CAR_Public/181108.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, November 8, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 224

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Grubb Files PI Class Action in Del.
3M COMPANY: Hardwick Sues Over Exposure Toxic Substances
A&E PLUMBING: Aguirre Files Labor Class Action
ACKER AUCTION: Faces Dominguez ADA Class Action in NY
ADVANCED MICRO: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Ha" Shareholder Suit

AIG DIRECT: Abrantes Files Suit Over TCPA Breach
ASSET RECOVERY: Bid to Dismiss Amended Meola FDCPA Suit Denied
ATASCADERO STATE: Court Dismisses Pines Without Leave to Amend
AUDI OF AMERICA: Nixon Files Suit Asserting ADA Breach
AVALON HOLDINGS: Matusky Class Gets Conditional Certification

AVIS BUDGET: Denial of Bid for Leave to Amend in Mendez Affirmed
BASF AG: Bryn Hill Industries Files Anti-trust Class Action
BCA FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses Ferrulli FDCPA Suit
BENEFICIAL BANCORP: Dappollone Suit Challenges Sale to WSFS
BENSUSAN RESTAURANT: Faces Fischler Suit in S.D. New York

BIRCH TELECOM: Court Denies Certification of Huskey Class
BLUE DIAMOND: Campbell-Clark Hits Misleading Product Labels
BROADWAY ENERGY: Danconia Management Hits Illegally-faxed Ads
BUCKHEAD PARKING: Steward Suit Remanded to Georgia State Court
CAPITAL FITNESS: Court Denies Class Certification in Gooden Suit

CAROLINA QUARRIES: Shortchanged on Pay, Workers Claim
CELLSAVERS: Denied Overtime Pay, Wage Statements, Says Krasnow
CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: Bid to File Under Seal in Barchiesi Granted
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castillo Says
CHRISTOFLE SILVER: Figueroa Files Class Suit Under ADA

CHW GROUP: Moore Seeks to Stop Placement of Unconsented Calls
CIRCA INC: Dominguez Suit Asserts ADA Violation
COLLECTO INC: Dentinger Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
COMMERCE ENERGY: $2.7MM Attys' Fees Awarded in Hurt FLSA Suit
CONSULATE HEALTH CARE: Knapp Sues Over Forfeited Leave Benefits

CORIUM INT'L: Monteverde & Assoc Probing Securities Laws Violations
CVS HEALTH CORPORATION: Removes Hyams Suit to N.D. California
DART CONTAINER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Prado Suit Alleges
DAVOL INC: Removes MSP Suit From Miami-Dade Cir. to S.D. Florida
DEUTSCHE BANK: Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit to 2nd Circuit

DNC SERVICES: Sweigert Appeals Class Suit Dismissal
DOUGH JOE: Espinoza Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
DR. CATHERINE E. CRIM: Faces Smallwood et al. Suit in D. Oregon
EC MOBILE: Faces Class Action in New York for ADA Breach
ESCAPE THE ROOM: Figueroa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site

EUBA CORP: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Buckles Suit Says
FACEBOOK INC: Failed to Secure Users' Personal Info, Wiik Says
FEDEX GROUND: Bid to Seal Doc in Padovano Denied w/o Prejudice
FEDEX GROUND: Fails to Pay Overtime and Minimum Wages, Dolan Says
FLAGSHIP FACILITY: De Orozco Suit Moved to S. D. California

FLOWERS FOODS: Rios' Claims in Medrano Dismissed w/o Prejudice
GATES CORPORATION: Lundine Seeks Conditional Class Certification
GENERAL MILLS: Jackson Sues over Sale of Mislabeled Cereal
GENESIS FS: Wright Sues over Marketing Telephone Calls
GLK FOODS: Settlement in Jimenez Suit Has Final Approval

HILLCREST PHARMACY: Advanced Dermotology Hits Illegally-faxed Ads
HOWELL OILFIELD: Beck Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HUAZHU GROUP: Hayes Sues Over Share Drop from Data Breach
HUME ENTERPRISES: Milosevic Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
INDEPENDENT RECOVERY: Furia Sues Over Debt Collection Practices

J C TREE: Marte Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
JAX DIRTWORKS: Accused by Gurney of Not Paying Overtime Wages
JEFFREY CAMPBELL: Violates ADA, Kiler Suit Says
JILDOR SHOES: Fischler Sues Footwear Retailer Under ADA
JULIAN SPENCE: Heberle Seeks to Certify Class of Purchasers

KROGER CO: Bid to Decertify Class in Hardesty FLSA Suit Denied
LAKE CHASE CONDOMINIUM: Sues over Unlawful Towing of Vehicle
LANGSTON COMPANIES: Bonds Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LEGACY TREATMENT: Chudzinski Files Suit Over Retaliatory Discharge
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Amended Childress TCPA Suit Dismissed w/ Prejudice

LYFT INC: Accused by Ganji of Illegally Sending Unsolicited Texts
MAC COSMETICS: Johnson Seeks Overtime Pay for Hrs. Worked Over 40
MARRIOTT INT'L: Alward Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Pre-shift Work
MDL 2741: Russ Suit v. Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated
MONSANTO COMPANY: Johnson Suit Moved to N.D. California

MONSANTO COMPANY: Miller et al. Suit Moved to N.D. California
MORGENTHAL-FREDERICS: Nixon Asserts ADA Class Action in NY
MOTOR VEHICLE: Court Narrows Claims in Heaton TCPA Suit
NATHAN'S FAMOUS: Figueroa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
NATIONAL DELIVERY: Sanchez-Lopez Suit Moved to E.D. North Carolina

NATIONAL RESTORATIONS: Workers' Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
NAVIENT CORP: Kahn Swick Probes Securities Laws Violations
NAVIGATORS GROUP: Kent Files Securities Class Action
NEILSON FINANCIAL: Layoff Notice Untimely, Merriweather Suit Says
OMNI SPECIAL: Denied Meal Breaks and Overtime Pay, Garcia Suit Says

OPKO HEALTH: Camhi Hits Share Price Drop Over Pump-and-Dump Scheme
P&E IRON: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Zavalla Says
PATIENT INNOVATION: Tomala's Bid to Certify Class Shelved
PENN NATIONAL: Sued by Jessop in M.D. Florida for Violating FCRA
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Illegally Broke Escrow Agreements, Investors Say

PHYSICIAN LABORATORIES: Rivas Seeks to Certify Class
PRIDE BUS: Scorcia Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: Court Stays Bid for Class Certification
REAL AGENT PRO: Accused by Gomes Class Suit of Violating TCPA
RELIASTAR LIFE: Advance Trust Sues Over Excessive Insurance Charges

RUNNING SPECIALTY:  Violates ADA, Nixon Suit Asserts
SECRET STASH: Stinnett Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages
SENOMYX INC: Kim Seeks to Halt Merger Deal; Seeks Financials
SERGEANT'S PET:  Bietsch Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 7th Cir.
SERVICE EXPERTS: Court Allows Amended Donato FLSA Suit

SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Judge Consolidates 17 Antitrust Lawsuits
SODEXO INC: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Lazo Suit
SPRINGFIELD, MA: Appeals Order in Disability Law Suit to 1st Cir.
STEAK N SHAKE: Summary Judgment Bid in Drake FLSA Suit Denied
STUCKY & LAUER: Settlement of Maloy Class Suit Approved

TIMES SQUARE: Flores Sues over Tip Skimming
TMT LITTLE ROCK: Dolphin Seeks Damages for FLSA Violation
TREVENA INC: Faces Mastopietro Securities Suit in E.D. Pa.
TUCKER ENERGY: Court Denies Conditional Certification in McElroy
US ARMY: Court Wants Calixto Complaint, Class Cert. Bid Revised

VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA: Compelled to Produce Docs in Monroeville Suit
VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Madison Files Product False Labeling Suit
WALMART INC: Reaches $65MM Settlement With Cashiers Over Seating
WE BEGG TO DIFFER: Failed to Pay Minimum Wage, Hunt et al Say
WRF SERVICES: Jackson Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay

YAKULT USA: Court Nixes Torrent Class Certification Denial Appeal

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Grubb Files PI Class Action in Del.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The 3M Company for
personal injury. The case is styled as Nicole Grubb, Laurence Curly
for themself and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. The 3M Company formerly known as: Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing, Co, Tyco Fire Products L.P. successor in
interest to The Ansul Company, Buckeye Fire Protection Co.,
Chemguard, National Foam, Inc., Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. formerly
known as: Chubb National Foam, Inc. formerly known as: National
Foam Inc. individually and as successor in interest to National
Foam, Inc., Kidde PLC, Inc. formerly known as: Williams US Inc.
formerly known as: Williams Holdings, Inc. individually and as
successor in interest to National Foam, Inc., Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.
Individually and as successor in interest to National Foam, Inc.,
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc. formerly known as:
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01711-UNA  (D.
Del., Oct. 30, 2018).

The 3M Company, formerly known as the Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company, is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, health care, and
consumer goods.

Tyco Fire Products L.P. manufactures fire protection systems.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Company develops, manufactures, and markets
fire protection products. It offers hand-held, wheeled, and spot
protection extinguishers; and kitchen suppression systems, foam
equipment and concentrates, mounting hardware, extinguishing
agents, and spare parts.

Chemguard, Inc. develops and manufactures fire suppression foams,
equipment and systems, specialty foam pumps, and fluorosurfactant
specialty chemicals for industrial, military, municipal, offshore,
petrochemical/energy, transportation/freight, and airport hangar
applications worldwide.

Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. develops, manufactures, and supplies
firefighting products and systems.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. designs, manufactures, and supplies fire
protection systems for commercial, residential, and vehicle
applications worldwide.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc. was incorporated in
2001 and is based in Arden Hills, Minnesota. UTC Fire & Security
Americas Corporation, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of United
Technologies Corp.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Joseph Hrubiec, Esq.
     Napoli Shkolnik, LLC
     919 North Market Street, Suite 1801
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 330-8025
     Fax: (302) 295-4801
     Email: rhrubiec@napolilaw.com


3M COMPANY: Hardwick Sues Over Exposure Toxic Substances
--------------------------------------------------------
Kevin D. Hardwick Plaintiff, v. 3M Company, Dyneon, LLC, E.I. Du
Pont De Nemours and Company, The Chemours Company LLC, Archroma
Management LLC, Arkema, Inc., Arkema France, S.A., AGC, Inc. (f/k/a
Asahi Glass Co. Ltd.), Daikin Industries Ltd., Daikin America,
Inc., and Solvay Specialty Polymers, USA, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-01185, (S.D. Ohio, October 4, 2018), seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief resulting from negligence.

Hardwick has worked as a firefighter for more than forty years,
during which he has used firefighting foams containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, used equipment/gear
treated and/or coated with materials containing and/or contaminated
with the same.

Defendants marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed released,
trained users, produced instructional materials, sold and/or
otherwise handled and/or used polyfluoroalkyl substances. These
allegedly resulted in various adverse health effects among multiple
species of laboratory animals, including toxic effects to the
liver, testes, adrenals, and other organs and bodily systems, notes
the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Butler, Esq.
      TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
      65 East State Street, Suite 1000
      Columbus, OH 43215-4213
      Tel: (614) 221-2838
      Fax: (614) 221-2007
      Email: dbutler@taftlaw.com

             - and -

      Robert A. Bilott, Esq.
      TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
      425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800
      Cincinnati, OH 45202-3957
      Tel: (513) 381-2838
      Fax: (513) 381-0205
      Email: bilott@taftlaw.com

             - and -

      Ned McWilliams, Esq.
      Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor P.A.
      316 South Baylen Street
      Pensacola, FL 32502
      Tel: (850) 435-7138
      Email: nmcwilliams@levinlaw.com


A&E PLUMBING: Aguirre Files Labor Class Action
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A & E Plumbing Corp.
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is styled as
Jean Carlos Aguirre, Hector Aguilar, Edwin Palacios, Elvis Palacios
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. A & E Plumbing Corp., A & E Plumbing and Heating
Corp., Dimitri Tsioulidis, Nico Tsioulidis, Estella Tsioulidis
jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06086 (E.D.
N.Y., Oct. 31, 2018).

A & E Plumbing And Heating Corporation is a privately held company
in Whitestone, NY and is a Single Location business, categorized
under Plumbers and Plumbing Contractors.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


ACKER AUCTION: Faces Dominguez ADA Class Action in NY
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acker Auction, Inc.
The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Acker Auction, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10115 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 31, 2018).

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

Acker Merrall & Condit Company, Inc. engages in the sale of wines
in America. It offers auction, education, tasting, and wine club
services.[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


ADVANCED MICRO: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Ha" Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jake Ha filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Jake Ha v. John Caldwell, et al., Case No.
4:15-cv-04485-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., and certain directors
and officers for their alleged failure to implement necessary
policies and protocols to ensure the accurate dissemination of
material information to its shareholders and the broader investment
community, concerning a Company product called Llano.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., is a corporation that designs and
distributes technology for high-tech appliances such as personal
computers, tablets and game consoles.

The appellate case is captioned as Jake Ha v. John Caldwell, et
al., Case No. 18-17005, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 14, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on December 14, 2018;

   -- Appellant Jake Ha's opening brief is due on January 23,
      2019;

   -- Appellees Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., John E. Caldwell,
      Henry W.K. Chow, Bruce L. Claflin, Nora M. Denzel, Nicholas
      M. Donofrio, Martin L. Edelman, John R. Harding, Joseph A.
      Householder, Michael J. Inglis, Lisa T. Su and Ahmed
      Yahia's answering brief is due on February 22, 2019; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant JAKE HA, derivatively and on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Kara Wolke, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG, LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  kwolke@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew M. Houston, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          712 5th Avenue, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 935-7400
          E-mail: mhouston@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Avraham Wagner, Esq.
          THE WAGNER FIRM
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 491-7949
          E-mail: avi@thewagnerfirm.com

Defendants-Appellees JOHN E. CALDWELL, HENRY W.K. CHOW, BRUCE L.
CLAFLIN, NORA M. DENZEL, NICHOLAS M. DONOFRIO, MARTIN L. EDELMAN,
JOHN R. HARDING, JOSEPH A. HOUSEHOLDER, MICHAEL J. INGLIS, LISA T.
SU, AHMED YAHIA and ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., Nominal
Defendant, are represented by:

          Matthew Rawlinson, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          140 Scott Drive
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 328-4600
          E-mail: matt.rawlinson@lw.com

               - and -

          Melanie Blunschi, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: (213) 485-1234
          E-mail: melanie.blunschi@lw.com

               - and -

          Jason C. Hegt, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          885 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-4834
          Telephone: (212) 906-1200
          E-mail: jason.hegt@lw.com

               - and -

          Patrick Edward Gibbs, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          3175 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 843-5535
          E-mail: pgibbs@cooley.com


AIG DIRECT: Abrantes Files Suit Over TCPA Breach
------------------------------------------------
Jogert Abrantes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AIG Direct Insurance, Inc., and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 1:18
at-00799 (E.D. Cal., October 31, 2018) seeks damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal
actions of Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully
contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular phone in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant used an "automatic Phone dialing system" to place its
call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant
did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive
calls using an automatic Phone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on his cellular Phone, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Fresno, California.

AIG Direct Insurance, Inc. is a life insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASSET RECOVERY: Bid to Dismiss Amended Meola FDCPA Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Margo K. Brodie of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss  the
case, LEONARDO MEOLA, Plaintiff, v. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC,
and BUREAUS INVESTMENT GROUP PORTFOLIO NO. 15, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 17-CV-1017 (MKB) (RER) (E.D. N.Y.).

Meola commenced the putative class action against Defendants Asset
Recovery Solutions, LLC ("ARS") and Bureaus Investment Group
Portfolio No. 15, LLC ("BIG") on Feb. 23, 2017.  On Aug. 18, 2017,
the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against ARS and BIG,
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").

On Nov. 28, 2016, ARS sent the Plaintiff a letter dated Nov. 28,
2016, seeking to collect a credit card debt.  BIG authorized ARS to
send the Letter.  According to the Plaintiff, the Letter does not
accurately reflect the debt amount because the financial
information listed is inconsistent and does not]make sense.  He
contends that a debt that was $10,848.95 at chargeoff that has
accrued interest of $10,848.95 and miscellaneous fees of $1,214.50
cannot possibly have a current balance of $12,063.45.  In addition,
the Letter also does not contain a warning that the debt may
increase in the future due to interest.  The Plaintiff alleges that
BIG or its affiliate, The Bureaus, Inc. ("TBI"), provided the
amounts described to ARS.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state
a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  The Plaintiff opposed the motion.

On April 5, 2018, the Court referred the Defendants' motion to
Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes for a report and recommendation.
By report and recommendation dated Aug. 15, 2018 ("R&R"),
Magistrate Judge Reyes recommended that the Court denies the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  He found that
that the Amended Complaint sufficiently pleads violations by ARS
and a claim of vicarious liability against BIG.  He also found that
the Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that the Letter violated the
FDCPA because the least sophisticated consumer would be unable to
deduce the actual amount of the debt as of the date of the letter,
and would not know whether interest or fees on the debt would
continue to accrue in the future.  Judge Reyes further found that
the Plaintiff sufficiently alleges a claim of vicarious liability
against BIG because it is a debt collector for purposes of the
FDCPA, and is engaged in a principal-agent relationship with ARS to
collect debts on BIG's behalf, and that ARS was acting within the
scope of the authority granted to it by BIG.

On Aug. 29, 2018, the Defendants timely filed an objection to the
R&R against BIG.  On Sept. 12, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a response
to the Defendants' objection.  The Defendants also urge the Court
to take judicial notice of an alleged fact found by the court in
Zambrana v. Pressler & Pressler, LLP, No. 16-CV-2907, (S.D.N.Y.
Dec. 2, 2016), that TBI is BIG's master servicer.  They contend
that the court in Zambrana found that TBI is the master servicer of
BIG.

No party objected to Judge Reyes' recommendation that the Court
denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the claim against ARS.
Judge Brodie has reviewed the unopposed portion of the R&R and,
finding no clear error, she will adopt R&R.  Accordingly, she will
deny the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint
against ARS.

The Defendants object to Judge Reyes' recommendation that the Court
denies the motion to dismiss the claim against BIG.  The Defendants
argue that Judge Reyes erred by failing to take judicial notice of
the fact that TBI is BIG's master servicer and that as such, an
agency relationship exists between TBI and BIG and not between ARS
and BIG.  Had Judge Reyes taken judicial notice of the relationship
between TBI and BIG, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's
claim against BIG under a theory of vicarious liability would
fail.

Judge Brodie declines to take judicial notice of the factual
findings made in Zambrana because facts adjudicated in a prior case
do not meet either test of indisputability contained in Rule
201(b): they are not usually common knowledge, nor are they derived
from an unimpeachable source.  The "fact" the Defendants point to
in Zambrana is a quote from the Plaintiff's amended complaint.
Neither the Plaintiff's mere allegation in Zambrana, nor the
Court's reliance on that allegation, meet the requirements of Rule
201, which is limited to facts that are either well-known or
readily verifiable, and the sources of which cannot be reasonably
questioned.  

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Brodie adopted Magistrate Judge
Reyes' R&R, and denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/bmoRyz from Leagle.com.

Leonardo Meola, individually and on behalf of a class, Plaintiff,
represented by Dan Shaked -- shakedlawgroup@gmail.com -- Shaked Law
Group, P.C. & Tiffany N. Hardy -- thardy@edcombs.com -- Edelman
Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC.

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC & Bureaus Investment Group Portfolio
No. 15, LLC, Defendants, represented by Dara C. Tarkowski --
dara.tarkowski@actuatelaw.com -- Actuate Law, LLC, pro hac vice,
Scott Michael Kessler -- scott.kessler@akerman.com -- Akerman
Senterfitt LLP, Benjamin Reid Joelson --
benjamin.joelson@akerman.com -- Akerman Senterfitt, LLP & Mark S.
Lafayette -- mark.lafayette@akerman.com -- Akerman Senterfitt LLP.


ATASCADERO STATE: Court Dismisses Pines Without Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL T. PINES, Plaintiff, v. DIR. of ATASCADERO
STATE HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 18-6854 RGK (MRW)
(C.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge R. Gary Klausner of the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California denied the Plaintiff's
request for in forma pauperis treatment and dismissed the action
without leave to amend.

The Plaintiff is currently housed at the state mental health
facility in Atascadero, California.  He filed a civil rights class
action (originally presented in the federal court in the Northern
District of California, later transferred to the Central District
for venue reasons) alleging that he and other similarly situated
inmates are being held illegally.  He also submitted an application
to proceed in forma pauperis.

The Plaintiff is a disbarred attorney with considerable admitted
mental health problems.  He purports to bring the action on behalf
of a class of inmates and detainees in state hospitals.  The gist
of his claim is that individuals at the facility are allegedly held
beyond their proper release date.  The Plaintiff estimates that the
class he wishes to represent consists of more than 100,000
members.

The Plaintiff's original complaint was effectively screened twice.
District Judge Illston of the Northern District of California noted
several key problems with the complaint in an order transferring
the case to the Central District.  When the action was opened in
the district, Magistrate Judge Wilner issued an order to show cause
why the action should not be dismissed for the reasons stated in
Judge Illston's order and additional observed defects with the
complaint.  Those reasons collectively included: the Plaintiff's
inability to represent a class of individuals; the conclusory
nature of the complaint; and the failure to plead specific facts
regarding his claims.

After the Court issued the OSC, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint.  The FAC purports to represent the same class of state
hospital detainees and inmates.  The amended complaint offers no
specific facts about the Plaintiff or any of the detainees.
Neither the FAC nor the Plaintiff's response to the OSC addresses
the propriety of a pro se litigant acting on behalf of a class as
flagged in the Illston and Wilner screening orders.

Magistrate Judge Klausner explains that (i) a pro se litigant has
no ability to bring a class action on behalf of others; (ii) a
complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim based on
the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of facts
alleged; and (iii) a pleading will be rejected if it offers labels,
conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action.

The Magistrate finds that both of the Plaintiff's complaints must
be dismissed.  The Plaintiff vaguely claims that a massive group of
individuals are being held illegally in state mental health
facilities.  Yet, in neither his original complaint nor his amended
pleading does he offer any facts or comprehensible information to
support the contention that he or anyone else is improperly in
custody.  As a result, the complaints patently fail to state a
claim upon which relief could plausibly be granted.

And, despite the clear statements of the screening judges,
Plaintiff continues to assert class claims even though he has no
ability or entitlement to do so.  The Plaintiff made no effort to
explain why he continued to assert his frivolous request to
represent others in this way.

The Magistrate concludes that these factors warrant dismissal of
the action without further leave to amend.  The Plaintiff's
violation of Rule 41 also supports dismissal of the action.
Despite clear instructions from the Court, the Plaintiff's amended
complaint (a) reasserted his frivolous class claim, (b) failed to
give a colorable reason for its inclusion, and (c) gave fewer facts
about the claim than its inadequate predecessor pleading.  The
public, the court, and any to-be-served defendant are entitled to
be free of such frivolous litigation.

To that end, the Plaintiff offered no non-speculative pleading
basis to conclude that he or others are truly being held in
violation of the Constitution.  And, given the Plaintiff's personal
circumstances and patent inability to properly plead a claim in
light of the Court's instructions, no remedy short of dismissal
seems appropriate to advance the disposition of the case.

Therefore, Magistrate Judge Klausner denied the Plaintiff's request
for in forma pauperis status, and denied without leave to amend the
action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/5OGlRm from Leagle.com.

Michael T Pines, Plaintiff, pro se.


AUDI OF AMERICA: Nixon Files Suit Asserting ADA Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Audi of America, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit in New York
under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Audi of America, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06097 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 31, 2018).

Audi of America, LLC owns and operates Audi brand car dealerships
in the United States. It offers sedan, SUV, crossover and wagon,
coupe, and convertible model cars. The company also offers
briefcases and bags, apparel, golf and tennis, vehicle, and other
accessories and products online, as well as through stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AVALON HOLDINGS: Matusky Class Gets Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSICA MATUSKY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AVALON
HOLDINGS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17CV1535 (N.D.
Ohio), Judge Benita Y. Pearson of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification.

The Plaintiffs move the Court to conditionally certify the case at
bar as a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action and
direct that notice be sent by U.S. mail and email to similarly
situated persons defined as all present and former hourly banquet
employees of the Defendants during the period of three years
preceding the commencement of the action to the present for whom
the Defendants took a tip credit.

In July 2017, Matusky brought the (1) collective action under the
FLSA for minimum wage pay and (2) class action under the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
for minimum wage pay. An Amended Collective Action Complaint, which
adds Opt-in Plaintiffs John Stahl and Zackary Kerr, was deemed
served and filed as of Feb. 22, 2018.

The Amended Collective Action Complaint alleges additional facts
obtained through discovery and reflects depositions which concluded
on Feb. 8, 2018.  The amended pleading also reduces the number of
allegations and claims at issue by removing the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
class action allegations entirely.  It narrows the focus of the
case at bar to tip credit violations, already alleged in the
Complaint, for both regular and overtime hours.  It further
restricts the class definition to the tipped banquet servers at the
Defendants' four banquet facilities in Ohio and Pennsylvania based
on the testimony of Avalon Holding's designated Rule 30(b)(6)
representative that there are other tipped employees employed
elsewhere in Defendants' organization.

The Plaintiff's FLSA claims are based on their allegations that
Avalon improperly takes a tip credit the day of an event for work
they perform before and after the banquet or party.  The Plaintiffs
assert that, during those times, the duties they perform are
non-tipped duties and that work takes up more than 20% of their
workweek.

In the three-year period preceding the filing of the Complaint in
the action, the Defendants employed approximately 242 people as
banquet servers, banquet bartenders, and banquet bussers.  Matusky
worked for the Defendants as a banquet server, a banquet bartender,
and as a set-up person from October 2014 to April 2017.

While working as a banquet server, Ms. Matusky was paid at a rate
of $6.50 per hour and Defendants used a tip credit to make up the
difference between that rate and the minimum wage.  While working
as a banquet bartender, Ms. Matusky was paid at a rate of $4.05 or
$4.08 per hour, depending upon the Ohio minimum wage then in
effect, during the time she worked for Defendants and the
defendants used a tip credit to make up the difference between this
rate and the minimum wage.

Opt-in Plaintiff Stahl worked for the Defendants as a banquet
server or busser and a set-up person from May, 2015 to May, 2017.
While working as a banquet server or busser, he was paid at a rate
of $6.50 per hour and the Defendants used a tip credit to make up
the difference between that rate and the minimum wage.

Opt-in Plaintiff Zachary Kerr worked for the Defendants in various
positions, including banquet server and banquet bartender from
November, 2014 to present.  While working as a banquet bartender,
he was paid at a rate of $4.05 or $4.08 per hour, depending upon
the Ohio minimum wage then in effect, during the time he worked for
Defendants and the defendants used a tip credit to make up the
difference between this rate and the minimum wage.

The Defendants' time-clock system permits employees to clock in and
out under different categories of work, including banquet server,
banquet busser, banquet bartender, and set-up.  If an employee
clocked in under set-up on the day before or after an event, they
would be paid the applicable minimum wage rate.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs do not have sufficient
knowledge as to the similarity of the employees located at
Defendants' Pennsylvania location, Avalon Country Club at Sharon,
Inc., because Matusky and Stahl only worked there twice, and Kerr
was never employed at that location.  Judge Pearson holds Klingle's
declarations were not limited to the running of Avalon's Ohio
locations, but described a general policy for payment.  Though the
facts may vary slightly, the basis of the claim does not vary from
state to state.  Therefore, the Judge will not exempt Avalon's
Pennsylvania employees from the conditional certification.

Judge Pearson granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Certification and Court-Authorized Notice.  She directed the
parties to meet and confer in good faith for the purpose of
negotiating the language of the notice that is to be issued to the
proposed collective and the procedure for issuing the notice.  If
they are able to agree upon the form of the notice, within 10 days
of the date of this Memorandum of Opinion and Order, the parties
will submit a joint proposed notice for the Court's final approval.
If the parties are unable to agree, the Plaintiffs will submit a
notice and any objections remaining after conference will be
indicated by the Defendants in a redlined version showing its
proposed alterations.  Thereafter, the Court will resolve the
conflict.

The Court further directed that, within 30 days of the approval of
the form of the notice by the Court, said notice will be sent to
all the potential collective members.  At a later date, the Court
will separately issue a ruling on the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Memorandum of
Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/9Ns5X4 from
Leagle.com.

Jessica Matusky, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, John R. Stahl & Zackary Kerr, Plaintiffs, represented by
Joseph F. Scott -- jscott@ohiowagewlawyers.com -- Scott & Winters,
Ryan A. Winters -- rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com -- Scott & Winters
& Kevin M. McDermott, II, Scott & Winters.

Avalon Holdings Corporation, Avalon Resort and Spa LLC, Avalon Golf
and Country Club, Inc., Avalon Country Club at Sharon, Inc. &
Ronald Klingle, Defendants, represented by Anastasia J. Wade --
awade@brouse.com -- Brouse McDowell, Peter B. Grinstein, Nadler,
Nadler & Burdman & Christopher John Carney -- ccarney@brouse.com --
Brouse McDowell.


AVIS BUDGET: Denial of Bid for Leave to Amend in Mendez Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 11-6537 (JLL) (D. N.J.), Judge Jose L.
Linares of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
affirmed the Order of the Magistrate Judge, entered on Aug. 15,
2018, denying the Defendants' motion pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) for
leave to amend their answer to assert a late statute-of-limitations
defense and a late voluntary-payment-doctrine defense.

Judge Linares has reviewed the complaint, all of the papers
underlying the August 2018 Order, and the papers filed in support
of and in opposition to the instant appeal.  He will resolve the
appeal upon a review of the papers and without oral argument.
Accordingly, he affirmed the August 2018 Order.

The action has been brought on behalf of those who allegedly were
wrongfully charged for non-discounted tolls and for convenience
fees when they rented vehicles equipped with an electronic system
to pay tolls known as "e-Toll."  It was filed on Nov. 7, 2011, and
it asserted in four separate paragraphs that the "e-Toll" systems
at issue were installed in the rented vehicles beginning in 2006.
The defendants filed their initial answer on April 27, 2012, and
asserted an estoppel defense therein.  The fact discovery period in
the action closed on June 5, 2014, and the expert discovery period
closed on Jan. 30, 2016.

On Nov. 17, 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to
certify the action as a class action for a class period beginning
on April 1, 2007 and ending on Dec. 31, 2015 for a nationwide
class, a Florida subclass, and a New Jersey subclass.

On Jan. 12, 2018, the Defendants moved before the Magistrate Judge
to amend their answer to assert a statute-of-limitations defense
and a voluntary-payment doctrine defense for the first time in the
litigation, and they argued that those defenses were not applicable
until class claims were certified.  As to the statute of
limitations, they argued that the District Court did not provide
guidance on what state's law would apply to the nationwide class
members' causes of action.  As to the voluntary payment doctrine,
which they argue is a form of estoppel, the Defendants assert that
there may be many class members who were aware of the charges at
issue and paid them voluntarily, and thus those class members
should be estopped from now claiming otherwise.

The Magistrate Judge denied the Defendants' motion for leave to
amend the answer.  In so doing, the Magistrate Judge noted that the
Defendants had unduly delayed in filing their motion until: (a)
more than 5 1/2 years after they filed their initial answer; (b) 3
1/2 years after the deadline for the completion of fact discovery;
and (c) almost 2 years after the deadline for the completion of
expert discovery.

The Magistrate Judge also found that the Defendants engaged in
undue delay in asserting the voluntary-payment-doctrine defense, as
they were well aware of the evidence that justified the assertion
of that defense when fact discovery concluded in June 2014, which
was 3 1/2 years before they finally moved to amend.

The August 2018 Order did not address matters that were
dispositive, and thus such an Order could be entered by the
Magistrate Judge.

Judge Linares finds that the determinations of the Magistrate Judge
in the August 2018 Order were not clearly erroneous, and they were
not the result of either a mistake or the misapplication of
applicable law.  It is well-settled that an affirmative defense
should, if not pleaded in the answer, be raised at the earliest
practicable, or possible, or feasible, moment thereafter.  The
Magistrate Judge did not abuse his discretion in denying leave to
amend the answer based on the Defendants' undue delay in asserting
the two aforementioned defenses at this late juncture in the
litigation.

Although not noted by the Magistrate Judge in the August 2018
Order, Judge Linares points out that the complaint, which was filed
in 2011, asserts in four separate paragraphs that the allegedly
offending electronic system for paying tolls was put into use in
the rented vehicles by the Defendants as of 2006.  Furthermore,
even though the claims that applied to the named Plaintiff in the
action may not have been barred by the relevant statute of
limitations, a plain reading of the complaint itself reveals that
the named plaintiff was attempting to bring a class action on
behalf of all affected class members.

Thus, the Defendants were on notice as of 2011 that the
statute-of-limitations defense might indeed apply in the action, as
the contours of the class period and the potential class members
could possibly extend as far back as 2006.  In addition, the
Defendants should have been on notice that the voluntary payment
doctrine could apply based on any complaints that they had received
about unwanted charges in fees over the five years preceding the
filing of the complaint in 2011.  As a result, these defenses were
not merely hypothetical, and it would have been reasonable for the
Defendants to assert them in their initial answer in 2012 or soon
thereafter.

In conclusion, the Judge holds that the Magistrate Judge committed
neither an abuse of discretion nor an error of law in making the
determinations set forth in the August 2018 Order.  Accordingly, he
affirmed the Magistrate Judge's August 2018 Order, from which the
appeal has been filed.  The Clerk of the Court will designate the
appeal as terminated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/VEcnHg from Leagle.com.

JOSE MENDEZ, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com --
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC, SUSANA CRUZ HODGE --
scruzhodge@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC & JOSEPH
J. DEPALMA -- jdepalma@litedepalma.com -- LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG,
LLC.

AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC., doing business as BUDGET RENT A CAR
SYSTEM, INC., AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC & HIGHWAY TOLL
ADMINISTRATION, LLC, Defendants, represented by PAUL J. HALASZ --
phalasz@daypitney.com -- DAY PITNEY LLP.


BASF AG: Bryn Hill Industries Files Anti-trust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
An anti-trust class action suit has been filed against BASF AG, et
al. The case is styled as Bryn Hill Industries, Inc. on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BASF AG,
BASF CORP., BAYER A.G., BAYER CORP., COVESTRO AG, COVESTRO LLC, DOW
CHEMICAL CO., DOWDUPONT INC, HUNTSMAN CORP., HUNTSMAN CORP.,
HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL LLC, MCNS POLYURETHANES USA INC, MITSUI
CHEMICALS, INC, MITSUI CHEMICALS AMERICA, INC, MITSUI CHEMICALS &
SKC POLYURETHANES, INC, WANHUA CHEMICAL GROUP CO. LTD, WANHUA
CHEMICAL AMERICA CO. LTD, WANHUA CHEMICAL US HOLDING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01454-LPL (W.D. Penn., Oct. 30, 2018).

BASF SE is a German chemical company and the largest chemical
producer in the world. The BASF Group comprises subsidiaries and
joint ventures in more than 80 countries and operates six
integrated production sites and 390 other production sites in
Europe, Asia, Australia, the Americas and Africa.

Covestro AG manufactures polymers and high performance plastics.
The Company manufactures, markets, and distributes coatings,
adhesives, insulating materials, sealants, polycarbonates, and
polyurethanes. Covestro markets its products to industries
including automotive, construction, health, electronics, and
medical engineering.

The Dow Chemical Company manufactures and sells chemical materials
worldwide.

Huntsman Corporation is an American multinational manufacturer and
marketer of chemical products for consumers and industrial
customers. Huntsman manufactures assorted polyurethanes,
performance products, and adhesives for customers like BMW, GE,
Chevron, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever.

Mitsui Chemicals, Inc. provides various technologies and materials
for automotive, electronics and information, life, environment and
energy, and packaging industries. The company operates through four
segments, such as Mobility, Health Care, Food & Packaging, and
Basic Chemicals.

Wanhua Chemical Group Co., Ltd. engages in the research and
development, production, and sale of PU series products, liquefied
petroleum gas-based petrochemical products, functional materials,
and specialty chemicals worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
     Susman Godfrey LLP (NYC)
     1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (212) 336-8330
     Fax: (212) 336-8340
     Email: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com


BCA FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses Ferrulli FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Judge Katherine S. Hayden of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the case, GINO FERRULLI, Plaintiff, v. BCA FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., Defendant, Civil No. 17-cv-13177 (KSH) (CLW) (D. N.J.).

The matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion to dismiss
Ferrulli's class action complaint in which he alleges that BCA sent
him and others similarly situated a debt collection letter that
violates two provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA"): 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(10) and 15 U.S.C. Section
1692g(a).  Ferrulli incurred a $780 debt to Saint Barnabas Medical
Center, which was referred to BCA for collection purposes.  BCA
proceeded by sending Ferrulli a collection letter dated May 2,
2017.

Ferrulli claims the collection letter uses false, deceptive, or
misleading representations or means in connection with the
collection of a debt, violating 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(10), and
fails to provide the consumer-recipient with a proper notice, as
required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(3).  Central to his argument
is the letter's second paragraph: "If you have any questions
regarding this debt you may speak to an account representative by
calling our office."  Ferrulli asserts that the language could
mislead the recipient into thinking that a debt may be disputed
either by calling BCA or by writing to BCA.  Since an effective
debt dispute must be in writing, Ferrulli argues that this language
renders the letter false and misleading, and so the letter provides
ineffective notice.

Judge Hayden finds that the substance and the form of BCA's
collection letter do not overshadow or contradict the validation
notice such that the least sophisticated debtor could conclude the
debt could be disputed by either writing or calling.  The relaxed
standard protects naïve consumers, but it still prevents liability
for bizarre or idiosyncratic interpretations of collection notices
by preserving a quotient of reasonableness and presuming a basic
level of understanding and willingness to read with care.

Additionally, the Judge finds that Ferrulli's Sections 1692e and
1692g claims are premised on the same allegation -- that the letter
could lead the least sophisticated debtor inaccurately to conclude
there are two valid methods of disputing the debt-writing and
calling.  The Court has held that the letter is not susceptible to
two different meanings; it follows that the contested language
cannot be labeled a false, deceptive, or misleading representation,
and does not violate Section 1692e.

For these reasons, Judge Hayden finds that BCA's collection letter
provides proper notice as mandated by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(3)
and does not contain a false, deceptive, or misleading
representation, barred by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(10).
Accordingly, she granted BCA's motion to dismiss.  An appropriate
order will follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/dMdeVZ from Leagle.com.

GINO FERRULLI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by BENJAMIN JARRET WOLF --
info@legaljones.com -- Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC & JOSEPH K. JONES,
Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC.

BCA FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, represented by ANDREW
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ -- amschwartz@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL DENNEHEY
WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PC.


BENEFICIAL BANCORP: Dappollone Suit Challenges Sale to WSFS
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARK DAPPOLLONE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. BENEFICIAL BANCORP, INC., FRANK A. FARNESI, EDWARD G.
BOEHNE, KAREN DOUGHERTY BUCHHOLZ, MICHAEL J. DONAHUE, DONALD F.
GAYHARDT, JR., ELIZABETH H. GEMMILL, THOMAS J. LEWIS, and ROY D.
YATES, Case No. 1:18-cv-09395 (S.D.N.Y., October 15, 2018), accuses
the Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the acquisition of Beneficial by WSFS Financial
Corporation.

On August 7, 2018, Beneficial and WSFS entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which Beneficial will merge with and into WSFS, with WSFS
continuing as the surviving corporation (the "Proposed
Transaction").  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each
share of Beneficial common stock issued and outstanding will be
converted into the right to receive (i) 0.3013 shares of WSFS
common stock and (ii) $2.93 in cash (the "Merger Consideration").

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants issued a materially
incomplete and misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement (the
"Proxy") with the SEC to convince shareholder to support the
Proposed Transaction.  In particular, he contends, the Proxy
contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning: (i) financial projections for Beneficial; and (ii) the
valuation analyses performed by Beneficial's financial advisor,
Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. ("Sandler"), in support of their
fairness opinion.

Beneficial is a Maryland corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of Beneficial.

Beneficial is a community-based, diversified financial services
company providing consumer and commercial banking services.  The
Company's principal subsidiary, Beneficial Bank, has served
individuals and businesses in the Delaware Valley area since 1853.

WSFS is a savings and loan holding company headquartered in
Wilmington, Delaware, and the parent to WSFS Bank, one of the ten
oldest bank and trust companies in the United States continuously
operating under the same name.  WSFS Bank is also the largest
locally-managed bank and trust company headquartered in the
Delaware Valley.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


BENSUSAN RESTAURANT: Faces Fischler Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bensusan Restaurant
Corp. The case is captioned as Brian Fischler, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Bensusan Restaurant Corp. d/b/a as Blue Note, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-09376-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2018). The lawsuit alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
assigned to Judge John G. Koeltl.

Bensusan Restaurant Corp was founded in 1982. The company's line of
business includes operating of bars, night clubs, and other
locations that sell alcoholic drinks. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, 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


BIRCH TELECOM: Court Denies Certification of Huskey Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD HUSKEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BIRCH TELECOM
OF MISSOURI, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-CV-02415 JAR
(E.D. Mo.), Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied the Huskey's
Motion to Certify a Class Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 and Missouri Supreme Court Rule 52.08.

The Plaintiff filed suit on behalf of himself and the thousands of
individuals allegedly harmed when the Defendants engaged in a
deceptive marketing scheme designed to trap consumers in an
unconscionable contract, in violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act.  Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the
contract is procedurally unconscionable because the Defendants
"cold-called" consumers and used high-pressure sales tactics and
misleading information to induce them into accepting a telephone
services contract they had not, and could not have, reviewed.

In addition, the Plaintiff alleges that the contract included
substantively unconscionable terms relating to canceling the
service and price increases.  He asserts that the Defendants'
contract improperly caused economic damage to him and the class
members in several various manners: a relatively enormous
'initiation' fee totaling upwards of $150; unilateral price
increases, which, in the Plaintiff's case, were around $140;
exorbitant 'early termination fee(s),' upwards of $400 in many
cases; and, specifically in the case of the Plaintiff, attorneys'
fees and expenses in bringing the action.

The Plaintiff moves to certify a class defined as all past or
present residential Birch customers that are citizens of Missouri,
and who the Defendant deemed bound by the terms of their Master
Services Agreement, or MSA at any time during the Class Period.
The Plaintiff states that the class period runs from Aug. 17, 2012
to Aug. 17, 2017.

The Defendants challenge nearly every one of the Plaintiff's
assertions.  They argue that the class definition is so broad that
it would include customers who have not suffered any of the
economic injuries the Plaintiff alleges.  They also assert that the
Plaintiff failed to adequately establish the numerosity,
typicality, or adequacy requirements of Rule 23.

Judge Ross concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to meet the
requirements for class certification.  He finds that (i) the
Plaintiff's proposed class definition is not fatally broad; (ii) a
bare assertion that there are "thousands of persons in the Class"
is not a reasonable estimate; (iii) those procedural differences
are less relevant than the class-wide determination of the
substantive unconscionability of the MSA; (iv) when more than half
of the questions common to the class may not apply to the proposed
representative, his claim is not typical; and (v) the Plaintiff's
atypical claim renders him an inadequate class representative.

Accordingly, the Judge denied Huskey's Motion to Certify a Class
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Missouri Supreme
Court Rule 52.08.  However, the Plaintiff's individual claim may
proceed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/pOUmaZ from Leagle.com.

Richard W. Huskey, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel F. Harvath --
dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com -- HARVATH AND HARVATH, LLC.

Birch Telecom of Missouri, Inc. & Ionex Communications, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Gardiner B. Davis --
gdavis@spencerfane.com -- SPENCER FANE LLP, Richard D. Lageson --
rlageson@spencerfane.com -- SPENCER FANE LLP & Thomas Scott Hiatt
-- thiatt@spencerfane.com -- SPENCER FANE LLP, pro hac vice.

Birch Communications, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gardiner B.
Davis, SPENCER FANE LLP.


BLUE DIAMOND: Campbell-Clark Hits Misleading Product Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dakota Campbell-Clark individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Blue Diamond Growers, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-05577 (E.D. N.Y., October 5, 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.

Blue Diamond Growers manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells "Almond Nut-Thins" crackers under the "Blue Diamond Almonds"
brand. Campbell-Clark says the Defendant's labelling of "nut & rice
cracker snacks" is misleading because there is more rice than nut
ingredients; the amount of potatoes present closely approximates
the amount of almond-based ingredients; and almonds is not its
predominant ingredient. [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


BROADWAY ENERGY: Danconia Management Hits Illegally-faxed Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Danconia Management, LLC, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Broadway
Energy, Inc., Tassan Jayikusuma and John Does 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-09199, (S.D. N.Y., October 8, 2018, seeks redress
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and N.Y.
General Business Law.

Broadway Energy -- http://broadwayenergyus.com/-- is an energy
brokerage firm based in Hicksville, NY. Plaintiff received an
unsolicited facsimile from Defendant on its office fax machine
without consent, notes the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dan Shaked, Esq.
      SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
      44 Court St., Suite 1217
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel. (917) 373-9128
      E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com


BUCKHEAD PARKING: Steward Suit Remanded to Georgia State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard W. Story of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Gainesville Division, remanded the case,
MICHAEL STEWARD, Individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. BUCKHEAD PARKING
ENFORCEMENT, LLC; McDONALD'S CORPORATION; SUSO 3 NEWNAN LP; and
SLATE PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No.
2:18-CV-00035-RWS (N.D. Ga.), to the State Court of Forsyth County,
Georgia.

On Jan. 25, 2018, the Plaintiff parked in a private parking lot
located at 58 Bullsboro Drive, Newnan, GA 30263, which is within
the territorial limits of the City of Newnan.  He alleges that
Buckhead Parking was hired by the owner of the property where he
parked to immobilize vehicles.  Buckhead Parking placed a boot on
his vehicle and refused to remove it unless the Plaintiff paid a
$500 fine, which the Plaintiff paid.  The Plaintiff alleges that
because the City of Newnan does not have a vehicle immobilization
ordinance, Buckhead Parking booted the Plaintiff's vehicle without
legal authority and caused damages to him.  He alleges that
Buckhead Parking systematically engages in immobilizing vehicles
with similar boots in many other locations in Georgia that also
lack vehicle immobilization ordinances.

The Plaintiff further alleges that all other Defendants to the
action own or occupy property where they hire Buckhead Parking
and/or other individual entities to boot vehicles parked on their
property.  For that reason, he seeks to form a class of all people
whose vehicles were booted by, or at the request of, the Defendants
at any location within the State of Georgia where there are no
vehicle immobilization ordinances, and who have paid fines for the
removal of said boot, from Jan. 25, 2013, through Feb. 7, 2018.

The Plaintiff originally filed the case in the State Court of
Forsyth County, Georgia, on Feb. 7, 2018, seeking damages and other
available remedies on behalf of themselves and a class of persons
similarly situated pursuant to O.C.G.A Section 9-11-23.

Defendant McDonald's Corp. filed a Notice of Removal on March 16,
2018, asserting that the Court has jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  Subsequently, on March 20, 2018, the
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand alleging that McDonald's failed
to satisfy its burden to prove that the amount in controversy
exceeded $5 million by a preponderance of evidence.

The Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand on April 23,
2018, finding that based on the totality of the allegations in the
Complaint, the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million.  The
Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited
Discovery Related to Jurisdiction and Request for Extension of
Time.  On May 14, 2018, the Court vacated its April 23, 2018 Order
and instructed the parties to complete limited jurisdictional
discovery as to the issue of whether the CAFA amount in controversy
requirement had been met.

After limited discovery, the Plaintiff filed Supplemental Motion
for Remand arguing that the amount in controversy requirement under
the CAFA has not been met and that the total amount in controversy
is only $435,350.  Defendants McDonald's Corp., Suso 3 Newman LP,
and Slate Properties, LLC, consent to remand.  Buckhead Parking
does not consent to remand.

Based upon the amount of booting fees at issue and the rest of the
record, Judge Story concludes that the jurisdictional threshold for
CAFA is not met.  In order to reach the $5 million jurisdictional
threshold for CAFA jurisdiction, each member of the class would
have to recover at least an additional $5,100.17 in additional
compensatory or punitive damages, or the aggregate amount for the
class would have to be at least an additional $4,564,650.  While it
may appear that recovery of about $5,586 per class member for
claims by the Plaintiffs' illegal -- booting plus the false
imprisonment claims and compensation for irritation, inconvenience,
or insecurity -- is a low hurdle, the Judge cannot conclude that
recovery will exceed even so low a total.

Therefore, although Buckhead Parking has explained how the
jurisdictional minimum could possibly be reached, it has failed to
show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the jurisdictional
minimum under CAFA has been reached.  For that reason, the Judge
granted the Plaintiff's Supplemental Motion to Remand, and denied
as moot the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.  The case is remanded to
the State Court of Forsyth County, Georgia.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/9lMG8E from Leagle.com.

Michael Stewart, Individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Q.
Wetherington -- matt@wernerlaw.com -- Werner Wetherington, P.C. &
Robert Neil Friedman -- Robert@wernerlaw.com -- Werner
Wetherington, P.C.

Buckhead Parking Enforcement, LLC, Defendant, represented by David
C. Abbott, David C. Abbott, Esq.

McDonald's Corporation, Defendant, represented by Lennon Haas --
haasl@ballardspahr.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP & Todd David
Wozniak -- wozniakt@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

Suso 3 Newnan LP & Slate Properties, LLC, Defendants, represented
by Amanda Dawn Proctor -- aproctor@carltonfields.com -- Carlton
Fields & Justan Caleaf Bounds -- jbounds@carltonfields.com --
Carlton Fields.


CAPITAL FITNESS: Court Denies Class Certification in Gooden Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lundon Gooden, the
Plaintiff, vs. Capital Fitness, Inc., the Defendant, Case:
1:18-cv-02200 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Manish S. Shah entered an
order denying Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification.

According to the docket entry made by Clerk on October 25, 2018,
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is denied for the
same reasons as the Court's Oct. 24 2018 order. For the reasons
stated in open Court, plaintiff's motion to amend/correct complaint
is granted. The amended complaint should be filed as a separate
entry by Nov. 8, 2018. Defendant's response is due by Nov. 29,
2018. The Dec. 13, 2018 status hearing at 9:30 a.m. remains as
set.


CAROLINA QUARRIES: Shortchanged on Pay, Workers Claim
------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Sanchez Diaz and Alexis Ruiz, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Carolina Quarries,
Inc. and Rock Of Ages Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-00849, (M.D. N.C., October 5, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime wages and unpaid spread of hours premiums
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants are an integrated granite quarrier and manufacturer
whose principal products are granite blocks with operations in
North Carolina where Plaintiffs are quarry workers. The Plaintiffs
claim they were not paid for all of their compensable time worked.
They said they generally arrived for work by 6:30 a.m., but their
work rendered between 6:30 and 7:00 a.m. was not reflected in their
paycheck. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Hughes, Esq.
      Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq.
      Kayleigh Lynn Messersmith, Esq.
      WALLACE & GRAHAM, P.A.
      525 N. Main Street
      Salisbury, NC 28144
      Telephone: (704) 633-5244
      Facsimile: (704) 633-9434
      Email: mwallace@wallacegraham.com
             kmessersmith@wallacegraham.com
             jhughes@wallacegraham.com


CELLSAVERS: Denied Overtime Pay, Wage Statements, Says Krasnow
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Krasnow, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Puls Technologies Inc.,
Cellsavers, Inc. (d/b/a Cellsavers iPhone Repairs) and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-570330 (Cal.
Super. October 5, 2018), seeks redress for Defendants' failure to
pay overtime and minimum wages, failure to provide proper wage
statements and failure to pay earned wages upon discharge including
waiting time penalties under the Unfair Business Practices statures
of the California Business and Professions Code, and the California
Labor Code and Welfare Commission Orders.

Krasnow worked for the Defendants from approximately August 25,
2015 until on or about September 6, 2018, as an electronics repair
and installation technician. He claims to have been misclassif1ed
as an independent contractor.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander I. Dychter, Esq.
      S. Adam Spiewak, Esq.
      DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC
      1010 Second Ave., Suite 1835
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 487-0777
      Facsimile: (619) 330-1827
      E-Mail: alex@dychterlaw.com
              adam@dychterlaw.com


CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: Bid to File Under Seal in Barchiesi Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT C. BARCHIESI and LEJLA HADZIC, Individually and
in a representative capacity on behalf of a class of all persons
similarly situated, v. CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC, and INFILAW
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:16CV861 (W.D. N.C.), Judge
Graham C. Mullen of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, granted the
Defendants' Motion to File Attachment H to their Class Action
Fairness Act Notice Under Seal.

The Plaintiffs do not object to the Defendants' Motion to Seal
filed on Sept. 21, 2018.  The motion has been accessible to the
public.  

In accordance with the law of this Circuit as well as the Local
Rules, the Judge has considered the Motion to Seal, the public's
interest in access to such materials, and alternatives to sealing.
He determines that no less restrictive means other than sealing is
sufficient because a public filing of such materials would reveal
personal information of students the dissemination of which to the
general public is restricted as set forth in the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act.  He concludes that the sealing of the
Attachment is narrowly tailored to serve the interest of protecting
the confidential information.

Therefore Judge Mullen granted the Motion to Seal.  The Attachment
H to the Defendants' Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1715 will be filed under seal until
further Order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/xWUqgA from Leagle.com.

Robert C Barchiesi, Individually and in a Representative capacity
on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated & Lejla
Hadzic, Individually and in a Representative capacity on behalf of
a class of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented
by Angelique Adams, Shipman & Wright, LLP, Gary K. Shipman, Shipman
& Wright, LLP, John Alan Jones, Martin and Jones, PLLC, Karl Joseph
Amelchenko, Martin & Jones, Kyle Joseph Nutt, Shipman & Wright,
LLP, Steven Dennis Corriveau, Martin & Jones & H. Forest Horne,
Jr., Jones, Martin, Parris & Tessener.

Raissa Levy, James Villanueva, Shanna Rivera, Andre McCoy & 17cv26
Levy Plaintiffs, Consol Plaintiffs, represented by Amanda A. Mingo,
Rawls, Scheer, Foster, Mingo & Culp, PLLC, Brian Leighton Kinsley,
Crumley Roberts, Daniel Ray Francis, Crumley Roberts, Philip
Bohrer, Bohrer Brady LLC, pro hac vice, Robert Andre Fleury, Jr.,
Crumley Roberts & Scott E. Brady -- scott@bohrerbrady.com -- Bohrer
Brady LLC, pro hac vice.

Leah Ash & 17cv39 Ash Plaintiff, Consol Plaintiffs, represented by
Michael John Messinger, Law Offices of Michael Messinger, PLLC.

Spencer Krebs, Morgan Switzer, Dave Wyatt, Jacenta Marie Price,
Krystal Horsley, Markisha Dobson & 17cv190 Plaintiffs, Consol
Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony J. Majestro --
amajestro@powellmajestro.com -- Powell & Majestro, PLLC, pro hac
vice, Douglas B. Abrams, Abrams & Abrams, P.A., Noah Abrams, Abrams
& Abrams PA, Taylor M. Norman -- tnorman@bjc4u.com -- Bailey Javins
& Carter, LC, pro hac vice & Timothy C. Bailey, Bailey Javins &
Carter, LC, pro hac vice.

Charlotte School of Law, LLC, Defendant, represented by David
Edward Mills -- dmills@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Debbie W. Harden
-- debbie.harden@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP,
Johnny M. Loper -- johnny.loper@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond Dickinson
(US) LLP, Michael DeWayne Hays -- mhays@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP,
pro hac vice, Rebecca Claire Fleishman --
rebecca.fleishman@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice,
LLP, Robert Cahill -- rcahill@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, pro hac
vice & Sarah Motley Stone -- sarah.stone@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond
Dickinson (US) LLP.

InfiLaw Corporation, Defendant, represented by David Edward Mills,
Cooley LLP, Johnny M. Loper, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Sarah
Motley Stone, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Debbie W. Harden,
Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Michael DeWayne Hays, Cooley LLP,
pro hac vice & Robert Cahill, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

Jay Conison, Consol Defendant, represented by David Edward Mills,
Cooley LLP, Johnny M. Loper, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Sarah
Motley Stone, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Debbie W. Harden,
Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Michael DeWayne Hays, Cooley LLP,
pro hac vice & Robert Cahill, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice & Sarah
Motley Stone, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP.

Chidi Ogene, Consol Defendant, represented by avid Edward Mills,
Cooley LLP, Debbie W. Harden, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP,
Johnny M. Loper, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Robert Cahill,
Cooley LLP, pro hac vice & Sarah Motley Stone, Womble Bond
Dickinson (US) LLP.

Sterling Partners & Sterling Capital Partners IV, LLC, Consol
Defendants, represented by Adam Karl Doerr -- adoerr@rbh.com --
Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson & Robert Evans Harrington, Robinson,
Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castillo Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Campos Castillo, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY
RESTAURANTS, INC, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG18925967 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 24, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to provide lawful
meal periods, failed to authorize and permit lawful rest periods,
and failed to pay all wages owed upon separation of employment,
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all hourly,
non-exempt employees are employed by Defendants in their
restaurants within the State of California. The Defendant
consistently maintained and enforced against Cheesecake Factory
non-exempt employees unlawful practices and policies in violation
of California state wage and hour laws.

Defendants implemented policies and practices which led to
Defendants' (1) failure to provide lawful meal periods, (2) failure
to provide compensation when lawful meal periods were not provided;
(3) failure to authorize and permit lawful rest periods; (4)
failure to provide compensation when lawful rest periods were not
provided; (5) failure to timely pay all owed wages; (6) failure to
provide accurate, itemized wage statements; and (7) failure to keep
accurate records. In addition, Defendants violated Labor Code
section 1198 and Wage Order 5-2001, section 14 27 by failing to
provide suitable seats to Plaintiff and the subgroup of non-exempt
employees that consists of non-exempt cashiers, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: james@iameshawkinsaplc.com
                  christina@iameshawkinsaplc.com


CHRISTOFLE SILVER: Figueroa Files Class Suit Under ADA
------------------------------------------------------
Jose Figueroa has filed a class action against a manufacturer of
fine silver flatware and home accessories.

The case is captioned Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Christofle Silver, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10045 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 31, 2018).

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

CHW GROUP: Moore Seeks to Stop Placement of Unconsented Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHW GROUP, INC., d/b/a Choice Home Warranty, a New
Jersey corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-06960 (N.D. Ill., October 16,
2018), seeks to stop the Defendant's alleged practice of, among
other things, placing pre-recorded telephone calls to residential
telephone numbers without the proper consent, all in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Choice Home Warranty is a corporation incorporated and existing
under the laws of the state of New Jersey with its principal office
address located in Edison, New Jersey.  Choice Home Warranty offers
appliance service contracts that purport to protect homeowners
against high repair and replacement costs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

          Steven Owen Ross, Esq.
          STEVEN OWEN ROSS, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          1235 South Prairie Avenue, Suite 1503
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 566-4170
          E-mail: soratty1@aol.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                  ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


CIRCA INC: Dominguez Suit Asserts ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Circa Inc. The case
is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Circa Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10103 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 31, 2018).

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

CIRCA, Inc. buys pre-owned jewelry, gemstones, and watches from the
public. The company purchases various types of jewelry, such as
engagement ring, estate of rare art deco jewelry, and others;
diamond wedding rings, diamond engagement rings, diamond bracelets,
diamond necklaces, or diamond earrings; luxury and vintage
timepieces; and estate jewelry from all eras.[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


COLLECTO INC: Dentinger Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collecto, Inc. The
case is styled as Lourdes Dentinger on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Collecto, Inc. doing
business as: EOS CCA, Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-01138-FB (W.D.
Tex., Oct. 30, 2018).

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

Collecto, Inc., doing business as EOS/CCA, Inc., operates as a debt
management and recovery resource company. It offers receivables
collection services for banks, colleges and universities, student
loan lenders, telecommunications companies, and other
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marwan Rocco Daher, Esq.
     Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
     2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: (630) 537-1770
     Email: mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com


COMMERCE ENERGY: $2.7MM Attys' Fees Awarded in Hurt FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVINA HURT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COMMERCE ENERGY,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:12-cv-758 (N.D. Ohio), Judge
James S. Gwin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio (i) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for attorney's fees and costs, and (ii) granted in part and
denied in part their motion for incentive awards.

In this long-lingering bifurcated litigation, a jury found that the
Defendants liable for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("Ohio Wage
Act").  After a long and complicated damage determination, the
Court determined damages for the large collective action and class
action.

The Plaintiffs now move the Court for attorney's fees and costs.
They seek $2,718,440.75 -- with a two times multiplier -- in
attorney's fees.  They also seek $217,120.16 in costs.  The
Plaintiffs also move for incentive awards.  They seek $105,000 in
incentive awards for twenty-three Plaintiffs who spent 186 hours on
the case.

On Sept.20, 2018, the Court held a hearing on these issues.  Judge
Gwin (i) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion
for attorney's fees and costs, and (ii) granted in part and denied
in part their motion for incentive awards.  He ordered the
Defendants to pay the Plaintiffs $2,718,440.75 in attorney's fees
and $217,120.16 in costs.  From those attorney's fees, he ordered
the Plaintiffs' attorneys to pay $62,500 in incentive awards.

Having won under the FLSA and Ohio Wage Act, the Judge holds that
the Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorney's fees.  In
determining the attorney's fees, he uses the lodestar calculation:
the attorney's reasonable hourly rate multiplied by the number of
hours reasonably spent on the case.  

The Plaintiffs supported their costs request with detailed entries,
which the Judge has reviewed, and with an affidavit.  Beyond broad
categories of grievances, the Defendants fail to identify any
particular expense as objectionable.  He concludes that the sought
costs were reasonably related and necessary to the litigation in
the case and are thus granted.

Finally, in the Court's experience, the sought incentive awards are
too high.  The awards should properly reward the Plaintiffs for
their efforts, without creating a bounty for bringing suit.  Thus,
he granted $5,000 each to Davina Hurt and Dominic Hill, the
Plaintiffs most involved in the case.  And the Judge granted $2,500
each to the remaining Plaintiffs for whom incentive awards are
sought.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/wDxOLV from Leagle.com.

Davina Hurt, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated & Dominic Hill, Individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Frank A. Bartela --
fbartela@dworkenlaw.com -- Dworken & Bernstein, Murray Richelson,
Law Office of David A. Katz, Nicole T. Fiorelli --
nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com -- Dworken & Bernstein, Patrick J. Perotti
-- pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- Dworken & Bernstein, Daniel M. Katz ,
David Aron Katz , James A. DeRoche, Garson Johnson, James S.
Timmerberg , Dworken & Bernstein, Kristen M. Kraus --
kmkraus@dworkenlaw.com -- Dworken & Bernstein & Richard N. Selby,
II -- rselby@dworkenlaw.com -- Dworken & Bernstein.

Commerce Energy, Inc, doing business as Just Energy, Commerce
Energy of Ohio, Inc., Just Energy Marketing Corp & Just Energy
Group, Inc., Defendants, represented by Jennifer L. Schilling --
jschilling@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Alexander R. Frondorf
-- afrondorf@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Bradley A. Sherman
-- bsherman@littler.com -- Sherman Boseman Legal Group, Edward H.
Chyun -- echyun@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Robert M. Wolff
-- rwolff@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Shannon K. Patton --
spatton@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.

Dworken & Bernstein's Custodian of Records & Dworken & Bernstein
Co.L.P.A., Movants, represented by Nicole T. Fiorelli, Dworken &
Bernstein.


CONSULATE HEALTH CARE: Knapp Sues Over Forfeited Leave Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wilma Knapp, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Consulate Health Care, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-01941, (M.D. Pa., October 8, 2018) seeks monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from breach of contract,
promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment under the Pennsylvania
Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Defendant operates a system of facilities providing skilled
nursing, assisted living and rehabilitation services throughout
several states. Knapp worked as a nurse at "The Manor at
Susquehanna Village," a nursing home located at 990 Medical Road,
Millersburg, PA 17061.

In 2017, Defendant informed employees that their earned and
accumulated leave time was being eliminated in order to facilitate
Defendant's sale of the Millersburg facility to a nursing home
company called Priority Healthcare Group. Knapp's 1,139 hours of
leave time was summarily and unilaterally wiped-out. No
consideration was offered or paid, the complaint relates. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter Winebrake, Esq.
     WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
     715 Twining Road, Suite 211
     Dresher, PA 19025
     Phone: (215) 884-2491
     Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
     Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com



CORIUM INT'L: Monteverde & Assoc Probing Securities Laws Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner at Monteverde &
Associates PC, a national securities firm headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Corium
International, Inc. ("Corium" or the "Company") (NasdaqGM: CORI)
relating to the sale of the Company to Gurnet Point Capital
("Gurnet Point"). Under the terms of the proposed transaction,
Corium shareholders are only anticipated to receive $12.50 in cash
for each share of Corium common stock they own. The agreement also
provides for a Contingent Value Right of $0.50 per share payable
upon certain conditions.

The investigation focuses on whether Coirum and its Board of
Directors violated securities laws and/or breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's stockholders by 1) failing to conduct a
fair process, 2) whether and by how much this proposed transaction
undervalues the Company.

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

If you own common stock in Corium and wish to obtain additional
information and protect your investments free of charge please;
        
         Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
         MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
         The Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
         New York, NY 10118
         United States of America
         Telephone: (212) 971-1341
         Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com  [GN]


CVS HEALTH CORPORATION: Removes Hyams Suit to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of RYAN HYAMS, individually and behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION;
CVS PHARMACY INC.; GARFIELD BEACH CVS LLC; and CVS RX SERVICES,
INC., Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco
(Case No. CGC-18-569060) to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on October 12, 2018. The clerk of
court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No.
4:18-cv-06278-HSG (N.D. Cal., Oct. 12, 2018). The case is assigned
to Judge Haywood S Gilliam, Jr.

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
integrated pharmacy health care services. The company was formerly
known as CVS Caremark Corporation and changed its name to CVS
Health Corporation in September 2014. CVS Health Corporation was
founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth Anne Gunn, Esq.
          GUNN COBLE LLP
          101 S. 1st Street, Suite 407
          Burbank, CA 91502
          Telephone: (818) 900-0695
          E-mail: beth@gunncoble.com

               - and -

          Catherine Jean Coble, Esq.
          GUNN COBLE LLP
          101 S. First St., Suite 407
          Burbank, CA 91502
          Telephone: (818) 573-6392
          Facsimile: (818) 900-0723
          E-mail: cathy@gunncoble.com

The Defendants is represented by:

          Jennifer Bates Zargarof, Esq.
          Sonia Andrea Vucetic
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6058
          Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
          E-mail: jzargarof@sidley.com
                  svucetic@sidley.com


DART CONTAINER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Prado Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL PRADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DART CONTAINER CORORATION OF CALIFORNIA; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18CV336217 (Cal.
Super., Santa Clara Cty., Oct. 12, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and provide accurate
wage statements.

Mr. Prado was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employee.

Dart Container Corporation of California, doing business as DTX
Inc., manufactures and markets plastic foam products. It offers
plastic and polystyrene foam package materials and containers for
the restaurants, franchise, and grocery industries, as well as
provides cups and plates. The company is based in Corona,
California. Dart Container Corporation of California operates as a
subsidiary of Dart Container Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          William M. Pao, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com
                  william@setarehlaw.com


DAVOL INC: Removes MSP Suit From Miami-Dade Cir. to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants removed on October 16, 2018, the putative class
action lawsuit styled as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a
Delaware series limited liability company, MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, and SERIES PMPI, a designated
series of MAO-MSO RECOVERY II LLC, a Delaware series limited
liability company v. DAVOL, INC., a Delaware for-profit
corporation, and C. R. BARD, INC., a New Jersey for-profit
corporation, Case No. 2018-030379-CA-24, from the Circuit Court of
the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County,
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-24246-FAM to the
proceeding.

On September 6, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a "Complaint for Pure
Bill of Discovery" against the Defendants in the Circuit Court.  On
September 13, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an "Amended Complaint for
Pure Bill of Discovery."  The Plaintiffs (and their affiliates)
bring putative class action lawsuits against the Defendants,
pursuant to the federally-created private cause of action provision
of the MSP Act, "seeking reimbursement for conditional payments
made on behalf of Medicare Part C enrollees in accordance with the
[MSP Act]."

Davol, Inc., is a corporation incorporated under the laws of
Delaware, and its principal place of business is in Rhode Island.
C. R. Bard, Inc., is a corporation incorporated under the laws of
New Jersey, and its principal place of business is in New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John H. Ruiz, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614-2222
          E-mail: jruiz@msprecovery.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sabrina R. Gallo, Esq.
          Jay A. Yagoda, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
          333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 4400
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 579-0500
          Facsimile: (305) 579-0717
          E-mail: gallos@gtlaw.com
                  yagodaj@gtlaw.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit to 2nd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Deutsche Bank AG, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the litigation titled In Re: Deutsche Bank AG Securities
Litigation, Case No. 09-cv-1714, in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

The Defendants-Petitioners are Deutsche Bank AG, Josef Ackermann,
Bank of America Securities LLC, Detlef Bindert, Jonathan Blake,
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Deutsche Bank Capital Funding LLC
VIII, Deutsche Bank Capital Funding LLC X, Deutsche Bank Capital
Funding Trust IX, Deutsche Bank Capital Funding Trust VIII,
Deutsche Bank Capital Funding Trust X, Deutsche Bank Contingent
Capital LLC II, Deutsche Bank Contingent Capital LLC III, Deutsche
Bank Contingent Capital LLC V, Deutsche Bank Contingent Capital
Trust II, Deutsche Bank Contingent Capital Trust III, Deutsche Bank
Contingent Capital Trust III, Deutsche Bank Contingent Capital
Trust V, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Deutsche BankD Capital
Funding LLC IX, Anthony Di Iorio, Martin Edelmann, Banziger Hugo,
Hermann-Josef Lamberti, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Rainer Rauleder,
Peter Sturzinger, UBS Securities LLC, Tessen Von Heydebreck,
Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC and Marco Zimmermann.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the action
involves a series of securities offerings between May 2007 and May
2008 where allegedly false or misleading offering materials were
used to sell $5.4 billion of preferred securities in violation of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The appellate case is captioned as In Re: Deutsche Bank AG
Securities Litigation, Case No. 18-3036, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents Norbert G. Kaess, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated; Maria Farruggio, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; Edward P. Zemprelli,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Plumbers'
Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund; Shirley Backrach, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated; and George Gerson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Lucas Olts, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: lolts@rgrdlaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank Capital
Funding Trust VIII, Deutsche Bank Capital Funding LLC VIII,
Deutsche Bank Capital Funding Trust X, Deutsche Bank Capital
Funding LLC X, Josef Ackermann, Anthony Di Iorio, Banziger Hugo,
Tessen Von Heydebreck, Hermann-Josef Lamberti, Martin Edelmann,
Peter Sturzinger, Detlef Bindert, Jonathan Blake, Marco Zimmermann,
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Deutsche Bank Contingent Capital
Trust III, Deutsche Bank Contingent Capital Trust V, Deutsche Bank
Contingent Capital LLC V, Deutsche Bank Capital Funding Trust IX,
Deutsche BankD Capital Funding LLC IX, Rainer Rauleder, Deutsche
Bank Contingent Capital Trust III, Deutsche Bank Contingent Capital
LLC III, Deutsche Bank Contingent Capital Trust II and Deutsche
Bank Contingent Capital LLC II are represented by:

          Charles Gilman, Esq.
          CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
          80 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 701-3403
          E-mail: cgilman@cahill.com

Defendants-Petitioners UBS Securities LLC, Citigroup Global
Markets, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated,
Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated
and Bank of America Securities LLC are represented by:

          Scott Musoff, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          4 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          E-mail: scott.musoff@skadden.com


DNC SERVICES: Sweigert Appeals Class Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff George Webb Sweigert filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled George Sweigert, et al. v. John Podesta, et
al., Case No. 1:17-cv-02330-RC, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 8, 2018, the
District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion granting the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the case.

Defendants Haseeb Rana, the DNC, the Podesta Group, Deborah
Wasserman Schultz, Huma Abedin, and Imran Awan each moved to
dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of
the of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against a host of
individuals and entities purportedly associated with the Democratic
National Party in connection with alleged actions taken by the
Defendants during the Democratic primaries to the 2016 U.S.
Presidential election.

Mr. Sweigert, an alleged supporter of Bernie Sanders, asserts that
the Defendants committed fraud and breach of fiduciary duty by,
among other things, executing an undisclosed funding agreement with
a not-for-profit associated with the Hillary Clinton campaign and
by conducting a website-hacking conspiracy to promote Hillary
Clinton's candidacy and to diminish the candidacy of Bernie
Sanders.

The appellate case is captioned as George Sweigert, et al. v. John
Podesta, et al., Case No. 18-7156, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant George Webb Sweigert, of Capitol Heights,
Maryland, appears pro se.[BN]

Defendants-Appellees John D. Podesta, Chairman, Hillary for
America, and Tom Perez, DNC SERVICES CORP., doing business as
Democratic National Committee, are represented by:

          Bruce V. Spiva, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          700 13th Street, NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20005-3960
          Telephone: (202) 654-6200
          E-mail: BSpiva@perkinscoie.com

Defendants-Appellees Kim Fritts, CEO, Podesta Group & CEO ARMZ
Uranium Holding Comp., and Podesta Group are represented by:

          Timothy Cone, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY CONE
          1509 16th Street, NW, Suite 507
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 862-4333

Defendant-Appellee Kim Fritts, CEO, Podesta Group & CEO ARMZ
Uranium Holding Comp., is represented by:

          Matthew C. Hicks, Esq.
          CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED
          One Thomas Circle, NW, Suite 1100
          Washington, DC 20005-5802
          Telephone: (202) 862-5000
          E-mail: mhicks@capdale.com

Defendant-Appellee Deborah Wasserman Schultz, "DEBBIE," is
represented by:

          William Bullock Pittard, IV, Esq.
          KAISER DILLON PLLC
          1401 K Street, NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 683-6150
          E-mail: wpittard@kaiserdillon.com

Defendants-Appellees Imran Awan and Haseeb Rana are represented
by:

          Jesse Isaac Winograd, Esq.
          GOWEN SILVA & WINOGRAD PLLC
          513 Capitol Court, NE, Suite 100
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 380-9355
          E-mail: jwinograd@gowensilva.com

Defendant-Appellee Huma Abedin is represented by:

          Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          1401 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          E-mail: kdunn@bsfllp.com


DOUGH JOE: Espinoza Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SELVIN ESPINOZA and ALEJANDRO SUCUP, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DOUGH JOE LLC D/B/A HINOMARU RAMEN
and MIN LEE, an individual, Case No. 1:18-cv-05745-ENV-RML
(E.D.N.Y., October 15, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

DOUGH JOE LLC, doing business as Hinomaru Ramen, is a corporation
organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive
office in Long Island City, New York.  Min Lee owns and operates
Dough Joe LLC.  The Defendants operate a ramen restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Helen F. Dalton, Esq.
          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCRATES, P.C.
          69-12 AUSfifi Street BROOKLYN OFFICE.
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          E-mail: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com
                  avshalumovr@yahoo.com


DR. CATHERINE E. CRIM: Faces Smallwood et al. Suit in D. Oregon
---------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL HANEY SMALLWOOD; CHANDRA LOVELAND; and LAURA WICKIZER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DR. CATHERINE E. CRIM; DR. STEVEN SHELTON; and D.
BROWN, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01816-BR (D. Or., Oct. 14,
2018). The case is assigned to Judge Anna J. Brown.

The Plaintiff Smallwood represented by:

          Leonard Randolph Berman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LEONARD R. BERMAN
          9220 SW Barbur Blvd., Suite 119
          Portland, OR 97219
          Telephone: (503) 516-3715
          Facsimile: (815) 642-9117
          E-mail: easyrabbi@yahoo.com

The Plaintiff Loveland and Wickizer appear pro se.


EC MOBILE: Faces Class Action in New York for ADA Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EC Mobile LLC. The
case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EC Mobile LLC doing business as:
Cell Doc, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10048 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 31,
2018).

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

Cell Doc repairs electronic devices, including smartphones
(iPhones, Samsung Galaxy, and more), iPads and other tablets,
laptops, and gaming gadgets.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ESCAPE THE ROOM: Figueroa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ESCAPE THE ROOM EXPERIENCE, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-09424
(S.D.N.Y., October 15, 2018), is a civil rights action against the
Defendant for its alleged failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its Web site -- http://www.escapetheroom.com/-- to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.

Escape the Room Experience, LLC, is a New York Limited Liability
Company doing business in New York.  Escape the Room is an
interactive Entertainment Venue that operates ESCAPE THE ROOM
physical locations, as well as http://www.escapetheroom.com/,
offering features, which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services which the Defendant offers in connection with
their physical locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


EUBA CORP: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Buckles Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Buckles, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. EUBA Corp., Steve DePugh, and David Sharpe,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-355 (S.D. Ohio, October 30, 2018)
seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based
on Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and
similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages and overtime
wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio
Constitution, and the Ohio Minimum Wage Fairness Act.

The Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the OMFWSA, the Ohio Constitution, and the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers
for their delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay
delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wage wages for all
hours worked, says the complaint.

Mary Buckles is a resident of Ohio and was an employee of the
Defendant.

Defendants operate approximately 20 Domino's Pizza franchises in
Ohio -- the EUBA stores. Defendants' EUBA stores are part of a
single integrated enterprise called EUBA Corp. It was founded by
its owners, Steve DePugh and David Sharpe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew Biller, Esq.
     Andrew Kimble, Esq.
     Philip Krzeski. Esq.
     Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC
     3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
     Cincinnati, OH 45209
     Phone: 513-651-3700
     Fax: 513-665-0219
     Email: abiller@msdlegal.com
            akimble@msdlegal.com
            pkrzeski@msdlegal.com



FACEBOOK INC: Failed to Secure Users' Personal Info, Wiik Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CONNOR WIIK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FACEBOOK, INC., the Defendant, Case
3:18-cv-06511 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 24, 2018), seeks to redress injuries
suffered by Plaintiff and Class Members as a result of Facebook's
failure to secure and safeguard the sensitive personally
identifiable information ("PII") collected from Plaintiff and other
Class Members by Facebook in connection with their use of
Defendant's website and/or mobile device application.

According to the complaint, Facebook requires its users to provide
PII upon creating an account and in the course of its business,
Facebook collects and maintains an extensive amount of its users'
personal information including, without limitation, names, email
addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, credit card numbers,
private messages, application permissions, locations, education and
work history, and photographs.

Users expect Facebook to maintain strict confidentiality of the
PII. However, Defendant failed, and continues to fail, to provide
adequate protection of its users' PII and has egregiously failed to
provide sufficient and timely notice or warning of potential and
actual cybersecurity breaches to its users, the lawsuit says.

On September 28, 2018, Facebook first issued a statement announcing
that it had "discovered that an external actor attacked our systems
and exploited a vulnerability" that allowed them to "steal Facebook
access tokens which they could then use to take over people's
accounts" (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach impacted almost 50
million Facebook user accounts.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          Brian Murray, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 432-1495
          E-mail: mgodino@glancylaw.com
                  bmurray@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
          768 Plandome Road
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Telephone: (516) 426-6870
          Facsimile: (212) 658-9685
          E-mail: paul@paulwhalen.com

               - and -

          Jasper D. Ward, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC
          1205 E Washington St, Suite 111
          Louisville, KY 40206
          Telephone: (502) 882-6000
          E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com


FEDEX GROUND: Bid to Seal Doc in Padovano Denied w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY PADOVANO, CHRIS ARBER, MICHAEL TUTTLE and
ANDREW MITRANO, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-17-FPG (W.D. N.Y.), Judge Frank P.
Geraci, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
New York denied without prejudice the Defendant's Motion to Seal.

The named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, bring the putative class action against the Defendant.
Pursuant to the Protective Order entered on June 23, 2017 by
Magistrate Judge Schroeder, the Defendant seeks to seal a document
submitted in connection with its opposition to the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  The Plaintiffs have not filed any
opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Seal.

Judge Geraci finds that the Defendant provides no explanation as to
why the document should be sealed, short of reference to the
Protective Order.  But such a reference is insufficient -- even if
material is properly designated as Confidential or Highly
Confidential by a protective order governing discovery, that same
material might not overcome the presumption of public access once
it becomes a judicial document.  Moreover, the Protective Order
itself contemplates that the parties submitting documents
designated "confidential" in conjunction with a motion will seek
leave of Court to submit it or file it under seal.

Accordingly, the Judge denied without prejudice the Defendant's
Motion to Seal.  The Defendant may refile its motion to seal with
accompanying support within 14 days of the Decision and Order.  If
no action is taken within those 14 days, the Court will issue
further orders regarding the document submitted for sealing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Decision and Order
is available at https://is.gd/MiSHBA from Leagle.com.

Jeffrey Padovano, Chris Arber, Michael Tuttle & Andrew Mitrano, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Harold L. Lichten -- hlichten@llrlaw.com -- Lichten
& Liss-Riordan, P.C., Matthew Thomson -- mthomson@llrlaw.com --
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice, Robert Friedman --
sam@legalsurvival.com -- Friedman & Ranzenhofer, P.C., Samuel A.
Alba, Friedman & Ranzenhofer, P.C., Mark J. Gottesfeld --
mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, Peter D.
Winebrake -- pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake & Santillo,
LLC, R. Andrew Santillo -- asantillo@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake
& Santillo, LLC, Robert Eugene DeRose -- bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
-- Barkan Meizlish Handleman Goodin DeRose Wentz, LLP & Shannon
Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.,
pro hac vice.

FEDEX Ground Package System, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph
Peter McHugh, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Rosa Copeland
Miller, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. & Susan C. Roney --
sroney@nixonpeabody.com -- Nixon Peabody LLP.


FEDEX GROUND: Fails to Pay Overtime and Minimum Wages, Dolan Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIP DOLAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 18CV336258
(Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., October 16, 2018), accuses the
Defendants of violating the California Labor Code by failing to,
among other things, pay overtime, minimum wages and meal period
premiums.

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a Delaware corporation.  The
Plaintiff is unaware of the true names or capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

FedEx Ground provides business-to-business package shipping and
ground delivery services.  The Company provides day-certain service
to every business address in the United States and Canada, as well
as residential delivery to through its FedEx Home Delivery
service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
          THE BAINER LAW FIRM
          1901 Harrison St., Suite 1100
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 922-1802
          Facsimile: (510) 844-7701
          E-mail: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com


FLAGSHIP FACILITY: De Orozco Suit Moved to S. D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marta L. Ceron De Orozco, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated employees of Defendants in the State of
California, the Plaintiff, vs. Flagship Facility Services, Inc. and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
37-02018-00040481, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego) Oct. 18, 2018. The Southern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-02397-JLS-JLB. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Janis
L. Sammartino. The suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act
violation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Laura M. Supanich, Esq.
          3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-0800

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Arthur M. Eidelhoch, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
          E-mail: aeidelhoch@littler.com


FLOWERS FOODS: Rios' Claims in Medrano Dismissed w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL MEDRANO, on his own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., and
FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF EL PASO, LLC, Defendants, Civ. No. 16-350
JCH/KK (D. N.M.), Judge Judith C. Herrera of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico (i) denied the Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, and (ii) granted the
Defendants' Opposed Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to
Compel Individual Arbitration as to Plaintiff Jamie Rios.

Flowers Foods, Inc. is a Georgia corporation that develops and
markets bakery products for national sale through a network of
subsidiary bakeries.  One of these is Flowers Baking Co. of El
Paso, which operates 13 warehouses throughout New Mexico and 10
warehouses in Texas.  Like the other subsidiaries, Flowers El Paso
is responsible for distributing baked goods in a specific
geographical area and operating Flowers Foods' local sales and
distribution operations.  Individual distributors such as the
Plaintiff are hired to sell and distribute the products to the
Defendants' customers.

In the case, the Plaintiffs claim that Flowers Foods and Flowers El
Paso violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by
misclassifying lead Plaintiff Medrano and the opt-in Plaintiffs,
who are bakery distributor drivers, as independent contractors.
This misclassification, Medrano claims, has deprived them of
overtime pay to which they are entitled.

On April 27, 2016, Medrano filed his Complaint in the judicial
district asserting claims that the Defendants had improperly
characterized him (and those similarly situated) as independent
contractors in order to escape their obligation to pay overtime, in
violation of the FLSA, and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act
("NMMWA").  On May 23, 2016, the Defendants filed their answer.
Subsequently, numerous other distributors have filed their consents
to become the named Plaintiffs in the case.

On July 1, 2016, only weeks after Medrano filed suit, the parties
submitted to the Court a Joint Status Report and Provisional
Discovery Plan proposing a Sept. 1, 2016 deadline for amending
pleadings and joining parties.  On July 12, 2016, the Court adopted
the parties' proposed Sept. 1, 2016 deadline to amend pleadings and
join parties.  The July 12, 2016 Order also required the parties,
following the Court's ruling regarding conditional collective
action certification, to submit a new, proposed case management
order.

On Oct. 14, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Amend/Correct
the July 12, 2016 Order.  Notably, the parties did not propose new
deadlines regarding pleading amendments and joinder of parties.
Five days later, the Court granted the Joint Motion to
Amend/Correct.

On July 3, 2017, the Court conditionally certified Medrano's FLSA
claims as a collective action, but denied conditional certification
of his NMMWA claims, concluding that if the Plaintiffs wish to
pursue their NMMWA claim as a collective action, they must seek
class certification under Rule 23.  On Oct. 2, 2017, the opt-in
period for those distributors wishing to join the FLSA collective
action expired.

On Oct. 3, 2017, the parties submitted a Joint Motion to Further
Amend the Joint Amended Provisional Discovery Plan and to Amend
Case Management Deadlines.  Once again, the parties did not propose
another deadline to amend pleadings or join parties.  The next day,
the Court granted that motion.

On Oct. 20, 2017, Medrano filed the present motion for leave to
amend his complaint.  In his proposed amended complaint, Medrano
seeks to add nine individuals as named Plaintiffs (all of whom are
already opt-in plaintiffs with regard to the FLSA collective
action) for the purpose of asserting their individual claims under
the NMMWA.  The proposed amended complaint would also add the
individual retaliation claim of David Salas (one of the nine) under
the NMMWA.  The Defendants oppose the amendment on the grounds that
the request is untimely and Medrano has not shown good cause for
his failure to act in a timely manner.

The Defendants' Opposed Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative,
to Compel Individual Arbitration pertains only to opt-in Plaintiff
Rios, who filed his Notice of Consent to Join Lawsuit on Sept. 22,
2017.  The Defendants contend that under the Federal Arbitration
Act ("FAA"), Rios' claims should be dismissed or stayed because he
entered a valid and binding arbitration agreement, which includes a
class action waiver.  Rios did not file a response to the motion.
Under our Local Rules for this district, failure to respond
constitutes consent to grant the motion.

Judge Herrera finds that Medrano has not adequately explained why
he has good cause for failing to move for such an extension and
modification of the scheduling order, as required under Rule 16(d).
Instead, his arguments focus mainly on why Defendants will not be
prejudiced by the amendment and why the amendment will not waste
judicial resources.  What is lacking from Medrano's briefs is an
explanation of his failure to file a motion for extension of the
deadline.  He has failed to meet his burden under Rule 16(d) to
show good cause to alter the scheduling order.  Having concluded
that Medrano has failed to show good cause under Rule 16(b)(4), the
Judge says he needs not reach the question of whether leave to
amend should be granted under Rule 15(a).

The Judge is satisfied that the Arbitration Agreement is valid,
enforceable, and applicable to Rios' claims against the Defendants
in the case.  It is not only signed by the parties and is
unambiguous, but also is supported by adequate consideration.  The
Arbitration Agreement states that it applies to claims alleging
that the distributor was misclassified as an independent
contractor, any other claims premised up the distributor's alleged
status as anything other than an independent contractor and claims
for alleged unpaid compensation under either federal or state law.
Thus, it applies to Rios' claims against the Defendants.  Finally,
in several places the Arbitration Agreement states in
straightforward language that claims covered by the agreement must
be resolved by an individual, binding arbitration and that the
parties are giving up the right to a collective or class action.

For the goregoing reasons, Judge Herrera (i) denied the Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, and (ii) granted the
Defendants' Opposed Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to
Compel Individual Arbitration.  The claims of Rios are dismissed
without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/av89CD from Leagle.com.

Paul Medrano, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jenny Faye Kaufman --
jenny@thejonesfirm.com -- Jones, Snead, Wertheim & Clifford, P.A.,
Jerry Todd Wertheim, Jones, Snead, Wertheim & Wentworth PA & Samuel
C. Wolf, Jones Snead Wertheim & Clifford PA.

Flowers Food, Inc. & Flowers Baking Co. of El Paso, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Amelia M. Willis, Esq. --
amie.willis@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart
PC, M. Katherine K. Paulus, Esq. -- Katherine.paulus@ogletree.com
-- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Nelson Franse,
Esq. -- nfranse@rodey.com -- Rodey Dickason Sloan Akin & Robb PA &
Patrick F. Hulla, Esq. -- Patrick.hulla@ogletree.com -- Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.


GATES CORPORATION: Lundine Seeks Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEGGY LYNN LUNDINE on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
GATES CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case 6:18-cv-01235-EFM-JPO (D.
Ks.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

     a. granting conditional class certification regarding the
Plaintiff’s claims under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act regarding all nonexempt hourly manufacturing
employees who worked at Defendant Gates Corporation’s plants
three years from the date of the Court's order;

     b. directing the Defendant to provide a list of names of these
persons within 14 days of the Court's order along with their last
known home addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses, all in a
workable electronic format for mailing purposes;

     c. providing the last four digits of social security numbers
for all class members whose mailed notices are returned
undeliverable so Plaintiff can locate a viable mailing address;

     d. authorizing the Plaintiff to send the notice of claims and
right to opt-in forms; and

     e. granting other relief the Court deems just and proper.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
          420 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MI 64112
          Telephone: (816) 221-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 709-1044
          E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com

               - and -

          Daniel W. Craig
          6614 Clayton Rd., #320
          St. Louis, Missouri 63117
          Telephone: (314) 297-8385
          Facsimile: (816) 709-1044
          E-mail: dan@donelonpc.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          David L. Heinemann, Esq.
          Christopher S. Shank, Esq.
          SHANK & MOORE, LLC
          1968 Shawnee Mission Parkway, Suite 100
          Mission Woods, KS 66205
          Telephone: 816 471 0909
          Facsimile: 816 471 3888
          E-mail: davidh@shankmoore.com
                  chris@shankmoore.com

               - and -

          Colin L. Barnacle, Esq.
          Christopher J. Eby, Esq.
          AKERMAN, LLP
          1900 16 th Street, Ste. 1700
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 260-7712
          Facsimile: (303) 260-7714
          E-mail: christopher.eby@akerman.com
                  colin.barnacle@akerman.com


GENERAL MILLS: Jackson Sues over Sale of Mislabeled Cereal
----------------------------------------------------------
CHARLENE M. JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MILLS, INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 37-2018-00052079-CU-FR-CTL (Cal.
Super., San Diego Cty., Oct. 12, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for intentionally packing its Annie's HOMEGROWN brand
Cereal Products in opaque containers that contain 50% empty space
in violation of the consumer protection and labeling laws.

General Mills, Inc. manufactures and markets branded consumer foods
worldwide. The company was founded in 1866 and is based in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. [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
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  mike@consumersadvocates.com


GENESIS FS: Wright Sues over Marketing Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS WRIGHT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GENESIS FS CARD SERVICES, INC. d/b/a
BANKCARD SERVICES, the Defendant, Case 3:18-cv-02375-BAS-JLB (S.D.
Cal., Oct. 17, 2018), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendants in negligently and/or willfully or
knowingly contacting Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy.

The Defendant provides merchant services, better known as credit
card processing, which is the handling of electronic payment
transactions for merchants. The Defendant regularly makes
autodialed telephone calls to consumers, seeking potential
merchants, in order to market its line of payment services and
other related products. The Plaintiff is not and has never been a
merchant, nor did he at any point shop for credit card processing
services. The Plaintiff never provided authorization to receive
autodialed marketing calls on his cellular telephone from the
Defendant.

According to the complaint, in November of 2016, the Defendant
initiated repeated marketing telephone calls from the phone number,
559-282-2648, to Plaintiff's cellular phone ending with "1125,"
using an automatic telephone dialing system. The Defendants
incessantly called Plaintiff, oftentimes, multiple times per day,
to market and solicit Plaintiff's business. On at least two
occasions, Plaintiff would answer the calls only to hear a pause,
clicking, and dead air before the system disconnected his call.
Returning the call to 559-282-2648 revealed a recorded message
stating, "Thank you for calling Bankcard Services."  The message
was robotic, and no live representative was on the line. A live
representative confirmed the number dialed 559-282-2648 was in fact
Bankcard Services, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108-3609
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: yana@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          409 Camino Del Rio south, Suite 101B
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222-7492
          Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
          E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


GLK FOODS: Settlement in Jimenez Suit Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEJANDRO JURADO JIMENEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GLK
FOODS, LLC and RYAN A. DOWNS, Defendants, and JOSE ENRIQUE RAMIREZ,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. GLK FOODS, LLC and RYAN A. DOWNS,
Defendants, Civil Action Nos. 12-cv-209, 12-cv-210 (E.D. Wis.),
Judge William C. Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, Green Bay Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement.

The Judge has reviewed Plaintiffs' motion and held a public hearing
on the fairness of the Settlement Agreement, at which objectors
have appeared or submitted written objections.  Accordingly, he
approved the Settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

He directed the Fund Custodian/Administrator, Simpluris, and Claims
Administrator, Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc. to issue
settlement payments to class members who have submitted valid claim
forms pursuant to the process set out in the Order Regarding
Distribution of Settlement Amounts entered June 29, 2018.  

Upon entry of the order, the Class Members as well as any unknown
class members who timely file a claim and are approved by the
counsel for the Plaintiffs and the counsel for the Defendants as
provided in the Distribution Order, on behalf of themselves and
each of their heirs, representatives, successors, assigns, and
attorneys, will be deemed to release and forever discharge
Defendants from any and all claims as outlined and described in the
Settlement Agreement.  The non-participating class members do not
release any claims against the Defendants.

As set out in the parties' Settlement Agreement, the Court will
retain jurisdiction with respect to the implementation and
enforcement of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, to the extent
permitted by law, including over implementation and enforcement of
the Distribution Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/7FhA5J from Leagle.com.

Jose Enriquez Ramirez, Isidro Enriquez Ramirez, Jiovanni Mendez
Lancon, Francisco Ruiz Figueroa, Javier Jimenez Vera, Salvador
Chavez Jurado, Antonio Arroyo Jurado, Jacobo Martinez Gallardo,
Jose Manuel Lancon Jurado, Alejandro Ruiz Rosas, Gustavo Moreno
Ortiz, Javier Jimenez Ramirez, Jose Martinez Jurado, J Santos Soto
Vazquez & Gustavo Vera Ramirez, Plaintiffs, represented by Bruce
Goldstein, Farmworker Justice, Christopher J. Wilmes --
cwilmes@hsplegal.com -- Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd, Jose
J. Behar -- jbehar@hsplegal.com -- Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym
Ltd, Joshua Karsh -- jkarsh@hsplegal.com -- Hughes Socol Piers
Resnick & Dym Ltd & Matthew J. Piers -- mpiers@hsplegal.com --
Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd.

Fermin Jimenez Rosas, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Karsh,
Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd, Bruce Goldstein, Farmworker
Justice, Christopher J. Wilmes, Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym
Ltd & Jose J. Behar, Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd.

Jonathan Vicente Baca Jurado, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua
Karsh, Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd, Matthew J. Piers,
Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd, Bruce Goldstein, Farmworker
Justice & Jose J. Behar, Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd.

GLK Foods LLC & Ryan A Downs, Defendants, represented by Michael
Aldana -- michael.aldana@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP &
Steven M. Kruzel -- steven.kruzel@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady
LLP.


HILLCREST PHARMACY: Advanced Dermotology Hits Illegally-faxed Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Dermotology, Plaintiff, v. Hillcrest Pharmacy, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02336 (N.D. Ohio, October 8, 2018), is a
class action complaint alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant sells pharmaceutical drugs in the United States and
solicits medical offices with its mail-service contact information
and a supply list of prescription drugs in various concentrations
available to order. Plaintiff received an unsolicited facsimile
from Defendant on its office fax machine without consent, notes the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
      Michael L. Berler, Esq.
      Michael L. Fine, Esq.
      FREDERICK & BERLER, LLC
      767 East 185th Street
      Cleveland, OH 44119
      Tel: (216) 502-1055
      Fax: (216) 566-0750
      Email: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
             mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com


HOWELL OILFIELD: Beck Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Craig Beck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Howell Oilfield Enterprises, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 7:18-cv-189 (W.D. Tex., October 30, 2018) is bought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act for declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties
and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of
Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other Operators and Lead
Operators lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per week.

Craig Beck is a resident and citizen of Pope County, Arkansas. He
was employed by Defendant as a Flowback Operator within the three
years preceding the filing of this Complaint.  Mr. Beck says the
Defendant has willfully and intentionally committed violations of
the FLSA for at least three years prior to the filing of this
Complaint.

Howell Oilfield Enterprises, LLC, is an Oklahoma limited liability
company, created and existing under and by virtue of the laws of
the State of Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HUAZHU GROUP: Hayes Sues Over Share Drop from Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Branden Hayes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Huazhu Group Ltd. and Min (Jenny) Zhang,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-08633 (C.D. Cal., October 8, 2018),
seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Huazhu operates hotels in China. On August 28, 2018, media outlets
reported that Chinese police were investigating a possible leak of
client information from Huazhu, stating that nearly 500 million
pieces of customer-related information, including registration
information, personal data, and booking records, had emerged in an
online post. On this news, Huazhu's share price fell $1.55 per
share, or approximately 4.36%, to close at $33.98 per share on
August 28, 2018, dropping $1.09 per share on August 30, 2018, $0.67
per share on September 4, 2018, $2.46 per share on September 5,
2018, and $0.26 on September 6, 2018, to close at $31.03 on
September 6, 2018.

Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the Company lacked
adequate security measures to protect customer information. Hayes
purchased Huazhu securities and lost substantially, notes the
complaint.

Huazhu's American Depository Shares trade on the NASDAQ exchange.
Min (Jenny) Zhang was the Chief Executive Officer of the Company at
all relevant times. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      Email: info@glancylaw.com

             - and -

      Howard G. Smith, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
      3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
      Bensalem, PA 19020
      Telephone: (215) 638-4847
      Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


HUME ENTERPRISES: Milosevic Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CASSIE MILOSEVIC, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C
206(B) v. HUME ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, AARON HUME, individually and KEVIN HUME, individually,
Case No. 1:18-cv-24231-RNS (S.D. Fla., October 15, 2018), seeks to
recover alleged 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.

Hume Enterprises operated a business under the fictitious name of
Toms NFL Sports Bar, which is registered with the Florida Division
of Corporations as a Fictitious Name and reflects Hume Enterprises
as the owner.

Hume Enterprises employed the Plaintiff as a Waitress at Toms NFL
Sports Bar located in Miami Springs, Florida.  The Individual
Defendants are officers or directors of Hume Enterprises.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Henry Hernandez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF HENRY HERNANDEZ, P.A.
          2655 Le Jeune Road, Suite 802
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 771-3374
          E-mail: Henry@HHLAWFLORIDA.com

               - and -

          Monica Espino, Esq.
          ESPINO LAW, PL
          2655 S. LeJeune Road, Suite 802
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 704-3172
          Facsimile: (305) 722-7378
          E-mail: me@espino-law.com


INDEPENDENT RECOVERY: Furia Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Independent Recovery
Resources, Inc. The case is styled as Joshua Furia on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Independent
Recovery Resources, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-06102 (E.D.
N.Y., Oct. 31, 2018).

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

Independent Recovery Resources, Inc. is a full-service debt
collection agency dedicated to the collection and credit industry.
IRR provides first party, third party, debt-acquisitions, call
blasting and legal services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


J C TREE: Marte Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONY LAMAR MARTE, individually and on behalf of those individuals
similarly situated v. J C TREE CARE NY CORP., MARTHA VELASCO, and
JUAN CARLOS, Case No. 1:18-cv-05749 (E.D.N.Y., October 15, 2018),
alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the
Defendants overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours per week.

J C Tree Care is a domestic limited liability company operating in
Ridgewood, New York.  The Individual Defendants are owners,
principals or agents of J C Tree Care.

J C Tree Care operates as a tree removal business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher K. Collotta, Esq.
          ZABELL & COLLOTTA, P.C.
          1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
          Bohemia, NY 11716
          Telephone: (631) 589-7242
          Facsimile: (631) 563-7475
          E-mail: Ccollotta@laborlawsny.com


JAX DIRTWORKS: Accused by Gurney of Not Paying Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GURNEY, For Himself And All Others Similarly Situated v.
JAX DIRTWORKS, INC., DRUE HOLDEMAN and JENNIFER HOLDEMAN, Case No.
3:18-cv-01217 (M.D. Fla., October 15, 2018), alleges that the
Plaintiff earned, but did not receive, overtime wages calculated at
time and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all time he
spent working over 40 hours per week from the Defendants.

Jax Dirtworks, Inc., is a Florida for-profit that conducts its
for-profit business in Florida and maintains it office and
principal place of business in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida.
The Individual Defendants are officers, owners and operators of
Dirtworks.

Dirtworks provides land clearing services, excavation services,
grading, hauling and delivery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
          FAIRLAW FIRM
          7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 230-4884
          Facsimile: (305) 230-4844
          E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com


JEFFREY CAMPBELL: Violates ADA, Kiler Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jeffrey Campbell LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Marion Kiler individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Jeffrey Campbell LLC, ABC Internet, Inc. doing business as:
Jeffrey Campbell, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06072 (E.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 30, 2018).

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

Jeffrey Campbell is a contemporary shoe brand that offers a
plethora of styles for people of all colors, shapes, and
identities.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



JILDOR SHOES: Fischler Sues Footwear Retailer Under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jildor Shoes, Inc.
under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Brian Fischler individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jildor Shoes, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06107 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 31, 2018).

Jildor Shoes, Inc. is an e-tailer and retailer of fine footwear.
The company's line of business includes the retail sale of mens,
womens and childrens footwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



JULIAN SPENCE: Heberle Seeks to Certify Class of Purchasers
-----------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN HEBERLE, individually and On behalf of others similar
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. JULIAN SPENCE a/k/a JUVANE BRYAN
SPENCE, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02288 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of:

"all purchasers of DRIP tokens from Defendant Spence".

Excluded from the Class is: (1) Defendant, Defendant's agents,
subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in
which Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest, and
those entities' current and former employees, officers, and
directors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the
Judge's immediate family; (3) any person who executes and files a
timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) any person who has
had their claims in this matter finally adjudicated and/or
otherwise released; and (5) the legal representatives, successors
and assigns of any such excluded person.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Adam S. Tracy, Esq.
          THE TRACY FIRM, LTD.
          141 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 2172
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: 312 754 9499
          Facsimile: 630 689 9471
          E-mail: at@tracyfirm.com


KROGER CO: Bid to Decertify Class in Hardesty FLSA Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH HARDESTY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE KROGER
CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-298 (S.D. Ohio), Judge
Timothy S. Black of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Western Division, denied both (i) the Defendant's
motion to decertify the Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") collective action, and (ii) the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23.

The case is a lawsuit seeking unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA
and Ohio law.  The Plaintiffs were employed as Recruiters at
Kroger's CoRE Center, which is a call center located in Blue Ash,
Ohio, with over 300 employees.  The CoRE Center makes outbound
calls to and receives inbound calls from online applicants who have
applied for employment at various Kroger-owned grocery and retail
stores throughout the United States.  The Plaintiffs, as CoRE
Recruiters, primarily made telephone screening calls to individuals
who had applied online to Kroger-owned stores throughout the United
States.

In 2014, Kroger made a single, uniform decision to classify all
CoRE Recruiters as exempt under the FLSA.  The Plaintiffs commenced
the lawsuit alleging that Kroger's classification decision was
unlawful and that they were wrongfully not compensated for hours
worked over 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs assert three claims against Kroger: (1) an FLSA
violation premised on Kroger's misclassification of CoRE Recruiters
and subsequent failure to compensate the Plaintiffs for overtime
hours; (2) a claim under Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
for failure to timely pay those overtime wages, and (3) a claim for
unjust enrichment.

Kroger argues that CoRE Recruiters are exempt from the FLSA's
overtime provisions under the "Administrative Exemption," which
exempts employees who are paid at or above a certain salary level
and (1) whose primary duty is the performance of office or
non-manual work directly related to the management or general
business operations of the employer or the employer's customers,
and (2) whose primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and
independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.  It
argues, inter alia, that CoRE Recruiters exercise discretion when
performing their duties by deciding which applicants to call for
telephone interviews and determining which candidates to refer from
telephone interviews to final, in-store interviews.

The Plaintiffs seek class treatment of their claims.  Because the
certification methods for their FLSA claims and state law claims
differ, there are two motions pending before the Court.  First,
Kroger has moved to decertify the Plaintiffs' FLSA collective
action previously conditionally certified by the Court on July 19,
2016.  Second, the Plaintiffs have moved for class certification of
their state law claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification requests that the
Court certifies their Ohio wage claims and approve notice to be
sent to the following Ohio class: All employees classified as
recruiters, who i) were employed at Kroger's Center of Recruiting
Excellence ("CoRE") in Blue Ash, Ohio, at any time from the
beginning of CoRE's operations in 2014 to Dec. 1, 2016, and ii)
worked in excess of 40 hours during any given workweek.

The primary issue in both motions is whether, in light of the fact
that testimony from the Plaintiffs, the Opt-In Plaintiffs, and the
proposed class-member declarants demonstrates that CoRE recruiters
exercise varying amounts of discretion in performing their jobs,
the Plaintiffs' claims (and Kroger's individualized Administrative
Exemption defenses) should be tried collectively.

Judge Black finds that finds that the Plaintiffs have not met the
"commonality" requirement of Rule 23, but have met the
less-stringent requirement under the FLSA that they be "similarly
situated."  The testimony before the Court demonstrates that
members of the proposed class exercised varying levels of
discretion in performing their tasks as CoRE Recruiters.  In light
of this varying and conflicting testimony, the common question of
whether CoRE Recruiters were properly exempted from the FLSA due to
the Administrative Exemption -- i.e., whether their primary duties
included the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with
respect to matters of significance -- cannot be answered on a
classwide basis.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have not met the
requirements of Rule 26(a).

Additionally, the Plaintiffs claim their proposed class consists of
180 members.  Given the factual differences in the testimony from
CoRE Recruiters relevant to the main legal issue in the case --
whether CoRE Recruiters were properly exempted from the FLSA -- the
Judge finds the class certification to be undesirable and
unmanageable.

As Plaintiffs have not met the requirements of Rule 26(a) or Rule
26(b), the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification will be
denied.

Because collective actions under the FLSA are subject to a less
stringent requirement than class actions under Rule 23, Kroger's
motion is not well-taken.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Black denide both (i) the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and (ii) Kroger's
motion for decertification of the Plaintiffs' collective action.

Also pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion to vacate
the discovery deadline, which was previously scheduled for Nov. 17,
2017.  They wish to extend the discovery deadline for the purpose
of conducting any discovery that might be necessary after class
certification.  As the Judge denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, their motion to vacate the discovery deadline
is similarly denied.  The Court will schedule a status conference
forthwith, at which point both parties may address the need for
additional discovery, if desired.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/F1jOyk from Leagle.com.

Joseph Hardesty, Derek Chipman & Madeline Hickey, Plaintiffs,
represented by Joshua Michael Smith -- jms@sspfirm.com -- Stagnaro
Saba and patterson Co., LPA, Peter A. Saba -- pas@sspfirm.com --
FINNEY STAGNARO SABA & PATTERSON, CO. L.P.A. & Sharon J. Sobers --
sjs@sspfirm.com -- FINNEY STAGNARO SABA & PATTERSON, CO. L.P.A.

Kroger Co. & Kroger G.O. LLC, Defendants, represented by David
Kirsten Montgomery -- David.Montgomery@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson
Lewis LLP, Ryan Michael Martin -- Ryan.Martin@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis P.C. & David P. Zins -- dzins@mofo.com -- Jackson
Lewis P.C.


LAKE CHASE CONDOMINIUM: Sues over Unlawful Towing of Vehicle
------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTINA SCHROER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAKE CHASE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 79290980 (Fla. Cir.,
Hillsborough Cty., Oct. 12, 2018) alleges that the Defendant
violated the Florida statutes in unlawfully removing and towing the
Plaintiff's motor vehicle without her consent.

Lake Chase Condominium Association, Inc. is a not for profit
Florida corporation engaged in the Apartment Building Operators
business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Felipe B. Fulgencio, Esq.
          Megan N. Daniel, Esq.
          Courtney A. Umberger, Esq.
          FULGENCIO LAW, PLLC
          105 S. Edison Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 463-0123
          Facsimile: (813) 670-1288
          E-mail: Felipe@FulgencioLaw.com
                  MDaniel@FulgencioLaw.com
                  CU@FulgencioLaw.com


LANGSTON COMPANIES: Bonds Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jaylin Bonds, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Langston Companies, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00189, (W.D. Ark., October 5, 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.

Langston is a supplier of various types of bags and other
packing-related products and services, including multiwall paper
sacks, cotton bale packaging, flexible intermediate bulk containers
and small woven polypropylene bags with six manufacturing
facilities worldwide. Bonds worked as factory worker at their
manufacturing facility in West Memphis. He claims to have regularly
worked in excess of forty hours per week without overtime pay.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Ford, Esq.
      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
             daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com


LEGACY TREATMENT: Chudzinski Files Suit Over Retaliatory Discharge
------------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE CHUDZINSKI v. LEGACY TREATMENT SERVICES, INC. and JOHN DOES
1-5 AND 6-10, Case No. CAM-L-003925-18 (N.J. Super., Camden Cty.,
October 16, 2018), is brought to ask the Court to order the
Defendants to cease and desist unlawful conduct, including
retaliatory discharge, both as to the Plaintiff and as to all other
individuals similarly situated.

The matter is opened to the Court under the New Jersey
Conscientious Employee Protection Act alleging unlawful retaliatory
discharge.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants terminated
his employment because he pressed charges against their client, via
a private criminal complaint, in connection with an incident
wherein the client pushed him and punched him in the face.

Legacy Treatment Services, Inc., is a New Jersey business with an
address at 119 Creek Road, in Lumberton, New Jersey.  The Doe
Defendants are currently unidentified.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a residential
counselor, whose job duties included caring for disabled and
at-risk residents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727-9700
          E-mail: kcostello@costellomains.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Amended Childress TCPA Suit Dismissed w/ Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SID CHILDRESS, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-1051 MV/KBM (D. N.M.), Judge Martha
Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint with Prejudice.

On Aug. 14, 2017, at approximately 10:22 a.m. (MT), Childress
received a telephone call on his cellular phone, which is listed on
the national do-not-call registry.  According to Plaintiff's caller
identification, the telephone call came from telephone number
505-780-9813.  When Plaintiff answered the call, he was greeted by
a machine that played a pre-recorded message.  The message
indicated that the caller was "Jason" from "Cheap Insurance
Experts."

After listening to the prerecorded message and answering questions,
the Plaintiff was transferred to a live person telemarketer
employed by the Defendant who identified himself as "Steve Ross"
and indicated that he was located at a call center in Dallas,
Texas.  The Plaintiff began asking "Steve Ross" questions related
to his interest in why he was being robo-called and who the
telemarketer was.  "Steve Ross" then hung up the phone on him.

An hour later, the Plaintiff filed in state court his pro se
Complaint for Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), the Unfair Practices Act and Torts against the Defendant.
He amended the complaint once as a matter of right on Sept. 13,
2017, to correctly name the Defendant and to add conduct by "lead
generators" for his claim of vicarious liability.  The Defendant
removed the case to the Court on Oct. 19, 2017.

On Nov. 20, 2017, the Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in its entirety.  Thereafter, the
Plaintiff retained the counsel, who entered an appearance on Dec.
7, 2017.  On Dec. 8, 2017, the Plaintiff filed both a response in
opposition to the Defendant's motion, and a motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint.

The Court referred the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend to
Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen.  On May 1, 2018, Judge Molzen
entered her Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition ("PFRD").
In the PFRD, she found that the Plaintiff's untimely proposed
Second Amended Complaint represents the type of 'moving target'
that would introduce undue delay.  The Magistrate noted that
Plaintiff clearly knew all of the information on which the proposed
changes were based.

Further, the Magistrate found that the Defendant has already
expended considerable fees and cost in pursuing its motion to
dismiss, and that the proposed expansion of the lawsuit from a
single, offending phone call to potential nationwide class action,
would require even greater resources to bring the case to a
conclusion.  No objections were filed to the PFRD, and on June 4,
the Court entered an Order adopting the PFRD.  Thereafter,
Defendant filed its reply in further support of its motion to
dismiss.

Judge Vaquez finds that in the Amended Complaint, there are no
factual allegations that the Defendant actually made the telephone
call at issue.  The mere conclusion that the "robot machine"
responsible for the call belonged to the Defendant, without any
factual allegations to support that conclusion, does not constitute
a factual allegation that, if proven, would establish that the
Defendant "made," or "physically placed" the call to the
Plaintiff's cell phone.  Accordingly, the Amended Complaint is
insufficient to state a claim that is plausible on its face under
Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).

In addition, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's arguments to the
contrary are unavailing.  Their statements are not factual
allegations but rather legal conclusions that merely recite the
elements required to show an agency relationship.  The case law is
clear that such threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice to
state a claim.

She concludes that absent from the Amended Complaint is any factual
content regarding the relationship between the initial caller and
the Defendant.  Mere conclusory allegations that the "robot
machine" belonged to the Defendant, coupled with allegations that
the initial call was transferred to the Defendant's in-house
telemarketer, are insufficient to establish that it had the right
to control the initiation of the telephone call to the Plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's allegations fail to plead any
relationship, let alone an agency relationship, between the
Defendant and any other individual or entity sufficient to allege
vicarious liability under Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).

The Plaintiff has consented to dismissal of all of his claims save
those under the TCPA.  As set forth, the Plaintiff has failed to
state a claim of direct or vicarious liability under the TCPA.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is subject to
dismissal in its entirety.  Judge Vazquez granted the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with Prejudice, and
the Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/RNhJ7p from Leagle.com.

Sid Childress, Plaintiff, represented by Clayton Ewing Crowley --
info@crowleygribble.com -- Crowley & Gribble PC & Anthony Paronich
-- anthony@broderick-law.com -- Broderick & Paronich, PC.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Meena
H. Allen , Allen Law Firm, LLC, Brian J. Spano -- bspano@lrrc.com
-- Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, pro hac vice & Jessica L. Fuller --
jfuller@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, pro hac vice.


LYFT INC: Accused by Ganji of Illegally Sending Unsolicited Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A. Ganji, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-06321-KAW (N.D. Cal.,
October 16, 2018), arises from the Defendant's alleged illegal
actions in negligently, knowingly or willfully transmitting
unsolicited, autodialed SMS or MMS text messages, en masse, to the
Plaintiff's cellular device and the cellular devices of numerous
other individuals across the county, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Headquartered in San Francisco, California, Lyft, Inc., is a
transportation company that provides rides to its customers
throughout the United States via a mobile application.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcelo Di Mauro, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARCELO DI MAURO
          2719 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
          Santa Monica, CA 90403
          Telephone: (310) 876-2723
          E-mail: marcelodimaurolaw@gmail.com


MAC COSMETICS: Johnson Seeks Overtime Pay for Hrs. Worked Over 40
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Johnson, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. MAC Cosmetics, Inc. and The Estee
Lauder Companies, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-09157, (S.D.
N.Y., October 5, 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 Wage Theft Prevention Act of the New York
Labor Code.

MAC, an Estee Lauder subsidiary, is a cosmetics manufacturer and
retailer. Johnson worked as a manager in MAC's retail location in
Queens Center Mall in Elmhurst, New York and Roosevelt Field Mall
in East Garden City. She frequently logged over 40 hours in a week
but was not paid overtime, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Salvatore C. Badala, Esq.
      Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
      NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
      360 Lexington Avenue, Eleventh Floor
      New York, NY, 10017
      Tel: (212) 397-1000
      Email: sbadala@napolilaw.com
             pnapoli@napolilaw.com


MARRIOTT INT'L: Alward Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Pre-shift Work
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marni Alward, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. Marriott International, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-02337, (N.D. Ohio, October 8, 2018), seeks to
recover overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act.

Defendant is a global lodging company with more than 6,700
properties across 130 countries and territories, operating a Global
Reservation Sales and Customer Care Center in Solon, OH. Alward was
employed by Defendant at the Solon Call Center as an operator from
approximately May 2017 until approximately July 2018.

Prior to the beginning of each paid shift and prior to the end of
each unpaid meal break, Plaintiffs must arrive at their assigned
work station, boot-up their assigned computers, and access computer
systems, databases and programs. It generally takes 10-15 minutes
to complete but they were not compensated for time spent performing
Start-Up Activities, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter Winebrake, Esq.
     WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
     715 Twining Road, Suite 211
     Dresher, PA 19025
     Phone: (215) 884-2491
     Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
     Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


MDL 2741: Russ Suit v. Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled GAYLE RUSS, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01473, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 24, 2018. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-06488-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant 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 Russ case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Eric D. HollandD, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314 241-8111
          Facsimile: 314 241-5554
          E-mail: eholland@allfela.com

               - and -

          Jessica L. Richman, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone: (516) 723-4627
          Facsimile: (516) 723-4727
          E-mail: jrichman@yourlawyer.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Johnson Suit Moved to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DEAN C. JOHNSON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Case No. 4:18-cv-01450, was removed from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on October 2, 2018.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-06025 (N.D.
Cal., Oct. 2, 2018) to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the
Hon. Vince Chhabria.

Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was
formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to
Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in
2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018,
Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Miller et al. Suit Moved to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled FAYE MILLER, and CARL MERRIETT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01454,
was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on October 11, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-06219 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 2018) to the
proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Vince Chhabria.

Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was
formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to
Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in
2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018,
Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MORGENTHAL-FREDERICS: Nixon Asserts ADA Class Action in NY
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Morgenthal-Frederics
Optical Stores, Inc. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Morgenthal-Frederics Optical Stores, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06066 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2018).

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

Morgenthal Frederics specializes in creating luxurious optical
frames by handcrafting them using the finest materials. Utilizing
buffalo horn, acetate and titanium, these frames bring together
comfort and aesthetics to produce a first-class optical experience
for those who wear them.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOTOR VEHICLE: Court Narrows Claims in Heaton TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy S. Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motions to dismiss the case, JOHN HEATON and
CHRISTOPHER HORIGAN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. MOTOR VEHICLE ASSURANCE, NATIONAL AUTO
PROTECTION CORP. and SUNPATH LTD., Defendants, Civil Action No.
17-40169-TSH (D. Mass.).

Heaton and Horigan have filed suit against Motor Vehicle Assurance,
National Auto Protection Corp. ("NAPC") and Sunpath LTD to enforce
the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").  More specifically, the Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants made unsolicited telephone calls to their
cellular phones and/or landlines.  They also allege a claim against
the Defendants under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act
("Chapter 93A").  

Sunpath is a company that offers extended warranties on
automobiles.  To generate new clients, Sunpath relies on
telemarketing.  However, Sunpath's contact with the potential new
customers is limited, and the telemarketing is conducted by third
parties.  One of Sunpath's strategies for telemarketing involve
hiring third parties that make use of an automatic telephone
dialing system ("ATDS") to solicit potential customers through the
use of a predictive dialer.  NAPC provides marketing services for
Sunpath. In making calls, NAPC utilizes leads generated from
sources with whom it has contracted and who provide marketing-like
banner advertisements and informational landing pages on websites.


On April 27, 2017, a Colleen Korniotes visited a website entitled
"wehaveautoloans.com." and consented in writing to receive
telephone calls from ATDS to a wireless telephone number associated
with Horigan.  The person who visited the site checked the
appropriate boxes indicating that s/he consented to receive
telephone calls, including ATDS calls.  The website permits
consumers to supply information, including their telephone
number(s), addresse(s) and email addresse(s), but it will not
accept this information unless the consumer checks the two boxes on
the website by which the consumer gives his or her permission to
be, among other things, contacted on their wireless telephones
through telephone calls generated by automated telephone dialing
systems.

NAPC placed a pre-recorded telemarketing call to Heaton on July 7,
2017 to cellular telephone number (508) XXX-4142.  When the call
was answered, there was a lengthy pause and a click followed by
silence before a pre-recorded message came on the line.  Horigan
believes that the call was made using an ATDS.  When Horigan sought
to identify the company that was calling him, he was told the
company was "www.sunpath.com."

During the conversation, Horigan identified himself as "Christopher
Miller" and had and extensive conversation with the caller (and
other persons who he was transferred to speak to) regarding his
vehicle.  Horigan avers that he did not go on the
"wehaveautoloans.com" on April 27, 2017, and that the computer IP
address associated with the computer that went on the site that day
is not the IP address of his home computer.

The Plaintiffs alleged they were temporarily deprived of legitimate
use of their phones because the phone line was tied up, they were
charged for the calls and their privacy was improperly invaded.
Moreover, these calls injured them because they were frustrating,
obnoxious, annoying, were a nuisance and disturbed their solitude.

Sunpath and NAPC have each filed motions to dismiss the Complaint
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), on the grounds that
(1) Horrigan lacks standing to assert a claim under the TCPA, and
therefore, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over his
claim, and (2) both Defendants fail to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted pursuant to Chapter 93A.

Judge Hillman granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motions to dismiss.  He granted NAPC's Motion For An Order
Dismissing The Complaint Pursuant To Federal Rule Of Civil
Procedure 12(B)(1) as to the Plaintiffs' claim brought pursuant to
Mass.Gen.L. ch. 93A and, is otherwise, denied.  He also granted
Sunpath'S Motion To Dismiss Complaint as to the Plaintiffs' claim
brought pursuant to Mass.Gen.L. ch. 93A and, is otherwise, denied.

The Judge finds that Horigan has filed a sworn affidavit saying
that he did not visit the website, wehaveautoloans.com, as alleged
by the Defendants.  On this record, the he cannot find that the
Plaintiff consented to receiving calls from Sunpath and its agents,
including NAPC.  Therefore, the Defendants motion to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied.

Likewise, the Judge does not find that, as a matter of law, the
Plaintiffs' allegations of a single call made to their cellular
telephones, which tied up their phone lines for a brief period and
were frustrating, obnoxious, annoying, were a nuisance and
disturbed their] solitude, establish that the Defendants engaged in
any unfair or deceptive acts or practices.  Therefore, the
Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Chapter 93A claims
is granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Order and Memorandum
of Decision is available at https://is.gd/Fhcf3M from Leagle.com.

John Heaton, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situtated
& Christopher Horigan, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situtated, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony I. Paronich --
anthony@broderick-law.com -- Broderick & Paronich, P.C.

Motor Vehicle Assurance, Defendant, represented by Lawrence M.
Kraus -- lkraus@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Matthew N.
Fiorovanti -- mfiorovanti@ghclaw.com -- Giordano, Halleran &
Ciesla, P.C., pro hac vice, Steven W. Ward -- sward@ghclaw.com --
Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C., pro hac vice & Olivia B. Luckett
-- oluckett@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP.

Sunpath, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Beth-Ann E. Krimsky --
beth-ann.krimsky@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, LLP, pro hac vice,
Lawren A. Zann -- lawren.zann@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, P.A.,
pro hac vice & Stephen D. Riden -- sriden@beckreed.com -- Beck Reed
Riden LLP.

National Auto Protection Corp, Defendant, represented by Gino A.
Zonghetti -- gzonghetti@kdvlaw.com -- Kenny, Stearns, & Zonghetti.


NATHAN'S FAMOUS: Figueroa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NATHAN'S FAMOUS INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-09425-DAB
(S.D.N.Y., October 15, 2018), accuses the Defendant of failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site --
http://www.nathansfamous.com/-- to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

Nathan's Famous Inc. is a Delaware Corporation doing business in
New York.

The Defendant is a restaurant chain that operates Nathan's Famous
restaurants, as well as the Nathan's Famous Web site offering
features, which should allow all consumers to access the goods and
services, which the Defendant offers in connection with their
physical locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


NATIONAL DELIVERY: Sanchez-Lopez Suit Moved to E.D. North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Sanchez-Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. National Delivery Systems, Inc., Santi
Multiservices, Inc., Santi Staffing Solution, Inc., and Human Link
Staffing, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18- cv-00502, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina on Oct. 24, 2018. The Eastern District
of North Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-00502-FL to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Louise Wood
Flanagan. The suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Andrew J. Henson, Esq.
          Michael A. Kornbluth, Esq.
          TAIBI KORNBLUTH LAW GROUP, P.A.
          3100 Tower Boulevard, Suite 800
          Durham, NC 27707
          Telephone: (919) 401-4100
          E-mail: ahenson@TKLawNC.com
                  mak@tklawnc.com

Attorneys for National Delivery Systems, Inc.:

          Jerry Howard Walters , Jr., Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          100 North Tryon Street, Suite 4150
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 972-7013
          Facsimile: (704) 333-4005


NATIONAL RESTORATIONS: Workers' Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Contreras, Francisco Rico and Manuel Ortiz, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National
Restorations, Inc., Design Installation Systems, Inc. and Michael
Tracy, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-06761, (N.D. Ill., October 5,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, state law
statutory penalties, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and
attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

National Restorations is an Illinois contractor engaged in masonry
restoration, repair and landscaping and snow removal. Defendants
employed Plaintiffs as non-exempt laborers but failed to pay them
premium overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek, asserts the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
      Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
      HUGHES, SOCOL, PIERS, RESNICK &DYM, LTD.
      70 W. Madison St., Suite 4000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 580-0100
      Email: mpiers@hsplegal.com
             cwilmes@hsplegal.com

             - and -

      Alexandria Santistevan, Esq.
      FARMWORKER & LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
      33 N. LaSalle, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 784-3541
      Email: litigation@flapillinois.org


NAVIENT CORP: Kahn Swick Probes Securities Laws Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq., a
partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"),
disclosed that KSF has commenced an investigation into Navient
Corporation (NasdaqGS: NAVI).

Throughout 2017 and 2018, the Company was named as a defendant in
several civil lawsuits filed by the U.S. Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau and Attorneys General from Illinois,
Pennsylvania, Washington, California and Mississippi for violations
of state and federal consumer protection laws, based on allegations
of widespread acts of misconduct detrimental to borrowers of the
loans it services. On October 16, 2017, the Company was sued in a
securities class action lawsuit for failing to disclose material
information, violating federal securities laws, which is ongoing.

Recently, on October 3, 2018, the Company was sued in federal court
in a consumer class action lawsuit for misleading borrowers
regarding the terms and options for their loans in violation of
numerous state and federal laws.

The actions of the Company's executives have exposed it to the
expense of defending the Company against numerous investigations
and lawsuits by public officials, consumers and shareholders as
well as the potential penalties, fines and other financial losses
that could result from them.

KSF's investigation is focusing on whether Navient's officers
and/or directors breached their fiduciary duties to Navient's
shareholders or otherwise violated state or federal laws.

If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation,
or have been a long-term holder of Navient shares and would like to
discuss your legal rights, you may, without obligation or cost to
you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner
Lewis Kahn ( lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com ), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-navi/ to learn more.

View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20181012005030/en/

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         Managing Partner
         Telephone: 1-877-515-1850
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


NAVIGATORS GROUP: Kent Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. THE NAVIGATORS GROUP, INC., SAUL L. BASCH, TERENCE N.
DEEKS, STANLEY A. GALANSKI, MERYL D. HARTZBAND, GEOFFREY E.
JOHNSON, ROBERT V. MENDELSOHN, DAVID M. PLATTER, PATRICIA H.
ROBERTS, JANICE C. TOMLINSON, and MARC M. TRACT, Case No.
1:18-cv-01580-UNA (D. Del., October 15, 2018), stems from a
proposed transaction pursuant to which the Company will be acquired
by The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. and Renato
Acquisition Co.

On August 22, 2018, Navigators' Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Hartford.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, if the
Proposed Transaction is approved by Navigators' shareholders and
completed, Navigators' stockholders will receive $70 in cash for
each share of the Navigators common stock they hold.

On October 12, 2018, defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the Proposed Transaction.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy
Statement, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction for November 16, 2018, omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy
Statement false and misleading and in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Navigators Group is a Delaware corporation and maintains its
principal executive offices located in Stamford, Connecticut.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Navigators is a global specialty insurance holding company.  The
Company provides customized insurance solutions designed to protect
clients from complex risks.  The Company serves these industries:
maritime, construction, energy, environmental, professional
services, and life sciences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


NEILSON FINANCIAL: Layoff Notice Untimely, Merriweather Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TANISHA MERRIWEATHER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEILSON FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC;
NFS INSURANCE AGENCY LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case
No. 18STCV00421 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 11, 2018) is
an action against the Defendants for failure to provide the
required 60 days advance notice of layoffs in violation of the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

Neilson Financial Services LLC is engaged in providing insurance
agent and broker services for a range of insurance types. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven M. Tindall, Esq.
          Aaron Blumenthal, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: smt@classlawgroup. com
                  ab@classlawgroup.com


OMNI SPECIAL: Denied Meal Breaks and Overtime Pay, Garcia Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Marbella Gonzalez Garcia and Melanie Karczewski, Individually and
on behalf of other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Omni
Special Services, LLP, Syntecos and Guido Costantini, Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-03644, (S.D. Tex., October 5, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, declaratory relief, back pay and
liquidated damages, attorney's fees and taxable costs of court
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Omni Special Services operates as Metro Clean, a cleaning company
based out of Houston TX and is a subsidiary of Syntecos. Defendants
automatically deducted lunch breaks for all office workers and
custodians even if they did not avail them, notes the complaint.
Defendants would allegedly edit the time sheets to reduce hours
worked and any overtime, it adds. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
      Scott Stambush, Esq.
      TRAN LAW FIRM
      2537 South Gessner Road, Suite 104
      Houston, TX 77063
      Tel: (713) 223–8855
      Fax: (713) 623–6399
      Email: ttran@tranlawllp.com
             service@tranlawllp.com
             Stambush@tranlf.com


OPKO HEALTH: Camhi Hits Share Price Drop Over Pump-and-Dump Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Camhi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. OPKO Health, Inc. and Phillip Frost,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-24137 (S.D. Fla., October 8, 2018),
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

OPKO, a healthcare company, engages in the diagnostics and
pharmaceuticals business in the United States and internationally.
Phillip Frost has been its Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
since March 2007.

The complaint says the Defendants failed to disclose that Frost and
OPKO were involved in orchestrating the acquisition of large
quantities of stock at steep discounts and after securing a
substantial ownership interest in them, engaged in illegal
promotional activity and manipulative trading to artificially boost
its stock price and to give the stock the appearance of active
trading volume and eventually dump their shares into the inflated
market, reaping millions of dollars at the expense of unsuspecting
investors.

On this news, shares of OPKO fell $1.01 or over 18%, before NASDAQ
halted the trading of OPKO on September 7, 2018 at $4.58. To date,
trading in OPKO remains halted, making the stock illiquid and
virtually worthless. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jack Reise, Esq.
     Robert J. Robbins, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Telephone: (561) 750-3000
     Fax: (561) 750-3364
     Email: jreise@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Samuel H. Rudman, 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

             - and -

      Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Tel: (619) 231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-7423
      Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550
      Fax: (516) 747-5024


P&E IRON: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Zavalla Says
---------------------------------------------------
PEDRO ZAVALLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated , the Plaintiff, vs. P&E IRON WORK CORPORATION and YUWANA
HUAMAN, as an individual, the Defendant, Case 7:18-cv-09777
(S.D.N.Y., Oct, 24, 2018), seeks compensatory damages and
liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000 under the New
York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Mr. Zavalla was employed by Defendants
at P&E Iron Work Corp., as iron worker and installer from June 2015
to March 2018.

Zavalla worked about 72 hours or more per week during his
employment. However, Defendant did not pay him 1.5 times for hours
worked over 40 hours, a blatant violation of the overtime
provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hill, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263 9591


PATIENT INNOVATION: Tomala's Bid to Certify Class Shelved
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Boguslawa Tomala, the
Plaintiff, vs. Patient Innovation Center, NFP, et al., the
Defendant, Case: 1:17-cv-08530 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Joan H.
Lefkow entered an order on Oct. 17, 2018 holding Plaintiff's motion
to certify class in abeyance.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on October 17,
Plaintiff's motion to strike affirmative defenses is granted.
Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.
Defendants' motion to stay is denied as moot. Defendants must
produce documents responsive to the applicability of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the McNamara−O'Hara Service Contract Act by
Oct. 30, 2018. Status hearing and hearing on motion to compel were
continued to Oct. 31.[CC]


PENN NATIONAL: Sued by Jessop in M.D. Florida for Violating FCRA
----------------------------------------------------------------
MAT JESSOP, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. PENN NATIONAL GAMING, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation,
Case No. 6:18-cv-01741 (M.D. Fla., October 15, 2018), arises from
the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which
requires Penn National to truncate certain credit card and debit
card information on printed receipts provided to consumers.

Despite the clear language of the statute, Penn National willfully,
knowingly, or with reckless disregard, failed to comply with FCRA
but printed eight of the credit card or debit card numbers on
printed receipts provided to consumers, the Plaintiff alleges.  As
a result of Penn National's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and the
Class, who have conducted business with the Defendant, have
suffered a violation of their statutory rights, an invasion of
their privacy and have been burdened with an elevated risk of
identity theft, according to the complaint.

Penn National is a Pennsylvania corporation whose principal address
is located in Wyomissing, Pennsylvania.  Penn National owns,
operates or has ownership interests in gaming and racing facilities
and video gaming terminal operations with a focus on slot machine
entertainment.  Penn National conducts business in the state of
Florida as the principal owner and operator of Sanford Orlando
Kennel Club, located in Longwood, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Kira M. Rubel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KIRA M. RUBEL
          3615 Harborview Drive, Suite C
          Gig Harbor, WA 98332-2129
          Telephone: (800) 836-6531
          Facsimile: (206) 238-1694
          E-mail: krubel@kmrlawfirm.com


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Illegally Broke Escrow Agreements, Investors Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Almasood Qureshi, Alexandre Daccache, Carlos Enrique Hiller
Sanchez, Phillip Calderwood, Jose Antonio Pietri, Jose R.
Casseres-Pinto and Tong Yi Wang, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, V. People's United
Financial, Inc., as successor-in-interest to Chittenden Trust
Company, People's United Bank, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, LLP, as
successor-in-interest to Richardson & Patel, LLP, Mitchell
Silberberg & Knupp, LLP, David B. Gordon and David B. Gordon, A
Professional Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00163, (D.
Vt., October 5, 2018), is a class action on behalf of 836
individuals, who invested in the development of the Jay Peak Ski
Resort, alleging fraud under federal security laws.

Plaintiffs and all 836 investors in the scheme were limited
partners of eight different Vermont limited partnerships involved
in the development of Jay Peak, and subsequently another Vermont
ski resort known as Burke Mountain. They claim that the bank
breached escrow agreements entered into with the Plaintiffs, and
all the individual investors, and breached fiduciary duties arising
under those agreements by permitting the misappropriation of
escrowed funds held by the Defendants for uses other than those
mandated under the escrow agreements and subscription agreements
for the various limited partnerships. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lisa B. Shelkrot
      LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL LLP
      PO Box 721, 210 College Street
      Burlington, VT 05402
      Phone: (802) 864-0217
      Email: lshelkrot@langrock.com

             - and -

      Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
      Dyanne E. Feinberg, Esq.
      Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
      Maia Aron, Esq.
      Rachel Sullivan, Esq.
      KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
      2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 372-1800
      Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
      Email: hst@kttlaw.com
             tjl@kttlaw.com
             gfranjola@kttlaw.com
             rs@kttlaw.com
             def@kttlaw.com
             ma@kttlaw.com

             - and -

      Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
      Angelica M. Ornelas, Esq.
      GIRARD SHARP LLP
      601 California Street, Suite 1400
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Phone: (415) 981-4800
      Fax: (415) 981-4846
      Email: dgirard@girardsharp.com
             aornelas@girardsharp.com

             - and -

      Paul Aiello, Esq.
      Michael P. Bennett, Esq.
      BENNETT AIELLO
      The Ingraham Building, Eighth Floor
      25 Southeast Second Avenue
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 358-9011
      Facsimile: (305) 358-9012
      Email: paiello@bennettaiello.com
             mbennett@bennettaiello.com


PHYSICIAN LABORATORIES: Rivas Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA RIVAS, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
PHYSICIAN LABORATORIES, INC., an Arizona corporation; MDX
LOGISTICS, a Michigan corporation; SEBAPHARMA GmbH & CO. KG, a
corporation organized under the laws of Germany; COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; RITE AID CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation; ALEX FAZELI, an individual; MONROE FAZELI, an
individual; and DOES l through 100, Case 8:18-cv-00729-DOC-AGR
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on December 17,
2018, for an order certifying a class defined as:

   "all persons similarly situated or class members consists of all
persons who, between 2014 and 2018, purchased Sebamed Products in
California that were unlawfully represented, inter alia, as exactly
5.5 -- precisely the pH of healthy skin; " "meticulously formulated
to a pH balance of exactly 5.5; " "essential in maintaining your
skin's natural hydrolipid barrier against environmental stress; "
and related fraudulent misrepresentations."

According to the Plaintiff, the persons similarly situated or in
the class are so numerous, consisting of thousands of individuals,
that the joinder of all such persons is impracticable and that the
disposition of their claims in a representative or class action
rather that in individual actions will benefit the parties and the
Court.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiff Melissa Rivas and the Proposed Class:

          Jeffrey S. Benice, Esq.
          BENICE LAW
          Website: wvvw.JeffreyBenice.com
          3080 Bristol Street
          Sixth Floor, Suite 630
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone No.: (714) 641-3600
          Facsimile No.: (714) 641-3604
          E-Mail: JSB@JeffreyBenice.com


PRIDE BUS: Scorcia Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------
VINCENZO SCORCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. PRIDE BUS CORP., and AGOSTINO VONA,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 159851/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Oct. 24, 2018), seeks to recover damages and other legal and
equitable relief, under the New York State Labor Law, and the New
York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants own and operate buses
that drive routes throughout New York State. The Defendants
employed Plaintiff as a driver in New York.

The Plaintiff was, throughout his entire employment with
Defendants, a covered, non- exempt employee within the meaning of
the NYLL. As such, Plaintiff was entitled to be paid in full for
all hours worked, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Mark Gaylord, Esq.
          BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
          400 Jericho Turnpike Suite 226
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Telephone: (516) 742-4949
          Facsimile: (516) 742-1977

PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: Court Stays Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned THOMAS WHALEN, the Plaintiff,
vs. PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT SERVICES, LLC and CAPITAL ONE NA, the
Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-1488 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Lynn
Adelman entered an order granting Plaintiff's motions to stay the
class certification motion and for relief from the local rules.

The court said, "Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
hereby stayed. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action,
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. To
prevent defendants from mooting the action, plaintiff moves for
class certification and to stay that motion. See Damasco v.
Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on
other grounds by Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th
Cir. 2015); see also Campbell–Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663,
672 (2016). Plaintiff also moves for relief from local rules
requiring every motion to be accompanied by a supporting memorandum
and imposing a briefing schedule."[CC]


REAL AGENT PRO: Accused by Gomes Class Suit of Violating TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carla Gomes, on behalf herself and others similarly situated v.
Real Agent Pro, LLC d/b/a Advantage U, Case No. 1:18-cv-12145 (D.
Mass., October 15, 2018), alleges that the Defendant routinely
violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by using an
automatic telephone dialing system to place non-emergency calls to
telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service without
prior express consent.

Real Agent Pro, LLC, doing business as Advantage U, is a
corporation located in Rochester New York.  The Defendant refers to
itself as an "all-in-one real estate sales and marketing solution."
The Defendant offers services that include "cold calling
prospective home sellers."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin K. Crick, Esq.
          RIGHTS PROTECTION LAW GROUP, PLLC
          8 Faneuil Hall Marketplace, Third Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (844) 574-4487
          Facsimile: (888) 622-3715
          E-mail: k.crick@rightsprotect.com

               - and -

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


RELIASTAR LIFE: Advance Trust Sues Over Excessive Insurance Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as securities
intermediary for Life Partners Position Holder Trust, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Reliastar
Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02863 (D. Minn.,
October 5, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest resulting from breach of
contract.

ReliaStar policyholders have been forced to pay unlawful and
excessive cost of insurance charges, says the complaint. Defendant
failed to base cost of insurance rates on its expectations as to
future mortality experience, and instead used cost of insurance
charges as a way to bolster its profits, the complaint adds. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. Leach, Esq.
      Michael A. Erbele, Esq.
      MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
      3200 IDS Center
      80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Phone: (612) 332-5300
      Fax: (612) 332-9081
      E-mail: tleach@merchantgould.com
              merbele@merchantgould.com

              - and -

      Peter A. Gergely, Esq.
      MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
      1801 California Street, Suite 3300
      Denver, CO 80202
      Phone: (303) 357-1670
      Fax: (612) 332-9081
      E-mail: pgergely@merchantgould.com

              - and -

      Seth Ard, Esq.
      Ryan Christopher Kirkpatrick, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Phone: (212) 729-2017
      Fax: (212) 336-8340
      E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com
              rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com

              - and -

      Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
      Glenn C. Bridgman, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Phone: (310) 789-3100
      Fax: (310) 789-3150
      E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
              gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com


RUNNING SPECIALTY:  Violates ADA, Nixon Suit Asserts
----------------------------------------------------
Donald Nixon filed a class action lawsuit against The Running
Specialty Group, LLC under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Running Specialty
Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06068 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 30,
2018).

The Running Specialty Group, LLC owns and operates retail stores
for running products which include apparels and shoes. The company
was incorporated in 2011 and is based in Indianapolis,
Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SECRET STASH: Stinnett Sues over Telemarketing Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE STINNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. P2C3 LLC d/b/a The Secret Stash:
Progressive Medicine, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, the
Defendant, Case 9:18-cv-81399-DMM (S.D. Fla, Oct. 17, 2018), seeks
injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has
resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and
disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. and also
seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the
class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies for
Defendants' violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is an entity that
specializes in selling cannabis products.  To promote its services,
Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of
consumers in the process.  On or about June 17, 2017, June 20,
2017, December 29, 2017, March 9, 2018, March 12, 2018, March 19,
2018, and April 20, 2018, Defendant sent telemarketing text
messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 2818.
Defendant's text messages were transmitted to Plaintiff’s
cellular telephone.

Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing because they
encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or
services, i.e., selling Plaintiff cannabis products. At no point in
time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express written
consent to be contacted using an ATDS. The Plaintiff is the
subscriber and sole user of the 2818 Number, and is financially
responsible for phone service to the 2818 Number. Plaintiff has
been registered with the national do-not-call registry since 2014,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

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

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          19495 Biscayne Blvd No. 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


SENOMYX INC: Kim Seeks to Halt Merger Deal; Seeks Financials
------------------------------------------------------------
Cornelia Kim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Senomyx, Inc., Kent Snyder, Stephen A.
Block, Tom Erdmann, Mary Ann Gray, John W. Poyhonen, Dan Stebbins,
Christopher Twomey, Firmenich Incorporated and Sentry Merger Sub,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01547, (D. Del., October 8, 2018),
seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition
of Senomyx, Inc. by Firmenich Inc. and Sentry Merger Sub, Inc., or
rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger.  The
Plaintiff also seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Senomyx stockholders will receive $1.50 in cash per share under the
proposed transaction.

Senomyx is into flavor ingredients and natural high intensity
sweeteners for food and beverage under the Complimyx, Sweetmyx,
Savorymyx and Bittermyx brand.

Defendants have allegedly locked up the deal and have precluded
other bidders from making successful competing offers for the
company. Said consideration also appears inadequate given the
intrinsic value of the company, the Plaintiff contends.  Moreover,
the solicitation statement omitted the analyses performed by
Needham & Company, LLC, the Defendant's financial adviser with
respect to discounted cash flow analyses, the range of illustrative
terminal enterprise values, the specific inputs and assumptions
underlying the discount rates and Senomyx's cash and debt. These
are all needed for the shareholders to make a sound decision on the
merger deal. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SERGEANT'S PET:  Bietsch Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 7th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ryan Bietsch, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their lawsuit titled Ryan Bietsch, et al. v. Sergeant's
Pet Care Products, Incorporated, Case No. 1:15-cv-05432, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.

The appellate case is captioned as Ryan Bietsch, et al. v.
Sergeant's Pet Care Products, Incorporated, Case No. 18-8018, in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 8, 2018, the Hon.
Judge Sara L. Ellis entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of:

      National Class:

      "all persons in the United States who purchased Pur Luv
      Grande Bones and/or Mini Bones Treats within the Class
      Period of June 19, 2010, through the present"; and

      Consumer Fraud Multistate Class:

      "all persons residing in California, Florida, Illinois,
      Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey,
      New York, Ohio, and Washington who purchased Pur Luv Grande
      Bones and/or Mini Bones Treats within the Class Period of
      June 19, 2010, through the present."

   2. denying Sergeant's motion to exclude Dr. Kelly Swanson's
      expert opinions and testimony; and

   3. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion to
      exclude Dr. Jorg Steiner's expert opinion and testimony.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs make no real effort to address the
issue of injury.  Standing to pursue prospective injunctive relief
requires a threat of future harm that is not conjectural or
hypothetical.  Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112
S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992).  "Past exposure to illegal
conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy
regarding injunctive relief, however, if unaccompanied by any
continuing, present adverse effects." O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S.
488, 495â€"96, 94 S. Ct. 669, 38 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1974).  The
Plaintiffs do not explain how the mere presence of the Pur Luv
Treats on the market will cause them continuing adverse effects.
Without such a showing, they have no standing to pursue an
injunction.  Therefore, the Court finds this case unsuitable for
certification under Rule 23."[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners RYAN BIETSCH, MICHAEL PFORTMILLER, JUSTIN
MILLER and SELIM FREIHA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Todd L. McLawhorn, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 N. State Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com

Defendant-Respondent SERGEANT'S PET CARE PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED, a
Michigan corporation, is represented by:

          Russell S. Jones, Jr., Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC
          900 W. 48th Place
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 753-1000
          E-mail: rjones@polsinelli.com

               - and -

          Rodney L. Lewis, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 819-1900
          E-mail: rodneylewis@polsinelli.com


SERVICE EXPERTS: Court Allows Amended Donato FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH DONATO, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SERVICE EXPERTS, LLC,
doing business as Service Experts Heating and Air Conditioning; and
SERVICE EXPERTS HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING NEW YORK, LLC;
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-CV-436 (DNH/CFH) (N.D. N.Y.), Judge David
N. Hurd of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New
York (i) granted the Plaintiff's motion to amend, and (ii) granted
the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Donato brings the putative class action on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated against Defendants Service Experts, LLC,
doing business as Service Experts Heating and Air Conditioning, and
Service Experts Heating & Air Conditioning New York, LLC.  The
Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and the New York State Labor Law ("NYLL"), and seeks to
recover federal and state mandated wages and overtime pay owed, but
never paid, to the Plaintiff and others similarly situated who have
worked as plumbers and/or HVAC technicians at the Defendants'
locations within the applicable time periods.

Donato's employment with the Defendants as a plumbing technician
began on July 12, 2013 through the present.  The Defendants'
business provides residential and commercial HVAC service and
replacement, ancillary residential home services, including
plumbing, indoor air quality and energy audits, commercial HVAC
service, maintenance and replacement, and HVAC installation in
commercial and residential new construction through the United
States.  It is undisputed that the Plaintiff is a non-exempt
employee under federal and state labor laws and thus entitled to
overtime for hours worked in excess of forty a week, in accordance
with the applicable law.

Donato alleges that because he was only compensated for time spent
responding to service calls, he repeatedly and routinely worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek during his regular workweeks and
while "on call," including when he was engaged to wait for dispatch
calls.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state
any claims upon which relief could be granted.  The Plaintiff
opposed and the Defendants replied in further support.  

Later, the Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint and for equitable
tolling of the statute of limitations for putative opt-in
Plaintiffs, as of Oct. 19, 2017, until the date that the Court sets
f or the expiration of the opt-in period in the matter.   The crux
of his amended complaint is that the Defendants failed to pay
employees for all hours worked and also failed to pay overtime for
hours worked over 40 in a given week, all because the Defendants do
not take into account the time employees are required to wait at
home for dispatch calls.  Thus, the Plaintiff asserts claims for
both unpaid wages and unpaid overtime in violation of the FLSA.

The Defendants opposed and the Plaintiff replied in further
support.  An oral argument was heard on Dec. 15, 2017, in Utica,
New York.  The decision was reserved.

Judge Hurd finds that even taking the Plaintiff's allegations as
true which must be done on a motion to dismiss, he was "waiting to
be engaged" rather than "engaged to wait" during the time periods
in question.  Accordingly, he was not working under the FLSA during
that inactive time and hours not actually worked are not required
to be compensated under the FLSA nor counted toward overtime
calculations for hours worked over 40 in a week.  As Donato's own
time records and pay stubs demonstrate he was compensated for all
hours worked and compensated a premium overtime rate for all hours
worked over 40 in a given week, he has not provided sufficient
support to allow the court to infer his entitlement to overtime.
For these reasons, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's FLSA claim will be granted and the First cause of
action will be dismissed.

In addition, there are no exceptional circumstances present in the
case that might warrant a different conclusion.  Because the
Defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted as to the federal
FLSA claim, the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction
over Donato's state law claims will be declined.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiff's NYLL claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

As the Plaintiff's FLSA claim will be dismissed and supplemental
jurisdiction declined over the NYLL claims, there is no need to
consider any remaining arguments.  

For these reasons, Judge Hurd granted the Plaintiff's motion to
amend, and the amended complaint is accepted.  He also granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.  The Plaintiff's First cause of
action under the FLSA is dismissed.  The Judge declined the
supplemental jurisdiction over the Second, Third, and Fourth causes
of action, and dismissed those claims without prejudice.  

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the
file.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Memorandum-Decision
and Order is available at https://is.gd/oi0KVG from Leagle.com.

Joseph Donato, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin David Light
-- Blight@callagylaw.com -- Maggs & McDermott, LLC, pro hac vice,
Carlo Alexandre C. de Oliveira -- CdeOliveira@coopererving.com --
Cooper, Erving Law Firm - Albany Office & Phillip G. Steck, Cooper,
Erving Law Firm - Albany Office.

Service Experts, LLC, doing business as Service Experts Heating and
Air Conditioning & Service Experts Hearting & Air Conditioning New
York, LLC, Defendants, represented by William J. Anthony --
William.Anthony@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. - Albany
Office, Christopher John Stevens --
Christopher.Stevens@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. - Albany
Office, Stephanie L. Goutos -- Stephanie.Goutos@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis P.C. - Albany Office & Vincent E. Polsinelli --
Vincent.Polsinelli@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. - Albany
Office.


SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Judge Consolidates 17 Antitrust Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Mirabella, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that a
panel of federal judges has consolidated 17 lawsuits accusing
Sinclair Broadcast Group and other media companies of scheming to
artificially raise prices for local television advertisements.

Cases pending in federal court in Maryland and Illinois will be
combined with 15 related cases and heard in Illinois, a panel on
multidistrict litigation ordered.

"The actions commonly allege that the conspiracy was effectuated by
sharing competitively sensitive information through . . . .
advertising sales teams in order to raise advertising prices to
supracompetitive levels," said the order, filed on October 9.

Sinclair had no comment on the lawsuit consolidations, a spokesman
said.

In late July, Clay, Massey & Associates, an Alabama law firm that
advertised on TV, filed an antitrust class action lawsuit in
Illinois accusing the six biggest owners of local television
stations televisions of inflating ad prices. Besides Hunt
Valley-based Sinclair, defendants include Tribune Media Co., Gray
Television Inc., Hearst Corp., Nexstar Media Group Inc. and Tegna
Inc., which collectively own, operate or offer service to more than
443 local stations as of 2016, the lawsuit says.

The law offices of Peter Miller, Esq. -- pmiller@petermillerlaw.com
-- in Little Rock, Ark., filed a similar lawsuit against Sinclair
and Tribune, also at the end of July.

"Instead of competing with each other on price for advertising
sales as horizontal competitors typically would, defendants and
their co-conspirators shared proprietary information and conspired
to fix prices and stifle competition in the market," the Peter
MIller lawsuit alleged.

Sinclair and other defendants had asked the court for additional
time to respond to the lawsuits while the court decided whether to
consolidate cases.

Sinclair also is involved in litigation with Tribune, its former
partner in a failed $3.9 billion deal to combine the two media
giants. Sinclair filed a counter-lawsuit against Tribune at the end
of August. Tribune had canceled the planned merger and sued
Sinclair for $1 billion, alleging breach of contract. [GN]


SODEXO INC: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Lazo Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRACEY LAZO, JAMEN HARPER, MUSTAPHA JARRAF, NY'COLE
YOUNG THOMAS, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SODEXO, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-13366-GAO (D. Mass.),
Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment.

The named Plaintiffs bring suit against Sodexo for alleged
violations of the Massachusetts Tips Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149,
Section 152A.  The Plaintiffs claim that Sodexo unlawfully retained
money collected from patrons as service charges, rather than
remitting the monies to wait staff and service employees as the
statute requires.  Sodexo has moved for summary judgment.

Harper worked as a wait staff and banquet support employee in the
EDR at One Lincoln from November 2014 to May 2015.   Lazo worked as
a wait staff employee, cashier, and barista at One Lincoln from May
2008 until June 2015.  Jarraf worked at One Lincoln and at Plimoth
Plantation.  At Plimoth Plantation, Jarraf worked as a server.  At
One Lincoln, he was employed as a banquet captain in the EDR from
August 2009 through September 2015.

Sodexo provides a number of different food service options at One
Lincoln Street, Boston, for the two companies located in the
building, State Street Bank and K&L Gates LLP.  It operates a
cafeteria for State Street and K&L Gates employees, which offers
traditional cafeteria-style food service and delivery of items,
such as boxed lunches, to meetings throughout the building. It also
operates an Executive Dining Room ("EDR").

At least two Sodexo employees, Jarraf and a co-worker, Constance
Passanisi, aver that they were told by customers that they wanted
to leave a tip, but that it had already been paid as part of the
bill.  Additionally, Passanisi avers that Sodexo management told
customers that they did not need to tip and would not permit wait
staff or bartenders to put out a tip jar.  Jarraf avers that he was
told by a customer that the customer wished to leave a tip but that
the tip was already included with the price.

The gravamen of the Plaintiffs' claim is that the fees charged at
One Lincoln for EDR services and at Plimoth Plantation are "service
charges" under the statute because customers would have reasonably
expected those fees to be given to the wait staff employees.  The
Defendants move for summary judgment, arguing generally that in
relevant part that (1) the administrative charge at the EDR was not
a "service charge" within the meaning of the Tips Act because it
was not presented to "patrons" and, even if State Street and K&L
Gates are considered "patrons," Sodexo made clear the
administrative charge was not a tip or gratuity; and (2) it did not
impose a "service charge" at Plimoth Plantation.

As to the EDR, Judge O'Toole finds that the record shows that
Sodexo managers made State Street and K&L Gates aware of the
purpose of the administrative charge and that it was not
distributed to wait staff.  That is sufficient to dispel the
possibility that a patron would reasonably believe that the fee is
a gratuity, and the Plaintiffs have not offered any contradicting
factual evidence suggesting otherwise.  Because the undisputed
facts show that Sodexo informed the patrons or other persons
receiving the invoices for the EDR that the administrative fee did
not represent a tip or service charge for wait staff employees,
Sodexo is entitled to judgment a matter of law on the Plaintiffs'
EDR claim.

As to Plimoth Plantation, the Defendant contends that it was in
compliance with the Tips Act at Plimoth Plantation under the safe
harbor provision of the statute.  The Judge agrees.  He says, the
explanation on catering invoices describing that the "Staffing
Charge" or "Support Charge" was "not a gratuity" in its early
iteration and does not represent at tip or service charge paid
directly to wait staff, employees or bartenders in its later
iteration is sufficient to bring the charge within the Section
152A(d) safe harbor provision.  Both versions explicitly state that
the charge is not a gratuity, and the second version takes the
further step of notifying customers that the fee is not remitted to
employees.  Consequently, Sodexo has demonstrated as a matter of
law that it satisfied the requirements of the Section 152A(d) safe
harbor provision with respect to the Plimoth Plantation fees and is
therefore entitled to summary judgment on Jarraf's Plimoth
Plantation Tips Act claim.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge O'Toole granted the Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment.  The Judgment will enter in favor of
the Defendant.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/ZiXHDw from Leagle.com.

Tracey Lazo, Jamen Harper, Mustapha Jarraf & Ny'Cole Young Thomas,
Plaintiffs, represented by Edward A. Prisby, Raipher D. Pellegrino
Associates, P.C. & John P. Regan, Jr., The Employee Rights Group,
LLC.

Sodexo, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas J. Hoffman --
Douglas.Hoffman@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC & Jonathan R.
Shank -- Jonathan.Shank@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC.


SPRINGFIELD, MA: Appeals Order in Disability Law Suit to 1st Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Springfield Public Schools and Springfield,
Massachusetts, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Parent/Professional Advocacy League, et al. v. City of
Springfield, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-30116-MGM, in the U.S.
District Court for the District Court of Massachusetts,
Springfield.

The appellate case is captioned as Parent/Professional Advocacy
League, et al. v. City of Springfield, et al., Case No. 18-1976, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 20, 2018,
Plaintiffs Disability Law Center, Inc., M. W. and
Parent/Professional Advocacy League filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is styled as M.W., a
minor, by his parents, et al. v. City of Springfield, et al., Case
No. 18-1867.

The District Court previously granted the Defendants' Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings based on the Absence of IDEA Exhaustion
in the case.

The one-count complaint alleged the Defendants violated Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), with respect to S.S. and
members of the proposed class by failing to provide the educational
programs and services that would have allowed them equal access to
the educational resources offered students attending neighborhood
schools.  In the course of arguing that the Plaintiffs lack
standing, the Defendants raised concerns about IDEA exhaustion.

The Cross-Appeal briefing schedule is set as follows:

   -- First Brief: Appellants PPAL, DLC, and M.W.'s principal
      brief and appendix are due on or before November 13, 2018;

   -- Second Brief: Appellees City of Springfield and Springfield
      Public Schools' principal/response brief must be filed
      within 30 days of service of the first brief;

   -- Third Brief: Appellants PPAL, DLC, and M.W.'s
      response/reply must be filed within 30 days of service of
      the second brief; and

   -- Fourth Brief: Appellees City of Springfield and Springfield
      Public Schools' reply brief must be filed within 14 days of
      service of the third brief.[BN]

Plaintiff S. S., a minor, by his mother, S.Y., on behalf of himself
and other similarly situated students; and
Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees DISABILITY LAW CENTER, INC.,
and PARENT/PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY LEAGUE are represented by:

          Alison Barkoff, Esq.
          CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION
          1825 K St. NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 854-1270
          E-mail: abarkoff@cpr-us.org

               - and -

          Deborah Alyse Dorfman, Esq.
          Sandra J. Staub, Esq.
          CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION
          22 Green St.
          Northampton, MA 01060-0000
          Telephone: (413) 586-6024
          E-mail: ddorfman@cpr-ma.org
                  sstaub@cpr-ma.org

Plaintiff S. S., a minor, by his mother, S.Y., on behalf of himself
and other similarly situated students; and
Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellee DISABILITY LAW CENTER, INC.,
PARENT/PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY LEAGUE and M. W., a minor, by his
parents, L.N. and A.N., on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated students, are represented by:

          Matthew T. Bohenek, Esq.
          Elizabeth M. Bresnahan, Esq.
          Jeff Goldman, Esq.
          Robert E. McDonnell, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1 Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110-1726
          Telephone: (617) 951-8945
          E-mail: matthew.bohenek@morganlewis.com
                  elizabeth.bresnahan@morganlewis.com
                  jeff.goldman@morganlewis.com
                  robert.mcdonnell@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Ira A. Burnim, Esq.
          Jennifer Mathis, Esq.
          BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
          1101 15th St, NW, Suite 1212
          Washington, DC 20005-5002
          Telephone: (202) 467-5730
          E-mail: irab@bazelon.org
                  jenniferm@bazelon.org

          Michael D. Blanchard, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1 State Street
          Hartford, CT 06103-0000
          Telephone: (860) 240-2700
          E-mail: michael.blanchard@morganlewis.com

Defendant DOMENIC J. SARNO, JR., in his official capacity as Mayor
of City of Springfield, is represented by:

          Melinda Marsh Phelps, Esq.
          BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP
          1500 Main Street, Suite 2700
          Springfield, MA 01115-5507
          Telephone: (413) 272-6237
          E-mail: mphelps@bulkley.com

Defendants DOMENIC J. SARNO, JR., in his official capacity as Mayor
of City of Springfield, and DANIEL J. WARWICK, in his official
capacity as Superintendent of Springfield Public Schools; and
Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS
and SPRINGFIELD, MA, are represented by:

          Edward M. Pikula, Esq.
          CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
          36 Court St., Room 210
          Springfield, MA 01103-0000
          Telephone: (413) 787-6085
          E-mail: attyemp@aol.com

               - and -

          Lisa Caryl deSousa, Esq.
          CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
          1600 E Columbus Ave.
          Springfield, MA 01103
          Telephone: (413) 886-5205
          E-mail: ldsousa@springfieldcityhall.com

Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS
and SPRINGFIELD, MA, are represented by:

          Stephen L. Holstrom, Esq.
          Mary Jane Kennedy, Esq.
          Melinda Marsh Phelps, Esq.
          BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP
          1500 Main Street, Suite 2700
          Springfield, MA 01115-5507
          Telephone: (413) 781-2820
          E-mail: sholstrom@bulkley.com
                  mkennedy@bulkley.com
                  mphelps@bulkley.com

Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant SPRINGFIELD, MA, is represented
by:

          Mary Ellen MacDonald, Esq.
          BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP
          1500 Main Street, Suite 2700
          Springfield, MA 01115-5507
          Telephone: (617) 368-2500
          E-mail: mmacdonald@bulkley.com

Interested Party S. B. is represented by:

          Elizabeth M. Bresnahan, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1 Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110-1726
          Telephone: (617) 951-8638
          E-mail: elizabeth.bresnahan@morganlewis.com

Interested Party UNITED STATES is represented by:

          Karen L. Goodwin, Esq.
          U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          300 State St., Suite 230
          Springfield, MA 01105-2926
          Telephone: (413) 785-0269
          E-mail: karen.goodwin@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Anne Langford, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001
          Telephone: (202) 616-2727
          E-mail: anne.langford@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Michelle L. Leung, Esq.
          Cynthia A. Young, Esq.
          U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200
          Boston, MA 02110-0000
          Telephone: (617) 748-3626
          E-mail: Michelle.Leung@usdoj.gov


STEAK N SHAKE: Summary Judgment Bid in Drake FLSA Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SANDRA DRAKE and RANDY SMITH, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STEAK N SHAKE
OPERATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:14-cv-01535-JAR (E.D. Mo.),
Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied SnS' Motion for
Summary Judgment as to opt-in Plaintiff Katrina Wolfshoefer.

On Oct. 25, 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay
Briefing on two SnS motions for summary judgment until it ruled on
the parties' competing motions to certify/decertify the Plaintiffs'
class action.  One of those motions for summary judgment was
directed at Wolfshoefer on the ground that her deposition testimony
conclusively establishes that she was an overtime-exempt managerial
and/or administrative employee.

On Dec. 22, 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify a class consisting of all persons who worked as SnS
Managers at all corporate owned retail restaurants located in the
State of Missouri at any time from Sept. 8, 2012 to the present.

On Jan. 10, 2018, the Court lifted the stay on briefing.  Rather
than respond to SnS' Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiffs
moved to dismiss it, arguing that the Court's order granting
certification rendered the motion moot.  The Court denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss and directed them to respond to SnS'
Motion for Summary Judgment.  They did so, and SnS replied.

Judge Ross finds that Wolfshoefer's testimony creates a genuine
issue of material fact as to what her primary job duties are, such
that summary judgment is not appropriate.  Moreover, the Court has
already certified a class that includes Wolfshoefer and all other
persons who worked as SnS Managers at all corporate owned retail
restaurants located in the State of Missouri at any time from Sept.
8, 2012 to the present.  In so doing, the Court determined that the
material aspects of the class members' employment experiences were
more alike than different, and that the differences SnS identified
did not outweigh the similarities the Plaintiffs described

The Judge finds that Wolfshoefer's experience is not so unlike the
other class members' that she is uniquely recognizable as exempt.
Thus, SnS has not shown that a reasonable jury would not have a
legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find that SnS is liable to
Wolfshoefer and therefore SnS is not entitled to judgment as a
matter of law as to her claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/ODHFGo from Leagle.com.

Sandra Drake & Randy Smith, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Brendan J. Donelon,
DONELON, P.C. & Daniel W. Craig, DONELON, P.C.

Steak N Shake Operations, Inc., an Indiana Corporation themselves
and others similarly situated, Defendant, represented by Rene Leigh
Duckworth -- rene.duckworth@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS.

Steak N Shake Operations, Inc., an Indiana Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Rodney A. Harrison -- rodney.harrison@ogletree.com
-- OGLETREE DEAKINS, Erin E. Williams -- erin.williams@ogletree.com
-- OGLETREE DEAKINS & Mallory M. Stumpf --
mallory.stumpf@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS.


STUCKY & LAUER: Settlement of Maloy Class Suit Approved
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned SAMUEL MALOY on behalf of
Himself and others similarly situated, the  Plaintiff, v. STUCKY,
LAUER & YOUNG, LLP, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00336-TLS (N.D.
Ind.), the Hon. Judge Theresa L. Springmann entered an order dated
Oct. 25, 2018, approving the proposed class settlement agreement
and certifying a class of:

   "all natural persons with an Indiana address to whom Defendant
sent a letter based on a template in connection with the collection
of a consumer debt on or after August 9, 2016 through August 9,
2017."

The Settlement Agreement requires the Defendant to pay $1,000 to
the named Plaintiff for his service as class representative and
$5,000 to be distributed among the 889 class members for whom the
parties possess valid addresses. The anticipated recovery for the
889 class members is $5.62 each.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant agrees not to
contest an award of attorneys' fees up to $30,000, and reasonable
costs and expenses up to $3,000 to Class Counsel. Regarding the
award of attorney's fees and expenses, the parties note that "the
Settlement, however, is not conditioned upon such an award, and the
amount ultimately awarded will be let [sic] to the Court's
discretion."

The Court withhods its ruling regarding Class Counsel's requests
for attorney's fees and expenses until the parties submit
briefing.[CC]

TIMES SQUARE: Flores Sues over Tip Skimming
-------------------------------------------
JOB FLORES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs, TIMES SQUARE BARBEQUE, INC., LITTLE FISH CORP.,
and ALICART GROUP LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 520892/2018 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Oct. 17, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime
compensation, and other damages for Plaintiff and his similarly
situated co-workers, wait staff, servers, bussers, runners,
bartenders, barbacks, and other similarly situated non-exempt
employees who work or have worked at Virgil's Real Barbeque-Times
Square restaurant located at 152 West 44th Street, New York, New
York, and Carmine's Italian Restaurant-Times Square located at 200
West 44th Street, New York, New York.

According to the complaint, Defendants took a tip credit towards
its minimum wage obligations to Tipped Workers and thus paid Tipped
Workers a cash wage lower than the applicable minimum wage. The
Defendants, however, did not satisfy the requirements under the New
York Labor Law or the Fair Labor Standards Act for which it could
take a tip credit towards the hourly rates paid to Tipped Workers.

Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and other Tipped Workers
with proper notification of the tipped minimum wage rate or tip
credit provisions of the NYLL or the FLSA, or of their intent to
apply a tip credit to Plaintiffs and other Tipped Workers' wages.
Defendants also required Tipped Workers to perform non-tip
producing side work, including, but not limited to, general
cleaning of the restaurant and stocking and cleaning service areas,
for more than 2 hours and/or 20% of their shifts, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

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

TMT LITTLE ROCK: Dolphin Seeks Damages for FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Ian Dolphin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TMT Little Rock, Inc., and Ben Darnell
Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00810-SWW (E.D. Ark., October 30,
2018) is bought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act for declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including a
reasonable attorney's fee as a result of Defendants' failure to pay
Plaintiff and other movers lawful overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

TMT Little Rock, Inc. is a for-profit corporation created and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Arkansas,
providing moving services. Ian Dolphin is a citizen and resident of
Pulaski County, and worked for Defendants as a mover within 3 years
preceding the filing of this complaint.

Mr. Dolphin asserts that the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed violations of the FLSA as described for at
least three years prior to the filing of this Complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

TREVENA INC: Faces Mastopietro Securities Suit in E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------
TONY MASTOPIETRO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. TREVENA INC., MAXINE GOWEN, and ROBERTO CUCA,
Case No. 2:18-cv-04426-CMR (E.D. Pa., October 15, 2018), seeks
damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies, the Plaintiff alleges.
Specifically, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had not agreed to key
elements of the Company's Phase 3 trial for oliceridine (TRV130);
(ii) the FDA was unlikely to approve oliceridine (TRVIBO) based on
the Company's Phase 3 trial; and (iii) as a result, Trevena's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Trevena is incorporated in Delaware, with its principal executive
offices located in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Trevena is a biopharmaceutical company developing innovative
therapies based on breakthrough science to benefit patients and
healthcare providers confronting serious medical conditions.  The
Company is currently developing OLINVO (oliceridine) Injection,
touted as a next generation IV analgesic for the management of
moderate-to-severe acute pain in the hospital and similar settings
and has been granted Breakthrough Therapy designation by the
FDA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          KASKELA LAW LLC
          201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (484) 258-1585
          Facsimile: (484) 258-1585
          E-mail: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
          E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


TUCKER ENERGY: Court Denies Conditional Certification in McElroy
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON MCELROY, ROBERT
HARRINGTON, AVERIL OWENS, MICHAEL RIDER, the Plaintiffs, vs. TUCKER
ENERGY SERVICES, INC., TUCKER ENERGY SERVICES U.S.A., INC., the
Defendants., Case No. 5:18-cv-00010-FB-ESC (W.D. Tex.), the Hon.
Judge Elizabeth s. Chestney entered an order on Oct. 25, 2018,
denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification with incorporated brief in support and Plaintiffs'
motion for approval and distribution of notice and for disclosure
of contact information.

The Court said, "Although McElroy indicates he has traveled to
Tucker's well sites in Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana, this fact
still does not establish that a nationwide class of all oilfield
workers is warranted, and the declarations submitted by Tucker
raise further doubts as to the similarity of the proposed class.
Christina Van Buren-Schele, Tucker's Corporate Human Resources
Manager, states that Tucker is divided into several distinct and
unique operating divisions -- stimulation, coiled tubing, and
wireline -- each with its own managers, supervisors, and operators.
McElroy's declaration does not identify these divisions or attempt
to reconcile any differences between them. The declaration of
Andrew Massey, a Senior Operator in the Wireline Division, states
that his division does not have an Equipment Operator position and
describes the divisions at Tucker as well separated. Massey
describes his duties as handling explosives for the purpose of
shooting perforated guns, a duty he does not believe is shared by
any Equipment Operator in the Stimulation or Coiled Tubing
Divisions, as they do not handle explosives or the wireline truck.
The declaration of Richard Eaves, a Coil Operator in the Coil
Tubing Division, states that his Division does not have Equipment
Operators.

"The Plaintiffs have not put forth substantial evidence that all
oilfield workers, regardless of division, job title, or location,
perform the same basic tasks. Nor is the Court convinced that the
certification of a more narrow class of all Equipment Operators is
appropriate, as Plaintiffs have failed to provide sufficient
support for their allegation that the proposed class was subject to
a single policy of denying overtime compensation. McElroy's
declaration states that he and other Equipment Operators were made
to work off the clock and were not properly compensated for these
hours. Yet Plaintiffs have not submitted any other declarations
aside from McElroy's. The Court only has knowledge as to the fact
that the other named Plaintiffs were also Equipment Operators like
McElroy from consulting the evidence attached to Tucker's response.
Tucker submitted to the Court the declarations of five other
non-Plaintiff Equipment Operators, all of whom uniformly state that
they were responsible for keeping track of all hours worked, often
using an app entitled Kronos to do so on their phones; that Tucker
had a policy of paying overtime compensation to its Equipment
Operators; and they were regularly paid for all hours worked,
including time and a half for overtime approximately 100 hours of
overtime during a long week and 58 hours of overtime on a medium
week, an exorbitant amount of overtime hours in his position as
Sand Coordinator and that he consistently received pay for all
hours worked, including extensive amount of overtime hours, as an
Equipment Operator.

"All five of these Equipment Operators also stated that, if there
was ever an error related to performing work prior to clocking in
or other issues with regular or overtime compensation, Tucker
promptly fixed the issues. In light of this record, the Court is
unable to credit McElroy's sole statement that Equipment Operators
were made to work overtime without compensation for purposing of
conditional certifying this case as a collective action. Plaintiffs
have failed to come forth with substantial allegations that the
putative class members were together the victims of a single
decision, policy or plan of Tucker to deny its workers overtime
compensation. The Plaintiff's allegations fall short of convincing
the Court that there is a nationwide class of victims subject to
the same pay practice or plan, whether the expansive requested
class of all oilfield workers or a more narrow class of Equipment
Operators. Finally, the Court would be remiss is not again
mentioning that the declaration filed in support of Plaintiffs‘
motion by McElroy is virtually identical to declarations filed by
Plaintiffs' counsel in other cases pending before this Court and
other courts seeking conditional certification under the FLSA.
Conditional certification of a larger class of workers and the
issuance of notice is not warranted at this time. However, this
denial will be without prejudice to refile an amended motion for
conditional certification in the event that Plaintiffs are later
able to submit more."[CC]


US ARMY: Court Wants Calixto Complaint, Class Cert. Bid Revised
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned LUCAS CALIXTO, et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, et al., the
Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-01551-ESH (D.C.), the Hon. Judge Ellen S.
Huvelle has entered an order:

     1.  denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction and provisional class certification;

     2. denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and appointment of class counsel;

     3. denying as moot Defendants' motion to stay their response
to the amended complaint;

     4. granting Plaintiffs' motion for a briefing schedule;

     5. granting Plaintiffs leave to further amend their
complaint;

     6. directing Plaintiffs to file their second amended complaint
no later than Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 12 p.m.; and

     7. directing Plaintiffs to file any renewed motion for class
certification no later than November 13 at 12 p.m.

The Defendants were required to file last month a report listing
every MAVNI who has received a discharge order from the U.S. Army
Recruiting Command (USAREC) and/or U.S. Army Reserve Command
(USARC) that was effective on or after July 20, 2018; a report
detailing the status of the MAVNI soldier who is the subject of the
U.S. Army Recruiting Battalion discharge order; a report clarifying
whether any DEP or DTP MAVNI is expected to be discharged (or has
been discharged within the past year) due to reaching the
three-year time-out; and a bi-weekly status report regarding the
Army's new policy.[CC]


VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA: Compelled to Produce Docs in Monroeville Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David Stewart Cercone of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiff's motion to
compel in the case, MUNICIPALITY OF MONROEVILLE, TOWNSHIP OF EAST
BRANDYWINE, and TOWNSHIP OF WEST BRADFORD, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VERIZON
PENNSYLVANIA LLC and VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., Defendants, Case
No. 2:15cv1100 W.D. Pa.).

Defendant Verizon Communications, Inc. ("VCI"), will designate
adequate deponents for all of the topics listed in the Plaintiffs'
Rule 30(b)(6) Notice Directed to VCI and for topics 5-9 of the
Plaintiffs' Second Rule 30(b)(6) Notice Directed to VCI.  To the
extent VCI is unable to designate adequate deponents it will
explain in detail why it cannot.  VCI also will respond in full to
RFP Nos. 4, 6 and 7 of the Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for
Production of Documents to VCI; RFP Nos. 8-20, 23 and 25 of the
Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents to
VCI; and ROG No. 24 to the Plaintiffs' Second Set of
Interrogatories to VCI.  The Counsel will work in good faith to
narrow the scope of production pursuant to First Request No. 6.

Judge Cercone finds that the Plaintiffs' Reply Brief persuasively
sets forth the reasons why the discovery ordered (1) is relevant to
the matters currently at issue and (2) is not disproportionate or
unduly burdensome given the nature and backdrop of the putative
class action; the importance of the information in resolving the
claims, defenses and issues surrounding class certification; the
parties' respective access to the information; and its benefit in
that process when contrasted with the anticipated expense of
compliance.

Moreover, he says, the central components of the Defendant's
opposition are unavailing. While the argument can be advanced that
complete compliance with all discovery needed to calculate with
precision the detailed mathematical damage calculations for each
LFA that potentially is within the scope of the contemplated class
for which the Plaintiff will seek class certification was not
within the scope of Phase I discovery, that argument is not a basis
for avoiding the discovery the Plaintiffs currently seek.

The Case Management Order likewise authorized discovery on the
class certification, which encompasses the clear identification of
potential class members and the information needed to make
competent assessments about whether the Plaintiffs share common and
typical claims with potential class members that can meet the
requirements for certification.  Similarly, the Court gave careful
consideration to the separate corporate entity and the inability to
establish an agency relationship defenses at the motion to dismiss
stage.  The completion of the ordered discovery is necessary to
conduct these adjudications on the merits.

Finally, the Judge finds that the contention that the discovery is
somehow duplicative or unduly burdensome in light of the completed
discovery is unconvincing.  The outstanding Requests for Production
similarly are central to resolution of the issue of agency and
related corporate entity defense (and the manner in which these
issues will impact class certification) and compliance is mandated
regardless of which way the substantive information tips the scale.
Such discovery must be produced in order for the case to progress
to the point where meaningful consideration can be given to those
issues/defenses.

The Judge recognizes that the ordered discovery will require the
parties to engage in significant undertakings.  Status conferences
with the counsel will be scheduled to assist both sides in working
through these undertakings.

In the case, MUNICIPALITY OF MONROEVILLE, TOWNSHIP OF EAST
BRANDYWINE, and TOWNSHIP OF WEST BRADFORD, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VERIZON
PENNSYLVANIA LLC and VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., Defendants,

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Memorandum Order is
available at https://is.gd/2K2X4K from Leagle.com.

MUNICIPALITY OF MONROEVILLE, TOWNSHIP OF EAST BRANDYWINE & TOWNSHIP
OF WEST BRADFORD, Plaintiffs, represented by Edwin J. Kilpela --
ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch LTD, Gary F. Lynch --
glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP,
Jamisen A. Etzel -- jetzel@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet
& Kilpela, LLP & Natausha M. Horton, Cohen Law Group.

VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA LLC & VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., Defendants,
represented by Michael F. Eichert -- michael.eichert@obermayer.com
-- Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew J.
Horowitz -- andrew.horowitz@obermayer.com -- Obermayer Rebmann
Maxwell & Hippel, LLP & Bruce C. Fox -- bruce.fox@obermayer.com --
Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP.


VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Madison Files Product False Labeling Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
KUUMBA MADISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., d/b/a VPX Sports, a
Florida corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-06300-LB (N.D. Cal., October
15, 2018), alleges that the Defendant's deceptive marketing and
labeling of certain "BANG" products violate the Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act.

Defendant formulates, manufactures, advertises and sells the
popular "BANG" branded caffeinated and non-caffeinated energy drink
products throughout the United States, including in California.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant markets its Products in a
systematically misleading manner, by misrepresenting that its
Products contain ingredients that they do not in fact contain, and
that the ingredients are potent, when in fact they are present, if
at all, in doses so low as to be ineffective.

Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., doing business as VPX Sports, is a
Florida corporation with its principal place of business located in
Weston, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com
                  klaukaitis@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
          1644 Bracken Rd.
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Telephone: (313) 303-3472
          E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com


WALMART INC: Reaches $65MM Settlement With Cashiers Over Seating
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Barrabi, writing for Fox Business, reports that Walmart
reached a preliminary agreement to pay $65 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit from roughly 100,000 California-based cashiers
who accused the retail giant of failing to provide seating during
their shifts, a company official confirmed on October 12.

Originally filed in 2009, the suit alleged that Walmart violated
state law by failing to provide the seats. Walmart argued seats
were not a reasonable accommodation because cashiers'
responsibilities often require movement, such as scanning and
bagging items.

"Both sides are pleased to have reached a proposed resolution," a
Walmart spokesman said, noting that the terms were still subject to
approval by a federal judge.

Reuters was first to report the proposed settlement. The case had
been scheduled to go to trial later this year.

Walmart allows cashiers with medical conditions to sit on stools
during their shifts, Reuters reported. Store managers can also
grant permission for seating. [GN]


WE BEGG TO DIFFER: Failed to Pay Minimum Wage, Hunt et al Say
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Wasilishin and Felicia Hunt, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. We Begg to Differ
LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, We Begg to Differ DC
Ranch LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, We Begg to Differ
Mercado LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, We Begg to
Differ Watermark LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, and
Prokopios Verros and Jane Doe Verros,a married couple, Case
2:18-cv-03328-SMM (D. Ariz., Oct. 17. 2018), alleges that
Defendants unlawfully failed to pay minimum wage in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs bring this action on
behalf of themselves and all similarly-situated current and former
servers and bartenders of Defendants who were compensated at a rate
of less than the applicable Arizona and federal minimum wage on
account of receiving tips in a given workweek.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Telephone: (480) 382-5176
          Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
          E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
                  chris@bendaulaw.com


WRF SERVICES: Jackson Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Nakia Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. WRF Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00528,
(E.D. Tex., October 5, 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.

WRF Services, Inc., does business as Buteo Enterprises and engages
in oil and gas field services. Jackson worked for WRF as an
hourly-paid driver. He claims to have regularly worked in excess of
forty hours per week without overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, 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


YAKULT USA: Court Nixes Torrent Class Certification Denial Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICOLAS TORRENT, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YAKULT U.S.A., INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 16-56338 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Yakult's motion to dimiss
Torrent's appeal from the district court's orders denying his
motions for class certification and reconsideration.

Torrent brought a putative class action against Yakult, claiming
false advertising under California state law based on Yakult's
alleged misrepresentations regarding its probiotic yogurt beverage.
The district court denied Torrent's motions for class
certification and reconsideration and, later, granted his motion to
voluntarily dismiss the operative complaint with prejudice.
Torrent appealed, seeking review of the district court's orders
denying certification and reconsideration.  Yakult moves to dismiss
the appeal.

Yakult argues that the Court lack appellate jurisdiction in light
of Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, which held that appellate courts lack
jurisdiction to review orders denying class certification after the
named plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their individual claims
with prejudice.

Judge, the Court agrees, finding no meaningful distinction between
the voluntary dismissal and the tactic rejected in Baker.
Accordingly, it granted Yakult's motion.  The Court notes that
dismissal of the appeal does not necessarily end the litigation.
When Torrent sought to voluntarily dismiss the case, the law of the
circuit was that a plaintiff could secure an appealable order by
that means.  Baker was pending in the Supreme Court at that time,
but had not yet been decided.

Under appropriate circumstances, a district court may grant relief
from a voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b)(6) based on an intervening change in the law.  Torrent sought
a voluntary dismissal specifically to pursue an appeal, thus
negating any claim that setting aside the dismissal would disturb
the parties' reliance interest in the finality of the case.
Furthermore, he is a member of a limited set of the Plaintiffs
whose appeals were pending when Baker was decided.  Granting relief
to such Plaintiffs would not indefinitely render preexisting
judgments subject to potential challenge.  Finally, there is an
intimately close connection between the case and Baker.  Torrent
relied on circuit authority clearly approving his chosen means of
pursuing an appeal.  Baker directly abrogated that authority.
Considerations such as these led one district judge to vacate a
pre-Baker voluntary dismissal under Rule 60(b)(6).

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/ftGn0n from Leagle.com.



                            *********

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 ***