
in the case. Judge Wolf has raised pointed questions about how
Labaton came to represent Arkansas Teachers, however.

In a heated sidebar conference in May, he asked whether "all those
millions of dollars stayed with Mr. Chargois," making an inference
of corruption that offended Joan Lukey, a lawyer representing
Labaton.

The suggestion Chargois steered money to Arkansas politicians
"shocks me," Ms. Lukey said at that May hearing.

"If you're shocked because it occurred to me, then I've only
prepared you for the shock you're going to have" when Rosen's
report is made public, the judge responded.

He continued along those lines on Oct. 15, repeatedly asking about
emails between Labaton partner Eric Belfi and Chargois suggesting
Chargois had recruited other clients for the firm, and even at one
point asked whether Belfi was still employed by Labaton. (He is.)
The judge also questioned the arrangement under which Labaton and
Lieff Cabraser loaned staff attorneys to the Thornton firm to
increase the number of billable hours Thornton could submit in the
so-called lodestar report Labaton submitted to the court to justify
the fees in the case.

The three law firms don't have such a harmonious relationship now,
with Lieff Cabraser and Thornton both objecting to paying more for
the special master's investigation, which has cost $3.8 million so
far and is being billed to the plaintiff firms. The judge suggested
he won't rule on Labaton's tentative settlement until the other two
firms have discussed their concerns with Rosen. He also reminded
all the lawyers he might revisit the $75 million fee, both for the
overall amount and how it is divided.

"We appreciate the Court's goal of reaching a final resolution that
is in the best interests of the customer class," the Labaton firm
said. "We will work to address the outstanding issues raised by the
Court in hopes that a final agreement can be approved soon." [GN]


STITCH FIX: Dec. 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood on Oct. 15 disclosed that on October 11, 2018,
a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against Stitch Fix,
Inc. (NASDAQ: SFIX). The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is June 8, 2018 through
October 1, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Stitch Fix,
Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class
Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above.
You may move the Court no later than Monday, December 10, 2018 to
serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order
to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

         Robin Hester
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120

Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com Or, visit the firm's website at
www.federmanlaw.com [GN]


SUSHI 21: Bid to Preclude Witnesses at Trial in Chen Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUN CHEN, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. SUSHI 21 NY INC., doing business as Sushi
21, and SHAN CHEN, also known as Sam Chen, Defendants, Case No.
17-CV-6153 (JGK) (OTW) (S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied the Defendants' motion for preclusion of the witnesses at
trial.

The case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for general pretrial
management, including discovery motions, non-dispositive pretrial
motions, and settlement.  On May 18, 2018, the Defendants filed a
letter motion seeking discovery-related sanctions pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 37, and the Plaintiff filed his response on May 25,
2018.

The Plaintiff brings the action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law, for the Defendants' alleged
failure to pay the minimum wage, failure to pay the overtime
premium and spread of hours pay, and for the Defendants' alleged
failure to provide certain notices required by New York law.  The
Plaintiff claims that he was employed at Defendant Sushi 21 as a
delivery person from June 1, 2015 to Oct. 6, 2016.  The Defendants
have apparently challenged, among other things, the length of time
of the Plaintiff's employment.

The Plaintiff provided Initial Disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(a) to the Defendants on Dec. 15, 2017, in apparent compliance
with Judge Koeltl's Scheduling Order of Nov. 28, 2017.  The Court
held discovery conferences on April 10 and May 3, 2018.  On May 1,
2018, 13 days before the close of discovery, the Plaintiff provided
amended Initial Disclosures that listed four new witnesses, all of
whom were alleged to be witnesses to his work at Defendant Sushi
21, and none of whom had worked at Sushi 21 themselves.

As a sanction for the Plaintiff's delayed and allegedly unjustified
disclosure of these witnesses' identities, the Defendants seek
preclusion of these witnesses at trial.  They sought to depose all
of these witnesses before the end of discovery and were only able
to depose two out of four witnesses for a short time.  One
subpoenaed witness failed to appear.  Although they did not attach
the deposition transcript, the Defendants represent that one
witness (Mr. Zheng) testified that he had been contacted by the
Plaintiff's counsel as early as February or March concerning the
subject matter of his potential testimony.  In response, the
Plaintiff's counsel suggests that they did not begin their inquiry
into whether any of the Plaintiff's friends might be competent to
testify to the Plaintiff's term of employment until mid-April
2018.

As the Court indicated at the May 3, 2018 conference, the
Plaintiff's counsel's failure to fully or timely investigate how
they would prove the duration of the Plaintiff's alleged employment
is not an acceptable excuse for such a delayed disclosure.
Nonetheless, a sanction of preclusion is not warranted on the
record before the Court at this time, the Magistrate holds.

The parties have fully briefed a motion for summary judgment on
another issue that is currently before Judge Koeltl that may
dispose of the entire case.  The Defendants' motion for summary
judgment does not involve the proposed or actual testimony of any
of these late disclosed witnesses; thus, the issue of whether their
testimony should be precluded at trial -- or whether another remedy
may be more appropriate -- may be considered after a decision on
the motion for summary judgment, if such motion is denied.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Wang denied without prejudice, as
premature, the Defendants' motion for preclusion at this time.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/7RFKEy from Leagle.com.

Jun Chen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by John Troy -- johntroy@troypllc.com --
Troy Law, PLLC.

Sushi 21 NY Inc., doing business as Sushi 21 & Shan Chen, also
known as Sushi 21, Defendants, represented by Michael Aaron Brand,
Law Offices of Vincent S. Wong & Vincent Wong -- vswlaw@gmail.com
-- Vincent Wong, Law Offices.


T.L. CANNON: Hicks Labor Suit Transferred to N.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Ashley Hicks and Kristin Raymond, on behalf of
themselves and all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
V. T.L. Cannon Corp., T.L. Cannon Management Corp., TLC West, LLC,
TLC Central, LLC, TLC Utica, LLC, TLC North, LLC and David A.
Stein, individually and as Owner and Chairman of T.L. Cannon Corp.
and as Director and Chairman of T.L. Cannon Management Corp.
Matthew I. Fairbairn, individually and as Owner and President of
T.L. Cannon Corp. and as Director and Chief Executive Officer of
T.L. Cannon Management Corp, and John A. Perry, individually and as
Vice-President and Director of Operations of T.L. Cannon Corp. and
as President of T.L- Cannon Management Corp., Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-00987, (W.D. N.Y., September 24, 2012), was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on
October 1, 2018 under Case No. 18-cv-01177.

The court granted a joint motion filed in the case to Change Venue
For Purposes of Settlement.

Plaintiffs had sought compensatory, declaratory and injunctive
relief on behalf of current and former tipped employees of
Applebee's restaurants against various owners and operators of
those restaurants in New York for alleged violations of the New
York Minimum Wage Act, New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Wisconsin Hospitality Group operates as "Applebee's" or Applebee's
Neighborhood Bar and Grill with 54 stores in New York. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
      O'HARA O'CONNELL & CIOTOLI
      7207 East Genesee Street
      Fayetteville, NY 13066
      Tel: (315) 451-3810
      Fax: (315) 451-5585
      Email: fsg@oharalaw.com

             - and -

      J. Nelson Thomas, Esq.
      THOMAS, SOLOMON LAW FIRM
      693 East Avenue
      Rochester, NY 14607
      Tel: (585) 272-0540
      Fax: (585) 272-0574
      Email: nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Craig R. Benson, Esq.
      LITTLER, MENDELSON LAW FIRM - NEW YORK OFFICE
      900 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022 US
      Tel: (212) 583-2682
      Email: cbenson@littler.com

             - and -

      Jessica F. Pizzutelli, Esq.
      LITTLER, MENDELSON LAW FIRM - FAIRPORT NY OFFICE
      375 Woodcliff Drive, 2nd Floor
      Fairport, NY 14450
      Tel: (585) 203-3403
      Email: jpizzutelli@littler.com


TD AMERITRADE: Krukever Seeks to Certify Class of Accountholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned DIEGO KRUKEVER, KAREM
SANDGARTEN and AMIR RAHIMI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., and TD AMERITRADE
FUTURES & FOREX LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-21399-CMA (S.D. Fla.), ask
the Court to certify this class:

     All persons, corporations and other legal entities that held
     "short put" positions in ES Options with TDAFF on
     February 5, 2018, who were damaged by TDAFF's forced
     liquidation of their ES Options between the hours of 3:15 pm
     Central time on February 5, 2018, and 8:30 a.m. Central time
     on February 6, 2018.

According to the Motion, the Class that the Plaintiffs seek to
certify is comprised of similarly situated TD accountholders
aggrieved by the same wrongful course of conduct -- TD's reckless
and commercially unreasonable liquidation of their ES Options in
the highly illiquid and volatile After Hours Market on Feb. 5,
2018.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frank R. Rodriguez, Esq.
          Paulino A. Nunez Jr., Esq.
          RODRIGUEZ TRAMONT & NUNEZ P.A.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1150
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 350-2300
          Facsimile: (305) 350-2525
          E-mail: frr@rtgn-law.com
                  pan@rtgn-law.com

               - and -

          Lawrence A. Kellogg, Esq.
          Jason K. Kellogg, Esq.
          Victoria J. Wilson, Esq.
          LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP
          201 South Biscayne Boulevard
          Citigroup Center, 22nd Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 403-8788
          Facsimile: (305) 403-8789
          E-mail: lak@lklsg.com
                  jk@lklsg.com
                  vjw@lklsg.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Adam Michael Schachter, Esq.
          Gerald Edward Greenberg, Esq.
          GELBER SCHACHTER & GREENBERG, P.A.
          1221 Brickell Ave., Suite 2010
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 728-0950
          Facsimile: (305) 728-0951
          E-mail: aschachter@gsgpa.com
                  ggreenberg@gsgpa.com

               - and -

          Richard Morvillo, Esq.
          Robert Stern, Esq.
          Daniel Streim, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          1152 15th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 339-8400
          E-mail: rmorvillo@orrick.com
                  rstern@orrick.com
                  dstreim@orrick.com


TICKETMASTER: Ballard Spahr Attorneys Discuss Double Dipping Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott M. Pearson, Esq. -- PearsonS@ballardspahr.com -- and
Stephanie I. Awanyai, Esq. -- awanyais@ballardspahr.com -- of
Ballard Spahr LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
report that piling on after undercover journalists published
exposés on alleged misconduct involving Ticketmaster's TradeDesk
reseller program, consumers have filed a wave of class actions
against Ticketmaster, claiming that the company consciously
disregards illegal conduct of brokers who resell tickets through
the platform. Whether or not these allegations have any merit
(Ticketmaster denies them), they underscore the need for ticketing
companies, and perhaps also sports teams and event promoters who do
business with them, to ensure their practices comply with
applicable law.

In September 2018, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and
Toronto Star reported on discussions between Ticketmaster
representatives and journalists posing as ticket brokers at the
2018 Ticket Summit in Las Vegas. The Ticketmaster personnel were
marketing TradeDesk, an online platform brokers can use to easily
resell tickets in volume, including by linking their Ticketmaster
purchase and reseller accounts. They allegedly told the journalists
that the reseller division "turns a blind eye to scalpers who use
ticket-buying bots and fake identities to snatch up tickets and
then resell them on the site for inflated prices." One
representative, for example, allegedly said he has "brokers that
have literally a couple of hundred accounts," but "[i]t's not
something that we look at or report."

By ignoring the source of tickets being resold on its platform, the
reports claimed, Ticketmaster is able to earn two commissions on
the same ticket: one for the original purchase and another for the
resale.

Ticketing practices have faced increased scrutiny in recent years
from state and federal regulators and Congress. In January 2016,
for example, the New York Attorney General discussed consumer
protection issues associated with ticketing in a report titled
"Obstructed View: What's Blocking New Yorkers From Getting
Tickets." Later that year, Congress passed the Better Online Ticket
Sales Act of 2016, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 45c, 114 P.L. 274 (BOTS Act),
which sought "[t]o prohibit the circumvention of control measures
used by Internet ticket sellers to ensure equitable consumer access
to tickets for any given event . . . ." Specifically, the BOTS Act
prohibits circumvention of a "security measure, access control
system, or other technology" used to enforce an online service's
posted ticket purchasing limit; and it prohibits selling or
offering to sell tickets where the seller participated in, or had
the ability to control, a ticket purchase that circumvented a
ticket limit, or where the seller knew or should have known that
the ticket was purchased after ticket limits were circumvented. 15
U.S.C. Sec. 45c(a)(1). The Federal Trade Commission, which also has
been active in this area, will conduct a workshop in March 2019 to
examine competition, price, and availability issues in the online
ticket marketplace.

The recently filed class actions generally allege claims for
unlawful, unfair, and deceptive practices under state law, arguing
that Ticketmaster is essentially aiding and abetting violations of
the BOTS Act, and also harming consumers by charging two
commissions on the same tickets. Notably, however, reseller
programs are not inherently unlawful or harmful to consumers. For
example, events with no ticket quantity limits can be resold
without fear of violating the BOTS Act. The concern is that
Ticketmaster's resale division allegedly knew that its broker
customers were using multiple accounts to circumvent ticket limits,
and ignored that knowledge to earn double commissions.

In order to protect themselves in this environment, ticketing
companies should revisit all aspects of their sales practice
compliance programs, including employee training and monitoring.
They should also ensure that arbitration provisions in their
consumer contracts have been updated to ensure enforceability.
[GN]


TREVENA INC: Kaskela Law Files Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC on Oct. 16 disclosed that it has filed a
shareholder class action lawsuit against Trevena, Inc. (NASDAQ:
TRVN) ("Trevena" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between May 2, 2016 and October 8, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

IMPORTANT DEADLINE:  Investors who purchased Trevena's securities
during the Class Period may, no later than December 10, 2018, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities during the Class
Period and suffered a financial loss in excess of $100,000 are
encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at
(888) 715–1740, or skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, to discuss their
legal rights and options, or to request a copy of the shareholder
complaint filed in this action.  Additional information about this
action may also be found at http://kaskelalaw.com/case/trevena/.

The class action complaint alleges that defendants made false and
misleading statements during the Class Period and failed to
disclose material adverse facts to investors about the Company's
interactions with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
concerning Oliceridine (TRV 130).  Specifically, on May 2, 2016,
Trevena announced that it had "reached general agreement" with the
FDA on key elements of its Phase 3 program for Oliceridine, and
that it was "very pleased" with the outcome of discussions with the
FDA. In reality, the FDA disagreed with Trevena on several key
factors relating to whether Oliceridine would ultimately be
approved for commercial distribution.

On October 9, 2018, it was revealed that the FDA informed the
Company in 2016 that it "did not agree with the proposed dosing in
the Phase 3 studies," the proposed primary endpoint, or the
"proposed non-inferiority (NI) margin for comparing morphine to
Oliceridine."  Following this news, shares of Trevena's common
stock fell more than 64% on October 9, 2018 to close at $1.07 per
share.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities during the Class
Period and suffered a financial loss in excess of $100,000 are
encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC for additional information
about this action and their legal rights and recovery options.
Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in state and
federal courts throughout the country.  For additional information
about Kaskela Law LLC please visit www.kaskelalaw.com. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action in Canada
-----------------------------------------------
Woods s.e.n.c.r.l./llp on Oct. 15 disclosed that an Application to
Institute a Class Action (court docket: 500-06-000902-185) was
filed on January 23, 2018 against Uber Canada inc. and four related
companies, namely Uber Technologies inc., Uber B.V., Rasier
Operations B.V. and Uber Portier B.V.

These proceedings are brought on behalf of the members of the two
following classes:

"All persons residing in Quebec that, as users, provided personal
information to Uber that was collected, held, retained and used by
Uber and disclosed without authorization to a third party in
October 2016."

   -- and --

"All persons residing in Quebec that, as drivers, provided personal
information to Uber that was collected, held, retained and used by
Uber and disclosed without authorization to a third party in
October 2016."

The proposed class action is brought following the Uber hack that
occurred in October 2016, and which led to the disclosure of Uber
users and drivers' personal information to unauthorized third
parties.

The Petitioner Mr. Pierre-Olivier Fortier is represented by the law
firm Woods LLP in Montreal.

Justice Gary D.D. Morrison of the Superior Court of Quebec has been
assigned to the file for the authorization phase.

For further information on this class action, please consult the
website: https://www.classactions.ca/?p=192&lang=en.

For further information: Mtre. Sarah Woods (Partner), Woods LLP,
(514) 982-4519, swoods@woods.qc.ca; Mtre. Jessy Héroux
(Associate), Woods LLP, (514) 982-4505, jheroux@woods.qc.ca [GN]


UNITED STATES: 200+ Children from Immigrant Families in Custody
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNN reports that more than 200 children from separated undocumented
immigrant families remain in US custody, officials said in a court
filing on Oct. 15.

Most of the 245 children in custody have parents who were removed
from the United States -- 175 children, according to the latest
government tally.

Of those, only 18 children are currently in the pipeline to reunite
with their parents in their countries of origin, according to court
documents. Deported parents of 125 kids in custody have said they
don't want their children to be returned to the countries of
origin. And there are 32 children in government custody for whom
the American Civil Liberties Union has not yet provided notice of
whether parents want to reunify or decline reunification, officials
said.

An additional approximately 70 children who remain in custody
include 27 whose parents are in the US but have chosen not to be
reunified with their children, as well as 26 whose parents have
been deemed unfit to be reunified. That tally also includes 13
children the US government is working to discharge who have parents
in the US. The government says three other children can't be
reunited with parents who are in the US at this time because there
are red flags for safety or a parent is in criminal detention.

The new numbers appeared in the latest federal court filing in the
ACLU class action case over family separations. They come as the
Trump administration considers a new pilot program that could
result in the separations of kids and parents once again.

A status hearing in the family separations case was scheduled for
Oct. 16.

In June, US District Judge Dana Sabraw ordered the government to
reunite most of the families it had divided, including parents and
children who had been separated as a result of the government's
now-reversed "zero tolerance" policy at the border and some
separations that occurred before that policy was put in place.

Since then, 2,070 children have been discharged from government
custody and reunited with parents, according to the Oct. 15 court
filing.

And so far, 79 of those children have been reunited with parents in
their countries of origin. Officials have faced major hurdles
trying to reach the deported parents of children who remain in
custody in the United States.

The ACLU is still struggling to reach some parents -- at least
five, according to the latest tally -- to determine whether they
want their children sent back to them in their countries of origin
or prefer for them to remain in the US to have a chance at winning
asylum.

Officials have stressed that the numbers are constantly changing,
and attorneys are still debating them as they meet to sort out the
next steps in the case.

In the joint filing, attorneys raised several issues that will
likely come up in court on Oct. 16:

Government attorneys responded to concerns raised by plaintiffs'
attorneys that they aren't doing enough to swiftly implement a
settlement agreement that dictates the next steps for parents and
children in reunified families who are seeking asylum.

"Defendants have significant concerns -- legal, practical, and
equitable -- with the complete and immediate implementation that
Plaintiffs have demanded," the filing says.

The ACLU noted that it remains concerned about government decisions
to remove children and parents from lists of class members or
children in government custody.

Government attorneys noted they've been working on improving
communication and advance notification about repatriation flights.
The ACLU says it "continues to raise concerns about timely
information for repatriations" with government attorneys as they
arise. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Young Immigrants Win Right to Seek Special Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that young immigrants who were
abused, neglected or abandoned by their parents won the right to
seek special immigrant juvenile status -- and a pathway to legal
residency -- on Oct. 24, after a federal judge blocked a Trump
administration policy making it difficult for people over age 18 to
obtain the status.

A copy of the Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for
PreliminaryInjunction is available at:

          https://is.gd/rde7rW


VITAL PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Energy Drink Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer, writing for Law360, reports that a consumer has
launched a putative class action against energy drink maker Vital
Pharmaceuticals Inc. in Illinois federal court, alleging the
company's Bang energy drinks contain none or only small amounts.
[GN]


VIZIO: Settles Class Action Over Embedded TV Software
-----------------------------------------------------
Jason Knott, writing for CEPro, reports that Vizio has settled a
class action lawsuit regarding its embedded TV software that
secretly tracked viewers watching habits and sold the data to third
parties without their permission.

Vizio already shelled out $2.2 million in 2017 in a settlement with
the Federal Trade Commission for the same indiscretion. The company
argued that FTC settlement precluded it from having also pay in
this class action suit, but the judge disagreed.

Owners of Vizio smart TVs bought between Feb. 1, 2014 and Feb. 6,
2017 will receive between $13 and $31 each under the terms of the
settlement, depending on the number of valid claims that are
submitted, according to topclassactions.com.

In addition, Vizio has agreed to turn over all the proceeds from
the sale of the data, as well as delete all the data that was
collected during that timeframe, according to the decision in Vizio
Inc. Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 8:16-ml-02693, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Back in 2015, CE Pro predicted the company's "Smart Interactivity"
software could lead to trouble as Vizio warned investors when it
went public that year.

In 2018, Vizio has a 3 percent marketshare among the CE Pro 100
Brand Analysis, and the company is reportedly gaining traction in
the market due to its partnership with the PowerHouse Alliance.

"This is not only important relief for the class, it sets an
important precedent for the entire consumer electronics industry at
a time when companies are leveraging new technologies to track
customers without their knowledge or consent," noted an attorney
representing the Vizio settlement members.

The plaintiffs in the case were represented by Eric H. Gibbs, Andre
Mura and Linda Lam of Gibbs Law Group LLP and Joseph W. Cotchett,
Adam J. Zapala and Adam J. Trott of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP.
[GN]


WELLS FARGO: Nakamura Moves for Prelim. Nod of Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jin Nakamura moves to certify the case entitled JIN NAKAMURA, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO
BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION d/b/a WELLS FARGO DEALER SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. 5:17-cv-04029-DDC-GEB (D. Kan.), as a class action for the
purposes of settlement, and for preliminary approval of the
parties' class-wide settlement.

Mr. Nakamura also asks the Court to appoint him as Class
Representative and to appoint his counsel as Class Counsel.

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, doing business as
Wells Fargo Dealers Services, Inc., does not oppose this
Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          Ryan C. Hudson, Esq.
          Scott Goodger, Esq.
          REX A SHARP, P.A.
          5301 W. 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0505
          Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
          E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
                  rhudson@midwest-law.com
                  sgoodger@midwest-law.com

               - and -

          Bryce B. Bell, Esq.
          Mark W. Schmitz, Esq.
          BELL LAW, LLC
          2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 886-8206
          Facsimile: (816) 817-8500
          E-mail: Bryce@BellLawKC.com
                  MS@BellLawKC.com

               - and -

          A. Scott Waddell, Esq.
          WADDELL LAW FIRM LLC
          2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 914-5365
          Facsimile: (816) 817-8500
          E-mail: scott@aswlawfirm.com


YAHOO! INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $50MM
------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Yahoo has agreed to pay $50 million and provide credit monitoring
services for the approximately 200 million customers whose personal
information was compromised in the largest data breach in history.

The settlement, which must be approved by U.S. District Court Judge
Lucy Koh, would bring a close to the sprawling class action
stemming from hacks that occurred in 2013 and 2014 but were not
disclosed until 2016.

Earlier this month, Yahoo -- acquired by Verizon after disclosure
of the data breach -- announced that it believes nearly all of its
3 billion accounts were affected by the breach. The settlement
covers about a billion accounts held by some 200 million people.

The hackers, some of whom were linked to Russia by U.S.
investigators, used a phishing scheme in which they imitated the
login interface of Yahoo's email platform to trick people into
divulging personal information.

Customers' names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of births and
other personal information were divulged. Oath, a Verizon
subsidiary, said the hackers did not obtain credit card
information, bank account information or passwords.

This past April, the Securities and Exchange Commission levied a
$35 million fine on the web services company.

The Associated Press reported users could receive about $375 each
if they provide the court with documentation of the time they spent
dealing with fallout from the hack. Those without documentation
will receive $125, the AP said.

Credit monitoring service can run up to $360 for two years and will
be provided by Yahoo free of charge.

The hearing for preliminary approval is currently set for Nov. 29
in Judge Koh's courtroom.


[*] Companies Have Edge When Choosing Arbitrators, Report Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quentin Fottrell, writing for Marketwatch, reports that companies
appear to have the edge when choosing arbitrators to rule on
consumer complaints.

Economists from Harvard Business School, Stanford University and
the University of Austin, Texas collected data containing roughly
9,000 arbitration cases in securities arbitration to determine
whether firms have an advantage in selecting arbitrators in those
cases, and whether that selection process impacts the result for
consumers.

Some arbitrators are known to be more friendly to industry, while
others are more likely to be more sympathetic to consumers. Firms
are more likely to use the former in the arbitration process, the
researchers wrote. "Despite a randomly generated list of potential
arbitrators, industry-friendly arbitrators are 40% more likely to
be selected than their consumer friendly counterparts."

Last year, President Trump signed a resolution killing the Consumer
Finance Protection Bureau -- the independent government agency
charged with protecting consumer financial rights -- rule that made
it easier for consumers to sue financial firms in a class-action
lawsuit rather than go through mandatory arbitration, a process
that takes place behind closed doors.

Mandatory arbitration clauses are buried in many contracts for
credit cards, bank accounts and other non-financial services. They
prevent consumers from participating in group or "class action"
lawsuits against companies. This benefits companies because they
save time and money, avoid negative publicity, and avoid nuisance
lawsuits.

Consumer groups have long fought against mandatory arbitration.
They argue that class-action lawsuits are cheaper for consumers and
more effective. Businesses, on the other hand, argue that
arbitration is a faster, cheaper dispute resolution process for
everyone concerned. That view was supported by a 2011 Supreme Court
ruling, AT&T Mobility T, -2.97%  v. Concepcion.

Also see: The Great Recession turned America's student-loan problem
into a crisis

The latest report, which concludes that businesses have the edge in
arbitration, is supported by earlier research. In the 2010
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Congress
required the CFPB to study the use of arbitration clauses in
consumer financial markets. In 2015, that report concluded that
arbitration clauses restrict consumers' relief for disputes.

"Tens of millions of consumers are covered by arbitration clauses,
but few know about them or understand their impact," former CFPB
director Richard Cordray, who was appointed under the Obama
administration, said. "These arbitration clauses restrict consumer
relief in disputes with financial companies by limiting class
actions that provide millions of dollars in redress each year."

Consumer groups have long fought against mandatory arbitration in
contracts. They argue that class-action lawsuits are cheaper for
consumers and have proven to be more effective.

Last February, the acting director of the CFPB Mick Mulvaney,
traded barbs with Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from
Massachusetts, insinuating that she voted against repealing the
mandatory arbitration rule because she was influenced by campaign
donations from trial lawyers; Warren said CFPB research showed that
consumers benefit from class-action lawsuits.

In the latest study on the issue, distributed on Oct. 15 by the
National Bureau of Economic Research, the researchers said
securities disputes present a good laboratory. "The selection
mechanism is similar to other major arbitration forums," the said.
"Arbitration is mandatory for all disputes, eliminating selection
concerns, and the parties choose arbitrators from a randomly
generated list."

However, competition between arbitrators tends to favor companies
over consumers, as the former are more likely to have experience
dealing with arbitration and, as such, have a better understanding
of what arbitrators are more business- rather than
consumer-friendly. The researchers recommend limiting both industry
and consumer roles in choosing arbitrators. [GN]


[*] Skadden Arps Provides Mid-Year Class Action Update
------------------------------------------------------
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP released its recent
edition focusing on rulings issued between February 16, 2018, and
June 15, 2018.

In this issue, the law firm covers three decisions granting motions
to strike/dismiss class claims, five decisions denying such
motions, 27 decisions denying class certification or reversing
grants of class certification, 34 decisions granting or upholding
class certification, 11 decisions denying motions to remand or
reversing remand orders pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
(CAFA), and seven decisions granting motions to remand or finding
no jurisdiction under CAFA that were issued during the four-month
period covered by this edition.

Class Certification Decisions

   -- Decisions Granting/Affirming Motion to Strike or Dismiss
   -- Decisions Denying Motions to Strike
   -- Decisions Rejecting/Denying Class Certification
   -- Decisions Permitting/Granting Class Certification

Class Action Fairness Act Decisions

   -- Decisions Denying Motions to Remand/Reversing Remand        
Orders/Finding CAFA Jurisdiction
   -- Decisions Granting Motions to Remand/Finding No CAFA
Jurisdiction
   -- Other CAFA Decisions

Class Certification Decisions
Decisions Granting/Affirming Motion to Strike or Dismiss
Walters v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-1173-PK,
2018 WL 2424132 (D. Or. May 8, 2018), report and recommendation
adopted, 2018 WL 2418544 (D. Or. May 29, 2018)
The plaintiff asserted nationwide class claims for unjust
enrichment and fraud and claims for violations of Oregon consumer
protection law on behalf of a proposed subclass of Oregon
purchasers, alleging the defendant misleadingly labeled its
supplements in referring to volume per serving rather than the
volume per individual pill, capsule or tablet. Judge Anna J. Brown
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon adopted the
findings and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Paul Papak and
granted the defendant's motion to strike the nationwide class
allegations. The motion was not premature because determining
variations in state law presented legal issues that could be
resolved without discovery, and a motion to strike pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) was "procedurally
appropriate." The court further concluded that material variations
in state law on fraud and unjust enrichment would produce different
outcomes, and thus, under Oregon choice of law statutes, the law of
the state of purchase would govern each proposed class member's
claim. Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement could not be
satisfied as to the unjust enrichment claim due to differences in
state laws, such as the applicable statute of limitations, whether
unjust enrichment is a standalone claim or a quasi-contract claim,
and the accrual date. Material differences in state law such as the
level of scienter necessary to show fraud, the plaintiff's burden
of proof, statute of limitations and whether reliance may be
presumed defeated predominance as to the fraud claim. The court's
order striking the class allegations was without prejudice,
however, to allow the plaintiff to narrow his class definition to
include only residents of those states where the law does not
materially differ.

Reedy v. Phillips 66 Co., No. H-17-2914, 2018 WL 1413087 (S.D. Tex.
Mar. 20, 2018)
Judge Sim Lake of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas dismissed nationwide class claims brought on behalf of
purchasers of allegedly defective aircraft fuel on the ground that
the need to apply the laws of multiple states to the proposed class
members' claims made a finding of predominance impossible. The
plaintiffs in the case sought to assert claims for strict products
liability, negligence, and breach of implied and express warranties
on behalf of the nationwide class, and also sought certification of
a statewide class of Kansas fuel purchasers alleging consumer
fraud. The defendant moved to strike both proposed classes, and the
court determined that the motion was properly treated as a motion
to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). With
respect to the proposed nationwide class, the court granted the
motion to dismiss in light of the need to apply the law of each
proposed class member's home state to resolve his or her claims.
While the plaintiffs argued that discovery may reveal that the
proposed class members reside in fewer than 50 states -- and that
those states may have overlapping laws -- the court rejected this
argument and found that the "burden of applying the products
liability and warranty laws of each class member's state defeats
predominance and, thus, nationwide class certification." The court,
however, refused to dismiss the proposed Kansas-only,
consumer-fraud class for lack of factual predominance. In so
holding, the court noted that the plaintiffs had not clearly
alleged whether their consumer fraud claims were based on an
alleged omission or misrepresentation, which would affect the
elements they would have to prove at a class trial. The court
therefore permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint and
reallege their consumer fraud claims under Kansas law.

Taylor v. Denka Performance Elastomer LLC, No. CV 17-7668, 2018 WL
1010186 (E.D. La. Feb. 22, 2018), 23(f) pet. denied
Judge Martin L. C. Feldman of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana denied the plaintiffs' motion to
reconsider the court's order denying the motion for extension of
time to file a motion for class certification and granted the
defendant's motion to strike the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. The plaintiffs alleged that the production of
synthetic rubber at the defendant's facility emitted a carcinogen,
resulting in a significantly increased risk of cancer. The court
found that the plaintiffs missed the deadline to file a motion for
class certification, and their request for an extension to file was
denied as untimely. The court also rejected the plaintiffs'
argument that the filing of an amended notice of removal reset the
91-day clock for filing a class certification motion. Accordingly,
the court dismissed the class allegations for failure to timely
seek class certification.

Decisions Denying Motions to Strike
Doe v. Trinity Logistics, Inc., No. 17-53-RGA-MPT, 2018 WL 1610514
(D. Del. Apr. 3, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL
2684109 (D. Del. June 5, 2018)
Judge Richard G. Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware adopted the report and recommendation of Chief
Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge and denied the defendants' motion
to strike class claims under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA). The plaintiff, on behalf of putative class members, alleged
that the defendants, a consumer reporting agency and an employer,
created and used consumer reports to take adverse employment
actions without informing potential employees or providing them
with copies of the reports as required by law. In recommending that
the motion to strike be denied, the magistrate judge essentially
conducted a full class certification analysis under Rule 23.
Specifically, she found that the proposed class satisfied the Rule
23(a) requirements, noting that common issues of fact and law —
e.g., whether the uniform failure to timely provide a copy of
employment reports violates the FCRA — existed and the claims
were typical because all putative class members were similarly
affected by the defendants' actions. The magistrate judge also
indicated that the class satisfied the predominance and superiority
requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) because common questions of law and
fact, including whether the defendants willfully or negligently
failed to provide class members notice before taking an adverse
action against them, predominated over individual issues. The
magistrate judge also found that the class definition was objective
and not conclusory, rejecting the defendants' argument that because
the class definition nearly parroted the statute's language, the
court would have to conduct individualized inquiries to discern
whether each putative class member fit in the class. Accordingly,
the court ruled against striking the class claims.

Butterline v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., National Ass'n,
No. 15-1429, 2018 WL 1705957 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 6, 2018)
Judge Juan R. Sánchez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania denied a motion to strike class claims
alleging that the defendant bank failed to give putative class
members excess proceeds from foreclosure sales, in violation of
state law. The court rejected the defendant's contention that the
class was not ascertainable, accepting the plaintiffs' argument
that class members could be identified from records of sheriff
sales where the bank received excess proceeds. The court also
postponed a decision on predominance until after class discovery
given the scant amount of attention devoted to predominance in the
parties' briefing.

Casso's Wellness Store & Gym, L.L.C. v. Spectrum Laboratory
Products, Inc., No. 17-2161, 2018 WL 1377608 (E.D. La. Mar. 19,
2018)
Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana denied defendant Spectrum's motion to dismiss
and/or strike class allegations (1) for lack of personal
jurisdiction under Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of
California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017); (2) as inappropriate for class
treatment under Rules 23(c)(1)(A) and 23(d)(1)(D); and (3) as
unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.
The plaintiff had filed a putative class action, alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), as
amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act (JFPA). The plaintiff sought
damages and injunctive relief for Spectrum's massive faxing
campaign that allegedly failed to comply with mandatory opt-out
notice requirements under the TCPA, JFPA and Federal Communications
Commission regulations. The plaintiff proposed a class defined as:
"All persons and entities that are subscribers of telephone numbers
to which within four years of filing of the Complaint, Defendant
sent facsimile transmission with content that discusses, describes,
promotes products and/or services offered by Defendant, and does
not contain the opt-out notice required by [federal law]."

First, the court held that Bristol-Myers did not foreclose the
court's jurisdiction over non-Louisiana residents because (1) that
opinion addressed mass torts, not class actions; (2) unlike a mass
action, a plaintiff seeking to represent absent members in a class
action is the only one in the complaint, and only his or her claims
are relevant to the personal jurisdiction inquiry; (3) the named
plaintiff had adequately alleged the court's personal jurisdiction
over the defendant; and (4) Spectrum did not dispute the
reasonableness of the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction.
Second, the court denied without prejudice Spectrum's motion to
strike the class allegations for failing to satisfy Rule 23's
requirements, reasoning that the motion was premature. Spectrum had
not filed its answer, discovery had not commenced and the plaintiff
had not yet filed a motion for class certification. Accordingly,
the court could not adequately ascertain whether the plaintiff
could properly certify a class. Finally, the court rejected
Spectrum's due process motion, reasoning that (1) the TCPA is
"uniquely well-suited to class resolution"; and (2) other courts
had "persuasively rejected" the argument that TCPA class actions
violate the Fifth Amendment.

Sos v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., No.
6:17-cv-890-Orl-40KRS, 2018 WL 1866097 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 12, 2018)
Judge Paul G. Byron of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, adopting the report and recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding, denied the defendant's motion
to strike class allegations. The plaintiff's second amended
complaint alleged that the defendant, an insurance company, failed
to pay sales tax and regulatory fees in connection with the
plaintiff's loss claim, in violation of state law and the insurance
policy. The plaintiff sought to bring suit on behalf of both
Florida and non-Florida insureds in a nationwide class. The
defendant moved to strike on the grounds that the class would be
impossible to certify since it would require analysis of the unique
insurance policies and laws of all 50 states. Magistrate Judge
Spaulding found that the defendant's motion to strike was premature
due to the need for evidentiary review before determining the
suitability of class certification, since it was not sufficiently
clear from the face of the complaint whether class certification
was appropriate. Judge Byron agreed and referenced U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit precedent in which courts have
held that striking class allegations on the pleadings alone was
premature. Furthermore, while Judge Byron noted that class
certification is generally not appropriate where claims must be
decided on the laws of multiple states, he declined to consider the
actual differences in the states' laws at this stage of the
litigation. Accordingly, the court deferred the choice-of-law issue
to the class certification stage and denied the defendant's motion
to strike.

MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC v. Government Employees Insurance Co.,
Nos. PWG-17-711, PWG-17-964, 2018 WL 999920 (D. Md. Feb. 21, 2018)
Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland denied the defendant's motion to dismiss class allegations
filed on behalf of two nationwide classes of Medicare Advantage
organizations seeking reimbursement for accident-related medical
expenses paid to beneficiaries. The defendant argued that both
classes were overbroad and that the plaintiffs had failed to assert
specific facts in support of certification. The court held it was
premature to rule on class certification because the requirements
of Rule 23 could be met depending on the outcome of discovery. As
such, it denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the class
allegations without prejudice to renewal at the point of class
certification.

Decisions Rejecting/Denying Class Certification
Gonzalez v. Corning, 885 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2018), as amended (Apr.
4, 2018)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Hardiman, Chagares
and Jordan, JJ.) affirmed the denial of class certification where
consumers alleged that the defendant sold defective roof shingles
and misrepresented the shingles' expected useful life. In the
district court, the plaintiffs moved to certify two classes: (1) a
nationwide class to determine the legal standard on when the
defendant can use a bankruptcy discharge defense to shield itself
from liability; and (2) a class of property owners from
Pennsylvania, Illinois, Texas and California (the four-state class)
asserting various combinations of state law causes of action. The
district court declined to certify either class. The court ruled
the nationwide class failed the commonality requirement, finding
the only common question was nonjusticiable. The lower court also
held that the four-state class could not demonstrate that common
issues of law or fact predominated over individual ones and
certifying an issue class under Rule 23(c)(4) to decide issues of
liability was inappropriate.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed. On appeal,
the plaintiffs first argued that two common issues predominated for
the four-state class members: whether the shingles had a common
defect and whether the defendant misrepresented their useful life.
The defendant countered that these questions did not have common
answers because of the wide variety of different shingles, some of
which the plaintiffs admitted had no defect. The panel rejected the
plaintiffs' argument that all class members shared a common risk of
having defective singles because it "equate[d] the existence of a
defect with the mere possibility that one might exist." The
plaintiffs next argued that the district court improperly assessed
the merits of the plaintiffs' claims at the class certification
stage. But the panel pointed out that courts could look to merits
issues that were intertwined with class certification questions.
Finally, the plaintiffs argued that the district court should have
certified a liability-only class because resolution of the common
liability issues would materially advance the litigation. The panel
held that a liability class was inappropriate because the
plaintiffs offered no theories of liability common to the class.
Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirmed the denial of class
certification.

Cochoit v. Schiff Nutrition International, Inc., No. SACV
16-01371-CJC(KESx), 2018 WL 3372751 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2018)
Judge Cormac J. Carney of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California refused to certify a nationwide class and
subclass of California purchasers alleging the defendants falsely
advertised their "Digestive Advantage" products. In 2012, the
plaintiff's attorney, Ronald Marron, negotiated the settlement of a
related putative consumer class action against the same defendants,
concerning nearly identical claims arising from nearly identical
representations, and received $300,000 in attorneys' fees. The
settlement agreement included a "notice and cure" provision, in
which Marron agreed to notify and give the defendants' counsel 30
days to cure any advertising that they believed breached the
settlement agreement until May 3, 2015. Marron did not contact any
of the defendants during the cure period but brought this action in
2016 on behalf of the current plaintiff. The court concluded that
while it was in the plaintiff and the class' interest to argue that
all related advertisements were false, in asserting that argument,
Marron would be forced to explain why he allowed a similar
advertising scheme to continue and risk admitting a breach of the
settlement and a disgorgement of the fees he received, creating a
conflict of interest. Moreover, Marron's conduct and involvement in
both cases were distractions from the merits of the plaintiff's
claims, at the expense of the putative class members and their
ability to litigate the merits of their claims. Based on the
conflict of interest and Marron's inability to vigorously represent
the absent class members, the court held the adequacy requirement
was not satisfied and did not address the remaining Rule 23 factors
in denying the plaintiff's certification motion.

In re Seagate Technology LLC, No. 16-cv-00523-JCS, 2018 WL 3306192
(N.D. Cal. July 5, 2018)
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California declined to certify a
nationwide damages class under California consumer protection laws,
or eight subclasses under the laws of various states, on claims
that Seagate failed to disclose information about the features and
reliability of its hard drives. The court held that foreign law
should apply based on other states' significant interest in
regulating transactions within their borders and denied
certification of the nationwide class. Regarding the state-based
subclasses, the court noted that although variation of the alleged
omissions over time and across products would pose difficulties in
defining the subclasses, the evidence presented would not
significantly vary across the eight states. However, common issues
did not predominate under the plaintiffs' theories of liability.
The plaintiffs failed to present a method of showing that
suitability of the hard drives for particular configurations was
material to consumers, and only a subset of the named plaintiffs
stated that they relied on that feature when purchasing. The
plaintiffs' other theory focused on Seagate's alleged failure to
disclose that hard drives were unreliable and had high failure
rates. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to present
classwide proof that the failure rate was higher than represented
or otherwise actionable; nor did the plaintiffs present a plan for
addressing variations across time, product modifications and
intended uses. As a result, the court held that common issues did
not predominate and denied the motion without prejudice to moving
to certify narrower, or more precisely defined, classes.

Career Counseling, Inc. v. Amsterdam Printing & Litho, Inc., No.
3:15-cv-05061-JMC, 2018 WL 3241178 (D.S.C. July 3, 2018)
Judge J. Michelle Childs of the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina denied without prejudice the plaintiff's
amended motion for class certification in this Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) "junk fax" case because the proposed class
was not sufficiently ascertainable. To determine prospective class
members who were successfully sent faxes in violation of the TCPA,
the plaintiff proposed an administrative system in which a list of
targeted fax numbers was cross-referenced with a list of those
numbers that were removed or for which delivery of the fax failed.
The court determined that this method would require the court to
look at each number individually, thus imposing a significant
administrative burden on ascertaining the class. Therefore, the
court denied class certification.

Perisic v. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc., No.
8:16-cv-3255-T-17MAP, 2018 WL 3391359 (M.D. Fla. June 27, 2018)
The plaintiff sought certification of a class of Florida consumers
who purchased DuraBlend® products from Ashley Furniture Industries
(AFI), asserting the consumers were fraudulently led to believe the
products were similar in quality to real leather items. The
plaintiff filed claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act (FDUTPA) and for unjust enrichment. Magistrate Judge
Mark Pizzo of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida refused to certify the class on ascertainability,
typicality, commonality and predominance grounds. Specifically,
Judge Pizzo held that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the
ascertainability element because the evidence failed to demonstrate
a systematic or uniform marketing scheme, requiring an examination
of each potential class member's circumstances to determine whether
the class member was deceived in violation of FDUTPA. Additionally,
unlike the other proposed class members, the plaintiff -- who had a
family of six people and five cats -- relied on specific statements
by a salesperson regarding the durability of the furniture. The
plaintiff also had not been exposed to the hangtags, marketing
products or labels of AFI that she alleged to be deceptive.
Therefore, the judge found that the plaintiff's experience was not
typical of the class. The judge further found that the commonality
element was not satisfied because class members had differing
exposures to the allegedly deceptive representations, noting that
the five class members who submitted declarations all had unique
experiences. Finally, the judge found that the plaintiff failed to
meet the predominance requirement because FDUTPA and unjust
enrichment claims against AFI turned on unique facts. Because
common questions of fact or law did not predominate, the court held
that a class action was not superior to other methods of
adjudication. Accordingly, the court held Rule 23(b)(3)'s
requirements were not met and recommended that the court deny class
certification.

Rosenberg v. CCS Commercial, LLC, No. C17-476 MJP, 2018 WL 3105988
(W.D. Wash. June 25, 2018)
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant collection service,
employed by the co-defendant insurance company to collect payments
from drivers involved in accidents with their insureds, sent debt
collection-type notices identified as "subrogation claims" to class
members in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act
(CPA). Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington denied the plaintiff's motion for
certification. The court held commonality and predominance were not
satisfied because CCS employed a series of communications,
including letters and phone scripts with varying responses, which
meant the determination of whether, when and how an individual
member was deceived would require case-by-case analyses. The court
rejected as "outdated" the defendant's objections as to adequacy
because the plaintiff's attorney was underwriting the lawsuit, but
it held that typicality and adequacy were also not satisfied,
because the plaintiff consulted a class action attorney prior to
receiving any notice from CCS, volunteered to pay the requested
amount (despite the fact that she contested liability) and then
sued the other driver for all her losses except the money she paid
to CCS. The court held that these facts "seriously call[] into
question whether she was deceived at all . . . or was compelled by
some circumstance other than liability to remit the requested sum,"
and noted it had "never seen a clearer case of 'subject to unique
defenses.'" As to predominance, the court held many of the
defendants' vagueness objections could be solved through rewording
of the class definition, but individual issues predominated as to
the motivation of class members who paid CCS, because an inquiry
into the circumstances of every class member's case was required to
ascertain whether he/she acknowledged fault in his/her particular
accident, which would render the defendants immune from CPA/unjust
enrichment liability.

Victorino v. FCA US LLC, No. 16cv1617-GPC(JLB), 2018 WL 2967062
(S.D. Cal. June 13, 2018), 23(f) pet. pending
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denied a motion for class certification in
an action alleging that several model years of Dodge Dart vehicles
contained a transmission defect and asserting California breach of
warranty and consumer protection claims. Regarding the proposed
nationwide implied warranty class, because the federal implied
warranty claim was based solely on California law, the court found
the plaintiff failed to address -- and therefore meet his initial
burden -- that California law actually applied to the nationwide
class and that such application would not violate due process. For
the proposed California implied warranty class, the court first
noted that there is a district court split on whether a plaintiff
seeking to certify a California implied warranty class must
demonstrate, with evidence, an inherent defect that is
"substantially certain to result in malfunction during the useful
life of the product." The court held that such showing is not
necessary, because the court should avoid determinations on the
merits at the class certification stage. Nonetheless, the court
found that the class definition, which included used vehicles, was
overbroad because California's implied warranty law does not apply
to used vehicles. The court declined to modify the class definition
because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his damages model
met the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement, as it required an
individualized assessment of the "difference in the value
represented and the value actually received" of the transmission
components. Additionally, the court denied the plaintiff's motion
to certify an injunctive relief class under Rule 23(b)(2) to remedy
the clutch defect because the alleged common injury was the
overpayment of the purchase price of the vehicles, and thus
monetary damages were the appropriate form of relief.

Bohlke v. Green Star Capital Solutions, LLC, No.
17-CV-81379-MIDDLEBROOKS, 2018 WL 3413030 (S.D. Fla. June 7, 2018)
Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida denied the plaintiff's motion for
class certification alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. Specifically, the plaintiff sought to certify two
classes: (1) a class of plaintiffs who received automatic telephone
dialing system solicitation calls from the defendant without
consent; and (2) a class of plaintiffs who received certain calls
from the defendant despite being on the National Do Not Call
Registry. The court held that there was insufficient evidence to
make a determination on the Rule 23 requirements for class
certification. While the plaintiff alleged that the proposed class
included thousands of members, he did not provide supporting
evidence; the only support for his allegation consisted of
declarations from his counsel and an expert who had not reviewed
any discovery. Because the plaintiff could not provide sufficient
evidence, the court denied the motion for class certification.

Greene v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd., No. 14 C 1437, 2018 WL 2735112 (N.D.
Ill. June 7, 2018)
Judge Gary Feinerman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois denied class certification to plaintiffs
seeking to hold the defendants liable for financial losses arising
from the failure of the Mt. Gox bitcoin exchange. The plaintiffs
brought claims of tortious interference with contract, unjust
enrichment and fraudulent concealment related to the defendant
bank's continued acceptance of international inbound wire transfers
from Mt. Gox customers when it had stopped processing all outbound
wire transfer requests for Mt. Gox customers. Put differently, the
"gist of the claims" was that the bank's decision to stop
processing outbound wire transfers created a "trap" for investors
based in the United States. On review, the court found that the
named plaintiff failed to show that his claims were typical of the
proposed class or that he was an adequate representative of the
proposed class. With respect to adequacy, the court found that the
named plaintiff was subject to arguable defenses not applicable to
the class as a whole. At his deposition, the named plaintiff
indicated that he would have found a way to invest in bitcoin on
the exchange even if he had known the bank had stopped processing
outbound wire transfers, and if he had withdrawn his investment, he
would have done so in bitcoin. This testimony "severely undermined"
his ability to prove injury from the bank's conduct, as he
"admitted that he did not perceive his money to be trapped at all."
In addition, the named plaintiff's claims were not typical of the
proposed class because the bank had offered the plaintiff an
opportunity to cancel his wire transfer and recoup his funds. That
opportunity was not available to members of the proposed class.
Accordingly, the court denied class certification.

Williamson v. S.A. Gear Co., No. 15-CV-365-SMY-DGW, 2018 WL 2735593
(S.D. Ill. June 7, 2018)
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois denied class certification to plaintiffs
alleging violations of state law express-and-implied warranty
claims, the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, common law fraud claims,
strict liability claims and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs
alleged that the defendants sold a car part falsely claiming that
it met Chrysler/Dodge/original equipment manufacturer
specifications and that it was suitable for use in a particular
Chrysler engine. Judge Yandle held that commonality was satisfied
because "a single common question is sufficient," and whether the
part's packaging was false or misleading was relevant to the claims
and was capable of classwide resolution. Typicality, however, was
not satisfied because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that
their claims arose out of the same event or course of conduct as
all putative class members' claims. Here, the plaintiffs did not
identify a significant or meaningful number of complaints about the
alleged defect or other evidence demonstrating any other consumer's
belief that the part was defective or that representations about
the part were misleading. Instead, the plaintiffs relied on three
complaints, none of which mentioned the particular issue the named
plaintiffs believed was defective, the O-ring. Finally, the
proposed class failed the adequacy requirement because the record
suggested that few, if any, potential class members shared the
named plaintiffs' issues with the part. Accordingly, the court
denied class certification.

Teggerdine v. Speedway, LLC, No. 8:16-cv-03280-T-27TGW, 2018 WL
2451248 (M.D. Fla. May 31, 2018)
Judge James Whittemore of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida declined to certify a class of retail gasoline
purchasers alleging that the defendants were negligent by
implementing a payment processing program that placed authorization
holds on their accounts. The court held that the plaintiff failed
to satisfy the predominance and superiority requirements,
explaining that because the plaintiff's claims sounded in
negligence -- a claim that varies among the 21 states in which the
relevant transactions occurred -- individual issues regarding
liability for negligence predominate. Furthermore, managing the
litigation of the various state law negligence claims was not the
superior method of litigation. Accordingly, the court denied the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Arthur v. United Industries Corp., No. 2:17-cv-06983-CAS(SKx), 2018
WL 2276636 (C.D. Cal. May 17, 2018)
Judge Christina A. Snyder of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California denied the plaintiff's motion to
certify a nationwide class asserting California consumer protection
law claims. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant misrepresented
that each bottle of concentrate herbicide could be diluted to make
a specified number of gallons. The court held that although
numerosity was satisfied, the plaintiff and the proposed class
members had suffered different alleged injuries. The plaintiff
testified that he mixed the concentrate based on his own
calculation and that the resulting solution did not perform as
expected. By contrast, the class members allegedly mixed the
concentrate according to the instructions and received less spray
than advertised. The plaintiff also testified that he had failed to
read the mixing instructions on the packaging. Thus, commonality,
typicality and adequacy were not satisfied. The plaintiff also
failed to satisfy the Rule 23(b) predominance requirements. He did
not offer a classwide method of proving that the labeling
constituted an actionable misrepresentation and failed to
demonstrate reliance, as he had not read the packaging. His failure
to read the label also meant he could not establish that material
misrepresentations were made to the class members through common
proof. The court declined to consider predominance of damages or
superiority and adequacy in light of the other Rule 23
shortcomings. The court also refused to certify a class for
injunctive relief, as the court had previously dismissed the
plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief as pre-empted by the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.

Davidson v. Apple, Inc., No. 16-CV-04942-LHK, 2018 WL 2325426 (N.D.
Cal. May 8, 2018), 23(f) pet. voluntarily dismissed
Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California declined to certify a class of iPhone 6 and
iPhone 6 Plus purchasers asserting claims under various state
consumer protection laws for alleged failure to disclose
touchscreen defects. The court held that while Rule 23(a) was
satisfied, Rule 23(b) was not. The court held that statements on
the iPhone box were sufficient to demonstrate "uniform" prepurchase
exposure and rejected Apple's argument that individual inquiries
were required as to other causes for touchscreen malfunction or
whether class members encountered the defect, because proof of
manifestation is not a prerequisite to certification, and
individual factors affecting performance did not affect the
ultimate common question — whether the iPhones were sold with a
defective touchscreen. However, the plaintiffs' damages model --
surveying customers to determine the value of various attributes
and surmise the "negative" economic value of a generic "defect" --
was fatally flawed because it assumed the touchscreen defect will
manifest in all iPhones when it only manifests in 5.6 percent of
the iPhone 6 Plus, less for the iPhone 6. Because damages models
must measure only those damages attributable to the plaintiffs'
theory of liability, the model should have assumed a roughly 5.6
percent or less chance that consumers would experience the defect.
The model also did not specify that the "defect" affected only the
touchscreen and assumed the defect would render the iPhone
inoperable, although none of the named plaintiffs experienced
inoperability. The inadequate damages model thus did not satisfy
Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement. The court also refused to
certify a Rule 23(c)(4) issues class as to the existence and
knowledge of a defect, duty to disclose and other liability issues
because adjudication of those issues would not advance resolution,
given the inability to prove damages on a classwide basis.

Proctor v. District of Columbia, 310 F. Supp. 3d 107 (D.D.C. 2018)
Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia denied certification in this civil rights case
alleging that the District of Columbia destroyed the property of
homeless residents in violation of the Fourth Amendment during
"encampment cleanups." The putative class included all homeless
persons who reside in public spaces that are subject to district,
rather than federal, government oversight and have been or will be
subject to encampment cleanups by the district. After denying the
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, the court also
denied the motion for class certification. It held that the
plaintiffs had not adequately shown the class was sufficiently
numerous. Though Census data showed about 900 homeless persons in
the district, the plaintiffs could not define how many of them
lived on federal property and therefore were subject to federal
authority; nor could they show how many had been or will be subject
to encampment cleanups. As such, the court found that the
plaintiffs had not met their burden under Rule 23(a)(1) and denied
class certification.

Campbell v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 311 F. Supp. 3d 281
(D.D.C. 2018)
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia denied class certification in this employment
discrimination class action against Amtrak. As an initial matter,
the court denied certification because all of the putative classes
and subclasses were fail-safe classes, consisting by their terms of
those employees who had suffered discrimination. Therefore, if the
plaintiffs failed to prove discrimination on the merits, the
classes would consist of no members and the defendant would be
denied any preclusive effect. The court further concluded that even
a properly pleaded class could not satisfy the class certification
requirements because the plaintiffs alleged a patchwork of
individual acts of discrimination by various supervisors and other
employees, rather than a single common policy of discrimination.
For this reason, the case could not provide common answers, and
commonality was therefore not satisfied.

Herron v. Best Buy Stores, LP, No. 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD, 2018 WL
1960659 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2018), 23(f) pet. granted
Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California denied the plaintiff's amended motion for
certification of a class of California laptop purchasers alleging
violations of California consumer protection laws based on
purported misrepresentations about battery life. The court
previously refused to certify a class, as discussed in the summer
2016 issue of The Class Action Chronicle, because the plaintiff's
damages model was not tied to his theory of liability. Noting the
plaintiff must provide evidence of a damages model that could
determine the price premium attributable to the defendant's use of
the allegedly misleading battery-life representations, the court
held that instead, the plaintiff only introduced evidence that an
increase in battery life equals an increase in price by calculating
"the difference in value of one alleged misrepresented hour of
battery life against another alleged misrepresented hour of battery
life." This failed to explain how the difference in the relative
prices of various mislabeled laptops is helpful in determining
whether a price premium is associated with the allegedly deceptive
labels. The court rejected the plaintiff's reply argument that the
correct way to measure restitution damages is the difference
between what consumers were promised and what they actually
received, because under a restitution theory, consumers are
entitled not to what they were promised but rather, to the
difference between the price they paid and the true market price of
the laptops they received. Because the plaintiff provided no
restitution model demonstrating that a change in the defendant's
labeling would cause a change in market price, the damages model
was not tied to his theory of liability and did not demonstrate a
classwide basis for calculating damages as required under Rule
23(b)(3).

Andren v. Alere, Inc., No. 16cv1255-GPC(AGS), 2018 WL 1920179 (S.D.
Cal. Apr. 24, 2018)
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denied the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the court's previous order denying class
certification of six state subclasses, discussed in the spring 2018
issue of The Class Action Chronicle. The plaintiffs alleged
deceptive and misleading advertising and marketing of the
defendants' electronic blood-clotting testing devices. Recognizing
that an order denying class certification may be altered or amended
before final judgment, the court considered the plaintiffs' motion
under Rule 23 and not the parameters of a motion for
reconsideration. The plaintiffs argued that newly discovered facts
demonstrated that predominance was satisfied with respect to the
learned intermediary doctrine, statute of limitations and damages.
Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that common issues predominated
with respect to the learned intermediary doctrine because the
defendants failed to warn any physicians about the devices, and the
issue was therefore subject to common proof. Rejecting this
argument, the court noted that the learned intermediary doctrine
requires more than demonstrating a failure to warn; it also
requires demonstrating proximate cause, leading to individual
inquiries into each doctor's experience with the product. The court
also held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that each of
the six subclass state's consumer protection statutes provide for a
full refund recovery. Further, the court found that while the
plaintiffs may be entitled to tolling of the statute of limitations
under equitable tolling and/or the discovery rule, they had not
sufficiently demonstrated its application to the six subclass
states and whether these exceptions would allowing tolling for each
of the potential class members, some of whom may have had earlier
notice of issues with the testing devices.

Craft v. South Carolina State Plastering, LLC, No.
9:15-cv-5080-PMD, 2018 WL 1993863 (D.S.C. Apr. 16, 2018), 23(f)
pet. pending
Judge Patrick Michael Duffy of the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina denied class certification in this
putative class action alleging construction defects related to the
stucco applied to homes. The court held that the predominance
inquiry was fatal to the plaintiffs' class certification motion
because individualized inquiries into liability and damages would
require the destructive evaluation of each house. The court also
explained that because the application of the defendant's statute
of limitations affirmative defenses would vary depending on facts
particular to each plaintiff's case, class certification was
erroneous. Moreover, the court found that management difficulties
counseled against a finding of superiority, and establishing
subclasses and mini-trials would further cause issues. Finally, the
court discounted certification of similar cases in South Carolina
state court, noting that the South Carolina Rules of Civil
Procedure took a more expansive view of class action availability
than the federal rules. Accordingly, the court declined to certify
the putative class.

Theodore D'Apuzzo, P.A. v. United States, No. 16-62769-Civ-Scola,
2018 WL 2688760 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 12, 2018)
Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida denied the plaintiff's motion for
class certification alleging breach of contract, breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and illegal
exaction. The claims arose in connection with the E-Government Act
that provides for access to judicial "written opinions" on the
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) database.
According to the PACER Fee Schedule, users are not charged for
accessing judicial opinions. The plaintiff sought to certify a
class of PACER users who were allegedly charged for that access.
Although the court held that the plaintiff met the Rule 23(a)
requirements, it determined that the case was not suitable as a
class action because it failed to satisfy the predominance and
superiority requirements under Rule 23(b). Specifically, there was
insufficient guidance with respect to the definition of a "written
opinion" and whether the E-Government Act, or merely the PACER Fee
Schedule, mandated free access to such opinions. Moreover, the
authoring judge of each document has the responsibility to
determine whether it qualifies as a "written opinion." Therefore,
the court concluded that the plaintiff's claims were not subject to
determination by generalized proof but would instead require
individualized inquiry to determine which documents they paid for
and whether those documents were "written opinions." Due to the
difficulties in managing the proposed class, the court found that
the plaintiff could not satisfy the predominance and superiority
requirements and denied class certification.

Gorss Motels, Inc. v. Safemark Systems, LP, No.
6:16-cv-01638-Orl-31DCI, 2018 WL 1635645 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2018),
23(f) pet. granted
Judge Gregory Presnell of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida denied class certification in connection with
the plaintiffs' Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claims.
Defendant Wyndham Hotel Group (WHG), one of the world's largest
hotel franchise companies, entered into franchise agreements with
the named plaintiffs. WHG developed an approved supplier program by
which it identified and approved third-party suppliers and service
providers, and recommended such suppliers to its franchisees. The
plaintiffs received two faxes containing such approved supplier
information -- one in 2013 and one in 2015 -- and sought to certify
two classes, one for each fax that the defendant sent promoting its
hotel safety products purportedly in violation of the TCPA. The
court held that the predominance requirement could not be satisfied
because determining whether putative class members consented to
receiving the faxes would require a series of individual factual
determinations. Specifically, because the plaintiffs entered into
franchise agreements by which they agreed the franchisor could
offer assistance with purchasing items and provided their fax
information to their respective franchisors several times during
the course of their franchise relationships, the court concluded
that the consent issue would require individualized analysis of
each class member's franchise agreements and business dealings with
the defendant. Because the court would need to engage in an
individualized inquiry to determine which recipients had consented
to the faxes, the court held that common issues failed to
predominate and denied class certification. The plaintiffs recently
filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit.

Townsend v. Monster Beverage Corp., 303 F. Supp. 3d 1010 (C.D. Cal.
Mar. 20, 2018), 23(f) pet. denied
Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California denied the plaintiffs' motion to
certify a nationwide damages class asserting California consumer
protection law claims based on the plaintiffs' purchase of
beverages with four on-label statements alleged to be misleading.
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)
because there were significant individualized issues relating to
proof of materiality of the statements, and the plaintiffs' damages
model was deficient. The court held that to show materiality under
the statutes at issue, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the
statements were a factor in consumers' purchasing decision.
However, the admissible portions of the plaintiffs' expert reports
principally addressed how consumers understood the statements at
issue but not how the challenged statements impacted their
purchasing decisions. Thus, the plaintiffs failed to meet their
burden to show that whether a reasonable consumer would consider
any of the statements material presented a common question.
Regarding damages, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to
present a model that could determine the price premium attributable
to the defendants' use of the challenged statements. The only
admissible evidence addressed damages associated with one of the
four statements, and that model was inadequate for several reasons.
Most critically, the survey evidence supporting the damages claim
suffered from "focalism bias" because the survey failed to include
attributes deemed important by consumers, thereby artificially
inflating the importance of the limited attributes presented in the
survey.

Loughlin v. Amerisave Mortgage Corp., No. 1:14-CV-03497-LMM-LTW,
2018 WL 1887292 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 19, 2018)
Judge Leigh Martin May of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia adopted the report and recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Linda T. Walker and denied the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. The plaintiffs sought to certify two
classes in connection with an alleged kickback scheme in violation
of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) in which the
defendant required customers to use a certain appraisal management
company that shared profits with the defendant. One proposed class
consisted of customers who did not receive notice of the affiliated
business relationship, and the second consisted of customers who
received a defective notice. RESPA does not apply to loans being
used for a commercial purpose. The court held that the plaintiffs'
classes were not ascertainable because the plaintiffs offered no
feasible method by which they could determine which loans were
provided for owner-occupied residential mortgages and not for any
business, commercial or agricultural purposes. Because the
defendant did not track how customers spent their loan proceeds and
the plaintiffs did not address how to determine whether each
putative class member's loan involved a "cash-out" option that was
used for business purposes (and thus outside the scope of RESPA),
the court concluded that the proposed classes were not
ascertainable. Similarly, the court found that the classes could
not satisfy the predominance requirement because individualized
inquiries predominated over common questions, including whether: a
class member received a loan covered by RESPA, the defendant
actually referred the class member to the appraisal company,
cash-out proceeds were used for a business purpose and damages were
offset from reimbursed appraisal fees.

Long v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 2:15-cv-01202, 2018 WL 1247479
(S.D. W. Va. Mar. 9, 2018)
Chief Judge Thomas E. Johnston of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia denied certification of a
putative statewide class in this case alleging illegal debt
collection. The named plaintiff had been a class member in a
previous suit making similar allegations against the same defendant
and had not opted out of the settlement. The court first granted
summary judgment on several of the plaintiff's claims, finding that
they were based on conduct that was included within the initial
settlement and therefore claim-precluded. The court ruled that one
claim survived summary judgment because a reasonable jury could
find that it was premised on actions that post-dated the original
settlement. The court then denied class certification on the
surviving claim, finding that commonality, typicality and adequacy
were not met under Rule 23(a). First, it found classwide
proceedings could not demonstrate common answers because the
defendant serviced each class member's loan individually. Second,
the court found that the plaintiff was not typical of the class or
an adequate representative because proving the named plaintiff's
claim would not advance the claims of class members whose claims
predated the settlement, and a genuine issue of material fact
remained as to whether the plaintiff was even part of the purported
class. Therefore, the court denied class certification.

Bridge v. Credit One Financial, 294 F. Supp. 3d 1019 (D. Nev.
2018)
Judge Lloyd D. George of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada declined to certify a putative class action alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and various
state consumer laws. The plaintiff alleged that after he called the
defendant's automatic operator service on behalf of his mother on
his telephone, the defendant called his number without his consent
more than 100 times. Numerosity and adequacy were met, as the
defendant only argued that the proposed class size was
"unprecedented" in the large number of potential class members. The
court identified two questions that would generate common answers,
namely whether debt collection calls constituted nonemergency calls
and whether the defendant acted negligently or knowingly and
willfully toward the class. But the court noted that whether the
defendant used an automated telephone dialing system was not a
common question due to differences in vendors and equipment used,
which would vary as to individual class members and calls.
Typicality was not met, as the plaintiff had called Credit One in
connection with his mother's account, and account holders have
agreed that Credit One can contact them at telephone numbers used
by the account holder to contact Credit One. Finally, the court
held that the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements were not met, highlighting
individualized issues of consent and the difficulty in both
managing the class action and identifying the class members.

Ward v. Apple Inc., No. 12-cv-05404-YGR, 2018 WL 934544 (N.D. Cal.
Feb. 16, 2018), 23(f) pet. granted
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California refused to certify a class of
iPhone consumers purportedly injured by exclusivity agreements
between Apple and AT&T, which locked class members into renewing
AT&T service or else losing the cellular capabilities of their
iPhones. Apple did not dispute that the plaintiffs satisfied the
threshold requirements of Rule 23(a) or the superiority requirement
of Rule 23(b)(3) but argued that the class definition was overbroad
and that the plaintiffs had not established predominance. The
plaintiffs' expert offered theories of impact and damages based on
a preliminary review of certain data collected and techniques
employed by a different expert in a separate litigation involving
Apple, which he claimed he could apply in the instant case "to
reliably assess the existence and amount of damages to the Class
members without the need for individual inquiry." The court
concluded that the expert's declaration "lack[ed] any data-driven
analysis" and that this failure to provide "properly analyzed,
reliable evidence that a common method of proof exists to prove
impact on a class-wide basis" or any semblance of a "functioning
model that is tailored to market facts in the case at hand" was
fatal to the plaintiffs' certification motion under Rule 23(b)(3).
Because the plaintiffs' deficiency with respect to antitrust injury
was dispositive as to predominance, the court declined to address
the scope of the proposed class definition.

Usry v. Equity Experts.org, LLC, No. 1:16-cv-010, 2018 WL 934897
(S.D. Ga. Feb. 16, 2018)
Chief Judge J. Randal Hall of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Georgia denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) and Georgia usury law in connection with
excessive homeowners' association late fees. The defendant was
hired to collect unpaid homeowners' fees for a subdivision and
sought to charge various service fees to homeowners who were
delinquent on their payments. The plaintiffs moved to certify a
class consisting of all persons to whom the defendant "sent
collection letters asserting claims for delinquent assessments,
interest, and fees in violation of the FDCPA and the Georgia usury
statute." The court held that because the class membership could
only be ascertained by a determination of the merits of the case --
whether there was a "violation of the FDCPA and the Georgia usury
statute" -- the class was an impermissible "fail-safe" class.
Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiffs' proposed
subclasses also failed because the classes were impermissibly
defined in terms of the ultimate question of liability.

Huu Nguyen v. Nissan North America, Inc., No. 16-CV-05591-LHK, 2018
WL 1831857 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2018), 23(f) pet. granted
Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied certification of a class of consumers
alleging the defendant deceptively sold vehicles with defective
transmissions. The court found that predominance under Rule
23(b)(3) was not satisfied because the plaintiff failed to provide
a damages model susceptible to classwide proof. The plaintiff
proposed a "benefit of the bargain" damages model, based on the
liability theory that the class overpaid for the vehicles as a
result of the undisclosed, defective transmission. The model
proposed damages equivalent to the cost to replace the allegedly
defective transmission, allegedly representing the difference
between the value of the vehicle as represented by Nissan and the
value received. The court found this model "problematic," as it
would only reflect the value differential if all class members
deemed the defective part completely valueless. Instead, the court
noted that class members could have derived additional value from
the part by selling it, repurposing it or driving with it before
replacing it. Indeed, the evidence showed that the plaintiff drove
using the purportedly defective transmission for several thousand
miles before replacement. Thus, under the proposed model, the class
members would have received the full benefit of the bargain in
addition to the monetary value of the defective part, which was an
improper measure of damages. Questions of individual damages would
thus overwhelm questions common to the class. The court also
declined to certify a class under Rule 23(c)(4), as proceeding with
a classwide liability determination would not address the need for
individualized proof of damages.

Decisions Permitting/Granting Class Certification
Belcher v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 8:16-cv-690-T-23AEP, 2018
WL 1701963 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2018), report and recommendation
adopted in part, 2018 WL 1701964 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 2, 2018), appeal
denied, No. 18-90011, 2018 WL 3198552 (11th Cir. June 29, 2018)
(per curiam); Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Belcher, No. 18-90011,
2018 WL 3198552 (11th Cir. June 29, 2018) (per curiam)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Rosenbaum,
Jordan and Pryor, JJ.) denied the defendant's motion for leave to
appeal the district court's order granting class certification. The
plaintiff alleged that the defendant regularly sent collections
requests to consumers threatening to foreclose their homes or
charge loan fees. Because the consumers were involved in the
defendant's affordable loan program, the plaintiff contended that
these communications violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA) and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act
(FCCPA). For the FDCPA claim, the plaintiff sought to certify a
class of consumers who received foreclosure and increased fee
collection communications from the defendant while participating in
the defendant's affordable loan program, and also a subclass
consisting of Florida consumers for the FCCPA claim.

At the district court level, Magistrate Judge Anthony Porcelli of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
recommended that the motion for class certification be granted.
Regarding the ascertainability requirement, Judge Porcelli, noting
a circuit split, applied the Eleventh Circuit's stringent
"administratively feasible" standard and found that the plaintiff's
proposed class and subclass were not administratively feasible
because they would require individualized inquiries to determine
whether the defendant actually threatened foreclosure or incurrence
of fees through oral communications. Instead, Judge Porcelli
narrowed the class definition to plaintiffs that received written
delinquency notices. Because the class members could self-identify
to receiving a letter, the modified definition was ascertainable.
Judge Porcelli found that the self-identification process and the
existing business records of the defendant would allow the court to
determine which class members acquired debt for a person, family or
household purpose, as required by the FDCPA and FCCPA.

The decision also turned on the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance
requirement. The defendant argued that individual questions would
predominate over common questions because each class member's
unique communications with the defendant would have affected the
class members' understanding of the affordable loan program and
whether they were actually deceived by the delinquency notices.
However, Judge Porcelli found that the objective "least
sophisticated consumer" test would apply to determine whether a
customer perceived a delinquency notice as threatening foreclosure
and therefore not require individualized inquiry. The rest of the
FDCPA and FCCPA claims could be determined by generalized proof. As
a result, Judge Porcelli recommended that the class be certified,
and Judge Steven Merryday adopted the recommendation.

The Eleventh Circuit denied the defendant's motion for leave to
appeal the district court's order granting class certification
pursuant to Rule 23(f). First, the judges considered the importance
of legal questions in the case. Namely, the defendant asked the
court to decide the standard for ascertainability and to clarify
whether FDCPA or FCCPA claims can satisfy the predominance
requirement under Rule 23(b)(3). Despite acknowledging the circuit
split on the ascertainability issue, the judges concluded that
solving the issue would have no consequence on the case since the
"administratively feasible" standard is the most stringent and the
plaintiff's class would also pass muster under alternative
standards. The judges felt that consideration of this issue was
more appropriate for a typical appeal process, not immediate
interlocutory review. Additionally, the judges refused to determine
a universal predominance standard for FDCPA and FCCPA cases because
this inquiry requires case-by-case analysis. Second, the judges
considered whether there was "substantial weakness" in the district
court's decision. Although the defendant argued that individualized
inquiries would be required to identify class members and determine
the purpose of the loan in contravention of the Rule 23
requirements, the Eleventh Circuit was satisfied with the district
court's reliance on self-identification. Most importantly, the
judges noted that the decision to certify the class was not the
"death knell" for either party since the decision did not end the
case. With the class certification stage being early in the
litigation, the judges acknowledged that the record was largely
incomplete. Without any impending events necessitating the need for
immediate review, the judges held that interlocutory appeal was
inappropriate here and denied the defendant's Rule 23(f) motion.

Bradach v. Pharmavite, LLC, Nos. 16-56598, 17-55064, 2018 WL
2250508 (9th Cir. May 17, 2018)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Bea and Murguia,
JJ., and Keeley, district judge sitting by designation) reversed
the lower court's refusal to certify a class of purchasers of
dietary supplements in reliance on the statement "Helps Maintain a
Healthy Heart," which allegedly violated California consumer
protection laws. First, the panel concluded that the plaintiff's
state law claims were not pre-empted by the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FDCA) because the "heart health" representation the
plaintiff was challenging was a "structure/function" claim about
the product's benefits. Thus, the lower court's finding that the
plaintiff did not satisfy Rule 23's typicality requirement because
his claims were pre-empted was in error. The panel further rejected
the district court's conclusion that the proposed classes did not
satisfy Rule 23's ascertainability, commonality, predominance and
superiority requirements because it would be difficult to determine
whether the putative class members viewed the statement as a
disease prevention claim, which is pre-empted by the FDCA, or a
structure/function claim, which is not. The panel observed that
under California law, class members in certain consumer protection
class actions are not required to prove individual reliance on
allegedly misleading statements, but rather, whether members of the
public are likely to be deceived. Thus, the district court's
conclusion that it would need to inquire into the motives of each
individual class member was premised on an error of law. The panel
remanded to the district court to reconsider the class
allegations.

Flynn v. FCA US LLC, No. 15-cv-0855-MJR-DGW, 2018 WL 3303267 (S.D.
Ill. July 5, 2018), 23(f) pet. denied
Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois granted class certification, in part,
to plaintiffs claiming the breach of implied warranties related to
purchases of 2013-2015 Chrysler vehicles. More specifically, the
plaintiffs alleged that the defendants designed and installed an
"infotainment system" that is vulnerable to hackers seeking to take
remote control of the affected vehicles and that unremedied
vulnerabilities could allow hackers to access critical and
noncritical vehicle systems. After dismissing a number of claims on
summary judgment, the court analyzed the remaining claims under
Rule 23. Both the nationwide and state classes satisfied the
requirements of Rule 23(a). The "low hurdle" of commonality was
satisfied, as the claims all rested on the same basic allegations
of the defendants' actions leading up to and following the
production of vehicles with the infotainment system. Typicality was
also satisfied, as the claims arose from the same practice or
course of conduct. The nationwide class, however, did not satisfy
predominance because of the differences in state laws that underlay
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims. State laws differed, for
example, on requirements for privity and the definition of
merchantability. However, the proposed state classes satisfied
predominance, as there appeared to be "no difference" among class
members with respect to proving merchantability and the
defectiveness of the vehicles. Accordingly, the court granted class
certification to the state classes alleging claims of the breach of
implied warranties.

Damus v. Nielsen, 313 F. Supp. 3d 317 (D.D.C. 2018)
Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia preliminarily certified a class of asylum seekers for
the purpose of adjudicating their motion for a preliminary
injunction. The plaintiffs argued that the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) had adopted a de facto categorical policy of denying
asylum seekers parole while their adjudication was pending, and
that this policy contravened internal DHS regulations in violation
of the Administrative Procedure Act. First, the court noted that
the class certification inquiry was less demanding where, as here,
the plaintiffs sought only preliminary certification. Next, the
court concluded that all members of the putative class had
standing, noting that the defendants' objection that not all asylum
seekers had been injured by the challenged policy ignored the fact
that the class was expressly limited to those who had been. The
court also concluded that a common question of law and fact united
the class members' claims where the plaintiffs challenged a common
policy rather than a series of individualized determinations by
various field offices. The court further rejected a defense
argument that differing motives could defeat commonality because
the court did not need to find a common intention in order to
certify the class where the plaintiffs alleged violation of a
common policy. Finally, the court concluded that the putative class
was sufficiently cohesive to be certified to seek injunctive relief
under Rule 23(b)(2) for largely the same reasons that it had found
the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) to be met.

Bassett v. Credit Management Services, Inc., No. 8:17CV69, 2018 WL
3159791 (D. Neb. June 28, 2018), 23(f) pet. denied
Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nebraska granted class certification to a proposed
class alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act. Specifically, the
plaintiff alleged that the defendant miscast its causes of action
in county court cases to obtain attorney fees, wrongfully sought
and obtained fees for in-house counsel, and wrongfully collected
and kept prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees as undisclosed
collection fees related to county court collection complaints. On
review, the court granted certification to this Rule 23(b)(3)
class. The class could be ascertained by review of the defendant's
records and court records for the short period of time. Commonality
was satisfied, as the court concluded that the "core of the
plaintiff's suit [wa]s based on common facts and law." The court
had already determined on summary judgment that the defendant
violated the statutes in miscasting its complaint and obtaining
attorney fees. The named plaintiff's complaint was typical of the
class, as the plaintiff alleged that the defendant utilized the
"same form complaint." Questions of law and facts common to the
class members on liability also predominated over any questions
that affected individual members, principally damages. Accordingly,
the court granted class certification.

Fitzhenry-Russell v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., No.
17-cv-00564 NC, 2018 WL 3126385 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2018), 23(f)
pet. denied
Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted the plaintiffs' motion
to certify a class of California consumers who purchased Canada Dry
ginger ale products marketed with a "Made From Real Ginger" claim,
alleging violations of California consumer protection statutes
because the products contained only a ginger derivative. The court
held that the plaintiffs were sufficiently typical of the class,
rejecting the defendants' argument that one of the named plaintiffs
could not show she was misled because it was not clear from her
deposition testimony that she ever noticed the "Real Ginger" claim
and that she believed the product had ginger root in it even before
the claim. The court gave the named plaintiff the benefit of the
doubt on this issue, both because she remembered a commercial with
the "Real Ginger" claim that made her think the product contained
ginger root, and because she never specifically testified that she
always believed the product contained ginger root. The court also
held that Rule 23(b)(3) was satisfied. Individual issues did not
predominate because a consumer perception survey showed that 78.5
percent of respondents believed that "Made From Real Ginger" meant
the product contained ginger root. The court cited the defendants'
own internal marketing documents as support that the representation
was material to a reasonable consumer, because those documents
showed that a quarter of consumers listed the "Real Ginger" claim
as one of the top five reasons they bought the product.

Reyes v. BCA Financial Services, Inc., No. 16-24077-CIV-GOODMAN,
2018 WL 3145807 (S.D. Fla. June 26, 2018)
Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida granted in part and denied in part
the plaintiff's motion for class certification in connection with
the defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), which prohibits the use of automatic
telephone dialing systems and artificial voice to call a person's
cellphone without consent. The defendant, a debt collector for
health care companies, utilized "predictive dialer" and
"interactive voice response" (IVR) technologies to contact debtors.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant dialed wrong numbers
using these technologies, in violation of the TCPA. The court held
that the requirements of Rule 23 were satisfied. The court first
held that the class was ascertainable and administratively
feasible. In support of its motion for class certification, the
plaintiff offered an expert, a managing director of a litigation
support and data analysis management company who previously acted
as a project director for a number of class action administrations.
The expert opined that it was feasible to match telephone numbers
with the proper class members using the defendant's telephone
records. In response, the defendant sought to introduce its own
rebuttal expert to challenge the plaintiff's methodology and moved
to strike the expert's opinion. The court concluded that the
plaintiff's expert was reliable, largely because numerous district
courts had relied on her opinions in the past, and that
ascertainability was therefore satisfied. Second, the court held
that predominance was satisfied, rejecting the defendant's
arguments that whether an intended caller gave consent, whether a
called number belonged to a cellphone and to the name of the
subscriber on the telephone account would all require
individualized proof. Third, the court found that a class action
was the superior method of adjudicating the plaintiff's claims,
noting that TCPA claims are well-suited for class treatment.
Finally, the court rejected the defendant's argument that the
proposed class was defined as an impermissible fail-safe class.

As an initial matter, the court noted that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has not addressed whether a
fail-safe class could be certified, and there was a split of
authority among the circuit courts. Additionally, the court also
held that the class definition did not clearly and neatly fit into
the fail-safe class doctrine as to warrant denial of class
certification. The court did amend the class definition by
excluding class members who received IVR calls, since the plaintiff
failed to allege that the defendant called her using this
technology. After limiting the class definition, the court granted
the plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Greene v. Sears Protection Co., No. 15-CV-2546, 2018 WL 3104300
(N.D. Ill. June 25, 2018), 23(f) pet. denied

Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted class certification, in part, to
plaintiffs alleging that they entered into and paid for
appliance-service agreements with the defendants that did not
actually cover their products. The plaintiffs alleged that the
defendants breached their agreements, were unjustly enriched and
engaged in a deceptive business practice by selling "repair or
replace" agreements to the plaintiffs even though the defendants
had no intention of repairing or replacing the appliances covered
by the agreements. The plaintiffs sought to certify a nationwide
class on the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims as
well as a Pennsylvania class under that state's Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law. On review, the court first
rejected the defendants' request to exclude the plaintiffs'
expert's damages opinion, finding that the expert -- in contrast to
the defendants' argument -- sufficiently accounted for Sears'
provision of repairs and was not speculative. The court then
granted the motion for class certification, after limiting the
temporal component of the proposed class definitions to comport
with the relevant statutes of limitations governing the
breach-of-contract claims. The court found that commonality was
satisfied because the claims were predicated "on alleged conduct
that was uniform as to all class members" -- i.e., that Sears sold
policies for products that it did not have any intention of
covering. Predominance was also satisfied for the nationwide class
even though the defendants asserted that they had no uniform
coverage position because the plaintiffs also submitted evidence
supporting their position that the defendants engaged in
standardized conduct. In other words, the court rejected the
defendants' chief contention that coverage determinations are
fact-intensive and individual, thereby defeating predominance. The
court also disagreed with the defendants' argument that
predominance could not be met as to the Pennsylvania consumer
protection claims based on the statute's justifiable reliance
element. According to the court, the reliance element could be
proven on a classwide basis based on class members' mere purchase
of the agreements at issue. Accordingly, the court granted class
certification. [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 ***