CAR_Public/181102.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, November 2, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 220

                            Headlines

ACCUTRACE INC: Sued for Selling Sealed Criminal Background Report
AETNA INC: $17MM HIV Disclosure Statement Gets Final Court Okay
ALKIRE SUBWAY: Gallegos Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
AMERICA'S HEALTH: Gallion Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
AMPEX BRANDS: Fails to Pay OT to Cashiers/Managers, Heilesen Says

ANTERO RESOURCES: Court Denies Bid to Certify Bond Subclasses
AUSTRALIA: Redland City Council Faces Ratepayers Class Action
AUSTRALIA: Woman Behind Light Rail Class Action Seeks Seat
BD FUNDING: Abante Rooter Seeks Damages Over TCPA Violation
BETO O'ROURKE: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages

BISHOP LIFTING: Technicians File Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CATERPILLAR INC: Amended Securities Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
CEMTREX INC: Settles Securities Class Action in New York
CENTRA TECH: Mayweather, Khaled Among Sued in Crypto Scam Case
CERTIFIED TIRE: Appeals Court Affirms Wage-and-Hour Ruling

CINEFLIX MEDIA: Workers File Class Action Over Unfair Pay
CREDIT PROTECTION: Lanteri Bankruptcy Class Certification Denied
DAYTON, OH: 2,000+ People Seek Landfill Odor Settlement Payout
DEJA VU: Strippers Seek to Undo Class Action Settlement Approval
DIGITAL FORENSICS: Debenham Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

EBAY INC: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Claims
ELAN GROUP: Garcia Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
ESSENDANT INC: Monteverde & Associates File Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Video Metrics
FCB FINANCIAL: Parshall Suit Challenges Merger With Synovus

FLINT, MI: Gov. Snyder Says Water Crisis Problems Fixed
GENERAL MOTORS: Dominguez Files Suit Asserting ADA Breach
GENKI SUSHI: Nov. 29 Hawaii Hepatitis A Claims Filing Deadline
GLOBAL POWER: Court Dismisses Budde Securities Suit
GORE NITROGEN: Oilfield Workers Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay

GRANT PASS, OR: Faces Class Action Over Anti-Camping Ordinance
HALL OF FAME: Court Rules in Favor of Reimbursement Package
HERTZ CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Robocalls
HONOLULU, HI: Faces Class Action Over Flooding Damages
HOTEL CONDOR: Dominguez Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach

IOWA: Obtains Unfavorable Ruling in Speeding Tickets Case
K&N ENGINEERING: Penrod Sues Over Defective Engine Oil Filters
KAISER FOUNDATION: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Schmitt Suit
KALEIDA HEALTH: Faces Lutz Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
LOWELL HOTEL: Breeze Files Civil Rights Suit in New York

LYFT INC: Settlement in Zamora Suit Has Final Approval
LYFT: Faces Class Action Over Concierge Program Text Messages
MARINOSCI LAW: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, Sullivan Claims
MDL 1657: $4.3M Attys' Fees Awarded in Vioxx Product Liability Suit
MDL 2804: City of Moore to Join Opioid Epidemic Class Action

MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Violates ADA, Dominguez Suit Says
MGT CAPITAL: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Actions
MICHIGAN: Cert. of Special Ed Class Eligible Children Sought
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Appeals Order in Cleven Suit to 5th Cir.
MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Narrows Claims in Gunther FDCPA Suit

MIDLAND FUNDING: Arbitration Order in Khath Suit Affirmed in Part
MONSANTO CO: Herbicide Exposure Caused Husband's Death, Says Evans
NEW YORK EQUESTRIAN: Faces Suit for ADA Violation
NORTHSTAR ALARM: Class and Subclass Certified in Braver Suit
NORTHVIEW APARTMENTS: Faces Class Action Over Dartmouth Fire

O PARK CENTRAL:  Faces Class Suit Asserting Civil Rights Violation
OCEAN HARBOR: Fla. App. Flips Class Certification in MSPA Suit
PANERA BREAD: Assistant Managers Get Conditional Certification
PARAMOUNT HOLDINGS: Fabricant Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
PARK PIZZA: Castillo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

PERRY FUNERAL: Faces Class Action Follow Discovery of Fetuses
PIACERE NEWS & CAFE: Espinosa Seeks Overtime Wages, Withheld Tips
PRINCE LIONHEART: Consumer Sues Over Toddler's Injury
PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL: Sued by Judson Over NDMA in Valsartan
PUTNAM INVESTMENTS: Workers' ERISA Class Action Revived

QUALCOMM: Asks 9th Cir. to Intervene in Antitrust Class Action
RANBAXY INC: Sued by Meijer for Delaying Entry of Generic Nexium
REA ENERGY: Appeals Court Upholds Class Action Dismissal
RITE AID CORP: Accused by Lynn of Falsely Labeling Sunscreen
ROBERT FX SILLERMAN: Guevora Fund Files Suit in S.D. New York

SAROOP & SONS: Denied Overtime Pay, Wage Statements, Paredes Says
SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER: Court Partly Certifies Alonso Class
STAPLES GROUP: Worsley ASMs Class Gets Conditional Certification
STARBUCKS CORP: Brown Suit Hits Product Mislabeling
STATE FARM: Obtains Favorable Ruling Labor Costs Dispute

STEINHOFF: European Investors Agree to Suspend Class Action
SUN TAN CITY: Caraboolad Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
TENNESSEE: Ordered to Stop Suspending Driver Licenses Over Fines
TESLA INC: $1M Settlement in Wilson FLSA Suit Has Prelim Approval
TOMMY WHITLOW: Court Closes Crescent Consulting Suit

TRIUMPH MOTORCYLCES: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UBER TECH: Court Dismissed 2nd Amended Gonzales Class Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Manatt Discusses Arbitration Ruling
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Taxi Drivers in Australia Mull Class Action
UNITED AIRLINES: Only 2 Pilot Instructors' Claims Revived

UNITED STATES: Bid to Certify Class in Trinh Under Submission
UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class of Students in Manriquez Suit
UNITED STEEL: ASARCO Files Suit Seeking Declaratory Judgment
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Trujillo Renews Bid to Certify ERISA Class
UNITEDHEALTH: Sued for Underpaying Mental Health Reimbursements

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Settles Tyndall Class Action for $215MM
VECTRUS SYSTEMS: $3.75MM Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
VIACOM: Can't Force Kids App Data Suit to Arbitration
VOLKSWAGEN: Claims in Wilson Suit Over Defective Vehicles Trimmed
WAL-MART STORES: Pitre Moves to Certify Class and Two Sub-Classes

WARNER CHILCOTT: Court Clarifies Position on Certification Issue
WEBSTAURANT: Rogers Class Has Partial Conditional Certification
WELLS FARGO: Financial Adviser Files Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Kang Seeks to Certify Class and Subclass of Workers
WYNDHAM HOTEL: Luca Seeks Class Certification Under CFA, TCCWNA

WYNDHAM: Faces Class Action Over Hidden "Resort Fees"
XPO LOGISTICS: Mendoza Files Labor Class Action
ZIMMER BIOMET: Court Narrows Claims in Shah Securities Suit
[*] Class Actions, Continuous Disclosure in Australia Scrutinized
[*] GDPR to Allow Limited Form of Collective Action in Ireland


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Covil's Summary Judgment vs. Finch Claims Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gabris' Claims vs. RJ Reynolds Remains in NYCAL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favoring McNeil & NRM Entered
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WRG Workers' Suit Remanded to Mont. State Court


                            *********

ACCUTRACE INC: Sued for Selling Sealed Criminal Background Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Accutrace, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-09059,
(S.D. N.Y., October 3, 2018) seeks actual, statutory and punitive
damages, award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, award of
attorney's fees and costs and such other relief under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Accutrace is a consumer reporting agency that provides full-service
background screening and healthcare/military credential checking.

In or about October 2016, Plaintiff sought employment with
Westchester Medical Center in Valhalla, New York. She accuses
Accutrace for generating and selling to a prospective employer a
criminal background report containing a juvenile offense that had
been sealed many years before. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam G. Singer, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ADAM G. SINGER, PLLC
      445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1102
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Tel: (212) 842-2428
      Email: asinger@adamsingerlaw.com

             - and -

      James A. Francis, Esq.
      David A. Searles, Esq.
      FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
      Land Title Building, Suite 1902
      100 South Broad Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19110
      Tel: (215) 735-8600
      Fax: (215) 940-8000
      Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
             dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com


AETNA INC: $17MM HIV Disclosure Statement Gets Final Court Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Eslinger, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania
federal judge has granted final approval to Aetna Inc.'s $17
million deal to settle claims the managed health care giant wrongly
disclosed patients' HIV-related information. [GN]


ALKIRE SUBWAY: Gallegos Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Karla Gallegos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Alkire Subway, L.P., Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-03569 (S.D. Tex., October 3, 2018), seeks all available
relief, including compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

Gallegos worked for Subway from 2014 until August 15, 2018. Her
duties included, but were not limited to, tending to customers and
taking their orders, working the register, baking bread, cutting
vegetables, making sandwiches, sweeping and mopping the store,
taking out trash, taking inventory, closing the store and managing
the employees. She routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek but was denied overtime pay, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Tel: (713) 868-3388
      Fax: (713) 683-9940
      Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
             vijay@buenkerlaw.com


AMERICA'S HEALTH: Gallion Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Gallion, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. America's Health Options, LLC and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02107 (C.D. Cal.,
October 3, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages,
treble damages and all other relief for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

America's Health Options is an insurance agency who attempted to
contact Gallion on his cellphone using an automatic telephone
dialing system offering its services.  Plaintiff claims to have
incurred charges for incoming calls. [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


AMPEX BRANDS: Fails to Pay OT to Cashiers/Managers, Heilesen Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA HEILESEN and AARON WILLIAMS, Each Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AMPEX BRANDS BURLESON,
LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-00753-SWW (E.D. Ark., October 11, 2018),
arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay the Plaintiffs
and other hourly-paid cashiers and managers lawful overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Ampex Brands is foreign, for-profit limited liability company,
registered and licensed to do business in the state of Arkansas.
The Company owns and operates several KFC and Long John Silvers
restaurants throughout Arkansas and the surrounding states.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ANTERO RESOURCES: Court Denies Bid to Certify Bond Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY T. BOND et al, Plaintiffs, v. ANTERO RESOURCES
CORPORATION et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-14 (S.D.
Ohio), Judge Kimberly A. Jolson of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Action as a Class Action and to
Appoint Class Counsel.

The Defendant is an independent exploration and production company
engaged in the exploitation, development, and acquisition of
natural gas, natural gas liquids ("NGLs") and oil properties
located in the Appalachia Basin.  The Plaintiffs are landowners in
Noble County, Ohio who leased mineral rights to the Defendant.  The
Plaintiffs bring the putative class action on behalf of three
subclasses of leaseholders who have entered into leases with the
Defendant for the production of oil and gas.

Upon the execution of a lease for the Plaintiffs' mineral rights,
the Defendant would drill a horizontal oil and gas well on the
property subject to the lease.  In exchange for the leasing of
their mineral rights, the Plaintiffs received royalties from the
Defendant's production and sale of that oil and gas.

Relevant in the case, between 2012 and 2017, the Defendant
purportedly used a series of form contracts when negotiating leases
with certain property owners: Form 2012, Form 2013, and Form 2014.
The Form Leases contain similar, if not identical, provisions for
calculating lessors' oil and gas royalties and deductions from the
same.  According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant breached the Form
Leases through a uniform practice of underpaying oil and gas
royalties and deducting unauthorized taxes and unauthorized costs
from those royalties.

The Defendant previously moved to dismiss a portion of Count Four.
The Court granted that motion in its Opinion and Order dated June
28, 2018.  The Plaintiffs subsequently filed the Motion to Certify
Action as a Class Action and to Appoint Class Counsel on July 13,
2018.  They seek to certify three subclasses of leaseholders, one
for each of the Form Leases (2012, 2013, and 2014) at issue.  The
Defendant filed its Opposition on Aug. 10, 2018.  The Plaintiffs
filed their Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify
Class, and the Defendant submitted a Surreply.

Judge Jolson concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove
that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common
questions of law or fact, etc. to certify the proposed class.  They
have not provided sufficient proof to support their arguments in
support of class certification.  Instead, Plaintiffs offer only
their counsel's conclusory assertions.  These unsupported
assertions are not evidence and cannot satisfy their burden.  The
Plaintiffs have offered a total population of which some unknown
number of individuals may be class members which is not sufficient
under Rule 23(a)(i).

Even assuming that the Plaintiffs could satisfy the numerosity
requirement, the Judge is skeptical that they could satisfy the
remaining Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b) requirements.  To satisfy the
commonality requirement, a plaintiff must show that there are
questions of law or fact common to the class.  He finds that the
Plaintiffs' central contention is that the Defendant has a uniform
policy that injures members of the proposed class in the same way.
But they offer little, if any, relevant evidence to support their
contention.  The Judge would have expected, at the least, the
Plaintiffs to present testimony or an affidavit regarding the
Defendant's alleged uniform practice of underpaying oil and gas
royalties and improperly deducting taxes and costs from those same
royalties.  Instead, they rely almost exclusively on allegations in
the Second Amended Complaint or their own characterization of
exhibits submitted with their Reply.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Jolson denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify Action as a Class Action and to Appoint Class
Counsel.  The Court will hold a status conference in the matter on
Oct. 11, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. to discuss progression of the case.

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

Jeffrey T Bond, Kerri Bond & Schmidt Family Enterprises, LLC,
Plaintiffs, represented by Warner DeWitt Mendenhall --
warnermendenhall@gmail.com -- The Law Offices of Warner Mendenhall,
Inc. & Larry D. Shenise.

Antero Resources Corporation, Defendant, represented by William
Glover Porter, II -- wgporter@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour &
Pease, Ilya Batikov -- ibatikov@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour
and Pease LLP, Kara Marie Mundy -- kmmundy@vorys.com -- Vorys,
Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP & Peter A. Lusenhop --
palusenhop@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.


AUSTRALIA: Redland City Council Faces Ratepayers Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth McCosker, writing for Brisbane Times, reports that Shine
Lawyers has filed a class action against Redland City Council to
try to recover unspent ratepayers' money.

In March 2017 the council advised the canal maintenance levy paid
by ratepayers was invalid and it refunded part of the money.

Shine Lawyers has now commenced the proceedings on behalf of more
than 1500 residents to recover the remaining amount.

Shine Lawyers' senior solicitor Tristan Gaven said 1650 canal and
lakefront property owners were owed a full refund of unspent
money.

"We're pursuing this action to ensure ratepayers' money is back in
ratepayers' pockets," he said.

"It's about accountability and council doing right by its
ratepayers".

A Redland City Council spokesman said on Oct. 19 the council was
yet to be served with the claim.

"Regardless, council will vigorously defend any class action and
strongly contest any claim relating to the canal and lakes
estates," he said.

"Council has always acted with full transparency, accountability
and probity and in the best interests of residents.

"Council collected money via the special charge for the purpose of
funding maintenance and repair works for the benefits of the canal
and lakes residents.

"These works have been undertaken by council using those funds.

"All the unspent money that was collected was returned recently to
those residents." [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Woman Behind Light Rail Class Action Seeks Seat
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Parris, writing for Newcastle Herald, reports that the
woman behind a proposed Newcastle light rail class action will seek
a seat in federal parliament in the Wentworth by-election.

Angela Vithoulkas, who has coordinated a lawsuit on behalf of
Newcastle traders affected by light rail construction, will be a
rank outsider but also plans to pursue an Upper House seat in the
March state election.

The City of Sydney councillor will run as an independent in
Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull's old seat, but for her Small Business
Party in the state poll.

Ms Vithoulkas, whose own cafe in George Street closed recently
after years of light rail disruption in Sydney, helped lodge a $40
million lawsuit on behalf of about 60 Sydney traders in the Supreme
Court in August.

She was in Newcastle two months ago signing up more than 40
business people to a second class action. [GN]


BD FUNDING: Abante Rooter Seeks Damages Over TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing and Sidney Naiman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BD Funding
Group LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-06464 (N.D. Cal., October 23, 2018)
seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of BD Funding Group, LLC in
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiffs on
Plaintiffs' cellular telephones in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and related regulations, specifically the
Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

The complaint says the Defendant contacted Plaintiffs on
Plaintiffs' cellular telephone in an attempt to solicit Plaintiffs
to purchase Defendant's services, in which Defendant used an
automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to place its calls.

Abante Rooter and Plumbing is a corporation of the State of
California, whose principal place of business is in the county of
Alameda.

Sidney Naiman is a natural person residing in Contra Costa County,
California.

BD Funding Group LLC is a business lending loan company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


BETO O'ROURKE: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Baumann, writing for Townhall, reports that a class action
lawsuit was filed against the Beto O'Rourke campaign on Oct. 19.
According to the lawsuit, Beto's campaign sent text messages to
Texas voters without their permission, which would be a direct
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the
Star-Telegram reported.

The lawsuit was started by Collin County resident Sameer Syeed, who
said he received nine text messages from the campaign. But here's
the problem: he never opted into receiving text message
communications from the campaign.

Mr. Syeed tried calling the numbers he was receiving text messages
from but he received an error or disconnected dial tones which
means the Beto campaign was using an automated system. He also
tried responding to the text messages to opt out but he never
received a response.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act makes it illegal for
anyone to utilize an automated system to send text messages to
someone without their permission.

The class action lawsuit calls for the Beto campaign to pay $500
per text message to each person in the suit. [GN]


BISHOP LIFTING: Technicians File Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH KIRBY, II, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. BISHOP LIFTING PRODUCTS, INC., BEM BUSINESS
MANAGEMENT, LLC f/k/a M-CABLE LLC and d/b/a W R C, LLC; CMM
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, INC. f/k/a MATEX WIRE ROPE CO., INC.; MATEX
ACQUISITION CORPORATION d/b/a WRC and MATEX WIRE ROPE CO., Case No.
7:18-cv-00181 (W.D. Tex., October 11, 2018), accuses the Defendants
of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants violated the FLSA by improperly classifying, or
other otherwise treating, its technicians as employees exempt from
the guarantees and protections of the FLSA, the Plaintiff contends.
Specifically, he alleges, the Defendants have failed and refused
to pay their Technicians at time-and-one-half their regular rates
of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours within a
workweek.  Instead, the Defendants paid their Technicians a base
salary plus bonuses but did not pay for overtime hours at a rate
that is not less than one-and-one-half their regular rates of pay.

Bishop Lifting Products, Inc., is a Delaware corporation that is
authorized to do and is doing business in Texas.  Matex Acquisition
Corporation is a Delaware corporation that is authorized to do and
is doing business in Texas.  Matex Acquisition does business as WRC
and also does business as Matex Wire Rope Co.

BEM Business Management LLC is a Texas LLC that is authorized to do
business and is doing business in Texas.  BEM is formerly known as
M-Cable LLC.  BEM does business as W R C, LLC.  CMM Business
Management, Inc., is a Texas corporation that is authorized to do
and is doing business in Texas.  CMM is formerly known as Matex
Wire Rope Co., Inc.

The Defendants are oilfield services companies.  They provide
sales, service, and repair of wire ropes and cables used in the
oilfield.  The Defendants provide these services in the Permian
Basin and in other major U.S. oil and gas plays.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, P.C.
          The Commissioners House at Heritage Square
          2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: daniel@morelandlaw.com

               - and -

          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, P.C.
          13590 Ranch Road 12
          Wimberley, TX 78676
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com


CATERPILLAR INC: Amended Securities Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE SECURITIES SERVICES, GBMH, Lead
Plaintiff, v. CATERPILLAR, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17 cv
1713 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

Société Générale filed a two-count Amended Class Action
Complaint, alleging securities fraud in violation of section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Defendants
Caterpillar Inc., James B. Buda, Jananne A. Copeland, Bradley M.
Halverson, Douglas R. Oberhelman, and D. James Umpleby III, move to
dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [34].

The purported class of the Plaintiffs consists of those individuals
and entities that acquired Caterpillar common stock between Feb.
12, 2013, and March 1, 2017.  Caterpillar designs, manufactures,
and markets construction, mining, and forestry machinery.  It also
distributes its products globally through a network of dealers.
Caterpillar is currently headquartered in Peoria, Illinois.  Its
stock is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

The instant lawsuit stems from Caterpillar's creation of a Swiss
subsidiary, Caterpillar S.A.R.L. ("CSARL") in 1999, through which
Caterpillar paid an effective tax rate of 4-6% to the Swiss
government.  Société Générale alleges that CSARL lacked a
proper business purpose and thus was not a legitimate tax reduction
plan. A former employee filed a whistleblower lawsuit that was
resolved through a settlement.  After that lawsuit, however, the
IRS, Congress, and other government agencies began investigating
Caterpillar's tax position.

According to Société Générale, Caterpillar made materially
false and misleading statements and omitted material information
regarding the substantial risk to Caterpillar's tax position and
the extent of the investigation.  It further asserts that
Caterpillar falsely represented that it was cooperating with the
investigations. Société Générale claims several statements and
omissions by Caterpillar were materially false or misleading.

Société Générale alleges that the individual Defendants, who
are all current and former executives of Caterpillar, D. James
Umpleby III, Douglas R. Oberhelman, Bradley M. Halverson, James B.
Buda, and Jananne A. Copeland, made the alleged material
misstatements by signing the forms filed with the SEC and
Sarbanes-Oxley certifications.

The Defendants move for dismissal of both counts of the Amended
Complaint.  First, they argue that Société Générale fails to
allege an actionable misstatement or omission of material fact and
facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter to support the
claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule
5-b.  Second, the claim for "control person" liability under Sec.
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, fails for lack of a primary
violation of securities laws.

Judge Coleman finds that while the statements are made in the
present tense they express belief about what may happen in the
future.  They contain the usual markers of projections.  The
statements relating to Caterpillar's belief about the outcome of
the investigations and the disposition of the tax dispute express
what Caterpillar "believes" about their tax position and its
implications in the future.  Further, those statements are all
accompanied by meaningful cautionary language.  Thus, he finds
those statements are non-actionable under the safe harbor.  Even if
the safe harbor does not apply to all the statements highlighted by
Société Générale, the claims would still fail because the
amended complaint does not plausibly allege that any of those
statements were false and were known to be false when made.

Even if Société Générale had sufficiently alleged false
statements or omissions, the Judge finds that the allegations
supporting scienter fall short.  To maintain a claim for securities
fraud, Société Générale must also allege with particularity
facts giving rise to a strong inference that Caterpillar acted with
the required state of mind.  Société Générale does not explain
how the allegations some of which are conclusory shed light on
Caterpillar's state of mind during the class period.  Even assuming
each individual Defendant was aware of Caterpillar's tax position
regarding CSARL, it does not necessarily follow that they
disbelieved their statements or sought to deceive investors with
their statements.  Accordingly, the Judge finds that Société
Générale has failed to state a claim for securities fraud.

Finally, because the Judge has found no primary violation of
securities laws, Société Générale cannot state a claim for
control person liability under Section 20(a).

For all these reasons, Judge Coleman granted the Defendants' motion
to dismiss, and dismissed without prejudice the Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/TLd3MO from Leagle.com.

Jacob Newman, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom
-- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Louis Carey Ludwig --
lcludwig@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Societe Generale Securities Services GmbH, Plaintiff, represented
by Christopher F. Moriarty -- cmoriarty@motleyrice.com -- Motley
Rice Llc, Frank Anthony Richter -- frichter@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd, Gregg S. Levin -- glevin@motleyrice.com --
Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, James E. Barz -- jbarz@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & James M. Hughes --
jhughes@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice Llc, pro hac vice.

Caterpillar Inc., D. James Umpleby III, Bradley M. Halverson &
Douglas R. Oberhelman, Defendants, represented by Mark Robert Filip
-- mark.filip@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, James P.
Gillespie -- james.gillespie@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
pro hac vice & Kenneth Winn Allen -- winn.allen@kirkland.com --
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice.


CEMTREX INC: Settles Securities Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Cemtrex Inc., a technology and manufacturing company, on Oct. 17
disclosed that the Company has agreed to settle the pending alleged
securities class action lawsuit filed against it in the Eastern
District of New York.  The Company has also agreed to settle the
related stockholder derivative litigation filed in the Eastern
District of New York and New York state court.

Under the class action settlement, the Company specifically denies
that it has engaged in any wrongdoing or had liability.  On behalf
of the defendants, the Company's insurer will pay $625,000 to the
class of plaintiffs to resolve all claims that the plaintiffs
asserted or could have asserted in the litigation.

Under the derivative litigation settlement, the Company will
implement certain corporate governance changes and modify certain
governance practices, and the Company's insurer will pay $100,000
to the plaintiffs' counsel.  Like the class action settlement, the
derivative litigation settlement will resolve all claims that were
or could have been asserted in the litigation, and the Company and
the directors and officers of the Company named as defendants
continue to deny any liability or wrongdoing in connection with the
allegations contained in the lawsuit.

"We are pleased to be putting the uncertainty around these lawsuits
behind us, which we believe is beneficial to the Company and its
shareholders. After carefully evaluating the merits of trying the
case versus settling it, we chose the latter as any continued
litigation of the Actions would be protracted, burdensome, and
expensive for the Company. This settlement concludes this matter
expeditiously with no additional costs to the Company and further
avoids interference on operations," said Saagar Govil, Cemtrex's
Chief Executive Officer.  "With this action behind us, we can stay
focused on our business and more specifically, the SmartDesk, which
we launched earlier this year through our own in-house research &
development efforts and is gaining tremendous traction and market
acceptance from major corporations, academic institutions, and
government organizations."

The settlements are subject to several conditions, including formal
settlement documentation and court approval.

As the parties were in the process of reaching the class action
settlement, the Company filed a reply brief in support of its
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint in the
securities class action.  A copy of the reply brief is available on
Cemtrex's Investor Relations page here.  Full docket information
including all filings in the class action litigation can be found
under the case caption: Cullinan v. Cemtrex, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-01067-JFB-AYS (E.D.N.Y. filed May 7, 2018).  The dockets
for the derivative litigations are also available under the
following captions: Alami v. Govil, et al., No. 606635/2017 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Suffolk County filed April 10, 2017); Desmond-Newman v.
Govil, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-03992 (E.D.N.Y. filed July 11,
2018); Scharf v. Govil, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04596 (E.D.N.Y.
filed August 15, 2018).

The Company is represented by Doug Greene, a nationally prominent
securities litigation attorney, of the law firm of Baker
Hostetler.

                        About Cemtrex

Cemtrex, Inc. (CETX) -- http://www.cemtrex.com-- is the
manufacturer of the SmartDesk, the world's most advanced
workstation.  Cemtrex is a diversified technology company that's
driving innovation in a wide range of sectors, including smart
technology, virtual and augmented realities, advanced electronic
systems, industrial solutions, and intelligent security systems.
[GN]


CENTRA TECH: Mayweather, Khaled Among Sued in Crypto Scam Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin O'Brien, writing for Bitcoin, reports that an exclusive
report from TMZ said boxer Floyd Mayweather and well-known producer
DJ Khaled are involved with a lawsuit claiming they participated in
the Centra Tech cryptocurrency scam.

Reporting from the outlet said a class action lawsuit noted how the
duo were celebrity endorsers who promoted the virtual currency on
social media.

The TMZ report said investors are looking to get their money back,
plus damages, from company founders and the celebrity endorsers.

As of press time, it was not clear if TMZ had new information or
was reporting based off of already-released information. Former
investors in the virtual currency filed a class action lawsuit
earlier in the year that claimed Centra Tech was in violation of
federal securities laws with their token sale.

In late June, a magistrate judge published a report that said the
tokens released via the Centra Tech ICO were securities under
federal law.

AUTHORITIES: CENTRA TECH IS A SCAM
The three co-founders of Centra Tech, Raymond Trapani, Sohrab
Sharma, and Robert Farkas, were arrested in April and were later
accused of defrauding investors with a token sale.

Authorities said the trio allegedly,

"Made false claims about their product and about relationships they
had with credible financial institutions.

They said the actual CTR tokens were sold in an illegal ICO.

In May, Bitcoinist reported that the co-founders lied about
partnership deals, and said Centra Tech struck collaboration deals
with entities like Visa and Mastercard.

They also made up a fake CEO so the project would appear more
credible. Overall, investors purchased about $60 million dollar's
worth of CTR tokens.

Right now, the three co-founders are looking at a total of 65 years
in prison, according to an indictment. They are also subject to
paying financial penalties for their actions.

PROMOTION BY CELEBRITIES ON SOCIAL MEDIA
Mayweather and Khaled both endorsed the project and worked to
promote it on their own social media accounts.

Both Mayweather and Khaled made Instagram posts promoting the
offering before the token sale launch.

Screenshots from TechCrunch showed Mayweather's post encouraging
people to "join Centra's ICO on Sept. 19th."

Khaled wrote in his Instagram post that "The Central Card & Central
Wallet app is the ultimate winner in Cryptocurrency debit cards."

Around the time Centra's ICO was going live, Mayweather also
Tweeted how followers should get CTR tokens "before they sell out."
The famous boxer said he "got mine" in the same Tweet.

In November 2017, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
issued a warning about celebrity-backed ICOs. The regulator said
people should be wary of opportunities "that sound too good to be
true." [GN]


CERTIFIED TIRE: Appeals Court Affirms Wage-and-Hour Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Gregory V. Mersol, Esq. -- gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- of
BakerHostetler, in an article for Mondaq, reports that with many of
the easy targets for wage and hour matters gone (e.g.,
misclassification of assistant managers), plaintiffs' counsel have
increasingly turned to technical overtime or minimum wage
violations as a vehicle to bring class or collective action
litigation. As a recent claim reflects, that doesn't always work,
particularly where the challenged practices actually help the
employees.

In Certified Tire and Service Centers Wage and Hour Cases, the
employer paid its automotive technicians a guaranteed minimum plus
a potentially higher rate based on various performance metrics.
Thus, workers always earned above the minimum wage, but the amount
above that might fluctuate based on their performance that
workweek. The difference could be substantial, with some workers
making $70 per hour during some workweeks. The employees clocked in
and out for lunch but received breaks without clocking out.

So far, you may be thinking that the case involves some quirk by
which employees earned below the minimum wage or less than the
required overtime. Or perhaps they were accusing the employer of
forcing them to work off the clock in some fashion. Neither was so.
Instead, relying on case law limiting the use of the averaging of
hourly rates in California, the employees alleged that during their
breaks they had no opportunity to earn additional credit under the
formula that would increase their regular rate. Put another way,
the employees agreed that they were paid the minimum wage or more
during their breaks, but complained that they had no way to
increase that rate during those breaks. They filed two cases in
which the courts granted class certification, but after
consolidation and a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the
scheme did not violate California law.

The court of appeals affirmed. It noted at the outset that the
workers always received at least the minimum wage and that the
formula simply determined how much above the minimum wage they
would earn. Thus, the court distinguished the case from those in
which workers received no compensation during certain times (such
as travel to work sites) or pure piece-rate cases. The court of
appeals thus affirmed the trial court's decision to dismiss the
case.

The Certified Tire case reflects three important things. First, it
shows that employers can prevail even if a wage and hour class has
been certified. Second, it is an example of a creative employer
finding a way to navigate some of California's difficult obstacles
to performance- or productivity-based pay (although in this
instance, the matter still resulted in litigation). Third, it
reflects one of the increasing difficulties in wage and hour
litigation, which is claims being brought over alleged technical
violations of the law based on contorted mathematics or logic.
Here, there was no question that employees were always paid above
the minimum wage, there was no dispute over overtime and
hardworking employees could do very well. Yet it still took two
lawsuits and five years for the courts to conclude that the
employer never violated the law.

The bottom line:
Even in California, and even with claimed technical violations, an
employer can prevail at trial, but it may take a while. [GN]


CINEFLIX MEDIA: Workers File Class Action Over Unfair Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Etan Vlessing, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that
Property Brothers and Mayday producer Cineflix Media faces a $35
million class-action lawsuit that alleges freelancing Canadian
factual and reality TV workers are denied proper pay, job security
and benefits.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice claim alleges that contract
employees on a range of Cineflix productions as independent
contractors have been denied "basic minimum standards" under
Ontario's Employment Standards Act.

"Cineflix owed and owes the class members a duty of care based upon
the special relationship that developed between them as a
consequence of Cineflix's retaining the class members to perform
production work on Cineflix's behalf," says the complaint.

The allegations have not been proven in court, and the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice has not yet ruled on whether it will
consider the class-action lawsuit, which claims Canadian factual
and reality TV workers have been improperly classified as
independent contractors.

Cineflix Media CEO Glen Salzman told The Hollywood Reporter that
his company has retained lawyers and "will defend ourselves
vigorously." His company, though based in Montreal, has offices in
Toronto, New York City, London and Dublin.

Cineflix produces the hit series The Property Brothers, hosted by
renovation experts and siblings Drew and Jonathan Scott, in
partnership with HGTV. The Scotts, who broke out on the
Discovery-owned cable channel with their first namesake series in
2011, now have four series on the air and are responsible for more
original episodes annually on HGTV than any other talent.

Toronto-based TV production worker Anna Bourque, who is named as
the sole plaintiff in the lawsuit and worked on the sixth season of
Property Brothers, said Canadian workers on local film and scripted
TV productions are covered by union agreements with IATSE, NABET
and other guilds.

Reality TV workers, by contrast, as independent contractors are
denied minimum pay and labor standards as picture editors and story
editors routinely work against tight deadlines to turn hundreds of
hours of footage into Canadian-made factual and reality TV shows
that air and stream worldwide.

"With wages, we should be able to say here's what they are. And
overtime should be paid. The shows should be scheduled better.
After all, why am I working for half the money I agreed to?"
Bourque told The Hollywood Reporter.

Cineflix Media, which also produces the popular American Pickers
series, is named in the class-action suit brought by Toronto legal
firm law firm Cavalluzzo, even as rival Canadian factual producers
like Boat Rocker Media and Insight Productions are also expected to
become subjects of additional lawsuits.

The complaint is also on the radar of the Canadian Media Guild
(CMG), which represents unionized workers at the CBC, Canada's
public broadcaster and Vice Canada, and is looking to organize
factual and reality TV workers countrywide.

"Reality and factual TV are the wild west of the entertainment
world," said Lise Lareau, a CMG coordinator, in a statement.
"People working in this area of production are cut out of labor
laws. They don't have the rights of other employees, and
historically they've been left out of union contracts enjoyed by
the rest of the entertainment industry," she added.

The market for Canadian factual and reality TV series remains
strong, especially for local versions of international formats like
Amazing Race, Big Brother and The Bachelor, as domestic
broadcasters battle against Netflix and other digital insurgents
for viewer attention.

Canadian broadcasters have traditionally given their best primetime
slots to U.S. network versions of Idol, So You Think You Can Dance,
Big Brother, The Voice and Amazing Race, and typically air local
versions of the international formats as summer fare, or between
seasons for American versions to retain audience interest.

For local workers on the Canadian format versions, reduced license
fees paid by domestic broadcasters means indie reality TV producers
continue to hire freelancers who are cheaper and more flexible as
they work long hours and against tighter deadlines to deliver
episodes to air.

But local reality TV producers argue Canada is following the U.S.,
the U.K. and other major English-language TV markets in hosting
unionized movie and scripted TV production, while using non-union
crews and performers for factual and reality TV production.

Canadian reality TV producers insist the Canadian Media Guild is
flexing its muscles at an inopportune time, as they face increasing
obstacles to profitability in a fast-changing media landscape. In
addition, they argue freelancers that work on local reality TV
productions prefer the flexibility and autonomy of the so-called
gig economy.

"You bill differently and get tax write-offs," said one major TV
producer who preferred to remain anonymous. "The whole industry
works that way." [GN]


CREDIT PROTECTION: Lanteri Bankruptcy Class Certification Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KATHERINE LANTERI, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT PROTECTION
ASSOCIATION L.P., et al., Defendants, Cause No.
1:13-cv-1501-WTL-MJD (S.D. Ind.), Judge William T. Lawrence of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division, denied in part and provisionally granted in
part the Plaintiff's Third Amended Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiff seeks class certification with respect to her claims
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  She alleges
that the Defendants violated the TCPA by continuing to send text
messages to her cellular telephone number after she replied "stop"
when instructed to reply "STOP" to opt out from receiving further
text messages, and by contacting her regarding a debt while the
debt was subject to an automatic stay order of a bankruptcy court.


The Plaintiff now moves the Court to certify these two TCPA
classes:

     a. Stop Class: (1) All persons within the United States (2) to
whose cellular telephone number (3) Credit Protection Association,
L.P. sent a text message (4) using its vendor RingClear (5) within
four years of Sept. 8, 2013, (6) where the cellular phone owner
previously replied to the text message with the one-word reply stop
in any combination of capital and lowercase letters.

     b. Bankruptcy Class: (1) All persons within the United States
(2) whose cellular telephone number (3) Credit Protection
Association, L.P. called in an attempt to collect an alleged debt
(4) using its vendor LiveVox (5) within four years of Sept. 8,
2013, (6) during a period of an automatic stay as ordered from a
Bankruptcy Court.

She further moves the Court to appoint her as the class
representative and to appoint Steven Halbert, Keith Keogh, and
David Philipps as the counsel for the classes.

Provided that the Plaintiff and her counsel revise the
representation agreement to remove the requirement that the
Plaintiff pay fees, expenses, and costs if she were to withdraw her
claim or settle individually against her attorneys' advice and
submit an executed copy of the revised agreement to the Court,
Judge Lawrence will certify the class of (1) All persons within the
United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) Credit
Protection Association, L.P., sent a text message (4) using its
vendor RingClear (5) within four years of Sept. 8, 2013, (6) after
the cellular phone owner replied with the one-word reply stop in
any combination of uppercase and lowercase letters other than STOP
in all uppercase letters.

And because the Plaintiff failed to articulate an actual plan for
identifying the members of the Bankruptcy Class, the Plaintiff has
failed to establish both superiority and manageability as to that
proposed class.  Accordingly, the motion to certify will be denied
with regard to the Bankruptcy Class.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Lawrence denied the Plaintiff's
motion to certify the Bankruptcy Class.  Provided that the
Plaintiff and her counsel revise the representation agreement to
remove the requirement that the Plaintiff pay fees, expenses, and
costs if she were to withdraw her claim or settle individually
against her attorneys' advice and submit an executed copy of the
revised representation agreement to the Court within 10 days of the
date of the Entry, he will enter an order certifying the Stop Class
defined as (1) All persons within the United States (2) to whose
cellular telephone number (3) Credit Protection Association, L.P.,
sent a text message (4) using its vendor RingClear (5) within four
years of Sept. 8, 2013, (6) after the cellular phone owner replied
with the one-word reply stop in any combination of uppercase and
lowercase letters other than STOP in all uppercase letters.

Within 14 days of the date of the Court's certification order, the
parties will file a proposed case management plan that sets forth a
comprehensive schedule for bringing this case to a conclusion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/PU0hjk from Leagle.com.

KATHERINE LANTERI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Angie K. Robertson,
PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD., Keith James Keogh, KEOGH LAW, LTD,
Mary E. Philipps, PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD., Michael S. Hilicki,
KEOGH LAW, LTD, Steven James Halbert, Americenters Building,
Timothy J. Sostrin, MACEY & ALEMAN, P.C. & David J. Philipps,
PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD.

CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, LP, a Texas limited partnership &
ETAN GENERAL, INC., a Texas corporation, Defendants, represented by
David M. Schultz -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW &
CULBERTSON & Justin M. Penn -- jpenn@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW &
CULBERTSON, LLP.


DAYTON, OH: 2,000+ People Seek Landfill Odor Settlement Payout
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Blizzard, writing for WHIO, reports that more than 2,000
people are seeking payment from a Dayton landfill in a class-action
lawsuit settlement stemming from emitted odors that have led to
complaints from several area cities, records show.

No more than 2,039 class-action members will be accepted in the
$4.1 million deal involving Stony Hollow Landfill and a lawsuit
filed by a Moraine woman two years ago, federal documents seeking
final approval of the settlement show.

The suit filed Nov. 1, 2016, followed complaints from several
jurisdictions including Dayton, Jefferson Twp., Kettering,
Miamisburg, Oakwood and West Carrollton, but most of the complaints
came from Moraine and Jefferson Twp.

A tentative agreement called for the Waste Management Inc.-owned
site at 2460 South Gettysburg Road to provide $1,875,000 for
settlement funds to class-action members.

"Additionally and perhaps of greater importance, the settlement
agreement requires defendants to implement $1,450,000 worth of
improvement measures to the Stony Hollow Landfill in order to
reduce the potential for odor emissions," according to federal
court documents filed on Oct. 12 seeking final approval of the
settlement.

"The specific expenditures will include: installation of additional
landfill gas collection and control devices and related equipment,
and, if necessary, temporary synthetic capping material designed to
reduce potential off-site odor emissions from the Landfill,"
according to the filing. [GN]


DEJA VU: Strippers Seek to Undo Class Action Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a group of strippers argued on Oct. 17 before a Sixth Circuit panel
to undo the approval of a class-action settlement with their
employers for wage violations.

The exotic dancers sued Déjà Vu Services Inc., among others, in
2016, claiming the nightclub operators had violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act when they intentionally misclassified strippers as
independent contractors.

A settlement was reached in February 2017 which required the
dancers to release their FLSA claims in exchange for between $443
and $6,000 per year of employment in damages.

Additionally, the settlement would provide injunctive relief and
require the nightclub owners to "accurately categorize each dancer
as an independent contractor or employee based on the economic
realities test."

Six dancers objected and claimed the settlement provided far too
little in the way of damages, but U.S. District Judge Stephen
Murphy III in Michigan disagreed, approved the settlement and wrote
that "the objectors have underestimated the risks of litigation and
overestimated the likelihood of success on the merits."

"More importantly, however," Judge Murphy continued, "plaintiffs'
damages may very well be limited to a reduced minimum wage, as
tipped employees, or offset by other payments made to class members
and recorded by IRS Form 1099s."

Judge Murphy also took exception to the objectors' characterization
of the injunctive relief as a "sham."

"The injunctive relief," he wrote, "mandates long-term, structural
changes to defendants' business practices: an improved screening
system to accurately classify workers, an enhanced offer of
employment, and increased benefits and protections for employees
and independent contractors alike."

Attorney Harold Lichten argued on behalf of the objectors on Oct.
17 in the Sixth Circuit, and told the panel of judges he wouldn't
have enough time to explain all of the reasons the lower court
erred when it approved the settlement.

Mr. Lichten called the claims "extremely valuable," and said the
district court failed to properly analyze the claims and compare
their value to the proposed settlement.

The attorney gave a "very conservative" estimate of $141 million
for the claims of the class, and compared that number with the
$920,000 cash portion of the settlement to illustrate his point.

He told the panel that some exotic dancers were paid nothing by the
clubs, and that the minimum wages they should have received would
be doubled under the FLSA.

Chief U.S. Circuit Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. asked if there was
evidence in the record to support the valuation.

"That's the problem with the settlement," Mr. Lichten answered,
going on to explain that the district court's methodology of
calculating damages based on one or two dancers was inadequate.

The attorney also explained that thousands of dancers are unsure of
whether to file a claim because the number of class members is
undetermined, which means there is no defined cash payment.

"How could anyone make an informed decision . . . when you have
absolutely no idea how much [money] you're going to get?" Mr.
Lichten asked.

U.S. Circuit Judge John Nalbandian asked if the claims should head
to arbitration and whether that has an impact on the value of any
settlement.

Judge Lichten argued that because the parent company and primary
defendant in the case is not a signatory on the dancers' employment
agreements, it cannot compel arbitration.

"[But even] if it had been enforced," the attorney said, "that
doesn't mean the claims are worthless."

Attorney Jason Thompson argued on behalf of the class members who
accepted the settlement and disputed Judge Lichten's valuation of
the claims, calling his $141 million estimate an "astronomical
number."

U.S. Circuit Judge Helene White asked how the parties could justify
the $920,000 cash payment.

Mr. Thompson cited statistics that over half of strippers do not
"last a month," and 76 percent of them do not work 90 days, which
he said supports the average cash payout of just over $200 per
dancer.

Judge White seemed hung up on the methodology used to calculate the
damages, and asked how the data from only one or two dancers could
support a calculation for a class of over 28,000.

Mr. Thompson said interviews were conducted with numerous dancers
from clubs in several states, and told White, "This isn't the
vacuum I think you're conceding that this was done in."

The attorney also stressed that the "hallmark of the settlement" is
a court order that requires Déjà Vu to follow all federal and
state wage laws moving forward, and that this is the "first time
this has ever happened" in a case involving strippers.

Attorney Bradley Shafer argued on behalf of the strip club owners,
calling his opposing counsel's claim that dancers were unpaid
"blatantly false."

He cited labor laws in California that require strippers to be
paid, and said that all of his client's employees are "1099'd."

Mr. Shafer attacked the credibility of the objectors, and told the
court that "two of the objectors performed less than one day" at
the clubs.

He said those dancers "do not want to be employees, but will sue
when it benefits them."

No timetable has been set for the court's opinion. [GN]


DIGITAL FORENSICS: Debenham Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Giles Debenham, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Digital Forensics Corporation, LLC and
Dmitry Belkin,, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02301, (N.D. Ohio,
October 3, 2018), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated
damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for willful
violations of overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Digital Forensics performs digital investigations and data recovery
with services that include investigating data breaches,
intellectual property theft, cyber harassment, and other personal
investigations. Debenham worked for Digital Forensics as an inside
sales agent. Rather than paying an overtime premium for time spent
working in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek, Defendants
misclassified Plaintiff as "exempt" in order to avoid overtime
responsibilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clifford P. Bendau II, Esq.
      Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
      THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
      P.O. Box 97066
      Phoenix, AZ 85060
      Telephone: (480) 382-5176
      Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com

             - and -

      James L. Simon, Esq.
      6000 Freedom Square Dr.
      Independence, OH 44131
      Telephone: (216) 525-8890
      Facsimile: (216) 642-5814
      Email: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com


EBAY INC: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating
potential claims against eBay, Inc. (NasdaqGS: EBAY) ("eBay"). On
October 19, 2018, shares of eBay fell 8.9% to close at $28.75 per
share, their lowest level since December 2016, after being
downgraded to hold from buy by Stifel Nicolaus. In downgrading the
stock and slashing his price target from $43 to $35 per share,
Stifel analyst Scott Devitt cited PayPal Holdings Inc.'s earnings
release, which suggested weak third-quarterr gross merchandise
volume trends at eBay.

Johnson Fistel's investigation seeks to determine whether eBay's
filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission complied
with federal securities laws. If you are a recent purchaser of eBay
stock and interested in learning more about the investigation or
your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or by phone at
619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number.

                 About Johnson Fistel, LLP

Johnson Fistel, LLP -- http://www.johnsonfistel.com-- is a
nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in
California, New York, and Georgia. The firm represents individual
and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and
securities class action lawsuits. [GN]


ELAN GROUP: Garcia Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
--------------------------------------------------------
Mireya Garcia, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Elan Group, LLC, Kris Wallenta
and Jason Wallenta, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02532 (D. Colo.,
October 3, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid overtime premiums,
liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act.

Defendants operate "Dos Santos" restaurant in Denver, Colorado
where Garcia worked as an hourly kitchen staff. Though she
regularly worked more than 40 hours each workweek, her employers
refused to pay their employees overtime wages for overtime hours
worked, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandt Milstein, Esq.
      MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
      595 Canyon Boulevard
      Boulder, CO 80302
      Tel: (303) 440-8780
      Email: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com

             - and -

      Eudoxie Dickey, Esq.
      CIVIL RIGHTS & EMPLOYMENT LAW ADVOCATES, LLC
      2300 Walnut St. #123
      Denver, CO 80205
      Tel: (303) 395-9150
      Email: civilrightsadvocatesllc@gmail.com


ESSENDANT INC: Monteverde & Associates File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC on Oct. 17 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, Case No. 1:18-CV-01506, on behalf of public
common shareholders of Essendant, Inc. ("Essendant" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:ESND) who held Essendant securities on the
record date September 20, 2018 (the "Class Period"), and have been
harmed by Essendant and its board of directors' (the "Board")
alleged violations of Sections 14(d)(4),14(e), and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection
with the tender offer of Company common stock to be purchased by
Staples, Inc. ("Staples") (the "Tender Offer").

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Essendant shareholders
will receive $12.80 in cash  (the "Offer Price") for each share of
Essendant common stock they own.  The complaint alleges that The
Offer Price is inadequate and that the Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "Recommendation
Statement") provides materially incomplete and misleading
information about the Company's financials and the transaction, in
violation of Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. In particular, the Recommendation Statement contains
materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i)
the background to the Tender Offer; (ii) the valuation analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisor, Citigroup Global
Markets Inc. ("Citigroup"), in support of its fairness opinion; and
(iii) the conflicts of interest Citigroup faced as a result of its
ongoing dealings with Essendant, Staples, and certain affiliates.
The Tender Offer is scheduled to expire at one minute after 11:59
p.m., New York City time, on October 22, 2018.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 17, 2018.  Any member of the putative class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/essendant-inc. It is free and there
is no cost or obligation to you.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm committed that has recovered
millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and
consumers from corporate wrongdoing.  Monteverde & Associates PC
lawyers have significant experience litigating mergers &
acquisitions and securities class actions, whereby they protect
investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.
Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013 and 2017, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field.  He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017 Top Rated Lawyer. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Video Metrics
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Welch, writing for The Verge, reports that Facebook knew
about inaccuracies in the video viewership metrics that it provided
to advertisers and brands for more than a year, according to
documents filed as part of a potential class action lawsuit on Oct.
16. Advertisers were duped into focusing on the social network
under the belief that people were spending more time watching on
Facebook than through other video platforms. The inflated data also
led many media organizations to put an emphasis on Facebook video
and chase views to the detriment of other editorial efforts.

"Facebook's internal efforts behind the scenes reflect a company
mentality of reckless indifference toward the accuracy of its
metrics," the plaintiffs said in the October 16 filing. The
plaintiffs allege that advertisers began to question Facebook about
metrics that seemed off in 2015. Newly unredacted documents claim
that Facebook ignored the problem and kicked the can down the road
with "no progress" for a year. In pursuing their case, the
plaintiffs were able to review roughly 80,000 pages of internal
Facebook records.

Those communications show that Facebook was aware of a problem,
according to the Oct. 16 complaint, well before the company claimed
in 2016 that it "recently" had realized its calculations for the
average time users spent watching videos were being artificially
inflated dating back two years. Facebook said the error didn't
result in billing mistakes or partners being overcharged.

"The metric should have reflected the total time spent watching a
video divided by the total number of people who played the video.
But it didn't," Facebook conceded at the time. "It reflected the
total time spent watching a video divided by only the number of
‘views' of a video (that is, when the video was watched for three
or more seconds)." By Facebook's estimation, this inflated the
metrics that advertisers saw by between 60 and 80 percent.

But the new documents paint a much worse picture and claim the
discrepancy was actually anywhere between 150 to 900 percent. It's
easy to see how advertisers would be encouraged by such inflated
data and choose to dump more money into Facebook video ads versus
those on YouTube and other platforms.

The lawsuit accuses Facebook of unfair business conduct and fraud.
A company spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal that
"suggestions that we in any way tried to hide this issue from our
partners are false. We told our customers about the error when we
discovered it -- and updated our help center to explain the issue."
That statement seems to conflict with the unredacted documents that
allege Facebook learned of its bad numbers in January 2015 and
figured out the issue within a few months afterward. Facebook
maintains that the lawsuit from a group of small advertisers, which
seeks class action status, is without merit.

The social network now works with third-party measurement companies
and has agreed to undergo audits from the Media Rating Council.
[GN]


FCB FINANCIAL: Parshall Suit Challenges Merger With Synovus
-----------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FCB FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC., VINCENT S. TESE, LESLIE
J. LIEBERMAN, ALAN S. BERNIKOW, THOMAS E. CONSTANCE, HOWARD R,
CURD, KENT S. ELLERT, GERALD LUTERMAN, WILLIAM LAWRENCE MACK, PAUL
ANTHONY NOVELLY II, STUART I. ORAN, FREDERIC V. SALERNO, SYNOVUS
FINANCIAL CORP., and AZALEA MERGER SUB CORP., Case No.
1:18-cv-01570-UNA (D. Del., October 11, 2018), stems from a
proposed transaction, pursuant to which FCB will be acquired by
Synovus Financial Corp. and Azalea Merger Sub Corp.

On July 23, 2018, FCB's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Synovus.  Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, FCB's stockholders will
receive 1.055 shares of Parent common stock for each share of FCB
they own.

FCB is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive
offices in Weston, Florida.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

FCB is a national bank holding company that was formed in 2009 to
create a premier Florida-based regional banking franchise.  FCB is
the parent of Florida Community Bank, a national banking
association with over $10 billion in total assets, $1.1 billion in
capital, and 50 full-service banking centers throughout Florida.
Florida Community Bank serves the needs of commercial and personal
customers through its wide variety of business and personal banking
products.

Synovus is a Georgia corporation and a party to the Merger
Agreement.  Azalea is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Synovus, and a party to the Merger Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com


FLINT, MI: Gov. Snyder Says Water Crisis Problems Fixed
-------------------------------------------------------
Don Hopey, writing for Post-Gazette, reports that Michigan Gov.
Rick Snyder says Flint's water crisis is over and its problems
fixed, but others aren't so sure.

Even if true, its aftermath will continue to play out for years, in
the lives of the children exposed to lead in their drinking water,
in its impacts on public trust and in the courts, where more than a
dozen lawsuits are pending.

The following is a compressed, 4½-year timeline, based on a
listing complied by CNN, detailing how Flint got to where it is
today:

Mar. 22, 2012 - Genesee County announces the Karegnondi Water
Authority will build a new a new pipeline from Lake Huron to serve
the county. The new supply line will allow bankrupt Flint to switch
from the Detroit water system and save money.

Apr. 16, 2013 - On the recommendation of Flint City Council, the
state treasurer, authorizes Flint to switch its water supply to
Flint River water until the new Karegnondi pipeline is completed.
The change is projected to save Flint $5 million a year over two
years.

Apr. 25, 2014 - Flint switches its source water to the Flint
River.

October 2014 - The last General Motors plant in Flint stops using
the highly chlorinated city water because of concerns it is
corroding engine parts. GM switches its water supply to a
neighboring township costing Flint $400,000.

Jan. 2, 2015 - Flint warns residents the water contains
disinfectant byproducts that could increase their risk of getting
cancer. The water is deemed safe to drink for the general
population but the elderly and parents of young children are urged
to consult their doctors.

Jan. 12, 2015 - The Detroit water system offers to reconnect Flint
with its Lake Huron water supply and waive a $4 million
reconnection fee but city officials decline because of concerns
rates will be hiked significantly in the future.

Jan. 21, 2015 - Flint residents meet over concerns that the water
is discolored and is causing rashes and otherwise sickening their
children.

Feb. 2015 - The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality notes
"hiccups" in Flint's switch to the local river water supply,
including buildup of carcinogenic disinfectant, but says it's not a
health emergency.

Feb. 26, 2015 - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notifies
the MDEQ that dangerous lead water levels have been found in the
home of Flint resident leeAnne Walters. Tests showed her water had
104 parts per billion of lead -- about seven times the federal
action level of 15 ppb.

Mar. 18, 2015 - A second test in Walters' home finds her lead water
level at 397 pppb.

Mar. 23, 2015 - Flint City Council votes to stop using river water
and to reconnect with Detroit, but the state-appointed emergency
manager overrules council.

June 5, 2015 - The first lawsuit is filed against the city,
claiming the river water is a health risk.  

June 24, 2015 - The EPA issues memo saying high lead levels as have
been found in Ms. Walters' water and the water in three other
homes. The agency warns Flint that corrosion control treatments are
not being used to keep lead from leaching out of the system's
pipes.

July 9, 2015 - After the ACLU posts a video about the lead in
Walters' water, Flint Mayor Dayne Walling drinks a cup of tap water
on a local television news broadcast to vouch for its safety.

July 13, 2015 - A MDEQ spokesman tells Michigan Public Radio that
initial testing on 170 homes indicates that the lead problem is not
widespread.

Aug. 17, 2015 - After its six months of testing find elevated lead
in Flint water supply, the MDEQ orders the city to maximize its use
of corrosion controls.

Sept. 9, 2015 - The EPA announces it will help Flint develop a
corrosion control treatment plan.

Oct. 2, 2015 - The state begins testing water in Flint schools and
distributing free water filters.

Oct. 8, 2015 - Michigan Governor Rick Snyder announces Flint will
stop using Flint River water.

Oct. 16, 2015 - Flint switches its water supply back to Detroit's
system.

Nov. 13, 2015 - Flint residents file a federal class action lawsuit
against 14 state and city officials, including Gov. Snyder,
claiming they knowingly exposed residents to toxic water.

Dec. 14, 2015 - Flint declares state of emergency.

Jan. 5, 2016 - Gov. Snyder declares state of emergency in Genesee
County.

Jan. 12, 2016 - Michigan National Guard is sent to Flint to help
distribute free bottled water.

Jan. 21, 2016 - EPA criticizes the state's slow response to the
water crisis.

Jan. 27, 2016 - A coalition of organizations, including the
American Civil Liberties Union and the Natural Resources Defense
Council, filed a federal lawsuit against Michigan for alleged
violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Mar. 31, 2016 - The NAACP and attorneys representing individuals
file a class action lawsuit against Michigan and Gov. Snyder on
behalf of Flint residents affected by the water crisis.

Apr. 20, 2016 - Criminal charges are filed against three state and
city officials.

Apr. 25, 2016 - A class action suit filed on behalf of 514 Flint
residents against the EPA alleges negligence and demands more than
$220 million in damages.

July 29, 2016 - Six state workers are charged with covering up
warning signs of lead poisoning in Flint, according to state
prosecutors.

Oct. 18, 2016 - the ACLU files a class action lawsuit against Flint
schools for exposing students to lead tainted water and
inadequately testing them for learning disabilities caused by lead
in the water.

Dec. 20, 2016 - Two of Flint's former emergency managers and two
water plant officials are charged with felonies for their roles in
getting Flint to help finance a new water line from Lake Huron and
temporarily switch its supply to the Flint River.

Jan. 24, 2017 - The MDEQ states that six month tests show lead
levels in Flint's water meet federal drinking water standards.

Jan. 30, 2017 - More than 1,700 Flint residents file a $722 million
class action lawsuit against the EPA.

Feb. 17, 2017 - A report by the Michigan Civil Rights Commission
finds "deeply embedded institutional, systemic and historical
racism" contributed to the Flint water crisis.

Mar. 17, 2017 - The EPA gives Flint a $100 million grant to upgrade
its water system infrastructure.

Mar. 28, 2017 - A federal judge approves a $97 million settlement
that requires Michigan to pay for the replacement of approximately
18,000 residential water service lines in Flint by January 2020.

June 14, 2017 - Six state officials are charged with involuntary
manslaughter in connection with a Legionnaires disease outbreak in
Flint that killed at least a dozen people during the lead water
crisis.

Apr. 6, 2018 - After the MDEQ declares that lead levels in the
Flint water supply are no longer a problem, Governor Snyder
announces that the free bottled water program, part of a $450
million state and federal aid program, will end. [GN]


GENERAL MOTORS: Dominguez Files Suit Asserting ADA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors, LLC.
The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. General Motors, LLC
doing business as: Cadillac, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09782
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2018).

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

General Motors Company, commonly referred to as General Motors, is
an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that
designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and
vehicle parts, and sells financial services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



GENKI SUSHI: Nov. 29 Hawaii Hepatitis A Claims Filing Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Marler, writing for Marler Clark, reports that a preliminary
settlement of up to $4,500,000.00 has been reached in a class
action lawsuit filed on behalf of those who were exposed to
hepatitis A related to eating at Genki Sushi restaurants in Hawaii
in 2016, but who did not become ill with hepatitis A.

Qualified class members are entitled to receive up to either $350,
$250, or $150 by submitting a claim form available at
www.HawaiiHepA.com or by calling 1-800-532-9250.

THE DEADLINE TO FILE A CLAIM IS
NOVEMBER 29, 2018

ARE YOU ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE?
In order to be eligible to participate in this settlement, you must
fall within one of the three Subclasses summarized below.  The
complete definition of the class and each subclass can be reviewed
at www.HawaiiHepA.com.

HOW DO I FILL OUT THE CLAIM FORM?
If you are an eligible Subclass member (see below for description
of each subclass), download the claim form available at:
https://hawaiihepa.com/documents/HepA-Hawaii-ClaimForm.pdf.

Step 1:  Fill out the Contact Information.  Submit a new form for
each person making a claim.

Step 2:  Select which subclass you are in (only check one).  Fill
out the requested information associated with the subclass you are
in.

Step 3:  Fill in the treatment information.  If the treatment was
paid for insurance, please provide the information for the insurer.
No backup documentation is required.

If you did NOT use insurance, you MUST provide supporting
documentation (e.g., receipt, documents from provider/physician,
etc.).    

Step 4:  Sign the declaration and return the form via mail or
email.  The deadline to submit a claim form is November 29, 2018.
Forms received after that date will not be be processed.    

MAIL: Hawai'i Hep-A Claims c/o The Notice Company P.O. Box 455
Hingham, MA 02043

Fax: 808-748-0584

EMAIL: claims@HawaiiHepA.com

WHAT ARE THE SUBCLASSES?
Subclass 1 – up to $350: All Class Members who were in "contact"
with one of the 292 persons who the Hawai'i Department of Health
identified as infected with HAV as part of the 2016 Hepatitis A
Outbreak.

A "contact" is defined as:

All household members of one of the 292 persons
All sexual contacts with one of the 292 persons
Anyone sharing illicit drugs with one of the 292 persons
Anyone sharing food or eating or drinking utensils with one of the
292 persons
Anyone consuming ready-to-eat foods prepared by one of the 292
persons
Subclass 2 – up to $250:  Subclass 3 members are those
individuals who:

ate at any of the Genki Sushi locations identified below on or
between August 1 to August 16, 2016; and
received preventative medical treatment, such as receiving immune
globulin, HAV vaccine, or blood test within fourteen days of eating
at one of the Genki locations below.
KAUAI:

3-2600 Kaumaulii Hwy, Kauai, HI 96766
OAHU:

820 West Hind Drive, # 102, Honolulu, HI 96821
1450 Ala Moana Blvd #2096, Honolulu, HI 96814
91-1401 Fort Weaver Rd. D-102, Ewa Beach, HI 96706
45-480 Kaneohe Bay Drive, Kaneohe, HI 96744
888 Kapahulu Ave, Honolulu, HI 96816
4450 Kapolei Parkway, Kapolei, HI 96707
98-1005 Moanalua Road, Ste. 801, Aiea, HI 96701
94-799 Lumiaina St., Waipahu, HI 96797
98-430 Kamehameha Hwy, Pearl City, HI 96782
1200 Ala Moana Blvd, Honolulu, HI 96814
MAUI:

70 E. Kaahumanu Ave, Kahului, HI 96732
435 Keawe St., Lahaina, HI 96761
Subclass 3 – up to $150:  Subclass 3 members are those
individuals who:

consumed food or drink from any of the following establishments on
the specific dates identified below; and
received preventative medical treatment, such as receiving immune
globulin, HAV vaccine, or blood test within fourteen days of eating
at one of the establishments below.

Baskin Robbins located at Waikele Center, HI 96797:
June 30 and July 1, 2, 2016;

Taco Bell located at 94-790 Uke'e St., Waipahu, HI 96797:
July 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 2016;

Sushi Shiono located at 69-201 Waikoloa Beach Drive, Waikoloa, HI
96738:
July 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 2016;

Chili's Grill & Bar located at 590 Farrington Hwy, Kapoelei, HI
96707:
July 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 2016;

Twelve Hawaiian Airlines Flights

Flight 118 on July 24, 2016;
Flight 117 on July 24, 2016;
Flight 382 on July 24, 2016;
Flight 383 on July 24, 2016;
Flight 396 on July 24, 2016;
Flight 365 on July 24, 2016;
Flight 273 on July 25, 2016;
Flight 68 on July 25, 2016;
Flight 65 on July 25, 2016;
Flight 147 on July 26, 2016;
Flight 18 on August 10, 2016;
Flight 17 on August 12, 2016;

Tamashiro Market located at 802 N. King St., Honolulu, HI 96817:
July 23, 2016

Papa John's located at 94-1012 Waipahu St., Waipahu, HI 96797:
August 2, 2016

New Lin Fong Bakery located at 1132 Maunakea St., Honolulu, HI
96817:
July 27, 29, 30, and August 1, 3, 5, 6, 2016

Hokkaido Ramen Santouka, located at 801 Kaheka St., Honolulu, HI
96814:
August 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 2016;

Kipapa Elementary School located at 95-76 Kipapa Dr., Mililani, HI
96789:
August 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 2016;

Zippy's Restaurant located at 950 Kamokila Blvd., Kapolei, HI
96707:
August 14, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 2016;

Harbor Restaurant at Pier 38 at 1133 North Nimitz Hwy, Honolulu, HI
96817:
August 30-31 and September 1- 12, 2016;

Ohana Seafood at Sam's Club at 1000 Kamehameha Hwy., Pearl City, HI
96782:
September 1- 11, 2016;

Chart House Restaurant located at 1765 Ala Moana Blvd, Honolulu, HI
96815:
September 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 2016; and

McDonald's Restaurant located at 4618 Kilauea Avenue, Honolulu, HI
96816:
October 5, 7, 11, 2016.

THE DEADLINE TO FILE A CLAIM IS
NOVEMBER 29, 2018

Hepatitis A:  Marler Clark, The Food Safety Law Firm, is the
nation's leading law firm representing victims of Hepatitis A
outbreaks. The Hepatitis A lawyers of Marler Clark have represented
thousands of victims of Hepatitis A and other foodborne illness
outbreaks and have recovered over $650 million for clients.  Marler
Clark is the only law firm in the nation with a practice focused
exclusively on foodborne illness litigation.  Our Hepatitis A
lawyers have litigated Hepatitis A cases stemming from outbreaks
traced to a variety of sources, such as green onions, lettuce and
restaurant food.  The law firm has brought Hepatitis A lawsuits
against such companies as Costco, Subway, McDonald's, Red Robin,
Chipotle, Quiznos and Carl's Jr. We proudly represented the family
of Donald Rockwell, who died after consuming hepatitis A tainted
food and Richard Miller, who required a liver transplant after
eating food at a Chi-Chi's restaurant.

If you or a family member became ill with a Hepatitis Ainfection
after consuming food and you're interested in pursuing a legal
claim, contact the Marler Clark Hepatitis A attorneys for a free
case evaluation. [GN]


GLOBAL POWER: Court Dismisses Budde Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARGARET BUDDE, Lead Plaintiff, and DANIEL REAM,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL POWER EQUIPMENT GROUP, INC., RAYMOND K. GUBA,
LUIS MANUEL RAMIREZ, and DAVID L. WILLIS, Defendants, Civil Action
No. 3:15-cv-1679-M (N.D. Tex.), Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division,
granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Class
Action Complaint.

Global Power is a corporation that provides equipment and services
to the energy industry.  It notified the public throughout 2015 and
2016 that its prior financial reports would have to be restated.
On March 15, 2017, Global Power issued the restatement and
identified several causes for the errors.  Among them, Global Power
acknowledged that it recognized certain revenues and expenses in
the wrong period for its Electrical Solutions ("ES") Segment, had
deficiencies in internal controls over financial reporting, and
incorrectly accounted for goodwill upon the sale of a subsidiary
company, Deltak.

Budde and Ream, on behalf of all persons who acquired Global Power
stock between May 9, 2013, and May 6, 2015, filed a class action
lawsuit against Global Power and some of its former officers --
Raymond K. Guba, Luis Manuel Ramirez, and David L. Willis.  Guba
was Global Power's Senior VP and CFO from November 2013 to
September 2015.  Ramirez was the President and CEO from July 2012
to March 2015.  Willis was the CFO from January 2008 to November
2013.  The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants issued false and
misleading financial reports in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint for failing to plausibly allege (1) scienter against the
individual Defendants and (2) loss causation for misrepresentations
related to the sale of Deltak.  The Plaintiffs timely filed the
TAC, but declined to address the pleading defects regarding
scienter as to Willis and regarding the sale of Deltak.

The Defendants move to dismiss the TAC, arguing that the Plaintiffs
have again failed to plausibly allege scienter as to Guba and
Ramirez, and since only their conduct is at issue as agents of
Global Power, their bases for dismissal also apply to the company.
The Court held a hearing on the Defendants' Motion on July 19,
2018.

Judge Lynn finds that the allegations do not support the conclusion
that Guba and Ramirez knew they were publishing materially false
information.  The TAC does not attempt to connect either Ramirez or
Guba to knowledge of the other, larger accounting errors driving
the restatement, such those related to percentage-of-completion,
job cost, goodwill, and warranty reserves, none of which are in
issue.  Furthermore, knowledge as to errors in the ES Segment alone
does not support knowledge or reckless disregard of errors in other
parts of Global Power.  The compelling inference is that Guba and
Ramirez knew of immaterial errors limited to the ES Segment.

Other allegations in the TAC also fail to support a strong
inference of scienter.  Plaintiffs allege that Ramirez and Guba
knew of or recklessly disregarded Global Power's lack of internal
controls.  However, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs do not
plausibly allege that Ramirez and Guba knew of or recklessly
disregarded Global Power's lack of internal controls.  Also
unpersuasive are allegations related to Guba and Ramirez's motive
to make misrepresentations because their compensation was tied to
Global Power's financial performance.  The Judge finds that such
allegations are not the types of motive that support a strong
inference of scienter.  Incentive compensation can hardly be the
basis for which an allegation of fraud is predicated because if the
Court were to hold otherwise, the executives of virtually every
corporation in the United States would be subject to fraud
allegations.

Finally, because the Plaintiffs do not state a claim for any
violation of Section 10(b), their Section 20(a) claims must also be
dismissed.

For the reasons stated, Judge Lynn granted the Defendants' Motion.
The Plaintiffs conceded at the hearing that they do not have new
factual allegations to supplement the TAC.  Accordingly, their
claims are dismissed with prejudice.  A final judgment consistent
with the Order will be promptly issued.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2018 Amended Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/D3eRUY from
Leagle.com.

Margaret Budde, Lead Plaintiff pursuant to 7/29/2015 Order, Consol
Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey C. Block -- jeff@blockesq.com --
Block & Leviton LLP, pro hac vice, Jacob Allen Walker --
jake@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP, pro hac vice, Jamie Jean
McKey -- jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com -- Kendall Law Group LLP & Joe
Kendall -- jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com -- Kendall Law Group LLP.

Daniel Ream, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Allen Walker, Block &
Leviton LLP, pro hac vice & R. Dean Gresham, Steckler Gresham
Cochran.

Global Power Equipment Group Inc, Defendant, represented by David
G. Januszewski -- djanuszewski@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon &
Reindel, pro hac vice, Bradley J. Bondi -- BBondi@Cahill.com --
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel Kingrey --
rkingrey@gardere.com -- Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, Scott Louis Davis
-- sdavis@gardere.com -- Gardere Wynne Sewell, Tammy L. Roy,
Cahill Gordon -- troy@cahill.com -- & Reindel LLP, pro hac vice.

Raymond K Guba, Defendant, represented by Paul Edward Coggins --
pcoggins@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP & Kiprian E. Mendrygal --
Locke Lord LLP.

Luis Manuel Ramirez, Defendant, represented by Scott Louis Davis --
sdavis@gardere.com -- Gardere Wynne Sewell & Arthur Harold Aufses,
III -- aaufses@kramerlevin.com -- Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
LLP, pro hac vice.

David L. Willis, Defendant, represented by Sarah L. Cave, Hughes
Hubbard & Reed LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel Kingrey, Gardere Wynne
Sewell LLP, Sara E. Echenique, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, pro hac
vice, Scott Louis Davis, Gardere Wynne Sewell, Terence Healy,
Hughes Hubbard & Reed, pro hac vice & Todd A. Murray, Gardere Wynne
Sewell LLP, pro hac vice.


GORE NITROGEN: Oilfield Workers Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
CORY MCDONALD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GORE NITROGEN PUMPING SERVICE, LLC, and GARY GORE, Case
No. 5:18-cv-01010-G (W.D. Okla., October 11, 2018), alleges that
the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by paying
their Oilfield Workers pursuant to a policy that misclassified
Oilfield Workers as exempt from overtime, paid them on a salary
basis, and failed to pay the Oilfield Workers overtime despite
their regularly working over 40 hours per workweek.

Gore Nitrogen Pumping Service, LLC, is an Oklahoma limited
liability company.  Gary Gore is the owner, manager, and member of
Gore Nitrogen.

The Defendants provide oilfield services and products to their
oilfield drilling and production customers at well sites in
Oklahoma and other oil-producing regions in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven T. Horton, Esq.
          HORTON LAW FIRM
          114 N.W. 6th Street, Suite 201
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 606-8080
          Facsimile: (405) 606-8088
          E-mail: shorton@coxinet.net

               - and -

          Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
          THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
          5438 Rutherglenn Drive
          Houston, TX 77096
          Telephone: (512) 417-5716
          E-Mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com


GRANT PASS, OR: Faces Class Action Over Anti-Camping Ordinance
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a class-action lawsuit claims the
city of Grants Pass is running homeless people out of town,
violating their constitutional rights.

The Oregonian/OregonLive reports the suit, filed on Oct. 15 by
plaintiff Debra Blake, alleges the city's anti-camping ordinance
and criminal trespass laws represent cruel and unusual punishment
and are selectively enforced against the homeless population,
violating their Eighth and 14th Amendment rights.

Ms. Blake, identified in the suit as "an involuntarily homeless
resident," says the only shelters in the city are nearly always
full.

Ms. Blake says Grants Pass police often tell her to "move along,"
and she has faced repeated fines for sleeping in an alley or for
prohibited camping.

Ms. Blake argues there's no alternative housing or shelters where
she can stay.

Grants Pass attorney Mark Bartholomew and Mayor Darin Fowler did
not immediately return messages for comment. [GN]


HALL OF FAME: Court Rules in Favor of Reimbursement Package
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Matas, writing for GateHouse Media Ohio, reports that the
Pro Football Hall of Fame has gained some ground in a federal
lawsuit that alleges the nonprofit organization breached a contract
with fans when it cancelled the 2016 Hall of Fame Game.

A judge has ruled the reimbursement package the Hall offered fans
was better than the alternative reimbursement proposed by opposing
attorney Michael Avenatti -- the same attorney representing
pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels in her fight against
President Donald Trump.

The court's decision is the first movement in the federal case in
six months. The lawsuit has been pending for more than two years.

The August 2016 Hall of Fame Game was cancelled because of unsafe
field conditions. Later that month, Avenatti filed a potential
class-action lawsuit against the Hall and the NFL, alleging crews
waited too long to begin prepping the field, resulting in paint
congealing, and Hall officials then purposely delayed telling fans
there wouldn't be a game so the Hall could continue to make money
from concessions and merchandise sales.

The NFL since has been dropped as a party in the lawsuit.

The Hall, through an attorney, declined to comment on the case.

Class-action request

Avenatti's firm wanted class-action certification, which would have
allowed all the fans who attended the game to join together and
seek damages from the Hall as a group by using one person as a
representative for the entire class. The class would have included
anyone who purchased or acquired tickets to attend the 2016 game.

In a late 2016 email exchange, Avenatti told The Canton Repository
he expected each person who attended the game would be awarded
upward of $1,500 as a result of the lawsuit and the court would
throw out any reimbursement the Hall gave to fans.

After the cancelled game, the Hall developed a reimbursement
package that offered fans the face value of the ticket, one night
of a hotel stay, any prepaid parking purchased through the Hall and
some fees. The deal also included free tickets to the museum, a
merchandise discount and some memorabilia. At least 19,658 people
of the nearly 22,800 who had purchased tickets have opted to accept
the Hall's reimbursement, court documents show.

The Hall's attorneys argued against class-action certification,
saying each fan's situation would be different based on
transportation, tickets and lodging. They also said the fact so
many people had taken the reimbursement was proof it was fair.

Court decision

In the recent decision, Judge Christopher Boyko said the positive
response to the Hall's reimbursement package from the potential
class showed the Hall's method was the superior remedy to any
financial loss as a result of the cancelled game.

And, the decision continued, it would be "impossible to reasonably
estimate classwide damages as they will vary widely based on
individual factors so numerous as to render any attempt to estimate
unreliable."

Avenatti's firm has until next month to file a new motion for class
certification, but this time, it wouldn't be to award money to the
class as a whole but to prove liability. The definition of the
class also would have to change to exclude the people who took the
Hall's reimbursement.

Court documents filed this month indicate the law firm plans to
refile.

Avenatti did not respond to a request for comment. [GN]


HERTZ CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Robocalls
----------------------------------------------------------
John Petrick, writing for Law360, reports that the Hertz Corp. has
asked an Illinois federal judge to dismiss a consumer's proposed
class action alleging invasion of privacy based on robocalls the
company made to him. [GN]


HONOLULU, HI: Faces Class Action Over Flooding Damages
------------------------------------------------------
Rick Daysog, writing for HawaiiNewsNow, reports that a group of
East Honolulu residents are taking the city to court, saying its
negligence contributed to historic flooding in April that did
millions of dollars in damages to Oahu homes.

Niu Valley resident Hakim Ouansafi says his home suffered nearly
$700,000 in damages -- and that flood insurance only covered
$250,000 of that. He alleges that city failed to properly maintain
nearby streams, which exacerbated the flooding.

"You get a little upset when you hear the identical flooding
happened 20 years ago, 30 years ago . . . causing the same
damages," said Mr. Ouansafi. "It's unfair. You pay your taxes, you
expect a reasonable maintenance."

More than 400 homes were damaged during the April flooding, and the
Ouansafi family was among the hardest hit, the lawsuit says.

"It reminded you of places like India and other places that you see
completely devastated. The level of water in our house was between
12 inches and 28 inches," he said.

According to the lawsuit, the city conducted only 20 days of
maintenance on the Niu Valley Stream, which is closest to
Mr. Ouansafi's home, in all of 2017. At the nearby Kuliouou Stream,
the city conducted 10 days of maintenance work last year, the suit
says.

"We strongly believe that there was negligence, and there were a
lot of things that should have been done and could have been done
much better," said Lyle Hosoda, Mr. Ouansafi's lawyer.

He says about a dozen families are joining the lawsuit.

The city declined comment on the lawsuit, but in the past the mayor
has said the city is not solely responsible for stream
maintenance.

"Both the city and state have responsibility to clear streams where
our city roads go. We don't clear streams from the edge of a cliff
mauka all the way down to the sea, we clear streams where our roads
are," Mayor Kirk Caldwell said on April 24. [GN]


HOTEL CONDOR: Dominguez Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hotel Condor LLC
under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Hotel Condor LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-09821 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2018).

The Condor Hotel Located in Williamsburg, Brooklyn is an
affordable, premium hotel for both leisure and business
travelers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



IOWA: Obtains Unfavorable Ruling in Speeding Tickets Case
---------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Nonpareil reports that Justices of the Iowa Supreme Court
ruled on Oct. 19 that Iowa Department of Transportation officers
overstepped their authority in arresting or issuing speeding
tickets outside of the regulation of commercial vehicles.

The Oct. 19 ruling by the state's top court came in separate 2016
cases in which lower state courts split on the issue. Iowa County
judges found that carrier enforcement officers did have the
necessary authority. In a different case, a Polk County judge ruled
that IDOT officers do not have the necessary authority.

State law changed in May 2017, temporarily giving IDOT officers the
authority to ticket drivers of noncommercial vehicles until July
2019.

But the cases decided on Oct. 19 dated from 2016. In the first,
Rickie Rilea and Timothy Riley had been ticketed following separate
stops for speeding. Both challenged the authority of a carrier
enforcement officer to issue speeding tickets. Polk County District
Judge Eliza Ovrom agreed that the IDOT officers lacked that
authority, and the IDOT appealed.

In a separate case, Jeremy Warner appealed after judges in Iowa
County District Court sided with the IDOT after he was arrested --
also in 2016 -- and later convicted of driving while his license
was suspended.

In arguing both cases, attorneys for the IDOT said a segment of
Iowa law pertaining to "peace officers" gave its officer the
authority to arrest and ticket drivers outside of carrier
enforcement. IDOT attorneys also argued that even if the courts
found that the law didn't convey that authority, state law would
allow department officers to make "citizen arrests."

The Supreme Court rejected both arguments, citing its own 1948
ruling in a case that limited the scope of the department's
policing powers to commercial vehicle regulation. Peace officers
don't get to claim "private person" status for the purpose of
arrests, the justices said, adding that nothing in state law allows
private citizens to issue traffic citations.


Des Moines attorney Brandon Brown, who represented all drivers
involved in the Supreme Court ruling, said he plans to resume work
on a class action lawsuit that was stayed pending the outcome of
the legal challenges.

If Mr. Brown's class action suit prevails, the state could be
forced to repay millions of dollars in fines and legal costs for
motorists ticketed by IDOT officers in recent years.

Mr. Brown's research has found more than 22,000 drivers ticketed by
IDOT officers outside of carrier enforcement from 2014 through
2016, with the average ticket amount being $150. That would amount
to more than $3.3 million in fines for the two years.

IDOT communications director Andrea Henry was quick to express the
department's disappointment in the ruling, noting that IDOT carrier
enforcement officers go through the same law enforcement training
as state troopers, sheriff's deputies and police officers

"This is something that will have to be decided by the Legislature
in the next legislative session," she said. "We truly feel that
public safety is best served when all trained peace officers are
able to respond to traffic events that occur in their presence.

We agree. With Iowa State Patrol staffing levels at the lowest
since the mid-1960s, it makes no sense to limit the authority of
IDOT enforcement officers, all of whom are trained peace officers.

The Supreme Court addressed the technicalities of Iowa law. It's
now up to the Legislature to amend those laws to address the
realities of the 21st century. [GN]


K&N ENGINEERING: Penrod Sues Over Defective Engine Oil Filters
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN PENROD, GUS ERPENBACH, and JUAN WELSH, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. K&N
ENGINEERING, INC., Case No. 0:18-cv-02907 (D. Minn., October 11,
2018), is brought on behalf of a class of current and former
purchasers of engine oil filters used for motorcycles and power
sport vehicles, which were designed, manufactured, marketed, and
sold to consumers across the United States by K&N.

According to the complaint, the oil filters at issue bear K&N model
numbers KN138, KN204, and KN303.  The action arises from the
Defendant's alleged failure to disclose to the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated consumers that the Oil Filters contain a
structural and manufacturing defect whereby they can suddenly
separate or fracture causing pressurized and hot engine oil to
erupt and spill onto the person, engine, components, tires, and
riding surfaces (the "Separation Defect").  This eruption results
in possible engine fires, engine failures, vehicle crashes,
personal injuries, and other economic damages.

K&N is incorporated under the laws of California and its principal
place of business is located in Riverside, California, where it
owns and operates a complex of 10 buildings comprising nearly
400,000 square feet.  K&N has operations in the United Kingdom and
the Netherlands.

K&N designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, and/or sells oil
filters, air filters, and other products designed for cars, trucks,
motorcycles, engines, and other industrial applications.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Catherine K. Smith, Esq.
          Ling S. Wang, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  csmith@gustafsongluek.com
                  lwang@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF
          555 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 200-0581
          Facsimile: (610) 421-1326
          E-mail: mds@sstriallawyers.com
                  jgs@sstriallawyers.com
                  jbk@sstriallawyers.com

               - and -

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          David C. Wright, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  dcw@mccunewright.com


KAISER FOUNDATION: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Schmitt Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Elizabeth Mohundro and Andrea Schmitt filed an appeal
from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Andrea Schmitt, et
al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington, et al., Case
No. 2:17-cv-01611-RSL, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit was filed on October 30, 2017.

Kaiser provides healthcare plans to its members through its network
of Kaiser Permanente healthcare providers.

The appellate case is captioned as Andrea Schmitt, et al. v. Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan of Washington, et al., Case No. 18-35846, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 13, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on December 10, 2018;

   -- Appellants Elizabeth Mohundro and Andrea Schmitt's opening
      brief is due on January 22, 2019;

   -- Appellees Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington,
      Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Northwest and Kaiser
      Foundation Health Plan, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      February 19, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants ANDREA SCHMITT, on her own behalf, and on
behalf of all similarly situated individuals, and ELIZABETH
MOHUNDRO, on her own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, are represented by:

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

Defendants-Appellees KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON,
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF THE NORTHWEST and KAISER
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., are represented by:

          Mark A. Bailey, Esq.
          Medora A. Marisseau, Esq.
          KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
          701 Fifth Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 223-1313
          E-mail: mbailey@karrtuttle.com
                  mmarisseau@karrtuttle.com


KALEIDA HEALTH: Faces Lutz Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
MARY ELLEN LUTZ, LEA SHURMATZ, KRISTIN SCHWARTZ AND LINDA SPRING,
individually and as representatives of similarly situated persons,
and on behalf of the Plans v. KALEIDA HEALTH, KALEIDA HEALTH
RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE AND SUSAN VALLANCE, Case No.
1:18-cv-01112 (W.D.N.Y., October 11, 2018), alleges violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act arising from the
Defendants' alleged failure to offer a prudent mix of investment
options.

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages in the form of losses suffered
by the Plans and losses to the Plaintiffs' retirement savings, as
well as injunctive and other equitable relief for the Plans and on
behalf of the Named Plaintiffs and similarly situated participants
and beneficiaries of the Kaleida Health Savings/Investment 403(b)
Plan ("403(b) Plan") and Kaleida Health Savings/Investment 401(k)
Plan ("401(k) Plan").  The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants
failed to take advantage of the Plans' bargaining power and
impaired participants' returns by only offering actively managed
retail mutual funds as investment options instead of identical
investor class mutual funds with lower operating expenses.

Kaleida Health is a New York not-for-profit corporation.  Kaleida
Health is a healthcare network and the largest healthcare provider
in Western New York.  Kaleida Health provides healthcare services
through its facilities in the Western New York area, including
hospitals, long-term care facilities, outpatient clinics,
school-based health centers and home health care service.

Kaleida Health is the sponsor of the Plans and a fiduciary of the
Plans.  Kaleida Health appoints individuals to the Kaleida Health
Retirement Plan Committee and monitors those individuals, the
Committee and the Plans themselves.  Kaleida Health exercises
discretionary authority over the management and/or administration
of the Plans.

The Committee is a named administrator and fiduciary of the Plans.
The Committee is comprised of certain officers and employees of
Kaleida Health.  Susan Vallance is a named administrator and
fiduciary of the Plans.  Susan Vallance holds the position of
Director, Employee Benefits & Pension Plans at Kaleida Health.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J. Lingle, Esq.
          Annette M. Gifford, Esq.
          THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP
          693 East Avenue
          Rochester, NY 14607
          Telephone: (585) 272-0540
          E-mail: mlingle@theemploymentattorneys.com
                  agifford@theemploymentattorneys.com


LOWELL HOTEL: Breeze Files Civil Rights Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Lowell Hotel Associates, L.P. is facing a class action lawsuit in
New York. The case is styled as Byron Breeze, Jr. on behalf of
himself, and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v.
Lowell Hotel Associates, L.P. a New York limited partnership,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09816 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Lowell Hotel Associates LP was founded in 1984. The company's line
of business includes operating public hotels and motels, and it is
located at 28 E 63rd St, New York, NY 10065, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nolan Keith Klein, Esq.
     Law Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A.
     Broadway, Ste. 2250
     New York, NY 10006
     Phone: (646) 560-3230
     Fax: (877) 253-2691
     Email: klein@nklegal.com


LYFT INC: Settlement in Zamora Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEX ZAMORA and RAYSHON CLARK, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
LYFT, INC. Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02558-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Francisco Division, granted (i) the Named
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of the class
settlement; and (ii) the Plaintiffs and their counsel's motion for
awards of the Class Representative Service Awards and the Class
Counsel's Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

On Sept. 20, 2018, a hearing was held on the motions.  The Parties
have submitted their Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release,
which the Court preliminarily approved in its May 11, 2018 order.
In accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order, Settlement Class
Members have been given notice of the terms of the Settlement and
the opportunity to submit a claim form, comment on the settlement,
and/or opt out of its provisions.  In addition, pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), Lyft has given the
Attorney General of the United States and the appropriate state
officials in the states in which the Settlement Class Members
reside timely notice of the Settlement.

Having received and considered the Settlement, the supporting
papers filed by the Parties, and the evidence and argument received
by the Court at the final approval hearing, by means of the Final
Approval Order and Final Judgment, Judge Chhabria granted the
Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement and granted final
approval to the Settlement.

The Judge ordered that the Settlement Class is finally approved and
certified as a Settlement Class for purposes of settlement of the
action.  He gave final approval to the payments and Plan of
Allocation and ordered those amounts be paid to the claimants out
of the Net Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement.

The Judge approved Exhibit A to the Supplemental Declaration of Amy
Tadewald for Rust Consulting, Inc., as the complete list of all
Persons who have submitted timely requests to opt out of the
Settlement Class.  This list constitutes the final Opt-Out List
under the Settlement.

He confirmed as final the appointment of Named Plaintiffs Alex
Zamora and Rayshon Clark as the Class Representatives of the
Settlement Class, and approved the $10,000 Service Awards to each
of the two Class Representatives.  Those payments will be made to
the Class Representatives from the Settlement Fund in accordance
with the terms of the Settlement.

He also confirmed as final the appointment of Jahan C. Sagafi,
Rachel Bien, and Michael J. Scimone of Outten & Golden LLP as the
Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.  He finds that the payment
of $650,000 in attorneys' fees and $17,683.221 in litigation costs
and expenses, for a total payment of $668,366.86 to the Class
Counsel, is fair and reasonable, especially in light of their
outstanding work on this case.  He ordered that payment of 95% of
the fee and all of the costs be made to the Class Counsel out of
the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement.

Consistent with the discussion held at the Final Approval Hearing
and with the Court's Standing Order, the Judge ordered that, within
60 days of settlement payments being distributed to the Class
Members, the Class Counsel will file a Notice of Completion of
Duties, describing the parties' and the Administrator's work in
administering the settlement.  The Notice will include a proposed
order authorizing release of the remainder of the fee.

The Judge approved a payment of up to $190,000 to the Settlement
Administrator for its fees incurred in administering the
settlement.  If the Settlement Administrator's costs and time
exceed $190,000, a request for a higher payment, justified by good
cause, may be filed for the Court's consideration.  Any additional
amount to be paid to the Settlement Administrator will be paid
exclusively from the Net Settlement Fund.

By the earlier of six months from the date of the Order or upon
completion of administration of the Settlement, the Judge directed
the Plaintiffs to file a Notice of Completion of Duties, describing
the work performed by the Class Counsel and the Settlement
Administrator in completing the administration of the Settlement in
accordance with the Settlement Agreement and the Court's orders and
instructions.

By means of the Final Approval Order, Judge Chhabria entered the
final judgment in the action.  The action is dismissed on the
merits and with prejudice, each side to bear its own costs and
attorneys' fees except as provided by the Settlement and the
Court's orders.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/MF8obr from Leagle.com.

Alex Zamora, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly
situated & Rayshon Clark, on behalf of themselves and all those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jahan C. Sagafi --
jsagafi@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP & Michael Scimone
-- mscimone@outtengolden.com -- Outten and Golden LLP.

Lyft, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rachael Elizabeth Meny --
rmeny@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Jay Rapaport --
jrapaport@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP & Simona
Alessandra Agnolucci -- sagnolucci@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest &
Peters LLP.

Allyson McGee, Objector, represented by Richard Edward Quintilone,
II -- req@quintlaw.com -- Quintilone and Associates.


LYFT: Faces Class Action Over Concierge Program Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Y. Su, writing for TCPAland, reports that on Oct. 16, a
class action was filed against the ride-sharing company Lyft for
text messages it sent through its "Concierge" program in an alleged
attempt to gain more ridership.

Lyft Concierge is a program which allows business to hail rides for
its customers, patients and employees.

According to the Complaint, the "Concierge" program obtains
cellphone numbers from customers of third-party entities without
the cellphone subscribers' consent and therefore violated the TCPA
when it sent text messages to the customer.

The alleged class is defined as:

All persons within the United States who between the inception of
Lyft's "Concierge" program on or around January 12, 2016, to the
present, received one or more SMS or MMS text message(s) from Lyft,
Inc., or an affiliate, subsidiary, or agent of Lyft, Inc.

The Complaint was filed in the Northern District of California,
Case No.: 4:18-cv-06321.

Plaintiff is represented by Law Office of Marcelo Di Mauro. [GN]


MARINOSCI LAW: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, Sullivan Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY S. SULLIVAN a/k/a KIMN S. SULLIVAN, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated v. MARINOSCI LAW GROUP, P.C., P.A.,
Case No. 9:18-cv-81368-DMM (S.D. Fla., October 11, 2018), is
brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for the
benefit of Florida consumers, who have been the subject of debt
collection efforts by the Defendant.

The case centers on the Defendant's alleged failure to comply with
Section 1692g(a)(1) by not specifying in a clear, intelligible
manner the amount of the debt, and the Defendant's failure to
comply with Sections 1692g(a)(4)-(5) by neither providing the
consumer with a statement that if she notifies the debt collector
in writing within the 30-day period that the debt, or any portion
thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification
of the debt.

Marinosci Law Group is a law firm based in Broward County, Florida.
The Defendant is an entity that is engaged, by use of the mails
and telephone, in the business of attempting to collect debt from
the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 1657: $4.3M Attys' Fees Awarded in Vioxx Product Liability Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VIOXX PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, SECTION:
L., MDL No. 1657 (E.D. La.), Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted in
part and denied in part the Common Benefit Fee and Cost Committee's
Motion for Aggregate Fee Petition.

The multidistrict litigation involves the prescription drug Vioxx,
known generically as Rofecoxib. Merck & Company, Inc., a New Jersey
corporation, researched, designed, manufactured, marketed, and
distributed Vioxx to relieve pain and inflammation resulting from
osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, menstrual pain, and migraine
headaches.  On May 20, 1999, the FDA approved Vioxx for sale in the
United States.  Vioxx remained publicly available until Sept. 30,
2004, when Merck withdrew it from the market after data from a
clinical trial known as APPROVe indicated that the use of Vioxx
increased the risk of cardiovascular thrombotic events, such as
myocardial infarctions (heart attacks) and ischemic strokes.

Thereafter, thousands of individual suits and numerous class
actions were filed against Merck in state and federal courts
throughout the country alleging various products liability, tort,
fraud, and warranty claims and seeking recovery for damages
resulting from heart attacks and ischemic strokes.  It is estimated
that 105 million prescriptions for Vioxx were written in the United
States between May 20, 1999, and Sept. 30, 2004.  Based on this
estimate, it was thought that approximately 20 million patients
have taken Vioxx in the United States.

On Feb. 16, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
conferred MDL status on Vioxx lawsuits filed in federal court and
transferred all such cases to this Court to coordinate discovery
and consolidate pretrial matters.  After substantial settlement
negotiations spanning several years, the parties reached a
compromise regarding the Consumer Class claims in 2012.  The
Settlement Agreement allocates a common benefit fund of up to $23
million, from which the Class Members may seek recovery for their
total out-of-pocket provable costs for purchasing Vioxx and up to
$75 in connection with post-withdrawal medical consultation related
to Vioxx use or, in lieu thereof, a one-time payment of $50 with
proof of a Vioxx prescription.  Those amounts, however, were
subject to a pro rata reduction if all claims, administrative,
attorneys' fees, and other costs exceeded the $23 million cap.

At this stage in the litigation, the Plaintiffs agree Merck has met
all of its obligations under the Settlement Agreement, and all
claimants have been paid.  The Consumer Class counsel spent
$1,667,140.09 on Kinsella Media Notice Costs and $1,552,595.62 on
claims administration fees and expenses.  The law firms who worked
on the Consumer Class claims were reimbursed $185,580.91 for
expenses.  The total amount paid to eligible claimants was
$698,767.22.  It is now appropriate to determine a fair fee for the
attorneys who performed common benefit work.

On Sept. 23, 2015, the Court issued Pretrial Order 59,which
appointed the Common Benefit Fee and Cost Committee, consisting of
attorneys who worked on this aspect of the litigation -- some of
whom were on the PSC -- and established guidelines for common
benefit attorneys' fees and cost reimbursement.  Attorneys seeking
fees in the matter were instructed to submit a Fee Affidavit to
Phillip Garrett's Case Cost Management System.  Twelve such
affidavits were submitted.  These 12 applicants appeared before
members of the Fee Committee and provided an explanation of their
requested fees and expenses, as well as how their efforts
contributed to the common benefit of the Consumer Class.

On Jan. 3, 2017, the Fee Committee unanimously recommended that the
entire amount of the common fund, less expenses reimbursed by the
Court, be made available for the award of attorneys' fees.  After
reaching this agreement, the Fee Committee filed the instant Motion
seeking a Court Order setting attorneys' fees at the maximum amount
allowed under the Settlement Agreement. Because the Court
previously disbursed expenses in the amount of $185,580.91, the Fee
Committee seeks a fee award of $7,174,419.09.

The Court heard oral argument on the Motion on March 15, 2017.  At
that time, the record reflected that the attorneys reported they
spent a total of 9891.29 hours performing common benefit work.
They now claim that the previously reported hours were inaccurate
and that the true total is 14,134.89.  Based on this new total,
some interest attorneys suggest the initial requested fee should be
increased.

The sole objection1 to the Fee Committee's first Motion and
presumably also to the new request comes from a pro se consumer,
Geneva Meloy, who is a member of the subject class.  She objects to
the fee proposal because she cannot verify the reasonableness of
the lodestar because the fee declarations are sealed, and believes
the Fee Applicants are requesting fees for duplication of effort
and unnecessary work.  In addition, she argues extraordinary effort
was not required because the primary personal injury MDL had
already settled, and the low claims rate justifies a lower fee than
requested.  No objections have been filed in response to the
subsequently filed additional hours.

The Court has previously resolved the issue of reimbursement of
expenses, and now determines the appropriate amount for the
consumer common benefit fee.  It is the second time the Court has
focused on this issue.  On Aug. 29, 2017, the Court issued an Order
& Reasons setting an award of $4,025,000 for the common benefit
work performed by the attorneys in the consumer portion of the case
based on 9,891.49 hours submitted to the CPA.  Thereafter, it was
advised that additional hours had been spent by other counsel on
common benefit work that were not included in the material
considered by the Court in fashioning the appropriate fee.
Accordingly, the Court vacated its Order & Reasons, and instructed
all interested counsel to submit their common benefit hours to the
CPA to accurately account for all of the common benefit work
performed on the consumer portion of this litigation.

Judge Fallon is confident that the record now properly reflects all
the hours submitted by all counsel who seek a common benefit fee.
Once again all of the material previously filed was reviewed as
well as the additional material more recently received regarding
the additional submitted hours.  Lastly, he has examined the
procedural record of the entire litigation and applied its own
knowledge of the case accumulated through its active involvement in
the litigation since its inception more than 12 years ago.

Over the last 12 years of the nature and scope of the work and
effort of those attorneys who worked on the Consumer Class cases
and settlement, the Judge finds that 18.5% of the total available
settlement amount is a reasonable benchmark percentage for a common
benefit fee award in the case.  This figure, he says, is more than
double the percentage awarded as a fee in the personal injury
cases; however, the Consumer Class settlement of $23 million was
significantly smaller than the $4.85 billion MSA and necessitates a
higher percentage to ensure a reasonable fee.  This figure is
within the range of similar MDL awards and assessments.  No part of
this 18.5% will come from the recovery of any Vioxx claimant;
rather, it will be assessed directly against the funds Merck set
aside as part of the Consumer Class settlement.

After a careful analysis, and drawing on the Court's close
supervision of this portion of the litigation, the Judge concludes
a more appropriate and accurate representation of the number of
hours performed by the class counsel that contributed to the
ultimate result is between 10,000 and 10,500.  Accordingly, he will
utilize 10,200 hours as an appropriate measure of time to utilize
in this cross check analysis.

Finally, while the hourly rate in the Consumer Class is lower than
the hourly rate awarded in the personal injury portion of the MDL,
the Judge finds a rate of $417.16 is adequate.  In particular, he
notes that the lower hourly rate is justified in light of the lower
amounts actually received by the Plaintiffs in the Consumer Class
and the fact that no depositions or trials occurred in this aspect
of the MDL.  Thus, a fee of 18.5%, or $4,255,000 appears to be
reasonable.  The reasonableness of the fee in the case is made even
more apparent when one considers that it was contingent, that it is
paid by Defendant not the claimants, and that if not paid to the
Plaintiffs' counsel, it would revert to the tortfeasor.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Fallon granted in part and denied
in part the Common Benefit Fee and Cost Committee's Motion for
Aggregate Fee Petition.  The Class Counsel is awarded attorneys'
fees of $4,255,000 or 18.5% of the $23 million settlement fund,
which amount should be placed in the registry of the Court within
three weeks.  Thereafter, the Court will conduct future proceedings
to determine the distribution of the fee among the attorney
applicants.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Djrjz6 from Leagle.com.

Patrick A. Juneau, Special Master, pro se.

Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Russ M. Herman --
rherman@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC, Ann B.
Oldfather -- aoldfather@oldfather.com -- Oldfather Law Firm &
Leonard A. Davis -- ldavis@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz,
LLC.

Claims Administrator, Plaintiff, represented by Orran L. Brown --
OBrown@browngreer.com -- BrownGreer PLC.

Defendant, Defendant, represented by Phillip A. Wittmann --
pwittmann@stonepigman.com -- Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann,
LLC.

Vioxx Litigation Consortium, Defendant, represented by Eric Michael
Liddick, Jones Walker, Harry Simms Hardin, III --
hhardin@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker & Madeleine Fischer --
mfischer@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker.

Tulane Civil Litigation Clinic, Interested Party, represented by
Jane L. Johnson, Tulane Law Clinic & Stacy Elizabeth Seicshnaydre
-- sseicshn@tulane.edu -- Tulane Civil Litigation Clinic.

Oasis Legal Finance, LLC, Interested Party, represented by Allen C.
Miller -- allen.miller@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP.

Express Scripts, Inc., Movant, represented by Jeanine R. Bermel,
Husch, Blackwell, Sanders, LLC.

DecisionQuest, Inc., Movant, represented by Miles Paul Clements --
mclements@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C.

Chris M Placitella & Eric H. Weinberg, Movants, represented by
Robert E. Arceneaux, Robert E. Arceneaux, Attorney at Law & Pascal
Frank Calogero, Jr. -- PCALOGERO@ALSFIRM.COM -- Law Office of
Pascal F. Calogero, Jr., APLC.


MDL 2804: City of Moore to Join Opioid Epidemic Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Troxtell, writing for The Norman Transcript, reports that
Moore is set to join other area municipalities in a class-action
lawsuit in federal court against opioid manufacturers.

The city is in the process of retaining legal representation for
the case. An item came before city council on Oct. 15 to approve a
contract with the Fellers Snider law firm in Oklahoma City for the
litigation "against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and other
potential defendants that are responsible for the opioid
epidemic."

Mayor Glenn Lewis told council members there had been a request to
table the item for the next council meeting. City Manager Brooks
Mitchell said Fellers Snider had requested more time to finish up
its side of the deal.

If approved by the council, Moore would join Oklahoma City, Midwest
City and hundreds of other municipalities in a class action
lawsuit. Jointly, the case would be heard in U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio.

Mr. Mitchell said with the opioid crisis, the City of Moore -- like
the other cities involved in the lawsuit -- has had to spend more
money on police, paramedics, firefighters, and other drug/addiction
services than would otherwise have been required. By being a part
of this lawsuit, Mitchell said the city can recoup those losses.

"This is a chance to be reimbursed, but more importantly it would
be used to better train our first responders when it comes to
dealing with these incidents and to better treat these people for
addiction," Mr. Mitchell said. "We want to put the funds to a very
productive use."

The case should wrap up by the end of next year, Mr. Mitchell
said.

Oklahoma City's council approved a contract with lawyers to pursue
litigation in August.

This lawsuit is not the same as the one being brought by the State
of Oklahoma and Attorney General Mike Hunter that is based out of
Cleveland County. Last month, Judge Thad Balkman ruled that case
would go to jury trial -- and not be divided into separate cases --
in May of next year.

The defendants in that case, Purdue Pharma and Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, requested that case be moved to the Northern
District of Ohio, the same place where the municipalities' case is
heading. Judge Balkman denied that request.

Mr. Mitchell said cities and municipalities are filing their own
lawsuit because they will not benefit from any settlement or ruling
the state may win in its trial.

"If you want a seat at the table, we were told you have to file
your own litigation, not with the state," Mr. Mitchell said. [GN]


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Violates ADA, Dominguez Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------
Mercedez - Benz USA, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit in New
York. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mercedez - Benz
USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09783 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24,
2018).

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

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is engaged in the marketing and distribution
of Mercedes-Benz, smart, and Sprinter vehicles in the United
States. It offers sedans, coupes, SUVs and wagons, convertibles and
roadsters, and hybrid and electric vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



MGT CAPITAL: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Nick Marinoff, writing for Bitcoin Magazine, reports that the law
offices of Pomerantz LLP in New York have filed a series of civil
suits against MGT Capital Investment and its executive officers on
behalf of several of the trading firm's past or present customers.
The suits allege that between October 9, 2015 and September 7,
2018, the company violated laws set forth by the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 that resulted in damages to several of its
clients.

Between 2013 and April 2016, MGT described itself as "engaged in
the business of acquiring, developing and monetizing social assets
in the online and mobile gaming space, as well as the social casino
industry." In May 2016, however, the company revamped itself as a
cybersecurity firm and developed bitcoin mining operations in both
Washington state and Sweden. It was during this time that the
company's shares rose to some of their highest levels.

Stephen Schaeffer is the chief operating officer of MGT. Speaking
with Bitcoin Magazine, he said that he believes any monetary losses
suffered by clients are relative to the bearish conditions being
witnessed in today's crypto market.

"The bitcoin mining market has been tough," he commented. "There's
no sugarcoating that. Our share prices exploded with the price of
bitcoin, just as the difficulty rate for miners drastically
increased. As bitcoin dropped, so did the value of our shares, but
for miners, things got even worse because the difficulty rate
stayed quite high. That means we've been spending considerably more
in energy costs than we were last year."

He continued, "I believe we hear too much redirect from miners on
how great mining is and has been. Well, that's true for a longer
time frame. I have personally been mining since 2012 with an
average monthly profit of about 15 percent. This, however, is not
true in 2018. Profitability has been very marginal, and, for those
not paying the absolute lowest prices for power and running lean
operations, it has resulted in losses or even the closing of
operations for some."

Mr. Schaeffer contends that the company has taken steps to address
some of these financial issues. MGT is currently working to move
its miners from its Swedish facility, where costs have been too
high and unpredictable, to the U.S. The company is negotiating with
a number of locations in the country's central northern region and
anticipates relocating its mining operations back onto American
soil very soon.

But the plaintiffs tell a different story. In 2015, Barry Honig, a
leading small cap investor, and several of his associates purchased
shares in MGT and obtained control over its management team. The
suits claim that Mr. Honig forced the company into a "misleading
stock promotion" that sought to drive up the prices and respective
trading volumes of the company's stock holdings. Mr. Honig is
accused of later dumping his own shares for a serious profit while
taking "numerous steps" to conceal his team's involvement.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs also say that Mr. Honig
repeatedly made false and misleading claims regarding MGT's
operations and compliance policies, and that customers were never
informed of the illegal pump-and-dump scheme. In addition, they say
the defendants have a long history of engaging in illegal conduct
relating to the sale and purchase of securities, and that they
exercised inappropriate control over the company and placed MGT in
danger of being delisted from the New York Stock Exchange.

While Mr. Shaeffer says he cannot comment on ongoing litigation, he
did state, "Mr. Honig has no role within MGT other than being an
early investor years ago. In fact, MGT was sued by Mr. Honig in a
claim that was dropped with prejudice. I joined the company as an
employee after Mr. Honig was no longer an investor. Mr. Honig has
never had the authority to speak for the company and he's had no
input into the company."

In September 2016, MGT's CEO Robert Ladd received a subpoena from
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) demanding
"certain information" from the company. The commission filed a
complaint against MGT two years later and subsequently published a
report stating that executives were involved in the illegal
pump-and-dump system. As a result, shares in the company fell to
less than 40 cents each, roughly 91 percent less than where they
had been during the company's peak period.

"We made public the SEC subpoena in an effort to be fully
transparent to our shareholders," Schaeffer said. "The nature and
intent of the document was a request for information regarding a
group of specific accredited investors who had invested in the
public company prior to 2016. There were no specific claims or
allegations made at that time, just a request for information
regarding communications between the company and these particular
investors."[GN]


MICHIGAN: Cert. of Special Ed Class Eligible Children Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned D.R., as a minor through
parent and next friend DAWN RICHARDSON, et al., on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et
al., Case No. 2:16-cv-13694-AJT-APP (E.D. Mich.), seek
certification of a class of:

     present and future children, in Flint, Michigan from the
     ages of 3 through 26, who attend or who will attend FCS
     schools and who are or may be eligible for special education
     and related services pursuant to the IDEA and its federal
     implementing regulations, Section 504, and analogous
     provisions of Michigan state law.

The Plaintiffs also ask that White & Case LLP and the American
Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan and the Education Law Center
be appointed as class counsel.

In this action, the Plaintiffs assert claims that Defendants
Michigan Department of Education, Genesee Intermediate School
District, and Flint Community Schools have failed and are failing
to provide and ensure a free appropriate public education to all
eligible children with disabilities in Flint Community Schools in
violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act of 2004, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the
Americans with Disabilities by discriminating against children with
disabilities, by failing to educate in the least restrictive
environment, by failing to provide procedural safeguards in the
administration of disciplinary practices, and by chronically
underfunding and understaffing essential programs and services for
students with disabilities.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kristin L. Totten, Esq.
          Daniel S. Korobkin, Esq.
          Michael J. Steinberg, Esq.
          ACLU FUND OF MICHIGAN
          2966 Woodward Ave.
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-6800
          E-mail: ktotten@aclumich.org
                  dkorobkin@aclumich.org
                  msteinberg@aclumich.org

               - and -

          Gregory M. Starner, Esq.
          Lindsay M. Heck, Esq.
          Walter A. Ciacci, Esq.
          Dominique N. Forrest, Esq.
          Laura A. Grai, Esq.
          Michael Jaoude, Esq.
          Celine Aka, Esq.
          Maria A. Brusco, Esq.
          Lindsey B. Cherner, Esq.
          Andrew Gershenfeld, Esq.
          Lauren A. Kuehn, Esq.
          Andres Ivan Navedo, Esq.
          Kareem Ramadan, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 819-8200
          E-mail: gstarner@whitecase.com
                  lindsay.heck@whitecase.com
                  walter.ciacci@whitecase.com
                  dominique.forrest@whitecase.com
                  laura.grai@whitecase.com

               - and -

          David G. Sciarra, Esq.
          Gregory G. Little, Esq.
          Jessica A. Levin, Esq.
          EDUCATION LAW CENTER
          60 Park Place, Suite 300
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 624-1815
          E-mail: dsciarra@edlawcenter.org
                  glittle@edlawcenter.org
                  jlevin@edlawcenter.org


MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Appeals Order in Cleven Suit to 5th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants CMS/Colonial Multifamily Canyon Creek JV, LP,
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Incorporated and Mid-America
Apartments, L.P., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Cathi Cleven, et al. v. Mid-America Apartment
Communities, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 1:16-CV-820, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin.

The appellate case is captioned as Cathi Cleven, et al. v.
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Incorporated, et al., Case No.
18-50846, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 8, 2018, the
Defendants filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.
That appellate case is captioned as Cathi Cleven, et al. v.
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Incorporated, et al., Case No.
18-90038.

The Plaintiffs previously sought certification of a damage class
defined as:

     All persons during the Class Period who (i) were residential
     tenants of apartment properties in the State of Texas under
     written leases where MAA or its predecessor in merger,
     Colonial, served as an owner or landlord, and (ii) were
     assessed and paid an initial rent late fee of $75.00 and/or
     a daily rent late fee of at least $10.00.

The case challenges a statewide, uniform rent late fee policy
(here, a fixed initial $75 late fee and daily late fees of at least
$10, referred to as the "$75/10 rent late fee") as an unenforceable
penalty under Section 92.019 of the Texas Property Code.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees CATHI CLEVEN, for herself and all others
similarly situated; TARA CLEVEN, for herself and all others
similarly situated; ARELI ARELLANO, for herself and all others
similarly situated; and JOE L MARTINEZ, for himself and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Russell S. Post, Esq.
          BECK REDDEN, L.L.P.
          1221 McKinney Street
          1 Houston Center
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 951-3700
          E-mail: rpost@beckredden.com

               - and -

          Karson Thompson, Esq.
          BECK REDDEN, L.L.P.
          515 Congress Avenue
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 708-1000
          E-mail: kthompson@beckredden.com

Defendants-Appellants MID-AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES,
INCORPORATED; MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS, L.P.; and CMS/COLONIAL
MULTIFAMILY CANYON CREEK JV, LP, are represented by:

          Barry Goheen, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, L.L.P.
          1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-4618
          E-mail: bgoheen@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Kathy Lynn Poppitt, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, L.L.P.
          500 W. 2nd Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 457-2004
          E-mail: kpoppitt@kslaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Narrows Claims in Gunther FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICOLE K. GUNTHER, on behalf of herself and the
proposed Class, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and
MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-704 (D. Utah),
Judge Clark Waddoups of the U.S. District Court of the District of
Utah, Central Division, granted in part and denied in part
Midland's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Nicole Gunther's (Ms.
Gunther) Complaint.

Ms. Gunther commenced the action on May 24, 2017 by filing a
proposed Class Action Complaint in state court.  Midland then filed
notice of removal on June 28, 2017, based on federal question
jurisdiction.  The case was assigned to the Court on that date.

In her Complaint, Ms. Gunther alleges under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") that she is a "consumer," that
both Midland Funding and Midland credit are debt collectors, that
the Defendants were engaged in the collection of debt, and that
Midland used deceptive representations in connection with those
collection efforts.  

Ms. Gunther seeks statutory and actual damages under the FDCPA,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, cost of suit, Certification
of the FDCPA Class, and her appointment as the class
representative.  She also seeks Certification of the Utah Class,
her appointment as the Utah Class' representative, and declaratory
and injunctive relief against the Defendants to stop the Defendants
from harming consumers and providing them with an unfair advantage
over its competitors by engaging in collection efforts for debt not
legally owed to it; including a preliminary and permanent
injunction.

On July 31, 2017, Midland filed the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint.  On Sept. 5, 2017, Ms. Gunther filed an opposition, and
on Oct. 3, 2017, Midland filed a reply.  The Court heard oral
argument on the motions on Feb. 14, 2018.

Ms. Gunther, in her first claim for relief, alleges that Midland
violated the FDCPA in two different ways -- (1) by taking
assignments of time-barred debt for collection in violation of Utah
law; and (2) by sending dunning letters that attempt to settle
time-barred debs without sufficiently disclosing that the debts are
time barred, and by suggesting that payment on the time-barred debt
will save the letter's recipient money.

In her second claim for relief, Ms. Gunther alleges that Midland
violated the UCSPA in two different ways.  First, she appears to
allege that Midland engaged in deceptive practices when Midland
demanded payment from Ms. Gunther on debts not legally assigned to
them.  Second, she appears to allege that Midland engaged in
deceptive practices by failing to disclose that a voluntary payment
may revive or toll the statute of limitations.

As to Ms. Gunther's first allegation of her first claim that
Midland violated the FDCPA by taking assignments of time-barred
debt for collection in violation of Utah law, Judge Waddoups
granted Midland's 12(b)(6) Motion as it relates to Ms. Gunther's
first allegation of her first claim.  He finds that Ms. Gunther's
first allegation of her first claim fails because the court cannot
transform a purported violation of the UCCA into a private right of
action under the FDCPA.  In other words, even if Midland violated
the UCAA, the law simply affords Ms. Gunther no relief.

As to Ms. Gunther's second allegation of her first claim that
Midland violated the FDCPA by sending dunning letters that
attempted to settle time-barred debs without sufficiently
disclosing that the debts are time-barred, and by suggesting that
payment on the time-barred debt would save the letter's recipient
money, the Judge denied Midland's 12(b)(6) Motion as it relates to
Ms. Gunther's second allegation of her first claim.  He concludes
that the letter is plausibly misleading to the least sophisticated
consumer.  He agrees with the Plaintiff that the letter's offer of
a discount program designed to save the letter's recipient money
could plausibly lead an unsophisticated consumer to believe that
the time-barred debt is legally enforceable.  More specifically,
the letter's language providing "act now to maximize your savings,"
could create the impression to the reader that if she did not "act
now," that she would have to pay more in the future.

As to Ms. Gunther's first allegation of her second claim that
Midland violated the USCPA by engaging in deceptive practices when
it demanded payment from Ms. Gunther on debts not legally assigned
to them, the Judge granted Midland's 12(b)(6) Motion as it relates
to Ms. Gunther's first allegation of her first claim.  He finds
that Ms. Gunther's first allegation of Count II fails because the
Court cannot transform a (purported) violation of the UCCA into a
private right of action under the USCPA.  In other words, even if
Midland violated the UCAA, the law simply affords Ms. Gunther no
relief.

Finally, as to Ms. Gunther's second allegation of her second claim
that Midland violated the USCPA by engaging in deceptive practices
when it failed to disclose that a voluntary payment may revive or
toll the statute of limitations, the Judge granted Midland's
12(b)(6) Motion as it relates to Ms. Gunther's second allegation of
her second claim.  He concludes that Midland cannot have acted
deceptively in failing to tell Ms. Gunther that partial payment
would revive the statute of limitations because, under Utah law,
partial payment would not have revived the statute of limitations.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/0cfIt1 from Leagle.com.

Nichole Gunther, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M. Baczynski,
AYRES LAW FIRM, Scott C. Borison, LEGG LAW FIRM LLC, pro hac vice &
Tyler B. Ayres, AYRES LAW FIRM.

Midland Credit Managment & Midland Funding, Defendants, represented
by Cory W. Eichhorn -- Cory.Eichhorn@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND & KNIGHT
LLP & Thomas D. Leland -- Thomas.Leland@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND &
KNIGHT LLP.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Arbitration Order in Khath Suit Affirmed in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHNSON KHATH, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC,
Defendant, VIRGINIA NEWTON, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC,
Defendant, C.A. Nos. 14-14184-MLW, 16-10727-MLW (D. Mass.), Judge
Mark L. Wolff of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (i) affirmed Magistrate Judge's Jan. 20, 2017 Order
denying without prejudice Midland's first Motion to Compel
Arbitration; and (ii) modified in part and affirmed in part the
Magistrate Judge's Aug. 14, 2017 Order granting in part and denying
in part Midland's Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration.

Khath and Newton in these consolidated cases are Massachusetts
residents with credit card debt who each initiated a putative class
action suit against defendant Midland Funding, LLC, a debt
collection company. Plaintiffs claim that Midland has harmed
Massachusetts residents by wrongfully operating in the state
without a debt collector license.  Khath and Newton filed their
cases against Midland in the Massachusetts Superior Court.  Midland
removed the cases to federal court, where they were consolidated.
The cases were referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial
proceedings.

Midland has twice moved to compel arbitration and stay the instant
proceedings or, in the alternative, to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claims.  On Jan. 20, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order
denying without prejudice Midland's first Motion to Compel
Arbitration, finding that evidence then in the record did not
demonstrate an unbroken chain of assignment to Midland of the
plaintiffs' credit card accounts.  The Magistrate Judge also found
a triable issue existed concerning whether the credit card
agreement produced by Midland, which contains an arbitration
clause, governs Newton's account.

On Aug. 14, 2017, the Magistrate Judge granted in part and denied
in part Midland's Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration.  The
Magistrate Judge ordered Khath to arbitrate, finding that Midland
had presented sufficient evidence to prove that Khath's credit
account was assigned to it, and that an agreement to arbitrate
exists between Khath and Midland.   The Magistrate Judge also held
that the validity of the Class Action Waiver provision found in
Khath's credit card agreement was an issue that the agreement
reserved for the court, as Midland conceded at oral argument.
However, she decided to stay litigation concerning the validity of
the Class Action Waiver provision until after arbitration of
Khath's individual claim.  The Magistrate Judge denied the Renewed
Motion to Compel with respect to Newton, reaffirming her earlier
ruling that a triable issue remains concerning whether an agreement
to arbitrate exists between Newton and Midland.

Now pending before the Court are the Plaintiffs' objections to the
Magistrate Judge's Jan. 20, 2017 Order, and both parties'
objections to the Magistrate Judge's Aug. 14, 2017 Order.

Considering the evidence in the record as a whole, Judge Wolff has
not formed a strong, unyielding belief that a mistake has been made
with regard to Midland's ownership of the Newton and Khath
Accounts.  Midland produced bills of sale and affidavits
demonstrating how it obtained ownership of the Khath and Newton
Accounts, as well as the underlying raw data that corroborates and
provides more detail about the purchases.  Therefore, he finds that
the Magistrate Judge's findings that Midland was assigned the Khath
and Newton Accounts are not clearly erroneous.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Wolff affirmed the Magistrate
Judge's Jan. 20, 2017 Order.  He modified in part the Aug. 14, 2017
Order because the Magistrate Judge must decide whether the Class
Action Waiver in Khath's credit card agreement is valid before
ordering Khath to arbitrate because the Class Action Waiver
provides that if it is found to be invalid the agreement to
arbitrate is void.

In addition, the Plaintiffs object to the August 2017 Order on the
grounds that the Magistrate Judge should have decided the Renewed
Motion as a motion for reconsideration, and refused to consider any
evidence that was not newly discovered.  The Judge holds that this
objection is also without merit.  The Magistrate Judge denied
Midland's first Motion to Compel Arbitration without prejudice,
providing Midland the opportunity to present more evidence
concerning the assignments issue.  The FAA creates only one
circumstance, not present in the matter, where a party may lose its
right to compel arbitration: when the party is in default in
proceeding with such arbitration.  Therefore, the Magistrate Judge
correctly decided Midland's Renewed Motion as a second motion to
compel arbitration rather than a motion for reconsideration of her
previous ruling.

The arbitration provisions in the FIA and Chase Agreements contain
clauses that delegate to the arbitrator questions about the
applicability of the arbitration provisions.  Midland argues the
Court should have enforced the delegation clauses and ordered both
parties to arbitrate the validity of the arbitration agreements.
However, the Judge holds that he cannot enforce any provision in
the FIA and Chase Agreements until it decides the predecessor
question of whether there was an agreement at all between the
parties.  Therefore, the Magistrate Judge was correct in analyzing
the factual question of whether an agreement existed between
Midland and each of the Plaintiff before ordering either the
Plaintiff to arbitration.  Contrary to Midland's assertions, the
Magistrate Judge did not rule on the validity of the contracts
generally or of the arbitration clauses specifically.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Class Action Waiver appears in
the Arbitration and Litigation section of the FIA Agreement.  Khath
argues that the waiver is unconscionable because it appears in the
fine print of the agreement and is, therefore, unenforceable.  He
holds that the validity of the Class Action Waiver is an issue for
the Court to decide in the case.  If the Magistrate Judge finds the
Class Action Waiver to be unenforceable, the agreement to arbitrate
is void.  Therefore, Khath's challenge to specific waiver language
in the arbitration agreement must be resolved before the Court can
order compliance with the arbitration agreement.  Accordingly, the
Magistrate Judge's Aug. 14, 2017 Order is being modified to require
a determination of the validity of the Class Action Waiver before
Khath is compelled to arbitrate.

Having considered the parties' objections, Judge Wolff affirmed the
Magistrate Judge's Jan. 20, 2017 Order.  He modified in part the
Magistrate Judge's Aug. 14, 2017 Order.  The Magistrate Judge will
decide the validity of the Class Action Waiver in the FIA Agreement
as it pertains to Khath before determining whether Khath is
compelled to arbitrate by the Arbitration and Litigation Section.
The Magistrate Judge's Aug. 14, 2017 Order is otherwise affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/pL3OnF from Leagle.com.

Virginia Newton, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth D. Quat --
kquat@quatlaw.com -- Quat Law Offices.

Midland Funding, LLC, Defendant, represented by Erik J. Tomberg --
erik.tomberg@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &
Dicker, LLP, Kara G. Thorvaldsen --
kara.thorvaldsen@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz,
Edelman & Dicker, LLP & William T. Bogaert --
william.bogaert@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz,
Edelman & Dicker LLP.


MONSANTO CO: Herbicide Exposure Caused Husband's Death, Says Evans
------------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Evans, individually and as surviving spouse of decedent Cecil
J. Evans, Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00513 (N.D. Okla., October 3, 2018), seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, costs, expert fees, disbursements and attorneys'
fees incurred in prosecuting this action, disgorgement of profits,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate and
such other relief resulting from negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (R), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

Cecil J. Evans developed Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2015 and
subsequently died on October 7, 2015, as a direct and proximate
result of his long-term exposure to Roundup, the complaint asserts.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Matthew J. Sill, Esq.
       Katie Griffin, Esq.
       Tara Tabatabaie, Esq.
       SILL LAWGROUP, PLLC
       1101 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 102
       Oklahoma City, OK 73103
       Tel: (405) 509-6300
       Fax: (405) 509-6268
       Email: msill@fulmersill.com
              kgriffin@fulmersill.com


NEW YORK EQUESTRIAN: Faces Suit for ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York Equestrian
Center, LTD. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. New York
Equestrian Center, LTD, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09799 (S.D.
N.Y., Oct. 24, 2018).

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

New York Equestrian Center, LTD, located in West Hempstead, New
York, have been providing Equestrian services for nearly 90 years.
New York Equestrian was originally built in the 1920s and
completely redeveloped in 2012.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NORTHSTAR ALARM: Class and Subclass Certified in Braver Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Stephen P. Friot grants the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit styled ROBERT H. BRAVER, for himself
and all individuals similarly situated v. NORTHSTAR ALARM SERVICES,
LLC, a Company, et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-00383-F (W.D. Okla.).

As proposed by the Plaintiff, these class and subclass are
certified with respect to count one of the first amended
complaint:

   * Class:

     All persons in the Red Dot Data marketing list for whom
     Yodel's records reflect a telephone call regarding
     Northstar's home security systems that lasted more than 30
     seconds, that was handled by an agent who applied status
     code 20 or 50 to the call, and that resulted in the normal
     clearing disposition.

   * Subclass:

     All persons in the Red Dot Data marketing list for whom
     Yodel's records reflect a telephone call regarding
     Northstar's home security systems that lasted more than 30
     seconds, that was handled by an agent who applied status
     code 50 to the call, and that resulted in the normal
     clearing disposition.

     Excluded from the class are:

     Any persons whose contact information is associated with
     either an IP address or website URL in the Red Dot Data
     marketing list.

Count one of the Plaintiff's first amended complaint alleges that
the Defendants' robocalls delivered a prerecorded telemarketing
message without the Plaintiff's or the class members' prior express
written consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Judge Friot directs the parties to confer with a view to filing a
jointly proposed schedule which addresses the timing of notice to
the class, as well as the timing of any pre-trial motions or other
pre-trial matters that will require the court to rule.  The jointly
proposed schedule shall also inform the Court of the Plaintiff's
position regarding the status of count three of the first amended
complaint.

The jointly proposed schedule is due within 30 days of the date of
this order.  After review of the jointly proposed schedule, the
Court will determine whether it is necessary to hold another
scheduling conference at this stage.

If the parties are unable to agree on a jointly proposed schedule,
they shall so notify the Court within 31 days of the date of this
order, Judge Friot rules.[CC]


NORTHVIEW APARTMENTS: Faces Class Action Over Dartmouth Fire
------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Draus, writing for Global News, reports that it's been
nearly six months since a fatal fire displaced 150 residents from
81 Primrose St. in Dartmouth.. The building, which is still under
repair, stands as a painful reminder to those who were affected.

"The fire didn't end on May 19," said former tenant Sarah Parker.
"We are still dealing with it now, and we will for a while."

Ms. Parker was rescued from her balcony the night of the fire but
lost everything in her apartment. Now she is the lead plaintiff in
a proposed class action lawsuit.

"This was a situation that could have been prevented," she said.

The suit is being filed against Northview apartments, D.D 81
Primrose LTD, the Halifax Regional Municipality and the Halifax
Regional Water Commission.

It alleges that smoke detectors did not go off in a timely manner
and that "the Plaintiff states that neither her apartment nor any
public areas of the apartment building that she is familiar with
were equipped with a fire sprinkler system."

The notice of action alleges negligence of the water commission due
to  maintenance of fire hydrants "which did not work on the morning
of May 19, 2018."

"We have evidence the fire did not have to be as large. It did not
have to have as much damage," said Ms. Parker.

"We have evidence that prevention could have made a big difference
that night."

Lawyer David Coles with Clarke Law Firm is representing Parker and
the other tenants. He says the suit has been publicly filed and the
defendants are now being served. The next step will be to have the
class action suit certified.

"Essentially what we're saying is there shouldn't be 40 separate
trials for liability," he said.

For Ms. Parker, it is about seeing some accountability.

"I am angry, because our complaints were not listened too," she
said.

Already, 40 tenants have signed onto the lawsuit, which is open to
anyone who was living at 81 Primrose St. on May 19.

Northview Apartments has not responded to requests for comment and
a spokesperson for Halifax Water said they will not be commenting
as the case is now before the courts.

In an email to Global News, a spokesperson from the municipality
says it will be defending the action.

"We have reviewed our actions from the day of the fire and there
was no negligence on the part of the fire service," the statement
reads. [GN]


O PARK CENTRAL:  Faces Class Suit Asserting Civil Rights Violation
------------------------------------------------------------------
A civil rights class action has been filed against O. Park Central
LLC.

The case is captioned Byron Breeze, Jr. on behalf of himself, and
all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. O. Park Central
LLC a New York limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-09814 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2018).

O. Park Central LLC, doing business as The Manhattan Club, operates
as a hotel. The Company offers suites, lounge, business center,
meeting rooms, and fitness center facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nolan Keith Klein, Esq.
     Law Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A.
     Broadway, Ste. 2250
     New York, NY 10006
     Phone: (646) 560-3230
     Fax: (877) 253-2691
     Email: klein@nklegal.com


OCEAN HARBOR: Fla. App. Flips Class Certification in MSPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas Logue of the District Court of Appeal of Florida for
the Third District reversed the trial court's order certifying the
class in the case, Ocean Harbor Casualty Insurance, etc.,
Appellant, v. MSPA Claims, 1, etc., Appellee, Case No. 3D17-392
(Fla. App.).

MSPA Claims 1, LLC asserts it is an assignee of Florida Healthcare
Plus, Inc., a defunct Medicare Advantage Organization ("MAO").
MSPA filed a class action seeking to represent other MAO's to
prosecute a private cause of action for double damages under the
Medicare Secondary Payer Act against Ocean Harbor, a Florida
no-fault automobile insurer.  In its complaint, MSPA seeks
reimbursement for the medical bills of Ocean Harbor's no-fault
insureds which were paid by MSPA's alleged assignor under Medicare,
but which should have been paid by Ocean Harbor.

The trial court certified the class.  The trial court found that
all of Florida's 37 MAOs were potential class members and, pursuant
to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(b)(3), certified the class
to include:

     a. entities that contracted directly with the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") and/or its assignee pursuant
to Medicare Part C, including but not limited to, MAO's and other
similar entities, to provide Medicare benefits through a Medicare
Advantage plan to Medicare beneficiaries for medical services,
treatment, and/or supplies as required and regulated by HHS and/or
CMS as a direct payer of medical services/supplies and/or drugs on
behalf of Medicare beneficiaries either for parts A, B and/or D,
all of which pertain to the same medical services and/or supplies
that were the primary obligation of the Defendant; have made
payment(s) for medical services, treatment and/or supplies
subsequent to Jan. 29, 2009, whereby the MAO, or its assignee, as a
secondary payer, has the direct or indirect right and
responsibility to obtain reimbursement for covered Medicare
services, for which the Defendant, as the primary payer pursuant to
the Defendant's contract covering the Medicare enrollee pursuant to
Florida No-Fault law (section 627.736 (4), Florida Statutes),
was/is financially responsible to a Medicare beneficiary for
medical bills incurred as a result of the use, maintenance or
operation of a motor vehicle; and

     b. where the Defendant failed to properly pay for medical
bills on behalf of its insureds and has otherwise failed to
reimburse the MAO's or its assignees for their payment(s) as
calculated pursuant to the recognized Current Procedure Terminology
("CPT") codes based on the fee-for-service by the primary payer, as
delineated by section 627.736, Florida Statutes, for medical
services and/or supplies for their damages.

Ocean Harbor timely appealed.  Among other matters, it contends the
trial court erred in finding numerosity, commonality, adequate
representation, predominance, and superiority.  

Judge Logue addresses only predominance and does not reach the
other issues.  The appropriateness of the class certification turns
largely on whether issues common to the class will predominate.
Modern Medicare requires beneficiaries to exhaust available private
insurance before Medicare pays any medical bills.  Moreover, if a
private insurer (deemed a "primary plan" in Medicare parlance)
wrongfully fails to pay a bill it should have paid, Congress
provided a private cause of action for double damages.  The nature
of proof required under the private cause of action is at the heart
of the class certification.

Significantly, MSPA intends to demonstrate Ocean Harbor's
responsibility as the primary plan, not by reference to
pre-existing settlements by Ocean Harbor as was done in earlier
cases, but by insurance contracts entered into under Florida
no-fault statutes.  MSPA's proof to establish liability therefore
will necessarily devolve into a series of mini-trials under Florida
no-fault law.

He concludes that the case does not involve a situation in which
MSPA's proof of its own claim necessarily proves the cases of the
other class members.  Proof that certain medical bills paid by
MSPA's alleged assignor should have been paid by Ocean Harbor as a
primary payer will not establish that other medical bills paid by a
different MAO should also have been paid by Ocean Harbor as a
primary payer.  To the contrary, proof to establish liability will
necessarily devolve into a series of mini-trials under Florida
no-fault law, which precludes a finding of predominance and renders
the case inappropriate for class action treatment.

Accordingly, he reversed the provisions of the certification order
under review in conflict with the Opinion.  The remainder of the
Order is quashed without prejudice.  The Opinion is not final until
disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/JlD1Oe from Leagle.com.

Conroy Simberg, and Shannon P. McKenna and Hinda Klein --
hklein@conroysimberg.com -- and Dale L. Friedman (Hollywood) --
dfriedman@conroysimberg.com -- for appellant.

MSP Recovery Law Firm, and Frank C. Quesada --
fquesada@msprecovery.com -- John H. Ruiz -- jruiz@msprecovery.com
-- Arlenys Perdomo, Gino Moreno -- gmoreno@msprecovery.com -- and
Shayna Hudson, for appellee.

Russo Appellate Firm, P.A., and Elizabeth Russo --
ekr@russoappeals.com -- for Property Casualty Insurers Association
of America and Personal Insurance Federation of Florida, as amici
curiae; Shutts & Bowen LLP, and Suzanne Youmans Labrit, B.C.S.
(Tampa) --  SLabrit@shutts.com; William W. Large (Tallahassee), fr
Florida Justice Reform Institute, as amicus curiae.


PANERA BREAD: Assistant Managers Get Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson, writing for Law360, reports that a District of
Columbia federal judge on Oct. 16 granted conditional certification
of a nationwide collective and a D.C. collective of Panera Bread
assistant managers in an overtime suit. [GN]


PARAMOUNT HOLDINGS: Fabricant Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Paramount Holdings, LLC and Does
1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-08506 (C.D.
Cal., October 3, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages,
treble damages and all other relief for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Paramount Holdings, LLC, operating as "Paramount Payment Systems,"
a marketer and seller of home security services and related
products, attempted to contact Fabricant using an automatic
telephone dialing system offering its services, says the complaint.
[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


PARK PIZZA: Castillo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Freddy Castillo, on behalf of himself, and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Park Pizza, Inc., dba Pizza Park, and
Arturo Ientile and Salvador Ientile, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-09735 (S.D. N.Y., October 23, 2018) is brought against
the Defendants for unpaid wages and minimum wages and unpaid
overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated and continue to
operate their business with a policy of not paying wages for all
hours worked and not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees either the FLSA overtime rate or the New York State
overtime rate in violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law and
the supporting federal and New York State Department of Labor
Regulations, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is an adult resident of Queens County, New York. He was
employed by Defendants as a food preparer and general helper and
delivery person from July 5, 2016 through August 30, 2018.

Park Pizza, Inc., is a domestic business corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York, doing business as
a pizzeria known as Pizza Park, with a principal place of 1233
First Avenue, New York, New York 10065.

Arturo Ientile and Salvador Ientile are the owners, officers,
directors and/or managing agents of Pizza Park.  Defendants were
the Plaintiffs' employer within the meaning of the FLSA and the New
York Labor Law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin Cilenti, Esq.
     Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
     CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
     708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 209-3933
     Fax: (212) 209-7102
     Email: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


PERRY FUNERAL: Faces Class Action Follow Discovery of Fetuses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aleanna Siacon, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that after
the shocking news on Oct. 19 that the remains of 63 fetuses and
infants were recovered from the Perry Funeral Home on Trumbull -- a
week after 11 fetuses were found hidden in a ceiling of another
Detroit funeral home -- a slew of families are left worrying about
what happened to the remains of children they lost.

As state investigators, city police, a litany of state and federal
agencies, plus private attorneys, tackle the legal and civil
logistics of the failures of Perry Funeral Home and the Cantrell
Funeral Home on Mack to properly dispose of remains, families are
looking for answers. The remains include fetuses, stillborn and
live born infants, police said.

A number of volunteer-based community organizations and funeral
homes have stepped up to help -- whether it's to provide resources
for emotional support, a promise to help cover burial or cremation
costs when matches are made, or a hotline to call for more
information.

Angie Winton, president of Metro Detroit Share, said a group of
five volunteer-based organizations dedicated to helping families
cope with stillbirths or sudden infant deaths, have formed the
Southeast Michigan Perinatal & Infant Loss Coalition and want to
connect with families affected by the discoveries made at the
Cantrell and Perry funeral homes.

Ms. Winton told the Free Press that all five organizations do
funeral assistance, while both Metro Detroit share and the Tears
Foundation also do in-person and online support meetings.

"It's just appalling that in this day and age, with online access
to information, that these funeral homes did not -- if there was an
issue with cost -- that they did not reach out," Ms. Winton said.

Metro Detroit Share's records show the organization has assisted
families working with both Perry Funeral Home and Cantrell Funeral
Home in the past, Winton said.

As for families awaiting word on whether or not their children were
among the remains recovered at the funeral homes, Winton said, the
coalition is prepared to work collectively and with participating
funeral homes to prepare burials.

"First they just need to be in touch," she said. "We'll just have
to kind of work through it when it's such a big issue."

Ms. Winton said all five groups have different intake procedures,
but across the board they've found that most funeral homes are
typically very generous and work with volunteer-based organizations
to facilitate burials for families that can't afford them.

There have been several cases where funeral homes have helped cover
cremation costs, and Metro Detroit Share has offered assistance
with urns, lockets or some sort of keepsake, Winton said.

"It's completely up to the family, but knowing they have options .
. . We can see how much we can help with," she said.

In the case of a burial, she said, some cemeteries have special
designated areas for fetuses or infants that are generally of no
cost to the family, and Metro Detroit Share has covered the cost of
a headstone.

"I think a lot of people honestly, they don't know where to reach
out to," she said. "Unless you've had a loss, you don't understand
the mental status when you're going through a trauma like that."

Winton said many families get scared when they think they can't
afford to bury or cremate their child, but don't know there are
organizations that can help coordinate things with funeral homes
and cover costs.

Donations can also be made to the coalition's Crowdrise page.
Winton said the funds will be used for the families affected by the
discoveries made at the Cantrell and Perry funeral homes, and
excess funds raised will be split between the five organizations to
help with future funeral service costs and support  services.

The coalition's goal is $10,000.

A hotline for unclaimed remains

Verheyden Funeral Home in Grosse Pointe Park has also offered to
make funeral arrangements for the remains of 269 people found in
the Cantrell Funeral Home's basement after an April inspection that
lead to the site's closure.

State officials confirmed that 52 of the remains had no records and
were unidentifiable, and at least four have been retrieved by
families. Some appeared to go back as far as 1996, but names for
the identified remains have not been released publicly.

These uncovered remains were then stored in a Flint facility
operated by the mortuary transport company Preferred Removal
Services, but will be transported to Verheyden Funeral Home where
families can retrieve and eventually inter them. The funeral home
has set up a hot line at 313-821-9040 for families looking for the
remains of their loved ones.

Some interments at metro Detroit cemeteries are expected to take
place as early as Nov. 2, on All Souls' Day.

Identifying the others

Efforts to identify the fetuses and infant remains most recently
recovered from the Cantrell Funeral Home are still ongoing.

Detroit Police Chief James Craig told reporters at an Oct. 15 press
conference that prior to the Oct. 12 discovery an anonymous phone
call lead state inspectors to another fetus and cremated remains at
Cantrell in August.  Since Oct. 12, five additional containers
carrying remains have been collected from the funeral home.

Most of the fetuses discovered in a "mummified condition" were
marked with a hospital label that could help examiners find
existing records and identify them, Wayne County Chief Medical
Examiner Dr. Carl Schmidt said in a statement.

"The fact that these remains reached a funeral home means there
should be a record somewhere that can help lead us to identifying
information," he said.

The medical examiners office will be working with local and state
officials to try and identify remains, then connect with families
-- but the process could take weeks or months, depending on what
information may be in any funeral home and hospital records.

"If they exist at all," Dr. Schmidt added.

Lawsuit could bring answers

Mr. Craig told reporters on Oct. 19 that Detroit police held a
meeting with the FBI, Michigan State Police, Wayne Country
prosecutors, the Michigan Attorney General's Office and the state
licensing authority as it plans to proceed with a criminal
investigation.

Police expanded their investigation to Perry Funeral Home in
Midtown after a lawsuit came to light alleging that the home
improperly stored the bodies of stillborn and live birth babies in
the Wayne State University School of Mortuary Science morgue, but
failed to inform parents.

Later that day, police executed a search warrant at the funeral
home and recovered 63 remains of fetuses and live births.

The lawsuit was filed by attorneys Peter Parks and Daniel Cieslak
on behalf of Rachel Brown and Larry Davis, whose daughter Alayah
died 27 minutes after she was born in December of 2014. The pair
donated her remains for medical research, but to this day, they
aren't certain where Alayah's body is.

Mr. Parks told the Free Press that Alayah's remains were among 37
babies found in the basement morgue of the Detroit Medical Center's
Harper-Hutzel Hospital when it was consolidating it with another
DMC morgue in 2015.

Mr. Parks said DMC reached out to Perry Funeral Home to arrange the
final disposition of the bodies for $100 per body and they were
picked up on May 13, 2015, but the funeral home did not keep
records of the fetuses -- the next time they were accounted for was
Aug. 7, 2015, when the WSU Department of Mortuary Science logged
that they accepted the remains.

However, Mr. Parks said some of the bodies never made it to the WSU
Medical School, like Alayah's, and the DMC did not notify family
members that it failed to complete the delivery.

Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that the funeral home may have
fraudulently billed Medicaid and the DMC for burials that were
never performed.

Mr. Parks added that his research into the log books kept by WSU
indicates that there could be up to 200 more bodies within the
improper possession of the Perry Funeral Home.

The attorneys are seeking class action status for the lawsuit.

"If our class action gets certified, we will make every effort to
find out who every single one of those fetuses is in the possession
of the funeral home," Parks told the Free Press. [GN]


PIACERE NEWS & CAFE: Espinosa Seeks Overtime Wages, Withheld Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bella L. Espinosa, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), v. Piacere News & Cafe Corp. and Alejandro Scolnik,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-24081, (S.D. Fla., October
3, 2018), seeks to recover regular wages, overtime compensation,
retaliatory damages, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Piacere News & Cafe is a retail business operating as a coffee shop
and restaurant located at 19575 Biscayne Blvd. Aventura, Florida
where Espinosa worked as a waitress. Defendants allegedly failed to
pay her overtime at the rate of time and a half her regular rate,
for every hour that she worked in excess of forty. She was a tipped
employee who was paid the mandatory minimum wage for tipped
employees, plus tips, however, Defendant was not entitled to a tip
credit because it did not establish a valid tip pooling agreement,
says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRINCE LIONHEART: Consumer Sues Over Toddler's Injury
-----------------------------------------------------
Gina Andriolo-Javellana, as natural guardian of D.J., a minor, and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Prince Lionheart,
Inc., Walmart Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of
them, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03143 (D. Ariz., October 3, 2018),
seeks damages and injunctive relief resulting from negligence and
violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.

Prince Lionheart designed, manufactured and sold the "weePOD," a
potty-training device for toddlers. Adriolo-Javellana's son D.J. is
a toddler whose genitals were lacerated while using said device.
She bought the potty-trainer at a store located in Maricopa County,
Arizona controlled by Walmart. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jo Ann Niemi, Esq.
      ANAPOL WEISS
      8700 East Vista Bonita Drive, Suite 268
      Scottsdale, AR 85255
      Telephone: (480) 515-4745
      Facsimile: (480) 515-4744
      Email: jniemi@anapolweiss.com

             - and -

      John P. Kristensen, Esq.
      KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
      12450 Beatrice St., Suite 200
      Los Angeles, CA 90066
      Telephone: (310) 507-7924
      Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
      Email: john@kristensenlaw.com

             - and -

      John C. Carpenter, Esq.
      CARPENTER, ZUCKERMAN & ROWLEY, LLP
      8827 West Olympic Boulevard
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 273-1230
      Facsimile: (310) 858-1063


PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL: Sued by Judson Over NDMA in Valsartan
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN JUDSON AND JO ANN HAMEL, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL INC. d/b/a SOLCO
HEALTHCARE LLC; SOLCO HEALTHCARE U.S., LLC; HUAHAI US INC.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; and TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:18-at-00753 (E.D. Cal.,
October 11, 2018), is brought on behalf of hundreds of thousands of
consumers, who paid for the Defendants' generic Valsartan that was
adulterated through its contamination with an IARC- and EPA-listed
probable human carcinogen known as N-nitrosodimethylamine
("NDMA").

Valsartan is the generic version of the registered listed drug
DIOVAN(R) which was marked in tablet form by Novartis AG beginning
in July 2001 upon approval by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.  Valsartan is a potent, orally active nonpeptide
tetrazole derivative which, when ingested, causes a reduction in
blood pressure, and is used in the treatment of hypertension, heart
failure, and post-myocardial infarction.

NDMA is yellow, oily liquid with a faint, characteristic odor and a
sweet taste, and is often produced as a by-product of industrial
manufacturing processes.

Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc., doing business as Solco Healthcare
LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal
place of business located in Cranbury, New Jersey.  Solco
Healthcare U.S., LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business located in Cranbury.  Huahai US
Inc. is a New Jersey corporation, with its principal place of
business located in Cranbury.  Prinston, Solco and Huahai US are
subsidiaries of Huahai Pharmaceutical.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a foreign company
incorporated and headquartered in Peta Tikvah, Israel.  Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., is a Delaware corporation, with its
principal place of business in North Wales, Pennsylvania, and is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceutical.  Teva and Teva USA
on their own and/or through their subsidiaries regularly conduct
business throughout the United States of America and its
territories and possessions.

The Defendants have been engaged in the manufacturing, sale, and
distribution of adulterated generic Valsartan in the United States,
including in the state of California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael L. Slack, Esq.
          John R. Davis, Esq.
          SLACK DAVIS SANGER, LLP
          2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 795-8686
          Facsimile: (512) 795-8787
          E-mail: mslack@slackdavis.com
                  jdavis@slackdavis.com

               - and -

          Allan Kanner, Esq.
          Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
          Layne Hilton, Esq.
          KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
          701 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70115
          Telephone: (504) 524-5777
          Facsimile: (504) 524-5763
          E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
                  c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
                  l.hilton@kanner-law.com

               - and -

          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          David J. Stanoch, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 965-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
          E-mail: rhonik@golombhonik.com
                  dstanoch@golombhonik.com


PUTNAM INVESTMENTS: Workers' ERISA Class Action Revived
-------------------------------------------------------
Emily Brill, writing for Law360, reports that the First Circuit on
Oct. 15 gave a group of Putnam Investments LLC workers another shot
at proving their employer shortchanged them by packing their 401(k)
plan with company-owned mutual funds. [GN]


QUALCOMM: Asks 9th Cir. to Intervene in Antitrust Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for Law.com, reports that Qualcomm is asking
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to intervene in the
massive antitrust class action certified last month by U.S.
District Judge Lucy Koh.

Qualcomm argues in a petition filed on Oct. 12 that Judge Koh
committed multiple errors, including depriving Qualcomm of a
hearing before certifying a class of some 250 million cellphone
purchasers. "The court's analysis was deficient in process,
reasoning, and result," Qualcomm states in the petition, which is
signed by Keker, Van Nest & Peters partner Robert Van Nest.

Specifically, Van Nest accuses Judge Koh of improperly applying
California antitrust law to a nationwide class contrary to Ninth
Circuit precedent; relying on a "pass-through" theory that other
courts have rejected; and "casually dismiss[ing] the due-process
and manageability issues that a class action of this unprecedented
magnitude inevitably will entail."

The stakes are enormous in In re Qualcomm, with the plaintiffs
seeking $5 billion. The case being heard in parallel with a Federal
Trade Commission antitrust action, also before Judge Koh. Both sets
of plaintiffs allege that Qualcomm inflates prices by, among other
things, refusing to supply cellphone modem chips to manufacturers
who won't license Qualcomm patents that are essential to meeting
wireless industry standards, a practice they call "no license, no
chips."

Plaintiffs also accuse Qualcomm of demanding license fees after
their patents are exhausted by an authorized sale, and of entering
into deals with Apple that until recently excluded other chip
suppliers such as Intel Corp.

Judge Koh is a veteran of high-stakes, high-complexity cases. In
addition to presiding over the three Apple v. Samsung trials, Judge
Koh also heard the "no poach" antitrust action that settled for
more than $400 million. This year, she has been presiding over
high-profile data breach class actions involving Yahoo and Anthem.

Retired Judge Jeremy Fogel, who sat in the same Silicon Valley
courthouse and later led the Federal Judicial Center, said in an
interview on Oct. 15 that there's a wide range of preference for
oral arguments among district judges. He personally enjoyed
argument, and saw motion hearings as a way to learn about cases and
as an opportunity to manage them through interactions with
counsel.

But other judges feel that litigants should say what they have to
say in the briefs. "There are a lot of good judges around the
country who rarely hear oral argument on motions, even on summary
judgment," Judge Fogel said.

In general, whether an argument will be scheduled depends on the
judge's philosophy, the nature of the case and the litigants,
whether the judge has any doubt about the proper outcome, and time
constraints facing the judge, said Judge Fogel, who now heads the
Berkeley Judicial Institute. Paradoxically, excellent lawyering
sometimes can cut against a hearing. "Sometimes the briefs are so
good, some judges may wonder, ‘What am I going to get from a
hearing?'" he said. Conversely, it might seem more important to
ensure that an unsophisticated litigant feels heard.

It does not appear Judge Koh is going to change her approach, at
least in the Qualcomm cases. On Oct. 12, she canceled a hearing
that had been scheduled on a key FTC motion for partial summary
judgment. The FTC is asking Judge Koh to rule as a matter of law
that Qualcomm's commitment to wireless standard bodies that it will
license patents on fair and reasonable terms means that it must
license its technology to competing modem-chip sellers such as
Intel.

The FTC and Qualcomm jointly submitted a motion to Judge Koh on
Oct. 15 asking her to hold off for a month on the summary judgment
ruling while they try to settle the case. Judge Koh denied the
motion the same day, indicating a ruling may be imminent. [GN]


RANBAXY INC: Sued by Meijer for Delaying Entry of Generic Nexium
----------------------------------------------------------------
MEIJER, INC., and MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. RANBAXY INC.,
RANBAXY LABORATORIES, LTD., RANBAXY U.S.A., INC., and SUN
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., Case No. 1:18-cv-12129-NMG (D.
Mass., October 11, 2018), arises under the Sherman Act, the Clayton
Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The lawsuit seeks monetary relief on behalf of all direct
purchasers of Nexium or its AB-rated generic equivalents, for which
generic entry was delayed in substantial part by Ranbaxy's wrongful
acquisition and maintenance of 180-day exclusivity, its business
conduct that ultimately required it be subject to a consent decree,
and its preclusion of other generic entrants while it floundered to
get its own applications approved, the Plaintiffs allege.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend, this action pleads with
particularity that the direct purchasers of the brand drug Nexium
(esomeprazole magnesium) overpaid for the product because Ranbaxy's
wrongful conduct delayed the generic entry for esomeprazole
magnesium at least between May 27, 2014, and January 26, 2015.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited was a corporation that, until March
25, 2015, was organized and existed under the laws of India, with a
principal place of business located in Gurgaon, India.  Ranbaxy
Labs was the parent company to the entire Ranbaxy business empire,
which was, until March 2015, the largest generic drug manufacturer
in India.  Ranbaxy Labs controlled manufacturing, research, and
development, as well as the conduct and functioning of its
Indian-based facilities, including a facility located at Paonta
Sahib, India.

Ranbaxy, Inc., is a corporation that is organized and exists under
the laws of the state of Delaware, and has a place of business
located in Princeton, New Jersey.  Ranbaxy Inc. was responsible for
(a) communications with the FDA on behalf of Ranbaxy Labs and its
related entities; (b) prosecution of ANDAs on behalf of Ranbaxy
Labs; and (c) management of U.S. litigation on behalf of Ranbaxy
Labs and its related entities.  At all relevant times, Ranbaxy,
Inc., acted in its own right and as an agent of Ranbaxy Labs.

Ranbaxy USA Inc. was a corporation that, until October 24, 2014,
was organized and existed under the laws of Florida, and had a
principal place of business located in Jacksonville, Florida.
Ranbaxy USA was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ranbaxy, Inc.  Ranbaxy
USA was responsible for the distribution of Ranbaxy Lab's generic
drug products in interstate commerce.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited is a public limited company
incorporated under the laws of India with its registered office
located in Gujarat, India, and its corporate office is in Mumbai,
India.  Sun Pharma is an international, integrated, specialty
pharmaceutical company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
          Gregory T. Arnold, Esq.
          Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
          Kristie A. LaSalle, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
          E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
                  grega@hbsslaw.com
                  kristenj@hbsslaw.com
                  kristiel@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
          R. Bryce Duke, Esq.
          Matthew C. Weiner, Esq.
          HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
          919 Congress Ave., Suite 1325
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (855) 344-3928
          E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
                  bryce@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
                  matt@Hilliardshadowenlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
          David P. Germaine, Esq.
          John Bjork, Esq.
          VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI, P.C.
          55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 224-1500
          Facsimile: (312) 224-1510
          E-mail: jvanek@vaneklaw.com
                  dgermaine@vaneklaw.com
                  jbjork@vaneklaw.com



REA ENERGY: Appeals Court Upholds Class Action Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------
Phil Ray, writing for Altoona Mirror, reports that the U.S. 3rd
Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia has upheld a decision by
U.S. District Judge Kim R. Gibson in Johnstown dismissing a lawsuit
that sought millions of dollars in payments to customers of a rural
electric cooperative.

Initially filed in Blair County, the lawsuit was against REA Energy
Cooperative, which has offices in Indiana and Ebensburg and which
provides electricity to 22,000 customers in Blair, Cambria,
Clear­field, Armstrong, Indiana, Jefferson and Westmoreland
counties.

The cooperative dates back to the late 1930s when it was determined
that economic progress in rural areas of the nation was slow in
recovering from the Great Depression because of a lack of
electrical service.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order in 1935
creating the Rural Electrification Administration within the U.S.
Department of Agriculture that allowed residents of rural areas to
create nonprofit cooperatives and construct electrical systems with
money borrowed from the newly created REA.

The local cooperative was incorporated in 1937, and while it is a
nonprofit operation, it does accrue income that exceeds its
expenses.

This income is not referred to as "profit" but as "margin" and each
year members or clients of the cooperative are assigned a portion
of the margin called "patronage capital."

According to a class-action lawsuit filed in 2015 by attorney Troy
M. Frederick of the Frederick Law Group in Indiana, "The amount of
Patronage Capital a defendant REA member earns each year is
determined based on each member's electric usage. The more
electricity a member uses the more Patronage Capital that member
will earn each year."

Mr. Frederick, representing a former member of the cooperative,
George Work, and a present member, Leonard Cessna, both of
Punxsutawney, contends the cooperative's Patronage Capital is now
worth between $56 million and $60 million and that cooperative has
only once, in 2011, issued a distribution to its clients.

That involved $700,000 for customers prior to 1961, and about 6,000
of those customers could not be located.

Operating according to certain "principles," the net surplus should
periodically be distributed, and by not doing so, the civil action
contends that REA violated Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protec­tion Law and is in violation of several other
state statutes, including breach of contract.

REA in February 2016 removed the lawsuit from the Blair County
Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court in Johnstown.

Gibson then dismissed the lawsuit because it did not assert a
viable federal claim, and Frederick appealed to the 3rd Circuit.

A three-judge panel including Circuit Judges Thomas L. Ambro,
Michael A. Chagares and Joseph A. Greenaway Jr. ruled in REA's
favor.

Mr. Frederick said Oct. 18 that he will not appeal the ruling to
the U.S. Supreme Court, but he indicated his disappointment with
the ruling and advised customers to become active in their
cooperative.

One of the issues in the appeal was Judge Gibson's decision
allowing the transfer of the lawsuit to the federal court, but as
the judge pointed out, there is a strong relationship between the
local cooperative and the federal government.

The 3rd Circuit judges explained the loans used to develop the
cooperative came from the Rural Utilities Services of the
Agriculture Department, and in addition to being heavily regulated
by federal law, "its activity is circumscribed by the terms of its
loan agreement with Rural Utilities Service."

Other circuit courts have described cooperatives as
"instrumentalities of the United States," the 3rd Circuit opinion
pointed out.

REA asserted that its obligation to pay Patronage Capital under
Pennsylvania law is pre-empted by its duty to adhere to federal
regulations and its loan agreement with Rural Utilities Services.

The appeals court ruled Judge Gibson "did not err in denying (the)
motion to remand this action to the Pennsyl­vania state court."

The judges also pointed out there is no claim for breach of
contract between REA and its consumers, noting REA's bylaws state
that the Patronage Capital "may" be returned in full or part to
members.

"Because this provision is plainly permissive, there is no claim
for breach of contract," according to the 3rd Circuit. [GN]


RITE AID CORP: Accused by Lynn of Falsely Labeling Sunscreen
------------------------------------------------------------
TEAH LYNN, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. RITE AID CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
2:18-cv-08761 (C.D. Cal., October 11, 2018), alleges violations of
the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

The Plaintiff's claim is premised on several false or misleading
claims that the Defendant makes on the labels of Rite Aid Day Logic
Ultimate Sheer Continuous Spray Sunscreen with an advertised SPF of
85 ("Product").  The Defendant markets and sells this product as an
SPF 85 sunscreen, when in fact, its SPF is well under 85, the
Plaintiff alleges.  The Plaintiff and the class bring this action
in order to recoup these overcharges.

Rite Aid Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters and principal place of business in Camp Hill,
Pennsylvania.  Rite Aid produces, manufactures, sells, and
distributes an SPF 85 continuous spray sunscreen.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald B. Malanga, Esq.
          LATTIE MALANGA LIBERTINO, LLP
          3731 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 860
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (323) 938-3102
          Facsimile: (323) 938-0110
          E-mail: gmalanga@lmllaw.com

               - and -

          Alice A. Curry, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALICE A. CURRY
          P.O. Box 2861
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (917) 921-4768
          E-mail: acurrylaw@gmail.com


ROBERT FX SILLERMAN: Guevora Fund Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robert Francis Xavier
Sillerman. The case is styled as Guevoura Fund Ltd. on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Robert
Francis Xavier Sillerman also known as: Robert F.X. Sillerman,
Robert F. Sillerman, Robert X. Sillerman, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-09784-UA (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Bankruptcy Withdrawal.

Robert Francis Xavier Sillerman (born April 12, 1948) is an
American businessman and media entrepreneur. Sillerman was the
owner of a range of television and radio stations during the 1970s
and 1980s. In 1993, he formed SFX Broadcasting, and then built SFX
Entertainment -- a concert and stage performance promoter that was
sold to Clear Channel in 2000 for $4.4 billion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gabriel Luis Olivera, Esq.
     Lowenstein Sandler LLP (NJ2)
     One Lowenstein Drive
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Phone: (973) 597-6124
     Fax: (973) 597-2400
     Email: golivera@lowenstein.com

          - and -

     Michael S. Etkin, Esq.
     Lowenstein Sandler LLP (NYC)
     1251 Avenue of The Americas, 17th Floor
     New York, NY 11020
     Phone: (973) 597-2500
     Fax: (973) 597-2400
     Email: metkin@lowenstein.com

The Defendant is represented by:

     Sanford Philip Rosen, Esq.
     Sanford P. Rosen & Associates, P.C.
     747 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 223-1100
     Fax: (212) 223-1102
     Email: srosen@rosenpc.com


SAROOP & SONS: Denied Overtime Pay, Wage Statements, Paredes Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elena Barrios Paredes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Saroop & Sons Inc., Prandit
Saroop and Andy Doe, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-09046 (S.D. N.Y.,
October 3, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum, overtime and
spread-of-hours wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a poultry market, located at
2164 Webster Ave. Bronx, NY 10457 under the name "Saroop & Sons"
where Barrios was employed as a chicken cutter and deboner.
Defendants failed to maintain accurate record-keeping of the hours
worked, failed to pay them for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium and the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work
over 10 hours a day, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER: Court Partly Certifies Alonso Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARTA ALONSO and NEHEMY ANTOINE, as next friend on
behalf of I.A., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA and KAMELA PATTON, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-379-FtM-38MRM (M.D. Fla.), Judge Sheri Polster Chappell of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort
Myers Division, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.

Before the Court is U.S. Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy's Report and
Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending granting in part and denying
in part the Motion for Class Certification filed by Plaintiffs
Nehemy Antoine and Marta Alonzo, on behalf of I.A., a minor.  The
Plaintiffs object to the R&R, and Defendants School Board of
Collier County, Florida and Kamela Patton have responded to the
objections.

The Plaintiffs are foreign-born, teenagers who want to attend
public high school in Collier County.  They allegedly cannot do so
because of the Defendants' policy and practice that denies school
enrollment to foreign-born English Language Learner students ages
15 and older.  The challenged policy, called "Policy 5112.01,"
governs the maximum age a student may participate in the regular
high school program.

The Plaintiffs and others like them have been denied enrollment in
a public high school.  They want a free public education alongside
their peers, the chance to learn core educational content and
skills, and to participate in extracurricular activities.  And they
are suing the Defendants to achieve this result.  

They assert that the Defendants' policy and practice, namely Policy
5112.01, violates these laws:

     a. Count I: Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974

     b. Count II: Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964

     c. Count III: Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution

     d. Count IV: Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution

     e. Count V: Florida Educational Equity Act

Besides compensatory damages, the Plaintiffs seek a declaration
that the Defendants' acts and omissions violate the rights of
Plaintiffs and class members under these laws.  They also seek
injunctive relief requiring Defendants to, among other things, (1)
take affirmative steps to enroll the Plaintiff Children, and
similarly situated students, in an age-appropriate, public school
setting; (2) communicate to all the class members that they can
enroll in school and can make up any days of school that they
missed as a result of the Defendants' unlawful policy and practice
of denying them enrollment; and (3) provide compensatory education
to the Plaintiff Children to remedy the harms caused by the
Defendants' unlawful policy and practice of denying them
enrollment.

At issue now is Plaintiffs' request to certify a class defined as
all foreign-born, English Language Learner ("ELL") children ages 15
to 21 whose last completed schooling (not including adult education
courses) was at a non-U.S. school, and who, after Aug. 1, 2013,
while residing in Collier County, sought or will seek to enroll in
the Collier County public school system serving grades K-12, and
were or will be denied enrollment by the Defendants.

They argue all requirements for class certification under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2) are satisfied.

Judge Chappell referred the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification to Magistrate Judge McCoy for a report and
recommendation.  The R&R recommends certifying only the Plaintiffs'
due process claim (Count IV).  No party objects to the
recommendation or the R&R's findings on the Plaintiffs' standing
and proposed class definition.  The Plaintiffs object, however, to
the R&R denying class certification for the remaining counts.

Judge Chappell denied class certification on Counts I, II, III, and
V because the Plaintiffs have not satisfied Rule 23(b)(2)'s
requirements.  And because the Court can deny class certification
on this basis alone, the Judge needs not address the Plaintiffs'
objections on Rule 23(a).

Accordingly, she accepted and adopted Magistrate Judge McCoy's R&R
and granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.  The Motion is granted on the due process
claim (Count VI) and denied on all other claims.

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

Marta Alonso, as next friend on behalf of I.A., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, & Nehemy Antoine,
Plaintiffs, represented by Gillian B. Gillers -- ggillers@gmail.com
-- Southern Poverty Law Center, Michelle R. Lapointe --
michelle.lapointe@splcenter.org -- Southern Poverty Law & Viviana
Bonilla Lopez, Southern Poverty Law Center.

The School Board Of Collier County, Florida & Kamela Patton,
Superintendent of Collier County Public Schools, in her official
capacity, Defendants, represented by James Donald Fox --
jfox@ralaw.com -- Roetzel & Andress, LPA & Jonathan D. Fishbane,
Collier County School District.

United States, Interested Party, represented by Anna Marie Medina,
US Department of Justice & Yohance Asim Pettis, US Attorney's
Office.

Kamela Patton, Superintendent of Collier County Public Schools, in
her official capacity & The School Board Of Collier County,
Florida, Counter Claimants, represented by James Donald Fox,
Roetzel & Andress, LPA & Jonathan D. Fishbane, Collier County
School District.

Kamela Patton, Superintendent of Collier County Public Schools, in
her official capacity & The School Board Of Collier County,
Florida, Counter Defendants, represented by James Donald Fox,
Roetzel & Andress, LPA & Jonathan D. Fishbane, Collier County
School District.


STAPLES GROUP: Worsley ASMs Class Gets Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEANIE WORSLEY, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE STAPLES GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-2254-CM (D. Kan.), Judge Carlos Murguia of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification of Class
Claims Under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").

Worsley brings the putative collective action under the FLSA,
claiming that her former employer -- Defendant Staples Contract &
Commercial -- misclassified Account Service Managers ("ASMs") as
exempt under the FLSA.  According to the Plaintiff, she and other
similarly-situated employees should have been paid straight time
and overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek.

The is before the court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Class Certification.  The Plaintiff submits that the putative class
should be comprised of the following members: All current and
former Account Services Managers for the Defendant, and others with
similar job titles, duties, and compensation structures who were
classified as exempt and denied compensation at a rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek.

At this early stage of the case, Judge Murguia finds that the
allegations are sufficient to warrant conditional certification for
similarly situated employees.  And because her allegations are
based on the nature of a position -- and not whether a location's
culture required non-exempt employees to perform work off-the-clock
-- the Judge determines that the Plaintiff has adequately alleged a
policy that applies across all of the Defendants' locations.  In
light of this decision, notice must be sent to potential class
members.

The Defendant, however, objects to several aspects of the
Plaintiff's proposed notice: (1) disclosure of the private
information of putative class members; (2) equitable tolling; (3)
120-day opt-in period; (4) misleading references to multiple named
Plaintiffs; (5) unnecessary discussion of separate litigation; (6)
potential responsibility for costs and expenses; and (7) posting at
the place of employment.  In response, the Plaintiff agreed to
amend the proposed notice to address references to multiple named
Plaintiffs and to change the opt-in period to 90 days.

The Plaintiff asks the Court to order the Defendant to disclose the
dates of birth and last four digits of social security numbers for
putative class members to aid in identification.  She also asks for
information such as names, addresses, and phone numbers.  The Judge
does not believe that she has shown a necessity for dates of birth
and social security numbers at this time.  If the Plaintiff
attempts to send notices, but learns that the identifying
information provided by the Defendant is insufficient, the
Plaintiff may seek additional identifying information at that time.
But the Defendant needs not produce it now, without a greater
showing of necessity.

The Plaintiff asks the Court to apply equitable tolling to extend
the opt-in time.  The Judge finds that the Plaintiff has not shown
that equitable tolling is warranted.  She has offered no
allegations or evidence suggesting that timely joining the lawsuit
would be impossible or that defendant took any action to create
such impossibility.  This request will be denied.

The Plaintiff's proposed notice states that the potential
Plaintiffs will not have to pay fees and expenses in the event the
attorneys get money or benefits for the employees.  But the notice
does not mention the possibility of costs being awarded to the
Defendant.  The Defendant asks the Court to add language stating,
"If you do not prevail on your claim, court costs and expenses may
possibly be assessed against you" to present the complete picture
of possible outcomes.

The Judge agrees with the Defendant.  The clarifying language
identified above is accurate and gives the potential class members
a better understanding of how attorney's fees and expenses will be
handled. In addition, an award of costs is possible, making a
warning about the assessment of costs appropriate.  The Plaintiff
should add the language "If you do not prevail on your claim, court
costs and expenses may possibly be assessed against you" to the
notice.

Finally, the Plaintiff asks the Court to permit posting of the
notice at the workplace to give putative class members further
notice of the lawsuit.  The Judge believes that mailing the notice
to putative class members is sufficient, and will deny this
request.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Murguia granted the Plaintiff's
Motion for Conditional Class Certification and ordered the
Plaintiff to modify her notice as identified in the Order before
sending it out to putative class members.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/pdVr10 from Leagle.com.

Jeanie Worsley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kathryn J. Starrett Rickley --
krickley@workerwagerights.com -- Osman & Smay, LLP & Matthew Edward
Osman -- mosman@workerwagerights.com -- Osman & Smay, LLP.

The Staples Group, Inc. & Staples Contract and Commercial, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Daniel B. Boatright --
dboatright@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC & Robert J. Rojas
-- rrojas@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.


STARBUCKS CORP: Brown Suit Hits Product Mislabeling
---------------------------------------------------
Sandra Brown, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public, Plaintiff, v. Starbucks Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02286, (S.D. Cal., October 3, 2018),
seeks redress for violations of warranty, negligent and intentional
misrepresentations/omissions and the California consumer protection
laws.

Defendant manufactures, packages, distributes, advertises, markets,
and sells a house-brand product identified as "Starbucks Sour
Gummies." Its packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme is
intended to give consumers the impression that they are buying a
premium, "all natural" product with natural flavoring ingredients
despite containing artificial flavoring. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
      Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
      651 Arroyo Drive
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 696-9006
      Fax: (619) 564-6665
      Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
             mike@consumersadvocates.com


STATE FARM: Obtains Favorable Ruling Labor Costs Dispute
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reports that a split Sixth
Circuit on Oct. 15 ruled that State Farm cannot depreciate the
costs of labor in determining the actual cash value owed to
policyholders whose homes have been damaged. [GN]


STEINHOFF: European Investors Agree to Suspend Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lameez Omarjee, writing for Fin24, reports that European investors
and Dutch group of investors VEB have agreed to suspend a class
action suit against Steinhoff.

The retailer on Oct. 17 issued a notice to shareholders, indicating
that the class action will be suspended until April 3, 2019.

"VEB/European Investors, as a collective representative, has sued
Steinhoff in the Dutch court for certain financial statements,
prospectuses and press releases, which according to VEB are
incorrect and misleading.

"The suspension will grant Steinhoff time to continue the ongoing
restructuring of its business and to make further progress with its
investigations and the preparation of its financial statements,"
the notice read.

Danie van der Merwe, Steinhoff's acting CEO said that the retailer
is engaged in a "complex reorganisation as it restructures its
financial liabilities and finalises investigations and financial
statements. This agreement allows us time to focus on completing
these tasks in the interests of all stakeholders."

The suspension by VEB/European Investors will support the
stabilsation of Steinhoff's business, the notice read.

"After the suspension, VEB/European Investors and Steinhoff are
both free to continue the legal proceedings or to reach a
settlement for affected shareholders through negotiations."

CEO of VEB/European Investors Paul Koster said in a statement that
the group intends to "serve interests"of its institutional
partners, private memebrs and investor community.

Investors can still register to join the class action, the
statement from VEB/European Investors read.

In August, chairperson of Steinhoff's supervisory board Heather
Sonn told Parliament that the group is working on servicing its
debt. At the time, the retailer had managed to reach a standstill
agreement with banks for the next three years. [GN]


SUN TAN CITY: Caraboolad Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
--------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Caraboolad, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SUN TAN CITY, LLC, a Kentucky
company, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02699 (D. S.C., October 3,
2018), seeks statutory and actual damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action, including expert
fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and other and further
relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant owns and operates a chain of tanning salons throughout
the United States. Defendant offers its moisturizers, facial and
sunless tanning lotions, tan extenders, and sun and sunless tanning
services. To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process.
Caraboolad did not give his consent to receive such messages. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Tyson Nettles, Esq.
      PO Box 22007
      Charleston, SC 29407
      Telephone: (843) 278-8416
      Email: tyson@tysonnettleslaw.com

             - and -

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
      1072 Madison Ave. #1
      Lakewood, NJ 08701
      Tel: (877) 333-9427
      Fax: (888) 498-8946
      Email: law@stefancoleman.com


TENNESSEE: Ordered to Stop Suspending Driver Licenses Over Fines
----------------------------------------------------------------
WREG reports that a federal judge on Oct. 16 ordered the state of
Tennessee to immediately stop suspending drivers licenses because
of unpaid traffic fines.

The preliminary injunction in the statewide class action lawsuit
also orders the state to waive reinstatement fees for anyone whose
license has been suspended because of fines.

People with suspended licenses should contact the Tennessee
Department of Safety to request reinstatement.

Attorneys who filed the suit called it a major victory for nearly
300,000 people in Tennessee who have had their drivers licenses
suspended because they couldn't afford to pay tickets and fees.

"With this ruling, people will be able to go to work, see their
families and friends, get to the grocery store and the doctor's
office, and do all of the things that many of us take for granted
and that give life meaning," said Tara Mikkilineni, Attorney at
Civil Rights Corps.

The statewide class action lawsuit was brought by Memphis-based
Just City, the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, Civil
Rights Corps, and the law firm Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell
and Berkowitz.

A federal judge in July ruled the state's practice of revoking a
person's license due to the inability to pay court fees is
unconstitutional. The state said it would appeal that ruling. [GN]


TESLA INC: $1M Settlement in Wilson FLSA Suit Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN WILSON, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. TESLA, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-03763-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Plaintiffs' renewed unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of their class action settlement
agreement.

Plaintiffs Wilson, Carrie Hughes, and Katia Segal filed the wage
and hour action against their employer, Tesla, Inc. and Tesla
Motors, Inc.  They allege that Tesla misclassified them as exempt
employees and failed to provide them overtime, rest and meal
breaks, wage statements, and final wages.

Wilson filed the action in June 2017 asserting seven claims for
relief: (1) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the FLSA;
(2) failure to pay minimum wage in violation of California Labor
Code section 1194; (3) failure to pay overtime in violation of
California Labor Code sections 519 & 1194; (4) failure to provide
meal breaks in violation of California Labor Code section 226.7 and
IWC Order No. 4-2001; (5) failure to provide rest breaks in
violation of California Labor Code section 226.7 and IWC Order No.
4-2001; (6) failure to provide proper wage statements in violation
of California Labor Code section 226(a); and (7) unlawful business
practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code
section 17200 et seq.

Prior to the Defendant's appearance, the Plaintiff amended the
complaint to add Plaintiff Hughes and add a claim for failure to
pay final wages in violation of California Labor Code sections 201
and 202.

The parties engaged in an early mediation in November 2017 and were
able to resolve the dispute with the terms finalized in May 2018.
On the same day, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary
approval, they filed a second amended complaint adding Plaintiff
Segal, adding a PAGA claim, and withdrawing the FLSA claim.

The Court denied the motion for preliminary approval based on
numerous issues with the notice and settlement.  The Plaintiffs
then filed a renewed motion for preliminary approval.  The Court
had a hearing on Aug. 30, 2018 and raised additional concerns
regarding notice and ordered the Plaintiffs to file a new notice by
Sept. 13, 2018.

The parties' agreement provides a settlement fund of $1 million.
Reduced from that fund are (1) attorney's fees up to one-third of
the fund ($333,333), (2) actual litigation costs of up to $20,000,
(3) an enhancement award for the named Plaintiffs of $10,000 each,
(4) claims administration expenses up to $15,000, (5) a $50,000
PAGA penalty, $37,500 of which will be paid to the California Labor
& Workforce Development Agency, and the remaining $12,500 will be
included in the net distribution to the class; and (6) $14,000 for
the Defendant's portion of the payroll taxes.  The remaining funds
are then distributed to the class members based on the number of
workweeks worked.  The class members will have 180 days to cash
their settlement checks. Any residue from the uncashed checks will
be paid by the Settlement Administrator to the California
Industrial Relations Unclaimed Wages Fund in the name of the class
member.  No settlement funds will revert to the Defendants.

The class is comprised of all employees of Tesla who worked in
California from June 29, 2013 through the date of preliminary
approval as an owner advisor, sales advisor, or another similar
exempt sales position.  The parties estimate the class size as 253
individuals who collectively worked 13,691 weeks.

Within 30 days of preliminary approval, the Defendant will provide
the settlement administrator with each class members' full name,
last known address, Social Security number, and total number of
workweeks.  The settlement administrator will then perform a search
to update any address information and mail notice to all class
members within 14 days.  The settlement administrator will mail and
email a reminder postcard 30 days later.  The class members do no
have to do anything to receive funds under the settlement, but if
they want to object to the settlement (including by disputing the
workweek calculation), or request an exclusion from the settlement
they must do so within 60 days of the mailing of Notice.

Judge Corley granted the motion for preliminary approval of the
class action settlement.  Alisa A. Martin of A Martin Law, and
Lindsay C. David of Brennan & David Law Group are appointed as the
Class Counsel; and Plaintiffs Brian Wilson, Carrie Hughes, and
Katia Segal, are appointed as the Class Representatives for
settlement purposes.  The Notice will be provided in accordance
with the notice plan and the Order.

On Oct. 25, 2018, the Class Counsel will file a motion seeking
approval of attorneys' fees and costs and the proposed incentive
awards.  The Counsel will return before the Court for a final
approval hearing, at which the Court will finally determine whether
the settlement is far, reasonable, and adequate, on Jan. 17, 2019
at 9:00 a.m.  The Class Counsel will file a noticed motion for
final approval of the settlement no later than 35 days before the
final approval hearing.  The Order disposes of Docket No. 29.

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

Brian Wilson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Carrie Hughes, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated & Katia Segal, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly sitatued, Plaintiffs, represented by Lindsay
Christine David -- lcdavid@brennanlawgrp.com -- San Diego County
Law Offices, Alisa Ann Martin -- alisa@amartinlaw.com -- Amartin
Law & Sandra David Brennan -- sbrennan@brennandavid.com -- Brennan
& David Law Group.

Tesla, Inc., a corporation, Defendant, represented by Jack Steven
Sholkoff -- jack.sholkoff@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Susan Tianyang Ye -- susan.ye@ogletree.com
-- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

Tesla Motors, Inc., a corporation, Defendant, represented by Jack
Steven Sholkoff, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.


TOMMY WHITLOW: Court Closes Crescent Consulting Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Lee Yeakel issued an order on October 26, 2018, closing the
lawsuit filed by Crescent Consulting, L.L.C. against Tommy
Whitlow.

Prior to this, Crescent Consulting filed a notice of withdrawal of
its "Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum and to Transfer This
Motion to the Court Where the Subpoenas Were Issued."

The case is Crescent Consulting, L.L.C. an Oklahoma Limited
Liability Company, Movant v. Tommy Whitlow on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-mc-00909
(W.D. Tex., Oct. 23, 2018).

Crescent Consulting, L.L.C. offers oil and gas consulting services:
engineering project management; drilling and completion well site
management, environmental and safety management and cement and frac
specialists.[BN]


TRIUMPH MOTORCYLCES: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Triumph Motorcycles
(America) Limited. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Triumph Motorcycles (America) Limited, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-09789 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2018).

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

Triumph Motorcycles (America) Limited retails automobiles. The
Company offers motorcycles, as well as parts, accessories, and
clothing. Triumph Motorcycles serves customers in the State of
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UBER TECH: Court Dismissed 2nd Amended Gonzales Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL GONZALES, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02264-JSC (N.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC").

Gonzales brings the action on his own behalf and as a putative
class action for Lyft drivers whose electronic communications and
whereabouts were allegedly intercepted, accessed, monitored, and
transmitted by Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber USA, LLC,
and Raiser-CA.  The gravamen of the complaint is that Uber created
fake Lyft rider accounts and used spyware to send fake ride
requests from those accounts, collect the geolocation data of Lyft
drivers that Lyft sent in response to the ride requests, and
thereafter monitor the locations of Lyft drivers.  Uber then used
the data it collected to gain a competitive advantage in several
major metropolitan areas.

The Plaintiff filed an initial complaint seeking injunctive relief
and damages based on four claims: (1) Federal Wiretap Act as
amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("Wiretap
Act"); (2) the California Invasion of Privacy Act; (3) the
California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and (4) common law
invasion of privacy.  Uber moved to dismiss all four claims.  The
Court granted Uber's motion with leave to amend.

The Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") seeking
the same relief under the same causes of action with two additional
claims: (1) the Federal Stored Communications Actand (2) the
California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act ("CDAFA").  Uber then
moved to dismiss all claims.  The Court granted Uber's motion with
leave to amend as to the Plaintiff's Wiretap Act, Stored
Communications Act, CDAFA, and invasion of privacy claims; granted
dismissal of the Plaintiff's Invasion of Privacy Act claim without
leave to amend; and denied Uber's motion as to the UCL claim.  Uber
filed a motion for reconsideration as to the UCL claim, which the
Court granted.

The Plaintiff next filed the SAC, bringing Stored Communications
Act, CDAFA, UCL, and invasion of privacy claims.  Uber moves to
dismiss all claims.

Magistrate Judge Corley granted Uber's motion to dismiss the Stored
Communications Act claim with prejudice.  She declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and dismissed
those claims without prejudice.

She finds that since the SAC does not plausibly allege that Uber
accessed data stored "for the purpose of backup protection," the
Stored Communications Act fails.  Even assuming that the SAC
plausibly alleged that Uber accessed historical geolocation data in
addition to the real-time data transmitted to Lyft riders, the SAC
does not plausibly allege that the historical geolocation data was
stored "for the purpose of backup protection."  

Accordingly, she granted Uber's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
Stored Communications Act claim with prejudice.  Leave to amend
would be futile given the allegations to date regarding Lyft's
storage of historical geolocation data and the real-time data
allegedly obtained by Uber.

Upon dismissal of the Stored Communications Act claim -- the lone
federal claim -- the Magistrate Judge declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims,
which were all brought on behalf of the California subclass.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ZThm67 from Leagle.com.

Michael Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb Marker --
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, Ling Yue Kuang --
lkuang@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners, LLP, Mark Etheredge
Burton, Jr. -- mburton@audetlaw.com -- Audet and Partners, LLP &
Michael Andrew McShane --  mmcshane@audetlaw.com -- Audet &
Partners LLP.

Uber Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation & Uber USA, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, represented by
Patrick Leo Oot, Jr. -- oot@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy and Bacon, LLP,
pro hac vice, Elizabeth Anne Lee -- elee@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy
Bacon L.L.P., John K. Sherk, III -- jsherk@shb.com -- Shook Hardy &
Bacon LLP & Michael Kevin Underhill -- kunderhill@shb.com -- Shook
Hardy & Bacon LLP.

Raiser-CA, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant,
represented by Patrick Leo Oot, Jr., Shook, Hardy and Bacon, LLP,
pro hac vice, John K. Sherk, III, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP & Michael
Kevin Underhill, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Manatt Discusses Arbitration Ruling
------------------------------------------------------
According to Manatt, Uber drivers seeking to be classified (and
compensated) as employees and not independent contractors were
dealt a blow by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit when the
federal appellate panel reversed class certification and ordered
the drivers to arbitration. The litigation began in 2013. Over the
years, multiple class actions were consolidated and worked their
way through the court system, including making a prior visit to the
Ninth Circuit. In that ruling, the panel held that arbitration
agreements between the drivers and Uber were neither substantively
nor procedurally unconscionable and that the agreements delegated
the threshold question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. With
that background in mind, the Ninth Circuit granted Uber's motion to
compel arbitration, reversing the district court. The mere fact
that the lead plaintiff opted out of arbitration did not bind the
other drivers, the court said. In light of this conclusion, the
court also decertified the class of approximately 160,000 drivers.

Detailed discussion

Douglas O'Connor and a fellow Uber driver filed a putative class
action complaint against the company in August 2013, alleging
claims for failure to remit the entire gratuity paid by customers
to drivers in violation of California Labor Code Section 351 and
for misclassifying the drivers as independent contractors and
failing to pay their business expenses (including vehicles, gas and
maintenance) in violation of California Labor Code Section 2802.

After several similar suits were consolidated with the original
complaint, a California federal court judge certified a class of
roughly 160,000 drivers in September 2015.

The court later ruled that the arbitration agreements signed by
some of the drivers in 2014 and 2015 were unenforceable on public
policy grounds, relying on the California Supreme Court's decision
in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., because they contained a waiver
of claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

Uber argued that the nonseverable PAGA waiver didn't ban all PAGA
claims but only prevented such claims from being arbitrated, with
the blanket PAGA waiver found in a different section of the
agreement that was severable. But the court disagreed.

The defendant appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit,
telling the federal appellate panel that the 2014 and 2015
arbitration agreements featured an opt-out provision and that
drivers who failed to exercise this choice should not be permitted
to avoid the results. The court agreed and reversed the district
court's denial of Uber's motion to compel arbitration. The
agreements were not unconscionable, the court said, and the
relevant provisions in the agreements delegated the threshold
question of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

On remand, the district court upheld the class certification order
and denial of the motion to compel arbitration for that class. Back
before the Ninth Circuit, the federal appellate panel unequivocally
ruled that the denial of Uber's motions to compel arbitration must
be reversed, rejecting the drivers' alternative arguments that the
arbitration agreements are unenforceable.

The drivers contended that the lead plaintiffs "constructively
opted out" of arbitration on behalf of the entire class, but the
court was not persuaded this was possible. "Nothing gave the
O'Connor lead plaintiffs the authority to take that action on
behalf of and binding other drivers," the panel wrote, finding that
the drivers' only legal authority -- a Georgia Supreme Court
decision -- relied on state law grounds and did not discuss the
Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which "requires courts to enforce
agreements to arbitrate according to their terms."

Alternatively, the drivers argued that the arbitration agreements
were unenforceable because they contained class waivers in
violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This position
was rejected by the Supreme Court earlier this year in Epic Systems
v. Lewis, when a divided Court held that employers may require
employees, as a condition of employment, to enter into arbitration
agreements that contain class or collective waivers.

"In sum, the district court's orders denying Uber's motions to
compel arbitration . . . must be reversed," the panel said. In
light of this ruling, the court also decertified the class created
by the district court.

"Certification of the class by the district court … was premised
upon the district court's conclusion that the arbitration
agreements were not enforceable," the court explained. "The class
as certified includes drivers who entered into agreements to
arbitrate their claims and to waive their right to participate in a
class action with regard to those claims. . . . [T]he question
whether those agreements were enforceable was not properly for the
district court to answer. The question of arbitrability was
designated to the arbitrator."

The panel reversed the denial of the motions to compel arbitration
as well as the class certification orders.

The case s in O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Taxi Drivers in Australia Mull Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Daily News reports that a Melbourne-based law firm is
preparing to launch a class action against ride-hailing service
Uber and claims it has the backing of around 1000 conventional taxi
drivers.

"We expect it [the class action] to be worth hundreds of millions
of dollars," Maurice Blackburn senior associate Elizabeth O'Shea
told the AAP news service.

She said the taxi drivers had lost "hundreds of thousands" of
dollars during a period between April 1, 2014, and July 31, 2017,
when Uber was said to be acting unlawfully.

Uber received the Government's green light to operate in Victoria
in August 2017. The Maurice Blackburn action refers to operations
before this date, which it claims cost taxi drivers or owners
considerable sums.

Ms. O'Shea has said the lawsuit will be bankrolled externally, with
A$20 million already offered so taxi drivers don't have to use
their own cash to join the action. [GN]


UNITED AIRLINES: Only 2 Pilot Instructors' Claims Revived
---------------------------------------------------------
Lauraann Wood, writing for Law360, reports that only the two United
Airlines pilot instructors whose claims were revived in a suit
alleging improper back pay disbursement can proceed in the case.
[GN]


UNITED STATES: Bid to Certify Class in Trinh Under Submission
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Cormac J. Carney has taken under submission the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Hoang
Trinh, et al. v. Thomas D. Homan, et al., Case No.
8:18-cv-00316-CJC-GJS (C.D. Cal.).

Thomas D. Homan is the acting head of the U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement.

According to the Court's civil minutes, Motion hearing was held and
the Court hears oral argument from the parties.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Phi Nguyen, Esq., Esq.
          Jenny Zhao, Esq., Esq.
          Christopher Lapinig, Esq.
          ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE
          55 Columbus Avenue
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 896-1701
          Facsimile: (415)896-1702
          E-mail: pnguyen@advancingjustice-atlanta.org
                  jennyz@advancingjustice-alc.org
                  clapinig@advancingjustice-la.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Julian Kurz, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          CIVIL DIVISION - OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION
          PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 616−4962
          Facsimile: (202) 305−7000
          E-mail: julian.m.kurz@usdoj.gov


UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class of Students in Manriquez Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sallie Kim entered an order in the lawsuit captioned
MARTIN CALVILLO MANRIQUEZ, et al. v. ELISABETH DEVOS, et al., Case
No. 3:17-cv-07210-SK (N.D. Cal.), certifying this class:

     All persons who borrowed a Direct Loan to finance the cost
     of enrollment at a program covered by the Department's job
     placement rate findings (i.e., attended a program on the
     Lists, see ECF No. 35-6, Exs. 6 & 7), and who have not
     received a full discharge of associated student loan debt
     and a return of any money the Department collected on the
     loan, once they submit an attestation form or analogous
     application verifying that they are covered by the
     Department's job placement rate findings (i.e., attended a
     program on the Lists and first enrolled in that program
     during a time period covered by the Lists, see ECF No. 35-6,
     Exs. 6 & 7) and that they relied, in substantial part, on
     Corinthian's misleading job placement rates in deciding to
     enroll.

The Court further appoints named Plaintiffs Jamal Cornelius, Rthwan
Dobashi, and Jennifer Craig as class representatives.

The matter arises out of the claims of approximately 110,000
students, who attended schools operated and owned by Corinthian
Colleges, Inc., who sought or seek relief from their student loans
from the Department of Education, and who challenge the method
developed by Secretary Elisabeth DeVos for determining whether the
students are eligible for relief.

The Plaintiffs allege that, before 2017, the Department used a
process that the Plaintiffs call the "Corinthian Job Placement Rate
Rule" or "Corinthian Rule" by which the Department provided full
relief from federal loans to students who attended certain
Corinthian programs.  The Plaintiffs contend that between 2010 to
2014, Corinthian made false and misleading statements regarding
Corinthian's job placement rates.[CC]


UNITED STEEL: ASARCO Files Suit Seeking Declaratory Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
ASARCO LLC, Plaintiff, v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC; the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Locals 518, 570 and 602; the International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 2181;
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders,
Blacksmith, Forgers and Helpers, Local 627; International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of
America, Local 104; International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 428; Millwrights, Local 1914; United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry
of the United states and Canada, Local 741; and Brenda Frazier
individually and as representative of a Defendant Class of
Retirees, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02813-N (N.D. Tex., October
23, 2018) is a class action complaint seeking declaratory relief
pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act.

The Plaintiff requests a declaration from this Court that it has
the right to modify, up to and including terminating, medical and
prescription drug benefits provided to certain retired employees,
who retired on or after January 1, 2007, under the terms of the
January 1, 2007 Basic Labor Agreement between ASARCO and the
Unions.

The Plaintiff says a judicial declaration is necessary and
appropriate at this time under all the circumstances so that ASARCO
may implement the amendments to the welfare benefit plans under
which the Retirees receive medical and prescription drug benefits.
A judicial determination will avoid irreparable harm to ASARCO by
making clear its right to modify and to even terminate Retiree
benefits in a time of dramatically increasing costs and uncertainty
and volatility in healthcare and prescription drug markets, it
adds.

ASARCO, originally organized in 1899 as American Smelting and
Refining Company, has operated for over 115 years, first as a
holding company for diverse smelting, mining and refining metal
operations through the United States, and now as an integrated
producer of copper and other metals.

The Unions are labor organizations representing certain ASARCO
employees, and the employees of various other employers, in Texas
and other States including Arizona. USW conducts business in and
resides in the Northern District of Texas, and has two local union
offices in Dallas, Texas. IBEW Local 602 has its office in
Amarillo, Texas and resides in the Northern District of Texas.

Brenda Frazier is a retired hourly employee of ASARCO, who retired
on January 31, 2009 from the Amarillo Copper Refinery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard A. Russo, Esq.
     David G. Lubben, Esq.
     Davis & Campbell L.L.C
     401 Main Street, Suite 1600
     Peoria, IL 61602
     Phone: (309) 673-1681
     Fax: (309) 673-1690
     Email: rarusso@dcamplaw.com
            dglubben@dcamplaw.com

          - and -

     Jennette E. DePonte, Esq.
     McCathern PLLC
     3710 Rawlins Street, Suite 1600
     Dallas, TX 75219
     Phone: (214) 741-2662
     Fax: (214) 741-4717
     Email: jdeponte@mccathernlaw.com


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Trujillo Renews Bid to Certify ERISA Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned DAVID TRUJILLO; DEANNA
HARDEN; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC.; UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.;
UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:17-cv-02547-JFW-KK
(C.D. Cal.), renew their motion to certify this Class:

     All persons covered under United plans, governed by ERISA,
     self-funded or fully insured, whose requests for prosthetic
     arm and leg devices have been denied during the applicable
     statute of limitations on the basis of the Minimum
     Specifications Limitation.  Not included in this class are
     persons whose requests for arm and leg devices have been
     denied for other reasons.

"United plans" means health plans insured or administered by United
Health Group, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiaries,
including United Healthcare Insurance Company and United Healthcare
Services, Inc., the Plaintiffs note.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives and to appoint their counsel as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 19, 2018, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert S. Gianelli, Esq.
          Joshua S. Davis, Esq.
          Adrian J. Barrio, Esq.
          GIANELLI & MORRIS, A Law Corporation
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489-1600
          Facsimile: (213) 489-1611
          E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com
                  joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com
                  adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com

               - and -

          Conal Doyle, Esq.
          Stephen Beke, Esq.
          DOYLE LAW
          9401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 608
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 385-0567
          Facsimile: (310) 943-1780
          E-mail: conal@conaldoylelaw.com
                  sbeke@conaldoylelaw.com


UNITEDHEALTH: Sued for Underpaying Mental Health Reimbursements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that Affiliates of
UnitedHealth Group Inc., the nation's largest health insurer, were
hit with a class action lawsuit on Oct. 16 claiming they are
illegally underpaying reimbursements for mental health services.

According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, United HealthCare Insurance Co.
(UHIC) and United Behavioral Health imposed arbitrary reimbursement
penalties for certain psychotherapy services provided by
psychologists and master's-level counselors rather than doctors.

The plaintiff, a Pennsylvania woman asking to proceed anonymously
because of the "pervasive stigma" of mental illness, claimed
UnitedHealth reduced the "eligible expense" of covered charges from
her master's-level counselor by 35 percent, rather than no
reduction at all for identical services should she have received
the same treatment from a physician.

The Jane Smith plaintiff claimed that difference violates
provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which
prohibit discrimination with respect to mental health and substance
use disorder benefits and the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits
discrimination in coverage against psychologists and master's-level
counselors when they act within the scope of their licenses under
applicable state law.

The suit, filed by lawyers at Zuckerman Spaeder and Psych-Appeal,
Inc., a Los Angeles-based law firm exclusively dedicated to mental
health insurance claims, also claimed that UnitedHealthcare
breached its fiduciary duty to patients.

"United sacrificed the interests of insureds so that it could
artificially decrease the amount of benefits it was required to pay
from its own assets (i.e., with respect to fully insured plans) and
the assets of its employer-sponsor customers (i.e., with respect to
self-funded plans)," the lawyers wrote. "Moreover, by prioritizing
the assets of its employer-sponsored customers over the interests
of participants and beneficiaries, United also advanced its own
interests in retaining and expanding its business with such
customers."
Plaintiffs are seeking to certify a class of "thousands of
subscribers" nationwide to seek reprocessing of all wrongfully
reduced claims and an injunction barring the differing
reimbursement practices going forward.

A spokeswoman for UnitedHealthcare didn't immediately provide
comment on the suit when contacted on Oct. 17. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Settles Tyndall Class Action for $215MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Zauzmer, writing for People, reports that the University of
Southern California is providing financial compensation to students
who were patients of Dr. George Tyndall, a gynecologist who is
facing allegations of sexual assault.

USC is offering $2,500 to Dr. Tyndall's former student patients and
up to $250,000 to those "who are willing to provide further details
about their experience."

"As of October 19, 2018, the university has reached agreement in
principle on a $215 million class action settlement," Wanda
Austin, the interim president of USC, said in a statement. "By
doing so, we hope that we can help our community move collectively
toward reconciliation. I regret that any student ever felt
uncomfortable, unsafe, or mistreated in any way as a result of the
actions of a university employee."

USC did not immediately respond to PEOPLE's request for comment.

About 500 current and former students have come forward with
allegations against Tyndall, who worked at the university for
around three decades, the Associated Press reported. Former
patients reportedly say that Tyndall took pictures of them, made
them remove their clothes and touched them inappropriately. Tyndall
has denied wrongdoing.

Earlier in October, 93 women accused Tyndall in two lawsuits,
according to CNN. In July, more than 50 people sued Tyndall and
USC.

Some people took issue with the amount of money that USC has
offered. "The only guaranteed number in this case is $2,500 --
$2,500 won't even get you a 50-yard-line seat at a USC football
game, let alone compensate somebody for being sexually assaulted by
their doctor when they were 18 or 17," John Manly, an attorney for
180 accusers, said, according to the AP.

Dr. Tyndall retired in 2017 after a university investigation.
Los Angeles police and the district attorney's office are reviewing
the claims.

Dr. Tyndall's attorney Leonard Levine told PEOPLE his client "is
focusing on the criminal allegations right now."

"He has consistently denied them, and he is adamant that his
examinations were for the stated medical purpose and within the
standard of care for such examinations."

Dr. Tyndall retired in 2017 after a university investigation. Los
Angeles police and the district attorney's office are reviewing the
claims.

Dr. Tyndall's attorney Leonard Levine told PEOPLE his client "is
focusing on the criminal allegations right now."

"He has consistently denied them, and he is adamant that his
examinations were for the stated medical purpose and within the
standard of care for such examinations."

"We still don't know when did USC first know, how often were they
warned, what administrators were involved, was there criminal
conduct?" Mr. Manly said. "Our clients, more than anything, want
those answers and people held accountable, not because it helps
their case but to protect the future women at USC."

"I am part of an accidental sisterhood of hundreds of women because
the university we love betrayed our trust," Dana Loewy, who claimed
that Tyndall assaulted her during an examination in 1993, said at a
recent press conference.

"A fair and respectful resolution for as many former patients as
possible has been a priority for the university and for me
personally since I began serving in the role of interim president,"
Austin continued in her statement. "Many sweeping changes  have
been made and we continue to work every day to prevent all forms
of misconduct on our campuses, to provide outstanding care to all
students, and to ensure we have policies and procedures that
prioritize respect for our students and our entire university
community."

"While we cannot change the past, it is my sincere hope that this
timely settlement provides some measure of relief and closure to
those impacted and their families," Rick J. Caruso, the chair of
the USC board of trustees, added in a statement. [GN]


VECTRUS SYSTEMS: $3.75MM Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Lidgett, writing for Law360, reports that a Washington federal
judge has given final approval to a deal where Vectrus Systems
Corp. agreed to pay $3.75 million to settle a class action. [GN]


VIACOM: Can't Force Kids App Data Suit to Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------
Martina Barash, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Viacom
can't force suit to arbitration, likely killing class aspect,
because neither mother nor child necessarily knew of clause.

Complaint alleges Viacom and partners improperly harvest kids' data
from game app in order to advertise to them later.

A would-be class action accusing Viacom Inc. and other technology
companies of improperly using apps to harvest children's personal
information for advertising purposes can proceed in court.

Viacom didn't show that Amanda Rushing or her daughter had actual
notice of an arbitration clause contained in Viacom's end user
license agreement for the "Llama Spit Spit" game, the U.S. District
court for the Northern District of California ruled Oct. 15. [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN: Claims in Wilson Suit Over Defective Vehicles Trimmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida granted in part and denied in part
VW's joint motion to dismiss the case, Lila Wilson and others,
Plaintiffs, v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-23033-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiffs in the case are 15 individuals from 14 different
states who claim to own or lease 2010 to 2015 Volkswagen CC model
cars.  They assert both individually and on behalf of a putative
nationwide class and multiple state subclasses, against Defendants
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG that their cars
suffer from suspension-system defects.  These defects prevent
certain adjustments to their cars' alignments which in turn result
in persistent premature wear and degradation of their cars' tires.


Based on the defect, the Plaintiffs, or a subset thereof, have set
forth 29 counts against VW: the nationwide class asserts claims for
violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, common-law fraud,
common-law breach of express and implied warranty; and on behalf of
the state subclasses, the Plaintiffs also assert claims for the
violation of various state consumer-protection, product-liability,
advertising, warranty, and deceptive-and-unfair-trade-practice
statutes.

Of the Plaintiffs' 29 claims, VW argues that 29 should be dismissed
for a variety reasons, including: not meeting the heightened
pleading standard required for fraud claims; failure to plead VW's
knowledge of the defect; failure to properly allege the Plaintiffs'
reliance on or awareness of VW's misrepresentations; expiration of
the warranty period; failure to properly allege defects in
materials or workmanship; failure to provide pre-suit notice;
expiration of various statutes of limitations; and the economic
loss rule.

Judge Scola granted in part and denied in part VW's joint motion to
dismiss.  In sum, he granted VW's motion to dismiss the following:
(1) Blue, Brown, Glasband, Panopoulos, Spelrem, T. Wilson, and
Johnson's warranty claims under the MMWA as set forth in count one
(Count 1 remains viable as to the other Plaintiffs); (2) Maytum's
common-law fraud claim under Count 2 (Count 2 remains viable as to
the other Plaintiffs); (3) Blue, Brown, Glasband, Martino,
Panopoulos, T. Wilson, Spelrem, and Johnson's implied-warranty
claims under Count 3 (Count 3 remains viable as to the other
Plaintiffs); (4) Blue, Brown, Spelrem, Glasband, Gray, Panopoulos,
T. Wilson, and Johnson's express-warranty claims under Count 4
(Count 4 remains viable as to the other Plaintiffs); (5) Maytum's
two statutory claims under California law as set forth in Count 6
and 7; (6) L. Wilson's Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act as set forth in Count 9; (7) Gray's Louisiana Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law claim under Count 12; (8)
Blue's implied-warranty claim under Missouri statute in Count 15;
(9) Martino's implied-warranty claim under New Jersey statute in
Count 16; (10) Panopoulos's Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act claim
in Count 21; (11) T. Wilson's implied-warranty claim under Texas
statute in Count 25 (Count 25 remains viable as Plaintiff Cruz);
and (12) Johnson's implied-warranty claim under Virginia statute in
Count 29.

By the parties' agreement, the Judge also dismissed Glasband's
Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim under Count
11and Brown's North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices
Act claim under Count 20.

The Plaintiffs' have not requested leave to amend; nor have they
indicated in their response to VW's motion to dismiss any
inclination whatsoever to do so.  The Judge dismissed the
aforementioned claims with prejudice.

Among other things, Judge Scola finds that the Plaintiffs have
alleged entitlement, under the express warranty, to compensation
for the replacement of defective parts and workmanship.  It is
entirely possible that a manufacturing irregularity permeated the
production of all CCs during the timeframe outlined in the
complaint.  He thus denied VW's motion to dismiss the express
warranty claim on this ground.

On the other hand, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged that the duty of the VW dealership that
Panopoulos purchased his car from was to act primarily for the
benefit of the one delivering the goods to it rather than acting
primarily for its own benefit.  The Plaintiffs point to factual
allegations in their complaint detailing support for their
contentions.  Indeed, they have alleged enough to show that VW is
so involved in the sales transaction that the distributor merely
becomes the manufacturer's agent.  Thus, the Jugde denied VW's
motion to dismiss Panopoulos's implied-warranty claim because of a
lack of privity.

Because he finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged VW's
prior knowledge of the defect, the Judge denied VW's motion to
dismiss premised on this ground.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/nt6lst from Leagle.com.

Lila Wilson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Matthew Martino, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Thomas Wilson, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Teresa Garella, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Mary Blue, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Ryan Brown, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Brian Maytum, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Leigh
Glasband, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Nick Panopoulos, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Carissa Macchione, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Sydnee Johnson, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Jorge Cruz, Debbie
Gray, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Lorne Spelrem, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated & Ismael Orrantia, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Francesco P. Trapani
-- frank@krehertrapani.com -- Kreher & Trapani LLP, pro hac vice,
Harris L. Pogust -- hpogust@pbmattorneys.com -- Pogust & Braslow
LLC, pro hac vice, Peter J. Kreher -- pete@krehertrapani.com --
Kreher & Trapani LLP, pro hac vice, Derek T. Braslow, Pogust
Braslow & Millrood, pro hac vice, Robert A. Mosier --
rmosier@thesandersfirm.com -- Sanders Phillips Grossman, LLC, pro
hac vice & Roy Kalman Altman -- raltman@podhurst.com -- Podhurst
Orseck PA.

Volkswagen Group of America Inc., Defendant, represented by Homer
B. Ramsey, Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Chase,
Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., pro hac vice, Michael B. Gallub, Herzfeld &
Rubin, P.C., pro hac vice & Stanley Howard Wakshlag, Kenny
Nachwalter, P.A.

Volkswagen AG, Defendant, represented by Stanley Howard Wakshlag,
Kenny Nachwalter, P.A..


WAL-MART STORES: Pitre Moves to Certify Class and Two Sub-Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled RANDY PITRE, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
8:17-cv-01281-DOC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), asks the Court to certify a
class and two subclasses:

   * Class: All of DEFENDANTS' current, former and prospective
            applicants for employment in the United States who
            applied for a job with DEFENDANTS at any time during
            the period for which a background check was performed
            beginning five years prior to the filing of this
            action and ending on the date that final judgment is
            entered in this action.

   * Sub-Class 1: All members of the Class who applied for
            employment prior to November 5, 2015.

   * Sub-Class 2: All members of the Class who applied for
            employment on or after November 5, 2015.

Mr. Pitre also asks the Court to appoint him, Cassandra Walters,
and Desirae Wilson as representatives of the class and sub-classes,
and to appoint Shaun Setareh, Esq., Thomas Segal, Esq., and H.
Scott Leviant, Esq., of Setareh Law Group as Class Counsel.  He
furthers asks the Court to issue other orders as necessary to
effectuate the certification Order.

The Court will commence a hearing on January 14, 2019, at 8:30
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WARNER CHILCOTT: Court Clarifies Position on Certification Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that in its Oct. 15
opinion in In re Asacol the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
clarified its position on an issue that continues to cause much
consternation among the federal appellate courts: Can trial judges
certify class actions in which not every class member has suffered
an injury? The 1st Circuit panel -- Judges Sandra Lynch, William
Kayatta and David Barron -- sided with the 3rd, 5th and District of
Columbia Circuits to hold that the predominance requirement in the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for class actions precludes class
certification if more than a minimal number of prospective class
members haven't been injured.

But interestingly, the 1st Circuit opted not to adopt an
alternative theory promulgated by two other circuits and
contemplated by some justices at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court may end up being more interested in
the theory the 1st Circuit avoided than the argument it accepted.

Want more On the Case? Listen to the On the Case podcast.

The case involved antitrust claims by union pension funds that
alleged Warner Chilcott and other defendants forced ulcerative
colitis patients to overpay for medication by steering them into a
slightly altered version of an existing drug. (Defendants,
represented by White & Case, said they changed the medication in
response to FDA concerns about an ingredient in the medication's
capsule.) The union healthcare funds, represented by Wexler
Wallace, acknowledged that not every patient was coerced into
buying the new, more expensive version of the medication, though it
disagreed with the defendants about the percentage of potentially
uninjured class members. The trial judge who certified the class,
U.S. District Judge Denise Casper of Boston, estimated about 10
percent, which she considered a de minimis sample. She concluded
that these uninjured class members could be weeded out in the
claims administration process, relying on sworn affidavits from
patients prescribed the colitis drugs.

Judge Casper said that strategy was justified by the 1st Circuit's
2015 decision in In re Nexium Antitrust Litigation. In that case,
which involved allegations that drugmakers delayed a generic
version of the heartburn medication from coming to the market, the
1st Circuit said sworn affidavits sufficed to determine class
membership.

But the 1st Circuit held that the facts in the Asacol case are
different than those in Nexium. In Nexium, Judge Kayatta wrote, the
appeals court suggested the sworn affidavit approach to
ascertaining class membership without litigation below on that
issue. In contrast, the Asacol defendants expressly said they would
challenge such affidavits – which would turn every plaintiff's
drug purchase into a mini-trial, allowing individual issues to
swamp common questions.

The 1st Circuit said its Nexium precedent was not intended to
sanction "the use of inadmissible hearsay to prove injury to each
class member at or after trial," nor to compromise defendants'
rights. "The fact that plaintiffs seek class certification provides
no occasion for jettisoning the rules of evidence and procedure,
the Seventh Amendment, or the dictate of the Rules Enabling Act,"
the court said, citing the Supreme Court's 2016 ruling in Tyson
Foods v. Bouaphakeo and its 2011 decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes.

The 1st Circuit said its decision aligned with predominance
precedent from the D.C. Circuit in 2013's In re Rail Freight Fuel
Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, the 5th Circuit in 2003's Bell
Atlantic Corp v. AT&T and the 3rd Circuit in 2008's In re Hydrogen
Peroxide Antitrust Litigation.

But not every circuit has based its analysis of uninjured
plaintiffs and class certification on predominance, as the 1st
Circuit noted in discussing "the divergence evident in the manner
in which our sister circuits have addressed the treatment of
uninjured putative class members." The 2nd Circuit framed the issue
as a matter of constitutional standing in 2006's Denney v. Deutsche
Bank, as did the 8th Circuit in 2013's Halvorson v. Auto-Owners
Insurance. Both courts held classes can't be certified unless all
class members meet Article III standing requirements. In contrast,
the 10th Circuit ruled in 2010's DG ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaughn
that only named plaintiffs must establish standing in order for a
class to be certified.

The 1st Circuit concluded that plaintiffs in Asacol did have
standing to sue. (Defendants' argument wasn't exactly that
uninjured plaintiffs don't have standing but that the named
plaintiffs did not have standing to pursue state-law claims in
states they didn't live in.) But in focusing its class
certification decision on the predominance inquiry, rather than
standing, the court took an implicit stand on a theory that has
divided the circuits and has long been a concern of some Supreme
Court justices.

A few years ago in the Tyson case, you may recall, the Supreme
Court had an opportunity to address the big question at the heart
of the Asacol case and others like it: Can classes be certified if
they contain uninjured class members? The court did not decide the
question, in part because Tyson, which contended some workers in a
wage-and-hour class action that went to a jury verdict were not
actually entitled to overtime wages, stepped back from its initial
assertion that classes with uninjured members are unconstitutional.
The justices in the majority nevertheless signaled that they're
concerned about classes in which not everyone has been injured.

Three conservative justices reiterated the point in 2017's
Microsoft v. Baker, which posed the question of whether class
action plaintiffs can dismiss individual claims to hasten appellate
review when class certification has been denied. In a concurrence
joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito,
Justice Clarence Thomas argued that class action plaintiffs can't
pursue classwide claims unless they have individual standing. As I
wrote at the time, the class action strategists at Mayer Brown
theorized that Justice Thomas was hinting that class actions may
not be certifiable unless all class members have standing.

The defense group DRI is making precisely that argument in an
amicus brief at the 4th Circuit in Dish Network's appeal of a
judgment of more than $60 million in a Telephone Consumer
Protection Act class action. (The 4th Circuit hasn't opined on the
issue of standing and uninjured class membership.) DRI contends the
class should never have been certified because not every class
member received unsolicited communications. "Simply put, federal
courts can provide relief to claimants, in individual or class
actions, only if the claimants have suffered, or will imminently
suffer, actual harm," the brief said. "Affording a class of
individuals relief where the defendant caused them no actual harm
would eviscerate the separation of powers that is so vital to
ensuring that federal courts do not exceed the narrow role assigned
to them by the Constitution."

Justice Neil Gorsuch didn't participate in the Microsoft case in
which Justice Thomas wrote that concurrence about standing and
class membership. And Justice Brett Kavanaugh wasn't yet on the
court. But if those two take Justice Thomas' hint, class action
plaintiffs are in big trouble. [GN]


WEBSTAURANT: Rogers Class Has Partial Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRITTANY ROGERS, on Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. THE WEBSTAURANT, INC., Defendant,
Civil Action No. 4:18-CV-00074-JHM (W.D. Ky.), Judge Joseph H.
McKinley, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky, Owensboro Division, granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification, Expedited
Discovery, and Court-Authorized Notice.

Rogers, filed a civil action against Webstaurant, alleging that it
willfully engaged in the practice of not recording employees' time
for work performed and failed to compensate Rogers and others
similarly situated with appropriate payment for such work in excess
of forty hours in a work week in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").  Rogers was employed by Webstaurant as a
Consumer Solutions Specialist at the customer support facility in
Madisonville, Kentucky from April 13, 2015 to Dec. 19, 2017.

Rogers now moves the Court to conditionally certify a class of
current and former Consumer Solutions Specialists, Logistics
Liaisons, and other non-exempt employees if the employee was
scheduled to work shifts totaling 40 hours per workweek but during
said workweek(s) did not use a time clock to track actual hours
worked.  Rogers also moves the Court to approve notice to advise
the putative Plaintiffs of their rights under the FLSA, and to
furnish them an opportunity to opt-in to the action.  Webstaurant
opposes the conditional certification and certain aspects of
Roger's proposed notice.

During the pendency of the Motion, Rogers filed a Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order to prohibit Webstaurant from
communicating with the putative class members about the instant
litigation and attempting to settle such claims.  Two emails from
Webstaurant's President Dave Groff and the distribution of a
"Waiver and Release" form to specific employees prompted this
motion.

One email was sent on May 25, 2018 and informed the recipients of
Rogers' lawsuit.  The second email, sent July 11, 2018, told the
recipients that Webstaurant wanted to guarantee that no employee
was missing owed overtime pay and so the company would be paying
those employees a specified amount of overtime pay.  The final
communication came the following day, June 12, 2018, in the form of
a "Waiver and Release" document, purporting to release Webstaurant
from any potential FLSA liability.  On June 20, 2018, the Court
issued an Order finding that Webstaurant's communications with its
employees were misleading and ordering Webstaurant's President to
send a clarifying email to the same recipients.

Judge McKinley finds that Rogers provided sufficient factual
support to merit conditional certification of a collective action
for current and former employees of Webstaurant who were employed
as Customer Solutions Specialists and Logistics Liaisons.  He also
finds that Rogers provided sufficient factual support to merit
conditional certification of a collective action regarding
employees in any other non-exempt position who received the June 11
email or the "Waiver and Release" form from Webstaurant.  Regarding
other employees in "any other non-exempt position," he finds that
Rogers has provided insufficient factual support to merit
conditional certification for such a catch-all class.

Both Rogers and Webstaurant have submitted proposed notices along
with the pleadings.  Webstaurant argues that Roger's request for
conditional certification should be denied, but that if the Court
does conditionally certify a class, the limitations period should
be two years.  Rogers, on the other hand, requests a conditional
certification with a limitations period of three years.

The Judge holds that the limitations period for purposes of the
notice will be three years.  Only one notice will be sent to the
certified class.  The notice will include the following language,
as consistent with the Court's June 20, 2018 order: "The Court will
allow you to join the collective action even if you executed a
Waiver and Release or received compensation offered by The
WEBstaurant Store, Inc."  Concerning the remainder of the parties'
disagreements to the proposed notice, the Court has resolved the
differences in the attached Notice.

For the reasons set forth, Judge McKinley granted the motion by
Rogers, to conditionally certify a collective action and to
facilitate notice to the collective Plaintiffs as to Customer
Solutions Specialists, Logistics Liaisons, and any other non-exempt
employee who received Webstaurant's communications; and denied as
to any other non-exempt employee.

He directed that within 15 days of the date of entry of the Order,
the Defendant will provide to the Plaintiff the contact information
for all the putative class members, including their names, last
known addresses, and last known telephone numbers.  Within 15 days
of the Plaintiff's receipt of the putative class members' contact
information, the Plaintiff will send the notice and consent form by
first-class mail to all the potential Plaintiffs.  

All members of the Notice Group will be provided 60 days from the
date of mailing the notice and consent form to opt-in to the
lawsuit.  All consent forms will be deemed to have been filed with
the Court the date they are stamped as received, and the
Plaintiff's counsel will file them electronically on a weekly
basis, at a minimum.

The parties will file a joint status report, detailing their
compliance with this Order, within 15 days of the close of the
opt-in period.  cc: counsel of record.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/4y1gsQ from Leagle.com.

Brittany Rogers, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mark N. Foster --
MFoster@MarkNFoster.com.

The Webstaurant Store, Inc., Defendant, represented by Courtney L.
Graham -- cgraham@strauselawgroup.com -- Strause Law Group, PLLC,
Randall S. Strause -- rstrause@strauselawgroup.com -- Strause Law
Group, PLLC & Parker M. Wornall -- pwornall@strauselawgroup.com --
Strause Law Group, PLLC.


WELLS FARGO: Financial Adviser Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Bruce Kelly, writing for InvestmentNews, reports that a federal
judge has granted class action status to a lawsuit brought by a
financial adviser who claimed Wells Fargo Advisors cheated him out
of $200,000 in deferred compensation.

The adviser, Robert Berry, worked at Wells Fargo Advisors and
predecessor firms from 1994 to 2014, according to his BrokerCheck
report. He was "permitted to resign," according to BrokerCheck.

At that time, he chose to open his own wealth management firm,
Berry Financial Group, according to the firm's website, and is
affiliated with LPL Financial.

Brokers, like Mr. Berry, at large institutions can accrue hundreds
of thousands of dollars -- if not millions -- in deferred
compensation, making restrictions on when and how a broker can get
his hands on the money a highly contentious issue for some
advisers. In the past, such plans used to be voluntary at large
wirehouses.

But in some institutions, deferred compensation plans are now
mandatory for brokers and advisers. Critics of the wirehouses claim
that part of advisers' pay is being held captive.

Mr. Berry's amended complaint, filed May 1, 2017, took aim at a
"forfeiture clause" in two deferred compensation plans. It alleges
that the plans constitute pension benefits under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, and as such, unvested deferred
compensation is not forfeitable.

The complaint claims the two deferred compensation plans in
question are not so-called "top hat" plans, which would have made
them available only for a select group of management and other
highly compensated employees and made them exempt from ERISA.

In the amended complaint, Mr. Berry, 65, argued that the Wells
Fargo Advisors' plans violated ERISA's funding, vesting, and
non-forfeitability rules, along with others.

"A forfeiture clause in the plans allows Wells Fargo to forfeit a
participant's purportedly unvested deferred compensation" if the
broker moves to a rival in a period of three years, according to
the complaint.

After Mr. Berry resigned and started his own firm, "Wells Fargo
used the forfeiture clause to deny [him] his deferred
compensation," according to the complaint. "Wells Fargo did the
same to other departing employees."

"But because the forfeiture clause is unenforceable under ERISA,
[Mr. Berry] and all others similarly situated are entitled to their
forfeited deferred compensation," the complaint alleges.

"The company denies the claims in the lawsuit and will defend its
position on the merits," wrote a spokesperson for Wells Fargo
Advisors, Shea Leordeanu.

Mr. Berry, who was named the lead plaintiff in the matter, declined
to comment.

(Full disclosure: One of the attorneys representing Mr. Berry, Tom
Ajamie, co-wrote a book with me about the 2008 financial crisis).

Wells Fargo & Co., the parent bank of Wells Fargo Advisors, and
Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, the independent
broker-dealer, are also named in the complaint.

Law360 first reported the class action certification of Mr. Berry's
complaint about the Wells Fargo Advisors deferred compensation
plan. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Kang Seeks to Certify Class and Subclass of Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JAMES C. KANG, an individual,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
5:17-cv-06220-BLF (N.D. Cal.), moves for an order certifying the
case as a class action for these class and subclass:

   * Class:

     All non-exempt employees for Wells Fargo who at any time
     during the period beginning October 27, 2013 through the
     date notice is mailed to the Class worked for Wells Fargo in
     California in the job titles of Home Mortgage Consultant,
     Home Mortgage Consultant, Jr., Private Mortgage Banker, or
     Private Mortgage Banker, Jr. ("the Class").

   * Vacation/Separation Pay SubClass:

     All non-exempt employees for Wells Fargo who at any time
     during the period beginning October 27, 2013 through the
     date notice is mailed to the Class worked for Wells Fargo in
     California in the job titles of Home Mortgage Consultant,
     Home Mortgage Consultant, Jr., Private Mortgage Banker, or
     Private Mortgage Banker, Jr, and whose employment with Wells
     Fargo terminated.

Mr. Kang also asks the Court to appoint his counsel, Joshua H.
Haffner, Esq., and Graham G. Lambert, Esq., of Haffner Law PC, and
Paul D. Stevens, Esq., of Stevens LC to serve as counsel to the
class.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 29, 2018, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Graham G. Lambert, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa St., Suite 2325
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
                  gl@haffnerlawyers.com

               - and -

          Paul D. Stevens, Esq.
          STEVENS, LC
          700 S. Flower Street, Suite 660
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 270-1211
          Facsimile: (213) 270-1223
          E-mail: pstevens@stevenslc.com


WYNDHAM HOTEL: Luca Seeks Class Certification Under CFA, TCCWNA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled THOMAS LUCA JR., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WYNDHAM HOTEL
GROUP, LLC, and WYNDHAM HOTELS AND RESORTS, LLC, Case No.
2:16-cv-00746-MRH (W.D. Pa.), seeks to certify this class for both
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA"), and the New Jersey
Truth–in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act ("TCCWNA")
claims:

     All United States citizens who were charged a resort fee
     from June 6, 2010 to the present after booking a hotel room
     at a Wyndham-affiliated property using a Wyndham-owned
     website.

Thomas Luca, Jr.'s complaint alleges that the Defendants violated
the CFA and the TCCWNA.

Mr. Luca also seeks the appointment of Gary F. Lynch, Esq., of
Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  jetzel@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  ecomite@scott-scott.com


WYNDHAM: Faces Class Action Over Hidden "Resort Fees"
-----------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson, writing for Law360, reports that a consumer suing two
Wyndham companies for allegedly sneaking hidden "resort fees" into
the cost of hotel rooms asked a Pennsylvania federal court for
class certification. [GN]


XPO LOGISTICS: Mendoza Files Labor Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
A labor class action has been filed against XPO Logistics Cartage,
LLC et al. The case is styled as Edgar Mendoza on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. XPO Logistics
Cartage, LLC dba XPO Logistics, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, XPO Logistics, Inc. dba XPO Logistics, a Delaware
Corporation, Javier Martin Del Campo an individual, DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-09144 (C.D. Cal., Oct.
24, 2018).

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Spain, Europe, Asia, and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



ZIMMER BIOMET: Court Narrows Claims in Shah Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAJESH M. SHAH, et al Plaintiffs, v. ZIMMER BIOMET
HOLDINGS, INC., et al, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-815-PPS-MGG
(N.D. Ind.), Judge Philip P. Simon of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, granted in
part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs Shah, Matt Brierley, Eric Levy and UFCW Local 1500,
bring the putative securities fraud class action on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated individuals who bought
shares in Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. ("ZBH") during a specified
period.  ZBH is a publicly traded company that manufactures medical
devices, based in Warsaw, Indiana.

The case concerns alleged materially false statements relating to
the financial performance of ZBH during the summer and fall of
2016.  The complaint generally alleges that the Defendants violated
federal securities laws by making materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or omissions about their compliance with
FDA regulations and their ability to continue to accelerate their
organic revenue growth rate in the second half of 2016.

Shah alleges that the concealment of the quality systems issues at
North Campus, along with ZBH's misleading rosy statements
concerning expected revenue growth, allowed the Private Equity
Defendants to profit immensely and knowingly sell their stock at a
falsely inflated price throughout the summer of 2016.  According to
Shah, the timing of these sales was not simply fortuitous or
coincidence.

Four separate but overlapping motions to dismiss on behalf of four
subsets of the Defendants are presently before the Court.  They all
argue that Shah has failed to sufficiently allege any actionable
claims.

Judge Simon finds that because Shah's allegations paint a
convincing story that, if proven true, would constitute fraud in
violation of the securities laws, he cannot dismiss the suit in its
entirety.  But as the complaint is not without deficiencies, some
claims must be dismissed.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Simon granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' motions.  He denied (i) the Defendants' Motion
to Strike pursuant to Rule 12(f); (ii) ZBH's Motion to Dismiss; and
(iii) ZBH Management's and ZBH Director's Motions to Dismiss.

The Judge granted the Private Equity Defendants' Motion to Dismiss,
without prejudice, as to Count III and Count IV for insider trading
in violation of Section 20(A) of the Exchange Act.  At present, it
does not seem that Shah will be able to satisfactorily allege the
necessary scienter as to the Private Equity Defendants on these
counts.  That may change, however, now that Shah will have the
ability to conduct formal discovery in the matter because he has
allowed the case to proceed, albeit in a slightly narrowed form.
But Shah and his co-Plaintiffs are cautioned that any subsequent
motion for leave to amend will be given the appropriate scrutiny by
the Court and that Shah should only seek leave to amend after he
and his attorneys are satisfied that amended pleadings will
successfully clear the PSLRA's pleading requirements that Shah has
thus far been unable to meet as to the Private Equity Defendants.

The Judge also granted the Private Equity Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, with prejudice, as to Count VI and Count IX for violations
of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act.  He finds that dismissal
is with prejudice because there do not appear to be any facts under
which the Plaintiffs will be able to satisfy Section 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act's statutory seller requirement and thus
amendment will be futile.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 26, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/L8i38o from Leagle.com.

Rajesh M Shah, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ira M. Press --
ipress@kmllp.com -- Kirby McInerney LLP, pro hac vice, Jason L.
Krajcer -- jkrajcer@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
pro hac vice, Lesley F. Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Robert V. Prongay --
RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac
vice, Thomas W. Elrod -- telrod@kmllp.com -- Kirby McInerney LLP,
pro hac vice & Offer Korin -- okorin@katzkorin.com -- Katz Korin
Cunningham PC.

Matt Brierley, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated & Eric Levy, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Ira M. Press, Kirby
McInerney LLP, pro hac vice, Jason L. Krajcer, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Lesley F. Portnoy, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Robert V. Prongay, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas W. Elrod, Kirby McInerney LLP,
pro hac vice.

Local 1500 UFCW, Individually and On Behalf on All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert V. Prongay, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice.

Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., David C Dvorak, Daniel P. Florin &
Robert J. Marshall, Jr., Defendants, represented by Marc J.
Sonnenfeld -- marc.sonnenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Paul A. Wolfla --
paul.wolfla@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Troy S.
Brown -- troy.brown@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
pro hac vice.

Christopher B Begley, Betsy J Bernard, Paul M Bisaro, Gail K
Boudreaux, Tony W Collins, Larry Glasscock, Robert A Hagemann,
Arthur J Higgins, Cecil B Pickett PhD & Michael J. Farrell,
Defendants, represented by Paul A. Wolfla, Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP.

Michael W Michelson, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Stujenske
, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Paul A. Wolfla,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Peter E. Kazanoff --
pkazanoff@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac
vice.

Jeffrey K Rhodes, Defendant, represented by Daniel V. McCaughey --
Daniel.McCaughey@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray LLP, pro hac vice &
Paul A. Wolfla, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

KKR Biomet LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Stujenske ,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice & Peter E. Kazanoff,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice.

TPG Partners IV, L.P., TPG Partners V, L.P., TPG FOF V-A, L.P., TPG
FOF V-B, L.P., TPG LVB Co-Invest LLC & TPG LVB Co-Invest II LLC,
Defendants, represented by Amanda N. Raad --
Amanda.Raad@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray LLP & Daniel V.
McCaughey, Ropes & Gray LLP, pro hac vice.

GS Capital Partners VI Fund, L.P., GS Capital Partners VI Parallel,
L.P., GS Capital Partners VI Offshore Fund, L.P., GS Capital
Partners VI GMBH & CO. KG, Goldman Sachs BMET InvesTORS, L.P.,
Goldman Sachs BMET Investors Offshore Holdings, L.P., PEP Bass
Holdings, LLC, Private Equity Partners 2004 Direct Investment Fund
L.P., Private Equity Partners 2005 Direct L.P., Private Equity
Partners IX Direct L.P. & GS LVB Co-Invest, L.P., Defendants,
represented by Brian E. Casey -- brian.casey@btlaw.com -- Barnes &
Thornburg LLP, John F. Lynch -- JLynch@wlrk.com -- Wachtell Lipton
Rosen & Katz, pro hac vice & Paul Vizcarrondo, Jr. --
PVizcarrondo@wlrk.com -- Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, pro hac
vice.


[*] Class Actions, Continuous Disclosure in Australia Scrutinized
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hamish Walton, Esq., Lis Boyce, Esq., Alexander Nielsen, Esq., and
Ben Allen, Esq., of Dentons, in an article for Mondaq, report The
continuous disclosure and class action laws in Australia are again
under scrutiny, with the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC)
releasing a discussion paper, the Australian Securities Exchange
(ASX) encouraging discussion, and Law Firms Australia (LFA)
advocating change.

The concerns centre around the rise of class actions against listed
companies and their directors in Australia, the increasing scarcity
of D&O insurance, and the disincentive for qualified people to
become non-executive directors of listed companies, particularly
small ones.

The current position is that listed entities must immediately
disclose information a reasonable person would expect to have a
material effect on the price or value of its securities.

While a number of carve-outs are available, and there is a defence
if a person involved in the contravention took all reasonable steps
and believed on reasonable grounds that the company was complying
with its obligations, the net effect is that directors must
continually be on the alert. They must also set aside significant
time and corporate resources to ensure the company meets its
disclosure obligations on an urgent basis.

In addition to meeting disclosure obligations, directors must also
consider the risk of possible class actions around disclosure.

Over the past decade, shareholder class actions have been steadily
rising driven, in large part, by the growth in the third party
litigation funding market. There has also been growing acceptance
of shareholder class actions by the Australian investment
community, particularly among institutional investors. While not
usually taking the role of lead plaintiff, the size of many
institutional holdings in major listed companies means that
institutional participation in class actions is increasing. This,
in turn, has increased the potential exposure associated with many
shareholder class actions.

While much judicial uncertainty exists at present around competing
shareholder class actions, there is likely to be greater clarity
given in the coming year as case law is refined at both the State
and Federal level. This will have important consequences for
directors faced with continuous disclosure obligations as well as
for third party funders eagerly awaiting public announcements by
listed companies.

The current positions are as follows:

   -- ALRC: the continuous disclosure laws should be reviewed and
litigation funders should be regulated by the Corporations Act
   -- ASX: is open to a review of the continuous disclosure laws
   -- LFA: supports a review of the laws, noting increases in the
cost of D&O insurance and shrinking availability
   -- Litigation funders: are concerned about the potential erosion
of shareholder rights.

Given the relative scarcity of continuous disclosure based class
actions in comparable jurisdictions such as the United States and
the United Kingdom, an assessment of how those countries' class
action regimes interact with their continuous disclosure
requirements merits further investigation in Australia.

The reality is that it is impossible for every company to get its
disclosure obligations right all the time and good faith decisions
may be interpreted differently when viewed with hindsight.

Each time the issue arises, companies need to consider:

   -- What does "material" mean in this context?
   -- What would the "reasonable" person expect?

These are concepts that are difficult to define precisely and
require boards to virtually have predictive skills as to how a
piece of information will impact the price of securities.

The fact that all Australian class actions have been settled rather
than proceed to final judgement indicates that the balance between
shareholder rights, when included as part of a class action
process, and the rights of the discloser is not right.

In the meantime, directors should ensure that their companies have
robust compliance systems in place and should:

   -- have a written continuous disclosure policy;
   -- establish a committee or overseer of the policy with
responsibility for making decisions on when to disclose;
set clear reporting lines from senior management to the
committee/overseer;
   -- implement regular training; and
   -- undertake regular stress testing of the structure. [GN]


[*] GDPR to Allow Limited Form of Collective Action in Ireland
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Broderick, Esq. -- lbroderick@dacbeachcroft.com -- Rowena
McCormack, Esq. -- rmccormack@dacbeachcroft.com -- Julie-Anne
Binchy, Esq. -- jabinchy@dacbeachcroft.com -- Charlotte Burke,
Esq., and Simon Halpin, Esq., of DAC Beachcroft, in an article for
Lexology, report that currently, Irish law makes no provision for
"class" or collective actions.

Generally speaking, where class actions are available (for example
the United States) a class action lawsuit involves a scenario
whereby a group of plaintiffs are represented en masse at trial by
a member of that group. In most cases, the court will order that
the class of people affected by the suit are to be notified and
they will automatically be part of the case -- unless they
specifically choose to opt out. Class actions are a common and cost
effective method for multiple parties to litigate a claim. They are
particularly useful in that they allow all claims of a particular
affected group to be litigated at once, crucially, whether or not
each member of that group knows that they have suffered damage.

Article 80 of the General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR")
allows for three different mechanisms pursuant to which an entity
may exercise a data subject's rights on his or her behalf, namely:

   -- A joint representative action, whereby data subjects have the
right to mandate a not-for-profit body, organisation or associate
("an Authorised Entity") to make a complaint on their behalf to the
relevant supervisory authority (being the Data Protection
Commission in Ireland ("DPC"));

   -- A compensatory representative action, whereby data subjects
have the right to mandate an Authorised Entity to exercise their
right to receive compensation on their behalf, where provided by
Member State law; and

   -- A limited class action, whereby an Authorised Entity may,
without a data subject's consent or authority, lodge a complaint
with the DPC on that data subject's behalf.

Ireland has transposed, pursuant to the Data Protection Act 2018
("the Act"), mechanisms 1 and 2 above, but not no. 3, limited class
actions. Therefore, whilst the Act does not see the introduction of
a GDPR class actions in Irish law, it does allow for a limited,
more restricted form of representative collective action whereby
specific Authorised Entities (i.e., non-for-profit organisations),
with the data subjects' consent, can make consolidated complaints
on their behalf to the DPC and seek compensation on their behalf.
This should pave the way for a cost effective means by which data
subjects may vindicate their rights under the GDPR.

The limited class action system (no. 3 above) is closest to a
US-style class action in that the affected party does not need to
give his or her consent to the action. This has not been transposed
into Irish law, however, if it was, only Authorised Entities could
make the complaint on the affected party's behalf. This differs
from the position in the States, where any affected party may take
the case on behalf of an affected group, not just Authorised
Entities. Additionally, and unlike the position in the States, the
limited class action mechanism does not allow for compensation to
be obtained by the Authorised Entity on the data subject's behalf,
as consent has not been given by the data subject. Instead, the
Authorised Entity role is limited to making a complaint. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Covil's Summary Judgment vs. Finch Claims Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled Ann Finch, Individually and as Executrix of the
Estate of Franklin Delenor Finch, Plaintiff, v. BASF Catalysts LLC,
et al., Defendant, No. 1:16-CV-1077, (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff, Ann
Finch, has sued twelve defendants claiming that they are liable for
personal injuries to and the wrongful death of her late husband,
who allegedly developed mesothelioma from occupational exposure to
asbestos.

Franklin Finch, the plaintiff's late husband, worked at a Firestone
tire factory in Wilson, North Carolina from 1975 to 1995. Before
his death, Mr. Finch testified that he was exposed to asbestos
while working in the curing room at the tire factory, where
approximately 120 tire presses were used. Ms. Finch contends that
Covil sold asbestos-containing insulation to Firestone's Wilson
plant and that this insulation was used on steam lines in the
curing room.

Defendant Covil moves for summary judgment, contending that the
plaintiff does not have sufficient evidence of exposure to Covil's
asbestos-containing products to raise a disputed question of
material fact and, in the alternative, makes other more limited
arguments as to specific causes of action.

In opposition to summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted answers
by non-party Bridgestone to deposition by written questions. Covil
moves to strike these answers, contending this discovery was
untimely and violated the Court's scheduling order.

The Hon. Catherine C. Eagles of the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina denies Covil's motion to
strike as the evidence at issue was timely obtained under the
court-approved discovery schedule. Magistrate Judge Peake extended
the discovery deadline until May 11 for certain discovery issues,
including the plaintiff's discovery dispute with Bridgestone.
Bridgestone responded on April 26, which is well before that
deadline.

Although the Court finds Ms. Finch has produced sufficient evidence
of exposure to asbestos-containing products that Covil sold, and
her failure to warn and negligence claims may proceed to trial, the
Court will grant summary judgment as to all claims arising out of
Mr. Finch's alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products while
he was a Covil employee, the product liability claims based on
inadequate design or formulation, the breach of implied warranty
claim, the negligence claims to the extent those claims are based
on premises liability and negligent retention and/or supervision,
and the loss of consortium damages and punitive damages.

As to any claim based on Mr. Finch's exposure to asbestos while
employed by Covil, the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act
provides the exclusive remedy for claims related to Mr. Finch's
employment with Covil. Since Ms. Finch makes no argument to the
contrary, and she agreed at oral argument that any exposure during
this time frame could not be a basis for liability, thus, the Court
deems Ms. Finch has abandoned this claim.

To the extent Covil's motion is based on a contention that the
plaintiff cannot prove Mr. Finch was exposed to Covil's
asbestos-containing products, the Court denies the motion. To be
successful on any of her claims, Ms. Finch must prove that Covil
sold asbestos-containing insulation to the Wilson tire plant and
that this insulation was used in the curing room where Mr. Finch
worked daily for many years.

The Court explains that the initial dispute centers on whether Ms.
Finch has proffered evidence that some of the pipes in the curing
room were covered with insulation that Covil sold. According to
Firestone, Covil supplied "all of the asbestos insulation used in
the plant during construction," with only limited exceptions.
Firestone also confirmed that Covil's insulation was installed in
the tire press area. At least one invoice from Covil to Firestone
appears to show that a shipment of Kaylo insulation was designated
for the "curing area" where Mr. Finch worked. Additionally, Covil's
corporate representative agreed -- from the paperwork he had seen
-- that Covil was "the only supplier" of insulation to the Wilson
tire factory. In short, the Court finds sufficient evidence for a
reasonable jury to conclude that Covil supplied some or all of the
insulation in the curing room.

The next dispute concerns whether this insulation contained
asbestos. Ms. Finch proffers several pieces of circumstantial
evidence to support her contention that it did. First, Covil's
president during the relevant time, Palmer Covil, testified in
another lawsuit that Covil last sold an asbestos-containing product
sometime around 1973. Second, Owens-Corning sold Kaylo to Covil for
use in the curing area at the Wilson plant at least once during the
time the plant was built from 1973 to 1974. Next, there is evidence
that Covil had the asbestos-containing insulation marketed as
"Kaylo" in its inventory around the time the Wilson plant was
built, and Covil generally took between one and three years to
clear its inventory. Covil's corporate representative explicitly
agreed that it would take at least a year for Owens-Corning to "get
rid of their inventory of asbestos-containing Kaylo" and another
"year to get rid of Covil's inventory of asbestos-containing
Kaylo."

In addition, and most importantly, Ms. Finch has documentary
evidence that Firestone removed approximately 7400 linear feet of
asbestos-containing pipe insulation from the tire press area in
1990. According to Firestone, no insulation in the tire press area
was replaced before the 1990 asbestos abatement. So this evidence
gives rise to the inference that the original insulation, which
Covil supplied in 1973 and 1974, remained in the tire press area
until abatement in 1990 and that this insulation contained
asbestos. While Covil points out that there is no evidence this
removed material was tested for asbestos content, the Court finds
that a reasonable jury could conclude that Firestone would not have
hired and paid an asbestos contractor -- particularly one using
"full decontamination procedures" -- to remove material that did
not contain asbestos.

To the extent Covil contends it is entitled to summary judgment on
the failure to warn claims because Ms. Finch has not produced
evidence that Covil knew of the dangers associated with its
products or that others would have acted differently had warnings
been given,  the Court denies summary judgment. Covil has the
burden to show that there are no disputed questions of material
fact, and a cursory argument without citation to evidence, is
insufficient to meet that burden.

The Court determines Covil is entitled to summary judgment on Ms.
Finch's product liability claims based on inadequate design or
formulation. The Court finds Covil has submitted evidence that it
did not manufacture any products supplied to the Firestone plant.
Ms. Finch has not disputed this evidence, made any argument
explaining how these legal theories apply to the evidence in this
case, or directed the Court's attention to evidence in support of
these claims. Indeed, she has not addressed Covil's motion as to
this claim in any way. Thus, the Court believes she has abandoned
this claim.

North Carolina law requires privity of contract for breach of
implied warranty claims unless the barrier of privity has been
legislatively or judicially removed. It is undisputed that Covil
did not manufacture any products supplied to the Firestone plant.
Ms. Finch contends she can recover for breach of implied warranty
despite a lack of privity under N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 99B-2(a)
because Covil did not sell the insulation in sealed containers.
However, based on the evidence on record, the Court determines that
many shipments to the Firestone plant were directly from the
manufacturer and there is otherwise no evidence that the
asbestos-containing materials that Covil shipped to the Firestone
plant were not in sealed containers. Evidence that at some
unspecified time Covil sold insulation to other plants in
repackaged containers is insufficient, by itself, to establish that
Covil did the same in sales to the Firestone plant. Thus, the Court
concludes Covil is entitled to summary judgment on this claim.

The Court determines that Covil is entitled to summary judgment on
Ms. Finch's negligence claim to the extent that it is based on
premises liability. To state a prima facie negligence claim of
premises liability, Ms. Finch must show that Covil had control over
the area where Mr. Finch worked -- that Covil had control over the
curing room. However, the Court finds no evidence that Covil
exercised control over Mr. Finch's work area -- no evidence
suggests that Covil installed insulation or performed any
maintenance on the insulation in the tire plant after initial
construction. In fact, the record evidence shows that another
contractor installed the pipe insulation on the steam lines in the
curing room. Moreover, Covil's involvement at the Firestone plant
did not overlap with Mr. Finch's employment: Covil's last invoice
is from December 1974. Mr. Finch did not begin working at Firestone
until December 1975. In short, there is no evidence that Covil
performed work in the curing room area while Mr. Finch was present.
Without evidence to show that Covil exercised control over Mr.
Finch's work area, Ms. Finch seeks a spoliation adverse inference
to stave off summary judgment -- she has provided scant factual
support for her cursory spoliation argument.

Ms. Finch also seeks punitive damages, contending that Covil knew
asbestos-containing insulation was dangerous when it sold such
insulation to the Firestone plant and that Covil's failure to warn
or use alternative insulation was willful and wanton. Ms. Finch
contends that Covil acted willfully and wantonly by failing to warn
of the dangers of asbestos. However, her evidence on this point
does not go beyond, at best, gross negligence. At best, she can
establish that Covil was generally aware asbestos had health risks.
But knowledge of "broad statements about potential harms under
undefined conditions" is insufficient to show willful and wanton
misconduct. The Court explains that Covil's failure to provide
additional warnings on the asbestos-containing products that it
sold does not satisfy the "extremely high standard" under North
Carolina law for punitive damages.

Thus, the Court will grant summary judgment because Ms. Finch has
not created a material issue of fact as to willful and wanton
conduct. Under North Carolina law, punitive damages may only be
awarded when a plaintiff proves that an aggravating factor is
present and relates to the injury.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 16, 2018,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8ss4c92 from Leagle.com.

Ann Finch, Individually, and as Executrix of the Estate of Franklin
Delenor Finch, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina G. Stone --
sstone@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar & Branham LLP, Benjamin D. Braly --
bbraly@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar & Branham LLP, Charles W. Branham,
III -- tbranham@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar & Branham LLP, Jessica M.
Dean -- jdean@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar & Branham LLP, Jonathan M.
Holder -- jholder@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar & Branham LLP, Kevin W.
Paul -- kpaul@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar & Branham LLP, Lisa W.
Shirley -- lshirley@dobllp.com -- Omar Dean Branham, LLP & William
Marc Graham , Wallace and Graham, P.A.

Covil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robin A. Seelbach ,
Wall Templeton & Haldrup, P.A. & William W. Silverman --
William.Silverman@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton & Haldrup,
P.A.

McNeil (OHIO) Corporation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy E.
Tomlin -- tracy.tomlin@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante --
travis.bustamante@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP & William Michael Starr --
bill.starr@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough
LLP.

McNeil & NRM, INC., Defendant, represented by Jonathan H. Dunlap --
jdunlap@vwlawfirm.com -- Van Winkle Buck Wall Starnes & Davis,
P.A., Matthew B. Holloway -- mholloway@vwlawfirm.com -- The Van
Winkle Law Firm & Stephen B. Williamson --
swilliamson@vwlawfirm.com -- Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes &
Davis, P.A.

CBS Corporation, (a DE Corp) f/k/a Viacom Inc. (a PA Corp) (sued as
successor-by-merger to CBS Corporation f/k/a Westinghouse Electric
Corporation) and also as successor-in-interest to BF sturtevant,
Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman --
jmtechman@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby Houff.

FMC Corporation, Individually and as successor in interest to
Stearns Brakes, Defendant, represented by Gary L. Beaver --
gbeaver@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, PLLC, Peter A. Santos --
psantos@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, PLLC & Rick C. Shea --
rshea@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

Rexnord Industries, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gary L. Beaver
-- gbeaver@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, PLLC & Peter A. Santos
-- psantos@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, PLLC.

Bridgestone Americas, Inc., Movant, represented by Lori E. Gilmore
-- lori.gilmore@mgclaw.com -- McAngus Goudelock & Courie & Sabrina
G. Stone -- sstone@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar & Branham LLP.

Bridgestone Americas Tire OperationS, LLC, Movant, represented by
David Marwill Duke -- David.Duke@youngmoorelaw.com -- Young Moore
And Henderson, P.A. & David G. Williams --
David.Williams@youngmoorelaw.com -- Young Moore & Henderson, P.A.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gabris' Claims vs. RJ Reynolds Remains in NYCAL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Stephen Gabris was diagnosed with non-small cell lung
cancer on July 31, 2017. He alleges he was exposed to asbestos in a
variety of ways. The Plaintiff commenced this action on September
9, 2017 to recover for injuries resulting from Mr. Gabris' exposure
to asbestos. Pursuant to the New York City Asbestos Litigation
Docket and Case Management Order, discovery was exchanged and
Plaintiff's deposition was taken. The discovery exchanged delved
into Mr. Gabris' life-long smoking habit beginning in approximately
1970, at the age of 16 through April 2017. Plaintiff smoked
approximately half-a-pack to one pack a day of Newport Light
cigarettes.

On February 9, 2018, Plaintiff amended the Complaint adding RJ
Reynolds as a Defendant and made smoking-related claims. RJ
Reynolds served, and Plaintiff responded to, Request for
Supplemental Interrogatories and conducted two additional discovery
depositions- the first ranging two days-which revolved around
Plaintiff's cigarette exposure and smoking habits.

RJ Reynolds now moves to transfer all causes of action against it
out of the NYCAL docket, and/or dismiss the action, or in the
alternative, dismiss Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages
against RJ Reynolds. RJ Reynolds contends that the Court should
transfer all causes of action against it out of the NYCAL docket
because Plaintiff has not plead any asbestos claim against it. RJ
Reynolds argues that Plaintiff's Second, Third and Fourth Causes of
Action alleging fraudulent concealment, failure to warn, and
negligent advertising and marketing should be dismissed because
these claims are preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act.

RJ Reynolds further contends that Plaintiff's Second Cause of
Action for fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment should be
dismissed because the Plaintiff failed to plead the claim with
specificity. Finally, RJ Reynolds contends that Plaintiff's claims
for punitive damages against it should be dismissed because they
are barred under the doctrine of res judicata, through the New York
Attorney General's parens patrie settlement with major tobacco
companies, including RJ Reynolds.

Plaintiff opposes the motion contending that the claims against RJ
Reynolds should remain in the NYCAL Docket because RJ Reynolds is a
proper Defendant since the claims against it and the asbestos
defendants are inextricably intertwined. Plaintiff further contends
that the Amended Complaint properly pleads fraud with the requisite
specificity and that the Labeling Act does not preempt his causes
of action. Finally, Plaintiff contends his claims for punitive
damages is not barred by res judicata because New York State had no
standing to raise Plaintiff's claim when suing the tobacco
companies in its parens patrie capacity.

The Hon. Manuel J. Mendez of the Supreme Court of New York County
dismissed Plaintiff's Fourth cause of action against Defendant R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company and denied the remainder of RJ Reynolds'
motion. The Court determines that Plaintiff's Fourth Cause of
Action -- based on failure to warn as a result of negligent
advertising and marketing -- is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's
interpretation and must be dismissed. Plaintiff began smoking in
the 1970s, after the amended Labeling Act took effect. The Labeling
Act expressly preempts state claims based on failure to warn and
neutralization of federally mandated warnings to the extent that
those claims relied on omissions or inclusions in a manufacturer's
advertising.

However, Plaintiff's Second and Third Causes of Action based on
fraudulent concealment, and failure to warn outside of advertising
and promotion, are not preempted by the Labeling Act. The Court
concludes that these claims against RJ Reynolds should remain in
this action and not be transferred out of the NYCAL Docket. The
Court notes that Plaintiff specifically alleged that RJ Reynolds
failed to "warn or advise consumers outside of advertising and
promotion. . . of the specific damages and hazards of smoking
mentholated cigarettes including addiction, lung cancer and other
diseases . . . through public statements on television, newspaper,
radio, magazines, publications, pamphlets, or other available
media."  Plaintiff alleges he developed lung cancer due to his
exposure to asbestos and his life-long smoking habit.

The Court explains that in accordance with the synergy theory,
smoking increases the probability that someone exposed to asbestos
will develop lung cancer. While smoking cigarettes and exposure to
asbestos are each capable of causing lung cancer on its own, the
combination creates common questions of law and fact, and
intertwines both actions. Therefore, Plaintiff's Second and Third
Causes of Action should not be dismissed as they are not preempted
by the Labeling Act.

The Court explains that the joinder of these claims is favorable in
this action for the following reasons: (i) the claims against RJ
Reynolds and the Asbestos Defendants are related because smoking
and asbestos exposure occurred during the same period of time (ii)
there are common questions of law and fact, (iii) if the cases were
severed, it would create a situation where each defendant would try
to prove that the other was solely responsible or responsible for
the greater part of the damage, to minimize Plaintiff's recovery.
Furthermore, since the Plaintiff alleges synergistic effects of
asbestos and tobacco exposure, RJ Reynolds contention that the
action against it should be labeled a "non-asbestos case" is
unavailing as the causes of action are based in part on the effects
of asbestos exposure. Finally, severing the action would force the
Plaintiff to, in essence, try the same case twice with the
possibility of conflicting outcomes.

Moreover, the Court determines that Plaintiff timely added RJ
Reynolds. Plaintiff moved to amend the Complaint and add RJ
Reynolds as a Defendant only 5 months after commencing this action.
As a result, RJ Reynolds has participated in the discovery process,
including taking the Plaintiff's deposition twice, and having the
Plaintiff respond to interrogatories specific to RJ Reynolds.
Therefore, RJ Reynolds ability to defend the allegations has not
been prejudiced, thereby complying with the ideals of the NYCAL
docket laid out in the CMO. In the interest of judicial economy,
the Court concludes that it is proper to allow the jury to
determine whether Plaintiff's lung cancer was caused by the conduct
of the Asbestos Defendants or RJ Reynolds, or to apportion the
culpability each Defendant may or may not have.

The case is In Re: New York City Asbestos Litigation. Stephen
Gabris, Plaintiff, v. 3M Company, et al., Defendants, Docket No.
190259/2017, Motion Seq. No. 001, (N.Y.)

A copy of the Order dated August 22, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y9dbrewh from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favoring McNeil & NRM Entered
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Catherine C. Eagles of the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina grants McNeil & NRM, Inc.
summary judgment because no reasonable jury could find on the
evidence presented that Mr. Finch's exposure to MNRM's products
caused Mr. Finch's mesothelioma.

Franklin Finch, the plaintiff's late husband, began working at a
Firestone tire factory in Wilson, North Carolina in 1975. He worked
on tire presses there until he retired in 1995. Mr. Finch was
diagnosed with mesothelioma in March 2016 and died on January 25,
2017. Ms. Finch contends that after 1979, defendant McNeil & NRM,
Inc. supplied asbestos-containing platen insulators, gaskets, and
other replacement parts to the Firestone plant and that Mr. Finch's
exposure to asbestos from these MNRM parts caused his mesothelioma.


The Firestone plant in Wilson was built in 1973 and 1974. Another
defendant, McNeil Ohio, supplied over 100 asbestos-containing tire
presses to the plant at that time. MNRM's predecessor came into
existence in 1979. Soon thereafter, it bought certain assets from
McNeil Ohio. MNRM sold replacement parts, spare parts, and services
for the existing McNeil Ohio presses. However, MNRM did not sell
any asbestos-containing tire presses to the plant. MNRM moves for
summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff has insufficient
evidence Mr. Finch was exposed to asbestos from MNRM replacement
parts.

Ms. Finch has evidence that MNRM sold Firestone approximately 100
asbestos-containing platen insulators over a five-year period.
However, the mere presence of asbestos in the platen insulators
that MNRM sold is insufficient to establish that asbestos fibers
were released into the air while Mr. Finch was working on the
presses. Ms. Finch's evidence is that all of the platen insulators
sold by MNRM were made of Johns Manville Transite. MNRM has offered
evidence that Transite was a hard flat plate made from Portland
cement with added asbestos fibers, and coated with waterproofing
materials. Because the asbestos fibers were encapsulated in
concrete and sealed for water/moisture resistance, the "asbestos
fibers would have locked-in, substantially restricting, if not
eliminating" the release of asbestos fibers. Ms. Finch has offered
no evidence to the contrary. In short, MNRM's evidence that any
asbestos was encapsulated is not disputed.

The Court finds Plaintiff has not shown that Mr. Finch was
frequently, regularly, and proximately exposed to asbestos fibers
from asbestos-containing platen insulators that MNRM sold. The
Court determines the presence of such "static asbestos" does not
equate to asbestos exposure sufficient to support an inference that
these platen insulators caused harm to Mr. Finch.

MNRM also sold seven gear reducer units to the tire plant in 1980
and 1981 that contained asbestos in the Stearns brakes that were
part of the units. The Court finds the mere presence of asbestos in
these particular gear reducers, however, is not sufficient to
establish exposure as to Mr. Finch. There is zero evidence that Mr.
Finch worked on or in close proximity to these gear reducers, which
were located in the unloaders behind the press, not in the area of
the press where Mr. Finch worked. Nor is there evidence that
mechanics ever sanded down or used compressed air on the gear
reducer for an unloader, much less that they did so in proximity to
Mr. Finch. All of Ms. Finch's evidence bears on the loaders and
tire presses.

The Court finds no evidence that he worked around the particular
unloaders that contained the seven gear reducers that MNRM
supplied, if Mr. Finch did work regularly in proximity to
unloaders. Thus, even if the required degree of frequency,
regularity, and proximity is lower in a mesothelioma case, the
Court finds no support for the view that North Carolina courts
would allow an inference of causation to be drawn from such a small
possible exposure.

The Court determines MNRM has put forth evidence that Mr. Finch was
not regularly, frequently, or proximately exposed to asbestos from
products sold by MNRM and thus that his mesothelioma could not have
been caused by its negligence in selling these products. Ms. Finch
has not put forward sufficient evidence to create a disputed
question of material fact on exposure and causation. The Court
concludes that MNRM cannot be liable for injuries caused by
asbestos-containing parts that it did not supply, many of the parts
it sold did not contain asbestos, and, for the asbestos-containing
gaskets, gear reducers, and platen insulators MNRM did sell. No
reasonable jury could conclude that Mr. Finch was exposed to these
products with sufficient frequency, regularity, or proximity to
support the inference of causation necessary for liability.

MNRM moves to strike Red Seal's Responses to Plaintiff's Deposition
by Written Questions for violating the Court's scheduling order.
The Court's Amended Scheduling Order required that "all discovery
must be completed by April 2, 2018." Ms. Finch served defendant Red
Seal a Deposition Upon Written Questions on April 4, 2018, two days
after the discovery deadline. Red Seal did not respond until May 4,
2018, some 30 days after the close of discovery and two days after
MNRM submitted its motion for summary judgment. Conducting a
deposition after the discovery deadline contravened the Court's
scheduling order. Ms. Finch did not move for an extension of the
discovery deadline before -- or after -- serving the written
questions on Red Seal, and she has offered no reason for her
violation of the Court's scheduling order. Accordingly, the Court
finds striking this evidence appropriate.

The case is Ann Finch, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate
of Franklin Delenor Finch, Plaintiff, v. BASF Catalysts LLC, et
al., Defendants, No. 1:16-CV-1077, (M.D.N.C.).

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 22, 2018,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yagdqnkf from Leagle.com.

Ann Finch, Individually, and as Executrix of the Estate of Franklin
Delenor Finch, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina G. Stone --
sstone@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar & Branham LLP, Benjamin D. Braly --
bbraly@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar & Branham LLP, Charles W. Branham,
III -- tbranham@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar & Branham LLP, Jessica M.
Dean -- jdean@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar & Branham LLP, Jonathan M.
Holder -- jholder@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar & Branham LLP, Kevin W.
Paul -- kpaul@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar & Branham LLP, Lisa W.
Shirley -- lshirley@dobllp.com -- Omar Dean Branham, LLP & William
Marc Graham , Wallace and Graham, P.A.

Covil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robin A. Seelbach ,
Wall Templeton & Haldrup, P.A. & William W. Silverman --
William.Silverman@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton & Haldrup,
P.A.

McNeil (OHIO) Corporation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy E.
Tomlin -- tracy.tomlin@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante --
travis.bustamante@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP & William Michael Starr --
bill.starr@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough
LLP.

McNeil & NRM, INC., Defendant, represented by Jonathan H. Dunlap --
jdunlap@vwlawfirm.com -- Van Winkle Buck Wall Starnes & Davis,
P.A., Matthew B. Holloway -- mholloway@vwlawfirm.com -- The Van
Winkle Law Firm & Stephen B. Williamson --
swilliamson@vwlawfirm.com -- Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes &
Davis, P.A.

CBS Corporation, (a DE Corp) f/k/a Viacom Inc. (a PA Corp) (sued as
successor-by-merger to CBS Corporation f/k/a Westinghouse Electric
Corporation) and also as successor-in-interest to BF sturtevant,
Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman --
jmtechman@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby Houff.

FMC Corporation, Individually and as successor in interest to
Stearns Brakes, Defendant, represented by Gary L. Beaver --
gbeaver@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, PLLC, Peter A. Santos --
psantos@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, PLLC & Rick C. Shea --
rshea@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

Rexnord Industries, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gary L. Beaver
-- gbeaver@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, PLLC & Peter A. Santos
-- psantos@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, PLLC & Samantha K.
Lloyd -- SLloyd@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, PLLC.

Bridgestone Americas, Inc., Movant, represented by Lori E. Gilmore
-- lori.gilmore@mgclaw.com -- McAngus Goudelock & Courie & Sabrina
G. Stone -- sstone@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar & Branham LLP.

Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Movant, represented by
David Marwill Duke -- David.Duke@youngmoorelaw.com -- Young Moore
And Henderson, P.A. & David G. Williams --
David.Williams@youngmoorelaw.com -- Young Moore & Henderson, P.A.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WRG Workers' Suit Remanded to Mont. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Montana, Great
Falls Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to
Remand the case captioned KOREY L. AARSTAD, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, et al., Defendants. No. CV-17-72-GF-BMM-JTJ.
(D. Mont.).

Plaintiff Korey L. Aarstad, along with 191 other named plaintiffs
sought an order remanding this case to state court on the basis
that the case was improperly removed from Montana state court based
on defendant John Swing's (Mr. Swing) Montana citizenship.

WRG operated the mill until 1990. The Plaintiffs were all workers
of WRG or Zolonite Company. As a result of toxic asbestos present
in the vermiculite ore, thousands of residents of Libby have been
diagnosed with mesothelioma, asbestosis, or other asbestos-related
diseases over the course of several decades.

Standard of Review

A defendant may remove an action from state court to a federal
court if the federal court would have possessed original subject
matter jurisdiction over the matter. A federal court possesses
original jurisdiction if the parties are completely diverse and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Mass Action

A mass action is a class action which can be removed to federal
court if it meets the following elements: (1) numerosity: the
action must involve the monetary claims of 100 plaintiffs or more;
(2) amount in controversy: $5,000,000 or more in the aggregate
excluding interests and costs (3) diversity: minimal diversity must
be met, and; (4) commonality: plaintiffs' claims involve common
questions of law and fact.

Judge Johnston determined that this action constitutes a mass
action. It is undisputed that this action sets out monetary claims
of 100 or more plaintiffs and that the amount in controversy
exceeds five million dollars exclusive of costs and interest. Judge
Johnston also found that Plaintiffs' claims all involve common
questions of law or fact. In the Complaint, every single Plaintiff
alleges a negligence claim and a strict liability claim against
BNSF, which shows a common question of law.

Local Controversy Exception

The Local Controversy Exception states that if two-thirds of the
plaintiffs are citizens of the State in which the action was filed,
the district court shall decline jurisdiction if: (1) at least one
defendant from whom significant relief is sought and whose alleged
conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the
plaintiffs is a citizen of the State in which the action was
originally filed, and the alleged conduct of that one defendant
also occurred in the State, or (2) the primary defendants are
citizens in the State in which the action was originally filed.  

Two-thirds requirement

The Plaintiffs must show that at least two-thirds of the members of
the class are citizens of the State in which the action was
originally filed. The Court may look to extrinsic evidence to
determine a party's citizenship. Judge Johnston found that
Plaintiffs met their burden of proving citizenship from the
affidavit provided by Plaintiffs that alleged that over two-thirds
of the class members are Montana citizens.  

Local Controversy

The Plaintiffs must demonstrate that at least one of the
defendants, who is a citizen of Montana, is a defendant: (1) from
whom significant relief is sought and (2) whose alleged conduct in
Montana forms a significant basis for the claims asserted. Judge
Johnston found, and it was not contested, that Mr. Swing is a
Montana citizen for the purposes of the analysis.  

Judge Johnston determined that the Court is not permitted to assume
that Mr. Swing is indigent and cannot satisfy Plaintiffs' claim of
damages. Accordingly, Judge Johnston determined that Plaintiffs had
met their burden to show that they are seeking significant relief
from Mr. Swing.

Judge Johnston acknowledged that the Complaint set forth
allegations that distinguish Mr. Swing's individual wrongful acts
from those of BNSF. Judge Johnston looked to the Complaint which
alleges that Mr. Swing personally knew of the danger of asbestos
and personally failed to warn the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, based on
the allegations set forth in the Complaint, Judge Johnston found
that Plaintiffs met their burden to show that their claims against
Mr. Swing form a significant basis for the claims.  

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand is granted and this
case is to be remanded to the Montana 8th Judicial Court, Cascade
County.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 15, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ya8jdwbu from Leagle.com.

Korey L. Aarstad, et al., Scott A. Albert, Mark D. Anderson, David
B. Anderson, Albert C. Anderson, Charles H. Ashley, Jr., John E.
Bache, Cecil F. Bache, P.R. Glenda Larson, Linda J. Backen, Daniel
P. Backen, Randall W. Baeth, Richard D. Barnett, Gerald L. Bass,
Douglas K. Bibb, Donna M. Black, Jimmy R. Blixt, Shelley A.
Boursaw, Rhonda R. Braaten, Glenn L. Bredeson, Darlene K. Brese,
P.R. Jack Brese, Michael E. Brooks, Daniel W. Brossman, Hazel M.
Brossman, Douglas L. Brown, Kirk C. Brus, Robbin R. Butkus, James
E. Butler, Larry L. Calloway, Joseph G. Camp, Hermine M. Campbell,
P.R. Joseph Campbell, James T. Carabin, Sr., John E. Carlock, Betsy
E. Carpenter, Gordon V. Carr, Cheri L. Carr, Violet M. Carroll,
Keith Cassel, David L. Chapel, Wendy D. Christensen, Brian L.
Coldiron, Robert A. Coleman, Katherine M. Craigmile, Stuart G.
Crismore, Kurt C. Croucher, Cymon A. Curtiss, Robert L. Day, Roxann
L. Dentlinger, David L. Doney, Linda L. Dorrington, Todd A. Dotson,
Kenneth L Drake, Sheri A Edwards, Robert C Engebretson, Kelly W
Evans, Rhonda S Farnes, Debra J Ferch, Ronald A Foote, Alton O
Fore, Ralph E Fox, Anita F Fund, PR - Alvin Funk, Dale L Ginger,
Kristine A Godsey, Joseph A Gostnell, Rick L Gullingsrud, Wayne W
Hartmann, Dianna L Haywood, Joel B Hefty, Jeanette H Hoffman, Cheri
L Javorsky, Robert J Javorsky, Ramona J Jellesed, Jimmy D Johnson,
Melody L Johnson, Orville D Johnson, PR - Brenda Neuman Brunscher,
Darald E Kelley, Sandra S Kenelty, David A Kingery, Benjamin F
Klin, Lynn M Koskela, Leonard H Koskela, Bradley L LaBelle, Lee S
Lampton, Linda L Lampton, Sidney L Leir, David L Leim, Deborah K
Loomis, Steven R Madison, Terry D Magone, Sandra J Maile, Linda A
Masterson, David D McDonald, Roberta J McNulty, Margaret A
Molinelli, Norma T Munro, Sharon L Munson, Sandra D Murch, Shayne A
Nelson, Kevin R Neubauer, Shirley M Nixon, Scott N Noble, Paulette
D Nosler, Patrick H O'Brien, Drilda J O'Brien, Mark D Olsen, Wade L
Olson, John M O'Neill, Carl L Orsborn, Lyndeen J Osborne, Michael J
Parker, Betty L Pennock, PR - Alfred Pennock, Greg W Phillips, Dale
B Phillips, Wayne B Posselt, James M Powers, Sr., A. Tony Price,
Dennis G Quinn, Daniel K Quinn, Allan V Randall, Alvin G Randall,
Clayton R Rayson, Pat N Rayson, Steven J Richard, Roberts Joellen,
Todd E Robins, Gerald D Robins, June J Roose, Valerie D Root,
Claire C Rose, William R Rowberry, PR - Clarise Rowberry, Peggy S
Ruff, Patrick H Ryan, Rebecca J Saller, Salvador F Saracino, Marvin
C Sather, Kathleen E Scharen, Dietmar G Schauss, Harold L Schiele,
Jeffrey M Shelton, Leonard K Shoemaker, Betty A Sikes, David W
Skranak, Florence E Slater, Donald Ray Smith, PR - Calvin Smith,
Brenda S Stamper, Terry L Steiger, PR Tami M. Steiger, Timber K
Stevens, Ellis D Stewart, Glenn N Stubbs, Melvin G. Sundt, Thomas V
Swearingen, Hugh E Swimley, Lee Ann Switzer, Daniel W Torgison,
Betty R Van Alstine, G. Michael Van Alstine, Betty F Vinion, Julie
A Volkenand, Lana M Walen, Debbra K Welcome, Peggy A Kelley, Steven
R Magone, Greg McNulty, Rebecca N Messick, Jessie M Parker, Steven
J Riddle, Mary A Stineback, Thomas D. Thompson, George L West, Sue
C West, Edwin B Weston, PR Melba Weston, Sara A Whitehouse, Robert
D Wilburn, Larry J Wiley, David M Williams, Clarence J Winn, Harold
M Wise, Judy M Woller, Patrick J Youso, David J Zwang, Debra K
Chamberlain, Michael D Chapman, Michael J Clairmont, Delbert L
Collins, Wesley M Decker, Mark D Dodge, Suzanne Dodge, Clarence
Hunter, Sammy L Knowles, Shirley Y Koskela, Carol A Lockwood &
Grover W Lockwood, Plaintiffs, represented by Allan M. McGarvey ,
McGARVEY HEBERLING SULLIVAN & McGARVEY, John F. Lacey , McGARVEY
HEBERLING SULLIVAN & McGARVEY, P.C., Roger M. Sullivan , McGARVEY
HEBERLING SULLIVAN & McGARVEY, Dustin A. Leftridge , McGARVEY
HEBERLING SULLIVAN & McGARVEY, P.C. &Ethan A. Welder , McGARVEY
HEBERLING SULLIVAN & McGARVEY, P.C. 345 1st Ave E, Kalispell, MT
59901

Ruth A. Choate, Plaintiff, represented by Allan M. McGarvey ,
McGARVEY HEBERLING SULLIVAN & McGARVEY, Dustin A. Leftridge ,
McGARVEY HEBERLING SULLIVAN & McGARVEY, P.C., Ethan A. Welder ,
McGARVEY HEBERLING SULLIVAN & McGARVEY, P.C. &John F. Lacey ,
McGARVEY HEBERLING SULLIVAN & McGARVEY, P.C.

BNSF Railway Company, a Delaware corporation & John Swing,
Defendants, represented by Anthony Michael Nicastro --
nicastro@knightnicastro.com -- KNIGHT NICASTRO, LLC, Chad M. Knight
-- knight@knightnicastro.com -- KNIGHT NICASTRO, LLC, Kathryn T.
Alsobrook , KNIGHT NICASTRO, LLC, pro hac vice, Nadia A. Patrick --
npatrick@knightnicastro.com -- KNIGHT NICASTRO, LLC & Steven T.
Williams -- williams@knightnicastro.com -- KNIGHT NICASTRO, LLC.

Maryland Casualty Company, a Maryland Corporation & Robinson
Insulation Company, a Montana Corporation for profit, Defendants,
represented by Allan M. McGarvey , McGARVEY HEBERLING SULLIVAN &
McGARVEY, Dustin A. Leftridge , McGARVEY HEBERLING SULLIVAN &
McGARVEY, P.C., Ethan A. Welder , McGARVEY HEBERLING SULLIVAN &
McGARVEY, P.C.,John F. Lacey , McGARVEY HEBERLING SULLIVAN &
McGARVEY, P.C. & Roger M. Sullivan , McGARVEY HEBERLING SULLIVAN &
McGARVEY.



                            *********

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 ***