CAR_Public/181113.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, November 13, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 227

                            Headlines

60-10 BAKERY: Underpays Catering Staff, Capir Suit Alleges
A/R RETAIL: Violates Disabilities Act, Nixon Suit Says
ABBVIE INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
ACCESS WITH SUCCESS: Theodore Files ADA Suit in Massachusetts
ACCOUNTABLE HEALTHCARE: Faces Juarez Suit in N.D. California

ADECCO USA: Mo. App. Partly Affirms Campbell FCRA Suit Dismissal
ALO LLC: Violates ADA, Crosson Suit Alleges
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Strikes Class Claims in Huddleston Suit
AMERICAN AUTO CARE: Hood Files TCPA Suit in Colorado
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Denial of Rowsell Class Certification Flipped

AMERICAN HONDA: Pretrial Events Sched in Aberin Suit Approved
BAD BOY INC: Everetts Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BLACKLAPEL CUSTOM: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
C R BUNS INC: Fails to Pay Proper OT, McCoy Suit Alleges
C.C. FILSON: Nixon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

CALIFORNIA: Polk Files Class Action v. State Controller
CAMPBELL SOUP: Bankalter Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
CAPITOL HILL PUBLISHING: Sullivan Files ADA Suit in New York
CECELIA WATER: La. App. Affirms Class Certification
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces PFAS Class Action in Ohio Federal Court

CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces PFOS Class Action in N.J. Federal Court
CNG RESTAURANTS: Alford Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
COINBASE: Judge Tosses Insider Trading Class Action
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Solis Files Class Suit Under FDCPA
CONTRACT CALLERS: Bailey Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation

CORECIVIC: Court Certifies Class of Diabetic Inmates in Dodson
CORECIVIC: Dismissal Bid in Dodson Partly Granted
COTY INC: Court Dismisses B. Franks Class Action Complaint
CRITERION WORLDWIDE: Fenton Seeks Over Unpaid Overtime, Min. Wages
CROCKETT & JONES: Nixon Suit Asserts ADA Breach

DAIRYAMERICA INC: New Escrow Agent Established in Carlin Suit
DOUGH JOE LLC: Underpays Kitchen Staffs, Espinoza and Sucup Say
EQUIFAX INC: Red Cliff Band Files FCRA Suit in Wisconsin
EVERYDAY BEAUTY: Court Allows 2nd Amended Yang FLSA Suit
FAMILY FIRST LIFE: Albrecht Files Suit Over Unwanted Calls

FARMERS UNION: Iowa Residents Mull Class Action Over Odors
FINANCIAL INDEMNITY: Protective Order Bid in Bhasker Partly OK'd
FLOWERS BAKING: Underpays Sales Managers, Button Suit Alleges
FORD MOTOR: Must Face SUV Carbon Monoxide Class Action
FORSTER & GARBUS: Court Dismisses Rueda Suit Without Prejudice

FOUNDRY THEATRE: Faces Dominguez ADA Class Action in NY
GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: Final Approval of Muransky Deal Affirmed
GOOGLE LLC: Can Compel Arbitration in Trudeau Suit
GOOGLE LLC: High Court to Take Hard Look at Cypres Deals
GRAY TELEVISION: John O'Neil Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois

GRENDENE NEW YORK: Olsen Files Suit Alleging ADA Breach
HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Moves to Pause Canosa Sexual Harassment Case
HEALTHRIGHT LLC: Nelson Files Labor Class Action in Florida
HEALTHSOUTH BAKERSFIELD: Mortimer Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HOUSTON, TX: Attorneys Look for More Flood Victims for Class-Action

IXYS CORP: Sanchez Securities Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Settlement in Russell Suit Has Final Approval
KENYA POWER: Consumers Angered Over Out of Court Settlement
LANDRY TREBBI: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
LG ELECTRONICS: Acosta Sues Over Defective Washing Machines

MACY'S INC: Court Narrows Claims in Hawes Suit
MCCARTHY BURGESS: Sued Over Deceptive Collection Practices
MGT CAPITAL: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
MISSOURI: Juvenile Parole Process Unconstitutional, Court Says
MONEYMUTUAL LLC: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Rilley Suit Denied

NANO: Judge Tosses Crypto Investor's Class Action
NEW YORK, NY: M.F. Files ADA Suit v. NYCDOE
NEW YORK: DOE Faces Class Action Over Bullying Problems
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Bid to File Cox Deal Under Seal Denied
PAY-O-MATIC: Faces Nixon ADA Class Suit in NY

PIZZA HUT: Can Compel Arbitration in Hobon FLSA Suit
PLAZA ATHENEE: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in New York
PRET A MANGER: Agrees to Pay $1MM to Shortchanged US Workers
PROVIDE COMMERCE: Attys' Fees Award in Easysaver Suit Vacated
PURDUE PHARMA: Reynolds Files RICO Class Action in Oregon

RELIQ HEALTH: Rosen Law Firm Mulls Investors Class Action
REYNOLDS AND REYNOLDS: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $29.5MM
SATURDAYS SURF: Olsen Files ADA Suit in New York
SATYA JEWELRY: Violates Disabilities Act, Nixon Suit Asserts
SCANA: Can Afford to Compensate Ratepayers Over Failed Project

SCANA: May Opt for Bankruptcy Amid Nuclear Meltdown Class Actions
SONIC CORP: Federman Files Securities Suit Over Sonic Merger
SOUTH FLORIDA INSTITUTE: Gomez Files Suit Under TCPA
STEINHOFF: Law Firms Launch Investors Class Action
STITCH FIX: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action

SUGARFINA INC: Nixon Files ADA Suit in New York
TASCHEN AMERICA: Dominguez Sues Book Publisher for ADA Breach
TECHNOGYM USA: Dominguez Files Suit Asserting ADA Violation
THURSTON COUNTY, WA: SSOSA Evaluation Ruling Reversed
TIE BAR: Fischler Files ADA Suit in New York

TRANS-INDIA PRODUCTS: Faces Orlowski Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TRANSAM LEASING: Court Dismisses Fox Suit with Prejudice
TREASURE ISLAND: Faces Class-Action From Non-Unionized Workers
TREASURE ISLAND: TCPA Suit Challenges Use of A.I.
TRUMAKER INC: Andrews Files ADA Suit in New York

UNITED STATES: ICE Ordered to Unseal Iraqi Detainees' Documents
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: 93 Additional Women File Sex Abuse Suits
V.F. JEANSWEAR: Faces Fischler ADA Class Action
VIP KIDZ: Castro Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
VOLKSWAGEN: Quinn Emanuel Files Class Action Over Airbags

WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action in San Francisco Over Robocalls
WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC:  Violates Disabilities Act, Nixon Suit Asserts
YNAP CORPORATION: Violates ADA, Dominguez Suit Says
ZILLOW GROUP: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
ZIMMER BIOMET: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action


                            *********

60-10 BAKERY: Underpays Catering Staff, Capir Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
CELSO TECUN CAPIR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 60-10 BAKERY INC. d/b/a TOST CAFE,
and SUMNDER SINGH, Defendants, Case No. CV18-5746 (E.D.N.Y., Oct.
15, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular
hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and
rest periods.

Mr. Capir was employed by the Defendants as catering staff from
January 2015 to May 2018.

60-10 Bakery Inc. d/b/a Tost Cafe is a corporation organized under
the laws of the State of New York. The Company is engaged in
catering food. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


A/R RETAIL: Violates Disabilities Act, Nixon Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A/R Retail, LLC. The
case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A/R Retail, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-06133 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 1, 2018).

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

A/R Retail LLC is a privately held company in New York, NY,
categorized under Shopping Centers and Malls.[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


ABBVIE INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of AbbVie 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.

AbbVie Inc. (NYSE: ABBV)
Class Period: October 25, 2013 - September 18, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 20, 2018
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/abbvie-inc-loss-form?wire=3

The lawsuit alleges: AbbVie Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements throughout the class period and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) AbbVie's strategy to increase the sales growth
of its blockbuster drug, HUMIRA, relied in part upon illegal
kickbacks and unlawful sales and marketing tactics; (2) such
practices would foreseeably lead to heightened scrutiny by State
governments and agencies; and (3) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

To learn more about the AbbVie Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]


ACCESS WITH SUCCESS: Theodore Files ADA Suit in Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uber Technologies,
Inc. The case is captioned as Dino N. Theodore, and Access With
Success, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-12147-DPW (D. Mass., Oct. 15, 2018). The class action
lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case is assigned to Judge Douglas P. Woodlock.

Uber Technologies, Inc. develops, markets, and operates a
ridesharing mobile application which allows consumers to submit a
trip request, which is routed to crowd-sourced partner drivers. The
company was formerly known as UberCab Inc. and changed its name to
Uber Technologies, Inc. in October 2010. Uber Technologies, Inc.
was founded in 2008 and is based in San Francisco, California, with
an engineering center in Bengaluru, India and a regional office in
Singapore. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas S. Guerrera, Esq.
          SHAHEEN GUERRERA & O'LEARY, LLC
          820A Turnpike Street
          North Andover, MA 01845
          Telephone: (978) 689-0800
          Facsimile: (978) 794-0890
          E-mail: nguerrera@sgolawoffice.com


ACCOUNTABLE HEALTHCARE: Faces Juarez Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Accountable Healthcare Staffing, Inc. The case is captioned as
SARAH REYNOSA-JUAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCOUNTABLE HEALTHCARE STAFFING,
INC.; and ACCOUNTABLE HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS CORP., Defendants, Case
No. 5:18-cv-06302-NC (N.D. Cal., Oct. 15, 2018). The case is
assigned to Nathanael M. Cousins.

Accountable Healthcare Staffing, Inc. provides healthcare staffing
services. The company offers personnel and resources to hospitals
and other healthcare facilities. The company was founded in 1999
and is based in Boca Raton, Florida. As of July 25, 2012,
Accountable Healthcare Staffing, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Accountable Healthcare Holdings Corp. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan Bunnell Piller, Esq.
          Joshua Geoffrey Konecky, Esq.
          Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP
          2000 Emeryville Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: npiller@schneiderwallace.com
                  jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com


ADECCO USA: Mo. App. Partly Affirms Campbell FCRA Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HERNANDEZ CAMPBELL, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others, Appellants, v. ADECCO USA, INC., Respondent, Case No.
WD81324 (Mo. App.), Judge Lisa White Hardwick of the Court of
Appeals of Missouri for the Western District affirmed in part and
reversed in part the circuit court's judgment dismissing Campbell's
putative class action lawsuit against Adecco for violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").

Campbell applied to work for Adecco, a staffing company with an
office in Missouri, in August or September 2015.  As part of his
application, he electronically signed a document titled "Background
Authorization and Release" on Sept. 28, 2015.  

In November 2015, Campbell received an interview with Adecco.
Adecco hired him and placed him at Challenge MFG as a forklift
driver and weld operator.  Adecco ordered a consumer report on
Campbell from First Advantage.  First Advantage completed the
report in late December 2015.  On Dec. 24, 2015, Adecco informed
Campbell that he should not report back to work at Challenge MFG
and was no longer eligible for employment through Adecco due to
information contained in the report from First Advantage.

In January 2016, Campbell filed a putative class action complaint
in the Circuit Court of Cole County alleging that Adecco violated
the FCRA with regard to the consumer report that it obtained from
First Advantage.  In his complaint, Campbell alleged that Adecco
did not comply with the FCRA requirements for procuring the
consumer report and terminating his employment based upon that
report.

Adecco subsequently removed the case to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri.  While the case was pending
before the federal court, Campbell filed an amended complaint in
December 2016.  In his amended complaint, Campbell asserted three
types of claims on behalf of himself and his proposed classes of
the Plaintiffs: (1) Adverse Action; (2) Disclosure; and (3)
Authorization.

In his Adverse Action claim, Campbell alleged that Adecco violated
the FCRA by failing to provide him a copy of the consumer report
that was used to take adverse action against him; failing to
provide him a copy of the FCRA-mandated summary of rights; and
failing to provide him a reasonable time to address the consumer
report and/or any inaccuracies within the report.  He asserted that
these FCRA violations resulted in an informational injury because
he was denied the opportunity to review and discuss the contents of
the consumer report before he was terminated, plus lost wages and
lost opportunity.  For all of his claims, Campbell requested
statutory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and costs.

Adecco moved to dismiss Campbell's amended complaint in the federal
court.  Adecco asserted, among other things, that the amended
complaint showed that Campbell had not suffered any concrete injury
and, therefore, lacked Article III standing sufficient to establish
subject matter jurisdiction.  In response, Campbell asserted that
his amended complaint sufficiently alleged his injuries. Campbell
also filed a motion to remand the case back to the Circuit Court of
Cole County on the basis that the parties agreed that the federal
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

The federal court determined that Campbell failed to allege a
concrete injury sufficient to establish standing.  Specifically,
with regard to his Adverse Action claim, the federal court
concluded that any alleged loss he suffered could not have resulted
from Adecco's failure to give him a reasonable amount of time to
address what was revealed in his consumer report.  As for the
informational injury asserted in his Disclosure and Authorization
claims, the federal court found that Campbell alleged only that
Adecco's form was not in the format required by statute, and he did
not allege that the form failed to contain the information required
by the FCRA. W ith regard to the invasion of privacy injury
asserted in his Disclosure and Authorization claims, the federal
court found that Campbell had failed to allege that he or a
reasonable person would have been confused by the extraneous
information in the consent form or that he would not have signed
the form had he known that some information in it was inaccurate.
Because Campbell alleged only "bare procedural violations" and not
a concrete injury sufficient to establish standing, the court found
that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his claims.  The
federal court remanded the case back to the Circuit Court of Cole
County.

On remand, Adecco moved to dismiss Campbell's amended complaint for
lack of standing and for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted.  Following a hearing, the circuit court granted
Adecco's motion and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice.


Campbell appeals.  In his sole point on appeal, Campbell contends
the circuit court erred in dismissing his amended complaint based
on lack of standing.

Although Campbell contends that his allegations were sufficient to
establish a concrete injury, Judge Hardwick disagrees.  She finds
that Campbell failed to identify what the alleged errors in the
consumer report were or how those alleged errors caused him harm or
presented a material risk of causing harm.  Moreover, Campbell's
assertion that, if he had been provided a copy of the consumer
report and the summary of rights and had been able to address the
alleged errors with Adecco, he may have been able to maintain his
employment and/or maintain his ability to work for Adecco, was
purely conjectural and hypothetical.  Neither Campbell's vague
assertion that the consumer report was not maximally accurate nor
his speculative contention that, absent the FCRA violations, he
"may have been able to maintain his employment" alleged an injury
that actually existed.  Therefore, she finds that Campbell failed
to allege a concrete injury sufficient to confer standing on his
Adverse Action claim.  The court properly dismissed the claim.

The Judge also finds that Campbell has sufficiently alleged a
concrete injury.  Campbell did not simply complain that the
disclosure was not in the statutorily-required format; rather, he
contended that Adecco's failure to follow the required format by
including extraneous, misleading, and inaccurate information
confused him and would confuse a reasonable person such that no
reasonable person would believe that the document was a disclosure
that a consumer report would be procured.

The Judge finds that Campbell's contentions that he was confused by
the disclosure, that no reasonable person would believe it was a
disclosure, and that he never authorized Adecco to obtain a
consumer report on him identified actual harms from Adecco's
alleged FCRA violations.  The harms were that, as a result of the
FCRA violations, the disclosure failed to inform Campbell that
Adecco intended to obtain a consumer report on him, which would
constitute an informational injury, and Adecco procured the
consumer report without his authorization, which would constitute
an invasion of privacy injury.  Campbell alleged concrete injuries
sufficient to satisfy Missouri's standing requirements on his
Disclosure and Authorization claims.  Therefore, the circuit court
erred in dismissing those claims.

Accordingly, Judge Hardwick affirmed the circuit court's judgment
dismissing Campbell's Adverse Action claim for lack of standing.
She reversed the judgment dismissing Campbell's Disclosure and
Authorization claims and remanded.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/55tpJN from Leagle.com.

Charles J. Brown -- cbrown@gsbblaw.com -- Jayson A. Watkins, Gower,
for appellants.

Frederick H. Riesmeyer, II -- friesmeyer@sb-kc.com -- Benjamin A.
Reed -- breed@sgrlaw.com -- Kansas City for respondent.


ALO LLC: Violates ADA, Crosson Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ALO, LLC. The case is
styled as Aretha Crosson individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. ALO, LLC doing
business as: Alo Yoga, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06275 (E.D.
N.Y., Nov. 5, 2018).

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

Alo Yoga manufactures and sells yoga wear & accessories for yoga
and working out that combines luxury and performance in each
collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group, P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11217
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Strikes Class Claims in Huddleston Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUCAS HUDDLESTON, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-09100 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Abdrea R. Wood
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, granted American Airlines' motion to strike
Huddleston's class allegations.

On January 16, 2016, Plaintiff Huddleston arrived at the Hong Kong
airport and attempted to check in for his American Airlines flight
to Dallas, Texas 50 minutes before its scheduled departure time.
To his dismay, he was told that his reservation had been cancelled
because he was too late.  

According to Huddleston, although American Airlines includes in its
contract with customers a requirement that international passengers
be at their departure gate 30 minutes before takeoff or else their
reservation will be cancelled, there is no similar rule concerning
the time passengers must check in.  Nonetheless, American Airlines
enforces a policy under which it cancels the reservations of
passengers who fail to check in 60 minutes before flights departing
from an international airport to a domestic airport or 45 minutes
before flights departing from a domestic airport to an
international airport.

Huddleston believes that American Airlines' enforcement of this
policy breaches its contract with its passengers.  Thus, he has
filed the present lawsuit seeking to represent a putative class of
passengers who have had their reservations cancelled as a result of
this policy.  

The class he seeks to represent includes all persons in the United
States who bought tickets on flights marketed and operated by
American Airlines, traveled without checked baggage, and were
refused travel because they either: (1) attempted to check in for a
flight departing from an international airport and arriving at a
U.S. airport more than thirty minutes but within sixty minutes
before the scheduled departure time; or (2) attempted to check in
for a flight departing from a U.S. airport and arriving at an
international airport more than thirty minutes but within
forty-five minutes before the scheduled departure time.

According to Huddleston, American Airlines breached its contract
with him and the class members by refusing to allow them to travel
on their ticketed flights based on "arbitrary" deadlines that are
not specified in the contract.  That breach caused the class
members to suffer damages in the form of potential additional fees
associated with rescheduling flights, forfeiture of benefits for
which passengers already paid, and out-of-pocket expenses resulting
from being forced to travel on later flights.

American Airlines now moves to strike Huddleston's class
allegations.  It asserts that because of the unique circumstances
surrounding the cancellation of Huddleston's reservation, he fails
to meet the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3).  Furthermore,
American Airlines argues that the class allegations should be
stricken because Huddleston cannot satisfy the commonality
requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) and the predominance requirement of
Rule 23(b)(3).

At the pleading stage, Judge Wood is unable to conclude that
Huddleston would not meet the typicality requirement.  A class
discovery is needed to test American Airlines' claim that such
screening takes no less than 30 minutes.  If this claim proves
true, then Huddleston would not be able to satisfy typicality
because that additional 30 minutes means that if he checked in at
any time after the 60-minute cutoff, he would definitely not reach
his departure gate in time.  Yet, it may also be the case that the
additional screening might entail only a delay of an additional
minute or two.  In that case, this additional circumstance would
not be so unique as to render him atypical as a class
representative.  For this reason, the Judge cannot strike class
allegations at this stage due to failure of typicality.

American Airlines also argues that the class allegations should be
stricken because there would need to be countless individualized
inquiries to resolve each class member's claim.  The Judge finds it
clear from the pleadings that determining American Airlines'
liability to the proposed class members would require
individualized factual inquiries as to each member.  Thus,
Huddleston's proposed class does not meet the predominance
requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).  For that reason, his class
allegations must be stricken.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wood granted American Airlines'
motion to strike class allegations.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 2, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/kiOlS9 from Leagle.com.

Lucas Huddleston, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Gordon Edelman --
ben@benedelman.org -- Law Offices of Benjamin Edelman, pro hac
vice, James L. Thompson -- jthompson@lynchthompson.com -- Lynch
Thompson, LLP, John E. Sindoni -- jsindoni@bonizack.com -- Boni &
Zack LLC, pro hac vice, Joshua David Snyder -- jsnyder@bonizack.com
-- Boni, Zack & Snyder LLC, pro hac vice, Michael J. Boni --
mboni@bonizack.com -- Boni, Zack & Snyder LLC, pro hac vice & Oren
S. Giskan -- ogiskan@gslawny.com -- Giskan Solotaroff & Anderson,
LLP.

American Airlines, Inc., Defendant, represented by Livia McCammon
Kiser -- lkiser@kslaw.com -- King and Spalding LLP, Mark Bruce
Blocker, Sidley Austin LLP & Jessica Johnson Fishfeld --
JFISHFELD@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin Llp.


AMERICAN AUTO CARE: Hood Files TCPA Suit in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Auto Care,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Alexander Hood on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. American
Auto Care, LLC a Florida limited liability company, Beacon
Financial Solutions, LLC a Florida limited liability company,
Jessie Britt individual, Kylie Britt individual, David Glenwinkel
individual, Ramin Amirebrahimi individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-02807-SKC (D. Colo., Nov. 2, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

American Auto Care LLC is a privately held company in North
Andover, MA and is a Single Location business, categorized under
Car Repair and Services.

Beacon Financial Planning Services, LLC, serves clients in several
states. It offers comprehensive financial planning and consulting
and a full range of services and products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dustin Thomas Lujan, Esq.
     1603 Capitol Avenue, Suite 310 A559
     Cheyenne, WY 82001
     Phone: (970) 999-4225
     Email: wyoadvocate@gmail.com


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Denial of Rowsell Class Certification Flipped
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, C.D. ROWSELL et al., Cross-complainants and
Appellants, v. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB et al., Cross-defendants
and Respondents, Case No. A142306 (Cal. App.), Judge Timothy A.
Reardon of the Court of Appeals of California for the First
District, Division Four, reversed the trial court's order denying
the Appellants' motion for class certification.

In this cross-action arising out of an underlying collection suit,
Cross-complainants and Appellants Rowsell and Bosonda International
Ltd. (Bosonda) seek a declaratory judgment on behalf of themselves
and a putative class of American Express credit and charge
cardholders that the arbitration provisions in their cardmember
agreements are unconscionable and unenforceable.

Cross-defendant and Respondent American Express Bank, FSB ("AEFSB")
is a federally chartered savings bank engaged in the business of,
among other things, issuing American Express credit cards and
charge cards.  The Appellants are former cardmembers on three AEFSB
business credit accounts that were opened on various dates in 2006
and 2007.  At the time the accounts were opened, Bosonda was
incorporated in Delaware and doing business in California, with its
principal place of business in China.  Rowsell is Bosonda's
founder, president, and chairman of the board.

The Appellants failed to make timely and sufficient payments on
their accounts, and AEFSB cancelled the accounts as of June 2009.
The total current balance due on the accounts is $84,423.18.  In
July 2010, AEFSB filed a collection action against Rowsell to
recover the balance owed on one of the accounts.

In response, Rowsell filed a motion to compel arbitration seeking,
counterintuitively, a ruling that the arbitration provision was
unconscionable.  After AEFSB voluntarily dismissed the collection
action, Rowsell filed a demand for arbitration with the American
Arbitration Association ("AAA") seeking to arbitrate the issue of
whether the arbitration provision in the cardmember agreement was
unconscionable.  AAA declined Rowsell's demand for arbitration, and
Rowsell later filed a demand for arbitration with JAMS.

In December 2010, AEFSB filed the underlying collection action
against Rowsell.  Rowsell filed a putative class action
cross-complaint against AEFSB and two other American Express card
issuers, American Express Centurion Bank ("AECB") and American
Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. ("AETRSC"), alleging
the arbitration provision in the cardmember agreement was
unconscionable and unlawful under the Unfair Competition Law, and
seeking a declaratory judgment to that effect.  Rowsell again moved
to compel arbitration, but the motion was stricken as a sham.

After a demurrer to the cross-complaint was partially sustained
with leave to amend, the Appellants filed the operative first
amended cross-complaint against AEFSB, AECB, AETRSC, and American
Express Co.  They alleged the arbitration provisions drafted and
inserted by respondents into cardmember agreements and gift card
terms and services agreements were unconscionable and in violation
of the UCL.  The first amended cross-complaint contained seven
causes of action, six under the UCL and the seventh for declaratory
judgment.

In October 2012, during the pendency of the litigation, the
Respondents sent some of their cardmembers a change-in-terms notice
informing them that effective Jan. 1, 2013, the arbitration
provision in the cardmember agreement would be replaced with a new
section entitled "Claims Resolution" (modified arbitration
provision).  

Meanwhile, the Respondents prevailed in court on several challenges
to the Appellants' causes of action.  The trial court sustained
without leave to amend their demurrer to the UCL claims pertaining
to the gift card allegations (second, fourth, and sixth causes of
action).  In May 2013, the trial court granted the Respondents'
motion for summary adjudication of the remaining UCL claims (first,
third, and fifth causes of action) on the grounds that the
Appellants lacked standing because they did not allege or present
evidence of a nontrivial monetary loss that resulted from the
alleged UCL violations.  The trial court denied summary
adjudication of the seventh cause of action for declaratory
judgment.

Thereafter, the Appellants moved for a determination of class
issues on their sole surviving claim for declaratory judgment.
They sought to certify the class of all persons and entities
residing in California and having a California billing address
who/which, according to the records of American Express Co.
(including its subsidiaries, affiliates, or licensees), have paid
or are paying annual fees to American Express for American Express
charge cards and/or credit cards bearing the American Express name
or the American Express trade or service mark or logo issued by
American Express pursuant to a card agreement containing an
arbitration provision during all or any part of the period covered
by the applicable limitations period and pendency of the action.

On May 12, 2014, the trial court issued a detailed order denying
the motion for class certification.  It denied class certification
on the grounds that (1) Rowsell was not an adequate representative
and did not have claims typical of the putative class, (2)
individualized issues would predominate regarding whether the
arbitration provisions were procedurally unconscionable and the
requested declaratory relief was necessary or proper, and (3) a
class action would not be superior to individual actions.

On June 30, 2014, the Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal.

Among other things, Judge Reardon feels that the trial court did
not give due consideration to the allegations and theory of relief
advanced by the Appellants and failed to take a broader, systemic
view concentrating on the Respondents' policies and practices.  To
the extent the trial court implicitly rejected the Appellants'
theory of an overarching dispute with respondents as not a
necessary or proper basis for granting declaratory relief, it was
an adjudication of the merits that was not essential to decide the
class certification issues.  For these reasons, the Judge finds
that the trial court's decision as to the declaratory relief claim
rested on improper criteria.

The trial court also improperly ignored allegations of procedural
unconscionability in the first amended cross-complaint and
erroneously assumed that the procedural unconscionability
determination would necessarily involve unalleged circumstances of
contract formation for each putative class member.  The Judge
accordingly concludes that the court used improper criteria and
made erroneous assumptions in finding that the determination of
procedural unconscionability would involve predominantly
individualized issues.

On the record before him, the Judge finds that the proper
disposition is to reverse the order and remand with instructions
for the trial court to reconsider the propriety of the class
certification motion in a manner consistent with the determinations
expressed above, and to consider the other certification
requirements that the trial court did not previously determine.  He
therefore reversed the order denying the Appellants' motion for
class certification, and remanded the matter for further
consideration consistent with his Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 2, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/1sDwlx from Leagle.com.


AMERICAN HONDA: Pretrial Events Sched in Aberin Suit Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LINDSAY and JEFF ABERIN (a married couple), DON
AWTREY, CHARLES BURGESS, JOHN KELLY, YUN-FEI LOU, JOY MATZA, and
MELISSA YEUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-04384-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S.
Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California approved the Parties' Schedule of Pretrial Events
through Briefing Related to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.  

The Parties, through their respective counsel and pursuant to the
direction of the Court, propose a schedule to govern the litigation
through to the completion of briefing related to the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.  The schedule adopts the Schedule
of Pretrial Events through Decision on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification which approved a schedule based on the
then-undetermined date of the close of pleadings as the starting
point of deadlines for the close of discovery and the subsequent
briefing related to the class certification.  The pleadings closed
on May 28, 2018 when the Defendant filed its Answer to Plaintiffs'
Third Amended Class Action Complaint.

Judge Tigar approved the following pretrial events schedule:

     i. Close of Discovery in Advance of Class Certification:

          a. Close of Fact Discovery - Feb. 28, 2019 (Close of
Pleadings + 9 months)

          b. Close of Expert Discovery in Advance of and Related to
Class Certification - April 29, 2019 (Close of Fact Discovery + 2
Months).

     ii. Briefing Related to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification:

          a. Motion in Support of Class Certification - May 29,
2019 (Close of Expert Discovery + 30 days).

          b. Opposition to Motion for Class Certification - July
15, 2019 (Motion for Class Certification + 45 days).

          c. Reply in Support of Class Certification - Aug. 14,
2019 (Opposition to Class Certification + 30 days).

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 2, 2018 Stipulated Order is
available at https://is.gd/kPOBtt from Leagle.com.

Yun-Fei Lou, Lindsey Aberin, Don Awtrey, John Kelly & Melissa
Yeung, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Shana E. Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com
-- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Catherine Gannon --
catherineg@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice, Christopher A. Seeger -- cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger
Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel R. Leathers --
DLeathers@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, David
Brian Fernandes-  dfernandes@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C.,
James E. Cecchi -- jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -- Carella Byrne Cecchi
Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah -- jshah@sfmslaw.com
-- Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor,
Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip
Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K.
Tellis -- rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan
George -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, Stephen A. Weiss -- cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss
LLP & Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Jeff Aberin, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Gannon, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss LLP,
pro hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger Weiss LLP & Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Joy Matza, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Gannon, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss LLP,
pro hac vice, Scott Alan George , Seeger Weiss LLP, Stephen A.
Weiss, Seeger Weiss LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Charles Burgess, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Christopher A. Seeger
Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Amanda M. Steiner, Terrell Marshall Law Group
PLLC, Catherine Gannon, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Daniel R.
Leathers, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes,
Baron & Budd, P.C., James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein
Brody & Agnello, P.C., James C. Shah, Shepherd Finkelman Miller &
Shah, LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody &
Agnello, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland K.
Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Scott Alan George, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro
hac vice, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger Weiss LLP, Steve W. Berman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Toby James
Marshall, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice.

American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Livia
M. Kiser -- lkiser@sidley.com -- King & Spalding LLP & Michael
Brian Shortnacy -- mshortnacy@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP.


BAD BOY INC: Everetts Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Chad Everetts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Bad Boy, Inc., and Bad Boy Mowers, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00085-DPM (E.D. Ark., November 2,
2018) was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act for declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties
and costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee as a result of
Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other hourly-paid
employee's proper overtime compensation for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff and other hourly-paid
manufacturing plant employees for all hours worked, even though
Defendants were aware of all hours worked, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Chad Everetts is a citizen and resident of Independence
County. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly-paid
manufacturing plant employee from around February of 2012 until
August of 2018 at Defendants' manufacturing facility in
Batesville.

Defendants operate a mower manufacturing facility in Batesville,
Arkansas. Defendant Bad Boy, Inc. is a domestic, for-profit
corporation registered to do business in the State of
Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLACKLAPEL CUSTOM: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blacklapel Custom
Clothiers, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Blacklapel Custom Clothiers, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06264 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 4, 2018).

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

Black Lapel makes custom suits and shirts for men of all shapes and
sizes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: doug@lipskylowe.com

          - and -

     Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


C R BUNS INC: Fails to Pay Proper OT, McCoy Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT MCCOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. C R BUNS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-VOE-2018-12898 (Cal. Super., San
Joaquin Cty., Oct. 15, 2018) is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. McCoy was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee.

C R BUNS, INC. is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren M. Cohen, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903


C.C. FILSON: Nixon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C.C. FILSON CO. The
case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C.C. FILSON CO., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-06269 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 5, 2018).

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

C.C. Filson is a Seattle, Washington based, privately owned
outfitter and manufacturer of goods for outdoor enthusiasts. The
company designs, manufactures, distributes and sells men's and
women's outdoor clothing, accessories and luggage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (718) 971-9474
     Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


CALIFORNIA: Polk Files Class Action v. State Controller
-------------------------------------------------------
A civil rights class action has been filed against the State
Controller of California. The case is styled as Delores Polk on
behalf of herself and similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Betty Yee in
her official capacity as State Controller of California, SEIU Local
2015, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02900-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal., Nov.
1, 2018).

Betty T. Yee is an American politician and member of the Democratic
Party who has served as California State Controller since 2015. She
previously served as a member of the California Board of
Equalization from 2004 to 2015. She won the open seat for
Controller in the 2014 election, with 54% of the vote.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven R. Burlingham, Esq.
     Gary, Till, Burlingham & Lynch
     1380 Lead Hill Blvd, Suite 200
     Roseville, CA 95661
     Phone: (916) 332-8122
     Fax: (916) 332-8153
     Email: steveb@gtblaw.com


CAMPBELL SOUP: Bankalter Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bankalter, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Campbell Soup Company, Denise M.
Morrison, and Anthony P. DiSilvestro, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-15694 (D. N.J. November 5, 2018) seeks to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint says Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company's Campbell Fresh division was suffering from known business
headwinds, negatively impacting its profitability; and (ii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Due to the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members suffered significant
losses and damages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff acquired Campbell securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation
of the alleged corrective disclosures.

Campbell is a global food company that sells soups, packaged meals,
beverages, snacks, and packaged fresh foods. The Company's Campbell
Fresh division includes: Bolthouse Farms fresh carrots, carrot
ingredients, refrigerated beverages and refrigerated salad
dressings; Garden Fresh Gourmet salsa, hummus, dips and tortilla
chips; and the U.S. refrigerated soup business.

Denise M. Morrison was the President and Chief Executive Officer of
Campbell from the beginning of the Class Period through May 18,
2018.

Anthony P. DiSilvestro is and, throughout the Class Period, was the
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Campbell.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq.
     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
     Email: jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com
            jalieberman@pomlaw.com
            ahood@pomlaw.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

     Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
     BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 697-6484
     Email: peretz@bgandg.com


CAPITOL HILL PUBLISHING: Sullivan Files ADA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capitol Hill
Publishing Corp. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr. on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10243
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 5, 2018).

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

Capitol Hill Publishing Corp. publishes newspapers. The company
profiles lawmakers and aides, sociology and politics, book and
restaurant reviews, and inner workings of Congress. It provides
opinion view news by various subjects, such as defense and homeland
security, energy and environment, healthcare, finance and economy,
technology, foreign policy, labor, and transportation and
infrastructure.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street
     2nd Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 465-1188
     Fax: (212) 465-1181
     Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


CECELIA WATER: La. App. Affirms Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAJUNS FOR CLEAN WATER, LLC ET AL. v. CECELIA WATER
CORPORATION D/B/A CECILIA WATER CORPORATION, ET AL, Case No. 18-185
(La. App.), Judge Sylvia R. Cooks of the Court of Appeal of
Louisiana for the Third Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Jacqueline Berard, Brandi Berard1 and Cajuns filed suit against
Cecelia Water Corp. ("CWC") and their insurer, American Alternative
Insurance Corp., alleging damages as a result of poor water
quality, no and/or low water pressure, arsenic contamination,
bacterial contamination, and insufficient water supplied to meet
ordinary daily needs of the Plaintiffs.

In the "First Supplemental and Amending Petition," Glenn Richardson
and Laci Soileau joined as additional Plaintiffs adopting all
claims made by the original Plaintiffs and seeking the same relief
for damages.  The Plaintiffs filed a "Motion to Certify Class"
seeking to convert the suit to a class action pursuant to the
provisions of La.Code Civ.P. art. 591, asserting there are
approximately 11,700 potential putative class members who have
sustained injuries as a result of the Defendant's alleged actions
and inactions concerning their supplying water to the local
population served by CWC.

After a full hearing on the matter the trial court rendered
judgment granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The trial court defined the class as all persons, businesses, or
entities who belong to at least one of the following three groups,
and who as a direct result of receiving their water service from
Cecelia Water Corp. between Dec. 1, 2010 and February 2015, have at
least one of the following claims: mental and emotional distress;
non-reimbursed personal expenses, non-reimbursed business expenses;
loss of personal income; loss of business income; nuisance,
annoyance, discomfort, and inconvenience; trespass; personal injury
including fear of contraction of disease or illness; economic
damages or property damage.

     1. Households and their residents who at any time between Dec.
1, 2010 and Feb. 28, 2015, were receiving their water supply from
the Cecelia Water Corp;

     2. Owners and/or occupants of businesses, schools or health
care facilities who at any time between Dec. 1, 2010 and Feb. 28,
2015, were receiving their water supply to that business, school,
or health care facility from the Cecelia Water Corp.; and

     3. Lessor/Lessees of residential and/or commercial property
who at any time between Dec. 1, 2010 and Feb. 28, 2015, were
receiving their water supply to that property from the Cecelia
Water Corp.

The trial court also confirmed Jacqueline Berard and Glenn
Richardson as the representatives of the class and confirmed
Jacques Pierre Soileau and W. Glenn Soileau as the counsel for the
Class.  Further, the trial court prohibited any contact between the
defense counsel and the class representatives or class members
regarding the class action suit unless otherwise approved by the
Court in advance.

The trial court rendered an eight-page written reasons for judgment
setting forth its findings of fact and detailing its reasons for
concluding the Plaintiffs satisfied the numerosity, commonality,
typicality, and adequacy requirements of La.CodeCiv.P. art 591(A)
as well as its reasons for identifying an objectively definable
class of claimants.  The Plaintiffs also presented evidence
satisfying one or more criteria of La.C.C.P. art. 591(B) according
to the trial court.

The Defendants appeal the trial court's order granting class
certification and the trial court's definition of the class,
asserting the trial court failed to perform a rigorous analysis of
the claims and defenses presented.  They also assert the Plaintiffs
failed to establish commonality, predominance and superiority
because they cannot prove breach, causation, and damages on a
class-wide basis.  Additionally, the Defendants maintain the trial
court erroneously based its finding of numerosity on the number of
potentially aggrieved parties rather than on the number of
individuals actually aggrieved.

Judge Cooks is convinced that the record supports the trial court's
findings and she find sthe procedural requirements for
certification of the suit as a class action are fully met.  She
also finds the trial court's class definition sufficiently
identifies an objectively definable class of claimants.  Therefore,
she affirmed the judgment of the trial court in all respects and
the costs of the appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/S4qUvo from Leagle.com.

John Michael Parker -- john.parker@taylorporter.com -- L. Adam
Thames -- adam.thames@taylorporter.com -- Taylor, Porter, Brooks &
Phillips, LLP, P. O. Box 2471, Baton Rouge, LA 70821, (225)
381-0272, Attorneys for Defendant/Appellant. Cecelia Water
Corporation.

Rachael S. Kellogg -- rkellogg@schafer-law.com -- Schafer &
Schafer, LLP, 328 Lafayette Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, (504)
522-0011, Attorney for Defendant/Appellant, American Alternative
Insurance Corporation.

Jacques P. Soileau, P. O. Box 344, Breaux Bridge, LA 70517, (337)
332-4561, Attorney for Plaintiffs/Appellees, Jacqueline Berard,
Glenn Richardson, Laci Soileau and Cajuns for Clean Water, LLC.


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces PFAS Class Action in Ohio Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company 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 putative class action was filed in
October 2018 in Ohio federal court against 3M Company (3M), DuPont,
Chemours, and other defendants seeking class action status for U.S.
residents having a detectable level of perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in their blood serum.  The
complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including the
establishment of a PFAS Science Panel.

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America.  It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions.  The Chemours
Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware.


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces PFOS Class Action in N.J. Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that a putative class action was filed in
October 2018 in New Jersey federal court against 3M, DuPont, and
Chemours alleging causes of action, including negligence, nuisance,
and trespass and seeking damages including property diminution,
remediation, treatment, and abatement with compensatory and
punitive damages.  The purported class includes private drinking
water and well owner-occupants within two to five miles of the
Company's Chambers Works, New Jersey site containing any detectable
level of PFOA or perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS).

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America.  It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions.  The Chemours
Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware.


CNG RESTAURANTS: Alford Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashleigh Alford, Stephanie Mendez-Mmartinez, and Brittany Ozment,
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees,
Plaintiffs, v. CNG Restaurants, LLC, and Front Burner Restaurants,
LP, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01225 (M.D. Tenn., November 1,
2018) seeks to recover unpaid (or underpaid) minimum and overtime
wages, an equal amount of liquidated damages, costs, attorneys'
fees, and all other legal or equitable relief to which they and
other similar situated employees who join this action are
entitled.

The complaint says the Defendants have had a uniform policy and
practice of requiring, suffering, or permitting Plaintiffs and all
other similarly situated employees to perform compensable work even
though Defendants failed to record or compensate the employees for
these "off the clock" work hours.

Plaintiffs each reside in this judicial district. Plaintiffs are
former Twin Peaks Girls who worked at the Brentwood, Tennessee
location as servers, hostesses, and bartenders.

CNG is a franchisee of Twin Peaks branded restaurants and operates
a location in Brentwood, Tennessee.

Front Burner operates the Twin Peaks branded restaurants,
maintaining strict controls over the concept, including the service
standards, appearance and training of "Twin Peaks Girls" such that
Front Burner is a joint employer of Plaintiffs and all other
similarly situated employees.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
     YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
     2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
     Nashville, TN 37215
     Phone: 615-250-2000
     Fax: 615-250-2020
     Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com

          - and -

     Douglas B. Janney III, Esq.
     Law Office of Douglas B. Janney III
     2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
     Nashville, TN 37215
     Phone: (615) 742-5900
     Email: doug@janneylaw.com


COINBASE: Judge Tosses Insider Trading Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Molly Jane Zuckerman, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that a
U.S. district judge has dismissed the lawsuit over alleged insider
trading against crypto wallet and exchange Coinbase during its
launch of Bitcoin Cash support last year. The lawsuit alleged that
Coinbase employees had benefited from insider trading in the
process of adding support for the altcoin. However, the judge noted
that the plaintiff didn't have a sufficient legal basis for his
claims in the complaint, and dismissed the class action without
prejudice. [GN]


COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Solis Files Class Suit Under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Commonwealth
Financial System, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Marisol Solis
v. Commonwealth Financial System, Inc., Pendrick Capital Partners,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06130 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 1, 2018).

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

Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc., doing business as NCC,
operates as a collection agency. It provides account receivable
management and financial services in Northeastern Pennsylvania. The
company's account receivable management services comprise first
party outsourcing, check collections, third party collections, skip
tracing, billing services, on-site collections, debt purchasing,
and credit bureau reporting.

Pendrick Capital Partners provides consumer debt underwriting and
servicing services. The company is based in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     Sanders Law, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 281-7601
     Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


CONTRACT CALLERS: Bailey Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Patricia Bailey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Contract Callers Inc. and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04773-AB (E.D. Penn. November 5, 2018)
is a class action on behalf of a class of Pennsylvania consumers
seeking damages under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Plaintiff is a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Bucks,
residing at 208 Rocksville Road, Holland, PA 18966.

Contract Callers is a "debt collector" as the phrase is defined in
15 U.S.C. and used in the FDCPA with an address at 501 Greene
Street, 3rd Floor, Suite 302, Augusta, Georgia 30901. Defendant is
a company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and
regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is to
attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.

John Does 1-25, are fictitious names of individuals and businesses
alleged for the purpose of substituting names of Defendants whose
identities will be disclosed in discovery and should be made
parties to this action.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Antranig Garibian, Esq.
     GARIBIAN LAW O.FFICES, P.C.
     1800 JFK Blvd, Suite 300
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Email: ag@garibianlaw.com


CORECIVIC: Court Certifies Class of Diabetic Inmates in Dodson
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOUGLAS DODSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CORECIVIC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00048 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge William
A. Campbell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs and the potential class members are inmates who are,
or have been, incarcerated at Trousdale Turner Correctional
Facility, a private prison owned and operated by Defendant
CoreCivic ("CCA"), formerly Corrections Corporation of America.
The Plaintiffs and the proposed class are persons with
insulin-dependent diabetes who require blood sugar monitoring and
insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes.
They assert that the Defendants have deprived, and continue to
deprive, them of access to this basic diabetes care at Trousdale.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Tennessee Department of
Corrections ("TDOC"), Parker (as Commissioner), and CCA have denied
them and the potential class members accommodations for their
disabilities as required by the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by assigning them to
incarceration at Trousdale.  They also aver that CCA has subjected
them and the potential class members to cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the U.S. Constitution, through policies and practices that manifest
deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs' serious medical needs,
specifically access to basic diabetes care -- blood sugar
monitoring and insulin administration in coordination with regular
mealtimes.  The Plaintiffs contend that these actions by all the
Defendants have caused them serious injury.

The Plaintiffs' purported class action seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief only.  They ask the Court to certify a class of
all persons with insulin-dependent diabetes who are, have been, or
may become housed at Trousdale.  They ask the Court to certify the
class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(1) or (b)(2).

Judge Campbell finds that the Plaintiffs have met the requirements
of Rule 23(a), Rule 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2).  He therefore certified
the class of all inmates with Type I and insulin-dependent Type II
diabetes who are or may become housed at Trousdale Turner
Correctional Facility and who require access to blood sugar checks
and insulin administration in coordination with regular mealtimes.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/BYTlvA from Leagle.com.

Douglas Dodson & Jasper L. Vick, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles
P. Yezbak, III, Yezbak Law Offices, Jon C. Goldfarb, Wiggins,
Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, PLLC, Justin S. Gilbert, Gilbert
McWherter Scott Bobbitt PLC, L. William Smith, Wiggins, Childs,
Quinn & Pantazis, PLLC & Rachel McGinley --
rmcginley@wigginschilds.com -- Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis,
PLLC.

Edward Judd, Plaintiff, represented by Jon C. Goldfarb --
jcg@wigginschilds.com -- Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, PLLC &
L. William Smith -- wsmith@wigginschilds.com -- Wiggins, Childs,
Quinn & Pantazis, PLLC.

CoreCivic, doing business as Corrections Corporation of America,
Defendant, represented by Erin Palmer Polly --
Erin.Polly@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP, Joseph F. Welborn,
III -- Joe.Welborn@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP & Kyle V.
Miller -- kyle.miller@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP.

Tennessee Department of Correction & Tony Parker, Commissioner of
Tennessee Department of Correction, Defendants, represented by
Jennifer L. Brenner -- jennifer.brenner@ag.tn.gov -- Tennessee
Attorney General's Office & Torrey Samson --
torrey.samson@ag.tn.gov -- Tennessee Attorney General's Office.

American Diabetes Association, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by
Alan L. Yatvin, Popper & Yatvin, Justin S. Gilbert, Gilbert
McWherter Scott Bobbitt PLC & Sarah Fech-Baughman, American
Diabetes Association.


CORECIVIC: Dismissal Bid in Dodson Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOUGLAS DODSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CORECIVIC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00048 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge William
A. Campbell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee, Nashville Division, (i) denied Defendants Tennessee
Department of Corrections ("TDOC") and Tony Parker's Supplemental
Motion to Dismiss; and (ii) granted in part and denied in part
CoreCivic's Supplemental Motion to Dismiss and for Summary
Judgment.

Dodson and Jasper Vick are inmates who were incarcerated at
Trousdale Turner Correctional Facility, a private prison owned and
operated by Defendant CoreCivic ("CCA"), formerly Corrections
Corporation of America.  The Plaintiffs and the proposed class
members are persons with insulin-dependent diabetes who require
access to blood sugar monitoring and insulin administration in
coordination with regular mealtimes.  They assert that the
Defendants have deprived, and continue to deprive, inmates with
insulin-dependent diabetes access to basic diabetes care at
Trousdale.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants TDOC, Parker (as
Commissioner) ("State Defendants"), and CCA have denied the
Plaintiffs and the potential class members reasonable
accommodations for their disabilities, as required by the
Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities
Act ("ADA"), by assigning them to incarceration at Trousdale.

The Plaintiffs also aver that CCA has subjected them and the
potential class members to cruel and unusual punishment in
violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution by policies and practices that manifest deliberate
indifference to their serious medical needs, specifically access to
basic diabetes care -- blood sugar monitoring and insulin
administration in coordination with regular mealtimes.  The
Plaintiffs contend that these actions by all the Defendants have
caused them serious injury.  They seek declaratory and injunctive
relief only.

Pending before the Court are CoreCivic's Supplemental Motion to
Dismiss and for Summary Judgment; and Defendants TDOC and Parker's
Supplemental Motion to Dismiss.

The State Defendants ask the Court to dismiss the action based on
failure to exhaust administrative remedies.  They assert that
Plaintiff Dodson failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA").

Judge Campbell cannot resolve the disputed issue of fact on a
motion to dismiss.  Moreover, he cannot treat the Motion to Dismiss
as one for summary judgment in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(d), because the State Defendants have not complied with Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56 and Local Rule 56.01.  Therefore, the Judge will deny
the State Defendants' Supplemental Motion to Dismiss for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies.

As to CoreCivic's Motion for Summary Judgment, the Judge finds that
there is no persuasive evidence that the Defendants intentionally
"picked off" the named Plaintiffs in order to strategically avoid
litigation.  At best, there are genuine issues of material fact
concerning this allegation.  In any event, he finds that the
Plaintiffs' claims are not moot.  Given the length of litigation
and the shortage of judges in the district, any challenged action
(or lack thereof) at Trousdale could be too short to be fully
litigated before the named Plaintiffs or other class members are
transferred.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs may rely upon the
"inherently transitory" exception to mootness in order to show
standing in the case.  The Judge will deny CCA's motion on the
mootness issue.

The Judge is contemporaneously certifying a class in the action
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2).  Therefore,
pursuant to the authorities, the Plaintiffs have, at a minimum,
raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether Dodson and
other members of the class may rely upon Vick's exhaustion to
proceed.  CCA's motion on the exhaustion issue will be denied.

Finally, the Plaintiffs agree with the dissent in Edison v.
Douberly and argue that CCA should be subject to suit under Title
II of the ADA.  They contend that cases that have held to the
contrary are wrongly decided.  The Judge will not depart from the
majority view, however, unless and until the Sixth Circuit holds
otherwise.  Hence, the Plaintiffs' Title II ADA claims against CCA
will be dismissed.

For all these reasons, Judge Campbell denied Defendants TODC and
Parker's Supplemental Motion to Dismiss; and granted in part and
denied in part CoreCivic's Supplemental Motion to Dismiss and for
Summary Judgment.  The Plaintiff's ADA claims against CCA are
dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/sNzXdU from Leagle.com.

Douglas Dodson & Jasper L. Vick, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles
P. Yezbak, III, Yezbak Law Offices, Jon C. Goldfarb, Wiggins,
Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, PLLC, Justin S. Gilbert, Gilbert
McWherter Scott Bobbitt PLC, L. William Smith, Wiggins, Childs,
Quinn & Pantazis, PLLC & Rachel McGinley --
rmcginley@wigginschilds.com -- Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis,
PLLC.

Edward Judd, Plaintiff, represented by Jon C. Goldfarb --
jcg@wigginschilds.com -- Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, PLLC &
L. William Smith -- wsmith@wigginschilds.com -- Wiggins, Childs,
Quinn & Pantazis, PLLC.

CoreCivic, doing business as Corrections Corporation of America,
Defendant, represented by Erin Palmer Polly --
Erin.Polly@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP, Joseph F. Welborn,
III -- Joe.Welborn@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP & Kyle V.
Miller -- kyle.miller@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP.

Tennessee Department of Correction & Tony Parker, Commissioner of
Tennessee Department of Correction, Defendants, represented by
Jennifer L. Brenner -- jennifer.brenner@ag.tn.gov -- Tennessee
Attorney General's Office & Torrey Samson --
torrey.samson@ag.tn.gov -- Tennessee Attorney General's Office.

American Diabetes Association, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by
Alan L. Yatvin, Popper & Yatvin, Justin S. Gilbert, Gilbert
McWherter Scott Bobbitt PLC & Sarah Fech-Baughman, American
Diabetes Association.


COTY INC: Court Dismisses B. Franks Class Action Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHAMIKA JONES, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COTY INC., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-0622-WS-B (S.D. Ala.), Judge
William H. Steele of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Alabama, Southern Division, dismissed without prejudice
Plaintiff Brianna Franks' class action complaint.

The matter comes before the Court sua sponte.  On Sept. 14, 2018,
the Judge entered an omnibus Order addressing numerous pending
motions, including six summary judgment motions, in these
consolidated cases.  With respect to Plaintiff Brianna Franks, the
September 14 Order directed the parties to show cause, on Sept. 28,
2018, why Franks' surviving individual claims should not be
dismissed for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.  The
September 28 deadline has expired with no response from any parties
to the show-cause portion of the omnibus Order.

In her Class Action Complaint originally filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, prior to
consolidation in the Court, Franks alleged that federal
jurisdiction was proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)
because there are more than 100 Class members, the aggregate amount
in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest, fees, and
costs, and at least one Class member, Plaintiff Breonna Franks, is
a citizen of a state different from at least one Defendant.

Judge Steele holds that Franks' Class Action Complaint lacked any
other jurisdictional allegations.  The Court now knows that Franks
has chosen not to pursue any class claims, but instead advances
purely individual claims as set forth in her Complaint.  In the
wake of the summary judgment ruling, her only remaining causes of
action against defendants are purely individual claims under
Mississippi law for unjust enrichment (Count I) and breach of
express warranty (Count III).  Obviously, jurisdiction cannot lie
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d) as to Franks' Complaint
because Franks is no longer pursuing any class claims.

While Franks' individual state-law claims might be subject to
supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367, the
subsequent dismissal/abandonment of her class claims weighs in
favor of the Court declining to exercise such supplemental
jurisdiction and instead dismissing the remaining claims without
prejudice.  The propriety of this result is reinforced by the facts
that: (i) no party elected to be heard in response to the Show
Cause Order; and (ii) Franks' claims are brought under Mississippi
law, whereas the only remaining class claims joined in this action
sound exclusively under Alabama law (for violation of the Alabama
Deceptive Trade Practices Act).  Such Mississippi claims are best
resolved by Mississippi courts.

For all of the foregoing reasons, Judge Steele in his discretion
elects not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff
Brianna Franks' remaining individual state-law claims asserted
against the Defendants.  Accordingly, he dismissed Franks' Class
Action Complaint without prejudice to her ability to refile in
state court.

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

Carrie Bowens, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph L. Tucker, Jackson
& Tucker, P.C., K. Stephen Jackson, Jackson & Tucker, P.C., W.
Lewis Garrison, Jr. -- lewis@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger Garrison
Davis LLC & Brandy Lee Robertson -- brandy@hgdlawfirm.com --
Heninger Garrison Davis LLC.

Coty, Inc., The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co., Inc., The
Procter & Gamble Distributing, L.L.C., Procter and Gamble Hair
Care, L.L.C. & The Procter & Gamble Company, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Jeffrey B. Cannon, Jr., Huie Fernambucq & Stewart,
LLP, Walter J. Price, III -- wprice@huielaw.com -- Huie, Fernambucq
& Stewart, LLP & Hugh Cannon Lawley  -- Cannon@huielaw.com -- Huie,
Fernambucq & Stewart.


CRITERION WORLDWIDE: Fenton Seeks Over Unpaid Overtime, Min. Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Siobhan Fenton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Criterion Worldwide and Lewis Morton,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10224 (S.D. N.Y., November 2, 2018)
seeks damages and other legal and equitable relief from Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and The New York
Labor Law.

Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of 2 collectives of persons
who are and were employed by Defendants as Account Executives
during the past 3 years through the final date of the disposition
of this action who: (i) are/were not paid the statutorily required
overtime rate of 1 1/2 times their regular hourly rate for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek in violation of the
FLSA; and (ii) are/were not paid the statutorily required federal
minimum wage for all hours worked per workweek in violation of the
FLSA and who are entitled to recover unpaid and incorrectly paid
wages for all hours worked in a workweek, as required by law,
unpaid overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other and further
relief as the Court finds necessary and proper, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant within the meaning of
the FLSA and the NYLL and a resident of New York County, New York.

Defendant Criterion Worldwide is an entity operating within the
State of New York and within this judicial district. Criterion's
principal place of business is located within in New York County,
New York.

Defendant Lewis Morton is a British citizen and resides in New York
County, New York and is the Owner, President, Shareholder, Officer,
and/or Director of Defendant Criterion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew L. Berman, Esq.
     James Vagnini, Esq.
     Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq.
     Sara Wyn Kane, Esq.
     Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP
     600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7180
     Fax: (516) 706-0248


CROCKETT & JONES: Nixon Suit Asserts ADA Breach
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crockett & Jones
U.S.A., Inc. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Crockett &
Jones U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06271 (E.D. N.Y.,
Nov. 5, 2018).

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

Crockett & Jones is a shoe manufacturing company. It specializes in
the manufacture of Goodyear-welted footwear. It is currently being
run by the great grandson of its co-founder, Charles Jones.
Crockett & Jones produces both men's and women's footwear with
three collections offered for men and a limited range of boots and
low heeled shoes produced for women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (718) 971-9474
     Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


DAIRYAMERICA INC: New Escrow Agent Established in Carlin Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERALD CARLIN, JOHN RAHM, PAUL ROZWADOWSKI and DIANA
WOLFE, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAIRYAMERICA, INC. and
CALIFORNIA DAIRIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:09 CV 00430-AWI
(EPG) (E.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division,
granted the named Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to substitute the
escrow agent and to extend the date by when the Defendants are to
pay the first settlement payment-installment.

The Judge ordered that the paragraph 8.1 of the Settlement
Agreement is modified to state:

     8.1 The Escrow Account will be established at Huntington
National Bank (Escrow Agent), such escrow to be administered under
the Court's continuing supervision and control.  Class Counsel will
insist on an escrow agreement that requires appropriate accounting
records to be maintained to reflect all transactions involving the
Settlement Fund which will be kept on a calendar year, as required
by Treas. Reg. Section 1.468B-2(j).

He also ordered that paragraph 7.1 of the Settlement Agreement is
modified to state:

     7.1 Monetary Payment.  Defendants will pay an aggregate of
$40,000,000 (the Settlement Amount) in two payment-installments of
$20,000,000 each.  The first payment installment of $20,000,000 in
U.S. dollars (First Payment-Installment), will be paid no later
than ten (10) business days following completion of all of the
following events: (1) the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order;
(2) entry of an order adopting this Jointly Agreed-Upon
Modification No. 1 to Settlement Agreement; and (3) receipt by
Defendants of complete payee information, including an executed
Form W-9, and complete payment instructions.  The second
payment-installment of $20,000,000 in U.S. dollars (Second Payment
Installment) will be paid by the later of (a) ten (10) business
days following the Effective Date or (b) January 11, 2019.

     3. The deadline for Defendants to wire the first payment
installment of $20,000,000 in U.S. dollars is extended from
September 28, 2018 to ten (10) business days from the completion of
both of the following events: (1) entry of this order; and (2) the
receipt by Defendants of complete payee information, including an
executed Form W-9, and complete payment instructions.

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

Gerald Carlin, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, John Rahm, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated & Paul Rozwadowski,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by A. Chowning Poppler --
apoppler@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco, Anthony David
Phillips -- aphillips@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio,
Benjamin Doyle Brown -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and
Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C. Laufenberg --
claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac
vice, Christopher Heffelfinger -- cheffelfinger@bermantabacco.com
-- Berman Tabacco, George F. Farah, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and
Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris --
jfarris@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, Justin N. Saif
-- jsaif@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio, pro hac vice,
Leslie M. Kroeger, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice
& Ryan McDevitt -- rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com, -- Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., pro hac vice.

Diana Wolfe, Plaintiff, represented by A. Chowning Poppler, Berman
Tabacco, Anthony David Phillips, Berman DeValerio, Benjamin Doyle
Brown, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Brent W. Johnson, Cohen
Milstein Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Cari C. Laufenberg,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Christopher Heffelfinger,
Berman Tabacco, George F. Farah, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll
PLLC, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris, Keller Rohrback LLP, Justin N.
Saif, Berman DeValerio, pro hac vice & Ryan McDevitt, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice.

DairyAmerica, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles M. English,
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice, E. John Steren --
esteren@ebglaw.com -- Ober Kaler, pro  hac vice, Joseph Michael
Marchini -- jmm@bmj-law.com -- Baker, Manock & Jensen, Wendy M.
Yoviene -- wyoviene@bakerdonelson -- Ober Kaler, pro hac vice,
Allison Ann Davis -- allisondavis@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine
LLP, Joy G. Kim -- joykim@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP &
Sanjay Mohan Nangia --  sanjaynangia@dwt.com -- Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP.

California Dairies, Inc., Defendant, represented by by Lawrence
Michael Cirelli -- lcirelli@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett,
Shannon Marie Nessier, Hanson Bridgett LLP & Megan Oliver Thompson,
Hanson Bridgett LLP.

Bimemiller Candice, Non-Party Candice Bimemiller, Unknown,
represented by Edward Zusman, Markun Zusman Freniere & Compton
LLP.

James Rehberg & Ronald Hayek, ThirdParty Plaintiffs, represented by
J. Barton Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm, pro hac vice & Jon A. Tostrud,
Tostrud Law Group, P.C.

Michael K. Schugg, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by J. Barton
Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm, pro hac vice & Juli E. Farris, Keller
Rohrback LLP.

Timothy L. Rawlings, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by J. Barton
Goplerud, Hudson Law Firm, pro hac vice, Juli E. Farris, Keller
Rohrback LLP, Mark A. Griffin, Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice &
Raymond J. Farrow, Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice.

Land O' Lakes, Inc., Amicus, represented by Gregory M. Schweizer --
gschweizer@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP, pro hac vice, Scott
C. Solberg --ssolberg@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP, pro hac
vice & Seth D. Hilton -- sethhilton@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP.

California Farmers Union & California Dairy Campaign, Amicuss,
represented by Daniel Bennett Harris.

Lani Ellingsworth, Movant, represented by Darin M. Dalmat --
dmdalmat@jamhoff.com -- James & Hoffman, P.C. & Glenn Rothner,
Rothner, Segall & Greenstone.


DOUGH JOE LLC: Underpays Kitchen Staffs, Espinoza and Sucup Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
SELVIN ESPINOZA, and ALEJANDRO SUCUP, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOUGH JOE LLC D/B/A
HINOMARU RAMEN; and MIN LEE, Defendants, Case No. CV18-5745
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 15, 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 kitchen staff.

Dough Joe LLC d/b/a Hinomaru Ramen is a corporation oraganized
under the laws of the State of New York. The Company is engaged in
the restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EQUIFAX INC: Red Cliff Band Files FCRA Suit in Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. The
case is styled as Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
individually and on behalf of its members and class representatives
for similarly situated federally recognized Indian Tribes and
Nations, Plaintiff v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-00903 (W.D. Wis., Nov. 1, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S.
Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions,
and Global Consumer Solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Michael Ujke, Esq.
     Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
     88385 Pike Road, Hwy 13
     Bayfield, WI 54814
     Phone: (715) 779-3725
     Email: dujke@redliff-nsn.gov

          - and -

     James Nixon Daniel, III, Esq.
     Beggs & Lane RLLP
     501 Commendencia Street
     Pensacola, FL 32502
     Phone: (850) 469-3306
     Email: jnd@beggslane.com

          - and -

     Thomas Roe Frazer, II, Esq.
     Frazer, PLC
     1 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 215
     Nashville, TN 37215
     Phone: (615) 647-0990 x1
     Email: roe@frazer.law


EVERYDAY BEAUTY: Court Allows 2nd Amended Yang FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LINGMAIN YANG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EVERYDAY BEAUTY
AMORE INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-729 (BMC) (E.D.
N.y.), Judge Brian M. Cogan of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend their complaint.

The Plaintiffs bring the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law, seeking to represent both a collective
and a class of similarly situated employees.  The Plaintiffs are
former in-store salespersons at the Defendants' cosmetic stores.  

Specifically, the named Plaintiffs claim that they were employed at
stores located at 6301 8th Avenue, store #21, in Brooklyn, New York
(owned and operated by named Defendant Everyday Beauty Aritaum
Inc.); 6301 8th Avenue, store #12-13, in Brooklyn, New York (owned
and operated by named Defendant Everyday Beauty Amore Inc.); 40-24
College Point Boulevard, Suite B211, in Flushing, New York (owned
and operated by named Defendant Everyday Beauty Amore LLC); and
136-20 Roosevelt Avenue, Unit 202-205 in Flushing, New York (owned
and operated by named Defendant Everyday Beauty Missha Corp.).

The Plaintiffs also name Xiu Qing Su and Xin Lin as individual
Defendants, alleging that they are the owners, officers, directors,
and managing agents of the corporate Defendants, and make all
business decisions with respect to employees' salaries and the
number of hours they work.

The Plaintiffs' (currently operative) first amended complaint
alleges that the Defendants are a single enterprise under the FLSA.
However, at a premotion conference on Aug. 15, 2018, the Court
deferred ruling on the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify
a collective action until the Plaintiff alleged additional,
non-conclusory facts to support its theory of single enterprise
liability in a proposed second amended complaint.

The Defendants generally deny the Plaintiffs' claims and raise
several counterclaims, including that the Plaintiffs fraudulently
diverted customer reward points for their personal use and stole
the company's confidential customer lists.  They also contest the
fact that named Plaintiff Yang Lingmin is an employee; rather, they
contend that Lingmin is an employer under the FLSA, and thus cannot
adequately represent a collective or class action of employees.
The Defendants also filed a third-party complaint against Mei Hui
Jiang, alleging that Jiang was also liable to defendants for the
alleged fraud and theft.

The Plaintiffs move for leave to amend their complaint to (1) add a
named Plaintiff, (2) add 19 corporate Defendants, (3) plead
additional facts to support their claim that the corporate
Defendants constitute a single enterprise, (4) remove their claim
for spread-of-hours pay, and (5) disclaim named Plaintiff Yang
Lingmin's desire to act as a representative of the other Plaintiffs
in the putative collective and class actions.

The Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' motion to the extent it seeks
to add the 19 proposed corporate Defendants on the ground that the
Plaintiffs lack Article III standing.

Judge Cogan finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded
that the corporate Defendants (including the 19 proposed entities)
constitute a single enterprise under the FLSA.  First, the
Plaintiffs have included facts to support the point that the
corporate defendants engage in the same or similar activities.
Second, they have made a sufficient showing at this stage of common
operation and control.  Finally, they've sufficiently alleged that
the corporate Defendants share a common business purpose -- namely,
to compete in commercial activity for the sale of beauty supplies.


Although the Plaintiffs have established their standing to sue the
19 proposed corporate Defendants, the Judge must still grant the
Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.  He finds that the
Plaintiffs have good cause to amend the complaint in this instance.
Their previous counsel withdrew on June 25, 2018 and their current
counsel appeared on July 6, 2018.  The new facts alleged in the
proposed second amended complaint were obtained through a good
faith investigation conducted by the Plaintiff's new counsel, and
they should be able to amend their complaint accordingly.  Put
simply, the Plaintiffs' delay was not due to their lack of
diligence.  Further, as the case is still in its infancy, allowing
the amendment will not severely prejudice the Defendants.

Therefore, Judge Cogan granted the Plaintiffs' motion to amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2018 Memorandum Decision
and Order is available at https://is.gd/r56gDR from Leagle.com.

Lingmin Yang, Lanqing Lin, Yong Shan Su, Lixian Qian & En Lin Xiao,
individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron Schweitzer, Troy Law,
PLLC & John Troy , Troy & Associates, PLLC.

Mei Hui Jiang, Plaintiff, represented by John Troy, Troy &
Associates, PLLC.

Everyday Beauty Amore Inc., Beauty Aritaum Corp., Xiu Qing Su,
Everyday Amore LLC & Everyday Beauty Missha Corp., Defendants,
represented by Felice B. Ekelman -- Felice.Ekelman@jacksonlewis.com
-- Jackson Lewis, P.C., Christine Lee Hogan -- clhogan@littler.com
-- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Douglas J. Klein --
Douglas.Klein@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP & Kevin K. Yam
-- kyam@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C.

Everyday Beauty Amore Inc., Everyday Amore LLC, Everyday Beauty
Missha Corp., Beauty Aritaum Corp. & Xiu Qing Su, ThirdParty
Plaintiffs, represented by Felice B. Ekelman, Jackson Lewis, P.C.,
Christine Lee Hogan, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Douglas J. Klein,
Jackson Lewis LLP & Kevin K. Yam, Littler Mendelson P.C.

Mei Hui Jiang, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Aaron
Schweitzer, Troy Law, PLLC & John Troy, Troy & Associates, PLLC.

Everyday Beauty Amore Inc., Everyday Amore LLC, Everyday Beauty
Missha Corp., Beauty Aritaum Corp. & Xiu Qing Su, Counter
Claimants, represented by Felice B. Ekelman, Jackson Lewis, P.C.,
Christine Lee Hogan, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Douglas J. Klein,
Jackson Lewis LLP & Kevin K. Yam, Littler Mendelson P.C.

Lanqing Lin, Lixian Qian, Yong Shan Su & En Lin Xiao, individually
and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, Counter
Defendants, represented by Aaron Schweitzer , Troy Law, PLLC, John
Troy, Troy & Associates, PLLC & Keli Liu, Hang & Associates, PLLC.

Lingmin Yang, Counter Defendant, represented by Aaron Schweitzer,
Troy Law, PLLC & John Troy, Troy & Associates, PLLC.


FAMILY FIRST LIFE: Albrecht Files Suit Over Unwanted Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Albrecht and Joshua Berger, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Family First Life, LLC,
and Wellcare Health Plans of New Jersey, Inc. Defendants, Case No.
8:18-cv-01967 (C.D. Cali., November 1, 2018) seeks damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in
negligently and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiffs'
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The consumers have complained about calls from Well Care, and that
calls have been placed "continuously" or for the purpose of
selling. There are also numerous consumer reports online of
unwanted calls from Defendants, notes the complaint.

Family First contracted with WellCare to have WellCare place calls
to consumers for the purpose of providing Family First with the
contact information of consumers who are likely to want to purchase
life insurance.
Family First directed and had control over when these calls were
made to consumers, as well as the content of the scripts that
Defendant WellCare's agents were to use in placing the calls.

Plaintiffs are, and at all times mentioned herein were, a citizen
and resident of the State of California.

Family First is a limited liability company whose corporate
headquarters is in Connecticut.

WellCare is a corporation that is incorporate in New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Nicholas R. Barthel, Esq.
     Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Phone: (800) 400-6808
     Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
     Email: ak@kazlg.com
            jason@kazlg.com
            nicholas@kazlg.com


FARMERS UNION: Iowa Residents Mull Class Action Over Odors
----------------------------------------------------------
Amy H. Peterson, writing for Estherville News, reports that on Oct.
25, many local residents received a letter from James Larew of the
Larew Law Office with locations in Des Moines, Muscatine and in
eastern Iowa. The letter, clearly marked as Advertising Material,
invited local residents to attend a meeting with Larew Nov. 3 in
Estherville.

Retired attorney Max Pelzer said, "This is just a way to drum up
business. There was a time lawyers were very restricted on how they
could advertise and what they could say in their ads. Now they
advertise on TV and radio and make all kinds of claims."

According to Bankrate, class action lawsuits rarely end with
significant payouts to the little guys. The attorneys and the named
plaintiffs may receive a large payout, but plaintiffs not named in
the suit (known as class members) could be one of thousands of
plaintiffs with the judgment money divided as such. Forty million
class members in a recent suit against Target received $0.25 each
after the $10 million was divided.

Researchers at Mayer Brown looked up every consumer class action in
federal court in 2009 reported by two major commercial lawsuit
journals. They discovered that in five of six cases where data was
available, the percentage of class members who actually got money
ranged from a high of 12 percent to a low of 0.000006 percent. If
the more appealing prospect is a day in court, telling a judge and
perhaps a jury how the odor has affected one's family, as an
example, not a single case studied by Mayer Brown went to trial.

It's all in the process. Once a judge certifies a case as an action
on behalf of a class of thousands of consumers, attorneys for the
company usually find the stakes too high for companies to consider
anything less than settling. Sometimes plaintiff attorneys settle
voluntarily, at which point the records become confidential so that
class members never find out how much their onetime lawyers were
paid to drop what once seemed like a promising case.

There is some protection from the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005, which limited some of the most egregious practices of the
class action bar.

The Iowa State Bar Association recommends contacting your own
attorney, because participating in a class action lawsuit will
affect your right to file an action on your own.

Class action lawsuits can also take years to wind down.

The Emmet County Board of Supervisors is taking action. They are
going on a private tour of Central Bi-Products' Estherville
rendering plant, then convening in closed session for discussion of
pending litigation.

Oct. 1, county attorney Doug Hansen filed a petition for a civil
penalty against Farmers Union Industries, doing business as Central
Bi-Products.

That demand seeks $4,750 in the form of a civil penalty plus court
costs for committing a county infraction, a civil offense, and four
repeat offenses.

$750 is sought for leaving carcasses on the open air on semi
trailers June 27, a violation of the Conditional Use Permit.

$1,000 is sought for the company allegedly allowing fluids from
dead carcasses to spill onto its property and draining onto
adjacent property.

$1,000 is sought for failure to process carcasses in an enclosed
facility and failing to clean up and dispose of fluid that had
spilled on July 10.

$1,000 is sought for all day July 11 in which at least 19 citizens
in the area of the plant called the county to complain of the
odor.

$1.000 is sought for dates from July 12 to July 23 in which at
least 38 citizens called to complain about the odor.

All of these infractions would constitute a violation of the
requirement in the Conditional Use Permit to "make all reasonable
effort to control odor."

Farmers Union Industries filed a boilerplate answer to the petition
in which they deny the statements in the petition and seek a
hearing on the matter. [GN]


FINANCIAL INDEMNITY: Protective Order Bid in Bhasker Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HELEN BHASKER, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Defendant, CIV No. 17-260 JB/JHR (D. N.M.), Magistrate Judge Jerry
R. Ritter of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion for
Protective Order.

Bhasker, was rear-ended by a third party while traveling eastbound
on I-40 on June 24, 2015, and sustained bodily injuries and other
damages as a result of the collision.  The Plaintiff received the
full extent of liability coverage carried by the tortfeasor
($25,000), and turned to her own insurance carrier, Defendant
Financial Indemnity Co., to recover underinsured motorist
benefits.

The parties agree that the Plaintiff's damages exceed $50,000.
However, the Plaintiff's insurance policy with the Defendant only
contained minimal underinsured motorist coverage of $25,000 per
person and $50,000 per accident; therefore, the Defendant denied
her claim, reasoning that New Mexico is a difference state.

Having received no value from the coverage she purchased from the
Defendant, the Plaintiff claims that the underinsured motorist
coverage she purchased from the Defendant was, accordingly,
illusory under New Mexico law.

The Plaintiff filed her Class Action Complaint for Breach of
Statutory, Common Law, and Contractual Duties in New Mexico state
court on Dec. 30, 2016.  The Defendant removed the case to the
Court on Feb. 24, 2017, citing the Class Action Fairness Act and
diversity of the parties.

In her Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to
act honestly and in good faith when it solicited and sold
superfluous and illusory minimal limits underinsured motorist
coverage to their insureds (in whole or in part) in violation of
New Mexico law, and/or denied claims for the benefits of that
coverage.  

The Plaintiff brings the following claims on her own behalf and on
behalf of the putative class: negligence (Count I); violation of
New Mexico's Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count II); violation of
New Mexico's Unfair Insurance Practices Act (Count III); breach of
contract (Count IV); breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing (Count V); and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief
(Counts VI-VII).

The Plaintiff defines the putative class as all persons (and their
heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns) who, in
the prior six years from the date of the filing of the complaint,
were a policy holder and/or insured, of a Motor Vehicle Policy
issued by the Defendant where that policy did not and does not
provide underinsured coverage paid for by the policyholder, and
sold and solicited by the dDfendant, due to the application of an
offset as set forth in NMSA 66-5-301, otherwise known as the New
Mexico offset law or being a difference state.

The current dispute involves the Defendant's Rule 30(b)(6)
deponents: specifically, the Plaintiff's 19 proposed deposition
topics for the witnesses.  While it indicates in its Motion and
Reply that it will provide witnesses to discuss most of the
Plaintiff's topics, the Defendant asks the Court to limit those
topics on a number of grounds and preclude questioning in certain
areas.   The Plaintiff opposes a protective order and asks that the
Defendant be compelled to provide testimony as initially
requested.

Magistrate Judge Ritter granted the Defendant's motion only insofar
as the Plaintiff's topics exceed the permissible scope of
discovery, which, in the lawsuit, is restricted to underinsured
motorist coverage.  Otherwise, the Defendant has failed to show
good cause to preclude questioning on many of the topics the
Plaintiff proffered.  He recognizes that preparing its witnesses
may prove burdensome in light of these rulings.  However, while the
counsel will have to carefully prepare the 30(b)(6) representative,
they must always do so.  Wherefore, the Magistrate Judge granted in
part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion seeking a protective
order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/zejITz from Leagle.com.

Helen Bhasker, Plaintiff, represented by Kedar Bhasker & Corbin
Hildebrandt, Corbin Hildebrandt, P.C.

Financial Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Kerri Lee
Allensworth , O'Brien & Padilla, Alicia M. Santos --
asantos@obrienlawoffice.com -- O'Brien & Padilla, PC & Mark L.
Hanover -- mark.hanover@dentons.com -- Dentons, pro hac vice.


FLOWERS BAKING: Underpays Sales Managers, Button Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD BUTTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF HENDERSON, LLC; FBC OF
HENDERSON, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 18STCV00865 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 15, 2018) is
an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Button was employed by the Defendants as sales manager.

Flowers Caking Co. of Henderson, LLC operates as a bakery and
manufactures baked products. The Company is headquartered in
Henderson, Nevada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
                  alvin@yeremianlaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
          5500  Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (310) 652-2242
          E-mail: whaines@uelg.com


FORD MOTOR: Must Face SUV Carbon Monoxide Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford
Explorer carbon monoxide lawsuit won't be dismissed after the
plaintiffs adequately pleaded claims the SUVs have defects that
allow dangerous exhaust fumes into the cabins.

One plaintiff claims he took his Explorer to a dealer after he
smelled exhaust fumes in the SUV. The dealer allegedly drove the
vehicle and couldn't detect the fumes, so the plaintiff says
technicians refused to repair the Explorer.

The other two named plaintiffs claim they smelled exhaust odors in
the cabins but never took the vehicles to dealers to have the
vehicles examined.

The Explorer lawsuit alleges occupants are poisoned by their
2016-2017 Ford SUVs because of defects in the HVAC (heating,
ventilation and air conditioning) and exhaust systems. According to
the plaintiffs, Ford concealed knowledge of the carbon monoxide
problems even though dealers were sent technical service bulletins
(TSBs) warning of exhaust fumes.

Ford issued TSB 12-12-4 in December 2012 about exhaust fume
complaints made by owners of 2011-2013 Ford Explorers, then TSB
14-0130 was issued in July 2014 to include 2014-2015 Explorers. The
bulletin referred to exhaust and sulfur smells reported when the
auxiliary climate control systems were on.

Although the bulletins didn't talk about carbon monoxide dangers,
the plaintiffs claim the TSBs prove Ford knew the SUVs had problems
and that dealers had no idea how to repair the Explorers.

The lawsuit alleges the fumes enter the cabins by way of the drain
valves in the liftgates and the sheet metal panels and overlaps. In
addition, carbon monoxide allegedly reaches occupants through the
rear air extractors, auxiliary air conditioning systems and through
faulty joints and seams.

While Ford was sending attorneys to court, the automaker was
answering questions from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) about exhaust fumes and carbon monoxide in
Explorers used by police departments.

NHTSA opened an investigation in 2016 concerning exhaust fumes
entering 2011-2015 Explorers and later expanded the investigation
following hundreds of complaints. By July 2017, the government had
received about 800 complaints about 2011-2017 consumer and police
Explorers.

Ford tried to convince the judge to dismiss the lawsuit but the
judge ruled the class-action can move forward after the automaker's
arguments fell through.

Ford told the judge the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for
breach of express warranty because they do not allege they
experienced a problem within the warranty period, but the judge
ruled this isn't the case. According to the ruling, the lawsuit
clearly says, "Plaintiffs and members of the Classes experienced
the Exhaust Fume Defect within the warranty periods."

Ford also urged the judge to dismiss breach of express warranty
claims since the plaintiffs did not give Ford mandatory pre-suit
written notice according to Pennsylvania law. The law says, "a
plaintiff, specifically a buyer, must provide notification of the
alleged product defect to the manufacturer prior to bringing suit
on a breach-of-warranty theory."

However, the judge found under Pennsylvania law the filing of a
complaint may constitute sufficient pre-suit notice. Additionally,
the judge says a jury should decide whether the plaintiffs gave
timely notice of the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs also prevailed in their claim concerning violations
of express warranties after Ford argued the lawsuit alleges only a
design defect which is exempt from the Ford Explorer express
warranty.

However, while the plaintiffs admit they do allege the vehicles
have design defects, the judge says they also allege the exhaust
fumes and carbon monoxide could be caused by defects in materials
or workmanship. According to the judge, at this stage of the
lawsuit the plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to allege the
exhaust fume problems are covered by the express warranties.

In its motion to dismiss, Ford contends implied warranty claims
fail because the plaintiffs do not plead the exhaust issues
occurred during the warranty period of 3 years/36,000 miles. Again
the judge ruled this isn't the case because the plaintiffs claim
they suffered from the problems soon after purchasing the
Explorers.

In a separate issue, Ford told the judge the plaintiffs fail at
their breach of implied warranty claims because the plaintiffs
never allege the exhaust fume problems render the SUVs
"un-merchantable." But the judge ruled against this argument by
saying the Explorers can't be considered safe to sell if they allow
carbon monoxide and exhaust fumes into the cabins.

Ford further told the judge the plaintiffs shouldn't label the
exhaust fumes as a safety hazard, but the judge found at this stage
of the case, the plaintiffs only need to plausibly allege the
defects impact the safe operation of the SUVs. According to the
judge, the plaintiffs did just that.

In the end, Judge Terrence G. Berg also ruled against Ford
concerning Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unjust enrichment,
fraudulent concealment and negligent misrepresentation claims.

The Ford Explorer carbon monoxide lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division - Suresh Persad, et al., v. Ford Motor Company.

The plaintiffs are represented by the Miller Law Firm, P.C., and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

CarComplaints.com has exhaust complaints about Ford Explorers:

2016 Ford Explorer
2017 Ford Explorer [GN]


FORSTER & GARBUS: Court Dismisses Rueda Suit Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronald A. Guzman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss without prejudice the case, MELISSA RUEDA,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. FORSTER & GARBUS, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 18 C 4586 (N.D.
Ill.), under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure
to state a claim.

The case is a putative class action against a law firm that acts as
a debt collector, Forster, for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  Rueda, alleges that in July
2017, Forster mailed her a collection letter regarding a debt she
had incurred on a Target credit card.  According to the letter,
says the Plaintiff, Forster is not licensed to practice law in the
state of Illinois, meaning that Forster cannot sue the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff alleges that Forster's statement violates Section
1692e of the FDPCA for two reasons: (1) it states that Forster has
chosen not to sue ('will not commence a suit') instead of the true
fact that it cannot sue as a matter of law, and is thus materially
deceptive; and (2) it threatens legal action against the Plaintiff
that could not be taken, considering that Forster is not licensed
to practice law in Illinois, cannot initiate a suit against the
Plaintiff, and is not authorized to make legal threats on behalf of
companies in Illinois.

Judge Guzman finds that the Plaintiff's interpretation of the
language "our firm will not commence a suit against you" is
idiosyncratic.  The language is a negative promise that Forster
will refrain from taking legal action; it is simply not reasonably
construed as a comment on any reason behind the promise or an
implication of choice.  On its face, Forster's promise that it
would not sue the Plaintiff would not lead even an unsophisticated
consumer to believe the opposite -- that Forster was threatening
legal action.

Next, the Judge considers whether the language "if we are not able
to resolve this account with you, our client may consider
additional remedies to recover the balance due" can be reasonably
interpreted as an implication that Forster was "threatening to take
legal action against the Plaintiff that could not be taken, that
is, that Forster would sue the Plaintiff.  The Judge finds that the
Plaintiff's interpretation of the statement is also idiosyncratic,
particularly considering that it follows the statement that Forster
would not commence a suit against the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff's
theory is that the statement deceptively suggests that Forster may
sue plaintiff, but that is not a reasonable reading when the entire
statement explicitly states the contrary.  This is true regardless
of the fact that Forster identified itself as a law firm.

Therefore, Judge Guzman will dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim.  Forster seeks a dismissal with prejudice, but the
Plaintiff asks the Court for leave to amend her complaint in the
event of dismissal.  Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, such
leave is granted, provided that the Plaintiff can amend consistent
with this ruling and the dictates of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11.

Accordingly, the Judge granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the complaint, and dismissed without prejudice the complaint.  He
gave the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by Oct. 23,
2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/EJUzGa from Leagle.com.

Melissa Rueda, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Celetha Chatman --
cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com -- Community Lawyers Group, Ltd.
& Michael Jacob Wood -- mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com --
Community Lawyers Group, Ltd.

Forster & Garbus, LLP, Defendant, represented by Nicole Marie
Strickler -- nstrickler@messerstrickler.com -- Messer Strickler,
Ltd. & Andrew Galper Fullett -- afullett@messerstrickler.com --
Messer Strickler.


FOUNDRY THEATRE: Faces Dominguez ADA Class Action in NY
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Foundry Theatre,
Inc. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Foundry
Theatre, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10161 (S.D. N.Y., Nov.
1, 2018).

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

The Foundry Theatre, Inc. commission, develop, premiere, and tour
theatrical works that explore the impossibilities of theatre. In
addition, The Foundry hosts ongoing dialogue series and community
collaborations that bring artists together with stakeholders from
other communities to unpack issues and ideas of contemporary social
and political resonance.[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


GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: Final Approval of Muransky Deal Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DR. DAVID S. MURANSKY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, JAMES H. PRICE,
ERIC ALAN ISAACSON, Interested Parties-Appellants, v. GODIVA
CHOCOLATIER, INC., a New Jersey corporation, Defendant-Appellee,
Case Nos. 16-16486, 16-16783 (11th Cir.), Judge Beverly B. Martin
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the
approval of a class-action settlement.

Dr. Muransky filed a class action against Godiva for violating the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA").  The operative
complaint alleges that after Dr. Muransky made a purchase at a
Godiva store, Godiva gave him a receipt that showed his credit card
number's first six and last four digits.  

He sought to represent a class of customers whose credit card
numbers Godiva printed on receipts in violation of FACTA.  These
violations, the complaint says, exposed Dr. Muransky and the class
to an elevated risk of identity theft.  According to the complaint,
Godiva's violation of FACTA was willful, so the class was entitled
to statutory and punitive damages, as well as attorney's fees and
costs.

Godiva moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it did not
plausibly allege a willful violation of FACTA.  The District Court
denied Godiva's motion.  After that, the parties engaged in
discovery then mediated the case.  In late November 2015, the
parties notified the court of an agreement in principle to settle
the case on a class-wide basis.  They requested a stay, which the
court granted.

Two months after that request, Dr. Muransky moved for preliminary
approval of the class-action settlement.  He explained that the
parties agreed to a settlement fund of $6.3 million from which all
fees, costs, and class members would be paid.  He estimated that
class members who submitted a timely claim form would receive
around $235 as their pro-rata share of the settlement fund.  None
of the money would revert to Godiva.  Dr. Muransky indicated he
intended to apply for an incentive award of up to $10,000 and that
the class counsel would move for an award of attorney's fees of up
to one-third of the settlement fund, which would be $2.1 million.
The District Court granted the motion for preliminary approval,
certified the class under Rule 23(b)(3), and approved the form of
notice.

On Sept. 7, Dr. Muransky moved for final approval of the class
settlement and requested an award of $2.1 million in attorney's
fees as well as $10,000 as an incentive award.  At the court's
direction, Dr. Muransky filed a separate motion for attorney's fees
and expenses.  The Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation ("R&R") on the attorney's fee motion just four days
later, before the objectors filed opposition briefs.

The R&R recommended that the District Court grant the motion and
award the full amount of $2.1 million. Although the R&R was issued
before the objectors filed opposition briefs, the Magistrate Judge
considered Mr. Price's and Mr. Isaacson's previously filed
objections to the settlement.  In addition, soon after the R&R was
issued, the objectors filed briefs in opposition to the motion for
attorney's fees. They later filed objections to the R&R as well.

On Sept. 21, the District Court held a fairness hearing, during
which the objectors' counsel made their case.  Soon after the
hearing, the District Court approved the settlement and awarded the
incentive award and attorney's fees to Dr. Muransky and the class
counsel respectively.  The court also granted the $10,000 incentive
award for Dr. Muransky's "efforts in the case."

The objectors appealed.  They say the District Court abused its
discretion by finding that the notice satisfied Rule 23(h), by
awarding $2.1 million in attorney's fees, and by awarding $10,000
as an incentive to Dr. Muransky.  Mr. Isaacson raises a fourth
issue: he challenges Dr. Muransky's Article III standing to pursue
a FACTA claim against Godiva.

Judge Martin finds that the complaint alleges two concrete
injuries: one based on the statutory violation and its relationship
to common law causes of action and another based on Godiva giving
Dr. Muransky an untruncated receipt.  Mr. Isaacson has not
challenged any other aspect of Dr. Muransky's standing, and she
concludes the other Article III standing requirements are
satisfied.

She also concludes that the District Court did not abuse its
discretion by awarding attorney's fee, despite the Rule 23(h)
violation.  Although she concludes that the District Court erred by
requiring the class members to object before they could assess the
attorney's fee motion, she holds that the error does not warrant
reversal under the particular facts of the case.  And on the
record, she has no reason to think the other unnamed class members
would have made arguments besides those made by Mr. Price and Mr.
Isaacson.  The class members were not therefore prejudiced by the
objection schedule established by the District Court.

The Judge further concludes that the District Court properly
assessed the risks faced by the class and the compensation secured
by class counsel.  Under the circumstances, the District Court did
not abuse its discretion by awarding an above-benchmark percentage
of the common fund.  The attorney's fee award is therefore
affirmed.

Finally, Judge Martin holds that the District Court did not abuse
its discretion by granting the $10,000 incentive award, finding
that the record supports it.  At the District Court, Dr. Muransky
argued that an incentive award was justified by the size of the
settlement.  The District Court found that the class settlement
confers substantial benefits on the class members.  And at the
fairness hearing, the District Court observed that Dr. Muransky was
subjecting himself to inconvenience and time delays that didn't
materialize as much as they might have, but they still were a
possibility when he signed on as the class representative.  These
statements, she says, give meaning to the court's $10,000 incentive
award to Dr. Muransky "for his efforts in the case."
For these reasons, the Judge affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/xycUTj from Leagle.com.

Charles Philip Flick -- charles.flick@bowmanandbrooke.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Eric Alan Isaacson, for Defendant-Appellee.

Michele L. Stocker -- stockerm@gtlaw.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

John W. Davis, for Defendant-Appellee.

Linda M. Reck -- reckl@gtlaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Scott D. Owens -- info@ScottDOwens.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Wallace Allen McDonald, for Interested Party-Appellant.

Bret Leon Lusskin, Jr., for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David S. Almeida -- dalmeida@beneschlaw.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Brian Melendez -- brian.melendez@btlaw.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Patrick Christopher Crotty -- patrick.crotty@myfloridalegal.com --
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Shawn Y. Libman -- shawn.libman@bowmanandbrooke.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Michael S. Hilicki, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Keith J. Keogh, for Plaintiff-Appellee.


GOOGLE LLC: Can Compel Arbitration in Trudeau Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK TRUDEAU, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00947-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson
Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, (i) granted the Defendant's Motion
to Compel Arbitration, (ii) granted in part and terminated as moot
in the its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action
Complaint, and (iii) dismissed the action without prejudice.

Trudeau and Troy Martial Arts Inc. bring claims on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of others similarly situated in
connection with the Defendant's alleged misrepresentations to
advertisers using its AdWords program.  Google runs an advertising
program called AdWords, which allows an advertiser to tie his
advertisement to specific keywords, such that users of Google see
the advertisement when they search for those keywords.  AdWords
also allows the advertiser to select certain negative keywords,
such that users of Google cannot see the advertisement when they
search for those negative keywords.

But Trudeau claims that this negative keyword functionality does
not work as promised.  Specifically, when a user misspells a
negative keyword in his or her search, Google allegedly corrects
that misspelling and then runs the search results for that word.
In that scenario, AdWords displays the advertisement, even though
the search includes the negative keyword.  Trudeau thus claims that
Google makes material misrepresentations about AdWords'
functionality.

He brings the following causes of action on behalf of himself and a
putative class: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) violation of the
Unfair Competition Law; (4) violation of the False Advertising Law;
(5) declaratory relief that the arbitration clause included in the
2017 AdWords Terms of Service is procedurally and substantively
unconscionable and unenforceable; and (6) unjust enrichment.

Trudeau first began using the AdWords program in January 2012, when
he accepted the AdWords Terms of Service via a clickwrap agreement.
At the time, the 2006 Terms of Service ("TOS") were in effect.  In
2013, Google modified the Terms and pre-existing advertisers were
given notice and asked to review and accept these terms.  

The Terms were modified again in September 2017.  Like other
versions of the Terms of Service, the 2017 TOS includes provisions
relating to changes to the terms.  The 2017 TOS also included, for
the first time, an arbitration provision and a class action waiver.
Google notified Trudeau of the 2017 TOS by both email and an alert
in his AdWords account.  Trudeau accepted the 2017 TOS on Sept. 15,
2017 and did not attempt to opt out of the arbitration provision.

Before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration or
Alternatively Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action
Complaint.  The Court heard oral argument on the motion on Sept.
27, 2018.

Judge Freeman finds that the 2017 TOS provided a meaningful
opportunity to opt out of the arbitration provision.  Trudeau does
not meaningfully dispute the voluntariness of the opt out
procedure.  Thus, the arbitration provision is not procedurally
unconscionable and thus not unconscionable.  As a result, she will
dismisses Trudeau's claim for declaratory relief under Rule
12(b)(6).  Because the Court has taken judicial notice of the facts
relevant to Trudeau's unconscionability argument -- namely, the
existence of and procedure for the voluntary opt-out, as well as
the 2017 TOS -- the Judge finds that further amendment would be
futile and will dismiss with prejudice the claim for declaratory
relief.

Trudeau argues that, on its face, the new arbitration clause in
Section 13(A) does not apply retroactively.  The Judge finds that
Trudeau's argument misses the mark, as argued by Google.  She says
nothing about the potential retroactivity or nonretroactivity of
future changes to the 2017 TOS changes the fact that Section
13(A)'s scope, by its plain terms, covers claims that accrued prior
to enactment.  That is, Section 13(A) need not apply retroactively
in order to cover previously accrued claims.  As such, the Judge
finds no conflict or ambiguity in the terms of the 2017 TOS and
holds that Section 12 does not preclude Section 13(A) from covering
previously accrued claims.

Trudeau's final argument is that the arbitration provision is
invalid under California's implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing because every Court of Appeal to have considered whether a
party may unilaterally modify an arbitration clause to
retroactively cover claims that have already accrued has agreed
that the covenant bars such retroactive application.  The Judge
agrees with Google that California law does not bar enforcement of
the arbitration provision.  Because none of Trudeau's arguments is
sufficient to rebut the plain language of the 2017 TOS and because
Trudeau expressly accepted those terms and refused to opt out, she
finds that he is bound by the arbitration provision.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Freeman granted the Defendant's
Motion to Compel Arbitration.  Each claim that Trudeau has asserted
in the action, except his claim for declaratory relief, is subject
to arbitration according to the terms of the 2017 Terms of Service.
The Judge granted in part Google's Motion to Dismiss as to
Trudeau's claim for declaratory relief that the arbitration
provision is unconscionable, and terminated as moot in part as to
his other claims which are subject to arbitration.  There being no
remaining claims outside of arbitration, the entire action is
dismissed without prejudice to filing a later action to confirm or
vacate the arbitration award.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/1ZFPLC from Leagle.com.

Mark Trudeau & Troy Martial Arts Inc., Plaintiffs, represented by
Randolph Gaw -- gontact@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP, David M.
Honigman -- dhonigman@manteselaw.com -- Mantese Honigman, P.C., pro
hac vice, Gerard V. Mantese -- gmantese@manteselaw.com -- Mantese
Honigman, P.C., pro hac vice & Mark Weylin Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP.

Google LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael Graham Rhodes --
rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Whitty Somvichian --
wsomvichian@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Kelly Elizabeth Fabian --
kfabian@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Matthew Michael Brown --
brownmd@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.


GOOGLE LLC: High Court to Take Hard Look at Cypres Deals
--------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that surprise
funding in the form of class action settlements has helped legal
aid groups close budget shortfalls and provide more services, but a
pending U.S. Supreme Court case could change all of that.

On Oct. 31, the high court will take a hard look at cy pres deals,
in which class action settlements allocate a portion of the funds
to nonprofits when the parties and the judge have agreed the money
can't be feasibly distributed to class members. Most often, these
are the leftover, unclaimed portions of settlement funds.

But a challenge to an $8.5 million privacy settlement that has
Google LLC paying millions to third parties -- and nothing to class
members -- opens the door for the Supreme Court to issue a broad
ruling that could wipe out even these driplike funding streams for
legal aid organizations that have come to value the small
windfalls.

Many cy pres opponents argue that the tool is ripe for abuse,
allowing lawyers and even defendants to inappropriately funnel
money to favored institutions. They also say legal aid
organizations are a poor substitute for direct restitution and that
the growing popularity of cy pres is encouraging plaintiffs'
attorneys to file questionable class actions.

But legal aid organizations and other nonprofits are concerned the
case, Frank v. Gaos , could wrongfully widen the justice gap. Those
backing cy pres -- especially when it's used solely as a tool to
deal with leftover settlement cash -- say legal aid groups are the
next best use for such funds.

"They have this theory that cy pres is some underhanded way that
the companies are handing money to organizations. That's not true,
and that does a great disservice to the judges approving it," said
Sally Greenberg, executive director of the National Consumers
League, which does both advocacy and legal services work on behalf
of consumers.

Justice Gap

The use of cy pres -- pronounced "sigh pray" -- in class action
settlements is a relatively modern phenomenon. The practice arose
about three decades ago out of desire to keep settlement money from
reverting to a defendant if there were any unclaimed funds.

Often, settlement funds in major class actions never get fully used
because many plaintiffs who could claim a share of the cash never
bother to, especially if the piece of the pie is just a few
dollars. Cy pres took off after Congress in 2005 curtailed the use
of coupons in settlements as a substitute for direct cash, a
practice that had led to a proliferation of unclaimed funds.

These days, about $15.5 million of cy pres distributions are
funneled to legal services organizations every year, according to
the American Bar Association. Twenty-three states and Puerto Rico
have enacted rules authorizing cy pres awards from class action
settlements to be distributed to legal services organizations,
often at the urging of ABA-backed state access to justice
commissions.

In Washington state, a change to a court rule helped spur cy pres
awards to the Legal Foundation of Washington, which last year used
$321,900 in awards to help close a budget shortfall,  according to
the organization's annual report. The rule has boosted the portion
of class action residuals in the state court system specifically
earmarked for the organization from 25 percent to 50 percent.

But while these residual deals make up the bulk of cy pres
arrangements every year, there have also been an increasing number
of mega-settlements, such as the Google one at the heart of the
pending Supreme Court case, that give more money to nonprofits than
to class members.

The petitioners in the case, Theodore Frank and Melissa Ann
Holyoak, see the Google settlement -- which is funneling money to
some of the lawyers' alma maters -- as an abuse of the class action
system.

The ABA supports neither party in the case, but it filed an amicus
brief calling on the high court to find that legal services
organizations are proper recipients of cy pres awards. In a climate
where legal aid organizations are often struggling for funding, the
unexpected windfalls can be a buffer for lean times.

"It gives us some stability that we can put some money in the bank,
maybe earn some interest on that and use the money also to hire
staff, to keep the lights on and keep computers buzzing," Greenberg
said.

Several legal aid organizations have used sizable cy pres infusions
to launch significant programs aimed at broadening access to
justice for indigent people. Equal Justice Works launched a
fellowship program in 1992 for post-graduate lawyers working in
underserved communities with the help of a cy pres award, and the
Chicago Bar Foundation uses some of its cy pres awards every year
to operate courthouse "help desks" to assist pro se litigants,
according to an amicus brief filed by those groups and six other
legal aid organizations in support of the respondents.

An attorney for the groups declined to comment on the case ahead of
the Supreme Court's oral arguments.

Equal Justice Works, the Chicago Bar Foundation and other
nonprofits have asked the high court to find that cy pres
distributions to legal aid organizations are appropriate given
courts' developing rules to rein in abuses and legal aid's nexus
with the same access to justice principles as class actions.

"Legal aid organizations do reasonably approximate class actions
because they do the same thing, and that's access to justice. Class
actions provide access to justice in a lawsuit that they couldn't
pursue individually," said Cindy Cohn, executive director of the
Electronic Frontier Foundation.

An Inviting Target

Mr. Frank and Ms. Holyoak, the petitioners asking the high court to
rein in cy pres, contend that this practice of funneling settlement
money to nonprofits has opened the door to improper class actions
including, they say, the one at the heart of the Supreme Court
petition.

"The fact that legal aid organizations do good things and could use
the money doesn't justify the means," said Frank, who is also
director of the Center for Class Action Fairness at the Competitive
Enterprise Institute.

At the core of their petition, Mr. Frank and Ms. Holyoak are
attacking "cy-pres only" settlements like the one in the underlying
Gaos v. Google case, which accused Google of selling user search
terms containing personally identifiable information to
advertisers.

The negotiated $8.5 million settlement divided among a potential
130 million class members would yield 4 cents per class member —
an administratively infeasible situation, even before attorneys'
fees and administrative costs. So instead, the funds will go to a
host of nonprofits.

Opponents of cy pres are encouraging the justices to use this case
to firmly define when and where the tool can be used in class
actions. They contend cy pres has encouraged the plaintiffs bar to
file expansive class actions that can rarely feasibly provide
direct benefits to class members, which they consider an abuse of
the class action tool.

While Frank does not entirely oppose unclaimed settlement funds
going to legal aid organizations, he argues it should only happen
when it is entirely impossible to distribute those funds to class
members, in order to deter the filing of questionable class
actions. Million-dollar cy pres distributions of residuals, such as
the $2.7 million leftover from a settlement with Bank of America
several years ago in a nationwide securities class action, should
not exist, according to Frank.

Courts and counsel need to work harder at finding ways to
distribute those funds directly to class members, Mr. Frank said.
In support of this, Mr. Frank and Ms. Holyoak have also proposed
the Supreme Court embrace a so-called "proportionality rule," where
class counsel are only paid attorneys fees based on direct benefits
to class members and not including cy pres distributions.

"It's unfortunate if legal aid organizations haven't found a more
honest way to fund themselves," Mr. Frank said.

How Much Will It Matter?

By and large, most legal aid and other nonprofits contend that they
don't -- and can't -- budget for cy pres since it comes in at such
sporadic and random intervals.

"There have been years where we have gotten significant cy pres and
other years where its dropped down to nothing, so it's not
something you can count on at all," said F. Paul Bland Jr., the
executive director of Public Justice, a legal advocacy nonprofit
that files lawsuits -- including class actions -- on issues such as
civil liberties, consumer rights and workers rights.

The funds rarely make up a majority or even a significant chunk of
legal aid groups' annual budgets. A review of tax return forms from
the last three years for several nonprofits that disclosed cy pres
contributions, including the Legal Aid Society of New York and
Greater Boston Legal Services, showed cy pres usually accounted for
less than 10 percent of an organization's budget.

In many ways, the Supreme Court has already helped curb some of the
worst abuses of cy pres.

In 2013, it declined to take up Marek v. Lane , an appeal of a $10
million settlement in a class action over Facebook's short-lived
Beacon program, which broadcast users' purchases. The deal was
controversial for much the same reason the Google case is in that
cash was not given directly to consumers but instead was directed
to various organizations.

But in maintaining the Ninth Circuit's decision not to meddle in
the settlement, Chief Justice John Roberts made the unusual move of
issuing a statement, saying the court would be willing to take on a
future case that provided the "opportunity to address more
fundamental concerns surrounding the use of such remedies in class
action litigation."

Several organizations and experts have noted a decline in cy
pres-heavy settlements since that message from the court, which in
turn has already forced legal aid organizations to rely less on
such distributions.

Last year, the Chicago Bar Foundation rejiggered its budget because
starting in 2014, cy pres -- which had formerly been a stable
revenue source responsible for about $1 million, or 20 percent, of
its annual budget -- declined significantly, according to its 2017
annual report. Among the adjustments it made were a mix of
reductions to grants, operating expenses and other programs.

Additionally, as a greater spotlight has been placed on cy pres
abuses -- such as funds that are allocated to charities affiliated
with judges or class counsel involved in the settlement -- many
nonprofits have become more careful about the distributions they
accept.

Public Justice, for example, has turned away cy pres proposals that
they felt would be wrongly coming to them at the expense of the
class members or other groups that were better aligned with the
class's interests.

In one instance, the group realized that plaintiffs' counsel had
the names and addresses for class members but chose to subtract a
proposed cy pres award earmarked for Public Justice from the larger
settlement while it was still being distributed.

"I think they felt we did good work and were trying to be
supportive. We just felt like it was the wrong approach,"
Mr. Bland said. "We felt it was inappropriate."

Still, cy pres distributions can have a significant impact in
aiding consumers, particularly in lower income brackets, through
legal aid organizations and make more sense than letting that money
revert back to a defendant, Bland said.

"There are people who want to eliminate cy pres entirely, which we
think would be a mistake and terrible policy," Mr. Bland said.
[GN]


GRAY TELEVISION: John O'Neil Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JOHN O'NEIL JOHNSON TOYOTA, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. GRAY TELEVISION, INC.; HEARST COMMUNICATIONS; NEXSTAR
MEDIA GROUP, INC.; TEGNA INC.; TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY; SINCLAIR
BROADCAST GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06883 (D. Md.,
Sept. 19, 2018), was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on October 15, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-02913 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 15, 2018) to the
proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Deborah K. Chasanow.

Gray Television, Inc., a television broadcast company, owns and
operates television stations and digital assets in the United
States. The company was formerly known as Gray Communications
Systems, Inc. and changed its name to Gray Television, Inc. in
August 2002. Gray Television, Inc. was founded in 1897 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul Mark Sandler, Esq.
          Eric R. Harlan, Esq.
          SHAPIRO SHER GUINOT & SANDLER
          250 West Pratt Street, Suite 2000
          Baltimore, Maryland 21201
          Telephone: (410) 385-0202
          Facsimile: (410) 539-7611
          E-mail: pms@shapirosher.com
                  erh@shapirosher.com

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP
          507 C Street, N.E.
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
                  vicky@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq.
          Sarah Starns, Esq.
          David McMullan, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          404 Court Square
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                  KBRiley@BarrettLawGroup.com
                  sstarns@barrettlawgroup.com
                  dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          2800 Wells Fargo Place
          30 East Seventh Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com


GRENDENE NEW YORK: Olsen Files Suit Alleging ADA Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grendene New York,
L.L.C. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Grendene New York, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06138 (E.D.
N.Y., Nov. 1, 2018).

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

Grendene New York LLC is a privately held company in New York, NY
and is a Single Location business, categorized under
Restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: chris@lipskylowe.com



HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Moves to Pause Canosa Sexual Harassment Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that the
embattled movie mogul points to how judges in civil litigation
against Bill Cosby allowed his criminal case to proceed first.

On Oct. 27, Harvey Weinstein made a move to pause a lawsuit brought
by Alexandra Canosa, a former associate producer on the Netflix
show Marco Polo, who alleges being the victim of sexual
harassment.

"Mr. Weinstein should not be forced to make the difficult choice
between being prejudiced in the civil litigation, if he asserts his
Fifth Amendment privilege, or from being prejudiced in the criminal
litigation if he . . . waives that privilege in the civil
litigation," states a motion.

Mr. Weinstein is facing a wrath of litigation, and he previously
attempted to stay lawsuits brought by insurers. This is his first
move to pause a lawsuit from one of his female accusers.

According to a declaration from Weinstein attorney Benjamin
Brafman, New York prosecutors have provided formal notice that they
will seek to introduce evidence of "uncharged similar acts of
sexual conduct at trial" and that means Weinstein "cannot give
testimony and evidence concerning these allegations regardless of
whether [Canosa] is involved" in the criminal case.

Mr. Weinstein is leaning on precedent in the Bill Cosby scandal.
His attorneys point to how judges overseeing civil lawsuits against
Cosby granted a motion for a stay.

"The California Superior Court's decision in Judy Huth v. William
Henry Cosby, Jr. is instructive," states the motion. "The defendant
in that case was in a very similar situation as Mr. Weinstein, in
that he was being sued civilly and criminally prosecuted for sexual
assault. In Huth, the court granted defendant's motion to stay
pending a resolution of a related criminal proceeding over
plaintiff's objection that the facts and allegations in the civil
case were distinct from those in the criminal matter."

The Canosa lawsuit was previously stayed not because of the
criminal case but rather because of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of
The Weinstein Company. (In her legal action, Ms. Canosa is also
suing Weinstein's former studio, along with members of its board.)

Ms. Canosa got the case unpaused, but not before attorneys for
other women suing TWC argued against a lifting of the stay on the
grounds that the company's insurers weren't picking up the tab for
defending this one and it would deplete resources, potentially
hampering their own recovery.

So far, Mr. Weinstein hasn't moved for a similar pause in the class
action, but the newest move in the Canosa case could portend that's
about to occur. [GN]


HEALTHRIGHT LLC: Nelson Files Labor Class Action in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A labor class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthright,
LLC. The case is styled as Candie Nelson, Plaintiff v. Healthright,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-02678-JSM-CPT (M.D. Fla., Nov. 1,
2018).

HealthRight, LLC provides health care solutions and services for
its members. It offers on-demand doctor visits, dental care, health
advocacy, lab testing, prescription services, imaging services,
in-person doctor discounts, and business services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
     Florin Gray Bouzas Owens, LLC
     16524 Pointe Village Dr Ste 100
     Lutz, FL 33558
     Phone: (727) 254-5255
     Fax: (727) 483-7942
     Email: wolfgang@fgbolaw.com

          - and -

     Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
     Florin Gray Bouzas Owens, LLC
     16524 Pointe Village Dr Ste 100
     Lutz, FL 33558
     Phone: (727) 254-5255
     Fax: (727) 483-7942
     Email: Miguel@fgbolaw.com


HEALTHSOUTH BAKERSFIELD: Mortimer Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthsouth
Bakersfield Rehabilitation Hospital, LLC. The case is styled as
Dannette Mortimer, individually, on behalf of herself and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Healthsouth
Bakersfield Rehabilitation Hospital, LLC, a limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. BCV-18-102761 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
Cty., Nov. 2, 2018).

HealthSouth Bakersfield Rehabilitation Hospital is a 86-bed
rehabilitation hospital that provides a higher level of
comprehensive rehabilitation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.


HOUSTON, TX: Attorneys Look for More Flood Victims for Class-Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Mozzone, writing for Fox 8 Local First, reports that
attorneys representing victims in the August 2017 flood want more
people to join a class-action suit. They believe there's enough
evidence to prove that the Sewerage and Water Board (S&WB) should
pay out. One attorney met with affected residents Oct. 10.

"Public transportation, walking, catching Lyft and Uber," explained
Antranette Scott.

Scott found ways of getting around after losing her car in the
August 5 flood.

"I got home from work, took a little nap. I woke up, thundering,
lightning and I open my front door and my car. The water had
already passed my door," Scott recalled.

When it was all said and done, the water was past the hood, near
the windshield.

"It was a total loss," said Scott.

Just five months from having it all paid off, Scott couldn't even
start over. The insurance money wasn't enough to buy her a new car.
Yet, that's not why she decided to get on board a class-action
lawsuit against the Sewerage and Water Board.

"We're all working-class people, but for me, the city needs to be
held accountable for the people who live here," Scott said.

Attorneys filed the suit in August, just a day before the city
released a report prepared by a Houston engineering company
detailing what went wrong during the months leading up to the
flood. It addresses the power generator turbines, the operational
pumps that failed and the readiness of the equipment.

"To my mind, the Sewerage and Water Board is a dysfunctional
organization that is failing to serve the citizens of the city, and
I think this root cause analysis report is some of the purported
evidence that establishes that fact," said Attorney Michael
Whitaker, Esq.

Whitaker is an attorney for some of the plaintiffs in the suit. He
met with flood-affected residents to ensure this becomes a
class-action case and to get more people to sign up - people like
David Donze, who suffered property damage in the flood.

"It's encouraging. I think a class-action lawsuit is the way to go
because you've got a lot of people that have been victimized,
really, by Sewerage and Water Board's negligence," explained
Donze.

We reached out to Sewerage and Water Board. Representatives sent us
a statement that reads, in part:

"We appreciate the thorough examination of the ABS Group into the
Sewerage & Water Board. The...analysis outlined many challenges the
Sewerage & Water Board faced and gave us direction forward. Since
the release of the report, the Sewerage & Water Board has taken
major steps to improve the agency including heavy investment over
the last year, major improvements to pumps and turbines... and many
organizational changes. These reforms and others have put New
Orleans in a much better position with much better resources than
we were in August 2017."

Representatives go on to say the board is proud of its advancements
but realize there's more work to do.

Attorneys have 120 days to get the case class-action certified.
They have to show the court there are a lot of claims, and they're
all virtually identical.[GN]


IXYS CORP: Sanchez Securities Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California dismissed with leave to amend the case,
JERRY SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, v. IXYS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 17-cv-06441-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

Sanchez alleges that Defendants IXYS and various of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a proxy
prior to IXYS's merger with Littelfuse, Inc. that contained
material omissions, rendering it false and misleading.

Sanchez was a stockholder of IXYS, a Delaware corporation
headquartered in California that was in the technology and
semiconductor business.  Littelfuse, which produces fuses,
semiconductors, polymers, ceramics, relays, and sensors for the
electronics, automotive, and industrial markets, approached IXYS to
express interest in exploring a strategic combination between the
two companies.  After several months of discussions, IXYS hired
Needham & Co. in June 2017 to serve as IXYS' financial advisory for
the potential sale of IXYS.

After receiving a non-binding offer from Littelfuse, IXYS solicited
bids from 13 potential acquirers.  Littelfuse eventually submitted
a written offer of $23 per share.  On August 25, the IXYS board of
directors met to review Littelfuse's offer.  Needham presented its
financial analysis of the proposed transaction.  After further
discussion, the IXYS board of directors declared it advisable for
IXYS to enter into the merger agreement.

On Dec. 13, 2017, IXYS filed its proxy statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, recommending that IXYS
stockholders vote in favor of the merger.  The proxy did not
disclose the particular research analyst projections for Littelfuse
presented by Needham to Littelfuse management, which Littelfuse
management confirmed represented reasonable estimates of the future
financial performance of Littelfuse.  It also did not disclose the
individual multiples Needham utilized in its selected companies'
analysis.

Sanchez's Amended Class Action Complaint brings two causes of
action.  First, he argues that the IXYS violated Section 14(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9.
Sanchez claims that IXYS' proxy was materially incomplete and
misleading due to its failure to disclose: (1) the research analyst
projections for Littelfuse presented by Needham to Littelfuse
management, which Littelfuse management confirmed represented
reasonable estimates of the future financial performance of
Littelfuse and (2) the individual multiples Needham calculated in
connection with its selected companies analysis.  Second, Sanchez
argues that individual Defendants violated Section 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 because they had the ability to
exercise control over and did control a person or persons who
violated Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 as alleged.

The Defendants move to dismiss because the omitted information was
already publicly available to Sanchez in the total mix of
information or otherwise not material.

Judge Orrick agrees with the Defendants.  He finds that Sanchez has
failed to state a claim under Section 14(a) or Rule 14a-9 because
the proxy omissions are immaterial.  As there is no primary
violation, Sanchez has failed to state a claim under Section 20(a).
Accordingly, he granted IXYS's motion to dismiss.  Sanchez may
have leave to amend within 20 days of the date of the Order.

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

Jerry Sanchez, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Eldridge Bower --
dbower@monteverdelaw.com -- Monteverde & Associates PC & Juan E.
Monteverde -- jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com -- Monteverde &
Associates PC, pro hac vice.

IXYS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Stephen R. DiPrima --
SRDiPrima@wlrk.com -- Wachtell Lipton, pro hac vice, Andrew Richard
Gray -- andrew.gray@lw.com -- Latham Watkins LLP, Michele D.
Johnson -- michele.johnson@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins & Nathaniel
Cullerton -- NDCullerton@wlrk.com -- Wachtell Lipton, pro hac
vice.

Nathan Zommer, Uzi Sasson, Donald L. Feucht, Samuel Kory, S. Joon
Lee, Timothy A. Richardson, James M. Thorburn, Kenneth D. Wong &
IXYS, LLC, Defendants, represented by Andrew Richard Gray, Latham
Watkins LLP & Michele D. Johnson, Latham & Watkins.


KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Settlement in Russell Suit Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN RUSSELL, an individual, Plaintiff, v. KEHE
DISTRIBUTORS, INC. and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-CV-01182-JAM-GGH (E.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted
Russell's Motion for Final Approval of Class and Collective Action
Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service
Payment.

Russell's Motion for Final Approval and Fee Motion came on for
hearing on Oct. 2, 2018, at 1:30 p.m.  Having fully and carefully
considered Plaintiff's Motions, the memoranda and declarations in
support thereof, the Parties' Settlement Agreement, and the oral
arguments made at the hearing, the Judge finds that the Settlement
was reached after arm's-length negotiations between the Parties.
As embodied in the terms of the Settlement, he finally approved the
Settlement of the action as fair, reasonable, and adequate and in
compliance with all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and any other applicable law, and in the best
interests of the Class Members.

The Judge confirmed Russell as the Class Representative; Mayall
Hurley P.C., by and through Lead Counsel Robert J. Wasserman,
William J. Gorham, III, Nicholas J. Scardigli, Vladimir J. Kozina,
and John P. Briscoe, as the Class Counsel; and Atticus
Administration, LLC as Administrator of the Settlement.

The class of employees covered by the Parties' Settlement consists
of (i) all hourly, nonexempt employees of the Defendant that (a)
received non-discretionary bonuses and commissions, (b) worked
given overtime during at least one pay period from June 7, 2013
through April 7, 2018, and (c) the non-discretionary bonuses or
commissions were not included in their regular rate of pay when
calculating their overtime, and (ii) all California employees of
Defendant that received one or more electronic wage statements
between June 7, 2016 and July 10, 2017.

The Judge finds that final certification as to the following
subclasses, collectively referred to the California Class is
appropriate under Rule 23:

     A. California Regular Rate Class: All hourly, non-exempt
employees of Defendant that worked in California, and (a) received
non-discretionary bonuses or commissions, (b) worked over 8 hours
in a day or 40 hours in a week during at least one pay period from
June 7, 2013 through April 7, 2018, and (c) the non-discretionary
bonuses or commissions were not included in their regular rate of
pay when calculating their overtime.

     B. California Former Employee Class: All hourly, non-exempt
employees of Defendant that worked in California, and (a) received
non-discretionary bonuses or commissions, (b) worked over 8 hours
in a day or 40 hours in a week during at least one pay period from
June 7, 2013 through April 7, 2018, (c) the non-discretionary
bonuses and commissions were not included in their regular rate of
pay when calculating their overtime, and (d) no longer work for the
Defendant.

     C. California Wage Statement Class: All employees of the
Defendant that worked in California and both (a) were paid by
direct deposit and (b) received their wage statement(s)
electronically rather than along with live paychecks during at
least one pay period from June 7, 2016 through July 10, 2017 and
are not part of the California Regular Rate Class or the California
Former Employee Class.

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section216(b), the Judge certifies the FLSA
Class, conditionally certified in the Court's Order of Preliminary
Approval, and defined as all hourly, non-exempt employees of
Defendant that worked outside of California, and (a) received
non-discretionary bonuses or commissions, (b) worked over 40 hours
in a week during at least one pay period from June 7, 2013 through
April 7, 2018, and (c) the non-discretionary bonuses or commissions
were not included in their regular rate pay when calculating their
overtime ("FLSA Class").

Judge Mendez concludes that adequate notice was provided to the
vast majority of the class.  Of the 2,188 FLSA Class Members, 619
individuals claimed $163,718.29; or 41% of the $396,270 made
available to them.

The Settlement contemplates a PAGA allocation of $20,000 of which
75% ($15,000) will be paid to the LWDA, and the remaining 25%
($5,000) will be returned to the QSF for distribution to
Participating Class Members.  

The Judge also approved the payment to the Administrator in the
amount of $26.233.  The proposed Service Payment of $7,500 or .55%
of the Maximum Settlement Amount, to the Plaintiff for his service
as the Class Representative is denied.  The Service Payment of
$5,000 to the Plaintiff as the Class Representative is approved.
The Class Counsel's request of attorneys' fees in the amount of 25%
of the Maximum Settlement Amount, or $337,500, and declared cost of
$19,622.65 are approved.

The Judge entered the Final Judgment is on the Parties'
Settlement.

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

Stephen Russell, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Joshua Wasserman
-- rwasserman@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC, John Paul Briscoe
-- jbriscoe@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC, Nicholas John
Scardigli -- nscardigli@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC & William
J. Gorham, III -- wgorham@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC.

KeHE Distributors, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Paul
Fuchsman -- jfuchsman@brgslaw.com -- Ballard Rosenberg Golper &
Savitt LLP & John Bruce Golper -- jgolper@brgslaw.com -- Ballard
Rosenberg Golper & Savitt LLP.

Edward Andrade & Marcus Thompson, Intervenors, represented by David
Elliot Webb Gonzalez -- elliot@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice,
PC.


KENYA POWER: Consumers Angered Over Out of Court Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Evelyne Musambi, writing for Nairobi News, reports that activists
have renewed calls to get Kenya Power to compensate all customers
who received inflated bills.

The #SwitchoffKPLC hashtag has been revived after lawyer Apollo
Mboya and the power distributor agreed on an out of court
settlement that angered Kenyans.

Jerotich Seii, who was working closely with Mr Mboya in the class
action suit, claimed the out of court deal was struck in her
absence. She has now partnered with Wanjeri Nderu to give a new
life to the campaign.

Ms Seii assured Kenyans that Kenya Power will not run away from
refunding all consumers who were overcharged.

"Below is a non-exhaustive list of outstanding demands; Demand 1:
Fair consumer tariffs -- not #OimekeTariffLies. Demand 2: Refund
all consumers who paid excess bills as part of the illegal recovery
of Sh 10.1B -- KPLC 2017 Annual Report. Demand 3: No more 3rd party
vendor cartels & mobile money systems tampering. Demand 4: End of
KPLC dominance & consumer freedom to choose preferred Distributor.
Demand 5: A systems & financial forensic audit of KPLC since 1999,
& of ERC since 2007," she wrote.

The #SwitchoffKPLC campaign lost steam after Mr Mboya agreed with
Kenya Power that customers would be given 30 days to appeal
inflated bills, that the power distributor will stick to the
gazetted tariffs and that the company pays all costs incurred in
filing the suit.

Kenyans lashed out at the lawyer, saying it was a class action suit
that required participating Kenyans to have a say on what would be
agreed out of court.

The participants have since regrouped under Ms Seii and will open
up avenues to have a stronger and all inclusive class action that
will ensure all overcharged customers get refunded and electricity
costs lowered. [GN]


LANDRY TREBBI: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Landry Trebbi
Investment Corp. The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Landry
Trebbi Investment Corp. a Florida Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
0:18-cv-62687-WPD (S.D. Fla., Nov. 5, 2018).

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

Landry Trebbi Investments Corporation provides investment
management services.[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


LG ELECTRONICS: Acosta Sues Over Defective Washing Machines
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joann Acosta, Farrah Gilbert, and Daniel Schwartz, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LG
Electronics USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-15584 (D. N.J.,
November 1, 2018) seeks to recover damages sustained by consumers
arising from a manufacturing defect that causes the tops of most LG
top-loading washers to rust within months or a few shorts years of
purchase, which ruins clothes due to rust stains and paint chips,
rendering the washers useless.

The complaint relates that hundreds or thousands of consumers have
reported that the washer tops develop rust around the bleach
dispenser within just months or a few short years of purchase. Once
it begins, the rust inevitably spreads throughout the top of the
washer to the point that rust seeps into the laundry bin and stains
clothing during the wash cycle.

Mr. Daniel Schwartz is a citizen of California and on May 25, 2013,
Mr. Schwartz purchased an LG washer, model number WT5070CW, bearing
serial number 304KWQW09244.

Ms. Farrah Gilbert is a citizen of Missouri and on November 15,
2014, Ms. Gilbert purchased an LG washer, model number WT5480CW,
bearing serial number 409PNBM07197 from a Home Depot in
Springfield, Missouri.

Ms. Joann Acosta is a citizen of California and on November 10,
2016, Ms. Acosta purchased an LG washer, model number WT7600HKA and
bearing serial number 609KWRE88166, and an LG dryer from a
HomeDepot in Santa Maria, California.

LG Electronics USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that sells home
appliances, mobile communications devices, and other electronics in
the United States. LG's primary corporate offices are located at
1000 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 07632. Defendant
maintains a website at www.LG.com/us. Defendant markets,
distributes, and sells its washers throughout the United States.
All significant decision concerning the design, marketing, and sale
of the washers at issue were made at Defendant's New Jersey
headquarters.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
     Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
     Zachary P. Beatty, Esq.
     CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
     One Haverford Centre
     361 West Lancaster Avenue
     Haverford, PA 19041
     Phone (610) 642-8500
     Facsimile (610) 649-3633
     Email: tnm@chimicles.com


MACY'S INC: Court Narrows Claims in Hawes Suit
----------------------------------------------
In the case, SARA HAWES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MACY'S INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-754 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Timothy S.
Black of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Western Division, granted in part and denied in part Macy's' motion
to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim.

Hawes and Amy Hill are unsatisfied customers who claim that the bed
sheets they purchased in California and Missouri, respectively,
were labeled with inflated thread counts.  Plaintiff Hawes claims
that her 900 thread-count sheets were actually 249 thread-count and
Plaintiff Hill claims that her 1000 thread-count sheets were "far
less."  The Plaintiffs claim that Defendants Macy's, AQ Textiles,
LLC, and Creative Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. are responsible for
deceiving, misleading, and inducing them -- and the American
consumer public -- into buying these bed sheets with false,
inflated thread counts.

The Plaintiffs claim that Macy's was aware that consumers associate
higher thread counts with being higher in quality, being softer,
and being more comfortable.  Macy's allegedly made misleading
statements regarding the bedding products on its website and in its
retail stores.  The Plaintiffs claim Macy's knew or should have
known that thread counts were being inaccurately reported.  They
allege they have suffered because the products they purchased with
inaccurate thread counts did not perform with the same
characteristics as sheets with the thread counts as advertised, and
that the products were not fit for use.

The Plaintiffs assert 10 claims against Macy's: (1) violation of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"); (2) violation of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"); (3)-(5) violations
of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), (6) violation of
California's Fair Advertising Law ("FAL") (California Business and
Professions Code); (7) violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (8) breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability; (9) breach of express warranty; and (10) fraud.

The civil action is before the Court upon Macy's' motion to dismiss
for lack of standing and failure to state a claim  and the parties'
responsive memoranda.

Judge Black granted in part and denied in part Defendant Macy's'
motion to dismiss.  He (i) denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss
for lack of standing as to products not actually purchased by the
Plaintiffs; (ii) granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts I
and VIII, and dismissed those claims with prejudice; (iii) granted
the Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts VII and IX, and dismissed
those claims without prejudice; and (iv) denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss Counts II, III, IV, V, VI, X , and those claims
will proceed.

Among other things, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have
alleged facts demonstrating that a reasonable consumer could be
misled by Macy's thread count misrepresentations, and the
Plaintiffs have alleged those facts with sufficient specificity.
Accordingly, Macy's motion to dismiss Counts II, III, IV, V, VI,
VII, X for failing to plead with particularity is denied.

He also finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead a
claim for breach of express warranty and violation of the CLRA
because they failed to properly plead notice.  First, in the
Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to dismiss, they state that
they did provide notice to Macy's on June 27, 2017, over four
months before filing the complaint.  However, the complaint
contains no such allegation.  Second, the Plaintiffs argue that
prelitigation notice was not necessary because it would have been
futile.  But they do not cite any case law indicating that the
notice requirement can be waived for futility.  While the Court
finds that the Plaintiffs failed to provide notice for breach of
warranty and under the CLRA, dismissal with prejudice of a damages
claim filed without the requisite notice is not required to satisfy
this purpose.  Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss
Counts VII and IX is granted and those counts are dismissed without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Order is available
at https://is.gd/IFpfT1 from Leagle.com.

Sara Hawes, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Amy Hill, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles E. Schaffer
-- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Sedran & Berman, pro hac vice,
Drew T. Legando -- drew@lgmlegal.com -- Landskroner - Grieco -
Merriman, LLC, Brendan S. Thompson , Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP,
David L. Black , Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, pro hac vice, Stuart
L. Cochran -- stuart@stecklerlaw.com -- Steckler Gresham Cochran
PLLC, pro hac vice & Jack Landskroner -- jack@lgmlegal.com --
Landskroner - Grieco - Merriman, LLC.

Macy's, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew L. Rodenbough --
arodenbough@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce, pro hac vice, Beth
A. Bryan -- bryan@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister,
Jennifer K. Van Zant -- jvanzant@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce,
pro hac vice, Reid L. Phillips -- rphillips@brookspierce.com --
Brooks Pierce, pro hac vice & Ryan C. Fairchild --
rfairchild@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce, pro hac vice.


MCCARTHY BURGESS: Sued Over Deceptive Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Kristine Gonzales-Abella, writing for Southeast Texas Record,
reports that a consumer has filed a class-action lawsuit against
McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, citing misrepresentations and false
threats.

Terry Hamilton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint on Oct. 2, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas, against McCarthy, Burgess &
Wolff Inc., alleging that the Ohio corporation violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The plaintiff alleges that on Oct. 16, 2017, and Nov. 20, 2017, she
received a computerized collection letter from defendant, offering
to settle her past due account for 45 percent off. As a result of
defendant's misrepresentations, she has suffered fear, stress,
mental anguish, emotional stress and loss of time as well as
attorneys' fees paid for advice regarding this matter.

The plaintiff holds McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc. responsible
because the defendant allegedly offered her discount with the same
exact deal twice and implying on both times that the offer would
not be extended again.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks actual and
statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees and such
other and further relief as deemed just and proper. She is
represented by Joel S. Halvorsen of Halvorsen Klote in St. Louis.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Case number
6:18-cv-00521[GN]


MGT CAPITAL: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of MGT Capital Investments 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.

MGT Capital Investments Inc. (OTCMKTS: MGTI)
Class Period: October 9, 2015 - September 7, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 27, 2018
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/mgt-capital-investments-inc-loss-form?wire=3

The lawsuit alleges: MGT Capital Investments Inc. made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Defendants were engaged in an illegal pump-and-dump scheme to
artificially inflate MGT Capital's stock price; (2) the "Scheme
Defendants"--Defendants Ladd, Honig, Stetson, Brauser, O'Rourke,
and Groussman--had a history of engaging in illegal conduct in
connection with the purchase and sale of securities; (3) the Scheme
Defendants were a “group”, pursuant to Section 13 of the
Exchange Act; (4) the Scheme Defendants exercised control over the
Company; (5) the Company's acquisition of D-Vasive Inc. was part of
Defendants' illegal pump-and-dump scheme to artificially inflate
MGT Capital's stock price; (6) Defendants' illicit scheme caused
MGT Capital to make false and misleading statements, which would
result in governmental and regulatory scrutiny; (7) the scheme
would result in the delisting of MGT Capital's stock from NYSE MKT;
and (8) as a result, Defendants' statements about MGT Capital's
business and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

To learn more about the MGT Capital Investments Inc. class action
contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]


MISSOURI: Juvenile Parole Process Unconstitutional, Court Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
RJ Vogt, writing for Law360, reports that two years after the U.S.
Supreme Court's landmark Montgomery decision ordered resentencing
or parole hearings for thousands of inmates sentenced to life
without parole as juveniles, litigation like a recent class action
by Missouri prisoners shows how some states are struggling to offer
those inmates meaningful opportunities for release.

In one of the latest examples of the battle between convicts, their
advocates and the state agencies that control their freedom, a
Missouri federal judge ruled in October that the state's parole
process for juveniles sentenced to life in prison fails to consider
their maturity and rehabilitation, in violation of their
constitutional rights. The Oct. 12 ruling came in a class action
brought by more than 90 Missouri Department of Corrections
prisoners initially given mandatory life without parole sentences
as juveniles.

The Supreme Court found such mandatory sentencing unconstitutional
in 2012's Miller v. Alabama ruling, a finding it then made
retroactive in 2016's Montgomery v. Louisiana decision. Montgomery
added that affected prisoners "must be given the opportunity to
show their crime did not reflect irreparable corruption," either
via parole or resentencing.

After Montgomery was decided, Missouri lawmakers passed legislation
enabling those serving juvenile life without parole, or JLWOP,
sentences to petition for parole after 25 years. But according to
U.S. District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey, the parole board has not
met "the requirement that maturity and rehabilitation be
considered" for such petitioners, 85 percent of whom have been
denied a release date.

"Permitting the board to base a denial of parole . . . on the
'circumstances of the offense' alone necessarily authorizes the
board to disregard evidence of the inmate's subsequent
rehabilitation and maturity -- in contravention of the Supreme
Court's edict," the judge wrote.

The case is one of several in federal and state courts around the
country that challenge the ways different states have responded to
the high court rulings. According to class counsel Amy E. Breihan
of the MacArthur Justice Center, states like Pennsylvania have
decided to resentence the so-called "Miller kids," while others,
like Missouri, have taken the parole route.

"Inevitably, there's a disagreement over 'What does this parole
consideration have to look like?'" she said. "In Missouri, for all
intents and purposes, they were really doing things the way that
they were doing for everybody else. And that just was not adequate.
So unfortunately, I think that the decision by the Supreme Court in
Montgomery kind of helped create some of the discrepancy as far as
how to implement the decision."

Ms. Breihan's named clients in the Missouri case -- Norman Brown,
Ralph McElroy, Sidney Roberts and Theron Roland -- were all
sentenced to mandatory JLWOP for homicide offenses before they
turned 18. Each petitioned for parole after Missouri passed its
post-Montgomery law, but according to court documents, they were
largely blocked from presenting evidence of the way they have
matured during the past quarter-century behind bars.

The inmates said they were only allowed one "delegate" in their
hearings, who was barred from discussing anything other than
"issues related to transition to the community," such as home
plans. The board also kept the prisoners and their attorneys from
viewing the parole files guiding the hearings and the board's
ultimate decision. All four petitioners were denied parole.

For Judge Laughrey, this lack of access to things like victim and
prosecutor statements, as well as the muzzling of petitioners'
delegates, meant "the Miller-impacted inmate cannot have the
'meaningful' opportunity that the law requires."

Her ruling gave the Missouri DOC 60 days to present a compliance
plan to bring its process for Miller kids in line with
constitutional requirements. The plan must also include a proposal
for giving a "meaningful and realistic opportunity for release" to
those whose prior bids were already denied.

"The Supreme Court has said repeatedly, 'Youth are categorically
different from adults,'" Ms. Breihan said. "So it stands to reason
that when they have parole hearings, their parole hearings should
be categorically different from adult parole hearings, as a matter
of constitutional law."

This month's ruling could be a sign of things to come, according to
Heather Renwick, legal director for the Campaign for the Fair
Sentencing of Youth. In Flores et al. v. Stanford et al., a New
York federal suit by a class of Miller kids against the Empire
State's parole board, the prisoners have brought allegations
similar to the Missouri prisoners', claiming parole board officers
regularly deny release to juvenile lifers "with short conclusory
opinions citing only factors present at the time of conviction"
without speaking to whether they demonstrate reform.

"District court judges will have to look to the specific facts in
the states where other litigation has been brought, but I think
that this decision sets an important, if not legal precedent, I
think conceptual precedent, that will be cited in other cases
around the country," Renwick said.

In its defense, the Missouri DOC had argued Montgomery's citation
to a Wyoming statute, which permitted juvenile homicide offenders
to apply for parole after 25 years but did not provide any special
parole procedures, demonstrated that there are no special
requirements for Miller kids in parole proceedings.

But Judge Laughrey quoted the sentence immediately following that
citation in her order, noting that the high court included maturity
as a factor when it said allowing parole ensures that "juveniles .
. . who have since matured" will not be forced to serve a
disproportionate sentence.

The Missouri DOC declined to comment on whether it planned to
comply with the court's order or appeal. Matthew Knepper of Husch
Blackwell LLP, who served as pro bono co-counsel for the
plaintiffs, said that while the October ruling is validating, "the
battle's not over." Ms. Breihan filed a motion to clarify whether
she, Mr. Knepper and the other attorneys for the Miller kids would
be allowed to weigh in on what the proper remedy should be.

"It's a nice victory to have someone say that Miller does apply to
my clients, and they do get meaningful relief," Mr. Knepper said.
"That's what we've been searching for for a long time. I never
dreamed when we took these cases on initially, that six years
later, we'd still be battling it. The state of Missouri has 60 days
. . .  we'll see what their plan is."

The Missouri DOC is represented by Michael Joseph Spillane and
Andrew J. Crane of the Missouri Attorney General's Office.

The inmates are represented by Amy E. Breihan of the MacArthur
Justice Center at St. Louis, and Matthew D. Knepper --
matt.knepper@huschblackwell.com -- Carlota Hopinks-Baul --
coty.hopinks-baul@huschblackwell.com -- Denyse L. Jones, Jordan T.
Ault and Sarah L. Zimmerman of Husch Blackwell LLP.

The case is Norman Brown et al. v. Anne L. Precythe et al., case
number 2:17-cv-04082, in the U.S. District Court for Western
Missouri.

The related case in New York is Flores et al. v. Tina M. Stanford
et al., case number 7:18-cv-02468, in the U.S. District Court for
Southern New York. [GN]


MONEYMUTUAL LLC: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Rilley Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Scott Rilley, Michelle Kunza, Venus
Colquitt-Montgomery, Jonathan Aldrich, and Kendra Buettner, on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
MoneyMutual, LLC, Selling Source, LLC, and PartnerWeekly, LLC,
Defendants, Civil No. 16-4001 (DWF/LIB) (D. Minn.), Judge Donovan
W. Frank of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Class Action Complaint in its entirety for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

The Defendants collectively are entities that operate a
lead-generating business for various payday lenders.  Consumers
would go to the Defendants' website to fill out an application, and
then the Defendants would sell the application to lenders.  The
lenders would independently decide whether to lend consumers
money.

The Plaintiffs are consumer-borrowers who have filed a purported
class action against the Defendants related to the payday loans.
They first filed their complaint in Minnesota state court, naming
only MoneyMutual as a Defendant.  MoneyMutual moved to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction.

In Rilley v. MoneyMutual, LLC ("Rilley I"), the Minnesota Supreme
Court affirmed the Dakota County District Court's and Minnesota
Court of Appeals' findings of personal jurisdiction.  After the
U.S. Supreme Court denied MoneyMutual's petition for certiorari,the
Plaintiffs amended the complaint to add Defendants PartnerWeekly
and Selling Source.

The Plaintiffs then filed their First Amended Complaint, bringing
claims for: (1) violating Minnesota's payday-lending statutes; (2)
violating Section 1962(c) of the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"); (3) violating the Minnesota
Consumer Fraud Act, and the Minnesota False Statement in
Advertising Act; (4) violating the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) civil conspiracy
and aiding and abetting; and (7) alter ego/piercing the corporate
veil.

The Defendants then removed the case to the Court and again moved
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  In the Aug. 30, 2017
Order, the Court denied the motion, but dismissed the RICO claim
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Since the Aug. 30, 2017 Order, discovery has also revealed facts
clarifying the nature of Selling Source's relationship with
MoneyMutual and PartnerWeekly, as well as its role in the
payday-lending scheme.  Selling Source is the sole owner of
MoneyMutual and PartnerWeekly.  PartnerWeekly and Selling Source
have shared numerous employees, including: (1) Glenn McKay, who was
simultaneously President of PartnerWeekly and CEO of Selling
Source; and (2) a Chief Technology Officer.  Finally, the counsel
for Selling Source provides input for and approves the content of
e-mails sent to consumers, and Selling Source employees are
responsible for sending out the e-mails.

On March 21, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint, which added Plaintiffs Jonathon Aldrich, Venus
Colquitt-Montgomery, and Kendra Buettner, omitted the previously
dismissed claims, and did not add any new claims or theories of
recovery.

The Defendants now move to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in
its entirety.

Judge Frank finds that (i) the nature and quality of the
Defendants' contacts with Minnesota weigh in favor of exercising
personal jurisdiction; (ii) the quantity of the Defendants'
contacts weighs in favor of exercising personal jurisdiction; (iii)
the Plaintiffs' causes of action are sufficiently related to the
Defendants' contacts with the forum state; and (iv) exercising
personal jurisdiction over the Defendants is reasonable and does
not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.
The Judge also finds that the discovery has revealed evidence
sufficient for the Court to conclude that it is proper to exercise
personal jurisdiction over Selling Source.  Selling Source wholly
facilitates the Minnesota-related payday-lending activities of
MoneyMutual and PartnerWeekly.  Evidence also indicates that
Selling Source and PartnerWeekly also shared a Chief Technology
Officer.  Taken together, these facts indicate that for the
purposes of jurisdiction, Selling Source is sufficiently
indistinguishable from MoneyMutual and PartnerWeekly.  He therefore
concludes that the Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with
Minnesota to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction.

Based upon the foregoing, Judge Frank denied the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/pGZLZu from Leagle.com.

Scott Rilley, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
Michelle Kunza, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, Linda Gonzales, individually and on behalf of the
putative classes & Michael Gonzales, individually and on behalf of
the putative classes, Plaintiffs, represented by E. Michelle Drake
-- emdrake@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Jeffrey Laurence
Osterwise -- josterwise@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P. C., pro hac
vice, John G. Albanese -- jalbanese@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, PC
& Mark L. Heaney -- mark@heaneylaw.com -- Heaney Law Firm, LLC.

Venus Colquitt-Montgomery, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, Jonathon Aldrich, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated & Kendra Buettner, on behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by John G.
Albanese, Berger & Montague, PC.

MoneyMutual, LLC, Selling Source, LLC & PartnerWeekly, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Christina Rieck Loukas --
cloukas@winthrop.com -- Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, Donald J.
Putterman -- ayoung@plylaw.com -- Putterman Landry & Yu LLP, pro
hac vice, Joseph M. Windler -- jwindler@winthrop.com -- Winthrop &
Weinstine, PA, Michelle L. Landry, Putterman Landry & Yu LLP, pro
hac vice & Tobias G. Snyder, Putterman Landry & Yu LLP, pro hac
vice.


NANO: Judge Tosses Crypto Investor's Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Molly Jane Zuckerman, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that a
class action lawsuit brought on by a crypto investor against the
development team of altcoin Nano was dismissed by a New York judge.
According to court documents, the lawsuit alleged that the
developers had lured him to trade in Nano on a platform that lost
hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of the cryptocurrency. The
lawsuit had asked that Nano do a "rescue fork" to return investors'
missing money. However, in the dismissal, the judge notes that the
case had lacked merit. [GN]


NEW YORK, NY: M.F. Files ADA Suit v. NYCDOE
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York City
Department of Education. The case is styled as M. F., a minor, by
and through his parent and natural guardian Yelena Ferrer, M. R. a
minor, by and through her parent and natural guardian Jocelyne
Rojas, I. F. a minor, by and through her parent and natural
guardian Jennifer Fox, on behalf of themselves and a class of those
similarly situated, American Diabetes Association, Plaintiffs v.
New York City Department of Education, New York City Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of School Health, City of New
York, Bill de Blasio in his official capacity as Mayor of New York
City, Richard A. Carranza in his official capacity as Chancellor of
the New York City Department of Education, Oxiris Barbot in her
capacity as Acting Commissioner of the New York City Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene, Roger Platt in his official capacity as
Chief Executive Officer of the Office of School Health, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06109 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 1, 2018).

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

The New York City Department of Education is the department of the
government of New York City that manages the city's public school
system. The City School District of the City of New York is the
largest school system in the United States, with over 1.1 million
students taught in more than 1,800 separate schools.

The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene is the
department of the government of New York City responsible for
public health along with issuing birth certificates, dog licenses,
and conducting restaurant inspection and enforcement. The New York
City Board of Health is part of the department.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


NEW YORK: DOE Faces Class Action Over Bullying Problems
-------------------------------------------------------
Noah Manskar, writing for Patch, reports that Bobbi Jo Gonzalez's
son and daughter have never known a school without bullies. A group
of kids started tormenting her son, now 13, when he was in first
grade at P.S. 97Q in Woodhaven, Queens. They would call him "cancer
boy" whenever he got his hair cut short and threatened to
physically hurt him.

"Sometimes they were nice, but they wanted me to let my guard down
so that way they could take advantage of it," said the boy, whose
name Patch is not publishing to protect his privacy. "Since then, I
never have."

School staff apparently tried to wrangle one of the bullies with
detention, but that didn't stop them. Gonzalez said she felt
"brushed off" by the school's principal when she raised concerns.

"She just completely ignored the whole situation," the Woodhaven
mom said.

The teen's story is one of hundreds of examples of unchecked
bullying that causes millions of students to stay home from school
every day. Patch is taking a yearlong look at this confounding
national crisis with a goal of providing parents like Gonzalez the
tools they need to help their children navigate these horrible
situations, which affect as many as one in three middle and high
school students.

Gonzalez is one of three New York City parents who described to
Patch how their kids endured bullying for months or years amid
uneven responses from school staff.

The parents said they felt dismissed when they reported behavior
that harmed their children. In one case, a principal waited more
than a month to report that a kid had threatened suicide, according
to a parent and city records.

The Department of Education said it is investigating the cases in
which schools did not take appropriate action and "will ensure
necessary disciplinary action is taken."

"Schools are required to treat any allegation of bullying with the
utmost seriousness, including immediately reporting and thoroughly
investigating each incident, and anything less than that is
unacceptable," DOE spokeswoman Miranda Barbot said in a statement.

But the parents that spoke to Patch aren't alone. A "pervasive"
failure to remedy bullying in schools across the city led to a
class-action lawsuit against the DOE in 2016.

"The problems were acute," said Jim Walden, a lawyer who
represented the plaintiff parents and interviewed dozens of parents
and students during his work on the case.

"They ranged from simply ignoring the complaint, sometimes blaming
the victim, sometimes retaliating against parents whom they
believed were squeaky wheels."

School staff sometimes fail to nip bullying in the bud, minimizing
small incidents that grow into more harmful patterns of behavior,
said Dawn Yuster of Advocates for Children of New York, an
education advocacy group. And even though kids may be suspended or
otherwise punished, the schools sometimes don't do enough to
address the problem, Ms. Yuster said.

"A lot of times principals and schools don't really know what to do
to stop it," said Ms. Yuster, the director of AFC's School Justice
Project. ". . . They will try different things but they're not
effective and they don't really know the best strategies to use to
address it."

The DOE has touted its efforts to tackle bullying and give training
to staff. The department last fall pledged to spend $8 million on
anti-bullying initiatives after a Bronx high schooler who was
reportedly bullied stabbed two of his classmates, killing one of
them.

The DOE also agreed to investigate bullying more promptly and track
it more closely in a settlement to Walden's federal lawsuit filed
this March. Parents have options for reporting bullying beyond
going directly to the school, the department said, including an
online form that was launched in April.

"We recognize the deep impact bullying can have on the emotional
and academic well-being of our students, and it has absolutely no
place in our schools," Ms. Barbot said.

But the problem has persisted. More than 8 in 10 sixth- through
12th-graders reported that bullying happened in their schools last
year, an all-time high rate, according to a city comptroller's
report published in June.

School staff get annual training on the DOE's anti-bullying
policies and procedures, the department said. That includes
entering allegations into the DOE's central tracking system within
24 hours; conducting an investigation within five school days; and
determining the appropriate follow-up for the involved students.

The city puts $47 million a year toward "school climate"
initiatives and mental health support, including hiring 100
consultants that lack on-site mental health services, the DOE
said.

The department also touted its Respect for All initiative, through
which students are provided information about bullying at the start
of each school year. Every school also has posters with contact
information for its Respect for All liaison, who handles bullying
reports, the DOE said.

"We are making investments that foster safe and supportive
environments in our schools, and remain laser-focused on this
work," Ms. Barbot said.

But the amount of resources the DOE has put toward fighting
bullying is "woefully deficient," Ms. Yuster said, often leaving
staff unequipped to recognize and address it.

And the department's broken system seemed to extend more protection
to the students who bully than to their targets, Walden said,
leaving parents angry and frustrated while their kids were left
with emotional scars.

"Some of these kids were still torn up. They felt as though they
were marked," Walden said. "They felt completely helpless and
hopeless."

'I Was Like The Enemy'

A student saying he wants to take his own life should be enough to
spark immediate action. But Renee Di Re says it wasn't enough when
it came to her son.

The boy first said he wanted to suffocate himself in his
third-grade classroom at PS/IS 266 on Feb. 7, 2017, his mom said.
But the guidance counselor who was in the room never reported it as
DOE regulations require.

The principal heard the boy, then 8, make a similar threat the next
day but didn't file a report about the incident for more than a
month, according to Di Re and DOE records she shared with Patch.

Di Re's son, a special education student, had struggled with
bullying since the previous fall. He's heavy-set and tall for his
age, his mom said, so he'd get teased because he's not very fast or
athletic. One day he found a note in his chair with a blunt
message: "You're dumb."

"He'd come home agitated, wouldn't want to do homework, would rip
up his papers from school, wanted no part of any extracurricular
activities in the school," she said. "He just wanted nothing to do
with school work or school."

The boy's parents noticed his mood change around Halloween, and he
revealed what was dealing with a few weeks later, Di Re said.

But teachers shrugged off or ignored the bullying when it was
brought to their attention, she said. When the boy brought the note
in his chair to one teacher, she "didn't even look at it, just put
it away," his mother said.

When he asked for his seat to be moved in music class because
another kid was bothering him, the teacher told him to "get along,"
according to Di Re.

The official account is that the boy handed the folded-up Post-It
note to the teacher at the end of the day. The teacher met with his
parent and gave a group lesson that discussed with the kids how
notes can make someone feel good or bad.

In the music class, the teacher tried working with the group Di
Re's son was in but ultimately changed his seat, according to DOE
records and Di Re.

The school's principal, Christina Catalano, didn't report the
suicide threat until March 21, more than a month after it happened,
records show. That was the day after Di Re said she met with a
parent support group about the matter. The principal or another
designated staffer should have reported it within one school day
under one of the DOE's Chancellor's Regulations.

Ms. Catalano resigned in August 2017, according to the DOE.
Allegations against the other staff involved were unsubstantiated,
Di Re said. The guidance counselor denied ever hearing the boy make
the initial suicide threat in the classroom, DOE records show.

Records from an investigator's interview with Di Re's son show him
saying he "doesn't recall" if someone was bullying him, and that he
"does not recall saying he was going to hurt himself in front of
his class."

But Di Re said her son admitted to his initial threat the following
day. Another parent whose student was in the class also
corroborated what happened, she said. The boy was likely
"intimidated" when the investigator interviewed him months after
the incident, she said.

Ms. Catalano concluded the incidents that the boy's parents
described as bullying and cited as the cause of his suicide threat
were separate occurrences that were addressed appropriately by each
involved teacher.

Mr. Walden, the attorney, encountered some cases that involved that
kind of "segmentation," he said, "where DOE found multiple slices
of bread and tried to argue that it wasn't a loaf."

Di Re says she was ostracized after calling attention to the
situation, which she believes the school mishandled.

"No one would talk to me anymore," Di Re said. "I walked in, no
hellos, no nothing. So I was like the enemy."

The bullying finally stopped for Di Re's son in the spring of last
year, she said, when he physically defended himself against his
primary nemesis.

But Di Re is troubled by issues with bullying at the school and
started a Facebook page last year to air them. Other parents have
pulled their kids out of the school, she said, but she wants things
to actually change and has kept her son there.

"First you have to educate yourself, know your rights," she said.
"And second, you can't make them discount it."

"They discount it, they blow it off, because they don't want to
have to make it bullying, because then they have to report it,
their numbers go down," she added. "It's all about the numbers."

'Like Talking To A Wall'

Bobbi Jo Gonzalez's children's struggle with bullying unfolded
around 2011, a few months into their first school year at PS 97Q in
Woodhaven. She said her daughter, then a kindergartner, was having
trouble with another kid who would slap her, pinch her and take her
things.

It had been going on for about a week when Gonzalez approached the
principal. At the meeting, the principal took out a legal pad to
take notes, but only jotted down "bits and pieces" of the 10-minute
conversation, Gonzalez said.

"Talking to her was pretty much like talking to a wall," Gonzalez
said. "But in my opinion you'd probably get a better response from
the wall."

The principal told the mom that she'd talk to the culprit, and
claimed she did in a follow-up conversation a couple days later,
Gonzalez said. But the problem continued.

Gonzalez's son revealed his own bullying problem a couple weeks
after her initial chat with the principal, she said. It started
with name-calling and escalated in later years with pushing and the
"cancer boy" taunts, his mother said.

Things got so bad that at one point in his fifth-grade year he made
up an alarming story about a neighbor killing a cat to try to "get
away" from the school, his mom said.

"I said, 'Why exactly did you make up that story?' I already knew
but I wanted to hear it in his words," she said. "He's like, '
'Cause I don't like it there and I don't want to go there no more.'
"

Gonzalez and her husband brought the bullying concerns to school
staff frequently but got the "run-around" from the principal and
teachers who never proactively followed up, she said.

An assistant principal offered more, Gonzalez said, outlining what
she had done to address the problem. One of her son's bullies got
detention once or twice, she said. But nothing ultimately put a
stop to the torment.

Gonzalez asked for the children to be transferred out of their
classes and away from the kids who were tormenting them, she said,
but they were stuck — both are special-education students who had
to be in a certain classroom setting and could not be moved.

The kids still deal with bullying at their middle school, Gonzalez
said, where the staff addresses it more effectively. But the toll
on their emotional well-being continues -- her son was diagnosed
with anxiety in fifth grade "because of that school," Gonzalez
said, and he and her daughter are both more sensitive to teasing.

"Even when somebody just calls him a name, he'll come home and
he'll be frustrated and upset and then he'll start crying," she
said.

'Outcast'

James was an active, well-liked kid who's now in fifth grade. He's
a soccer player, an actor and a hip-hop dancer.

But a one-time friend-turned-bully made him into something of an
"outcast" at school, said his mother, who requested anonymity to
avoid causing any trouble for her son. Patch is using a pseudonym
for the boy to protect his privacy.

The torment started in April 2017, when James and his bully were in
third grade at PS 173Q in Fresh Meadows. James didn't tell his
parents what was going on at first, though his mother said she
noticed unusual bruises on his legs when he would go to shower.

It turned out James was being punched and abused, his mom said. A
friend who saw he wasn't sticking up for himself was the first to
report it to a teacher, she said.

James "likes to be friends with everyone," his mother said. "He's
got a great personality and he felt that if you had to tell on
someone then you get called down to the principal's office."

He didn't want that, she said.

"But finally when the teacher approached me and told me what had
been going on, that's when I started to open my eyes and question
everything," his mom added.

The physical attacks continued through the end of the third grade.
His mother said she was present for one herself in May 2017 -- the
bully chased James in a playground outside the school and hit him
with a back scratcher. The mom said she and her son went to the
school and said, "What kind of nonsense is this?"

The two kids were separated into different classes at the beginning
of the following school year, but James' mother said the bully took
to a new tactic -- isolating him on the playground. When James'
friends came over to play with him, she said, the bully would
command them to stay away.

"They don't have a choice," his mother said. He "knows how to push
people's buttons."

James' mother and her husband approached the principal and
assistant principals four or five times about the bullying of their
son, she said. The responses seemed uneven.

To her knowledge, the bully was once given detention but may not
have actually gone. Staff told James' mom they would try to keep an
eye on the kids outside the school, she said. Regardless, the
bullying continued.

"All they've done is put a Band-Aid on this," she said. "This kid
has not been reprimanded at all."

The bully would deny the allegations when school staff call him in
to discuss them, James' mother said, and so would other kids.

In one case, James came home with his new shoes stepped on and
dirtied, his mom said, but school staff told her they couldn't do
anything because there was no witness. "I think if something was
happening the kid would stop, and obviously the kid is not
stopping."

To add insult to injury, James' mother said staff started avoiding
her in the school. She's considered moving the boy to a different
school for middle school, she said, as she worries the treatment
will continue when James and the bully both move up.

"I shouldn't be running away because of this bully," she said. "But
he hasn't been taught a lesson, and apparently this kid will do
whatever he wants."

Through the end of the 2018, Patch will continue its in-depth look
at society's roles and responsibilities in bullying, which can lead
to a child's unthinkable decision to end their own life, in hopes
we might offer solutions that save lives. [GN]


OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Bid to File Cox Deal Under Seal Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBER COX, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP. and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00913-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal.), Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denied
without prejudice the parties' requests (i) for dismissal, and (ii)
to file the settlement agreement under seal.

On Sept. 25, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed
order for voluntary dismissal of the class and collective actions
in the case.  The class action claims arise under California law,
while the collective action claim is brought under Section 16(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  The parties represent that
the claims of the named Plaintiff and the two Plaintiffs who joined
the collective action have been settled, and seek dismissal with
prejudice as to those three Plaintiffs and dismissal without
prejudice as to all other individuals.

Judge O'Neill explains that collective action claims for back wages
under the FLSA can be settled or compromised only through a
repayment plan supervised by the Secretary of Labor under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(c), or by a settlement agreement that has been approved
by a district court under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).  As the
fairness of the settlement cannot be determined if the Court is
unable to review the agreement, the parties are directed to file
the agreement with the Court.  Accordingly, he denied without
prejudice the request for dismissal.

The parties suggest that the settlement agreement should be filed
under seal.  As the Court has found in a prior case, the Judge
holds that a motion to approve a settlement and enter a stipulated
judgment is a dispositive motion closely related to the merits of a
case, and may be sealed only for compelling reasons.  He is not
aware of any basis on which to conclude that the proposed
settlement is not more than tangentially related to the merits of
the case, and accordingly the presumptive compelling reasons
requirement applies to the sealing request made.  The parties have
also not yet demonstrated any compelling reasons to justify sealing
the settlement.  Accordingly, he also denied without prejudice the
parties' request to file the settlement agreement under seal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 2, 2018 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/X4HeM1 from Leagle.com.

Robert Cox, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lauren Elizabeth Braddy --
lauren@a2xlaw.com -- Anderson2x, PLLC, pro hac vice, Stephanie E.
Yasuda -- syasuda@yoonlaw.com -- Law Offices of Kenneth Yoon,
William Clifton Alexander -- clif@a2xlaw.com -- Anderson2x, PLLC,
pro hac vice & Kenneth Yoon, Law Offices Of Kenneth H. Yoon.

Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Defendant, represented by Laura
E. Hayward -- lhayward@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & R. Brian
Dixon -- bdixon@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.


PAY-O-MATIC: Faces Nixon ADA Class Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Pay-O-Matic Corp.
The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Pay-O-Matic Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06132 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 1, 2018).

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

The Pay-O-Matic Corporation provides check cashing, money transfer,
and billpayment services. It offers prepaid card, direct deposit,
prepaid, money order, deposit/withdrawal, and other 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


PIZZA HUT: Can Compel Arbitration in Hobon FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN HOBON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PIZZA HUT OF SOUTHERN WISCONSIN,
INC., d/b/a PIZZA HUT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-947-slc
(W.D. Wis.), Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (i) granted
the Defendants' consolidated motion to compel those Plaintiffs with
agreements to arbitrate with PHSW to arbitrate their individual
claims pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act; and (ii) stayed
their motion to strike the collective and class allegations
contained in the Third Amended Complaint to allow the Plaintiffs an
opportunity to file an amended complaint that redefines the
proposed class.

Before the court are two motions by the Defendants: (1) a motion
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) and the Federal Arbitration Act to
compel the Plaintiffs who signed arbitration agreements to
arbitrate their individual claims; and (2) a motion brought under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) and 23 for an order striking the collective
and class allegations contained in the Third Amended Complaint.

The case is a putative collective and class action for damages
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and
Wisconsin and Illinois wage and hour laws.  Hobon brings the
collective and class action for damages on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated current and former employees who work
or have worked as delivery drivers at Pizza Hut of Southern
Wisconsin, Inc., doing business as Pizza Hut, or of its Wisconsin
and Illinois affiliates since Dec. 20, 2014.

Hobon alleges that PHSW subjected its delivery drivers to a vehicle
reimbursement policy that failed to reasonably approximate their
actual expenses, in violation of the FLSA, and Wisconsin and
Illinois wage and hour laws.  The complaint was filed on Dec. 20,
2017.

On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Epic
Systems Corp. v. Lewis, holding that arbitration agreements must be
enforced as written and are not unenforceable merely because they
prohibit employees from engaging in a collective or class action.
As it turns out, three of the eight Plaintiffs who have opted in to
the suit so far and about 65 of the entire putative class executed
such arbitration agreements with PHSW.

In reliance on Epic Systems, on June 21, 2018, PHSW filed the
instant motion to compel these opt-in Plaintiffs to arbitrate their
claims on an individual basis and for an order striking the class
allegations contained in the Third Amended Complaint.  The
Plaintiffs concede that they have agreements with PHSW to arbitrate
employment disputes on an individual basis and that these
agreements are now enforceable under Epic Systems, but say PHSW
waived its right to arbitrate by willingly participating in the
litigation on a collective basis.  The Plaintiffs say that by
participating in pretrial conferences, allowing the court to set a
schedule and engaging in discovery without mentioning arbitration
or asking the Court to stay the case pending a decision from the
Supreme Court in Epic Systems, PHSW has indicated anintent to
proceed in a judicial forum that is inconsistent with a right to
arbitrate.

Judge Crocker finds that the circumstances of the case do not
support a finding that PHSW engaged in conduct inconsistent with
its right to arbitrate.  First, PHSW raised the possibility of
arbitration in its answer and affirmative defenses.  Second, until
the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Epic Systems, PHSW had no
"right" of arbitration to assert.  Third, the fact that PHSW
participated in scheduling conferences and discovery without
mentioning arbitration or demanding a stay pending a decision in
Epic Systems does not suggest that it abandoned its wish to
arbitrate.  Finally, the Plaintiff has not been prejudiced by
PHSW's delay in moving to compel arbitration.  In sum, having
considered the totality of the circumstances, the Judge find sthat
PHSW's conduct in the case does not support a finding of waiver.

In response to PHSW's motion to strike, the Plaintiff asserts that
there remains a readily identifiable class of 502 delivery drivers
who did not sign an arbitration agreement.  Therefore, the
Plaintiff asks that, in lieu of the Court striking the class
allegations in their entirety, he be allowed seven days to amend
his complaint to narrow the defined class to those drivers for whom
PHSW cannot produce a signed arbitration agreement.  PHSW does not
object to this request, but reserves its right to both contest the
anticipated motions for conditional class certification and Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 certification in the event the court allows plaintiff to
amend.  Accordingly, not later than Oct. 10, 2018, the Plaintiff
should file an amended complaint which redefines the class to
include only those PHSW delivery drivers who did not sign
arbitration agreements with PHSW.  The parties are advised to
confer on the wording of the amended complaint to avoid further
delays in the case.

As a final matter, the Plaintiff asks the Court (in the event it
does not find waiver) to strike the arbitration agreements'
confidentiality provision, which provides that the parties agree to
submit their disputes to confidential binding arbitration, instead
of going to Court.  Apart from extracting quotes from various
courts that have been critical of confidentiality provisions, the
Plaintiff does not develop any specific facts or even suggest what
state's law should control in deciding the question of
unconscionability, which is a common law contract defense governed
by state law principles.  Further, it is not clear that the alleged
unfairness of the confidentiality provision is an appropriate
subject for the Court, rather than the arbitrator.  Absent more
than general arguments from the Plaintiff as to why confidentiality
provisions are disfavored, the Judge declines to strike the
confidentiality provision.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Crocker granted the Defendants'
motion to compel, and stayed the motion to strike the collective
and class allegations contained in the Third Amended Complaint to
allow the Plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended complaint
that redefines the proposed class.  

Not later than Oct. 10, 2018, the Plaintiff will file a Fourth
Amended complaint, redefining the class to include only those PHSW
delivery drivers who did not sign arbitration agreements with PHSW.
In the event the Plaintiff files an amended complaint as ordered,
the Defendants' motion to strike the collective and class
allegations contained in the Third Amended Complaint will be denied
as moot.  

The Judge denied the Plaintiff's request for an order striking the
confidentiality provision of the Agreement to Arbitrate.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/TwKUoa from Leagle.com.

John Hobon, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Larry A. Johnson --
ljohnson@hq-law.com -- Hawks Quindel, S.C., Summer Hart Murshid --
smurshid@hq-law.com -- Hawks Quindel Ehlke & Perry, S.C. & Timothy
Peter Maynard -- tmaynard@hq-law.com.

Pizza Hut of Southern Wisconsin, Inc., d/b/a Pizza Hut & Rockford
Pizza, LLC, Defendants, represented by Brian C. Spahn --
bspahn@gklaw.com -- Godfrey & Kahn, Joshua Lee Johanningmeier --
jjohanningmeier@gklaw.com -- Godfrey & Kahn S.C., Erin M. Cook --
mcook@gklaw.com -- Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. & Rebeca M. Lopez --
rlopez@gklaw.com -- Godfrey & Kahn, S.C.

MSG Delco, LLC, Pizza Hut of Madison, Inc., Pizza Hut of Rock
County, Inc., Divo Enterprises, Inc., Pizza Hut of Waunakee, Inc.,
Pizza Hut of Platteville, Inc., Pizza Hut of Mauston, LLC &
Southing Grange, Inc., Defendants, represented by Brian C. Spahn,
Godfrey & Kahn.


PLAZA ATHENEE: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plaza Athenee Hotel
Company Limited. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Plaza
Athenee Hotel Company Limited, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10154
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 1, 2018).

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

Plaza Athenee Hotel Company Limited owns and operates a hotel in
New York. It offers various guestrooms and suites, as well as
fitness and business center, restaurant and lounge, and spa
facilities.[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


PRET A MANGER: Agrees to Pay $1MM to Shortchanged US Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
August Graham, writing for City A.M., reports that Pret A Manger
will pay almost $1m (£779,000) to US workers who claim they were
underpaid while working for the company.

The sandwich chain has been accused of rounding down the hours that
staff at its New York outlets were reimbursed for.

It is the second time the UK-based firm has been hit by accusations
of so-called time-shaving in New York.

In 2014 it settled a class action lawsuit by paying out $910,000,
but did not admit liability.

This time the company has agreed to pay $875,000 to staff affected
by the practices, which include rounding down their work hours, the
Sunday Times reported.

Pret A Manger told City A.M: "We are absolutely committed to making
sure all our team members are paid for all the hours that they
work."

The decision will add pressure on Pret's management team, which is
already facing criticism for its handling of teenager Natasha
Ednan-Laperouse's death.

The 15-year-old died in 2016 from an allergic reaction a Pret
baguette. [GN]


PROVIDE COMMERCE: Attys' Fees Award in Easysaver Suit Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE EASYSAVER REWARDS LITIGATION. JOSUE ROMERO;
DEANNA HUNT; KIMBERLY KENYON; GINA BAILEY; ALISSA HERBST; GRANT
JENKINS; BRADLEY BERENTSON; JENNIFER LAWLER; DANIEL COX; JONATHAN
WALTER; CHRISTOPHER DICKEY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BRIAN
PERRYMAN, Objector-Appellant, v. PROVIDE COMMERCE, INC.; REGENT
GROUP, INC., a California corporation, DBA Encore Marketing
International; ENCORE MARKETING INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-56307 (9th Cir.),
Judge Michelle Friedland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit (i) vacated the district court's approval of the award of
attorney's fees but (ii) otherwise affirmed its approval of the
settlement.

In 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the
Defendants in the Southern District of California, alleging
violations of various state laws arising from the Defendants'
operation of their membership rewards program.  After more than two
years of litigation, including extensive discovery and mediation,
the parties agreed to settle.

The settlement established a $12.5 million fund from which the
Defendants would pay up to $8.7 million in attorney's fees; $80,000
in enhancement awards to the named Plaintiffs; and $200,000 in
litigation costs.  The approximately $3.5 million remaining would
be available to fund the settlement's administration costs and to
reimburse the class members for their membership fees on a pro rata
basis up to the full amount owed.

To receive such a refund, the class members had to submit a claim
affirming that they had neither intended to enroll in the program
nor used any program benefits other than the initial discount code.
After the refunds were issued, any remaining funds were to be
distributed as a cy pres award to San Diego State University, the
University of California at San Diego, and the University of San
Diego School of Law for a chair, professorship, fellowship,
lectureship, seminar series or similar funding, gift, or donation
program regarding internet privacy or internet data security.

The settlement also directed the Defendants to email every class
member a $20 credit that could be used to purchase items on
Defendants' websites.  Unlike with the refund, the class members
were not required to submit a claim to receive the credit.

In June 2012, the district court preliminarily approved the
settlement.  The parties informed the court that the class
contained approximately 1.3 million consumers who had been enrolled
in the rewards program at some point since August 2005.

In January 2013, the district court held a final settlement
approval hearing at which class member, Brian Perryman, objected to
the settlement.  The court rejected these objections and issued a
final order approving both the settlement and the class counsel's
accompanying fee request.  The district court's order placed the
full settlement value at $38 million, including $12.5 million for
the cash fund and $25.5 million for the $20 credits to be
distributed to the approximately 1.3 million class members.  

The Objector appealed, and the Appellate Court vacated and remanded
for further proceedings in light of its decision in In re Online
DVDRental Antitrust Litigation, which addressed CAFA's coupon
settlement provisions.  Again using $38 million as the total value
of the settlement, the court then approved the fee award based on
both percentage-of-recovery and lodestar calculations.

Under the percentage-of-recovery method, it concluded that an $8.7
million attorney's fee award was reasonable.  As a result, the
court reinstated its prior approval of the settlement and the fee
award.

The Objector has appealed again to challenge the attorney's fee and
cy pres awards.  With respect to the fee award, he argues that the
district court erred by failing to comply with CAFA's requirements
for coupon settlements and, relatedly, that the settlement provides
class counsel with a disproportionate share of the recovery.  With
respect to the cy pres award, he contends that cy pres relief is
not appropriate here and that, even if it were, the district court
should have rejected the particular cy pres beneficiaries chosen in
the settlement.

Judge Friedland holds that the Objector's challenge to the
attorney's fee award succeeds because the district court failed to
treat the $20 credits as coupons under CAFA, but rejects the
Objector's cy pres arguments.  

The Judge finds that the fact that the In re Online DVD plaintiffs
had a choice between cash and a gift card worth the same amount
made it easier for her to assess the value of the gift cards.  The
class members who selected gift cards must have valued them at
close to face value, because they selected them over essentially
the same value in cash.  It was therefore appropriate to treat the
In re Online DVD settlement as similar to an all-cash settlement.
Here, however, it is impossible to draw the same conclusion --
nothing in the record could have given the district court reason to
believe that any class member, let alone all the class members,
would have viewed the $20 credit as equivalently useful to $20 in
cash.  Therefore, she concludes that the only logical conclusion
under the correct legal rule is that these credits are coupons
under CAFA.

Because the district court incorporated the full face value of the
coupons into both its percentage-of-recovery calculation and
lodestar calculation of the attorney's fee award, this error
requires recalculation of the fee award.  Accordingly, the
attorney's fee award must be vacated.  On remand, the award should
be recalculated in a manner that treats the $20 credits as coupons
under CAFA.  Because she holds that the fee award must be
recalculated, the Judge holds she needs not address Objector's
separate argument that the settlement disproportionately benefits
the class counsel at the expense of the class.  And, in any event,
that argument largely collapses into the Objector's challenge to
the fee award under CAFA.

The Objector also challenges the use of cy pres to distribute the
remaining settlement funds, and, if cy pres is to be used at all,
the choice of recipients.  The Judge holds that it was not an abuse
of discretion for the district court to approve the use of cy pres
or to approve these particular recipients.  First, the Objector's
geographic challenge fails because these beneficiaries have a
nationwide reach sufficient to justify their receipt of the cy pres
award.  Second, the alumni connections of three of the (many)
involved attorneys did not impermissibly taint the selection
process.  Finally, given both the structure of the settlement
agreement and the focus of Objector's challenges, the Judge holds
that it is unnecessary to reverse the entire settlement approval in
conjunction with their vacatur of the fee award.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Friedland vacated and remanded the
award of attorney's fees but otherwise affirmed approval of the
settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/8kbq5k from Leagle.com.

Theodore H. Frank -- info@cei.org -- (argued) and Adam E. Schulman,
Competitive Enterprise Institute, Center for Class Action Fairness,
Washington, D.C., for Objector-Appellant Brian Perryman.

Bruce Steckler -- bruce@stecklerlaw.com -- (argued), Steckler Law
Group LLP, Dallas, Texas; Jennie Lee Anderson --
jennie@andrusanderson.com -- Andrus Anderson LLP, San Francisco,
California; James R. Patterson, The Patterson Law Group, San Diego,
California; and Michael Singer -- msinger@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan
Khoury & Singer, San Diego, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellees
Josue Romero, Deanna Hunt, Kimberly Kenyon, Gina Bailey, Alissa
Herbst, Grant Jenkins, Bradley Berentson, Jennifer Lawler, Daniel
Cox, Jonathan Walker, and Christopher Dickey.

Leo P. Norton -- lnorton@cooley.com -- (argued), Michael G. Rhodes
-- rhodesmg@cooley.com -- and Michelle C. Doolin --
mdoolin@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, San Diego, California, for
Defendant-Appellee Provide Commerce, Inc.

Myron M. Cherry -- mcherry@cherry-law.com -- and Jacie C. Zolna --
jzolna@cherry-law.com -- Myron M. Cherry & Associates LLC, Chicago,
Illinois, for Defendant-Appellee Regent Group, Inc.

Oramel H. (O.H.) Skinner (argued), Paul N. Watkins, and Dana R.
Vogel, Assistant Attorneys General; Mark Brnovich, Attorney
General; Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, Arizona;
for Amici Curiae Thirteen State Attorneys General.

Wilber H. Boies and Timothy M. Kennedy, McDermott Will & Emery LLP,
Chicago, Illinois; Jessica Mariani, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Los
Angeles, California; Robert Kline, McDermott Will & Emery LLP,
Miami, Florida; for Amici Curiae National Legal Aid and Defender
Association, Association of Pro Bono Counsel, Legal Aid Association
of California and 24 of its member organizations, California Bar
Foundation, Equal Rights Advocates, Family and Children's Law
Center, Columbia Legal Services, Hawaii Justice Foundation, Legal
Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Montana Justice Foundation,
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Washoe Legal Services, and
William E. Morris Institute for Justice.


PURDUE PHARMA: Reynolds Files RICO Class Action in Oregon
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P.,
et al. The case is styled as Jason Reynolds individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Purdue Pharma
LP, Purdue Pharma Inc., Purdue Frederick Company Inc., Insys
Therapeutic Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Cephalon Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Actavis PLC, Actavis Inc., Watson
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Watson Laboratories Inc., McKesson
Corporation, Cardinal Health Inc., Amerisourcebergen Corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01911-MO (D. Ore., Nov. 1, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned
principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and Raymond
Sackler. The company's branches include Purdue Pharma Inc., The
Purdue Frederick Company, Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P., and
Purdue Products L.P.

The Frederick Purdue Company provides research, development,
production, marketing, sales, and licensing of prescription and
non-prescription medicines and healthcare products. The Company
offers specializes in pain medication research, as well as other
therapeutic areas, including sleep and gastrointestinal disorders.
The Frederick Purdue operates in the United States.

Insys Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
develops and commercializes supportive care products. The company
markets SUBSYS, a sublingual fentanyl spray for breakthrough cancer
pain in opioid-tolerant adult patients; and SYNDROS, an orally
administered liquid formulation of dronabinol for the treatment of
chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and anorexia associated
with weight loss in patients with AIDS.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
The Generic Medicines segment offers sterile products, hormones,
narcotics, high-potency drugs, and cytotoxic substances in various
dosage forms, including tablets, capsules, injectables, inhalants,
liquids, ointments, and creams. This segment also develops,
manufactures, and sells active pharmaceutical ingredients.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. manufactures and markets generic
drugs in the United States. It offers generic products for various
therapeutic options, such as cardiovascular, anti-infective,
central nervous system, anti-inflammatory, oncolytic,
anti-diabetic, analgesic, dermatologic, respiratory, and women's
health. The company offers its products in various dosage forms,
such as tablets, capsules, injectables, creams, ointments,
inhalants, solutions, and suspensions. It serves patients through
distributors. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. was formerly known as
Lemmon Pharmacal Company and changed its name to Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. in 1996.

Cephalon, Inc. engages in the discovery and development of
medicines for central nervous system disorders, pain, and cancer.
It offers NUVIGIL (armodafinil) tablets for improving wakefulness
in patients with excessive sleepiness associated with treated
obstructive sleep apnea and shift work disorder, also known as
shift work disorder and narcolepsy; TREANDA (bendamustine HCl) for
injection for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and AMRIX (Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride extended-release
capsules), which is indicated as an adjunct to rest and physical
therapy for relief of muscle spasm associated with acute and
painful musculoskeletal conditions.

Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational medical devices,
pharmaceutical and consumer packaged goods manufacturing company
founded in 1886. Its common stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and the company is listed among the Fortune
500.

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. manufactures and markets prescription
pharmaceutical products. It provides medicines for health concerns
in various therapeutic areas, including attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder, pain management, acid reflux and infectious
diseases, women's health, and mental health (bipolar I disorder and
schizophrenia); neurologics, including Alzheimer's disease,
epilepsy, and migraine prevention and treatment; and SYMTUZATM, a
darunavir-based single-tablet regimen for the treatment of human
immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in treatment-naïve and
certain virologically suppressed adults.

Endo Health Solutions Inc. provides specialty healthcare solutions
in the United States and internationally. The company's Endo
Pharmaceuticals segment offers branded prescription products,
including Lidoderm, Opana ER, Percocet, Voltaren Gel, Frova,
Supprelin LA, Vantas, Valstar, and Fortesta Gel for pain, urology,
endocrinology, and oncology. Its Qualitest segment provides
non-branded generic products in the pain management, urology,
central nervous system disorders, immunosuppression, oncology,
women's health, and hypertension markets.

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. engages in the research and development,
production, sale, and marketing of branded and generic
pharmaceutical products primarily in the United States. It offers
injections, sustained release capsules, gels, tablets, oral
suspensions, nasal sprays, extended-release tablets, capsules,
mucoadhesive for buccal administration, subcutaneous implants, and
sterile solutions for intravesical instillation; and clinical
research services.

Actavis Generics is a global pharmaceutical company focused on
developing, manufacturing and commercializing branded
pharmaceuticals, generic and over-the-counter medicines, and
biologic products. Actavis has a commercial presence across
approximately 100 countries.

Watson Laboratories, Inc. manufactures pharmaceutical drugs. The
company was incorporated in 1992 and is based in Corona,
California. Watson Laboratories, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited.

McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies
in the United States and internationally. It operates in three
segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European
Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. The
company distributes branded, generic, specialty, biosimilar, and
over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs, as well as other
healthcare-related products; and offers practice management,
technology, clinical support, and business solutions to
community-based oncology and other specialty practices.

Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services
and products company in the United States and internationally. It
provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that
enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems,
pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and
physician offices.

AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation distributes pharmaceuticals
products, equipment, and systems. The company provides global
product sourcing, generic purchasing programs, technology
solutions, pharmacy network and programs, and pharmaceutical
packaging solutions. The company serves healthcare providers,
independent retailers, and pharmacies. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation was formerly known as AmeriSource Corporation and
changed its name to AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation in January
1995.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steve D. Larson, Esq.
     Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter P.C.
     209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
     Portland, OR 97204
     Phone: (503) 227-1600
     Fax: (503) 227-6840
     Email: slarson@stollberne.com


RELIQ HEALTH: Rosen Law Firm Mulls Investors Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jayson Maclean, writing for Cantech Letter, reports that Reliq
Health Technologies (Reliq Health Stock Quote, Chart TSXV:RHT,
OTC:RQHTF) is in dire straits as the healthcare software company
faces scrutiny over its financial disclosures and a class action
lawsuit on behalf of shareholders. The issues raise too many red
flags, says Peter Imhof of AGF Investments, who has serious doubts
concerning Reliq's overall management.

On October 16, news broke that Reliq was intending to restate
aspects of its financial information for the quarter ended March
31, 2018, saying that the decision followed an audit which revealed
problems over the "timing and certainty of receiving the revenue
invoiced to clients," said management in a statement.

Market reaction was immediate, with the stock losing more than half
of its value overnight. After reaching a high of $2.62 earlier this
year, RHT currently sits at $0.48, down nine per cent in the Oct.
26 trading.

Imhof, vice-president and portfolio manager at AGF Investments,
says that while his firm did extremely well by Reliq over the past
year and a half, the company's current issues are too big to
ignore.

"They came out recently and said that they couldn't recognize a lot
of the revenue that was supposedly coming through and that it would
be delayed," says Imhof to BNN Bloomberg. "There were some
governance issues probably with the company. Unfortunately, we
ended up selling the stock here on the downturn -- there were just
too many red flags. There are going to be lots of lawsuits against
the company."

On Oct. 24, Reliq announced the firing of Giancarlo De Lio, the
company's Chief Visionary Officer, while at the same time reporting
that it has taken on Sophic Capital as its investor relations
firm.

"These changes reflect Reliq's commitment to improving our investor
communications and to ensuring transparency, accountability and
execution within the organization going forward," said Dr. Lisa
Crossley, CEO of Reliq.

Imhof said, "When there's no visibility, there are lawsuits going
on, I don't have a tonne of confidence in the overall management in
terms of operations so we just decided to exit and move on."

"Sometimes you have to do that in small caps, you have to take your
lumps," he said.

At this point, investor rights law firm Rosen Law Firm has stated
that it would be filing a class action lawsuit on behalf of Reliq
investors, "resulting from allegations that Reliq may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public." [GN]


REYNOLDS AND REYNOLDS: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $29.5MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Muller, writing for Automotive News, reports that Reynolds
and Reynolds Co. has agreed to pay $29.5 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit with dealers, but when that money is
distributed -- and whether there will be more -- depends on
continued litigation with CDK Global Inc.

The settlement needs approval of Judge Robert Dow in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where multidistrict,
class-action lawsuits by dealers and by rivals to the dealer
management system companies were consolidated.

The litigation alleges the two companies conspired to eliminate
competition in the DMS and data integration services markets.
Together, Reynolds and CDK control more than 70 percent of the DMS
market.

The dealer plaintiffs submitted the motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement. Reynolds declined to comment.

The preliminary agreement does not affect plaintiffs' claims
against CDK, which has so far made no indication that it plans to
settle.

"We continue to believe that these cases are without merit," the
company said in an emailed statement. "We intend to continue to
contest the claims vigorously. We will not provide further comment
on matters in litigation."

Leonard Bellavia -- LBellavia@DealerLaw.com -- of Bellavia Blatt &
Crossett, a Mineola, N.Y.-based firm representing the plaintiffs,
said if the settlement amount is approved, most of the money will
be put in escrow while the litigation with CDK continues. If CDK
were to settle, the $29.5 million Reynolds has agreed to pay would
likely be applied to CDK's potentially much larger settlement
amount before distribution to plaintiffs, he said.

If only Reynolds settles, the money would still be paid out to the
thousands of franchised dealerships that have been customers of the
company. The amounts and timing of payments would be set by the
court. Dealers who participate in the class-action suit would
typically get a premium in the settlement distribution but "not a
huge amount," Mr. Bellavia said. Dealers would also have the option
to opt out of any potential settlement.

Meanwhile, discovery on both companies continues, though Reynolds
would be released from any further liability if the settlement is
approved.

There are more than 25 dealers acting as plaintiffs in the suit,
including early litigants such as Teterboro Automall of Little
Ferry, N.J; Hartley Buick-GMC Truck of Jamestown, N.Y.; Hoover
Automotive of Summerville, S.C.; and John O'Neil Johnson Toyota of
Meridian, Miss. They allege that manipulation of the data
integration market by CDK and Reynolds has cost them dearly.

The proposed Reynolds settlement doesn't involve non-dealership
firms that have also sued. [GN]


SATURDAYS SURF: Olsen Files ADA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saturdays Surf LLC.
The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Saturdays Surf
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10184 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 1, 2018).

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

Saturdays Surf is a New York based menswear clothing and lifestyle
brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


SATYA JEWELRY: Violates Disabilities Act, Nixon Suit Asserts
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Satya Jewelry III,
LLC. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Satya Jewelry III, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06135 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 1, 2018).

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

Satya Jewelry III, LLC sells jewelry including necklaces, bracelets
and earrings with symbols and semi-precious gemstones.[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


SCANA: Can Afford to Compensate Ratepayers Over Failed Project
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Post and Courier reports that little of what we learned from
the recent deposition of Ken Browne, who helped oversee work on the
failed V.C. Summer nuclear project, could be considered new
information. That doesn't make it any less troubling.

Mr. Browne's sworn statement as part of a class-action lawsuit
against SCANA offers yet another inside perspective of what
increasingly appears to have been a conscious effort on the part of
the utility company's leaders to keep state regulators and
investors in the dark about mounting challenges facing the
multibillion-dollar reactor project.

"The health of the project was not good," Mr. Browne said in his
deposition, according to a report on Oct. 25 by The Post and
Courier's Andrew Brown and Thad Moore. "But if you read in the
reports, the health of the project was always good, a positive
outlook."

Mr. Browne's account would seem to confirm the narrative gleaned
from hundreds of SCANA corporate emails and other documents
released earlier in October by the state Office of Regulatory
Staff, a watchdog agency.

In those documents, SCANA officials, attorneys and staff members
debated, among other things, whether and how to keep a critical
report from going public. That report, by the engineering firm
Bechtel, was only released at the demand of Gov. Henry McMaster
after SCANA and project partner Santee Cooper had already abandoned
construction on the reactors.

Ever since construction stopped last year, SCANA ratepayers have
wondered how much more they would have to pay for reactors that
would never generate electricity. Only in June did state lawmakers
pass a temporary rate cut that slashed the surcharge in monthly
bills that customers had been paying toward the nuclear project.

For longer-term relief, the question is how much of the $9 billion
spent on the abandoned reactors was "prudent." The more information
that comes to light, the less prudent things seem.

To that end, Circuit Judge John Hayes is weighing whether to
require SCANA to repay the roughly $2 billion customers have
already contributed to its reactor project and make lower rates
permanent.

The Post and Courier believes ratepayers merit the fullest possible
relief.

It's nevertheless important to proceed with caution. In past
discussions over rate cuts, SCANA has threatened that overly
punitive action could push it toward bankruptcy, which could
disrupt the state economy and leave customers paying even higher
rates at the end of the day.

However, SCANA's continuing profitability undermines that
narrative. Even with the 15 percent rate cut legislators passed
this summer, SCANA reported net income for the third quarter of
this year totaling $67 million. That's actually an increase from
the same period last year.

In other words, they can probably afford to give their customers a
break.

And given the steady trickle of damning evidence that keep emerging
from the ongoing investigation into the nuclear failure, they're
not likely to have much choice. [GN]


SCANA: May Opt for Bankruptcy Amid Nuclear Meltdown Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BrianHicks, writing for The Post and Courier, reports that what a
difference a decade has made for SCANA.

Ten years ago in October, SCE&G's parent company was sitting
pretty. It won approval from the Public Service Commission to begin
site work on a couple of nuclear reactors in Fairfield County, and
didn't even have to pay for them.

Armed with the legislatively enacted Base Load Review Act, the
utility was able to bill its 700,000 South Carolina customers for
the construction costs. After all, why eat into their own profits?

And there were profits. The company has extracted $2 billion from
ratepayers since then, and shareholders pocketed more than a
quarter of that money. Company officials took a tidy sum in
bonuses, too.

But in July 2017, SCANA announced it was abandoning the project.
There were problems with construction and escalating costs —
maladies the company willfully hid from regulators and investors.

Still, it insisted its customers pay another $5 billion for its
losses, and the Base Load Review Act allowed it.

Fast forward another year. The FBI and SLED are investigating these
shenanigans, and a judge is expected to declare the Base Load
Review Act unconstitutional.

Will that bring an end to this fiasco? Probably not.

But it's a good sign South Carolina residents won't be picking up
SCANA's $5 billion tab anytime soon.

Decade of decadence

Word of the pending ruling leaked out, and SCANA stock stumbled.

That's actually a pity, because a lot of South Carolina residents
-- including SCE&G customers and employees -- own some of those
shares. It will likely hurt them more than the golden parachute
crowd.

Particularly the former executive paid more than $1 million for
undocumented consulting.

Of course, until the court files its order, there's no telling what
might happen.

"As a lawyer, I know better than to publicly predict which way a
judge may rule," says state Sen. Sandy Senn. "But as a senator, I
would welcome a ruling that the law is unconstitutional as it opens
the door for more complete relief to the ratepayers. Do I think
ratepayers will ever be made 100 percent whole? No. Should they be?
Yes."

Earlier this year, the Legislature ordered the company to stop
billing customers for most of the nuclear surcharge and pay back
several months' worth of payments.

The PSC could wipe out the surcharge completely before year's end,
and if the judge rules the law unconstitutional, it probably will.

But over a decade of decadence, ratepayers put an average of $2,000
into those plants. Will we get that money back?

Don't bet on it.

"The bottom line is, we all got taken for a ride by top level SCANA
executives and thinking that we will be wholly repaid is akin to
thinking Bernie Madoff will pay back his ill-gotten spoils," Sen.
Senn says. "It should happen, but it won't."

That's because many people assume the company will run for the
protection of bankruptcy court, despite its recent profit reports.

No remorse

State Rep. Peter McCoy, who led the legislative committee that
investigated SCANA's nuclear meltdown, says bankruptcy is one
possible outcome.

He believes a ruling against the Base Load Review Act will likely
spark a stampede to the courthouse. And SCANA will seek the
protection of bankruptcy court.

"There are several class-action lawsuits being filed now,"
Mr. McCoy says. "I don't see that stopping if the law is ruled
unconstitutional. If that happens, the floodgates will open."

The Post and Courier has uncovered a plethora of evidence that
could convince a jury that SCANA has not acted in good faith,
perhaps enough to make the courts refund everyone's money. Another
former employer corroborated that narrative.

Then there's this: The utility's attorneys and lobbyists actually
wrote the legislation that allowed it to use its customers like a
credit card, and persuaded the General Assembly to pass it.

It doesn't look nearly as good for SCANA as it did 10 years ago.
And in some ways, that's a shame.

"I don't enjoy seeing a South Carolina business going broke, but
they have done their employees and their customers wrong, and they
have shown no remorse," McCoy says.

He's absolutely right.

SCANA was sitting pretty. It had a monopoly and a legal guarantee
of at least 10 percent profits. That's a pretty good deal, but
apparently it wasn't good enough.

The company may never pay back the money it fleeced from
ratepayers, who have no choice where they get their electricity.

But, hopefully, a judge will teach SCANA a little something about
paybacks. [GN]


SONIC CORP: Federman Files Securities Suit Over Sonic Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Federman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sonic Corp., J. Clifford Hudson, Tony D.
Bartel, R. Neal Black, Steven A. Davis, Lauren R. Hobart, S. Kirk
Kinsell, Kate S. Lavelle, Federico F. Peña, Jeffrey H. Schutz,
Kathryn L. Taylor, and Susan E. Thronson, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01740-UNA (D. Del., November 2, 2018) is a stockholder
class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all
other public stockholders of Sonic Corp. against Sonic and the
members of Sonic's Board of Directors for their violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On September 24, 2018, according to the complaint, Sonic and
Inspire issued a joint press release announcing their entry into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger to sell Sonic to Inspire. On October
22, 2018, Sonic filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A
with the SEC containing a joint proxy statement/prospectus. The
Proxy Statement, which recommends that Sonic stockholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: (i) Sonic management's
financial projections, relied upon by Sonic's financial advisor,
Guggenheim Securities, LLC in its financial analyses; (ii) the
valuation analyses prepared by Guggenheim in connection with the
rendering of its fairness opinion; (iii) the background process
leading to the Proposed Transaction; and (iv) Company insiders'
potential conflicts of interest.

Sonic's public stockholders will be forced to make a voting or
appraisal decision on the Proposed Transaction without full
disclosure of all material information concerning the Proposed
Transaction being provided to them, asserts the complaint.
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are
cured.

Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant hereto, a
continuous stockholder of Sonic.

Sonic is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located at 300 Johnny Bench Drive, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
73104. Sonic operates and franchises a chain of quick-service
drive-in restaurants in the United States. Sonic trades on the
NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "SONC."

J. Clifford Hudson has been Sonic's Chief Executive Officer since
April 1995, Chairman of the Board since January 2000, and a
director of the Company since August 1993.

Tony D. Bartel has been a director of the Company since 2014.
Defendant R. Neal Black has been a director of the Company since
2016. Defendant Steven A. Davis has been a director of the Company
since 2017. Defendant Lauren R. Hobart has been a director of the
Company since 2014. Defendant S. Kirk Kinsell has been a director
of the Company since 2018. Defendant Kate S. Lavelle has been a
director of the Company since 2012. Defendant Federico F. Peña has
been a director of the Company since 2001. Defendant Jeffrey H.
Schutz has been a director of the Company since 2010. Defendant
Kathryn L. Taylor has been a director of the Company since 2010.
Defendant Susan E. Thronson has been a director of the Company
since 2015.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
     O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
     901 N. Market St., Suite 1000
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 778-4000
     Direct Phone/Fax: (302) 778-4002
     Email: rernst@oelegal.com


SOUTH FLORIDA INSTITUTE: Gomez Files Suit Under TCPA
----------------------------------------------------
Gaston Gomez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. South Florida Institute of Technology Inc.,
a Florida Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-24599-KMW (S.D.
Fla., November 2, 2018) seeks to secure redress for violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

This case arises from Defendant's unauthorized text messages to
cellular subscribers who never provided Defendant with prior
express consent, as well as cellular subscribers who expressly
requested not to receive Defendant's text messages, says the
complaint. Defendant caused thousands of text messages to be sent
to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members and
caused them injuries, including invasion of their privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion, it adds.

Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to this
action, was a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Defendant is a Florida corporation whose principal office is
located at 720 NW 27th Ave., 2nd Floor, Miami, Florida 33125.
Defendant directs, markets, and provides its business activities
throughout the State of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, PA
     19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: 305-975-3320
     Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


STEINHOFF: Law Firms Launch Investors Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
ENCA reports that several law firms from Europe and South Africa
were holding meetings in the country for investors who lost money
as a result of the Steinhoff scandal.

The law firms are launching a class action lawsuit on behalf of
investors in a bid to recoup some of the money lost.

The consortium of law firms has applied to the South Gauteng High
Court for a class action suit for investors who are seeking
damages.

At least R187-billion was wiped off the value of Steinhoff after
accounting irregularities came to light in December last year.
[GN]


STITCH FIX: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Stitch Fix, 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.

Stitch Fix, Inc. (NASDAQ: SFIX)
Class Period: June 8, 2018 - October 1, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 10, 2018
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/stitch-fix-inc-loss-form?wire=3

The lawsuit alleges: Stitch Fix, Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements throughout the class period and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Stitch Fix's active client growth had slowed to
a crawl; (2) Stitch Fix had completely shut down its television
advertising campaign for 10 of the 13 weeks in fourth quarter 2018,
dramatically decreasing the number of new active client additions;
and (3) as a result, the Company's current business metrics and
financial prospects were not as strong as it had led the market to
believe during the Class Period.

To learn more about the Stitch Fix, Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]


SUGARFINA INC: Nixon Files ADA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sugarfina, Inc. The
case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sugarfina, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-06134 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 1, 2018).

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

Sugarfina, Inc. operates candy stores in the United States. It also
serves customers online. The company was founded in 2012 and is
based in Inglewood, California.[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


TASCHEN AMERICA: Dominguez Sues Book Publisher for ADA Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Taschen America LLC.
The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Taschen America LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10171 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 1, 2018).

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

Taschen is an art book publisher founded in 1980 by Benedikt
Taschen in Cologne, Germany. As of January 2017, Taschen is
co-managed by Benedikt and his eldest daughter, Marlene
Taschen.[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


TECHNOGYM USA: Dominguez Files Suit Asserting ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Technogym USA Corp.
The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Technogym USA Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10169 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 1, 2018).

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

Technogym USA Corp was founded in 1996. The company's line of
business includes the manufacturing of sporting and athletic
goods.[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


THURSTON COUNTY, WA: SSOSA Evaluation Ruling Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN DOE P; JOHN DOE Q; JOHN DOE R; and JOHN DOE S, as
individuals and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Respondents, v. THURSTON COUNTY, a municipal organization, and its
departments the THURSTON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, and THURSTON
COUNTY SHERIFF, Respondents, DONNA ZINK, a married woman,
Appellant, Case No. 48000-0-II (Wash. App.), Judge Jill M. Johanson
of the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division II, (i) reversed
the superior court's summary judgment ruling that unredacted
special sex offender sentencing alternative ("SSOSA") evaluations
are exempt from disclosure; (ii) reversed the ruling allowing the
Does to proceed under pseudonyms and remanded for further
proceedings; and (iii) otherwise affirmed the Court's holdings in
John Doe P, 199 Wn.App. 280.

In 2014, Donna Zink submitted a Public Records Act ("PRA") request
for level one sex offenders' records held by Thurston County.  The
John Does, representing a class of level one offenders whose
records were among those requested, sued the County to prevent the
records' release and obtained summary judgment and a permanent
injunction barring the release of requested unredacted level one
records.  

After the Court's opinion in John Doe P v. Thurston County, the
Supreme Court decided John Doe G v. Department of Corrections,
accepted review of John Doe P, and remanded it to the Court for
reconsideration in light of John Doe G.

In 2015, the Does filed a class action complaint to prevent the
County from disclosing level one sex offender registration records
and SSOSA/special sex offender disposition alternative ("SSODA")
evaluations.  They also requested permission to proceed under
pseudonyms, a request that Zink did not oppose.

The superior court granted the Does' motion to proceed under
pseudonyms.  In its written order, the superior court did not apply
the Ishikawa factors.  Because it found that the Does' interest in
proceeding anonymously outweighed the public interest in their
names and because this was the least restrictive means to protect
the Does' interests, the superior court granted the Does' motion.
The superior court also ruled that the Does had satisfied CR 23 and
certified the class.

The Does then moved for summary judgment and a permanent injunction
barring the requested level one offender records' release.  The
superior court granted the Does' motion.  In doing so, the superior
court ruled that (1) former RCW 4.24.550, regarding public
notification, was an "other statute" exemption to the PRA that
barred evaluations' and registration forms' disclosure, (2) the
Uniform Health Care Information Act ("UHCIA") exemption to the PRA
barred the evaluations' disclosure, (3) ch. 13.50 RCW, regarding
juvenile records, was an "other statute" exemption to the PRA
barring SSODA evaluations' disclosure, and (4) there was no genuine
dispute of material fact that disclosure would not be in the public
interest and would substantially and irreparably harm the class
members.  The superior court did not rule on whether redacted
records could be disclosed.

Zink appealed.

In light of John Doe G, Judge Johanson reconsiders the Court's
holding that unredacted SSOSA/SSODA evaluations are exempt under
the PRA's UHCIA exemption.  She holds that under John Doe G,
unredacted SSOSA/SSODA evaluations are not exempt from disclosure
under the PRA's UHCIA exemption.  By statute, SSODA evaluations
must include the same information as SSOSA evaluations, such as a
proposed treatment plan.  The same WAC provision governs the
required contents of both SSOSA and SSODA evaluations.

A SSOSA evaluation is not directly related to health care so that
SSOSA evaluations do not contain health care information and
accordingly do not fit within the PRA's exemption incorporating the
UHCIA.  Thus, she will reverse the superior court's ruling that
SSOSA evaluations were exempt from disclosure under the UHCIA as a
PRA exemption.

And, because the superior court also ruled that unredacted SSODA
evaluations are exempt under a separate PRA exemption, ch. 13.50
RCW as an "other statute" exemption, the Judge must also consider
whether this ruling was correct.  On appeal, Zink argues that
court-ordered SSODA evaluations are part of the juvenile court file
and, therefore, they must be available for public inspection.  The
County argues that SSODA evaluations are juvenile records governed
by ch. 13.50 RCW and not found within the official juvenile court
file, so that unless redacted, they could not be disclosed under
the PRA.  The Does agree with the County that SSODA evaluations are
exempt from disclosure under ch. 13.50 RCW as an "other statute"
exemption.

The Judge agrees with the County and the Does that unredacted SSODA
evaluations are exempt from disclosure and will affirm the superior
court's ruling in this regard.  The superior court properly ruled
that unredacted SSODA evaluations in the County's possession were
records related to the commission of juvenile offenses not found
within the official juvenile court file and accordingly were
confidential.

Judge Johanson will reverse the Court's holding in John Doe P that
unredacted SSOSA evaluations are exempt under the UHCIA exemption
to the PRA.  Thus, the superior court must allow release of SSOSA
evaluations.  However, she holds that unredacted SSODA evaluations
are exempt under ch. 13.50 RCW as an "other statute" PRA exemption
and that the superior court properly ruled that unredacted SSODA
evaluations were exempt from disclosure.

Finally, reconsidering the Court's holding that Zink waived her
argument that the superior court erred when it allowed the Does to
proceed under pseudonyms, the Judge finds that the Supreme Court's
holding that the order in John Doe G was insufficient to justify
allowing the offenders to proceed under pseudonyms applies to the
similar superior court ruling in the case.  In light of John Doe G,
the Judge reconsiders the Court's holding that Zink waived her
argument related to allowing the Does to proceed under pseudonyms.
She will reverse the order granting permission to proceed under
pseudonyms.

Accordingly, Judge Johanson (i) reversed the superior court's
summary judgment ruling that unredacted SSOSA evaluations are
exempt from disclosure; (ii) reversed the ruling allowing the Does
to proceed under pseudonyms and we remand for further proceedings
consistent with her Opinion; and (iii) otherwise affirmed the
Court's holdings in John Doe P, 199 Wn.App. 280.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 2, 2018 Unpublished Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/47NZED from Leagle.com.

Donna Zink (Appearing Pro Se), P. O. Box 263, Mesa, WA, 99343,
Counsel for Appellant.

Salvador Alejo Mungia II -- smungia@gth-law.com -- Gordon Thomas
Honeywell, Po. Box 1157, Tacoma, WA, 98401-1157, Reuben Schutz --
rschutz@gth-law.com -- Gordon Thomas Honeywell, 1201 Pacific Ave.
Ste. 2100, Tacoma, WA, 98402-4314, Vanessa Torres Hernandez, ACLU
of Washington, 901 5th Ave. Ste. 630, Seattle, WA, 98164-2086,
Prachi Vipinchandra Esq Dave, Attorney at Law, 901 5th Ave. Ste.
630, Seattle, WA, 98164-2086, Karen A. Horowitz, Thurston County
Prosecuting Attys Office, 2000 Lakeridge Dr. Sw. Bldg 2, Olympia,
WA, 98502-6045, Counsel for Respondents.


TIE BAR: Fischler Files ADA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Tie Bar Operating
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The
Tie Bar Operating Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06265
(E.D. N.Y., Nov. 4, 2018).

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

The Tie Bar.com designs neckties. It offers striped, plaid,
geometric/polka dot, paisley/floral, solid, and conversational
ties, skinny ties, and bowties; pre-tied or self-tie bowties; ties
for weddings; custom neckties; ties for groups; tie bars (pinch and
slide clasps); and cufflinks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: doug@lipskylowe.com

          - and -

     Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


TRANS-INDIA PRODUCTS: Faces Orlowski Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trans-India Products,
Inc. The case is styled as Orlowski, Brianna and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trans-India Products, Inc. dba:
Shikai, Defendant, Case No. SCV-263450 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sonoma
Cty., Nov. 1, 2018).

Trans-India Products, Inc. was founded in 1974. The company's line
of business includes the manufacturing of perfumes, cosmetics, and
other toilet preparations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. and
David James Mcglothlin, Esq.



TRANSAM LEASING: Court Dismisses Fox Suit with Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge John W. Broomes of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to dismiss the
case, CANDACE FOX; ANTHONY GILLESPIE; CHARLES SCHRECKENBACH,
Individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRANSAM LEASING, INC.; TRANSAM TRUCKING,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 12-2706-JWB (D. Kan.).

The Plaintiffs' initial complaint alleged, among numerous other
claims, that the Defendants violated federal regulations by
requiring them and other independent truckers to pay a
communications fee to enter lease agreements with Defendants.  The
complaint included class action allegations under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(2), for purposes of obtaining declaratory relief, and under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), for purposes of recovering money damages.


The Plaintiffs only moved for certification of a class under Rule
23(b)(3), however, and the Court subsequently certified a class
action on the regulatory claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3).  It also allowed the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint
and approved a form of notice to the class.

The Court later granted the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment on the regulatory claim.  In an interlocutory appeal, the
Tenth Circuit ruled that the Court correctly concluded the
communication fee violated federal regulations, but the Defendants
were entitled to summary judgment on the class action claim for
damages because the Plaintiffs failed to produce evidence of
damages.

Upon remand, and following the disposition of multiple other
claims, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment, finding they were entitled to a declaratory
judgment that the imposition of the communication fee was a
violation of the regulations.

The Court then requested a status report to determine if final
judgment should be entered, but the parties could not agree upon a
report.  Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys'
fees.  The Defendants then filed a notice of appeal to the Tenth
Circuit.  The parties eventually resolved their dispute and the
appeal was dismissed.

The Plaintiffs then moved in the Court to withdraw their motion for
attorneys' fees and that the case be closed.  The Court
subsequently held a status hearing to address concerns about
granting the motion or entering judgment without first notifying
the class.

After reviewing the history of the case, and the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion to dismiss, Judge Broomes is satisfied that the
motion to dismiss can be granted and judgment can be entered
without prior notice to the class.  He finds that the Plaintiffs'
claim for damages, which was certified under Rule 23(b)(3), was
disposed of on the merits by the Tenth Circuit, and no aspect of
that claim is subject to Rule 23 (e).  The claim for declaratory
relief was potentially a class action claim under Rule 23(b)(2),
but was never certified for class action treatment.  Even had it
been certified, notice to class members is not mandatory in a Rule
23(b)(2) claim, as Plaintiffs point out.  At any rate, the absence
of certification on this claim means that no part of the claim for
declaratory relief, or of the related motion for attorneys' fees,
is subject to the notice requirements of Rule 23.

For these reasons, he granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to
Dismiss, and dismissed with prejudice the action pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2).  He denied as moot all other pending motions,
including Docs. 197, 207, 215, 225, 226, and 230.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/Yyzwfe from Leagle.com.

Candace Fox, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of All Others
Similarly Situated, Anthony Gillespie, Individually and on Behalf
of a Class of All Others Similarly Situated & Charles
Schreckenbach, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel M. Runion --
drunion@sls-law.com -- Shaffer Lombardo Shurin PC, Gregory P.
Forney, Shaffer Lombardo Shurin PC, Gregory Leyh , Gregory Leyh, PC
& Richard F. Lombardo -- rlombardo@sls-law.com -- Shaffer Lombardo
Shurin PC.

Transam Leasing, Inc. & TransAm Trucking, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Christopher Marshall McHugh -- cmchugh@sb-kc.com --
Sigfreid Bingham, PC, Gregory S. Gerstner, Seigfreid Bingham, PC,
James C. Sullivan, Polsinelli PC, Rachel H. Baker, Seigfreid
Bingham, PC & Shannon Cohorst Johnson -- sjohnson@sb-kc.com --
Seigfreid Bingham, PC.

TransAm Trucking, Inc. & Transam Leasing, Inc., Counter Claimants,
represented by Christopher Marshall McHugh, Seigfreid Bingham, PC,
Gregory S. Gerstner , Seigfreid Bingham, PC, James C. Sullivan,
Polsinelli PC, Rachel H. Baker, Seigfreid Bingham, PC & Shannon
Cohorst Johnson, Seigfreid Bingham, PC.

Candace Fox, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of All Others
Similarly Situated, Anthony Gillespie, Individually and on Behalf
of a Class of All Others Similarly Situated & Charles
Schreckenbach, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of All Others
Similarly Situated, Counter Defendants, represented by Daniel M.
Runion, Shaffer Lombardo Shurin PC, Gregory P. Forney, Shaffer
Lombardo Shurin PC, Gregory Leyh, Gregory Leyh, PC & Richard F.
Lombardo, Shaffer Lombardo Shurin PC.


TREASURE ISLAND: Faces Class-Action From Non-Unionized Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Trotter, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that Treasure
Island Foods is facing another lawsuit -- this one from
nonunionized workers who say they weren't given sufficient layoff
notice under state and federal law.

The lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status, was filed in
federal court in Chicago on October 11. The 10 former Treasure
Island workers who filed the lawsuit allege the company violated
the state and federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
acts because it didn't give workers the 60-day notice that's
typically required for mass layoffs.

The workers also allege that Treasure Island violated the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act because it didn't pay employees for
accrued but unused paid time off, according to the lawsuit filed on
October 11.

Treasure Island, which first opened in 1963, ended its long run in
Chicago on October 10 by closing the last of its remaining six
stores. The company notified workers late last month that the
company would close all stores by Oct. 12.

The former workers who filed the lawsuit are Mark Gossett, Sandra
Roman, Telia Wilson, Timikii Coburn, Antonia Morales, Antonio
Munoz, Jesse Lofton, David Leon, Kevin Jackson and Lorenzo
Escamilla Jr. The lawsuit estimates the allegations apply to about
400 former Treasure Island employees.

They're suing the corporate entities that operated the Treasure
Island stores, CEO Maria Kamberos and President Christ Kamberos.
Patrick Cavanaugh, a partner in High Ridge Partners, the
liquidation firm now managing the company's assets, also was named
in the suit.

Arthur Stamas, Esq. attorney for the Kamberos family, couldn't be
immediately reached for comment.

A similar lawsuit was filed by the United Food and Commercial
Workers International Union, which represents 28 employees. The
union also alleged Treasure Island violated the WARN legal
requirements. Longtime produce wholesaler Anthony Marano Co. sued
Treasure Island last week over more than $450,000 in allegedly
unpaid produce. Recent court filings indicate the grocery company
owes $900,000 in total to its produce vendors.[GN]


TREASURE ISLAND: TCPA Suit Challenges Use of A.I.
-------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, writing for TCPland, reports that in what may be
a TCPAland first, an artificial intelligence SMS platform powered
by Watson and known as "Ivy" is being tested in a TCPA class
action.

Although numerous hotels are known to use Ivy, the case filed
yesterday in a Las Vegas federal court is against famed resort
Treasure Island, LLC. The suit is entitled Jessica Demesa v.
Treasure Island, LLC.

According to the complaint Ivy is a sophisticated A.I. platform
that can help meet a hotel guest’s needs, thus enhancing customer
experience and ultimately driving revenue. The complaint explains
that IBM’s Watson technology drives Ivy and helps the A.I.
platform communicate with guests to fulfill requests such as
obtaining towels and hotel restaurant recommendations.

Plaintiff alleges that she received a text message from Ivy shortly
after checking in at the Treasure Island resort. According to the
complaint she did not consent to be texted.

The complaint alleges a putative class of:

All persons who, during the four years prior to the filing of the
Complaint in this action through the date of class certification,
received one or more text messages from the Ivy concierge by TI.

It will be very interesting to see how this case develops and we
will keep an eye on it for you.[GN]


TRUMAKER INC: Andrews Files ADA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trumaker, Inc. The
case is styled as Victor Andrews individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Trumaker, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06273 (E.D. N.Y.,
Nov. 5, 2018).

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

Trumaker, Inc. designs and manufactures shirts and blazers for men
in the United States. The company also offers sweaters, tees,
belts, ties, casuals, and accessories. It sells its products
online. Trumaker, Inc. was formerly known as Archer & Reed,
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group, P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11217
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


UNITED STATES: ICE Ordered to Unseal Iraqi Detainees' Documents
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Kominek, writing for The Arab American News, reports that per
the request of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, U.S.
District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith ordered U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement to unseal secret documents that show ICE's
prior statements to the court.

ACLU attorneys appeared before Judge Goldsmith on Wednesday, Oct.
24 to argue for immigration authorities' release of more than 100
Iraqi nationals who have been detained since June 2017.

"We are delighted that the detainees, their families and the
public, all of whom deserve to know the truth, will finally be able
to learn what is really happening in this case," ACLU senior staff
attorney Miriam Aukerman said in a statement before the hearing.
"Now everyone can see the evidence for themselves.  And what that
evidence shows is that ICE provided false information to the Court
in order to keep these Iraqis locked up, separated from the
families, for the past 16 months."

The ACLU requested sanctions against ICE for submitting prior false
statements to the court, which resulted in continued detention of
the Iraqis.

According to the ACLU's press release on Oct. 23, the recent ruling
by Judge Goldsmith is the latest development in Hamama v. Adduci,
the nationwide class action filed in June 2017 on behalf of
hundreds of Iraqi nationals who were arrested and threatened with
immediate deportation.

The lawsuit argues that many of the Chaldean Christian Iraqis would
face persecution or death if they returned to Iraq.

"The purpose of immigration detention in this case is to break
people's spirits," Ms. Aukerman said, "to make them give up their
cases and agree to go to a country where they're likely to be
persecuted, tortured or killed. It's solely to separate them from
their families, to leave the country which for many of them is the
only one they've known since they were children. It's a horrible
choice that people are being forced to make, between indefinite
detention here and removal to country where death may await."

During the hearing, ACLU attorneys told Judge Goldsmith the
detainees should go free.

Ms. Aukerman said the ACLU asked for their release because, "their
incarceration was founded on lies and blatant misrepresentation to
the court."

"The issues on the table were honesty and freedom," Ms. Aukerman
told The AANews. "ICE lied to the court. Individuals are supposed
to be released if the country that they're supposed to be
expatriated to won't take them back. ICE knew that it could not
return these individuals and told the court that there was an
agreement for the return."

Ms. Aukerman said that when the ACLU approached the court for the
release of the detainees about six months after their
incarceration, ICE responded with a sworn statement that Iraq did
plan to receive them.

"It turned out that was just lies," she said. "We didn't know it at
the time. But when we saw the documents we saw that they were
providing false information to the court."

ICE attorney Joseph Darrow told the court that delays are either
results of court orders or difficulties obtaining travel documents.
He said ICE plans to remove those with appropriate travel documents
and plans to deport some Iraqis by the end of November.

ICE also denied making any falsehoods to the court.

"Under our Constitution, we don't lock people up indefinitely and
throw away the key," Ms. Aukerman said. "People are only locked up
for a reason. Typically that's because they're locked up for
punishment, but with immigration people are supposed to be in
detention for a short time until they can get the documents
together and get them on a plane to leave the country.

"It's incarceration without trial," she added. "We were very
hopeful that the court understood that, being 16 months into this
case."

She also said these are people under orders of supervision and
reporting regularly to ICE.

"There's absolutely no reason they should be locked up this long,"
she said. "We are very hopeful that at long last these families
will get to be reunited and the individuals will be able to return
home after this much time. We very much hope [Judge Goldsmith] will
reunite these families who have been separated for far too long."

Judge Goldsmith did not issue a ruling at the hearing. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: 93 Additional Women File Sex Abuse Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph H. Saunders, writing for The Legal Examiner, reports that on
Thursday October 18, 93 additional women filed lawsuits against the
University of Southern California University claiming the school
purposefully concealed sexual abuse by former campus gynecologist
George Tyndall. This brings the total number of Tyndall accusers to
about 500.

The following day, The University of Southern California announced
it had reached a tentative class action settlement agreement worth
$215 million over allegations of sexual harassment and abuse by
Tyndall. According to a university lawyer, the proposed settlement
would provide $2500 to any of the approximately 17,000 students and
alumnae who were treated by Tyndall over his three-decade tenure.
They won't be required to provide additional information about
their interaction with Tyndall to receive those funds. Any former
student who alleges they were abused can seek additional money up
to $250,000 by detailing their experience with Tyndall.

This proposed settlement by USC only applies to the federal
class-action lawsuit and does not automatically resolve more than
400 other suits against Tyndall and USC playing out in Los Angeles
Superior Court.

Critics immediately accused USC of using the settlement to shut
down the investigation of the schools handling of Tyndall.
Investigations have revealed that USC had received complaints
against Tyndall as early as 2000. Other victims have since come
forward with earlier abuse claims dating back as far as the 1990's.
Despite all the complaints filed against Tyndall, the doctor wasn't
fired until 2016, and that only came after colleagues discovered a
box full of pictures of female genitalia in his office. It is easy
to see why USC might want to end the inquiry and avoid releasing
more documents supporting the claims of a cover-up.

The university has been dogged by accusations of secrecy since the
investigation into Tyndall began. His departure came after an
internal investigation into allegations of sexual harassment and
racially inappropriate remarks. An investigation by the Los Angeles
Times subsequently revealed that Tyndall left under a secret deal
that included a financial payout.

But most troublesome is the incredibly low amount of the
settlement. After being allowed to prey on students for almost
three decades, $250 million doesn't even begin to adequately
compensate the victims of George Tyndall. By comparison, the 332
women and girls who say they were sexually assaulted by sports
doctor Larry Nassar were given a $500-million settlement by
Michigan State University.

All indications are that USC is making the proposed settlement
because they want the abuse cases to go away as soon as possible.
and thus avoid more disclosure and adverse publicity. This offer
wasn't made to benefit the victims, but rather to help the
university save face. If this $250 million settlement is accepted,
the big winner will be the USC.

Meanwhile prosecutors in the Los Angeles County district attorney's
sex crimes division are still evaluating whether to file criminal
charges against George Tyndall in at least 56 potential cases.

USC knowingly allowed a sexual predator to continue to prey on
young women and then went so far as to silence complaints regarding
Tyndall while he continued to molest victims. At Saunders & Walker
we have a long history representing victims of sexual assault and
realize how difficult it may for victims to come forward. George
Tyndall victimized and sexually abused young women at the
University of Southern California for almost three decades while
they knowingly allowed this predator to continue practicing.

If you were a patient of Doctor Tyndall.  Please contact Saunders &
Walker at 1-800-748-7115 to discuss your legal options. All legal
discussions will be strictly confidential and your identity will be
protected in any subsequent lawsuit. [GN]


V.F. JEANSWEAR: Faces Fischler ADA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against V.F. Jeanswear, Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. V.F. Jeanswear,
Inc. doing business as: Wrangler, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06263
(E.D. N.Y., Nov. 4, 2018).

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

VF Jeanswear Limited Partnership manufactures and markets denim,
casual pants, shirts, fleece, and knit apparel for men and women
under brand names Lee, Wrangler, Rustler, Riders, and Vans. The
company was incorporated in 2000 and is based in Greensboro, North
Carolina. VF Jeanswear Limited Partnership operates as a subsidiary
of V.F. Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: doug@lipskylowe.com

          - and -

     Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


VIP KIDZ: Castro Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------
Dagma Daniel Castro on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. VIP Kidz, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 9:18-cv-81518-RLR (S. D. Fla. November
5, 2018) seeks recovery of unpaid overtime compensation owed to
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

On many occasions throughout her employment with Defendant,
Plaintiff worked in excess of forty hours per week and was not paid
overtime, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is an individual residing in Palm Beach County, Florida.
Castro was at all material times hereto an employee of VIP Kidz.

Defendant does business in South Florida as an owner and operator
of two day care facilities in West Palm Beach and Loxahatchee
Groves, Florida, that caters to and provides skilled nursing care
to children ages birth to 21 years of age with special medical
needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher C. Copeland, Esq.
     CHRISTOPHER C. COPELAND, P.A.
     824 W. Indiantown Road
     Jupiter, FL 33458
     Phone: 561-691-9048
     Fax: 866-259-0719
     Primary email: Chris@,CopelandPA.com
     Secondary email: Carla@CopelandPA.com


VOLKSWAGEN: Quinn Emanuel Files Class Action Over Airbags
---------------------------------------------------------
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan (Quinn Emanuel) has expanded
its class actions to include a seventh car manufacturer who sold
cars with deadly airbags to consumers.

In October Quinn Emanuel filed class action proceedings against
Volkswagen (VW). This is the seventh class action. Actions have
already been commenced against Toyota, Mazda, Honda, Subaru, BMW
and Nissan. These proceedings are being heard concurrently in the
Supreme Court of New South Wales. Quinn Emanuel is expecting to
file against Ford and Audi shortly, covering an expected 2.5
million Australian drivers who are driving cars fitted with the
defective airbags. The defective airbags have been linked to the
deaths of at least 24 people worldwide, including one in Sydney
last year, as well as injuring hundreds of others.

Quinn Emanuel Partner Damian Scattini said, "These airbags are
ticking time bombs. Over time they degrade. As they degrade they
become unsafe. On our case, these manufacturers knew these airbags
were dangerous, but kept using them in their vehicles – putting
profits before the safety of their customers."

"Car manufacturers have known about this problem for years. These
airbags need to be off the road," Mr Scattini said.

Consumers are being urged to check if their vehicle is subject to
the recall and to act immediately, if a replacement airbag is
available.

Due to a global shortage of airbags however, many Australian
drivers are only being offered a temporary fix, with a like for
like replacement meaning that their airbag will have to be replaced
again in the future. In many cases, the replacement airbags contain
the same propellant used in the defective airbags, ammonium
nitrate, which deteriorates over time. Consumers are still
encouraged to obtain a temporary fix, as a newer defective airbag
is preferable to an older defective airbag.

"It's about responsibility and accountability. Car manufacturers
need to make good the harm they've done to their customers. No
more. No less", said Mr Scattini.

If you are a consumer whose vehicle was, or is, subject to the
Takata airbag recall, you may be entitled to participate in the
class action proceedings. You are not excluded from participating
if you have acted to have your faulty airbag replaced. Please
register your interest at: www.AirbagRecall.com.au [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action in San Francisco Over Robocalls
---------------------------------------------------------------
KITV4 ABC reports that a proposed class action lawsuit in San
Francisco federal court accuses Wells Fargo of making tens of
thousands of automatically dialed, or 'robo,' calls to cell phones
without consumers' consent. [GN]


WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC:  Violates Disabilities Act, Nixon Suit Asserts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Williams-Sonoma, Inc.
The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06136 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 1, 2018).

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

Williams-Sonoma, Inc., is an American publicly traded consumer
retail company that sells kitchenwares and home furnishings. It is
headquartered in San Francisco, California, United States. It is
one of the largest e-commerce retailers in the U.S., and one of the
biggest multi-channel specialty retailers in the world.[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




YNAP CORPORATION: Violates ADA, Dominguez Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against YNAP Corporation. The
case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YNAP Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10165 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 1, 2018).

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

YNAP Corporation designs and sells fashion products under the Karl
Lagerfeld brand name worldwide. The company offers ready-to-wear
for men and women, accessories, bags, watches, and eyewear; urban
menswear and fragrances; and kids wear. It also operates Karl.com,
an online store for women. YNAP Corporation offers products through
its retail stores and wholesale locations. The company was
incorporated in 2002 and is based in New York, New York. YNAP
Corporation operates as a subsidiary of YOOX Net-A-Porter Group
S.p.A.[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


ZILLOW GROUP: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Zillow Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. C17-1387-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, (i)
granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and (ii) granted in part
and denied in part their requests for judicial notice.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Zillow on
behalf of purchasers of Zillow securities, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, and Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The Plaintiffs also name as
Defendants, Spencer Rascoff and Kathleen Phillips, Zillow's CEO and
CFO/Chief Legal Officer, respectively.  They've filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

Zillow is an online leader in real estate marketing.  Through its
website and online applications, the company provides users with
information about homes, real estate listings, and mortgages.
Zillow's primary source of revenue comes from real estate agents
who pay to have their properties listed on Zillow's digital
platforms.  

In 2013, Zillow created an advertising product known as the
"co-marketing program."  Essentially, the program allows
participating mortgage lenders to pay a percentage of a real estate
agent's advertising costs directly to Zillow in exchange for
appearing on the agent's listings and receiving some of the agent's
leads.

On April 1, 2015, Zillow received a subpoena from the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") requesting information about
some of the company's products, including the co-marketing program.
In February 2017, Zillow received a Notice and Opportunity to
Respond and Advise ("NORA") letter from the CFPB, which stated that
the agency was considering whether to recommend legal action
against Zillow for violation of Section 8 of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA").  Zillow responded to the NORA
in March 2017, and the following month received another civil
investigative demand from the CFPB.

On May 4, 2017, Zillow revealed in a quarterly filing with the SEC
that it had received the NORA and civil investigative demand from
the CFPB.  On Aug. 8, 2017, it revealed the updated status of the
CFPB's investigation in a filing with the SEC.  In the two trading
days following Zillow's update regarding the CFPB's investigation
into the co-marketing program, the company's Class A shares fell
15.7% and its Class C shares fell 15.5%.  

Plaintiffs Harris, Offut, and Choy purchased Zillow shares between
June 2017 and Aug. 8, 2017.  They allege that they purchased Zillow
shares at an artificially inflated price, and were damaged when the
Defendants' material misrepresentations regarding the co-marketing
program and CFPB investigation were ultimately disclosed in
Zillow's August 2017 SEC filing.

The matter comes before the Court on the Defendants' motion to
dismiss  and requests for judicial notice.  They ask the Court to
consider several documents that they assert are either judicially
noticeable or that are incorporated by reference in the amended
complaint.

They ask the Court to consider the following documents: (1)
Zillow's Form 10-K filed February 7, 2014; (2) materials published
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development; (3) Zillow's
Form 10-K filed February 17, 2015; (4) Zillow's Form 10-Q filed May
4, 2017; (5) Zillow's Form 10-Q filed August 8, 2017; (6) Zillow's
Form 10-Q filed November 7, 2017; (7) a certified transcript from a
Zillow webinar presented on March 23, 2015; (8) a transcript of a
May 4, 2017 earnings conference call; (9) Zillow's Form 4 filed May
9, 2017 concerning Phillips' sale of Zillow stock; (10) Zillow's
Schedule 14A Proxy Statement filed April 26, 2017; (11) Zillow's
Form 4 filed February 17, 2015 concerning Phillips' sale of Zillow
stock; and (13) excerpts from the Merger and Agreements between
Zillow, Zebra Holdco, Inc., and Trulia, Inc., from July 28, 2014.
They separately request that the Court considers a Form 8-K filed
by Zillow with the SEC on June 25, 2018.

Among other things, Judge Coughnour finds that the amended
complaint does not contain particularized facts that demonstrate
Zillow designed the co-marketing program to violate RESPA and to
allow lenders and agents to conceal such violations.  Nor does the
amended complaint sufficiently allege that the co-marketing program
was facilitating RESPA violations.

Turning to the specific statements the Plaintiffs assert were false
or misleading, the Judge finds (i) that the Plaintiffs have failed
to provide particularized facts to demonstrate that the Defendants'
statements regarding Zillow's legal compliance were misleading;
(ii) that Phillips' failure to disclose the April 2015 subpoena did
not render her statements to investors, or any previous statement
by Zillow, misleading; (iii) without additional particularized
facts regarding the reasons Zillow altered the comarketing program,
the Plaintiffs have failed to allege that Phillips and Rascoff's
statements were misleading or false; and (iv) all of the
statements, particularly in light ofthe Plaintiffs' failure to
allege a RESPA violation, demonstrate that the allegations in the
amended complaint do not support a strong inference of scienter.

For these reasons, Judge Coughenoour granted the Defendants' motion
to dismiss.  The Judge granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' request for judicial notice.  The Plaintiffs' Exchange
Act claims as pled in counts I and II are dismissed without
prejudice and with leave to amend.  

In accordance with the Court's rulings, if the Plaintiffs choose to
file a second amended complaint, they must assert particularized
facts that demonstrate that Zillow designed the co-marketing
program to violate RESPA, and that Zillow was instructing and
encouraging third-parties to commit such violations.  The
Plaintiffs must additionally allege with particularity that the
Defendants made material false or misleading statements regarding
the co-marketing program's compliance with RESPA, that the
Defendants' statements evinced a strong inference of scienter, and
that such statements caused the loss alleged by the Plaintiffs.
The second amended complaint will be filed within 45 days of the
Order.  

The Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims as alleged in counts III and
IV are dismissed with prejudice.

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

James Shotwell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Clifford A. Cantor --
cliff.cantor@outlook.com.

Jo Ann Offutt, Raymond Harris & Johanna Choy, Plaintiffs,
represented by Jonathan Stern -- tern@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN
LAW FIRM, PA, pro hac vice, Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA, pro hac vice, Colin
M. George -- cgeorge@hallgeorge.com -- HALL & GEORGE PLLC & Spencer
Hall, Jr., HALL & GEORGE PLLC.

Stephen Vargosko, Individually and on behalf of all othes similarly
situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Stern, THE
ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA, pro hac vice, Laurence M. Rosen, THE ROSEN LAW
FIRM PA, pro hac vice & Colin M. George, HALL & GEORGE PLLC.

Zillow Group, Inc, Spencer M. Rascoff & Kathleen Philips,
Defendants, represented by Alexander Mircheff --
amircheff@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, pro hac
vice & Meryl L. Young -- myoung@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN &
CRUTCHER, pro hac vice.


ZIMMER BIOMET: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Ambrogio Visconti, writing for Global Legal Chronicle, reports that
on September 27, 2018, Judge Philip P. Simon of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana dismissed all claims
against Simpson Thacher client KKR Biomet LLC in Shah v. Zimmer
Biomet Holdings, Inc. The putative class action asserts securities
fraud claims against Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. ("ZBH"), its
officers and directors, alleging that ZBH misstated or failed to
disclose regulatory compliance problems at one of its manufacturing
facilities. Plaintiffs also asserted claims against KKR Biomet and
other former private equity investors in ZBH which sold their
shares in two public offerings during the relevant period.
Plaintiff asserted these claims under Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act, alleging misstatements in the offering documents,
and 20A of the Exchange Act, alleging that the sponsors sold stock
while in possession of material non-public information. The court
dismissed the Section 12(a)(2) claims on the ground that KKR Biomet
LLC and the other private equity defendants were not "statutory
sellers" because they sold their stock to underwriters, not to the
public. The court dismissed the Section 20A claims because the
Plaintiffs failed to allege that the private equity defendants
actually possessed material non-public information.

The Simpson Thacher team included Peter Kazanoff and Daniel
Stujenske -- dstujenske@stblaw.com -- (Litigation).

Involved fees earner: Peter Kazanoff – Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett; Daniel Stujenske – Simpson Thacher & Bartlett;

Law Firms: Simpson Thacher & Bartlett;

Clients: KKR Biomet LLC [GN]



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***