CAR_Public/181109.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, November 9, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 225

                            Headlines

113-117 REALTY: Perdomo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay under FLSA
3M COMPANY: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Borsuk Suit
A10 NETWORKS: Lead Plaintiff Files Amended Securities Class Suit
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss 3rd Amended Complaint Still Pending
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Versetto Class Suit Still Pending

ADTALEM GLOBAL: Bid to Nix Refiled Petrizzo Lawsuit Still Pending
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Still Faces Class Lawsuits over Improper Fees
AIR CANADA: Supreme Court Dismisses Leave to Appeal Ruling
ALASKA AIR: VA Flight Attendants Seek $85-Mil. Penalties, Damages
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Bids to Dismiss Surfside Class Complaint

ALLY FINANCIAL: Motion for Summary Disposition, Discovery Pending
ALPHABET INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
ALPHABET INC: Kahn Swick Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
ALPHABET INC: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
AMERICAN BREAD: Underpays Assistant Managers, Kukulski Says

AMERICAN INCOME: Joh Suit Moved to Northern District of California
AMN HEALTHCARE: Settles 2 Wage and Hour Class Suits
ANCHOR BANCORP: Plaintiff Agrees to Dismiss Parshall Class Suit
ANDALOU NATURALS: Clark Files Tort Class Action in Cal. Super. Ct.
APARTMENT MANAGEMENT: Legros Suit Moved to C.D. California

APARTMENT MANAGEMENT: Removes Legros Suit to C.D. California
ARCONIC INC: Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Nix Howard Class Action
ASPEN HIGHLANDS: Seeks Dismissal of Ritz-Carlton Class Action
AT&T INC: Oral Argument in DirectTV's NFL Lawsuit Set for Dec. 7
AT&T INC: Roberts Class Lawsuit over MBR Program Still Pending

ATHENE HOLDING: Griffiths Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
AUTOMATIC DATA: Still Faces Class Suits over Use of Biometric Info
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Still Defends Claims over Apartment Fire
AVANGRID INC: Bid to Dismiss PNE Energy Class Action Underway
AVANGRID INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Breiding Suit

AVELLA PATIENT: Made Unsolicited Calls, Dhesi Suit Alleges
BANK OF AMERICA: Gullickson Appeals Decision in Farrell Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of Ponzi Scheme Class Action
BHP BILLITON: More Than 30,000 Shareholders Join Class Action
BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Still Defends Shareholder Suit in Indiana

BLONDER BUILDERS: Cond. Certification of Garriga Class Partly OKd
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Still Faces Suits over Cyber Security Breach
CAC FINANCIAL: Files Bid to Dismiss Kokotsis Suit
CAMPBELL SOUP: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
CANTON, OH: Enjoined from Enforcing Ordinance 505.14

CAPITAL ONE: Settlement of "Monetary Damages Class" Pending
CBOE GLOBAL: Centralized VIX Litigation Underway in Illinois
CBS CORP: Reaches Settlement of Investors' Lawsuit in Delaware
CBS CORP: Reaches Settlement of Westmoreland Employees' Suit
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Records $11.6MM Settlement Cost at September 30

CHAMPION PETFOODS: Colangelo Sues over Contaminated Dog Food
CHEETAH MOBILE: Made Unsolicited Calls, Rosso Suit Alleges
CHEMED CORP: Class Discovery Still Stayed in "Williams" Lawsuit
CHEMED CORP: Class Discovery Still Stayed in Phillips Lawsuit
CHEMED CORP: Jiwann Chhina Joins Seper Class Suit v. VITAS Unit

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Burns Class Certification Recommendation Nixed
CONCESIONARIA VUELA: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in Kindt Suit
CRESCENT CONSULTING: Whitlow Suit Reassigned to Hon. D.L. Russell
CSI ELECTRICAL: Denial of Payton Class Certification Affirmed
CVS PHARMACY: Underpays Inventory Specialists, Polillio Says

CYPRUS PAINTING: Duran Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
D.S. & DURGA: Website not Accessible to Blind Person, Figueroa Says
DONALD TRUMP: Faces Class Action Over "Systemic Fraud"
DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Dec. 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
EAST TEXAS HEALTH: Newland Sues Over Unpaid Emergency Healthcare

ENTEROMEDICS INC: Settlement in Du Suit Has Prelim Approval
EVENTBRITE: Targeted by Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
FCA US: Court Denies Laroes' Bid to Intervene in Granillo Suit
FCI LENDER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended Diaz FDCPA Suit
FIRST TRANSIT: Cal App. Flips Approval of Alonzo Settlement

FIVE GUYS: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Boyer ADA Suit
FORD MOTOR: Class Action Over Clutch Defect Pending in Canada
FOREVER 21: Judge Tosses TCCWNA Class Action
FRENZ & ZORBALAS: To Pay $18.5MM to Settle Tenants' Lawsuit
GLOBALSCAPE INC: Dec. 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court Addresses Class Action Settlement
HARTFORD LIFE: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in McDonald Suit
HELION TECHNOLOGIES: Underpays Technicians, Johnson et al. Claim
HERTZ: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Concession Fee Class Action
HOBBY FARMS: Stinnett Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Text Ads

HUAHAI US: Faces Gonteski over Sale over Adulterated Valsartan
HUMANE SOCIETY: Faces Privacy Class Action Over Text Messages
HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL: 3 Women File Sexual Harassment Class Suit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Adburahman et al. Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court
I.C. SYSTEM: Levertov Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections

IDEAL IMAGE: McMillan-Gadison Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA
INVISIBLE WASTE: Smith Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
J.B. HUNT: To Pay $15MM to Settle HOS Class Action Suit
JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Dec. 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Faces Panther Partners' Suit over IPO

JKC RETAIL: Figueroa Sues Eyewear Maker for ADA Violation
JOHNS MANVILLE: Rice Suit Moved to N. D. California
KENDALL LAKES: Made Unsolicited Calls, Garcia Suit Alleges
KRISHNA SCHAUMBURG: Dismissal of Count I in Sekura Suit Reversed
LA CASA: Diaz Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

LAMPS PLUS: Supreme Court Tackles Arbitration Dispute
LATIN CONSULTING: McLean Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
LEFT FOOT: Mendoza Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
LOCAL INITIATIVE: Poe Sues over Deceptive Medical Practices
LOUISVILLE METRO: Court Narrows Claims in Campos Suit

MALTA: Class Action Filed Over Changes to ARMS Billing System
MASERATI NORTH AMERICA: Violates ADA, Nixon Suit Asserts
MATTEL INC: Castro Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit to 9th Cir.
MC GOWAN BUILDERS: Torres Files Labor Class Action in New York
MCKESSON CORP: Dec. 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

MDL 2591: Court Denies Bid for Reconsideration in Corn Litigation
MDL 2670: 3 "Reo" Seafood Products Suits Transferred to S.D. Calif.
MDL 2672: Castellucci Suit v. VW Transferred to N.D. California
MDL 2738: 2 Suits vs. Johnson & Johnson Moved to Dist. of N.J.
MDL 2741: Noe Suit vs. Monsanto over Roundup Moved to N.D. Cal.

MDL 2741: Shorr Suit vs. Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated
MDL 2741: Sonnier Suit vs. Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated
MDL 2775: Spellman Action Transferred to District of Maryland
MDL 2792: 2 Suits vs. Samsung Electronics Moved to W.D. Okla.
MDL 2795: Three Actions Transferred to the District of Minnesota

MDL 2800: 4 Actions vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
MDL 2800: Court Vacates Order to Remand Casper Suit to M.D.N.C.
MDL 2804: 7 Opiate Actions Moved to Northern District of Ohio
MDL 2841: Court Transfers Monat Global v. Miller Suit to S.D. Fla.
MDL 2843: Kimberly Foxx Suit v. Facebook Goes to N.D. Calif.

MDL 2848: Ingolia Suit vs. Merck over Zostavax Moved to E.D. Pa.
MDL 2858: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 6 JumpSport Inc. Lawsuits
MDL 2859: Court Transfers 21 Actions to Southern Dist. of New York
MDL 2860: Court Denies Clervrain's Bid to Centralize 11 Actions
MDL 2862: 3 Actions Transferred to Western Dist. of Pennsylvania

MDL 2862: Era Polymers Suit vs. BASF over Isocyanate Consolidated
MDL 2862: Unicast vs. BASF AG over Isocyanate Sales Consolidated
MDL 2863: Court Denies Bid to Centralize Data Security Breach Suit
MDL 2864: Bid to Centralize Suit over Vegas Shooting Incident Nixed
MDL 2865: 140 "SKAT" Suits Transferred to S.D. New York

MDL 2866: Court Denies Bid to Centralize Securities Lawsuits
MDL 2867: Clay and Miller Suits Transferred to N.D. Illinois
MDL 2867: Crowley Webb Suit v. Hearst Moved to N.D. Illinois
MDL 2868: Court Denies Bid to Centralize Products Liability Suit
MICHIGAN EDUCATION: Faces Gervais Suit in W.D. Michigan

MILLY LLC: Faces Fischler Suit in Southern District of New York
MISSION CAPITAL: Fabricant Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
MISSOURI: Inmates' Hep C Class Action Certification Affirmed
MONSANTO COMPANY: Acharys' Suit Moved to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Awads' Suit Moved to N.D. California

MONSANTO COMPANY: Elfers' Suit Moved to N. D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Walker Suit Moved to N. D. California
MOTT'S LLP: Bilzin Sumberg Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
NAMASTE INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Violations
NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Removed Rice Mislabeling Suit to N.D. Illinois

NEW YORK CITY: Faces Paliotta et al. Suit in New York
NEW YORK: Claims in Richardson Discrimination Suit Narrowed
NEW YORK: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Lynch Detainees Suit
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Northtown Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of Illinois
NIBCO INC: Settles Two PEX 1006 Tubing Class Actions for $43.5MM

NISSAN OF NORTH: Averts Class Action Over Defective Transmissions
OAKWOOD WORLDWIDE: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Sotomayor et al. Say
OCWEN LOAN: Final Approval of Snyder TCPA/FDCPA Suit Denied
OFFSITE EVENT: Faces Dominguez ADA Suit in New York
OS RESTAURANT: Frederick Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.

PERFORMANCE VOLLEYBALL: Coach Wants Class Certification Rejected
PIVOTAL PAYMENTS: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Abante Rooter Suit
PNC BANK: Fergerstrom Appeals D. Hawaii Ruling to Ninth Circuit
POGGENPOHL INC: Violates ADA, Dominguez Suit Asserts
POINDEXTER NUT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, York Suit Alleges

POTLATCHDELTIC CORP: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, McCoy Says
PRESTIGE INT'L: Accused by Northrup Suit of Privacy Invasion
PRET A MANGER: Court Narrows Claims in Lau Suit
PSC LOCAL: Sued over Collecting Agency Shop Fees
R.R. DONNELLEY: Dickey Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

RAINS USA: Olsen Files Class Action Under ADA
RICCARDO'S CATERING: Dominguez Sues Co. for ADA Breach
RITE AID: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Stafford Suit
RUSHMORE LOAN: Raciti et al. Sue over Debt Collection Practices
SEASPRAY RESORT: Sierra Files ADA Class Action

SIGNATURE CONSULTANTS: Rotor Sues over Background Checks
SOUTH FLORIDA RACING: Lawrence Sues Over FCRA, FACTA Violations
STANDARD HOMEOPATHIC: Claims in Amended O'Neill Suit Narrowed
STEINHOFF: Attorney Provides Update on Class Action Progress
SUMMIT, OH: Neal Sues Over Inadequate Bus Stop Services

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Underpays Truck Drivers, Suit Alleges
SWISSPORT FUELING: Underpays Fueling Agents, Bradford et al. Say
SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Underpays Customer Service Agent, Suit Says
TARGET CORP: Neumann Files Another 6th Cir. Appeal in Meta Suit
THIRD AVENUE FOOD: Juarez Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA

TRACY AUTO: Fails to Pay OT to Salespersons, Lyons Suit Alleges
TRADE SUPPLIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Alleges
TREASURE ISLAND: Layoff Notice Untimely, Gossett et al. Claim
TREVENA INC: Dec. 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
TREVENA INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Violations

TROTT LAW: $7.5MM Settlement in Martin Suit Has Final Approval
TSR INC: Faces Paskowitz Suit over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
TURN INC: Loses Request for Production in Henson Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Gonzales & Hindman Sue over Data Access
UC SYNERGETIC: Class in Bentz FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified

UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses All Claims in Aguilar Suit
UNITED TECH: 2nd Amended Frankfurt-Trust Securities Suit Dismissed
WAGAMAMA INC: Dominguez Sues Restaurant for ADA Breach
WALGREENS BOOTS: Chabot Files Securities Class Action in Pa.
WALMART INC: Settles Securities Class Action for $160MM

ZACHYS WINE: Violates Disabilities Act, Says Dominguez
ZHEJIANG HUAHAI: Faces Suit Over Contaminated Valsartan Drug
ZUFFA LLC: Class Action Plaintiffs to Host Information Session
[*] Many Canadian Companies Not Ready for New-Data Breach Rules
[*] Marijuana-Related Businesses Face Class Action Risk

[*] Property Owners Urged to Join Flammable Cladding Class Action

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $43.1MM Asbestos-Tobacco Verdict in Mass. Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 53 Cheshire East Schools Contain Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aberdeen Man Shocked Over Asbestos Illness
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Couple Sues Over Asbestos Warning Failure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Complain of Bias in NY Asbestos Court

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Waites' Complaint vs. UCC Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: JCI Precluded from Blaming Navy for Goodrich Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Sued Over Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lacroix Couple Sues for Asbestos Warning Failure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Dies at Hospital Due to Smoking, Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Demolition Workers Fears Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Railway Enthusiast Dies of Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reinbold vs. American Optical, Et al. Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Robinson Widow Sues Over Asbestos Warning Failure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rotterdam Subway Station Evacuated Over Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sudbury Man Dies From Condition Linked to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vote Against Asbestos Compensation Shameful
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Williams Economic Loss Offset by Prior Settlement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Years-Long Asbestos Reinsurance War Continues


                            *********

113-117 REALTY: Perdomo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
JULIAN PERDOMO, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, the Plaintiff, vs. 113-117 REALTY, LLC, DIRECT
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, and LAWRENCE MAROLDA, the Defendants, Case
7:18-cv-09860-VB (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, unpaid spread of hours, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class members
regularly worked days that exceeded 10 hours per day. The
Defendants willfully violated Plaintiff's and Class members' rights
by failing to pay spread of hours premium to Plaintiff and Class
members for each day their workday exceeded 10 hours in length.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with
a policy of not providing a proper wage statement to Plaintiff and
other Class members, in violation of the NYLL. The Defendants are
required to provide itemized listings of deductions taken on each
wage statement. The Defendants failed to provide wage statements as
required under the NYLL, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants are the owners of various buildings throughout New
York City.  The Defendants operate a building management company,
managing buildings owned by the Defendants as well as buildings
owned by various other individuals throughout New York City.  The
Defendants manage over a hundred different property buildings
throughout New York City.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class:

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


3M COMPANY: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Borsuk Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant 3M Company filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Penny Borsuk, et al. v. 3M Company, Case No.
8:16-cv-00262-AG-JCG, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Santa Ana.

The appellate case is captioned as Penny Borsuk, et al. v. 3M
Company, Case No. 18-80142, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents PENNY DAVIDI BORSUK, a natural person, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; and EBRAHIM E.
MAHDA are represented by:

          Michael Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          300 North Tucker Boulevard
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 226-1015
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Alreen Haeggquist, Esq.
          Aaron M. Olsen, Esq.
          ZELDES HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
          625 Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 434-0024
          E-mail: alreenh@zhlaw.com
                  aarono@zhlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul L. Hoffman, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP
          723 Ocean Front Walk
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: (310) 396-0731
          E-mail: Hoffpaul@aol.com

Plaintiffs-Respondents PENNY DAVIDI BORSUK, a natural person; on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, DAVID COULTER
and JAMES WATKINS are represented by:

          Blake J. Lindemann, Esq.
          THE LINDEMANN LAW GROUP
          433 N. Camden Dr., Fourth Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 279-5269
          E-mail: Blake@lawbl.com

Plaintiffs-Respondents EBRAHIM E. MAHDA and DAN GOLKA are
represented by:

          Aaron Dolgin, Esq.
          AARON DOLGIN LAW OFFICES
          15260 Ventura Boulevard
          Sherman Oaks, CA
          Telephone: (818) 515-0573
          E-mail: dolgin1@juno.com

               - and -

          Charles LaDuca, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN & HOLSTEIN P.L.L.P
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: rshelquist@locklaw.com

Plaintiff-Respondent EBRAHIM E. MAHDA is represented by:

          Michael Andrew McShane, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com

Plaintiffs-Respondents PENNY DAVIDI BORSUK, EBRAHIM E. MAHDA, DAVID
COULTER, TODD QUARLES, TODD CARPENTER, LORI MYERS, DAN GOLKA and
JAMES WATKINS are represented by:

          Andrew J. Kubik, Esq.
          COAST LAW GROUP LLP
          1140 S Coast Highway 101
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Telephone: (760) 942-8505
          E-mail: andy@coastlaw.com

               - and -

          Sean Clinton Woods, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          E-mail: cwoods@audetlaw.com

Plaintiffs-Respondents TODD QUARLES, TODD CARPENTER and LORI MYERS
are represented by:

          Paul L. Hoffman, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP
          723 Ocean Front Walk
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: (310) 396-0731
          E-mail: Hoffpaul@aol.com

               - and -

          Aidan C. McGlaze, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS AND HOFFMAN LLP
          11543 W. Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 396-0731
          E-mail: amcglaze@sdshh.com

Defendant-Petitioner 3M COMPANY is represented by:

          Aaron Daniel Van Oort, Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Justman, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          90 South Seventh Street, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 766-8138
          E-mail: aaron.vanoort@faegrebd.com
                  jeff.justman@faegrebd.com

               - and -

          Tarifa B. Laddon, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 750
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 500-2090
          E-mail: tarifa.laddon@FaegreBD.com


A10 NETWORKS: Lead Plaintiff Files Amended Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in a securities class action in California has
filed an amended complaint against A10 Networks, Inc., according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2018.

On March 22, 2018, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its
Chief Financial Officer, and certain former officers, were named as
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
captioned Shah v. A10 Networks, Inc. et al., 3:18-cv-01772-VC (the
"Securities Action"). On August 31, 2018, the court appointed a
lead plaintiff.

On October 5, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint names the same defendants as the initial
complaint, in addition to one of the Company's former executive
vice presidents. The amended complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

A10 Networks, Inc. provides software and hardware solutions in the
United States, Japan, other Asia Pacific and EMEA countries, and
internationally.  The Company was incorporated in 2004 and is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss 3rd Amended Complaint Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a third amended complaint in a putative class
action against Adtalem Global Education Inc., among other
defendants, remain pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

On May 13, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by the
Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, against Adtalem, Daniel
Hamburger, Richard M. Gunst, and Timothy J. Wiggins in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons
who purchased Adtalem common stock between February 4, 2011 and
January 27, 2016.  The complaint cites the ED January 2016 Notice
and a civil complaint (the "FTC lawsuit") filed by the FTC on
January 27, 2016 against Adtalem, DeVry University, Inc., and
DeVry/New York Inc. (collectively, the "Adtalem Parties"), which
was resolved with the FTC in 2017, that alleged that certain of
DeVry University's advertising claims were false or misleading or
unsubstantiated at the time they were made in violation of Section
5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as the basis for claims
that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry
University's graduate employment rate and the earnings of DeVry
University graduates relative to the graduates of other
universities and colleges.

As a result of these alleged false or misleading statements, the
plaintiff alleged that defendants overstated Adtalem's growth,
revenue and earnings potential and made false or misleading
statements about Adtalem's business, operations and prospects.  The
plaintiff alleged direct liability against all defendants for
violations of Sec. 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and
asserted liability against the individual defendants pursuant to
Sec. 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiff sought monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs and other unspecified relief.

On July 13, 2016, the Utah Retirement System ("URS") moved for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of its selection of
counsel, which was not opposed by the Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers and URS was appointed as lead plaintiff on
August 24, 2016.  URS filed a second amended complaint ("SAC") on
December 23, 2016.  The SAC sought to represent a putative class of
persons who purchased Adtalem common stock between August 26, 2011
and January 27, 2016 and named an additional individual defendant,
Patrick J. Unzicker.

Like the original complaint, the SAC asserted claims against all
defendants for alleged violations of Sec. 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of
the Exchange Act and asserted liability against the individual
defendants pursuant to Sec. 20(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged
material misstatements or omissions regarding DeVry University
graduate outcomes.  On January 27, 2017, defendants moved to
dismiss the SAC, which motion was granted on December 6, 2017
without prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") on January
29, 2018.  The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss the TAC on March
30, 2018.

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

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Versetto Class Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a putative class action suit filed against
Adtalem Global Education Inc., among other defendants, by Nicole
Versetto remains pending, according to Adtalem Global's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

On April 13, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Nicole Versetto, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division.  The complaint was filed on
behalf of herself and three separate classes of similarly situated
individuals who were citizens of the State of Illinois who
purchased or paid for a DeVry University program between January 1,
2008 and April 8, 2016.

The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and asserts causes of action under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, and Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools
Act, and claims of breach of contract, fraudulent
misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, breach of fiduciary
duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief as to
violations of state law.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and
statutory penalties and damages, including pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, in addition to restitution, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this complaint on June 20,
2018.

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

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Bid to Nix Refiled Petrizzo Lawsuit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of Adtalem Global Education Inc. and other defendants to
dismiss the refilled "Petrizzo" class suit, with new lead plaintiff
Renee Heather Polly, remains pending, according to Adtalem Global's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

On October 14, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Debbie Petrizzo and five other former DeVry University students,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against
the Adtalem Parties in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "Petrizzo Case").

The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons
consisting of those who enrolled in and/or attended classes at
DeVry University from at least 2002 through the present and who
were unable to find employment within their chosen field of study
within six months of graduation. Citing the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants
made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University's
graduate employment rate and asserted claims for unjust enrichment
and violations of six different states' consumer fraud, unlawful
trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs seek
monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief.

On October 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Jairo Jara and eleven others, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the
"Jara Case").  The individual plaintiffs claim to have graduated
from DeVry University in 2001 or later and sought to proceed on
behalf of a putative class of persons consisting of those who
obtained a degree from DeVry University and who were unable to find
employment within their chosen field of study within six months of
graduation.  Citing the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that
defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry
University's graduate employment rate and asserted claims for
unjust enrichment and violations of ten different states' consumer
fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws.  The
plaintiffs seek monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other
unspecified relief.

By order dated November 28, 2016, the district court ordered the
Petrizzo and Jara Cases be consolidated under the Petrizzo caption
for all further purposes.  On December 5, 2016, plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint on behalf of 38 individual
plaintiffs and others similarly situated.  The amended consolidated
complaint seeks to bring claims on behalf of the named individuals
and a putative nationwide class of individuals for unjust
enrichment and alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Practices Act and the Illinois Private Businesses and
Vocational Schools Act of 2012.  In addition, it purports to assert
causes of action on behalf of certain of the named individuals and
15 individual state-specific putative classes for alleged
violations of 15 different states' consumer fraud, unlawful trade
practices, and consumer protection laws.  Finally, it seeks to
bring individual claims under Georgia state law on behalf of
certain named plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs seek monetary,
declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief.  A motion to
dismiss the amended complaint was filed by the Adtalem Parties and
granted by the court, without prejudice, on February 12, 2018.
Because the case was dismissed without prejudice, the plaintiffs
can re-file the action.

On April 12, 2018, the Petrizzo plaintiffs refiled their complaint
with a new lead plaintiff, Renee Heather Polly.  The plaintiffs'
refiled complaint is nearly identical to the complaint previously
dismissed by the court on February 12, 2018.  The Adtalem Parties
moved to dismiss this refiled complaint on May 14, 2018.

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

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Still Faces Class Lawsuits over Improper Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits over improper fees, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

In February 2009, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were
named as defendants in a purported class action suit in the Circuit
Court of Macon County, Alabama. Similar class action complaints
were brought against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in
2011 in Duval County, Florida and in 2013 in Quitman County,
Georgia and Barbour County, Alabama, and in 2014 in Chester County,
Pennsylvania. The 2013 Georgia complaint was dismissed in March
2014. In late 2015 in Gwinnett County, Georgia, another purported
class action suit was filed.

The plaintiffs in those cases primarily allege that the defendants
charged improper charges (fuel, administrative and environmental
charges) that were in breach of the plaintiffs' service agreements
with the Company and seek damages in an unspecified amount.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against these
purported class actions, which it will vigorously pursue. Given the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the early stage of
these cases, the unknown size of any potential class, and legal and
factual issues in dispute, the outcome of these cases cannot be
predicted and a range of loss, if any, cannot currently be
estimated.

Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. together with its consolidated
subsidiaries, as a consolidated entity, is a nonhazardous solid
waste services company providing collection, transfer, recycling
and disposal services to customers in the South, Midwest and
Eastern regions of the United States.


AIR CANADA: Supreme Court Dismisses Leave to Appeal Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Abaki, Esq. -- JAbaki@blg.com -- Davit Akman, Esq. --
DAkman@blg.com -- and Markus F. Kremer, Esq. -- MKremer@blg.com --
of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, in an article for Lexology, report
that on October 25th, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an
application for leave to appeal from the judgement of the Court of
Appeal for Ontario in Airia Brands Inc. v. Air Canada ("Airia
Brands"). The representative plaintiffs in the case brought a
proposed class action alleging that the defendant domestic and
foreign air carriers engaged in a global price fixing conspiracy in
respect of air cargo shipping costs. The plaintiffs sought to
certify a proposed class including Absent Foreign Claimants
("AFCs"). AFCs are proposed members of an opt-out class who: (i)
are not present in Canada; and (ii) have taken no active steps to
indicate their intention to subject themselves to the jurisdiction
of the Canadian superior court. The defendants responded with a
motion for a declaration that the court did not have jurisdiction
over AFCs and for an order staying the proposed class action
relating to those claims.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the defendants'
motion and the plaintiffs appealed. The Ontario Court of Appeal
overturned the motion judge's decision and held that the motions
judge had erred in rejecting the real and substantial connection
test and in concluding that jurisdiction existed only if AFCs were
present in Ontario or consented to the Ontario court's
jurisdiction. In its decision, the Court of Appeal formulated a new
test for determining when a provincial superior court may assume
jurisdiction over AFCs. Justice Pepall, writing for the court, held
that an Ontario superior court can take jurisdiction over AFCs
where:

   -- There is a real and substantial connection between the
subject matter of the action and Ontario, and jurisdiction exists
over the representative plaintiff and the defendants;

   -- There are common issues between the claims of the
representative plaintiffs and AFCs; and

   -- The procedural safeguards of adequacy of representation,
adequacy of notice and the right to opt out (as described in Currie
v. McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Ltd.) are provided, thereby
serving to enhance the real and substantial connection between AFCs
and Ontario.

While the decision of the Court of Appeal was not the first to
consider the jurisdiction of provincial superior courts to certify
international class actions, it was the first appellate authority
in Canada to analyze the issue in detail. The decision of the
Supreme Court to dismiss the application for leave to appeal has
potentially significant implications for multinational businesses.
In omitting any requirement to show a heightened connection between
AFCs and Ontario, the Court of Appeal has arguably removed any
meaningful and legitimate barrier to plaintiffs seeking to certify
global class actions. The Airia Brands test permits courts to
assume jurisdiction over AFCs who share common issues with
representative plaintiffs, even if the claims of those AFCs do not
otherwise have a real and substantial connection to the
jurisdiction. In other words, Ontario courts could, in the context
of a proposed class action, assert jurisdiction in respect of the
claims of parties over which they would not have jurisdiction in
non-class action litigation.

Airia Brands is an invitation for more international class actions.
It remains to be seen to what extent class action plaintiff lawyers
will take up that invitation. [GN]


ALASKA AIR: VA Flight Attendants Seek $85-Mil. Penalties, Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Air Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2018, that the Plaintiffs in a class action
lawsuit filed by Virgin America flight attendants are seeking the
Court's summary judgment finding Virgin America responsible for
various damages and penalties valued at US$85 million.  The Court
will render its final judgment in March 2019.

In 2015, three flight attendants filed a class action lawsuit
seeking to represent all Virgin America flight attendants for
damages based on alleged violations of California and City of San
Francisco wage and hour laws.  Two thousand flight attendants were
certified as a class in November 2016.  The Company believes the
claims in this case are without factual and legal merit.

In July 2018, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment, finding Virgin America responsible for various
damages and penalties sought by the class members.  Plaintiffs
value these damages and penalties at US$85 million, and as of
November 1, 2018, moved the Court to enter judgment against Virgin
America in that amount.  Plaintiffs do not seek monetary or
behavioral relief from Alaska Airlines.

The Court will render its final judgment in March 2019.  The
Company will then seek an appellate court ruling that the
California laws on which the judgment is based are invalid as
applied to national airlines pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and
federal law.  The Company remains confident that a higher court
will respect the federal preemption principles that were enacted to
shield inter-state common carriers from a patchwork of state and
local wage and hour regulations such as those at issue in this
case.

Air Group operates Alaska, Virgin America and Horizon Air.  It
completed the acquisition of Virgin America on December 14, 2016,
at which time Virgin America became its wholly-owned subsidiary.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Bids to Dismiss Surfside Class Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that it has moved to dismiss the
complaint of Surfside Non-Surgical Orthopedics, P.A.

On January 25, 2018, a complaint was filed in Surfside Non-Surgical
Orthopedics, P.A. v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., No.
1:18-cv-00566, in the Northern District of Illinois.  This is a
purported class action lawsuit related to a January 18, 2018
ransomware attack, and alleges the following counts: (1)
negligence, gross negligence and negligence per se; (2) breach of
contract; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act; and (5) violation of the Illinois Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.  Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of
customers seeking damages from Allscripts.

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. delivers information
technology ("IT") solutions and services to help healthcare
organizations achieve optimal clinical, financial and operational
results. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.


ALLY FINANCIAL: Motion for Summary Disposition, Discovery Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ally Financial Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that a motion for summary disposition and
discovery requests are pending in the case styled In re Ally
Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 16-013616-CB).

In October 2016, a purported class action captioned as Bucks County
Employees Retirement Fund v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. was filed
in the Circuit Court for Wayne County in the State of Michigan
(Case No. 16-013616-CZ).

The complaint alleges material misstatements and omissions in
connection with Ally's initial public offering in April 2014,
including a failure to adequately disclose the severity of rising
subprime automotive loan delinquency rates, deficient underwriting
measures employed in the origination of subprime automotive loans,
and aggressive tactics used with low-income borrowers.  The request
for relief includes an indeterminate amount of damages, fees, and
costs and other remedies.

In January 2017, another purported class action captioned as
National Shopmen Pension Fund v. Ally Financial Inc.  et al. was
filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland County in the State of
Michigan (Case No. 2017-156719-CB).

In March 2017, a third purported class action captioned as James
McIntire v. Ally Financial Inc.  et al. was filed in the Circuit
Court for Wayne County in the State of Michigan (Case No.
17-003811-CZ).

The allegations and requested relief in the National Shopmen
Pension Fund and James McIntire complaints are substantially
similar to those included in the complaint filed by Bucks County
Employees Retirement Fund.

All three matters were initially removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, were then remanded back to
the state circuit courts, and have been consolidated for discovery
in Wayne County Circuit Court as In re Ally Financial, Inc.
Securities Litigation (Case No. 16-013616-CB).

In November 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  A motion for summary disposition and discovery requests
are pending.

The Company said, "We intend to vigorously defend against each of
these actions."

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

Ally Financial Inc. provides various financial products and
services for consumers, businesses, automotive dealers, and
corporate clients in the United States and Canada. The company
operates Automotive Finance Operations, Insurance Operations,
Mortgage Finance Operations, and Corporate Finance Operations
segments.  The company was formerly known as GMAC Inc. and changed
its name to Ally Financial Inc. in May 2010. Ally Financial Inc.
was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.


ALPHABET INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on October 11, 2018, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York against Alphabet, Inc. (NASDAQ:
GOOG). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material
or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is April 24, 2018 through October 10, 2018.

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

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

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Email : rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]


ALPHABET INC: Kahn Swick Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and KSF partner, former Attorney General of
Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have
until December 10, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications in
securities class action lawsuits against Alphabet Inc. (NasdaqGS:
GOOG, GOOGL), if they purchased the Company’s securities between
April 23, 2018 through October 10, 2018.  These actions are pending
in the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of
New York and Northern District of California.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Alphabet and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how these cases might affect you and your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn
toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-goog/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in these class actions, you
must petition the Courts by December 10, 2018.

About the Lawsuit

Alphabet and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the relevant time period,
violating federal securities laws.

On October 8, 2018, The Wall Street Journal reported that Alphabet,
through its subsidiary Google, had exposed the private data of
Google+ users but failed to disclose the matter "in part because of
fears that doing so would draw regulatory scrutiny and cause
reputational damage."  The Company later confirmed the glitch,
discovered in March 2018, that exposed private profile data of more
than 500,000 Google+ users between 2015 and March 2018.

On this news, the price of Alphabet’s shares plummeted.

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Telephone: 1-877-515-1850
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


ALPHABET INC: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit against Alphabet,
Inc. (Alphabet or the Company) (NASDAQ: GOOG, GOOGL) for violations
of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company’s shares between April 24,
2018 and October 10, 2018, inclusive (the Class Period), are
encouraged to contact the firm before December 10, 2018.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Sherin Mahdavian,
of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of
charge. You can also reach us through the firm’s website at
www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Googles systems exposed the personal data
of hundreds of thousands of users of the Google+ social media
platform. After discovering the breach, the Company actively
concealed the facts from investors, users, and the government.
Doing so violated the Companys data privacy and security policies.
Discovery of the breach could reasonably result in heightened
regulatory attention from the government. Based on these facts, the
Companys public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class period. When the market learning the truth
about Alphabet, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

         Contact:
         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East
         Suite 404, Los Angeles
         CA 90067
         Telephone: 310-301-3335
                    424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com.
                sherin@schallfirm.com [GN]


AMERICAN BREAD: Underpays Assistant Managers, Kukulski Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA KUKULSKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN BREAD CO., LLC; and
STRANG CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04551-MAK (E.D. Pa.,
Oct. 23, 2018) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay
the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as assistant manager.

American Bread Company, LLC provides bakery products. The Company
offers donuts, sandwiches, crust bread, crumb cakes, salads, and
soups. American Bread serves customers throughout the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Deirdre Aaron, Esq.
          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Ave, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: daaron@outtengolden.com
                  ims@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
          Lucy Brierly Bansal, Esq.
          601 Massachusetts Ave NW, Suite 200W
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 847-4400
          E-mail: sabrahamson@outtengolden.com
                  lbansal@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Gregg Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@,shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          830 Third A venue, 5th  Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 616-4000
          E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com


AMERICAN INCOME: Joh Suit Moved to Northern District of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Joh, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs  American
Income Life Insurance Company, DOES 1 through 25, the Defendant,
Case No.: MSC18-01863, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State County of Contra Costa, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 17, 2018.
The Northern District of California assigned Case No.:
3:18-cv-06364-TSH to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Thomas S. Hixson.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for American Income Life Insurance Company DOES 1 through
25:

          Albert Quoc Giang, Esq.
          CALDWELL LESLIE & PROCTOR, PC
          725 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5524
          Telephone: (213) 629-9040
          Facsimile: (213) 629-9022
          E-mail: agiang@bsfllp.com

AMN HEALTHCARE: Settles 2 Wage and Hour Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------
AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that it entered into settlement
agreements relating to claims in two wage and hour class actions
during September and October 2018.

AMN Healthcare said, "The Company reviews its loss contingencies at
least quarterly and adjusts its accruals and/or disclosures to
reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of
legal counsel, or other new information, as deemed necessary.  The
most significant matters for which the Company has established loss
contingencies are class actions related to wage and hour claims
under California and Federal law.  Specifically, among other claims
in these lawsuits, it is alleged that employees were not afforded
required breaks or compensated for all time worked, employees' wage
statements are not sufficiently clear, and certain expense
reimbursements should be included in the regular rate of pay for
purposes of calculating overtime rates.  The Company believes that
its wage and hour practices conform with law in all material
respects, but litigation is always subject to inherent uncertainty.
As a result, the Company entered into settlement agreements
relating to claims in two wage and hour class actions during
September and October 2018.  The settlement agreements are subject
to court approval, which is considered probable.  The Company
recorded increases to its accruals established in connection with
these matters amounting to US$12,140,000 during the three months
ended September 30, 2018."

AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. provides healthcare workforce
solutions and staffing services in the United States.  The Company
operates through three segments: Nurse and Allied Solutions, Locum
Tenens Solutions, and Other Workforce Solutions.  It was founded in
1985 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.


ANCHOR BANCORP: Plaintiff Agrees to Dismiss Parshall Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anchor Bancorp disclosed in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated November 1, 2018, the
Plaintiff in the "Parshall" class action lawsuit has agreed to
dismiss the case with prejudice as to his individual claims and
without prejudice to the claims of the members of the putative
class. This is in light of the additional disclosures that the
Company files with the SEC, a full-text copy of which is available
at https://bit.ly/2DoUyTy

On or about October 23, 2018, a purported individual shareholder of
Anchor Bancorp ("Anchor") filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court for
the State of Washington in Thurston County (the "Court"), under the
caption Parshall v. Anchor Bancorp, et al., Case No. 18-2-05365-34
(the "Action").  The complaint, which was filed as a putative class
action on behalf of the individual plaintiff and the public
shareholders of Anchor, alleges that the proxy statement/prospectus
(the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus") forming a part of the Form S-4
Registration Statement filed by FS Bancorp, Inc.  ("FS Bancorp") in
connection with the proposed merger of Anchor with FS Bancorp does
not contain certain information alleged to be material to the
Anchor shareholders concerning the proposed merger.  The complaint
asserts claims against Anchor's directors for breach of fiduciary
duty, and against Anchor and FS Bancorp for aiding and abetting the
alleged breach of fiduciary duty, for distributing the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus with allegedly false or misleading statements
or omissions.  The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive
relief against consummation of the merger and additional, allegedly
corrective disclosures as well as attorneys' and expert fees.

Solely to avoid the costs, risks, nuisance and uncertainties
inherent in litigation and to allow the Anchor shareholders to vote
on the proposals required in connection with the proposed merger
with FS Bancorp at the Anchor special meeting of shareholders to be
held on November 13, 2018 (the "Special Meeting"), Anchor hereby
supplements the disclosures contained in the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus (the "Additional Disclosures").  The
Additional Disclosures should be read in conjunction with the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus.

In light of the Additional Disclosures, plaintiff has agreed to
dismiss the Action with prejudice as to his individual claims and
without prejudice to the claims of the members of the putative
class.  In dismissing the Action, plaintiff has reserved the right
to seek an award of attorneys' fees from the Court.

The agreement to make the Additional Disclosures will not affect
the merger consideration to be paid to Anchor's shareholders or the
timing of the Special Meeting.

Anchor and the other defendants, including FS Bancorp, vigorously
deny that the Proxy Statement/Prospectus is deficient in any
respect and that the Additional Disclosures are material or
required.  Anchor and FS Bancorp believe that the claims asserted
in the Action are without merit, and that the Additional
Disclosures do not provide information required by the federal
securities laws or that is material to the decision of the Anchor
shareholders as to how to vote their shares at the Special Meeting.
The Additional Disclosures are being made solely to eliminate the
burden, expense, and nuisance of further litigation, and to avoid
any possible delay to the closing of the merger that might arise
from further litigation.  Nothing in this document shall be deemed
an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under any
applicable laws for any of the disclosures set forth herein.

Anchor Bancorp operates as the bank holding company for Anchor Bank
that provides various banking products and services in Western
Washington.  The Company was founded in 1907 and is headquartered
in Lacey, Washington.


ANDALOU NATURALS: Clark Files Tort Class Action in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Andalou Naturals. The
case is styled as Clark, Howard on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Andalou Naturals, Defendant, Case
No. CGC18571012 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 31,
2018).

The case type is stated as "Business Tort".

Andalou Naturals Inc. manufactures and distributes fruit stem
cell-based skin care; hair care; instant treatments; and bath and
body care products worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregory S. Weston, Esq.


APARTMENT MANAGEMENT: Legros Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Legros, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Apartment Management
Consultants, LLC, a limited liability corporation and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case CIVDS18230334, was
removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern
Division - Riverside) on Oct 16, 2018. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 5:18-cv-02209-PA-SP to
the proceeding. The suit alleges Fair Credit Reporting Act
violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Judge Percy
Anderson.[BN]

Attorneys for Gregory Legros:

          Aubry Wand, Esq.
          THE WAND LAW FIRM
          400 Corporate Pointe Suite 300
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (310) 590-4503
          Facsimile: (310) 590-4596
          E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott E. Wheeler, Esq.
          SCOTT E. WHEELER LAW OFFICES
          250 West First Street Suite 216
          Claremont, CA 91711
          Telephone: (909) 621-4988
          Facsimile: (909) 621-4622
          E-mail: sew@scottwheelerlawoffice.com

Attorneys for Apartment Management Consultants, LLC:

          Patrick Johansson, Esq.
          Stephen H. Turner, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD AND SMITH LLP
          633 West 5th Street Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 250-1800
          Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
          E-mail: patrik.johansson@lewisbrisbois.com
                  stephen.turner@lewisbrisbois.com


APARTMENT MANAGEMENT: Removes Legros Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of Gregory Legros, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Apartment
Management Consultants, LLC, Defendant, filed a notice to remove
the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Bernardino (Case No. CIVDS18230334) to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on October
16, 2018. The clerk of court for the Central District of California
assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-08931 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 16, 2018).

Apartment Management Consultants LLC provides real estate services.
The Company offers property and asset management services.
Apartment Management Consultants serves its clients in the State of
Utah. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aubry Wand, Esq.
          THE WAND LAW FIRM
          400 Corporate Pointe Suite 300
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (310) 590-4503
          Facsimile: (310) 590-4596
          E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott E Wheeler, Esq.
          SCOTT E WHEELER LAW OFFICES
          250 West First Street Suite 216
          Claremont, CA 91711
          Telephone: (909) 621-4988
          Facsimile: (909) 621-4622
          E-mail: sew@scottwheelerlawoffice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Patrick Johansson, Esq.
          Stephen H Turner, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD AND SMITH LLP
          633 West 5th Street Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 250-1800
          Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
          E-mail: patrik.johansson@lewisbrisbois.com
                  stephen.turner@lewisbrisbois.com


ARCONIC INC: Awaits Court Ruling on Bid to Nix Howard Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Arconic Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2018, that the parties in the case styled Howard v. Arconic
Inc. et al. are awaiting ruling on the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  Briefing on that
motion is now closed.

A purported class action complaint related to the Grenfell Tower
fire was filed on August 11, 2017 in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Arconic Inc.
and Klaus Kleinfeld.  A related purported class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on August 25, 2017, under the caption
Sullivan v. Arconic Inc.  et al., against Arconic Inc., two former
Arconic executives, several current and former Arconic directors,
and banks that acted as underwriters for Arconic's September 18,
2014 preferred stock offering (the "Preferred Offering").

The plaintiff in Sullivan had previously filed a purported class
action against the same defendants on July 18, 2017 in the Southern
District of New York and, on August 25, 2017, voluntarily dismissed
that action without prejudice.

On February 7, 2018, on motion from certain putative class members,
the court consolidated Howard and Sullivan, closed Sullivan, and
appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case.  On April 9,
2018, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated purported class
action filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the registration
statement for the Preferred Offering contained false and misleading
statements and omitted to state material information, including by
allegedly failing to disclose material uncertainties and trends
resulting from sales of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses and by
allegedly expressing a belief that appropriate risk management and
compliance programs had been adopted while concealing the risks
posed by Reynobond PE sales.  The consolidated amended complaint
also alleges that between November 4, 2013 and June 23, 2017
Arconic and Kleinfeld made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose material information about the Company's
commitment to safety, business and financial prospects, and the
risks of the Reynobond PE product, including in Arconic's Form
10-Ks for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015 and
2016, its Form 10-Qs and quarterly financial press releases from
the fourth quarter of 2013 through the first quarter of 2017, its
2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 Annual Reports, and its 2016 Annual
Highlights Report.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and
expert fees and expenses.

On June 8, 2018, all defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.  Briefing on that
motion is now closed and the parties await a ruling.

Arconic Inc. engineers, manufactures, and sells lightweight metals
of aluminum, titanium, and nickel worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Engineered Products and Solutions, Global Rolled
Products, and Transportation and Construction Solutions. Arconic
Inc. was founded in 2016 and is based in New York, New York.


ASPEN HIGHLANDS: Seeks Dismissal of Ritz-Carlton Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Carroll, writing for Aspen Times, reports that the Aspen
Highlands Condominium Association is making a push to be removed
from a class-action lawsuit brought on nearly three years ago by
timeshare owners at the Ritz-Carlton Club.

The condo association's motion for summary judgment is the latest
legal maneuver in a dispute over an affiliation the Ritz-Carlton
Club established with Marriott Vacation Club Destinations in April
2014. The 36-page motion was originally filed Oct. 12, but a judge
denied it because of its length. A shorter, 26-page version was
submitted with the court Oct. 22.

The lawsuit accuses the condo association, Marriott Vacations
Worldwide Corp. and four other defendants of covertly agreeing to
affiliate with Marriottt Vacation Club without allowing a say from
the timeshare owners.

More than 200 owners of the 1/12 timeshares at the Ritz-Carlton
Club, which is located at the base of the Aspen Highlands ski area,
claim the values of the fractional-ownership interests have
decreased by as much as 80 percent because of the Marriott
affiliation. Some of the timeshares were acquired for more than
$400,000.

For its part, the Aspen Highlands Condominium Association claims
that the timeshare owners have failed to demonstrate it conspired
with the other defendants. In fact, the condo association's motion
contends that some timeshare owners wanted to affiliate with
Marriott because "they wanted more exchange opportunities."

The motion also says that while timeshare owners did not vote on
the affiliation, a survey Marriott gave them in December 2013
showed 74 of the 141 respondents were in favor of an exchange
program with Marriott. In April 2014, Marriott and the Ritz-Carlton
Club at Aspen Highlands reached a memorandum of understanding over
a trade-a-week program that would take effect later that year, the
motion says.

The condo association also negotiated a $150,000 reduction in
Marriott's annual management fee, the motion says.

So far, the judge presiding over the case has not been convinced
that the condo association was acting in good faith.

In April, U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer ruled that the
condo association "acted arbitrarily by declining to hold a vote
before agreeing to the (Marriott Vacation Club) affiliation.
Plaintiffs allege that the Association promised such a vote and
told its members that such a vote was legally required, before
acting contrary to these statements without disclosure or
explanation."

The condo association's motion, however, claims that the plaintiffs
"have no evidence that any vote was required or discussed."

Aspen attorney Matthew Ferguson is one of the lawyers representing
the timeshare owners.

"Marriott obviously is a major player in the wrongdoing, but the
condo association, clearly as we have said in our papers, has
breached its fiduciary duties to the owners," he said.

The lawsuit was initially filed in January 2016 in Pitkin County
District Court. There were two plaintiffs at the time; the case was
transferred in May 2016 to Denver federal court.

The pending claims against the defendants include breach of
fiduciary, aiding and abetting, conspiracy and constructive fraud,
which is a legal term for deception without intent. [GN]


AT&T INC: Oral Argument in DirectTV's NFL Lawsuit Set for Dec. 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that oral argument for the appeal related to
DirectTV's NFL Ticket Package suit is scheduled for December 7,
2018.

More than two dozen putative class actions were filed in the U.S.
District Courts for the Central District of California and the
Southern District of New York against DIRECTV and the National
Football League (NFL).

These cases were brought by residential and commercial DIRECTV
subscribers that have purchased NFL SUNDAY TICKET.  The plaintiffs
allege that (i) the 32 NFL teams have unlawfully agreed not to
compete with each other in the market for nationally televised NFL
football games and instead have "pooled" their broadcasts and
assigned to the NFL the exclusive right to market them; and (ii)
the NFL and DIRECTV have entered into an unlawful exclusive
distribution agreement that allows DIRECTV to charge
"supra-competitive" prices for the NFL SUNDAY TICKET package.  The
complaints seek unspecified treble damages and attorneys' fees
along with injunctive relief.

The first complaint, Abrahamian v. National Football League, Inc.,
et al., was served in June 2015.  In December 2015, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases outside the
Central District of California to that court for consolidation and
management of pre-trial proceedings.  The Company vigorously
disputes the allegations.

In August 2016, DIRECTV filed a motion to compel arbitration and
the NFL defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  In
June 2017, the court granted the NFL defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint without leave to amend, finding that: (1) the
plaintiffs did not plead a viable market; (2) the plaintiffs did
not plead facts supporting the contention that the exclusive
agreement between the NFL and DIRECTV harms competition; (3) the
claims failed to overcome the fact that the NFL and its teams must
cooperate to sell broadcasts; and (4) the plaintiffs do not have
standing to challenge the horizontal agreement among the NFL and
the teams.

In light of the order granting the motion to dismiss, the court
denied DIRECTV's motion to compel arbitration as moot.  In July
2017, plaintiffs filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, which is pending.  The appeal has been fully
briefed and oral argument is scheduled for December 7, 2018.

AT&T Inc. provides communications and digital entertainment
services. The company operates through four segments: Business
Solutions, Entertainment Group, Consumer Mobility, and
International.  The company was formerly known as SBC
Communications Inc. and changed its name to AT&T Inc. in November
2005. AT&T Inc. was founded in 1983 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


AT&T INC: Roberts Class Lawsuit over MBR Program Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2018, that the case styled Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC is still
ongoing.

The Company disclosed that "several" class actions were filed
challenging its AT&T's Maximum Bit Rate (MBR) program.

The Company said, "We secured dismissals in each of these cases
except Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, which is ongoing."

AT&T Inc. provides communications and digital entertainment
services. The company operates through four segments: Business
Solutions, Entertainment Group, Consumer Mobility, and
International.  The company was formerly known as SBC
Communications Inc. and changed its name to AT&T Inc. in November
2005. AT&T Inc. was founded in 1983 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


ATHENE HOLDING: Griffiths Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
granted final approval of the settlement of John Griffiths'
putative class action lawsuit against Athene Holding Ltd.,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018.

Terms of the settlement include: (1) AHL entering into a capital
maintenance agreement with Athene London requiring AHL to provide
capital to Athene London upon a missed structured settlement
payment that is not timely cured and (2) AHL paying a monetary
amount that is immaterial to the Company.

On July 27, 2015, John Griffiths, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against
the Company in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.  An amended complaint was filed on December 18,
2015.  The complaint asserts claims against AHL, Athene Annuity and
Life Company (AAIA), and Athene London Assignment Corporation
(Athene London), in addition to an Aviva defendant.  AHL is a named
defendant due to its purchase of Aviva USA, and AAIA and Athene
London are named as successors to Aviva Life Insurance Company and
Aviva London Assignment Corporation, respectively.  The complaint
alleges a putative class of all persons who are the beneficial
owners of assets which were used to purchase structured settlement
annuities that Aviva Life Insurance Company, Aviva London
Assignment Corporation, and Aviva International Insurance Limited
(collectively, the Aviva Entities) or their predecessors, as
applicable, delivered to purchasers on or after April 1, 2003 that
were backed by a capital maintenance agreement issued by Aviva
International Insurance Limited or its predecessor (the CMA).

The complaint alleges that the Aviva Entities sold structured
settlement annuities to the public on the basis that such products
were backed by the CMA, which was alleged to be a source of great
financial strength.  The complaint further alleges that the Aviva
Entities used the CMA to enhance the sales volume and raise the
price of the annuities.  The complaint claims that, as a result of
Aviva USA's sale to AHL, the CMA terminated.  According to the
complaint, no notice of this termination was provided to the owners
of the structured settlement annuities.  The complaint alleges that
the termination of the CMA gave rise to claims for breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, promissory estoppel, and unjust
enrichment.

AHL and plaintiff agreed to a term sheet settlement on a class-wide
basis.  On October 23, 2018, the court granted final approval of
the settlement.  Terms of the settlement include: (1) AHL entering
into a capital maintenance agreement with Athene London requiring
AHL to provide capital to Athene London upon a missed structured
settlement payment that is not timely cured and (2) AHL paying a
monetary amount that is immaterial to the Company.

Athene Holding Ltd. is a retirement services company that issues,
reinsures and acquires retirement savings products designed for the
increasing number of individuals and institutions seeking to fund
retirement needs.  The Company's differentiated investment strategy
benefits from its strategic relationship with Apollo Global
Management, LLC, and its indirect subsidiary, Athene Asset
Management, L.P.  AAM provides a full suite of services for the
Company's investment portfolio, including direct investment
management, asset allocation, mergers and acquisition asset
diligence and certain operational support services, including
investment compliance, tax, legal and risk management support.


AUTOMATIC DATA: Still Faces Class Suits over Use of Biometric Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. continues to defend itself against
potential class action complaints over alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Privacy Act, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

In June 2018, a potential class action complaint was filed against
ADP in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  The complaint
asserts that ADP violated the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act, was
negligent and unjustly enriched itself in connection with its
collection, use and storage of biometric data of employees of its
clients who are residents of Illinois in connection with certain
services provided by ADP to clients in Illinois.  The complaint
seeks statutory and other unspecified monetary damages, injunctive
relief and attorney's fees.

In addition, similar potential class action complaints have been
filed in Illinois state courts against ADP and/or certain of its
clients with respect to the collection, use and storage of
biometric data of the employees of these clients.

All of these claims are still in their earliest stages and the
Company is unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or
range of loss, with respect to these matters.  The Company intends
to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. provides business process
outsourcing services worldwide.  It operates through two segments,
Employer Services and Professional Employer Organization (PEO)
Services.  The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in
Roseland, New Jersey.


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Still Defends Claims over Apartment Fire
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avalonbay Communities, Inc. is still facing legal actions related
to an apartment fire in Edgewater, New Jersey, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

In January 2015, a fire occurred at the Company's Avalon at
Edgewater apartment community located in Edgewater, New Jersey
("Edgewater").  Edgewater consisted of two residential buildings.
One building, containing 240 apartment homes, was destroyed and the
Company is completing its reconstruction.  The second building,
containing 168 apartment homes, suffered minimal damage and has
been repaired.

In conjunction with legal matters associated with the Edgewater
casualty loss, the Company has established protocols for processing
claims from third parties who suffered losses as a result of the
fire, and many third parties have contacted the Company's insurance
carrier and settled their claims.

Three class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and
consolidated in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey.  The Company has agreed with class counsel to the
terms of a settlement which provides a claims process (with agreed
upon protocols for instructing the adjuster as to how to evaluate
claims) and, if needed, an arbitration process to determine damage
amounts to be paid to individual claimants covered by the class
settlement.

In July 2017 the District Court granted final approval of the
settlement and all claims have been submitted to the independent
claims adjuster.

A total of 66 units (consisting of residents who did not previously
settle their claims and who did not opt out of the class
settlement) are included in the class action settlement and bound
by its terms.  However, only 44 units submitted claims.  The
independent claims adjuster is currently reviewing the claims
submitted; the submitted claims total approximately US$6,900,000
but, based on the Company's review of the initial determinations
made by the adjuster on a number of claims, the Company believes
that the total amount actually awarded will be significantly less.
To date, the claims adjuster has completed his evaluation of 35 of
these claims and it is expected that the evaluation of the
remaining claims should be completed within the next two months.

In addition, the Company has resolved litigated claims with
approximately 60 units.

There is currently one remaining resident lawsuit with respect to
the destroyed building filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Bergen County - Law Division; the Company believes it has
meritorious defenses to the extent of damages claimed in that
suit.

A number of subrogation lawsuits had been filed against the Company
by insurers of Edgewater residents who obtained renters insurance;
these lawsuits have been or are expected to be resolved in 2018.

A fourth class action, being heard in the same federal court, was
filed against the Company on behalf of a purported class of
residents of the second Edgewater building that suffered minimal
damage.

Having settled many third party claims, the Company currently
believes that any potential remaining liability to third parties
(including any potential liability to third parties determined in
accordance with the class settlement) will not be material to the
Company and will in any event be substantially covered by the
Company's insurance policies.  However, the Company can give no
assurances in this regard and continues to evaluate this matter.

AvalonBay Communities is a Maryland corporation that has elected to
be treated as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for federal
income tax purposes under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the
"Code"). The Company focuses on the development, redevelopment,
acquisition, ownership and operation of multifamily communities
primarily in New England, the New York/New Jersey metro area, the
Mid-Atlantic, the Pacific Northwest, and Northern and Southern
California.


AVANGRID INC: Bid to Dismiss PNE Energy Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avangrid, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the class action suit styled PNE
Energy Supply LLC v. Eversource Energy and Avangrid, Inc. is
ongoing, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

On August 10, 2018, PNE Energy Supply LLC, a competitive energy
supplier located in New England that purchases electricity in the
day-ahead and real time wholesale electric market, filed a civil
antitrust action, on behalf of itself and those similarly situated,
against the Company and Eversource alleging that their respective
gas subsidiaries illegally manipulated the supply of pipeline
capacity in the "secondary capacity market" in order to
artificially inflate New England natural gas and electricity
prices.

These allegations were based on the conclusions of a White Paper
issued by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), an environmental
advocacy organization, on October 10, 2017, purporting to analyze
the relationship between the New England electricity market and the
New England local gas distribution companies.

The plaintiff claims to represent entities who purchased
electricity directly in the wholesale electricity market that it
claims was targeted by the alleged anticompetitive conduct of
Eversource and the Company.

On September 28, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of
the claims based on federal preemption and lack of any evidence of
antitrust behavior, citing, among other reasons, the results of the
FERC staff inquiry and the dismissal of the related case, "Breiding
et al. v. Eversource and Avangrid," by the same Court in September.
The plaintiffs filed opposition to the motion to dismiss on
October 26, 2018.

The Company said, "We cannot predict the outcome of this class
action lawsuit."

Avangrid, Inc. operates as an energy services holding company in
the United States. It engages in the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electricity, as well as distribution,
transportation, and sale of natural gas. Avangrid, Inc. was founded
in 1852 and is headquartered in Orange, Connecticut.  Avangrid,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Iberdrola, S.A.


AVANGRID INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Breiding Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Avangrid, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that the plaintiffs in the recently dismissed
class action case, styled Breiding et al. v. Eversource and
Avangrid, filed a notice of appeal on October 10, 2018.
Previously, the District Court granted the Company's Motion and
dismissed all claims on September 11, 2018.

On November 16, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
customers in New England against the Company and Eversource
alleging that certain of their respective subsidiaries that take
gas transportation service over the Algonquin Gas Transmission
(AGT), which for AVANGRID would be its indirect subsidiaries SCG
and CNG, engaged in pipeline capacity scheduling practices on AGT
that resulted in artificially increased electricity prices in New
England.

These allegations were based on the conclusions of a White Paper
issued by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), an environmental
advocacy organization, on October 10, 2017, purporting to analyze
the relationship between the New England electricity market and the
New England local gas distribution companies.

The plaintiffs assert claims under federal antitrust law, state
antitrust, unfair competition and consumer protection laws, and
under the common law of unjust enrichment.  They seek damages,
disgorgement, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorney fees and
costs.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of the claims on January
29, 2018.  On February 27, 2018, the FERC released the results of a
FERC staff inquiry into the pipeline capacity scheduling practices
on the AGT.  The inquiry arose out of the allegations made by the
EDF in its White Paper.  FERC announced that, based on an extensive
review of public and non-public data, it had determined that the
EDF study was flawed and led to incorrect conclusions.  FERC also
stated that the staff inquiry revealed no evidence of
anticompetitive withholding of natural gas pipeline capacity on the
AGT and that it would take no further action on the matter.

On March 28, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, repeating the prior claims, except omitting the common
law claim of unjust enrichment.  On April 27, 2018, the Company
filed a Motion to Dismiss all of the claims based on federal
preemption and lack of any evidence of antitrust behavior, citing,
among other reasons, the results of the FERC staff inquiry
conclusion.

The plaintiffs filed opposition to the motion to dismiss on May 25,
2018.  The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
held a hearing on the motion on August 1, 2018.

On September 11, 2018, the District Court granted the Company's
Motion and dismissed all claims.  On October 10, 2018, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

The Company said, "We cannot predict the outcome of this appeal."

Avangrid, Inc. operates as an energy services holding company in
the United States. It engages in the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electricity, as well as distribution,
transportation, and sale of natural gas. Avangrid, Inc. was founded
in 1852 and is headquartered in Orange, Connecticut.  Avangrid,
Inc. is a subsidiary of Iberdrola, S.A.


AVELLA PATIENT: Made Unsolicited Calls, Dhesi Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
SARBJIT DHESI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AVELLA PATIENT ACCESS PROGRAM, INC.; AVELLA
OF AUSTIN, INC.; AVELLA OF COLUMBUS, INC.; AVELLA OF DEER VALLEY,
INC.; AVELLA OF DENVER, INC.; AVELLA OF GILBERT, INC.; AVELLA OF
LAS VEGAS II, INC.; AVELLA OF ORLANDO, INC.; AVELLA OF PHOENIX III,
INC.; AVELLA OF SCOTTSDALE, INC.; AVELLA OF ST. LOUIS, INC.; AVELLA
OF TUCSON, INC.; AVELLA OF TUCSON II, INC.; ARIZONA CORPORATIONS;
BRIOVARX SPECIALTY, LLC; BRIOVARX INFUSION SERVICES 102, LLC;
BRIOVARX INFUSION SERVICES 103, LLC; BRIOVARX INFUSION SERVICES
305, LLC; BRIOVARX OF FLORIDA, INC.; BRIOVARX INFUSION SERVICES,
INC.; CLICK COMMERCE SPO, INC. F/K/A XELUS ACQUISITION, INC. F/K/A
OPT HOLDING INC. F/K/A OPTUM, INC.; AND OPTUMRX ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-06476-KAW (N.D. Cal.,
Oct. 23, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls.

Avella Patient Access Program Inc. is a pharmacy located in Lake
Mary, FL. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law
                  wjonckheer@sjk.law

               - and -

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Gullickson Appeals Decision in Farrell Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Mark Gullickson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Joanne Farrell, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00492-L-WVG, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, San Diego.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 15, 2018, Judge M.
James Lorenz granted both the Class Counsel's unopposed motions for
final approval of class action settlement and final approval of
fees, costs, and service awards.

The case is a putative class action focused on BoA's practice of
levying $35 fees against deposit account holders for failing to
rectify an overdrawn deposit account within five days.  To open a
deposit account with BoA, a customer had to first execute a deposit
Agreement.  Under the terms of the Deposit Agreement BoA charged a
$35 fee anytime a deposit account holder wrote a check against
insufficient funds.  When a deposit account holder thus over
drafted his or her account, BoA had discretion as to whether to
honor the overdrawn check by advancing funds to the payee
sufficient to cover the note.  However, BoA levied the Initial
Charge whether it advanced the funds or not.  In the event BoA
advanced the funds, deposit account holders were obligated under
the Deposit Agreement to pay back BoA's advance plus any fees
incurred.  Failure to do so within five days triggered a $35
Extended Overdrawn Balance Charge ("EOBC").

In exchange for the release of the class members' claims, the
settlement agreement provides four forms of consideration:

   1. BoA ceases charging EOBCs for five years beginning Dec. 31,
2017.  BoA's obligation will terminate during this timeframe only
if the U.S. Supreme Court expressly holds that EOBCs or their
equivalent do not constitute interest under the NBA.  BoA testifies
that this cessation will depress their revenue (and benefit BoA
deposit account holders) by approximately $20 million per month, or
$1.2 billion total over the five year period.

   2. BoA provides cash payment (Cash Portion) of $37.5 million to
the class members who (1) were charged an EOBC and (2) did not have
their EOBC refunded or charged off.  The Attorneys' fees ($14.5
million), the costs ($53,119.92), the named Plaintiff service
awards ($20,000), and the settlement administrator hourly charges
(approximately $62,242) will come off the top 3),  the residue
(approximately $22,864,638) to issue pro rata based upon how many
EOBC's each qualifying class member paid as a percentage of all
EOBC's paid by the class during the class period.  The class
members who do not opt out will receive their payment
automatically.

   3. BoA provides debt reduction (Debt Reduction) in the amount of
at least $29.1 million.  Debt Reduction will issue to class members
whose BoA accounts closed with an outstanding balance stemming from
one or more EOBC's levied during the class period.  Each eligible
class member will receive up to $35 in debt reduction.  To the
extent BoA reported any of this debt to the credit bureaus, BoA
will update the Bureau's as to the effect of the debt reduction.
This debt reduction will issue automatically to all qualifying
members who do not opt out.  It will apply only to debt which BoA
has a legal right to collect.  It will not apply to unenforceable
debt, such as debt discharged in bankruptcy.

   4. BoA is paying all settlement administration costs other than
the administrator's hourly service charges.  These costs are
currently estimated at $2.9 million.

The appellate case is captioned as Joanne Farrell, et al. v. Bank
of America, N.A., Case No. 18-56370, 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 16, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on December 17, 2018;

   -- Appellant Mark Gullickson's opening brief is due on
      January 25, 2019;

   -- Appellees Larice Addamo, Bank of America, Ronald Anthony
      Dinkins and Joanne Farrell's answering brief is due on
      February 25, 2019; and

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

Objector-Appellant Mark Gullickson, of Laguna Niguel, California,
appears pro se.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees JOANNE FARRELL, RONALD ANTHONY DINKINS and
LARICE ADDAMO, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Bryan Scott Gowdy, Esq.
          CREED AND GOWDY, P.A.
          865 May Street
          Jacksonville, FL 32204
          Telephone: (904) 350-0075
          E-mail: bgowdy@appellate-firm.com

               - and -

          Walter W. Noss, Esq.
          SCOTT & SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          E-mail: wnoss@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Cristina Maria Pierson, Esq.
          KELLEY UUSTAL PC
          500 North Federal Highway, Suite 200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 522-6601
          E-mail: cmp@kulaw.com

               - and -

          Hassan Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

Defendant-Appellee BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., is represented by:

          Brian D. Boyle, Esq.
          Jonathan Hacker, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383-5327
          E-mail: bboyle@omm.com
                  jhacker@omm.com

               - and -

          Matthew W. Close, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          E-mail: mclose@omm.com

               - and -

          Danielle Nicole Oakley, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          610 Newport Center Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 823-7921
          E-mail: doakley@omm.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of Ponzi Scheme Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Petrick, writing for Law360, reports that Bank of America has
asked a Florida federal judge to toss proposed class action claims
that accuse it of helping five investment advisers run a $102
million Ponzi scheme.


BHP BILLITON: More Than 30,000 Shareholders Join Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
class action lawyers are duking it out over which firm will get to
run an action against BHP Billiton and the outcome could have far
reaching ramifications for future investor claims.

The case is expected to be one of the biggest class actions brought
against an Australian company as more than 30,000 BHP shareholders
have signed up to the actions launched against the company by three
different law firms, the federal court heard on Oct. 29.

The actions cover more than 330 million BHP shares worth in today's
market $10 billion.

The actions relate to shareholder losses allegedly linked to BHP's
disclosures to the market around the safety of the tailings dam
overseen by its Samarco joint venture with Vale S.A in Brazil.

The dispute over which firm will get to run the case comes as the
Australian Law Reform Commission is in the middle of an inquiry
into litigation funding and as another ASX-listed firm, AMP, is
facing a host of potential class actions of its alleged disclosure
issues.

The Fundao tailings dam collapsed in 2015, with mudflow from the
dam killing 19 people and creating an environmental disaster.

The legal jousting -- or a "beauty parade" as it often referred --
comes as Justice Mark Moshinsky considers consolidating the three
proceedings brought by three law firms Phi Finney McDonald, Maurice
Blackburn and Johnson Winter & Slattery into a single matter. At
the same time, BHP is seeking to have the actions stayed until
criminal proceedings relating to the collapse are resolved.

There are 219 institutional investors signed up the PFM case, while
68 institutional shareholders have signed up to the Maurice
Blackburn case.

PFM, whose case is being led by BHP shareholder Vince Impiombato,
argued at the Federal Court on Oct. 29 that it should be the firm
to run the action, in part, because it was the first to file an
action in May this year.

"The Impiombato proceeding has undeniably been looking at these
issues for the longest period," said Peter Collinson, QC, counsel
for the investor claim being run by Phi Finney McDonald (PFM).

The court heard, the funder of PFM's action will take up to 18 per
cent of all settlement proceeds for funding the action.

Maurice Blackburn, whose case is led by shareholder Klemweb
Nominees, will run its case using a litigation service fee model,
which it says will significantly increase the amount paid to
shareholders.

Counsel for investors in Maurice Blackburn's case Bernard Quinn,
QC, told the court that Maurice Blackburn's case should be allowed
to continue as an open class action and not stayed as it offered an
alternative funding arrangement to PFM's action.

"The guiding principal is that the court needs to focus on the
interests primarily of group members, not lawyers, group members,"
Mr Quinn said.

The third case is being led by the $77 billion US pension fund Los
Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, which held a $42
million stake in BHP at the time of the dam collapse.

However, Mr Collinson told the court that there were 31
institutional investors in its cohort that had invested in more
shares than LACERA did.

Earlier this year, BHP settled a separate class action brought
against it in the US over the dam collapse for $US50 million. [GN]


BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Still Defends Shareholder Suit in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
Biglari Holdings Inc. is still facing a consolidated shareholders'
complaint in the Superior Court of Hamilton County, Indiana,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

On January 29, 2018, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported
class action complaint against the Company and the members of the
Company's Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton
County, Indiana.  The shareholder generally alleges claims of
breach of fiduciary duty by the members of the Board of Directors
and unjust enrichment to the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Sardar Biglari, as a result of the issuance of dual class
common stock.

On March 26, 2018, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported
class action complaint against the Company and the members of the
Company's Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton
County, Indiana.  This shareholder generally alleges claims of
breach of fiduciary duty by the members of the Board of Directors.
This shareholder sought to enjoin the shareholder vote on April 26,
2018 to approve the issuance of dual class common stock.

On April 16, 2018, the shareholders withdrew their motions to
enjoin the shareholder vote on April 26, 2018.

On May 17, 2018, the shareholders who filed the January 29, 2018
complaint and the March 26, 2018 complaint filed a new,
consolidated complaint against the Company and the members of the
Company's Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton
County, Indiana.  The shareholders generally allege claims of
breach of fiduciary duty by the members of the Board of Directors
and unjust enrichment to Mr. Biglari arising out of the recent
recapitalization of Biglari Holdings Inc. and the related issuance
of dual class common stock.

The shareholders seek, for themselves and on behalf of all other
shareholders as a class (other than the individual defendants and
those related to or affiliated with them), to seek a declaration
that the defendants breached their duty to the shareholders and the
class, and to recover unspecified damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, and an award of their attorneys' fees and
other costs.

Biglari Holdings said, "The Company believes the claims in each
case are without merit and intends to defend these cases
vigorously."

San Antonio, Texas-based Biglari Holdings Inc. (NYSE: BH) is a
holding company owning subsidiaries engaged in a number of diverse
business activities, including media, property and casualty
insurance, and restaurants.  The Company's largest operating
subsidiaries are involved in the franchising and operating of
restaurants.


BLONDER BUILDERS: Cond. Certification of Garriga Class Partly OKd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HERIBERTO GARRIGA and ABELINO H. RAMIREZ, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. BLONDER BUILDERS INC. and MITCHELL BLONDER, Defendants, Case No.
CV 17-497 (JMA) (AKT) (E.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen
Tomlinson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification as a Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") collective action pursuant to Section 216(b).

The named Plaintiffs commenced the putative collective and class
action against the Defendants or violations of the FLSA, the New
York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the New York Codes, Rules, and
Regulations ("NYCRR").  The Plaintiffs seek to recover for the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime and regular wages, as
well as for other violations of applicable law.

The Defendants are in the construction business.  Ramirez was
employed by the Defendants as a carpenter from approximately August
2016 until Nov. 17, 2016, and Garriga was employed by Defendants as
a carpenter from approximately March 2017 until April 19, 2017.
The Plaintiffs claim that they worked for the Defendants between 48
and 55 hours per week throughout their respective periods of
employment.

The Plaintiffs allege that they and their coworkers each worked
more than 40 hours per week, yet the Defendants failed to pay them
overtime wages.  According to the Amended Complaint, Garriga would
discuss the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages with his
co-workers during lunchtime each week and on Fridays when he was
paid.  

The Amended Complaint also asserts that Defendants failed to
provide the Plaintiffs with written wage and hour notices that
included the rate of pay, any deductions from pay, and other
information required under the NYLL.  Likewise, the Defendants
failed to provide the Plaintiffs with a proper statement of wages
as required by the NYLL.  According to the Plaintiffs, the
statements they were provided did not accurately state the number
of hours they actually worked each week.

The Plaintiffs commenced the action against the Defendants on Jan.
29, 2017.  On June 23, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint.  On Sept. 5, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a letter
requesting a pre-motion conference before Judge Azrack for purposes
of moving for conditional certification.  The Defendants opposed
the application.

Judge Azrack in turn referred the Plaintiffs' request for a
pre-motion conference and any resulting motion to the Court.
Finding a pre-motion conference unnecessary, the Court directed the
counsel to submit a joint briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs'
intended motion for conditional certification.  The briefing
schedule was submitted by counsel and "so ordered" by the Court.
The Plaintiffs' fully-briefed motion was filed on Nov. 22, 2017.

The Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, conditional collective
certification with respect to all non-exempt employees (including,
but not limited to carpenters, laborers, machinists, helpers,
painters, electricians, plumbers, roofers, and other manual
workers) employed by the Defendants at any time between Jan. 29,
2011 and the present.

The Plaintiffs now move for conditional certification of the action
as a collective action and court-authorized notice pursuant to
Section 216(b) of the FLSA.

Magistrate Judge Tomlinson has determined that a collective
consisting of "all non-exempt employees" is too broad.  Therefore,
the collective which the Plaintiffs seek to conditionally certify
will be modified.  The Plaintiffs have proffered evidence as to the
Defendants' employment practices affecting only manual laborers,
including carpenters, machinists, "helpers," painters,
electricians, plumbers, and roofers.  They have not provided any
evidence as to non-exempt employees whose work does not primarily
involve manual labor or construction-related duties.  

Therefore, the Magistrate Judge will grant conditional
certification as a collective action to the opt-in Plaintiffs
designated as all individuals employed by Blonder Builders Inc. as
manual laborers, including carpenters, machinists, helpers,
painters, electricians, plumbers, or roofers, since Jan. 29, 2011.

The Magistrate agrees that it is not clear what purpose inclusion
of the contact information of the Defendants' counsel in the Notice
of Pendency would serve, and declines to Order it be included.
However, she does think that a separate heading on the notice,
titled "Right to Retain Other Counsel, would be appropriate.
Therefore to add clarity, she directs that the notice be amended
such that the three sentences addressing the opt-in plaintiffs'
rights to obtain other counsel be removed from their current
location and placed under a separate heading reading "Right to
Retain Other Counsel."

In her discretion and consistent with the Court's prior decisions,
the Magistrate directs that the opt-in forms be mailed to the Clerk
of the Court.  She is also directing the Clerk of the Court to
redact the address and telephone number of each opt-in prior to
filing the forms on ECF.  The Clerk's Office will need to retain
the unredacted originals in order to provide them to the
Plaintiffs' counsel.

She also finds it appropriate that the Defendants' litigation
position be stated prominently on the first page of the Notice.
The proposed statement of the Defendants' position as set forth in
Plaintiffs' proposed "Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit" is
inadequate.  The proposed statement of the Defendants' position as
set forth in the Plaintiffs' proposed "Notice of Collective Action
Lawsuit" is inadequate.  That statement appears as the last
sentence of the paragraph just above the section on page 1 entitled
"YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS."  The Magistrate Judge directs that this
sentence be deleted and that a new paragraph be inserted which
reads as follows: The Defendants deny the allegations of the
lawsuit and have raised various defenses.  The issue of who is
right and who is wrong has not yet been addressed by the Judge and
the Judge has no opinion on who is right or wrong.

The Magistrate Judge does not find reference to the NYLL in the
Notice to be problematic, especially since the Court has
established a six-year notice period, consistent with the
limitations period under the NYLL.  Accordingly, she will not Order
the Plaintiffs to remove reference to the NYLL in the Notice.

She also directs that the Notice will not be posted at the
Defendants' worksites.  She finds this to be the rare case where
the balance tips in the Defendants' favor, since they have
adequately explained how such a posting would be more burdensome in
the case.

The Magistrate Judge further directs the Defendants to provide the
names, last known mailing addresses, last known telephone numbers,
dates of employment and email addresses to the extent the
Defendants have that information.  The Defendants are not required
and will not provide social security number or dates of birth.
They will provide this information to the Plaintiffs' counsel
within 21 days.

Given the length of time that has passed since the instant motion
was filed, and the diligence of the Plaintiffs' counsel in pursuing
certification, the Magistrate is granting equitable tolling from
the date the motion was filed.

For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification
as an FLSA collective action pursuant to Section 216(b), as set
forth in her Memorandum and Order.  She directed the counsel to
engage in a good faith meet-and-confer, and within 21 days of
issuance of the Order to submit a revised proposed Notice of
Pendency to comply with the directives set forth.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/iHd5ci from Leagle.com.

Abelino H. Ramirez, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brandon David Sherr
-- bsherr@zellerlegal.com -- Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C. &
Justin A. Zeller -- jazeller@zellerlegal.com -- The Law Office of
Justin A. Zeller, P.C.

Heriberto Garriga, Plaintiff, represented by C.K. Lee , Lee
Litigation Group, PLLC, Anne Seelig -- info@leelitigation.com --
Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, Brandon David Sherr, Law Office of
Justin A. Zeller, P.C., Justin A. Zeller, The Law Office of Justin
A. Zeller, P.C. & Taimur Alamgir, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC.

Blonder Builders Inc. & Mitchell Blonder, jointly and severally,
Defendants, represented by Dara Michele Hartman, Law Offices of
Andrew L. Crabtree P.C..


BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Still Faces Suits over Cyber Security Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc. continues to defend itself against
putative class action lawsuits related to a cyber security
incident, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 26, 2018.

On May 12, 2018, the Company issued a public statement that malware
had been discovered at certain Chili's restaurants that resulted in
unauthorized access or acquisition of customer payment card data.
The Company engaged third-party forensic firms and cooperated with
law enforcement to investigate the matter.  Based on the
investigation of the third-party forensic experts, the Company
believes most Company-owned Chili's restaurants were impacted by
the malware during time frames that vary by restaurant, but the
Company believes in each case beginning no earlier than March 21,
2018 and ending no later than April 22, 2018.

The Company was named as a defendant in putative class action
lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada, and two in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, filed on May 24, 2018, May 30,
2018, June 14, 2018, and June 28, 2018, respectively (collectively,
the "Litigation") relating to the cyber security incident.  In the
Litigation, plaintiffs assert various claims stemming from the
cyber security incident at the Company's Chili's restaurants
involving customer payment card information and seek monetary
damages in excess of US$5.0 million, injunctive and declaratory
relief and attorney's fees and costs.

Since the initial filing of these cases, the Nevada plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed his case and joined the Florida lawsuit.
Counsel for all parties subsequently agreed to the transfer of the
California cases to Florida, where they are expected to be
consolidated into a single matter with the case already pending
there.

The Company said, "We believe we have defenses and intend to defend
the Litigation."

Brinker International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns,
develops, operates, and franchises casual dining restaurants in the
United States and internationally.  The Company was founded in 1975
and is based in Dallas, Texas.


CAC FINANCIAL: Files Bid to Dismiss Kokotsis Suit
-------------------------------------------------
CAC Financial Corp. has filed a motion to dismiss the class action
captioned Kokotsis, Annmarie OBO herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAC Financial Corp, Defendant, Case No.
623623/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Oct. 30, 2018).

CAC Financial Corp. provides financial services. The Company offers
accounts receivable solutions. CAC Financial serves customers in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
     775 Park Ave, Suite 255
     Huntington, NY 11743
     Phone: (631) 629-7709

The Defendant is represented by:

     FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, Esq.
     1370 Broadway, Ste. 539
     New York, NY 10018
     Phone: (646) 380-1967


CAMPBELL SOUP: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on September 28, 2018, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey against Campbell Soup Company (NYSE:
CPB). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material
or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is August 31, 2017 through May 31, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Campbell Soup
Company shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class
Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above.
You may move the Court no later than Tuesday, November 27, 2018 to
serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order
to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

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

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Website: www.federmanlaw.com
         Email : rkh@federmanlaw.com  [GN]


CANTON, OH: Enjoined from Enforcing Ordinance 505.14
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL T. ROTH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
CANTON, et al. Defendants, Case No. 5:17CV234 (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 Preliminary and Permanent Injunction filed in October 2017.

On June 5, 2017, Plaintiffs Michael T. Roth, Julie Roth, Kaylyn
Mazeall, and Joy Wagner filed a Third Amended Class Action
Complaint against Defendants City of Canton, Ohio, Canton Police
Department, Shirley Moore, John Doe Canton Police Officers, John
Doe Canton Employees, and John Doe Canton Police Supervisors.
Thereafter, they Plaintiffs filed the within motion for equitable
relief.

The City of Canton enacted ordinances limiting the number of cats
and dogs in a residence.  Prior to May 3, 2017, Canton Codified
Ordinance 505.14: Keeping More Than Five Dogs or Cats read, in
relevant part:

     (a) Except as provided for in Section 505.15, no person
residing within the City will own, possess, harbor or keep more
than five dogs or cats, or any combination thereof, on the premises
of his residence or business at any one time, except that where
litters have been borne to a residing animal, after they have been
weaned, a four-month grace period will be granted to permit the
distribution of such young animals.

     (b) This section will not prohibit the City, through the
Department of Health or other authority, from enforcing any laws or
ordinances concerning the creation of nuisances through the
maintenance of dogs or cats or other animals in numerous
quantities

In addition, Canton Codified Ordinance 505.15 read in relevant part
that no person will be permitted to own, possess, harbor or keep
more than five dogs or cats or any combination thereof in an area
zoned residential except that where litters have been born to a
residing animal, after they have been weaned, a four-month grace
period will be granted to permit the distribution of such young
animals.  Any person desiring to own, possess or keep more than
five dogs or cats or any combination thereof at any one time, in an
area zoned as business or industrial, with the exception of a
litter or a portion of a litter of pups or kittens less than four
months old, will first obtain a permit from the City as provided in
this section and will additionally obtain such other licenses as
may be required by the Ohio Revised Code.

According to the Defendants, a prosecution under either ordinance
is a multi-phase process which generally involves: (1) a party
making a complaint to a License Technician, typically Defendant
Shirley Moore; (2) the License Technician sending a letter to the
person residing at the home warning her that she is violating an
ordinance; and (3) a follow-up visit to the property at least 30
days after the letter is sent to determine if the resident is still
in violation of the ordinance.  If the resident is still in
violation, the License Technician and a police officer take the
information to a prosecutor.

Plaintiff Julie Roth was sent a letter on March 11, 2015, which
informed her that she violated Canton Codified Ordinance 505.15.
Plaintiff Julie Roth owns five dogs.  Plaintiff Michael T. Roth,
who lives with Plaintiff Julie Roth, owns two dogs and two cats.
During a follow-up visit in September 2016, Defendant Shirley Moore
saw seven dogs and two cats in Plaintiff Julie Roth's backyard.  On
Sept. 25, 2016, the Defendants filed a criminal complaint against
Plaintiff Julie Roth in the Canton, Ohio Municipal Court, No. 2016
CRB 04547, charging her with a violation of Canton Codified
Ordinance 505.15.  After a jury trial, Plaintiff Julie Roth was
found guilty of violating Canton Codified Ordinance 505.15.

On April 3, 2017, the Canton City Council amended Ordinance 505.14,
which became effective on May 3, 2017. The amended Ordinance 505.14
now states:

     (a) Except as provided in Section 505.15, a person may not
possess, keep, harbor, or permit to be possessed, kept, or harbored
in or about any dwelling unit or structure under their control a
total of more than five dogs or cats, in any combination, over four
months of age.  Harbor means to give shelter or refuge to.
Dwelling unit and structure are defined in Chapter 1123.

     (b) Any person who violates any provision of this section is
guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree.

The Plaintiffs seek (1) to enjoin enforcement of Canton Codified
Ordinance 505.14 and (2) a declaration that the law is
unconstitutional under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Among other things, Judge Pearson finds that the Plaintiffs have
met the injury-in-fact requirement because they allege an intention
to engage in conduct arguably affecting a constitutional interest,
proscribed in the Ordinance, and have a credible threat of
prosecution thereunder.  Since the threatened enforcement of the
allegedly vague ordinance inhibits the Plaintiffs due process
rights, and the injury can be redressed by enjoining enforcement of
the Ordinance, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have met all the
requirements necessary to have standing to assert the void for
vagueness claim.

Because they do not demonstrate a credible threat of prosecution
for visiting one another's homes with pets in tow, the Plaintiffs
have not alleged an injury-in-fact.  Therefore, the Judge holds
that they lack standing to assert the Freedom of Association
claim.

The Plaintiffs also argue that although under Ohio law a landlord
is not in control of a premises which he rents to a tenant,
Defendants punish landowners based on status when they send
enforcement letters informing them that they are responsible for
violating the Ordinance.  Since they fail to allege an intention to
engage in conduct arguably affecting a constitutional interest, the
Plaintiffs have not met the injury-in-fact requirement, and
accordingly lack standing to bring this claim.

Having found that the Plaintiffs have standing to sue on their void
for vagueness claim, the Judge then assesses the likelihood of
success on the merits that claim.  The Plaintiffs argue that the
Ordinance's construction and the Defendants' failure to define
terms, arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, and misleading
application of the words in practice renders the Ordinance void for
vagueness.  

The Judge holds that it is true that the Fourteenth Amendment does
not require the language to be "mathematically precise," but it
does require that individuals are put on adequate notice that their
conduct violates the law.  When the Defendants misstate the law in
the enforcement letters and fail to define certain terms, the Judge
finds that the Plaintiffs are not given adequate notice as to what
conduct violates the Ordinance.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Defendants use their own
discretion in deciding if an animal is counted in the animal limit
and the Ordinance does not provide an ordinary individual with
notice that an animal is included in the dog or cat limit count
based off of the duration of time it is on the property.
Therefore, there is merit to the void for vagueness claim.
Moreover, when a constitutional violation is likely, there is
potential for irreparable injury and the Defendants do not have a
valid interest in enforcing an unconstitutional ordinance.  In
addition, the public interest militates in favor of injunctive
relief because it is always in the public interest to prevent a
violation of a party's constitutional rights.

For the reasons explained, Judge Pearson granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction.  Pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 65, the Defendants City of Canton and Shirley Moore, and
all those in active concert or participation with them who receive
actual notice of the injunctive order, are enjoined from enforcing
Canton Ordinance 505.14.

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

Michael T. Roth, Julie Roth, Joy wagner & Toni A. Leach,
Plaintiffs, represented by Richard B. Rosenthal & Michela J. Huth.

City of Canton, Ohio, City of Canton Police Department, Shirley
Moore, In her official and individual capacity & John Does, Police
Officers and Supervisors, in their official and individual
capacities, Defendants, represented by Kristen Bates Aylward, City
of Canton Department of Law & Kevin R. L'Hommedieu, City of Canton
Department of Law.


CAPITAL ONE: Settlement of "Monetary Damages Class" Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Court proceedings are underway for approval of the settlement with
the "monetary damages class" in a class action against Capital One
Financial Corporation, among other defendants, related to
interchange fees, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018.

In 2005, a putative class of retail merchants filed antitrust
lawsuits against MasterCard and Visa and several issuing banks,
including Capital One, seeking both injunctive relief and monetary
damages for an alleged conspiracy by defendants to fix the level of
interchange fees.  Other merchants have asserted similar claims in
separate lawsuits, and while these separate cases did not name any
issuing banks, Visa, MasterCard and issuers, including Capital One,
have entered settlement and judgment sharing agreements allocating
the liabilities of any judgment or settlement arising from all
interchange-related cases

The lawsuits were consolidated before the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York for certain purposes and were
settled in 2012.  The class settlement, however, was invalidated by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in June
2016, and the suit was separated into separate class actions
seeking injunctive and monetary relief, respectively.  In addition,
numerous merchant groups opted out of the 2012 settlement and have
pursued their own claims.  The claims by the injunctive relief
class have not been resolved, but the parties reached a new
settlement agreement with the monetary damages class in August
2018, whereby the class would receive up to approximately US$6.2
billion collectively from the defendants in exchange for a release
of their claims, depending on the percentage of class plaintiffs
who opt out.  Court proceedings are underway for approval of that
settlement.

Visa and MasterCard have also settled several of the opt-out cases,
which required non-material payments from issuing banks, including
Capital One.  Visa created a litigation escrow account following
its IPO of stock in 2008 that funds settlements for its member
banks, and any settlements related to MasterCard-allocated losses
have either already been paid or are reflected in Capital One's
reserves.

Capital One Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding
company for the Capital One Bank (USA), National Association; and
Capital One, National Association, which provides various financial
products and services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through three segments: Credit Card, Consumer
Banking, and Commercial Banking.  Capital One Financial Corporation
was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.


CBOE GLOBAL: Centralized VIX Litigation Underway in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
Cboe Global Markets, Inc. is facing a consolidated complaint in a
putative class action pending in the federal district court for the
Northern District of Illinois related to the Cboe Volatility Index
methodology (VIX), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018.

On March 20, 2018, a putative class action complaint captioned
Tomasulo v. Cboe Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-02025 was filed
in federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging that the Company intentionally designed its products,
operated its platforms, and formulated the method for calculating
VIX and the Special Opening Quotation, (i.e., the special VIX value
designed by the Company and calculated on the settlement date of
VIX derivatives prior to the opening of trading), in a manner that
could be collusively manipulated by a group of entities named as
John Doe defendants.  A number of similar putative class actions,
some of which do not name the Company as a party, were filed in
federal court in Illinois and New York on behalf of investors in
certain volatility-related products.

On June 14, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
centralized the putative class actions in the federal district
court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On September 28, 2018, plaintiffs filed a master, consolidated
complaint that is a putative class action alleging various claims
against the Company and John Doe defendants in the federal district
court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The claims asserted
against the Company consist of a Securities Exchange Act fraud
claim, three Commodity Exchange Act claims and a state law
negligence claim.

Plaintiffs request a judgment awarding class damages in an
unspecified amount, as well as punitive or exemplary damages in an
unspecified amount, prejudgment interest, costs including
attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses and such other relief as
the court may deem just and proper.

Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, the Company is
still evaluating the facts underlying the complaints, however, the
Company currently believes that the claims are without merit and
intends to litigate the matter vigorously.  The Company is unable
to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this
litigation.

Cboe Global Markets, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
options exchange in the United States.  The company operates in
five segments: Options, U.S. Equities, Futures, European Equities,
and Global FX.  The Company was formerly known as CBOE Holdings,
Inc. and changed its name to Cboe Global Markets, Inc. in October
2017.  Cboe Global Markets, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


CBS CORP: Reaches Settlement of Investors' Lawsuit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated action, In re CBS Corporation Litigation,
Consol. C.A. No. 2018-0342-AGB (Del. Ch.), the parties has entered
into a settlement and release agreement to dismiss with prejudice
all claims in the consolidated action, according to CBS
Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2018.

The Settlement Agreement includes mutual releases and covenants not
to sue among the parties with respect to NAI's and NAIEH's
investment in the Company, including the claims asserted in such
action, subject to certain exceptions, and the Company has agreed
to indemnify, and reimburse expenses of, certain parties, on the
terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement, including with respect
to the consolidated action and the defendants in the Westmoreland
lawsuit.  In connection with the Settlement Agreement, the Board
rescinded the May 2018 Stock Dividend.  In addition, NAI and NAIEH
took action by written consent to amend the Company's amended and
restated bylaws.

On May 14, 2018, the Company and certain of the independent
directors of the Company's Board of Directors (the "Board") filed a
lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against National
Amusements, Inc. ("NAI"), Ms. Shari Redstone, Mr. Sumner M.
Redstone, NAI Entertainment Holdings LLC ("NAIEH") and the Sumner
M. Redstone National Amusements Trust (the "SMR Trust")
(collectively, the "NAI Parties").  The verified complaint, as
amended on May 23, 2018, alleged, among other things, that NAI, Mr.
Sumner M. Redstone and Ms. Shari Redstone had breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by abusing their
control to threaten the independent corporate governance of the
Company.  The amended verified complaint sought a declaration that
the May 2018 Stock Dividend was valid and permissible, a
declaration that the Bylaw Amendments were invalid or were
ineffective as of May 17, 2018 and an injunction against any action
by any of the NAI Parties to interfere with the composition of the
Board or to modify the Company's governance documents before the
issuance of any shares pursuant to the May 2018 Stock Dividend.

On May 16, 2018, each of NAI and NAIEH delivered to the Company a
written consent to amend (the "Bylaw Amendments") the Company's
amended and restated bylaws (the "Bylaws").  On May 17, 2018, the
Board voted 11 to 3 in favor of a pro rata dividend of 0.5687 of a
share of the Company's voting Class A Common Stock for each share
of the Company's Class A Common Stock and non-voting Class B Common
Stock to stockholders of record as of the close of business on the
record date and conditioned the issuance of such dividend on
Delaware court approval (the "May 2018 Stock Dividend").

On May 29, 2018, NAI, NAIEH and Ms. Shari Redstone filed a lawsuit
in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company and certain
of the Company's directors.  NAI's verified complaint, as amended
on June 25, 2018 and July 27, 2018, alleged, among other things,
that the May 2018 Stock Dividend violated the Company's bylaws and
certificate of incorporation, and that the directors named as
defendants had breached their fiduciary duties in approving the May
2018 Stock Dividend.  The amended verified complaint sought a
declaration that the Bylaw Amendments were valid, a declaration
that the May 2018 Stock Dividend was invalid, an injunction against
issuance and payment of the May 2018 Stock Dividend and any action
by the defendants to carry out the May 2018 Stock Dividend, and
other relief.

On June 7, 2018, the Court consolidated the lawsuits under the
consolidated action captioned In re CBS Corporation Litigation,
Consol. C.A. No. 2018-0342-AGB (Del. Ch.) (the "consolidated
action").

On September 9, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement and
release agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with NAI, NAIEH, the
SMR Trust, Mr. Sumner M. Redstone, Ms. Shari Redstone and the other
then members of the Board, among other parties.  Pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement, among other matters, the parties dismissed
with prejudice all claims in the consolidated action.  The
Settlement Agreement includes mutual releases and covenants not to
sue among the parties with respect to NAI's and NAIEH's investment
in the Company, including the claims asserted in such action,
subject to certain exceptions, and the Company has agreed to
indemnify, and reimburse expenses of, certain parties, on the terms
set forth in the Settlement Agreement, including with respect to
the consolidated action and the defendants in the Westmoreland
lawsuit.  In connection with the Settlement Agreement, the Board
rescinded the May 2018 Stock Dividend.  In addition, NAI and NAIEH
took action by written consent to amend the Company's amended and
restated bylaws.

CBS Corporation operates as a mass media company worldwide.  The
company operates through four segments: Entertainment, Cable
Networks, Publishing, and Local Media.  The Company was founded in
1986 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CBS CORP: Reaches Settlement of Westmoreland Employees' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to a Court-approved settlement agreement entered into by
the parties, the class action lawsuit by Westmoreland County
Employees' Retirement System against CBS Corporation, among other
defendants, was dismissed without prejudice as moot on September
14, 2018, according to CBS Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2018.  The Delaware Court of Chancery retained
jurisdiction to consider any application for attorneys' fees and
expenses submitted by Westmoreland or its counsel.

On May 31, 2018, Westmoreland County Employees' Retirement System
("Westmoreland"), a purported beneficial owner of the Company's
Class B Common Stock, filed a class action complaint in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against NAI, NAIEH, Mr. David R.
Andelman, Mr. Robert N. Klieger and Ms. Shari Redstone (the
"Westmoreland lawsuit"), which alleged breaches of contractual
obligations, implied obligations and fiduciary duties to the
Company's Class B Common Stock holders in connection with the Bylaw
Amendments and interference with the issuance by the Board of the
May 2018 Stock Dividend.

Westmoreland's complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the
Company's certificate of incorporation authorized the May 2018
Stock Dividend, that Westmoreland and the class were entitled to
the May 2018 Stock Dividend, and that the Bylaw Amendments were
invalid, as well as other relief.

On September 14, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered a
stipulation agreed to by the parties whereby the Westmoreland
lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice as moot and the Court
retained jurisdiction to consider any application for attorneys'
fees and expenses submitted by Westmoreland or its counsel.

CBS Corporation operates as a mass media company worldwide.  The
company operates through four segments: Entertainment, Cable
Networks, Publishing, and Local Media.  The Company was founded in
1986 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Records $11.6MM Settlement Cost at September 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018,
Century Aluminum Company disclosed US$2.0 million in other current
liabilities and US$9.6 million in other liabilities at September
30, 2018, related to a settlement agreement of two lawsuits
associated to Ravenswood Retiree Medical Benefits.

In November 2009, Century Aluminum of West Virginia ("CAWV") filed
a class action complaint for declaratory judgment against the
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union ("USW"),
the USW's local and certain CAWV retirees, individually and as
class representatives ("CAWV Retirees"), seeking a declaration of
CAWV's rights to modify/terminate retiree medical benefits.  Later
in November 2009, the USW and representatives of a retiree class
filed a separate suit against CAWV, Century Aluminum Company,
Century Aluminum Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John Does
with respect to the foregoing.  

On August 18, 2017, the District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia approved a settlement agreement in respect of these
actions.  Under the terms of the settlement agreement, CAWV agreed
to make payments into a trust for the benefit of the CAWV Retirees
in the aggregate amount of US$23.0 million over the course of 10
years.

The Company said, "Upon approval of the settlement, we paid US$5.0
million to the aforementioned trust in September 2017 and agreed to
pay the remaining amounts under the settlement agreement in annual
increments of US$2.0 million for nine years.  At September 30,
2018, we had US$2.0 million in other current liabilities and US$9.6
million in other liabilities related to this agreement."

Century Aluminum Company is a global producer of primary aluminum
and operates aluminum reduction facilities, or "smelters," in the
United States and Iceland.  The Company's primary aluminum
facilities produce standard-grade and value-added primary aluminum
products.  The Company is a Delaware corporation with principal
executive offices located in Chicago, Illinois.


CHAMPION PETFOODS: Colangelo Sues over Contaminated Dog Food
------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL COLANGELO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA, INC.; and
CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-01228-LEK-DEP
(N.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
their negligent, reckless, and intentional practice of
misrepresenting and failing to fully disclose the presence of heavy
metals and toxins in their pet food sold throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite the known risks
of exposure to heavy metals, the Defendants have negligently,
recklessly, and knowingly sold, manufacture, market, advertise,
label, distribute, and sell pet food under the brand names Acana
and Orijen throughout the United States, without disclosing they
contain levels of arsenic, mercury, cadmium and lead to consumers.
The Defendants have wrongfully and misleadingly advertised and sold
Acana and Orijen without any label or warning indicating to
consumers that these products contain heavy metals, or that these
toxins can over time accumulate in the dog’s body to the point
where poisoning, injury, and/or disease can occur.

Champion Petfoods LP produces and markets pet food products for
dogs and cats. The company offers meat ingredients, fruits and
vegetables, and meat concentrated and protein based products. Its
products are sold through pet specialty shops and retailers in the
United States and Canada; veterinary clinics in Canada; and
distributors in the United States and internationally. The company
was founded in 1975 and is based in Edmonton, Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles J. Laduca, Esq.
          Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
          Brendan S. Thompson, Esq.
          4725 Wisconsin Ave NW,, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
                  kvandyck@cuneolaw.com
                  brendan@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
          Steven M. Mckany, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail:  kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
                   smckany@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street,
          Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
                  jbourne@gustafsongluek.com
                  rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com


CHEETAH MOBILE: Made Unsolicited Calls, Rosso Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT ROSSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHEETAH MOBILE AMERICA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:18-cv-06362-NC (N.D. Cal., Oct. 17, 2018) seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Cheetah Mobile America, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Andrea Gold, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L. Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  agold@tzlegal.com

                - and -

          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 Suite 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


CHEMED CORP: Class Discovery Still Stayed in "Williams" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class discovery remains stayed in the case captioned Williams v.
VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, filed on May 22, 2017
in Alameda County Superior Court, RG 17853886., according to Chemed
Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2018.

The lawsuit, filed by Jazzina Williams (a Home Health Aide in
Sacramento), alleges claims for (1) failure to pay all wages due;
(2) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (3) failure to
provide off-duty meal periods; (4) failure to furnish accurate wage
statements; (5) unreimbursed business expenses; (6) waiting time
penalties; and (7) violations of the Private Attorneys General Act.
Williams seeks to pursue these claims in the form of a state-wide
class action of current and former non-exempt employees.

Plaintiff served VITAS with the lawsuit on May 31, 2017.  VITAS CA
timely answered the Complaint generally denying Plaintiff's
allegations.  Williams is pursing discovery of her individual claim
and has agreed to a stay of class discovery pending mediation in
the Jordan Seper and Jiwann Chhina cases.

Defendant filed and served each of plaintiffs in the Williams,
Phillips, and Moore cases with a Notice of Related Cases on July
19, 2017.

Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in
the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and
Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio.


CHEMED CORP: Class Discovery Still Stayed in Phillips Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
All class discovery is still stayed for the case captioned Chere
Phillips and Lady Moore v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of
California, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No.
34-2017-0021-2755, according to Chemed Corporation's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

On May 19, 2017, Chere Phillips (a Home Health Aide in Sacramento)
and Lady Moore (a former Social Worker in Sacramento) filed a
lawsuit against VITAS Healthcare Corp of CA ("VITAS CA") in
Sacramento County Superior Court, alleging claims for (1) failure
to pay all wages due; (2) failure to authorize and permit rest
periods; (3) failure to provide off-duty meal periods; (4) failure
to furnish accurate wage statements; (5) unreimbursed business
expenses; (6) waiting time penalties; (7) violations of unfair
competition law; and (8) violation of the Private Attorneys General
Act.

Plaintiffs sought to pursue these claims in the form of a
state-wide class action of current and former non-exempt employees
employed with VITAS CA in California within the four years
preceding the filing of the lawsuit.  Plaintiffs served VITAS with
the lawsuit on June 5, 2017.  VITAS CA timely answered the
Complaint generally denying the Plaintiffs' allegations.

The Court has stayed all class discovery in this case pending
resolution of mediation in the employee class action complaints of
Jordan Seper and Jiwann Chhina.

Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in
the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and
Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio.


CHEMED CORP: Jiwann Chhina Joins Seper Class Suit v. VITAS Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that the employee class action suits filed by
Jordan Seper and by Jiwann Chhina have been consolidated in Los
Angeles County Superior court. The Chhina case was dismissed as a
separate action and joined with the Seper case through the filing
of an amended complaint in Seper in which Chhina is also identified
as a named plaintiff on August 28, 2018.

Jordan Seper ("Seper"), a Registered Nurse at VITAS' Inland Empire
program from May 12, 2014 to March 21, 2015, filed a lawsuit in San
Francisco Superior Court on September 26, 2016.  She alleged VITAS
Healthcare Corp of CA ("VITAS CA") (1) failed to provide minimum
wage for all hours worked; (2) failed to provide overtime for all
hours worked; (3) failed to provide a second meal period; (4)
failed to provide rest breaks; (5) failed to indemnify for
necessary expenditures; (6) failed to timely pay wages due at time
of separation; and (7) engaged in unfair business practices.  Seper
seeks a state-wide class action of current and former non-exempt
employees employed with VITAS in California within the four years
preceding the filing of the lawsuit.  She seeks court determination
that this action may be maintained as a class action for the entire
California class and subclasses, designation as class
representative, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, damages
(including wages for regular or overtime hours allegedly worked but
not paid, premium payments for missed meal or rest periods, and
unreimbursed expenses), all applicable penalties associated with
each claim, pre and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.  Seper served VITAS CA with the lawsuit, Jordan A. Seper on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. VITAS Healthcare
Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation; VITAS Healthcare
Corp of CA, a business entity unknown; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive; Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC 642857 on
October 13, 2016 ("Jordan Seper case").

On November 14, 2016, the Parties filed a Stipulation to transfer
the venue of the lawsuit from San Francisco to Los Angeles.  The
Los Angeles Superior Court Complex Division accepted transfer of
the case on December 6, 2016 and stayed the case.  On December 16,
2016, VITAS CA filed its Answer and served written discovery on
Seper.

Jiwann Chhina ("Chhina"), hired by VITAS as a Home Health Aide on
February 5, 2002, is currently a Licensed Vocational Nurse for
VITAS' San Diego program.  On September 27, 2016, Chhina filed a
lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court, alleging (1) failure to pay
minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failure to provide overtime
for all hours worked; (3) failure to pay wages for all hours at the
regular rate; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5) failure to
provide rest breaks; (6) failure to provide complete and accurate
wage statements; (7) failure to pay for all reimbursement expenses;
(8) unfair business practices; and (9) violation of the California
Private Attorneys General Act.  Chhina seeks to pursue these claims
in the form of a state-wide class action of current and former
non-exempt employees employed with VITAS in California within the
four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit.  He seeks court
determination that this action may be maintained as a class action
for the entire California class and subclasses, designation as
class representative, declaratory relief, injunctive relief,
damages (including wages for regular or overtime hours allegedly
worked but not paid, premium payments for missed meal or rest
period, and unreimbursed expenses), all applicable penalties
associated with each claim, pre-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs.  Chhina served VITAS CA with the lawsuit, Jiwan
Chhina v. VITAS Health Services of California, Inc., a California
corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware
corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware
corporation dba VITAS Healthcare Inc.; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive; San Diego Superior Court Case Number
37-2015-00033978-CU-OE-CTL on November 3, 2016 ("Jiwann Chhina
case").  On December 1, 2016, VITAS CA filed its Answer and served
written discovery on Chhina.

The Jordan Seper and Jiwann Chhina cases have been consolidated in
Los Angeles County Superior court; Chhina was dismissed as a
separate action and joined with Seper through the filing of an
amended complaint in Seper in which Chhina is also identified as a
named plaintiff, on August 28, 2018.

Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in
the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and
Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Burns Class Certification Recommendation Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHAD BURNS and DAVID TORRES On Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHESAPEAKE
ENERGY, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
5:15-cv-01016-RCL (W.D. Tex.), Judge Ryce C. Lamberth of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Trxas, San Antonio
Division, granted the Defendants' Motion for Partial
Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation of class
certification relating to the Plaintiffs' straight-time wage claims
under Texas law.

Burns and Torres bring the action on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated against Chesapeake, Wild Purge I, LLC,
and John Doe Defendants I to 5.  The Plaintiffs seek unpaid
overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and
the federal Portal-to-Portal Act, as well as unpaid straight-time
wages under the equitable theory of quantum meruit under Texas law
("wage-theft claims").

The Plaintiffs worked for Chesapeake as oilfield workers performing
"pumper" and/or "gauger" related duties in and around the Eagle
Ford Shale area of South Texas.  Their typical duties included
checking, maintaining, and repairing field equipment and providing
reports on the status of field equipment.  Chesapeake used Wild
Purge as its third-party payor and workforce staffing company to
provide workforce personnel and issue paychecks to Chesapeake
employees, including the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Chesapeake and Wild Purge acted as their joint employers.

At issue in the case, Burns seeks the formation of a class for
straight-time wage claims pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.  Burns has asked the Court to certify under
Rule 23 the class of the Plaintiffs and all affected employees of
Chesapeake who worked for Chesapeake, and were paid by Wild Purge
in the Eagle Ford Shale of South Texas, who have not received all
straight time wages owed by Chesapeake and Wild Purge for work
completed for Chesapeake relative to Chesapeake's oilfield
operations.  The alleged injury against the putative class consists
of the Defendants not paying the Plaintiffs for work completed for
Chesapeake, even though the Plaintiffs timely submitted invoices to
Wild Purge.

The Plaintiffs moved for Conditional Certification of a Collective
Action and Rule 23 Class Action Certification on Sept. 16, 2016.
The Defendants responded to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Certification on Oct. 7, 2016, but they failed to respond to the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class Action Certification.  On
March 14, 2017, the Court issued an Amended Order Conditionally
Certifying Collective Action and a Report and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge as to Certifying Class Action.

On March 28, 2017, the Defendants moved for partial reconsideration
of the order as to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation of Rule 23
class certification for the Plaintiffs' straight-time wage claims.
The Plaintiffs submitted their opposition brief on April 11, 2017,
and the Defendants submitted a reply brief in support of their
motion on April 18, 2017.

On July 9, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a Request for Oral Argument
Regarding Defendants' Objections to Portions of the Magistrate's
Order on Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification.  The
Defendants filed their opposition brief on July 13, 2018 and the
Paintiffs submitted a reply brief in support of their motion on
July 16, 2018.

Wild Purge failed to make an appearance, and Judge Pitman granted
default judgment against Wild Purge on March 29, 2017.

The Plaintiffs seek recovery under the equitable theory of quantum
meruit under Texas law.  Quantum meruit allows for an equitable
recovery based upon the promise implied by law to pay for
beneficial services rendered and knowingly accepted.  The Court
does not need to address the Defendants' argument as to why
reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation is proper
because the Court reviews the Recommendation de novo.

The Defendants claim that: (1) they failed to respond to the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class Action Certification due to an
administrative error by counsel; (2) the Plaintiffs failed to meet
the requirements of class certification under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23; and (3) the Plaintiffs failed to comply with Western
District Local Rules regarding the class action and settlement
negotiations.

Upon consideration of the motion, the Plaintiffs' opposition, the
Defendants' reply, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the
entire record, and the applicable law, Judge Lamberth finds that
Plaintiffs have not satisfied all of the the requirements of Rule
23 as to the their straight-time wage claims.  He therefore granted
the Defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration and rejected the
Magistrate Judge's Recommendation as to Certifying Class Action.

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

Chad Burns, On Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly
Situated & David Torres, On behalf of Themselves and all Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Glenn Deutsch Levy
-- glenn@glennlevylaw.com -- Law Office of Glenn D. Levy, Michael
Van Ellis, Baron and Budd, P.C., Rebecca Currier, Baron & Budd,
P.C., Melinda Arbuckle, Baron & Budd, P.C. & Allen R. Vaught --
avaught@baronbudd.com -- Baron and Budd PC.

Chesapeake Energy, Inc., Chesapeake Operating L.L.C. & Chesapeake
Energy Corporation, Defendants, represented by Bruce A. Griggs --
bruce.griggs@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart,
PC & Erika L. Leonard -- erika.leonard@ogletree.com -- Ogletree
Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, PC.


CONCESIONARIA VUELA: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in Kindt Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Concesionaria Vuela Compania de Aviacion SAPI de CV filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Malina Kindt
v. Concesionaria Vuela Compania de Aviacion SAPI de CV, Case No.
3:17-cv-04333-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 24, 2018, Judge
James Donato denied the Defendant's motion dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction and for pre-emption by the Airline
Deregulation Act of 1978 ("ADA").

In the putative class action for damages and injunctive relief,
named Plaintiff Kindt alleges that Defendant Concesionaria Vuela
Compania de Aviacion S.A.P.I. de C.V. ("Volaris"), a commercial
airline company, violated California state law by recording
customer calls without notice.  The case was originally filed in
the Superior Court for the County of Alameda.  Volaris removed on
the basis of the Class Action Fairness Act, which is a special
application of diversity jurisdiction.  Kindt did not challenge the
removal.

As alleged in the complaint, Volaris operates passenger airline
services between the United States, Mexico and Central America.
Kindt called a toll-free customer service number offered by Volaris
to purchase airline tickets for travel to and from Mexico.  She
alleges that Volaris recorded her call without notice.  She alleges
a single claim under California Penal Code Sections 632.7 and
637.2, which provide a private right of action for individuals
whose communications have been surreptitiously recorded.  She sues
on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated California
residents.

The appellate case is captioned as Malina Kindt v. Concesionaria
Vuela Compania de Aviacion SAPI de CV, Case No. 18-17021, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Concesionaria Vuela Compania de Aviacion SAPI de
      CV's opening brief is due on December 17, 2018;

   -- Appellee Malina Kindt's answering brief is due on
      January 17, 2019; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee MALINA KINDT, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, is represented by:

          Scot Bernstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN,
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 447-0100
          E-mail: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com

               - and -

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543-1305
          E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com

Defendant-Appellant CONCESIONARIA VUELA COMPANIA DE AVIACION SAPI
DE CV is represented by:

          Shelley Gershon Hurwitz, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2040
          Telephone: (213) 896-2476
          E-mail: Shelley.Hurwitz@hklaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher G. Kelly, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
          31 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 513-3200
          E-mail: christopher.kelly@hklaw.com


CRESCENT CONSULTING: Whitlow Suit Reassigned to Hon. D.L. Russell
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The class action captioned Tommy Whitlow on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Crescent Consulting,
L.L.C. an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
5:18-cv-01057 (W.D. Ok., Oct. 29, 2018) has been reassigned to
Honorable David L. Russell for all further proceedings.

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

Crescent Consulting is represented by:

     Dwain Jared Giddens, Esq.
     Conner & Winters LLP
     One Leadership Square
     211 N. Robinson, Ste 1700
     Oklahoma City, OK 73102
     Phone: (405) 272-5711
     Fax: (405) 232-2695
     Email: jgiddens@cwlaw.com




CSI ELECTRICAL: Denial of Payton Class Certification Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES PAYTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CSI
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents,
Case No. B284065 (Cal. App.), Judge Elwood Lui of the Court of
Appeals of California for the Second District, Division Two,
affirmed the trial court's order denying class certification.

Payton filed the putative class action alleging wage and hour
violations against Respondents CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc. and
First Solar, Inc.  The claims arose from construction work on a
solar farm project in San Luis Obispo County.

Payton was hired on May 22, 2012, by CSI as an electrical and
construction worker to work on the Topaz Solar Farm.  He claims he
was "effectively terminated" less than a month later on June 14,
2012.  First Solar was the "owner, operator and manager" of the
Topaz Solar Farm, which is located in San Luis Obispo County.

Respondents provided buses that transported employees from employee
parking lots to the jobsite.  Travel time to the site could take up
to an hour and a half.  Payton claimed that Respondents were
obligated under certain union contracts to pay travel time for
employees who took these buses.  He asserted class claims for the
alleged failure to pay travel time, including claims for overtime
compensation where warranted.

Payton also alleged that Respondents violated applicable
regulations governing rest periods and meal breaks by tacking the
second of the required two daily rest breaks onto the end of the
mid-day meal period.  He asserted class claims for this alleged
violation on behalf of employees who worked shifts longer than six
hours.

In addition to these class claims, Payton asserted an individual
claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.  He
claimed that he suffered an injury on the job causing a "deep gash
in his wrist."  He alleged that the injury exposed a fault in the
safety gear provided by the Defendants and that the Respondents
provided inadequate treatment.  He claimed that his employment was
terminated after he complained about the lack of proper safety
equipment and about the Respondents' failure to provide him with
adequate care for his injury. He further claimed that Respondents
falsely reported the reason for the termination as a reduction of
workforce.

Payton filed a motion seeking certification of these two classes:

      a. The Rest Period Class was allegedly composed of all
persons employed by CSI in the State of California as construction
workers at the Topaz Solar Farm during the period from Oct. 21,
2009 to the date the class is certified who do not opt out and who
worked a shift longer than six hours.

     b. The Travel Pay Class allegedly consisted of all persons
employed by CSI in the State of California as construction workers
at the Topaz Solar Farm during the period from Oct. 21, 2009 to the
date the class is certified who do not opt out and who traveled to
or from the work site using transportation provided by CSI or First
Solar.

The Rest Period Class concerned persons affected by the
Respondents' alleged practice of "tacking" the required 10-minute
afternoon rest break onto the end of the 30-minute lunch break,
resulting in a 40-minute mid-day break rather than a separate
mid-afternoon break.  The Travel Pay Class concerned persons who
were not paid for time spent commuting in company-provided buses to
the construction site, allegedly in violation of union contracts.

The trial court denied certification of both classes.  With respect
to the Rest Period Class, the trial court found that a class action
was inappropriate and unworkable in light of the individual issues
arising from evidence that particular working groups actually
received regular afternoon breaks.  With respect to both classes,
the trial court found that Payton's trial plan was inadequate and
that he was not a suitable class representative.  The trial court
based this finding on Payton's prior criminal convictions and the
fact that he is also pursuing a personal wrongful discharge claim.
The trial court denied Payton's request to look for a new class
representative in light of the age of the case and the other
problems with the motion for class certification.

Payton appeals.

Judge Lui finds that the evidence supports the conclusion that
individual questions would predominate in the proof of liability,
not just damages.  Even under Payton's theory, the site-wide tacked
rest break policy was only unlawful if it was the only break that
employees were provided.  The Respondents could not be liable to
employees who were given the opportunity for regularly scheduled
mid-afternoon breaks in compliance with the law.  The existence of
any common policy is not sufficient to show that common issues
predominate.  The policy in question must be a means to establish
liability on a class-wide basis.

Thus, the Judge will affirm the trial court's ruling that
individual issues predominate with respect to the Rest Break Class,
and that the class therefore could not be certified.  He therefore
needs not consider the trial court's ruling that the Rest Break
Class was overbroad and therefore not ascertainable.

The Judge next finds that the trial court acted within its
discretion in rejecting Payton's proposed trial plan.  Payton's
proposed trial plan contained no discussion of any particular
procedural device other than the idea of a two-phased trial and the
use of a special master.  With respect to the Rest Period Class,
his proposed plan provided no procedure to decide the individual
issues concerning employees who in fact took regular, scheduled
afternoon breaks.  The proposed trial plan also failed to explain
how the court could manage any individual issues concerning the
Travel Pay Class.

The trial court also acted within its discretion in finding that
Payton's claims were not typical of the class and that he was not
an adequate class representative.  The trial court reasonably found
that Payton's wrongful discharge claim posed that danger.  It
reasoned that the credibility battle over the real reason for
Payton's termination would distract from the rest break and travel
pay issues common to the class.  The potential distraction was
heightened by the credibility issues associated with Payton's
failure to disclose his conviction for sale of marijuana on his
union apprenticeship application.  The Judge therefore affirms the
trial court's finding that Payton was not a suitable class
representative.

After concluding that Payton was not an adequate class
representative, the trial court considered his request to
substitute a new representative.  Payton should have sought to add
or substitute a more suitable class representative before filing
his motion for class certification.  The trial court did not abuse
its discretion in denying Payton's request to amend the complaint
made only after Respondents challenged his qualifications as a
class representative in opposing the motion to certify the class.

Finally, the Judge finds that the trial court did not find the same
predominance issues with respect to the Travel Pay Class.  However,
the trial court did reject Payton's proposed trial plan, which
concerned both alleged classes.  As discussed, the trial court
acted within its discretion in doing so.  An amended complaint also
could not have cured the defective trial plan.

For these reasons, Judge Lui affirmed the trial court's order
denying class certification.  The Respondents are entitled to their
costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/NfOl8n from Leagle.com.

Peter R. Dion-Kindem -- peter@dion-kindemlaw.com; The Blanchard Law
Group and Lonnie C. Blanchard, III -- lonnieblanchard@gmail.com --
for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, Ronald W. Novotny --
rnovotny@aalrr.com -- and Jon M. Setoguchi -- jsetoguchi@aalrr.com
-- for Defendant and Respondent CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc.

Pacific Employment Law, Maureen K. Bogue --
maureen@pacificemploymentlaw.com -- and Noah Levin --
noah@pacificemploymentlaw.com -- for Defendant and Respondent First
Solar, Inc.


CVS PHARMACY: Underpays Inventory Specialists, Polillio Says
------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN POLILLIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
18-3231-G (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., Oct. 17, 2018) seeks to
recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, minimum
wage, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs.

Ms. Polillio was employed by the Defendant as inventory specialist
from May 2015 to April 2018.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. operates pharmacy and drug stores in the United
States. The company sells its products through retail stores and
online. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. was formerly known as CVS, Inc. and
changed its name to CVS Pharmacy, Inc. in February 1997. The
company was incorporated in 1969 and is based in Woonsocket, Rhode
Island. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of CVS Health
Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brook S. Lane, Esq.
          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-3260
          Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
          E-mail: brook@fairworklaw.com
                  hillary@fairworklaw.com


CYPRUS PAINTING: Duran Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Duran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cyprus Painting Corp. and Michael Saittis, Case No.
1:18-cv-06174 (E.D. N.Y., November 2, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are liable under the FLSA
for failing to properly compensate Plaintiff and the Collective
Class. There are numerous similarly situated current and former
employees of Defendants who have been denied overtime pay in
violation of the FLSA and NYLL, notes the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a painter and plasterer by the
Defendants from 2001 until August 2018.

The Defendants own and operate Cyprus Painting Corp., a corporation
organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive
office at 14-41 139th Street, Whitestone, New York 11357. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Tel: (718) 263-9591
      Fax: (718) 263-9598


D.S. & DURGA: Website not Accessible to Blind Person, Figueroa Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. D.S. & DURGA, LLC., the
Defendant,Case 1:18-cv-05943 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2018), seeks to
put an end to systemic civil rights violations committed by  the
Defendant against sight-impaired, disabled individuals, on account
of its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, under
Americans with Disability Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
access and read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff
uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all
individuals with visual impairments who meet the legal definition
of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of
less than or equal to 20/200. Some blind individuals who meet this
definition have limited vision. Others have no vision.

The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under ADA. Because the Defendants' website is
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals,
it violates the ADA, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 971-9474
          Facsimile: (718) 865-0943
          E-mail: Jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


DONALD TRUMP: Faces Class Action Over "Systemic Fraud"
------------------------------------------------------
Colby Hamilton, writing for Law.com, reports that a new lawsuit in
Manhattan federal court claims President Donald Trump and his
children spent years knowingly promoting products and services to
unsophisticated investors that they knew were unlikely to succeed,
despite assurances to the contrary, all while secretly being
financially compensated, according to a new class action suit filed
in Manhattan federal court on Oct. 29.


DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Dec. 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on Oct. 29 notified investors in
Dycom Industries, Inc. (NYSE: DY) of the December 24, 2018 Lead
Plaintiff deadline in the securities class action pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Dycom securities between
November 20, 2017 and August 10, 2018 (the "class period") and
suffered losses contact Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.  For more
information visit:

https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/DY

or contact Reed Kathrein -- reed@hbsslaw.com -- who is leading the
firm's investigation, by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing

DY@hbsslaw.com.

Within three months during the class period, Defendants twice
reduced Dycom's financial guidance.

The first time, on May 22, 2018, Dycom and management partially
blamed the reduction on margin pressure resulting from
"under-absorption of labor and field costs as large customer
programs mobilized" and assured investors Dycom's permitting
process was "getting better."  This news drove the price of Dycom
shares down $23.56, or about 20%, to close at $92.64.

Then, on August 13, 2018, they again reduced financial guidance.
The Company and management partially blamed the reduction in part
on margin pressure and, in addition, on permitting issues.  This
news drove the price of Dycom shares down $21.62, or about 24%, to
close at $68.09.

"We're focused on investors' losses and the extent to which
Defendants' statements concerning margins and permitting were
misleading," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers:  Persons with non-public information regarding
Dycom should consider their options to help in the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.  Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC.  For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 510-725-3000 or email DY@hbsslaw.com.

                     About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a national
investor-rights law firm headquartered in Seattle, Washington with
80+ attorneys in 10 offices across the country.  The Firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation.


EAST TEXAS HEALTH: Newland Sues Over Unpaid Emergency Healthcare
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chasidy Newland, on behalf of the Estate of Morgan Rae Carroll,
deceased, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. East
Texas Health System, LLC dba UT Health East Texas Health System,
Athens Hospital LLC dba UT Health East Texas Athens Hospital and
Tyler Regional Hospital, LLC and UT Health Tyler, Case No.
GN-18-006670 (D. Tex., November 2, 2018), seeks legal declarations
regarding the rights of patients without government or private
health insurance who sought and obtained medical services at any
medical facility within the East Texas Health System including UT
Health Athens and UT Health Tyler pursuant to Chapter 37 of the
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Defendants' standard
Contract for emergency room care only permits billing for, and
collection of, amounts constituting the reasonable and regular
value of the treatment Defendants provides.

This petition applies only to patients who were provided emergency
care at a medical facility owned or operated by East Texas Health
System, UT Health Athens and UT Health Tyler between the dates of
October 30. 2014 and the present, whose bills were not paid in
whole or part by commercial insurance or a governmental healthcare
program, and who did not have their bills waived or written off in
full by Defendants prior to the filing of this lawsuit.

The Plaintiff Chasidy Newland, a Texas citizen and resident of
Henderson County, is the surviving parent of Morgan Carroll, who
was admitted to and treated at East Texas Medical Center Athens.

The Defendants provide medical care in the State of Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric D. Pearson, Esq.
      John W. Pate, Esq.
      HEYGOOD, ORR & PEARSON
      6363 N. State Highway 161, Ste 450
      Irving, TX 75038
      Tel: (214) 237-9001
      Fax: (214) 237-9002
      E-mail: eric@hop-law.com
              john@hop-law.com


ENTEROMEDICS INC: Settlement in Du Suit Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VINH DU, derivatively on behalf of ENTEROMEDICS, INC.
and individually and on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of ENTEROMEDICS, INC., Plaintiff, v. GARY
BLACKFORD, DAN W. GLADNEY, CARL GOLDFISCHER, BOBBY I. GRIFFIN, LORI
C. McDOUGAL, NICHOLAS L. TETI JR., JON T. TREMMEL, NAGEEB A.
ANSARI, PETER M. DELANGE, PAUL F. HICKEY, SCOTT YOUNGSTROM, and
ENTEROMEDICS, INC., Defendants, and ENTEROMEDICS, INC., Nominal
Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-cv-194 (D. Del.), Judge Eduardo C.
Robreno of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
granted the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action and Derivative Settlement and Notice to Stockholders.

On Feb. 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a derivative class action
complaint on behalf of EnteroMedics, alleging claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against the Defendants.  The
Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by: (1) making false and misleading statements in connection
with soliciting stockholder approval of: (a) an amendment to
EnteroMedics's Certificate of Incorporation to effect a reverse
stock split of the Company's outstanding and issued shares of
common stock); and (b) an amendment to the Company's Second Amended
and Restated 2003 Stock Incentive Plan that increased the number of
shares available for issuance under the Stock Plan; and (2)
granting and receiving stock options in February 2017 after the
Reverse Stock Split and Stock Plan were approved by stockholders.

The Defendants moved to dismiss, and after a hearing, the Court
denied the motion.  The parties then engaged in significant
discovery.  Towards the end of discovery, after more fully
understanding the strengths and weaknesses of their positions, the
parties began settlement discussions and negotiated the current
proposed settlement agreement.  The Court held a hearing on the
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on Sept. 24,
2018.

The terms of the proposed class action settlement agreement are set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement and Compromise.  The class
is defined as a non-opt-out class for settlement purposes of all
record holders and beneficial owners of common stock of
EnteroMedics who held or owned such stock during the Class Period,
including any and all of their respective successors-in-interest,
successors, predecessors-in-interest, predecessors,
representatives, trustees, executors, administrators, estates,
heirs, legatees, devisees, assigns and transferees, immediate and
remote, and any other person or entity acting for or on behalf of
any of the foregoing.  The class period is defined the period of
Nov. 3, 2016 through Feb. 24, 2017, inclusive.

The Settlement Agreement provides for the cancellation and
rescission of the stock options at issue, and stockholders will
have the opportunity to vote on any additional stock options for
Defendants made in connection with the rescission.  Second, the
board of directors is required to make proportional adjustments to
the Stock Plan and other Company equity plans to account for any
changes in EnteroMedics's capitalization, thus protecting
stockholders from unanticipated dilution.  Third, the board of
directors is amending the Company's equity plan to add a specific
provision imposing an annual cap on equity compensation for
non-employee directors and will seek stockholder approval of this
amendment.

All costs associated with notice to the class will be borne by
EnteroMedics.  The Settlement Agreement also provides for an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses of $190,000, and a $4,000 incentive
award for the Plaintiff which will be paid out of the attorneys'
fees.

In exchange for the benefits provided by the settlement, the class
members agree to release all claims that they alleged or could have
alleged in the action.

Within 21 days of entry of the order preliminarily approving the
Settlement Agreement, the notice will be mailed to all
EnteroMedics's stockholders of record or class members at their
last known address appearing in the stock transfer records
maintained by EnteroMedics.

Becuase the Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) have been met, preliminary
certification of the settlement class appears proper.  Moreover,
the terms in the settlement agreement and the form of notice appear
fair, reasonable, and adequate.  As a result, Judge Robreno granted
the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement,
conditionally certifies the settlement class, and approved the
notice program.  An appropriate order follows.

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

Vinh Du, on behalf of EnteroMedics, Inc. and individually and on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of
EnteroMedics, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brian E. Farnan --
bfarnan@farnanlaw.com -- Farnan LLP, Douglas E. Julie, Levi &
Korsinsky, LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Farnan --
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com -- Farnan LLP & Steven J. Purcell --
spurcell@pjlfirm.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, pro hac vice.

Gary Blackford, Dan W. Gladney, Carl Goldfischer, Bobby I. Griffin,
Lori C. McDougal, Nicholas L. Teti, Jr., Jon T. Tremmel, Peter M.
Delange, Paul F. Hickey, Scott Youngstrom & EnteroMedics, Inc.,
Nominal, Defendants, represented by Alessandra Glorioso --
glorioso.alessandra@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney (Delaware) LLP,
Chelsea R. McLean -- mclean.chelsea@dorsey.com -- Prevost, Colt &
Mosle LLP, pro hac vice & Theresa M. Bevilacqua --
bevilacqua.theresa@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP, pro hac
vice.

Nageeb A. Ansari, Defendant, represented by Alessandra Glorioso,
Dorsey & Whitney (Delaware) LLP & Chelsea R. McLean, Prevost, Colt
& Mosle LLP, pro hac vice.


EVENTBRITE: Targeted by Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ticket News reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed in
Illinois against Eventbrite over the massive data breach at
subsidiary TIcketfly earlier this year, according to multiple
outlets. The lawsuit, filed by Shanice Kloss in Cook County,
alleges negligence on the company’s part, both before and after
the breach, which saw some 26 million users data exposed by a
hacker.

News of the massive data breach came out in May, crippling the
indie ticketing provider and numerous venues that used its system.
Stolen data involved email addresses, names, phone numbers, and
physical addresses. A hacker reportedly found a vulnerability in
the company’s wordpress content system that it exploited to gain
access. The individual attempted to ransom Ticketfly for the data
before going public, but the company opted against paying the 1
Bitcoin (approx. $7,500) fee.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit says that despite the company being
aware of the breach in the spring, and even making a public
announcement, she was not aware of her data having been exposed
until seeing a tweet about the breach in September – the company
had never contacted her.

Eventbrite, the complaint reads "was storing sensitive
information… it knew was of value to, and vulnerable to, cyber
attackers." But rather than protect that data, it employed "lax
cybersecurity procedures" and then failed to mitigate the
vulnerability even after being contacted by the hacker. Due to all
of this, and the fact that she had not – as one of the 26
million+ users whose data was compromised – been notified by the
company at all aside from stumbling across their June 6 tweet by
happenstance – she was put in the path of "irreversible privacy
harms."

The lawsuit claims that Eventbrite has violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, as well as
putting the company in breach of contract with its consumers, and
acted negligently. Kloss and her legal team have asked for a trial
by jury and requested appropriate relief, including statuatory,
compensatory, and punitive damages. Additionally, the lawsuit seeks
a court order forcing Eventbrite to provided identity fraud
monitoring and mitigation services for the victims of the fraud

In the wake of the massive data breach, Eventbrite marched on with
its planned IPO, going live in mid-September. After launching at
$23 per share, the stock jumped to $36.50 after its first day, and
has traded at as much as $40.25. In recent days, the stock has
climbed back to earth, closing at $27.92 on October 11.

The company has not issued any statement related to the
lawsuit.[GN]


FCA US: Court Denies Laroes' Bid to Intervene in Granillo Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Dolores GRANILLO, Albert Granillo, and Desiree Nava,
individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, Civil Action No. 16-153 (FLW) (DEA)
(D. N.J.), Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (i) denied Center for Auto Safety
("CAS") and Public Citizen, Inc. ("Consumer Groups")'s Motion for
Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief; and (ii) denied Ronald and
Melody LaRo LaRoe's Motion to Intervene.

The case arises out of an alleged defect in a car part that FCA
produced, the 9 Speed ZF 9HP Automatic Transmission, which
allegedly caused rough and erratic shifting and loud noises during
shifting.  

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on July 28,
2015, in the California Superior Court for the County of San
Bernardino.  FCA removed the case to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on Sept. 30, 2015; it then filed
a motion to dismiss or to transfer to the District of New Jersey,
where an earlier filed class action, Oquendo v. Chrysler Group LLC
(now known as FCA US, LLC), was pending (and subsequently
dismissed).

On Jan. 11, 2016, the matter was transferred to the Court, and FCA
refiled its motion to dismiss on Jan. 21, 2016.  The Court granted
the motion in part, but granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend the
complaint.  As relevant in the instant motions, the Court found
that the Plaintiffs' surviving claims were viable because they
alleged that FCA withheld material information concerning the
symptoms of the alleged defect.  FCA stipulated to stay the action
pending mediation; the Plaintiffs did not amend their complaint.

After "extensive discovery" and "multiple mediation sessions," the
parties reached a settlement on Sept. 26, 2017.  According to the
parties, the Proposed Settlement resolves the Plaintiffs'
allegations, which FCA denies, that FCA sold and leased vehicles
without informing consumers about a safety-related defect in the ZF
9HP.  Under the Proposed Settlement, FCA agrees to compensate Class
Members for having made multiple Transmission-Related Complaints
and to extend warranty coverage so as to prevent out-of-pocket
costs for ZF 9HP problems.

Proposed Amici are non-profit consumer advocacy organizations with
strong interests in auto safety and consumer protection more
generally.  CAS has a mission to improve the safety, efficiency,
reliability, and cost to consumers of vehicles, and advocates
before the Department of Transportation, Congress, and in courts to
help reduce motor vehicle deaths, injuries, and crashes.  Public
Citizen works before Congress, administrative agencies, and courts
for the enactment and enforcement of laws protecting consumers,
workers, and the general public.

Relevant to Proposed Amici's motion, the Proposed Settlement
contains two provisions that impose certain requirements on
potential objectors to the final settlement.  Consumer Groups
assert that these provisions, if approved, would conflict with the
class action, discovery, and due process principles, and they would
have an inappropriate chilling effect on absent class members who
might otherwise play a vital role in advising the Court on
shortcomings of the proposed settlement.  As such, they opine that
the Court should deny the unopposed motion to preliminarily approve
the settlement.

In addition to the suit before the Court, the LaRoes are currently
litigants in a similar putative class action suit pending in U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas, LaRoe, et al. v. FCA US
LLC, et al., No. 17-cv-2487.  There, the LaRoes allege that they
bought a 2014 Jeep Cherokee with the allegedly defective ZF 9-speed
automatic transmission.  There is no dispute that the LaRoes are
members of the proposed Granillo class.  

Unlike Plaintiffs here, however, the LaRoes identify a specific
defect on which they intended to base their claims: a wire harness
crimp transaxle range sensor wire harness, a critical component to
the safe operation of at least 320,000 vehicles.  The LaRoes assert
that these claims are fundamentally different from those in
Granillo, because the Granillo case is about problems with shifting
in the ZF 9-Speed transmissions, and asks for monetary compensation
based on how frequently a customer complained and what amounts to a
1 or 2 year warranty extension, whereas the LaRoe case is
exclusively focused on the Transaxle Range Sensor Wire Harness, and
asks FCA to physically replace a defective part with a new
non-defective version of the part, in every one of the Affected
Vehicles within the safety recall at issue.

Proposed Intervenors take issue with specific provisions in the
Proposed Settlement.  They first assert that under the Proposed
Settlement, only those class members who made at least three
"Transmission Related Complaints" would be entitled to any form of
monetary compensation, which, according to Proposed Intervenors,
excludes the Wire Harness claims brought in LaRoe.  They also
object to the following language in the "Release" section of the
Proposed Settlement, which, they contend, is overbroad in the types
of claims it releases.

The Proposed Intervenors submit that they have asked Defendant to
stipulate that the claims in LaRoe would be excluded from the
Granillo settlement, but the Defendant refused.  As such, they ask
the Court to either (a) provide clarification that the proposed
settlement and release in this matter, if approved, will not affect
their claims and the claims of their putative class action, or (b)
specifically exclude their claims from the Release of the proposed
settlement in the instant matter.

Judge Wolfson finds that three of the four amicus factors weigh
against allowing the filing of the proposed amicus brief.  First,
Proposed Amici do not have a special interest in the particular
case.  Second, the Proposed Amici do not assert an interest that is
not already competently represented by Court-approved class
counsel.  Third, the proposed objections in the amicus brief are
not useful to the Court in deciding the motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement.  Fourth, although Proposed Amici are
admittedly partial to improving class action settlements that
impact the rights of the absent class members, granting amicus
status to consumer advocacy groups with similar policy concerns is
common.

Nonetheless, because he finds that three out of the four factors
governing amicus motions weigh against Proposed Amici, their Motion
for Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief is denied.

Turning to the LaRoes' Motion to Intervene, the Judge finds that
the Proposed Intervenors apply the incorrect standard for
intervention in the class action context.  According to the LaRoes,
no presumption of adequacy exists, so they must only show that the
current or future interest of the intervenors and the plaintiff
have the potential to diverge.  But none of the cases they cite
applying this standard arose in the context of class actions, where
class members are assumed to have the same ultimate objective.

He further finds that the LaRoes have not made a convincing showing
that intervention would prejudice the adjudication of their
rights."  Therefore, the LaRoes will also not be permitted to
permissively intervene.  Thus, the Proposed Intervenors' Motion to
Intervene is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/oNkmi1 from Leagle.com.

RONALD LAROE & MELODY LAROE, Movants, represented by ANDREW R. WOLF
-- awolf@wolflawfirm.net -- The Wolf Law Firm, LLC & MARK A. FISHER
-- MFisher@wolflawfirm.net -- THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC.

Dolores Granillo, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Albert Granillo, individually, and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals & Desiree
Nava, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, represented by HOWARD A. GUTMAN.

FCA US LLC., a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant,
represented by KATHLEEN N. FENNELLY -- FENNELLY@MDMC-LAW.COM --
MCELROY, DEUTSCH,MULVANEY & CARPENTER LLP.

Center for Auto Safety & Public Citizen, Inc., Amicuss, represented
by CARY L. FLITTER -- consumers@consumerslaw.com -- FLITTER MILZ,
P.C. & JODY THOMAS LOPEZ-JACOBS , FLITTER MILZ, P.C..


FCI LENDER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended Diaz FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Altagracia Diaz, on behalf of plaintiff and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FCI Lender Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-8686 (AJN) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Alison J.
Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York denied the Defendant's motion dismiss the amended complaint.

Diaz brings the putative class action against FCI, a California
corporation engaged in the business of servicing residential
mortgage loans for their owners, asserting a claim under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  The Plaintiff is an
individual who resides in a single-family home she owns in Mineola,
New York.

The action arises out of the Defendant's alleged attempts to
enforce against the Plaintiff a residential mortgage loan entered
into for the purpose of housing.  At some point prior to 2013, this
loan was accelerated.  In 2013, a foreclosure action was filed.

In June 2017, FCI became involved with the loan, evidently through
transfer of the servicing of her Promissory Note.  FCI sent the
Plaintiff a "Borrower Welcome Letter" dated June 13, 2017.  The
letter provides: "Accrued Late Charges: $5,491.00."

On June 17, 2017, the Plaintiff sent FCI a request for validation
of debt.  FCI then sent her a "Demand Loan Payoff statement."  The
Demand Loan Payoff statement shows accrued late charges in the
amount of $80.75 applied to her account on June 1, 2017 and July 1,
2017.

Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff alleges one claim under the
FDCPA.  She claims that FCI's alleged statement that late charges
may be imposed on a loan that has been accelerated is false and
therefore violates 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e.  According to the
amended complaint, the Note in connection with the Plaintiff's
Mortgage provided for late charges on an overdue payment of
principal and interest" but "says nothing about late charges after
acceleration.

Additionally, she seeks to have a Rule 23(b)(3) class certified
consisting of "(a) all individuals (b) with a loan that was over 90
days behind at the time FCI began servicing it, according to the
records of FCI, (c) with a correspondence address that is the same
as the 'property address,' (d) that had been accelerated, (e) where
FCI sent the individual a document that referred to late charges (0
accrued since acceleration (g) where the document was sent at any
time during a period beginning Nov. 9, 2016 and ending Nov. 29,
2017.

The Plaintiff filed her complaint on Nov. 9, 2017.  On Dec. 29,
2017, the Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint.  On Jan. 19,
2018, the Plaintiff subsequently filed her first amended complaint.
On Feb. 2, 2018, the Defendant moved to dismiss the first amended
complaint.

The Defendant argues that in order for the Plaintiff to
sufficiently allege a violation Section 1692e, it would first have
to be impermissible to charge late fees on her account following
the acceleration of the loan balance.  Yet, it correctly points out
that there are certain circumstances where late fees can be
charged.  The Plaintiff has only alleged that she sent the
Defendant a request for validation of debt.  Accordingly, it is not
clear from the language in the Mortgage, that in this circumstance,
late charges may be imposed on a loan that has been accelerated.
Therefore, Judge Nathan will deny the Defendant's motion to dismiss
to the extent it argues that as a matter of law, there was no
falsehood or inaccuracy that could furnish the basis for an FDCPA
claim.

The Defendant also contends that the two documents it sent to the
Plaintiff, the "Borrower Welcome Letter,"  and the "Demand Loan
Payoff statement," do not qualify as statements that late charges
may be imposed on a loan that has been accelerated' in connection
with the collection of debt under the FDCPA.  It concludes that the
Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged an allegation of a false,
deceptive, or misleading representation in connection with the
collection of any debt under Section 1692e.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that
the Demand Loan Payoff was not an unsolicited request; and has
sufficiently alleged that the communication was sent in connection
with the collection of debt.  Taking the allegations in the amended
complaint as true, an unsophisticated consumer could certainly
interpret the Demand Loan Payoff statement as a communication in
connection with the collection of debt.  The Plaintiff has
therefore sufficiently alleged that the Defendant's statement that
late charges may be imposed on a loan that has been accelerated
violates Section 1692e.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Nathan denied the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.  The Order resolves Docket Number 31.  The Court
will schedule an initial pretrial conference by separate order.

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

Altagracia Diaz, on behalf of plaintiff and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Abraham Kleinman, Kleinman LLC
& Tiffany Nicole Hardy, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC.

FCI Lender Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A.
Backman -- jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder Law & Roy
Taub -- roy.taub@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, P.A..


FIRST TRANSIT: Cal App. Flips Approval of Alonzo Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Seven, issued an Opinion reversing the Trial Court's judgment
granting approval of Revised Settlement in the case captioned ANGEL
ALONZO et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. FIRST TRANSIT, INC.,
Defendant and Respondent; ERIC P. CLARKE, Appellant. No. B277109.
(Cal. App.).

This is the second appeal in this class action.

In the first appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court's order
denying Eric P. Clarke's ex parte application for leave to
intervene but reversed the judgment entered after the court
approved a settlement. The held the trial court failed to
separately review and approve the settlement of claims under the
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

On remand, the trial court approved a revised settlement, and
Clarke appealed again.

Clarke worked as a bus driver for First Transit, Inc. Following a
leave of absence, First Transit terminated Clarke's employment in
February 2007. In 2008 Clarke filed a lawsuit against First Transit
and others in Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking civil
penalties under PAGA for alleged violations of Labor Code
provisions, including those governing meal and rest breaks, wage
statements, wages and overtime  and compensation following an
employee's discharge or resignation

Alonzo I

The affirmed the trial court's order denying Clarke's ex parte
application to intervene. The Court stated Clarke had standing to
appeal from the judgment because resolution of the PAGA claims in
this action will bar the PAGA claims alleged in Clarke. The
reversed the judgment because the settlement did not allocate 25
percent of the civil penalties to the aggrieved employees, as
required by section 2699, subdivision (i), and because the trial
court did not specifically review and approve the civil penalties
allocated to the PAGA claims, as required by section 2699,
subdivision (l)(2).  The Court also directed the trial court to
allow Clarke to participate in the final approval hearing for
purposes of contesting the settlement of the PAGA claims.

Remand

On remand Alonzo filed a renewed motion for final approval of the
settlement and an addendum to the settlement agreement that
increased the amount allocated to the PAGA claims from $10,000 to
$13,333.33, 25 percent of which would be distributed to class
members. The trial court ruled the proposed settlement was entered
into in good faith; is fair, reasonable and adequate; and satisfies
the standards and applicable requirements for final approval under
California law, including California Rules of Court, rule 3.769.
Standing To Appeal

Clarke argues this court's holding in Alonzo I, that he had
standing to challenge the settlement and subsequent judgment, is
law of the case and may not be disturbed.

Clarke is correct.

The doctrine of 'law of the case' deals with the effect of the
first appellate decision on the subsequent retrial or appeal: The
decision of an appellate court, stating a rule of law necessary to
the decision of the case, conclusively establishes that rule and
makes it determinative of the rights of the same parties in any
subsequent retrial or appeal in the same case. The doctrine gives
finality to appellate decisions, precluding courts from revisiting
issues that [have] been determined in earlier appellate proceedings
between the same parties.

Because the law of the case doctrine can be harsh declined to
adhere to it where its application would result in an unjust
decision, e.g., where there has been a manifest misapplication of
existing principles resulting in substantial injustice, or where
the controlling rules of law have been altered or clarified by a
decision intervening between the first and second appellate
determinations.

Clarke does not have standing to challenge the judgment approving
the settlement of the non-PAGA claims for statutory damages, which
is not binding on him. Although Clarke primarily challenges the
propriety of the settlement of the PAGA claims, he also challenges
the settlement in its entirety. In particular, Clarke contends the
addition of the PAGA claims in the third amended complaint made
class counsel proxies of the State and created a conflict of
interest with the class. Clarke is not bound by the settlement of
Labor Code claims not subject to PAGA and he is free to pursue his
individual claims under the Labor Code against First Transit.

Other than the requirement in section 2699, subdivision (l) (2),
that the court review and approve a settlement of a civil action
filed under PAGA and the Supreme Court's statement that such
settlements must be fair to those affected neither the California
legislature, nor the California Supreme Court, nor the California
Courts of Appeal, nor the [LWDA] has provided any definitive answer
to [the] vexing question of the appropriate standard for approving
the settlement of PAGA claims, whether brought as a class or
representative action.

The Court have no need in this appeal to weigh in on this question,
however, because the settlement approved by the trial court
satisfies the standard Clarke proposes. Therefore, the Court assume
without deciding that California Rules of Court, rule 3.769 applies
to the settlement of the PAGA claims alleged in the third amended
complaint and that PAGA requires courts to determine whether the
relief provided in a settlement of PAGA claims is genuine,
meaningful, and consistent with the underlying purposes of the
statute.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.769(a) sets forth detailed
procedures for settling class actions in California and requires
court approval of a settlement or compromise of an entire class
action, or of a cause of action in a class action.

A presumption of fairness arises where (1) the settlement is
reached through arm's-length bargaining (2) investigation and
discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act
intelligently (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation and
(4) the percentage of objectors is small.

The Settlement Provides Genuine and Meaningful Relief Consistent
with PAGA's Purposes
The trial court found the settlement's allocation of funds to the
PAGA penalties were fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of all
the evidence submitted and the valuation of all the claims. The
court did not expressly find the settlement provided genuine and
meaningful relief that is consistent with the underlying purpose of
the statute to benefit the public.

The trial court found, and Clarke does not dispute, that the gross
settlement exceeded the maximum exposure on the class claims for
alleged Labor Code violations not subject to PAGA. The trial court
previously found in connection with its order granting approval of
the initial settlement that First Transit's maximum exposure was
$1,708,990, and the gross settlement provided up to $2,000,000. By
providing fair compensation to the class members as employees and
substantial monetary relief, the settlement not only vindicates the
rights of the class members as employees, but may have a deterrent
effect upon the defendant employer and other employers, an
objective of PAGA.

The trial court reaffirmed its previous ruling that the settlement
was entitled to a presumption of fairness. As indicated, the court
stated it had considered the PAGA penalty and its fairness through
inquiry at the time the court granted final approval of the initial
Settlement, and though not separately articulated in the record at
the time of final approval the Court did review the PAGA
settlement. The court concluded the settlement of the PAGA claims
was fair because (1) the gross settlement exceeded First Transit's
maximum exposure on the alleged Labor Code violations, (2) section
2699, subdivision (e)(2), gives the trial court wide discretion to
reduce PAGA penalties and (3) Alonzo admitted First Transit had
significant defenses which could result in greatly reduced PAGA
penalties.

Clarke contends the trial court erred in approving the PAGA
settlement because class counsel and the class representatives
represented parties with conflicting interests, namely, the
aggrieved employees and the state.11 He argues the settlement,
which allocates only $13,333 to the PAGA claims, has not worked out
to the benefit of the State. PAGA protects the state's interest,
however, by requiring aggrieved employees who want to file a claim
to notify the state of alleged violations and give the state the
opportunity to investigate and commence an enforcement action.

Clarke does not contend Alonzo failed to comply with this
requirement. Thus, the settlement protected the state's interest to
the extent required by PAGA. Moreover, counsel for plaintiffs in
every case that involves a release of claims under PAGA necessarily
represent the interests of both aggrieved employees and the state.
Accepting Clarke's argument would call into question the integrity
of every such settlement.

Clarke opposed approval of the revised settlement agreement because
class members did not receive a revised notice informing them that
an additional $3,333 would be allocated to them as their share of
the PAGA penalties. Among other things, Clarke argues that notice
of the fact that the settlement would bar all PAGA claims,
including his claims for millions of dollars should have been given
to the class. The trial court rejected Clarke's argument, ruling
that PAGA settlements do not require notice to the aggrieved
employees." Assuming for the sake of Clarke's argument that class
members were entitled to notice of the PAGA settlement, the initial
notice provided in this case was sufficient.

The notice apprised class members that the proposed settlement
released claims under PAGA, identified the aggregate amount
available to claimants and the bases for deductions from that
amount, and described the method used to calculate payments to each
claimant. Although the notice did not inform class members they
would receive approximately $5 more as their share of civil
penalties under PAGA, this omission was not material.  

The revised settlement allocated class members an immaterial,
additional recovery and did not adversely affect any legal rights
because the original notice informed recipients the settlement
would resolve any claims they may have under PAGA.

Clarke contends the revised settlement does not comply with section
2699, subdivision (i), because it directs payment of 25 percent of
civil penalties only to Class Members Who Did Not Opt Out, thus
excluding aggrieved employees who opted out of the class, rather
than to all employees affected by the Labor Code violations alleged
by Alonzo.

Clarke is correct on this point.

Section 2699, subdivision (i), provides in relevant part, civil
penalties recovered by aggrieved employees shall be distributed as
follows: 75 percent to the LWDA and 25 percent to the aggrieved
employees. The statute's second reference to aggrieved employees
could mean the same aggrieved employees who recovered the civil
penalties by bringing the PAGA action or it could refer to all
employees who were employed by the alleged violator and against
whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed. Because
the settlement here does not provide for payment of 25 percent of
the PAGA civil penalties to all aggrieved employees, the settlement
does not yet comply with PAGA.

The order granting final approval of the class action settlement is
vacated, and the judgment is reversed. The matter is remanded with
directions for the trial court to modify the order approving the
settlement to state that 25 percent of the civil penalties paid
under PAGA will be distributed to all aggrieved employees, and to
enter a new judgment. In all other respects the order is affirmed.
The requests for judicial notice filed on June 30, 2017 and March
28, 2018 are denied. The parties are to bear their costs on
appeal.

A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s October 22, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9x4rkal from Leagle.com.

Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich and Mark Yablonovich --
mark@yablonovichlaw.com -- for Appellant Eric P. Clarke.

Hunter Pyle Law, Hunter Pyle -- hunter@hunterpylelaw.com -- and
Chad Saunders -- csaunders@hunterpylelaw.com -- for Plaintiffs and
Respondents Angel Alonzo et al.

Littler Mendelson, Theodore R. Scott -- tscott@littler.com -- and
David J. Dow -- ddow@littler.com -- for Defendant and Respondent
First Transit, Inc.

Blank Rome, Laura Reathaford and Harrison M. Brown for Association
of Southern California Defense Counsel as Amicus Curiae on behalf
of Defendant and Respondent First Transit, Inc.
Kim E. Card, Acting Chief Counsel and Dan L. Gildor, Counsel,
Department of Industrial Relations for Labor and Workforce
Development Agency as Amicus Curiae upon the request of the Court
of Appeal.


FIVE GUYS: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Boyer ADA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRETT BOYER, Plaintiff, v. FIVE GUYS ENTERPRISES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-1417-L-JLB (S.D. Cal.), Judge M. James
Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (i) denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment,
and (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion
for summary judgment.

The action arises from the Plaintiff's visit to one of the
Defendant's restaurants.  The Defendant is a chain of Five Guys
fast food restaurants.  To dispense beverages, Five Guys no longer
uses traditional soda fountains, but new Coca-Cola Freestyle
self-service machines.  Freestyle machines allow customers to
create their own soft drink mixtures by selecting from more than
twenty flavors, mix them, and create a customized soda beverage
from more than 100 possible drink combinations.  Because the
Freestyle machine has only a visual touch-screen interface, blind
customers are unable to use it without assistance.

The Plaintiff, who is blind, visited a Five Guys restaurant in San
Marcos, California on at least two occasions.  On both occasions,
he paid for a soda fountain drink, and was given a cup to obtain
the drink from the Freestyle machine.  Although he was using a
white cane, he was not offered, and did not receive, any assistance
form Five Guys' employees, but had to depend on his sighted
companion to obtain his beverage.

The Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violations of (1) the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); (2) the Unruh Civil Rights
Act; and (3) the Disabled Persons Act ("DPA").  He seeks statutory
damages under California law, and injunctive relief under the ADA
to prevent further violations.

The Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the Plaintiff has
no standing, and, alternatively, that it is entitled to summary
judgment on the merits.  The Plaintiff opposed the Defendant's
motion and filed a motion of his own.  Although the Plaintiff's
motion is styled as a motion for summary judgment, he briefs
liability and does brief the issues of injunctive relief or
damages.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion is deemed as a motion
for partial summary judgment.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff cannot meet the injury
requirement, because he admitted he was not harmed and did not
need, want, or request the human assistance with Freestyle
dispenser.  Judge Lorenz rejects the Defendant's argument.  First,
the Defendant misconstrues the Plaintiff's deposition testimony.
It is undisputed that the Plaintiff uses a white cane, and his
blindness was therefore apparent.  Second, the Plaintiff's
testimony that he was able to obtain a drink notwithstanding lack
of assistance from the Defendant's employees does not negate
standing.

Alternatively, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff cannot
establish standing for purposes of injunctive relief in light of
his relocation to Colorado without concrete plans to return.  The
Plaintiff and his wife testified that they intend to return to
California for the holidays and on other occasions, and that they
intend to meet with friends at the Defendant's restaurant, which is
conveniently located for this purpose.  Based on the foregoing,
Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine factual
dispute regarding standing.  The Defendant's summary judgment
motion in this regard will be denied.

The Defendant claims that it provided the Plaintiff with a
qualified reader because employees were available to assist the
Plaintiff.  It did not offer qualified reader services to the
Plaintiff, however, because the Plaintiff did not ask, was assisted
by his sighted companion, and testified he did not need or want
assistance from the Defendant's employees.

Finally, accepting at face value, for purposes of argument only,
the Defendant's contentions that its employees are "qualified
readers" under 42 U.S.C. Section 12103(1)(B), and that a qualified
reader is sufficient to ensure "effective communication" under 28
C.F.R. Section 36.303(c) for visually impaired individuals relative
to the use of the Freestyle machine, the Judge finds that the
Defendant discriminated against the Plaintiff in violation of 42
U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii) because it did not offer a
qualified reader to assist the Plaintiff to use the Freestyle
machine.

To the extent each party seeks summary adjudication of this issue,
the Defendant's motion will b denied, and the Plaintiff's motion
willl be granted.  For the same reasons, the Plaintiff's motion
will be granted to the extent that discrimination under the ADA
constitutes state law violations pursuant to the Unruh Act and the
DPA.

Accordingly, Judge Lorenz denied the Defendant's motion.  He
granted the Plaintiff's motion insofar as the Court finds that the
Defendant discriminated against the Plaintiff in violation of the
ADA, and that the Defendant violated corresponding state law
provisions under the Unruh Act and the DPA.  In all other respects,
the Judge denied the Plaintiff's motion.

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

Brett Boyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Arkady Rayz --
ERayz@kalraylaw.com -- Kalikhman & Rayz, LLC, pro hac vice, Daniel
J. Cross , Cross Law Corporation, Gerald D. Wells, III, Connolly
Wells & Gray, LLLP, Meghan S. Maertz & Stephen Edward Connolly,
Connolly Wells & Gray, LLP, pro hac vice.

Five Guys Enterprises, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brett E.
Coburn -- brett.coburn@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac
vice, Charles H. Morgan -- charlie.morgan@alston.com -- Alston &
Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Courtney M. Vasquez --
courtney@foxlawapc.com -- Fox Law, A.P.C. & David Adam Fox, Fox
Law, A.P.C..


FORD MOTOR: Class Action Over Clutch Defect Pending in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yvonne Colbert, writing for CBC News, reports that two years after
Transport Canada opened an investigation into the dual-clutch
transmissions in some Ford models, not much has changed -- except
for an increase in the number of people complaining.

"I'm nervous to drive it," said Cole Harbour, N.S., resident June
Farmer, one of 1,777 people who have filed a formal complaint with
Transport Canada.

6 clutches later
Farmer bought a 2011 Ford Fiesta with 2,000 kilometres on it.

In September, she had a sixth clutch installed. It is the same
problem experienced by many owners of Ford Fiesta vehicles made
from 2011-16 and Ford Focus models from 2012-2016.

She said her car jerks and sputters when she tries to move forward
after a stop. It even died on a busy highway while she was driving
100 km/h with her daughter and two-year-old grandson in the car.

"Luckily we were at an exit and we were able to coast off the
highway, but we could have all been killed," she said.

She said she will not drive her car on the highway again. "I don't
trust it," she said.

Her car sports a sign on the back that says "BOUGHT A LEMON." There
are also several angry-looking lemon decals on the Fiesta.

"Had they not been so expensive, I would have put them all over my
car," she said.

A problem coast-to-coast
Paulette and John Schedel live in Vancouver and own a 2012 Ford
Focus. They bought it new for more than $27,000.

They, too, have experienced "shudders and jerks" and have had what
Paulette called four serious incidents that almost caused
accidents.

"We were turning left at a very busy intersection and as we were
halfway through, with lots of time to make it, the car started
jumping and bouncing and stalling and we had people honking and
waving their fists at us," she said. "It could have been a serious
accident."

They have had three new clutches installed in their car in two
years, the most recent in March.

Now that clutch has failed, too. Ford initially said it would not
pay for a replacement because the car is 1,000 kilometres past its
warranty so the couple, both seniors, parked the car rather than
pay approximately $4,000 to replace the clutch.

After writing a letter to Ford's president, the Schedels were
delighted to receive a call saying the automaker would install a
new clutch for a small fee and would give them a two-year warranty
on parts and labour, something she says her dealership told her is
unusual.

Small claims court an option
George Iny, Automobile Protection Association executive director,
says others who are still looking for help with repairs could
consider taking Ford to small claims court.

He said there's a good chance the automaker will settle before a
hearing by making a partial offer. If they don't, Iny suggests
proceeding with the case because most adjudicators would understand
a buyer wouldn't voluntarily purchase a car that needs to have its
transmission taken apart and rebuilt every 50,000-100,000
kilometres.

Is Ford stalling?
Iny said carmakers can "stall government a good long period if they
don't want to issue a recall and there are no fatalities or
injuries being reported."

He thinks Ford doesn't believe it has a duty, past the warranty, to
help people who bought these vehicles.

"They've already announced that they won't be selling the Fiesta
and Focus in the future, so there's no real commitment by the
company toward maintaining the user-experience for the owners of
those transmissions," he said.

It's been two years since Transport Canada launched its
investigation into this issue, but Iny says that's not unusual and
safety defect investigations can take years.

He cites one recall by another automaker that was issued 15 years
after the vehicle had been put on the market.

Transport Canada said in an email that the defect investigation is
ongoing "as new information continues to come forward on a frequent
and regular basis."

No injuries reported
"Transport Canada is not aware of any injuries or confirmed
collisions which have occurred as a result of an identified defect
in the subject vehicles or transmissions," Annie Joannette, a
department spokesperson said.

When asked what concerned people with affected vehicles are to do,
Ms. Joannette said they are encouraged to report to Transport
Canada's defect complaint and recalls hotline or submit a complaint
online.

That provides little solace to Farmer, who has already done that.

Said Farmer: "Do we need to have someone injured or killed before
the government will do something about this?"

She says she will not sell her car and pass the problem on to an
unsuspecting buyer

Ford reacts differently in Canada
In the United States, Ford has settled a class-action lawsuit about
the issue, but it's being held up by some participants who are not
happy with the agreement.

Among other things, it would see Ford repair or buy back vehicles,
offer cash payments and reimbursement for clutch repairs -- if two
or more clutches were replaced under warranty and owners had to pay
for their own clutch replacement after that.

A similar class action in Canada is working its way through the
courts.

CBC requested an interview with someone from Ford to discuss the
transmission issue. There was no response to three emails over a
six-day period.

However, Ford did respond to a subsequent tweet asking why no one
in their media centre answered media inquiries.

In an email 10 minutes after the tweet was sent, Ford spokesperson
Christine Hollander simply said: "Ford is committed to providing
its customers with top quality vehicles. We are equally committed
to addressing potential issues and responding quickly for our
customers. We don't comment on pending litigation."

Ford recalled more than 136,000 Focus models in Canada for a
fuel-valve problem.


FOREVER 21: Judge Tosses TCCWNA Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
in Trenton has tossed out a potential class action against retailer
Forever 21 under New Jersey's Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty
and Notice Act based on the state Supreme Court's recent definition
of an aggrieved consumer.

In Patterson v. Forever 21, plaintiff Tifany Patterson purchased a
necklace and a pair of sunglasses from the Forever 21 website.
Patterson claimed she and class members were entitled to relief
under TCCWNA because they purchased items from Forever 21 and
because its website contains language that violates New Jersey
law.

Ms. Patterson sought a civil penalty of at least $100 for each
class member, but U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp ruled Patterson
did not meet the definition of "aggrieved consumer" under Spade v.
Select Comfort, which the justices held to be someone who was
harmed by a violation of TCCWNA.

Ms. Patterson's lawsuit said Forever 21 imposes "unfair, one-sided
provisions" in its terms and conditions, a violation of TCCWNA. She
said the terms and conditions deprive her of a cause of action for
any unforeseeable risk of harm, and purports to absolve Forever 21
of its legal responsibility to exercise due care and refrain from
creating an unreasonable risk of harm to consumers.

The disclaimer also violates New Jersey's Punitive Damages Act
because it purports to bar the plaintiff from seeking punitive
damages for any harm caused by Forever 21, the lawsuit claimed.

Enacted in 1980, TCCWNA bars language in consumer contracts that
violates any clearly established legal right. The measure drew
little attention until around 2015, when plaintiffs lawyers began
filing lawsuits to target provisions in e-commerce terms of
service.

In the Forever 21 case, Shipp granted the defendant's motion in
February 2017 to stay the case pending outcome of an appeal in
another TCCWNA case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, Russell v. Croscill Home. In that case, another judge
threw out the suit because the plaintiff suffered no concrete harm.
But the anticipated guidance from that case never materialized
because it was dismissed after the parties filed a stipulation of
dismissal.

Without guidance from the Third Circuit, Shipp said the Supreme
Court's April 2018 decision in Spade also addressed the meaning of
the term "aggrieved consumer."

The federal court's jurisdiction in the case is conferred by the
Class Action Fairness Act, which requires the plaintiff to plead a
minimum of $5 million. But if the plaintiff is not an "aggrieved
consumer" under TCCWNA, she can't satisfy the minimum amount in
controversy under CAFA, Shipp said.

"Plaintiff's contention that defendant's alleged violations of
certain New Jersey laws, without any alleged harm arising from the
violations, entitles her to relief under the TCCWNA is vitiated by
the New Jersey Supreme Court's holding in Spade," Shipp wrote.

Because Ms. Patterson did not have the benefit of Spade when she
filed her complaint, Shipp said she would be allowed to file an
amended complaint.

Gerald Clark of the Clark Law Firm in Belmar said in an email that,
"Upon initial review it appears that Judge Shipp has provided a
well-reasoned opinion that strikes an effective balance between
adhering to recent precedents while ensuring fair consumer
protections within the current, limited statutory framework. We are
reviewing the matter further to determine our next steps."

Joseph Jean of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, who represented
Forever 21, did not return a phone call seeking a comment.


FRENZ & ZORBALAS: To Pay $18.5MM to Settle Tenants' Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Randy Furst, writing for Star Tribune, reports that two Minneapolis
landlords who lost their rental licenses last year for committing
massive fraud have agreed to pay out $18.5 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit filed against them by their tenants.

The settlement, which was filed on October 12 and must still be
approved by Hennepin County Judge Mary Vasaly, covers 5,400 tenants
from 2012 to today, many of them low-income and members of minority
groups. It is the largest payout of its kind in Minnesota history.

It will net tenants up to $10,000 each, though the average will be
about $2,200 to be based on how long they rented from landlords
Stephen Frenz and Spiros Zorbalas and the amount they paid. Tenants
can opt out and pursue separate legal claims.

The tenants will receive $12 million and the remaining $6.5
million, if approved by Vasaly, will go to the Faegre Baker Daniels
law firm, which brought the suit, and to an administrator to be
appointed to disburse funds to tenants.

"If approved it will be the largest aggregate settlement in a
tenant related class action case in Minnesota history," said Larry
McDonough, Esq. -- mcdonough.lawrence@dorsey.com -- a housing
attorney for 35 years, who heads pro bono work for Dorsey & Whitney
law firm. He was not involved in the suit.

"Class action cases for tenants are exceedingly rare, because
individual claims are mostly quite a bit different," he said. "The
unifying factor here was the improper licensing for a lot of
tenants over a long period of time."

William Mohrman, Esq. -- mohrman@mklaw.com -- an attorney for Frenz
and Zorbalas, declined to comment.

Michael Cockson, Esq. -- michael.cockson@FaegreBD.com -- the
plaintiffs' lead attorney on the case that was certified in 2017,
said he was happy with the settlement and looking forward "to
working with the court as the process continues."

Frenz and Zorbalas were also accused in the lawsuit of substandard
conditions, including vermin infestations and heat and plumbing
problems.

Disputes over conditions in the Frenz and Zorbalas apartment
buildings stretch back for close to a decade.

Zorbalas was stripped of his licenses for more than 60 apartment
buildings by the Minneapolis City Council in 2011 for repeated
violations and prohibited from renting in the city for five years.

Frenz purchased Zorbalas' properties in 2012, promised to upgrade
them, and was hailed as a savior by city officials. However, within
months, tenants were complaining about conditions in the
buildings.

Inquilinxs Unidxs Por Justicia (United Renters for Justice), a
tenants rights group, found itself in a fight with Frenz over
bedbugs, rats and a lack of heat in an apartment building in south
Minneapolis during a bitter cold spell in January 2016.

The Faegre law firm took up the case pro bono in what looked to be
a minor suit in housing court.

Frenz tried to get the case thrown out by submitting an affidavit
and leases showing that the majority of tenants had not joined the
suit. The Faegre attorneys discovered the leases were phony.

Then the Faegre lawyers discovered Zorbalas still had a majority
financial interest in Frenz's apartments and that the two men
continued to operate the buildings together. It led the city to
revoke Frenz's rental licenses last December.

Several former tenants hailed the October 12 settlement.

"I think it's fantastic for many people who lived there because the
conditions in the building as a whole were bad," said Cottrell
Doss, 38.

"This victory isn't about the money, it is about justice," said
Edain Altamirano, 28, in a statement. "And this settlement is a
step toward the justice we want to see. Tenants will continue to
organize to hold landlords accountable and get what they deserve."
[GN]


GLOBALSCAPE INC: Dec. 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

IRFAN RAHMAN and ANTHONY GIOVAGNOLI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

GLOBALSCAPE, INC., MATTHEW C. GOULET, and
JAMES W. ALBRECHT, JR., THOMAS W. BROWN,
DAVID C. MANN, FRANK M. MORGAN, and THOMAS E.
HICKS,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:17-cv-00753

TO:

Any and all persons or entities who purchased shares of GlobalSCAPE
common stock on the New York Stock Exchange during the period from
March 3, 2016 through August 7, 2017, both dates inclusive,
including their respective successors, predecessors, heirs,
trustees, executors, administrators, assigns, and transferee.

You are hereby notified that parties to the above-captioned
consolidated class action (the "Action") pending in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas (the
"Court") have entered into a Stipulation of Agreement and
Settlement (the "Stipulation") to resolve the issues raised in the
above-captioned consolidated class action (the "Class Action"). The
proposed settlement contemplated therein (the "Settlement")
includes a settlement payment of $1,400,000 (the "Settlement
Amount").

You are hereby further notified, that the Class Action has been
preliminarily certified as a class action, and that pursuant to an
Order of the Court dated October 2, 2018, a hearing will be held on
December 18, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. (the "Settlement Hearing") before
Judge Xavier Rodriguez at the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, 655 E. Cesar E. Chavez Blvd., San
Antonio, TX 78206, to, among other things, (1) determine whether
the Class as defined above should be certified pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3); (2) determine whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable,
adequate, and in the best interests of the class; (3) determine
whether all of Irfan Rahman ("Lead Plaintiff")'s claims should be
approved as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests
of the class; (4) determine whether the proposed Order and Final
Judgment approving the Settlement should be entered; (5) determine
whether, and in what amount, an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses should be paid to Plaintiffs' counsel (the "Fee
Application"); (6) consider any objections to the proposed
Settlement or Fee Application; and (7) rule on such other matters
as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate.

If you are a member of the class described above and are not
otherwise excluded, your rights will be affected and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Amount if you submit a Proof of
Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim") no later than February
16, 2019, and if the information and documentation you provide in
that Proof of Claim establishes that you are entitled to a
recovery. You may obtain copies of this notice by visiting
www.GlobalSCAPESecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting:

   GlobalSCAPE Securities Litigation Settlement Administration
   c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
   P.O. Box 173023
   Milwaukee, WI 53217
   1-866-963-9979
   info@GlobalSCAPESecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim
form, may be made to Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the
class:

         Jeffrey C. Block
         Block & Leviton LLP
         155 Federal Street, Suite 400
         Boston, MA 02110
         (617) 398-5600
         globalscape-settlement@blockesq.com

This Summary Notice provides only a summary of matters regarding
the Action and Settlement. The Notice describing the Action, the
proposed Settlement, and the rights of the Class Members to appear
in Court at the Settlement Hearing, to request to be excluded from
the Class, and/or to object to the Settlement, the plan of
allocation and/or the request by Lead Counsel for an award of
attorney's fees and expenses, is available through the website or
contact information above.

As more fully described in the Notice, to participate in the
Settlement Amount, you must submit a valid Proof of Claim by no
later than February 16, 2019. As also more fully described in the
Notice, the deadline for submitting any objections to the
Settlement or the Fee Application, and requests for exclusion from
the proposed Settlement is November 27, 2018.

Please do not contact the Court directly.

By Order of The Court


GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court Addresses Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Wolf, writing for USA TODAY, reports that the Supreme Court
faces a difficult question: What happens when there are 129 million
winners in a class action lawsuit, each of whom stands to receive 4
cents?

Federal judges in California thought they had an answer. Faced with
a privacy invasion lawsuit first filed against Google in 2010, they
approved an $8.5 million settlement that split most of the proceeds
among six universities and nonprofit groups researching internet
privacy issues.

The plaintiffs' lawyers got more than $2 million.

Google users got nothing.

Enter Ted Frank, who directs the Center for Class Action Fairness
at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market advocacy
group. He objected to the settlement, as he has to numerous others.
This time, he made it to the Supreme Court.

Frank's beef is simple: The deal approved by federal district and
circuit court judges benefited the lawyers and recipients,
including programs at universities the lawyers attended. Google was
not required to change its search function practices despite the
privacy intrusion. And the 129 million-member class remained
largely clueless.  

"This whole system is ripe for corruption," Frank says. "The money
belongs to class members."

But rather than protecting class action lawsuits from ripoffs or
collusion, the Supreme Court's conservative majority -- already
opposed to such lawsuits in many instances -- could set a rigid
standard that would result in fewer settlements being certified.

Federal rules require that class action settlements must be "fair,
reasonable and adequate" in the eyes of the court. When it isn't
reasonable to spread the proceeds across millions of users -- or,
as is more common, when some money goes unclaimed --
"cy pres" settlements benefiting third-party groups are judged to
be "as near as possible" to the desired goal.

The Supreme Court passed on an opportunity to address such
settlements in 2013, but Chief Justice John Roberts was enticed. He
cited "fundamental concerns" about their propriety, including the
role of the judge and lawyers, as well as how recipients should be
chosen.

"In a suitable case, this court may need to clarify the limits on
the use of such remedies," Roberts said. Frank v. Gaos may be that
case.

'A bad settlement'
Paloma Gaos originally went to court in 2010 after Google search
terms she used were disclosed to third-party websites, a common
practice. In the eventual settlement, she and other class
representatives got $5,000 each, but the broader group of 129
million people who used Google's search engine in the U.S. from
2006-14 proved an impractical number for notification, processing,
mailing and other costs.

Frank and a variety of opponents who filed friend-of-the-court
briefs argued that in addition to that exclusion, attorneys were
overpaid, favored recipients who were chosen improperly, and Google
was not required to change its business practice.

"This was a bad settlement," says Marc Rotenberg, president of the
Electronic Privacy Information Center, which works to protect free
expression in the information age. "Cy pres is not a slush fund."

But the procedure has its proponents. Many see it as a pragmatic
way to fund groups that have the same interests as class action
plaintiffs, particularly in cases where class members are offered
payouts but money is left unclaimed. Settlements in cases like
Frank's, where class members get nothing, occur only about once a
year, according to Harvard Law School Professor William
Rubenstein.

Google argued in court papers that an effort to identify and
compensate even a significant proportion of class members would
consume the settlement fund. It said the six recipients -- AARP,
World Privacy Forum, and programs at Harvard, Stanford, Carnegie
Mellon and Chicago-Kent College of Law -- "submitted detailed,
grant-like proposals for projects closely targeted to the Internet
privacy issues raised by plaintiffs' claims."

Lawyers for Gaos and other plaintiffs told the court they sought
out groups that would use the funds to educate consumers, inform
policymakers and "develop tools to address exploitation of personal
data."

The American Bar Association went further, defending settlements
that send money to legal aid organizations serving low-income
people who otherwise could not get into court. Those groups receive
more than $15 million per year from such settlements.

"Cy pres seems the best answer, which is 'Let's find another way to
use this money to benefit the class,'" says Allison Zieve, director
of Public Citizen Litigation Group. "The standards the courts are
applying are good ones."

'Optimal attorney'
Since Frank founded his center in 2009, it has won more than $100
million for class members by objecting to what it considers abusive
class-action settlements.

His most recent example: a $12.5 million settlement approved in
October by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which to
date has resulted in $225,000 for class members and as much as $8.9
million for lawyers' fees and costs.

If the justices don't find a way to block such settlements, Frank
says, "We'll see billions of dollars that go to consumers and
shareholders in litigation now are going to be diverted to lawyers'
favorite charities."

The court may be wary about being too prescriptive, however. The
justices aren't likely to go beyond setting broad standards for
lower court judges to follow.

"The Supreme Court has the opportunity to encourage or discourage
the use of this kind of remedy," says Howard Erichson, a professor
at Fordham University School of Law and an expert on class actions
and legal ethics. "Whatever it says will be the go-to language for
every district judge."

To make his case before the justices, Mr. Frank chose a lawyer who
knew much about such third-party settlements: himself. That puts
him in a select group of plaintiffs who have argued their own cases
at the Supreme Court.

"I hope I've picked the optimal attorney to argue this," he says,
"because it's obviously an issue I care about."


HARTFORD LIFE: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in McDonald Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff W. Allen McDonald filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled W. McDonald v. Hartford Life and Annuity
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:17-cv-00090, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.

The nature of suit is stated as personal property: other.

The appellate case is captioned as W. McDonald v. Hartford Life and
Annuity Insurance Company, Case No. 18-6092, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant W. ALLEN MCDONALD, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Christopher Todd Cain, Esq.
          SCOTT & CAIN
          550 W. Main Avenue, Suite 601
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Telephone: (865) 525-2150
          E-mail: cain@scottandcain.com

Defendant-Appellee HARTFORD LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:

          Alan Scott Gilbert, Esq.
          DENTONS
          233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 7800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 876-8000
          E-mail: alan.gilbert@dentons.com

               - and -

          John A. Lucas, Esq.
          HOWARD & HOWARD, P.C.
          4820 Old Kingston Pike
          Knoxville, TN 37919
          Telephone: (865) 588-4091


HELION TECHNOLOGIES: Underpays Technicians, Johnson et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER JOHNSON, and JAMES PHELAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HELION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03276-DKC (D. Md., Oct. 23, 2018) seeks
to recover from the Defendant unpaid minimum wage and overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as technicians.

Helion Technologies, Inc. started in 1997. The Company is engaged
as an information technologies managed services provider. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
          George E. Swegman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 244-7005
          Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
          E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
                  gswegman@nicholllaw.com


HERTZ: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Concession Fee Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that car
rental chain Hertz will be allowed to pull to the curb a class
action accusing it of improperly charging fees at non-airport car
rental locations in Chicago and elsewhere, as a federal judge said
the customer contract allows the dispute to go to an arbitrator.

On March 6, Kathryne Anne Kurth, of Chicago, had filed suit in Cook
County Circuit Court against The Hertz Corporation, alleging she
was repeatedly overcharged for car rentals in late 2017 and early
2018, paying concession fee recovery charges four different times
despite not incurring the concession fee, which amounts to about $5
per rental. She filed an amended complaint after a subsequent
rental.

After the case was removed to federal court, Hertz moved to compel
arbitration and a partial motion to dismiss. Judge Sara L. Ellis
issued an opinion on that motion Oct. 24.

According to court documents, all five transactions originated at
Hertz's agency at 401 N. State St., Chicago, where rentals do not
generate concession fees as the site is not near any Chicago
airport. According to Ms. Kurth's original complaint, those fees
are only applicable in situations where Hertz has to pay a
concession or commission fee to an airport, hotel, train station or
other agent.

Ms. Kurth belonged to the Hertz Gold Plus Rewards Program. She
joined before the company updated its member agreement in 2016 to
include an arbitration provision for disputes outside of property
damage, personal injury or death. Customers are allowed to opt out
of the arbitration provision, but Ms. Kurth did not do so until her
fifth rental on March 15.

Judge Ellis said Ms. Kurth also didn't respond to Hertz's motion to
compel arbitration, "effectively waiving any argument in opposition
to its motion." But even if she had, the judge continued, she
wouldn't have prevailed, as the Gold Plus member agreement "clearly
demonstrates the parties' agreement to send the threshold matter of
arbitrability to the arbitrator."

Hertz argued the dispute over the final rental -- added after the
initial filing -- should be dismissed because at the time Kurth
rented that car she was aware Hertz was improperly charging the
fee, so much so she'd already filed a lawsuit. That knowledge
undercuts her ability to effectively allege a violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
because she can't say the company deceived her.

Ms. Kurth countered by saying the argument she was deceived
constitutes an application of the voluntary payment doctrine and
that the 2018 Illinois First District Appellate Court ruling in
McIntosh v. Walgreens Boots All, Inc., establishes the doctrine
doesn't bar claims such as hers.

However, Judge Ellis said Ms. Kurth incorrectly interpreted
McIntosh, nothing the plaintiff in that case specifically alleged
he was unaware of the alleged deceptive act when completing a
purchase. She further said that other cases on which McIntosh
relies also involved plaintiffs unaware of being overcharged as a
transaction occurred. Ellis said Ms. Kurth's claim can't be amended
to correct the deficiency and dismissed that aspect with
prejudice.

Likewise, the failure of Ms. Kurth's fraud claim also negated
unjust enrichment claims stemming from her final rental, Ellis
said. She stayed the case pending arbitration.

Ms. Kurth is represented by attorneys Clinton A. Krislov, Kenneth
T. Goldstein and Christopher M. Hack, of the firm of Krislov &
Associates, of Chicago.

Hertz is represented by attorneys John F. Ward -- jward@jenner.com
-- and Michelle R. Singer -- msinger@jenner.com -- of the firm of
Jenner & Block LLP, of Chicago.


HOBBY FARMS: Stinnett Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Text Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE STINNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, thePlaintiff, vs. HOBBY FARMS, LLC D/B/A A CUT ABOVE, a
Colorado Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case
9:18-cv-81449-RLR (S.D. Fla., Oct. 25, 2018), seeks to secure
redress for the Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a prominent cannabis
dispensary with multiple Colorado locations. To promote its
services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming
thousands of consumers in the process. Between November 24, 2017
through December 23, 2017, the Defendant sent telemarketing text
messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in
2818.  The text messages constitute telemarketing because they
encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or
services, i.e., selling the Plaintiff cannabis.

At no point in time did the Plaintiff provide the Defendant with
his express written consent to be contacted using an automatic
telephone dialing system. The Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole
user of the 2818 Number and is financially responsible for phone
service to the 2818 Number. The Plaintiff has been registered with
the national do-not-call registry since March 7, 2014.  The
Defendant's unsolicited text messages caused the Plaintiff actual
harm, including invasion of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance,
intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.  The text
messages also inconvenienced the Plaintiff and caused disruption to
his daily life, the lawsuit says.

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

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

               - and -

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

HUAHAI US: Faces Gonteski over Sale over Adulterated Valsartan
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD GONTESKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUAHAI US, INC.; and ZHEJIANG
HUAHAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-14858-AET-LHG (D.N.J., Oct. 11, 2018) is an action against
the Defendants for manufacturing, distributing, and sale of
valsartan generic prescription medications adulterated with
N-itrosodimethylamine, a carcinogenic substance.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the putative class
members were injured by the full purchase price of their
valsartan-containing medications. These medications are worthless,
as they are contaminated with carcinogenic and harmful
N-itrosodimethylamine and are not fit for human consumption.

Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. provides formulations,
active pharmaceutical ingredients, and intermediates in China and
internationally. The company also offers pril products, including
captopril, enalapril, and lisinopril. Zhejiang Huahai
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. was founded in 1989 and is based in
Linhai, China. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          475 White Horse Pike
          Collingswood, NJ 08107
          Telephone: (856) 858-1770
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com


HUMANE SOCIETY: Faces Privacy Class Action Over Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Troutman, Esq., of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, report that political TCPA
suits are spiking and the Humane Society finds itself on the wrong
side of a putative TCPA class action lawsuit.

The suit -- brought by Plaintiff Matthew Righetti -- contends that
the Humane Society (that famously advocates for the decent
treatment of animals) violated his privacy rights when it sent "at
least one" text message to his cell phone referencing its
preference that he vote "Yes on Prop 12."  (California's Prop 12
has something to do with the treatment of farm animals and I won't
go further than that since the bill's sponsors and opponents do not
agree as to what the effect of the bill will actually be and I am
not choosing sides.)

Mr. Righetti alleges that the Humane Society knew it was texting a
cell phone without consent and used an autodialer to blast him and
others in the state with the same message.

The complaint includes a failsafe class of all individuals within
the state that received a "yes on prop 12" message from the Humane
Society without consent.

As always, it remains to be seen if this suit has merit or is just
another frivolous TCPA attack suit.

Mr. Righetti is represented by Nathan & Associates, APC out of
Newport, California.

The Humane Society has not yet entered an appearance. [GN]


HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL: 3 Women File Sexual Harassment Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABC 7 reports that Huntington Memorial Hospital is facing a
class-action lawsuit filed by three women who say an OB-GYN
sexually assaulted and harassed them during treatment.

The unnamed women allege in the suit filed on October 10 that Dr.
Patrick Sutton "used his position of authority and trust to
sexually abuse them and potentially thousands of other women who
were patients," a press release by attorneys stated in part.

The complaint also said the Pasadena hospital received numerous
complaints about Sutton dating back 20 years but failed to
investigate those claims.

Sutton has denied any wrongdoing.

In response to the lawsuit, the hospital issued a statement saying
it takes patient safety seriously but can't comment on pending
litigation.

Just last week, Huntington announced Sutton no longer had a
leadership role at the hospital.

The doctor has practiced in Pasadena since 1989 and has reportedly
delivered more than 6,000 babies.[GN]


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Adburahman et al. Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alim Adburahman, et al., Petitioners vs. Hyundai Motor America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 18-501 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), is an appeal filed
in the Supreme Court of United States on Oct. 17, 2018, from an
appellate court decision in Case Nos. 17-1582, 17-1587 (4th Cir).
The Petitioners filed for a petition for writ of certiorari.
Response is due November 16, 2018.

Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reported that the Fourth Circuit
in July 2018 snuffed out two proposed class actions from Virginia
consumers alleging Hyundai Motor America Inc. misrepresented the
fuel economy of its Hyundai Elantra cars.

Attorneys for Alim Adburahman, et al.:

          Elwood Earl Sanders Jr.
          12504 C Lake Ridge Drive
          Woodbridge, VA 22192-0000
          E-mail: sandy@lantagne.com
          eesjresquire@netscape.net

               - and -

          James B. Feinman, Esq.
          1003 Church Street
          P.O. Box 697
          Lynchburg, VA 24505
          Telephone: (434) 846-7603
          Facsimile: (434) 846-0158
          E-mail: jb@jfeinman.com


I.C. SYSTEM: Levertov Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
-------------------------------------------------------
Shneur Levertov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No.
7:18-cv-09298-NSR (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 11, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case is assigned to Judge Nelson Stephen Roman and referred to
Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison.

I.C. System, Inc., doing business as Adams, Cooper and Mark,
operates as an accounts receivable company. It serves healthcare,
dental, commercial, communications, utilities, government,
financial services, and small and medium collection agencies,
including small and medium businesses, pest control, optometry,
veterinary, and chiropractic industries. The company was founded in
1938 and is based in St. Paul, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (845) 367-7146
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


IDEAL IMAGE: McMillan-Gadison Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELYN MCMILLAN-GADISON, Individually and on Behalf of all
Others Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFF, vs. IDEAL IMAGE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and IDEAL IMAGE OF ARKANSAS, LLC, the
DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:18-cv-00789-DPM (E.D. Ark., Oct. 25. 2018),
seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of the Defendant's failure
to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated overtime
compensation for all hours that the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated worked in excess of 40 per workweek, under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendants at their spa in Little Rock. The Defendant is a medical
spa company with locations throughout the United States, including
a location in Arkansas.

The Defendants misclassified the Plaintiff and all similarly
situated members as exempt from the overtime requirements of the
FLSA, when in fact they were non-exempt employees entitled to
overtime pay. The Defendants willfully failed to pay overtime wages
to Plaintiff and to others similarly situated, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


INVISIBLE WASTE: Smith Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------
DAVID SMITH, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b), the Plaintiff(s), vs. INVISIBLE WASTE SERVICES LLC,
a Michigan Limited Liability Company, VALET LIVING, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, and MICHAEL MILLER, individually, the
Defendants, Case 0:18-cv-62571-JIC (S.D. Fla.,Oct. 25, 2018), seek
redress of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours in one or more of the work weeks he worked for
Defendants but was not paid the required full time-and-one-half his
regular hourly rate for all overtime hours he worked, as required
by the FLSA.

Specifically, the Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated,
were paid their regular rate pay for all hours worked but was not
paid any of the extra half-time for the overtime hours worked as
required by the FLSA, the Plaintiff.

The Defendants provide waste collection amenities and services to
residential complexes, including residential doorstep valet
waste/trash collection, removal, transportation, and disposal to
onsite waste compactors.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          805 Broward Blvd. Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  livia@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com


J.B. HUNT: To Pay $15MM to Settle HOS Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Emma Cosgrove, writing for Supply Chain Dive, reports that J.B.
Hunt has agreed to pay a $15 million settlement to a class of
intermodal and regional drivers, as a result of a 10-year-old
class-action lawsuit that alleges the carrier violated California's
labor rules around hours of service (HOS) and pay, reported
Commercial Carrier Journal.

In the 2007 case, Ortega v. J.B. Hunt, the plaintiffs claimed that
the carrier denied them meal and rest breaks required by law and
did not pay them for tasks performed outside the truck cab.

J.B. Hunt appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to have the case
thrown out, but the court declined to hear it. Without the
settlement, the parties would have been headed to court later this
year. [GN]


JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Dec. 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 29
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Jianpu Technology Inc. (NYSE: JT)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with Jianpu's initial public
offering on or about November 16, 2017 (the "IPO"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Jianpu investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Jianpu class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1436.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, the documents filed in connection with
Jianpu's IPO contained materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the China Banking
Regulatory Commission and three other Chinese regulators had issued
rules in August 2016 requiring peer-to-peer ("P2P") lending
companies to, among other things, appoint qualified banking
institutions as custodians and disclose their use of deposits; (2)
China created the Financial Stability and Development Committee to
coordinate major financial reforms, as well as implement market
regulation and monetary and industrial policy; (3) the
aforementioned would likely result in the disqualification of a
significant majority of P2P lenders in China resulting in a
dramatic reduction in the total number of existing, as well as
potential, financial service providers that had been the primary
source of Jianpu's revenue; and (4) as a result, Jianpu's
Registration Statement was materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
24, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1436.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013.


JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Faces Panther Partners' Suit over IPO
--------------------------------------------------------
PANTHER PARTNERS INC., Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JIANPU TECHNOLOGY INC.,
DAQING (DAVID) YE, YILU (OSCAR) CHEN, JIAYAN LU, CAOFENG LIU,
CHENCHAO ZHUANG, JAMES QUN MI, KUI ZHOU, YUANYUAN FAN, RONG360
INC., GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., MORGAN STANLEY & CO.,
INTERNATIONAL PLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CHINA
RENAISSANCE SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LIMITED, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-09848 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2018), seeks
remedies under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
purchases of Jianpu American Depositary Shares in and/or traceable
to the Company's initial public offering on or about November 16,
2017. Founded in 2011, Jianpu operates an on-line platform under
the brand name "Rong360" in the People's Republic of China. The
company's revenues are primarily generated from fees paid by
financial service providers for loan recommendation services. To a
lesser extent, Jianpu receives revenue from financial service
providers of credit cards and wealth management products for
display and performance-based advertising and marketing services.

On October 20, 2017, Jianpu filed with the SEC a Form F-1
Registration Statement for the IPO. The Registration Statement was
declared effective by the SEC on November 15, 2017. On November 17,
2017, Jianpu filed with the SEC a prospectus, which forms part of
the Registration Statement, for the IPO offering to sell to the
public 22.5 million ADS (excluding the underwriters' option to
purchase an additional 3.375 million ADS) at a price of $8.00 per
ADS. Thereafter, Jianpu sold 22.5 million ADS in the IPO and raised
approximately $164.9 million therefrom, net of underwriting
discounts and commissions and other offering expenses. In the years
prior to the IPO, peer-to-peer lending (also referred to as P2P
lending) in China experienced explosive growth. P2P lending is the
practice of lending money to individuals or businesses through
online services that match lenders with borrowers. Since
peer-to-peer lending companies operate online and have lower
overhead, lenders can earn higher returns compared to savings and
investment products offered by traditional banking institutions.
That, coupled with many small Chinese borrowers being crowded out
of the formal lending system by big corporations, allowed China to
quickly become the largest P2P market in the world. The rapid rate
of growth in P2P loans in China, many of which are small, unsecured
and short-term in nature, also led to a sharp rise in fraudulent
lending activity, particularly because the oversight of the rapidly
growing P2P marketplace was fragmented, with monetary policy and
financial regulation in China being conducted on a regional basis.

Prompted by a series of fraudulent P2P scandals, the Chinese
government sought to clean-up clean up the industry in 2016 by
adopting stringent new regulations and forming the cabinet-level
Financial Stability and Development Committee in mid-2017,
responsible for reforming China's fragmented regulatory oversight.
These measures were widely expected to disqualify a significant
majority of P2P lenders in China and, consequentially, dramatically
reduce the total number of existing, as well as potential,
financial service providers that traditionally had been the source
of Jianpu's revenue.

The Registration Statement was inaccurate and contained untrue
statements of material fact, omitted to state other facts necessary
to make the statements made therein not inaccurate, and omitted to
state material facts required to be stated. Jianpu was the
registrant for the IPO. As an issuer of securities to the public,
Jianpu is strictly liable to Plaintiff and the Class for the
materially inaccurate statements in the Registration Statement, the
failure of the Registration Statement to be complete and the
failure of the Registration Statement to disclose material
information required pursuant to the regulations governing its
preparation. At the time of the purchases of Jianpu ADS, Plaintiff
and the other members of the Class were without knowledge of the
facts associated with the wrongful conduct alleged herein. As a
result of Defendants' violations, the price of Jianpu ADS declined
substantially and Plaintiff and other members of the Class
sustained damages, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: 631 367-7100
          Facsimile: 631 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
          ABRAHAM FRUCHTER
          & TWERSKY, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: 212 279-5050
          Facsimile: 212 279-3655
          E-mail: jfruchter@aftlaw.com


JKC RETAIL: Figueroa Sues Eyewear Maker for ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JKC Retail (US) LLC.
The case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JKC Retail (US) LLC doing
business as: Linda Farrow, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10046 (S.D.
N.Y., Oct. 31, 2018).

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

Linda Farrow is a brand of luxury eyewear. It was one of the first
to treat sunglasses as fashion.[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


JOHNS MANVILLE: Rice Suit Moved to N. D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ROSE M. RICE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01625, was removed from the
Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on October 11, 2018. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-06239
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


KENDALL LAKES: Made Unsolicited Calls, Garcia Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
RICK GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KENDALL LAKES AUTOMOTIVE, LLC D/B/A KENDALL
DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP RAM, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-24397-UU (S.D.
Fla., Oct. 23, 2018) by making unsolicited prerecorded
telemarketing calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Kendall Lakes Automotive, LLC d/b/a Kendall Dodge Chrysler Jeep Ram
is a Florida limited liability company. The company operates as an
auto dealership company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: efilings@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

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


KRISHNA SCHAUMBURG: Dismissal of Count I in Sekura Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert E. Gordon of the Appellate Court of Illinois for the
First District, Fourth Division, reversed the trial court's order
dismissing count I in the case, KLAUDIA SEKURA, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
KRISHNA SCHAUMBURG TAN, INC., an Illinois Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 1-18-0175 (Ill. App.).

In her complaint, filed April 7, 2016, the Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant operates a tanning salon in Schaumburg, Illinois as a
franchisee of L.A. Tan Enterprises, Inc.  When a customer first
purchases services at the Defendant's tanning salon, he or she is
enrolled in L.A. Tan's national membership database, which allows
him or her to use his or her membership at any of L.A. Tan's
locations.  To enroll, customers are required to have their
fingerprints scanned.  In addition, the Defendant discloses its
customer fingerprint data to an out-of-state third party vendor,
namely, SunLync.

The Plaintiff alleges (1) that she has never been informed of the
specific purposes or length of time for which the Defendant
collected, stored or used her fingerprints, (2) that she has never
been informed of any biometric data retention policy developed by
defendant or whether the Defendant will ever permanently delete her
fingerprint data, (3) that she has never been provided with nor
signed a written release allowing the Defendant to collect or store
her fingerprints, and (4) that she has never been provided with nor
signed a written release allowing defendant to disclose her
biometric data to SunLync to or any other third party.

The Plaintiff alleged three causes of action: (1) violation of the
Act, (2) unjust enrichment, resulting from the Defendant's failure
to comply with the Act, and (3) negligence.  Only the first count
is at issue in the appeal.  In this first count, the Plaintiff
alleges that dDfendant violated the Act because (1) it collected,
used, stored and disclosed biometric information without first
obtaining the written release that the Act requires; (2) it
disclosed biometric information to SunLync, an out-of-state third
party vendor; (3) it did not properly inform customers in writing
that their biometric information was being collected and stored or
of the specific purpose and length of time for which it was being
collected and stored, as required by the Act; and (4) it did not
provide a publicly available retention schedule or guidelines for
permanently destroying its customers' biometric information, as
required by the Act.

The Plaintiff filed her suit as a class action alleging that a
numerous class of other customers suffered from the same
practices.

Although only one cause of action was dismissed, the trial court
made an express written finding that there was no just reason for
delaying an appeal from its order dismissing count I.  In count I,
Sekura alleged that the Defendant violated the Biometric
Information Privacy Act by collecting the Plaintiff's fingerprints
without providing the statutorily required disclosure concerning
its retention policy and other topics, and by disclosing her
fingerprints to an out-of-state third-party vendor.  The purpose of
the Act is to provide an "individual" with protections against his
or her biometric information becoming "compromised," and the Act
expressly authorizes a suit by any person who has been aggrieved by
a violation of this Act.

Initially, the trial court denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss, finding that under the plain language of the statute, the
Plaintiff was a person aggrieved by a violation of the Act.
However, after the Second District found in Rosenbach v. Six Flags
Entertainment Corp., that standing under the Act required an injury
or adverse effect in addition to a violation of the Act, the trial
court felt compelled to reverse its prior ruling and to dismiss the
Plaintiff's claim under the Act.  Subsequently, a federal district
court distinguished Rosenbach on the ground that disclosure to a
third-party vendor, which is also alleged in the case, constituted
such an injury or adverse effect.

Judge Gordon reversed the trial court's section 2-615 dismissal of
count I of the Plaintiff's complaint and remanded for further
proceedings consistent with his Opinion.

First, the Judge finds that the trial court was initially correct
and that, pursuant to both the plain language of the statute itself
and its legislative history and purpose, the Act does not require a
harm in addition to a violation of the Act in order to file suit.
The Act states, very simply, that any person aggrieved by a
violation of the Act may sue.  It does not state that a person
aggrieved by a violation of the Act -- plus some additional harm --
may sue.

Second, he finds that, even if Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment
Corp. was correctly decided and an additional "injury or adverse
effect" is required, Rosenbach is distinguishable from the case, in
the following two ways.  First, as the federal district court
similarly found, disclosure to an out-of-state third-party vendor
constitutes an injury or adverse effect, and the Plaintiff in the
instant case alleged such a disclosure, while the Rosenbach
plaintiff did not.  Second, the mental anguish that the Plaintiff
alleges in her complaint also constitutes an injury or adverse
effect.  For these reasons, he must reverse and remand.

In closing, the Judge notes that the legislature has broad latitude
and discretion in drawing statutory classifications to benefit the
general welfare.  The responsibility for the wisdom of legislation
rests with the legislature, and courts may not rewrite statutes to
make them consistent with the court's idea of orderliness or public
policy.  Whether a windfall results in this circumstance -- and it
is far from clear that it does -- is not for us to decide.  He says
their function is to ascertain the intent of the legislature as
expressed in the language and framework of its statutory
enactments.  If this interpretation is not what the legislature
intended, he urges legislators to revisit this issue and make their
intent manifest.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/4Krbjo from Leagle.com.


LA CASA: Diaz Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
Milaine Rosabal Diaz, and all others similarly situated v. La Casa
De Los Trucos, Inc., Jorge Torres, and Carmen Torres, Case No.
1:18-cv-24613 (S.D. Fla., November 2, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

It is believed that the Defendants have employed several other
similarly situated employees, like Plaintiff, who have not been
paid overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours weekly from the filing of this complaint back three years.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a salesperson from on or
about August 8, 2015 through on or about November 1, 2018.

The Defendant La Casa De Los Trucos, Inc., is a Corporation that
regularly transacts business within the Southern District of
Florida, including Miami-Dade County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LAMPS PLUS: Supreme Court Tackles Arbitration Dispute
-----------------------------------------------------
Adam Liptak, writing for The New York Times, reports that the
Supreme Court seemed prepared on Oct. 29 to rule that workers at a
California business could not band together in an arbitration
proceeding to seek compensation for what they said was their
employer's failure to protect their data.

The case was the court's latest effort to determine whether
companies can use arbitration provisions to bar class actions in
court and in arbitration proceedings. In cases concerning
fine-print contracts with consumers and employment agreements, the
court has ruled that arbitration provisions can require disputes to
be resolved one by one.

The Oct. 29 case, Lamps Plus v. Varela, No. 17-988, presented a
slightly different issue. The arbitration provision in the
employment agreement in question did not specifically bar class
actions and said that "arbitration shall be in lieu of any and all
lawsuits or other civil legal proceedings relating to my
employment." That language, a divided three-judge panel of the
Ninth Circuit ruled, meant that workers could pursue their claims
as a class in the arbitration proceeding.

In an unsigned opinion, the majority said that language allowed the
workers to band together. "A reasonable -- and perhaps the most
reasonable -- interpretation of this expansive language is that it
authorizes class arbitration," the majority said.

In dissent, Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez said the majority had
engaged in a "palpable evasion" of the Supreme Court's 2010
decision that said it was unlawful to require class arbitration
where the arbitration agreement did not discuss the matter one way
or the other.

On Oct. 29, Justice Elena Kagan said the agreement under
consideration was different because it used broad and general
language.

"A general clause usually speaks to the things inside it," she
said. "If I say 'all furniture,' it usually means tables and
chairs. If I say 'all clothing,' it usually means pants and shirts.
And we don't insist that everybody lay out all the subcategories of
things."

"Here you have an overall term: 'disputes, claims or
controversies,'" she said. "Why wouldn't you include class
disputes, claims or controversies?"

Andrew J. Pincus, a lawyer for the company, said only explicit
agreement to class arbitration should suffice. He added that
requiring class arbitration in the absence of such an agreement
would result in "the inexorable pressure to settle," as companies
would be wary of defending cases in which there was even a remote
prospect of ruinous damages.

The situation was bad enough in court, he said, but at least
appeals are available. Arbitration, meant to be speedy, informal
and final, was a different matter, he said. "Class litigation in
arbitration is a hundred times worse," he said, "because of the
very limited standard of review at the other end."

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. seemed sympathetic to that
argument, saying that class arbitration is "a poison pill" that is
"fundamentally inconsistent with arbitration."

Justice Stephen G. Breyer said that overstated things, as the rules
of the American Arbitration Association contemplated class actions
in at least some situations. "The arbitration association has rules
governing class arbitration, so they must not see class arbitration
as a poison pill," he said. "They must think that class arbitration
has a place at least in some cases."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that the court's ruling in
the case would not be particularly consequential, as companies
could simply add clauses to their contracts that barred class
actions in so many words.

"All the parties who want to arbitrate bilaterally will simply put
in their contract that a class action is waived," she said. The
case before the court, she said, seemed to involve an oversight by
"lawyers that are less than the best."

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said elaborate litigation over what may be
arbitrated undermined the point of arbitration. "It seems like a
lot of collateral expense and difficulty that seems kind of a
little inconsistent with the idea of getting to arbitration
quickly," he said.

Michele M. Vercoski, a lawyer for Frank Varela, the employee
seeking to represent a class of workers in the case, said courts
can resolve questions about arbitration procedures quickly and
efficiently. "I don't think it's a long, extensive proceeding," she
said.

Justice Gorsuch responded with a quizzical look, suggesting that a
case that had made it to the Supreme Court was not the ideal
setting in which to make that assertion. "Well," he said to
laughter, "here we are." [GN]


LATIN CONSULTING: McLean Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
MARY MCLEAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LATIN CONSULTING INC. D/B/A PAK MAIL
OF WELLINGTON, a Florida Corporation, the Defendant, Case
9:18-cv-81446-DMM (S.D. Fla., Oct. 24, 2018), seeks injunctive
relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct of unsolicited text
messages , which has resulted in the invasion of privacy,
harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of
thousands of individuals, and seeks statutory damages on behalf of
Plaintiff and members of the class, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies, under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a corporation which
offers shipping, packing, crafting and freight services. To promote
its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing,
harming thousands of consumers in the process. Specifically, the
Defendant utilized a combination of hardware and software systems
to send the text messages at issue in this case. The systems
utilized by the Defendant have the capacity to store telephone
numbers using a random or sequential generator, and to dial such
numbers without human intervention.  The Defendant's unsolicited
text messages caused Plaintiff actual harm, including invasion of
his privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion,
trespass, and conversion.  The text messages also inconvenienced
Plaintiff and caused disruption to his daily life, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

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

               - and -

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


LEFT FOOT: Mendoza Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
------------------------------------------------
CARLOS DANIEL MENDOZA RANGEL, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs LEFT FOOT LLC (D/B/A THE PIG
N WHISTLE), MAGEE-MAHON CAFE, INC. (D/B/A THE PIG N WHISTLE),
EUGENE ANTHONY WILSON, JOHN MAHON, and THERESA DOE, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-09894 (S.D.N.Y., Oct 25.2018), seeks to recover
minimum wage and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards and
the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants own, operate, or control
a casual Irish pub, located at 58 W 48th St, New York, NY 10036
under the name "The Pig N Whistle."  Mr. Mendoza was employed as a
food runner at the restaurant. However, he was required to spend a
considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped duties,
including but not limited to preparing food, making salads,
bringing supplies to the kitchen, cleaning the refrigerator
("non-tipped duties").

Mr. Mendoza worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Mendoza appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff Mendoza the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in
which he had to work over 10 hours a day, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


LOCAL INITIATIVE: Poe Sues over Deceptive Medical Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES POE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LOCAL INITIATIVE HEALTH AUTHORITY FOR LOS
ANGELES COUNTY d/b/a L.A. CARE HEALTH PLAN; MEDPOINT MANAGEMENT,
INC.; KIMBERLY A. CAREY; JEANETTE O.; and DOES 1 through 1000,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18STCV00530 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Oct. 12, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for unlawfully denying medical services to the Plaintiff and the
class.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff became a member on
September 12, 2017, of the health plan offered by the Defendants.
On September 14, 2017, the Plaintiff was evaluated by the
Defendants but failed to perform a reasonable medical evaluation.
The Plaintiff sought evaluation by a different physician but he was
informed that no appointment was available with him until September
26, 2017. The Plaintiff did undergo an evaluation by another
provider on September 26, 2017 which time the Plaintiff's symptoms
had increased and he had developed large swellings around the neck,
and in that evaluation the said provider concluded that the
Plaintiff should be examined by an infections disease specialist,
and should be examined at a specialty clinic of the Defendants. The
Defendants stated that the referral to an infectious disease
specialist would have to be approved by something called
"Utilization Review" but the Defendants failed to identify the
individual who would be deciding whether to approve the referral.

A few days after the aforesaid evaluation by the Defendants, the
Plaintiff was informed that the referral to the infectious disease
specialist had been approved by Utilization Review. However,
despite having made vigorous efforts to obtain an evaluation by an
infectious disease specialist, the Plaintiff has not been able to
obtain an evaluation by any infectious disease specialist up to the
filing of the complaint. The referral by the Defendants to an
infectious disease specialist was a complete charade.

Local Initiative Health Authority For Los Angeles County, doing
business as L.A. Care Health Plan, provides health coverage to
low-income Los Angeles County residents. Local Initiative Health
Authority For Los Angeles County was founded in 1992 and is based
in Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert C. Moest, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. MOEST
          13210 Harbor Blvd., No. 405
          Garden Grove, CA 92843-1737
          Telephone: (310) 915-6628


LOUISVILLE METRO: Court Narrows Claims in Campos Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, George CAMPOS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LOUISVILLE METRO
POLICE OFFICERS CREDIT UNION, and Josephine CROWE, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 3:18-CV-196-CRS (W.D. Ky.), Judge Charles R.
Simpson, III of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky, Louisville, (i) granted the Camposes motion to amend; and
(ii) granted in part and denied in part LMPOCU's motion to
dismiss.

LMPOCU was founded in 1942 and incorporated under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky as a cooperative, nonprofit association.
It was overseen by the Kentucky Department of Financial
Institutions and the National Credit Union Administration ("NCUA").
The members of LMPOCU were primarily law enforcement personnel and
their families. It served over 3,500 members and businesses in the
Louisville, Kentucky area and held over $28 million in assets.

LMPOCU was placed into conservatorship on Dec. 17, 2017.  At the
time of briefing, NCUA had not made a decision regarding the
long-term future of LMPOCU.  However, it appears that LMPOCU has
been liquidated and sold to Commonwealth Credit Union.  This
decision was made after determining the credit union was insolvent
and had no prospect for restoring viable operations.

The Plaintiffs allege that, prior to joining LMPOCU, Crowe had
filed for bankruptcy twice, had thousands of dollars seized by the
IRS, had a house in foreclosure, had federal and state tax liens on
her, had numerous judgment liens against her, had numerous debts in
collection, voluntarily surrendered a vehicle to avoid
repossession, and had a civil judgment entered against her by
another credit union.  After her hiring, Crowe's alleged financial
troubles persisted, as she ultimately had her house foreclosed on,
had numerous other tax liens filed against her, and had one or more
collection actions filed in court.

While she was employed at LMPOCU, Crowe allegedly began unlawfully
accessing member information and using other employees' login
information to establish or set up fictitious loans in members'
names, divert members' electronic transfers to other accounts, and
prevent payments from being made on members' loans.  The resulting
inaccuracies in members' financial records were reported by LMPOCU
to the various credit reporting agencies.  All of this conduct, the
Plaintiffs claim, was in the course of her employment, carried out
with the apparent authority to conduct such business, and at least
partly to further LMPOCU's business.

At some point, LMPOCU retained a certified public accountant to
conduct an audit and reconciliation of LMPOCU's records.  During
the investigation, Crowe remained in her position as Vice President
but was, at some point, suspended.  Next, law enforcement and
regulatory agencies became involved.  In November 2017, the
Louisville Metro Police Department began investigating possible
financial crimes involving LMPOCU.  The Federal Bureau of
Investigation quickly took over.  Shortly thereafter, the Kentucky
Department of Financial Institutions opened a separate
investigation and placed LMPOCU into conservatorship.

During its investigation as conservator, the NCUA found that LMPOCU
had a "lack of oversight" and "records that do not add up."  They
found loans taken out and loans existing on vehicles already sold
and employee actions meant to conceal and hide jaw dropping stuff.
Ultimately, they concluded that it was convoluted, done to conceal,
hide money, and to play games.  As to Crowe, NCUA concluded that
she should never have been there.

George and Heather Campos discovered fictitious loans in their
names, loans that showed balances owed despite having been paid
off, and loans that were not being paid in accordance with their
instructions.  They also discovered a number of unauthorized
personal charges on their credit cards.  As a result, negative
information was reported to credit reporting agencies about the
Camposes.

DuCre purchased a 2011 Jeep with a $28,500 loan from LMPOCU.  He
never signed any paperwork but understood the basic terms and
agreed on a payment plan.  In late 2017, he received notice that a
payment was late on "one of" his car loans.  In investigating, he
found a fictitious loan in his name for a 2016 Jeep that he did not
own.  DuCre signed an affidavit that the loan was fictitious and
was told by McCollum that he would straighten everything out.

Crowe allegedly told Terry Garvin, Sr. that he needed to come up
with $10,000 or he would be put on a list to have his property
repossessed.  Garvin then obtained a loan in his son's name so he
could pay it.  Afterward, he discovered that LMPOCU's records
showed 23 fictitious loans in his name, that there had been
numerous unauthorized cash advances on his credit card, that his
credit cards were maxed out, and that there were transactions in
his account history that he did not recognize.

LMPOCU's records show a loan for a car in Kuzma's name.  Those
records indicate that Crowe originated and processed the loan.
However, Kuzma never applied for or agreed to be the debtor on the
loan.  Kuzma also purchased two work trucks for $20,000 financed by
a loan from LMPOCU.  Those loans, also originated and processed by
Crowe, now indicate a total balance due of $60,000 -- three times
the principal.

The Plaintiffs have also sought to bring a class action against
LMPOCU.  The putative class members include all Members of LMPOCU
who purchased or otherwise utilized LMPOCU's services for personal,
family, or household purposes, and who: (1) had fictitious loans
obtained in their names; (2) had automatic periodic electronic
transfers or other funds diverted to other accounts or otherwise
stolen; (3) had fictitious loans obtained in their names, using
their property as collateral; or (4) who had false, inaccurate, or
incomplete information appear on their credit report as the result
of the above-stated actions.  As of yet, there has been no motion
to certify the class.

The Camposes originally filed their class action complaint in the
Jefferson County Circuit Court.  In it, they alleged eleven claims.
The first nine counts deal with state law, including (1) breach of
fiduciary duty, (2) fraud, (3) fraudulent omission, (4) conversion,
(5) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, (6)
negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, (7) negligence per
se, (8) breach of contract, and (9) violations of the Kentucky
Consumer Protection Act.  The remaining two counts deal with
federal law, including violations of (10) the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act, and (11) the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

LMPOCU filed a notice of removal on March 28, 2018, citing the
Court's federal question jurisdiction.  Since then, LMPOCU filed a
motion to dismiss and the Camposes filed a motion to amend their
complaint.  The motion to dismiss was made to test the Camposes'
complaint, and now the Camposes' motion to amend seeks to address
deficiencies in the original complaint, real or perceived, brought
out by LMPOCU's motion to dismiss.

Judge Simpson finds that the Plaintiffs amended complaint would not
result in improper joinder and would not be futile.  Therefore, the
Judge, being sufficiently advised, granted the Camposes' motion to
amend.  

Under that amended complaint, the Plaintiffs have successfully
stated a plausible claim on which relief can be granted for every
count except count 1 (breach of fiduciary duty).  Therefore, the
Judge granted in part and denied in part LMPOCU's motion to
dismiss.  He finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege a
plausible claim based on breach of fiduciary duty.  It is clear
from the statutory scheme and the applicable Kentucky precedent
surrounding the fiduciary duties owed by banks that members of a
credit union lack sufficient managerial powers to be properly
considered co-owners.

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

George Campos & Heather Campos, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrea
R. Hunt -- andreahunt@cobblawpllc.com -- Cobb Law, PLLC, Ben
Carter, Ben Carter Law PLLC & J. Allan Cobb --
allancobb@cobblawpllc.com -- Cobb Law, PLLC.

Louisville Metro Police Officer's Credit Union, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Ronald H. Hatfield, Jr. --
Hatfield@LitchfieldCavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo, LLP.


MALTA: Class Action Filed Over Changes to ARMS Billing System
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Bonnici, writing for Malta Independent, reports that Malta
Energy Minister Joe Mizzi was coy as to whether there would be any
changes to ARMS billing system, quota rationing, or the two-month
billing system when speaking to The Malta Independent.

Mr. Mizzi was asked by the newsroom to elaborate further on his
statements that incentives were due to be introduced for people who
are careful with their electricity consumption through changes in
the eco-reduction mechanism when giving comments to MaltaToday.

While stressing that there had been an extensive study into the
issue which was in its final stages, Mr. Mizzi would not say
whether quota-rationing or changes to the two-month billing system,
which are the cause of much of the controversy into the matter,
would occur, saying that analysis of the studies is taking place at
the moment.

Asked whether there were any times frames for the suggest proposals
to become a reality, Mr. Mizzi said that he does not think of
timeframes, explaining that he wanted the changes to be implemented
properly.

"I don't want to take long and we won't take much longer, but
things need to be done properly," Mr. Mizzi said.

Earlier this year, issues were raised on ARMS billing more
frequently, resulting in higher bills. Most people believe that the
different electricity tariffs for different levels of consumption
advertised on the ARMS website are based on annual consumption.

The principle behind the different tariffs is the more you consume,
the more you pay. Tariffs start at 10c5 for the first 2000 units
consumed, move on to 12c9 for the next 4,000 units, 16c for the
next 4000 units after that, 35c for the next 10,000 units and 60c
for anything beyond that. The different rates are charged per
household and not per person.

Despite there being no explanation whatsoever on the ARMS or
Enemalta website or by any politician coming from successive
governments, ARMS has calculated bills based on a system of quota
rationing.

It takes the global figures quoted above -- for instance, 2,000
units at 10c5, and divides the units by 365 days (one year) and
again multiplies by the number of days covering a particular bill
in question.

In effect, ARMS is cutting up the differently priced units of
electricity per day, which gives you 5.479 units per day at 10c5,
some 10.959 units per day at 12c9 and so on. While people in
smaller households with only one or two people may not have noticed
an increase in their bills, because they consume their electricity
more smoothly and may spend a considerable time out of the house,
families have certainly noticed an increase in their bills.

Some have called for the bills to be issued every six months so
that high consumption may be offset by low consumption resulting in
a fairer rationing of the quotas, while others say that if ARMS
carries out a reconciliation exercise at the end of the year based
on annual consumption, it could rebate customers for any
overpayment.

A class-action lawsuit against the billing practice has been
launched. [GN]


MASERATI NORTH AMERICA: Violates ADA, Nixon Suit Asserts
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maserati North
America, Inc. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Maserati
North America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06098 (E.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 31, 2018).

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

Maserati North America, Inc. manages motor vehicle dealerships. It
also provides shipping, logistics, technical training, marketing,
and public relation services.[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


MATTEL INC: Castro Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff Gilberto Castro filed an appeal from a court ruling
in his lawsuit styled GILBERTO CASTRO, lead plaintiff on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. MATTEL, INC.;
CHRISTOPHER A. SINCLAIR; RICHARD L. DICKSON; KEVIN M. FARR; JOSEPH
B. JOHNSON, Case Nos. 2:17-cv-04732-VAP-KS and
2:17-cv-04953-VAP-KS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from the Defendants' alleged fraudulent scheme and course of
business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Mattel
securities by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements and concealing material adverse facts.  Specifically,
the scheme: (i) deceived the investing public regarding Mattel's
business, operations, management and the intrinsic value of Mattel
securities; and (ii) caused the Plaintiff and other members of the
Class to purchase Mattel securities at artificially inflated
prices.

The appellate case is captioned as GILBERTO CASTRO, lead plaintiff
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. MATTEL, INC.; CHRISTOPHER A. SINCLAIR;
RICHARD L. DICKSON; KEVIN M. FARR; JOSEPH B. JOHNSON,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-56361, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- November 15, 2018 -- Transcript shall be ordered;

   -- December 17, 2018 -- Transcript shall be filed by court
      reporter;

   -- January 24, 2019 -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts
      of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and
      9th Cir. R. 31-2.1;

   -- February 25, 2019 -- Appellees' answering brief and
      excerpts of record shall be served and filed pursuant to
      FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1; and

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
      served within 21 days of service of the appellees' brief,
      pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1.[BN]


MC GOWAN BUILDERS: Torres Files Labor Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mc Gowan Builders
Inc. pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The case is captioned Vidal Torres individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mc Gowan Builders Inc.
doing business as: Mc Gowan, Patrick McGowan, John Doe, Rudy Doe,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06099 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 31, 2018).

Mc Gowan Builders, Inc. provides construction management and
general contracting services to institutional and corporate
clients. The company offers project management, building designing,
estimating, budgeting, scheduling, value engineering, and
accounting services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MCKESSON CORP: Dec. 26 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC on Oct. 29 notified investors
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against McKesson
Corporation ("McKesson" or the "Company") (NYSE: MCK) on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired McKesson
securities between October 24, 2013 and January 25, 2017, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/mck.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) McKesson and several of its industry peers colluded to
fix the price of certain generic drugs; (2) the collusive conduct
constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws; (3)
consequently, McKesson's revenues during the Class Period were, in
part, the result of illegal conduct and were therefore
unsustainable; (4) McKesson lacked effective internal controls over
financial reporting; and (5) as a result, McKesson's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

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

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.


MDL 2591: Court Denies Bid for Reconsideration in Corn Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: SYNGENTA AG MIR162 CORN LITIGATION, MDL No.
2591, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has denied the Plaintiff farmers' motion
for reconsideration of the Panel's order conditionally transferring
the action styled KELLOGG, ET AL. v. WATTS GUERRA, LLP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 0:18-1082, to MDL No. 2591.

Plaintiff farmers in a District of Minnesota action (Kellogg) seek
reconsideration of the Panel's August 1, 2018, order denying their
motion under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order
conditionally transferring this action, which is listed on the
attached Schedule A, to MDL No. 2591.  Defendant attorneys oppose
the motion.

After considering all argument of counsel, Judge Vance concludes
that she needs not reconsider her denial of plaintiffs' motion to
vacate.  As she previously found, this action involves common
questions of fact with the MDL No. 2591 actions, and transfer under
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  Transfer is warranted for reasons set out in her order
directing centralization.  In that order, she held that the
District of Kansas was the appropriate transferee forum for actions
sharing allegations regarding Syngenta's decision to commercialize
the MIR162 genetically modified corn trait in the absence of
Chinese approval to import corn with that trait.

Judge Vance says she rarely reconsiders her transfer orders, and
she does so only upon a showing of a significant change in
circumstances.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of a putative class of
roughly 60,000 farmers who sue their attorneys for wrongfully
pursuing individual state court cases, point to no change in facts
or other developments that would merit reconsideration.  Instead,
their motion mostly parrots arguments made in their initial motion
to vacate, largely ignoring her significant observation that
"Kellogg is replete with factual allegations of conduct that
occurred in the Syngenta MDL proceedings."

Plaintiffs argue that the Panel's transfer order improperly equates
the Kellogg plaintiffs with objectors to the settlement.  It does
not.  While the transfer order noted that a group of approximately
9,000 individual plaintiffs had objected to preliminary approval
because of the settlement's allegedly unfair treatment of
individuals who were represented by counsel and already had filed
suit, Judge Vance was aware that the Kellogg plaintiffs were not
objecting to the MDL settlement or any fees awarded thereunder.
Her reference to the objections to the preliminary settlement
merely served to underscore that other individual plaintiffs were
objecting to the potential imposition of additional, non-class
attorney fees.  Were those arguments successful and the terms of
the settlement affected, the Kellogg plaintiffs' recovery
potentially could be impacted.

Plaintiffs offer a somewhat confusing argument that transfer of
Kellogg denies them their due process rights under the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to proceed in D. Minnesota.  As an initial
matter, "[t]he fundamental requirement of due process is the
opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful
manner.  Plaintiffs' argument that transfer denies them such an
opportunity is speculative, largely devoid of specifics and,
ultimately, without merit.  Defendants offer a persuasive response:
so long as their claims are adjudicated in accordance with
governing statutes and rules (i.e., relevant federal and state
statutes and federal procedural rules), the requirements of due
process are fulfilled.  Plaintiffs failed to meaningfully respond
to this assertion in their reply.

Intertwined with their due process argument, plaintiffs argue that
if the global settlement is approved, then transfer would be futile
because there will be no work remaining in the MDL, which in turn
will force the transferee judge to remand Kellogg to D.  Minnesota.
This argument is unpersuasive for several reasons.  Even if the
global settlement resolves most cases, much work remains to be
completed in the MDL- in addition to any opt-out litigation, four
exporter cases remain in this MDL (one such case is set for a
bellwether trial in September 2019).  The conclusion of the
substantial bulk of the farmer cases via settlement does not
trigger the requirement that Kellogg- which is in its infancy- be
remanded to the District of Minnesota.  Section 1407 remand usually
occurs upon the conclusion of pretrial proceedings, which in
Kellogg are just beginning.  Plaintiffs appear to argue that they
should be afforded discovery and class certification before the
settlement is finalized, but that is unlikely as a practical matter
whether this recently-filed action proceeds in the transferor or
transferee court.

Plaintiffs also suggest that transfer forecloses the possibility of
discovery or class certification proceedings in Kellogg, but
nothing in the Panel's transfer order (or, more generally, Section
1407 transfer itself) prohibits class certification or discovery
regarding plaintiffs' claims.  All appropriate pretrial proceedings
can take place in the transferee court, where much of the conduct
about which plaintiffs complain is alleged to have occurred.  The
precise contours of such pretrial proceedings are, as always,
dedicated to the discretion of the transferee judge.

For these reasons, Judge Vance denied the motion for
reconsideration of the Panel's August 1, 2018 order transferring
the Kellogg action.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 3, 2018 Order Denying
Reconsideration is available at https://bit.ly/2F3KQYo


MDL 2670: 3 "Reo" Seafood Products Suits Transferred to S.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
MDL No. 2670, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring three
"Reo" actions to the Southern District of California and, with the
consent of that court, assigned the actions to the Honorable Janis
L. Sammartino for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

These actions are:

   * REO v. BUMBLE BEE FOODS, LLC, C.A. No. 1:18-01415;
   * REO v. CHICKEN OF THE SEA INTERNATIONAL, C.A. No. 1:18-01477;
and
   * REO v. STARKIST CO., C.A. No. 1:18-01518

Plaintiff in the actions listed on Schedule A moves under Panel
Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's orders conditionally transferring
the actions to MDL No. 2670.  Defendants BumbleBee Foods, LLC,
Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, and Starkist Co. oppose the motions.

After considering all arguments, Judge Vance find these actions
involve common questions of fact with the actions previously
transferred to MDL No. 2670, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.  The
actions in MDL No. 2670 arise out of an alleged conspiracy by
defendants -- the three largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the U.S. -- to fix prices of packaged seafood
products.

Plaintiff argues that his actions are different because (1) they do
not allege defendants under-filled their cans of tuna, (2) they do
not contain antitrust claims, and (3) plaintiff is an indirect
purchaser.  But plaintiff appears to misunderstand the nature of
the claims pending in MDL No.2670.  There are no actions in MDL No.
2670 that allege the under-filling of tuna cans.  Rather, like the
Reo actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a
conspiracy to fix the price of canned tuna, which had the effect of
increasing its price.  While plaintiff does not bring antitrust
claims, the factual allegations are similar to those raised in the
MDL No. 2670 actions, and the MDL No. 2670 plaintiffs also assert
consumer protection claims.  Moreover, Section 1407 transfer "does
not require a complete identity of common factual issues or parties
as a prerequisite to transfer, and the presence of... differing
legal theories is not significant where, as here, the actions still
arise from a common factual core."  There exists a class of
indirect purchaser plaintiffs, like Mr. Reo, in MDL No. 2670 and,
therefore, plaintiff is not unique in that respect.

Plaintiff also argues that defendants improperly removed these
actions from state court, and motions for remand are pending.  But
jurisdictional issues do not present an impediment to transfer, as
plaintiff can present these arguments to the transferee judge.

For these reasons, Judge Vance transferred the three Reo actions to
the Southern District of California and, with the consent of that
court, assigned to the Honorable Janis L. Sammartino for inclusion
in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 5, 2018 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2Dm3FUX


MDL 2672: Castellucci Suit v. VW Transferred to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2672, Judge
Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled
CASTELLUCCI v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 1:18-863
(E.D. Va.) to the Northern District of California and, with the
consent of that court, assigned the action to the Honorable Charles
R. Breyer for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

Plaintiff in the Castellucci action pending in the Eastern District
of Virginia and listed on the attached Schedule A moves under Panel
Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally transferring his
action to MDL No. 2672.  Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. opposes
the motion.  

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds this
action involves common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2672, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  Transfer is warranted for the reasons set out in her
order directing centralization.  In that order, she held that the
Northern District of California was an appropriate Section 1407
forum for actions sharing factual questions regarding the role of
VW and related entities in equipping certain 2.0 and 3.0 liter
diesel engines with software allegedly designed to engage emissions
controls only when the vehicles undergo official testing, while at
other times the engines emit nitrous oxide well in excess of legal
limits.  This action involves allegations related to the "clean
diesel" scandal and clearly falls within the MDL's ambit.

Plaintiff argues against transfer that federal courts lack
jurisdiction over his action.  Plaintiff can present his motion for
remand to the transferee judge.

Plaintiff also argues that he suffered unique personal injuries due
to his exposure to diesel exhaust fumes and that he brings unique
requests for damages and medical monitoring.  Despite any
potentially unique claims, transfer of the action is consistent
with the initial transfer order in this docket since the action's
factual core is the diesel emissions fraud.  Where, as here,
"common factual issues exist...  the presence of different legal
theories among the subject actions is not a bar to centralization."
Should the need arise, the transferee judge can accommodate any
unique discovery needs that this case presents.

Plaintiff filed this action after he voluntarily dismissed an
earlier action, which was part of consolidated proceedings against
VW in state court.  Plaintiff asserts that his current action is
significantly advanced and that many prior rulings of the Virginia
state court can be applied to his current action.  Plaintiff's
action was removed to federal court in July2018, after being
refiled in state court in May 2018.  Plaintiff brings some
different claims - for instance, a claim for violation of Florida's
civil RICO statute - than he asserted in his prior state court
action, which likely will generate significant motion practice.
His assertion that "most of the pretrial work" was completed in his
prior state court action implicitly concedes that some pretrial
work remains.  If the transferee judge is of the opinion that this
action or any other MDL No. 2672 action is advanced to the point
that trial is appropriate, then Section 1407 remand is available
with a minimum of delay.  Judge Vance declines to speculate whether
any (and, if so, which) previous state court rulings should apply
to plaintiff's recently-filed action.

For these reasons, Judge Vance transferred the action to the
Northern District of California and, with the consent of that
court, assigned the action to the Honorable Charles R. Breyer for
inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 3, 2018 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2CZ3iPe


MDL 2738: 2 Suits vs. Johnson & Johnson Moved to Dist. of N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2738, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring two
actions to the District of New Jersey and, with the consent of that
court, assigned to the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

These actions are:

   * In the Northern District of Illinois: RAFFERTY v. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:18-04199; and

   * In the Eastern District of Missouri: GIBSON, ET AL. v. JOHNSON
& JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:18-01100.

Plaintiffs in the two actions listed on Schedule A move under Panel
Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's orders that conditionally
transferred the actions to the District of New Jersey for inclusion
in MDL No. 2738.  Defendants Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson
Consumer, Inc., and Imerys Talc America, Inc., oppose both motions.
Defendants PTI Union, LLC, and PTI Royston, LLC, oppose the motion
pertaining to the Eastern District of Missouri Gibson action.

In support of their motions to vacate, plaintiffs in both actions
argue that federal subject matter jurisdiction over their actions
is lacking, and that plaintiffs' motions for remand to state court
are pending.  The Panel has held that such jurisdictional issues
generally do not present an impediment to transfer.  Plaintiffs can
present their remand arguments to the transferee judge.

Plaintiff in the Rafferty action pending in the Northern District
of Illinois also argues that transfer of that action is not
appropriate because plaintiff asserts claims against a unique
defendant--Walgreen Company, which allegedly sold the talcum powder
products to plaintiff's decedent.  Plaintiff thus contends that
Rafferty will involve different discovery than most of the actions
in the MDL, which focus on the alleged liability of Johnson &
Johnson and Imerys Talc America.  Plaintiff's arguments are not
persuasive.  Transfer under Section 1407 does not require a
complete identity of factual issues or parties when the actions
arise from a common factual core.  Plaintiff's claims, like those
of plaintiffs in the MDL, arise from a common factual core--that
plaintiff's decedent allegedly developed ovarian cancer following
perineal application of Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products.
Accordingly, transfer is appropriate.  Moreover, the Panel has
transferred numerous actions involving claims against retailer
defendants to the MDL.  

Therefore, after considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance
finds that the two actions listed on Schedule A involve common
questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2738, and
that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 will serve the convenience
of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation.  In her order centralizing this
litigation, she held that the District of New Jersey was an
appropriate Section1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions
arising from allegations that plaintiffs or their decedents
developed ovarian or other gynecological cancer following perineal
application of Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products (namely,
Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower body powder).  The
actions listed on Schedule A share multiple factual issues with
those already in the MDL.

For these reasons, Judge Vance transferred the two actions to the
District of New Jersey and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 3, 2018 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2qsbH6j


MDL 2741: Noe Suit vs. Monsanto over Roundup Moved to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled GALEN NOE, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01475, 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-06489-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 Noe 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


MDL 2741: Shorr Suit vs. Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JACK SHORR, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01641, 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-06491-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 Shorr 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:

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


MDL 2741: Sonnier Suit vs. Monsanto over Roundup Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled SHELIA SONNIER, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01633, 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-06490-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 Sonnier 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:

          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


MDL 2775: Spellman Action Transferred to District of Maryland
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: SMITH & NEPHEW BIRMINGHAM HIP RESURFACING (BHR)
HIP IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2775, Judge
Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled
SPELLMAN v. SMITH & NEPHEW INCORPORATED, C.A. No. 3:16-08080 to the
District of Maryland and, with the consent of that court, assigned
the action to the Honorable Catherine C. Blake for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiff Lori Spellman moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the
Panel's order that conditionally transferred the Spellman action to
the District of Maryland for inclusion in MDL No. 2775.  Defendant
Smith & Nephew, Inc., opposes the motion.

In opposition to transfer, plaintiff argues that Spellman involves
a claim not at issue in the MDL.  Specifically, on March 26, 2018,
the transferee court ruled on an omnibus dismissal motion in the
MDL and dismissed, inter alia, plaintiffs' manufacturing defect
claims pertaining to Smith& Nephew's BHR System.  The Ninth
Circuit, though, recently reversed the transferor court's dismissal
of Spellman and held that plaintiff should be allowed to amend her
complaint in order to sufficiently allege a manufacturing defect
claim under Arizona law.  Plaintiff argues that, in light of these
rulings, inclusion of Spellman in the MDL will result in delay and
prejudice to plaintiff.

Plaintiff's arguments are not persuasive.  There is no dispute that
plaintiff's failure to warn claim with respect to the BHR System is
directly at issue in MDL No. 2775.  Even if no other BHR action in
the MDL alleges a manufacturing defect claim, the presence of
different legal theories is not a bar to centralization where
common factual issues exist.  Furthermore, delay is not the
inevitable result of transfer.  The transferee court can employ
various pretrial management techniques -- such as scheduling
discovery and other pretrial proceedings on any issues unique to a
particular action or party on a separate track concurrently with
the common pretrial proceedings -- to avoid undue delay and to
enhance the efficient conduct this litigation.  In any event,
transfer of an action is appropriate if it furthers the expeditious
resolution of the litigation taken as a whole, even if some parties
to the action might experience inconvenience or delay.

Accordingly, after considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance
finds that the Spellman action involves common questions of fact
with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2775, and that transfer
under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  In her order centralizing this litigation, she held
that the District of Maryland was an appropriate Section 1407 forum
for actions sharing factual questions concerning the design,
manufacture, marketing or performance of Smith & Nephew's BHR
system.  The actions in this MDL focus on complications arising
from the use of a cobalt-chromium alloy in the manufacture of the
BHR components.  Plaintiff in Spellman similarly alleges that she
suffered complications arising from the metal-on-metal nature of
the BHR components used in her hip resurfacing procedures.

For these reasons, Judge Vance transferred the action to the
District of Maryland and, with the consent of that court, assigned
the actions to the Honorable Catherine C. Blake for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 3, 2018 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2Dm0GMf


MDL 2792: 2 Suits vs. Samsung Electronics Moved to W.D. Okla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: SAMSUNG TOP-LOAD WASHING MACHINE MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2792,
Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has entered an order transferring two actions pending
outside the Western District of Oklahoma to the Western District of
Oklahoma and, with the consent of that court, assigned the cases to
the Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

The actions, which are pending in the District of New Jersey, are:

   * KENNEDY, ET AL. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., C.A. No.
2:14-04987; and

   * ORENSTEIN v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., C.A. No.
2:15-04054.

Plaintiffs move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order
conditionally transferring the actions listed on the attached
Schedule A (Kennedy and Orenstein) to the Western District of
Oklahoma for inclusion in MDL No. 2792.  Defendant Samsung
Electronics America, Inc., and plaintiffs in MDL No. 2792 oppose
the motion to vacate and support transfer.  Samsung represents that
the other defendants in the MDL -- The Home Depot, Inc.; Best Buy
Co., Inc.; Lowe's Home Centers, LLC; and Sears Holdings Corporation
-- support inclusion of Kennedy and Orenstein in the MDL.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds that
these actions involve common questions of fact with the actions
transferred to MDL No. 2792 and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.  Transfer
is warranted for the reasons set out in her order directing
centralization.  In that order, shed held that the Western District
of Oklahoma is an appropriate forum for actions arising out of
allegations that certain models of Samsung top-load washing
machines suffered from design and manufacturing defects that caused
components "such as the top and drain pump, to detach, break apart,
or explode.  Plaintiffs in Kennedy and Orenstein acknowledge that
the Samsung washing machines at issue in their putative class
actions area subset of the machines at issue in the MDL, and that
their actions also focus on an alleged drain pump defect.  Thus,
their actions undoubtedly share factual issues with the actions in
the MDL.

In support of the motion to vacate, plaintiffs principally argue
that their actions are too far advanced in settlement proceedings
to benefit from transfer since they reached a class-wide settlement
in principle with Samsung over a year ago, the District of New
Jersey court recently granted their motion to enforce the
settlement over Samsung's objection, and they have a fully-briefed
motion for preliminary approval pending in D.  New Jersey.  These
arguments are unconvincing.  The record shows that there is a
proposed nationwide class in the MDL that substantially overlaps
with the proposed nationwide class settlement in the Kennedy and
Orenstein actions, and they both purport to provide remedies, which
differ in many respects, for the same allegedly defective drain
pump component.  Thus, absent transfer, there is a significant risk
of inconsistent rulings as to class certification and waste of
judicial resources.

The Kennedy and Orenstein actions are not too advanced to benefit
from transfer.  Like the actions in the MDL, they are in a
settlement posture and have a motion for preliminary approval
pending.  Moreover, plaintiffs in the MDL have opposed the
preliminary approval motion in Kennedy and Orenstein, and the
Kennedy and Orenstein plaintiffs have opposed the preliminary
approval motion in the MDL.  Transfer will ensure that a single
judge oversees the common issues raised in these settlement
approval proceedings.

The Kennedy and Orenstein plaintiffs also argue that transfer is
improper because it would permit a "collateral attack" on the
District of New Jersey enforcement order and interfere with
judicial comity.  This argument, too, is unconvincing.  Plaintiffs
essentially speculate about what will happen after transfer, but
this is not an appropriate consideration in deciding the question
of transfer.  The Panel does not consider "[t]he prospect of an
unfavorable ruling by the transferee court or the possibility that
another district judge maybe more favorably disposed to a
litigant's contention...  in exercising its discretion under
Section 1407."

For these reasons, Judge Vance transferred the two actions pending
outside the Western District of Oklahoma to the Western District of
Oklahoma and, with the consent of that court, assigned the actions
to the Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 3, 2018 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2RzL9eS


MDL 2795: Three Actions Transferred to the District of Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: CENTURYLINK SALES PRACTICES AND SECURITIES
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2795, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring
three actions to the District of Minnesota, and, with the consent
of that court, assigned to the Honorable Michael J. Davis for
inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.


The actions, which are pending in the Western District of
Louisiana, are:

   * FLANDERS v. POST, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:18-00753

   * AULT v. POST, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:18-00755

   * BARBREE, ET AL. v. BEJAR, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:18-00870

Plaintiffs and defendants in three shareholder derivative actions
(Flanders, Ault, and Barbree) move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate
Judge Vance's orders conditionally transferring the actions to the
District of Minnesota for inclusion in MDL No. 2795.  The State of
Oregon, which is the lead plaintiff in the securities class action
in the MDL, opposes the motions.

After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Vance finds that
Flanders, Ault, and Barbree involve common questions of fact with
the consumer actions transferred to MDL No. 2795, and that transfer
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.  The actions in
the MDL "share factual questions arising from allegations that
[CenturyLink and its affiliates] .  .  .  engaged in a range of
deceptive or otherwise improper practices, such as billing
subscribers for telephone lines or services that the subscribers
did not request, billing subscribers higher rates than the rates
quoted during sales calls, imposing early termination fees when
subscribers cancelled the services due to the higher-than-quoted
rates, charging for periods of service before the service was
connected or products received, and failing to process subscribers'
service cancellation requests in a timely manner." These three
actions plainly involve those same questions.  Indeed, the
complaints in both Flanders and Ault specifically aver that
the1allegations are based, in part, on the pleadings, papers, and
any documents filed in the securities actions earlier transferred
to the MDL.  The complaint in Barbree likewise contains multiple
references to the securities litigation.

The moving parties' arguments against transfer are unavailing.
Plaintiffs' assertion that the shared factual issues are not
complicated is not supported by the record.  Plaintiffs' argument
that these actions have strong ties to Louisiana (in that
CenturyLink is a Louisiana corporation with its principal executive
offices in Monroe, and the majority of the conduct at issue likely
occurred there) also is unpersuasive.  When Judge Vance centralized
this docket in the District of Minnesota, she was "well aware that
CenturyLink and all its affiliates were headquartered in Monroe,
Louisiana, and that the relevant corporate decisions reportedly all
had been made in Monroe."

Moving defendants' yet-to-be filed motions to dismiss also do not
constitute good grounds for vacatur.  The transferee court is fully
capable of ruling on those motions.  To the extent that the motions
present novel and difficult issues of Louisiana law (as defendants
contend), Judge Vance notes that those same issues likely will
arise in the two related derivative actions recently remanded to
Louisiana state court.  If the transferee judge deems it advisable,
he is free to coordinate his ruling(s) on the motions to dismiss in
the federal derivative actions with those of the Louisiana
judge(s)presiding over the state court actions.  In any event,
transfer has the benefit of placing all the federal derivative
actions before one judge, rather than leaving three in the Western
District of Louisiana and one in the District of Minnesota.

For these reasons, Judge Vance transferred these three actions to
the District of Minnesota, and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Michael J. Davis for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 3, 2018 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2OnRwA7


MDL 2800: 4 Actions vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: EQUIFAX, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2800, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring
four actions to the Northern District of Georgia and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Thomas W. Thrash
for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

The four actions are:

   * KEROBYAN v. EQUIFAX INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-05401 (Central
District of California);

   * POTENTE v. EQUIFAX INFO. SERVICES, LLC, C.A. No. 2:18-10489
(District of New Jersey);

   * LEE v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, C.A. No. 1:18-03133
(Eastern District of New York); and

   * COWHERD v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 4:18-02230 (Southern
District of Texas).

Plaintiffs in the four actions, all proceeding pro se, each move
under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate Judge Vance's orders conditionally
transferring their actions to MDL No.2800.  Defendants Equifax,
Inc. and/or Equifax Information Services LLC oppose the motions to
vacate.

After considering all arguments, Judge Vance finds these actions
involve common questions of fact with the actions previously
transferred to MDL No. 2800, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.  The
actions in MDL No. 2800 arise from a 2017 cybersecurity incident
involving Equifax in which it is alleged the personally
identifiable information of more than 145 million consumers was
compromised.  While the initial transfer order in MDL No. 2800
included only putative nationwide and statewide consumer class
actions, actions brought by individual consumers, including pro se
plaintiffs, have been included in centralized proceedings through
Section 1407transfer or direct filing in the transferee court.  The
actions before the Panel involve allegations, similar to those in
the MDL No. 2800 actions, that Equifax failed to adequately
safeguard plaintiffs' personally identifiable information, which
was compromised during the Equifax data breach, and that defendants
failed to inform the public of the data breach in a timely manner.

Plaintiffs argue that transfer will cause them inconvenience and
delay.  Judge Vance is sympathetic to their concerns, but are
unpersuaded that they justify exclusion of these actions from
centralized proceedings.  She has held that, while it might
inconvenience some parties, transfer of a particular action often
is necessary to further the expeditious resolution of the
litigation taken as a whole.  The transferee judge is in the best
position to structure proceedings so as to minimize inconvenience
to any individual party.

The remaining arguments asserted by plaintiffs are not persuasive.
The Central District of California Kerobyan plaintiff argues that
the overlap between her action and MDL No. 2800 is primarily legal
in nature, but that is incorrect.  Her complaint asserts
allegations similar to those asserted in the other MDL No. 2800
actions and discovery certainly will overlap concerning how the
Equifax data breach occurred and Equifax's response to the breach.
The District of New Jersey Potente plaintiff argues that, if his
action is excluded, there is no risk of duplicative proceedings
because he has sued an Equifax subsidiary.  But the entity sued by
plaintiff has been sued in many of the MDL No. 2800 actions, and
the factual allegations in Potente mirror those in the MDL No.2800
actions.

The Eastern District of New York Lee plaintiff argues that most of
her claims arise under New York state law, rather than federal law.
But plaintiff does not dispute that she brings related federal
claims.  Moreover, her state law claims arise from related
allegations regarding the Equifax data breach, and Judge Vance has
held that "the presence of ...  differing legal theories is not
significant where, as here, the actions still arise from a common
factual core." And while plaintiff argues that the transferor court
is more familiar with the laws of New York, it is "within the very
nature of coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in
multidistrict litigation for the transferee judge to be called upon
to apply the law of more than one state."

The Lee plaintiff also argues that her case belongs in New York
state court, but she has not moved for remand.  Similarly, the
Southern District of Texas Cowherd plaintiff argues that removal
was improper, but he filed his case in federal court.  Regardless,
jurisdictional issues do not present an impediment to transfer, as
plaintiff can present such arguments to the transferee judge.

For these reasons, Judge Vance transferred the four actions to the
Northern District of Georgia and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Thomas W.  Thrash for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 5, 2018 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2Rw6wO4


MDL 2800: Court Vacates Order to Remand Casper Suit to M.D.N.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: EQUIFAX, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2800, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation vacated her June 8, 2018 order,
which conditionally remanded the action styled CASPER v. EQUIFAX,
INC., C.A. No. 1:18-1511 (M.D. North Carolina, C.A. No. 1:17-01004)
from MDL No. 2800 to its transferor court, the Middle District of
North Carolina.

Pursuant to Panel Rule 10.2, defendant Equifax, Inc., moves to
vacate Judge Vance's order conditionally remanding the Casper
action from MDL No. 2800 to its transferor court, the Middle
District of North Carolina.  Plaintiff in Casper opposes the motion
and supports remand under Section 1407.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance will grant
the motion to vacate.  After reviewing the operative complaint in
this action, she finds Casper shares sufficient questions of fact
with the MDL No. 2800 actions such that inclusion in centralized
proceedings is appropriate. She is sympathetic to plaintiff's
concerns about delay, but is unpersuaded that they justify
exclusion of this action from centralized proceedings. She has held
that, while it might inconvenience some parties, transfer of a
particular action often is necessary to further the expeditious
resolution of the litigation taken as a whole.  Accordingly, the
Judge finds it appropriate for Casper to remain in MDL No. 2800.

For these reasons, Judge Vance vacated her conditional remand order
filed on June 8, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 5, 2018 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2Qe3fTf


MDL 2804: 7 Opiate Actions Moved to Northern District of Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2804, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring seven
actions listed on Schedule A to the Northern District of Ohio and,
with the consent of that court, assigned the actions to the
Honorable Dan A. Polster for inclusion in the coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in six actions and certain defendants in the Southern
District of Georgia Bolton action move under Panel Rule 7.1 to
vacate the orders conditionally transferring the seven actions
listed on Schedule A to MDL No. 2804.  Various responding
manufacturer and distributor defendants oppose the motions.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds these
actions involve common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2804, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  Moreover, transfer is warranted for the reasons set
out in her order directing centralization.  In that order, she held
that the Northern District of Ohio was an appropriate Section 1407
forum for actions sharing factual questions regarding the allegedly
improper marketing and/or distribution of various prescription
opiate medications into cities, states and towns across the
country.  Plaintiffs in the initial motion for centralization were
cities, counties and a state that alleged: "(1)manufacturers of
prescription opioid medications overstated the benefits and
downplayed the risks of the use of their opioids and aggressively
marketed (directly and through key opinion leaders) these drugs to
physicians, and/or (2) distributors failed to monitor, detect,
investigate, refuse and report suspicious orders of prescription
opiates."  She held that "[a]llactions involve common factual
questions about, inter alia, the manufacturing and distributor
defendants' knowledge of and conduct regarding the alleged
diversion of these prescription opiates, as well as the
manufacturers' alleged improper marketing of such drugs."

Despite some factual variances among the actions, all contain a
factual core common to the MDL actions: the manufacturing and
distributor defendants' alleged knowledge of and conduct regarding
the diversion of these prescription opiates, as well as the
manufacturers' allegedly improper marketing of such drugs.  The
actions therefore fall within the MDL's ambit.  

All parties opposing transfer in seven actions argue principally
that federal jurisdiction is lacking over their cases.  But
opposition to transfer challenging the propriety of federal
jurisdiction is insufficient to warrant vacating conditional
transfer orders covering otherwise factually-related cases.

Several parties argue that including their actions in this large
MDL will cause them inconvenience.  Given the undisputed factual
overlap with the MDL proceedings, transfer is justified in order to
facilitate the efficient conduct of the litigation as a whole.

Plaintiff Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians asserts
that the Northern District of Ohio lacks personal jurisdiction over
its action.   Judge Vance has transferred cases in this docket
brought by Native American tribes that made similar arguments, and
plaintiffs have not convinced her that she should take a different
approach here.  The transferee judge can accommodate any unique
interests that may arise due to the Tribe's status as a sovereign.
Indeed, the transferee judge already has approved an organizational
structure that includes representation for Native American
litigation and included certain Native American Tribes in the
bellwether process.

Local pharmacy and health care provider defendants in the Southern
District of Georgia action request that the Judge exclude the
professional negligence and malpractice claims against them from
the MDL.  This request is similar to the arguments contained in
defendants' pending motions to sever and partially remand, and as
such invites her to make substantive judgments about the merits of
these claims, which she historically has declined.  Defendants have
not persuaded the Judge to depart from this longstanding approach
here, and she denies these requests.

For these reasons, Judge Vance transferred the seven actions to the
Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Dan A. Polster for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 3, 2018 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2P40KXj


MDL 2841: Court Transfers Monat Global v. Miller Suit to S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: MONAT HAIR CARE PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2841, Judge
Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled
MONAT GLOBAL CORP. v. MILLER, C.A. No. 2:18-324 from the District
of Nevada to the Southern District of Florida and, with the consent
of that court, assigned to the Honorable Darrin P. Gayles for
inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Monat Global Corp. and parent company Alcora Corp., which are
plaintiffs in the Miller action pending in the District of Nevada,
moved under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order
conditionally transferring the action to MDL No. 2841.  Defendant
Toni Miller opposes the motion.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds this
action involves common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2841, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Sec.  1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  Transfer is warranted for the reasons set out in the
Judge's order directing centralization.  In that order, she held
that the Southern District of Florida was an appropriate
Section1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions in which
plaintiffs contended that Monat advertised its products as
promoting hair stability and growth, but instead plaintiffs
experienced significant hair loss or thinning and other
complications (such as itching, scalp irritation, sores and cystic
acne) after using Monat products.  The initial actions centralized
were putative class actions brought by consumers of Monat products.
Plaintiffs also asserted that the hair care products contained
ingredients that were expressly disclaimed by Monat in its
advertising.  Miller involves factual allegations related to
whether Monat products do, in fact cause hair loss and scalp
irritation (among other maladies), and it therefore clearly falls
within the MDL's ambit.

Monat argues against transfer that Miller is factually different
from the MDL actions and likely will be resolved much more quickly.
Miller is different from the typical MDL action brought by users
of Monat products for products liability and improper marketing, in
that it is a commercial disparagement action brought by Monat
against a Nevada hair stylist.  But, where, as here, "common
factual issues exist... the presence of different legal theories
among the subject actions is not a bar to centralization." Contrary
to Monat's arguments, Miller likely will involve discovery common
to the MDL- namely, whether Monat products actually cause the
various conditions mentioned by defendant Miller or suffered by the
MDL plaintiffs.  Chief among these common conditions are hair loss
and scalp sores/lesions.  The complaints in the MDL actions
reference various online posts detailing alleged user experiences
with the Monat products, including the "Monat - My Modern
Nightmare" user group from which defendant Miller allegedly
re-posted several pages on her personal Facebook page.  Moreover,
several MDL plaintiffs mention that Monat has attempted to silence
its critics by suing them.  Miller, which defendant argues is a
strategic lawsuit against public participation, could be seen as of
a piece with that effort, although Monat characterizes Miller as an
attempt to vindicate its reputation.

Transfer will place all similar discovery before the transferee
judge, who can accommodate any differences between Miller and the
MDL actions.  Because the MDL is in its infancy, Miller should be
able to be incorporated into the MDL proceedings with minimal
disruption.  Should the need arise, the transferee judge can
accommodate any unique discovery needs that this case presents.
Further, given that Miller does not involve any issues concerning
class certification, Judge Vance notes that it may be that Miller
can be remanded for trial in advance of the other actions.

For these reasons, Judge Vance transferred the Miller action to the
Southern District of Florida and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Darrin P. Gayles for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 3, 2018 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2P9n95C


MDL 2843: Kimberly Foxx Suit v. Facebook Goes to N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FACEBOOK, INC., CONSUMER PRIVACY USER PROFILE
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2843, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring
the action styled PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, EX REL. KIMBERLY
M. FOXX v. FACEBOOK, INC., C.A. No. 1:18-02667 in the Northern
District of Illinois to the Northern District of California and,
with the consent of that court, assigned the action to the
Honorable Vince Chhabria for inclusion in the coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiff in the action styled PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, EX
REL. KIMBERLY M. FOXX v. FACEBOOK, INC., C.A. No. 1:18-02667
("People of Illinois") in the Northern District of Illinois moves
under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally
transferring the action to MDL No. 2843.  Defendant Facebook, Inc.,
opposes the motion.

After considering all arguments, Judge Vance finds this action
involves common questions of fact with the actions previously
transferred to MDL No. 2843, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.  The
actions in MDL No. 2843 arise out of allegations that Cambridge
Analytica and other defendants exploited Facebook's platform to
obtain user data, and that Facebook should have imposed more robust
controls on the use of data by third party applications to prevent
this conduct.  Plaintiff does not dispute that this action shares
factual questions with the MDL No. 2843 actions.  The People of
Illinois action involves allegations, similar to those in the MDL
No. 2843 actions, that Cambridge Analytica improperly gathered the
personal data of Facebook users using the app
"thisisyourdigitallife," and that Facebook allowed and encouraged
this kind of data collection.

Plaintiff argues, inter alia , that (1) People of Illinois is
unique because it is a government enforcement action; (2) the MDL
No. 2843 consumer actions will involve issues not relevant to
People of Illinois, including standing, damages suffered by
plaintiffs, and class certification; (3) transfer will impinge on
the state's sovereign prerogative to select who represents it and,
therefore, People of Illinois will require a separate track and
relief from case management orders, which will be inefficient; and
(4) the Panel should delay transfer to allow the transferor court
to rule on the pending motion for remand to state court.

The Panel routinely transfers actions brought by states which enjoy
certain sovereign defenses in the federal system.  And the Panel
recently has rejected the argument that a sovereign entity should
not be subject to Section 1407 transfer so that it can retain
control over its counsel.

Section 1407 transfer "does not require a complete identity of
common factual issues or parties as a prerequisite to transfer, and
the presence of . . . differing legal theories is not significant
where, as here, the actions still arise from a common factual
core." In re: Auto Body Shop Antitrust Litig., 37 F. Supp. 3d 1388,
1390 (J.P.M.L. 2014).  Though there maybe some legal issues that
are unique to this action, discovery between this action and the
consumer class actions will overlap significantly.  Judge Vance
therefore is persuaded that inclusion of this action will result in
efficiencies.  The transferee judge can accommodate any unique
interests that may arise because People of Illinois is a government
enforcement action.  While it might inconvenience some parties,
transfer of a particular action often is necessary to further the
expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole.
Moreover, if the transferee judge determines that People of
Illinois is best excluded from centralized proceedings, procedures
are available whereby this may be accomplished with a minimum of
delay.  The Judge will not delay a ruling on the motion to vacate
to allow the transferor judge to rule on the pending motion for
remand.  Jurisdictional issues do not present an impediment to
transfer, as plaintiff can present these arguments to the
transferee judge.

For these reasons, Judge Vance transferred the People of Illinois
action to the Northern District of California and, with the consent
of that court, assigned to the Honorable Vince Chhabria for
inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 5, 2018 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2OmQGTS


MDL 2848: Ingolia Suit vs. Merck over Zostavax Moved to E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE INGOGLIA, the Plaintiff, vs. MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK SHARP &
DOHME CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00923, was removed
from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia) on Oct. 19, 2018. The Eastern District of
Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-20121-HB to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Harvey Bartle
III.

The Ingoglia case is being consolidated in MDL No. 2848 Re:
Zostavax (Zoster Vaccine Live) Products Liability Litigation. The
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created
the order on August 2, 2018. All actions involve common factual
questions arising out of allegations that Zostavax, a live vaccine
for the prevention of shingles, caused plaintiffs to develop
shingles or other injuries triggered by exposure to the live,
attenuated varicella zoster virus contained in the vaccine, and
that defendants did not provide sufficient warning of the risks to
healthcare providers or consumers. Issues concerning the design,
testing, manufacture, regulatory approval, labeling, and marketing
of Zostavax are common to all actions. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings on Daubert issues and other pretrial matters; and conserve
the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

In its August 2, 2018 order, the MDL Panel found that these actions
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The Panel concluded
that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is an appropriate
transferee district for this litigation. Seven actions are pending
in this district, and they are the earliest filed and most advanced
actions in this litigation. The record indicates that the Merck
facilities involved in the development, manufacturing, labeling,
and marketing of Zostavax are located in Pennsylvania and nearby at
its New Jersey headquarters. Thus, many of the common documents and
witnesses likely will be located in this area.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Adam T. Funk, Esq.
          POTTS LAW FIRM
          3737 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 1900
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 963-8881
          Facsimile: (713) 583-5388
          E-mail: afuntk@potts-law.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Elizabeth Wilkins, Esq.
          SCHLICTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
          100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MI 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621-7151
          E-mail: bwilkins@uselaws.com


MDL 2858: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 6 JumpSport Inc. Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: JUMPSPORT, INC., ('845 & '207) PATENT
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2858, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the Defendants' motion for
centralization of six JumpSport, Inc. actions.

Defendants in these six actions move under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to
centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Eastern
District of Texas.  This litigation consists of two actions pending
in the Northern District of Georgia and four actions pending in the
Eastern District of Texas, as listed on Schedule A.  Common
plaintiff JumpSport, Inc., initially opposed centralization, but
now supports the motion.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Vance concludes that centralization is not necessary for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation.  There undoubtedly is some
factual overlap among these actions, as each involves allegations
that trampolines sold by defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos.
6,053,845 and 6,261,207, both of which are entitled "Trampoline Or
The Like With Enclosure." But where only a minimal number of
actions are involved, the proponents of centralization bear a
heavier burden to demonstrate that centralization is appropriate.
The parties have not met that burden here.

Of the six actions on the motion, four have been consolidated for
pretrial proceedings in the Eastern District of Texas, while the
two actions pending in the Northern District of Georgia have been
assigned to the same judge.  Thus, there effectively are only two
actions pending herein only two districts.  Defendants in five of
the six actions are represented by the same counsel, while
defendant in the sixth action necessarily must coordinate closely
with the other defendants in the consolidated Texas proceedings.
In these circumstances, informal coordination between the two
involved courts and cooperation by the parties is both practicable
and preferable to centralization.  

Two other considerations also weigh against centralization.  First,
the consolidated Texas actions have progressed significantly.  A
Markman hearing has been held and the court recently issued a claim
construction decision.  Fact discovery closes in less than two
months, with a jury trial scheduled for May 20, 2019.  In contrast,
the two Georgia actions were recently filed in April 2018 and have
not yet proceeded to discovery.  This procedural disparity would
complicate any centralized proceeding and likely would result in
delays to the completion of discovery and the anticipated trial
date in Texas.  While there are circumstances where centralization
of advanced patent infringement actions with newer actions will
result in significant efficiencies, they are not present in this
litigation.

Second, centralization of this litigation might hinder the orderly
and efficient resolution of these cases.  Of the seven patent
infringement actions that JumpSport filed in the Eastern District
of Texas in 2017, three have resolved, and the parties have noticed
settlements in two other actions(involving Amazon.com and Dick's
Sporting Goods) that likely will result in their dismissal.  Also,
JumpSport has reached settlements with several third-party
trampoline manufacturers that have resulted in the dismissal of its
claims as to a significant number of the accused products
identified in the remaining complaints.  Centralization is not
necessary where the actions are being litigated in a manner that is
likely to lead to their resolution, whether through settlement or
other means, within a relatively short period of time.  

For these reasons, Judge Vance denied the Defendants' motion for
centralization of these actions.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 3, 2018 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2yNN2gS


MDL 2859: Court Transfers 21 Actions to Southern Dist. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ZIMMER M/L TAPER HIP PROSTHESIS OR M/L TAPER
HIP PROSTHESIS WITH KINECTIV TECHNOLOGY AND VERSYS FEMORAL HEAD
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2859, Judge Sarah S. Vance
of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered
an order transferring 21 actions listed on Schedule A and pending
outside the Southern District of New York to the Southern District
of New York and, with the consent of that court, assigned the cases
to the Honorable Paul A. Crotty for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in two actions pending in the Eastern District of
Michigan (Pastor) and the District of Minnesota (Hackett) move
under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in
this litigation in the District of Minnesota.  The litigation
consists of 21 actions, as listed on Schedule A.  The Panel has
been notified of seven additional actions involving related
issues.

Plaintiffs in seven actions submitted a collective response in
support of centralization in the District of Minnesota (or, in the
alternative, the District of Maine).  Common Zimmer defendants
(Zimmer) oppose centralization.  If the Panel orders centralization
over Zimmer's objections, Zimmer argues for either the Southern
District of Indiana or the Northern District of Illinois as the
transferee district.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Vance finds that these actions involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation.  The actions share factual issues concerning the
Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis (M/L Taper) or the Zimmer M/L Taper
Hip Prosthesis with Kinectiv Technology (Kinectiv) when either is
paired with the VerSys Hip System Femoral Head (VerSys Head).
Plaintiffs allege that the interaction (junction) between the
titanium alloy M/L Taper or Kinectiv and the cobalt-chromium alloy
VerSys Head can result in trunnionosis (wear of the femoral
head-neck interface), corrosion, and release of metal debris, which
can lead to the implanted patient suffering metallosis, adverse
local tissue reaction, loss of bone tissue (osteolysis), or other
injury, and requiring revision surgery.  Plaintiffs contend that
Zimmer defectively designed and manufactured the components, failed
to adequately test them, and failed to warn doctors and the public
regarding the risk of serious injury from use of the components.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, avoid the
possibility of conflicting rulings on Daubert and other pretrial
motions, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel,
and the judiciary.

In opposing centralization, Zimmer argues that (1) there are
insufficient common factual issues and discovery will not overlap,
because the three components (M/L Taper, Kinectiv, and VerSys Head)
are distinct products with different development and regulatory
histories; (2) individual, plaintiff-specific issues (e.g.,
application of the learned intermediary doctrine) overwhelm any
common issues; and (3) given the number of actions and involved
plaintiffs' counsel, informal coordination and cooperative efforts
by the parties are preferable to formal centralization.  These
arguments are not convincing.  First, plaintiffs' allegations do
not concern each component in isolation, but rather, the use of
either the M/L Taper or Kinectiv in combination with the VerSys
Head.  Second, the presence of some individual factual issues is
true of most products liability cases and, in particular, medical
device cases.  Such differences are not an impediment to
centralization where there are substantial factual issues in
common.  Third, with twenty-eight related actions pending in eleven
districts, Judge Vance does not believe that informal coordination
or other alternatives to centralization are workable.  Indeed, the
representations made by counsel at oral argument left her with
considerable doubt concerning the parties' cooperative efforts to
date.

Judge Vance concludes that the Southern District of New York is an
appropriate transferee district for this litigation.  Two
constituent actions are pending in that district, including Shaw,
which is one of the most advanced cases (commenced in March 2017).
Judge Paul A. Crotty, to whom she assigns the litigation, is
presiding over Shaw.  He is an experienced transferee judge, having
previously handled three other MDLs.  Judge Vance is confident he
will steer this litigation on a prudent course.

For these reasons, Judge Vance transferred the 21 actions listed on
Schedule A and pending outside the Southern District of New York to
the Southern District of New York and, with the consent of that
court, assigned the cases to the Honorable Paul A. Crotty for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 3, 2018, Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2EZMdHn


MDL 2860: Court Denies Clervrain's Bid to Centralize 11 Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: MANETIRONY CLERVRAIN LITIGATION, MDL No. 2860,
Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has denied Plaintiff Manetirony Clervrain's motion for
centralization of 11 actions.

Plaintiff Manetirony Clervrain, who is proceeding pro se, moves to
centralize 11 actions in the District Court for the District of
Columbia.  The United States of America and the Bureau of Prisons,
defendants in a since-dismissed District of Kansas action,
submitted a response in opposition to inclusion of that action in
the proposed MDL.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Vance denies plaintiff's motion.  The actions have little in
common, as they involve such disparate matters as the conditions of
plaintiff's confinement at various federal correctional facilities,
the handling of plaintiff's mail, plaintiff's access to computers
and legal resources, and the denial of plaintiff's naturalization
application.  Plaintiff has not demonstrated that centralization
under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 is warranted.

For these reasons, Judge Vance denied the motion for centralization
of these actions.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 3, 2018 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2JyIqiW


MDL 2862: 3 Actions Transferred to Western Dist. of Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: DIISOCYANATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No.
2862, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring three
actions and pending outside the Western District of Pennsylvania to
the Western District of Pennsylvania and, with the consent of that
court, assigned to the Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

These three actions are:

   * In the Eastern District of Michigan, ISAAC INDUSTRIES, INC. V.
BASF ORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:18-12089,

   * In the District of New Jersey, C.U.E., INC. v. BASF AG, ET
AL., C.A. No. 2:18-11439, and

   * In the Western District of Pennsylvania, UTAH FOAM PRODUCTS,
INC v. BAYER A.G. , ET AL., 2:18-00858.

Plaintiff in one action in the Western District of Pennsylvania
moves under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to centralize this litigation in
that district or, alternatively, the Southern District of New York
or the Northern District of Alabama.  This litigation currently
consists of three actions pending in three districts, as listed on
Schedule A.  Since the filing of the motion, the Panel has been
notified of nine additional related federal actions.

All responding parties support, or do not oppose, centralization,
but request different transferee districts.  Nine defendants
support centralization in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania or,
alternatively, the Western District of Pennsylvania, and one - the
Lanxess Corporation - takes no position.  Plaintiffs variously
propose the Northern District of Alabama, the Eastern District of
Michigan, the District of New Jersey, the Southern District of New
York, the Eastern and Western Districts of Pennsylvania, and the
District of Kansas, as their first or second choice.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Vance finds that these actions involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation.  All actions share complex factual questions
arising from allegations that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to
fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of methylene diphenyl
diisocyanate (MDI) and toluene diisocyanate (TDI)sold in the United
States, from early2015 or 2016 through the present, including
through3agreementstolimit supply of MDI and TDI through planned
manufacturing shutdowns at plants worldwide and implementing
coordinated price increases.  The record indicates that discovery
is likely to be international in scope and will include a
significant number of nonparties.  Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings,
especially with respect to class certification and Daubert motions;
and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the
judiciary.

Judge Vance concludes that the Western District of Pennsylvania is
an appropriate transferee forum.  One defendant has its U.S.
headquarters in this district, and five other defendants have their
headquarters in adjacent or nearby districts.  Relevant documents
and witnesses therefore are likely to be located in or close to
this area.  Nearly all responding defendants agree that the Western
District of Pennsylvania is an appropriate venue, along with
plaintiffs in one action on the motion and one potential tag-along
action.  Judge Donetta W. Ambrose is an experienced transferee
judge with the ability and willingness to manage this litigation
efficiently.  Judge Vance is confident Judge Ambrose will steer
this matter on a prudent course.

For these reasons, Judge Vance transferred the three actions and
pending outside the Western District of Pennsylvania to the Western
District of Pennsylvania and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 3, 2018 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2PEJZRX


MDL 2862: Era Polymers Suit vs. BASF over Isocyanate Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Era Polymers Proprietary Ltd., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BASF SE; BASF CORP.; BAYER
AG; BAYER CORP., COVESTRO AG; COVESTRO LLC; DOWDUPONT INC.; DOW
CHEMICAL CO.; HUNTSMAN CORP.; HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL LLC.; LANXESS
AG, LANXESS CO.; 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., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-12357, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the the Eastern District of Michigan, to the
U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh)
on Oct. 25, 2018. The Western District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01431-DWA-LPL to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Donetta W. Ambrose.

The Era case is being consolidated with MDL 2862 in re:
DIISOCYANATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
Oct. 3, 2018. The MDL Panel find that these actions involve common
questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions share complex
factual questions arising from allegations that defendants engaged
in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of
methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) and toluene diisocyanate
(TDI) sold in the United States, from early 2015 or 2016 through
the present, including through 3 agreements to limit supply of MDI
and TDI through planned manufacturing shutdowns at plants worldwide
and implementing coordinated price increases. The record indicates
that discovery is likely to be international in scope and will
include a significant number of nonparties. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings, especially with respect to class certification and Daubert
motions; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel
and the judiciary.

In its Oct. 3 Order, the MDL Panel concludes that the Western
District of Pennsylvania is an appropriate transferee forum. One
defendant has its U.S. headquarters in this district, and five
other defendants have their headquarters in adjacent or nearby
districts. Relevant documents and witnesses therefore are likely to
be located in or close to this area. Nearly all responding
defendants agree that the Western District of Pennsylvania is an
appropriate venue, along with plaintiffs in one action on the
motion and one potential tag-along action. Judge Donetta W. Ambrose
is an experienced transferee judge with the ability and willingness
to manage this litigation efficiently. We are confident she will
steer this matter on a prudent course.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff Era Polymers Proprietary Limited:

          Richard A. Koffman, Esq.
          Jessica B. Weiner, Esq.
          Christopher J. Cormier, Esq.
          Sharon K. Robertson, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408 4600
          E-mail: rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com
                  jweiner@cohenmilstein.com
                  ccormier@cohenmilstein.com
                  srobertson@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Warren T. Burns, Esq.
          Will Thompson, Esq.
          Korey Nelson, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (469) 904-4550
          E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
                  wthompson@burnscharest.com

               - and -

          Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq.
          Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES M ERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          220 Collingwood Drive, Suite 130
          Ann Arbor, MI 48103
          Telephone: (734) 769-2144
          E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com
                  emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
          Chad Carder, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          E-mail: jgittleman@barrack.com
                  ccarder@barrack.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Boni, Esq.
          Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
          BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
          15 St. Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 822-0200
          E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
                  jsnyder@bonizack.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Andrew Marovitz, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-4637
          Telephone: (312) 782-0600
          Facsimile: (312) 701-7711
          E-mail: amarovitz@mayerbrown.com

MDL 2862: Unicast vs. BASF AG over Isocyanate Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNICAST, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BASF AG; BASF CORP.; BAYER AG; BAYER
CORP., COVESTRO AG; COVESTRO LLC; DOWDUPONT INC.; DOW CHEMICAL CO.;
HUNTSMAN CORP.; HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL LLC.; LANXESS AG, LANXESS
CO.; 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., the Defendants, Case
No. 5:18-cv-03438, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District
Court Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) on Oct. 24,
2018. The Western District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:18-cv-01432-DWA-LPL to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Donetta W. Ambrose.

The Unicast case is being consolidated with MDL 2862 in re:
DIISOCYANATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
Oct. 3, 2018. The MDL Panel find that these actions involve common
questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions share complex
factual questions arising from allegations that defendants engaged
in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of
methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) and toluene diisocyanate
(TDI) sold in the United States, from early 2015 or 2016 through
the present, including through 3 agreements to limit supply of MDI
and TDI through planned manufacturing shutdowns at plants worldwide
and implementing coordinated price increases. The record indicates
that discovery is likely to be international in scope and will
include a significant number of nonparties. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings, especially with respect to class certification and Daubert
motions; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel
and the judiciary.

In its Oct. 3 Order, the MDL Panel concludes that the Western
District of Pennsylvania is an appropriate transferee forum. One
defendant has its U.S. headquarters in this district, and five
other defendants have their headquarters in adjacent or nearby
districts. Relevant documents and witnesses therefore are likely to
be located in or close to this area. Nearly all responding
defendants agree that the Western District of Pennsylvania is an
appropriate venue, along with plaintiffs in one action on the
motion and one potential tag-along action. Judge Donetta W. Ambrose
is an experienced transferee judge with the ability and willingness
to manage this litigation efficiently. We are confident she will
steer this matter on a prudent course.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff Unicast Inc. and the Class:

          Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
          GRABAR LAW OFFICE
          BNY Mellon Center
          1735 Market Street, Suite 3750
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 507-6085
          E-mail: gjgrabar@grabarlawofficecom

               - and -

          Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Telephone: (215) 867-2399
          Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
          E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com

Attorneys for Bayer Corporation & Covestro LLC:

          John Terzaken, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          900 G Street NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 636-5858
          E-mail: john.terzaken@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Albert G. Bixler, Esq.
          Leslie A. Hayes, Esq.
          ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
          Two Liberty Place
          50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 851-8412
          Facsimile: (215) 851-8383
          E-mail: abixler@eckertseamans.com
                  lhayes@eckertseamans.com

Attorneys for BASF Corporation

          Andrew S. Marovitz, Esq.
          Mayer Brown, Esq.
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-0600
          E-mail: amarovitz@mayerbrown.com

Attorneys for DOW Chemical Company:

          David Bernick, Esq.
          PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-405

               - and -

          William T. McEnroe, Esq
          DECHERT LLP
          2929 Arch St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Telephone: (215) 994-2331
          Facsimile: (215) 655-2331
          E-mail: william.mcenroe@dechert.com

Attorneys for Huntsman International LLC and Huntsman Corporation:

          John E. Schmidtlein, esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 Twelfth St., N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5901
          E-mail: jschmidtlein@wc.com

Attorneys for Wanhua Chemical Group CO. LTD and Wanhua Chemical
America Co. Ltd.:

          Alden L. Atkins, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Nw
          Suite 500 West
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 639-6613
          Facsimile: (202) 639-6500
          E-mail: aatkins@velaw.com

Attorneys for Mitsui Chemicals, Inc. and Mitsui Chemicals America
Inc.:

          James A. Backstrom, Esq.
          JAMES A. BACKSTROM, COUNSELLOR AT LAW
          1515 Market St Suite 1200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-1932
          Telephone: (215) 864-7797
          Facsimile: (801) 469-9381
          E-mail: jabber@backstromlaw.com

               - and -

          William S. Farmer, Es.
          FARMER BROWNSTEIN JAEGER & GOLDSTEIN LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, Suite 835
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Telephone: (415) 962-2878
          E-mail: wfarmer@fbj-law.com


Attorneys for MCNS and MCNS Polyurethanes USA Inc.:

          Ryan M. Sandrock, Esq.
          Allen C. Kim, Esq
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 California Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-1219
          Facsimile: (415) 772-7400
          E-mail: rsandrock@sidley.com
                  akim@sidley.com

               - and -

          Robert E. Welsh , Jr.
          WELSH & RECKER, P.C.
          2000 Market St., STE 2903
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 972-6430
          Facsimile: (215) 972-6436
          E-mail: rewelsh@welshrecker.com

MDL 2863: Court Denies Bid to Centralize Data Security Breach Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: [24]7.AI, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2863, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
centralization of these actions.

This litigation consists of three actions:

   * In Central District of California, PICA v. DELTA AIR LINES,
INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-02876,

   * In Northern District of California, FORD, ET AL. v. 24/7,
INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:18-02770, and

   * In Northern District of Georgia, MCGARRY v. DELTA AIR LINES,
INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:18-02794.

Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California Ford action move
under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in
this litigation in the Northern District of California.  In
addition, the parties have notified the Panel of one potential
tag-along action, which was recently filed in the Northern District
of California.

Plaintiff in the McGarry action pending in the Northern District of
Georgia does not oppose the motion on the condition that any claims
against Best Buy Co., Inc., are excluded from the MDL.  The McGarry
plaintiff suggests the Northern District of Georgia as the
transferee district.  Plaintiffs in the action pending in the
Central District of California, as well as defendants Delta Air
Lines, Inc., and [24]7.AI, Inc., oppose centralization and,
alternatively, suggest the Central District of California as the
transferee district.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Vance concludes that centralization will not serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation.  There is little dispute that
these actions share factual questions arising from an alleged data
breach of [24]7, which provides online chat, customer support
services, and sales and service-oriented software to various
businesses, including Best Buy, Delta, and Sears.  There are,
however, only four actions at issue (including the potential
tag-along action) pending in three districts.  Where only a minimal
number of actions are involved, the proponent of centralization
bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that centralization is
appropriate.  Movants have not met that burden here.

The Judge has held that centralization under Section 1407 should be
the last solution after considered review of all other options.
Here, a number of pending motions could significantly reduce or
even eliminate the multidistrict character of this litigation.
Both Delta and[24]7 have filed Section 1404 motions in the actions
pending in the Northern District of California and the Northern
District of Georgia (seeking transfer to the Central District of
California).  In addition, a recent ruling on Delta's dismissal
motion by the court in the action pending in the Central District
of California may result in the complete dismissal of that action,
reducing the number of districts at issue to two.

Even if the pending transfer and dismissal motions do not eliminate
the multidistrict character of this litigation, voluntary
cooperation and coordination among the small number of parties and
involved courts appears eminently feasible.  The Judge encourages
the parties to employ the various alternatives to transfer that
exist to minimize any potential for duplicative discovery and
inconsistent pretrial rulings in this litigation.

For these reasons, Judge Vance denied the motion for centralization
of these actions.  

A full-text copy of the Court's October 3, 2018 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2F21yHu


MDL 2864: Bid to Centralize Suit over Vegas Shooting Incident Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ROUTE 91 HARVEST FESTIVAL SHOOTINGS IN LAS
VEGAS, NEVADA, ON OCTOBER 1, 2017, MDL No. 2864, Judge Sarah S.
Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
entered an order denying MGM Resorts International, et al.'s motion
for centralization of thirteen actions pending in eight districts.

MGM Resorts International, Mandalay Bay, LLC, Mandalay Resort
Group, MGM Resorts Venue Management, LLC, and MGM Resorts Festival
Grounds, LLC (collectively, MGM) move under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to
centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation.  MGM does not
request a particular transferee district.  Defendants Live Nation
Worldwide, Inc., and Live Nation Group d/b/a OneNationGroup, LLC,
join MGM's motion.  Plaintiffs in the Sheppard action pending in
the District of Nevada oppose centralization and, alternatively,
suggest the District of Nevada as the transferee district.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Vance concludes that centralization will not serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation.  These actions arise from an
October1, 2017, mass shooting (the Harvest Festival Shooting),
during which Stephen Paddock, firing from a room at the Mandalay
Bay hotel, killed or wounded hundreds of individuals attending a
country music festival across the street.  Nine of the actions,
though, are declaratory judgment actions brought by MGM against
approximately 1,977 individuals who either previously sued or have
threatened to sue MGM for failing to employ adequate safety
measures with respect to its hotel operations and management of the
concert venue that allegedly could have prevented the shooting.  In
each of these actions, MGM seeks a declaration1that any state-law
claims arising against MGM from the Harvest Festival Shooting are
barred by the SAFETY Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. Secs. 441-444, and that
MGM has no liability to plaintiffs under the Act.  Whether the
SAFETY Act is applicable to these claims is a legal question.  MGM
seeks efficiencies through centralized treatment of this disputed
legal question, which also is at issue in the four individual
negligence actions listed on the motion, which were removed on the
basis of the SAFETY Act.  But, "[m]erely to avoid [different]
federal courts having to decide the same issue is, by itself,
usually not sufficient to justify Section 1407 centralization."
The declaratory judgment actions do not, on their own, present
sufficiently numerous or complex common questions of fact to merit
centralization.

The other four actions listed on Schedule A, as alluded to, are
individual negligence actions naming MGM as a defendant.  Where
only a minimal number of actions are involved, the proponent of
centralization bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that
centralization is appropriate.  Here, three of the four negligence
actions are pending in one district (the Central District of
California) and are being coordinated by one judge.  Thus, the
Judge is presented with one negligence action in the District of
Nevada and three coordinated negligence actions in the Central
District of California (as well as the nine declaratory judgment
actions, which present few factual questions).  There also is
significant overlap among counsel in these actions.  At this point,
voluntary cooperation and coordination among the small number of
parties and involved courts appears feasible.  The Judge encourages
the parties to employ various alternatives to transfer which may
minimize the potential for duplicative discovery and inconsistent
pretrial rulings in this litigation.

MGM argues that this litigation will expand significantly.  In
particular, MGM emphasizes that it has received pre-litigation hold
letters from at least 63 attorneys on behalf of 2,462 individuals,
and that one attorney claims that 22,000 lawsuits are expected.
Yet, only 38 negligence actions have been filed to date, and 34 of
those were voluntarily dismissed.  The Panel generally does not
"take into account the mere possibility of future filings" when
considering centralization.  Moreover, plaintiffs have indicated
their intent to pursue this litigation in Nevada state court.  With
dismissal and remand motions pending in all actions, it is possible
that, instead of expanding, the federal litigation will lose its
multidistrict character or cease altogether.  As the contours of
this litigation are not yet apparent, centralization is
inappropriate.

For these reasons, Judge Vance denied the motion for centralization
of these actions.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 3, 2018 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2zwZUYH


MDL 2865: 140 "SKAT" Suits Transferred to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: CUSTOMS AND TAX ADMINISTRATION OF THE  KINGDOM
OF DENMARK (SKAT) TAX REFUND SCHEME LITIGATION, MDL No. 2865, Judge
Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has entered an order transferring 140 actions pending in
11 Districts, and pending outside the Southern District of New York
to the Southern District of New York and, with the consent of that
court, assigned to the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The Customs and Tax Administration of the Kingdom of Denmark
(SKAT), the common plaintiff, moves under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to
centralize this litigation in the Southern District of New York.
This litigation now consists of 140 actions pending in 11
districts, as listed on Schedule A.  Defendants in 104 actions
support centralization in the Southern District of New York.  The
Tew defendants in 15 actions in the Eastern District of Kentucky
oppose inclusion of their actions in the proposed MDL.  Defendants
in the remaining actions, as well as the non-Tew defendants in six
Eastern District of Kentucky actions, did not file responses.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Vance finds that these actions involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation.  The actions share complex factual questions
arising from plaintiff SKAT's allegation that the defendants -- 141
U.S. retirement and pension plans and their alleged representatives
and agents -- engaged in a fraudulent scheme to obtain tax refunds
from SKAT utilizing the services of overlapping individuals and
firms that served as their authorized representatives, payment
agents, and broker-custodians, following the same pattern of
conduct in each action.  In particular, SKAT alleges that, in all
actions, defendants falsely represented that the plans owned shares
in Danish companies, that taxes had been withheld on the dividends,
and as tax-exempt entities, they were entitled to refunds under a
double taxation treaty between Denmark and the United States.  One
of four payment agents allegedly was involved in all of the tax
refund applications, and these agents in turn allegedly used one of
nine broker custodians to provide false documentation of stock
ownership and related tax information.  The record indicates that
discovery is likely to be international in scope and will include a
significant number of nonparties.  Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings,
especially with respect to dispositive motions and discovery
disputes; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel,
and the judiciary.

The sole opposition to centralization is from the Tew defendants,
who argue only against inclusion of the Eastern District of
Kentucky actions.  They argue that their actions focus on
Kentucky-based individuals and entities that have nothing to do
with the other actions in this litigation.  But the record before
the Panel does not support their contention.  SKAT alleges that the
tax refund claims in the Kentucky actions were part of the alleged
common scheme at issue in the broader litigation.  Moreover, the
brokerage firm allegedly supplying false documentation for the
claims at issue in the Kentucky actions is the same firm allegedly
involved in 14 actions in six other districts.  Thus, Judge Vance
declines the Tew defendants' request to exclude the Eastern
District of Kentucky actions.  She concludes that the Southern
District of New York is an appropriate transferee district for this
litigation.  The majority of actions are concentrated in or near
this district, and it is conveniently located for this nationwide
litigation.  Judge Lewis A. Kaplan is an experienced transferee
judge, and he is familiar with the issues raised in this
litigation.  Judge Vance is confident he will steer this matter on
a prudent course.

For these reasons, Judge Vance transferred the actions listed on
Schedule A and pending outside the Southern District of New York to
the Southern District of New York and, with the consent of that
court, assigned to the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 3, 2018 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2DkS20L


MDL 2866: Court Denies Bid to Centralize Securities Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: LUCA INTERNATIONAL GROUP SECURITIES LITIGATION,
MDL No. 2866, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation denied Defendant Lei (Lilly) Lei's motion
for centralization of these actions:

     -- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. LUCA INTERNATIONAL
GROUP, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:15-03101 (Northern District of
California); and

     -- RANDY WILLIAMS, TRUSTEE OF THE LUCA LIQUIDATING TRUST v.
LEI (LILY) LEI, ET AL., Bky. Advy. No. 4:17-03375 (Southern
District of Texas)

Defendant Lei (Lilly) moves under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to centralize
pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Northern District of
California.  Defendant Bingqing Yang does not oppose the motion.
Plaintiffs in both actions oppose the motion.

These actions arise out of allegations that common defendants Lei
Lei, Anthony V. Pollace, and Bingqing Yang violated federal
securities laws by selling unregistered securities in Luca funds
and engaging in a scheme to defraud investors.  The Northern
District of California action is a civil enforcement action brought
by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC).  The action pending in
the Southern District of Texas bankruptcy court is an adversary
proceeding brought by the Trustee of the Luca Liquidating Trust on
behalf of the trust's beneficiaries.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, Judge
Vance concludes that centralization is not necessary for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation.  All actions involve questions
of fact as to the scheme in which defendants Lei, Yang, and Pollace
are alleged to have participated.  But she is not convinced that
centralization will deliver significant benefits in terms of
enhancing the efficient conduct of these actions or the convenience
of the parties.  There are just two actions pending in two
districts, with a limited number of parties and counsel.  Informal
coordination clearly is practicable.  And it seems movant has not
explored alternatives to centralization before filing the present
motion.

Additionally, the actions are in widely different procedural
postures.  The SEC action has been pending for three years,
discovery is nearly complete, and the court is hearing motions for
summary judgment.  In contrast, defendants to the adversary
proceeding were served four months ago.  Centralization, therefore,
would have the likely effect of delaying the quite advanced SEC
action.

The SEC argues that 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u(g) prohibits its action--an
action for equitable relief instituted by the SEC pursuant to the
securities laws--from being coordinated or consolidated with other
actions not brought by the SEC without the SEC's consent, which it
has not granted.  The Judge finds that the circumstances presented
in this motion do not warrant centralization and, therefore, she
need not reach this argument.

For these reasons, Judge Vance denied the motion for centralization
of these actions.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 5, 2018 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2CWLSTj


MDL 2867: Clay and Miller Suits Transferred to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: LOCAL TV ADVERTISING ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2867, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring two
actions and pending outside the Northern District of Illinois to
the Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that
court, assigned to the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

These two actions are styled CLAY, MASSEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. v.
GRAY TELEVISION, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:18-05197, and LAW OFFICES
OF PETER MILLER, P.A. v. SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:18-02316.

Plaintiff in one action in the Northern District of Illinois moves
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize this litigation in that
district. This litigation currently consists of two actions pending
in two districts.  Since the filing of the motion, the Panel has
been notified of fifteen related actions.

All responding parties support centralization, but request
different transferee districts.  All defendants support
centralization in the Northern District of Illinois or,
alternatively, the District of Maryland or the Southern District of
New York.  Plaintiffs in the District of Maryland actions,
plaintiffs in the Northern District of Illinois actions, and
plaintiffs in the Southern District of New York actions request
their own districts respectively.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Vance finds that these actions involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation.  All actions share complex factual questions
arising from allegations that defendants have engaged in a
conspiracy to artificially inflate the prices for local television
advertisement time throughout the United States since sometime in
2014 or 2016.  The actions commonly allege that the conspiracy was
effectuated by sharing competitively sensitive information through
defendants' advertising sales teams in order to raise advertising
prices to supracompetitive levels, and that the alleged scheme was
facilitated by certain industry associations.  Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings, especially with respect to class certification and Daubert
motions; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel
and the judiciary.

The Judge concludes that the Northern District of Illinois is an
appropriate transferee district for this litigation.  Tribune
Media, which is sued in all actions, has its headquarters in this
district, and thus common evidence is likely located there.  All
defendants and plaintiffs in six actions agree that this district
provides a geographically central and convenient location for the
parties and witnesses.  One action on the motion and eight
potential tag-along actions are pending there.  Judge Virginia M.
Kendall is an experienced jurist with the ability and willingness
to manage this litigation efficiently.  She is confident she will
steer this matter on a prudent course.

Judge Vance therefore transferred the two actions and pending
outside the Northern District of Illinois is transferred to the
Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 3, 2018 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2PEJbwE


MDL 2867: Crowley Webb Suit v. Hearst Moved to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CROWLEY WEBB AND ASSOCIATES, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; GRAY TELEVISION, INC.;
NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC.; TEGNA INC.; TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY; and
SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07976,
was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois on October 12, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:18-cv-06884 to the proceeding. The Crowley Webb suit is
a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No.
2867.

Hearst Communications, Inc. publishes a fashion magazine under the
name Elle for women in the United States. Its magazine offers
information and news related to fashion, beauty, hair, and
relationships. The company also provides advertising services.
Additionally, it offers print and digital subscription services.
The company was founded in 1996 and is based in New York, New York.
Hearst Communications, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of The Hearst
Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                  jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

              - and -

          Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
          Marco Cercone, Esq.
          RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF
          CUNNINGHAM, LLC
          1600 Liberty Building, 424 Main Street
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 664-2967
          E-mail: bailey@ruppbaase.com
          Cercone@ruppbaase.com


MDL 2868: Court Denies Bid to Centralize Products Liability Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: LINEAR GADOLINIUM-BASED CONTRAST AGENTS
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2868, Judge Sarah S. Vance
of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for centralization of 21 actions pending in 13
districts.

Plaintiffs in 17 actions move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to
centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Northern
District of California or, alternatively, the District of
Massachusetts.

Plaintiffs in one action and one potentially-related action support
centralization in the Northern District of California or,
alternatively, the Southern District of Illinois.  Plaintiffs in
one potentially-related action support centralization in the
District of Massachusetts and do not oppose centralization in the
Northern District of California.  Plaintiffs in one District of
Arizona and one Northern District of California potentially-related
action support centralization in the Southern District of Illinois
or, alternatively, the District of Arizona.

Responding defendants uniformly oppose centralization.  The Guerbet
defendants and Bracco Diagnostics Inc. alternatively request the
Panel stay its decision until general causation discovery is
completed in the District of Arizona actions.  These defendants
alternatively suggest or do not oppose centralization in the
District of Arizona.  The Bayer defendants, McKesson defendants,
Mallinckrodt defendants, and GE defendants alternatively suggest
centralization in the District of Arizona, the Southern District of
New York, and/or the District of Delaware.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, Judge
Vance concludes that Section 1407 centralization would not serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation.  Certainly, most of these
actions, which are all personal injury cases, involve some common
factual issues concerning the manufacture, regulatory approval,
labeling, and marketing of gadolinium-based contrast agents
(GBCAs), and the propensity of GBCAs to cause the retention of
gadolinium in the bodies of patients with normal kidney function.
She finds movants have failed to demonstrate that any common
questions of fact and law are sufficiently complex or numerous to
justify centralization.  In particular, the injuries alleged in
each case appear to be highly plaintiff-specific, and the actions
involve GBCAs manufactured by one or more of four different
defendant groups, involving different formulations.

Furthermore, plaintiffs in most actions are represented by a single
law firm or firms that are working as co-counsel with that firm in
other related actions.  Judge Vance has held that "centralization
under Section 1407 should be the last solution after considered
review of all other options."  Given the significant overlap in
plaintiffs' counsel, alternatives to transfer exist that may
minimize whatever possibilities there might of duplicative
discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings.  Moreover, the
District of Arizona actions have begun proceedings to address
general causation, which may inform the other related actions and
promote a resolution of the litigation without resort to Section
1407.

For these reasons, Judge Vance denied the motion for centralization
of these actions.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 10, 2018 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2OjRQzH


MICHIGAN EDUCATION: Faces Gervais Suit in W.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michigan Education
Association. The case is captioned as Linda Gervais, and Tammy E.
Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Michigan Education Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01170-RJJ-RSK (W.D. Mich., Oct. 16, 2018). The
case is assigned to Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker and referred to
Magistrate Judge Ray Kent.

Michigan Education Association NEA operates as a self-governing
education association representing teachers, faculty, and education
support staff throughout the state of Michigan. The Association
provides advocacy to help ensure the working environment of its
members is of a good quality. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amanda Kae Freeman, Esq.
          NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK
          LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION
          8001 Braddock Rd., Ste. 600
          Springfield, VA 22160
          Telephone: (703) 321-8510
          E-mail: akf@nrtw.org


MILLY LLC: Faces Fischler Suit in Southern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Milly LLC. The case
is captioned as BRIAN FISCHLER, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MILLY LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-09371-AT (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2018). The lawsuit alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
assigned to Judge Analisa Torres.

Milly LLC designs apparel for women worldwide. It offers dresses,
tops, bottoms, outerwear, swimwear, handbags, fashion jewelry, and
accessories, as well as clothing for children. The company also
provides products for cocktails and offices, as well as weekend
casuals. It sells its products through specialty and department
stores worldwide, as well as its boutique in Madison Avenue and
online. The company was incorporated in 2000 and is based in New
York, New York. [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


MISSION CAPITAL: Fabricant Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MISSION CAPITAL LLC, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case No.
0:18-cv-62566-BB (S.D. Fla., Oct. 25, 2018), alleges that the
Defendant contacted the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around August 2017, the
Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone
numbers ending in -1083 and -0058 in an attempt to solicit
Plaintiff to purchase the Defendant's services. The Defendant used
an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place its call to
Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services.

The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency
purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). The
Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's prior express consent to
receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone. Further,
Plaintiff's cellular telephone numbers ending in -1083 and -0058
were both added to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about
June 4, 2008, the lawsuit says.

Founded in 2002, Mission Capital is a leading national real estate
and debt capital markets solutions provider.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.
          FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC
          261 N.E. 1st Street, Suite 502
          Telephone: (305) 901-2209
          E-mail: Ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law


MISSOURI: Inmates' Hep C Class Action Certification Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
John Breslin, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that thousands
of inmates in Missouri suffering from hepatitis C could be one step
closer to being cured if a federal appeals court panel affirms a
lower court decision to certify a class action against the state's
corrections department.

The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis is
considering the arguments made by two groups that brought the suit
on the inmates' behalf and the response of the state.

The MacArthur Justice Center of St. Louis, which along with the
Missouri chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, filed the
lawsuit against the state's Department of Corrections and health
care provider, Corizon.

They claim the denial of treatment to all but the sickest inmates
was "cruel and unusual punishment," and therefore in violation of
the 8th Amendment.

The groups sued on behalf of three inmates, but asked a federal
judge to certify a class action that could lead to all the
estimated 5,000 inmates suffering from the liver infection - 18
percent of the prison population, according to court filings -
receiving treatment.

New drugs developed in recent years makes hepatitis C curable,
within 12 weeks. But the price tag for the best known treatments is
between $55,000 and $95,000, though the Food and Drug
Administration last year approved the use of a significantly lower
priced medication, $26,500 for an eight week course of treatment.

U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey approved the class action
certification, a decision that the state appealed. Oral arguments
were heard before the appeals court in September, and the panel
could deliver its opinion before the end of the year, according to
the MacArthur Justice Center.

Missouri Deputy Attorney General Ryan Bangert argued that because
the medical needs of the inmates were so different they should not
be included in the same lawsuit, according to a report by St. Louis
Public Radio.

Mr. Bangert noted that the some sufferers have little or no
symptoms, while others have significant medical problems, including
liver failure. The state claims that the class is too broad, public
radio reported.

Amy Breihan, the MacArthur center's director, told the St. Louis
Record that cost is not the central issue being considered by the
courts, that while a "consideration," the key claim of the suit is
that the inmates' constitutional rights are violated by the failure
to treat them.

Ms. Breihan said that similar lawsuits have been filed in several
states, with some still to be resolved and others settled,
including in Colorado, where the Department of Corrections has
agreed to spend more than $40 million on treatment for nearly 3,000
inmates. Other states are involved in bulk buying of medication,
Ms. Breihan said.

"This is a public health issue because 95 percent (of the inmates)
will at some point return to their communities," Ms. Breihan
argued. "If you can effectively treat within the Department of
Corrections that can stop the further spread of the virus."

To not treat inmates is "short sighted and cruel," Ms. Breihan
added. [GN]


MONSANTO COMPANY: Acharys' Suit Moved to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ANDREW ACHARY, and BARBARA ACHARY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01455,
was removed from the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on October
11, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:18-cv-06220 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: Awads' Suit Moved to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled VICKIE L. AWAD, and SAMIR AWAD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01627,
was removed from the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on October
11, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:18-cv-06241 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: Elfers' Suit Moved to N. D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled VICTORIA ELFER, and WARREN ELFER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01628,
was removed from the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on October
11, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:18-cv-06242 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: Walker Suit Moved to N. D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled GOVERNOR AND SONDA WALKER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01626,
was removed from 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 3:18-cv-06240 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


MOTT'S LLP: Bilzin Sumberg Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Lustrin, Esq. -- llustrin@bilzin.com -- Melissa C.
Pallett-Vasquez, Esq. -- mpallett@bilzin.com -- and Jennifer
Junger, Esq. -- jjunger@bilzin.com -- of Bilzin Sumberg, in an
article for The National Law Review, report that the saying goes,
knowledge equals power. For plaintiffs asserting claims for
injunctive relief on behalf of putative classes, however, the
Mott's Apple Juice case demonstrates just the opposite.

The Northern District of California's recent order denying
reconsideration of its summary judgment ruling in Rahman v. Mott's
LLP, 2018 WL 4585024 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2018) holds that a
plaintiff cannot "plausibly claim" that he will suffer future harm
if he is now "fully aware" of what the allegedly deceptive
statement means.

The Background
Plaintiff Rahman filed a class action against Mott's in 2013,
alleging that the "No Sugar Added" statement on the Motts Apple
Juice label is deceptive in that it caused him to believe that the
apple juice had less sugar and was healthier than other apple
juices. In 2014, the Court granted in part, and denied in part,
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, holding that Rahman "lacks
Article III standing for injunctive relief" because he "cannot
plausibly prove that he will, in the future, rely on the 'No Sugar
Added' statement to his detriment." On December 3, 2014, the Court
denied plaintiff's motion for class certification.  Plaintiff
appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision on July 5,
2017.

Recent Developments
Citing a change in the law, Plaintiff moved to reconsider the
district court's order holding the plaintiff lacked Article III
standing to represent a putative injunctive class.

Following the issuance of the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Davidson
v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 873 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2017), the Mott's
Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration.

The plaintiff in Davidson sought to enjoin defendant Kimberly-Clark
Corp. from labeling pre-moistened wipes as "flushable." The Ninth
Circuit held that the plaintiff had standing to pursue an
injunctive claim—notwithstanding her knowledge that the wipes
were improperly labeled in the past—because there was a
continuing risk she could be deceived by the product label in the
future and suffer an ongoing injury.  The court outlined two
circumstances where the future injury requirement for standing
could be satisfied:

a plaintiff plausibly alleges "that she will be unable to rely on
the product's advertising or labeling in the future, and so will
not purchase the product although she would like to;" or

a plaintiff plausibly alleges that she will purchase the product in
the future because she "may reasonably, but incorrectly, assume the
product was improved."

The Mott's court distinguished Davidson.  The court explained that
in Davidson, the plaintiff faces a plausible risk of future injury
because she may purchase the product in the future under the
mistaken belief that the product has been corrected and, in fact,
is a flushable wipe.  By contrast, the Court observed that the
plaintiff in Mott's now knows how to correctly interpret the
product statement (i.e. that "No Sugar Added" simply means no sugar
added, and nothing more) and thus could not possibly be deceived in
connection with a future purchase.  Ultimately, this distinction
turns on the fact that the advertising in Davidson "was false at
the time of the original purchase."

Is this a trend?
Consumer knowledge of a label statement's meaning was also case
dispositive in a recent consumer class action involving Vita Coco
coconut water filed in the Southern District of Florida.  Robert N.
Scola denied class certification against All Market Inc. (AMI), the
parent company of coconut water industry leader Vita Coco.
Plaintiffs alleged that the slogan on Vita Coco containers "born in
brazil" would deceive consumers into believing that all Vita Coco
coconut water came from Brazil, when, in fact, the coconuts are
sourced from countries throughout southeast Asia in addition to
Brazil.  Like the Court in Mott's, Judge Scola held that the
plaintiffs lacked standing because they now know "that not all Vita
Coco is manufactured in Brazil" so they "will not be deceived by
the 'born in brazil' slogan in the future."  As Judge Scola
observed, "the plaintiffs 'cannot manufacture standing by choosing'
not to purchase a product because of allegedly deceptive labeling,
when the Plaintiffs actually know the truth underlying that
labeling and thus cannot be deceived."

Takeaways
The Mott's court's discussion of Davidson gives further clarity
regarding the boundaries of viable Rule 23(b)(2) claims. Defendants
facing injunctive relief class claims predicated on label
representations unrelated to product performance have a powerful
tool in their arsenal:  Under Mott's and All Market Inc., if a
plaintiff pleads that they "now know" what a label statement
actually means, there can be no threat of future harm warranting
court intervention. [GN]


NAMASTE INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Oct. 29 disclosed
that purchasers of Namaste, Inc. (OTC: NXTTF) have filed a class
action complaint against the company's officers and directors for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between
November 29, 2017 and October 4, 2018. Namaste is a cannabis
e-commerce company.

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

Namaste Accused of Making Materially False and Misleading
Statements

On November 28, 2017, Namaste announced that it had signed a stock
purchase agreement to sell its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary,
Dollinger Enterprises US Inc., in order to focus on the legal
cannabis markets. According to the complaint, Namaste failed to
disclose that it had sold Dollinger to Namaste insider executives.
On October 4, 2018, Citron Research published an article revealing
that the company had entered into an "undisclosed related party"
transaction with Namaste executive David Hughes. On this news,
shares of Namaste stock fell over 10.5% on October 5, 2018.

Namaste Shareholders Have Legal Options

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

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


NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Removed Rice Mislabeling Suit to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
National Beverage Corporation removed the case captioned LENORA
RICE, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL BEVERAGE CORP. d/b/a LaCROIX SPARKLING
WATERS, the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-12302, from the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 25,2018. The Northern
District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-07151 to
the proceeding.

The complaint alleged that claims by National Beverage that its
product, LaCroix sparkling water, is all natural are false and
misleading. The complaint purported to assert claims for breach of
express warranty, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, on behalf of
Plaintiff and a putative class consisting of all individuals in
Illinois who purchased LaCroix sparkling water in the last four
years.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3151 West 26th Street, Second Floor
          Chicago, IL 60623
          Telephone: (773) 831-8000

Attorneys for National Beverage Corporation:

          Desiree F. Moore, Esq.
          Matthew A. Alvis, Esq.
          Matthew G. Ball, Esq.
          April Boyer, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          70 West Madison Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60602-4207
          Telephone: (312) 372-1121
          Facsimile: (312) 827-8000
          E-mail: desiree.moore@klgates.com
                  matthew.alvis@klgates.com
                  matthew.ball@klgates.com
                  april.boyer@klgates.com


NEW YORK CITY: Faces Paliotta et al. Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the city of New York.
The case is captioned, GIOVANNI PALIOTTA, and GOLDEN HORSES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BILL DE BLASIO, Mayor of NEW YORK CITY; NEW YORK CITY
PARKS DEPARTMENT, THE CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION; MEERA
JOSHI; NORA CONSTANCE MARINO; NEW YORK CITY PARKS AND RECREATION;
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; NEW YORK CITY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE; NEW YORKERS FOR X CLENA;
LIVABLE, AND SAFE STREETS DBA NY CLASS AND STEPHEN NISLICK,
Defendants, Case No. 159692/2018 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Oct.
18, 2018). The case is assigned to Arthur F. Engoron.

The City of New York, often called New York City (NYC) or simply
New York(NY), is the most populous city in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angelo A. Digangi, Esq.
          101-05 Lefferts Blvd. Ste. 208
          Richmond Hill, NY 11419
          Telephone: (718) 950-2900

The Defendants are represented by:

          CORPORATION COUNSEL
          100 Church St, Rm. 4-313
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 788-0303


NEW YORK: Claims in Richardson Discrimination Suit Narrowed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANNETTE RICHARDSON, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-9447 (JPO) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge J. Paul
Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (i) granted in part and denied in part the City's motion to
dismiss; and (ii) denied as moot its motion to stay discovery.

On Dec. 1, 2017, the Plaintiffs, six African American Fire
Department of New York ("FDNY") employees, have filed a putative
class action complaint against the City, on behalf of themselves
and certain other African American FDNY employees, alleging that
FDNY's hiring, job-placement, and compensation practices
discriminate against African Americans in violation of 42 U.S.C.
Sections 1981 and 1983, and the New York City Human Rights Law
("NYCHRL").

Richardson, Deborah Bowman, Liza Horsley, Debra Poe, Dino Riojas,
and Stephanie Thomas -- all African American civilian employees at
FDNY -- seek to represent two classes of FDNY employees or job
applicants: (1) a class asserting discrimination in hiring and job
placement (whether through initial job assignment or promotion
decisions), consisting of (a) all African Americans who have, since
Dec. 1, 2014, qualified for a posted civilian vacancy at FDNY,
applied, and been rejected, and (b) all African Americans who have
been employed full-time at FDNY in certain civilian positions at
any time since Dec. 1, 2013; and (2) a class asserting
discrimination in compensation decisions, consisting of all African
Americans who have been employed full-time at FDNY in certain
civilian positions at any time since Dec. 1, 2013.

The Plaintiffs' complaint asserts two counts against the City.
Count One alleges that FDNY has engaged in a pattern or practice of
intentional racial discrimination in hiring, job-placement, and
compensation decisions that violates Section 1981 by impairing
Plaintiffs' right to make and enforce contracts on the same terms
as white citizens, with relief pursuant to Section 1983.  Count Two
alleges that FDNY's hiring, job-placement, and compensation
practices additionally violate NYCHRL, either by intentionally
discriminating against African Americans or at least by having an
adverse, disparate impact on African Americans.  In addition to
monetary damages, the Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring the
City to take steps toward addressing the systemic disparities
identified in the complaint.

Presently before the Court are two motions the City filed on Feb.
5, 2018.  First, the City moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a legally cognizable claim.
Second, the City moves to stay discovery pursuant to Rule 26(c)
pending resolution of its motion to dismiss.  

Because his uling on the City's motion to dismiss obviates the
City's stay motion, Judge Oetken denied as moot the latter motion.
He therefore turns to the principal matter before it, the City's
motion to dismiss.  

The City makes two principal arguments in support of its motion to
dismiss.  First, it argues that the complaint's factual allegations
are insufficient to render the Plaintiffs' discrimination claims
plausible.  Second, it argues that even if the Plaintiffs' claims
are plausible, they are partially time-barred.

The Judge dismissed as moot the Plaintiffs' claims to the extent
they allege discrimination against EMS employees, and granted the
City's motion to dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' Section 1981 and
NYCHRL claims insofar as they allege pay discrimination and as to
all federal claims accruing prior to Dec. 1, 2014.  

He finds that the continuing violation doctrine applies to the
Plaintiffs' NYCHRL pattern-of-practice claim based on FDNY's
alleged policy of intentionally discriminating against African
Americans in its hiring and job-placement decisions.  As for the
Plaintiffs' disparate-impact claim, the Plaintiffs have plausibly
alleged a continuing disparate-impact violation under NYCHRL with
respect to their hiring and job-placement claims.
Because the Plaintiffs have brought their Section 1981 claims
pursuant to Section 1983, the claims are subject to Section 1983's
three-year statute of limitations rather than Section 1981's more
variable limitations period.  The Plaintiffs' federal claims are
therefore dismissed to the extent that they accrued prior to Dec.
1, 2014.


He denied the City's motion to dismiss, however, as to (1) the
Plaintiffs' Section 1981 claims accruing after Dec. 1, 2014,
insofar as they allege a pattern or practice of intentional
discrimination in hiring and job placement; (2) the Plaintiffs'
NYCHRL claims insofar as they allege a pattern or practice of
intentional discrimination in hiring and job placement; (3) and the
Plaintiffs' NYCHRL claims insofar as they allege that the City's
hiring and job-placement practices have a disparate impact on
African Americans.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Docket Number
11.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/iED92p from Leagle.com.

Annette Richardson, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Deborah Bowman, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Liza Horsley, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Debra Poe, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Dino Riojas, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Stephanie
Thomas, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Lieder --
mlieder@findjustice.com -- Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, Robert John Valli,
Jr. -- rvalli@vkvlawyers.com -- Valli Kane & Vagnini, LLP & Sara
Wyn Kane -- skane@vkvlawyers.com -- Valli Kane & Vagnini, LLP.

City of New York, Defendant, represented by Yuval Rubinstein, New
York City Law Department.


NEW YORK: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Lynch Detainees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES LYNCH, LLOYD JONES, and BARON SPENCER, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 17cv7577 (S.D. N.Y.), Judge William
H. Pauley, III of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York denied the City's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
constitutional claims for failure to state a claim.

The named Plaintiffs bring the putative federal civil rights and
common law false imprisonment class action against the City of New
York.  The case concerns the constitutionality of pre-trial
detention of people who have obtained judicial orders entitling
them to release upon paying bail.  In New York, cash bail in the
amount designated in the order fixing bail may be posted at any
time after an individual has been committed to custody.  And upon
proof of the deposit of the designated amount, the detainee must be
forthwith released from custody.  

In broad strokes, the Complaint alleges that the City's byzantine
and dysfunctional procedures for bail payment and release result in
unreasonably lengthy delays in permitting bail to be posted and
subsequently releasing detainees for whom bail has been paid.
Although bail may be paid at the courthouse after the arraignment
judge fixes the amount, the Plaintiffs assert that the City
routinely transports the defendants to Department of Correction
("DOC") facilities as a matter of administrative convenience before
friends and family have the opportunity to post bail.  

Once a defendant arrives at a DOC facility, a 12- to 22-hour intake
process begins, during which the defendant is categorically
ineligible to be released on bail.  In relevant part, this delay is
further exacerbated by various inefficiencies in accepting bail,
such as insufficient staff and DOC's antiquated paper-based records
system.  The Plaintiffs claim that the sacrifice of liberty in the
name of administrative convenience continues even after bail has
been accepted.

Moreover, the Plaintiffs allege that the City knew or should have
known that its bail payment and release process could cause
needless delay and the concomitant detention of individuals long
after the legal basis for detention has dissipated.  In particular,
they point to a 2015 report authored by the Center for Court
Innovation, a non-profit organization, identifying many of these
deficiencies ("CCI Report").  The CCI Report also made various
recommendations to ensure that bail holds were honored, to allow
bail to be posted during the intake process, to allocate sufficient
staff, to remove reliance on paperbased systems, and to track the
time between acceptance of bail and release.  These
recommendations, according to the Plaintiffs, fell on deaf ears.

The pre-trial detentions of the three putative class
representatives are emblematic of these delays -- James Lynch
endured a 23-hour detention between posting bail and his release,
Baron Spencer was forced to wait 18 hours after his bail was paid,
and Lloyd Jones was released over 9 hours after his friends and
family's 22-hour odyssey to post his bail.

The City moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' constitutional claims for
failure to state a claim.  The City contends that the Plaintiffs'
constitutional claims fail for two independent reasons.  First, the
City asserts that the Plaintiffs fail to allege an underlying
constitutional violation because the length of time for which they
were allegedly detained was presumptively reasonable.  Second, it
submits that the Complaint does not allege a policy or practice
under Monell v. Department of Social Services and its progeny.  

Likewise, the City seeks dismissal of the false imprisonment
claims, though not on the merits.  Rather, the City argues that
supplemental jurisdiction should not be exercised over Plaintiffs'
false imprisonment claims in the absence of a plausible federal
claim.  Finally, it seeks to bar the Plaintiffs' claims based on
their failure to allege physical injury.

Judge Pauley finds that substantive due process a more appropriate
lens through which to analyze the Plaintiffs' claims.  The
Plaintiffs adequately allege that their interest in paying bail and
being released after paying bail has been infringed by the City's
deliberate indifference.  Construing all inferences in favor of
Plaintiffs, the Complaint suggests that there is no reason -- aside
from accommodating shift changes and bus schedules -- that
detainees cannot be held at the courthouse to allow bail to be
paid; nor is there any reason why bail cannot be accepted during
the intake procedure.  Ultimately, whether the City can demonstrate
a legitimate governmental objective is a matter for summary
judgment or trial.

Likewise, the Plaintiffs sufficiently plead that DOC has a practice
of forcing detainees who have already paid bail to remain detained
until a critical mass forms such that their releases may be
approved and processed in one fell swoop.  According to them, there
is no justification for this practice aside from convenience.  

The City does not appear to quarrel with the proposition that the
prolonged pretrial detention of those entitled to release on bail
based on delays in posting bail or in effecting release may rise to
the level of a constitutional violation.  Because the Plaintiffs'
pre-trial detentions did not exceed 48 hours, and in the absence of
allegations of bad faith or delay for delay's sake, the City
submits that the constitutional claims must be dismissed.

Taken as true, the Judge also finds that the complaint sufficiently
alleges municipal liability based on the City's widespread
practices of immediately transporting detainees to DOC facilities
to begin an intake process during which they are categorically
ineligible for release and continuing to detain those who have paid
bail so that releases may be approved and processed in the
aggregate.  Drawing all inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs, the
Complaint alleges more than mere over-detentions isolated to the
named Plaintiffs, but that the City's systemic practices are so
manifest as to imply the constructive acquiescence of DOC's
policy-making officials.

Finally, the Judge finds that neither party takes issue with the
Court's supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state law
claims.  Instead, the City's sole basis for dismissal is based on
Section 1367(c)(3), under which a court may decline to exercise
jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction.  Because he concludes that the Plaintiffs
have stated a plausible constitutional claim, Section 1367(c)(3)
provides no basis for dismissal.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Pauley denied the City's motion to
dismiss is denied.  The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the
motion pending at ECF No. 24.  The parties will appear for a status
conference on Oct. 23, 2018 at 12:30 p.m.

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

James Lynch, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated,
Lloyd Jones, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated &
Baron Spencer, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Debra Lea Greenberger --
dgreenberger@ecbalaw.com -- Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP,
Julia P. Kuan, Romano & Kuan, PLLC, Matthew D. Brinckerhoff --
mbrinckerhoff@ecbalaw.com -- Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP
& David A. Lebowitz -- dlebowitz@ecbalaw.com -- Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP.

The City of New York, Defendant, represented by Ian William
Forster, New York City Law Department, General Litigation Division
& Martin John Bowe, Jr., NYC Law Department.


NEXSTAR MEDIA: Northtown Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NORTHTOWN AUTOMOTIVE COMPANIES INC., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HEARST TELEVISION
INC.; GRAY TELEVISION, INC.; NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC.; TEGNA INC.;
TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY; and SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-08485, was transferred from the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago) on Oct. 25, 2018. The Northern District of Illinois
assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-06885 to the proceeding. The case is
asigned to the Hon. Judge Virginia M. Kendall. The suit alleges
antitrust related violation. The lead case is Case No.
1:18-cv-06785.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive; Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: jak@klafterolsen.com
                  slesser@klafterolsen.com

NIBCO INC: Settles Two PEX 1006 Tubing Class Actions for $43.5MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following is being jointly released by the NIBCO PEX Settlement
Administrator on behalf of NIBCO Inc. ("NIBCO") and Plaintiffs' law
firms, Berger Montague PC and Sauder Schelkopf LLC, to announce a
class action settlement in the lawsuits captioned Cole, et al. v.
NIBCO Inc., No. 13-cv-7871 (D.N.J.), and Meadow, et al. v. NIBCO
Inc., No. 15-cv-1124 (M.D. Tenn.).

NIBCO and Plaintiffs on Oct. 29 disclosed that they have reached a
$43.5 million settlement to resolve two nationwide class action
lawsuits related to NIBCO's PEX 1006 tubing that NIBCO manufactured
from January 2005 through August 2012, as well as the F1807 yellow
brass fittings and stainless steel clamps that were used with
NIBCO's PEX 1006 tubing. Plaintiffs allege that these products,
which were mainly used in residential and commercial applications,
are defective and can leak causing water damage. NIBCO rejects the
allegation and notes that the products were certified by all
appropriate industry standards organizations and that a low number
of leaks have been reported relative to the volume of product sold
during the years these products have been in service.  The
settlement agreement is not, and does not include, an admission of
a defect.

"The company has agreed to settle these claims to provide a
predictable path for putting this litigation behind us and to give
affected customers who have had water leaks a way to pursue their
claims without the time and expense of individual lawsuits," said
Rex Martin, Chairman of NIBCO's Board of Directors. "The settlement
is consistent with our core commitment to quality and shows that we
stand behind the products we make and sell."

The Settlement Class includes "all Persons that own or have owned
at any time since January 1, 2005, a residential or commercial
structure in the United States that contains or contained NIBCO's
Tubing, Fittings, or Clamps, including their spouses, joint owners,
heirs, executors, administrators, mortgagees, tenants, creditors,
lenders, predecessors, successors, trusts and trustees, and assigns
("Occupant Persons"); as well as all Persons who have standing and
are entitled to assert a claim on behalf of any such Occupant
Persons, such as but not limited to a builder, contractor,
distributor, seller, subrogated insurance carrier, or other Person
who has claims for contribution, indemnity or otherwise against
NIBCO based on claims for Qualifying Leaks of the Tubing, Fittings,
or Clamps with respect to such residential or commercial
structures."  The Settlement Class also includes all persons who
subsequently purchase or otherwise obtain an interest in a property
covered by this Settlement without the need of a formal assignment
by contract or court order. There are certain exclusions to the
Settlement Class that are detailed on the Settlement Website at
www.pexsystemsettlement.com.

The class action settlement is being presented to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey for approval, where
the first-filed Cole matter is pending.  If it is approved by the
Court, then a $43.5 million fund will be established that will
provide monetary benefits to Settlement Class Members who have
experienced water damage resulting from the NIBCO PEX products and
who submit valid and timely claims, that will pay Class Counsel's
attorneys' fees and expenses, that will pay the costs of providing
notice and administering the settlement, and that will pay any
service awards that are awarded by the Court to the named
plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit.

Settlement Class Members who have experienced property damage from
qualifying leaks of these NIBCO PEX products will be able to make a
claim to be reimbursed from the Settlement Fund. Those who have
experienced three or more separate qualifying leaks and who meet
certain other conditions have the option of requesting a payment
for a complete re-plumb of the covered products. Approved claimants
will receive between 25% and 70% of the eligible claimed amounts
depending on the total number of claims made.   The Settlement will
cover both past leaks and leaks that occur during the six-year
claim period following approval of the settlement.

"This class action settlement is a tremendous outcome for the
settlement class and provides meaningful benefits to its members,"
said Joe Sauder -- jgs@sstriallawyers.com -- of Sauder Schelkopf
LLC and Shanon J. Carson of Berger Montague PC, Co-Lead Class
Counsel.

For more information or to obtain a Claim Form, visit the
settlement website, www.pexsystemsettlement.com or call
1-855-649-5968. The settlement website contains all relevant dates
regarding the settlement, relevant court documents, and answers to
frequently asked questions concerning the settlement. Claims can
also be submitted through the settlement website.


NISSAN OF NORTH: Averts Class Action Over Defective Transmissions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reenat Sinay, writing for Law360, reports that Nissan of North
America Inc. escaped three claims in a putative class action
accusing it of knowingly selling Altima cars with defective
transmissions to consumers in three states.


OAKWOOD WORLDWIDE: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Sotomayor et al. Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
GEM CELESTE SOTOMAYOR; and ELENA BEATRIZ GOMEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OAKWOOD
WORLDWIDE (US) LP; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No.
18STCV00565 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 12, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employee in California.

Oakwood Worldwide operates as a real estate services company. The
Company's main line of busienss include temporary housing and
providing furnished corporate apartments and residences. Oakwood
Worldwide provides relocation services, consulting, housekeeping,
and real estate needs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justian Jusuf, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIAN JUSUF, APC
          17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
          Huntington Beach, CA 92647
          Telephone: (714) 274-9815
          Facsimile: (714) 362-3148

               - and -

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


OCWEN LOAN: Final Approval of Snyder TCPA/FDCPA Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEITH SNYDER and SUSAN MANSANAREZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, TRACEE A. BEECROFT, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN
LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 14 C 8461, Consolidated
with Case No. 16 C 8677 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for final
approval as well as the motion for attorney's fees; and (ii)
deferred consideration of whether to accept the late claims and the
late opt-out requests.

The Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases filed suit against Ocwen
in October 2014, alleging, among other things, violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  They challenged Ocwen's
alleged practice of making debt-collection calls using an automated
telephone dialing system without the call recipients' prior
consent.  In late December 2016, the Plaintiffs separately sued a
number of banks that served as the trustees for loans to the
putative class members, alleging that the debt-collection calls
were made on the banks' behalf, making them also liable for the
resulting violations of law.

The class size was at least potentially enormous.  As of December
2016, Ocwen was servicing 1.4 million mortgage loans.  To
illustrate, the Plaintiffs represented that Ocwen's records showed
that it had made, during the period covered by the limited class
proposed for preliminary injunctive relief, over 146 million calls
to 1.45 million unique telephone numbers.

In late June 2017, the Court provisionally granted, in the Ocwen
suit, the Plaintiffs' motion for certification of a limited class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and for a
preliminary injunction to prevent Ocwen from continuing certain
practices that allegedly violated the TCPA.

Prior to Court's ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction,
the parties conducted extensive discovery.  The Plaintiffs
encountered significant hurdles in obtaining information supporting
Ocwen's consent defense, largely because of the way in which Ocwen
kept its records regarding debt collection calls.  This same
problem, however, complicated Ocwen's ability to prove the
defense.

In the interim, settlement negotiations also took place.  A
mediation in May 2016 with retired Judge James Holderman was
unsuccessful.  At a second mediation, held with mediator Rodney Max
in October 2016, Ocwen disclosed that its insurer had denied
coverage for the claims asserted by the plaintiffs on the basis of
untimely notice.  Ocwen also discussed its financial situation and
indicated that it had a limited ability to finance a settlement on
its own.  It later advised the Court that it never had the ability
to pay even a small fraction of the amount of statutory damages
that would be awarded to the putative class if it succeeded on its
TCPA claims.  Its reporting of similar information during the
second mediation resulted in the mediation's unsuccessful
termination.

Largely due to the disclosure by Ocwen, the Plaintiffs moved in
November 2016 to amend their complaint in the Snyder case to add as
the Ddefendants the banks that were trustees of the loans on which
Ocwen had attempted to collect, arguing that the banks were also
liable for the TCPA and FDCPA violations.  The Court overruled tge
Plaintiffs' motion on the ground that they had waited too long to
add the banks as the Defendants in the long-pending case against
Ocwen.  As indicated earlier, the Plaintiffs then filed a separate
lawsuit against the banks.  The Court thereafter found the suit
against the banks related to Snyder within the meaning of Local
Rule 40.4 and, after that, conducted a number of the proceedings in
the cases in tandem.

In early October 2016, shortly before the second mediation, the
Plaintiffs filed the aforementioned motion for preliminary
injunction.  Briefing on the motion was completed in early February
2017.  In late June 2017, the Court issued a decision in which it
concluded that the Plaintiffs had established the basis for
certification of a injunctive-relief class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and that they were entitled to at least
some of the preliminary injunctive relief they sought.  The Court
requested further submissions regarding the proposed preliminary
injunctive relief and deferred entry of a class certification order
and a preliminary injunction pending receipt and review of that
information.

A third mediation, this one with retired U.S. Magistrate Judge
Morton Denlow, was held in mid-July 2017.  This mediation resulted
in an agreement to settle the claims of the putative class.  It is
reasonable to conclude that the settlement was produced, at least
in part, by the Plaintiffs' successful prosecution of the motion
for preliminary injunction and certification of a limited class and
their filing of the lawsuit against the bank Defendants -- who, the
Court later learned, had tendered the defense of the case to Ocwen
based upon apparent contractual indemnification provisions.

The settlement agreement provides for establishment of a settlement
fund of $17.5 million.  This will be used to pay, first, costs of
notice and administration -- requested at $1.6 million; second,
attorney's fees -- requested at one-third of the total settlement
net of administration costs, or $5,289,250; third, incentive awards
for the three named Plaintiffs, requested at a total of $75,000;
and, finally, payment of the claims of class members who submitted
claim forms.  Given the number of class members who submitted claim
forms (see below), if the Court approves costs, fees, and incentive
awards in the amount requested, each class member who submitted a
form will receive about $39.

The proposed settlement also includes injunctive relief that
requires Ocwen to change its practices for obtaining consent to
call borrowers, including a requirement to pay enhanced damages to
those who inappropriately receive automated calls in the future.
Finally, the settlement provides for dismissal of not only the
Snyder and Beecroft suits against Ocwen, but also the putative
class' suit against the banks.  As the Court understands it, the
banks are making no contribution to the settlement fund and have
offered no consideration for the dismissal of the case against
them.

The Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement, including
conditional certification of a settlement class, in October 2017.
Notice of the proposed settlement was then sent to the members of
the class, giving them the opportunity to make claims, object, or
request exclusion.  The settlement class consisted of persons who
had been called on nearly 1.7 million cellular telephone numbers.
Over 267,000 claims were submitted, representing approximately 16%
of the settlement class.  Approximately 378 class members requested
exclusion from the settlemen, a joint request to opt out late was
made by another 88, and one class member separately served a late
opt-out request.  The Court received objections to the proposed
settlement or attorney's fee award from three class members.

The Plaintiffs have now moved for final approval of the proposed
settlement, as well as for incentive awards for Snyder, Mansanarez,
and Beecroft and for payment of administrative fees and an award of
attorney's fees from the settlement proceeds.

Judge Kennelly (i) denied the Plaintiffs' current motion for final
approval as well as the motion for attorney's fees, and (ii)
deffered consideration of whether to accept the late claims and the
late opt-out requests.  

The Judge finds that it is conceivable that he could be persuaded
to approve a settlement at the current overall dollar amount if the
amounts for attorney's fees were reduced drastically, to take
account of the counsel's relative lack of success reflected from
obtaining a settlement with a relatively low value given the size
of the class and the number of calls made.  But no such proposal is
on the table.  As things currently stand, the Judge is unable to
determine that the settlement that has been proposed is fair,
reasonable, and adequate for the class.

The case is set for a status hearing on Oct. 9, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.
to discuss whether matters stand and to set a schedule for further
proceedings.

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

Keith Snyder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Daniel Ankcorn --
MARK@ANKCORNLAW.COM -- Ankcorn Law Firm, PLLC, Adrienne D. McEntee
-- amcentee@terrellmarwill.com -- Terrell Marwill Law Group PLLC,
pro hac vice, Alexander Holmes Burke -- ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com --
Burke Law Offices, LLC, Ann Marie Hansen, Ann Marie Hansen, Beth
Ellen Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarwill.com -- Terrell Marwill Law
Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Daniel J. Marovitch, Burke Law Offices,
LLC, Guillermo Cabrera --  gil@cabrerafirm.com gil@cabrerafirm.com
-- The Cabrera Firm, Apc, Jared Matthew Quient, The Cabrera Firm,
pro hac vice & Mark Luther Heaney -- mark@heaneylaw.com -- Heaney
Law Firm, Llc.

Susan Mansanarez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Daniel Ankcorn,
Ankcorn Law Firm, PLLC, Adrienne D. McEntee, Terrell Marwill Law
Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Alexander Holmes Burke, Burke Law
Offices, LLC, Beth Ellen Terrell, Terrell Marwill Law Group PLLC,
pro hac vice & Daniel J. Marovitch, Burke Law Offices, LLC.

Tracee A. Beecroft, Plaintiff, pro se.

Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Simon A.
Fleischmann -- sfleischmann@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, Brian
Vincent Otero -- botero@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP, pro
hac vice, Chethan G. Shetty -- cshetty@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord
LLP, David F. Standa -- dstanda@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP,
Ryan Andrew Becker -- rbecker@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP,
pro hac  vice, Stephen Roy Blacklocks -- sblacklocks@hunton.com --
Hunton & Williams LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Justin Cunningham --
tcunningham@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP.

Zachariah C. Manning, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Erea
Lynette Stone, The Stone Law Office.

Wilmington Trust, N.A., Movant, represented by Frank A. Hirsch, Jr.
-- frank.hirsch@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice &
Kenneth Michael Kliebard -- kenneth.kliebard@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

U.S. Bank, N.A. & Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Movants,
represented by Michael Kliebard -- william.kraus@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & William James Kraus, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP.


OFFSITE EVENT: Faces Dominguez ADA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Offsite Event
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Offsite
Event Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10102 (S.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 31, 2018).

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

Offsite Event Services, LLC offers complete destination and event
management 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



OS RESTAURANT: Frederick Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OS Restaurant
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Frederick, Elie Sheldon on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
OS Restaurant Services, LLC, d/b/a Outback Steakhouse, Defendant,
Case No. 151139/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Richmond Cty., Oct. 31,
2018).

OS Restaurant Services, LLC owns and operates casual and upscale
casual dining restaurants primarily in the United States. The
company operates restaurants under the Outback Steakhouse,
Carrabba's Italian Grill, Bonefish Grill, Fleming's Prime
Steakhouse and Wine Bar, and Roy's concepts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     BOUKLAS GAYLORD, LLP
     400 JERICHO TURNPIKE, STE 226
     JERICHO, NY 11753
     Phone: (516) 742-4949

The Defendants is represented by:

     CONSTANGY BROOKS SMITH PROPHET
     620 EIGHTH AVENUE, 38TH FL
     NEW YORK, NY 10018
     Phone: (646) 417-8400


PERFORMANCE VOLLEYBALL: Coach Wants Class Certification Rejected
----------------------------------------------------------------
Braden Keith, writing for Volley Mob, reports that banned
volleyball coach Rick Butler has asked an Illinois federal judge to
reject class action certification in a civil lawsuit brought
against him by a woman, Laura Mullen, that claims violations of the
Illinois Physical Fitness Services Act and the illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Specifically, Ms. Mullen, whose daughter was a member of the Sports
Performance Volleyball Club, says that the club falsely advertised
itself as a safe environment.

Mr. Butler has been alleged to have abused a number of underage
players as early as the mid 1980s. Mr. Butler was allowed to
continue coaching, though only boys, until early this year, when he
was finally banned by USA Volleyball. The AAU and the JVA followed
suit.

Mr. Butler's argument is that the class-action suit is "too broad"
and "unmanageable," according to Law360.com, because it includes
everyone who paid money to GLV Inc., which runs the club, between
February 2013 and January 2018. Mr. Butler argues that the class
potentially includes people who never interacted with Butler, and
that Mullen cannot represent the other members of the proposed
class who participated in certain programs in which her daughter
did not.


PIVOTAL PAYMENTS: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Abante Rooter Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Route 42 Dance Academy, LLC, filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc., et
al. v. Pivotal Payments, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-05486-JCS, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

The appellate case is captioned as Abante Rooter and Plumbing,
Inc., et al. v. Pivotal Payments, Inc., Case No. 18-17024, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 7, 2018,
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero has issued an order regarding the
objection of Route 42 Dance Academy, LLC, to the proposed
settlement in the case.

On June 29, 2018, the Objector, a class member, filed an objection
to the proposed settlement in the action.  It asserted, among other
things, that the class members could not meaningfully participate
in the process governing approval of class action settlements under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without access to a
declaration by Pivotal's director, Philip Fayer, addressing
Pivotal's financial condition.  The Court permitted Pivotal to file
that declaration under seal.  According to Objector, the Fayer
Declaration must be unsealed to allow the class members to make
their own determination as to whether the amount of the proposed
settlement is reasonable.

Magistrate Judge Spero disagrees.  First, he finds that Pivotal
offered compelling reasons for sealing the financial information
contained in the declaration and that those reasons still exist.
Second, he finds that sealing of the Fayer Declaration has not
impaired the ability of the class members to evaluate the fairness
of the settlement.  The Fayer Declaration is the only substantive
document in the case that has been filed under seal.  He,
therefore, concludes that the class members had sufficient
information to evaluate the proposed settlement.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 16, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on December 17, 2018;

   -- Appellant Route 42 Dance Academy, LLC's opening brief is
      due on January 25, 2019;

   -- Appellees Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc. and Pivotal
      Payments, Inc.'s answering brief is due on February 25,
      2019; and

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

Objector-Appellant ROUTE 42 DANCE ACADEMY, LLC, is represented by:

          Timothy R. Hanigan, Esq.
          LANG, HANIGAN & CARVALHO, LLP
          21550 Oxnard Street
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 883-5644
          E-mail: trhanigan@gmail.com

Plaintiff-Appellee ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
          936 North 34th Street
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          E-mail: amcentee@terrellmarshall.com
                  jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
                  bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

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

Defendant-Appellee PIVOTAL PAYMENTS, INC., DBA Capital Processing
Network, DBA CPN, is represented by:

          Amy Elizabeth Burke, Esq.
          CONKLE KREMER & ENGEL PLC
          3130 Wilshire Blvd.
          Santa Monica, CA 90403-2351
          Telephone: (310) 998-9100
          E-mail: a.burke@conklelaw.com

               - and -

          Drew Robert Hansen, Esq.
          THEODORA ORINGHER P.C.
          535 Anton Boulevard, Suite 900
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 549-6112
          E-mail: dhansen@tocounsel.com


PNC BANK: Fergerstrom Appeals D. Hawaii Ruling to Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Wayne Fergerstrom, Shenandoah K. Kaiama and Windy K.
Kaiama filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit
entitled Wayne Fergerstrom, et al. v. PNC Bank, N.A., Case No.
1:13-cv-00526-DKW-RLP, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Hawaii, Honolulu.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
asked the Court for an order granting certification of these class
and subclasses:

The Class:

   "all aconsumers within the meaning of H.R.S. Chapter 480 who
   owned real property in Hawaii and who were subjected to a
   notice of foreclosure sale under H.R.S. section 667-5 prepared
   by Derek Wong or the law firm of Routh Crabtree & Olson by or
   on behalf of Defendant PNC (or NCB before right its merger
   with PNC) claiming for PNC or NCB the rights of a mortgage
   with a power of sale and as to whose property Defendant PNC or
   NCB thereby caused the sale or transfer of the property on or
   after September 9. 2009";

Subclass A consisting of:

   "all members of the class whose non-judicial auction sale was
   not held on both the date and location specified in the
   original published notice (i.e. either or both the date and/or
   location were changed), without one or more of the following
   conditions being satisfied (a) publication of the notice of
   the changed date or location in three successive weeks; (b)
   publication of a notice stating the new date and time for the
   sale at least 29 days after the first publication of such
   notice";

Subclass B consisting of:

   "all members of the Class whose Notice of Sale was published
   or posted for less time before the proposed of auction date
   than required for such publishing or posting by HRS Chapter
   667, Part 1"; and

Subclass C consisting of:

   "members of the Class whose Notice of Sale contained no
   "description" of the property within the meaning of HRS
   Section 667-7(a)(1) or only a "metes and bounds" or square
   footage description of the land".

The appellate case is captioned as Wayne Fergerstrom, et al. v. PNC
Bank, N.A., Case No. 18-17012, 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 15, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on December 17, 2018;

   -- Appellants Wayne Fergerstrom, Shenandoah K. Kaiama and
      Windy K. Kaiama's opening brief is due on January 24, 2019;

   -- Appellee PNC Bank, N.A.'s answering brief is due on
      February 25, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants WAYNE FERGERSTROM, SHENANDOAH K. KAIAMA and
WINDY K. KAIAMA, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, are represented by:

          James J. Bickerton, Esq.
          BICKERTON DANG LLLP
          745 Fort Street, Suite 801
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 599-3811
          Facsimile: (808) 694-3090
          E-mail: bickerton@bsds.com

               - and -

          Bridget G. Morgan, Esq.
          BUSH STROUT & KORNFELD LLP
          601 Union Street
          Seattle, WA 98101-2373
          Telephone: (206) 292-2110
          E-mail: bmorgan@bskd.com

               - and -

          John Francis Perkin, Esq.
          PERKIN & FARIA LLLC
          841 Bishop Street
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 523-2300
          E-mail: perkin@perkinlaw.com

               - and -

          Van-Alan H. Shima, Esq.
          VAN ALAN SHIMA, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          1188 Bishop St.
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 545-4600

Defendant-Appellee PNC BANK, N.A., a national banking association,
is represented by:

          Richard Gottlieb, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          11355 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-4236
          E-mail: rgottlieb@manatt.com

               - and -

          Brett Natarelli, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          20 N. Clark Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 626-1813
          E-mail: bnatarelli@manatt.com

               - and -

          Edmund K. Saffery, Esq.
          Lauren Chun, Esq.
          GOODSILL ANDERSON QUINN & STIFEL LLP
          999 Bishop Street
          First Hawaiian Center, Suite 1600
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 547-5600
          E-mail: esaffery@goodsill.com
                  lchun@goodsill.com


POGGENPOHL INC: Violates ADA, Dominguez Suit Asserts
----------------------------------------------------
Poggenpohl U.S., Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Yovanny
Dominguez on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Poggenpohl U.S., Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10114 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 31, 2018).

Poggenpohl U.S. Inc. designs, delivers, and installs kitchen and
bath cabinets for various luxury condominium and apartment
projects. The company was founded in 1976 and is based in
Fairfield, New Jersey. Poggenpohl U.S., Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Poggenpohl Moebelwerke GmbH.[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


POINDEXTER NUT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, York Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMEAL YORK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POINDEXTER NUT COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18CECG03835 (Cal.
Super., Fresno 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, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee from September 2015 to February 2016.

Poindexter Nut Company, Inc. grows, processes, and handles walnuts.
Its products include walnuts, almonds, cashews, pecans, pistachios,
and mixed nuts. The company offers consumer packs, gift packs, and
apparel. It offers its products through its online store. The
company is based in Selma, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021


POTLATCHDELTIC CORP: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, McCoy Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHETRINA MCCOY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. POTLATCHDELTIC CORPORATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-01063-SOH
(W.D. Ark., October 16, 2018), accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Labor Standards Act and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act by
failing to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation
for all hours that they worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

PotlatchDeltic Corporation conducts business within the state of
Arkansas, and has a corporate operational headquarters in El
Dorado, Arkansas.

The Defendant is a timber processing and management company that
operates lumber milling and processing facilities in the state of
Arkansas, as well as other states, including Idaho, Michigan and
Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRESTIGE INT'L: Accused by Northrup Suit of Privacy Invasion
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN NORTHRUP, Individually and on behalf of a Class of Similarly
Situated Individuals v. PRESTIGE INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP,
INC., Case No. 8:18-cv-02551 (M.D. Fla., October 16, 2018), arises
from the alleged illegal actions of Prestige in negligently and
willfully contacting the Plaintiff through SMS or "text" messages
on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading his privacy.

Prestige International Insurance Group, Inc., is a company with
headquarters, principal address, mailing address and address of
registered agent for service in Coral Springs, Florida.  Prestige
sells insurance for several large insurance carriers and has been
in business for 15 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
          E-mail: seth@epllc.com

               - and -

          Cory S. Fein, Esq.
          CORY FEIN LAW FIRM
          712 Main St., #800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (281) 254-7717
          Facsimile: (530) 748-0601
          E-mail: cory@coryfeinlaw.com


PRET A MANGER: Court Narrows Claims in Lau Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
Distrct of New York granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismis the case, YEE TING LAU, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. PRET A MANGER (USA) LIMITED, and JOHN DOE
CORPORATIONS 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-5775 (LAK) (S.D.
N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Lau and Jeff Alexander bring the action on behalf of
themselves and purportedly others similarly situated against Pret A
Manger (USA) Limited and John Doe Corporations 1-100.  The amended
complaint ("Complaint") alleges fraud and violations of New York
General Business Law ("GBL") Sections 349 and 350.

The Defendants operate food stores in New York (including New York
City), Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Boston.  They sell, among
other products, sandwich wraps, which are at issue in the matter.
The wraps are packaged in clear plastic with a cardboard sleeve
around the middle of the sandwich, obstructing consumers' view of
the center of the wrap.  Each wrap is cut in half and placed end to
end inside the package with the cut side exposed through the clear
plastic.  Pret makes, packages, and sells approximately eight
varieties of wraps in this manner.

Over a period of several months, the Plaintiff Lau bought three
wraps from three different Manhattan Pret locations.  Each
allegedly contained some empty space, or "slack-fill," between the
two halves of the wrap.  In each instance, the slack-fill was
between the two halves of the wrap beneath the cardboard sleeve.

The amended complaint alleges that the Dfendants' packaging is
deceptive because it conceals non-functional slack-fill and
misleads consumers about the amount of wrap they receive for the
price charged.  Lau alleges intent to purchase Pret wraps again in
the future but claims that she is concerned that any slack-fill in
the wrap might make it worth less than the price charged.  Both the
Plaintiffs assert that they no longer are able to rely on the
Defendants' packaging, which will make them hesitate or refrain
from purchasing Pret wraps in the future.

The Complaint alleges fraud and violations of New York GBL Sections
349 and 350.  The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damages on
behalf of themselves and a putative class of all purchasers of Pret
wraps in the United States, or alternatively New York state, during
the applicable limitations period.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that
the Plaintiffs (1) lack standing to seek injunctive relief; (2)
lack standing to bring certain claims on behalf of putative class
members; (3) have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted under GBL Sections 349 and 350; and (4) have failed to
state a claim for common law fraud.

Judge Kaplan granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  He granted the Defendants' motion with respect
to Counts One and Four.  It is denied in all other respects.  

The Plaintiffs assert that all Pret wraps are "sufficiently
similar" to support class standing33 and, moreover, that the manner
in which the wraps are packaged is the same across the board.  The
Judge agrees.  The alleged injurious conduct -- deceptive packaging
of Pret wraps -- implicates the same set of concerns regardless of
the type of wrap purchased.35 Defendants attempt to defeat class
standing by emphasizing the unique ingredients and preparation of
the wraps, but those factors are inapposite to the conduct alleged
to have caused injury to the Plaintiffs or members of the putative
class.  All varieties of Pret wraps allegedly are packaged in the
same way.  The Plaintiffs therefore have standing to bring claims
based on varieties of Pret wraps they never personally purchased on
behalf of a class.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded
something more than pure deception and therefore have established a
cognizable injury under GBL Sections 349 and 350.  The Plaintiffs
allege that they were injured because they received less than they
bargained for due to the Defendants' deceptive packaging and seek
to recover the cost of the portion of wrap that the Plaintiffs
expected to receive but did not due to the deception.  According to
the Complaint, the deception was baked into the purchase price, as
the value warranted by the Defendants' packaging and charged by the
Defendants was greater than the actual value of the wrap inside
that packaging.

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

Yee Ting Lau, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Melissa Seelig --
info@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee,
Lee Litigation Group, PLLC.

Jeff Alexander, Plaintiff, represented by C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation
Group, PLLC.

Pret A Manger (USA) Limited, Defendant, represented by Daniel
Andrew Dingerson -- ddingerson@dglaw.com -- Davis & Gilbert LLP &
Ina B. Scher -- ischer@dglaw.com -- Davis & Gilbert LLP.


PSC LOCAL: Sued over Collecting Agency Shop Fees
------------------------------------------------
DAVID SEIDMANN, AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs. PROFESSIONAL STAFF CONGRESS LOCAL
2334; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION; AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONGRESS; AND NEW YORK
STATE UNITED TEACHERS, the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-09778
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2018), seeks to permanently enjoin Defendants
from collecting agency shop fees from Plaintiff or the class
members.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff chose not join PSC.
Nevertheless, under NY CIV. SERV. LAW section 208(3), his employer
withheld from Plaintiff's pay agency shop fees and paid those fees
to Defendant PSC. Defendant PSC forwarded portions of these fees,
directly or indirectly to the other union defendants.

On June 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Janus v. AFSCME,
138 S. Ct 2448(2018), holding that an agency-fee scheme -- agency
shop fees in the language of the New York Civil Service Law --
violates the free speech rights of public employees who elect not
to join a public-sector union and who do not affirmatively consent
to pay agency fees. Thus, Defendants' imposition and collection of
agency shop fees violates Plaintiff's First Amendment Rights and is
therefore, unconstitutional, the lawsuit says.

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Jonathan D. Klein, Esq.
          Gregory N. Longworth, Esq.
          Daniel J. Dulworth, Esq.
          CLARK HILL PLC
          830 Third Avenue, Suite 200
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 215 640 8535
          Facsimile: 215 640 8501
          E-mail: Jklein@ClarkHill.com
                  GLongworth@ClarkHill.com
                  DDulworth@ClarkHill.com

               - and -

          John J. Bursch, Esq.
          BURSCH LAW PLLC
          9339 Cherry Valley Ave. SE
          Caledonia, MI 49316
          Telephone: (616) 450 4235
          E-mail: jbursch@burschlaw.com

R.R. DONNELLEY: Dickey Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Sarah Dickey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, Case No. 1:18-cv-00920
(M.D. N.C., November 2, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff's FLSA claims result from Defendant's policy and
practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and the Collective Members an
overtime premium rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
forty in a workweek.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Harrisburg, North Carolina. The
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from February 2018 until about
August 2018.

The Defendant R.R. Donnelley is a foreign business corporation
doing business in the Middle District of North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
      Craig L. Leis, Esq.
      GIBBONS LEIS, PLLC
      14045 Ballantyne Corporate
      Place, Ste. 325
      Charlotte, NC 28277
      Tel: (704) 612-0038
      E-mail: phil@gibbonsleis.com
              craig@gibbonsleis.com


RAINS USA: Olsen Files Class Action Under ADA
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rains USA Inc. under
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Thomas
J. Olsen individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Rains USA Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06105 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 31, 2018).

Rains is a contemporary rainwear lifestyle brand creating
waterproof designs for the global citizen.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


RICCARDO'S CATERING: Dominguez Sues Co. for ADA Breach
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Riccardo's Catering
Inc. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Riccardo's Catering
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10101 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 31,
2018).

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

Riccardo's Catering Inc. offers catering services and event
managements.[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


RITE AID: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Stafford Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRYON STAFFORD, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. RITE AID CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-1340-AJB-JLB (S.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony
J. Bataglia of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
second amended complaint.

Stafford brings a potential class action against Rite Aid for an
alleged price discrimination scheme involving Rite Aid's Rx Savings
Program.  The Rx Program, available to the general public, provides
access to a significant price cut on certain generic drugs.  

Stafford alleges Rite Aid failed to report the Rx Program prices to
insurers, where they would be used to calculate the co-pays that
insured customers pay when they pick up a prescription -- the
"usual and customary" price.  This failure, Stafford asserts,
distorted the overall prescription calculations, resulting in
higher copays.

Based on this alleged scheme, Stafford brings claims for negligent
misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, as well as claims under
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the California
Unfair Competition Law.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Stafford's second amended
complaint.  Its motion to dismiss challenges many of Stafford's
allegations regarding Rite Aid's allegedly unlawful two-tiered
pricing scheme which caused Stafford and others to pay artificially
inflated copayments for prescription drugs.  

Rite Aid moves to dismiss on five grounds: (1) failure to allege
negligent misrepresentation; (2) failure to plead CLRA and UCL
standing; (3) failure to allege a CLRA claim; (4) failure to allege
a UCL claim; and (5) improper request for unjust enrichment.

Judge Bataglia holds that at the motion to dismiss stage, the
Plaintiff's burden is relatively low.  Stafford only needs to
allege plausible allegations supporting each cause of action.
Whether or not those allegations prove to be true is not an issue
before the Court at this threshold.  That inquiry is better suited
for a summary judgment motion.

At this juncture, the Court must take as true Stafford's
allegations regarding Rite Aid's alleged pricing scheme and
existence of a duty -- which seems to be the thread through many of
Rite Aid's challenges.  To this end, the Judge finds Stafford's
second amended complaint plausibly states a claim for negligent
misrepresentation, has standing under both the CLRA and the UCL,
has stated claims under both the CLRA and the UCL, and unjust
enrichment.  Accordingly, he denied Rite Aid's motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Fdg6Tw from Leagle.com.

Bryon Stafford, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by David William Mitchell --
davidm@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Gregory E.
Del Gaizo -- gdelgaizo@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP,
Jason Henry Alperstein -- jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Jeffrey Dearman
--mdearman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro
hac vice, Robert R. Henssler, Jr. -- bhenssler@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Steven M. McKany --
smckany@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP, Stuart A. Davidson
-- SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro
hac vice & George C. Aguilar -- gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com --
Robbins Arroyo LLP.

Rite Aid Corporation, Defendant, represented by Alyssa D. O'Donnell
-- alyssa.odonnell@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Joseph H. Bias -- joseph.bias@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius & Thomas J. Sullivan, Jr. --
thomas.sullivan@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro
hac vice.


RUSHMORE LOAN: Raciti et al. Sue over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK C. RACITI, and DARLYNE A. RACITI, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RUSHMORE LOAN
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-14869-FLW-LHG
(D.N.J., Oct. 11, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to
Judge Freda L. Wolfson and referred to Magistrate Judge Lois H.
Goodman.

Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC provides residential mortgage
loan servicing and customer support for performing, re-performing,
and non-performing loans in the United States and Puerto Rico. The
company also provides wholesale loan origination services. It
serves borrowers, broker clients, homeowners, and investors. The
company was incorporated in 2008 and is based in Irvine,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Subhan Tariq, Esq.
          THE TARIQ LAW FIRM
          68 Jay Street, Suite 201
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Tel: (347) 306-1911
          E-mail: subhan@tariqlaw.com


SEASPRAY RESORT: Sierra Files ADA Class Action
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seaspray Resort, LTD.
The case is styled as Luis Sierra individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Seaspray Resort, LTD. A
Florida limited partnership, Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-62627-BB
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 31, 2018).

The case was filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Seaspray Resort Ltd. is a hotel to stay in Palm Beach Shores. The
hotel opened its doors in 1967 and was remodeled in 2003.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
     Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
     200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 282-1858
     Fax: (844) 786-3694
     Email: service@advocacypa.com



SIGNATURE CONSULTANTS: Rotor Sues over Background Checks
--------------------------------------------------------
TANYA ROTOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIGNATURE CONSULTANTS, L.L.C.; SIGNATURE
COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 18CV336219 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty.,
Oct. 12, 2018) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

Signature Consultants, LLC provides IT staffing and recruitment
services. The company offers IT talent acquisition services, such
as proactive search, recruiting, placement, and consultant care; IT
staffing solutions in the areas of desktop support, Web
development, help desk/technical services, software development,
data/database management, Internet/Intranet systems integration,
security, infrastructure management, and project
management/business analysis; and managed services. Signature
Consultants, LLC was founded in 1996 and is based in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida with delivery centers in Boston, Massachusetts;
and Charlotte, North Carolina. [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


SOUTH FLORIDA RACING: Lawrence Sues Over FCRA, FACTA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
SADIKI LAWRENCE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SOUTH FLORIDA RACING ASSOCIATION, LLC, d/b/a "HIALEAH
PARK", a Florida limited liability company, Case No.
1:18-cv-24264-UU (S.D. Fla., October 16, 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 it to truncate certain credit card and debit card
information on printed receipts provided to consumers.

Despite the clear language of the statute, Hialeah Park knowingly
or recklessly failed to comply with FCRA by printing eight of the
credit card or debit card numbers on printed receipts provided to
consumers, according to the complaint.  As a result of the
Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class, who have
conducted business with the Defendant during the time frame
relevant to this complaint, have suffered a violation of their
statutory rights, an invasion of their privacy, and breach of their
confidence in the safe handling of their account information.

South Florida Racing Association, LLC, is a Florida limited
liability company whose principal address is in Hialeah, Florida.
The Company, doing business as Hialeah Park, operates a race
course, casino, and venues/receptions for events and
restaurants.[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


STANDARD HOMEOPATHIC: Claims in Amended O'Neill Suit Narrowed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNIFER O'NEILL and TRICIA ZAMFINO, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
STANDARD HOMEOPATHIC COMPANY; HYLAND'S, INC.; CVS PHARMACY, INC.;
and TARGET CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-8687 (KMK) (S.D.
N.Y.), Judge Kenneth M. Karas of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.

O'Neill and Zamfino bring the instant Complaint, on their own
behalf and on behalf of a putative class, alleging that they were
injured by paying for unsafe products that have since been
voluntarily removed from the marketplace by Defendants Standard and
Hyland's, and which are no longer available for purchase at
Defendants Target or CVS.  According to the Plaintiffs, the
Defendants made false representations about their teething products
that were in violation of New York General Business Law ("GBL")
Sections 349 and 350, and also resulted in a breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability and a breach of contract.

The Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint on Nov. 9, 2016.  On
Feb. 2, 2017, the Defendants filed a pre-motion letter seeking to
file a motion to dismiss the Complaint.  In response to the
pre-motion letter, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on
Feb. 3, 2017, and agreed to dismiss claims brought by
former-Plaintiffs Lisa Corbett and Laura Kasiotis against
former-Defendant Church & Dwight Co., Inc. and Defendants CVS and
Target.  The Plaintiffs then filed a letter in response to the
Defendants' pre-motion letter on Feb. 7, 2017.  The Court
thereafter adopted a briefing schedule for the Defendants' Motion.


In the interim, the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge
McCarthy for purposes of settlement.  On June 13, 2017, in an
attempt to facilitate settlement of the action, the Parties
proposed a revised briefing schedule extending the deadline to file
the putative Motion To Dismiss.  The Court then adopted the revised
schedule.

Unable to settle the case, the Defendants filed their Motion To
Dismiss and accompanying papers, dated July 15, 2017, on Sept. 15,
2017.  The Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to the the Defendants'
Motion, dated Aug. 18, 2017, that same day, and the Defendants
filed their Reply, on Sept. 15, 2017 as well.

Judge Karas granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion To Dismiss.  He granted the Defendants' Motion with respect
to the Plaintiffs' breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability claim, the breach of contract claim, and the claim
for injunctive relief.  He denied in all other respects.  Because
the Plaintiffs have already amended their Complaint once, these
claims are dismissed with prejudice.

The Judge finds that there is no allegation that Target or CVS had
any special knowledge outside of the FDA's announcement that would
have rendered them liable under a negligence theory of liability.
Ultimately, Target and CVS are retailers, without any knowledge or
skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the
transaction or to whom such knowledge or skill may be attributed,
and thus cannot be held liable for a breach of an implied warranty
of merchantability for a safety defect they could not have
plausibly discovered.  Therefore, this claim is dismissed.

Because the Plaintiffs have not alleged any of the terms of the
agreement, it is impossible for the Judge to determine whether
Target and CVS have breached the supposed contract.  Accordingly,
the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim is dismissed.

The Judge dismissed the Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).
He finds that the Plaintiffs here are pursuing injunctive relief
based solely on past purchases, and they have not pled that they
intend to purchase any products from any Defendants, let alone the
relevant homeopathic teething products.  Moreover, they cannot
establish a present, immediate risk, because they have
affirmatively pled that Standard and Hyland's have discontinued
distribution of the teething products in the United States, and
that Target and CVS have removed the product from their stores.
Consequently, those products, like the relevant product in Nicosia,
are no longer available for purchase by the Plaintiffs.

The Clerk of the Comt is directed to terminate the pending Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/KFat96 from Leagle.com.

Jennifer O'Neill, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Myles Keough Bartley --
mbartley@denleacarton.com -- Denlea & Carton LLP, Robert Jeffrey
Berg -- rberg@denleacarton.com -- Denlea & Carton LLP & Jeffrey I.
Carton -- jcarton@denleacarton.com -- Denlea & Carton LLP.

Tricia Zamfino, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey I. Carton, Denlea &
Carton LLP.

Standard Homeopathic Company, Hyland's Inc. & Target Corporation,
Defendants, represented by Jeffrey Margulies --
jeff.margulies@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP, David Barry Schwartz -- david.schwartz@nortonrosefulbright.com
-- Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Judith A. Archer --
judith.archer@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP & Stephanie Anne Stroup --
judith.archer@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP, pro hac vice.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Margulies,
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP & Judith A. Archer, Norton Rose
Fulbright US LLP.


STEINHOFF: Attorney Provides Update on Class Action Progress
------------------------------------------------------------
Lameez Omarjee, writing for Fin24, reports that the longer it takes
to conclude litigation against Steinhoff by shareholders, the less
chance there is that shareholders will be able to recover any
losses.

This is according to attorney Alexander Reus, managing partner of
international law firm DRRT. Mr. Reus and other representatives of
the International Steinhoff Litigation Group on Oct. 29 briefed
Steinhoff investors in Cape Town on the progress of the South
African opt-out class action, which was filed in the South Gauteng
High Court in August 2018.

The International Steinhoff Litigation Group is a group of law
firms representing Steinhoff shareholders from the US, the
Netherlands, Germany and South Africa.

The South Africa class action was filed against over 40 defendants
including Steinhoff, Deloitte, Absa Bank, Standard Chartered Bank,
Commerzbank and PSG Capital, as well as current and ex-directors of
Steinhoff including former board chair Christo Wiese and former CEO
Markus Jooste, and others. This is with the hopes to recover
compensation for the shareholder losses of up to €12bn
(approximately R185bn).

Stellenbosch headquartered retail conglomerate Steinhoff has lost
over 90% of its shareholder value since early December, when
Mr. Jooste abruptly resigned amid accounting irregularities. These
irregularities are the subject of an independent forensic
investigation by PwC.

The company has announced the restatement of financial statements,
but said the PwC probe will have to be concluded before these can
be made public.

In addition to the class action by the International Steinhoff
Litigation Group, Steinhoff is facing two Dutch class actions.
While it is headquartered in Stellenbosch, Steinhoff is domiciled
in Amsterdam in the Netherlands. It moved its primary stock
exchange listing to Frankfurt in late 2015.

Mr. Reus and his SA counterpart Zain Lundell of LHL Attorneys are
of the view that a global settlement would be beneficial to all
shareholders -- retail and institutional -- as opposed to engaging
in competing individual cases being sought by institutional
shareholders in the Netherlands or South Africa.

"A global solution that treats everyone the same way, will be the
light at the end of the tunnel," said Mr. Reus.

He warned that private actions outside of the South African class
action may "destroy the potential for any global solution" and may
drive Steinhoff into bankruptcy. "Shareholders won't get anything
if it reaches liquidation stage," said Reus.

Starting from zero

Mr. Reus said that shareholders should lower their expectations of
what they could possibly get from Steinhoff as the retailer has
limited assets. "Everybody has to start from the point they are at
now -- and the point they are at now is zero. And any way up from
there, if a reasonable amount, is a good solution," Reus said.

Former chief financial officer Ben la Grange told Parliament in
August that losses to pension funds invested in the retailer were
permanent. He also said its share price would not climb back to
levels it once was before the fallout in December 2017.

Mr. Reus said "it makes sense" for any pending class actions in
South Africa and the Netherlands to be resolved quickly. "The more
debt accrues for senior debtholders will make it less likely for
anything to be available to shareholders. "If nothing is done in
the next year or six to seven months, I think the chance to get
money out of that is going to be very difficult," Mr. Reus warned.

Mr. Reus said that for the international class action efforts to
work -- none of the institutions should opt out and pursue
individual claims, as it could "collapse any potential solution".

Recently, European Investors and Dutch shareholder association VEB
have agreed to suspend a class action suit against Steinhoff until
April 2019. However, the Dutch class action of the International
Steinhoff Litigation Group remains active, Reus clarified.

Mr. Reus said that Steinhoff's Dutch attorneys Linklaters have not
yet approached them. "We expect to be approached by Linklaters to
stay the case as well. We will decide what we will do then. We are
not sure whether we want to stay -- we have just filed SA
proceedings."

Mr. Reus said neither he nor the International Steinhoff Litigation
Group have heard from the defendants if they want to settle
either.

According to Mr. Lundell, they are hopeful to get a court date
early next year. Mr. Lundell noted that he believed that the South
Gauteng High Court had jurisdiction, and that he was confident in
the court as the judges there are known for their experience in
handling class action cases.

Investors -- both institutional and public -- were scheduled to be
briefed on Tuesday, Oct. 30, and Wednesday, Oct. 31, in
Johannesburg.

In a statement issued on Oct. 29, trade union the Public Servants
Association (PSA) said it would meet with the representatives of
the international litigation on Oct. 30. This is in an effort to
recover losses suffered by members of the Government Employees
Pension Fund (GEPF). The PSA's legal team and representatives from
the Public Investment Corporation will also be at the meeting.

"A South African class-action lawsuit offers the best possible
avenue for litigation and dispute resolution by ensuring personal
jurisdiction over most of the defendants who are based in South
Africa and the associated claims, especially since some 70% of
Steinhoff shares were traded on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange,"
said PSA general manager, Ivan Fredericks.


SUMMIT, OH: Neal Sues Over Inadequate Bus Stop Services
-------------------------------------------------------
SPENCER NEAL; WILLIAM RICHARDS v. METRO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY;
SUMMIT COUNTY, OFFICE OF COUNTY EXECUTIVE; CITY OF AKRON; CITY OF
BARBERTON; CITY OF CUYAHOGA FALLS; CITY OF FAIRLAWN; CITY OF GREEN;
CITY OF HUDSON; CITY OF MACEDONIA; CITY OF MUNROE FALLS; CITY OF
NORTON; CITY OF STOW; CITY OF TALLMADGE; CITY OF TWINSBURG; VILLAGE
OF LAKEMORE; VILLAGE OF NORTHFIELD; VILLAGE OF RICHFIELD; VILLAGE
OF SILVER LAKE; BATH TOWNSHIP; COPLEY TOWNSHIP; COVENTRY TOWNSHIP;
SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP, Case No. 5:18-cv-02402-SL (N.D. Ohio, October
16, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other
mobility impaired individuals similarly situated for alleged
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

On its Web site, Metro claims that wheelchair users can use their
regular bus line service because all busses are equipped with
either ramps or lifts.  However, nearly 30 years after the passage
of the ADA, Metro, along with the political entities they serve,
continue to provide an inadequate transportation service for
individuals with mobility-related disabilities, the Plaintiffs
allege.

The Defendants (aside from Metro) are the political entities, which
own or have easements, which control the physical bus stops
throughout Summit County.  Metro is the political entity, which is
responsible for the maintenance and operation of the Summit County
bus stops.

The Defendants are jointly responsible for administering,
operating, constructing, and maintaining the physical bus stops in
Summit County.  The Defendants develop and provide the services and
programs offered by and at the bus stops and transportation
system.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Colin G. Meeker, Esq.
          Blaise R. Meeker, Esq.
          BLAKEMORE, MEEKER & BOWLER CO., L.P.A.
          495 Portage Lakes Dr.
          Akron, OH 44319
          Telephone: (330) 253-3337
          Facsimile: (330) 253-4131
          E-mail: cgm@bmblaw.com
                  blaise@bmblaw.com


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Underpays Truck Drivers, Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOHEL VALIENTE; and ASHRAF AIAD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF
ARIZONA, LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
18STCV01036 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 16, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as truck drivers.

Swift Transportation Company operates as a multi-faceted
transportation services company in North America. The company was
formerly known as Swift Holdings Corp. Swift Transportation Company
was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. Swift
Transportation Company operates as a subsidiary of Knight-Swift
Transportation Holdings Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis Benowitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS BENOWITZ
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 844-5141
          Facsimile: (310) 492-4056
          E-mail: louis@benowitzlaw.com

               - and –

          Joshua Cohen Slatkin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA COHEN SLATKIN
          11726 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 627-2699
          Facsimile: (310) 943-2757


SWISSPORT FUELING: Underpays Fueling Agents, Bradford et al. Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMEISHA BRADFORD, and JORDEN FULLER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SWISSPORT FUELING,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
18CV336218 (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,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as fueling agent in
the San Francisco Airport.

Swissport Fueling Inc. provides cargo handling services. The
Company offers air cargo handling, fuelling, aircraft maintenance,
and other services. Swissport Fueling operates worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
          2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                  temerson@bradleygrombacher.com


SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Underpays Customer Service Agent, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cecilia Jones, and Pedro Ybarra, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Symantec Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03406-SRB (D. Ariz., Oct. 23, 2018)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid minimum wage and
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as customer service
worker.

Symantec Corporation provides cybersecurity products, services, and
solutions worldwide. Symantec Corporation was founded in 1982 and
is headquartered in Mountain View, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Zoldan, Esq.
          Jason Barrat, Esq.
          Jessica Miller, Esq.
          ZOLDAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          14500 N. Northsight Blvd., Suite 133
          Scottsdale, AZ 85260
          Telephone: (480) 442-3410
          E-mail: mzoldan@zoldangroup.com
                  jbarrat@zoldangroup.com
                  jmiller@zoldangroup.com


TARGET CORP: Neumann Files Another 6th Cir. Appeal in Meta Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Erich Bernard Neumann filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit titled Christopher Meta, et al. v. Target
Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00832, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown.

The appellate case is captioned as Christopher Meta, et al. v.
Target Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-4004, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 14, 2018,
Plaintiff Erich B. Neumann filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit.  That appellate case is entitled Christopher Meta, et
al. v. Target Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-3840.

In his complaint, Plaintiff Christopher Meta asserts that he began
purchasing the red, toddler wipes from a Target store in Boardman,
Ohio, in July 2011.  Mr. Meta alleges that the Up & Up brand of
flushable wipes caused the problems when they caked together in his
pipes and septic system after flushing, despite representations on
the product packaging and on Target's Web site that the wipes are
flushable, break apart after flushing, and are safe for sewers and
septic systems.  Based on these allegations, Mr. Meta seeks
certification of a class consisting of all persons residing in the
State of Ohio, who purchased Target-Brand 'up&up(R)' 'flushable'
moist tissue wipes and toddler and family wipes.

Plaintiff-Appellant ERICH B. NEUMANN, of Miami Beach, Florida,
appears pro se.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee CHRISTOPHER META, On behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com


THIRD AVENUE FOOD: Juarez Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
EMILIANO MARCELINO JUAREZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THIRD AVENUE FOOD CORP.
(D/B/A TIVOLI CAFE), 283 3RD AVE. CORP. (D/B/A TIVOLI CAFE), GUS
KASSIMIS (A.K.A. CONSTAINOS A.K.A. CONSTANTINE), and CARLOS DOE,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-09889 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2018),
seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants own, operate, or control
a restaurant, located at 283 3rd Ave., New York, NY 10010 under the
name "Tivoli Cafe". Mr. Marcelino was employed as a dishwasher and
a delivery worker at the restaurant. However, he was required to
spend a considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped
duties, including but not limited to dishwashing, sweeping and
mopping the kitchen, cleaning the kitchen, washing the carpet,
cleaning bathrooms, sweeping and mopping the main room, taking out
the garbage, stocking deliveries in the basement refrigerator,
getting items from the refrigerator to the cooks, washing pots and
pans , twisting and tying up cardboard and cleaning the kitchen
filter ("non-tipped duties").

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


TRACY AUTO: Fails to Pay OT to Salespersons, Lyons Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID LYONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRACY AUTO CENTER; ANTIOCH AUTO CENTER;
BRIAN NOKES; THOMAS NOKES; DORNOCH, INC. D/B/A TRACY FORD AND TRACY
FORD USED CAR SUPERSTORE; TRALEE, INC. D/B/A ANTIOCH NISSAN;
ANTIOCH CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE, INC., D/B/A ANTIOCH CHRYSLER JEEP
DODGE RAM; CARDIGAN, INC. D/B/A ALL STAR HYUNDAI AND ALL STAR
GENESIS F/K/A ANTIOCH GENESIS; BELTRAY, INC. D/B/A ALL STAR FORD
AND ALL STAR HYUNDAI; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20, Defendants, Case No.
VOE-2018-12399 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 2, 2018) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.
The Plaintiff Lyons was employed by the Defendants as salesperson
from June 2017 to August 2017.

Tracy Auto Center sells and services Ford, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep,
Hyundai, Ram vehicles in the greater Tracy, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas A. Carlin, Esq.
          Brian S. Conlon, Esq.
          PHILLIPS ERLEWINE GIVEN & CARLIN LLP
          39 Mesa Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94129
          Telephone: (415) 398-0900
          Facsimile: (415) 398-0911
          E-mail: nac@phillaw.com
                  bsc@phillaw.com


TRADE SUPPLIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
RUBEN GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRADE SUPPLIES, LLC; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18STCV00587 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles 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. Garcia was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employee in
Los Angeles, California.

Trade Supplies, LLC distributes disposable products. The Company
offers dry-grocery, janitorial, packaging, paper and plastic
disposable, and health care products. Trade Supplies serves clients
in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          Michael Calvo, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com


TREASURE ISLAND: Layoff Notice Untimely, Gossett et al. Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARK A. GOSSETT; SANDRA ROMAN; TELIA P. WILSON; TIMIKII COBURN;
ANTONIA MORALES; ANTONIO MUNOZ; JESSE LOFTON; DAVID Z. LEON; KEVIN
M. JACKSON; and LORENZO ESCAMILLA, JR., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TREASURE ISLAND
FOODS, INC.; TREASURE ISLAND FOODS MONTROSE CORP.; THE MAGAZI,
INC.; PATRICK CAVANAUGH; MARIA KAMBEROS; and CHRIST KAMBEROS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06847 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 11, 2018)
alleges violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act, and the Illinois Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' seven Retail Stores
permanently closed during the 14-day period beginning on October
12, 2018. On September 26, 2018, less than 60 days prior to closing
all Retail Stores, the Defendants issued a notice to employees
explaining that their Retail Stores would be permanently closing.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to provide notice of mass layoff or plant closing. The Defendants
also failed to include accrued and due compensation in the
Plaintiffs' final compensation.

Treasure Island Foods, Inc. owns and operates supermarkets. It
offers products in the areas of grocery, bakery, delicatessen,
wine, beer and spirits, produce, floral, meat, catering and gifts,
and fish and seafood. Treasure Island Foods, Inc. was founded in
1963 and is based in Chicago, Illinois. It has stores in Chicago
and Wilmette, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Karen I. Engelhardt, Esq.
          Sara S. Schumann, Esq.
          Ryan M. Thoma, Esq.
          ALLISON SLUTSKY & KENNEDY, P.C.
          230 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Tel: (312) 364-9400
          Fax: (312) 364-9410

               - and -

          Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
          Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq.
          CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Tel: (312) 763-6880


TREVENA INC: Dec. 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Oct. 29 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of shareholders of Trevena,
Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have
until the deadlines listed to petition the court and further
details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There
is no cost or obligation to you.

Trevena, Inc. (NASDAQGS: TRVN)
Class Period: May 2, 2016 - October 9, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 10, 2018
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/trevena-inc-loss-form?wire=3

About the lawsuit: Trevena, Inc. allegedly made materially false
and/or misleading statements during the class period and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
had not agreed to key elements of the Company's Phase 3 trial for
oliceridine (TRV130); (ii) the FDA was unlikely to approve
oliceridine (TRV130) 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.  

To learn more about the Trevena, Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with
offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.
The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience
representing investors in securities litigation, and have recovered
hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. [GN]


TREVENA INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Oct. 29 disclosed
that purchasers of Trevena, Inc. (NasdaqGS: TRVN) have filed a
class action complaint against the company's officers and directors
for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
between May 2, 2016 and October 9, 2018. Trevena, a
biopharmaceutical company, develops therapies based on breakthrough
science to benefit patients and healthcare providers confronting
serious medical conditions. Trevena's product candidate, known as
oliceridine, is designed to treat pain intravenously.

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

Trevena Accused of Lying to Investors About Critical FDA Meeting
for Over Two Years

According to the complaint, Trevena led shareholders to believe
that the company's April 2016 End-of-Phase 2 meeting with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was more successful than it
actually was. Trevena stated that it had reached an agreement with
the FDA on key elements of its Phase 3 program for oliceridine and
that the company was "very pleased" with the outcome. However, on
October 9, 2018, the FDA released meeting minutes from the April
2016 meeting revealing that the FDA did not agree with the proposed
dosing in the Phase 3 studies, among other things. Then, on October
11, 2018, Trevena announced that the FDA denied its New Drug
Application for oliceridine. Trevena's stock plummet on this news
and now trades under $1.00.

Trevena Shareholders Have Legal Options

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

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


TROTT LAW: $7.5MM Settlement in Martin Suit Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN J. MARTIN, YAHMI NUNDLEY, and KATHLEEN CADEAU,
on behalf of themselves and persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. TROTT LAW, P.C. and DAVID A. TROTT, Defendants, Case No.
15-12838 (E.D. Mich.), Judge David M. Lawson of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division,
granted the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class
settlement and the plan of allocation.

The Court conducted a fairness hearing on Sept. 27, 2018 to
determine whether a settlement agreement should be given final
approval on behalf of the certified settlement class in the case.
The September 27 hearing was the second step in the settlement
approval process.

On June 29, 2018, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) as
the first step in the process.  It directed that written notice to
the class be given by July 20, 2018 via first-class mail augmented
by other media.  The Plaintiffs' counsel retained Epiq Class Action
& Claims Solutions, Inc. as the agent of the named Plaintiffs and
the class counsel to give notice in the manner approved by the
Court, and ultimately to administer the settlement, process claims,
and make distributions.  The Court approved the retention of Epiq
as the settlement administrator.

The proposed settlement addresses the Plaintiffs' claims under the
federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Michigan's
Regulation of Collection Practices Act, alleging that the
Defendants' mass-produced dunning letters violated those statutes
principally by (1) giving the appearance of communications sent by
an attorney, when in fact no attorney was involved in any
meaningful way in producing or reviewing them, (2) including
language that a reasonable consumer could perceive as abrogating or
"overshadowing" their rights to request verification of the debt
and to be assured that any foreclosure proceeding would be put on
hold until a responsive verification was produced, and (3) using
the term "Corporate Advance" in the letters to describe a category
of amounts owed, which the plaintiffs alleged was misleading
because the term was not defined in the underlying mortgage
documents.

The Court previously certified the class, which the Court
conditionally certified in an order granting in part the
Plaintiffs' first class motion, of all persons to whom Trott Law PC
caused to be sent any version of the Trott PC Foreclosure Letter,
as defined in the proposed settlement agreement, in connection with
mortgages conveyed for residential real property located in
Michigan, which was not returned as undelivered by the U.S. Post
Office, dated from Aug. 11, 2009, through June 29, 2018.  The Court
also granted preliminary approval of the revised settlement.

Under the proposed settlement, the Defendants agreed to pay $7.5
million into a common fund for payment of claims, attorney fees,
and expenses, and they made the required deposits to the common
fund account by July 20, 2018.  

The Defendant's also agreed to entry of an injunction requiring
defendant Trott Law, P.C., commencing from the entry of judgment
for a period of five years, to: (1) include in foreclosure letters
sent by the firm the following text: "An attorney has reviewed
information supplied by our client in preparation of this letter.";
(2) include in versions of the foreclosure letters that include
references to reinstatement of a mortgage, the following text: "No
timing requirement relating to reinstatement alters your rights to
dispute the debt or seek validation within the timelines set forth
in this letter."; and (3) provide a copy of the judgment to each
member of the firm's executive committee, and notify each member of
its management with responsibility for formulating or approving the
content of foreclosure letters of the contents of the judgment.

The agreement calls for payments from the fund to be allocated as
follows.  First, to cover the costs for the settlement fund
administrator, and any other administrative expenses associated
with the settlement; second, to pay out awards of attorneys' fees
and costs according to hours and reasonable hourly rates approved
by the Court; third, to pay $5,000 as an incentive award to each of
the three named plaintiffs (a total of $15,000); and finally to pay
to each class member who submitted a timely claim form pro rata
share of the balance of the fund, estimated to be approximately
$82.10, but which could increase slightly if the settlement
administrator does not incur the full amount of the projected
expenses to complete the disbursement of the settlement funds.
Those payments are projected fully to exhaust the settlement common
fund.

However, the parties also agreed that if any checks disbursed to
claimants remain uncashed after 90 days, then those checks will be
canceled and the resulting funds from uncashed checks sent to
claimants would be divided with half the remainder deposited into a
cy pres trust for the benefit Michigan Advocacy Program, a
non-profit organization, targeted for its Michigan Foreclosure
Prevention Project ("MFPP"), and the other half being returned to
the Defendants.

Under the schedule set by the Court, the period for filing claims,
objections, and opt-out notices ran from July 20, 2018 to Sept. 3,
2018.  As of September 4, 2018, as a result of all those notices
efforts, the administrator received a total of 54,445 claims from
absent class members.

In their motion for final approval of the settlement, the
Plaintiffs identified 71 individuals who submitted opt-out notices
to the claims administrator.  Two class members objected to the
settlement.  

Lisa Marie Conklin filed an objection through the counsel in which
she asserted that (1) the hourly rates that class counsel relied on
for their lodestar calculation are excessive, and, based on rates
that Ms. Conklin asserts are more typical for the sort of work
performed, a reasonable total attorney fee would be around 60% of
the amount requested by the class counsel; and (2) the settlement
would be more fair if all unclaimed funds were provided to the
designated charity, rather than revert funds back to the
Defendants.

Terees Williams filed an objection asserting that the settlement is
inadequate to compensate the Plaintiffs for the Defendants' willful
misconduct, and she insists that in order to be fair the terms
should include $1 million in actual damages payable to Ms. Williams
personally to compensate her for injuries suffered as a result of
alleged illegalities in the foreclosure of her home and resulting
eviction.

Judge Lawson unconditionally certified the settlement class,
approved the settlement, and granted the motions for attorney's
fees.  Accordingly, he granted the Plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of the class settlement and plan of allocation.  He
overruled the objections to the settlement.

Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. is appointed as the
administrator of the settlement fund.  The administrator will
receive, disburse, and account for the settlement proceeds as
provided by the formula for distribution of the settlement fund set
forth in the settlement agreement.  The class counsel will provide
and file with the Court and the defendants a report setting forth
the proposed distribution of all funds paid by the Defendants as
called for in the settlement agreement upon completion of the
evaluation of the requests for payment received from class members.


After final distribution, the class counsel will file with the
Court a certificate that the settlement fund has been disbursed
according to the plan, or that funds remain undistributed for any
reason, including uncashed settlement checks, as the case may be.

Commencing with the date of entry of the Order and for five years
thereafter, the Defendant must do all of the following:

      (1) Include in the "Trott PC Foreclosure Letter" (comprising
all letters sent by the firm included in the definition of that
phrase set forth in the settlement agreement) the following text:
"An attorney has reviewed information supplied by our client in
preparation of this letter."

      (2) Include in versions of the Trott PC Foreclosure Letter
that include reference to reinstatement of a mortgage, the
following text: "No timing requirement relating to reinstatement
alters your rights to dispute the debt or seek validation within
the timelines set forth in this letter."

      (3) Provide a copy of this order to each member of the Trott
Law P.C. Executive Committee, and notify each member of the firm's
management with responsibility for formulating or approving the
content of the Trott PC Foreclosure Letter of the contents hereof.
Trott Law P.C. may, after reasonable notice to the class counsel,
seek appropriate relief from the Court to modify the language
required by this order to reflect changes in the law or a change in
Trott Law P.C.'s business practices.

It is further ORDERED that incentive awards in the amount of $5,000
each are approved for and may be distributed to the named
plaintiffs, Brian J. Martin, Yahmi Nundley, and Kathleen Cadeau.
The incentive awards may be designated as expenses of
administration and paid according to the appropriate priority as
outlined in the settlement agreement.

The Judge granted the class counsel's motion for attorney's fees
and litigation expenses, and payments from the settlement fund are
approved as follows: the Class counsel will receive $2,499,750 for
attorney's fees and $109,014.79 for litigation expenses, and the
settlement administrator may be paid up to $406,000 (and no more)
in actual expenses incurred in the course of administering the
class notice and settlement, which sum includes all payments made
to date.

The action is dismissed with prejudice.  The class Counsel and the
settlement administrator Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.
will remain responsible for completion of the administration of the
claims and distribution of the funds, but they may not invade the
settlement fund for further reimbursement or payment of fees absent
further order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/RSXs8x from Leagle.com.

Brian J Martin & Yahmi Nundley, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew
N. Friedman -- afriedman@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen, Milstein,
Sally M. Handmaker -- shandmaker@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Andrew J. McGuinness --
drewmcg@topclasslaw.com -- United Sta..

Kathleen Cadeau, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew N. Friedman,
Cohen, Milstein, Sally M. Handmaker, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC & Andrew J. McGuinness, United Sta.

Trott Law P.C., Defendant, represented by Charity A. Olson --
Charity.Olson@brockandscott.com -- Varnum LLP, Jesse Louis Roth --
jroth@maddinhauser.com -- Maddin, Hauser, Roth & Heller, P.C. &
Kathleen H. Klaus -- kklaus@maddinhauser.com -- Maddin, Hauser.

David A. Trott, Defendant, represented by Bruce L. Segal --
bsegal@honigman.com -- Honigman, Miller, & Joseph Aviv --
javiv@honigman.com -- Honigman, Miller.

Doreen Hoffman & Ellen Coon, Respondents, represented by Charity A.
Olson, Varnum LLP.

Lisa Marie Conklin, Objector, represented by Garrett J.
TenHave-Chapman , Solomon Law Firm PLLC.

Terees Williams, Objector, pro se.


TSR INC: Faces Paskowitz Suit over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN PASKOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JAMES J. HILL; REGINA DOWD; CHRISTOPHER
HUGHES; BRIAN J. MANGAN; RAYMOND A. ROEL; JOSEPH H. HUGHES;
WINNIFRED M. HUGHES; ERIC STEIN; ZEFF CAPITAL, LP; QAR INDUSTRIES,
INC.; FINTECH CONSULTING LLC; and TSR, INC., Defendants, Case No.
715541/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., Oct. 11, 2018) alleges
violation of the Defendants' fiduciary duty to the stockholders of
TSR, Inc.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the purchase and
sale of the Joseph Hughes controlling interest was wrongful and a
violation of Joseph Hughes' fiduciary duty, and that the Zeff Group
were knowing aiders and abettors in that scheme. The Plaintiff also
seeks damages on behalf of the unaffiliated public shareholders
from Joseph Hughes and the Zeff Group, for disgorgement and
redistribution of the premium Joseph Hughes wrongfully obtained.
Finally, The Plaintiff seeks damages against the Board for breach
of fiduciary duty because, at the time Hughes announced his demand
to sell the Company, they were consciously indifferent to the
threat that Hughes demand posed, and failed to immediately enact a
Rights Plan. Because of this failure, the public shareholders have
been deprived  of  a sale at a price that reflects fair value for
the TSRI shares which, could be higher than $15 per share.

TSR, Inc. provides contract computer programming services in the
New York metropolitan area, New England, and the Mid-Atlantic
region. The company primarily serves vendor management companies,
as well as customers in the financial services business. TSR, Inc.
was founded in 1969 and is based in Hauppauge, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
          ROY L. JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2440
          New York, NY 10170
          Telephone: (212) 867-1156
          Facsimile: (212) 504-8343
          E-mail: Rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com


TURN INC: Loses Request for Production in Henson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, issued an Order denying the
Defendant's Request for Production in the case captioned ANTHONY
HENSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TURN, INC., Defendant. Case No.
15-cv-01497-JSW (LB). (N.D. Cal.).

Turn issued a number of discovery requests for production (RFPs) to
the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs allege Turn engaged in a practice of placing
so-called zombie cookies on users' devices: cookies that users
either cannot delete or block or that, when users try to delete
them, respawn to continue tracking users across the web. The
plaintiffs, both New York residents, bring claims for (1)
violations of New York General Business Law Section 349, which
makes unlawful deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any
business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in
New York and (2) trespass to chattels.

Turn requested that the plaintiffs (1) produce their mobile devices
for inspection or produce complete forensic images of their devices
(RFP 1), (2) produce their full web browsing history from their
devices (RFP 32), and (3) produce all cookies stored on or deleted
from their devices (RFP 33). The plaintiffs argue that Turn's
requests are overbroad and invade their privacy rights. The
plaintiffs propose instead that they produce (1) their web browsing
history and cookies associated with Turn partner websites
(contingent on Turn's identifying such sites) and (2) the date
fields (but not the content) of all other cookies on their mobile
devices.

The Parties' Discovery Dispute

RFP 1: Inspection or Complete Forensic Images of the Plaintiffs'
Mobile Devices
T
urn argues that the plaintiffs' mobile devices are at the very
heart of this case.

Specifically, with respect to the plaintiffs' New York
unfair-business-practices claim, Turn argues that the claim is
wholly dependent on allegations about the content of Plaintiffs'
phones, including whether Turn placed and replaced cookies on the
phones, what kind of cookies Turn placed on the phones (if any) and
when, whether Plaintiffs regularly deleted cookies and their
browsing history from their phones, whether Turn circumvented
device settings' on the phones, and what information (if any) was
gathered from the phones.

The plaintiffs respond that allowing Turn to inspect their devices
or producing a complete forensic image would allow Turn to access
to Plaintiffs' entire phones and thus access to their private text
messages, emails, contact lists, photographs and web browsing
histories unrelated to Turn.  

RFP 32: Production of the Web Browsing History on the Plaintiffs'
Devices

Turn argues that it is entitled to review the plaintiffs' complete
browsing history (1) to investigate whether and to what extent
Plaintiffs even visited websites that worked with Turn cookies (2)
to test Plaintiffs' claim that they regularly deleted their
browsing history in order to protect their privacy and (3) to show
that it does not constitute personally identifiable information
implicating a protected privacy interest in any event.

The plaintiffs respond that producing their full web browser
history is overbroad, irrelevant, and invasive of their privacy
interests. They argue that people often browse the Internet for
private reasons, such as health, dating, finances, and personal
interests. In response to Turn's first argument, the plaintiffs
state that they are willing to produce all browsing history
associated with Turn partner websites, contingent on Turn's
identifying its partner websites. In response to Turn's second
argument, the plaintiffs state that (1) their web browsing history
does not speak to the zombie-cookie scheme they allege, and that
(2) in any event, Turn can discover whether the plaintiffs
regularly deleted their browsing history by asking for the date
ranges of the history on their devices, without the contents of the
history.

RFP 33: Production of Cookies on the Plaintiffs' Devices

Turn argues that it is entitled to review all cookies stored on the
plaintiffs' mobile devices to technically examine what Turn cookies
(if any) are on Plaintiffs' devices and compare them to standard
browser cookies  including other non-Turn cookies that Plaintiffs
permitted on their devices.  

The plaintiffs respond that their cookies implicate the same
privacy interests as their web browsing history. The plaintiffs
state that they are willing to produce cookie data related to any
Turn partner website, to identify the date fields but not the
contents of all other cookies, and to meet and confer to consider
requests for specific cookies.

Inspection or Complete Forensic Images of the Plaintiffs' Mobile
Devices

The undersigned denies Turn's request to require the plaintiffs to
produce their mobile devices for Turn's inspection or, in the
alternative, to produce complete forensic images of their mobile
devices.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) limits discovery to
matters that are (1) relevant to any party's claim or defense and
(2) proportional to the needs of the case. Turn's request to
inspect the plaintiffs' mobile devices or for complete forensic
images call for information that is not relevant and is
disproportional to the needs of the case.

With respect to relevance, as the plaintiffs correctly point out
and as Turn does not address, Turn's request to directly inspect
the plaintiffs' mobile devices or for complete forensic images of
the devices threatens to sweep in documents and information that
are not relevant to the issues in this case, such as the
plaintiffs' private text messages, emails, contact lists, and
photographs. Just as a hypothetical request from the plaintiffs for
Turn to allow them to directly inspect its emails servers or
produce complete forensic image of its servers would likely sweep
in numerous emails that are not relevant to this action, Turn's
request for the plaintiffs to allow it to directly inspect their
mobile devices or produce complete forensic images of their devices
would likely sweep in numerous irrelevant documents as well.  

With respect to proportionality, Turn's request for the plaintiffs
to allow it to inspect their mobile devices (or produce complete
forensic images of their devices) is disproportional to the needs
of the case. While questions of proportionality often arise in the
context of disputes about the expense of discovery, proportionality
is not limited to such financial considerations.

Courts and commentators have recognized that privacy interests can
be a consideration in evaluating proportionality, particularly in
the context of a request to inspect personal electronic devices.  

Turn cites no authorities to support its request that the
plaintiffs allow it to directly inspect their mobile devices or
produce complete forensic images of their devices. Turn cites to
several cases where courts have ordered a party responding to a
discovery request to forensically image its devices  in situations
where there was a sufficient nexus between the party's devices and
the claims or defenses at issue. But forensic imaging itself is not
the issue here. The plaintiffs represent that they have already
forensically imaged their devices and are producing information
from those images. What Turn raises is the separate issue of its
being allowed to directly access its opponents' devices or forensic
images. None of the cases it cites supports that proposition.

The parties appear to have in place a protocol for producing
information from the plaintiffs' devices or forensic images. Turn
has issued nine RFPs for specific information from the plaintiffs'
devices. The plaintiffs represent and Turn does not deny that they
have produced information from their devices responsive to all of
these requests other than with respect to RFPs 32 and 33 regarding
the browsing-history and cookie disputes the parties raise in their
joint letter brief, which the undersigned addresses below.

Given this, and in light of the fact that the plaintiffs' devices
likely contain information not relevant to this case, may contain
privileged information, and implicate significant privacy concerns,
Turn's request for the plaintiffs to allow it to directly inspect
their devices (or produce complete forensic images of their
devices) is not relevant or proportional to the needs of this
case.

Full Web Browsing History and Cookies

The plaintiffs have produced or have offered to produce (1) their
web browsing history and cookies associated with Turn partner
websites contingent on Turn's identifying such sites and (2) the
date fields (but not the content) of all other cookies on their
mobile devices. The plaintiffs also represent that they offered to
meet and confer with Turn to consider requests for specific
cookies. The undersigned finds the plaintiffs' position and
proposals to be reasonable and proportional, with a slight
modification the plaintiffs should produce the dates but not the
content of the entries in their browsing history as they are doing
for their cookies.

The undersigned denies Turn's request to require the plaintiffs to
produce their full web browsing history and cookie data. As
discussed above, requiring the plaintiffs to produce their full
browsing history presents significant privacy concerns. Cookies,
which the plaintiffs assert and Turn does not deny are closely
associated with websites, raise similar privacy concerns. Turn has
not shown that its request for the plaintiffs' full browsing
history and cookies as they relate to websites other than Turn
partner websites is relevant or proportional to the needs of this
case.

Turn's request for the plaintiffs to allow it to directly inspect
their mobile devices or produce complete forensic images of their
devices and for the plaintiffs to produce their complete browsing
history and cookies, is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s October 22, 2018 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8l9mxal  from Leagle.com

Anthony Henson & William Cintron, Plaintiffs, represented by
Michael W. Sobol -msobol@lchb.com -, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Bradley Scott Clanton , Clanton Legal Group, PLLC,
P.O. Box 4781, Jackson, Mississippi 39296, Joseph Henry Bates, III
- hbates@cbplaw.com  - Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Nicholas
Diamand - ndiamand@lchb.com - Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein
LLP & Nimish Ramesh Desai - ndesai@lchb.com - Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP.
Turn, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael H. Rubin -
michael.rubin@lw.com - Latham & Watkins LLP, Melanie Marilyn
Blunschi - melanie.blunschi@lw.com - Latham & Watkins LLP & Serrin
A. Turner - serrin.turner@lw.com - Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac
vice.

Verizon, Amicus, represented by Henry Weissmann  -
Henry.Weissmann@mto.com  - Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Rosemarie
Theresa Ring - rose.ring@mto.com - Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP &
Scott Harris Angstreich - sangstreich@kellogghansen.com - Kellogg,
Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Gonzales & Hindman Sue over Data Access
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GONZALES and JESSE HINDMAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, UBER USA, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, RASIER-CA, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. CGC-18-570850 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 24,
2018), seeks injunctive relief and damages caused by the
Defendants' unlawful invasion of privacy in violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Invasion of
Privacy Act, and the California Computer Data Access and Fraud
Act.

The Plaintiffs brought this action on their own behalf and as a
class action for the benefit of a Class consisting of Lyft drivers
whose personal data was accessed, monitored, and/or transmitted by
the Defendants, and used to gain an unfair competitive advantage in
the ride-share market at the expense of Plaintiffs and the Class.

According to the complaint, Lyft provides technology that operates
in a fashion similar to a taxi company's dispatch system. A rider
requests a ride using a software application on his or her smart
phone ("Lyft Rider App"). The locations of nearby Lyft drivers are
displayed to the rider as dots on a map, along with the estimated
price and wait time for arrival once the ride request is submitted.
Drivers also use a Lyft app (the "Lyft Driver App"). When a driver
is ready to accept work, the driver swipes a switch on the Lyft
Driver App, directing the Lyft Driver App to continuously transmit
and store the driver's geolocation data and his or her willingness
to accept specific types of rides (i.e., Shared, Lyft, Lyft XL,
Lux, Lux Black, Lux Black XL) to servers maintained by Lyft. Lyft,
acting as the drivers' agent, then forwards the information to
Lyft's riders. Lyft stores driver's personal data, but ultimately
the data belongs to the respective individual. That is, under
Lyft's Terms of Service/Privacy Policy, the data is licensed to
Lyft, but drivers like Plaintiffs and Class Members retain full
ownership of their own personal data.

Seeking a competitive advantage over Lyft, Uber developed and
deployed spyware, code-named "Hell," that allowed it to gain
unauthorized access to information that was transmitted through and
stored on Lyft's computer systems and servers. The Hell spyware
extracted information from Lyft by posing as Lyft customers in
search of rides. Using Hell, Uber's employees, contractors, and/or
agents were able to harvest the data transmitted by Lyft drivers,
including their locations and Lyft ID's. Each Lyft ID is unique,
akin to a social security number, allowing Uber to track Lyft
drivers' locations and movements over time, in violation of the
Lyft App's Terms of Service. Uber offers technology that competes
with the Lyft Application, that in all ways relevant to this
litigation functions identically to Lyft's business model Uber has
never publicly acknowledged the use of its Hell spyware but did not
deny its existence when asked to respond to news reports. Nor has
Uber notified Class Members that their personal information was
harvested and compromised by the Hell spyware, or made any attempts
to rectify the illegal and/or dishonest practices by way of
deleting personal geolocation or confirming the cessation of the
spyware program, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class:

          Michael A. McShane, Esq.
          Mark E. Burton, Jr., Esq.
          Elvin Minh Huy Vu, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102-3229
          Telephone: 415 568.2555
          Facsimile: 415 568.2556
          E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
                  mburton@audetlaw.com
                  evu@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Caleb Marker, SBN 269721
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          2381 Rosecrans A venue, Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: 877.500.8780
          Facsimile: 877.500.8781
          E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com


UC SYNERGETIC: Class in Bentz FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEVIN BENTZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UC SYNERGETIC, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-2700-SHL-egb (W.D. Tenn.), Judge Sheryl H. Lipman
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee,
Western Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Class Certification and approved the Proposed Notice.

Bentz, alleges a violation of the FLSA by his former employer, the
Defendant.  Specifically, Mr. Bentz asserts that he and others
similarly situated were pressured to underreport their hours and
consequently denied overtime pay by their supervisors at UCS.

The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of a class including
all current and former hourly-paid 'Designers' and 'Fielders' who
worked for UC Synergetic, LLC and whose position was overseen or
supervised by Greg Maes and Rebecca Shepherd.

In support of its Motion, the Plaintiff relies on his own
declaration, in which he alleges that his supervisor (Shepherd) and
her supervisor (Maes) pressured him to underreport hours and forgo
compensation, as well as the declarations of two other individuals
alleging similar treatment.  He additionally asserts personal
knowledge of other employees subject to the same treatment.

In addition to his Motion for conditional class certification, the
Plaintiff seeks approval for his proposed Notice and Consent to
Join under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), which he intends
to distribute via physical and electronic mail.  He also seeks to
post Notice at UCS.  Finally, he requests that UCS provide the
names, last known addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers
of the relevant individuals.

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Edward G. Bryant's Report and
Recommendation, filed Aug. 25, 2017, recommending that the Court
grants the Plaintiff's First Stage Motion for Notice to Potential
Plaintiffs and Conditional Certification.  The Defendant filed its
Objections to Judge Bryant's Report on Sept. 8, 2017, arguing that
there is insufficient evidence to sustain a conditional class
certification and that notice of the kind proposed by the Plaintiff
would be inappropriate.  The Plaintiff filed a Response to the
Defendant's Objections on Sept. 29, 2017.

Judge Lipman finds that Judge Bryant's decision to employ the
traditional standard to evaluate the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification was correct, and the Defendant's
objection to the use of that standard will be overruled.  She
disagrees with the Defendant's argument that Judge Bryant ought to
have reviewed the Motion using a modest plus standard.  Because
discovery has barely begun, there would be no way to meaningfully
measure the Plaintiff's position now in relation to his position
before discovery.

The Judge is unpersuaded by any of the additional evidence against
certification the Defendant provides.  The Defendant argues that
UCS policies emphasize reporting all time worked.  However, she
finds that the Plaintiff does not question UCS's written policies.
Rather, he argues that mandates from supervisors to underreport
exist in violation of the FLSA.  Similarly, the Defendant presents
evidence that the Plaintiff reported and was paid for overtime for
some of the weeks at issue in the case.  The Court assumes this
information is meant to suggest there could not possibly be a
policy or practice in violation of the FLSA because overtime was
reported and paid during some of the dates in question.  However,
that the Plaintiff reported and was compensated for some overtime
does not void his claim that a practice in violation of the FLSA
existed.

Because she is unpersuaded by the Defendant's various arguments
that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence
that he is similarly situated to purported class members, the Judge
will overrule the Defendant's objections as to that issue.

The Defendant seemingly does not object to the other aspects of the
Plaintiff's Proposed Notice or Judge Bryant's Report.  Therefore,
the Defendant's objection wil; be overruled and the Plaintiff's
Proposed Notice is will be approved, with the related request for
names, last known addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers
of the relevant individuals being granted.  A scheduling conference
will be held on Oct. 4, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. to establish deadlines
for the matter.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Lipman overruled the Defendant's
Objections, adopted Magistrate Judge Bryant's Report and
Recommendation, and granted the Plaintiff's Motion.

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

Kevin Bentz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jesse Hamilton Forester --
forester@l-b-law.com -- LEE& BRAZIEL LLP, Jill J. Weinberg --
jillwlfirm@gmail.com -- WEINBERG LAW FIRM PLLC & J. Derek Braziel
-- jdbraziel@l-b-law.com -- LEE & BRAZIEL LLP.

UC Synergetic, LLC, Defendant, represented by Paul E. Prather --
pprather@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, PLC & Steven W. Likens
-- slikens@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, PLC.


UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses All Claims in Aguilar Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RONY CHAVEZ AGUILAR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT CHICAGO FIELD OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-2296 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Robert M. Dow,
Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss all claims in the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.

Aguilar and Rolle filed the putative class action on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated against Defendants
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Chicago Field Office;
Elaine Duke, Acting Secretary for Homeland Security; Thomas Homan,
Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and
Ricardo Wong, Director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Chicago Field Office; alleging that the Defendants have
failed to meet their obligations under the Immigration and
Nationality Act (Count I) and have violated the Plaintiffs' rights
under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments (Counts II-III).

Defendant ICE Chicago enforces immigration laws in Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Wisconsin.  ICE Chicago
and its agents are responsible for the policies and practices
related to the arrest and detention of individuals for prosecution
in removal proceedings within that area.

The Plaintiffs allege that ICE Chicago detains thousands of people
each year, often waiting days or weeks before commencing removal
proceedings.  Even after the official commencement of proceedings,
Defendants allegedly force many detainees to wait in custody for
additional weeks before seeing a judge for the first time.  During
this period, ICE does not provide the detainee: (1) a sworn,
particularized statement of probable cause; (2) a determination of
probable cause before a detached and neutral judicial officer; or
(3) a hearing before an immigration judge regarding the charges
against them, the availability of attorney representation and other
rights, and judicial review of their continued custody.

Chavez filed the initial complaint in the case seeking to represent
himself and a class of similarly situated individuals on March 27,
2017.  The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the initial
complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on
May 30, 2017.  

Shortly thereafter, Chavez filed an agreed motion to amend the
complaint. The Court granted the motion, and Chavez filed his First
Amended Complaint on June 6, 2017.  On Aug. 21, 2017, Rolle moved
to intervene.

After the parties stipulated to his intervention, the Court granted
the motion on Sept. 5, 2017.  Thus, on Sept. 19, 2017, the
Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint.  The Operative
Complaint brought claims against the Defendants for failing to meet
their obligations to the Plaintiffs under the INA (Count I) and
violating the Plaintiffs' Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights (Counts
II-III).  

Like the initial complaint, the Operative Complaint also sought to
represent the class of all persons who are detained under the
authority of ICE within the Chicago Area of Responsibility, where
ICE has not initiated removal proceedings by filing a Notice to
Appear with the immigration court and has not initiated another
form of removal proceedings.

Currently before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss all
claims in the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint for lack of
jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, for failure to state a
claim.

Judge Dow finds that the fact that ICE allegedly detained the
Plaintiffs for 18 and 54 days respectively without filing their
cases before an immigration judge raises serious questions about
the efficiency of ICE's procedures.  The Plaintiffs understandably
feel that they should have been released, released on bond, or
formally charged on a more expeditious basis, and they may well
have a point for consideration by Congress and the Executive
Branch.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court and other courts repeatedly have
held that the political branches have wide latitude to determine
what procedures immigration detainees must be afforded.
Consequently, based on the allegations currently before the Court,
the Plaintiffs have not stated a claim that the statutory and
regulatory procedures in place violate their right to procedural
due process under the Mathews due process calculus.

Judge Dow granted the Defendants' motion.  Counts I-III of the
Operative Complaint are dismissed for failing to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.  The Plaintiffs are given until Oct.
29, 2018 to file an amended complaint consistent with the Opinion
if they choose to do so.  The case is set for a further status
hearing on Nov. 13, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.

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

Rony Chavez Aguilar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Linda T. Coberly --
lcoberly@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Mark M. Fleming,
National Immigrant Justice Center, Charles Roth, National Immigrant
Justice Center, Jason Zachary Pesick -- jpesick@winston.com --
Winston & Strawn & Neha Nigam -- nnigam@winston.com -- Winston &
Strawn Llp.

Irwin Rolle, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Roth, National
Immigrant Justice Center, Jason Zachary Pesick, Winston & Strawn,
Neha Nigam, Winston & Strawn Llp & Mark M. Fleming, National
Immigrant Justice Center.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Chicago Field Office &
Thomas Homan, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Defendants, represented by J. Max Weintraub, U.S. DOJ Office of
Immigr. Litigation & Craig Arthur Oswald, United States Attorney's
Office.

Elaine Duke, Acting Secretary for Homeland Security & Ricardo Wong,
Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Chicago Field
Office, in their official capacities, Defendants, represented by J.
Max Weintraub, U.S. DOJ Office of Immigr. Litigation.


UNITED TECH: 2nd Amended Frankfurt-Trust Securities Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Defendants' renewed motion dismiss
the second amended complaint in case, FRANKFURT-TRUST INVESTMENT
LUXEMBURG AG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP. et al,
Defendants, Case No. 17 Civ. 3570 (VM) (S.D. N.Y.).

Lead Plaintiff Kapitalforeningen Laegernes Invest brings the
putative class action on behalf of itself and other stock
purchasers and acquirers of defendant United Technologies Corp.'s
("UTC") stock.  Kapitalforeningen alleges that UTC and its senior
executives made materially false and misleading statements and
omissions in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 about UTC's business and projected earnings per share
for the 2015 fiscal year.

UTC and the individually-named senior executive Defendants, Gregory
Hayes, Akhil Johri, Alain Bellemare, David Gitlin and Geraud
Darnis, have moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) to dismiss the suit for failing to state a claim.  They
argue that the alleged misstatements are either forward-looking
statements protected under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act ("PSLRA") safe harbor or non-actionable opinion statements.
The Defendants also argue that Kapitalforeningen does not
adequately plead scienter.

Kapitalforeningen brought a putative class action on May 12, 2017
on behalf of stock purchasers and acquirers, and the case was
assigned to the Honorable Judge John G. Koeltl.  It claims the
Defendants made fraudulently false statements or omissions in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, as well as claims
against the Executive Defendants for control person liability under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  After the appointment of the
counsel and the lead plaintiff, Kapitalforeningen filed an amended
complaint in November 2017.  Then, the Defendants filed the Motion
to Dismiss on Dec. 11, 2017.  Within the next month, the case was
reassigned to the Court and Kapitalforeningen filed the Second
Amended Complaint.

After the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, the Defendants
sought permission to file a new motion to dismiss, and the Court
directed them to its letter-writing practice outlined in the
Court's individual rules.  They wrote to Kapitalforeningen
detailing their arguments about the Second Amended Complaint's
infirmities, largely reiterating the arguments in support of the
Motion to Dismiss.  Kapitalforeningen responded and UTC notified
the Court that the parties could not resolve their differences.

The Court now construes Defendants' letters described as a renewed
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6).  

Kapitalforeningen alleges a "fraud by hindsight" theory of
liability that the Second Circuit has repeatedly rejected.  This
conclusion is clearest in the context of evaluating
Kapitalforeningen's scienter allegations, which are insufficient to
state a Section 10(b) fraud claim regardless of whether the
statements at issue are classified as opinion statements,
forward-looking statements, or otherwise.  However, because the
Judge Marrero finds that nearly all the statements are also opinion
statements that are not misleading, Kapitalforeningen also fails to
state a claim on those grounds.

The Judge finds that Kapitalforeningen fails to allege
particularized facts giving rise to a "strong inference" that any
Defendant acted with scienter.  As noted, Kapitalforeningen must
allege either (1) the Defendants had both motive and opportunity to
commit fraud or (2) the existence of sufficient circumstantial
evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness.

In sum, as to scienter, he finds that no Executive Defendant made a
misleading statement with sufficient degree of scienter.  There are
also no allegations regarding the scienter of any other corporate
officer who is not a Defendant that could be attributed to UTC.
The Section 10(b) claims against all the Executive Defendants and
UTC are therefore dismissed.  With no primary Exchange Act
violation, the Section 20 control person liability claims must also
be dismissed.

As a second and alternative basis for dismissal, Judge Marrero
finds that nearly all of the alleged misstatements are opinions
that do not give rise to liability.  For the few alleged
misstatements that do not qualify as opinion statements, other
reasons render them innocuous.  The Second Amended Complaint fails
to sufficiently allege omissions that would make any of UTC's
statements about its future performance misleading to the
reasonable investor.

Finally, the udge finds that mMany of the statements at issue are
likely protected by the safe harbor and thus subject to an even
higher threshold to plead scienter that the Second Amended
Complaint does not meet.  Even so, courts in the Second Circuit
have consistently held that neither the PSLRA safe harbor nor the
bespeakscaution doctrine protects material omissions.  UTC never
addressed this issue, but as discussed, many of the allegations in
the Second Amended Complaint concern the alleged omissions of
material information.  Because he is dismissing the Second Amended
Complaint on alternative grounds, the Judge will not evaluate this
defense further.

For the reasons he discussed, Judge Marrero granted the renewed
motion to dismiss the Defendants to dismiss the second amended
complaint in the case.

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

Kapitalforeningen Laegernes Invest, Lead Plaintiff, represented by
Kimberly A. Justice -- kjustice@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, Christopher J. Keller -- ckeller@labaton.com -- Labaton
Sucharow, LLP, Jonathan Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Labaton
Sucharow, LLP, Joshua E. D'Ancona -- jdancona@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Michael P. Canty -- mcanty@labaton.com
-- Labaton Sucharow & Michelle M. Newcomer -- mnewcomer@ktmc.com --
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

FRANKFURT-TRUST Investment Luxemburg AG, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Francis
Paul McConville -- fmcconville@labaton.com -- Labaton & Sucharow
LLP & Christopher J. Keller, Labaton Sucharow, LLP.

United Technologies Corporation, Gregory J. Hayes & Akhil Johri,
Defendants, represented by William D. Savitt -- WDSavitt@wlrk.com
-- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Benjamin David Klein --
BDKlein@wlrk.com -- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz & Noah Butler
Yavitz -- NBYavitz@wlrk.com -- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Alain M. Bellemare & David Gitlin, Defendants, represented by
William D. Savitt, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.


WAGAMAMA INC: Dominguez Sues Restaurant for ADA Breach
------------------------------------------------------
A restaurant in New York is facing a class action lawsuit for
breach of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The case is Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wagamama, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-10107 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 31, 2018).

Wagamama Inc. operates as a restaurant. The Company offers foods,
group booking, takeout orders, gift cards, noodles, rice dishes,
salads, small plates, curry dishes, desserts, drinks, sauces, and
juices. [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


WALGREENS BOOTS: Chabot Files Securities Class Action in Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas S. Chabot, Corey M. Dayton and Joel M. Kling, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Walgreens Boots
Alliance, Inc., Stefano Pessina and George R. Fairweather, Case No.
1:18-cv-02118 (M.D. Pa., November 2, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiffs bring this direct shareholder class action
individually and on behalf of all purchasers of Rite Aid
Corporation common stock between October 20, 2016 and June 28,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), against Walgreens Boots
Alliance, Inc., and certain Walgreens executive officers named
herein, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements.

The Plaintiffs purchased Rite Aid common stock during the Class
Period.

The Defendant Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation with its corporate headquarters located at 108 Wilmot
Road, Deerfield, Illinois 60015. Walgreens is a global pharmacy-led
health and well-being enterprise that was created through the
combination of Walgreens and Alliance Boots in December 2014.
Walgreen's stock is publicly traded on the NASDAQ Exchange under
the ticker symbol "WBA."

The Defendant Stefano Pessina is the CEO and Executive Vice
Chairman of Walgreens.

The Defendant George R. Fairweather is the Executive Vice President
and Global CFO of Walgreens. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Howard J. Kaufman, Esq.
      KAUFMAN, COREN & RESS, P.C.
      Two Commerce Square, Ste 3900
      2001 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 735-8700
      E-mail: hkaufman@kcr-law.com

          - and -

      Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
      Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
      Christopher Gold, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Ste 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Tel: (561) 750-3000
      Fax: (561) 750-3364


WALMART INC: Settles Securities Class Action for $160MM
-------------------------------------------------------
James Comtois, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
Walmart agreed to pay $160 million to settle a securities
class-action lawsuit filed by the $502 million Pontiac (Mich.)
General Employees' Retirement System, confirmed Walmart spokesman
Randy Hargrove in an email.

In the class-action suit originally filed in U.S. District Court in
Fayetteville, Ark., in 2012, the pension fund alleged that Walmart
"made false and misleading statements in Securities and Exchange
Commission filings about allegations of bribery" at Walmart's
Mexico-based subsidiary, Walmart de Mexico. Published reports in
2012 alleged that Walmart paid bribes to win government zoning
changes and permits to open more stores in Mexico.

The settlement would pay for claims alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as covering the legal fees
and expenses the plaintiffs incurred from the lawsuit. The pension
fund represents shareholders who acquired Walmart stock between
Dec. 8, 2011, and April 20, 2012.

"The settlement ends a long, hard-fought litigation," said Jason
Forge, a partner at law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, which
represented the pension fund, in a news release announcing the
proposed settlement. "It provides significant benefits to the class
within months, whereas continuing to litigate would have likely
meant years of the class waiting on a very uncertain recovery."

Karen Roberts, executive vice president and general counsel for
Walmart, added in the news release: "We are pleased both sides
could reach a resolution that ends this litigation. Years ago, we
began making investments that have established a leading,
comprehensive, worldwide ethics and compliance program for our
business."

The proposed settlement "does not include or constitute an
admission, concession, or finding of any fault, liability, or
wrongdoing" by Walmart or any defendant, said an 8-K Walmart filed
with the SEC on Oct. 26.

The proposed settlement still needs U.S. District Judge Susan O.
Hickey's approval.

Deborah Munson, the pension fund's executive director, and Mr.
Forge could not be immediately reached for additional information.
[GN]


ZACHYS WINE: Violates Disabilities Act, Says Dominguez
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zachys Wine Auctions
Inc. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zachys Wine
Auctions Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10116 (S.D. N.Y., Oct.
31, 2018).

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

Zachy's Wine Auctions, Inc. owns and operates a wine and spirits
retail store in New York. It sells red, white, sweet, liquor, and
sparkling wines, as well as gin, vodka, rum, tequila, and scotch.
The company also offers wine, sprits, and cordials online.[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


ZHEJIANG HUAHAI: Faces Suit Over Contaminated Valsartan Drug
------------------------------------------------------------
LOREN LEWIS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. ZHEJIANG HUAHAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., a
Chinese corporation and HUAHAI US, INC., a New Jersey corporation,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00247 (E.D. Tenn., October 16, 2018), arises from
the Defendants' alleged manufacturing, distribution, and sale of
valsartan containing an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient
adulterated with N-nitrosodimethylamine, a carcinogenic substance.

Valsartan is a prescription medication mainly used for the
treatment of high blood pressure and congestive heart failure.  Due
to manufacturing defects originating in Zhejiang Huahai's facility
in China, certain generic formulations of valsartan have become
adulterated with an organic chemical known as
N-nitrosodimethylamine, Ms. Lewis contends.

Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the People's Republic of
China, and maintains its principal place of business in Zhejiang,
China.  On its Web site, Zhejiang touts that it is a large scaled
modern pharmaceutical group that integrates formulations, APIs
(Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients) and intermediates.

Huahai US, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of New Jersey, and maintains its principal place
of business in Cranbury, New Jersey.  Huahai conducts substantial
business in the state of Tennessee and manufactures, markets and/or
distributes valsartan for use in generic drugs.  Huahai is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Zhejiang.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert A. Cox, Esq.
          Edwin E. Wallis III, Esq.
          GLASSMAN, WYATT, TUTTLE & COX, P.C.
          26 N. 2nd Street
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 527-4673
          Facsimile: (901) 521-0940
          E-mail: rcox@gwtclaw.com
                  ewallis@gwtclaw.com


ZUFFA LLC: Class Action Plaintiffs to Host Information Session
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berger Montague on Oct. 29 disclosed that on December 5, 2018, at 1
p.m. PST, named Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel in the pending
class action lawsuit against Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting
Championship ("UFC") are hosting an information session for members
of the proposed class (i.e., all fighters who competed in UFC
bouts, or who had their identity rights used or taken by the UFC,
after December 16, 2010) to provide updates on the status of the
lawsuit. This meeting will be held at the law offices of one of
Plaintiffs' counsel in the suit:

       Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP
       3556 E. Russell Road
       Las Vegas, NV 89120

This meeting is open to all potential class members.

On December 16, 2014, a group of current and former UFC fighters
filed a class action lawsuit against the UFC. The lawsuit, Le, et
al. v. Zuffa, LLC, alleges that the UFC violated antitrust laws
through a scheme to dominate the alleged market for promotion of
mixed martial arts. The suit claims that the alleged scheme
permitted the UFC to pay its fighters below levels that free and
fair competition would have produced. The suit seeks recovery of
money damages from Zuffa for all members of the proposed Bout and
Identity Rights classes and also injunctive relief.

Specifically, the fighters claim that the UFC engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme, including the following alleged practices:

   (1) locking fighters into long-term, exclusive contracts,
preventing them from competing elsewhere, and restricting the use
of their identities;

   (2) using its market dominance to coerce fighters to re-sign
contracts, making the contracts effectively perpetual, and
preventing fighters from reaching free agency; and

   (3) acquiring and then shutting down other MMA promoters that
had the potential to threaten the UFC's dominance.

Plaintiffs claim that by allegedly locking up the vast majority of
top fighters in each weight class and buying out its biggest
potential rivals, the UFC's scheme has prevented potential
competitors from obtaining the critical mass of top fighters
necessary to compete with the UFC, thereby allegedly making all
other MMA promotions "minor leagues."  

Plaintiffs claim that in MMA, athletes obtain fame by competing
against ranked opponents, ascending the rankings, and vying for
titles. By allegedly acquiring all potential competitors and
signing virtually all top fighters to exclusive contracts, the suit
claims that the UFC made itself the only game in town, leaving top
fighters and fighters aspiring to compete at the "major league"
level with nowhere else to go. Due to this alleged lack of
competition, the suit asserts that the UFC is able to pay its
fighters significantly less than it otherwise would. That is, the
suit claims that if the fighters had more viable promotions
competing for their services, they would be paid a lot more.

The case is pending before Judge Richard Boulware in federal court
in Nevada. The named Plaintiffs are Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon
Fitch, Brandon Vera, Luis Javier Vazquez, and Kyle Kingsbury. The
Court has appointed three interim co-lead counsel to represent the
class. Those firms are: Berger Montague PC, Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll PLLC, and the Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc. Other counsel for
the Plaintiffs include Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin,
LLP and Warner Angle Hallam Jackson & Formanek PLC.

Contact:

          Eric L. Cramer
          Managing Shareholder
          Berger Montague
          215-875-3009
          ecramer@bm.net


[*] Many Canadian Companies Not Ready for New-Data Breach Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Castaldo, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that new
rules mandating how Canadian companies respond to data breaches
come into force on Oct. 25, but many businesses won't be ready,
privacy experts say.

Starting in November, Canadian private-sector organizations must
report breaches involving personal information to the Office of the
Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) and notify all individuals
affected, provided the event poses a "real risk of significant
harm" to those whose data have been compromised. Organizations must
keep a record of all breaches of security safeguards for two years,
even if those episodes don't meet the threshold for reporting.

Failure to maintain records or report a breach can result in a fine
of up to $100,000 for each offence.

Many larger and mid-sized organizations have been getting ready for
the change for some time, said Alex Cameron, chair of the privacy
and cybersecurity group at Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP. "However,
we have observed that there is a very large segment of the private
sector that is not prepared."

That's especially true of smaller companies. "I doubt most
small-business owners even know these new rules exist," said
Corinne Pohlmann, senior vice-president of national affairs at the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Even though many
smaller businesses are not likely to hold much personal
information, they are still vulnerable to data theft. "Privacy is
low on the radar for many small-business owners. Nonetheless, we
are going to make sure they are aware," Ms. Pohlmann said.

The new rules come at a time when concern about data privacy is
mounting, and when some companies have been reluctant to disclose
breaches. Uber Technologies Inc. did not start notifying the
815,000 Canadians affected in a massive 2016 hack until after a
ruling from Alberta's privacy commissioner in February. (Alberta is
the only province to already mandate such disclosure outside of a
health-care context.)

Canada's regulations come after the European Union's General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR), a stricter framework that took effect
in May. Companies can be fined up to €20-million (about
$29-million) or 4 per cent of global revenue, whichever is higher,
for violating the regulations. Canadian companies with global
operations would likely already have more stringent data policies
in place as a result of GDPR and can more easily manage the changes
back home. But not every firm has made data security a priority.

Some businesses will only take notice of the new regulations after
penalties are levied, said Mark Sangster, vice-president of
strategic marketing at cybersecurity firm eSentire Inc. in
Cambridge, Ont. "They'll think, 'Someone just got hit with a fine,
I better pay attention to this,'" he said.

Companies that have been paying attention still have questions
about the regulations. Imran Ahmad, a partner at Miller Thomson LLP
who specializes in cybersecurity, technology and privacy law, said
some clients are unclear on how much detail to include when
maintaining records. Keeping track of every security issue is
challenging for large organizations. A breach could range from a
large-scale cyberattack to an employee losing a corporate USB key
at a trade show, Mr. Ahmad said.

While the privacy commissioner's office released draft guidelines
providing further detail, the finalized version has not been
published. A spokesperson for the OPC said the final guidelines
will be released before Nov. 1.

Companies are also worried about the impact of more disclosure on
their reputations, as well as the potential for litigation. "The
moment they notify in high-profile cases, within 24 to 48 hours,
there's class-action litigation," Mr. Ahmad said. Still, he
believes organizations will potentially over-disclose to avoid
running afoul of the regulations.

"We'll see a bit of an increase initially," he said. As it becomes
clearer how the commissioner enforces the regulations, "you'll see
the pendulum swing back to a more balanced situation."

Finding a middle ground will be challenging, said Michael Geist, a
law professor at the University of Ottawa. "If every breach
resulted in a notification, the public would become numb to them,"
he said. But if only the most damaging breaches were disclosed,
"there may be others that cause harm and the public is kept in the
dark."

The latter scenario is a real possibility owing to the language in
the regulations, according to Ann Cavoukian, who heads the Privacy
by Design Centre of Excellence at Ryerson University. While the
guidelines provide some direction of what's meant by "real risk of
significant harm," Ms. Cavoukian said the phrase is open to
interpretation.

"It's to the company's advantage to judge low in terms of harm," in
part to avoid repercussions, she said.

More clarity will emerge only after time has passed and case law
has been established. "There will be some contentious cases that
arise, and when that happens, some of these issues are going to get
fleshed out," said Ryan Berger, a partner at Norton Rose Fulbright
Canada LLP.

Another concern for Ms. Cavoukian is that the regulations require
organizations to report a breach "as soon as feasible." Under GDRP,
organizations have 72 hours to report. "I would have preferred they
put some specific language in there," Ms. Cavoukian said, adding
the longer consumers are unaware their data have been compromised,
the greater the potential for harm.

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada did not respond
to a request for comment. A spokesperson for Minister Navdeep
Bains's office previously told The Globe and Mail the regulations
make clear that notifications must be made without unreasonable
delay, while providing "some degree of flexibility to allow
organizations to confirm that a breach has taken place, conduct a
risk assessment and put in place measures to contain the breach, if
necessary, before notifying individuals."


[*] Marijuana-Related Businesses Face Class Action Risk
-------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schain, Larry Mishkin, Mathew Auric and Darren Kaplan,
writing for Natural Products Insider, report that with Fortune
Magazine placing a US$7.7 billion valuation on the global cannabis
market, it's only a matter of time until massive lawsuits are
brought against those touching the plant, i.e., anyone planting,
cultivating, harvesting, processing/extracting, testing, packaging,
disposing, transporting and dispensing cannabis ("marijuana-related
businesses").  

Lawsuits range from a single plaintiff seeking personal injuries or
property damage recoveries to class actions in which a group of
similarly situated plaintiffs (having one or more common issues of
law or fact) jointly assert claims in one proceeding.

To maximize both the damages and attorney fees award, class action
plaintiffs' lawyers scour for conduct affecting a group in a
consistent manner. Because "defective product claims" make terrific
class actions, and due to marijuana's 100 percent federal
illegality, marijuana-related businesses face an extreme risk of
liability for such claims.

Product liability law addresses defective product claims, including
design defects, manufacturing defects and failure to warn of a
product's dangers. Although primarily seeking remuneration for
personal injury, property damage or economic harm, product
liability claims may also seek punitive relief to punish the
defendant and redress harms allegedly done to society.    

By correctly deploying product warranties, launching safety
programs, maintaining essential records, and performing claims
triage, marijuana-related businesses can best protect against
having their resources materially drained in defending class
litigation.

Product Warranties and the Uniform Commercial Code

For sale-of-goods transactions, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
provides warranties and disclaimers, immunizing products from being
exposed to liability claims. Growers could limit warranties to
those expressly provided under UCC §2-313, exclude all other
warranties, express or implied, or specifically exclude the implied
warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose
(UCC §§ 2-314 and 2-315).

Further, because the UCC permits contractual limitation of remedies
available to a purchaser in a UCC §2-719 breach of warranty, a
grower could also benefit from meaningful remedy limitations,
including specifically defining available remedies as limited or
exclusive or limiting/excluding consequential damages.

Safety Program

Comprised of a written safety policy, safety committee, audit
program and communication protection, a safety program both
decreases liability risks, and avoids or mitigates a lawsuit's
exposure.

Shaped by legal requirements and the commercial context in which
the company operates, a written safety policy establishes
measurable and attainable goals, empowers employees to raise defect
issues, and is disseminated in hard copy and online company
publications and employee handbooks.

To fortify a safety policy's meaningfulness, the marijuana-related
businesses must form a safety committee to establish criteria that
supports the policy, practices and procedures, to gather prior
event information and to apply lessons learned to future
situations, and to handle regulatory reporting.

Audit programs are initiated by the safety committee and help to
identify potential defects before they reach customers and
problematic products in the market and lead to claims. By
administering regular audits, marijuana-related businesses can
enforce compliance of safety rules and policies, develop a better
understanding of liability risks, and prevent defects from becoming
product liability claims.

After learning of an actual or potential liability issue, the
safety committee must launch an internal investigation to
understand the issue's nature and scope. Through shielding them
from disclosure, the attorney-client privilege and work product
doctrine encourage the flow of communication.  

Before and during any safety investigation, marijuana-related
businesses must identify and protect the attorney-client privilege
and work product doctrine by ensuring that: counsel guides the
safety committee and other investigators; the investigation has a
clearly articulated specific legal purpose and applies
attorney-client privilege to investigation-related communications;
and the investigative team restricts legal comments and advice to
essential recipients.

Maintaining and Producing Essential Records

To achieve business objectives and prepare for claims,
marijuana-related businesses should establish document policies
that exceed applicable regulatory requirements, including:

   * Retaining vendor/purchaser specifications and product orders;

   * Developing written procedures and instructions describing the
product flow through the supply chain and quality control (QC)
steps; and

   * Establishing a document retention policy describing how to
manage electronic, hard copy or other format information from
creation through destruction according to applicable laws and a
company's needs.

A marijuana-related business facing a liability claim should modify
and/or suspend document retention to enable swift gathering of all
required information, identifying and retaining all information
(including electronically stored) necessary for an effective
defense, and avoiding spoliation claims.

Triage—Tackling Issues Before They Become Claims

Successfully defending against litigation requires treating all
failures as potential claims and quickly reacting to liability
issues when they arise.

Risk-transferring documents shield an entity from claims and
damages caused or contributed by the actions and omissions of third
parties. "Hold harmless agreements" ensure third parties are
contractually responsible for their own negligence. "Statements of
financial responsibility" should confirm third parties have
sufficient insurance and list marijuana-related businesses as an
"additional insured."

To thoroughly investigate pre-claim facts and options, an
investigating team should be assembled, comprised of those
knowledgeable of marijuana-related business operations, but not
directly involved in growing, processing or selling. The
investigative team inspects and performs a technical analysis of
the product and surrounding scene of its failure; analyzes
information that helps assess failure, including technical
analysis, photographs and eyewitness statements; and examines
marijuana-related products, the supply chain and the field.

Steve Schain -- steve@hoban.law -- Larry Mishkin -- larry@hoban.law
-- and Mathew Auric -- mathew.auric@hoban.law -- are attorneys at
Hoban Law Group, and Darren Kaplan is law clerk.


[*] Property Owners Urged to Join Flammable Cladding Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Johanson, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
thousands of property owners whose buildings were constructed with
combustible cladding are being asked to sign up to a class action
seeking millions of dollars in compensation.

Listed litigation funder IMF Bentham and law firm William Roberts
Lawyers said on Oct. 30 they would pursue compensation for property
owners of residential, commercial and mixed-use buildings that had
aluminium composite panel cladding with a polyethylene core.

The use of the hazardous building material spurred the 2014
Lacrosse tower fire in Melbourne's Docklands and lst year's deadly
Grenfell blaze in London.

While nobody died in the Lacrosse inferno, it sent shockwaves
through the nation's construction industry and sparked an ongoing
legal nightmare for the building's apartment owners faced with $24
million in removal and repair costs.

Concerns about aluminium cladding rose dramatically after 74 people
died in the Grenfell blaze.

If the class action proceeds, it will be Australia's third relating
to flammable cladding. Two other groups, Adley Burstyner and Roscon
Property Services, and Slater and Gordon, are also considering
actions.

Affected property owners were invited to register their interest,
IMF and William Roberts said.

Removing cladding from affected buildings is an expensive process.

Lacrosse's owners sought $24 million in damages in a month-long
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal case against the
tower's builder, LU Simon, which ended in September. A
determination is yet to be made in the case.

A state-backed audit found 200 buildings had combustible cladding
and 45 were in a high-risk category, but the government and
Victorian Building Authority have refused to publicly identify the
affected buildings.

The secrecy surrounding the identification of affected buildings is
making it harder for banks to lend on apartments and for purchasers
to secure properties.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $43.1MM Asbestos-Tobacco Verdict in Mass. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that Massachusetts jurors have
awarded $43.1 million at the end of a joint asbestos-tobacco trial,
but reached a defense verdict for the lone asbestos defendant
remaining in the trial at the time of the decision.

The Massachusetts Superior Court for Suffolk County jury reached
the verdict on Oct. 12 after four days of deliberations, finding
tobacco defendant R.J. Reynolds liable on all counts. While the
case -- believed to be the first asbestos-tobacco case ever tried
in Massachusetts -- was originally filed in Middlesex County, it
was tried in Suffolk County, sources told HarrisMartin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 53 Cheshire East Schools Contain Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Wise of Cheshire Live reported that fifty-three state
schools in Cheshire East contain asbestos, according to information
published on the council's website.

This equates to 91%, with just five schools not containing the
material.

As of August 2018 just five schools within Cheshire East Council's
jurisdiction did not contain asbestos.

According to website asbestos.com Crewe and Nantwich are in the top
20 sites which are most affected by asbestos.

In 1999 the UK government banned the use and import of chrysotile
asbestos under The Asbestos (Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations
1999.

While there is no law relating to the removal of asbestos, there is
one that requires its management.

This is because in many cases it's safer for asbestos to remain in
place and be managed rather than being removed.

The management of asbestos includes annual surveys to check whether
the material has deteriorated.

Each of the schools listed either has its asbestos managed by
Cheshire East Council or arranges its own annual surveys.

The facts on asbestos according to the Health and Safety Executive

Asbestos kills around 5,000 trade workers each year -- more than
the number of people killed on the road.

It's estimated that around 20 tradespeople die each year due to
past exposure of asbestos.

Asbestos becomes dangerous when it is disturbed and asbestos fibres
are released into the air.

The inhalation of these fibres can cause serious or fatal illnesses
if a person is exposed to them over a period of time.

The schools which did not contain asbestos as of August this year
are; Westminster Nursery School in Crewe, Wrenbury Primary School
in Nantwich, Bollington Cross CofE Primary School in Macclesfield,
Bosley St Mary's CofE Primary School in Macclesfield and Oakfield
Lodge School in Crewe.

The full list of state schools in Cheshire East which contain
asbestos:

   Alderley Edge Community Primary School
   Styal Primary School
   Wilmslow Grange Community Primary and Nursery School
   Disley Primary School
   Lower Park School
   Hollinhey Primary School
   Lindow Community Primary School
   Alsager Highfields Community Primary School
   Buglawton Primary School
   Scholar Green Primary School
   Havannah Primary School
   Brierley Primary School
   Primary School
   Sound and District Primary School
   Millfields Primary School and Nursery
   The Dingle Primary School
   High Legh Primary School
   Egerton Primary School
   Vine Tree Primary School
   Dean Valley Community Primary School
   Lostock Hall Primary School
   Rode Heath Primary School
   Elworth Hall Primary School
   Weaver Primary School
   Edleston Primary School
   Goostrey Community Primary School
   Rainow Primary School
   Beechwood Primary School and Nursery
   Mablins Lane Community Primary School
   Pebble Brook Primary School
   Daven Primary School
   Ashdene Primary School
   Bexton Primary School
   Hurdsfield Community Primary School
   Manor Park School and Nursery
   Little Bollington CofE Primary School
   Chelford CofE Primary School
   Elworth CofE Primary School
   Audlem St James' CofE Primary School
   Bickerton Holy Trinity CofE Primary School
   Mobberley CofE Primary School
   St Anne's Fulshaw C of E Primary School
   Middlewich High School
   Ruskin Community High School
   Malbank School and Sixth Form College
   Poynton High School
   Wilmslow High School
   Springfield School
   Park Lane School
   Middlewich Primary School


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aberdeen Man Shocked Over Asbestos Illness
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aberdeen Evening Express reported that an Aberdeen man living with
an asbestos-related disease has warned of how he did not realise he
had the condition.

Bob McWhinnie, 78, was diagnosed with asbestosis three years ago.

He had previously spent 25 years as an engineer in the Royal Navy.

Originally, Bob's friends noticed that he was struggling to keep up
while walking down the street.

He said: "They kept asking me ‘what's wrong?', but I didn't
really notice it because it was such a gradual change.

"Eventually, my wife cottoned on to what was happening and made me
go to the doctors.

"The doctor's didn't really know about my work history, so they
said that I should get an appointment up at ARI, with a lung
specialist.

"By various tests, they found out that it was asbestosis, and they
found out where it was that I was exposed to asbestos.

"I didn't really notice the symptoms, but it was my friends and
family that noticed a difference in me, so that made me go to the
doctors."

Through his time in the Navy, doctors said that Bob had suffered
"mega exposure" to asbestos.

He said: "Where I was working, I was mainly in boiler rooms, so
asbestos was everywhere."

The symptoms have become so bad that Bob now struggles to climb
stairs.

He said: "It's got to the point that I'm gasping for air."

Bob quit smoking when he was 24, but says that if he didn't do
that, the situation would be far worse.

He said: "If I had kept on smoking instead of quitting when I did,
then I could have ended up with something much worse."

Bob was attending a meeting of Asbestos Action, a group that
campaigns for asbestos awareness, as well as supporting people who
have contracted diseases due to exposure to the toxic material.

Liz Steven, benefits advisor for Asbestos Action, pictured, said:
"We are seeing a lot more people coming to us in the Aberdeen area,
and that's why I was hired.

"Since I took up my post in July, there have been 11 more people
that I have worked with that have a serious asbestos-related
illness."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Couple Sues Over Asbestos Warning Failure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of St. Louis Record a husband and wife are suing
Certain-Teed Corp., Gardner Denver Inc. and ITT Corp., et al, which
are asbestos products manufacturers, alleging the companies were
negligent in their failure to warn about the health-safety problems
of asbestos.

Benny Argo and Yvonne Argo filed a complaint on Oct. 11, in the St.
Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court, against the defendants alleging
that they breached their duties to exercise due care and caution
for the safety of others.

The plaintiffs allege that at various times during Benny Argo's
career beginning in 1963, he was exposed to and inhaled or ingested
asbestos fibers emanating from certain products manufactured, sold,
distributed or installed by defendants.

On May 22, he states in court documents that he first became aware
that he developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease, and
that the disease was wrongfully caused.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants allegedly intentionally
included asbestos fibers in their products when they knew that it
had toxic, poisonous and highly deleterious effect to human's
health and failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions
concerning the dangers of working with or around products
containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiffs seek actual and compensatory damages of more than
$50,000, plus costs, interest and all further relief as the court
deems just and equitable. They are represented by Benjamin R.
Schmickle and Matthew C. Morris of SWMW Law LLC in St. Louis.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court Case number 1822-CC11415


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Complain of Bias in NY Asbestos Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net reported that the city of New York is where many
of the country's mesothelioma and asbestos-related disease lawsuits
are heard. It is the location of an asbestos court that has been
established specifically to address the various issues involving
asbestos exposure. However, many of the asbestos companies that
face accusations of negligence and claims of liability are arguing
that they are being treated unfairly by the asbestos court. They
recently asked the state's top court -- the New York Court of
Appeals -- to weigh in on their concerns, but that request has been
denied.

The asbestos companies have appealed a recent judicial order that
exposes them to punitive damages in cases of mesothelioma and other
asbestos-related diseases. When companies have been found guilty in
these cases, they have generally faced orders to pay economic and
compensatory damages that pay victims for their medical expenses
and other economic damages, as well as for pain and suffering.
Punitive damages are meant to exact a financial punishment for
wrongdoing, and in at least one pending case the amount being
sought in punitive  damages reaches as high as $50 million dollars,
and in a recent case an asbestos court jury awarded a mesothelioma
victim's family $60 million, including punitive damages. Though
asbestos victims see these decisions as justified, the asbestos
companies argue that they are being treated unfairly, both by the
renewed allowance of punitive damages and victims' access to an
accelerated docket process that gives them only five months in
which to prepare for trial. The accelerated docket has been
specifically introduced because of the short survival time of
mesothelioma victims, and is designed to allow victims the ability
to have their day in court.  The Court of Appeals' rejection of
their request to hear the case is an indication that the judges do
not agree, particularly because the asbestos defendants are able to
appeal the verdict that includes the punitive damages after a
verdict has been reached.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Waites' Complaint vs. UCC Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Eleventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals affirms
the order of the district court dismissing the Waites' complaint
against Union Carbide Corporation for lack of personal jurisdiction
because the Waites cannot show that their claims arise out of Union
Carbide's contacts with Florida, nor is Union Carbide subject to
general jurisdiction because there is no evidence that Union
Carbide is at home in Florida.

The appealed case is James John Waite, JR., Plaintiff, Sandra
Waite, in her capacity as the personal representative of the estate
of John Waite, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AII Acquisition Corp.,
f.k.a. Holland Furnace, a.k.a. Allegheny Technologies, Ford Motor
Company, Union Carbide Corporation, Defendants-Appellees,
Borg-Warner Corporation, et al., Defendants, No. 16-15569, (11th
Cir.).

While living in Massachusetts, James Waite was exposed repeatedly
to asbestos, some of which was mined and sold by Union Carbide
Corporation. When renovating apartment units in the late 1960s, he
was exposed to a joint compound that contained asbestos mined and
sold by Union Carbide. Union Carbide never warned Mr. Waite about
the hazards of exposure to asbestos. In 1978, more than twenty-five
years after his initial asbestos exposure, Mr. Waite moved to
Florida, where he continued to be exposed to asbestos while working
with automotive parts. In 2015, Mr. Waite was diagnosed with
malignant mesothelioma.

Following Mr. Waite's diagnosis with mesothelioma, Mr. Waite and
his wife, Sandra Waite, filed suit in Florida state court against
Union Carbide and nine other defendants. Alleging that each
defendant had mined, processed, supplied, manufactured, or
distributed products containing asbestos that caused Mr. Waite's
disease, the Waites asserted claims for negligent failure to warn
and strict liability for defective design. The Waites do not
contend, however, that the asbestos to which Mr. Waite was exposed
in Florida was mined or sold by Union Carbide.

Their complaint alleges that Union Carbide: negligently failed to
warn its users of the dangers of asbestos, defectively designed its
products, and failed to use reasonable care in distributing its
products. But the contacts upon which the Waites rely to establish
specific jurisdiction -- Union Carbide's discussion about holding a
seminar in Florida, its plant in Brevard County, and its sales in
Florida. There is no allegation that the seminar Union Carbide
discussed in 1975 contributed to its failure to warn Mr. Waite
prior to his exposure in Massachusetts -- which had occurred more
than a decade earlier -- or its continuing failure to warn him when
he moved to Florida in 1978. And the Waites do not allege that Mr.
Waite was ever exposed to any of Union Carbide's asbestos in
Florida.

Union Carbide removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida. In district court, Union
Carbide filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
on the ground that Union Carbide was incorporated in New York and
maintained its principal place of business in Texas. The district
court determined that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Union
Carbide.

On appeal, the Waites argue that there are three ways in which the
district court could properly exercise personal jurisdiction over
Union Carbide in this case. First, they argue that the exercise of
specific jurisdiction is appropriate based on Union Carbide's
activities in Florida that gave rise to the causes of action they
allege. Second, they argue that the district court could exercise
general jurisdiction over Union Carbide based on the company's
substantial contacts with Florida. Third, they argue that Union
Carbide consented to general personal jurisdiction in Florida by
complying with various Florida statutes governing foreign
businesses.

The Waites argue that Union Carbide is at home in Florida based on
the following contacts: Union Carbide had a distributor in Florida,
along with several Florida customers. It once discussed holding a
seminar in Florida to combat the public's concerns about the health
effects of asbestos. It registered to do business in Florida in
1949, and it maintains an agent to receive service of process
there. As for its physical presence, Union Carbide built a plant in
the state and discussed building a shipping terminal there.

The Court finds that the Waites cannot establish that their claims
arise out of or relate to Union Carbide's contacts in Florida
because none of those contacts is a but-for cause of the torts the
Waites allege. The Court disagrees with the Waites that based on
these activities Union Carbide is at home in Florida because these
have nothing to do with the torts Union Carbide allegedly
committed.

The Court explains that the "paradigm all-purpose forums" in which
a corporation is at home are the corporation's place of
incorporation and its principal place of business. Outside of these
two exemplars, a defendant's operations will "be so substantial and
of such a nature as to render the corporation at home in that
State" only in an "exceptional case."

The Court finds that neither of the paradigms apply in this case:
Union Carbide is incorporated in New York, and its principal place
of business is in Texas. To decide whether this is one of the
exceptional cases in which a federal court's exercise of general
jurisdiction may be proper outside of the paradigm places where a
corporation is at home, the Court considers whether "the
corporation's activities in the forum closely approximate the
activities that ordinarily characterize a corporation's place of
incorporation or principal place of business."

The Court determines that Florida was not "a surrogate" place of
incorporation or principal place of business for Union Carbide --
the Waites do not allege that Union Carbide's leadership was based
in Florida or that the company otherwise directed its operations
from Florida. At most, Union Carbide's activities show that it
conducted significant business in Florida. The Court rejects the
Waites' argument that Union Carbide's registration to do business
and its maintenance of an agent for service of process in Florida
render Union Carbide at home there. The Court concludes that the
exercise of general jurisdiction over Union Carbide in Florida
would violate due process because Union Carbide's contacts in
Florida do not "closely approximate the activities that ordinarily
characterize a corporation's place of incorporation or principal
place of business."

Lastly, the Waites argue that even if Union Carbide's contacts with
Florida do not subject it to general jurisdiction, the company
consented to the Florida courts' general jurisdiction when it
registered to do business and appointed an agent to receive service
of process in Florida. However, the Court is not convinced that
Florida law "either expressly or by local construction" establishes
that a foreign corporation's registration to do business and
appointment of an agent for service of process in Florida amounts
to its consent to general jurisdiction in the Florida courts. Thus,
the Court rejects the Waites' argument that the district court
could exercise general jurisdiction on that basis.

A copy of the Decision dated August 23, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ya9q5hbd from Leagle.com.

Henry Salas -- henry.salas@csklegal.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

M. Derek Harris -- dharris@carltonfields.com--  for
Defendant-Appellee.

William Clay Massey -- clay.massey@alston.com --  for
Defendant-Appellee.

Robert S. Peck --  robert.peck@cclfirm.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Wendy F. Lumish -- wendy.lumish@bowmanandbrooke.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Todd C. Alley -- talley@hptylaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Alina Alonso Rodriguez -- alina.rodriguez@bowmanandbrooke.com --
for Defendant-Appellee.

Matthew J. Conigliaro -- mconigliaro@carltonfields.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Ryan Cobbs -- rcobbs@carltonfields.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Eric Cook , for Defendant-Appellee.

Z. Stephen Horvat , for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jonathan Ruckdeschel , for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Christian Hartley -- chartley@mrhfmlaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Dawn Besserman -- dbesserman@mrhfmlaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Rebecca Shull Vinocur , for Plaintiff-Appellant.

James J. Ostertag -- jostertag@lclaw.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Paul V. Lankford -- plankford@lclaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Terrence M.R. Zic -- tzic@wtplaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Andrew Scott Freedman -- andrew.freedman@csklegal.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Clarke Scott Sturge -- clarke.sturge@csklegal.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Bruce T. Bishop -- bbishop@wilsav.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: JCI Precluded from Blaming Navy for Goodrich Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert J. Krask of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia grants that portion of Harry L.
Goodrich's and Agnes P. Goodrich's motion in limine to exclude
evidence and testimony regarding the alleged knowledge or
negligence of the Navy with regard superseding cause and state of
the art evidence.

In the case styled Harry L. Goodrich and Agnes P. Goodrich,
Plaintiffs, v. John Crane, Inc., Defendant, Action No. 4:17CV9,
(E.D. Va.), JCI argues that evidence of the Navy's knowledge and
the Navy's own negligence is relevant to the issues of causation in
this case. JCI advances two causation arguments regarding the
Navy's alleged negligence. JCI argues: (1) its failure to warn was
not a substantial cause of Goodrich's injury, because the Navy's
negligent control of Goodrich's workplace environment was the real
cause of Goodrich's injury; and (2) the Navy's intervening
negligence in not providing a safe workplace superseded any
negligence on JCI's part, severing liability.

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that JCI's "substantial
contributing factor" argument premised on the Navy's alleged
knowledge and negligence ultimately amounts to a superseding cause
argument. The Court allows JCI to present evidence of other sources
of asbestos exposure to defend against plaintiffs' claim that JCI's
products were a substantial contributing factor to Goodrich's
mesothelioma consistent with this ruling. JCI is precluded,
however, from presenting evidence regarding how much the Navy knew
regarding the dangers of asbestos, and that the Navy's negligent
conduct was the true cause of Goodrich's injury.

The Court explains that the superseding cause doctrine, which is
properly applied in maritime cases, relieves the original actor
from liability where (1) an intervening force brought about a harm
that is different in kind from that which would otherwise have
resulted from the actor's negligence"; and (2) the intervening
force was not a normal result of the original actor's negligence."
Superseding cause is only relevant if the "antecedent negligence is
a substantial factor in bringing about" the injury, but where "the
injury was actually brought about by a later cause of independent
origin that was not foreseeable," the antecedent negligence can be
excused.

JCI argues that evidence of the Navy's knowledge is a "critical
component" of the general knowledge and state of the art literature
concerning asbestos health hazards. Goodrich argues that JCI's
state of the art argument is "a ploy to resurrect the sophisticated
purchaser defense."

The Court agrees with plaintiffs that JCI's state of the art
argument, premised on the Navy's knowledge, is merely an attempt to
backdoor JCI's sophisticated purchaser and superseding cause
arguments where such arguments would not otherwise be available.
JCI intends to offer evidence of the Navy's knowledge, not because
it is relevant to whether JCI's products conformed with the
scientific knowledge available at the time, but so that the jury
may attribute blame to the Navy, to JCI's benefit. The Court
concludes that such evidence is inadmissible.

A copy of the Opinion and Order dated August 24, 2018, is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yaq5plt7 from Leagle.com.

Harry L. Goodrich & Agnes P. Goodrich, Plaintiffs, represented by
Donald Neal Patten -- dpatten@pwhd.com -- Patten Wornom Hatten &
Diamonstein LC, Erin Elizabeth Jewell -- ejewell@pwhd.com -- Patten
Wornom Hatten & Diamonstein LC, Frederick Alexander Coletrane --
acoletrane@pwhd.com -- Patten Wornom Hatten & Diamonstein LC, Hugh
Bernard McCormick, III -- HughMcCormick@pwhd.com -- Patten Wornom
Hatten & Diamonstein LC, Robert Randolph Hatten --
RRHatten@pwhd.com -- Patten Wornom Hatten & Diamonstein LC, William
Wesley Coleman Harty -- wharty@pwhd.com -- Patten Wornom Hatten &
Diamonstein LC & Gary Martin DiMuzio -- gdimuzio@pwhd.com -- Patten
Wornom Hatten & Diamonstein LC, pro hac vice.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian James Schneider
-- bschneider@moranreevesconn.com -- Moran Reeves & Conn PC & Eric
George Reeves -- ereeves@moranreevesconn.com -- Moran Reeves & Conn
PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Sued Over Asbestos Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Goshen News reported that a group of 56 people have filed a lawsuit
claiming the demolition of the Johnson Controls plant exposed them
and their property to dangerous asbestos particles and that tons of
contaminated debris were illegally buried on a farm east of the
city.

The lawsuit filed in Elkhart County Circuit Court by attorney
Thomas A. Barnard of Taft Stettinius & Hollister, Indianapolis,
names Johnson Controls Inc., which sold the building at 1302 E.
Monroe St. in 2007 to TOCON Holdins LLC, as defendants.

The defendants have not yet responded in court to the lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, Johnson Controls retained access to the
building after the sale and remains responsible for reported
chemical contamination of groundwater that occurred at the plant.
That pollution is the subject of another ongoing lawsuit by
residents in the same neighborhood.

First Federal Savings Bank of Huntington holds the mortgage on the
property and is also named as a defendant.

The lawsuit alleges the owner of the building, Tony Adkins of
TOCON, conspired with Richard Swift to tear the building down with
heavy equipment without the proper inspections required by law. The
demolition started in early 2012 and stopped in March 2014, the
lawsuit states.

The desire to demolish the building was to make the site more
attractive to the Goshen school board, which was considering
acquiring the property to construct a softball field, the lawsuit
states.

"However, before the school would purchase the property, the
buildings needed to be demolished, and demolition bids obtained in
October 2009 indicated that the cost to properly demolish the
buildings and haul away the debris was more than the site was
worth," the lawsuit states.

According to the lawsuit, those demolition estimates ranged from
$800,000 to $1.5 million.

"Therefore, Adkins enlisted the help of Swift, who agreed to tear
down the buildings for free as long as he could salvage and sell
the scrap," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit complaint continues, stating, "JCI, TOCON, and FFSB
knew that significant quantities of asbestos remained in the
buildings at the site when Swift tore them down. However, through
their actions and inactions, they conspired to have him illegally
demolish the buildings and remove the debris to further their plan
that GCS would purchase the property.

"Adkins wanted GCS to purchase to property so that he could get out
from underneath his mortgage with FFSB, and recoup his investment
in the site."

HEALTH CONCERNS

The lawsuit outlines concerns that people living near the property
were exposed to asbestos during the demolition. Asbestos is a
mineral fiber found in rocks and was once commonly used in many
products, particularly wraps and insulation around heating ducts
and pipes, according to the EPA.

"Exposure to asbestos increases your risk of developing lung
disease," the EPA states on its website. "That risk is made worse
by smoking. In general, the greater the exposure to asbestos, the
greater the chance of developing harmful health effects.

"Disease symptoms may take many years to develop following
exposure."

The lawsuit expresses concern that residents near the plant were
exposed to asbestos that was pulverized by the heavy machinery in
several ways.

"The dust and asbestos blew into the plaintiffs' neighborhood and
contaminated their homes and properties," the complaint states.
"Sometimes the dust emanating from the site was so thick that it
would leave a heavy film on the plaintiffs’ cars and windows,
patio furniture, and inside their homes.

"The plaintiffs, including small children, breathed the
asbestos-containing dust and have been seriously harmed because the
asbestos fibers are now lodged in their lungs, and could lead to
serious diseases such as cancer."

After the building was demolished in 2016, piles of debris were
left on the property. An inspection found asbestos in the debris
and the EPA scrambled to conduct an emergency cleanup of the site.

"The defendants in this action, JCI, TOCON Holdings, LLC ("TOCON"),
and First Federal Savings Bank ("FFSB") (collectively,
"defendants"), each knew that Swift tore down the buildings without
removing all of the asbestos. However, they did not warn the
plaintiffs. Instead they directed Swift’s actions and engaged in
unlawful conduct, collectively and individually, for their own
personal financial gain," is the allegation by the lawsuit.

THE BANK

The lawsuit alleges Tom Mills, senior vice president at FFSB,
"provided Swift with a schedule and deadlines and instructed him to
remove the debris from the site."

Indiana law states buildings containing asbestos cannot be
demolished without notification of the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management and removal of the asbestos material. In
addition, such material must be placed in a licensed landfill that
is able to accept asbestos, according the lawsuit.

"In response to Mills’ instructions, Swift dumped numerous
truckloads of asbestos-containing debris in a ravine on a farm east
of Goshen," the lawsuit claims. "Mills followed Swift and took
pictures of him loading the asbestos-containing debris into dump
trucks, and taking it to the farm where it was illegally dumped.

"In an email dated February 15, 2015, and sent to several
executives at FFSB describing the dumping, Mills explained that it
'is taking so long' because Swift was covering the debris with
topsoil.

"Mills further stated, 'the good news about where he is dumping the
debris is that it is costing him probably one third of what it
would cost to transport and dump the debris at a landfill.'"

The lawsuit alleges Mills estimated that Swift dumped and buried
about 200 truckloads of debris at the farm.

The lawsuit also alleges the bank financed the dumping, which was
never finished as piles of debris were left at the site, the same
piles the EPA was called in to control.

The lawsuit does not ask for any specific monetary damage, but does
seek an amount the court would consider fair compensation, punitive
damages and legal fees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lacroix Couple Sues for Asbestos Warning Failure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis Record reported that a husband and wife are suing
Borg-Warner Corp., FMC Corp., Union Carbide Corp., et al, asbestos
products manufacturers, citing alleged failure to warn and
negligence.

Alvis Lacroix and Sharon Lacroix filed a complaint on Oct. 12, in
the St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court, against the defendants
alleging that they failed to exercise reasonable care and caution
for the safety of others.

The plaintiffs allege that at various times during Alvis Lacroix's
career, he was exposed to and inhaled or ingested asbestos fibers
emanating from certain products manufactured, sold, distributed or
installed by defendants.

On or about Feb. 7, he allegedly first became aware that he
developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease. He has suffered
a lot of pain, and also incurred medical costs.

The plaintiffs hold Borg-Warner Corp., FMC Corp. and Union Carbide
Corp., et al, responsible because the defendants allegedly
negligently included asbestos fibers in their products when
adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide adequate
warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of working with or
around products containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek actual and
compensatory damages of more than $50,000, plus interest, and any
further relief that the court may deem just and proper.

They are represented by Benjamin R. Schmickle and Matthew C. Morris
of SWMW Law LLC in St. Louis.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court Case number 1822-CC11419


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Dies at Hospital Due to Smoking, Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Napier of Daily Echo reported that Frederick Lovell, 79, of
Elmes Drive, Regents Park, Southampton, died at Countess
Mountbatten House hospice at West End on July 6.

Consultant pathologist Dr Adnan Al-Badri said the cause of death
was lung cancer plus cigarette smoking and exposure to asbestos.

Senior coroner Grahame Short adjourned the hearing in Winchester to
be resumed on January 14 2019.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Demolition Workers Fears Asbestos Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Community Newspaper reported that a construction
company that demolished a fire-damaged dairy failed to protect its
workers against airborne asbestos, WorkSafe says.

Crafar Crouch Construction has admitted pulling down two buildings
in Blenheim without proper protection against asbestos, as required
by law, in 2016.

WorkSafe New Zealand made inquiries after a photograph of workers
at On the Spot dairy on Budge St was published in The Marlborough
Express, showing them without personal protective equipment (PPE).

Asbestos was airborne at the site, beside a playground, a park and
a bus stop, and travelled as far as the footpath, WorkSafe's tests
revealed.

The company was "put on notice", but four months later demolished
Anita's Organics Store, on Queen St in central Blenheim, without
properly removing asbestos.

Asbestos was a fire-resistant, fibrous material used in
construction and textiles until people realised breathing the dust
was harmful.

Crafar Crouch did a "walk-through" visual check for asbestos at the
Budge St dairy site, but failed to identify asbestos and proceeded
as if there was none.

WorkSafe lawyer Kevin Patterson said workers were sent in to clear
the rubble without protective face masks or overalls, and asbestos
particles were floating around in the air.

"The hazard of asbestos is well-known ... it is a latent risk and
harm that is recognised, and that has informed why there are
asbestos regulations," Patterson said.

"If they suspected there was asbestos they should have tested for
it. There are cheap and effective ways of determining if it was on
site."

Crafar Crouch workers did not have proper personal protective
equipment (PPE) such as face masks and overalls, WorkSafe says.

Three "incredibly loyal" Crafar Crouch employees who worked at the
former dairy site became worried about their health and complained
to their bosses.

A digger driver said he also worried about his family, as he could
have taken home asbestos fibres on his clothing.

A truck driver said he was "pissed off" he did not know about the
asbestos.

But Crafar Crouch lawyer Joss Opie said any risk of exposure was
unintentional and a visual assessment was an accepted method of
identifying asbestos.

The On the Spot Convenience store was destroyed by fire in 2014.

Four months later Crafar Crouch demolished the Queen St building, a
store in central Blenheim red-stickered after the 2016 earthquake.

Given WorkSafe's inquiries about the Budge St site, workers
identified asbestos was likely present at the Queen St site, and
wore face masks and PPE gear for the demolition.

But they were not trained in how to handle asbestos and were again
exposed to health risks, Patterson said.

Anita's Organics Store was red-stickered after the 2016
earthquake.

WorkSafe could not prove exactly how much asbestos was at either
site as they only became aware of both cases after the buildings
were demolished.

"We know from photographs in the local paper how they were picking
through [the Budge St site]. The Queen St site, we have less
information," Patterson said.

While there was no evidence of actual health effects, Crafar Crouch
should be ordered to make emotional harm payments of $5000 to each
of the six affected workers, Patterson said.

Opie said there was no evidence the workers were affected
emotionally, and they were not on site long enough for the asbestos
to have any real health effect.

Patterson also argued Crafar Crouch should have to make an adverse
publicity order, which meant putting a large public notice in the
newspaper explaining the offence and penalties "as a form of
denunciation".

Judge Tony Zohrab reserved his decision and said it would likely
take two or three weeks to determine a sentence.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Railway Enthusiast Dies of Asbestos Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern Daily Press reported that a Norfolk rail enthusiast died as
a result of past exposures to deadly asbestos dust whilst working
for BT, an inquest has heard.

Michael Bird, of The Old Station House in Kimberley, near
Wymondham, was diagnosed in April 2016 with mesothelioma, an
aggressive cancer of the lining of the lung linked to past
exposures to asbestos dust. He died of this disease on August 5,
aged 80 at his home.

At the inquest on October 18, the Coroner held that Mr Bird died as
a result of exposure to asbestos dust at his place of work and gave
a verdict of industrial disease.

The solicitor instructed by his family, Helen Grady of Simpson
Millar, said: "This case is very sad and we need to be aware that
the past exposures of the 1970s and 80s can have dreadful
consequences for some people.

"Through the trade union, the firm have acted for a lot of former
BT workers who were negligently exposed to asbestos dust and fibres
through their work. BT therefore accepted responsibility early on
and this was a huge relief to the family."

Mr Bird leaves behind a wife of 55 years, Valerie, five children
and 14 grandchildren with ages ranging from two to 27.

His daughter Catherine Sweetman said: "As a former cardiothoracic
nurse, I have previously nursed people with mesothelioma and so
know just how insidious this awful disease can be.

"From the time of dad's diagnosis, we used the Mesothelioma UK
website and received a lot of support through their helpline. Dad
was so pleased with the assistance from this charity that he made a
large and generous donation and this will help with further
research and help others suffering from mesothelioma."

Mr Bird also received support towards the end of his life from the
palliative care nurses at the Priscilla Bacon Lodge Hospice.

"Sadly, when he requested a hospice bed, there were none
available," said his daughter. "Dad made a large and very generous
donation to the hospice to help other people suffering and in the
hope that beds not being available at end of life stages for people
who request this will be a thing of the past."

Mr Bird was well known locally for running the Old Station house
for the past 16 years with his wife something that was a lifetime
dream.

He was involved with the Mid Norfolk Railway and for his wake the
railway commissioned a train something they had not previously
done.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reinbold vs. American Optical, Et al. Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois grants the motions to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction filed by Defendants American Optical
Corporation, Welco Manufacturing Corporation, and York
International Corporation in the case styled Janice Reinbold,
Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Gerald
Reinbold, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Advanced Auto Parts, Inc., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-605-SMY-DGW, (S.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Gerald Reinbold was exposed to
asbestos from Defendants' products during his employment as a
shipfitter at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington,
from 1967 until 1979. Plaintiff also alleges exposure from home
remodeling and automotive repair work during the same time frame.
But the Complaint is devoid of any allegation that Plaintiff's
alleged injuries arose out of or relate to the Defendants' contacts
with Illinois. As such, the Court lacks specific personal
jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims against these defendants.

The Court explains that in diversity cases, a district court has
personal jurisdiction over a defendant "who is subject to the
jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where
the district court is located. Thus, a district court sitting in
Illinois must inquire whether the "defendant has certain minimum
contact with the State such that the maintenance of the suit does
not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice. Personal jurisdiction may be either specific or general.
Specific jurisdiction exists when an out-of-state "defendant has
purposefully directed his activities at residents of the forum, and
the litigation results from alleged injuries that 'arise out of or
relate to those activities. General jurisdiction exists over
foreign corporations "when their affiliations with the State are so
continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home in
the forum State." The place of incorporation and principal place of
business are paradigm. . . bases for general jurisdiction."

Defendants are not incorporated nor maintain their principal place
of business in Illinois. Moreover, Defendants' affiliations with
Illinois are not "so continuous and systematic" as to render
Defendants at home in Illinois. Accordingly, the Court grants
Defendants' motions to dismiss.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order dated August 24, 2018, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y825qygy from Leagle.com.

Janice Reinbold, individually and as Special Administrator of the
Estate of Gerald Reinbold, Deceased, Plaintiff, represented by
Benjamin R. Schmickle -- ben@swmwlaw.com -- SWMW Law, LLC, Lucas J.
Dalton -- luke@swmwlaw.com -- Neville, Richards et al. & Stephanie
L. Gold -- stephanie@swmwlaw.com -- SWMW Law, LLC.

Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Dana Companies, LLC, Western Auto Supply
Company & General Parts, Inc., Defendants, represented by Robert
William Stephens -- rstephens@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin &
Bell, LLP.

Air & Liquid System Corporation, Successor by Merger to Buffalo
Pumps, Inc., Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc. & Viking Pump, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by James R. Grabowski --
jgrabowski@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill
-- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al.

American Optical Corporation & Carrier Corporation, doing business
as, Defendants, represented by Scott R. Hunsaker --
scott.hunsaker@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP.

Armstrong International, Inc. & CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corp.,
Defendants, represented by Michael R. Dauphin , Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP.

Armstrong Pumps, Inc. & The Nash Engineering Company, Defendants,
represented by Gregory L. Cochran -- gcochran@mckenna-law.com --
McKenna Storer, Kelly E. Purkey -- kpurkey@mckenna-law.com --
McKenna Storer & Robert P. Pisani -- rpisani@mckenna-law.com --
McKenna Storer.

Blackmer Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Nicholas B.
Bunnell -- nbunnell@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Borg-Warner Corporation, successor Borg-Warner Morse TEC, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Andrew M. Voss -- amv@greensfelder.com --
Greensfelder, Hemker et al.

BW/IP International, successor Borg-Warner Morse TEC, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Anderson Charles Franklin --
afranklin@smsm.com -- Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney.

Cameron International Corp., formerly known as Cooper Cameron
Corporation & ITT Corporation, Defendants, represented by Julia
Yasmin Tayyab -- yasmin.tayyab@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis et
al.

Carver Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Leslie G. Offergeld
-- lgo@wawpc.net -- Walker & Williams.

Certain-Teed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill
-- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al., James R.
Grabowski -- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al. &
Kent L. Plotner -- kplotner@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et
al.

Clark-Reliance Corporation, Defendant, represented by Paul L.
Knobbe -- pknobbe@goldbergsegalla.com -- Goldberg Segalla LLP.

Cleaver-Brooks, a division of Aqua-Chem, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Meredith S. Hudgens -- mhudgens@foleymansfield.com
-- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin , Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

Copes-Vulcan, Inc. & Spirax Sarco, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Daniel W. McGrath -- dmcgrath@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP, Dennis J. Graber -- dgraber@hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw & Culbertson & Nicole E. Rice -- nrice@hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Crane Co., Industrial Holdings Corporation, formerly known as &
Velan Valve Corporation, Defendants, represented by Carl J. Geraci
-- cgeraci@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC & Benjamin J. Wilson
-- bwilson@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC.

Crosby Valve LLC, Defendant, represented by Carla C. Storm --
cstorm@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Dap, Inc., now known as LA Mirada Products Co., Inc. & Pneumo Abex,
LLC, successor, Defendants, represented by Ross S. Titzer --
ross.titzer@cs-law.com -- Cosmich, Simmons et al & Thomas L. Orris
-- tom.orris@cs-law.com -- Cosmich, Simmons et al.

The Dow Chemical Company, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash
-- Jeff.Bash@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP.

Flowserve US Inc., successor, Defendant, represented by Matthew
Robert Daniels -- mdaniels@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins Parnell et al,
Catherine E. Goldhaber -- cgoldhaber@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins,
Parnell et al. & James D. Maschhoff --
jmaschhoff@sandbergphoenix.com -- Sandberg, Phoenix, et al.

FMC Corporation, successor, Defendant, represented by Anthony D.
Danhelka -- adanhelka@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin & Bell,
LLP.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, other Foster Wheeler Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Steven A. Hart -- shart@hmelegal.com -- Hart
McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC & John Backes Prior --
jprior@hmelegal.com -- Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC.

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Powell --
dpowell@smsm.com -- Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney.

General Electric Company & Hercules, Inc., Defendants, represented
by Anita M. Kidd -- akidd@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong
Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix Meyer -- jfixmeyer@armstrongteasdale.com --
Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Melanie R. King --
mking@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Raymond R.
Fournie -- rfournie@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale
LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., successor, Defendant, represented by
Nicole C. Behnen -- nbehnen@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC.

Imo Industries, Inc., Individually & Warren Pumps, LLC, formerly
known as, Defendants, represented by Robert C. Rakers --
rrakers@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin et al & Robert William
Stephens -- rstephens@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin & Bell,
LLP.

Ingersoll-Rand Company & Trane U.S., Inc., Defendants, represented
by Patrick Michael Barkley -- patrick.barkley@tuckerellis.com --
Tucker Ellis LLP & James R. Shultz -- jay.shultz@tuckerellis.com --
Tucker Ellis LLP.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus --
sean@otgblaw.com -- O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.

McMaster-Carr Supply Company, Defendant, represented by Anthony D.
Danhelka -- adanhelka@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP
& Erica S. Longfield -- elongfield@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin
& Bell, LLP.

Meadwestvaco Corporation, successor, Defendant, represented by
Brian J. Huelsmann -- brian.huelsmann@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker
Ellis LLP.

Metallo Gasket Co., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash --
Jeff.Bash@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP,
Justin S. Zimmerman -- Justin.Zimmerman@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Matthew J. Morris --
Matthew.Morris@lewisbrisbois.com --Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant, represented by Charles
L. Joley -- cjoley@ilmoattorneys.com -- Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. &
Georgiann Oliver -- goliver@ilmoattorneys.com -- Joley, Nussbaumer,
et al.

Milton Roy, LLC, Defendant, represented by Carla C. Storm --
cstorm@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R.
Dauphin , Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Milwaukee Valve Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lawrence
S. Denk -- ldenk@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Moyno, Inc., Individually, Defendant, represented by Michael R.
Dauphin , Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Timothy D. Krieger , Simon Law
Firm, P.C.

Nibco Inc., Defendant, represented by Anita M. Kidd --
akidd@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix
Meyer -- jfixmeyer@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP,
Melanie R. King -- mking@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong
Teasdale LLP, Raymond R. Fournie -- rfournie@armstrongteasdale.com
-- Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Sarah E. Harmon --
sharmon@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

Pecora Corporation, Defendant, represented by Stephanie M. Galetti
-- stephanie.galetti@guntymccarthy.com -- Gunty & McCarthy.

Peerless Industries, Inc., Individually, Defendant, represented by
Danielle R. Luisi -- DLuisi@matushek.com -- Matushek Nilles et al &
Margaret M. Foster -- MFoster@matushek.com -- Matushek Nilles et
al.

RIC-WIL Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Earl B. Thames, Jr.
, Segal, McCambridge & Leslie Anne Federer --
LFederer@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley, et al.

The Sherwin-Williams Company, Defendant, represented by Tracy J.
Cowan -- tcowan@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins, Parnell et al. & Karen M.
Volkman -- kmvolkman@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins, Parnell et al.

SPX Corporation, on behalf of Waukesha Pumps, Defendant,
represented by Keith B. Hill -- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl,
Royster et al., James R. Grabowski -- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com --
Heyl, Royster et al. & Ryan M. Hatcher , Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc., Individually successor Bingham Pumps,
Defendant, represented by Anita M. Kidd --
akidd@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc., Individually, Defendant, represented by
Julie Fix Meyer -- jfixmeyer@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong
Teasdale LLP, Melanie R. King -- mking@armstrongteasdale.com --
Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Raymond R. Fournie --
rfournie@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T.
Bash -- Jeff.Bash@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP & Justin S. Zimmerman --
Justin.Zimmerman@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP.

Welco Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by Catherine E.
Goldhaber -- cgoldhaber@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins, Parnell et al. &
Matthew Robert Daniels -- mdaniels@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins Parnell
et al.

The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Ashleigh N.
Johnson , Foley & Mansfield, Meredith S. Hudgens --
mhudgens@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R.
Dauphin , Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

York International Corporation, successor, Defendant, represented
by James D. Maschhoff -- jmaschhoff@sandbergphoenix.com --
Sandberg, Phoenix, et al.

Blackmer Pump Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Nicholas B.
Bunnell -- nbunnell@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Blackmer Pump Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas B.
Bunnell -- nbunnell@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Air & Liquid System Corporation, Successor by Merger to Buffalo
Pumps, Inc., Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc. & Viking Pump, Inc.,
Cross Defendants, represented by James R. Grabowski --
jgrabowski@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill
-- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al.

CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corp. & Armstrong International, Inc.,
Cross Defendants, represented by Michael R. Dauphin , Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

Certain-Teed Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B.
Hill -- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al., James R.
Grabowski -- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al. &
Kent L. Plotner -- kplotner@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et
al.

Cleaver-Brooks, a division of Aqua-Chem, Inc., Cross Defendant,
represented by Meredith S. Hudgens -- mhudgens@foleymansfield.com
-- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin , Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson --
bwilson@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci --
cgeraci@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC.

FMC Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Anthony D.
Danhelka -- adanhelka@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin & Bell,
LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Nicole C. Behnen -- nbehnen@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC.

John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus --
sean@otgblaw.com -- O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.

McMaster-Carr Supply Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Anthony D. Danhelka -- adanhelka@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin &
Bell, LLP & Erica S. Longfield -- elongfield@smbtrials.com --
Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Cross Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley -- cjoley@ilmoattorneys.com -- Joley, Nussbaumer,
et al. & Georgiann Oliver -- goliver@ilmoattorneys.com -- Joley,
Nussbaumer, et al.

Milwaukee Valve Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Lawrence S. Denk -- ldenk@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP.

Moyno, Inc., Individually, Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy
D. Krieger , Simon Law Firm, P.C. & Michael R. Dauphin , Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

Pneumo Abex, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer --
ross.titzer@cs-law.com -- Cosmich, Simmons et al & Thomas L. Orris
-- tom.orris@cs-law.com -- Cosmich, Simmons et al.

Janice Reinbold, individually and as Special Administrator of the
Estate of Gerald Reinbold, Deceased, Cross Defendant, represented
by Benjamin R. Schmickle -- ben@swmwlaw.com -- SWMW Law, LLC.

SPX Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill --
khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al., James R. Grabowski
-- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al. & Ryan M.
Hatcher -- rhatcher@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

The William Powell Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Ashleigh N. Johnson , Foley & Mansfield, Meredith S. Hudgens --
mhudgens@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R.
Dauphin , Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Industrial Holdings Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by
Benjamin J. Wilson -- bwilson@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC &
Carl J. Geraci -- cgeraci@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC.

Industrial Holdings Corporation & Velan Valve Corporation, Cross
Defendants, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson --
bwilson@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci --
cgeraci@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC.

American Optical Corporation & Carrier Corporation, Cross
Defendants, represented by Scott R. Hunsaker --
scott.hunsaker@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP.

Ingersoll-Rand Company & Trane U.S., Inc., Cross Defendants,
represented by Patrick Michael Barkley --
patrick.barkley@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP & James R.
Shultz -- jay.shultz@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP.

Pecora Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Paul B.
O'Flaherty, Jr. -- paul.oflaherty@guntymccarthy.com -- Gunty &
McCarthy.

Crane Co. & Velan Valve Corporation, Cross Claimants, represented
by Carl J. Geraci -- cgeraci@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC &
Benjamin J. Wilson -- bwilson@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC.

Armstrong International, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by
Michael R. Dauphin , Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Cameron International Corp. & ITT Corporation, Cross Defendants,
represented by Julia Yasmin Tayyab -- yasmin.tayyab@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan, Lewis et al.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Steven A. Hart
-- shart@hmelegal.com -- Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC & John
Backes Prior -- jprior@hmelegal.com -- Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge,
LLC.

General Electric Company, Hercules, Inc. & Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc.,
Individually, Cross Defendants, represented by Anita M. Kidd --
akidd@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix
Meyer -- jfixmeyer@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP,
Melanie R. King -- mking@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong
Teasdale LLP & Raymond R. Fournie -- rfournie@armstrongteasdale.com
-- Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

Meadwestvaco Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Brian J.
Huelsmann -- brian.huelsmann@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP.

Nibco Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Anita M. Kidd --
akidd@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix
Meyer -- jfixmeyer@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP,
Melanie R. King -- mking@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong
Teasdale LLP, Raymond R. Fournie -- rfournie@armstrongteasdale.com
-- Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Sarah E. Harmon --
sharmon@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP.
Pneumo Abex, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Ross S. Titzer --
ross.titzer@cs-law.com -- Cosmich, Simmons et al.

BW/IP International, Cross Defendant, represented by Nathan J. Law
-- nlaw@SMSM.com -- Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney & Anderson
Charles Franklin -- afranklin@smsm.com -- Segal McCambridge Singer
& Mahoney.

Copes-Vulcan, Inc. & Spirax Sarco, Inc., Cross Defendants,
represented by Dennis J. Graber -- dgraber@hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice -- nrice@hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Daniel W. McGrath --
dmcgrath@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Carver Pump Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Leslie G.
Offergeld -- lgo@wawpc.net -- Walker & Williams.

Carver Pump Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Leslie G.
Offergeld -- lgo@wawpc.net -- Walker & Williams.

Cleaver-Brooks, a division of Aqua-Chem, Inc., Cross Claimant,
represented by Meredith S. Hudgens -- mhudgens@foleymansfield.com
-- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin , Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

Aurora Pump Company & Green Tweed & Co., Inc., Cross Defendants,
represented by Nathan J. Law -- nlaw@SMSM.com -- Segal McCambridge
Singer & Mahoney.

Crosby Valve LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Carla C. Storm --
cstorm@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Peerless Industries, Inc., Individually, Cross Defendant,
represented by Danielle R. Luisi -- DLuisi@matushek.com -- Matushek
Nilles et al & Margaret M. Foster -- MFoster@matushek.com --
Matushek Nilles et al.

Western Auto Supply Company, Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Dana
Companies, LLC & General Parts, Inc., Cross Defendants, represented
by Robert William Stephens -- rstephens@smbtrials.com -- Swanson,
Martin & Bell, LLP.

Copes-Vulcan, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel W.
McGrath -- dmcgrath@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP,
Dennis J. Graber -- dgraber@hinshawlaw.com --  Hinshaw & Culbertson
& Nicole E. Rice -- nrice@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP.

Spirax Sarco, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel W.
McGrath -- dmcgrath@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP,
Dennis J. Graber -- dgraber@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson
& Nicole E. Rice -- nrice@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP.

Dap, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Ross S. Titzer --
ross.titzer@cs-law.com -- Cosmich, Simmons et al & Thomas L. Orris
-- tom.orris@cs-law.com -- Cosmich, Simmons et al.

Armstrong Pumps, Inc. & The Nash Engineering Company, Cross
Defendants, represented by Gregory L. Cochran --
gcochran@mckenna-law.com -- McKenna Storer, Robert P. Pisani --
rpisani@mckenna-law.com -- McKenna Storer & Kelly E. Purkey --
kpurkey@mckenna-law.com -- McKenna Storer.

Borg-Warner Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Andrew M.
Voss -- amv@greensfelder.com -- Greensfelder, Hemker et al.

Dap, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer --
ross.titzer@cs-law.com -- Cosmich, Simmons et al & Thomas L. Orris
-- tom.orris@cs-law.com -- Cosmich, Simmons et al.

Flowserve US Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Matthew Robert
Daniels -- mdaniels@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins Parnell et al, Catherine
E. Goldhaber -- cgoldhaber@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins, Parnell et al. &
James D. Maschhoff -- jmaschhoff@sandbergphoenix.com -- Sandberg,
Phoenix, et al.

Imo Industries, Inc., Individually & Warren Pumps, LLC, Cross
Defendants, represented by Robert William Stephens --
rstephens@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP & Robert C.
Rakers -- rrakers@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin et al.

Metallo Gasket Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash
-- Jeff.Bash@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP, Justin S. Zimmerman -- Justin.Zimmerman@lewisbrisbois.com --
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Matthew J. Morris --
Matthew.Morris@lewisbrisbois.com --Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP.

Milton Roy, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Carla C. Storm --
cstorm@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R.
Dauphin , Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

The Dow Chemical Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
T. Bash -- Jeff.Bash@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP.

Union Carbide Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
T. Bash -- Jeff.Bash@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP & Justin S. Zimmerman --
Justin.Zimmerman@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP.

Welco Manufacturing Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Catherine E. Goldhaber -- cgoldhaber@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins,
Parnell et al. & Matthew Robert Daniels -- mdaniels@hptylaw.com --
Hawkins Parnell et al.

York International Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
James D. Maschhoff -- jmaschhoff@sandbergphoenix.com -- Sandberg,
Phoenix, et al.

Honeywell International, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by
Nicole C. Behnen -- nbehnen@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC.

Advance Auto Parts, Inc., General Parts, Inc., Western Auto Supply
Company & Dana Companies, LLC, Cross Claimants, represented by
Robert William Stephens -- rstephens@smbtrials.com -- Swanson,
Martin & Bell, LLP.

FMC Corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by Anthony D.
Danhelka -- adanhelka@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin & Bell,
LLP.

Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Dana Companies, LLC, General Parts, Inc.,
Imo Industries, Inc., Individually, Warren Pumps, LLC & Western
Auto Supply Company, Counter Defendants, represented by Robert
William Stephens -- rstephens@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin &
Bell, LLP.

Air & Liquid System Corporation, Successor by Merger to Buffalo
Pumps, Inc., Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc. & Viking Pump, Inc.,
Counter Defendants, represented by James R. Grabowski --
jgrabowski@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill
-- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al.

American Optical Corporation & Carrier Corporation, Counter
Defendants, represented by Scott R. Hunsaker --
scott.hunsaker@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP.

Armstrong International, Inc. & CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corp.,
Counter Defendants, represented by Michael R. Dauphin , Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

Armstrong Pumps, Inc. & The Nash Engineering Company, Counter
Defendants, represented by Gregory L. Cochran --
gcochran@mckenna-law.com -- McKenna Storer & Robert P. Pisani --
rpisani@mckenna-law.com -- McKenna Storer.

Blackmer Pump Company, Counter Defendant, represented by Nicholas
B. Bunnell -- nbunnell@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP.

Borg-Warner Corporation, Counter Defendant, represented by Andrew
M. Voss -- amv@greensfelder.com -- Greensfelder, Hemker et al.

Cameron International Corp. & ITT Corporation, Counter Defendants,
represented by Julia Yasmin Tayyab -- yasmin.tayyab@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan, Lewis et al.

Carver Pump Company, Counter Defendant, represented by Leslie G.
Offergeld -- lgo@wawpc.net -- Walker & Williams.

Certain-Teed Corporation, Counter Defendant, represented by Keith
B. Hill -- khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al., James R.
Grabowski -- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al. &
Kent L. Plotner -- kplotner@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et
al.

Cleaver-Brooks, a division of Aqua-Chem, Inc., Counter Defendant,
represented by Meredith S. Hudgens -- mhudgens@foleymansfield.com
-- Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin , Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

Copes-Vulcan, Inc. & Spirax Sarco, Inc., Counter Defendants,
represented by Daniel W. McGrath -- dmcgrath@hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Dennis J. Graber --
dgraber@hinshawlaw.com --  Hinshaw & Culbertson & Nicole E. Rice --
nrice@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Crane Co., Industrial Holdings Corporation & Velan Valve
Corporation, Counter Defendants, represented by Carl J. Geraci --
cgeraci@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC & Benjamin J. Wilson --
bwilson@heplerbroom.com -- HeplerBroom LLC.

Crosby Valve LLC & Milton Roy, LLC, Counter Defendants, represented
by Carla C. Storm -- cstorm@foleymansfield.com -- Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

Dap, Inc. & Pneumo Abex, LLC, Counter Defendants, represented by
Ross S. Titzer -- ross.titzer@cs-law.com -- Cosmich, Simmons et al
& Thomas L. Orris -- tom.orris@cs-law.com -- Cosmich, Simmons et
al.

Flowserve US Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Matthew Robert
Daniels -- mdaniels@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins Parnell et al, Catherine
E. Goldhaber -- cgoldhaber@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins, Parnell et al. &
James D. Maschhoff -- jmaschhoff@sandbergphoenix.com -- Sandberg,
Phoenix, et al.

Foster Wheeler, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven A.
Hart -- shart@hmelegal.com -- Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC &
John Backes Prior -- jprior@hmelegal.com -- Hart McLaughlin &
Eldridge, LLC.

General Electric Company, Hercules, Inc. & Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc.,
Individually, Counter Defendants, represented by Anita M. Kidd --
akidd@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix
Meyer -- jfixmeyer@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP,
Melanie R. King -- mking@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong
Teasdale LLP & Raymond R. Fournie -- rfournie@armstrongteasdale.com
-- Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by
Nicole C. Behnen -- nbehnen@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company & Trane U.S., Inc., Counter Defendants,
represented by Patrick Michael Barkley --
patrick.barkley@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP & James R.
Shultz -- jay.shultz@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP.

John Crane, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus
-- sean@otgblaw.com -- O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.

McMaster-Carr Supply Company, Counter Defendant, represented by
Anthony D. Danhelka -- adanhelka@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin &
Bell, LLP & Erica S. Longfield -- elongfield@smbtrials.com --
Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

Meadwestvaco Corporation, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian
J. Huelsmann -- brian.huelsmann@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis
LLP.

Metallo Gasket Co., Counter Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T.
Bash -- Jeff.Bash@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP, Justin S. Zimmerman --
Justin.Zimmerman@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP & Matthew J. Morris -- Matthew.Morris@lewisbrisbois.com
--Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Counter Defendant, represented by
Charles L. Joley -- cjoley@ilmoattorneys.com -- Joley, Nussbaumer,
et al. & Georgiann Oliver -- goliver@ilmoattorneys.com -- Joley,
Nussbaumer, et al.

Milwaukee Valve Company, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by
Lawrence S. Denk -- ldenk@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP.

Moyno, Inc., Individually, Counter Defendant, represented by
Michael R. Dauphin , Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Timothy D. Krieger ,
Simon Law Firm, P.C.

Nibco Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Anita M. Kidd --
akidd@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix
Meyer -- jfixmeyer@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP,
Melanie R. King -- mking@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong
Teasdale LLP, Raymond R. Fournie -- rfournie@armstrongteasdale.com
-- Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Sarah E. Harmon --
sharmon@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

Peerless Industries, Inc., Individually, Counter Defendant,
represented by Danielle R. Luisi -- DLuisi@matushek.com -- Matushek
Nilles et al & Margaret M. Foster -- MFoster@matushek.com --
Matushek Nilles et al.

SPX Corporation, Counter Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill --
khill@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al., James R. Grabowski
-- jgrabowski@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al. & Ryan M.
Hatcher , Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

The Dow Chemical Company, Counter Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
T. Bash -- Jeff.Bash@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP.

The William Powell Company, Counter Defendant, represented by
Ashleigh N. Johnson -- ajohnson@foleymansfield.com -- Foley &
Mansfield, Meredith S. Hudgens -- mhudgens@foleymansfield.com --
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin , Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP.

Union Carbide Corporation, Counter Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey T. Bash -- Jeff.Bash@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Justin S. Zimmerman --
Justin.Zimmerman@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP.

Welco Manufacturing Company, Counter Defendant, represented by
Catherine E. Goldhaber -- cgoldhaber@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins,
Parnell et al. & Matthew Robert Daniels -- mdaniels@hptylaw.com --
Hawkins Parnell et al.

York International Corporation, Counter Defendant, represented by
James D. Maschhoff -- jmaschhoff@sandbergphoenix.com -- Sandberg,
Phoenix, et al.

Imo Industries, Inc., Individually, Cross Claimant, represented by
Robert C. Rakers -- rrakers@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin et al
& Robert William Stephens -- rstephens@smbtrials.com -- Swanson,
Martin & Bell, LLP.

American Optical Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Scott
R. Hunsaker -- scott.hunsaker@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP.

Gardner Denver, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel J.
Powell -- dpowell@smsm.com -- Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney.

Gardner Denver, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel J.
Powell -- dpowell@smsm.com -- Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney.

The Nash Engineering Company & Armstrong Pumps, Inc., Cross
Claimants, represented by Gregory L. Cochran --
gcochran@mckenna-law.com -- McKenna Storer, Kelly E. Purkey --
kpurkey@mckenna-law.com -- McKenna Storer & Robert P. Pisani --
rpisani@mckenna-law.com -- McKenna Storer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Robinson Widow Sues Over Asbestos Warning Failure
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lhalie Castillo of St. Louis Record reported that a widow is suing
Carrier Corp., Flowserve US Inc. and Honeywell International Inc.,
which are asbestos products manufacturers, alleging failure to warn
and negligence involving the hazards of asbestos.

Vida Elizabeth Robinson, individually and as the surviving heir of
the estate of Marvin Robinson, filed a complaint on Oct. 11, in the
St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against the defendants
alleging that they failed to exercise reasonable care and caution
for the safety of others.

The plaintiff alleges that at various times during Robinson's
career life, he was exposed to and inhaled or ingested asbestos
fibers emanating from certain products manufactured, sold,
distributed or installed by defendants.

On or about Oct. 26, 2016, he allegedly first became aware that he
developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease, and that the
disease was wrongfully caused. He died on Feb. 16, 2017.

The plaintiff holds Carrier Corp., Flowserve US Inc. and Honeywell
International Inc. responsible because the defendants allegedly
negligently included asbestos fibers in their products when
adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide adequate
warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of working with or
around products containing asbestos fibers.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks actual and
compensatory damages of not less than $50,000, plus interest, costs
and any further relief that is just and equitable.

She is represented by Benjamin R. Schmickle and Matthew C. Morris
of SWMW Law LLC in St. Louis.

St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court Case number 1822-CC11417


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rotterdam Subway Station Evacuated Over Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NL Times reported that subway station Stadhuis in Rotterdam was
evacuated on Tuesday afternoon after asbestos was released during
construction work. The station is still completely closed and no
subways are running through it. Rotterdam public transit company
RET calls on travelers who were in the station on Tuesday to report
to the company, RTL Nieuws reports.

The asbestos was discovered late on Tuesday morning. RET was
notified at 1:30 p.m. and evacuated and closed down the station
immediately, for the safety of passengers and employees. RET is
investigating "the consequences of possible exposure" for travelers
and employees who were at the station after the asbestos was
released. Passengers who traveled through Stadhuis station on
Tuesday are called to report via RET.nl.

The station will be closed until at least Friday. Buses and special
trams will transport travelers between Beurs subway station and
Rotterdam Central Station.

The closure of the station isn't causing much extra crowds in the
city. Due to the autumn holidays, there are currently less
travelers than usual.

The subway station is currently being renovated, to make the
station bigger and create additional emergency exits, according to
the broadcaster.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sudbury Man Dies From Condition Linked to Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Suffolk Free Press reported that s Sudbury man died from a
condition linked to exposure to asbestos, a coroner has heard.

Philip Garwood, 69, of Abbey Road, was admitted to West Suffolk
Hospital in Bury St Edmunds, suffering from abdominal swelling and
pain.

An inquest at Suffolk Coroners Court in Ipswch on Wednesday heard
that one day later, on Thursday, September 20, Mr Garwood died.

Assistant Suffolk Coroner Kevin McCarthy told the inquest that Mr
Garwood had previously been diagnosed with the asbestos-related
condition mesothelioma.

The cause of Mr Garwood’s death had been recorded by the hospital
as mesothelioma and pnumonia.

Mr McCarthy adjourned the inquest until January to for the
completion of reports.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vote Against Asbestos Compensation Shameful
------------------------------------------------------------
Jersey Evening Post reported that it would be 'shameful' if States
Members voted against proposals to introduce a compensation scheme
for mesothelioma sufferers, a campaigner has said.

Deputy Carina Alves has lodged a proposition calling on Social
Security Minister Judy Martin to bring forward a scheme by April
next year.

A campaign for the introduction of a States-run scheme for
sufferers of asbestos-related diseases has been gathering support
and an online petition recently passed 1,000 signatures.

June Summers Shaw, who has been leading the campaign, said she was
pleased Members would be forced to debate the issue and that the
States needed to acknowledge their past 'negligence' for failing to
properly warn and protect Islanders about the dangers of asbestos.

Her husband, Keith Shaw, died in 2012 -- days after being diagnosed
with mesothelioma.

In her proposition, Deputy Alves cites the deaths of both Mr Shaw
and Brian Coutanche -- a former carpenter and States housing
maintenance officer -- who died earlier this year after being
diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Compensation schemes for mesothelioma victims are already available
in the UK and France, while Guernsey has recently stated its
intention to adopt a similar scheme.

Mrs Summers Shaw said:

'The sums needed for compensation would be very modest. The States
have to take responsibility for their negligence in the past in not
alerting people to the issues of asbestos.

'My understanding is that Carina has been testing the waters and
she does seem to have support from other Members. I hope the
majority of the Chamber support this.

'The numbers are relatively small and costs are minimal but it is
an important piece of legislation that would bring us in line with
the UK and other jurisdictions. It would be shameful if we
didn't.'

She added that any money needed to pay compensation would be offset
by the pension payments that would no longer be paid out to victims
of the disease.

In her proposition, Deputy Alves said: 'During the times that both
Brian Coutanche and Keith Shaw were exposed to asbestos, the States
knew of the risks involved, but did little to alert the public to
it or ban the substance. Had they taken action, exposure may not
have taken place.

'There is no denying that asbestos kills and that no amount of
money will ever bring back a life.

'However, by providing compensation to these victims, they are able
to access better levels of care, cover the additional costs of
their illness and provide access to support which would have
ordinarily been beyond their means.'

She estimated that the scheme would cost in the region of
GBP150,000 to GBP200,000 per year.

The proposition is due to be debated on Tuesday 20 November.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Williams Economic Loss Offset by Prior Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
The First District of the Court of Appeals of California reverses
the judgment with regard the third and fifth grounds raised in the
appealed case entitled Glenn Williams, et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. The Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of California,
Defendant and Respondent, No. A146060, (Cal. App. 1st), and remands
the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Appellants are the seven adult children of decedent J.D. Williams,
who died in 2010 of mesothelioma allegedly caused by exposure to
asbestos in brakes he purchased from defendant The Pep Boys Manny
Moe & Jack of California -- an automotive parts retailer and
service provider. Decedent was a do-it-yourselfer type of guy who
rarely sent one of his automobiles into the shop for work. Decedent
bought auto parts at four different shops in the area: Pep Boys,
Chief Auto Parts, Tracks and Crenshaw Auto Parts. He mostly
frequented Pep Boys and Chief Auto Parts but Pep Boys was his
favorite. Pep Boys sold asbestos-containing brakes during the
1960's through the mid-1980's. From Pep Boys Decedent bought
Bendix, EIS and Raybestos brand brakes during this period. Decedent
also purchased and installed Wagner brakes. All four brands of
brakes during this time period contained asbestos. Pep Boys did not
sell Wagner brakes. Chief Auto did not sell EIS or Raybestos brakes
but may have sold Bendix. The total number of brake jobs Decedent
did himself was 28.

The lawsuit was filed in January 2011, where Appellants asserted
claims for wrongful death, strict liability, and negligence. The
trial court granted Pep Boys' motion for judgment under Code of
Civil Procedure section 631.8 on Appellants' wrongful death claims
on the ground that they were barred by the statute of limitations,
and also as to Appellants' claim for punitive damages. After a
bench trial on the remaining claims, the trial court awarded
appellants $213,052 as economic damages, but it found that amount
was entirely offset by settlements appellants had entered into
before trial with other parties. While there was evidence that
several sources of exposure to friable asbestos all constituted
significant factors increasing his risk of contracting
mesothelioma, the trial court specifically found that among those
sources of exposure were Pep Boys' brake products, which contained
asbestos that exposed Decedent to friable asbestos fibers which he
inhaled and which were a substantial factor which increased his
risk of contracting mesothelioma.

Appellants appeal from the resulting judgment, contending that the
trial court erred in several respects. First, Appellants contend
that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Pep Boys to
amend its answer to correct a previously-asserted statute of
limitations defense. The Court finds no abuse of discretion because
in its answer, Pep Boys pled a statute of limitations defense,
citing section 340.2, the statute of limitations governing civil
actions based upon exposure to asbestos. The Court finds Appellants
were not prejudiced in the slightest by that minor technical
omission because there was no mistaking which subdivision Pep Boys
was relying upon. Subdivision (c) of section 340.2 is the
subdivision of that statute that applies to a civil action "for the
wrongful death of any plaintiff's decedent, based upon exposure to
asbestos," whereas subdivision (a) is the corresponding provision
governing an action "for injury or illness based upon exposure to
asbestos." Obviously, in this wrongful death action, Pep Boys was
relying upon subdivision (c), not subdivision (a). Thus, the
Appellants were not prejudiced by the trial court's decision to
allow Pep Boys to amend its answer to add a specific reference to
that subdivision, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in so ruling.

Appellants contend next that the trial court erred in failing to
award damages for the costs of providing home health services to
their father and his wife, Betty Williams.  Appellants sought
damages for the value of home health care and other household
services provided to Decedent before his death by several of his
children, of which substantial evidence was presented at trial. The
trial court, without explanation, did not award any damages for the
value of those services. As Pep Boys effectively concedes, the
Court finds the trial court erred in that regard. The Court
explains that in tort actions, medical expenses fall generally into
the category of economic damages, representing actual pecuniary
loss caused by the defendant's wrong. A person who undergoes
necessary medical treatment for tortiously caused injuries suffers
an economic loss by taking on liability for the costs of treatment.
Hence, any reasonable charges for treatment the injured person has
paid or, having incurred, still owes the medical provider are
recoverable as economic damages."

Appellants also sought damages for the value of home health care
damages incurred by Decedent's estate in caring for Decedent's
wife, Betty Williams, before she passed away in April 2014. Those
claims fell into two periods, before and after Decedent's death,
that warrant separate discussion. Again, Pep Boys does not contest
the recoverability of such damages here. Since substantial evidence
have been presented that the estate incurred such damages, the
trial court will determine a reasonable amount on remand.

As Appellants explain this claim, "to the extent his children were
forced to provide gratuitous home health care and other household
services to Betty up to the time of her death, Decedent's estate is
also entitled to recover those costs as damages since he had been
providing those services for his wife before he died." Appellants
claim that the reasonable value of such services was over $700,000.
The parties disagree as to whether such damages are recoverable.
Appellants contend that they are properly recovered as "lost years'
damages," representing economic losses the decedent incurred during
the period by which his life expectancy was shortened. Pep Boys, in
contrast, contends that they are not recoverable because they were
not "sustained or incurred before death," as required by section
377.34.

The Court explains that Section 377.34 provides in pertinent part
that "the damages recoverable are limited to the loss or damage
that the decedent sustained or incurred before death, including any
penalties or punitive or exemplary damages that the decedent would
have been entitled to recover had the decedent lived. . ." The
Court concludes that Pep Boys' position that damages for lost
pension benefits or other losses that occur following a decedent's
death are not recoverable appears "consistent with the plain
language of section 377.34," since by definition such damages are
not "loss or damage that the decedent sustained or incurred before
death." Thus, Appellants were not entitled to recover damages for
the value of services Decedent would have provided to his wife, had
he survived, because those claims do not represent "loss or damage
that the decedent sustained or incurred before death."

Appellants further contend that the trial court erred by offsetting
its award of economic damages by the full amount of the prior
settlements, without allocating the value of those prior
settlements as between the estate (which could recover only
economic damages) and the heirs (whose recovery could include
noneconomic damages). Appellants presented evidence that prior to
trial, they had entered into settlements totaling $721,500. As the
trial court observed, "These settlements were apparently all
lump-sum settlements, without any allocation between Plaintiffs'
claims based on wrongful death versus those based on the survivor's
statute." Appellants did not present the settlement agreements
themselves to the court, nor did they present any evidence, either
in the form of an agreement between the parties allocating the
settlement amounts as between economic and noneconomic damages or
otherwise, as to how such an allocation should be made. Instead,
Appellants took the same mistaken position they repeat on appeal:
that "it is Pep Boys' burden to prove the proper allocation of
those prior settlement amounts as between economic and noneconomic
damages and between wrongful death and survival claims. . ."
Further, they asserted, "case law firmly establishes that Pep Boys
is not entitled to any offsets in this case." Because appellants
failed to meet their burden, the Court determines that the trial
court correctly concluded that Pep Boys was entitled to an offset
in the full amount of the prior settlements.

On December 4, 2014, Pep Boys served an offer to pay appellants
$60,000 and waive the costs of its defense in exchange for a
dismissal without prejudice of all claims appellants had asserted
against Pep Boys. The offer was "contingent upon acceptance by all
plaintiffs as it is the intention of Pep Boys to obtain a full and
final resolution of all claims asserted by plaintiffs in this
matter by way of this offer." It stated, "Plaintiff Glenn Williams
is allowed to indicate acceptance of the offer by signing below
that the offer is accepted," and provided signature lines for
appellant Glenn Williams and for appellants' counsel. Appellants
did not accept the offer. Because appellants did not achieve any
net recovery, after the credit for the pretrial settlements, the
trial court held that section 998 applied and awarded Pep Boys
$16,724.10 in expert witness fees. Appellants claim that this was
error because the offer was extended jointly, without any
apportionment of the amount offered among them or their claims.

The Court determines that Appellants were not seeking to recover
for a single, indivisible injury. Rather, the pending claims Pep
Boys offered to settle in December 2014 also included survival
claims for strict products liability and negligence asserted by
Glenn Williams on behalf of Decedent's estate. The trial court
granted Pep Boys' motion for judgment under section 631.8 as to the
wrongful death cause of action and entered partial judgment against
appellants. However, the case proceeded to trial and an award
against Pep Boys (before the settlement offset) on the remaining
claims. Under the circumstances, permitting such joint offers would
introduce great uncertainty in that plaintiffs would be required to
second-guess all joint offers to determine whether a failure to
reach agreement with co-plaintiffs would cause a risk of section
998 costs against them. Thus, a defendant must serve a separate
offer on each individual plaintiff. In other words, the defendant
must apportion the offer between the plaintiffs." Because Pep Boys
did not apportion its offer among appellants' distinct claims, its
offer was invalid, and the trial court's award of expert witness
fees to Pep Boys must be reversed.

A copy of the Opinion dated August 23, 2018, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7p62fem from Leagle.com.

Farrise Law Firm, Simona A. Farrise and Alina Guzman; Arkin Law
Firm, Sharon J. Arkin, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Dentons US, Jules S. Zeman -- Jules.Zeman@dentons.com -- Bradford
J. DeJardin -- brad.dejardin@dentons.com -- Jennifer J. Lee --
jennifer.lee@dentons.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Years-Long Asbestos Reinsurance War Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
JD Supra reported that in 2013, Utica Mutual Insurance Company (the
cedent) filed a complaint alleging that Century Indemnity Company
(the reinsurer) (1) breached two reinsurance certificates executed
between the parties covering the years 1973 and 1975 in connection
with asbestos liability exposure; (2) owed the unpaid balance of
prior billings under the two certificates; (3) violated the duty of
utmost good faith and fair dealing; and (4) is obligated to pay
certain future billings. Century answered, refusing to acknowledge
the existence of a valid 1975 reinsurance certificate, and asserted
various affirmative defenses. After two years of discovery, Century
amended its answer to assert bad-faith counterclaims against Utica
alleging that Utica had been maintaining two sets of record-keeping
systems to track asbestos settlements made on behalf of the
underlying insured, allegedly part of a larger effort by Utica to
conceal the fact it had been over-billing reinsurers, including
Century, for these claims.

Utica sought partial summary judgment on various aspects of the
litigation, including that (1) Utica’s allocation decisions
related to the coverage and handling of the asbestos claims against
the underlying insured were reasonable and made in good faith, such
that the “follow the fortunes” doctrine applied; (2) the 1975
reinsurance certificate is valid and binding on Century; and (3)
Century had no right to claw back any sums previously paid to
Utica. Century responded with its own dispositive motions. The
court denied the parties’ motions with respect to most issues,
including whether Utica’s loss allocation decisions were
reasonable and made in good faith. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Century
Indem. Co., Case No. 6:13-cv-00995 (USDC N.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2018).



                            *********

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 ***