CAR_Public/181106.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, November 6, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 222

                            Headlines

10TH AVENUE: Pazaran Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
7-ELEVEN INC: Class Certified in Munoz Suit over Background Checks
ADIENT PLC: Barreto Hits Share Price Drop
ALEXION PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Solaris-Related Suit Still Pending
ALL HEART HOMECARE: Khakimova Seeks Unpaid Wages

ANTHEM INC: Motion to Quash Filed in Savett Suit
ANTHEM: Faces Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit
APPLE & EVE: Reaves Seeks to Stop False Marketing of Switch Drink
AT&S AMERICAS: Piper Alleges Gender Bias on Employee Pay
AVIVA LONDON: Settlement of Griffiths Suit Wins Court Approval

BAYCARE HEALTH: Final Approval of $85,000 Settlement Sought
BIRD RIDES: Faces Class Action in California Over Scooters
BOSE CORP: Wireless Headphone Ads Misleading, Calloway et al. Say
CALISTA TOOLS: Slade Suit Asserts ADA Violation
CAPITAL EXPRESS: Gassy Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

CHEF BLYTHE'S: Morgan Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
CHINELUS CORP: Accused by Pacheco of Not Paying Minimum, OT Wages
COLUMBIA GAS: Faces Class Action Over Merrimack Valley Explosion
COMPLYRIGHT INC: Christiansen Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
CONN APPLIANCES: Certification of Nationwide Classes Sought

DAKOTA OF ROCKY: Initial Certification of Collective Action Sought
DEBT RECOVERY: Joyce Disputes Debt Collection Practices
DGD TRANSPORT: Vilches Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
DOLLAR TREE: Approval of Revised Class Settlement Sought
DUNHILL 100 LLC: Medina Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages

ELNIK SYSTEMS: Perez et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
ESSENDANT INC: Pietras Balks at Merger Deal with Staples, Inc.
F & M CAFETERIA: Refused to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Lopez Claims
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Location Tracking
FALLS MUSIC: November Trial Scheduled for Stamped Class Action

FEDERATED LAW: James Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
FIFTH THIRD: Magee Sues Over Hidden Fees on ATM Withdrawals
GRAIN PROCESSING: Settlement Claims Process Set to Start
GRAY TELEVISION: Mowrer Sues Over for Inflated Prices for TV Ads
GUIDANCE CORP: SOGB Sues over Refusal to Pay Rent

HAIN CELESTIAL: Manley Calls Alba Botanica Sunscreen Ad Deceptive
HERSHEY CO: Clark Sues Over Product Mislabeling
HUFF DISTRIBUTING: Vincent Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Route Drivers
INFINITY ASSURANCE: Plantation Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
J.F. MEAT: Conretras Files Labor Suit in New York

JOHN C. HEATH: Pena Sues over Unauthorized Text Messages
JORDAN SCHOOL: Class Certified in Girls' High School Football Case
JPAY INC: Does Not Deliver 30-Min. Video Service, Salim Says
K12 INC: Souders Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
KB HOME: Bayberry Lakes et al. Seek to Certify Homeowners Class

KERYX BIOPHARMA: Rosenblatt Balks at Merger Deal with Akebia
KRAFT HEINZ: Tarzian Files Suit Over Fraud
LA GRINGA FOOD: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Perez Says
LAS VEGAS HOTEL: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations
LINCOLN AUTO: Mintz Attorney Discusses TCPA Class Action Ruling

LIVE NATION: Gaetano Files Suit Over Overpriced Tickets
MATIZ LATIN CUISINE: Cardoso Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
MAYFIELD CARE: Hughes Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers
MAZUMA FEDERAL: Settlement of Bowens Class Suit Wins Court Okay
MICROSOFT CORP: Antitrust Suits Ongoing in Canada

MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Suit Remains Dormant
MICROSOFT CORP: Interlocutory Appeal Okayed in Moussouris Case
MID-AMERICA: Vega Sues over Use of Biometric identifiers
MONSANTO COMPANY: Finneman Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO: Must Face Class Actions Over Herbicide

MOVEMENT MORTGAGE: Fails to Pay Compensation, Morua Says
NEW 32ND: Does Not Pay Proper Wages, Montero Suit Says
NICHICON: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of $21.5MM Settlement
NIKODEMO OPERATING: Eduoard Sues Over Lost, Unpaid Wages
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Fuel Surcharges-Related Suit

NY SWEET SPOT: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Huziankou Says
PARKLAND HEALTH: Baldridge Sues Over Unpaid Hospital Bills
PEKIN INSURANCE: Sued over Unsolicited Faxed Advertisements
PGNV LLC: Ramos Seeks Minimum Wage and Overtime under FLSA
PHILIP MORRIS: Gilchrist Files Securities Class Action

PNC FINANCIAL: Rossini FCRA Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Continues to Class Suits in Minnesota
PRIVATUS CARE: Markova Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
RAD MEDICAL: Accused by Mendez of Not Paying Minimum and OT Wages
RAWLINGS SPORTING: Sotelo Files Fraud Class Action

RED ROBIN: Court Certifies Class & Subclasses in Vigueras Suit
RENTGROW INC: Faces McIntyre Suit Alleging FCRA Violations
RICHLINE GROUP: Faces Kiler ADA Class Action
RITZ CARLTON: Baltodano Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
ROGERS PAVEMENT: Accused by Pittman Suit of Not Paying Overtime

RON DESANTIS: Stephenson Sues over Political Campaign Text Ads
SCHWAB INVESTMENTS: Vedder Price Discusses Class Action Ruling
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Kasich Sues Over Defective EZ Seeds
SILVERWARE POS: Clark Sues over Use of Biometric identifiers
SIRIUS XM: Bid For Class Certification in Buchanan Suit Underway

SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Biometric Information-Related Suit
SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Credit Card Info
SOLUDOS LLC: Violates Disabilities Act, Figueroa Suit Says
STARKIST: 9th Cir. Affirms Tuna Under-filling Settlement Approval
STUBBS & WOOTTON: Figueroa Suit Asserts ADA Breach

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Sauer Sues Over Flaw in Turbo Charged Engines
SUNDANCE INC: Jackson Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers
TAPESTRY INC: Ornelas Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California
TD AMERITRADE: Kim Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
TECHNOLOGY INSTALL: O'Brien Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA

TOO FACED: Underpays Makeup Artists, Provencio Claims
TRI STATE ADJUSTMENTS: Court Shelves Loveland Case
TRl CITY FOODS: Young Sues over Use of Biometric Information
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Carlton Fields Discusses 9th Cir. Rulings
ULTIMATE FITNESS: Huff Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Tyndall Suits Pile Up Despite Settlement
US STEEL: Faces Class Action Over Carnegie Way Campaign
USA MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Araujo Says
VAN TASSEL-PROCTOR: Jones Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
VENTURE 475 LLC: Dillon Seeks to Stop Illegal Telemarketing Calls

VICTIM SERVICES: Must Face Claims Over Use of Gov't Letterheads
WALKER CONSTRUCTION: Sullivan Suit Asserts ADA Violation
YOUR BEAUTIFUL: Lucero Suit Asserts FLSA & NYLL Violation
YUMMY HOUSE: Lopez Seeks Overtime Pay for Hours Worked Over 40
[*] Torkin Manes Attorney Discusses Historical Sexual Abuses Cases


                            *********

10TH AVENUE: Pazaran Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
FELIX PAZARAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. 10TH AVENUE GROUP, INC. d/b/a 44 & X - HELLS KITCHEN RESTAURANT,
SCOTT HART, and BRUCE HOROWYTZ, Case No. 1:18-cv-09335 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 12, 2018), alleges that, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the
Defendants: (a) unpaid overtime compensation, (b) liquidated
damages, (c) prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and (d)
attorneys' fees and costs.

44 & X is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws
of the state of New York with a principal place of business located
in New York City.  The Individual Defendants are joint owners,
officers, members, directors, managing agents, and proprietors of
44 & X.

The Defendants' primary business was and is the sale of food and
drinks for consumption.  44 & X constitutes a "restaurant" within
the meaning of 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
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
                  pcooper@jcpclaw.com


7-ELEVEN INC: Class Certified in Munoz Suit over Background Checks
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Edward Munoz, the Plaintiff,
vs. 7-ELEVEN, INC., the Defendants, Case 2:18-cv-03893-RGK-AGR
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gary Klausner entered an order on Oct.
18, 2018, granting Plaintiff's motion to certify class and
subclass:

   Disclosure Class:

   "all persons in the United States who (1) from a date prior to
the filling of the initial complaint in this action to the date
notice is sent to the Disclosure Class; (2) applied for employment
with Defendant; (3) about whom Defendant procured a consumer
report; and (4) who were provided the same form Fair Credit
Reporting Act disclosure and authorization as the disclosure and
and authorization form from that Defendant provided to Plaintiff";
and

   California Subclass:

   "all members of the Disclosure Class who reside in
California."[CC]


ADIENT PLC: Barreto Hits Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------
Julio Barreto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Adient PLC, R. Bruce McDonald, Jeffrey M.
Stafeil, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-09116 (S.D. N.Y., October 4,
2018), alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Adient is an Irish corporation that designs, engineers and
manufactures automotive seating. Nearly half of its annual revenues
derive from the sale of metal components used in seat frames
produced by its seat structures and mechanisms.

On May 3, 2018, Defendants announced they recorded a $299 million
impairment charge related to its seat structures and mechanisms
business and admitted that it was facing significant operational
and financial headwinds and a planned margin expansion was no
longer achievable. This news drove the price of Adient shares down
$6.14 per share, or about 10%, to close at $55.84 that day. On June
11, 2018, Adient announced the sudden and immediate resignation of
CEO McDonald and slashed its earnings guidance. This news drove the
price of Adient shares down $8.88 per share, or about 15.6%, to
close at $48.10 that day.

Barreto purchased Adient common stock and suffered damages thereby.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173
      Email: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
             DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
      Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
      Danielle Smith, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
      Berkeley, CA 94710
      Telephone: (510) 725-3000
      Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
      Email: mikes@hbsslaw.com
             reed@hbsslaw.com
             danielles@hbsslaw.com


ALEXION PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Solaris-Related Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
defendants' motion to dismiss the solaris-related class action
complaint remains pending.

On December 29, 2016, a shareholder filed a putative class action
against the Company and certain former employees in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that
defendants made misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris. On
April 12, 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On July 14,
2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended putative class action
complaint against the Company and seven current or former
employees.

The complaint alleges that defendants made misrepresentations and
omissions about Soliris, including alleged misrepresentations
regarding sales practices, management changes, and related
investigations, between January 30, 2014 and May 26, 2017, and that
the Company's stock price dropped upon the purported disclosure of
the misrepresentations. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on September 12, 2017. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to
defendants' motion to dismiss on November 13, 2017, and defendants'
filed a reply brief in further support of their motion on December
28, 2017.  Defendants' motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and
pending before the court.

Alexion Pharmaceuticals said, "Given the early stages of this
litigation, an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss
cannot be made at this time."

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company,
develops and commercializes various therapeutic products. The
company was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


ALL HEART HOMECARE: Khakimova Seeks Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------
FERUZA KHAKIMOVA, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by ALL HEART HOMECARE AGENCY,
INC., along with other entities affiliated or controlled by ALL
HEART COMPLAINT HOMECARE AGENCY, INC., the Plaintiffs, vs. ALL
HEART HOMECARE AGENCY, INC., and/or any other related entities, the
Defendants, Case No. 159788/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 23, 2018),
seek to recover wages and benefits which Plaintiffs were
statutorily and contractually entitled to receive pursuant to New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, beginning in October 2012 and, on
information and belief, continuing through the present, the
Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of ten hours per day,
without providing the proper hourly compensation for all hours
worked, including, overtime compensation for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in any given week, "spread of hours"
compensation.

While employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff provided services
to homebound, disabled and/or ailing clients, including but not
limited to personal care services, such as assistance with
dressing, bathing and personal grooming, cooking, serving food,
toileting, lifting and moving immobile clients, cleaning, such as
mopping, vacuuming, cleaning bathrooms, doing laundry, taking out
garbage, making transportation arrangements, and escorting clients
to appointments. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs their
applicable overtime rate for all the time spent in mandatory
training sessions when Plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours that
week, the lawsuit says.

Defendant is a home health agency.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
          Joel L. Goldenberg, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com


ANTHEM INC: Motion to Quash Filed in Savett Suit
------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case of ADAM SAVETT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANTHEM,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02317-MMA-KSC (S.D. Cal., Oct. 5,
2018) has filed a notice of motion for an order quashing or
limiting a subpoena that was issued to non-party AT&T on August 3,
2018, by Defendant Anthem, Inc. in the out-of-district matter
captioned Savett v. Anthem, Inc., 1:18-cv-0274 (N.D. Ohio).

The case is assigned to Judge Michael M. Anello and referred to
Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford.

Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health
benefits company in the United States. The company was formerly
known as WellPoint, Inc. and changed its name to Anthem, Inc. in
December 2014. Anthem, Inc. was founded in 1944 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANTHEM: Faces Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that an Anthem shareholder claims
in Indiana court that the company concealed the risks of its failed
merger with Cigna, causing Anthem to lose millions of dollars in
deal-related and litigation costs after the acquisition was blocked
by regulators and courts.

A copy of the Complaint is available at https://is.gd/4b8uQ2


APPLE & EVE: Reaves Seeks to Stop False Marketing of Switch Drink
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK REAVES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. APPLE & EVE, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-05728 (E.D.N.Y., October 12,
2018), is a consumer protection action seeking redress for, and a
stop to, the Defendant's alleged unfair and deceptive practice of
advertising and marketing its Switch Sparkling beverages as
healthy, low-calorie drinks having "No Preservatives" and "No Sugar
Added."

The Defendant's "No Preservatives" representations are deceptive
because the beverages contain the preservatives citric acid and/or
ascorbic acid, Mr. Reaves argues.  He asserts that the "No
Preservatives" labeling deceives consumers into believing that they
are receiving healthier preservative-free beverages even though
these products cannot live up to these claims.  He adds that the
beverages' "No Sugar Added" representations are misleading because
they lead consumers to believe that they are receiving a
low-calorie product when they are not.

Apple & Eve is organized under the laws of Delaware with its
principal place of business located in Port Washington, New York.
The Company develops, markets Products throughout the United
States.  The Products are available at numerous retail and online
outlets, as well as in schools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AT&S AMERICAS: Piper Alleges Gender Bias on Employee Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE PIPER, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. AT&S AMERICAS, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2018CH12799 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Oct.,
12, 2018), alleges employment discrimination.  According to the
complaint, Piper was employed by Defendant AT&S at all relevant
times until the Defendant terminated her employment in April 2017.
Paying similarly situated younger employees or male employees more
than employees aged 40 years or older is discriminatory as unequal
pay under the Illinois Human Rights Act. Piper at all relevant
times was over the age of 40 years old. During Piper's tenure with
AT&S she was paid substantially less than her similarly situated
younger peers and male peers. AT&S paid Piper less than at least
her male peers on the basis of her gender and age in violation of
the Illinois Human Rights Act, the lawsuit says.

AT&S Americas LLC distributes and markets printed circuit
boards.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          John M. Liston, Esq.
          HR LAW COUNSEL
          50 South Main Street, Suite 200
          Naperville, IL 60540
          Telephone: (847) 528-5024
          E-mail: john@hrlawcounsel.com


AVIVA LONDON: Settlement of Griffiths Suit Wins Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned JOHN W. GRIFFITHS, the
Plaintiff, vs. AVIVA LONDON ASSIGNMENT CORPORATION, et al., the
Defendants, Case 1:15-cv-13022-NMG (D. Mass., Oct., 23, 2018), the
Court entered an order on Oct. 23, 2018, granting:

   1. final approval to its appointment of Marcus & Auerbach LLC
and Krasnoo, Klehm & Falkner LLP as Class Counsel and its
designation and appointment of Jerome M. Marcus and Jonathan
Auerbach (Marcus & Auerbach LLC) as lead counsel for the Settlement
Class, and its appointment of John W. Griffiths as Settlement Class
Representative; and

   2. certification of Settlement Class:

      "all beneficiaries of structured settlement annuities
assigned to Athene London Assignment Corporation (formerly known as
Aviva London Assignment Corporation and as CGNU London Annuity
Service Corp.), which includes all annuities covered by the Capital
Maintenance Agreement between CGU International Insurance plc and
CGNU London Annuity Service Corp., dated
February 1, 2002, where such annuities remained in force as of
October 2, 2013".

Excluded from the proposed class are the officers and directors of
any defendant and members of their immediate families and any
entity in which any defendant has a controlling interest, the legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any
such excluded party, the judicial officer(s) to whom this action is
assigned, and the members of their immediate families. Also
excluded from the Settlement Class are those persons identified,
who submitted timely and valid requests for exclusion from the
Settlement Class. Such persons shall not receive any monetary
benefits of the Settlement Agreements and shall not be bound by
this Final Judgment.

The Settlement Administrator shall make a distribution to each
Class Member who has not served an Exclusion Request in the amount
of that Class Member's Individual Recovery.

Distribution of Funds:

   (a) Any money remaining from the Settlement Amount and any
Contingent Settlement Payment, including any accrued interest
thereon, after the payments for administration costs, taxes,
service award, attorney's fees and expenses are made, shall be
distributed as follows to Class Members who have not excluded
themselves from the Settlement Class, provided that the payment to
each such class member shall be equal to or greater than $10.00.

     --  The "Annuity Proportion" shall be calculated for each
annuity by dividing the premium paid for each annuity by the total
premium paid for all annuities assigned to Athene London Assignment
Corporation where such annuities remained in force as of October 2,
2013.

     --  The "Annuity Recovery" shall be calculated for each
annuity by multiplying the Annuity Proportion by the Settlement
Amount and any Contingent Settlement Payment.

     --  The "Individual Recovery" shall be calculated for each
beneficiary of each annuity by dividing the Annuity Recovery by the
number of beneficiaries of that annuity remaining in the Settlement
Class.[CC]


BAYCARE HEALTH: Final Approval of $85,000 Settlement Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
ELAYNE FIGUEROA, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BAYCARE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.,
the Defendant, Case 8:17-cv-01780-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla., Oct. 18,
2018), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. granting final approval of parties' Settlement;

   2. dismissing Plaintiff's and the Settlement Classes' claims
against Defendants with prejudice; and

   3. granting Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for attorneys' fees and
costs.

According to the complaint, the settlement provides for payments to
be made to the approximately 2,009 class members. Defendant will
create a non-reversionary common fund for Class Members consisting
of $85,000. The Class Members will not be required to take any
action to receive a portion of the funds, making it a "claims paid"
settlement. Members of the class will receive a pro rata gross
amount of the settlement fund totaling approximately $42.30. This
gross amount is consistent with FCRA class action settlements that
have been approved by other federal courts. If the requested
amounts are granted for attorneys' fees, administrative expenses,
and a Class Representative Service award, the parties anticipate
that each class member will receive a net payment of approximately
$20.41.

If any money remains in the fund after these distributions and
after Class Members have had 60 days to cash their settlement
checks, left over funds shall be paid as a cy pres donation to
BayCare Emergency Assistance Program, Inc., a non-profit charity.
The proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, and should be
granted final approval by the Court, the lawsuit says.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  twells@wfclaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esq.
          Nathan J. Paulich, Esq.
          THOMPSON, SIZEMORE, GONZALEZ & HEARING, P.A.
          201 North Franklin Street, Suite 1600
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 273-0050
          Facsimile: (813) 273-0072
          E-mail: tgonzalez@tsghlaw.com

BIRD RIDES: Faces Class Action in California Over Scooters
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
people with visual or mobility impairment brought a federal class
action accusing Bird Rides, Neutron Holdings, Los Angeles, Santa
Monica and Beverly Hills of public nuisance, unjust enrichment and
ADA violations by allowing motorized scooters on sidewalks and
crosswalks.

A copy of the Complaint is available at https://is.gd/w1wE5U


BOSE CORP: Wireless Headphone Ads Misleading, Calloway et al. Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA CALLOWAY, DALE DEAN, ROSE FARELLA, JAYME HESTER, ANGELITA
PIERRE-NOEL, and DWAYNE STOWE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. BOSE CORPORATION,
the Defendant, Case 1:18-cv-12207 (D. Mass., Oct. 23, 2018),
challenges the actions of Bose Corporation in the marketing and
sale of Bose SoundSport, SoundSport Free, and SoundSport Pulse
wireless headphones.

According to the complaint, Bose markets the Headphones as "sports
headphones," and represents on its website, marketing materials,
and product packaging that the Headphones are sweat-, weather-, and
water-resistant. Bose uses images of sweat-drenched athletes
wearing the Headphones while exercising in its promotional
materials. Indeed, Bose's website features the following tagline:
"Sweating it out in the gym or running through the rain, these are
sport earphones built to keep you going every step of the way."
Bose further represents on its website, marketing materials, and
product packaging that the Headphones are rechargeable and offer
five or six hours of wireless listening on a single charge. In
reality, the Headphones are not sweat-, weather-, or
water-resistant and do not function as advertised when exposed to
sweat, moisture, or water. And the Headphones' batteries do not
last five or six hours on a single charge. This is because the
Headphones contain one or more defects that cause the battery life
to degrade and diminish and eventually stop retaining a charge
after normal usage, a process that accelerates when the Headphones
are exposed to sweat or moisture. As a result of the defect(s), the
Headphones regularly fail to hold a reasonable charge.

The Plaintiffs are among the tens of thousands of consumers
nationwide whose expensive Headphones (generally sold for $150 to
$250) experience rapidly diminishing battery life and eventual
failure to retain a charge after using the Headphones. The
Plaintiffs further allege that the Headphones fail to retain an
adequate charge in part due to the Headphones’ failure to resist
sweat, weather, and water. Despite receiving countless complaints
from consumers, Defendant refuses to acknowledge or attempt to fix
the defects. Instead, when consumers return the defective
Headphones under Bose's warranty, Bose sends replacement Headphones
that contain the exact same defects, leaving consumers caught in a
cycle of use, malfunction, and replacement. Once the standard
one-year warranty period expires, consumers are often left with
only a broken pair of Headphones. Reasonable consumers like
Plaintiffs expect that high-end rechargeable Bluetooth headphones
that cost between $150 and $250 will continue to function after
minimal use, and they would not have purchased the Headphones or
would have paid less had they known that Defendant's battery life,
rechargeability, and sweat-, weather-, and water-resistant
representations were false, and that the Headphones contain one or
more defects that cause their batteries to rapidly fail. As a
result of Bose's actions and omissions, Plaintiffs and the proposed
class have suffered damages. Wireless rechargeable headphones that
are unable to retain a charge for a reasonable amount of time are
essentially worthless. Had Plaintiffs and the members of the class
known that Defendant’s representations were false and that the
Headphones contained the defect(s), they would not have bought them
or would otherwise have paid less for them. At a minimum, the
defective Headphones certainly are worth substantially less than
what Plaintiffs and members of the class paid to purchase them, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Sean K. Collins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SEAN K. COLLINS
          184 High Street, Suite 503
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 320-8485
          Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
          E-mail: Sean@Neinsurancelaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Todd Naylor, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
          One West 4th Street, 18th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45249
          Telephone: (513) 345-8291
          Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
          E-mail: tnaylor@gs-legal.com
          jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

               - and -

          Justin C. Walker, Esq.
          FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          4270 Ivy Pointe Boulevard, Suite 225
          Cincinnati, OH 45245
          Telephone: (513) 943-6660
          Facsimile: (513) 943-6669
          E-mail: justin@finneylawfirm.com

               - and -

          W.B. Markovits, Esq.
          Paul M. DeMarco, Esq.
          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 665-0200
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com
                  pdemarco@msdlegal.com
                  tcoates@msdlegal.com


CALISTA TOOLS: Slade Suit Asserts ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
Calista Tools, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Linda Slade
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. Calista Tools, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv- 1:18-cv-09855 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2018).

Calista's extensive line consists of professional hair products -
shampoos, conditioners, styling products, finishing sprays, and hot
tools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


CAPITAL EXPRESS: Gassy Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES GASSY, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CAPITAL EXPRESS LINES, a California
Corporation; SAMRA GURDIP, a natural person, and DOES 1-20, the
Defendants, Case No. RG18922919 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 1, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a former driver at
Defendants' trucking facility, and provided services as employees
and/or agents of Defendant at said facilities. The Plaintiff was
employed by the Defendant from April 2015 to March 2018.

Additionally, the Plaintiff, while still under the control of the
employer, would not be driving when loading/unloading of the truck,
when the truck is being worked on for either repairs or
maintenance, inspections of the truck, refueling of the truck, and
if there are any truck malfunctions. The Plaintiff would not be
compensated for the previously mentioned activities, the lawsuit
says.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Mark E. Burton Jr., Esq.
          Elvin Minh Huy Vu, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA
          Telephone: (415) 568 2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568 2556
          E-mail: mburton@audctlaw.com
                  evu@audetlaw.com


CHEF BLYTHE'S: Morgan Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------
Lori Morgan, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the Plaintiffs, vs. Chef
Blythe's Southern Bistro, Inc. and Willard Bridges, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:18-cv-02818-M (N.D. Tex., Oct. 23, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in operating
a operate a restaurant. As part of the payment scheme that
Defendants used to pay Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendants paid
Plaintiff and Class Members a subminimum wage and purported to
utilize the tip credit against the payment of the full minimum
wage.

The use of the tip credit results in huge savings to Defendants
because Defendants pay Plaintiff and Class Members less than
minimum wage in direct wages per hour -- prior to accounting for
the receipt of tips that Plaintiff and Class Members were paid by
customers, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, Texas 76102
          Telephone: 817 479-9229
          Facsimile: 817 887-1878
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
                  pamela@herrmannlaw.com

CHINELUS CORP: Accused by Pacheco of Not Paying Minimum, OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMIRO PACHECO and KENYA B. CASTILLO ALVARENGA, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. CHINELUS CORP. (D/B/A
CHINELOS MEXICAN DELI GROCERY), CHINELOS II CORP. (D/B/A CHINELOS
II), LUCERO RODRIGUEZ, GRACIELA VELEZ, and ALMA FELICES, Case No.
1:18-cv-09372 (S.D.N.Y., October 12, 2018), alleges that the
Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that they worked.

Chinelus Corp., doing business as Chinelos Mexican Deli Grocery, is
a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
state of New York and maintains its principal place of business in
Bronx, New York.

Chinelos II Corp., doing business as Chinelos II, is a domestic
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
New York and maintains its principal place of business in New York
City.  The Individual Defendants serve or served as owners,
managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant Corporations.

The Defendants own, operate, or control Mexican restaurants/delis,
located at 695 East 187th Street, in Bronx, New York, under the
name "Chinelos Mexican Deli Grocery" and at 530 West 136th St., in
New York City under the name "Chinelos II."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


COLUMBIA GAS: Faces Class Action Over Merrimack Valley Explosion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Williams, writing for MASSLIVE, reports that another
lawsuit has been filed against Columbia Gas of Massachusetts on
behalf of the victims of the Merrimack Valley explosions.

Attorney Michael Burg of the Denver-based law firm Burg, Simpson,
Eldredge, Hersh & Jardine, filed a complaint in Suffolk Superior
Court on Oct. 22 on behalf of residents of Andover and Lawrence
whom were directly impacted by the explosions.

In the suit, Burg accuses Columbia of operating with a "comprised"
distribution method, relying on cast iron piping installed as far
back as the mid-1800s which is "highly susceptible to cracking and
joint separation.

"The Columbia Gas distribution system is comprised, to a large
degree, of antiquated materials highly susceptible to corrosion and
leaking, such as cast iron, wrought iron, and non-cathodically
protected steel," the lawsuit states. "Despite the known risks
associated with cast and wrought iron piping, these materials
continue to comprise a large portion of the Columbia Gas
distribution system."

Cast iron and wrought iron mains are employed in just over 471
miles of Columbia Gas' distribution system, as of the end of 2017.


Crews were working to replace a cast iron main with a new plastic
distribution main line on the day of the explosions.

Explosions in Lawrence, Andover and North Andover caused upwards of
70 fires, injured more than two dozen people and resulted in the
death of an 18-year-old from Lawrence, who died after a chimney
fell on his vehicle.

Preliminary investigative reports show over-pressurized gas lines
as the believed cause of the disaster, that the work crews "did not
account for the location of the sensing lines or require their
relocation to ensure the regulators were sensing actual system
pressure," according to the National Transportation Safety Board.

Valves controlling the flow of gas were not shut off for more than
three hours after issues were detected at a monitoring center in
Ohio. The company did not have a way to remotely modify the flow of
gas, NTSB said.

Homes in Andover, Lawrence and North Andover were evacuated in
September. Thousands of residences were left with damaged gas
lines. Columbia says its has repaired just over half of the damaged
lines and expects to have all 6,1000 lines back to "gas ready" by
its deadline in mid-November.

Temperatures have already dropped into the 30s with the weather
getting colder by the day.

As of Oct. 19 there were still 1,881 families, 6,646 individual
people, in alternative housing like trailers and hotel rooms.

The company says it has received more than 21,000 claims and has
paid $23 million.

This lawsuit is one of several filed against the gas company. [GN]


COMPLYRIGHT INC: Christiansen Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action styled as Paul Christiansen individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ComplyRight,
Inc. a Minnesota corporation, Defendant, Case No. 30-2018
01010711-CU-BT-CXC, was removed from the State of California,
Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on October 25, 2018, and assigned
Case No. 8:18-cv-01920.

The nature of suit is stated as Torts - Personal Property - Other
Personal Property Damage.

ComplyRight, Inc. provides human resource products and services for
businesses in the United States. It specializes in
business-to-business direct marketing, sales, service, and
fulfillment.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CONN APPLIANCES: Certification of Nationwide Classes Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE DURAN and ROSA RESENDEZ, On Behalf of Themselves and all
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CONN APPLIANCES,
INC. (d/b/a Conn’s), the Defendant, Case 1:18-cv-00761-RP (W.D.
Tex. Oct. 19, 2018), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify
nationwide classes of:

   "sales associates paid hourly and/or commission for Fair Labor
Standards Act violations and sales associates paid commission only
for FLSA violations".

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court that notice be issued to the
putative collective action members.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Shreedhar R. Patel, Esq.
          Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605
          Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
          E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com
                  spatel@baronbudd.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Michael A. Harvey, Esq.
          Christopher M. Jordan, Esq.
          Tracy McCreight, Esq.
          MUNSCH HART KOPF & HARR, PC
          303 Colorado Street, Suite 2600
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 391-6145
          Facsimile: (713) 222-5886
          E-mail: tmccreight@munsch.com
                  mharvey@munsch.com
                  cjordan@munsch.com

DAKOTA OF ROCKY: Initial Certification of Collective Action Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS T. McDOUGLE, and ROSEMARIE TAYLOR, for themselves and other
similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, vs DAKOTA OF ROCKY
HILL, LLC, the Defendant, Case 3:17-cv-00245-SRU (D. Conn., Oct.
19, 2018), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. preliminarily certifying a collective action and granting
permission to issue notice to all servers who have worked for
Dakota Steakhouse from February 15, 2014 until the date of final
judgment in this case;

   2. permitting them to send notice to potential opt-in
Plaintiffs;

   3. authorizing them to send summary notice and proposed notice
to potential Opt-In Plaintiffs; and

   4. directing Defendant to produce a list of potential opt-in
Plaintiffs' names, last-known mailing addresses, last-known
telephone numbers, email addresses, and dates of employment and
Social Security numbers if Plaintiffs' mailings are returned to
sender as undeliverable.[CC]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Thomas J. Durkin, Esq.
          HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
          221 Main St., Suite 502
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 522 8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218 9555
          E-mail: tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com


DEBT RECOVERY: Joyce Disputes Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
James Joyce and Susan Joyce, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Debt Recovery Solutions of Ohio,
Inc., Murphy Law Office, LLC, Murphy Petty Ltd. and Christopher
Murphy,, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02317, (N.D. Ohio, October 4,
2018), seeks statutory damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs
for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Murphy Law Office is a law firm engaged in the business of
collecting consumer debts originally owed to others, especially on
behalf of Debt Recovery Solutions. Defendants sought payment of an
alleged debt of $1,028.92, consisting of allegedly unpaid medical
bills and prejudgment interest, via a collection letter. The letter
provides that the recipient must serve an answer within
twenty-eight days, rather than the thirty days specified by law,
thus creating a misleading impression, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Geoffrey C. Parker, Esq.
      Jonathan L. Hilton, Esq.
      HILTON PARKER LLC
      10400 Blacklick-Eastern Rd. NW Suite 110
      Pickerington, OH 43147
      Tel: (614) 992-2277
      Fax: (614) 427-5557
      Email: gparker@hiltonparker.com
             jhilton@hiltonparker.com


DGD TRANSPORT: Vilches Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
RENE VILCHES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, vs. DGD TRANSPORT
L.L.C., and LUIS LOPEZ, the Defendants,Case 1:18-cv-24410-CMA (S.D.
Fla., Oct. 23, 2018), seeks double damages and reasonable attorney
fees from the Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, for all overtime wages still owing from
the Plaintiff's entire employment period with the Defendants.

According to the complaint, between the period of on or about June
23, 2017 through on or about February 12, 2018, except for one week
of work, the Plaintiff worked an average of 60 hours a week for the
Defendants and was paid an average of $11.00 per hour but was not
paid the extra half time rate for any hours worked over 40 hours in
a week as required by the FLSA.  The Plaintiff claims the half time
overtime rate for each hour worked above 40 in a week using the
applicable wage as the basis to calculate the overtime due and
owing to the Plaintiff.  The Defendants willfully and intentionally
refused to pay the Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the
FLSA as the Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the
FLSA and recklessly failed to investigate whether the Defendants'
payroll practices were in accordance with the FLSA.  The Defendants
remain owing the Plaintiff these wages since the commencement of
the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants, the lawsuit says.

DGD Transport, offers on-demand tech for transportation,
warehousing and asset-based services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71 st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


DOLLAR TREE: Approval of Revised Class Settlement Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOVELY NAKOOKA and ELVA REYES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. DOLLAR
TREE STORES, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
3:17-cv-03955-JD (N.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2018), the parties will move
the Court on December 13, 2018, for:

   1. preliminary approval of their revised proposed class
settlement;

   2. conditional certification of the settlement class:

      "all non-exempt hourly store employees who worked for Dollar
Tree in the State of California at any time from July 13, 2013,
through the date [of preliminary approval]," excluding "any
individuals who already have resolved the claims asserted in the
Action, whether by settlement or adjudication." A total of
approximately 64,151 current and former employees encompass the
Class.

   3. approval of the class notice;

   4. appointment of plaintiffs as the class representatives,
Randall B. Aiman Smith, Reed W.L. Marcy, Hallie Von Rock, Carey A.
James, and Brent A. Robinson of Aiman-Smith and Marcy as the class
counsel, and Rust Consulting, Inc., as the settlement
administrator; and

   5. setting of the final approval hearing.

Specifically, the revised settlement:

  -- increases the Maximum Settlement Amount by 50%, from $900,000
to $1,350,000;

  -- decreases the proposed Class Representative Service Payments
from $1,000 to $750 each;

  -- decreases the proposed Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses Payment from $240,000 to $215,000, with Fees now
representing less than 16% of the Maximum Settlement Amount;

  -- decreases the anticipated Settlement Administrator Fees
Payment from $111,635 to $99,962, which is the lowest among seven
bids the parties received; and

  -- makes other changes to the notice and approval process to meet
the Court's concerns.

These changes will produce settlement shares for Class Members of
$15.81, about 80% more than before, and enough to cover the cost of
two or three shirts which, for the average Class Member, would have
been enough for his or her tenure at Dollar Tree, the lawsuit
says.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq.
          Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq.
          Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
          Carey A. James, Esq.
          Brent A. Robinson, Esq.
          AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY
          7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1150
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Telephone: (510) 817-2711
          Facsimile: (510) 562-6830
          E-mail: ras@asmlawyers.com
                  rwlm@asmlawyers.com
                  hvr@asmlawyers.com
                  caj@asmlawyers.com
                  bar@asmlawyers.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
          Ryan D. Derry, Esq.
          Paul A. Holton, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          101 California Street, 48th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
          E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
                  ryanderry@paulhastings.com
                  paulholton@paulhastings.com


DUNHILL 100 LLC: Medina Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALBERT MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dunhill 100 LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company,
Case No. 9:18-cv-81374-DMM (S.D. Fla., October 12, 2018), alleges
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Dunhill 100 LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company whose
principal office is located in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.  The
Defendant is a real estate company.

To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, the
Plaintiff asserts.  He argues that the Defendant's unsolicited text
messages caused him actual harm, including invasion of his privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


ELNIK SYSTEMS: Perez et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN PEREZ and LEONARD SPINAZZOLA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs ELNIK SYSTEMS
LLC, CLAUS JOENS, and STEFAN JOENS, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-15230 (D.N.J., Oct. 23, 2018), seeks equitable and legal
relief for the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, the New Jersey Wage
Payment Act, and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act.

According to the complaint, Mr. Perez routinely worked between
40-45 hours per week for Defendants as a field service manager, and
occasionally worked more than 45 hours per week. Perez was paid at
a rate of $41.00 per hour for all hours worked, and did not receive
overtime premiums for the hours he worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. During weeks in which Mr. Spinazzola was required to
travel for work, the number of hours he worked varied depending on
the client, location, and the job, but he typically worked between
40 and 70 hours per week during such weeks. Spinazzola was paid at
a rate of $45.48 per hour for all hours worked, including travel
time when he traveled to clients, but he did not receive overtime
premiums for any hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

The Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs regularly worked
in excess of 40 hours per week during their employment with
Defendants, yet Defendants failed to compensate them their full
overtime premiums for the hours they worked in excess of 40 per
workweek, the lawsuit says.

Elnik Systems is a United States-based manufacturing company which
produces processing equipment for the metal injection molding
industry.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Adam Sackowitz, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 460-0047
          E-mail: ajsackowitz@katzmelinger.com


ESSENDANT INC: Pietras Balks at Merger Deal with Staples, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH PIETRAS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ESSENDANT INC., RICHARD D. PHILLIPS,
CHARLES K. CROVITZ, DENNIS J. MARTIN, SUSAN J. RILEY, ALEXANDER M.
SCHMELKIN, STUART A. TAYLOR, II, PAUL S. WILLIAMS, and ALEX D.
ZOGHLIN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01506-UNA (D. Del., Sept.
27  2018), seeks to enjoin the Defendants from closing a tender
offer by Staples, Inc., via its affiliate Egg Merger Sub Inc. or
taking any steps to consummate a proposed merger transaction,
unless and until the material information is disclosed to Essendant
shareholders or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is
consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act.

The case is a class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated public shareholders of
Essendant Inc. against Essendant and the members of the Essendant's
board of directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

On September 14, 2018, Essendant entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger, whereby each shareholder of Essendant common stock will
receive $12.80 per share in cash. According to the complaint, on
September 24, to convince Essendant shareholders to tender their
shares, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete
and misleading Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement
with the SEC. In particular, the Recommendation Statement contains
materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: the
background to the Proposed Transaction; the valuation analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisor, Citigroup Global
Markets Inc., in support of its fairness opinion; and 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. It is imperative
that the material information that has been omitted from the
Recommendation Statement is disclosed to the Company's shareholders
prior to the Expiration Time so they can properly determine whether
to tender their shares.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 West Street, 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984 3800


F & M CAFETERIA: Refused to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Lopez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN LOPEZ and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. F. & M. CAFETERIA, INC., MARIA M FABRE, Case No.
1:18-cv-24214-KMW (S.D. Fla., October 12, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

F. & M. Cafeteria, Inc., is a company that regularly transacts
business within Miami-Dade County.  The Individual Defendant is a
corporate officer, owner or manager of the Defendant
Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Location Tracking
-------------------------------------------------------
Ian Lopez, writing for Law.com, reports that Facebook was tagged
with a class action lawsuit
Oct. 19 alleging the social media giant tracks locations despite
users changing their privacy settings to prevent it.

Brought before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, the lawsuit alleges that Facebook tracked plaintiff
Brett Heeger's whereabouts despite his having "expressly attempted
to limit" such "by turning the location history tracking and
storage option to off" in his user account.

"Plaintiff relied on Facebook's promise that, if he turned location
history 'off,' Facebook would no longer build a location history
logging his private location information," the complaint said.
"Nevertheless, Facebook continued to track and store his private
location information without his knowledge or consent even when
plaintiff did not use the Facebook app or tag his location in
posts."

The suit, filed by attorneys from Tycko & Zavareei and Stueve
Siegel Hanson, largely mirrors a class action against Google over
similar data practices, with both companies accused of violating
California privacy laws. The allegations against Google spawned
from an Associated Press investigation that revealed some of the
company's apps and services were tracking users' physical
whereabouts after users set their device's settings to prevent such
recording.

Facebook is charged with violating California's Invasion of Privacy
Act, which prohibits using "an electronic tracking device to
determine the location or movement of a person." The lawsuit claims
Facebook's "applications, software, device components, and other
technology on plaintiff's and each class members' mobile phone"
constitute as tracking devices under the law.

Also among charges brought against Facebook under California law is
an alleged violation of the state's Constitutional Right of
Privacy, with the company accused of having "intentionally intruded
on plaintiff's and class members' solitude, seclusion, right of
privacy, and private affairs by continuing to track, build and
store detailed location histories without their knowledge or
consent." These actions are "particularly egregious," it notes,
because the company "surreptitiously, and in an unfair and
deceptive manner, continued and continues to track plaintiff and
class members after they affirmatively disabled location history on
their mobile phones."

Plaintiffs attorneys are also alleging that location information
transmitted by Facebook between user devices and Facebook's servers
unbeknownst to users is a violation of the Stored Communications
Act. The company's actions, plaintiffs claim, also violate a 2011
consent decree with the Federal Trade Commission to not share
information like physical location when a user asks them not to.

"This behavior by Facebook was malicious, oppressive, and willful,
and calculated to injure plaintiff and class members in conscious
disregard of their rights," the complaint adds.

A Facebook spokesperson told The Recorder in an email that
"Facebook's data policy and related disclosures explain our
practices relating to location data and provide information about
the privacy settings we make available."

"This lawsuit is without merit and we will defend ourselves
vigorously," they added.

But plaintiffs attorney Sabita Soneji, an Oakland partner at Tycko
& Zavareei, noted that "Facebook's disclosures about location
tracking are both misleading and omit crucial information."

The suit isn't the first brought against Facebook by Tycko &
Zavareei. The firm filed a complaint against the company in August
alleging it shared user data with mobile device makers like Apple
and Samsung without user consent. Ms. Soneji is also the plaintiffs
attorney in that lawsuit.

That investigation led the firm to "find out about this separate
but equally egregious privacy violation," Soneji said.

"A reasonable consumer thinks that turning off 'location history'
means that Facebook will no longer track or store his location
information," Ms. Soneji added. "Indeed, reasonable consumers only
turn off that feature because they want to protect their private
location data. In reality, Facebook continues to track and store
users' location information without users' consent—and regardless
of their privacy settings." [GN]


FALLS MUSIC: November Trial Scheduled for Stamped Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
cim reports that a class action involving up to nearly 80 revellers
injured in stampede at the Falls Music and Arts Festival will go to
trial this month.

The multimillion-dollar class action involves festivalgoers injured
during a stampede at the music festival in 2016. The festivalgoers
were leaving Aussie band DMAs' performance to see London Grammar on
another stage when the overcrowded exit became congested, causing a
panic which saw many people being injured and trampled on. The
stampede resulted in 19 revellers being hospitalised and 76 people
needing first aid treatment.

The case will now go to trial in the Melbourne Supreme Court on
November 19 after the parties failed to reach a court settlement in
a second attempt.  Damages are likely to be in excess of $4
million, according to lawyers leading the case.

The festival started in 1993, with a small one-day concert, held in
Lorne named Rock Above The Falls. Its initial success saw it
expand, becoming a multi-day music festival held annually in Lorne,
Marion Bay, Yelgun and Fremantle, Australia over the New Year's Eve
and January period.

The festival has a strong focus on sustainability, winning multiple
awards over the years including being named the winner of the Major
Festival category of the Australian Event Awards in 2014. [GN]


FEDERATED LAW: James Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Tonya James, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Federated Law Group, PLLC, Absolute
Resolutions Investments, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-24436-DPG (S.D. Fla. October 25, 2018) seeks damages
and declaratory relief for violation of the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act ("FDCPA").

The complaint says that Defendants Federated and Absolute collect
and attempt to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been
incurred for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of
creditors using the United States Postal Services, telephone and
internet.

The Plaintiff received a collection letter via email from Defendant
Federated as an attempt to collect an alleged debt, on behalf of
Defendant Absolute, with an alleged balance owed of $18,809.51.
However, the Letter fails to identify information necessary for
Plaintiff to identify the account, namely the original account
number with which the debt is associated, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Florida, County of
Miami-Dade, residing at 700 214th NW Street, Apt. 104, Miami, FL
33169.

Federated Law Group, PLLC is a "debt collector" as the phrase is
defined and used in the FDCPA with an address at 887 Donald Ross
Rd., Juno, FL 33408.

Absolute is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile
and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is
to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin Zeig, Esq.
     ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
     3475 Sheridan St. Ste 310
     Hollywood, FL 33021
     Phone: (754) 217-3084
     Fax: (954) 272-7807
     Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


FIFTH THIRD: Magee Sues Over Hidden Fees on ATM Withdrawals
-----------------------------------------------------------
LENOX MAGEE, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, Case No. 1:18-cv-00722-SJD (S.D. Ohio, October
15, 2018), alleges that Fifth Third regularly charges fees,
including fees on accountholders, who withdraw funds from
out-of-network ATMs, on consumer account holders without prior
notice, and without consumers' consent.

This practice breaches the contract governing the relationship
between Fifth Third and its customers, Mr. Magee contends.  He adds
that the assessment of these fees without disclosing that they
would be charged to Fifth Third's customers is also an unfair and
deceptive practice.

Fifth Third Bank is a national bank with its headquarters and
principal place of business located in Cincinnati, Ohio.  Among
other things, Fifth Third Bank is engaged in the business of
providing retail banking services to consumers, including Plaintiff
and the putative classes, which includes the issuance of debit
cards for use by consumers in conjunction with their checking
accounts.  Fifth Third operates banking centers and conducts
business throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
          SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER
          1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 696-3232
          Facsimile: (216) 696-3924
          E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
          Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  agold@tzlegal.com
                  kaizpuru@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  streisfeld@kolawyers.com


GRAIN PROCESSING: Settlement Claims Process Set to Start
--------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Ecklund, writing for Muscatine Journal, reports that
members of the class action lawsuit involving Grain Processing Corp
will soon be able to start the claims process.

Court documents filed on Oct. 22 show Judge John Telleen granted
preliminary approval of the class action settlement, notification
of the class and setting a fairness hearing.

The long-form notice that includes specific details on how members
may file claims will be mailed by Nov. 19 to "all Class Members who
can be identified by reasonable means . . . " To claim funds from
the settlement, members must file forms by
March 19. Those who signed a settlement agreement last winter opted
out of the class action and are not eligible to file a claim.

A notification to the public will go out no later than Nov. 26 in
the Muscatine Journal and broadcast on local television and radio.

Earlier in October, a settlement of more than $50 million in
benefits to the class was reached between the class action and GPC
after more than six years of litigation.

The judge will determine whether the settlement is "fair, adequate
and reasonable" to class members at the hearing. If class members
want to object to the settlement, written objections must be filed
by Jan. 3 with the court.

The fairness hearing is set for 10 a.m. the week of Feb. 4 at
Muscatine County Courthouse or a location to be determined,
according to the documents. Final approval will be considered at
that time.

The lawsuit claimed the corporation that currently employs more
than 1,000 Muscatine residents was negligent and a nuisance with
plant emissions. Residents within 1.5 miles of the plant located on
Oregon Street in the Southend from April 24, 2007, and
Sept. 1, 2017, have been included in the class which totals more
than 10,000 people.

"Clean air is a right, not a privilege," attorney for the class
Sarah Siskind said in a news release. "We're eager to close this
chapter on the litigation so that Muscatine citizens, and GPC, can
move on." [GN]


GRAY TELEVISION: Mowrer Sues Over for Inflated Prices for TV Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
MOWRER FOR IOWA, on behalf of itself and all other similarly
situated v. GRAY TELEVISION, INC.; HEARST TELEVISION INC.; NEXSTAR
MEDIA GROUP, INC.; SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC.; TEGNA INC.;
TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY, Case No. 1:18-cv-06892 (N.D. Ill., October
12, 2018), alleges that the Defendants engaged in unlawful
collusion and conspired to artificially inflate the price of
purchasing local television advertisements, in violation of the
Sherman Act.

Gray Television, Inc., is a television broadcast company
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.  Gray owns and operates
television stations and digital assets in the United States.
Hearst Television Inc., headquartered in New York City, is a
diversified media and information Company.  Hearst operates
television stations and cable networks throughout the United
States.

Nexstar Media Group, headquartered in Irving, Texas, operates as a
television broadcasting and digital media company in the United
States.  Sinclair Broadcast Group., Inc., headquartered in Hunt
Valley, Maryland, operates as a television broadcast company in the
United States.

Tegna, Inc., is a broadcasting, digital media, and marketing
services company headquartered in McLean, Virginia.  Tegna owns and
operates 47 television stations in 39 markets across the United
States.  Tribune Media Company, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois,
operates through its subsidiaries as a media and entertainment
company in the United States.  Tribune offers news, entertainment,
and sports programming through Tribune Broadcasting local
television stations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leonard A. Gail, Esq.
          Hillary Coustan, Esq.
          MASSEY & GAIL LLP
          50 East Washington Street, Suite 400
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 283-1590
          Facsimile: (312) 379-0467
          E-mail: lgail@masseygail.com
                  hcoustan@masseygail.com

               - and -

          Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq.
          Steven Sklaver, Esq.
          Bryan Caforio, Esq.
          Oleg Elkhunovich, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: ksrinvasan@susmangodfrey.com
                  ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
                  bcaforio@susmangodfrey.com
                  oelkhunovich@susmangodfrey.com


GUIDANCE CORP: SOGB Sues over Refusal to Pay Rent
-------------------------------------------------
SOGB Inc., the Plaintiff, v. ROBERT GUIDA, GUIDANCE CORPORATION,
GUIDANCE MEDICAL PERSONNEL, Inc., GUIDANCE STAFFING, GUIDANCE
INTERNATIONAL, and GUIDANCE Rx, the Defendants, Case No.
655077/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 12, 2018), alleges that Plaintiff
has been damaged in the total sum of at least $56,000, plus pre-
and post- judgment interest, attorney's fees, court costs, court
reporter fees, and all other additional costs incurred as a result
of the instant litigation, resulting from the Defendants' failure
to pay debt owed to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asks that this
Court enter judgment in its favor and in favor of all others
similarly situated.

According to the complaint, on or about August 17, 2009, the
Plaintiff and Guidance Corp. entered into a commercial sublease
agreement with respect to commercial office space premises located
at 29 Broadway, Suite 1300, New York, NY 10006. Separately,
Defendant Guida, as an individual, personally and unconditionally
guaranteed the performance of the Commercial Sublease Agreement in
a Guaranty of Payment, and waived his right to a jury trial. He
guarantees the full performance of the Commercial Sublease
Agreement.

Guidance Corporation failed to make the rent payments for the
months of September and October 2016 at $7,000 per month. On Oct.
2016, Guidance was notified that the rent was late and due. On
October 31, 2016, Defendant Guida was observed surreptitiously
moving personal property out of the rented premises, without notice
to the over-tenant (SOGB), the landlord, or building security, in
violation of building policies, in an attempt to vacate the
premises and skip out on the owed rent. Rent is due and owing from
the Defendant in the amount of $7,000/ month times 8 months or
$56,000.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Erik Dykema, Esq.
          ZELLER IP GROUP PLLC
          155 Water Street, Suite 6/6
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (972) 920-8002
          E-mail: erik@zellerip.com


HAIN CELESTIAL: Manley Calls Alba Botanica Sunscreen Ad Deceptive
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATY MANLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., the
Defendant, Case: 1:18-cv-07101 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 23, 2018), alleges
that the Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes certain of
its Alba Botanica brand sunscreen using deceptive and misleading
labeling, in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.  The action seeks to remedy the unfair and
deceptive business practices arising from the marketing and sale of
the Defendant's "Alba Botanica Very Emollient Mineral Spray
Sunscreen". The Defendant misrepresents that its Product provides
adequate sun protection.  The Product contains significantly less
protection than advertised, by design and corporate practice and
procedure. But for the Defendant's misrepresentations, Plaintiff
and similarly situated purchasers of the Product would not have
purchased or paid the price they did for the Product, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
          Natasha Singh, Esq.
          SWEETNAM LLC
          100 North La Salle Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 757-1888
          E-mail: wms@sweetnamllc.com
                  ns@sweetnamllc.com


HERSHEY CO: Clark Sues Over Product Mislabeling
-----------------------------------------------
Howard Clark, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public, Plaintiff, v. The Hershey Company,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-06113, (N.D. Cal., October 4, 2018, seeks
redress for violations of warranty, negligent and intentional
misrepresentations/omissions and California consumer protection
laws.

Defendant manufactures, packages, distributes, advertises, markets,
and sells a house-brand product identified as "Brookside Dark
Chocolate" products. 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, says the
complaint. [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


HUFF DISTRIBUTING: Vincent Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Route Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------------
LORI VINCENT, the PLAINTIFF, vs. HUFF DISTRIBUTING, LLC., the
DEFENDANT, Case 3:18-cv-02186 (N.D. Fla., Oct. 23, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
for any hours worked over 40 per week.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is in the business of
producing and distributing various snack foods. The Defendant
employed Route Drivers, who delivered Defendant's products and
other snack products to Defendant's customers including chain
retail grocery stores. The Plaintiff was a Route Driver employed by
Defendant, between March 26, 2018 and July 22, 2018. Defendant
monitored Plaintiff's performance levels and standards of conduct
to ensure compliance with its mandatory standardized training and
minimum requirements for vehicles.  Plaintiff any lacked control
over assignments and did not exercise discretion or make management
decisions, instead Plaintiff followed strict dispatch assignments
provided, controlled and monitored by Defendant.

Defendant's actions were deceptive, willful and intentionally
calculated to misclassify Plaintiff as an independent contractor in
violation of the FLSA. As a result of Defendant's intentional
misclassification, the Plaintiff was not paid time and one-half for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week during one or
more work weeks, the lawsuit says.

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Clayton M. Connors, Esq.
          R. John Westberry, Esq.
          WESTBERRY & C ONNORS , LLC.
          4400 Bayou Blvd., Suite 32A
          Pensacola, FL 32503
          Telephone: (850) 473-0401
          Facsimile: (850) 473-1388
          E-mail: cmc@westconlaw.com
                  rjw@westconlaw.com


INFINITY ASSURANCE: Plantation Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
Plantation Open MRI, LLC on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated agent of Gloria Diaz, the Plaintiff, vs.
Infinity Assurance Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No.:
CACE-18-024614, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit Court,
to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft
Lauderdale) on Oct. 22, 2018. The Southern District of Florida
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:18-cv-62532-DPG to the proceeding.
The suit alleges insurance-related claims. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jaime Eileen Martin, Esq.
          VERNIS, BOWLING OF BROWARD
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304
          713 NE 17th Terrace
          Telephone: (860) 670-6897

               - and -

          Jose Pete Font, Esq.
          FONT & NELSON, LLC
          200 S. Andrews Ave.,Suite 501
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 248-2920
          Facsimile: (954) 248-2134
          E-mail: jfont@fontnelson.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Rachel Marie La Montagne, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
          200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-6300
          Facsimile: (305) 381-9982
          E-mail: rlamontagne@shutts.com

               - and -

          Victoria San Pedro Madani, Esq.
          Suzanne Youmans Labrit, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN
          200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 379-9154
          Facsimile: (305) 415-9872
          E-mail: vmadani@shutts.com
                  slabrit@shutts.com

J.F. MEAT: Conretras Files Labor Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J.F. Meat & Grocery
Corp. The case is styled as Adelyn Paniagua Conretras, Sadiel
Castillo, idividually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons, Plaintiffs v. J.F. Meat & Grocery Corp d/b/a C-Town
Supermarket, Luis Ferreira, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-09851 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2018).

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

C-Town Supermarkets is a chain of independently owned and operated
supermarkets operating in the northeastern United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


JOHN C. HEATH: Pena Sues over Unauthorized Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------
MARCELO PENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHN C. HEATH, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC
d/b/a LEXINGTON LAW FIRM, a Utah professional Limited Liability
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-24407-UU (S.D. Fla., Oct.
23, 2018), alleges that the Defendant sells credit repair and
monitoring services to consumers. To promote its services, the
Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of
consumers in the process. This case arises from Defendant's
unauthorized text messages to cellular subscribers who never
provided the Defendant with prior express consent, as well as
cellular subscribers who expressly requested not to receive the
text messages.  The lawsuit notes that the Defendant has been sued
before for violating the TCPA and was aware of the restrictions
imposed upon it by the TCPA. Through this action, the Plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct,
which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

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


JORDAN SCHOOL: Class Certified in Girls' High School Football Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
S.G., by and through her general guardian, BRENT GORDON, et al.,
the Plaintiffs, v. JORDAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., the Defendants,
Case 2:17-cv-00677-RJS-DBP (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Robert J.
Shelby entered an order on Oct. 9, 2018, granting in part and
denying in part, the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.

The Court certified a class under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

     "all present and future Jordan, Canyon, and Granite school
district female high school students who seek to participate and/or
are or were deterred from participating on girls high school
football teams".

     This class is certified with respect to all factual and legal
issues relating to the Plaintiffs' Equal Protection Claim against
Defendants.

The court denied certification of a class of:

     "female students seeking more athletic opportunities".
     
     Because Plaintiffs failed to provide the court an evidentiary
basis from which to infer that Rule 23(a)'s numerosity requirement
was satisfied with respect to the female athletes class.

The Court said, "Although mindful of the arguments made by the
Defendants in their motion to file a joint supplemental memorandum
in opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class, those
arguments would not change the court's analysis concerning adequacy
or numerosity. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion is denied. After
the benefit of the parties' briefing and careful consideration of
the Rule 23(g) factors, the court designates the following as class
counsel: D. Loren Washburn, Mark Smith, and Jacob Fonnesbeck. The
court declines to appoint Brent Gordon as counsel because he is
likely to be a necessary witness. The class representatives shall
be the named student plaintiffs: S.G., L.D., B.S., M.C., D.R.,
I.N., and I.C."[CC]


JPAY INC: Does Not Deliver 30-Min. Video Service, Salim Says
------------------------------------------------------------
OUMER SALIM, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
JPAY, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-00730-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex., October 12,
2018), is brought on behalf of persons who, after December 1, 2009,
paid a fee to JPay for a 30-minute Video Visitation session and
received less than a 30-minute session. The lawsuit seeks to
recover for JPay's failure to deliver the service as promised and
paid for.

JPay, Inc., is a provider of corrections-related services in more
than 30 states across the country, as well as a provider of Video
Visits for individuals in community corrections.

JPay provides video conferencing services to prisons throughout the
country.  Family and friends, who would otherwise be unable to
visit an incarcerated person can use the service offered through
JPay to have a "Video Visitation."  JPay charges for these Video
Visitation sessions in 30-minute increments.

Complaints from around the country indicate families and friends of
inmates consistently complain that video sessions do not last the
entire 30 minutes session, according to the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
          Dean Gresham, Esq.
          STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC
          12720 Hillcrest Road - Suite 1045
          Dallas, TX 75230
          Telephone: (972) 387-4040
          Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
          E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com
                  dean@stecklerlaw.com


K12 INC: Souders Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------
KRISTYNA SOUDERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. K12 INC.; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-09106 (C.D. Cal.,
Oct. 23, 2018), seeks to recover damages and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant, in negligently contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby causing Plaintiff to incur unwanted and
unnecessary charges and invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around February of
2018, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular
telephone numbers ending in -4086 in an attempt to solicit
Plaintiff to purchase Defendants' services. Defendants used an
"automatic telephone dialing system" to place its calls to
Plaintiff. Furthermore, at one or more instance during these calls,
Defendant utilized an "artificial or prerecorded voice" as
prohibited by 47 U.S.C. section 24 227(b)(1)(A). Defendant's calls
constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined
by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A).

Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's prior express consent to
receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or
artificial or prerecorded voice on its cellular telephones pursuant
to 47 U.S.C. section 8 227(b)(1)(A). Defendant placed multiple
calls soliciting its business to Plaintiff on its cellular
telephones beginning in or around February of 2018. Defendant
failed to establish and implement reasonable practices and
procedures to effectively prevent telephone solicitations in
violation of the regulations prescribed under 47 U.S.C. section 19
227(c)(5), the lawsuit says.

K12 Inc. is a for-profit education company that sells online
schooling and curricula. K12 is an education management
organization that provides online education designed as
alternatives alternative to traditional "bricks and mortar"
education for public school students from kindergarten to 12th
grade.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: 323 306-4234
          Facsimile: 866 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com
                  abacon@ toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


KB HOME: Bayberry Lakes et al. Seek to Certify Homeowners Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against KB Home et al.,
ask the Court to certify a class of:

          "all current owners of the homes in the Bayberry Lakes
subdivision in Daytona Beach, Florida, (a) which Defendants
designed, developed, constructed, built, and/or sold; (b) with
claims that are not otherwise barred; and (c) which allegedly have
the Stucco Deficiencies."

The Plaintiffs' proposed class consists of all of the owners of the
275 homes in the Bayberry Lakes subdivision, which were all built
by Defendants.

The case is captioned as "BAYBERRY LAKES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
INC., a Florida corporation; DAWN ADAMS; LUIS and ADALINA ALBELO;
JASON BELL and KIMBERLY DANIELS; JOHN and MICHELLE BETROS; CRAIG
and CASEY BROWN; MICHAEL BROWN; NATHAN and MICHELLE BURHANS; PAUL
CAIRNS; JENNIFER CARON; PAMELA COTE and TODD KOEHLER; SANDRA
CONGER; KENNY and LISA CORBIN; MATTHEW and GLENAE COVINGTON; JOSEPH
DUNN; JOHN and OLADUNNI DURO-EMANUEL; AMAL FANOUS; THOMAS and
AMANDA FOGLIO; RANDALL FRANK; IRINA GEIDEL; LOUIS GILL; ERWIN
GREENE and LATESHA HUNTLEY; RICHARD and TERESA GREGO; RODNEY
HAIGLER; PETER HELLINGER; VIRGINIA HEWETT; JEFFREY and TINA
JACOBSON; SHARON JAMES; MAREK and CAROLINA JURACEK; WILLIAM KAMER;
ERNEST OMAR-KASHIF; PAMELA LIPPELT; LOLITA LIPPELT and RICHARD
GREGO; ANTHONY and DONNA MADDOX; STEPHANIE MILLER; ANGELA MOBLEY;
MIKE and CELAYNE MOORE; FREDERIC NDIAYE; JONATHAN and SAMANTHA
NEMERGUT; THO NGUYEN; THUAN NGUYEN; JOAN ORTAGUS; DHAVAL and
DHANIAXMI PATEL; GARY and ANNETTE PELHAM; MICHAEL and KATHLEEN
RIDALL; MATTHEW SPROUSE; NORMAN and GWEN STUART; EDWARD THOMAS;
ROBERT TROWBRIDGE; KEVIN and HELEN TUCKER; HARRISON and HELEN
WAITHAKA; RYAN WILL; KEVIN ZAHNEN and SABRINA FALLETTA; THOMAS
ZAHNEN; ED and JANICE ZAPKA, as individuals, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
GERALD BOENEMAN, an individual; GEORGE GLANCE, III, an individual;
MICHAEL HOLDER, an individual; KB HOME GOLD COAST, LLC, a foreign
limited liability company; KB HOME JACKSONVILLE, LLC, a foreign
limited liability company; KB HOME ORLANDO, LLC, a foreign limited
liability company; and JOSHUA SPALTEN, an individual, the
Defendants";

- and -

"KB HOME ORLANDO, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, KB HOME
JACKSONVILLE, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; KB HOME
GOLD COAST, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Third-Party
Plaintiffs, v. BRANCO PREMIER STUCCO, LLC, a Florida corporation,
BRANCO LATH & STUCCO, INC., a Florida corporation, MCNEAL & WHITE
CONTRACTORS, INC., a Florida corporation, R&R STUCCO, INC., a
Florida corporation, ADVANCED WRAPPING AND CONCRETE SOLUTIONS OF
CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, FRITZ BOGAUSCH
CONCRETE SPECIALISTS, INC., a Florida corporation, LEOR
CONSTRUCTION LLC, a Florida corporation, DAVE’S PAINTING OF
CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, M&D PROFESSIONAL
PAINTING, BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
84 LUMBER COMPANY, a Pennsylvania limited partnership, the
Third-Party Defendants", Case No. 6:18-cv-00072-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla.,
Oct. 1, 2018).[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Phillip E. Joseph, Esq.
          James C. Prichard, Esq.
          Evan J. Smallc
          Kelly M. Corcoran
          BALL JANIK LLP
          201 E Pine Street, Suite 600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 455 5664
          Facsimile: (407) 902 2105
          Email: pjoseph@balljanik.com
                 jprichard@balljanik.com
                 esmall@balljanik.com
                 kcorcoran@balljanik.com


KERYX BIOPHARMA: Rosenblatt Balks at Merger Deal with Akebia
------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., KEVIN J. CAMERON, MARK J. ENYEDY, STEVEN C. GILMAN, MICHAEL
T. HEFFERNAN, JODIE MORRISON, DANIEL P. REGAN, MICHAEL ROGERS,
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS, INC., and ALPHA THERAPEUTICS MERGER SUB INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-12205 (D. Mass., Oct. 23, 2018),
seeks preliminary and permanent injunction against the Defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing a proposed transaction ,and in the event
defendants consummate the proposed transaction, rescinding it and
setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages.

According to the complaint, this action stems from a proposed
transaction announced on June 28, 2018 pursuant to which Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. will be acquired by Akebia Therapeutics,
Inc.  On June 28, 2018, Keryx's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Akebia.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Keryx's stockholders
will receive 0.37433 shares of Parent common stock for each share
of Keryx they own.

On October 1, 2018, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Registration
Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges herein that defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the Registration Statement, the lawsuit
says.

Keryx, a commercial stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
providing medicines for patients with kidney disease in the United
States.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310

               - and -

          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800

               - and -

          Glen DeValerio, Esq.
          Daryl Andrews, Esq.
          ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP
          265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702
          Boston, MA 02100
          Telephone: (617) 936-2796
          E-mail: glen@andrewsdevalerio.com
                  daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com


KRAFT HEINZ: Tarzian Files Suit Over Fraud
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit asserting fraud has been filed against Kraft
Heinz Food Company. The case is styled as Katrina Tarzian, Senia
Hardwick on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Kraft Heinz Food Company, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-07148 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 25, 2018).

The Kraft Heinz Foods Company produces and markets food and
beverage products worldwide. The company offers condiments and
sauces, cheese and dairy, meals, meats, refreshment beverages, and
coffee and other grocery products primarily under the Heinz, Kraft,
ABC, Capri Sun, Classico, Jell-O, Kool-Aid, Lunchables, Maxwell
House, Ore-Ida, Oscar Mayer, Philadelphia, Planters, Plasmon,
Quero, Smart Ones, and Velveeta brands.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


LA GRINGA FOOD: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Perez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL MORALES PEREZ, ELDER ESTUARDO PEREZ RAMOS, FRANCISCO ALVAREZ
RIVERA, and JUANA SANTOS, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. LA GRINGA FOOD CORP. (D/B/A LA GRINGA), DOS
LOCOS ON COOPER AVE LLC (D/B/A DOS LOCOS), JOHN PAUL CAMPBELL,
ADALIS VALDEZ, and HENRY DOE, Case No. 1:18-cv-05726 (E.D.N.Y.,
October 12, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiffs worked for the
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the
hours that they worked.

La Gringa Food Corp. (d/b/a La Gringa) is a domestic corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York and
maintains its principal place of business in Queens.

Dos Locos on Cooper Ave LLC (d/b/a Dos Locos) is a domestic
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
New York and maintains its principal place of business in Flushing.
The Individual Defendants serve or served as owners, managers,
principals, or agents of the Defendant Corporations.

The Defendants own, operate, or control two Mexican restaurants,
located at 63-34 Woodhaven Blvd., in Queens, New York, under the
name "La Gringa," and at 79-11 Cooper Avenue, in Flushing, New
York, under the name "Dos Locos."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


LAS VEGAS HOTEL: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq., of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article
for Mondaq, reports that a nationwide class action lawsuit was
filed against Las Vegas Hotel involving the receipt of SMS text
messages that were allegedly sent in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act. [GN]


LINCOLN AUTO: Mintz Attorney Discusses TCPA Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Esteban Morales, Esq. -- Emorales@mintz.com -- of Mintz, in an
article for Lexology, reports that in mid-2017, the Second Circuit
concluded consent to receive calls is unilaterally irrevocable so
long as it is a contract term. Whereas prior decisions considered
"a narrow question: whether the [Telephone Consumer Protection Act]
allows a consumer who has freely and unilaterally given his or her
informed consent [to] later revoke that consent," in Reyes v.
Lincoln Auto. Fin. Servs. the Second Circuit addressed "a different
question[:] whether the TCPA also permits a consumer to
unilaterally revoke his or her consent to be contacted by telephone
when that consent is given, not gratuitously, but as bargained-for
consideration in a bilateral contract." Reyes v. Lincoln Auto. Fin.
Servs., 861 F.3d 51, 56 (2d Cir. 2017) (emphasis added). No,
answered the Second Circuit. Relying on common law, "consent to
another's actions can 'become irrevocable' when it is provided in a
legally binding agreement" and on that basis, it affirmed the trial
court's judgment. Id. at 57. Since then, a number of courts across
the country (and notably in the Eleventh Circuit) have sided with
Reyes in several defendant-friendly summary judgment rulings.

The trend began picking up earlier this year when the Northern
District of Ohio, relying on Reyes, rejected the plaintiff's oral
revocation theory and granted summary judgment for the defendant in
Barton v. Credit One Fin., No. 16-cv-2652, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
72245 (N.D. Ohio, Apr. 27, 2018). Though the plaintiff may have
orally asked the defendant to stop calling, his cardholder
agreement provided for specific revocation procedures, which the
plaintiff could not unilaterally alter, and with which the
plaintiff did not comply. Id. at *8-*9.

In line with Reyes, the District of Connecticut also granted
summary judgment for the defendant in Harris v. Navient Sols. The
plaintiff, who defaulted on student loans, signed promissory notes
in which she provided her telephone number and which contained
language confirming the notes could only be modified in writing and
with the assent of both parties. Harris v. Navient Sols., LLC, No.
3:15-cv-564, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140317, *1-*2 (D. Conn. Aug. 7,
2018). The notes also provided for calls using an automatic
telephone dialing system. Id. at *2. Notably, the court pointed to
recent FCC statements in ACA Int'l v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir.
2018), in which the FCC conceded that a 2015 ruling touching on
revocation of consent "did not address whether contracting parties
can select a particular revocation procedure by mutual agreement"
and "[h]ere, the promissory notes provide a revocation procedure:
modification of the contract in writing," which did not happen. Id.
at n.5 (internal quotations omitted).

While Harris was somewhat expected given that the district court
was situated in the Second Circuit, the issue heated up as courts
in the Eleventh Circuit issued rulings in Few v. Receivables
Performance Mgmt., No. 1:17-CV-2038, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134324
(D. Ala. Aug. 9, 2018) and Medley v. Dish Network, LLC, No.
8:16-cv-2534, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144895 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 27,
2018). As in Harris, the plaintiff in Few consented to receipt of
calls through automated systems and argued that she continued to
receive calls despite revoking consent. Few, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
134324 at *3-*4. Relying on Eleventh Circuit precedent, the court
noted that "common law concepts allow the unilateral revocation of
consent, but only in the absence of any contractual restriction to
the contrary." Id. at *5 (internal quotations omitted; emphasis
added). Because the plaintiff consented "as part of a bargained-for
exchange and not merely gratuitously, she was unable to
unilaterally revoke that consent." Id. at *6.

Later that same month, the Middle District of Florida sided with
Reyes in Medley, where the plaintiff sued after signing an
agreement authorizing Dish "to contact [her] through an automated
or predictive dialing system or prerecorded messaging . . . ."
Medley, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144895 at *3. The Middle District of
Florida pointed out that the Eleventh Circuit has yet to rule on
"whether consent may be unilaterally revoked when it is given as
part of a bargained-for contract" before concluding that under
"black-letter contract law [] one party to an agreement cannot,
without the other party's consent, unilaterally modify the
agreement once it has been executed." Id. at *28-*31 (internal
quotations omitted). Notably, Medley also distinguished other
recent decisions (including one from the Middle District of
Florida) that have found the contrary; the plaintiff in Patterson
v. Ally Financial, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-1592, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
15203 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2018) did not provide his telephone
number "as part of the ultimate contract," while Ammons v. Ally
Financial, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-00505, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108588
(M.D. Tenn. June 27, 2018) relied on an overbroad reading of
Osorio, concluded Medley. Id. at *33-*36.

The trend is clear -- regardless of the jurisdiction, post Reyes an
increasing number of courts are willing to hold plaintiffs to their
word. Given the expense of defending a TCPA class action and its
potential exposure, the safest course for creditors and other
businesses receiving a do-not-call request is to halt
communication. Enterprising professional plaintiffs, however, may
find creative ways to "revoke" consent (such as with a fax in
Medley) that may go unnoticed. The trend in decisions like Reyes,
Barton, Harris, Few, and Medley, however, provides peace of mind
allowing businesses to rely on prior agreements memorializing
consent. [GN]


LIVE NATION: Gaetano Files Suit Over Overpriced Tickets
-------------------------------------------------------
Todd Gaetano individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and
Ticketmaster, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01195 (N.D. N.Y.,
October 4, 2018), seeks to recover obtained benefits and monies
from artificially inflated ticket prices and restitution and
disgorgement of such inequitably obtained profits; preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief; monetary and punitive damages and
interest; costs and expenses, including reasonable fees for
attorneys and experts; and such other and further relief resulting
from unjust enrichment.

Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. controls approximately 80% of event
tickets sold in the US, working with third-parties who buy tickets
from Ticketmaster using its proprietary and exclusive ticket
reselling platform to offer the tickets for sale in the secondary
market. Eventgoers, including the Plaintiff, are forced to pay an
artificially elevated price beyond the original face value of the
ticket, restraining price competition, says the complaint.  The
Defendants increased prices to artificially inflated levels,
depriving purchasers of free and open competition, adds the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
      LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      1 Penn Plaza, Suite 2527
      New York, NY 10119
      Tel: (212) 792-0046
      Email: joshua@levinepstein.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

      Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
      PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM, P.C.
      208 East 51st Street, Suite 380
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 685-0969


MATIZ LATIN CUISINE: Cardoso Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Cardoso, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Oscar Cano and Alfredo Quesada (a/k/a
Sigifredo Quesada), individually and Matiz Latin Cuisine Corp.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-05487, (E.D. N.Y., October 1, 2018),
seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees and
prejudgment and post-judgment interest associated with the bringing
of this action, plus any additional relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Defendants operate a restaurant located at 110-72 Queens Blvd.,
Forest Hill NY where Cardoso worked as a cook. He claims to have
regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week without overtime
pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darren P. B. Rumack, Esq.
      THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
      39 Broadway Suite 1530
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 344-9022
      Fax: (212) 344-0301


MAYFIELD CARE: Hughes Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------
CASSANDRA E. HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MAYFIELD CARE CENTER, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH13122 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Oct.
22, 2018), seeks damages and injunctive relief for the Defendant's
violation Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, since approximately April 1, 2017, the
Defendant has owned and operated a nursing home located at 5905
West Washington in Chicago, Illinois. The Defendant requires its
employees in Illinois to clock "in" and "out" of their work shifts
by scanning their fingerprints, and its biometric computer systems
then verify the employee and clock the employee "in" or "out."
Unlike traditional time clock punch cards that can be changed,
replaced if lost or compromised, fingerprints are unique, permanent
biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes
the Defendant's workforce to serious and irreversible privacy
risks. For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached,
or otherwise exposed, employees have no means by which to prevent
identity theft and unauthorized tracking.

BIPA expressly obligates the Defendant to obtain an executed,
written release from an individual, as a condition of employment,
in order to capture, collect and store an individual's biometric
identifiers, especially a fingerprint, and biometric information
derived from it. Despite the requirements under BIPA, the
Defendant's practice of collecting, storing and using its
employees' biometric information without informed written consent
violates its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights under
the BIPA. Furthermore, the Defendant's failure to provide a written
policy regarding its schedule and guidelines for the retention and
permanent destruction of its workforces' biometric information
violates section 15(a) of the BIPA, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Frank Castiglione, Esq.
          Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
          THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC
          70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 356-3200
          Facsimile: (312) 386-5800
          E-mail: fcastiglione@khowajala.com

               - and -

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 South Michigan A venue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201-0575
          Facsimile: (312) 332-0600
          E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
                  cpsons@bormeslaw.com


MAZUMA FEDERAL: Settlement of Bowens Class Suit Wins Court Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOY L. BOWENS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. MAZUMA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, the Defendant, Case No.
No. 15-00758-CV-W-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips
entered an order on October 23, 2018:

   1. certifying a class for settlement purposes:

      "any member of Defendant who, between the implementation of
Defendant's automated overdraft program in April 1, 2011 and
September 30, 2015, was assessed an overdraft fee when the member
had sufficient money in his or her "current balance," but
insufficient money in his or her available balance to complete the
transaction that caused the fee."

   2. appointing Joy L. Bowens as the Class Representative;

   3. approving Kick Law Firm, APC and McCune Wright Arevalo LLP as
Class Counsel; and

   4. appointing Garden City Group, LLC as the Claims
Administrator.

   5. approving Public Citizen as cy pres recipient of any residue
in the Settlement Fund, receiving 100% of the residue; and

   6. approving payment of the Claims Administrator's fees and
costs of up to $34,375 to be paid to the Claims Administrator from
the Settlement Fund by the deadline specified in the Settlement
Agreement.

The Court finds the requested attorneys' fees of $453,333.33 to be
reasonable as a percentage of the value of the Settlement and under
the lodestar method, and therefore awards fees amount to be paid to
Class Counsel from the Settlement Fund by the deadline specified in
the Settlement. The amount is in line with market rates for
contingency fees in a case such as this. Therefore, the requested
fee is reasonable and approved under the percentage-of-the-benefit
methodology. Further, the hourly rates of the attorneys are
reasonable and in line with prevailing market rates, and the hours
worked are also reasonable. Therefore, the requested fees amount is
also separately and independently approved under a lodestar
analysis.

The Court further finds that the fee-sharing arrangement among
class Counsel was disclosed to and approved by the Named Plaintiff.
The Court further finds that the request for reimbursement of
litigation costs in the amount of $34,591.84 is reasonable based on
the work necessary to achieve this favorable class settlement, and
is to be paid to Class Counsel from the Settlement Fund by the
deadline specified in the Settlement Agreement. The Court finds
that Joy L. Bowens assisted with the prosecution and litigation of
the case, including producing documents, responding to written
discovery, attending mediation, and having been willing to testify
at trial. The Court therefore awards a service award in the amount
of $12,000.00 to be paid to Plaintiff Joy L. Bowens from the
Settlement Fund by the deadline specified in the Settlement
Agreement.

Within 10 days of the date of this order, Defendant Mazuma Credit
Union, shall distribute the Settlement Fund to the Claims
Administrator, less amounts that will be credited to Class Members
by Defendant.[CC]


MICROSOFT CORP: Antitrust Suits Ongoing in Canada
-------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a hearing has been
held in the antitrust and unfair competition class suits in British
Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.

Antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed
against the company in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec,
Canada. All three have been certified on behalf of Canadian
indirect purchasers who acquired licenses for Microsoft operating
system software and/or productivity application software between
1998 and 2010.

The trial of the British Columbia action commenced in May 2016.
Following a mediation, the parties agreed to a global settlement of
all three Canadian actions, and have submitted the proposed
settlement agreement to the courts in all three jurisdictions for
approval. A hearing to approve the settlement in British Columbia
occurred on September 21, 2018, and in Ontario on October 18, 2018.
A hearing in Quebec is scheduled for October 25, 2018.

Microsoft Corporation develops, licenses, and supports software,
services, devices, and solutions worldwide. The company was founded
in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond, Washington.

MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Suit Remains Dormant
--------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the purported class
action suit filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, remains
dormant.

Microsoft Mobile Oy, along with other handset manufacturers and
network operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit
filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class
of Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600
hours, including a subclass of users with brain tumors, alleging
adverse health effects from cellular phone use. Microsoft was
served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted for
the Nokia defendants. The litigation has been dormant for more than
three years.

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

Microsoft Corporation develops, licenses, and supports software,
services, devices, and solutions worldwide. The company was founded
in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond, Washington.


MICROSOFT CORP: Interlocutory Appeal Okayed in Moussouris Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted plaintiffs' interlocutory
appeal in Moussouris v. Microsoft case.

Current and former female Microsoft employees in certain
engineering and information technology roles brought this class
action in federal court in Seattle in 2015, alleging systemic
gender discrimination in pay and promotions. The plaintiffs moved
to certify the class in October 2017. Microsoft filed an opposition
in January 2018, attaching an expert report showing no
statistically significant disparity in pay and promotions between
similarly situated men and women.

In June 2018, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. Plaintiffs sought an interlocutory appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was granted in
September 2018.

Microsoft Corporation develops, licenses, and supports software,
services, devices, and solutions worldwide. The company was founded
in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond, Washington.


MID-AMERICA: Vega Sues over Use of Biometric identifiers
--------------------------------------------------------
Javier Vega, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MID-AMERICA TAPING & REELING INC., the
Defendant, Case No.: 2018CH13186 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County, Oct.
23, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's capture, collection, use and
storage of individuals' biometric identifiers and/or biometric
information in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by
Defendant's conduct.

This case concerns Defendant's conduct of capturing, collecting,
storing, and using Plaintiffs and other workers' biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information without regard to BIPA and
the concrete privacy rights and pecuniary interests Illinois' BIPA
protects. Defendant does this in the form of finger scans, which
capture a person's fingerprint, and then Defendant uses that
fingerprint to identify that same person in the future. Choosing to
shun more traditional timekeeping methods, Defendant has instead
implemented an invasive program that relies on the capture,
collection, storage and use of its workers' fingerprints, while
disregarding the applicable Illinois statute and the privacy
interests it protects.

BIPA expressly obligates Defendant to obtain an executed, written
release from an individual, as a condition of employment, in order
to capture, collect and store an individual's biometric
identifiers, especially a fingerprint, and biometric information
derived from it.  BIPA further obligates Defendant to inform its
employees in writing that a biometric identifier or biometric
information is being collected or stored; to tell its employees in
writing for how long it will store their biometric information and
any purposes for which biometric information is being captured,
collected, and used; and to make available a written policy
disclosing when it will permanently destroy such information.
Despite the requirements under BIPA, Defendant's practice of
capturing, collecting, storing and using its employees' biometric
information without informed written consent violates its
employees' statutorily protected privacy rights under BIPA.
Furthermore, Defendant's failure to provide a written policy
regarding its schedule and guidelines for the retention and
permanent destruction of its workforces' biometric information
violates section 15(a) of BIPA, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Frank Castiglione, Esq.
          KasifKhowaja, Esq.
          THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC
          70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 356-3200
          Facsimile: (312) 386-5800
          E-mail: fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com
                  kasif@khowajalaw.com

               - and -

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 South Michigan A venue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201-0575
          Facsimile: (312) 332-0600
          E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
                  cpsons@bormeslaw.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Finneman Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Connie Finneman, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01792 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 22, 2018), seeks
to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate
result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
           GOZA & HONNOLD LLC.
           9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400
           Overland Park, KS 66207-2950
           Telephone: (913) 451-3433
           Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
           E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com


MONSANTO: Must Face Class Actions Over Herbicide
------------------------------------------------
Christopher Cole, writing for Law360, reports that Monsanto must
face several proposed class actions by farmers who accuse the
agriculture giant of producing an herbicide that drifted across
farmlands, damaging crops and ultimately forcing growers to buy
seeds. [GN]


MOVEMENT MORTGAGE: Fails to Pay Compensation, Morua Says
--------------------------------------------------------
SYDNEY MORUA, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MOVEMENT
MORTGAGE, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and Does 1 through 50,
Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG 18924431 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 12, 2018) alleges that the Defendant failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and California Class for all their missed meal breaks and
unpaid rest periods.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's uniform policy and
practice is unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practice
whereby Defendant retained and continues to retain wages due
Plaintiff and the other members of the California Class.

The Defendant originates home loans. It offers renovation loans for
minor or major upgrades on a home, fixed rate conventional
mortgages, home affordable refinance programs, and federal housing
administration loans to assist borrowers who may need a low down
payment.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


NEW 32ND: Does Not Pay Proper Wages, Montero Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------
Zoila M. Guaman Montero and Deisy Sailema, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. New 32nd St Inc.
d/b/a Enail, "Shawn" Doe and "Nicole" Doe Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-09859 (S.D. N.Y. October 25, 2018) is an action brought by
Plaintiffs on their own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated
employees, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law, arising from Defendants' various willful
and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs
their lawfully earned minimum wages, overtime compensation, failed
to provide them with a wage notice at the time of hiring as well as
proper wage statements for each pay period in violation of the
NYLL.

Montero is a resident of Queens County and was employed as a Nail
32nd Technician from on or about September 2016 to October 12,
2018.

Sailema is a resident of Queens County and was employed as a Nail
32nd Technician from on or about May 2017 to May 25, 2018.

New 32nd St Inc. d/b/a Enail is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of the State of New York 32nd with a
principal place of business located at 35 East Street, New York, NY
10016.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lorena P. Duarte, Esq.
     HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Phone: 718.353.8588
     Dir: 718.353.8522
     Email: lduarte@hanglaw.com


NICHICON: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of $21.5MM Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
class of indirect purchasers asked a judge on Oct. 29 to sign off
on a $21.5 million settlement with Nichicon for fixing the price of
capacitors.

A copy of the INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENTS WITH NICHICON AND
FOR APPROVAL OF THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF is available at:

           https://is.gd/KR2KmU


NIKODEMO OPERATING: Eduoard Sues Over Lost, Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Saint Surin Eduoard, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nikodemo Operating Corp., Dimitrios
Kaloidis, Ioanis Paraponiaris and Steve Zaharakis, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-05554, (E.D. N.Y., October 4, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages and unpaid spread of hours
premiums pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor laws including lost wages caused by retaliatory termination
of his employment.

Nikodemo Operating Corp. operates a diner "Floridian Diner" located
at 2301 Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11234 where Eduoard worked as
a kitchen worker. Defendants automatically deducted one hour as a
lunch break each day that Plaintiff worked, notwithstanding the
fact that he never took a lunch break of any length and failed to
pay him for that one hour. Nikodemo is accused of rounding down
employees' hours worked to the nearest hour, substantially reducing
the amount of time worked. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil M. Frank, Esq.
      Joseph A. Myers, Esq.
      FRANK AND BOLAND PC
      500 Bi-County Boulevard, Suite 465
      Farmingdale, NY 11735
      Tel: (631) 756-0400
      Fax: (631) 756-0547
      Email: nfrank@laborlaws.com
             jmyers@laborlaws.com


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Fuel Surcharges-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself against a consolidated fuel surcharges
related suit

In 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against the company
and other Class I railroads in various Federal district courts
regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the District of
Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In
2012, the court certified the case as a class action.

The defendant railroads appealed this certification, and the Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the District
Court's decision and remanded the case for further consideration.
On October 10, 2017, the District Court denied class certification;
the findings are subject to appeal.

Norfolk Southern said "We believe the allegations in the complaints
are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the cases. We do
not believe the outcome of these proceedings will have a material
effect on our financial position, results of operations, or
liquidity."

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

Norfolk Southern Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
engages in the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate
products, and finished goods.  Norfolk Southern Corporation was
founded in 1883 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia.


NY SWEET SPOT: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Huziankou Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DZIANIS HUZIANKOU, TIMUR KIM, AND AYATOLLA KUANYSH, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. NY SWEET
SPOT CAFE INC. d/b/a "Sweetspot Cafe," OLGA PERRY and IGOR SONIN,
jointly and severally, Case No. 1:18-cv-05715 (E.D.N.Y., October
12, 2018), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by (i) failing to pay the minimum wage, (ii) failing
to pay overtime premium pay, (iii) failing to pay for all hours
worked, and (iv) making unlawful deductions.

NY Sweet Spot Cafe Inc., doing business as Sweetspot Cafe, is a
domestic business corporation, organized and existing under the
laws of the state of New York with its principal place of business
located in Brooklyn, New York.  The Individual Defendants own,
operate and control Sweetspot Cafe's day-to-day operations and
management and jointly employed the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees.

Sweetspot Cafe is a restaurant located at 2376 Coney Island Avenue,
in Brooklyn, New York.  Sweetspot Cafe serves Russian food and
seats approximately 75 customers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
          E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
                  chris@lipskylowe.com
                  milana@lipskylowe.com


PARKLAND HEALTH: Baldridge Sues Over Unpaid Hospital Bills
----------------------------------------------------------
Marianna Baldridge, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Dallas County Hospital District (d/b/a
Parkland Health and Hospital System), Defendant, Case No.
DC-18-15079 filed in the M-298th Judicial District, Dallas County
TX, on October 4, 2018, seeks full refund of all unfair amounts
charged and collected, compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs and other relief for violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

Parkland Hospital is a governmental entity organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Texas, which is duly licensed to
provide medical care in the State of Texas, and whose principal
place of business is in Dallas County, Texas.

Baldridge is a patient who availed emergency care at Parkland
Hospital whose bills were not paid in whole or part by commercial
insurance or a governmental healthcare program and who did not have
their bills waived or written off in full.

According to the complaint, the Defendant charges their patients
using their own internally developed rate schedule which consists
of artificial, grossly inflated and unreasonable rates; and bills
their self-pay emergency care patients at rates which average
several times what is collected from all other categories of
emergency care patients covered by commercial insurers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John W. Pate, Esq.
      Michael Heygood, Esq.
      HEYGOOD, ORR & PEARSON
      6363 N. State Highway 161, Suite 450
      Irving, TX 75038
      Tel: (214) 237-9001
      Fax: (214) 237-9002
      Email: michael@hop-law.com
             john@hop-law.com


PEKIN INSURANCE: Sued over Unsolicited Faxed Advertisements
-----------------------------------------------------------
QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., the Plaintiff,
vs. PEKIN INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.: 2018CH13211
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Oct. 23, 2018), seeks injunction
prohibiting Defendant from sending unsolicited faxed advertisements
to Illinois consumers.

According to the complaint, Pekin is an insurance company with its
principal place of business in Illinois. On October 15, 2008,
Plaintiff instituted a civil class action captioned "Quality
Management and Consulting, Inc. v. Commercial Asphalt Maintenance,
LLC, et al," Case No. 08CH38641, in this Court (the "Underlying
Action").

In the Underlying Action, the Plaintiff sought relief on behalf of
itself and a class of similarly situated plaintiffs who also
received unsolicited faxes from Commercial Asphalt. The Underlying
Complaint alleged that Commercial Asphalt violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and
committed common law conversion by sending unsolicited faxes to
Quality and hundreds of others. The Underlying Complaint further
alleged that Commercial Asphalt knew or should have known that
Plaintiff and the other class members had not given express
invitation or permission for Defendant or anybody else to fax
advertisements about Defendant's goods or services. The Underlying
Complaint further alleged that its misappropriation of paper,
toner, and employee time was wrongful and without authorization.
Commercial Asphalt tendered the defense of the Underlying Action to
Pekin, and Pekin disclaimed its duty to defend and refused the
tender.

On May 16, 2013, the Court in the Underlying Action granted
Quality's motion for class certification and certified the
following class: "All persons who (1) were successfully sent one or
more facsimiles between October 8, 2007 and November 28, 2008,
advertising the services of "Commercial Asphalt Maintenance"
located at 1748 N. Aurora Road, Naperville, IL, and (2) with
respect to whom Defendant cannot provide evidence of prior express
permission or invitation for sending of such faxes."

On August 19, 2014, the Court in the Underlying Action granted
Quality's motion for summary judgment and entered final judgment in
favor of the class and against Commercial Asphalt. The Judgment was
entered against Commercial Asphalt in the total amount of
$1,120,500.

Defendant's actions caused damages to Plaintiff and the other class
members because their receipt of Defendant's unsolicited fax
advertisements caused them to lose paper and toner consumed as a
result. Defendant's actions prevented Plaintiff's fax machine from
being used for Plaintiff's business purposes during the time
Defendant was using Plaintiff's fax machine for Defendant's illegal
purpose. Defendant's actions also cost Plaintiff employee time, as
Plaintiff's employees used their time receiving, routing, and
reviewing Defendant's illegal faxes and that time otherwise would
have been spent on Plaintiff's business activities, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON+ WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: 847 368-1500

               - and -

          Phillip A. Bockm Esq.
          BOCK& HATCH, LLC
          134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312 658-5500


PGNV LLC: Ramos Seeks Minimum Wage and Overtime under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
FREDY HUMBERTO RAMOS PELICO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PGNV LLC (D/B/A EMPANADA
MAMA), HERMES B NY LLC (D/B/A EMPANADA MAMA EXPRESS), COVADONGA
INC. (D/B/A EMPANADA MAMA), SOCRATES NANAS, and GIOVANI MORALES,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-09761 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2018),
seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime compensation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants own, operate, or control
two restaurants and catering services companies, located at 95
Allen St., New York, New York. The Plaintiff is a former delivery
worker of PGNV LLC. However, he was required to spend a
considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped duties,
including but not limited to mopping and cleaning the floor of the
businesses , making the bags where the empanadas would go, carrying
down and stocking deliveries when the van would arrive, cleaning
the bathroom and the carpets, organizing and packing food, making
coffee and milk shakes, taking out the garbage, refilling the sauce
containers and sweeping and washing the sidewalk in front of the
business (non-tipped duties).

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the
hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


PHILIP MORRIS: Gilchrist Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Gilchrist, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Philip Morris International Inc., Andre
Calantzopoulos, Martin G. King, and Jacek Olczak, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-09856 (S.D. N.Y. October 25, 2018) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Philip Morris common stock between
February 8, 2018 and April 18, 2018, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Philip
Morris and certain of its officers and/or directors.

Over the last several years, says the complaint, Philip Morris has
been facing stagnant or negative sales trends due to a decrease in
smoking percentages worldwide. Throughout the Class Period, the
Company reassured investors that its sales initiatives were
combatting this decline and that favorable sales trends at the end
of 2017 were continuing through the first quarter of 2018.

However, these statements were materially false and misleading
because Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that: (i)
Philip Morris was experiencing a faster decline in cigarette and
heated tobacco sales volumes during the first quarter of 2018 than
investors had been led to believe, (ii) the Company's highly-touted
heated tobacco sales initiatives had faltered, and (iii) the
Company was experiencing adverse sales headwinds in key markets,
says the complaint. As a result of these misrepresentations, Philip
Morris stock traded at artificially inflated price levels
throughout the Class Period, it adds.

After the above revelations entered the market, the price of Philp
Morris stock dropped by nearly 22% from its Class Period high,
causing Plaintiff and other Class members to suffer significant
losses and damages.

Wayne Gilchrist purchased Philip Morris common stock at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and has been
damaged thereby.

Philip Morris is one of the world's largest tobacco companies,
producing several top selling cigarette brands. Through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, Philip Morris is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes, tobacco products, and other
nicotine-containing products, including heated tobacco units,
outside the United States. The Company is well-known worldwide for
its best-selling product, Marlboro cigarettes.

Andre Calantzopoulos is and, throughout the Class Period, was the
Chief Executive Officer & Director of Philip Morris beginning in
May 8, 2013 and through the Class Period.

Martin G. King is and, throughout the Class Period, was the Chief
Financial Officer of Philip Morris beginning in January 2018 and
through the Class Period.

Jacek Olczak is and, throughout the Class Period, was the Chief
Operating Officer of Philip Morris beginning in January 2018 and
through the Class Period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
     Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
     Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
     KESSLER TOPAZ
     MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Phone: (610) 667-7706
     Fax: (610) 667-7056
     Email: namjed@ktmc.com
            rdegnan@ktmc.com
            mtroutner@ktmc.com


PNC FINANCIAL: Rossini FCRA Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled STEPHEN ROSSINI and MATTHEW KANE, on behalf of
themselves and all similar situated individuals v. PNC FINANCIAL
SERVICES GROUP, INC. and PNC BANK, N.A., Case No. GD-18-011610, was
removed on October 12, 2018, from the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01370-MRH to the
proceeding.

By their Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert four
individual and putative class claims against the Defendants under
the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James M. Pietz, Esq.
          Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 288-4333
          E-mail: jpietz@fdpklaw.com
                  rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com

               - and -

          Martell Harris, Esq.
          THE TRIAL LAW FIRM, LLC
          BNY Mellon Center
          500 Grant Street, Suite 2900
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 588-0030
          E-mail: Contact@TLawF.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Catherine S. Ryan, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          225 Fifth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 288-3131
          E-mail: cryan@reedsmith.com

               - and -

          Michael O'Neil, Esq.
          Bruce R. Van Baren, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 207-1000
          E-mail: michael.oneil@reedsmith.com
                  bvanbaren@reedsmith.com


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Continues to Class Suits in Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Industries Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself against two class action lawsuits in
Minnesota.

The company is a party to two putative class actions pending
against it in the U.S., both of which were previously reported in
the company's quarterly report filed on July 25, 2018. One putative
class action is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota and arises out of allegations that certain
Polaris products suffer from unresolved fire hazards allegedly
resulting in economic loss, and is the result of the consolidation
of the three putative class actions the company reported in its
April 26, 2018 quarterly report and that were filed between April
5-10, 2018: James Bruner, Jose Luna, Clint Halvorsrod, Robert Lenz,
Michael Zeeck, Chad Rogers, Richard Berens, Steve Bailey, Michael
Jacks, Bryan Forrest and Ed Beattie, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Polaris Industries/Sales Inc. (D.
Minn.), June 15, 2018.

The second putative class action also is pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota and alleges
excessive heat hazards on certain other Polaris products and seeks
damages for alleged personal injury and economic loss: Riley
Johannesshon, Daniel Badilla, James Kelley, Kevin Wonders, William
Bates and James Pinion, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Polaris Industries (D. Minn.), October 4,
2016.

Polaris Industries said. "As these proceedings are still in the
early stages, we are unable to provide an evaluation of the
likelihood that a loss will be incurred or an estimate of the range
of possible loss."

Polaris Industries Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and
markets power sports vehicles worldwide. The company operates
through four segments: Off-Road Vehicles (ORVs)/Snowmobiles,
Motorcycles, Global Adjacent Markets, and Aftermarket. Polaris
Industries Inc. was founded in 1954 and is headquartered in Medina,
Minnesota.


PRIVATUS CARE: Markova Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------
MARYNA MARKOVA, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by PRIVATUS CARE SOLUTIONS,
INC., along with other entities affiliated or controlled by,
PRIVATUS CARE SOLUTIONS, INC., the Plaintiffs, vs. PRIVATUS CARE
SOLUTIONS, INC., and/or any other related entities, theDefendants,
Case No.: 159787/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 23, 2018), seeks to
recover wages and benefits which Plaintiffs were statutorily and
contractually entitled to receive pursuant to New York Labor Law

According to the complaint, the Defendant has maintained a policy
and practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of
ten hours per day, without providing the proper hourly compensation
for all hours worked, and overtime compensation for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread of
hours" compensation.

While employed by Defendant, the Plaintiff provided services to
homebound and/or ailing elderly clients, including but not limited
to, personal care services, such as assistance with dressing,
bathing and personal grooming, cooking, serving food, changing
diapers and toileting, cleaning, such as mopping, vacuuming,
cleaning bathrooms, taking out garbage, and escorting clients to
the doctors. During her employment, the Plaintiff was paid an
hourly rate of approximately $11.30 to approximately $14.57 per
hour. The Plaintiff worked 24-hour shifts, she was only paid for
approximately 16 hours of her 24-hour shift, and she was not paid
for every hour that she worked. The Plaintiff was not paid any
hourly rate for the other 8 hours worked. When Plaintiff worked
24-hour shifts for Defendant, she was generally not permitted to
leave the client's residence during her shift, the lawsuit says.

Privatus Care is a home care services agency.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
          Joel Goldenberg, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
          NAYDENSKIY LAW FIRM LLC
          281 Summerhill Road, Suite 210
          East Brunswick, NJ 08816
          Telephone: (212) 808-2224
          E-mail: naydenskiyl aw@gmail.com


RAD MEDICAL: Accused by Mendez of Not Paying Minimum and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELVIS RAFAEL MENDEZ and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. RAD MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, INC., DAVID DIAZ, Case
No. 1:18-cv-24211-UU (S.D. Fla., October 12, 2018), is brought as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from
the Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime and/or minimum
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Rad Medical Transportation, Inc., is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Dade County, Florida.  The Individual
Defendant is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Defendant
Corporation.

Rad Medical is a healthcare provider in Florida.  The provider is a
land vehicle with a capacity to meet special height, clearance,
access, and seating, for the conveyance of persons in non-emergency
situations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


RAWLINGS SPORTING: Sotelo Files Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
A fraud class action has been filed against Rawlings Sporting Goods
Company Inc. The case is styled as Richard Sotelo on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rawlings
Sporting Goods Company Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-09166
(C.D. Cal., Oct. 25, 2018).

Rawlings Sporting Goods Company, Inc. manufactures and markets
sporting goods for professional athletes, national governing
bodies, and sports leagues worldwide. It offers baseball,
basketball, football, and softball game-related product lines,
including gloves, wood and alloy bats, helmets, protective
products, baseballs, bags, and batting gloves.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas S. Alch, Esq.
     Shoop APLC
     350 South Beverly Drive Suite 330
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Phone: (310) 277-1700
     Fax: (310) 277-8500
     Email: thomas.alch@shooplaw.com



RED ROBIN: Court Certifies Class & Subclasses in Vigueras Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Manuel Vigueras, the
Plaintiff, v. Red Robin International, Inc., et al., the
Defendants, Case 8:17-cv-01422-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2018),
the Hon. Judge James V. Selna entered an order on Oct. 23, 2018,
granting certification to Vigueras' proposed class and subclasses
of:

   Class:

   "all persons who are employed or have been employed by Defendant
as non-exempt, hourly employees, however titled, in Defendant's
restaurants in the state of California from July 14, 2013 to the
present";

   First Meal Period Subclass:

   "all Class Members who worked more than 5 hours in a workday,
and were not provided with a lawful, timely uninterrupted 30-minute
meal period or compensation in lieu thereof";

   Second Meal Period Subclass:

   "all Class Members who worked more than 10 hours in a workday,
and were not provided with a lawful, timely uninterrupted 30-minute
meal period or compensation in lieu thereof."

   Rest Period Subclass:

   "all Class Members who worked more than 3-1/2 hours in a workday
and were not authorized or permitted to take one net 10 minute rest
period for every four hours worked or  major fraction thereof, or
compensation in lieu thereof";

   Indemnification Subclass:

   "all Class Members who were not reimbursed for necessary
expenditures incurred to perform their job duties"; and

   Unfair Business Practices Subclass:

   "all Class Members who (1) were subject to unlawful, illegal,
unfair or deceptive business acts or practices by Defendant and,
(2) are entitled to restitution for unpaid wages, unpaid meal or
rest premiums or unreimbursed expenses from Defendant based on
conduct occurring at any time from July 14, 2013 to the
present".[CC]

RENTGROW INC: Faces McIntyre Suit Alleging FCRA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA MCINTYRE, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. RENTGROW, INC., d/b/a Yardi Resident Screening, Case
No. 1:18-cv-12141 (D. Mass., October 12, 2018), seeks damages for
alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

RentGrow, Inc., provides online resident screening solutions for
property management companies and the multifamily housing industry
in the United States.

The Company's products include TotalScreen, an online resident
screening tool/system, which offers a range of components, such as
credit, criminal, and eviction/landlord and tenant records
screenings, as well as rental payment history records, address
searches, executive management reports, and verifications; and
ScreeningWorks, an online resident screening for independent rental
owners with various units.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Claude F. Lefebvre, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER & FAMILY LAW CENTER OF CLAUDE F. LEFEBVRE
          PO Box 479
          Pawtucket, RI 02862
          Telephone: (401) 728-6060


RICHLINE GROUP: Faces Kiler ADA Class Action
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Richline Group, Inc.
under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Marion Kiler individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Richline Group, Inc. doing
business as: Gemvara.com, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05980 (E.D.
N.Y., Oct. 25, 2018).

Richline Group, Inc. manufactures and distributes jewelry. It
offers precious metals, pearls, findings, gemstones, raw materials,
hand tools, equipment, displays, packaging products, beads, fashion
earrings, and chains. The company provides an ear piercing system
for use in jewelry and department stores, pharmacies, medical
clinics, salons, and beauty supply stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


RITZ CARLTON: Baltodano Suit Moved to Southern District of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Baltodano and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, vs. The Ritz Carlton Hotel Company, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 18-029405-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida (Miami) on Oct. 23, 2018. The Southern District of
Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-24393-KMW to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kathleen M.
Williams. The suit alleges Civil Rights Act violation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plantiff:

          Nathaly Lewis, Esq.
          Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: nl@rgpattorneys.com
                  pmh@rgpattorneys.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Elizabeth Mercedes Rodriguez, Esq.
          Viktoryia Johnson, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON LLP
          1 S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2130
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 808-2100
          Facsimile: (305) 808-2101
          E-mail: erodriguez@fordharrison.com
                  vjohnson@fordharrison.com

ROGERS PAVEMENT: Accused by Pittman Suit of Not Paying Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN PITTMAN, Individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. ROGERS PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE, INC., DOUG ROGERS and
RICHARD ROGERS, Case No. 1:18-cv-00717-MRB (S.D. Ohio, October 11,
2018), accuses the Defendants of unlawfully denying overtime
compensation to the Plaintiff for hours worked in their paving
business, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Rogers Pavement is a for-profit Ohio Corporation first registered
with the Ohio Secretary of State in 1996.  The Individual
Defendants are owners, officers or employees of Rogers Pavement.
The Defendants are in the paving business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christian A. Jenkins, Esq.
          Robb S. Stokar, Esq.
          MINNILLO & JENKINS Co., LPA
          2712 Observatory Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Telephone: (513) 723-1600
          Facsimile: (513) 723-1620
          E-mail: cjenkins@minnillojenkins.com
                  rstokar@minnillojenkins.com


RON DESANTIS: Stephenson Sues over Political Campaign Text Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH STEPHENSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RON DESANTIS, the Defendant, Case No.
8:18-cv-02606 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 23, 2018), alleges that Defendant
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, through his
political campaign, or its agents, sending text messages to
Plaintiff and other individuals without their consent through
automatic telephone dialing system.

According to the complaint, at 2:14 p.m. on October 18, 2018, the
Plaintiff received the following text message from telephone number
(855) 206-9488 on his personal cellular phone:

     "Vote DeSantis today to protect our Constitution.
www.rondesantis.com Gillum & his radical friends will be a disaster
for the FL Supreme Court. DeSantis will appoint justices who will
uphold our Constitution."

In response, Plaintiff sent the following text:

     "Don't text me and don’t call me. "I’m voting for
Gillum!!!" He did not receive a response.

A 3:18 p.m. on October 21, 2018, Plaintiff received the following
text message from telephone number (321) 204-7412 on his personal
cellular phone:

     "Florida Gubernatorial Debate Tonight on CNN at 8pm ET Ron
DeSantis vs Andrew Gillum Pres. Trump needs every Republican in
Florida to step up and help stop the radical left-wing by voting
for Ron DeSantis. Andrew Gillum is a radical far-left democrat. His
campaign is powered by Socialist Bernie Sanders & Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez. Gillum wants to abolish ICE, allow sanctuary cities,
add Billions in new FL taxes, and defund the police. He wants to
impeach Pres. Trump.
WE MUST STOP GILLUM! VOTE EARLY, starting tomorrow in many
counties. Learn More at RonDeSantis.com/EarlyVoting Paid by Ron
DeSantis, Republican, for governor."

Defendant's political campaign, or its agents, sent the text
messages identified. The Plaintiff has had his cellular phone
number since approximately 2004. He has never provided his cellular
phone number to any political campaigns. Plaintiff called the phone
numbers from which the text messages were sent. The Plaintiff never
gave his permission for Defendant or Defendant’s political
campaign to send text messages to Plaintiff's cellular phone or to
contact him in any other way. The Plaintiff is outraged that
Defendant's campaign, or its agents, would send text messages to
his personal cellular phone and he hopes this lawsuit will hold
Defendant and his campaign accountable for violating the law, the
lawsuit says.

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Rd., Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: 561-447-8888
          Facsimile: 561-447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  zflowerree@flsalaw.com


SCHWAB INVESTMENTS: Vedder Price Discusses Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vedder Price, in an article for The National Law Review, reports
that in February 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted a motion dismissing with prejudice
the claims brought by Northstar Financial Advisors, Inc., on behalf
of its clients who invested in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund,
against Schwab Investments, Charles Schwab Investment Management,
Inc. and the trustees of the Schwab Trust. Northstar alleged that,
between August 2007 and February 2009, Schwab had managed the
Fund's investments in a manner that deviated from the Fund's stated
investment objectives and policies, resulting in investor losses.
Northstar claimed under Massachusetts law that the Fund's trustees
breached a purported fiduciary duty owed directly to the Fund's
shareholders, that the Fund breached a purported contract with its
shareholders embodied in the Fund's proxy statement and prospectus
and that the Fund's shareholders had claims against Schwab as
third-party beneficiaries under the Fund's investment advisory
agreement. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
had previously decided that these were legitimate claims under
state law, the District Court, on remand from the Ninth Circuit,
dismissed Northstar's claims with prejudice, determining that they
were essentially claims of misrepresentation in the sale of
securities and were therefore precluded from being brought as a
class action by the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standard
Act (SLUSA). Following this decision, Northstar appealed the
decision of the District Court to the Ninth Circuit.

On September 14, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion
affirming the District Court's dismissal of Northstar's class
claims, agreeing that the claims were precluded by SLUSA. However,
the Ninth Circuit concluded that the District Court had erred in
dismissing the claims with prejudice and remanded the case to the
District Court to give Northstar an opportunity to amend its
complaint.

The Ninth Circuit's opinion was issued under the caption Northstar
Financial Advisors, Inc. v. Schwab Investments, et. al., Case No.
16-15303. [GN]


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Kasich Sues Over Defective EZ Seeds
-------------------------------------------------------
PETE KASICH, and all others similarly situated v. THE SCOTTS
MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY, INC., and THE SCOTTS COMPANY LLC, Case No.
2:18-cv-01373-JFC (W.D. Pa., October 12, 2018), seeks to recover
damages on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
purchasers of Scotts Turf Builder EZ Seed in Pennsylvania.

Mr. Kasich accuses the Defendants of misrepresenting and selling a
defective combination mulch-grass seed product, Scotts Turf Builder
EZ Seed ("EZ Seed" or the "Product").  He asserts that according to
the Product's labeling and advertising, the Product was uniformly
represented as causing grass to grow "50% THICKER WITH HALF THE
WATER" compared to "ordinary seed" and that the Product "Grows
Anywhere! Guaranteed!" (the "Representations").  He contends that
the Representations are materially false and misleading because the
Product does not in fact make grass grow "50% THICKER WITH HALF THE
WATER" compared to "ordinary seed."

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
with a principal place of business in Marysville, Ohio.  Scotts is
the world's largest marketer of branded consumer lawn and garden
products, including a variety of grass seed products.

The Scotts Company LLC is an Ohio Limited Liability Company with a
principal place of business located in Marysville.  The Scotts
Company LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Scotts Miracle-Gro
Company, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin J. Sweet, 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: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          201 Milwaukee Street, Suite 200
          Denver, CO 80206
          Telephone: (303) 222-9008
          Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com


SILVERWARE POS: Clark Sues over Use of Biometric identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------
LAVELL CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SILVERWARE POS, INC., an Illinois
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.: 2018CH13115 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty., Oct. 22, 2018), seeks injunctive and other equitable
relief as is necessary to protect the interests of Class, including
an order requiring the Defendant to collect, store, and use
biometric identifiers or biometric information in compliance with
the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, SilverWare is a developer of point of
sale ("POS") systems for the hospitality industry. It offers a
range of POS systems that enable businesses-primarily
restaurants-to track their employees' time by using a biometric
finger scanner. When employees first begin their jobs at a
restaurant that uses Silverware's POS system, they are required to
scan their fingerprint in its biometric time tracking system as a
means of authentication, instead of using key fobs or other
identification cards.

While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks
in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or
identification cards-which can be changed or replaced if stolen or
compromised-fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees to
serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a
fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed,
employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and
unauthorized tracking. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens
from situations like these, Illinois enacted the BIPA, specifically
to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens'
biometrics, such as fingerprints. Despite this law, Silverware
disregards restaurant employees' statutorily protected privacy
rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric
data in violation of the BIPA.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589 6370
          Facsimile: 312 589 6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  ewadescott@edelson.com

               - and -

          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355 7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778 0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  jkunze@fishlawfirm.com



SIRIUS XM: Bid For Class Certification in Buchanan Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the motion for
class certification in the lawsuit filed by Thomas Buchanan is
pending.

On March 13, 2017, Thomas Buchanan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against the company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The plaintiff in this
action alleges that the company violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") by, among other things, making
telephone solicitations to persons on the National Do-Not-Call
registry, a database established to allow consumers to exclude
themselves from telemarketing calls unless they consent to receive
the calls in a signed, written agreement, and making calls to
consumers in violation of our internal Do-Not-Call registry.

The plaintiff is seeking various forms of relief, including
statutory damages of five hundred dollars for each violation of the
TCPA or, in the alternative, treble damages of up to fifteen
hundred dollars for each knowing and willful violation of the TCPA
and a permanent injunction prohibiting the company from making, or
having made, any calls to land lines that are listed on the
National Do-Not-Call registry or the company's internal Do-Not-Call
registry. The plaintiff has filed a motion seeking class
certification, and that motion is pending.

Sirius XM said, "We believe we have substantial defenses to the
claims asserted in this action, and we intend to defend this action
vigorously."

Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the
United States. The company broadcasts music plus sports,
entertainment, comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather programs,
including various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop
to country, dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play
sports from principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and
entertainment channels for various audiences; national,
international, and financial news; and limited run channels. Sirius
XM Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation.


SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Biometric Information-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24,
2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
company continues to defend itself against a potential class action
complaint alleging Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA") violations.

On January 7, 2016, a potential class action complaint was filed
against Six Flags Entertainment Corporation in the Circuit Court of
Lake County, Illinois. On April 22, 2016, Great America, LLC was
added as a defendant. The complaint asserts that the company
violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") in
connection with the admission of season pass holders and members
through the finger scan program that commenced in the 2014
operating season at Six Flags Great America in Gurnee, Illinois,
and seeks statutory damages, attorneys' fees and an injunction.

An aggrieved party under BIPA may recover (i) $1,000 if a company
is found to have negligently violated BIPA or (ii) $5,000 if found
to have intentionally or recklessly violated BIPA, plus reasonable
attorneys' fees in each case. The complaint does not allege that
any information was misused or disseminated. On April 7, 2017, the
court certified two questions for consideration by the Illinois
Appellate Court of the Second District. On June 7, 2017, the
Illinois Appellate Court granted the company's motion to appeal.
Accordingly, two questions regarding the interpretation of BIPA
were certified for consideration by the Illinois Appellate Court.
On December 21, 2017, the Illinois Appellate Court found in
company's favor, holding that the plaintiff had to allege more than
a technical violation of BIPA and had to be injured in some way.

On March 1, 2018, the plaintiff filed a petition for leave to
appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. On May 30, 2018, the Illinois
Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's leave to appeal.

Six Flags said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend
ourselves against this litigation. Since this litigation is still
in an early stage, the outcome is currently not determinable and a
reasonable estimate of loss or range of loss in excess of the
immaterial amount that we have recorded for this litigation cannot
be made."

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation owns and operates regional
theme and water parks under the Six Flags brand name. The company's
parks offer various thrill rides, water attractions, themed areas,
concerts and shows, restaurants, game venues, and retail outlets.
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation was founded in 1961 and is
based in Grand Prairie, Texas.


SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Credit Card Info
----------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24,
2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
company continues to defend itself from four potential class action
complaint.

During 2017, four potential class action complaints were filed
against Six Flags Entertainment Corporation or one of its
subsidiaries. Complaints were filed on August 11, 2017 in the
Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois, on September 1, 2017 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
on September 11, 2017 in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
California, and on November 30, 2017 in the Superior Court of Ocean
County, New Jersey.

The complaints allege that the company, in violation of federal
law, printed more than the last five digits of a credit or debit
card number on customers' receipts, and/or the expiration dates of
those cards. A willful violation may subject a company to liability
for actual damages or statutory damages between $100 and $1,000 per
person, punitive damages in an amount determined by a court, and
reasonable attorneys' fees, all of which are sought by the
plaintiffs. The complaints do not allege that any information was
misused.

Six Flags SAID, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against
this litigation. Since this litigation is in an early stage, the
outcome is currently not determinable and a reasonable estimate of
loss or range of loss cannot be made."

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

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation owns and operates regional
theme and water parks under the Six Flags brand name. The company's
parks offer various thrill rides, water attractions, themed areas,
concerts and shows, restaurants, game venues, and retail outlets.
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation was founded in 1961 and is
based in Grand Prairie, Texas.


SOLUDOS LLC: Violates Disabilities Act, Figueroa Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Figueroa has brought a class action lawsuit against Soludos
LLC. The case is captioned Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Soludos LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-09891 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2018).

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

Soludos LLC designs, manufactures, and sells shoes for women, men,
and kids. It offers espadrilles, sandshoes, lace-ups, low cuts,
sandals, canvas shoes, and summer and beach shoes. The company
sells its products through retail stores.[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


STARKIST: 9th Cir. Affirms Tuna Under-filling Settlement Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that the Ninth U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals has affirmed the District Court's approval of a
class-action settlement in a case where consumers sued over the
under-filling by StarKist of its cans of tuna, with two of the
three judges on the panel declaring that a pay-off to class members
in the form of vouchers was not akin to a "coupon settlement" which
requires heightened scrutiny under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005.

Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland agreed with her colleagues --
Senior Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith and District Court Chief Judge
Barbara M. G. Lynn of the Northern District of Texas, sitting by
designation -- that the settlement notice satisfied due process and
that the class counsel did not engage in misconduct. However, she
insisted that "the vouchers to purchase StarKist canned tuna must
be considered coupons" under the act.

Her concurring and dissenting opinion responds to the Oct. 19
memorandum opinion which affirms the Sept. 29, 2016 decision by
District Court Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. of the Northern
District of California giving final approval to a $12 million
settlement of the action.

That action was brought by one Patrick Hendricks in February 2013.
Citing federal law requiring that five-ounce cans contain an
average of 2.84 to 3.23 ounces of tuna, he alleged that StarKist's
cans actually held an average of 2.81 to 3.11 ounces of tuna.

Hendricks averred that he would not have purchased the StarKist
product if he had known that the cans contained .08 to 1 percent
less tuna than federally mandated.

Under the settlement, consumers -- who stated under penalty of
perjury that they bought 5-ounce cans of StarKist tuna between Feb.
19, 2009 and Oct. 31, 2014 -- could receive $25 or $50 in vouchers
redeemable for cans of the StarKist product.  A group of objectors
appealed. [GN]


STUBBS & WOOTTON: Figueroa Suit Asserts ADA Breach
--------------------------------------------------
Jose Figueroa has filed a class action lawsuit against Stubbs &
Wootton Corp. under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case
is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Stubbs & Wootton Corp., Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-09886 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2018).

Stubbs & Wootton produces bespoke and ready-to-wear luxury
slippers. It is located at 340 Worth Avenue, Palm, Beach,
Florida.[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


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Sauer Sues Over Flaw in Turbo Charged Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHERYL SAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-14933
(D.N.J., October 12, 2018), is brought on behalf of all persons,
who purchased or leased certain vehicles equipped with uniform and
uniformly defective engines designed, manufactured, distributed,
warranted, marketed, and sold or leased by the Defendant.

The vehicles at issue all contain turbo charged engines, including
but not limited to the 2014 Subaru Forester XT, 2015 Subaru
Forester XT, 2016 Subaru Forester XT, 2014 Subaru WRX, 2015 Subaru
WRX, 2016 Subaru WRX, 2014 Subaru WRX STi, 2015 Subaru WRX Sti, and
2016 Subaru WRX STi (the "Class Vehicles").

The Plaintiff alleges that the Class Vehicles' engines have a
serious design defect that causes the engines to suffer damage due
to the engines being tuned too highly.  Additionally, the Defendant
applied an undisclosed fix ("the Fix") during a "claimed" mandatory
emissions recall to the Engines in an attempt to fix the design
defect in the Engines that rendered the Class Vehicles unusable due
to intermittent stalling and sudden accelerating following the
application of the Fix.

Subaru of America, Inc., is a domestic corporation duly organized
under the laws of the state of New Jersey, and engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of motor vehicles and related
equipment and services.  The Defendant is also in the business of
marketing, supplying and selling written warranties to the public
at large through a system of authorized dealerships.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951
          E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
                  rschmierer@denittislaw.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Tom Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, PC
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (424) 278-9125
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


SUNDANCE INC: Jackson Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------
DWAYNE JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SUNDANCE, INC., a Michigan
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH13118 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty., Oct. 22, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendant's capture,
collection, use and storage of individuals' biometric identifiers
and/or biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.  The lawsuit seeks to obtain redress for
all persons injured by the Defendant's conduct.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has implemented an
invasive program that relies on the capture, collection, storage
and use of its workers' fingerprints, while disregarding the
applicable Illinois statute and the privacy interests it protects.
The Defendant's employees in Illinois have been required to clock
"in" and "out" of their work shifts by scanning their fingerprints,
or by entering a code at a cash register. When clocking in and out
using the fingerprint scans, the Defendant's biometric computer
systems then verify the employee and clock the employee "in" or
"out." Unlike traditional time clock punch cards that can be
changed or replaced if lost or compromised, fingerprints are
unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each BIPA
defines a "biometric identifier" as "a retina or iris scan,
fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry."

BIPA defines "biometric information" as "any information",
regardless of how it is captured, converted, stored, or shared,
based on an individual's employee. This exposes the Defendant's
workforce to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example,
if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise
exposed, employees have no
means by which to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Frank Castiglione, Esq.
          KasifKhowaja, Esq.
          THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC
          70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 356-3200
          Facsimile: (312) 386-5800
          E-mail: fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com
                  kasif@khowajalaw.com

               - and -

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 South Michigan A venue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201-0575
          Facsimile: (312) 332-0600
          E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
                  cpsons@bormeslaw.com


TAPESTRY INC: Ornelas Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Ornelas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Tapestry, Inc., a Maryland
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.: RG18920047, was removed from
the Alameda County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
Northern District of California (Oakland). The Northern District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-06453-DMR to the
proceeding on Oct. 22, 2018. The suit alleges labor-related
violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Donna M.
Ryu.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Gregory William Knopp, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 229-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
          E-mail: gknopp@akingump.com


TD AMERITRADE: Kim Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
WON KIM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs TD AMERITRADE, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
519332/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sept. 26, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiff and their
similarly situated co-workers, salaried Investment Consultants,
Fixed Income Specialists, and/or Senior Fixed Income Specialists
who are or were employed by Defendants from August 1, 2011 through
December 15, 2017 in New York, from August 1, 2013 through December
15, 2017 in California, and from August 1, 2014 through December
15, 2017 in states other than New York and California under the New
York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant applied the same
employment policies, practices, and procedures to all Plaintiffs,
including policies, practices, and procedures with respect to
payment of overtime pay and other wages.

TD Ameritrade is a brokerage firm that provides online investment
services for individuals and institutions.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300 0375

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Melanie L. Ronen, Esq.
          Keesal Young & Logan, Esq.
          400 Oceangate
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 436 2000

TECHNOLOGY INSTALL: O'Brien Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY O'BRIEN, 7821 Chase Lake Road Fowlerville, MI 48836, the
Plaintiff, vs. TECHNOLOGY INSTALL PARTNERS, LLC c/o Kathleen C
Hopkins 3681 S. Green Road, Suite 402 Beachwood, OH 44122, and RYAN
TEMPLE 13701 Enterprise Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44135, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02448 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 23, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, by and through counsel, files this
collective action complaint against Defendants, to challenge
policies and practices of the Defendants that violate the FLSA.

The Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective were classified by the
Defendants as non-exempt employees and paid on an hourly basis.
They regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week as security
system installers, repairers, and maintenance service providers
and/or other similar job titles/functions.  The Defendants' policy
and practice is to deny earned wages, including overtime wages, to
its non-exempt hourly employees.  The Defendants require their
employees to be present and perform work in excess of 40 hours per
work week, fail to properly and accurately report wages earned and
hours worked, and fail to properly and accurately calculate
overtime compensation, the lawsuit says.

Technology Install Partners provides security solutions for
commercial and residential customers, including access control
technology to fire alarm systems.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM , LLC
          The Caxton Building
          812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 912-2221
          Facsimile: (216) 350-6313
          E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com


TOO FACED: Underpays Makeup Artists, Provencio Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
ROSE PROVENCIO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TOO FACED COSMETICS, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No.: 18CV336593 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 23,
2018),seeks to enjoin Defendant's unlawful conduct, to obtain
restitution of unpaid wages and unlawful deductions made from
Makeup Artist's pay, and to prosecute a private enforcement action
to collect civil penalties under the abor Code Private Attorney
General Act.

The case involves Defendant-employer's deliberate scheme to
misclassify its Makeup Artists as independent contractors, thereby
denying them the fundamental protections due o employees under
California law.

This combined class and PAGA enforcement action is brought against
Defendants – who require Makeup Artists to work sales promotion
events at retailers like Sephora USA, Inc., Macy's, Inc., and Ulta
Beauty, Inc. – for engaging in a pattern and practice of
willfully misclassifying its Makeup Artists, including plaintiff
Rose Provencio, as independent contractors, instead of affording
them their true status as employees, thus denying these works the
basic wage-and-hour rights and protections guaranteed to employees
by the California Labor Code and the IWC's applicable Wage Order.

The result of Defendants' misclassification scheme is that
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Makeup Artists were, and
are, routinely denied payment of all earned wages, including: (i)
the compensation earned but left unpaid, pursuant to California
law's requirement that employees be paid at least the minimum wage
for each hour worked; (ii) the premium wages earned for each day an
employee is deprived an uninterrupted, duty-free meal period
mandated by California law; (iii) the premium wages earned for each
day an employee is deprived an uninterrupted, duty-free rest period
mandated by California law; and (iv) failure to reimburse Makeup
Artist for all job related business expenses, the lawsuit says.

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Class:

          Kevin R. Allen, Esq.
          Daniel Velton, Esq.
          VELTON ZEGELMAN P.C.
          1261 Lincoln Ave., Suite 208
          San Jose, CA 95125
          Telephone: (408) 505-7892
          Facsimile: (408) 228-1930
          E-mail: kallen@vzfirm.com
                  dvelton@vzfirm.com


TRI STATE ADJUSTMENTS: Court Shelves Loveland Case
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned PETER LOVELAND, the
Plaintiff, v. TRI STATE ADJUSTMENTS INC., the Defendant, Case
2:18-cv-01662-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin
entered an order on Oct. 19, 2018, granting Plaintiff's motion to
stay further proceedings.

The Court said, "The parties are relieved from the automatic
briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c).
Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco. October 18, 2018, the Plaintiff
filed a class action complaint. At the same time, the plaintiff
filed what the court commonly refers to as a "protective" motion
for class certification. In this motion the plaintiff moved to
certify the class described in the complaint but also moved the
court to stay further proceedings on that motion. In Damasco v.
Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court
suggested that class action plaintiffs "move to certify the class
at the same time that they file their complaint." "The pendency of
that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the
named plaintiffs." However, because parties are generally
unprepared to proceed with a motion for class certification at the
beginning of a case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties
"ask the district court to delay its ruling to provide time for
additional discovery or investigation"."[CC]


TRl CITY FOODS: Young Sues over Use of Biometric Information
------------------------------------------------------------
JOE YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TRl CITY FOODS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, and NCR CORPORATION, a Maryland
Corporation, the Respondent in Discovery, Case No. 2018CH13114
(Ill. Cir Ct., Cook Cty, Oct. 22, 2018), seeks liquidated damages
under the Biometric Information Privacy Act, as compensation for
the injuries Tri City has caused to its employees.

According to the complaint, Tri City is a franchisee of the Burger
King restaurant chain. When employees first begin their jobs at one
of Tri City's restaurants, they are required to scan their
fingerprints in its time clocks. That's because Tri City uses a
biometric time tracking system that requires employees to use their
fingerprints as a means of authentication, instead of key fobs or
identification cards. While there are tremendous benefits to using
biometric time clocks in the workplace, there are also serious
risks.

Unlike key fobs or identification cards -- which can be changed or
replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique,
permanent biometric identifiers associated with the employee. This
exposes employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For
example, if a fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed, employees have no means by which to prevent
identity theft and unauthorized tracking. Recognizing the need to
protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted
the Biometric Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate
companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics,
such as fingerprints. Despite this law, Tri City disregards its
employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully
collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the
BIPA, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589 6370
          Facsimile: 312 589 6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  ewadescott@edelson.com

               - and -

          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355 7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778 0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  jkunze@fishlawfirm.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Carlton Fields Discusses 9th Cir. Rulings
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlton Fields, in an article for JDSupra, reports that a putative
class action against Uber filed by some of the company's
California-based drivers has crashed. The Ninth Circuit reversed
rulings denying Uber's motion to compel arbitration, certifying the
class of drivers, and enjoining Uber from distributing and
enforcing a new arbitration agreement. Relying on its decision in a
previous class action against Uber (Mohamed v. Uber Technologies,
Inc., 848 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2016), the Ninth Circuit held that
the arbitration agreements delegated the threshold question of
arbitrability to the arbitrator. Thus, the determination of
arbitrability was not within the district court's province.

The plaintiffs argued the district court's determination that the
arbitration agreements were unenforceable should be upheld because
the named class representatives had "constructively opted out of
arbitration on behalf of the entire class." The Ninth Circuit held
the plaintiffs had no authority to take that action on behalf of
and binding the other drivers. Although the plaintiffs found a
Georgia Supreme Court case (Bickerstaff v. Suntrust Bank, 788 S.E.
787 (Ga. 2016)) supporting their position, they were unable to
point to any federal case doing so. Bickerstaff relied exclusively
on state law grounds and did not discuss the Federal Arbitration
Act.

The plaintiffs' second argument, that the arbitration agreements
were unenforceable because they contain class action waivers that
violate the National Labor Relations Act, was extinguished by the
United States Supreme Court in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138
S.Ct. 1612 (2018). Because the arbitration agreements were
enforceable, Uber's motion to compel arbitration should have been
granted, and because the plaintiff's claims would be arbitrated,
the district court's order certifying the class and restricting
Uber's communications with the class were also reversed. O'Connor
v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 14-16078 (9th Cir. Sept. 25,
2018). [GN]


ULTIMATE FITNESS: Huff Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
------------------------------------------------------------
LEAH HUFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ULTIMATE FITNESS GROUP, LLC D/B/A ORANGETHEORY FITNESS,
a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 9:18-cv-81369-DMM
(S.D. Fla., October 11, 2018), accuses the Defendant of violating
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by allegedly sending
unsolicited marketing text messages.

Ultimate Fitness, doing business as Orangetheory Fitness, is a
Florida limited liability company whose principal office is located
in Boca Raton, Florida.

The Defendant is a fitness franchise that offers group personal
training workouts.  To promote its services, the Defendant engages
in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the
process, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Tyndall Suits Pile Up Despite Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Gorman, writing for Reuters, reports that fourteen more women
accusing a former University of Southern California gynecologist of
sexual misconduct sued the physician and the university on Oct. 23,
as their lawyer decried a proposed class-action settlement with the
school as "grossly inadequate."

Women's rights attorney Gloria Allred said the tentative $215
million deal reached to settle claims brought in federal court
against Dr. George Tyndall and USC by his former patients would let
the university off too easy, without the school fully accounting
for its role in the scandal.

Hundreds of women have accused Tyndall of subjecting them to
molestation, lewd comments and other sexually inappropriate
behavior during medical exams while they were his patients at the
university's student health clinic.

Some of the allegations date back nearly 30 years. The university
has acknowledged failing to properly act on at least eight
complaints that were made against Tyndall between 2000 and 2014 but
were never brought to light until uncovered during an inquiry that
the university opened in 2016.

An attorney for Tyndall, whose medical license was suspended in
August, has said that her client denies all the allegations but
agreed to the settlement to avoid the expense of continued
litigation.

Many accusers have recounted sensing something unprofessional or
"creepy" about Tyndall but trusting him nevertheless, only to fully
comprehend the sexual abuse retrospectively.

Tyndall resigned from the university last year after an internal
investigation found that his pelvic examination practices were
beyond accepted medical standards and that he had harassed
patients.

Widespread faculty and student outrage over the university's
handling of the matter led to then-USC President C.L. Max Nikias to
resign. The Los Angeles Police Department has opened a criminal
investigation.

In suing the university, Tyndall's former patients had accused USC
of complicity and negligence in its duty to protect students.

Allred said her latest filing brings to 50 the number of clients
she is representing in three lawsuits against Tyndall and USC. She
vowed to press ahead in state court with those cases to "determine
what USC knew and when they knew it."

She called the tentative settlement of a class-action federal case
on behalf of hundreds of Tyndall's patients -- making each eligible
for $2,500 to $250,000 -- "grossly inadequate compensation."

"USC, not just their insurance carriers, should bear the financial
consequences for their alleged failure to act to properly remove or
discipline Dr. Tyndall when complaints were initially made," Allred
said.

USC issued a statement defending the settlement as a deal reached
"collaboratively with lawyers representing the interests of the
entire proposed class," which the university said is expected to
include 14,000 to 17,000 women. It said the deal would "help heal
the university community."

Allred was flanked by two of her latest clients in the case, along
with the first named plaintiff in the lawsuits, Daniella Mohazab,
who called the proposed settlement "a mockery."

On Oct. 18, 93 lawsuits were filed on behalf of current and former
USC students against Tyndall and the university. [GN]


US STEEL: Faces Class Action Over Carnegie Way Campaign
-------------------------------------------------------
Joseph S. Pete, writing for nwi.com, reports that investors claim
in a class action lawsuit that U.S. Steel's Carnegie Way efficiency
campaign was "a sham" that "fabricated cost savings" partly by
putting off maintenance that eventually needed to happen anyway.

The lawsuit was filed last fall in U.S. District Court in the
Western District of Pennsylvania in response to a 27 percent plunge
in stock prices after the steelmaker's unexpected loss of $180
million in the first quarter of 2017. The suit filed by Christakis
Vrakas and other shareholders named the steelmaker, executives like
former CEO Mario Longhi and U.S. Steel's underwriters as
defendants, alleging they violated federal securities law.

The class action suit further alleges U.S. Steel made false and
misleading claims in investor conference calls, presentations,
prospectuses and press releases in 2016 and 2017.

Judge Cathy Bissoon has been weighing U.S. Steel's motion to
dismiss the case, giving the plaintiffs until Oct. 30 the
opportunity to address deficiencies she found in their claim.

Attorney Vincent Coppola argued in the lawsuit that U.S. Steel's
cost-cutting initiative wasn't actually what was presented to
shareholders, citing 11 confidential company insiders and the
steelmaker's former chief operating officer.

"Although the Carnegie Way purportedly consisted of three elements,
it was widely known throughout the company that the only element
actually implemented was Operational Excellence which, according to
plaintiffs' confidential sources, was 'all about cost-cutting at
the expense of operations,'" Coppola argued in the lawsuit.
"Indeed, the U.S. Steel defendants severely curtailed the
maintenance initiative because that would cost money."

U.S. Steel's deferred maintenance and layoffs during the downturn
in 2016 led to "thousands of tons of missed steel production" when
the market turned around, depriving investors of profits they would
have otherwise pocketed, the suit alleges.

U.S. Steel is asking the judge to dismiss the case, saying there's
no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, just a difference of
philosophy.

"Despite complaining that U.S. Steel made inadequate capital
investments and obscured that fact, the complaint makes no
challenge to any of U.S. Steel's regularly disclosed financial
figures, including capital expenditures," U.S. Steel attorney
Geoffrey Ritts argued in a motion to dismiss. "The complaint
ultimately is little more than a lengthy disagreement with
managerial decisions and business strategies, and it is well
established that such disagreements do not a disclosure claim
make." [GN]


USA MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Araujo Says
--------------------------------------------------------
LUCAS ARAUJO, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. USA
MANAGEMENT, LLC; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No.
RG18925458 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 22, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay all straight time wages and overtime wages
under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, for at least four years prior to the
filing of this action and through to the present, the Defendants
have had a continuous widespread policy of not paying Plaintiff and
those similarly situated for all hours worked, including before
clocking in for their work shift, after clocking out for their work
shift, and during unpaid meal periods. Further, the Defendants have
had a continuous and widespread policy to shave the time Plaintiff
and those similarly situated worked.[BN]

Attorneys for Lucas Araujo, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara, Esq.
          Jill Vecchi, Esq.
          Matthew Crawford, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234 4048


VAN TASSEL-PROCTOR: Jones Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Van Tassel-Proctor Inc. and Ted Van Tassel, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00741, (W.D. Ark., October 4, 2018) seeks monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.

Van Tassel-Proctor is a commercial building construction company
where Jones worked as construction worker. He claims to have
regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week without overtime
pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VENTURE 475 LLC: Dillon Seeks to Stop Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TODD DILLON, individually, and KAREN LONG, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. VENTURE 475, LLC, a New
York limited liability company D/B/A SYNERGY CAPITAL, Case No.
1:18-cv-09304 (S.D.N.Y., October 11, 2018), seeks to stop the
Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
making unsolicited, prerecorded and autodialed telemarketing calls
to consumers without their consent, including to consumers
registered on the National Do Not Call registry.

Venture 475, LLC, doing business as Synergy Capital, is a New York
limited liability company headquartered in New York City.  Synergy
Capital was formed in 2011 as a capital loan provider focused on
providing capital to businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          5 Penn Plaza, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


VICTIM SERVICES: Must Face Claims Over Use of Gov't Letterheads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a prior settlement and $50,000 fine do not absolve debt collectors
from claims that they used government seals and letterheads to
trick consumers into paying illegal fees, a federal judge said on
Nov. 1.

Four California residents sued Victim Services Inc. and its
affiliated companies in 2014 for allegedly using false threats of
criminal prosecution to obtain fees of about $200 each as part of a
state-sanctioned bad check diversion program.

On Nov. 1, a defense attorney urged U.S. District Judge Vince
Chhabria to dismiss the case, or at least deny the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. He said the plaintiffs lack
standing to sue because their claims were already resolved in a
2015 settlement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB).

"The relief the plaintiffs seek in this action has already been
achieved by this settlement," defense attorney Sean Hardy said.

Under the terms of a 2015 consent decree, the debt collectors
pledged to stop using prosecutors' seals and letterheads, to
clearly disclose their identities, and to stop threatening criminal
prosecution in collection letters. They also paid a $50,000 fine.

Judge Chhabria said the prior settlement and fine do not address
allegedly illegal fees that plaintiffs say they were pressured to
pay under false pretenses.

"Their theory is that you wrongfully took money from the class
members," Judge Chhabria said. "You're saying ‘We should be able
to keep that money because we already paid a fine to the CFPB.'"

The judge said potential class members should be allowed to seek
restitution for those fees, but he suggested a state court judge
might be better suited to resolve the dispute, given that the fees
were part of a state program.

"Let the state court decide whether the state's own program is
being violated or not," Judge Chhabria said.

The plaintiffs say the program requires that county district
attorneys individually determine whether each check writer can be
prosecuted or referred to the program. To avoid prosecution, the
person must pay their debt and attend an intervention program at
their own expense.

According to the lawsuit, the debt collectors get automatic
referrals from county prosecutors and then demand fees for
"financial accountability" classes, which no one is actually
required to attend.

"They were worried if they didn't sign up for the program and pay
fees, they would go to jail," said plaintiffs' attorney Beth
Terrell in an interview after the court hearing.

Judge Chhabria said on Nov. 1 he will deny the debt collectors'
motions to dismiss and that he will likely certify a class of
California consumers who received debt collection letters prior to
March 30, 2015, when the CFPB settlement was reached.

The judge rejected the plaintiffs' argument that debt collection
practices were not "materially different" after the collectors
agreed to stop using DA letterheads and seals, among other
reforms.

"Those are significant changes," Judge Chhabria said. "It's not on
DA letterhead, and it's not the same letter."

Because all three named plaintiffs received letters before 2015,
Judge Chhabria said they lack standing to seek an injunction.

"It seems to me there needs to be a plaintiff who was subject to
the defendants' conduct based on the way they're doing it now,"
Judge Chhabria said.

The plaintiffs asked for permission to add a new named plaintiff
who received a debt collection letter after March 30, 2015. The
judge said he would consider that request, but a new lawsuit might
need to be filed to pursue those claims.

The judge scheduled a case management conference for Nov. 15 and
asked the defense attorneys to figure out whether they intend to
oppose the request to add a new named plaintiff.

The defendants include Victim Services Inc., National Corrective
Group Inc., American Justice Solutions Inc. and Birch Grove
Holdings Inc., collectively doing business as CorrectiveServices.
Matt Jonsson, CEO of National Corrective Group, and Karl Thomas
Jonsson, principal shareholder and officer of Victim Services, are
also named as defendants.


WALKER CONSTRUCTION: Sullivan Suit Asserts ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walker Construction,
Inc. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr. on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Walker
Construction, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09870 (S.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 25, 2018).

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

Walker Construction is a Vermont based excavation and concrete
company specializing in all aspects of residential and commercial
excavation.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



YOUR BEAUTIFUL: Lucero Suit Asserts FLSA & NYLL Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
MARIA DE LOURDES PEREA LUCERO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. YOUR BEAUTIFUL THREADING SALON, INC. (D/B/A
BEAUTIFUL BROWS THREADING & NAILS), 1003 SWEET GIRL INC. (D/B/A
BEAUTIFUL NAIL AND SPA), BEAUTIFUL BROWS, INC. (D/B/A BEAUTIFUL
BROWS), ROXANNE DOE, SULEMA DOE, and RYMA DOE, Case No.
1:18-cv-09323 (S.D.N.Y., October 11, 2018), alleges violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has worked for the
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that she has
worked.

Beautiful Brows Threading & Nails, 1003 Sweet Girl Inc. and
Beautiful Brows, Inc., are domestic corporations organized and
existing under the laws of the state of New York and maintains
their principal place of business in Bronx, New York.  The
Individual Defendants serve or served as owners, managers,
principals, or agents of the Defendant Corporations.

The Defendants own, operate, or control three beauty salons,
located at 1526 Westchester Ave., in Bronx, New York, under the
name "Beautiful Brows Threading & Nails", at 1003 Southern Blvd.,
in Bronx under the name "Beautiful Nail and Spa", and at 815 E
Tremont Ave., in Bronx under the name "Beautiful Brows."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


YUMMY HOUSE: Lopez Seeks Overtime Pay for Hours Worked Over 40
--------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Lopez, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Yummy
House Chinese Cuisine, Inc. and Zhao Junwu, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-02460, (M.D. Fla., October 4, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and minimum wage compensation, as well as an additional
amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Yummy House is a Chinese Restaurant in Hillsborough County where
Lopez Gonzalez worked as a Hibachi Chef. He claims to have
routinely worked for Yummy House in excess of 40 hours per week,
without being paid overtime. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Monica Espino, Esq.
      ESPINO LAW
      2655 S. LeJeune Road, Suite 802
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Tel: (305) 704-3172
      Fax: (305) 722-7378
      Email: me@espino-law.com


[*] Torkin Manes Attorney Discusses Historical Sexual Abuses Cases
------------------------------------------------------------------
Loretta Merritt, Esq. -- lmerritt@torkinmanes.com -- of Torkin
Manes LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that in Ontario, class
actions are governed by the Class Proceedings Act[1], (the "CPA").
Class actions allow an individual to advance a legal claim on
behalf of two or more persons where common issues exist. The goals
of class actions are judicial efficiency, improved access to
justice for those whose claims might not otherwise be pursued, and
behaviour modification (of those whose actions affect large numbers
of people). The CPA came into force in Ontario on January 1, 1993.
The CPA outlines the legal requirement for a claim to be certified
by the court as a class action: 1) a valid cause of action, 2) an
identifiable class of two or more people, 3) common issues, 4) a
representative plaintiff and 5) the Court must be satisfied that a
class proceeding is a preferable procedure for resolving the common
issues. The CPA also provides the procedural framework for the
prosecution of these claims including rules regarding notice,
settlement, lawyers' fees, etc.

Class action legislation developed as a result of product liability
cases. The CPA provides an effective procedure to obtain a remedy
for product liability claims that affect many people, particularly
where the individual claims are small as compared to the
significant cost of legal fees in a lawsuit. For example, if there
is a defect in a small car part, a class action may be appropriate
and preferable to individual lawsuits. Recently, there have been
several cases in which class actions have been certified for claims
arising out of historical sexual abuse in institutions and, in
particular, claims against private schools, religious
organizations, and government run facilities. While there may be
some advantages to pursuing historical sexual abuse claims by way
of a class action, there are also distinct disadvantages.

Class Proceedings in Historical Sexual Assault
In a class action, the class members (i.e., the people who have a
claim to damages) have a very minor role to play, are not involved
in instructing the lawyers or making decisions about how the case
proceeds and have no input into settlements. Class members are
usually not involved until the last stage of the case where their
individual damages are determined. Conversely, if those persons
hired a lawyer and brought their own lawsuit the client is the one
making decisions and instructing the lawyer. For sexual abuse
survivors, legal cases are usually about more than just money. They
are about coming forward, being heard and acknowledged and holding
people to account, as well as gaining a sense of justice and
closure. In a class action these goals can get lost. Also, in
sexual abuse class actions the quantum of damages is usually much
lower than the recovery in an individual action. So, to the extent
that a sexual abuse survivor wants to maximize their financial
recovery, an individual action is usually a better option.

The certification of historical institutional abuse cases as class
actions began with the Rumley[2] case in British Columbia. There,
the court certified a class action for abuse survivors from the
Jericho Hill School for the Deaf.  The government ran the school
and had already set up a compensation scheme for those abused at
the school.  The government's compensation scheme had a maximum
payment of $60,000 for each abuse victim. In considering whether or
not to certify the case as a class action, the court specifically
said that $60,000.00 was too low a cap on damages in 2001.  The
case was ultimately settled for compensation of up to a maximum of
$125,000.00 per class member.  Unfortunately, class members in
institutional abuse cases in Ontario have not fared nearly as well.
For example, in 2010 the Johnston[3] case settlement caped the
abuse victims' compensation up to a maximum of $50,000.00 per class
member.  However, the lawyers were awarded legal fees in the amount
of $1,118,499.64.

In the Huronia[4] and related cases[5], the maximum compensation to
the abuse victims was even lower.  In the Huronia cases, the
settlement agreement arranged by the class's lawyers provided for
maximum compensation of up to $35,000.00 per class member.
However, the average actual payment to survivors was only
$3,711.22.  The lawyers got legal fees of over $16 million
dollars.

In the Seed[6] case which involved abuse at the Ross MacDonald
School for the Blind (Ontario School for the Blind), the settlement
package provided for compensation up to $37,500.00 per class
member.  However, only 181 class members actually received
compensation for an average payment of $16,285.00.  The lawyers got
legal fees of $2,520,000.00 plus disbursements and HST.

One interesting thing about these institutional abuse cases in
Ontario is that aggregate damages have never been awarded or paid
as part of a settlement package in these cases.  Aggregate damages
are damages paid to class members for having been at the school or
institution but who were not specifically abused.  Although
aggregate damages are identified as a common issue to justify
certification of the case as a class action, in the Ontario class
action settlements, the settlements have provided for damages only
for those who were actually physically or sexually assaulted, no
aggregate damages.  Therefore, one of the principal justifications
for certifying the dispute as a class action is undermined in those
settlements.

In one recent class action for institutional abuse, the judge has
expressed his concern about the settlement and legal fees.  In the
Welsh[7] case, Justice Perell expressed great disappointment and
disapproval of proposed settlement which provided that ninety
percent (90%) of the class members would get no compensation, no
apology, or anything at all (even indirectly).  The lawyers
basically admitted that aggregate damages were not available in law
and only those who were actually physically or sexually assaulted
could receive compensation.  Perell. J approved the settlement
reluctantly because he felt the alternative of forcing the case to
trial would be even worse for the survivors.  He also disapproved
of the legal fees.  In fact, he ordered that lawyers donate $1.5
million dollars of their $3.75 million legal fee to a charity or
charities for the deaf.  The case is under appeal including the
court's order that the lawyers contribute to a charity.

Individual Actions for Sexual Assault
On the other hand, if survivors of historical institutional abuse
sue in individual actions with their own lawyer, the damages are
much greater and can be in the six figure range. In several cases
compensation of between $100,000.00 and $200,000.00 or more was
awarded at trial[8].  In individual cases, personal injury lawyers
often work on a contingency basis taking a percentage of the
damages recovered. This means abuse survivors do not have to pay
legal fees up front or as they go along.

There are other even bigger problems with class action for abuse
institutional cases; namely notice and opting out. Class actions
are commenced by a representative plaintiff bringing a motion to
the court to have the class action certified. Once this is done,
the court sets a procedure to ensure that all people who are
members of the class and who are entitled to compensation get
notice and are given the right to "opt out" in order to maintain
the right to pursue an individual lawsuit at some future time.
Class members "opt out" by coming forward and saying they do not
want to be part of the class action. A time limit is set and if
class members do not opt out by the specified date, they are deemed
to be included in the class. Next, there is a trial of the common
issues (often "liability" or legal responsibility is a common
issue) and after the trial of the common issues, there are
individual damages trials. It is at this point class members need
to come forward and pursue their individual claims for damages. If
they fail to come forward, they are forever prohibited from
pursuing compensation.  The only way they can pursue an individual
lawsuit is if they come forward before the "opt-out" deadline and
follow the procedures set out by the Court for opting out within
the opt-out deadline at the beginning of the class action.  If they
do neither, they get nothing.

Sexual abuse survivors usually suffer serious psychological
problems as a result of their abuse in childhood. There are also
well established links between childhood sexual abuse and substance
abuse problems, problems with education and employment and criminal
activity in later life. Many abuse survivors become homeless, move
around the country or are "off the grid". In addition to the long
passage of time in historical abuse cases, these other problems can
make it difficult, if not impossible, to reach significant numbers
of victims when the judicial notice of the class action is given.
If a class member does not receive notice he or she has no
opportunity to "opt-out" and his/her right to seek compensation, or
to be heard and acknowledged will be forever lost.

Even if class members do get notice of the class proceeding, the
"opt out" procedure in class actions is especially troublesome in
historical sexual assault cases. It often takes abuse survivors 20,
30, or 40 years or even longer to come forward. There are many
reasons why sexual abuse survivors do not come forward including
misplaced shame, guilt and fear of coming forward, or simply a
desire to avoid thinking about and confronting the horrendous pain
they suffered. The importance of allowing abuse survivors to come
forward in their own time was recently acknowledged by the Ontario
government when it enacted Bill 132 amending the Limitations Act,
2002 to eliminate limitation periods for cases based on sexual
assault. This amendment is a clear message to abuse survivors that
their claims are important and that justice should not be rendered
unavailable to them simply because it has taken them time to be
ready to address the issue legally. The elimination of limitation
periods provides more access to justice for abuse survivors.
Conversely, class actions for historical sexual abuse claims
require survivors to come forward and opt out or risk forever
having their claims extinguished. In my view, any law or rule that
requires an abuse survivor to come forward at a specific time is
potentially harmful and contrary to the public interest expressed
by the Ontario government in amending the Limitations Act.

In order to exercise the right to opt-out and preserve their right
to bring an individual claim for damages, the abuse survivor must
do all the following:

   -- They must receive the notice;
   -- They must understand the notice;
   -- They must be ready to admit to themselves that they have been
abused and be willing to admit to strangers that they have been
abused;
   -- They should get legal advice on whether an individual action
or a class action settlement is a better option for them;
   -- They must make that decision about which is a better option
before they know what the settlement will actually be; and
   -- They must send a letter or complete a form to be sent to the
class action lawyer to exercise their right to opt-out.

For the average person, being told they are part of a lawsuit they
knew nothing about and having to follow this process is
bewildering.  Imagine the distress for an abuse survivor who is not
ready to admit to themselves that they are a survivor of childhood
sexual abuse, yet alone tell anyone else about it.

One of the goals of class actions is judicial economy.  Now that
the law of vicarious liability is clear, we know institutions are
liable for assaults committed by employees in residential care
facilities.  This is not a significant common issue.  Where there
are significant common issues such as whether the Government or the
school is the proper defendant, a class action may be appropriate
to determine that discrete issue.  However, where it is clear who
ran the institution, then really the issue comes down to whether a
particular individual was abused, the amount of their losses and
damages.  In such cases, there is no significant judicial economy
achieved by certifying the case as a class action.

It is usually in an institutional defendant's interest to have a
class action. In Ontario, if a historical institutional abuse class
action is certified, the defendant will enjoy the opportunity to
pay pennies on the dollar for those who come forward and collect
damages under the class proceeding. To extent that the money they
have put up as settlement fund is not actually paid out, it is
usually returned back to the defendant.  As well, for all the other
abuse survivors who have not come forward to collect their money
under the class action and have not already opted-out, the
defendant enjoys the benefit of having all those claims
extinguished and minimizes their liability to pay what would
otherwise be valid claims.

One way to reconcile the difficulty presented by the "opt out"
provision with the benefit of a class proceedings would be to have
an "opt-in" provision for historical institutional abuse cases. In
this way, potential class members who are notified of the class
proceeding would have the choice of either coming forward, opting
in and becoming part of the class action or staying silent and not
having their claims extinguished. If the abuse survivor was not
ready to come forward, he or she could stay silent and still
preserve their right to pursue an individual action at a future
time should they become ready to do so.

Arguably, a legislative amendment is necessary to provide for an
"opt-in" provision. In the interim, at a minimum class counsel
should be required to advise potential class members to get
independent legal advice (ILA) before making a decision whether or
not to "opt-out". The notice should contain a statement that most
personal injury lawyers work on contingency and give free
consultations. Adding such a provision to the notice will not help
abuse survivors who do not receive the notice or those who get the
notice but are still as yet unable to speak about the abuse, but it
may help people who are ready to come forward to better understand
the advantages and disadvantages of class actions vs. individual
lawsuits. The notice should also provide information about the new
program whereby sexual abuse survivors who are 16 years of age,
were assaulted in Ontario and live in Toronto, Ottawa or Thunder
Bay are eligible for a certificate for 4 hours of free legal
advice. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***