CAR_Public/181119.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, November 19, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 231

                            Headlines

375 SOUTH END: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in New York
3D IDAPRO: Court Narrows Claims in Hamilton Negligence Suit
ABBVIE INC: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

ADIENT PLC: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
AIRBNB INC: Arbitration Discovery Ruling in Marshall Suit Affirmed
ALESSI USA: Violates Disabilities Act, Dominguez Suit Says
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal in Zeltiq Advertising Suit Underway

ALLERGAN PLC: Facing 539 Claims in Actonel(R) Litigation
ALLERGAN PLC: Summary Judgment in Testosterone Suit Underway
ALPHABET INC: Claimsfiler Reminds of Dec.10 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
AMATEUR ATHLETIC: Responds to Class Action Over Ex-Coach Abuses
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Sued Over Domestic Ticket Price Collusion

APOGEE ENTERPRISES: Jan. 4 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
AVIVA: Class Action Allege Ontario Insurers Broke Payment Rules
BANK OF NEW YORK: Beverly Suit Dismissal with Prejudice Affirmed
BANK OZK: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Suit over IV Solutions Sales Ongoing

BENNETTSVILLE, SC: Inmate's Bid for Class Certification Denied
BERNARD FREUNDEL: DC Court Approves $14.25MM Settlement
BEST BUY: Order Resolving Pending Motions in Ford Suit Issued
BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL: Case Schedule in Baird ERISA Suit Modified
BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Court Rejects Mishal & Berger Case Settlement

CAMPING WORLD: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
CAMPING WORLD: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
CANADA: Toronto Taxi Owners Commence $1.7-Bil. Class Action
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Dismissal of Merger-Related Suit Under Appeal
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Jacobson Litigation Concluded

CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in Sinohui Case Paid in Full
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement of French Suit Wins Final Approval
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Continues to Defend Tagalogon Class Suit
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement in Guglielmo Suit Still Pending
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement in Master's Class Suit Still Pending

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Class Suit
CHEGG INC: Nov. 26 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
CHICAGO, IL: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Tucker Suit
CIOX HEALTH: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Graham Suit
COINBASE: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit

COMMAND SECURITY: Faces Franchi Class Suit in New York
CONAGRA BRANDS: Beasley Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling
CONNECTICUT WATER: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Suit
DAILY MUSE: Sullivan Suit Asserts ADA Violation
DIRECTE INC: Roberts Files Suit in Harris Cty, Texas

DIRECTV LLC: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Perez Suit Affirmed
DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Gainey Mckenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
EBIX INC: Hearing in Stockholder Class Action Set for Jan. 2019
ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Bid for Rehearing in Nichols Case Still Pending
EQUIFAX INFO: Lemmon Suit Stayed Until Dec. 21 Pending Deal Talks

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Parties Seek to Stay Inscho Suit Until Dec. 21
FEDERAL NATIONAL: Ct. Denies Order Interlocutory Review in Banneck
FLORIDA GARDEN: Anderson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Garcia Class Suit Administratively On Hold
GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: 11th Cir. Upholds FACTA Class Settlement

GOOGLE INC: Women Advance Suit Affecting 8,300 Workers
GREG STEPHEN: Faces Class Action Over Athlete Abuses
HARLEYSVILLE PREFERRED: Court Narrows Claims in Halloran Suit
HAROLD CLARKE: Riggleman Seeks to Certify Class
HEALTH CARE: Judge Oks $3.75MM Deal to Settle Class Action

HECLA MINING: Bid to Consolidate Merger-Related Suit Underway
HERMES LANDSCAPING: Court Stays Rodriguez Pending Appeal
HIGHGATE HOTELS: Bid to File Amended Henkel Deemed Not Withdrawn
HITACHI LTD: $49.8MM Settlement Reached in Canadian CRT Case
HKA: Obtained Consumer Reports without Consent, Moorehead Says

HUAZHU GROUP: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
HUMAN CARE: Tokhtaman Wage & Hour Suit Remanded to NY State Court
ICONIX BRAND: Still Awaiting Court's OK on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Suit
ICU MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Saline Solution-Related Suit
IMPERVA INC: Settlement of 2 Suits for $2.4 Million Gets Initial OK

INTERGLOBO NORTH: Court Flips Dismissal of Wage & Hour Suit
JEFFREY G. LERMAN: Court Narrows Claims in Raytman FDCPA Suit
JENKINS WAGNON: Partial Summary Judgment Entered in Cordova Suit
JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Suit
JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Scott+Scott Files Class Action

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 2 Hip Resurfacing System Suits in Canada Settled
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend INVOKANA(R)-Related Suits
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend XARELTO(R)-Related Suits
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Ongoing in McNeil Medicine Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Defends Remicade Antitrust Litigation

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Verdicts in PINNACLE(R)  Suits Under Appeal
JULEP BEAUTY: Bunting Files Suit in NY Asserting ADA Violation
MAIDEN REST: Faces Delacruz ADA Class Action
MASIMO CORP: 11th Cir. Affirms Decision in Alabama Case
MASIMO CORP: Bid for Class Certification Due Feb. 4

MCKESSON CORP: Bleichmar Fonti Files Class Action Lawsuit
MDL 2724: Court Narrows Claims in Generic Pharma Antitrust Suit
MDL 2862: Bryn Hill vs. BASF over Isocyanate Sales Consolidated
MDL 2862: Isaac Indus. vs. BASF over Isocyanate Sales Consolidated
MDL 2862: NCP Coatings vs. BASF over Isocyanate Sales Consolidated

MERCY HEALTH: Judge Affirms Dismissal of ERISA Class Action
MONARCH RECOVERY: Ortiz Sues Over Debt  Collection Practices
MOROSO USA: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in New York
MORTGAGE CONTRACTING: Weinstein Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
NATIONAL COUNCIL: Sullivan Files Suit in New York for ADA Breach

NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Dec. 31 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
NEWELL BRANDS: Consolidated Securities Suit in New Jersey Ongoing
NEWELL BRANDS: Faces Oklahoma Firefighters Class Suit
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: 2d Cir. Vacates Order Denying Stay
OCH-ZIFF: Pomerantz, Rosen Law Reach $28.75MM in Securities Suit

OHIO: Mays Files Civil Rights Class Action
OUTERNATIONAL BRANDS: Anderson Files Fraud Class Suit in Ca.
P15 LLC: Delacruz Files Suit Asserting ADA Violation
PAM TRANSPORT: Judgment on Pleadings in Browne Suit Nixed
PANDORA MEDIA: Sheridan Suits in Cal. and N.J. Still Stayed

PANDORA MEDIA: Still Defends Flo & Eddie Inc. Class Action
PANDORA MEDIA: Still Defends Ponderosa Twins Plus One Class Suit
PG&E CORP: Still Defends Securities Litigation in California
PHILIP MORRIS: Kessler Topaz Files Class Action Lawsuit
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces Class Suit in Virginia for FDCPA Breach

PRAIRIE PIZZA: Dec. 5 Fairness Hearing on Chenkus FLSA Suit Deal
PTC THERAPEUTICS: Consolidated Securities Suit in NJ Concluded
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Trial on Hsu Suit to Continue Jan. 19
REMINGTON: Landmark Rifle Class Action Settlement Takes Effect
RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Initial Case Hearing Set for Jan. 24

SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Court Decertifies Class in Bund Suit
SAMSUNG: Settles CRT Price-Fixing Class Action
SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER: Due Process Claim Certified in Alonso Suit
SCMP USA: Violates ADA, Dominguez Suit Says
SEABOARD CORP: Pork Buyers' Lawsuits Grouped Into 3

ST. BERNARD'S: Court Sets Schedule to File Brief in Scott Suit
STARKIST CO: 9th Cir. Affirms Hendricks Settlement Approval
STATE FARM MUTUAL: Vang Files Class Action in Arizona
STATE STREET: Has Agreement in Principle to Settle Suit for $4.9M
STATE STREET: Still Defends Suit Over Invoicing Practices

STATION CASINOS: Court Extends Deadline to Respond in Coyne Suit
STITCH FIX: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
STOCKX.COM: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Li Suit
SUNPOWER CORP: Deadline to Appeal Dismissal Order Already Lapsed
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bernstein Litowitz Files Class Action

TATA CONSULTANCY: Bid for Remote Testimony in Slaight Denied
TENNANT CO: Court Narrows Claims in Watson Labor Suit
TESLA INC: Receives SEC Subpoena Amid Shareholder Class Action
THOMSON REUTERS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Dochnal FCRA Suit
TRIBUNE MEDIA: 22 Television Advertising-Related Class Suits Filed

TRIBUNE MEDIA: Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund Files Securities Suit
TRINIDAD: Greenvale Residents Mull Class Action Over Flooding
UNDER ARMOUR: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Securities Suit
UNDER ARMOUR: MyFitnessPal Application Breach Suit Pending
UNITED STATES: Migrant Caravan Members File Class Action

USAA GENERAL: Court Dismisses MSP Recovery Suit Without Prejudice
VBI VACCINES: SciVac Ltd. Faces Putative Class Suit in Israel
WELLS FARGO: Hit With Nationwide Lawsuit Over Robocalls
WESTERN UNION: Settles Unwanted Text Class Action for $8.5MM
WOOD GROUP: Court Partly Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Fenley Suit

XPO LOGISTICS: Intermodal Drayage Classification Claims Ongoing
XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims Ongoing
XPO LOGISTICS: Settlement Funds Distribution in Leug Suit Ongoing

                            *********

375 SOUTH END: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 375 South End LLC.
The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 375 South End LLC doing
business as: Merchants River House, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10315 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 6, 2018).

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

Merchants River House is a casual, family friendly restaurant
facing the Hudson River & Statue of Liberty. Merchants River House
serves moderately priced American Regional fare with most
appetizers, salads, burgers and sandwiches.[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


3D IDAPRO: Court Narrows Claims in Hamilton Negligence Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying
in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned ANDREA
HAMILTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. 3D IDAPRO SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant. No.
18-cv-54-jdp. (W.D. Wis.).

3D Idapro has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or, in the alternative for
a more definite statement.

Plaintiff Andrea Hamilton has filed a proposed class action against
defendant 3D Idapro Solutions, LLC, for nuisance, negligence, and
gross negligence. Hamilton alleges that 3D Idapro operates an
industrial food processing and deydration plant where it dehydrates
potatoes and other vegetables to produce food and pet food
ingredients, organic fertilizers and blended products. She says
that the plant is releasing noxious odors that have invaded her
home and the homes of other proposed class members.

Motion to dismiss

Hamilton does not respond to 3D Idapro's contention that Wisconsin
does not recognize a cause of action for gross negligence, so the
court will grant 3D Idapro's motion as to that claim.  

As for Hamilton's nuisance and negligence claims, 3D Idapro's
contention is that Hamilton did not plead enough facts to satisfy
the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and cases
such as Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662(2009).

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has summarized Rule 8,
Twombly, and Iqbal as imposing two requirements: (1) the complaint
must describe the claim in sufficient detail to give the defendant
fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests; and (2) the complaint must plausibly suggest that the
plaintiff has a right to relief above a speculative level.

Negligence

A negligence claim has four elements: (1) a duty of care on the
part of the defendant; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a causal
connection between the conduct and the injury; and (4) an actual
loss or damage as a result of the injury. In this case, Hamilton
alleges that 3D Idapro acted negligently by failing to install and
maintain adequate technology to properly control its emissions of
noxious odors.

3D Idapro argues that Hamilton's allegations are insufficient
because they do not include the following information: (1) how
Hamilton knows that the odors are coming from 3D Idapro's facility;
(2) when the odors were emitted; (3) what the alleged negligence
is; (4) the nature of Hamilton's damages; (5) what the odors
smelled like; and (6) whether she complained about the odors before
filing the lawsuit. The court concludes that all of this
information can be reasonably inferred from the complaint or is not
required by Rule 8.

Source of the odors

In support of its contention that Hamilton was required to explain
how she determined that the odors originated from 3D Idapro's
facility, Hamilton says that there are numerous sources of
potentially 'noxious odors' within a 1.5-mile radius of 3D Idapro,
including a landfill and recycling center, a composting site, and a
wholesaler of industrial chemicals. It cites a document that it
says is a print out of a Google map showing the location of the
different facilities and it asks the court to take judicial notice
of it. It then cites the following statement in McCauley v. City of
Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 616 (7th Cir. 2011): If the allegations give
rise to an obvious alternative explanation, then the complaint may
stop short of the line between possibility and plausibility of
entitlement to relief.

Because Hamilton does not explain why she believes that the odors
are coming from the 3D Idapro facility rather than one of the other
industrial facilities, 3D Idapro believes that Hamilton has not
stated a claim.

Even if the court were to assume that Hamilton were required to
plead allegations pointing specifically toward 3D Idapro, she did
that. She alleges that residents of more than 100 other households
have complained to entities such as the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources and the City of Wisconsin Rapids about odors
coming from 3D Idapro's facility and that the Wisconsin Rapids
Community Development Department and the Wisconsin Rapids Ordinance
Control Officers have already determined that 3D Idapro is emitting
noxious odors. These allegations are sufficient to plausibly
suggest that 3D Idapro rather than another source is the cause of
the problem.

Negligent acts

3D Idapro says that Hamilton neglects to identify actions that 3D
Idapro unreasonably failed to take, such as employing a particular
technology or using an alternative manufacturing process.The court
of appeals has rejected the view that a plaintiff must identify a
particular defect to state a negligence claim because the plaintiff
may not be able to determine the nature of the problem without
discovery. Regardless, Hamilton has identified a defect. She
alleges that 3D Idapro acted negligently by failing to use or
maintain an odor scrubber. Although 3D Idapro acknowledges this, it
says that Hamilton's allegations are inadequate because they are
untethered to a particular odor or time period. But it is not clear
what 3D Idapro means by that. Again, it is reasonable to infer from
the complaint that the particular odor is the one coming from 3D
Idapro's plant and that the time period is now.

Harm

The complaint does not include detailed allegations about the type
of harm Hamilton suffered. Hamilton alleges generally that she
suffered "injuries and damages to [her] property. But a district
court [may not] demand that complaints contain all legal elements
(or factors) plus facts corresponding to each. Rather, a court must
draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. It is
reasonable to infer that a persistent, noxious odor would both
cause the property owner emotional distress and diminish the value
of the property. So the absence of more specific allegations about
harm is not fatal to Hamilton's claim.

Description of odors and complaints about them. The last two
omitted facts are not required by Rule 8. The court sees no reason
why Hamilton needs to describe the odors in a way that is more
specific than noxious. 3D Idapro neither cites any authority
requiring more specificity nor explains why more detail is needed
to provide fair notice. And the question whether Hamilton
complained about the odors before filing the lawsuit is simply
irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the elements of a
negligence claim. 3D Idapro does not contend that either of
Hamilton's claims included an administrative exhaustion requirement
or that, if they did, Hamilton was required to affirmatively allege
that she exhausted any administrative remedies that she had.

Nuisance

3D Idapro states in its opening brief that the Complaint appears to
allege a claim of private nuisance and Hamilton does not dispute
that statement in her opposition brief. In any event, both sides
limit their arguments to a private nuisance theory, so the court
will do the same.

A private nuisance is defined generally as a non trespassory
invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of
land. The invasion is actionable if it is either: (1) intentional
and unreasonable; or (2) unintentional and otherwise actionable
under the rules controlling liability for negligent or reckless
conduct, or for abnormally dangerous conditions or activities. The
parties do not discuss which type of invasion is alleged in this
case. Rather, 3D Idapro says that Hamilton has not adequately
alleged an interference with the use and enjoyment of her property,
so the court will limit its analysis to that issue.

3D Idapro's contention does not require extensive discussion.
I]nvasions of noxious odors can rise to the level of a nuisance so
Hamilton's allegation that noxious odors invaded her home on
numerous occasions and continue to invade her home is sufficient to
state a claim. The precise extent of the alleged harm to Hamilton
is an issue that can be developed during discovery and resolved at
summary judgment or trial.

Motion for more definite statement

A party may move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) if
a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot
reasonably prepare a response. But Rule 12(e) cannot be used to
turn federal civil procedure into a fact-pleading or code-pleading
system.

In this case, 3D Idapro says that it needs more information so that
it can determine whether it even owned or operated the Facility
when Hamilton smelled the odor, whether its facility generated the
odor Hamilton smelled, or whether Hamilton's alleged harm is even
actionable. But the court has already concluded that Hamilton has
adequately alleged that the odors are invading her home now, that
the odors are coming from 3D Idapro's facility, and that she
suffered sufficient harm. Any additional information can be
obtained in discovery.

Accordingly, Defendant 3D Idapro Solutions, LLC's motion to dismiss
or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement is granted as
to plaintiff Andrea Hamilton's claim for gross negligence and that
claim is dismissed.  The motion is denied as to Hamilton's claims
for negligence and nuisance.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 29, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybdcf45v from
Leagle.com.

Andrea Hamilton, Plaintiff, represented by Keith E. Trower,
Warshafsky, Rotter, Tarnoff, Laura Sheets, Liddle & Dubin, PC &
Brandon Thomas Brown, Liddle & Dubin PC.

3D Idapro Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by David B. Goroff
-- dgoroff@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Joseph S. Harper --
jharper@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner, Megan Renee Stelljes --
mstelljes@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP & Michael D. Leffel --
mleffel@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner.


ABBVIE INC: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of AbbVie Inc.  If you suffered a
loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff.    

AbbVie Inc. (NYSE: ABBV)
Class Period: October 25, 2013 to September 18, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 20, 2018

According to the complaint, AbbVie Inc. allegedly made materially
false and/or misleading statements 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.

Get additional information about the ABBV lawsuit:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/abbvie-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3

         J. Klein, Esq.
         The Klein Law Firm
         Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue
         59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: (212) 616-4899
         Fax: (347) 558-9665
         Email: jk@kleinstocklaw.com [GN]


ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc.
If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline
to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  

Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. (NASDAQGS: ACHC)
Class Period: February 23, 2017 to October 24, 2017
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 3, 2018

Throughout the class period, Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc.
allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the quality of Acadia's U.K.
operations did not give the Company a "competitive strength" that
would drive future growth and profitability; and (2) defendants had
no reasonable basis to believe--and did not in fact believe--their
positive statements about the Company's business and financial
prospects during the Class Period, including their guidance issued
and reaffirmed throughout the Class Period.

Get additional information about the ACHC lawsuit:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/acadia-healthcare-company-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3

         J. Klein, Esq.
         The Klein Law Firm
         Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue
         59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: (212) 616-4899
         Fax: (347) 558-9665
         Email: jk@kleinstocklaw.com [GN]


ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Acadia
Healthcare Company, Inc. (Acadia Healthcare or the Company)
(NASDAQ: ACHC) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between February 23,
2017 and October 24, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before December 3, 2018.            


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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Acadia falsely claimed that its U.K.
operations had competitive strength in the marketplace, when in
fact it was not able to contribute to growth and profitability. In
fact, the Company had no basis to believe its own positive
guidance. Based on these facts, the Companys public statements were
false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When
the market learned the truth about Acadia Healthcare, investors
suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         Telephone: 310-301-3335
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: sherin@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com [GN]


ADIENT PLC: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Adient plc.  If you suffered a
loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  

Adient plc (NYSE: ADNT)
Class Period: October 31, 2016 to June 11, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 3, 2018

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements. In particular,
the complaint alleges that defendants repeatedly stressed to
investors that the Company was "solidly on track" to deliver
200-basis-point margin expansion by 2020, which was largely
dependent on operational and financial improvements in Adient's
core SS&M business, while unbeknownst to investors, Adient's core
SS&M business faced significant operational problems such that the
repeatedly touted 200-basis-point margin expansion was not "on
track" at any point during the Class Period. Consequently, Adient
stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period, reaching a high of $85.93 per share.

Get additional information about the ADNT lawsuit:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/adient-plc-loss-submission-form?wire=3

         J. Klein, Esq.
         The Klein Law Firm
         Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue
         59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: (212) 616-4899
         Fax: (347) 558-9665
         Email: jk@kleinstocklaw.com [GN]


AIRBNB INC: Arbitration Discovery Ruling in Marshall Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Colin Marshall, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Christopher
Gregory Rogers, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00078-JAD-CWH
(D.Nev.), Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada affirmed the Magistrate Judge Hoffman's
order staying general discovery and allowing limited arbitration
discovery.

Plaintiffs Marshall, Caroline Ventola, Chris Cheng, Daniel Dykes,
and Winston Cheng allege that Winston used Airbnb to rent a house
in unincorporated Clark County, Nevada, from Christopher Gregory
Rogers for all of the Plaintiffs to stay in for six days in January
2016.  But when they discovered video cameras hidden throughout the
house, including in private areas like bedrooms and bathrooms, they
called law enforcement and stayed elsewhere.  Serving as
representatives in a putative class action, the Plaintiffs sue
Airbnb, Inc. and a handful of Defendants who they contend own,
manage, or benefit from the rental of that home ("Rogers
Defendants").

After removing the case to federal court, Airbnb moved to compel
the Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims against it, and to stay
the case pending arbitration.  It argued that each plaintiff agreed
to Airbnb's terms of service ("TOS") -- which contain an agreement
to arbitrate -- or is bound by the principles of agency and
estoppel to Winston's agreement.  Airbnb also contended that the
parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to delegate questions about
the scope of the arbitration clause to the arbitrator.

In Judge Dorsey's last order, she found that each Plaintiff had
signed up for a user account with Airbnb and agreed to at least one
version of the TOS.  But Airbnb had not demonstrated that Dykes or
Winston agreed to arbitrate when they each agreed to the third and
fourth versions of the TOS, or when Dykes agreed to the sixth
version of the TOS.  She also found that Airbnb had not shown that
the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated questions about the
arbitration clause's scope to the arbitrator.  Because key
questions of law and possibly fact still surround that issue, the
Judge denied Airbnb's motion to compel arbitration without
prejudice.

Airbnb then moved to continue the stay of general discovery that
Magistrate Judge Hoffman had imposed while the motion to compel
arbitration was pending.  It also sought limited discovery into
whether Dykes and Winston had agreed to arbitrate their claims
against Airbnb.

Judge Hoffman granted the motion in full, but at the Plaintiffs'
request, stayed the start of limited discovery until Judge Dorsey
could review his order to stay general discovery.  So, the
Plaintiffs filed an objection to Judge Hoffman's decision under
Local Rule IB 3-1, which permits Judge Dorsey to reverse or modify
a magistrate judge's order on a referred pre-trial matter only if
the decision is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.  

Judge Dorsey finds that the Plaintiffs have curiously failed to
address or even cite the relevant standard of review.  Instead,
they primarily contend that, because Airbnb has not yet renewed its
motion to compel arbitration, there is no dipositive motion
pending, which some courts in this circuit consider a condition
precedent to staying discovery.  The Plaintiffs have also failed to
demonstrate that the order staying general discovery was contrary
to law.  She further findss that the Plaintiffs have failed to cite
any authority demonstrating that a party's potential prejudice is
relevant to whether a case may proceed on the merits before
arbitrability is decided.  Finally, if she ultimately determines
that all the Plaintiffs must arbitrate their claims against Airbnb,
then subjecting Airbnb to general discovery at this point would
strip it of the benefit of its arbitration agreement.

Because the Federal Arbitration Act requires district courts to
determine whether the parties' dispute falls within the scope of
their arbitration agreement before advancing to the merits, Judge
Dorsey concludes that Judge Hoffman properly stayed general
discovery.

Accordingly, Judge Dorsey overruled the Plaintiffs' objection, and
affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order staying general discovery and
allowing limited arbitration discovery.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct 19, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/mJ5nNY from Leagle.com.

Colin Marshall, Caroline Ventola, Chris Cheng, Daniel Dykes &
Winston Cheng, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher D. Kircher --
cdk@skrlawyers.com -- Semenza Kircher Rickard, Jarrod L. Rickard --
jlr@skrlawyers.com -- Semenza Kircher Rickard & Lawrence J.
Semenza, III -- ljs@skrlawyers.com -- Semenza Kircher Rickard.

Christopher Gregory Rogers & Rogers Holdings, II, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Brian F. Zimmerman, Zimmerman Law Firm, P.C.

Barbara Rogers, an individual and Trustee/Beneficiary of the Rogers
Family Trust, Dannie Earl Rogers, an individual and
Trustee/Beneficiary of The Roger Family Trust & The Rogers Family
Trust, Defendants, represented by John T. Keating, Keating Law
Group.

AIRBNB, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey A. Silvestri -- jsilvestri@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald
Carano Wilson, Laura R. Jacobsen -- ljacobsen@mcdonaldcarano.com --
McDonald Carano & Wilson & Michele Floyd -- mfloyd@srclaw.com
--Sacks, Ricketts & Case, LLP, pro hac vice.


ALESSI USA: Violates Disabilities Act, Dominguez Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alessi USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alessi USA, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10301 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 6, 2018).

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

Alessi USA, Inc. distributes dining room and kitchen accessories,
bathroom accessories, beverages and other drinks, and other home
accessories through stores in Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, New
York, and San Francisco.[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


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
National law firm Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Nov. 6
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
captioned Lu v. Align Technology, Inc. et. al. (docket number:
3:18-cv-06720), on behalf of persons and/or entities that acquired
Align Technology, Inc. ("Align" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ALGN)
securities between July 25, 2018 and October 24, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the
Defendants, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Align investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from
November 5, 2018, the date of this notice to move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff in this action.

On October 24, 2018, Align Technology issued a press release
announcing its Q3 2018 financial results. Therein, the Company
disclosed a more than 6% decrease in its Invisalign Average Selling
Price ("ASP"). On the same day, the Company also announced that its
Chief Marketing Officer would "reduce his responsibilities and
transition to a part-time position." On this news, Align
Technology's share price shares fell $58.76, or 20% to close at
$232.07 on October 25, 2018, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company would offer higher discounts to
promote Invisalign; (2) that the promotions would materially impact
revenue; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you purchased Align securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than  60 days from the date of this notice
to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member
of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may
retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased. [GN]


ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal in Zeltiq Advertising Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the plaintiffs in Zeltiq
Advertising Litigation have filed a motion of appeal with the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.

On April 26, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Zeltiq in state court in California alleging that Zeltiq
misled customers regarding the promotion of its CoolSculpting
product and the product's premarket notification clearance status.


On May 30, 2017, the case was removed to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. On July 20, 2017,
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In August 2017, Zeltiq filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 11, 2018, the
Court granted Zeltiq's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  

On July 2, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. On
July 23, 2018, Zeltiq filed a motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint. On September 4, 2018, plaintiffs filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal.  On October 3, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion
of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. It operates through
US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International
segments. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Facing 539 Claims in Actonel(R) Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that Warner Chilcott is a
defendant in approximately 539 claims relating to Actonel(R)
Litigation.

Warner Chilcott is a defendant in approximately 539 claims,
including tolled claims and filed cases in various state and
federal court, relating to Warner Chilcott's bisphosphonate
prescription drug Actonel(R). The claimants allege, among other
things, that Actonel(R) caused them to suffer osteonecrosis of the
jaw ("ONJ"), a rare but serious condition that involves severe loss
or destruction of the jawbone, and/or atypical fractures of the
femur ("AFF").

Warner Chilcott is in the initial stages of discovery in these
litigations.  All of the filed cases are in either federal or state
courts in the United States, with the exception of three cases
filed in provincial courts in Canada.  

Two Canadian cases involve a single plaintiff, and the other is a
purported product liability class action involving two named
plaintiffs. The Canadian action alleges, among other things, that
Actonel(R) caused the plaintiffs and the proposed class members who
ingested Actonel(R) to suffer ONJ or other side effects. It is
expected that the plaintiffs in the purported class action will
seek class certification.

Plaintiffs have typically asked for unspecified monetary and
injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees. Warner Chilcott is
indemnified by Sanofi for certain Actonel claims pursuant to a
collaboration agreement relating to the two parties' co-promotion
of the product in the United States and other countries.

In addition, Warner Chilcott is also partially indemnified by the
Procter & Gamble Company ("P&G") for ONJ claims that were pending
at the time Warner Chilcott acquired P&G's global pharmaceutical
business in October 2009. In May and September 2013, Warner
Chilcott entered into two settlement agreements that resolved a
majority of the then-existing ONJ-related claims.

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. It operates through
US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International
segments. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Summary Judgment in Testosterone Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that defendants' motion for
summary judgment in Testosterone Replacement Therapy Class Action
suit is underway.

On November 24, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class
action complaint filed on behalf a class of third party payers in
federal court in Illinois. The suit alleges that the Company and
other named pharmaceutical defendants violated various laws
including the federal the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) statute and state consumer protection laws
in connection with the sale and marketing of certain testosterone
replacement therapy pharmaceutical products ("TRT Products"),
including the Company Androderm(R) product.  

Plaintiff alleges that it reimbursed third parties for dispensing
TRT Products to beneficiaries of its insurance policies. Plaintiff
seeks to obtain certain equitable relief, including injunctive
relief and an order requiring restitution and/or disgorgement, and
to recover damages and multiple damages in an unspecified amount.
Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint and in its ruling the court dismissed all claims against
the Company except plaintiff's RICO conspiracy claim. Discovery in
this matter is ongoing.  

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on November 6,
2017. On March 5, 2018, Defendants filed papers in opposition to
Plaintiffs' class certification motion.    On July 26, 2018, the
court entered an order denying plaintiff's class certification
motion. On October 15, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment.

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. It operates through
US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International
segments. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.


ALPHABET INC: Claimsfiler Reminds of Dec.10 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until December 10, 2018 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against
Alphabet Inc. (NasdaqGS: GOOG, GOOGL), if they purchased the
Company's securities between April 23, 2018 through October 10,
2018.  These actions are pending in the United States District
Courts for the Eastern District of New York and Northern District
of California.

                         About the Lawsuit

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

On October 8, 2018, The Wall Street Journal reported that Alphabet,
through its subsidiary Google, had exposed the private data of
Google+ users but failed to disclose the matter "in part because of
fears that doing so would draw regulatory scrutiny and cause
reputational damage."  The Company later confirmed the glitch,
discovered in March 2018, that exposed private profile data of more
than 500,000 Google+ users between 2015 and March 2018.
         
Lawyers at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC are available to discuss your
legal options. [GN]


AMATEUR ATHLETIC: Responds to Class Action Over Ex-Coach Abuses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Bain, writing for Des Moines Register, reports that the
Amateur Athletic Union has responded to the class action lawsuit
filed against it, Greg Stephen and the Iowa Barnstormers.

In a written statement sent to the Des Moines Register, an AAU
spokesperson said:

"The AAU takes the allegations of sexual misconduct very seriously.
When we learned through media reports in February of the federal
investigation into Greg Stephen, his AAU membership was immediately
revoked and he was removed as coach and AAU program co-director of
the Iowa Barnstormers, the team he co-founded.

"His arrest in March by the FBI and guilty plea in October
reaffirmed our decision to end the AAU's relationship with Greg
Stephen. He committed horrific, predatory acts against the young
players he coached, betraying the trust of those players and the
AAU. The AAU encourages any other players sexually abused by Greg
Stephen to come forward to the authorities."

In regards to being listed as a defendant in the lawsuit, the
spokesperson said the AAU has not yet received the complaint and is
not commenting at this time.

A class action lawsuit filed on Nov. 2 in Johnson County District
Court accuses Stephen of intrusion on his victims' seclusion. It
also says the Barnstormers, which Stephen had co-directed since its
inception in 2005, and the AAU were negligent in their duty to
protect the safety and privacy of their athletes and to implement
procedures that could have stopped Stephen's behavior.

The Barnstormers program is a youth basketball organization based
out of North Liberty that includes boys and girls teams -- as young
as fourth grade for boys. The AAU is a nonprofit organization
"dedicated exclusively to the promotion and development of amateur
sports and physical fitness programs," according to its website.
The Barnstormers program is a subsidiary of the AAU.

In recent history, the Barnstormers program has been the most
influential in Iowa. Major Division I players have filled its
rosters -- its 2018 class alone had three prospects ranked among
the country's top 100 -- and it is among the nation's best
programs.

At a Nov. 5 news conference, Guy Cook, a lawyer representing the
plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit, said the damages could
exceed $10 million.

And, depending on the evidence, the lawsuit could expand to include
additional defendants, such as Adidas, Mr. Cook said.

"I don't want to prejudge this because we want to take testimony,
but Barnstormer Basketball was also sanctioned by Adidas," Mr. Cook
said, "and Barnstormer Basketball was successful because they were
associated with an international brand like Adidas."

Matthew Bain covers college football and basketball recruiting for
the Des Moines Register. He also helps out with Iowa and Iowa State
football and basketball coverage for HawkCentral and Cyclone
Insider. [GN]


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Sued Over Domestic Ticket Price Collusion
------------------------------------------------------------
WNCT 9 reports that millions of people who purchased domestic
airline tickets over an eight-year period are being asked if they
want to participate in a class action lawsuit.

Before flyers ever get on an airplane, they need to buy a ticket. A
lot goes into the cost of the ticket, and that's what's in
dispute.

Lawyers claim that, for the better part of a decade, four of the
biggest carriers in the country colluded to drive up airfares
between 2011 and 2018.

American, United/Continental, Southwest and Delta were named in a
class action lawsuit that accused them of secretly conspired to
raise the price of tickets at a time when demand was stagnant and
the price of jet fuel was declining.

All four airlines have denied the allegations, but two of them have
agreed to settle for millions to avoid further litigation. American
Airlines agreed to pay $45 million dollars to end the lawsuit, and
Southwest has offered to pay $15 million.

Both airlines have also agreed to cooperate with lawyers.

Anyone who purchased domestic tickets with those four carriers
between July 1, 2011 and June 14, 2018 are receiving letters asking
them if they want to be part of the class action lawsuit. They also
explain how to opt out.

With settlements being offered, affected passengers want to know
how much money might they get from the settlement. That's unknown.
A website set up to explain the litigation says people may have to
wait until additional settlements are achieved.

The website also said it's possible that ticket buyers will never
get any money from the lawsuit. "After deductions for any
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, settlement administration
expenses, and class representative incentive awards approved by the
Court, the remaining amount will be distributed to charities,
governmental entities, or other beneficiaries approved by the
Court."

It remains to be seen how that plays out.

The court has scheduled a hearing in March 2019 to consider whether
it should approve the two proposed settlements as well as
attorney's fees of up to 30 percent.[GN]



APOGEE ENTERPRISES: Jan. 4 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on Nov. 6 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota on behalf of those who acquired Apogee
Enterprises, Inc. ("Apogee" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: APOG)
securities during the period from June 28, 2018 through September
17, 2018 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until January 4, 2019
to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, defendants failed to disclose that: (i)
Apogee lacked the required labor force in place to ramp-up its
production; (ii) Apogee was unable to hire, train and retain new
employees; and (iii) Apogee's productivity and margins would be
negatively impacted. When the true details entered the market on
September 18, 2018, Apogee stock fell $5.74 per share, or nearly
12%, from its previous closing price of $48.22 to close at $42.48
per share on
September 18, 2018.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Apogee securities during the
Class Period, have information, or would like to learn more about
these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney at
212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling
out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with
respect to these matters without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney -- http://www.kmllp.com-- is a New York-based
plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, and
whistleblower litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of
shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries
totaling billions of dollars.[GN]


AVIVA: Class Action Allege Ontario Insurers Broke Payment Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Jeffords, writing for CTV News Toronto, reports that a series
of proposed class-action lawsuits launched against major insurance
companies in Ontario claim the firms have been shortchanging
auto-accident victims for years by breaking rules that govern
payouts.

Statements of claimed filed in the suits allege the companies did
not pay or reimburse HST on benefits in some cases and included HST
in the calculation of benefit entitlements in others -- all in
violation of rules set up in 2010 when the tax combining the
federal goods and services tax and the regional sales tax was
introduced.

"The insurers shortchanged thousands of auto-accident victims,
reducing care benefits to injured individuals to boost already
record profitability," lawyer Paul Harte, Esq. --
pharte@hartelaw.com-- who is part of the team that filed the legal
action, said on November 1.

Insurance companies Aviva, Intact, Belair, Allstate, Unifund and
Certas are named in the suits, which contain allegations that have
not been proven in court.

The legal action also alleges Ontario's insurance regulator -- the
Financial Services Commission of Ontario -- has known about the HST
issue for years but has failed to take action against it.

"They're responsible for protecting the public and policing the
industry," Harte said. "The claim alleges that FSCO turned a blind
eye to unfair industry practices even when they knew that members
of the insurance industry were wrongfully denying the public
benefits."

According to the lawsuits, the insurance regulator directed
insurance companies to pay applicable HST in addition to the costs
of goods and services provided under accident benefit agreements,
and told them not to include applicable HST within calculation of
caps on benefits.

The lawsuits seek a combined $600 million in compensation and an
injunction to prevent further alleged breaking of the rules around
payments of the HST.

Harte said 60,000 injuries occur every year in Ontario as a result
of vehicle accidents. And while six companies are named in the
series of lawsuits, the alleged issue could be more widespread, he
added.

Jill Nicholson, a 34-year-old Ottawa resident who works in law
enforcement and is a plaintiff in the legal action, said she was
involved in a serious accident while riding her motorcycle home
from work in June 2012.

Over the past six years she has had six surgeries and exhausted the
benefits available to her through her insurance, she claimed. Her
lawyers alleged her insurer had not paid the HST on her benefits as
they should have and deprived her of needed money for treatment she
still requires.

"As I've run through all my benefits to this point, I no longer see
a psychologist and I only see a massage therapist minimally so that
I can afford to continue going," she said. "However, I suffer from
chronic pain so every day that I don't get therapy is just more
pain added to me for the next day."

A spokesman for Aviva said the company has sought to clarify rules
around HST with the government.

"This is part of our commitment to continually explore ways to
reduce or eliminate complexity (for customers), and to increase
trust in the insurance industry overall," Fabrice de Dongo said in
a statement.

Intact Financial, which owns both Intact and Belair brands, said to
its knowledge, as of November 1 evening, it had not been served
with the statement of claim.

"Our first priority is to get our customers back on track when they
face difficult times and we take our responsibility very
seriously," the company said in a statement.

"If served, we would review the statement promptly and carefully
before providing any further information."

Certas and Unifund said they couldn't comment on the legal action
as it was before the courts while Allstate did not immediately
respond to a request for comment.

A spokesman for the Financial Services Commission of Ontario said
the agency was aware of the lawsuits but couldn't comment on them
as they were before the courts. Finance Minister Vic Fedeli, whose
ministry oversees the agency, also declined to comment. [GN]


BANK OF NEW YORK: Beverly Suit Dismissal with Prejudice Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICIA BEVERLY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE BANK OF NEW
YORK MELLON, FKA The Bank of New York, a New York corporation, as
Trustee for the Certificate-holders of the The CWABS, Inc.
Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-16; DITECH FINANCIAL LLC,
FKA Green Tree Servicing; DOES, 1-10, Defendants-Appellees, Case
No. 17-55557 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing Beverly's
claims with prejudice.

Beverly bought a house in 2005, executing a promissory note and a
deed of trust  secured by the property.  Her complaint alleges that
in 2011 the Note and Deed of Trust were purportedly transferred to
Defendant Bank of New York Mellon ("BONY") as trustee for a Real
Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit ("REMIC") trust.  In 2014, she
further alleges, BONY purported to substitute MTC Financial, Inc.,
doing business as Trustee Corps, for itself as trustee under the
Deed of Trust.  After Beverly defaulted, BONY instructed Trustee
Corps to initiate foreclosure proceedings, which resulted in the
November 2015 sale of her house (to BONY) at public auction.

In 2016, Beverly filed a putative class action, arguing that the
2011 transfer failed because it occurred years too late for the
Deed of Trust to meet the requirements to be a "qualified
mortgage," and therefore its transfer into the the Middle District
of Florida, sitting by designation.

REMIC trust was precluded both by the terms of that trust's Pooling
and Servicing Agreement and by the Internal Revenue Code.  Because
the transfer failed, her argument continues, BONY never had
authority to initiate the foreclosure proceedings.  In the
alternative, she argues that the foreclosure was improper because
of various problems with foreclosure-related documents, such as
notary signatures and notices of default that (wrongly, in her
view) showed BONY as the beneficiary of the Deed of Trust.  She
asserted one claim for wrongful foreclosure and another for
violation of California's Homeowner Bill of Rights ("HBOR").

BONY and its co-Defendant, Ditech Financial LLC, formerly known as
Green Tree Servicing, filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, arguing that
Beverly's claims were barred by res judicata based on an earlier
unlawful detainer action and that she lacked standing to challenge
the 2011 transfer to BONY.  The district court rejected the res
judicata argument but found that Beverly lacked standing and
therefore dismissed her claims with prejudice.  Beverly timely
appealed.

The Ninth Circuit finds no error in the district court's resolution
of the res judicata issue.  The Defendants have made no showing
that the failed-transfer issue was actually addressed in the
unlawful detainer action.

The Court also finds that the district court did not err in finding
that Beverly lacked standing to pursue her wrongful foreclosure
claim.  The district court did not specify the basis for its
dismissal of Beverly's HBOR claim.  But as the preceding discussion
makes clear, the gist of Beverly's HBOR claim is that the Deed of
Trust and Note were not transferred into the REMIC trust.  She
cannot raise these alleged problems with the foreclosure procedure
-- or, more precisely, she cannot establish that they caused her to
suffer economic damages-without first challenging the 2011 transfer
of the Deed of Trust and Note.

Based on the reasoning of Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp.,
the Ninth Circuit holds that her lack of standing to attack the
transfer in connection with a wrongful foreclosure claim is also
fatal to her ability to attack that transfer in connection with an
HBOR claim.  As such, the district court did not err in dismissing
the HBOR claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 17, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/otYJbL from Leagle.com.


BANK OZK: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
National law firm Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas (docket number: 4:18-cv-793) on behalf of
persons and/or entities that acquired Bank OZK ("Bank OZK" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: OZK) securities between February 19, 2016 and
October 18, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues
claims against the Defendants, under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Bank OZK investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from
the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff in this action.

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

On October 18, 2018, the Company reported that it had "incurred
combined charge-offs of $45.5 million on two Real Estate
Specialties Group credits" that had previously been classified as
substandard. On this news, the Company's share price fell $9.33 per
share, more than 26%, to close at $25.52 per share on October 19,
2018, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls
to assess credit risk; (2) that, as a result, certain of the
Company's loans posed an increased risk of loss; (3) that certain
substandard loans were reasonably likely to lead to charge-offs;
and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased Bank OZK securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this
notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.

         Lesley Portnoy,Esq.
         Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, California 90067
         Telephone: 310-201-9150
                    888-773-9224
         Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com
                shareholders@glancylaw.com[GN]


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Suit over IV Solutions Sales Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the plaintiffs in
the consolidated antitrust class action suit in Illinois filed an
amended complaint

In November 2016, a purported antitrust class action complaint
seeking monetary and injunctive relief was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
complaint alleges a conspiracy among manufacturers of IV solutions
to restrict output and affect pricing in connection with a shortage
of such solutions. Similar parallel actions subsequently were
filed.

In January 2017, a single consolidated complaint covering these
matters was filed in the Northern District of Illinois. On July 5,
2018, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint (which had been previously filed in February
2017) without prejudice.  

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 6, 2018.

Baxter International Inc. provides a portfolio of healthcare
products. The company operates through North and South America;
Europe, Middle East and Africa; and Asia-Pacific segments. It
offers peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis, and additional
dialysis therapies and services; renal replacement therapies and
other organ support therapies focused in the intensive care unit;
sterile intravenous (IV) solutions, IV therapies, infusion pumps,
administration sets, and drug reconstitution devices; and
parenteral nutrition therapies. Baxter International Inc. was
founded in 1931 and is headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.


BENNETTSVILLE, SC: Inmate's Bid for Class Certification Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, Charlotte Division, issued an Order denying Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned ANTONIO
MOSLEY, a/k/a/ ABDULLAH HAMID, Plaintiff, v. TORRE JESSUP,
Defendant. No. 3:18-cv-504-FDW. (W.D.N.C.).

Pro se Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at the Bennettsville
Correctional Institution in Bennettsville, South Carolina, has
filed a civil rights suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The
Plaintiff names as the sole Defendant Commissioner of the North
Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Torre Jessup, in his
official capacity. The Plaintiff argues that North Carolina General
Statutes Sectioon 24.24-1, and DMV's enforcement of it, violate due
process and equal protection.

Because the Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis,
the Court must review the Complaint to determine whether it is
subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is (i) frivolous or
malicious (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.

A pro se complaint must be construed liberally.  However, the
liberal construction requirement will not permit a district court
to ignore a clear failure to allege facts in his complaint which
set forth a claim that is cognizable under federal law.  A pro se
complaint must still contain sufficient facts to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level and state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face. This plausibility standard requires a
plaintiff to demonstrate more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully. He must articulate facts that, when
accepted as true, demonstrate he has stated a claim entitling him
to relief.

The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause provides that no
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law. The Due Process Clause applies to the deprivation
of a driver's license by the state because they involve important
interests of the licensees and thus they are not to be taken
without the procedural due process required by the Fourteenth
Amendment.

The essence of a procedural due process is that individuals whose
property interests are at stake are entitled to `notice and an
opportunity to be heard. The extent of process due depends on the
nature of the property interest, the government's interest, and the
risk of an erroneous deprivation. The first inquiry in any due
process challenge is whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a
protected interest in property or liberty that was accomplished by
state action.

The substantive component of due process bars certain government
actions regardless of the procedures used to implement them.
Substantive due process is far narrower in scope than procedural
due process. State deprivation of a protected property interest
violates substantive due process only if it is so arbitrary and
irrational, so unjustified by any circumstance or government
interest, as to be literally incapable of avoidance by any
pre-deprivation procedural protections or adequate rectification by
any post-deprivation state remedies. The state action must be
conscience shocking, in a constitutional sense.

The Equal Protection Clause commands that no State shall deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws,' which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly
situated should be treated alike. To state a cognizable claim for
the denial of equal protection, a plaintiff must allege
discriminatory intent as well as disparate impact.

In other words, a plaintiff must first demonstrate that he has been
treated differently from others with whom he is similarly situated
and that the unequal treatment was the result of intentional or
purposeful discrimination. If a plaintiff makes this showing, the
court proceeds to determine whether the disparity in treatment can
be justified under the requisite level of scrutiny.

Ordinarily, when a state regulation or policy is challenged under
the Equal Protection Clause, unless it involves a fundamental right
or a suspect class, it is presumed to be valid and will be
sustained if there is a rational relationship between the disparity
of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose.

The Plaintiff appears to allege that he received inadequate notice
and opportunity to be heard and that the North Carolina statute has
burdened him unfairly based on his impoverishment. He has stated
plausible due process and equal protection claims and, therefore,
the Complaint will be permitted to proceed.

The Complaint has passed initial review but the Plaintiff's motions
for class certification and the appointment of counsel are denied.

The Complaint survives initial review under 28 U.S.C. Section
1915.2. The motions for class certification and for the appointment
of counsel that are incorporated in the Complaint are denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 29, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd8r24t8 from Leagle.com.

Antonio Mosley, also known as Abdullah Hamid, Plaintiff, pro se.


BERNARD FREUNDEL: DC Court Approves $14.25MM Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
On October 22, 2018 the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
approved a $14,250,000 settlement in connection with a class action
lawsuit brought by women who used a religious bath at the National
Capital Mikvah, where then Rabbi Bernard Freundel secretly made
video recordings of women in the nude, while they were using the
facilities.   Freundel was arrested, charged, and ultimately pled
guilty to 52 counts of voyeurism in October, 2014.   He was
sentenced to 6-1/2 years in prison.

Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C., a distinguished law
firm based in Washington, DC, has been protecting the rights of
women victimized by Freundel since the arrest. The firm filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of victims, and served as co-counsel
with appointed class counsel Sanford Heisler, LLP. The class action
lawsuit (DC Superior Court Case No. Case No. 2014 CA 8073 B
consolidated with 2015 CA 7814 B) named Freundel as a defendant, as
well as four religious organizations, including the National
Capital Mikvah and Kesher Israel Congregation.

The mikvah is a highly intimate, spiritual, and private religious
experience that women engage in as part of their conversion to
Judaism.  It is also used by married women after menstruation, and
by women prior to the marriage ceremony.   Freundel, a former Rabbi
at the Kesher Israel Synagogue in Georgetown, and a former
professor of religious studies at local universities, admitted to
his inexcusable breach of trust against women who expected privacy
and a sacred space for a unique spiritual experience.

The settlement was approved by the Honorable Brian Holeman.  Judge
Holeman in discussing the efforts of counsel in this case, said, "
. . . that this case, notwithstanding the troubling aspects of the
underlying facts, has been, from a judicial management point of
view, a pleasure to handle." Judge Holeman suggested that other
counsel in other class action lawsuits should "contact the lawyers
in this case to get a feel for how, in [his] view, a class actions
matter should be handled."

With the settlement now finalized, women confirmed to have been
secretly filmed by Freundel are entitled to a minimum payment of
$25,000.  Women who used the mivkah but who were not confirmed to
have been taped are entitled to a minimum payment of $2,500.  Class
members are also eligible to receive additional payment based on
the degree of their injury.  The evaluation of supplemental
payments will be based on various factors set forth in claim forms
including the extent of distress and harm victims suffered due to
Freundel's conduct. Registration forms must be postmarked, or
transmitted if sent by e-mail, no later than November 13, 2018.
[GN]


BEST BUY: Order Resolving Pending Motions in Ford Suit Issued
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, has issued an
order resolving several administrative motions filed by the
Plaintiffs, and terminating without prejudice the substantive
motions filed by the Defendants in the case, MICHAEL FORD, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. BEST BUY CO., INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-02770-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

Ford and Rudolph Dubrovszky filed the putative class action on May
10, 2018, alleging claims against Defendants [24]7.ai, Inc., Best
Buy Co., Inc., Delta Airlines, Inc., and 24/7, Inc.  The Plaintiffs
assert that the Defendants failed to safeguard customers'
personally identifiable data and failed to inform customers
regarding a data breach which exposed class members to risk of
misuse of their personal information.

The Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint ("FAC") on June 5,
2018, terminating 24/7, Inc. as a Defendant.  They filed a second
amended complaint ("SAC") on Sept. 26, 2018.  The Plaintiffs did
not seek leave of the Court to file the SAC, nor did they seek
written consent of all parties.  However, as no party has objected,
Judge Freeman accepts the SAC as the operative pleading in the
case.

The SAC terminates Best Buy Co., Inc. and Delta Airlines, Inc. as
Defendants in the action, leaving [24]7.AI, Inc. as the only
remaining Defendant.  Accordingly, the Judge directed the Clerk to
modify the docket to reflect the termination of Best Buy Co., Inc.
and Delta Airlines, Inc. as of Sept. 26, 2018.

In light of this, the Judge terminated as moot the parties'
stipulation to dismiss Delta Airlines, Inc.

The Plaintiffs have filed an administrative motion to consider
whether the present case should be related to Copeland v. [24]7.AI,
Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-05859-SvK, currently assigned to Magistrate
Judge van Keulen.  The compliant in Copeland, which was filed on
Sept. 24, 2018, asserts a putative class action based on the same
data breach described in the present action.  The four claims for
relief asserted in Copeland also are asserted in the present
action.  The only named defendant in Copeland action is [24]7.AI,
Inc., the same Defendant sued in the present action.  Defendant
[24]7.AI, Inc. has filed a response agreeing that the cases should
be related.

It appears to the Court that Copeland is related to the present
action within the meaning of Civil Local Rule 3-12.  The Plaintiffs
have filed a certificate of service on counsel for the plaintiff in
Copeland, as required under Civil Local Rule 3-12(b), and no
objection to relation of the cases has been received by the Court.


Accordingly, Judge Freeman granted the the administrative motion to
relate cases.  She directed the Clerk to reassign Copeland v.
[24]7.AI, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-05859-SvK to the undersigned as
related to the case, Ford v. [24]7.AI., Inc., 5:18-cv-02770-BLF.

The Plaintiffs and Defendant [24]7.AI, Inc. have filed a
stipulation to permit the Plaintiffs in the present case and the
plaintiff in Copeland to file a consolidated amended complaint
following relation of the cases.  The parties also request that the
Court vacates the Initial Case Management Conference, currently set
for Oct. 25, 2018, and continue the hearing on Defendant [24]7.AI,
Inc.'s motion to transfer, currently set for hearing on Nov. 1,
2018.

The Judge granted in part those stipulated requests as follows:

    a. She construes the request for leave to file a consolidated
amended complaint to be a request for consolidation of the present
case and Copeland and for leave to file an amended consolidated
complaint.  She granted the request.

    b. She granted in part and denied in pat the request to vacate
the Initial Case Management Conference.  Rather than vacating the
Initial Case Management Conference, she continued the Initial Case
Management Conference to Dec. 20, 2018, at 11:00 a.m.

The Judge agrees that in light of the impending consolidation and
amendment to the pleading, it does not make sense to go forward
with the Nov. 1, 2018 hearing on Defendant [24]7.AI, Inc.'s motion
to transfer.  Rather than continuing that hearing, however, she
terminated the motion to transfer without prejudice to refiling
once the amended consolidated complaint has been filed.  In her
view, the transfer motion should be evaluated based on the
operative pleading and after all parties have had an opportunity to
brief it.

The Judge notes that in addition to filing its own motion to
transfer, Defendant [24]7.AI, Inc. joined in the motion to dismiss,
transfer, or stay filed by Delta.  Because Delta has been
terminated as a Defendant, Delta's motion and the joinder in that
motion are terminated as moot, and the Court will not consider
arguments presented in Delta's motion.  Those arguments may be
reasserted by [24]7.AI, Inc. in its own motion to dismiss,
transfer, or stay.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 17, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/1mWmz4 from Leagle.com.

Michael Ford, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Haakon Watson,
Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation, Clayeo C. Arnold,
Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation, John A.
Yanchunis, Morgan and Morgan, P.A., pro hac vice & Ryan McGee,
Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation Group, pro hac vice.

Rudolph Dubrovszky, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Haakon Watson,
Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation, Clayeo C. Arnold,
Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation & John A.
Yanchunis, Morgan and Morgan, P.A.

Madison Copeland, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L. Warshaw --
dwarshaw@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP & Joseph C.
Bourne -- jbourne@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP.

[24]7.ai, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Teresa Carey Chow -- tchow@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP,
Casie Dell Collignon -- ccollignon@bakerlaw.com -- Baker Hostetler
LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew D. Pearson -- mpearson@bakerlaw.com --
Baker & Hostetler LLP & Paul G. Karlsgodt --
pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- Baker Hostetler, LLP, pro hac vice.


BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL: Case Schedule in Baird ERISA Suit Modified
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Charles Baird et al., Plaintiffs, v. BlackRock
Institutional Trust Company, N.A., et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:17-cv-01892-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oakland Division
approved the parties' stipulation modifying the case schedule.

On Aug. 27, 2018, with leave of Court, the Plaintiffs filed a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint, naming additional parties as
Defendants, including Mercer.  The BlackRock Defendants intend to
file a motion to dismiss the Complaint. Mercer also intends to file
a separate full-length motion to dismiss the Complaint.

The original deadline for the previously named BlackRock Defendants
to answer the Complaint was Sept. 10, 2018.  On Sept. 10, 2018, the
parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order that the
deadline for the BlackRock Defendants to respond to the Complaint
would be Oct. 22, 2018.  

On Sept. 17, 2018, the Parties filed a joint stipulation proposing
a briefing schedule for all motions to dismiss and related requests
for judicial notice.  The joint stipulation also proposed deadlines
for the case management schedule.  The Court entered case
management deadlines on Oct. 11, 2018 , but did not address the
briefing schedule for motions to dismiss the Complaint.

In addition to the stipulated orders entered by the Court on Feb.
20, 2018 and June 18, 2018, there have been nine other time
adjustments in the matter.  Six adjustments have concerned the
motions to dismiss the original and amended complaints.  Two
adjustments have concerned the briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.

The Parties therefore stipulated and agreed, and Judge Gilliam
approved, to the following modified case schedule:

     a. Deadline for the Defendants to file motions to dismiss and
any related requests for judicial notice - Oct. 22, 2018

     b. Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file oppositions to the
motions to dismiss - Dec. 21, 2018

     c. Deadline for the Plaintiffs to oppose any related requests
for judicial notice - Dec. 28, 2018

     d. Deadline for the Defendants to file replies in support of
motions to dismiss - Jan. 18, 2019

     e. Deadline for the Defendants to file replies in support of
requests for judicial notice - Jan. 25, 2019

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 17, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/bwW4Mi from Leagle.com.

Charles Baird, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan,
Plaintiff, represented by Nina Rachel Wasow --
nina@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow
LLP, Daniel Ryan Sutter, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll, PLLC, pro
hac vice, Julia Horwitz -- jhorwitz@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers Toll, Julie S. Selesnick, Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll, PLLC, Karen L. Handorf -- khandorf@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Mary Joanne
Bortscheller , Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll PLLC, Michelle C. Yau --
myau@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro
hac vice & Todd F. Jackson -- todd@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg,
Jackson, Worthman and Wasow LLP.

Lauren Slayton, Plaintiff, represented by Nina Rachel Wasow,
Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP, Daniel Ryan Sutter, Cohen
Milstein Sellers and Toll, PLLC, pro hac vice, Julia Horwitz, Cohen
Milstein Sellers Toll & Mary Joanne Bortscheller, Cohen Milstein
Sellers Toll PLLC.

BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., Blackrock, Inc., The
BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee & The Investment Committee of
the Retirement Committee, Defendants, represented by Brian David
Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com -- O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan
-- akaplan@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow
-- mvergow@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers LLP & Randall W. Edwards
-- edwards@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Catherine Bolz, Chip Castille, Paige Dickow, Daniel A. Dunay,
Jeffrey A. Smith, Anne Ackerley, Any Engel, Nancy Everett, Joseph
Feliciani, Jr., Ann Marie Petach, Michael Fredericks, Corin Frost,
Daniel Gamba, Kevin Holt, Chris Jones, Philippe Matsumoto, John
Perlowski, Andy Phillips, Kurt Schansinger & Tom Skrobe,
Defendants, represented by Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny Myers LLP,
Randall W. Edwards, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow,
OMelveny and Myers LLP & Michael John McCarthy, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP.

Amy Engel, Defendant, represented by Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny
Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow, OMelveny and Myers LLP & Michael
John McCarthy, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Mercer Investment Consulting, Defendant, represented by Brian
Thomas Ortelere, Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew
Allen Russell, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice &
Spencer H. Wan, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.

Management Development & Compensation Committee of the BlackRock,
Inc. Board of Directors, Kathleen Nedl, Marc Comerchero & Milan
Lint, Defendants, represented by Meaghan McLaine VerGow, OMelveny
and Myers LLP & Michael John McCarthy, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.


BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Court Rejects Mishal & Berger Case Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court
has denied approval of the proposed settlement in the Tsemach
Mishal and Paul Berger backed class action suit.

On May 25, 2018, plaintiffs Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger (on
behalf of themselves and the purported class, Plaintiffs) initiated
a purported class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the Court) against the following defendants: the
Partnership, Boardwalk GP, Boardwalk GP, LLC and  Boardwalk
Pipelines Holding Corp. (BPHC) (together, Defendants), regarding
the potential exercise by Boardwalk GP of its Purchase Right.

On June 25, 2018, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, subject to
the approval of the Court (the Proposed Settlement). Under the
terms of the Proposed Settlement, the lawsuit would be dismissed,
and related claims against the Defendants would be released by the
Plaintiffs, if BPHC, the sole member of the general partner of
Boardwalk GP, elected to cause Boardwalk GP to exercise the
Purchase Right and gave notice of such election as provided in the
Limited Partnership Agreement within a period specified by the
Proposed Settlement.

On June 29, 2018, Boardwalk GP elected to exercise the Purchase
Right and gave notice within the period specified by the Proposed
Settlement. On July 18, 2018, Boardwalk GP completed the purchase
of the Common Units pursuant to the Purchase Right.

On September 27, 2018, the Court denied approval of the Proposed
Settlement. The Court has not set a schedule for further
proceedings in the case.

Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates integrated natural gas and natural gas liquids and other
hydrocarbons (NGLs) pipeline and storage systems in the United
States. The company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP is a subsidiary of
Boardwalk Pipelines Holding Corp.


CAMPING WORLD: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Camping World Holdings, Inc.  If
you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  

Camping World Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: CWH)
Class Period: March 8, 2017 to August 7, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 18, 2018

The complaint alleges Camping World Holdings, Inc. made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company's disclosure controls and controls over financial
reporting suffered from a host of material weaknesses; (2) the
Company's historical financial results had been materially
misstated; (3) the Gander stores had encountered integration
setbacks, adversely impacting the Company's earnings growth and
profit margins; and (4) the Company's core RV business was
experiencing decelerating growth as the Company lagged industry
trends and was losing market share to competitors.

Get additional information about the CWH lawsuit:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/camping-world-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=

         J. Klein, Esq.
         The Klein Law Firm
         Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue
         59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: (212) 616-4899
         Fax: (347) 558-9665
         Email: jk@kleinstocklaw.com [GN]


CAMPING WORLD: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Camping World Holdings Inc. ("Camping World" or the
"Company") (NYSE:  CWH) and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, and index under 18-cv-07158, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other
than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of Camping World Class A common stock between March
8, 2017 and August 7, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Camping World securities
between March 8, 2017, and August 7, 2018, both dates inclusive,
you have until December 18, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you
as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact
Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Camping World has long been majority owned and controlled by its
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Marcus Lemonis
("Lemonis"), and private equity firm Crestview Partners II GP, L.P.
("Crestview") and its affiliates. Historically, the Company
specialized in selling recreational vehicles ("RVs") and related
services such as travel assist programs, emergency roadside
assistance, property and casualty insurance programs, extended
vehicle service contracts, and vehicle financing and refinancing.

In October 2016, defendants took Camping World public in a $261
million initial public offering (the "IPO"). In the months that
followed the IPO, defendants emphasized the Company's earnings
growth and profit potential as Camping World engaged in a number of
strategic acquisitions. Most significantly, in May 2017, Camping
World disclosedthat it would be expanding its operations to include
retail stores for outdoor sporting supplies and accessories by
acquiring certain assets of Gander Mountain Co. ("Gander") from
bankruptcy.

Throughout the Class Period, 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 failed to successfully integrate the assets acquired from
Gander due to operational failures; (ii) the acquisition of Gander
assets negatively impacted the Company's profit margin, which
consequently resulted in the Company's inability to meet previously
provided financial guidance; (iii) the Company maintained material
weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting, which
resulted in numerous errors and misstatements in every quarterly
reporting period since the IPO; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Beginning in February 2018, the Company issued a series of
disclosures which revealed, inter alia: (i) that it needed to
withdraw and restate its prior financial statements for 2016 and
the first three quarters of 2017; (ii) that the integration and
rollout of the Gander stores had suffered severe operational
setbacks; (iii) that, rather than increasing profitability as
represented, the Gander stores were negatively impacting margins;
and (iv) that the Company had fallen far behind previously provided
2018 earnings figures. Camping World abruptly changed its auditor
of 13 years soon after the Company admitted its prior financial
statements were materially misstated and its internal controls
suffered from material weaknesses.

Upon the full disclosure of the above facts, the Company's Class A
common stock fell from over $28 per share from the Class Period
high of $47.09 on January 24, 2018, to close at $18.88 on August 7,
2018, the last day of the Class Period.

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Telephone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Website: www.pomerantzlaw.com
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


CANADA: Toronto Taxi Owners Commence $1.7-Bil. Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Iphone in Canada's Gary Ng, citing The Star, reports that the war
between taxi owners and ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft
have now escalated into a class action lawsuit, with cab companies
suing the City of Toronto for $1.7 billion.

Toronto taxi owners and operators have launched a $1.7-billion
class action lawsuit alleging the city has failed to properly
regulate the private transportation industry and caused the value
of taxi plates to plummet.

Three plaintiffs who are owners and operators of taxi services --
Lawrence Eisenberg of Lucky 7 Taxi, Behrouz Khamza of Taxi Action
and Sukhvir Thethi of Ambassador Taxi -- are named as plaintiffs in
a statement of claim filed to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
on Aug. 21.

The plaintiffs have accused the city of failing to enforce its
bylaws against private transportation companies such as Uber.

"The city failed to protect the various segments of the Toronto
taxi industry -- specifically those of plate owners -- and the
public, and was thus, negligent," says the statement.

A statement of defence was filed by the city in September, denying
allegations and seeking the case to be dismissed.

The case has not been certified by a judge yet, as the class action
seeks more license-holders to join the lawsuit.

Lawrence Eisenberg of Lucky 7 Taxi says "This whole thing has
become like a joke," referring to the state of Toronto's taxi
industry, where taxi plate values have plummeted.

According to the Eisenberg, taxi plates were worth about $400,000
five years ago. But today, they are only valued at about $30,000,
due to companies like Uber and Lyft entering the picture.

"My retirement just went down the tubes over the last couple of
years," Eisenberg added, noting how Toronto didn't regular Uber and
Lyft until "after the fact".

The statement of claim says the 5,500 licensed taxi plates in the
city have lost roughly $310,000 each, since private transportation
companies like Uber arrived. That value works out to the $1.7
billion figure in the class action lawsuit.

City spokesperson Bruce Hawkins said in a statement to The Star
they have filed a defence, "indicating our plan to have this matter
heard by the court."

In Quebec, a similar class-action lawsuit filed against the
province by taxi companies was recently approved to proceed. The
lawsuit alleges damages could reach up to $1 billion paid out to
taxi companies, reports CTV News. [GN]


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Dismissal of Merger-Related Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a plaintiff has
taken an appeal from a court decision dismissing a consolidated
shareholder litigation.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC Entertainment
had entered into an agreement ("Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which an entity controlled by Apollo Global Management, LLC and its
subsidiaries merged with and into CEC Entertainment, with CEC
Entertainment surviving the merger ("the Merger"), four putative
shareholder class actions were filed in the District Court of
Shawnee County, Kansas, on behalf of purported stockholders of CEC
Entertainment, against A.P. VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., CEC
Entertainment, CEC Entertainment's directors, Apollo and Merger Sub
(as defined in the Merger Agreement), in connection with the Merger
Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby.

These actions were consolidated into one action (the "Consolidated
Shareholder Litigation") in March 2014, and on July 21, 2015, a
consolidated class action petition was filed as the operative
consolidated complaint, asserting claims against CEC's former
directors, adding The Goldman Sachs Group ("Goldman Sachs") as a
defendant, and removing all Apollo entities as defendants (the
"Consolidated Class Action Petition"). The Consolidated Class
Action Petition alleges that CEC Entertainment's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to CEC Entertainment's stockholders in
connection with their consideration and approval of the Merger
Agreement by, among other things, conducting a deficient sales
process, agreeing to an inadequate tender price, agreeing to
certain provisions in the Merger Agreement, and filing materially
deficient disclosures regarding the transaction.

The Consolidated Class Action Petition also alleges that two
members of CEC Entertainment's board who also served as the senior
managers of CEC Entertainment had material conflicts of interest
and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board’s breaches as
a result of various conflicts of interest facing the bank. The
Consolidated Class Action Petition seeks, among other things, to
recover damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company assumed the defense of the Consolidated Shareholder
Litigation on behalf of CEC's named former directors and Goldman
Sachs pursuant to existing indemnity agreements. On March 23, 2016,
the Court conducted a hearing on the defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the Consolidated Class Action Petition and on March 1, 2017, the
Special Master appointed by the Court issued a report recommending
to the Court that the Consolidated Class Action Petition be
dismissed.

On September 9, 2018, the Court accepted the Special Master's
recommendations and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety. On
October 8, 2018, the Plaintiff in the Consolidated Shareholder
Litigation filed a notice of appeal of the District Courts'
decision.

CEC Entertainment said, "While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of the consolidated matter, we currently believe
that the final resolution of the action will not have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position,
liquidity or capital resources."

CEC Entertainment, Inc. develops, operates, and franchises family
dining and entertainment centers (venues) under the names of Chuck
E. Cheese's and Peter Piper Pizza in the United States and
internationally. Its venues offer various pizzas, wings,
appetizers, salads, and desserts, as well as gluten-free options;
soft drinks, coffee, tea, beer, and wine; sandwiches; and lunch
buffet options with unlimited pizzas, salads, and breadsticks, and
deserts. CEC Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas. CEC Entertainment, Inc. operates as
a subsidiary of Queso Holdings Inc.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Jacobson Litigation Concluded
------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that Diane Jacobson did
not appeal the District Court's order dismissing her lawsuit, and
the case is now concluded.

On September 8, 2016, Diane Jacobson filed a purported class action
lawsuit against Peter Piper, Inc. ("Peter Piper") in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona, Tucson Division (the
"Jacobson Litigation"). The plaintiff claims to represent other
similarly-situated consumers who, within the two years prior to the
filing of the Jacobson Litigation, received a printed receipt on
which Peter Piper allegedly printed more than the last five digits
of the consumer's credit/debit card number, in violation of the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

On November 11, 2016, Peter Piper filed a motion to dismiss the
Jacobson Litigation. After the plaintiff filed her opposition to
the Motion to Dismiss and Peter Piper filed its reply in support
thereof, the motion was submitted to the Court for ruling on
December 22, 2016. On February 2, 2017, the Court stayed the
Jacobson Litigation pending the decision of the U.S. Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals in Noble v. Nevada Check Cab Corp., a case that
presented an issue for decision that is relevant to Peter Piper's
motion to dismiss.

On March 9, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in the
Noble case, setting precedent that favors Peter Piper's position in
the Jacobson Litigation. Based on the appellate court's decision in
that case, on March 15, 2018 Peter Piper filed a motion to lift the
stay and requesting that the trial court grant its motion to
dismiss. On June 28, 2018, the magistrate judge issued a report
recommending that the District Court grant Peter Piper's motion to
dismiss and dismiss the plaintiff's claims without prejudice to
their refiling. On August 3, 2018, the District Court accepted the
magistrate judge's recommendation and entered an order dismissing
the lawsuit without prejudice to its refiling. The plaintiff did
not appeal the District Court's order, so it is now final and the
case is concluded.

CEC Entertainment, Inc. develops, operates, and franchises family
dining and entertainment centers (venues) under the names of Chuck
E. Cheese's and Peter Piper Pizza in the United States and
internationally. Its venues offer various pizzas, wings,
appetizers, salads, and desserts, as well as gluten-free options;
soft drinks, coffee, tea, beer, and wine; sandwiches; and lunch
buffet options with unlimited pizzas, salads, and breadsticks, and
deserts. CEC Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas. CEC Entertainment, Inc. operates as
a subsidiary of Queso Holdings Inc.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in Sinohui Case Paid in Full
----------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has
fully complied with its payment and other obligations under the
settlement in the Sinohui Litigation.

On October 10, 2014, former General Manager Richard Sinohui filed a
purported class action lawsuit against CEC Entertainment in the
Superior Court of California, Riverside County (the "Sinohui
Litigation"), claiming to represent other similarly-situated
current and former General Managers of CEC Entertainment in
California during the period October 10, 2010 to the present.

The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount in damages and to certify
a class based on allegations that CEC Entertainment wrongfully
classified current and former California General Managers as exempt
from overtime protections; that such General Managers worked more
than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay, paid rest
periods, and paid meal periods; and that CEC Entertainment failed
to provide accurate itemized wage statements or to pay timely wages
upon separation from employment, in violation of the California
Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and the
applicable Wage Order issued by the California Industrial Welfare
Commission.

The plaintiff also alleged that CEC Entertainment failed to
reimburse General Managers for certain business expenses, including
for personal cell phone usage and mileage, in violation of the
California Labor Code; he also asserted a claim for civil penalties
under the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

On December 5, 2014, CEC Entertainment removed the Sinohui
Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Southern Division. On March 16, 2016, the Court issued
an order denying in part and granting in part Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification.

Specifically, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to the extent
that he sought to certify a class on Plaintiff's misclassification
and wage statement claims, but certified a class with respect to
Plaintiff's claims that CEC Entertainment had wrongfully failed to
reimburse him for cell phone expenses and/or mileage. On June 14,
2016, the Court dismissed Sinohui's PAGA claim.

After participating in mediation on April 19, 2017, the parties
agreed to settle all of Sinohui's individual and class claims.
Pursuant to the basic terms of their settlement, Sinohui will grant
a complete release to CEC Entertainment on behalf of himself and
the class of all claims that he asserted or could have asserted
against the Company, based on the facts that gave rise to the
certified reimbursement claim in the Sinohui Litigation, in
exchange for the Company's settlement payment.

On December 13, 2017, the Court entered its order granting
preliminary approval of the parties' settlement, and on October 2,
2018, the Court entered an order granting final approval of the
settlement.

CEC Entertainment has fully complied with its payment and other
obligations under the settlement. The settlement of this lawsuit
has not had a material adverse effect on our results of operations,
financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

CEC Entertainment, Inc. develops, operates, and franchises family
dining and entertainment centers (venues) under the names of Chuck
E. Cheese's and Peter Piper Pizza in the United States and
internationally. Its venues offer various pizzas, wings,
appetizers, salads, and desserts, as well as gluten-free options;
soft drinks, coffee, tea, beer, and wine; sandwiches; and lunch
buffet options with unlimited pizzas, salads, and breadsticks, and
deserts. CEC Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas. CEC Entertainment, Inc. operates as
a subsidiary of Queso Holdings Inc.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement of French Suit Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court has
entered an order granting final approval of the settlement in
French State Court Lawsuit.

On January 30, 2017, former Technical Manager Kevin French filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the U. S.
District Court for the Northern District of California ("the French
Federal Court Lawsuit"), alleging that CEC Entertainment failed to
pay overtime wages, failed to issue accurate itemized wage
statements, failed to pay wages due upon separation of employment,
and failed to reimburse for certain business expenses, including
for mileage and personal cell phone usage, in violation of the
California Labor Code and federal law, and seeking to certify
separate classes on his federal and state claims.

On October 30, 2017, the parties conducted a mediation. At the
conclusion of the mediation, the parties agreed to settle all of
French's class and individual claims. Pursuant to the parties'
agreement, on November 14, 2017, the Federal Court Lawsuit was
dismissed, and on November 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a new lawsuit
in Superior Court of San Bernadino County, California (the "French
State Court Lawsuit").

The French State Court Lawsuit carried forward only the California
state law claims alleging a failure to reimburse for business
expenses, and sought to certify a class of CEC California Senior
Assistant Managers, Assistant Managers, Technical Managers and
Assistant Technical Managers who were authorized to drive on behalf
of CEC from January 30, 2013 through April 27, 2018.

On December 20, 2017, further pursuant to the parties' settlement,
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement. The Court entered an order
preliminarily approving of the parties' settlement on May 17, 2018,
and on October 18, 2018, the Court entered an order granting final
approval of the settlement.

CEC Entertainment has fully complied with its payment and other
obligations under the settlement. The settlement of this lawsuit
has not had a material adverse effect on our results of operations,
financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

CEC Entertainment, Inc. develops, operates, and franchises family
dining and entertainment centers (venues) under the names of Chuck
E. Cheese's and Peter Piper Pizza in the United States and
internationally. Its venues offer various pizzas, wings,
appetizers, salads, and desserts, as well as gluten-free options;
soft drinks, coffee, tea, beer, and wine; sandwiches; and lunch
buffet options with unlimited pizzas, salads, and breadsticks, and
deserts. CEC Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas. CEC Entertainment, Inc. operates as
a subsidiary of Queso Holdings Inc.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Continues to Defend Tagalogon Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2018, for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2018, that the
company continues to defend itself from a class action suit
entitled, Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.

On December 10, 2015, a former restaurant management employee filed
a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
alleging that the Company improperly classified its managerial
employees, failed to pay overtime, and failed to provide accurate
wage statements, in addition to other claims.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under Private Attorney
General Act (PAGA) in addition to other monetary payments
(Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.; Case No.
BC603620).

On March 23, 2016, the parties issued their joint status conference
statement at which time the company gave notice to the court that
Case Nos. 30-2015-00775529 and CIV1504091 may be related. On April
29, 2016, the Company filed its response to the complaint.

Cheesecake Factory said, "We intend to vigorously defend this
action. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from this matter
and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future
payments."

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

The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated operates restaurants in the
United States. The company produces cheesecakes and other baked
products for own restaurants and international licensees, as well
as external foodservice operators, retailers, and distributors. The
company was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Calabasas,
California.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement in Guglielmo Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2018, for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2018, that the
parties in the case captioned as, Guglielmo v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al., reached a tentative settlement
subject to documentation and court approval.

On May 28, 2015, a group of current and former hourly restaurant
employees filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the Company
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Code, by
requiring employees to purchase uniforms for work and violated the
State of New York's minimum wage and overtime provisions (Guglielmo
v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No.
2:15-CV-03117).

On September 8, 2015, the Company filed its response to the
complaint, requesting the court to compel arbitration against
opt-in plaintiffs with valid arbitration agreements. On July 21,
2016, the court issued an order confirming the agreement of the
parties to dismiss all class claims with prejudice and to allow the
case to proceed as a collective action covering a limited number of
the Company’s restaurants in the State of New York.  

On February 21, 2018, the parties reached a tentative settlement
subject to documentation and court approval. Based upon the current
status of this matter, we have reserved an immaterial amount.

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

The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated operates restaurants in the
United States. The company produces cheesecakes and other baked
products for own restaurants and international licensees, as well
as external foodservice operators, retailers, and distributors. The
company was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Calabasas,
California.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement in Master's Class Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2018, for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2018, that the
parties in the case captioned as, Masters v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc., et al., have reached a tentative settlement
subject to documentation and court approval and the same is still
pending.

On November 26, 2014, a former hourly restaurant employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court,
alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay
overtime, to permit required rest breaks and to provide accurate
wage statements, among other claims (Masters v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al.; Case No 37-2014-00040278).

The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under California Private
Attorneys' General Act ("PAGA") in addition to other monetary
payments. By stipulation, the parties agreed to transfer Case No.
37-2014-00040278 to the Orange County Superior Court. On March 2,
2015, Case No. 37-2014-00040278 was officially transferred and
assigned a new Case No. 30-2015-00775529 in the Orange County
Superior Court.

On June 27, 2016, the company gave notice to the court that Case
Nos. CIV1504091 and BC603620 may be related. On February 13, 2018,
the parties in Case No. 30-2015-00775529 reached a tentative
settlement subject to documentation and court approval. Based upon
the current status of this matter, we have reserved an immaterial
amount.

On May 21, 2018, a lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, alleging similar claims to Case No.
30-2015-00775529 (Silva v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants,
Inc., et al.; Case No. BC706365). On July 5, 2018, the company
notified the court that Case No. BC706365 and Case No.
30-2015-00775529 may be related.

The plaintiff in Case No. BC70365 seeks unspecified penalties under
PAGA in addition to other monetary payments.

Cheesecake Factory said, "We intend to vigorously defend this
action. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from this matter
and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future
payments."

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

The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated operates restaurants in the
United States. The company produces cheesecakes and other baked
products for own restaurants and international licensees, as well
as external foodservice operators, retailers, and distributors. The
company was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Calabasas,
California.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2018, for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2018, that the
parties have reached a tentative settlement that covers the cases,
Muransky v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated, Tibbits v. The
Cheesecake Factory Incorporated and Zhang v. The Cheesecake Factory
Incorporated consolidated cases.

On February 3, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that
the Company violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act,
by failing to properly censor consumer credit or debit card
information (Muransky v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case
No. 0:17-cv-60229-JEM).

On February 21, 2017 and February 28, 2017, two additional lawsuits
were filed in California and New York, respectively, alleging
similar claims to Case No. 0:17-cv-60229-JEM (Tibbits v. The
Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No. 1:17-cv-00968 (
E.D.N.Y.); Zhang v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated; Case No
8:17-cv-00357 (C.D. Cal.)).

The Company filed a motion to transfer and dismiss Case No.
0:17-cv-60229-JEM on March 24, 2017 and similarly filed a motion to
transfer and dismiss Case No. 1:17-cv-00968 on April 7, 2017. On
October 16, 2017, the Florida court granted the Company's motion to
transfer Case No. 0:17-cv-60229JEM to California to be consolidated
with Case No. 8:17-cv-00357.

The plaintiff in Case No. 1:17-cv-00968 agreed to transfer its case
to California and such matter was subsequently consolidated with
Case No 8:17-cv-00357.  

On May 25, 2018, the parties reached a tentative settlement which
covers the three consolidated cases. The final settlement agreement
is subject to documentation and court approval.

Cheesecake Factory said, "Based on the current status of this
matter, we have reserved an immaterial amount."

The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated operates restaurants in the
United States. The company produces cheesecakes and other baked
products for own restaurants and international licensees, as well
as external foodservice operators, retailers, and distributors. The
company was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Calabasas,
California.


CHEGG INC: Nov. 26 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
November 26, 2018 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of investors that purchased Chegg Inc.
("Chegg" or the "Company") (NYSE: CHGG) securities between July 30,
2018 and September 25, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Chegg
investors have until November 26, 2018 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

On September 25, 2018, Chegg reported that it had "learned that on
or around April 29, 2018, an unauthorized party gained access to a
Company database that hosts user data for chegg.com and certain of
the Company's family of brands such as EasyBib." The Company
reported that approximately 40 million users' data, including
username, email address, shipping address, and hashed password,
could have been obtained and that an investigation into the
incident was ongoing. On this news, shares of Chegg fell over 12%
to close at $28.42 on September 26, 2018, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company lacked adequate security measures
to protect users' data; (2) that the Company lacked the internal
controls and procedures to detect unauthorized access to its
systems and to its data; (3) that as a result, the Company would
incur additional expenses and litigation risks; and (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false
and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased shares of Chegg, you may move the Court no later
than November 26, 2018 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

         Lesley Portnoy,Esq.
         Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, California 90067
         Telephone: 310-201-9150
                    888-773-9224
         Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com [GN]


CHICAGO, IL: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Tucker Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NANETTE TUCKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF
CHICAGO, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-2480 (7th Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the
district court dismissal of Tucker's amended complaint.

Chicago sells vacant real estate to local residents for $1 per lot
through its "Large Lot Program."  As the city council explained
that many of the City-owned parcels are of minimal value, yet are
costly for the City to clean up and maintain.  Under the program,
in February 2015, Tucker purchased a vacant lot on her neighborhood
block, intending to convert it into a community garden.

Defendant Sonya Campbell works as an inspector for Chicago's
Department of Streets and Sanitation.  On June 3, 2015, she
inspected Tucker's property and concluded its vegetation violated
the city's yard weed ordinance.  During Campbell's inspection, she
took two photographs of the lot from the street to depict the
overgrown vegetation.  No citations or notices regarding Campbell's
inspection or its results were posted at the property.  

Six months later, on Dec. 4, 2015, another city employee served
Tucker (via first class mail) with a citation for the alleged June
3 violation.  The citation included a certification by Campbell and
the description that weeds are greater than 10 inches in height.
It also notified Tucker she could appear at a hearing before the
end of the month to contest the violation in front of an
administrative law judge.

Tucker, represented by counsel, attended the hearing.  The city's
case-in-chief consisted of the citation and inspector Campbell's
two photographs.  Tucker's counsel moved to dismiss the citation,
claiming the city failed to present evidence of the "average
height" of the weeds.  The administrative law judge denied that
motion, spurring Tucker's counsel to raise a series of
constitutional challenges to the ordinance and its enforcement by
the city.  The administrative law judge stated he was not
authorized to rule on any constitutional matters, but permitted
Tucker's counsel to make a record for purposes of appeal.

Next, Tucker took the witness stand and testified she made it her
practice to have the property "cut and cleaned" every other week.
She stated she passes her lot every day but has never seen
vegetation greater than an average of ten inches, and no neighbors
have ever complained about its condition.  Besides her own
testimony, Tucker presented no other evidence to the administrative
law judge.

After arguments from the counsel, the administrative law judge
ruled in favor of the city and imposed a $640 fine against Tucker.
Tucker could have appealed the fine to the Circuit Court of Cook
County, but instead she paid it "under protest."  That same day,
she filed the putative class action, alleging 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 claims against Campbell (in her individual capacity) and the
city, as well as a "failure-to-train" claim against the city.

After the Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the district
court dismissed Tucker's original complaint but granted her leave
to re-plead.  Tucker filed an amended complaint, but the district
court dismissed that as well, ruling the facts alleged failed to
state a plausible claim that the defendants deprived Tucker of due
process.  Rather than amend her complaint yet again, Tucker chose
to pursue the appeal.

The Seventh Circuit determines whether a six month delay between a
property inspection and notice of a municipal ordinance citation
violates due process.  The district court said no, dismissing
Tucker's amended complaint for failure to state a procedural due
process claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. It also rejected her
alternative theory that the City of Chicago misinterpreted the
ordinance's plain text.

The Court affirmed.  The Court finds that although a six month
delay between inspection and citation may not be a model of
administrative efficiency, the delay in the case did not violate
the Constitution.  Similarly, the proper interpretation of a
municipal ordinance is a matter of local law for state courts to
decide, not constitutionally required procedure.

It concludes that the administrative and judicial proceedings
available for Tucker to challenge her citation satisfied due
process, and the accuracy of the city's interpretation of its
ordinance does not implicate the U.S. Constitution.  Given Tucker's
failure to allege facts supporting a plausible violation of her due
process rights, dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) was appropriate.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct 19, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/i6ZWYA from Leagle.com.

James Lamar Bowers, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Kerrie Maloney Laytin -- kmaloneylaytin@gmail.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Myriam Z. Kasper, for Defendant-Appellee.

Ellen W. McLaughlin -- emclaughlin@seyfarth.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.


CIOX HEALTH: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Graham Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRANDON GRAHAM, Individually and also on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. CIOX HEALTH, LLC and SSM
HEALTH CARE ST. LOUIS, Defendants, Case No. 4:18 CV 266 RWS (E.D.
Mo.), Judge Rodney W. Sippel of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, (i) granted
Defendants CIOX Health, LLC and SSM Health Care St. Louis' motion
to dismiss; and (ii) denied Intervenors Lynn Henderson, Espire
Concepcion, Tyrone Green-Smith, and Antonio Jones' motion to
intervene.

In the proposed class action lawsuit, Graham alleges that CIOX
Health and SSM Health (collectively, "CIOX") violated the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act by charging a fee to search for
Graham's medical records covering a specified time period.  CIOX
asserts that the fee was permitted even though the search revealed
that no records existed for that time period.  CIOX filed a motion
to dismiss for a failure to state a claim.

CIOX Health is a company in the business of locating and retrieving
medical records. SSM Health owns and operates St. Mary's Hospital
located in Richmond Heights, Missouri.  St. Mary's Hospital
retained CIOX to fulfill medical records requests.  On Oct. 31,
2017, Graham's attorney sent St. Mary's Hospital a letter
requesting Graham's medical records between July 10, 2017 and Oct.
25, 2017.  On Nov. 24, 2017, CIOX sent a response letter stating
that the hospital's records showed that Graham did not receive
services from St. Mary's Hospital in that time frame.  CIOX billed
Graham's attorney a "Basic Fee" of $24.85, a "Retrieval Fee" of $0,
and a copying fee of $0. Graham paid the $24.85 fee charge.

Graham's alleges in his amended complaint that Missouri's medical
records statute does not permit any charge as a "basic fee" for a
medical records request when no records are found. Graham asserts a
claim under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act based on
CIOX's alleged violation of Section 191.227 R.S.Mo. Graham also
asserts a claim for injunctive relief.

Graham seeks to certify a class of all persons who requested
medical records from a Missouri medical provider and who were
charged a fee by CIOX even though no responsive medical records
were found.

CIOX moved to dismiss the case arguing that Section 191.227 R.S.Mo.
permits the a basic fee to cover the cost of the search for
documents.

Judge Sippel finds that the statute allows a $24.85 fee to be
collected for the search and retrieval of the provider's records in
Section 191.227.2(1)(a).  The plain language of the statute permits
the charge of this fee.  The text of the statute that refers to
"search, retrieval, and copying fees" in Section 191.227.2(1)(b)
establishes that these fees are separate and distinct and that a
fee solely for a search is permissible.  

It is undisputed that CIOX conducted a search of its records to
comply with Graham's request and sent Graham the information found
in its records.  St. Mary's Hospital's records did not uncover any
treatment records for Graham, nonetheless, CIOX was permitted to
charge the basic fee of $24.85 to for the search of its records.

Because CIOX did not violate Missouri law by charging Graham a
search fee, CIOX did not violate the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act.  As a result, the Judge granted CIOX's motion to
dismiss.

Judge Sippel denied the Intervenors' motion to intervene.  The
Intervenors are prospective class action Plaintiffs in a lawsuit
pending in Missouri state court.  They sought to intervene in the
case and either have the case stayed or dismissed under an
abstention doctrine.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct 19, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/ByXGfQ from Leagle.com.

Brandon Graham, individually and also on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Schultz --
rschultz@sl-lawyers.com -- SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P.

CIOX Health, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jena M. Valdetero,
BRYAN CAVE LLP & Jonathan B. Potts -- jonathan.potts@bryancave.com
-- BRYAN CAVE LLP.

Lynn Henderson, Espire Concepcion, Tyrone Green-Smith & Antonio
Jones, Intervenors, represented by William Charles Kenney, BILL
KENNEY LAW FIRM, LLC.


COINBASE: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
Landon Manning, writing for Bitcoin Magazine, reports that the
judge presiding over a class action lawsuit against Coinbase over
allegations of insider trading has approved Coinbase's motion to
dismiss the suit.

In March of 2018, Jeffrey Berk filed a class action lawsuit in the
Northern District of California on behalf of himself and other
investors against Coinbase. Specifically, the suit alleges that
Coinbase had engaged in insider trading by alerting its own
employees that Coinbase would fully support Bitcoin Cash at a later
date, after publicly stating that they would not.

The suit goes on to allege that regular customers only had their
trades go through after prices were artificially inflated by this
insider trading. To compensate for the ensuing losses, the
aggrieved group is seeking restitution from Coinbase.

On October 23, 2018, however, presiding judge Vince Chhabria
granted a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against Coinbase, stating
that "assessing whether Coinbase might have engaged in market
manipulation or unfair business practices does not require
'reference to the underlying agreement or interpretation of the
parties' contractual relationship.'"

Chhabria went on to state that "a reader of the Complaint is thus
left wondering what Coinbase should have done differently, or why
the rollout of Bitcoin Cash would have gone more smoothly had
Coinbase done whatever Berk thinks is appropriate."

Following allegations of insider trading, Coinbase launched an
internal investigation to discern whether or not its employees
gamed the system. In July 2018, the investigation found no
irregularities with this listing or evidence of insider trading.

This motion does not itself constitute a dismissal, but,
nevertheless, a dismissal is now much more likely. Judge Chhabria
noted that he dismissed most of Berk's claims without prejudice,
but that Berk's claims under the Commodities Exchange Act were
dismissed with prejudice. To contest the dismissal, Berk and his
legal team will have 21 days to file an amended complaint.

This case is but one suit in an ongoing legal battle between
Coinbase and several of its customers, as Paul Vernon is also
conducting a class action lawsuit in the state of California.

This lawsuit directly mentions allegations of insider trading
regarding Coinbase's handling of Bitcoin Cash but also invites
plaintiffs to join the class action suit on the grounds of
undelivered funds, platform breakdowns and account freezes. It is
still unclear at this date how the motion on the Bitcoin Cash
lawsuit will affect other investor class action suits, but for now
it seems as if Coinbase is escaping these challenges at little
financial cost.[GN]


COMMAND SECURITY: Faces Franchi Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Command Security Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
has been named as a defendant in a putative class action suit
entitled, Franchi v. Command Security Corporation, et al.

On September 18, 2018, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Prosegur SIS (USA)
Inc., a Florida corporation ("Parent"), and Crescent Merger Sub,
Inc., a New York corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent ("Merger Sub"). The Merger Agreement provides that, subject
to the terms and conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will
merge with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company
surviving the Merger and becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent.

On November 5, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York for New York County
captioned Franchi v. Command Security Corporation, et al., Index
No. 655494/2018 (the "Merger Litigation").

The complaint, which was filed by a purported Company stockholder,
alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company's Board of
Directors, and aiding and abetting such breaches by the Company, in
connection with the Merger. Among other things, the complaint
asserts that (a) the preliminary proxy statement that the Company
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC")
on October 5, 2018 in connection with the Merger omitted certain
purportedly material information, (b) the process leading to the
Merger was flawed, (c) the agreed-upon deal protection measures are
unduly restrictive, and (d) the merger price is inadequate.  

The complaint contains demands for, among other things, declaratory
and mandatory injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs and
"enjoinment of the Proposed Transaction" or rescission of the
Merger if consummated.  

Command Security said, "The Company believes that the claims
asserted in the Merger Litigation are without merit."

Command Security Corporation provides uniformed security officers
and aviation security services in the United States. It operates
through Security and Aviation Safeguards divisions. Command
Security Corporation was founded in 1980 and is based in Herndon,
Virginia.


CONAGRA BRANDS: Beasley Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Beasley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ConAgra Brands, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-06730 (N.D. Cal., November 6, 2018) seeks to remedy
ConAgra's unfair, deceptive, immoral and unlawful conduct.
Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks an order compelling ConAgra to,
destroy all misleading and deceptive materials and products;
forever refrain from using artificial trans fat as an ingredient in
Crunch 'n Munch; award Plaintiff and the Class restitution; and pay
costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney fees.

ConAgra manufactured, marketed, and sold caramel popcorn snacks
containing partially hydrogenated oil ("PHO") under the brand name
Crunch 'n Munch. PHO is a food additive banned in many parts of the
world due to its artificial trans fat content. Artificial trans fat
is a toxic carcinogen for which there are many safe and
commercially viable substitutes, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant was aware that PHO was
unsafe even before this time, yet still harmed its customers by
adding PHO to Crunch 'n Munch. Defendant also defrauded the class
by using the false and unauthorized "0g Trans Fat" nutrient content
claim on Crunch 'n Munch packaging. All PHO, however, contains
trans fat, and the amount in Crunch 'n Munch was not "0g," but a
substantial and dangerous amount, it adds.

Plaintiff Mark Beasley is a citizen of California who repeatedly
purchased Crunch 'n Munch for personal and household consumption.

Defendant ConAgra is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
     Andrew C. Hamilton, Esq.
     THE WESTON FIRM
     1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
     San Diego, CA 92110
     Phone: (619) 798-2006
     Facsimile: (619) 343-2789
     Email: greg@westonfirm.com
            andrew@westonfirm.com


CONNECTICUT WATER: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., disclosed that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut on behalf of holders of Connecticut Water Service, Inc.
("Connecticut Water") (NasdaqGS:CTWS) common stock in connection
with the proposed acquisition of Connecticut Water by SJW Group and
its affiliate ("SJW") disclosed on August 6, 2018 (the
"Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Connecticut Water and its
Board of Directors (the "Board"), is captioned Paskowitz v.
Connecticut Water Service, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-01663 (D.
Conn.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On August 5, 2018, Connecticut Water entered into an agreement and
plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with SJW.  Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Abaxis will receive
$70.00 in cash for each share of Connecticut Water stock they own
(the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy statement (the
"Proxy Statement") filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission.  The Complaint alleges that the Proxy
Statement omits material information with respect to, among other
things, Connecticut Water's financial projections and the analyses
performed by Connecticut Water's financial advisor.  The Complaint
seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of
holders of Connecticut Water common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 24, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

         Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
         Gina M. Serra, Esq.
         Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
         Telephone: (888) 969-4242
                    (302) 295-5310
         Fax: (302) 654-7530
         Email: gms@rl-legal.com
                sdr@rl-legal.com [GN]


DAILY MUSE: Sullivan Suit Asserts ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daily Muse Inc. The
case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr. on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Daily Muse Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10309 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 6, 2018).

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

Daily Muse Inc. provides job listings and career advice for young
people. The Company offers online skill building classes, job
opportunities, and behind-the-scenes video profiles. Daily Muse
serves customers in the United States.[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


DIRECTE INC: Roberts Files Suit in Harris Cty, Texas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Directe Inc. The case
is styled as Raymond Roberts, Scott Marquis, Donna Mielenz, as
class representatives of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Directe Inc. d/b/a Smokeless Direct, Main Street Advertising Inc.
d/b/a Deluxe Vapor, ADS Direct Media Inc., BMI Ventures Inc. d/b/a
BMI Elite, Clickbooth.com LLC, Media Baby Group LLC, Media Crew LLC
d/b/a: Revenue Street, Direct E-CIG, Smokeless Direct, Deluxe
Vapor, BMI Elite, Media Crew, Revenue Street, Defendants, Case No.
201879914-7 (D. Tex., Harris Cty. Nov. 5, 2018).

Direct E-Cig is an electronic cigarette brand.

Ads Direct Media, Inc., an Internet advertising agency, provides
performance-based advertising campaign services to customers
worldwide.

BMI Elite, inc., a digital advertising agency, provides online
advertising, branding, and marketing services primarily to Fortune
500 corporations and advertising agencies worldwide.

Clickbooth.com, LLC operates as a performance-based online
marketing company. The company focuses on buying and selling online
advertising through CPA and CPC programs.

Media Crew Company is into Media Content Development, Publication &
Prints and Branding & Designs. It does video production such as,
documentary, Movie, Corporate communications, Voiceover, and
High-end audio production. Its medium of distribution includes
Television, Radio, Internet, CDs, DVDs and Publications.[BN]


DIRECTV LLC: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Perez Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, DONEYDA PEREZ, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DIRECTV, LLC, a
Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and LONSTEIN LAW
OFFICES, P.C., a New York Professional Corporation; et al.,
Defendants. DONEYDA PEREZ, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DIRECTV, LLC, a
Delaware Corporation, Defendant, and LONSTEIN LAW OFFICES, P.C., a
New York Professional Corporation and JULIE COHEN LONSTEIN,
Defendants-Appellants, Case Nos. 17-55764, 17-55775 (9th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's order denying DirecTV's motion to compel arbitration.

Assuming without deciding that the parties entered into a valid
contract, the Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not
err in holding that Appellee Doneyda Perez's claims are outside the
scope of the arbitration agreement.  Section 9(d)(ii) of DirecTV's
Customer Agreement exempts from the arbitration agreement any
dispute involving a violation of the Communications Act of 1934 or
any statement or law governing theft of service.  It finds that
both of these exemptions unambiguously cover Perez's claims.

First, Perez's claims involve a violation of the Communications Act
because her complaint expressly alleges that part of DirecTV's
scheme against small minority-owned businesses involved threatening
customers with lawsuits for violating the Communications Act.
Second, Perez's claims involve statements or law governing theft of
service because her complaint alleges that DirecTV accused her of
theft of satellite cable television services and pressured her into
a settlement.

Because it concludes that Perez's claims are outside the scope of
the arbitration agreement, it does not reach the issues of whether
sections 1(h) and 9(d) of the Customer Agreement are
unconscionable, or whether the Lonstein Appellants may enforce
DirecTV's arbitration agreement against Perez.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct 19, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/bO0R4y from Leagle.com.


DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Gainey Mckenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Dycom Industries, Inc. ("Dycom" or the
"Company") (NYSE: DY) in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Dycom securities
between November 20, 2017 and August 10, 2018, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's large
projects were highly dependent on permitting and tactical
considerations, (ii) the Company was facing great uncertainties
related to permitting issues; (iii) said uncertainties would expose
the Company to near-term margin pressure and absorption issues, and
(iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the December 24, 2018
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action please;

         Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
         Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
         Gainey McKenna & Egleston
         Telephone: (212) 983-1300
         E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                 gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]


EBIX INC: Hearing in Stockholder Class Action Set for Jan. 2019
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ebix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that a hearing is scheduled for
January 2019 in the case, In re Ebix, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
CA No. 8526-VCS.

Following the announcement on May 1, 2013 of the Company's
execution of a merger agreement with affiliates of Goldman Sachs &
Co., twelve putative class action complaints challenging the
proposed merger were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

These complaints named as Defendants some combination of the
Company, its directors, Goldman Sachs & Co. and affiliated
entities. On June 10, 2013, the twelve complaints were consolidated
by the Delaware Court of Chancery, now captioned In re Ebix, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, CA No. 8526-VCS.

On June 19, 2013, the Company announced that the merger agreement
had been terminated pursuant to a Termination and Settlement
Agreement dated June 19, 2013. After Defendants moved to dismiss
the consolidated proceeding, Plaintiffs Desert States Employers &
UFCW Union Pension Plan and Gilbert C. Spagnola (collectively,
"Lead Plaintiffs") amended their operative complaint to drop their
claims against Goldman Sachs & Co. and focus their allegations on
an Acquisition Bonus Agreement ("ABA") between the Company and
Robin Raina.

On September 26, 2013, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Consolidated Complaint. On July 24, 2014, the Court issued its
Memorandum Opinion that granted in large part the Company's Motion
to Dismiss and narrowed the remaining claims. On September 15,
2014, the Court entered an Order implementing its Memorandum
Opinion. On January 16, 2015, the Court entered an Order permitting
Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended and Supplemented Complaint. On
February 10, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second
Amended and Supplemented Complaint, which was granted in part and
denied in part in a January 15, 2016 Memorandum Opinion and Order.


On October 25, 2016, the Court entered an Order permitting Lead
Plaintiffs to file a Verified Third Amended and Supplemented Class
Action and Derivative Complaint, which made additional claims and
added two directors as Defendants. The Verified Third Amended and
Supplemented Class Action and Derivative Complaint was then filed
on October 26, 2016. On October 31, 2016, Lead Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Class Certification. On November 1, 2016, Lead
Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on Claims (ii),
(iii), and (vi) as described below.  

The directors added as Defendants in the Third Amended and
Supplemented Class Action and Derivative Complaint moved to dismiss
all Claims against them. The remaining Defendants moved to dismiss
certain Claims, and filed answers to the other claims in the
Verified Third Amended and Supplemented Complaint. On December 12,
2017, the Court postponed the pending hearing on the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification and the Defendants' motions to
dismiss and, instead, granted the Plaintiffs leave to file a
Verified Fourth Amended and Supplemented Class Action and
Derivative Complaint, which pleading was filed on January 19, 2018.


The claims in the fourth amended complaint are as follows: (i) a
purported class and derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty
for improperly maintaining the ABA as an unreasonable anti-takeover
device; (ii) a purported class claim for breach of the fiduciary
duty of disclosure to the stockholders with respect to the
Company's 2010 Proxy Statement and 2010 Stock Incentive Plan; (iii)
a purported derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty to the
Company in causing incentive compensation to be awarded under the
2010 Stock Incentive Plan; (iv) a purported class and derivative
claim for breach of fiduciary duty  in adopting certain bylaw
amendments on December 19, 2014;  (v) a purported class and
derivative claim seeking invalidation of the December 19, 2014
bylaw amendments under Delaware law; (vi) a purported claim for
breach of fiduciary duty for not duly adopting the ABA at the July
15, 2009 Board meeting, and seeking declaratory relief invalidating
the ABA; (vii) a purported claim for breach of the fiduciary duty
of disclosure to the stockholders with respect to the ABA, and
seeking declaratory relief invalidating the ABA; (viii) a purported
claim seeking invalidation of the 2008 Stockholder Meeting, 2008
Certificate Amendment, 2008 Stock Split and subsequent corporate
actions; (ix) a purported class claim for breach of fiduciary duty,
and seeking declaratory relief invalidating the 2016 CEO Bonus Plan
because of incomplete disclosures with respect to the ABA; and (x)
for breach of fiduciary duty and declaratory judgment relating to
the interpretation of the ABA.

Lead Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief with respect to the ABA,
the 2010 Stock Incentive Plan, the 2010 Proxy Statement, the bylaw
amendments, the 2008 Stockholder Meeting, the 2008 Certificate
Amendment, the 2008 Stock Split, and the 2016 CEO Bonus Plan. Lead
Plaintiffs also seek compensatory damages, interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs, all in unspecified amounts.

On May 31, 2018, the plaintiffs filed their Verified Supplement
(the "Supplement") to their Verified Fourth Amended and
Supplemented Class Action and Derivative Complaint in which they
sought to have the April 10, 2018 Stock Appreciation Rights
Agreement (the "SAR") adopted by the board of directors of Ebix,
which agreement expressly canceled the July 15, 2009 Acquisition
Bonus Agreement declared void ab initio.

Specifically, the Supplement added to the Verified Fourth Amended
and Supplemented Class Action and Derivative Complaint: one count
purporting to state class and derivative claims against all
Defendants for such a declaration; one count purporting to state
class and derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty in
adopting the SAR; and one count purporting class and derivative
claims for breach of fiduciary duty in adopting the SAR as an
improper anti-takeover defense.

On July 5, 2018, the court entered as an order the parties'
stipulation dismissing Count VIII of the FAC, which count had
purported to state a claim seeking invalidation of the 2008
stockholders meeting, the 2008 certificate amendment, the 2008
stock dividend and subsequent corporate actions.  

On July 17, 2018 the court entered an order granting summary
judgment as to all Defendants with respect to Counts I, IV, V, VI,
VII and X of the FAC, and as to Ebix and Defendants Joseph R.
Wright, Jr. and George W. Hebard III with respect to Count IX.
Following the court's July 17, 2018 order, the claims remaining
from the Verified Fourth Amended and Supplemented Class Action and
Derivative Complaint are Count II (against all directors other than
Messrs. Wright and Hebard for allegedly false disclosures in Ebix's
2010 proxy statement); Count III (against all directors and
challenging grants under a 2010 stock incentive plan); and Count IX
(against all directors other than Messrs. Wright and Hebard for
allegedly failing to disclose certain unwritten terms of the ABA).


On August 9, 2018, the Court denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the Supplement under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1, and granted in
part and denied in part Defendants' motion under Court of Chancery
Rule 12(b)(6).  On July 24, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to file a second supplement to the FAC to assert claims
relating to Ebix’s July 16, 2018 proxy statement. On August 15,
2018, during the telephonic pretrial conference, the Court denied
that motion.

The parties then filed pre-trial briefs, and a trial was held on
the remaining claims on August 20, 21, and 23, 2018. The parties
are currently conducting post-trial briefing, with a hearing
scheduled for January 2019.

Ebix said, "The Company denies any liability and intends to defend
the action vigorously."

Ebix, Inc. provides software and e-commerce solutions to insurance,
finance, and healthcare industries. It offers software development,
customization, and consulting services to various entities in the
insurance industry, including carriers, brokers, exchanges, and
standard making bodies. Ebix, Inc. was founded in 1976 and is
headquartered in Johns Creek, Georgia.


ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Bid for Rehearing in Nichols Case Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Encompass Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
is seeking a rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court in the case
entitled, Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp.

The company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 28,
2003 by several individual stockholders in the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp.

The plaintiffs allege that the company, some of its former
officers, and its former investment bank engaged in a scheme to
overstate and misrepresent its earnings and financial position. The
plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

This case was stayed in the circuit court on August 8, 2005. The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2010 to which
the company responded with a motion to dismiss filed on December
22, 2010. During a hearing on February 24, 2012, plaintiffs'
counsel indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims against the
company. Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their
complaint to include additional securities fraud claims against
Encompass Health and add several former officers to the lawsuit.

On September 12, 2012, the plaintiffs further amended their
complaint to request certification as a class action. One of the
former officers named as a defendant has repeatedly attempted to
remove the case to federal district court, most recently on
December 11, 2012.

The company filed its latest motion to remand the case back to
state court on January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the federal
court remanded the case back to state court. On November 25, 2014,
the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint to assert new
allegations relating to the time period of 1997 to 2002. On
December 10, 2014, the company filed a motion to dismiss on the
grounds the plaintiffs lack standing because their claims were
derivative in nature, and the claims were time-barred by the
statute of limitations.

On May 26, 2016, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss.
The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the case to the Supreme
Court of Alabama on June 28, 2016. On March 23, 2018, the Alabama
Supreme Court reversed the trial court's dismissal, holding that
the plaintiffs' claims were not derivative or time-barred, and
remanded the case for further proceedings. On April 6, 2018, the
company filed an application for rehearing with the Alabama Supreme
Court.

Encompass Health said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in
this case. Based on the stage of litigation, review of the current
facts and circumstances as we understand them, the nature of the
underlying claim, the results of the proceedings to date, and the
nature and scope of the defense we continue to mount, we do not
believe an adverse judgment or settlement is probable in this
matter, and it is also not possible to estimate an amount of loss,
if any, or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse
judgment or settlement of this case."

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

Encompass Health Corporation provides inpatient rehabilitative
healthcare services. The Company operates inpatient rehabilitation
hospitals, outpatient and rehabilitation satellites, and home
health agencies. Encompass Health provides treatment on both an
inpatient and outpatient basis. The company is based in Birmingham,
Alabama.


EQUIFAX INFO: Lemmon Suit Stayed Until Dec. 21 Pending Deal Talks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, stayed by 60 days the deadlines
currently set in the case, LEONARD A. LEMMON, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01464-JLR
(W.D. Wash.), pursuant to the Court's July 17, 2018 Order.

The Parties submitted a Stipulation on July 16, 2018 to extend the
deadlines related to discovery and class certification, which was
approved by the Court on July 17, 2018.  The case is one of a
number of similar putative class actions brought against Equifax
around the country regarding the reporting of public records (i.e.,
tax liens and civil judgments).

On Oct. 9, 2018, the parties in these putative class actions
reached an agreement in principle to resolve the pending cases on a
nationwide basis through a class settlement to be presented for
approval in the Eastern District of Virginia.  The settlement, if
approved, would resolve the putative class action claims in the
case.

Therefore, Judge Robart finds that good cause exists to stay the
deadlines in the matter for 60 days until Dec. 21, 2018, while the
parties negotiate a formal settlement agreement.  The parties will
update the Court and provide a status report by no later than Dec.
21, 2018 regarding the status of the settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 23, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/RKrayR from Leagle.com.

Leonard A. Lemmon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne Adams --
eadams@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
Erika L. Nusser -- enusser@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL
LAW GROUP PLLC, James A. Francis -- info@consumerlawfirm.com --
FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC, pro hac vice, John Soumilas, FRANCIS &
MAILMAN PC, pro hac vice, Lauren K.W. Brennan, FRANCIS & MAILMAN
PC, pro hac vice & Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
-- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.

Equifax Information Services LLC, Defendant, represented by John C.
Toro -- jtoro@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP, pro hac vice,
Katherine McFarland Stein -- kstein@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING
LLP, pro hac vice, Meryl W. Roper -- mroper@kslaw.com -- KING &
SPALDING LLP, pro hac vice, Zachary A. McEntyre --
zmcentyre@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP, pro hac vice & Jeffrey
M. Edelson -- JeffEdelson@MarkowitzHerbold.com -- MARKOWITZ HERBOLD
PC.


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Parties Seek to Stay Inscho Suit Until Dec. 21
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case, PATRICK INSCHO, on behalf of himself and
all consumers similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-790-MMD-VCF (D. Nev.),
filed their stipulated motion with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada requesting Judge Miranda M. Du to stay the case
for 60 days, until Dec. 21, 2018, at which time they expect to have
a final executed settlement agreement and ask the Judge to stay all
deadlines until final approval of the settlement is obtained.

The case is one of a number of similar putative class actions
brought against Equifax around the country regarding the reporting
of public records (i.e., tax liens and civil judgments).  On Oct.
9, 2018, the parties in these putative class actions reached an
agreement in principle to resolve the pending cases on a nationwide
basis through a class settlement to be presented for approval in
the Eastern District of Virginia.  The settlement, if approved,
would resolve the putative class action claims in the case.

They request that the Court stays the matter for 60 days until Dec.
21, 2018, while the parties negotiate a formal settlement
agreement.  The parties will update the Court at the conclusion of
the stay regarding the status of the settlement.  They respectfully
request that their Stipulated Motion to Stay Deadlines be granted.

A full-text copy of the Parties' Stipulated Motion is available at
https://is.gd/QR2xDk from Leagle.com.

Patrick Inscho, obo himself and all consumers similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Don Springmeyer --
dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and
Rabkin, LLP, John Albanese, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice,
Jordan J. Butler -- JButler@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf, Rifkin,
Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Eleanor Michelle Drake --
emdrake@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice & Kristi
Cahoon Kelly -- kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly & Crandall,
PLC, pro hac vice.

Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by John
C. Toro -- jtoro@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, LLP, pro hac vice,
Bradley T. Austin -- baustin@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer LLP,
Katherine McFarland Stein -- kstein@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding,
Meryl W. Roper -- mroper@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, pro hac vice
& Zachary A. McEntyre -- zmcentyre@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding
LLP, pro hac vice.


FEDERAL NATIONAL: Ct. Denies Order Interlocutory Review in Banneck
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order denying Intervernor's Motion to Certify
the May 18 Order for Interlocutory Review in the case captioned
JAMES BANNECK, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,
Defendant. Case No. 17-cv-04657-WHO. (N.D. Cal.).

FHFA moved to intervene as conservator for Fannie Mae, seeking
interlocutory review of the prior Order.

Banneck filed his consumer class action against Fannie Mae
asserting two California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act
(CCRAA) claims and one claim under the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA).  He alleged that Fannie Mae's Desktop
Underwriter (DU) system, used by lenders to determine loan
eligibility, generated DU Findings Reports that inaccurately
identified sales as foreclosures and prevented consumers from
getting loan applications approved.

For the court to certify the two questions FHFA seeks to resolve by
interlocutory review, there must be: (i) a controlling question of
law; (ii) substantial grounds for difference of opinion; and (iii)
a likelihood that an immediate appeal may materially advance the
ultimate termination of the litigation.

CONTROLLING QUESTION OF LAW

FHFA argues that its appeal would materially affect the outcome of
the litigation because a reversal would require the dismissal of
Banneck's claims for statutory damages and injunctive relief.
Banneck responds that the claims will proceed on actual damages
regardless of such an appeal, and that the questions for which FHFA
seeks review are not substantially the same as exemplary
controlling questions of law previously identified by the Ninth
Circuit.  

Regardless of the result on appeal, Banneck's claims under the
CCRAA and FCRA would remain.

Certifying an interlocutory appeal would not necessarily avoid the
protracted litigation of this case to determine other remedies like
actual damages.

FHFA is correct that an immediate appeal would, if successful,
preclude statutory damages due to the Penalty Bar and injunctive
relief due to the Equitable Relief Bar, but in the name of avoiding
costly litigation it ignores the chance that this Court might
resolve the matter at the liability phase.   Accordingly, FHFA has
not persuasively demonstrated to me that the issues for which it
seeks an interlocutory review are controlling questions of law.

SUBSTANTIAL GROUNDS FOR DIFFERENCE OF OPINION

A substantial ground for difference of opinion exists where novel
and difficult questions of first impression are presented on which
fair-minded jurists might reach contradictory conclusions.

FHFA argues there are reasonable alternatives to the questions it
seeks for certification, because courts have not definitively ruled
on these points of law. On the first question, whether the
Equitable Relief Bar prohibits injunctive relief against Fannie Mae
while in an FHFA conservatorship, the May 18 Order found that the
Ninth Circuit's analysis of a similar provision, Section1821(j),
did not extend a bar to injunctive relief in situations where the
receiver asserts authority beyond what was granted to it as a
receiver.    

As for the second question of law, whether the Penalty Bar
prohibits statutory damages against Fannie Mae while in an FHFA
conservatorship, there is not the same degree of uncertainty in the
Ninth Circuit. FHFA does not provide case law demonstrating a
recognized circuit split. The May 18 Order discussed how the Ninth
Circuit's decision in Bateman v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 623 F.3d
708, 718 (9th Cir. 2010), demonstrated that the provisions are not
punitive and therefore, the Penalty Bar was inapplicable.  

MATERIAL ADVANCEMENT

The final requirement that an appeal must be likely to materially
speed the termination of the litigation is related to the first
requirement that there be a controlling question of law.

FHFA contends that resolving the questions of Banneck's entitlement
to statutory damages and injunctive relief in its favor would
advance the termination of this litigation because only claims of
actual and compensatory damages would remain. It also suggests that
without an immediate appeal these issues would languish through
summary judgment and class certification and evade review until a
final judgment, long after substantial time and resources are
poured into the litigation. In response, Banneck argues that
regardless of the outcome on appeal, his claims will continue
either as is or with limited remedies that will still need to be
resolved through litigation.

The Ninth Circuit's decision on the proposed interlocutory appeal
would not resolve liability and the remaining damages issues at
trial, no matter the outcome reached on the possibility of
recovering statutory damages or injunctive relief. An interlocutory
appeal would not satisfy the material advancement factor.

The motion to certify the May 18 Order for interlocutory review is
denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 29, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7gosfwy from Leagle.com.

James Banneck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Paul B. Mengedoth, Mengedoth
Law PLLC, Casey Shannon Nash -- casey@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly
& Crandall, PLC, pro hac vice, James A. Francis --
jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis and Mailman, P.C., John
Soumilas -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis and Mailman,
P.C., Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Kelly and Crandall PLC, pro hac vice,
Lauren K.W. Brennan -- lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis and
Mailman PC, Sylvia Antalis Goldsmith, Goldsmith and Associates,
LLC, pro hac vice & Stephanie R. Tatar --
stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com -- Tatar Law Firm, APC.

Federal National Mortgage Association, Defendant, represented by
Elizabeth Lemond McKeen -- emckeen@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, Benjamin Dean Brooks -- benbrooks@omm.com -- O'Melveny and
Myers LLP & Danielle Nicole Oakley -- doakley@omm.com -- O'Melveny
and Myers LLP.

Federal Housing Finance Agency, Intervenor, represented by D. Eric
Shapland, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP & Michael A.F. Johnson,
Arnold and Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, pro hac vice.


FLORIDA GARDEN: Anderson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Cortavis T. Anderson, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Florida Garden Center, Corp., a Florida Corporation, and
Estrella Sampedro, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-24667-MGC (S.D. Fla., November 6, 2018) is brought by
Plaintiff to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime wage
compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated
damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Throughout The Plaintiff's employment with Florida Garden, he
routinely worked for Florida Garden and Sampedro from Monday
through Saturday, 40 regular hours a week and approximately 21 to
24 hours of overtime per week. However, the Defendants willfully
and intentionally failed/refused to pay to Plaintiff the federally
required overtime rate for the overtime hours he worked, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff and those similarly situated employees regularly utilized
and handled materials, equipment and goods manufactured and
purchased from outside the state of Florida and regularly used the
instrumentalities of interstate commerce in their world.

Florida Garden is and was, during all times material hereto, an
enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for
commerce.

Sampedro is an officer/director of Florida Garden and has economic
and day-to-day control of Florida Garden, and of the nature and
structure of Plaintiff's employment relationship with Florida
Garden.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Monica Espino, Esq.
     ESPINO LAW
     2655 Le June Road
     Miami, FL 33129
     Phone: (305) 704-3172
     Facsimile: (305) 722-7378
     E-mail: me@espino-law.com


FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Garcia Class Suit Administratively On Hold
------------------------------------------------------------
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has placed the case, David
Garcia v. Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC case on administrative
hold pending the U.S. Supreme Court's consideration of the petition
for review in the Newton v. Parker Drilling Management Services,
Ltd.case.

On April 1, 2016, a purported class action titled David Garcia v.
Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC (FM O&G LLC) was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa
Barbara (Case No. 16CV01305) against FM O&G LLC, an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (FCX).

A former FM O&G LLC employee filed the case, which alleges
violations of various California employment laws and seeks relief
for past wages, overtime, penalties, interest and attorney's fees.
The primary issue underlying the claims is whether compensation
must be paid to non-exempt shift workers on platforms located
offshore California on the outer-continental shelf for sleep time
and other non-working time.

In June 2016, FM O&G LLC removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Santa Barbara (the
District Court). In September 2016, the District Court dismissed
the complaint on the grounds that all four FM O&G LLC platforms
potentially involved are located in federal waters, that federal
law, not state law, applies, and that federal law does not require
an employer to compensate for non-work time.

In October 2016, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit). In June
2017, the Ninth Circuit stayed the Garcia case pending its decision
in another case involving essentially the same legal issues, titled
Newton v. Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. In February
2018, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of
the plaintiffs in the Newton case.

Because that decision conflicts with longstanding precedent in the
Fifth Circuit and could set a precedent that will result in a
reversal of the dismissal in the Garcia case, FM O&G LLC and others
filed amicus briefs in April 2018 in support of Parker Drilling’s
petition for an en banc rehearing in the Newton case. The Ninth
Circuit denied that request on April 27, 2018, but modified its
original opinion noting that the question of whether the Ninth
Circuit's holding should be applied retrospectively is reserved for
the District Court's consideration on remand.

On May 16, 2018, the Ninth Circuit granted Parker Drilling's motion
to stay further proceedings in the District Court pending the
possible filing of a petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court,
which was filed in September 2018.

FCX expects to learn whether the U.S. Supreme Court will grant
review of the Ninth Circuit's decision in the Newton case in early
2019. The Ninth Circuit has placed the Garcia case on
administrative hold pending the U.S. Supreme Court's consideration
of the petition for review in the Newton case.

Freeport-McMoRan Inc. engages in the mining of mineral properties
in the United States, Indonesia, Peru, and Chile. The company
primarily explores for copper, gold, molybdenum, silver, and other
metals, as well as oil and gas.  Freeport-McMoRan Inc. was founded
in 1987 and is headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona.


GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: 11th Cir. Upholds FACTA Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Tsai, Esq. -- etsai@mauricewutscher.com -- of Maurice Wutscher
LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed a class
settlement where the defendant allegedly violated the federal Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by printing
point-of-sale credit card receipts that included more than the last
five digits of the card number.

In so ruling, and over the objections of two class members, the
Eleventh Circuit held that:

   -- Consistent with similar prior rulings from other federal
appellate courts, the named plaintiff had Spokeo standing to pursue
the claims, because the FACTA claims were similar to the common law
tort of breach of confidence; and

   -- Class counsel's untimely attorney's fees motion -- filed two
weeks after the deadline for class members to object had passed --
did not warrant reversal because four other class members objected
after receiving notice of the preliminary approval of class
settlement; and

   -- A lodestar analysis was not required for class counsel's
fees, because the compensation secured by class counsel and risk of
litigation justified an award of one-third of the settlement fund
for attorney's fees and a $10,000 incentive to the class
representative.

The case is Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc.

A consumer filed a class action alleging that a retail merchant
violated FACTA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1601 et seq., by printing a receipt
that showed his credit card number's first six and last four
digits.

As you may recall, FACTA prohibits merchants from printing "more
than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date
upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the
sale or transaction." 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681c(g)(1).

FACTA provides for a combination of actual and statutory damages.
15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681n(a). For statutory damages, FACTA provides for
an award of $100 to $1,000 for each willful violation. 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1681n(a)(1)(A).

The parties agreed to settle on a classwide basis and proposed a
settlement fund of $6.3 million from which all fees, costs, and
class members would be paid.

Class members who submitted a timely claim form would receive
approximately $235 as their pro-rata share of the settlement fund.
None of the money would revert to the merchant. Class counsel would
receive an award of attorney's fees of up to one-third of the
settlement fund, which would be $2.1 million. The consumer would
receive an incentive award of $10,000.

The trial court granted the motion for preliminary approval,
certified the class under Rule 23(b)(3), and approved the form of
notice. Under the preliminary approval order, class members who
wanted to be excluded from the settlement were required to give
written notice of exclusion to the claims administrator.

Two class members objected to the settlement, arguing that class
counsel's fee motion was inadequate under Rule 23(h), that the
court should subject any attorney's fee award to a lodestar
analysis, and a $10,000 incentive award was not warranted.

After a fairness hearing, the trial court approved the settlement
and awarded the incentive award and attorney's fees to the consumer
and class counsel respectively.

The objectors appealed.

The Eleventh Circuit began its analysis by reviewing the consumer's
standing to pursue a FACTA claim against the merchant.

The objectors argued that the named plaintiff did not allege a
concrete injury to confer Article III standing under the Supreme
Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016).
Instead, the consumer merely alleged that the merchant willfully
violated its duty not to print more than five digits of its credit
card number on a receipt.

The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, noting that FACTA was "aimed at
protecting consumers from identity theft" and imposed a duty on
merchants not to "print more than the last 5 digits of the card
number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the
cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction." 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1681c(g)(1).

The Eleventh Circuit compared the merchant's disclosure of the
consumer's credit card number to the common law tort of breach of
confidence. Typical breach of confidence cases, as the Eleventh
Circuit explained, involve a customer entrusting information or
items to trusted persons, who would without permission disclose
those items to other people for personal gain. An important
difference between the breach of confidence tort and privacy torts
was the identification of harm.

The Eleventh Circuit explained that in privacy cases, the harm was
usually construed in terms of exposure "with an emphasis on
publication as the cause of the harm." But in breach of confidence
cases, the harm happens when the plaintiff's trust in the breaching
party is violated. Applying this view, the Eleventh Circuit found
that when the consumer used his credit card, he entrusted the
merchant with his credit card number and his trust was violated
when that card number was not kept confidential.

The Eleventh Circuit observed that FACTA established a duty of care
for merchants that print receipts and defined that duty as
requiring printing no more than five digits of customers' credit
card numbers. The FACTA also made willful violations of that duty
actionable.

The Eleventh Circuit also observed that because the consumer
received the receipt from the merchant, the consumer had to
shoulder the cost of protecting or destroying the untruncated
receipt.

Thus, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the consumer suffered a
concrete harm when the merchant provided an untruncated receipt.

Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit reasoned that its holding was
consistent with the decisions of the Second, Seventh, and Ninth
Circuits "where customers alleged that they suffered a risk of
identity theft because the receipts included their credit card
expiration date, which was a violation of FACTA, 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1681c(g). See Bassett v. ABM Parking Servs., Inc., 883 F.3d
776 (9th Cir. 2018); Crupar-Weinmann v. Paris Baguette Am., Inc.,
861 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2017); Meyers v. Nicolet Rest. of De Pere,
LLC, 843 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2016).

Next, the Eleventh Circuit examined the objectors' challenge to the
sufficiency of the notice of the attorney's fees motion.

As you may recall, Rule 23(h)(1) requires that notice of the motion
for attorney's fees be served on all parties "in a reasonable
manner." Although the statute does not define "reasonable manner,"
courts interpreting Rule 23(h) have observed that the right to
object to the fee motion under Rule 23(h)(2) necessarily means that
courts must give notice of the attorney's fee motion itself.

The objectors argued that the untimely attorney's fees motion --
filed two weeks after the deadline for class members to object had
passed -- deprived class members of the notice they needed to
assess the fee request and violated Rule 23(h).

The Eleventh Circuit explained that the trial court erred by
requiring class members to object before they could assess the
attorney's fee motion, but held that the error did not warrant
reversal because four class members objected after receiving notice
of the preliminary approval of class settlement.

Two class members made detailed arguments in opposition to the
requested attorney's fee and incentive award, which the trial court
considered. In the Eleventh Circuit's view, there was no reason to
think other unnamed class members would have made arguments besides
those made by the objectors.

Thus, the Eleventh Circuit determined that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion by awarding attorney's fees, despite the Rule
23(h) violation.

The objectors also argued that the trial court applied the wrong
legal test to evaluate class counsel's fee request.

The objectors argued that the trial court should have applied a
lodestar analysis as required by Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn,
559 U.S. 542 (2010). In Perdue, the Supreme Court allowed the award
of attorney's fees under a fee-shifting statute to be enhanced
above the lodestar amount, but only in "rare" and "exceptional"
cases. Perdue, 559 U.S. at 554.

However, the Eleventh Circuit noted that class counsel sought
attorney's fees from a common fund, rather than under a
fee-shifting statute. The Eleventh Circuit also noted that the
common-fund doctrine applied to class settlements that result in a
common fund even when class counsel could have pursued attorney's
fees under a federal fee-shifting statute.

The Eleventh Circuit acknowledged that the award of attorney's fees
was bigger than some award in other suits, and a prior panel
observed that the "majority of common fund fee awards fall between
20% and 30% of the fund."

In the Eleventh Circuit's view, the trial court justified the
above-benchmark award of attorney's fees. The trial court
emphasized that the results obtained conferred substantial benefits
on the class members who submitted claims, and discussed the
significant legal hurdles class counsel faced with regard to
establishing standing based on risk of identity theft. The trial
court also explained the difficulty of proving willfulness.

Lastly, the Eleventh Circuit explained that the $10,000 incentive
award to the class representative was not an abuse of discretion.

To support its reasoning, the Eleventh Circuit noted that the trial
court awarded the class representative the incentive award "for his
efforts in this case" and found that the class settlement conferred
"substantial benefits" on the class member.

Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the order approving the
settlement. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Women Advance Suit Affecting 8,300 Workers
------------------------------------------------------
Sam Levin, writing for The Guardian, reports that a group of women
who sued Google for pay discrimination are advancing a class-action
lawsuit in California that could affect more than 8,000 current and
former employees, the plaintiffs' lawyer said.

Jim Finberg, Esq. a civil rights attorney for the women behind the
high-profile gender pay gap litigation, told the Guardian on
October 25 that the Silicon Valley corporation has confirmed that
the proposed class action would cover roughly 8,300 women who have
worked for Google in California.

The case is moving forward with a San Francisco hearing on October
26, one day after the New York Times published a major
investigation saying Google paid a $90m severance package to an
executive while concealing details of a sexual misconduct
allegation against him.

The class-action complaint could add to the pressure on the
corporation, which has faced growing scrutiny over the last year
surrounding public allegations of gender and racial discrimination
and sexual misconduct.

The women affected by the pay discrimination case worked in a
variety of positions since September of 2013, including product
management, product sales, technical operations, software
engineering, research and technical writing.

"If the class is certified in this case and we prevail, it will
change the way that Google does business, and because Google is a
market leader, hopefully it will improve gender equality in Silicon
Valley and the tech industry," Finberg said in an interview.

The class action followed a major inquiry by the US Department of
Labor (DoL), which said last year that its audit of Google revealed
"systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across
the entire workforce". The allegation came after Google, a federal
contractor subject to equal opportunity laws, refused to hand over
certain records to the DoL. A judge ultimately ordered Google to
disclose certain salary documents to labor investigators.

The civil complaint, filed a year ago, alleged that Google was
paying women less than men doing similar work while also denying
promotions and career opportunities to qualified women who were
"segregated" into lower-paying jobs. The first version of the suit
covered all women employed by the company in California over four
years, but the company fought the suit and data requests of the
plaintiffs, and a judge dismissed the initial case as overly
broad.

The amended complaint now moving forward covers a more narrow
group, though it could still have widespread implications given
that the corporation employs 23,000 people at its Mountain View
headquarters. The named plaintiffs in the lawsuit include a former
engineer, manager and sales worker. Heidi Lamar, who taught
employees' children at the company's childcare center, also joined
the case and shared her story with the Guardian earlier this year.

Google has repeatedly argued that it has a system in place to
ensure that women are paid equally and that it is confident there
is no gender pay gap at the company.

Finberg said the plaintiffs are in the process of obtaining
documents, data and deposition testimony from Google.

This week's scandal could add fuel to the class-action case. The
New York Times reported that Google investigated a female
employee's allegations that Andy Rubin, the creator of the Android
mobile software, had forced her to perform oral sex in a hotel room
in 2013. The company allegedly found the allegations to be
credible, and Larry Page, former CEO, asked Rubin to resign – but
then continued to pay him installments of $2m a month for four
years, according to the story.

Last year, a senior artificial intelligence (AI) researcher at
Google was also accused of sexual harassment amid a #MeToo
reckoning in the male-dominated field of statistics, data science
and machine learning. A separate lawsuit earlier this year accused
Google of having a "bro-culture" that enabled repeated sexual
harassment of a female software engineer.

"We have heard from the women with whom we have spoken that there
was a culture at Google that objectified women and was filled with
stereotyped views about women's capability," Finberg said.

Google has become a political flashpoint as it has also faced
lawsuits from men alleging that the company was intolerant of white
male conservatives. The corporation, however, remains
overwhelmingly white, Asian and male. In leadership roles, only
25.5% are women, 2% are black and 1.8% are Latino.

A Google spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment
about the class action.

After the New York Times story was published, CEO Sundar Pichai and
Eileen Naughton, vice-president of people operations, sent an email
to employees saying that in the last two years, 48 people had been
fired for sexual harassment, including 13 who were senior managers
and above, and that none of them received exit packages.

"We are dead serious about making sure we provide a safe and
inclusive workplace. We want to assure you that we review every
single complaint about sexual harassment or inappropriate conduct,
we investigate and we take action," they wrote. [GN]


GREG STEPHEN: Faces Class Action Over Athlete Abuses
----------------------------------------------------
Mario Rossi, writing for We Are Iowa, reports that a former AAU
coach is responsible for betraying the trust of hundreds of boys,
according to a new class action lawsuit.

Attorney Guy Cook announced that Greg Stephen, who admitted to
filming underage boys while coach of the AAU team Barnstormers
Basketball, would install fake towel hooks and smoke detectors in
hotel rooms.

"He violated the position of trust that was placed in him by the
players, the players' parents and others," Mr. Cook said.

Another issue raised in the lawsuit is how the Amateur Athletic
Union, or AAU, allowed its own code to be violated.

"A coach shall not share hotel room or other sleeping arrangement
with athletes," Mr. Cook said, citing the AAU handbook. "That was
violated here. And had this code been followed, enforced and
subject to the provision within the Barnstormers Basketball of Iowa
operations, none of this would have happened."

A Facebook page has been set up by Mr. Cook's law firm for anyone
else who may have been a victim of Stephen. [GN]


HARLEYSVILLE PREFERRED: Court Narrows Claims in Halloran Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL HALLORAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HARLEYSVILLE
PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-00133 (VAB) (D. Conn.), Judge Victor A. Bolden of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut (i) granted in part
and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss without
prejudice; and (ii) denied the Defendants' motion to strike class
allegations.

On Jan. 29, 2016, the Plaintiffs, homeowners in Hartford, Tolland,
and Windham Counties in Connecticut brought a Class Action
Complaint against their homeowners insurance companies.  The
Defendants are multiple insurance companies who each provided
homeowners insurance to some of the Plaintiffs.

The initial complaint included seven named Plaintiffs and more than
100 Defendants, all insurance companies.  Before Defendants had
responded, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that included
additional Defendants and claims on March 17, 2016.  

The Plaintiffs then moved to certify a class, which they defined as
all individuals who own a home in the Connecticut towns of
Manchester, Andover, Ellington, Stafford Springs or any other
Connecticut town located east of the Connecticut River whose homes
are insured by any of the Insurance Defendants, and whose homes
have sustained 'pattern cracking' including but not limited to
horizontal and vertical cracks on their basement walls, and whose
bad foundation claims have been denied or will be denied by the
Insurance Defendants, which denials are or will be based on the
same standardized language regarding the term 'collapse,' the term
'basement,' the term 'foundation,' the term 'decay,' the term
'hidden,' and the term 'retaining wall.'

The parties then sought different case management orders.  The
Court, in addressing these motions, provided that any motion for
leave to file an amended complaint would be due by May 6, 2016.  It
also denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without
prejudice to renewal following the Court's resolution of any motion
to amend, and motions to dismiss directed at the amended
complaint.

The Plaintiffs then moved for leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint on May 7, 2016.  They sought to add nine additional
Plaintiffs and four additional Defendants, and to remove three
Defendants.  They also sought to add additional causes of action
for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.  The Defendants did not oppose amendment.
The Court granted the motion, noting the lack of objection.

The parties then moved to amend the scheduling order, and the
Plaintiffs stated that they intended to file a third amended
complaint.  The Court granted the request and stayed responsive
pleadings regarding the Second Amended Complaint.

On Oct. 31, 2016, Plaintiffs moved to amend the Complaint yet again
and join additional parties; they sought to add 19 new Plaintiffs
and reduce the overall number of Defendants to 30.  The Defendant
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. opposed amendment, but other
parties stated they had no opposition.

Before the Court addressed the motion, however, the Plaintiffs
moved for leave to file a substituted third complaint on Dec. 12,
2016.  They stated that the proposed "Substituted Third Amended
Complaint" rectified a number of errors, deleted references to
individuals and companies not in the case, corrected a number of
errors in dates, damage estimates, and party names, and dropped a
number of claims.  The Defendants, in large part, again did not
oppose amendment.  They requested, however, that further amendment
be barred unless the Plaintiffs demonstrated good cause under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. The Court granted the
Plaintiffs' motion and allowed the Substituted Third Amended
Complaint to be filed.  It denied the Defendants' request to
preclude future amendments because they cite no authority
supporting their request.

The Defendants then filed numerous motions to dismiss.  The
Individual Defendants also filed separate motions to dismiss.  The
Plaintiffs responded to these motions on Sept. 15, 2017.  The
Plaintiffs then filed another motion to amend on Sept. 25, 2017,
seeking leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint to delete parties
and claims that are no longer being pursued in light of the issues
raised in various motions to dismiss, and to delete references to
individuals and companies not in the case, and to add counts
between existing parties, and to correct errors, missing, or
confusing information.

The Defendants then moved to stay briefing on the pending motions
to dismiss until the Court issued its ruling on the motion to
amend.  The Plaintiffs opposed the Defendants' motion to stay
briefing.

On Sept. 29, 2017, the Court amended the scheduling order.  The
Defendants filed two objections to the leave to amend.  MMAC raised
individual arguments as to the Individual Plaintiffs asserting
claims against the company.  The Court granted leave to amend and
mooted the pending motions to dismiss on Feb. 8, 2018.  It directed
the Plaintiffs to file the Fourth Amended Complaint and set a
briefing schedule for a new round of motions to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs filed the Fourth Amended Complaint on Feb. 14, 2018.
Three-thousand and three paragraphs long, the Fourth Amended
Complaint asserts four categories of claims: breach of contract,
declaratory judgment, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act ("CUTPA"), and Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices
Act ("CUIPA").  Each Plaintiff asserts multiple counts against the
insurer who provided insurance on his or her home, and in some
cases an individual Plaintiff alleges unlawful conduct by the
multiple Defendants.

The Plaintiffs also renewed their class allegations.  According to
the Fourth Amended Complaint, they seek to bring the case on behalf
of all persons who purchased any of the Defendants' homeowners
insurance policies that insure property located in Connecticut and
which contain coverage for collapse, and who sought coverage for
collapse of their basement walls and did not get it; and all
persons who will purchase such homeowners insurance policies from
any of the Defendants and who will seek such coverage, and who are
unaware of the loss at the time of purchase.

The Defendants then moved, individually and as a group, to dismiss
the Fourth Amended Complaint.  Additionally, they moved to strike
the class allegations.

Before oral argument on the pending motions, the Court sua sponte
noted that two other courts in the District had certified the
following question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: "What
constitutes a `substantial impairment of structural integrity' for
purposes of applying the 'collapse' provision of this homeowners'
insurance policy?"  The Court, noting that other courts in the
District had subsequently stayed similar cases, requested that the
parties address the impact, if any, on the question certified to
the Connecticut Supreme Court on this case and what steps, if any,
the Court should take as a result.

Judge Bolden granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motions to dismiss without prejudice to renewal following
resolution by the Connecticut Supreme Court of the pending
certified questions.

He explained that a subset of the counts in the Fourth Amended
Complaint contain policy language that, as a matter of law, is
unambiguous and does not support a claim for relief.  He dismissed
each Plaintiff whose entire claim for relief rested on a policy
that unambiguously excluded coverage for abrupt or sudden collapse:
Kathy Noblet, Dawn L. Norris, and Steven and Colleen Swart.
Relatedly, he dismissed each Defendant whose entire liability
rested on a policy that unambiguously excluded coverage for abrupt
or sudden collapse: American Commerce Insurance Company and
Allstate Insurance Company.  The remainder of the Plaintiffs and
the Defendants remain.  

The Judge denied the Defendants' motion to strike class
allegations.

A revised scheduling order with deadlines for the completion of
discovery relating to the class allegations only and for the
submission of a motion for class certification will be submitted by
Nov. 16, 2018, jointly, if possible, but if the various parties
cannot agree, separately.  The Court then will hold an in-person
status conference on Nov. 29, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.

Consistent with this schedule and the Court's inherent authority to
manage cases on its docket, the Judge denied any further amendments
to the Fourth Amended Complaint, absent unforeseen circumstances
not now readily apparent.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct 19, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/EjOD3x from Leagle.com.

Michael Halloran, Individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Joyce Halloran, Individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Kenneth Masciovecchio, Individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, Victoria Masciovecchio,
Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Steven
Brozek, Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Patricia Brozek, Individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Michael Dyer, Individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Phil Basquiat, Individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Donna Frankenberg, Individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, Michael Furlong, Individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated, Sue Ann Furlong,
Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Jacqueline
Gribbon, Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Patricia Kandrysawtz, Individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Paula LaValley, Individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Peter LaValley, Individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Alfred Lesperance, Individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, Alfred J. Lesperance, Trustee
of the Lesperance Family Living Trust, Individually and on behalf
of those similarly situated, Jeannette Lesperance, Individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Jeannette G. Lesperance,
Trustee of the the Lesperance Family Living Trust, Individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Deborah MacGlafin,
Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Scott
MacGlafin, Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Kathy Noblet, Individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Dawn L. Norris, Individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Felice Pawelcyzk, Individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Mark Pawelcyzk, Individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, Colleen Swart, Individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Steven Swart, Individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated, Mary Lou Thieling,
Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Stanley
Zaremba, Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
David Kandrysawtz, Individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Geoffrey Luxenberg, Individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Kelly Luxenberg, Individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated & Amy Somerville, Individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Anthony Joseph Spinella, Barry & Barall, LLC, Marilyn Beth Fagelson
-- mfagelson@murthalaw.com -- Murtha Cullina, Ryan P. Barry --
rbarry@bbsattorneys.com -- Barry & Barall, LLC & Sarah Michelle
Gruber -- sgruber@murthalaw.com -- Murtha Cullina LLP.

Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company & Nationwide Property &
Casualty Insurance Company, Defendants, represented by Daniel
Michael Blouin -- dblouin@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP &
Wystan M. Ackerman -- wackerman@rc.com -- Robinson & Cole, LLP.

Homesite Ins. Co., Defendant, represented by Judy Y. Barrasso --
JBarrasso@BarrassoUsdin.com -- Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman &
Sarver, L.L.C., Stephen R. Klaffky -- sklaffy@barrassousdin.com --
Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver, L.L.C. & Wystan M.
Ackerman, Robinson & Cole, LLP.

Amica Mutual Ins. Co, Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Reilly, Sloane and Walsh, LLP, pro hac vice, Anthony J. Antonellis,
Sloane and Walsh, LLP, Brendan L. Labbe, Sloane and Walsh, LLP,
John Anthony Donovan, III, Sloane and Walsh, LLP, Wystan M.
Ackerman, Robinson & Cole, LLP, John McCormack, Sloane and Walsh,
LLP & Michael S. Antonellis, Sloane & Walsh, LLP.

Kemper Independence Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Carl R. Ficks, Jr., Halloran & Sage, Daniel P. Scapellati, Halloran
& Sage, Kristen C. Rodriguez, Dentons US LLP, Mark L. Hanover,
Dentons US LLP & Wystan M. Ackerman, Robinson & Cole, LLP.

Safeco Insurance Company of America, Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. &
Peerless Insurance Co., Defendants, represented by Matthew B.
Arnould, Choate, Hall & Stewart, LLP, pro hac vice, Robert A. Kole,
Choate, Hall & Stewart, LLP, pro hac vice, Choity Khan , Howd &
Ludorf, LLC, Kieran W. Leary, Howd & Ludorf, LLC, Philip T.
Newbury, Jr., Howd & Ludorf & Wystan M. Ackerman, Robinson & Cole,
LLP.


HAROLD CLARKE: Riggleman Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
TERRY A. RIGGLEMAN, the Plaintiff, vs. HAROLD CLARKE, et al., the
Defendants, Case No.: 5:17-cv-00063-NKM-JCH (W.D. Va.), Mr.
Riggleman moves the Court, under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, to certify a class consisting of:

   "all persons who are currently incarcerated in a Virginia
   Department of Corrections facility who have at least 12 weeks
   or more remaining to serve on their sentences and whose
   Department of Corrections medical records demonstrate that
   they have Hepatitis C."[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Mario Williams, Esq.
          Andrew R. Tate, Esq.
          NEXUS DERECHOS HUMANOS ATTORNEYS, INC.
          44 Broad Street, NW, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 254-0442
          Facsimile: (703) 935-2453
          E-mail: mwilliams@ndhlawyers.com
                  atate@ndhlawyers.com

HEALTH CARE: Judge Oks $3.75MM Deal to Settle Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
DM Herra, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a class
action suit alleging Health Care Service Corporation, the parent
company of health insurance behemoth Blue Cross Blue Shield,
improperly refused to pay for mental health services, has ended in
a $3.75 million settlement.

Federal Judge Virginia M. Kendall approved the final settlement on
Oct. 19, granting $1.125 million in fees to law firms Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP, Psych-Appeal Inc. and Miner, Barnhill & Galland P.C.
and $17,000 each to the lead plaintiffs, Landis Seger and her son,
identified in court documents as John Doe.

In their suit, Seger and Doe claimed HCSC used the criteria of
"medical necessity" as grounds to deny insurance claims for
residential mental health services. According to court documents,
the insurer was using outdated behavioral health guidelines that
allowed them to deny mental health services not deemed "medically
necessary." The plaintiffs alleged this violated the company's
responsibility under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act
and the Parity Act.

The plaintiffs argued that the criteria HCSC used to deny the
claims are inconsistent with generally accepted standards of care
and with the terms of insurance plans the company administered.
Generally accepted standards recognize residential treatment as a
viable option to treat chronic, long-term and subacute mental
health needs, they asserted.

The plaintiffs originally brought their case as part of a 2014
action, but their claims were severed from the others in that case
in 2016. Seger then filed a second amended complaint. The parties
said they reached an agreement in principle in late 2017 and
finalized it July 9.

In her order approving the settlement, Kendall also certified the
settlement class, defined as individuals whose claims for coverage
of residential mental health services were denied by HCSC between
July 30, 2011, and Dec. 15, 2016, on the grounds they were not
medically necessary.

Class members will split the settlement based on the number of days
each spent in residential treatment during the class period. A
formula will be applied to calculate the percentage of the award
that will be awarded to each class member based on either 12
treatment days or the number of denied non-overlapping treatment
days, whichever is greater.

According to the judge's order, notices were mailed to 1,281 class
members, eight of whom opted out of the settlement. If any of the
class members do not cash their settlement checks, after two
attempts to reach them the settlement administrator can withdraw
that person's share of the pot and set it aside in a residual fund.
If the residual fund exceeds $15,000 it will be evenly split among
the remaining class members; if it does not it will be donated to
the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

The settlement does not require HCSC to admit any wrongdoing and
cannot be used against the insurer. It also releases the company
from future claims on similar grounds brought by any of the class
members.[GN]


HECLA MINING: Bid to Consolidate Merger-Related Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hecla Mining Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that plaintiffs in the
cases captioned as, Nelson Baker v. Klondex Mines Ltd., et al. and
Lawson v. Klondex Mines Ltd., et al., each filed motions to
consolidate the remaining cases and be appointed lead plaintiff.

Following the announcement of the company's proposed acquisition of
Klondex Mines Ltd. (Klondex), Klondex and members of the Klondex
board of directors were named as defendants in five putative
stockholder class actions, brought by purported stockholders of
Klondex, challenging the proposed merger.

The lawsuits were all filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada, but only three cases remain, and they are
captioned: Gunderson v. Klondex Mines Ltd., et al., No.
3:18-cv-00256 (D. Nev. May 31, 2018); Nelson Baker v. Klondex Mines
Ltd., et al., No. 3:18-cv-00288 (D. Nev. June 15, 2018); and Lawson
v. Klondex Mines Ltd., et al., No. 3:18-cv-00284 (D. Nev. June 15,
2018).

The Gunderson complaint also named Hecla Mining Company and our
subsidiary now known as Klondex Mines Unlimited Liability Company
("Merger Sub") as defendants. The other two lawsuits were
subsequently dismissed.

The plaintiffs generally claim that Klondex issued a proxy
statement that included misstatements or omissions, in violation of
sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. The Gunderson complaint also asserts a claim that the
individual members of the Klondex board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and good faith by authorizing the
merger with Hecla for what the plaintiff asserts is inadequate
consideration, an inadequate process, and with inadequate
disclosures. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin the
merger, rescind the transaction or obtain rescissory damages if the
merger is consummated, and recover attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 21, 2018, Plaintiffs Baker and Lawson each filed
motions to consolidate the remaining cases and be appointed lead
plaintiff.

Hecla Mining said, "Although it is not possible to predict the
outcome of litigation matters with certainty, each of Klondex, its
directors, Hecla and Merger Sub believe that each of the lawsuits
are without merit, and the parties intend to vigorously defend
against all claims asserted."

Hecla Mining Company, together with its subsidiaries, discovers,
acquires, develops, and produces precious and base metal deposits
worldwide. The company offers zinc, lead, and bulk flotation
concentrates to custom smelters and brokers; and unrefined gold and
silver bullion bars to precious metals traders. Hecla Mining
Company was founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho.


HERMES LANDSCAPING: Court Stays Rodriguez Pending Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas issued
a Memorandum and Order granting Defendant's Motion to Stay
Proceedings in the case captioned ANTONIO CHAVEZ RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. HERMES LANDSCAPING, INC., Defendant. Case No.
17-2142-CM-KGG. (D. Kan.).

Now before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings
pending resolution of the Defendant's Petition to the Tenth Circuit
requesting interlocutory appeal.

This case was brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Kansas Wage Payment Act, and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law by three
Mexican nationals who came to the United States under temporary
foreign worker visa programs to work for Defendant.

The Defendant subsequently filed a Petition for Permission to
Appeal with the Tenth Circuit Court of appeals under Fed.R.Civ.P.
23(f).

The factors that regulate the issuance of a stay of a judgment or
an order pending appeal are (1) whether the stay applicant has made
a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits (2)
whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay (3)
whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other
parties interested in the proceeding and (4) where the public
interest lies.

As for the first of the four factors enumerated above, the
Defendant argues it is likely that the Tenth Circuit will hear his
appeal because the underlying Order from the District Court is
replete with manifest errors. Plaintiffs disagree, arguing that
granting of a petition for interlocutory review is  the exception
rather than the rule.

The next factor is whether the applicant will be irreparably
injured absent a stay. Defendant contends that if the September 6th
Order is modified or reversed following Tenth Circuit review,
substantial time and money will have been wasted notifying and
confusing putative class members, whom Plaintiffs have already
argued do not understand the United States' legal system.

The Plaintiffs respond that the harm is not irreparable and does
not outweigh the harm to them.  For instance, discovery and trial
preparation undertaken an anticipation of a class trial could still
be used by Defendant if the 10th Circuit were to agree to (1) hear
Defendant's appear and (2) overturn this Court's class decision in
full.

The Court finds that Defendant has established irreparable harm
absent a stay.

The Defendant next argues the final factor, that a stay is in the
public interest. The Defendant argues that the public is served by
a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution to the issues in this
case and that the stay is in the interests of judicial economy. In
response, the Plaintiffs merely contend that allowing the case to
proceed serves the public interest in prompt case resolution.

While both arguments have their merits, the Court finds that, on
balance, the Defendant has established the fourth factor.  The
public interest is best served by not requiring the Defendants to
incur significant costs that may in the end be unnecessary and
duplicative.

Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings is
granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 29, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya9gwfgp
from Leagle.com.

Antonio Chavez Rodriguez, Isaac Chavez Duarte, Jose Alfredo Soto
Servin, Eduardo Montaya Galicia, Eduardo Jiminez Hernandez, Jose
Calderon Gonzalez, Nestor Animas Arredondo & Ruben Calderon
Gonzalez, Plaintiffs, represented by Heather J. Schlozman --
heather@duganschlozman.com -- Dugan Schlozman LLC, Mark V. Dugan --
mark@duganschlozman.com -- Dugan Schlozman LLC & Patricia C.
Kakalec, Kakalec Law, PLLC, pro hac vice.

Oscar J Moreno, Plaintiff, represented by Heather J. Schlozman,
Dugan Schlozman LLC & Mark V. Dugan, Dugan Schlozman LLC.

Oscar J. Moreno, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia C. Kakalec,
Kakalec Law, PLLC, pro hac vice.

Hermes Landscaping, Inc., Defendant, represented by Justin M. Dean
-- justin.dean@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, PC & Patrick F. Hulla -- Patrick.hulla@ogletree.com --
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC.


HIGHGATE HOTELS: Bid to File Amended Henkel Deemed Not Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHELSEA HENKEL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HIGHGATE
HOTELS, LP, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-1435 (M.D. Pa.),
Judge Robert D. Mariani of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania (i) did not deem the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint Joining Additional
Plaintiffs filed Oct. 4, 2017 as withdrawn; (ii) expressed no
opinions on the merits of the Plaintiffs' Motion; and (iii) left
consideration of it and the Plaintiffs' outstanding Motion for
Conditional Certification for another time.

The Plaintiffs, employees of the Defendants at several
Pennsylvania-based resorts, bring various claims under federal and
state law, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, regarding
allegedly illegal conduct involving wages and gratuities owed to
the Plaintiffs, and also seek class action status.

Judg Mariani issues the Memorandum Opinion and accompanying Order
to address the Court's Nov. 15, 2017 Order to the Plaintiffs to
show cause why their Oct. 4, 2017 Motion should not be deemed to be
withdrawn, as the Plaintiffs did not file a brief in support of
their Motion pursuant to Middle District of Pennsylvania Local Rule
7.5, M.D. Pa. LR 7.5.  On Nov. 17, 2017, in accordance with the
Order to Show Cause, the Plaintiffs timely filed a Brief in Reply
to the Court's Order to Show Cause.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have shown cause for failure to
file a brief in support of their Motion.  First, the Plaintiffs are
correct in that the Defendants have not incurred any prejudice due
to the Plaintiffs' lack of filing a separate brief to their Motion,
and were able to file a detailed and complete opposition
notwithstanding.  Second, the Judge finds that issues of
fundamental fairness weigh in favor of not deeming the Motion
withdrawn.  Thus, he will not deem the Motion withdrawn.

Additionally, in an endeavor to provide clarity to the parties in
this matter, as well as future litigants who come before the Court,
regarding litigants' duties to comply with the Local Rules, the
Judge also writes to address several inaccurate statements and
faulty arguments presented in the Plaintiffs' Brief.  

In sum, the Judge holds that the purpose of a brief in support of a
motion is to provide the Court with detailed reasoning in support
of what is requested in the motion in order to aid the Court in
making an informed and reasoned analysis of the issues presented
and in developing a well-supported resolution of those issues.  The
Plaintiffs' sparse Motion does not do that.  The Plaintiffs, and
future litigants, are urged to consider that the Local Rules are in
place for a reason, to follow them, and not to rely on the mercy of
the Court when failing to abide by the simple and clear guidance
that they provide.

For the reasons he outlined, Judge Mariani did not deem the
Plaintiffs' Motion as withdrawn.  He expressed no opinions on the
merits of the Plaintiffs' Motion in the Memorandum Opinion, and
left consideration of it and the Plaintiffs' outstanding Motion for
Conditional Certification for another time.  A separate Order
follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 17, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/gseGJr from Leagle.com.

Chelsea Henkel, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Matthew J. Blit -- mblit@levineblit.com
-- Levine & Blit, PLLC & Russell S. Moriarty, LEVINE & BLIT, PLL.

Highgate Hotels, LP & Cove Haven Inc., Defendants, represented by
David B. Feldman -- david.feldman@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins
Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Donald D. Gamburg --
donald.gamburg@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, P.C., Evan B. Citron -- evan.citron@ogletree.com --
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart & William F. Birchfield --
frank.birchfield@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, PC.


HITACHI LTD: $49.8MM Settlement Reached in Canadian CRT Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP, Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman (CFM) and Siskinds
Desmeules s.e.n.c.r.l. disclosed court approval of a protocol for
the distribution of settlement funds in the Canadian CRT
price-fixing class action.  The class action, which was commenced
in 2008, alleges price-fixing in the market for cathode ray tubes
(CRT), an older technology that was used in televisions and
computer monitors.  

Settlements totalling $49.8 million have been reached with seven
defendant groups. The settled defendants do not admit any
wrongdoing or liability. The Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec
courts approved the settlements and a protocol for distribution of
settlement funds.   

"We are proud of the recovery obtained on behalf of class members,"
said Linda Visser of Siskinds LLP in London. "The court-approved
protocol we are announcing will allow eligible Canadians to recover
money they should have never been charged in the first place."  

Anyone who purchased CRT televisions and monitors (regardless of
the manufacturer or brand) in Canada between March 1995 and
November 2007 is eligible to claim settlement benefits. Individuals
can claim for a maximum of two undocumented purchases. It is
expected that all valid claims will receive a minimum payment of
$20. Claims can be filed online at www.crtclassactioncanada.ca on
or before March 1, 2019. More information about the settlements,
the distribution of settlement funds and the claims process can be
found online at www.crtclassactioncanada.ca or by calling the
claims administrator at 1-866-537-7270.
        
         Ontario:
         Linda J. Visser, Esq.
         Siskinds LLP
         680 Waterloo Street
         London, ON N6A 3V8
         Telephone: (519) 660-7700
         Website: www.siskinds.com
         Email: linda.visser@siskinds.com

         British Columbia:
         David G.A. Jones, Esq.
         Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman
         #400 - 856 Homer Street
         Vancouver, BC  V6B 2W5
         Telephone: 1-800-689-2322
         Email: djones@cfmlawyers.ca

         Quebec:
         Caroline Perrault, Esq.
         Siskinds Desmeules s.e.n.c.r.l.
         43, Rue de Buade, Bureau 320
         Québec City, QC G1R 4A2
         Telephone: 418-694-2009
         Email: caroline.perrault@siskindsdesmeules.com [GN]


HKA: Obtained Consumer Reports without Consent, Moorehead Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH MOORHEAD, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. HKA ENTERPRISES,
LLC, the Defendant, Case 3:18-cv-02490-L-LL (S.D. Cal., Oct. 30,
2018), seeks to recover damages and injnctive relief against
Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, HKA has obtained consumer reports
without proper authorization. HKA's failure to obtain the proper
and statutorily required consent or authorization triggers
statutory damages under the FCRA.

HKA willfully failed to comply with the FCRA's mandatory
pre-adverse action notification requirement twice: (1) it did not
send notice to Plaintiff until after it had already adjudicated his
background grade as "Fail," and (2) it did not provide Plaintiff a
copy of any report or written notice until after the decision had
been made not to extend him an employment offer or continue his
on-boarding process. Moreover, HKA failed to inform Plaintiff that
its adjudication of his status as "Fail" constituted an adverse
employment action, and that he would not be hired, the lawsuit
says.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Babak Semnar, Esq.
          Jared M. Hartman, Esq.
          SEMNAR & HARTMAN, LLP
          41707 Winchester Road, Suite 201
          Temecula, CA 92590
          Telephone: 951 293-4187
          Facsimile: 888 819-8230
          E-mail: Bob@SanDiegoConsumerAttorneys.com
                  Jared@SanDiegoConsumerAttorneys.com

               - and -

          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
          Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          Mwilson@meyerwilson.com
          Mboyle@meyerwilson.com
          1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: 614 224-6000
          Facsimile: 614 224-6066

HUAZHU GROUP: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Huazhu Group Limited.  If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  

Huazhu Group Limited (NASDAQ: HTHT)
Class Period: May 14, 2018 to August 28, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 7, 2018

According to the complaint, Huazhu Group Limited allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company lacked adequate security measures to
protect customer information; (2) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company would be susceptible to increased litigation risk and
higher expenses; (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
goodwill would potentially suffer, leading to lower revenues; and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Get additional information about the HTHT lawsuit:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/huazhu-group-limited-loss-submission-form?wire=3

         J. Klein, Esq.
         The Klein Law Firm
         Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue
         59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: (212) 616-4899
         Fax: (347) 558-9665
         Email: jk@kleinstocklaw.com [GN]


HUMAN CARE: Tokhtaman Wage & Hour Suit Remanded to NY State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs'
Motion to Remand the case captioned NINA TOKHTAMAN, individually
and on behalf: of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
HUMAN CARE, LLC, Defendant. No. 18-CV-5907 (VEC). (S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiff moves to remand the case back to state court and for
attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c).

Plaintiff Nina Tokhtaman sued Defendant Human Care LLC in state
court for unpaid wages, pursuant to the New York Labor Law (NYLL).
The Defendant has removed the case to this Court, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1446.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's claim necessarily
requires a determination of the effective date of the repeal of the
FLSA's companionship exemption in order to determine the extent of
the Plaintiff's damages for unpaid overtime.  In the Defendant's
view, the federal exemption is, therefore, an essential element of
the Plaintiff's claim. This argument fails, as it misconstrues the
definition of essential element. Regardless of whether a court will
necessarily need to determine an issue, if the issue must be
affirmatively raised by the defendant, then it is an affirmative
defense, not an essential element of the plaintiff's claim.

The Defendant also argues that this case was removable because it
raises a substantial federal question.  A state cause of action
that necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of
federal law may, in some circumstances, be removable to federal
court.

The Defendant's argument fails, however, because the substantial
question test does not alter the rule that a potential federal
defense is not enough to create federal jurisdiction. Because the
only federal issue in this case is the effective date of the repeal
of an exemption that may serve as an affirmative defense, the case
is not removable to federal court.

Additionally, a case may be removed on the basis of a substantial
federal question only if removal would not disrupt the
federal-state balance approved by Congress.  Although a narrow
federal question will need to be resolved in this case, the
effective date of the companionship exemption's repeal, the vast
majority of issues raised in this case are ordinary, state-law
wage-and-hour issues that the state courts capably handle every
day.

In addition to her claim for unpaid overtime, the Plaintiff has
sued for common law breach of contract, unpaid spread-of-hours
wages under the NYLL, and unpaid minimum wages under the NYLL none
of which are affected by the repeal of the companionship exemption.
This Court will not assert jurisdiction based on the presence of a
single question of federal law in a case that otherwise turns
entirely on matters of state law.

This case was not properly removed to this Court, and the
Plaintiff's motion for remand is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 29, 2018
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycnbscpc from Leagle.com.

Nina Tokhtaman, individually and on behalf of all others persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by LaDonna Marie Lusher
-- llusher@vandallp.com -- Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, Kara Sue
Miller -- kmiller@vandallp.com -- Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, Michele
A. Moreno -- mmoreno@vandallp.com -- Virginia & Ambinder, LLP &
Sumantra Tito Sinha, Urban Justice Center.

Human Care, LLC, Defendant, represented by Ira David Wincott --
ira@mllablorlaw.com -- Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC & Daniel
Sergio Gomez-Sanchez -- dsgomez@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson,
P.C..


ICONIX BRAND: Still Awaiting Court's OK on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Iconix Brand Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint in a
securities class action suit is still pending.

Three securities class actions have been consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
the caption In re Iconix Brand Group, Inc., et al., Docket No.
1:15-cv-4860, against the Company and certain former officers and
one current officer (the "Class Action").

The plaintiffs in the Class Action purport to represent a class of
purchasers of the Company's securities from February 22, 2012 to
November 5, 2015, inclusive, and claim that the Company and
individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, by making allegedly false and misleading statements
regarding certain aspects of the Company's business operations and
prospects.

On October 25, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint filed by the Company and the
individual defendants with leave to amend. On November 14, 2017,
the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On
February 2, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint.

Iconix Brand said, "The Company and the individual defendants
intend to vigorously defend against the claims. At this time, the
Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of these
matters."

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

Iconix Brand Group, Inc., a brand management company, owns,
licenses, and markets a portfolio of consumer brands across the
women's, men's, and home industries in the United States and
internationally. The company was formerly known as Candie's, Inc.
and changed its name to Iconix Brand Group, Inc. in July 2005.
Iconix Brand Group, Inc. was founded in 1978 and is based in New
York, New York.


ICU MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Saline Solution-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
ICU Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that plaintiffs in the
intravenous saline solution-related suit have filed a second
amended complaint adding new allegations in support of their
conspiracy claims and adding ICU as a defendant.

Beginning in November 2016, purported class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Pfizer, Inc. subsidiaries, Hospira, Inc., Hospira
Worldwide, Inc. and certain other defendants relating to the
intravenous saline solutions part of the Hospira Infusion Systems
(HIS) business.

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes consisting of all persons and
entities in the U.S. who directly purchased intravenous saline
solution sold by any of the defendants from January 1, 2013 until
the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceases.
Plaintiffs allege that U.S. manufacturer defendants conspired
together to restrict output and artificially fix, raise, maintain
and/or stabilize the prices of intravenous saline solution sold
throughout the U.S. in violation of federal antitrust laws.

Plaintiffs seek treble damages (for themselves and on behalf of the
putative classes) and an injunction against defendants for alleged
price overcharges for intravenous saline solution in the U.S. since
January 1, 2013.

On July 5, 2018, the District Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the operative complaint for failing to state a valid
antitrust claim, but is allowing plaintiff to file a second amended
complaint.

On September 6, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
adding new allegations in support of their conspiracy claims and
adding ICU as a defendant.

ICU Medical said, "On February 3, 2017, we completed the
acquisition of the HIS business from Pfizer. This litigation is the
subject of a claim for indemnification against us by Pfizer and a
cross-claim for indemnification against Pfizer by us under the HIS
stock and asset purchase agreement ("SAPA").


ICU Medical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells medical devices
used in vascular therapy, critical care, and oncology applications
worldwide. It offers infusion therapy products comprising a tube
running from a bottle or plastic bag containing a solution to a
catheter inserted in a patient's vein. ICU Medical, Inc. was
founded in 1984 and is headquartered in San Clemente, California.


IMPERVA INC: Settlement of 2 Suits for $2.4 Million Gets Initial OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Imperva, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that courts have
preliminarily approved the class settlements in two class action
lawsuits alleging Fair Credit Reporting Act claims and violation of
California wage and hour laws.

On August 25, 2017, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and others, alleging that current, former and
prospective employees are entitled to monetary damages for
violations of the notice provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (FCRA) and similar California laws governing background checks.


The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court for San Mateo County
and on September 29, 2017, the Company removed the action to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On
November 6, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the action.
On April 9, 2018, the court dismissed the complaint in its
entirety, with leave to amend as to some counts.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 10, 2018 asserting
a claim under the FCRA and no claims under similar California
laws.

On August 25, 2017, the same plaintiff filed a second purported
class action lawsuit against the company and others in the Superior
Court for San Mateo County, alleging, among other claims, violation
of California wage and hour laws regarding overtime, meal and rest
breaks, business expense reimbursement, accurate and complete
payroll records and commissions, and seeking unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  

The company filed an answer to the complaint on September 29, 2017.
On November 3, 2017, the plaintiff amended his complaint to assert
an additional representative Private Attorney General Act (PAGA)
claim against the Company. On December 6, 2017, we filed an answer
to the amended complaint.

In June 2018, through formal mediation, the parties reached an
agreement to settle both class action lawsuits. The parties agreed
to settle the two class action lawsuits for an aggregate amount of
$2.4 million. The respective courts have preliminarily approved the
class settlements. Notice of the settlements has been sent to the
respective settlement classes. The settlement amount of $2.4
million has been recorded in accrued and other current
liabilities.

Imperva, Inc. engages in the development, market, sale, and support
of cyber security solutions that protect business critical data and
applications in the cloud or on premises worldwide. The company was
founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Redwood Shores,
California.


INTERGLOBO NORTH: Court Flips Dismissal of Wage & Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, issued an
Opinion reversing the judgment of the District Court denying
Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration in the case captioned
RAYMOND VERAS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERGLOBO NORTH AMERICA,
INC., and INTERGLOBO LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendants-Respondents. No.
A-3313-16T1. (N.J. Super. App. Div.).

In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants
employed him and other members of the putative class as truck
drivers and/or deliverers for the defendants' freight forwarding
businesses. In response to the complaint, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, contending the plaintiff did not have standing
to sue, relying upon a June 2014 signed agreement between ILLLC and
the plaintiff's company, a Florida corporation formed in 2006, for
the services plaintiff alleged he provided as an employee of
defendant.

After considering the terms of the agreement, the motion judge
dismissed the complaint without prejudice after finding that the
matter was a contract dispute and that the plaintiff did not have
an individual right to assert his claims against the defendants.

On appeal, the plaintiff asserts that in dismissing his complaint,
the motion judge failed to appreciate that the wage laws upon which
the plaintiff relied were humanitarian pieces of legislation that
must be construed liberally. He also argued that by treating the
plaintiff's claims as a contract dispute, the motion judge failed
to apply the Supreme Court's holding in Hargrove v. Sleepy's LLC,
220 N.J. 289 (2015), relating to employment-status disputes.

The Court review a grant of a motion to dismiss a complaint for
failure to state a cause of action de novo, applying the same
standard under Rule 4:6-2(e) that governed the motion court.

Turning to the plaintiff's complaint, there was no dispute that it
stated sufficient facts that, if proven, established the
plaintiff's standing to pursue his claims as an employee under the
wage laws he specifically pled. In his complaint, the plaintiff
alleged that as part of his employment with the defendants, he was
assigned to perform non-exempt tasks in the trucking and delivery
of freight for the defendant. He alleged that the defendants
controlled the manner and means in which he performed his duties,
and that he worked from the defendants' Jersey City location,
received directions from the defendants and their employees, was
required to wear the defendants' companies' uniforms, and handled
paperwork and invoices with the defendants' customers. Moreover, he
was subject to the defendants' having the right to discipline and
even terminate plaintiff from his employment.

The Plaintiff argues that at this stage of the litigation, the mere
existence of the CLA should not be the basis for the dismissal of
his complaint. Citing to the Supreme Court's opinion in Hargrove,
the plaintiff contends that despite the agreement, he was the
defendants' employee as contemplated by the WHL and WPL. The
Defendants contend Hargrove is inapplicable because the plaintiffs
in that case individually signed an Independent Driver Agreement
(IDA) directly with the defendant, who classified them as
independent contractors. Here, the defendants contend that
plaintiff did not have the same individual relationship.

Under these circumstances, according to the defendants, courts may
not apply the test in Hargrove before determining who employed a
plaintiff. The Defendants contend that Hargrove's
contractor/employee inquiry would apply only to the plaintiff's
relationship with J&K because there is no question that company
employed plaintiff.

The Court disagrees.

The Defendants' contentions are factually and legally incorrect.

First, Hargrove included claims by some plaintiffs who, like
plaintiff here, entered into independent contractor agreements
through companies they owned or controlled.

Second, even under defendants' legal argument, the dismissal of
plaintiff's complaint at this stage, based solely on defendants'
contract with plaintiff's company, was premature because the
issue's resolution required additional evidence relating to
whether, despite his company's agreement, plaintiff was actually
employed by defendants for WHL and WPL purposes.

While the defendants recognize that if plaintiff individually
entered into an agreement with defendants, Hargrove would apply,
they argue that because plaintiff signed the agreement on behalf of
his company, he needed to first establish that defendants, as
compared to J&K, were his employers before a court could apply the
ABC test. Defendants contend that the economic realities test,
relied upon in unpublished federal court cases, applies to the
determination of who is the employer that is necessary before
considering whether an employee is an independent contractor. The
application of that test to WHL and WPL claims where an employer
argues that a claimant is an independent contractor was
specifically rejected by the Court in Hargrove, 220 N.J. at 310-12,
314-15.

However, even if the economic realities test applied, dismissal of
the complaint at this stage was not warranted based solely on the
CLA. The economic realities test is borrowed from the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act, which contains virtually identical definitions
of employer" and employee as the definitions in the WHL. Under the
economic realities test, courts must examine the totality of the
circumstances to determine whether the economic realities of the
situation indicate that an employment relationship existed.

Relevant factors include: (1) who hired and fired the workers, (2)
who controlled and supervised the workers, (3) who determined the
workers' salaries, and (4) who maintained the workers' employment
records. Courts have examined a range of other factors including
who furnished the workers' equipment, whether the workers received
benefits, and the intention of the parties.

Examination of any of these factors is fact-intensive, which is why
the question of a worker's employment status is a matter that is
often determined by trial judges and juries after considering all
of the evidence relating to the issue, not just the parties'
contract. It is rare for a court to determine a worker's status on
summary judgment after discovery is completed. It is even more
unlikely that the issue can be resolved on the pleadings alone.

Because the Court concludes that the Law Division's entry of the
order of dismissal was in error, the Court need not address
plaintiff's argument regarding the denial of his motion for
reconsideration.

Reversed and remanded.

A full-text copy of the Superior Court's October 29, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9c9tzrj from Leagle.com.

Ravi Sattiraju, argued the cause for appellant (The Sattiraju Law
Firm, PC, attorneys; Ravi Sattiraju, of counsel and on the briefs;
Anthony S. Almeida , on the briefs).

Francesco Di Pietro (Moses & Singer, LLP) of the New York bar,
admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for respondents (Moses &
Singer, LLP, attorneys; John V. Baranello , on the brief).


JEFFREY G. LERMAN: Court Narrows Claims in Raytman FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LIUDMILA RAYTMAN, individually, and on behalf of all
other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY G.
LERMAN, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 17 Civ. 9681 (KPF) (S.D. N.Y.),
Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended
complaint.

In October 2016, the Defendant sent Raytman a debt collection
letter.  That letter, according to the Plaintiff, attempted to
collect a debt that was not owed by the Plaintiff, in violation of
New York State Medicaid regulations.  The Plaintiff responded by
bringing claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA"), for false or misleading representations and unfair
practices, and under New York General Business Law ("GBL") Section
349 for deceptive practices, all related to the attempted debt
collection.

The Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a class action
complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, on or
about Oct. 16, 2017.  On Dec. 8, 2017, the Defendant removed the
case to federal court on the basis of federal question
jurisdiction.  On Jan. 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an amended
class action complaint alleging that Defendant had violated the
FDCPA and the GBL.

On Jan. 17, 2018, the Defendant submitted a letter to the Court
indicating its intention to move for dismissal of the case.  The
Court held a conference on March 2, 2018, during which it set a
briefing schedule for the Defendant's anticipated motion.  In
accordance with that schedule, the Defendant filed a motion to
dismiss along with supporting papers on April 13, 2018.  The
Plaintiff opposed the motion on May 22, 2018, and the Defendant
replied to Plaintiff's opposition submission on June 6, 2018.
Thereafter, the Plaintiff submitted a Notice of Recent Second
Circuit Authority on July 30, 2018, to which the Defendant
responded on Aug. 14, 2018.

Judge Failla granted in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss with
respect to the Plaintiff's GBL Section 349 claim and denied in part
with respect to the Plaintiff's FDCPA claims.

The Judge finds that (i) the Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that
the letter was misleading, in violation of Section 1692e, (ii) the
Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim under Section 1692 and does
not need to plead further allegations of unfairness or
unconscionability; and (iii) the collection of a debt that is not
legally enforceable is in violation of the FDCPA, and the Plaintiff
is therefore entitled to pursue her claim.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at Docket
Entry 19.  Per the Court's individual rules, the parties are
ordered to submit a case management plan on Nov. 8, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct 19, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/IidCWg from Leagle.com.

Liudmila Raytman, Individually, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
Zemel -- dz@zemellawHc.com -- Zemel Law.

Jeffrey G. Lerman, P.C., Defendant, represented by Brett A. Scher
-- bscher@kdvlaw.com -- Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck LLP & Adam
Matthew Marshall -- amarshall@kdvlaw.com -- Kaufman Dolowich &
Voluck LLP.


JENKINS WAGNON: Partial Summary Judgment Entered in Cordova Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSHUA CORDOVA, on his own behalf, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JODY JENKINS and
JENKINS, WAGNON & YOUNG, P.C., Defendants, Civ. No. 16-460KG/KBM
(D. N.M.), Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Mexico granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's
Claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and
the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act ("UPA"), filed on Jan. 10,
2018.

On June 16, 2014, attorney Jody Jenkins filed suit in Second
Judicial District Court in the County of Bernalillo, New Mexico on
behalf of debt buyer Autovest, L.L.C. against Cordova and his
father.  The Lawsuit arose from an auto loan that the Plaintiff and
his father signed with Wells Fargo in 2006 to finance the purchase
of a motor vehicle.  

The complaint in the Lawsuit alleged that Autovest was the owner
and holder of the auto loan contract, having acquired it from Wells
Fargo.  It further alleged that the Plaintiff defaulted on the auto
loan and, as a result, the Plaintiff was indebted to Autovest.

According to the Plaintiff, his sister was supposed to pay the loan
because she was the primary driver of the vehicle, but she failed
to do so and the vehicle was repossessed before the Plaintiff knew
she had stopped making payments.  The Plaintiff knew Autovest had
filed the Lawsuit against him to recover the debt he owed, but just
never took any action to clear it up.

Throughout the Lawsuit, neither the Plaintiff nor his father filed
responsive pleadings, the State District Court did not hold any
hearings, and Defendant Jenkins did not make any court appearances.
Subsequently, Defendant Jenkins filed a one-page Motion for
Default Judgment on behalf of Autovest, to which he attached a
signed and notarized "Itemized Affidavit in Support of Attorney's
Fees."

The Fee Affidavit sought attorney's fees for the hours Defendants
Jenkins and his law firm, Jenkins, Wagnon, and Young, P.C.
("Defendant JWY") spent on the Lawsuit under the lodestar method.
The Defendants sought a total of $1,062.50 in attorney's fees and a
total amount of court costs of $268.70.

On Oct. 30, 2014, the State District Court granted Autovest's
Motion for Default Judgment.  It also awarded the Defendants
$934.68 in attorney's fees, with gross receipts tax included, which
represented 15% of the debt as authorized by the loan agreement.
The Plaintiff, as of the date of completion of briefing on the
Motion, has not paid any portion of the default judgment, including
the attorney's fees that the State District Court awarded
Defendants.

The Plaintiff subsequently filed a Class Action Complaint for
Damages in State District Court on Oct. 29, 2015.  The Defendants
were not served with the Complaint until April 21, 2016, and the
Defendants removed the case to federal court on May 20, 2016.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jenkins and
Defendant JWY submitted fraudulent attorney fee affidavits in their
New Mexico debt collection cases, including in the Lawsuit,
resulting in hundreds of inflated judgments against the Plaintiff
and other New Mexico residents.  He alleged violations of the FDCPA
(Count I) and UPA (Count II), and asserted that the Defendants
committed malicious abuse of process (Count III) and unjust
enrichment (Count V).

The matter comes before the Court upon the Defendants' Motion.  The
Plaintiff responded on Feb. 14, 2018, and the Defendants filed
their Reply on March 15, 2018.

Having considered the Motion, the accompanying briefing, and the
relevant evidence, Judge Gonzales (i) granted in part the
Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; (ii) entered
summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on the Plaintiff's
FDCPA claim (Count I); (ii) dismissed with prejudice the FDCPA
claim (Count I); (iii) declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Counts II, III, and V; and (iv) vacated the Order
of Remand.

Among other things, the Judge declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Counts II, III, and V.  He noted that the
Defendants also contend that the Court has diversity jurisdiction
over the case.  It is unclear how the required amount in
controversy is satisfied, and, thus, he allowed additional briefing
on that issue.

The Defendants may submit additional briefing regarding the amount
in controversy for the case.  If they determine to file additional
briefing, it will do so no later than Nov. 2, 2018.  The Plaintiff
may file his Response no later than Nov. 16, 2018, and the
Defendants may file their Reply no later than Nov. 27, 2018.  The
Defendants will comply with D.N.M.LR-Civ. 10.5, which states that
exhibits to a motion, response, or reply, including excerpts from a
deposition, must not exceed a total of 50 pages, unless all parties
agree otherwise.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct 19, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/0TgDQF from Leagle.com.

Joshua Cordova, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas H. Mattison
-- nmattison@swcp.com -- Feferman & Warren & Richard N. Feferman --
rfeferman@msn.com -- Feferman Warren Mattison.

Jody Jenkins & Jenkins, Wagnon & Young, P.C., Defendants,
represented by Abigail M. Yates -- ayates@rodey.com -- Rodey,
Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A., Leslie McCarthy Apodaca --
lapodaca@rodey.com -- Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb & Charles
J. Vigil -- cvigil@rodey.com --  Rodey Dickson Sloan Akin & Robb,
P.A..


JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a class action has
been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Jianpu Technology Inc.
(NYSE:JT) American Depositary Shares ("ADS") in and/or traceable to
the Company's initial public offering (the "IPO") on or about
November 16, 2017. This action was filed in the Southern District
of New York and is captioned Panther Partners Inc. v. Jianpu
Technology Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-9848.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Jianpu ADS in and/or traceable to the
Company's IPO on or about November 16, 2017 to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy
of the complaint as filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/jianpu/.

The complaint charges Jianpu, certain of its officers and
directors, its parent company and the underwriters of the IPO with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Jianpu operates an
on-line platform under the brand name "Rong360" in the People's
Republic of China. The Company's revenues are primarily generated
from fees paid by financial service providers for loan
recommendation services.

On October 20, 2017, Jianpu filed with the SEC a Form F-1
Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") for the IPO,
which was declared effective by the SEC on November 15, 2017. On
November 17, 2017, Jianpu filed with the SEC a prospectus for the
IPO (the "Prospectus"), which forms part of the Registration
Statement. Jianpu sold 22.5 million ADS at $8.00 per share in the
IPO, raising net proceeds of approximately $164.9 million.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus for the IPO contained inaccurate statements of material
fact and/or omitted material information required to be disclosed
in order to make such statements not misleading. Specifically, the
Registration Statement and Prospectus failed to disclose, among
other things, that the China Banking Regulatory Commission and
three other Chinese regulators had issued rules in August 2016
requiring peer-to-peer ("P2P") lending companies to, among other
things, appoint qualified banking institutions as custodians and
disclose their use of deposits, and that China had determined to
create the Financial Stability and Development Committee ("FSDC")
under its State Council to coordinate major financial reforms, as
well as to implement market regulation and monetary and industrial
policy, all of which would likely result in the disqualification of
a significant majority of P2P lenders in China resulting in a
dramatic reduction in the total number of existing, as well as
potential, financial service providers that had been the primary
source of Jianpu's revenue.

On November 21, 2017, just two business days after the IPO, several
new sources disclosedthat the FSDC had issued an urgent notice to
provincial governments urging them to suspend regulatory approval
of new internet micro-loan companies. Thereafter, the price of
Jianpu ADS fell more than 38% during the three-day period ended
November 24, 2017, to close at $4.90 per ADS.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Jianpu ADS in and/or traceable to the Company's IPO on or about
November 16, 2017 (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by
Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting
investor class actions including actions involving financial
fraud.

         Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
         David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Telephone: 800-449-4900
         Website: www.rgrdlaw.com
         Email: djr@rgrdlaw.com
                SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
                DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Scott+Scott Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), a national
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, is notifying
investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Jianpu
Technology Inc. ("Jianpu" or the "Company") (NYSE: JT) and other
defendants, related to alleged violations of federal securities
laws.  If you purchased Jianpu American Depository Shares ("ADS")
in and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering (the
"IPO") on or about November 16, 2017, you are encouraged to contact
a Scott+Scott attorney at (844) 818-6982 for more information.

Jianpu is a Chinese fintech company (termed the "Bankrate of
China") that primarily generates revenue though a mobile platform
that recommends loans underwritten by Chinese subprime lenders,
such as Qudian Inc. ("Qudian"), PPDAI Group Inc. ("PPDAI"), and
others.  

Jianpu held its IPO on November 16, 2017, at $8.00 per share.  Just
two business days later, on November 21, 2017, Chinese regulators
issued an administrative order banning the issuance of new online
peer-to-peer lending licenses, citing improper and illegal
practices by typical Jianpu lenders such as Qudian and PPDAI,
including extremely high-interest rates, illegal collections, and
lack of risk management.

On this news, the price of Jianpu ADS dropped over 33%, from a
close of $7.40 per share on November 20, 2017 down to a close of
$4.90 per share on Nov. 24, 2017.

What You Can Do

If you purchased Jianpu ADS in and/or traceable to the Company's
IPO on or about November 16, 2017, or if you have questions about
this notice or your legal rights, please contact attorney Joe
Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982, or at jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.  The
lead plaintiff deadline is December 24, 2018.

         Joe Pettigrew, Esq.
         Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
         230 Park Ave, 17 Fl, NY
         NY 10169-1820
         Telephone: (844) 818-6982
         Email: jpettigrew@scott-scott.com[GN]


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 2 Hip Resurfacing System Suits in Canada Settled
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the Company has
reached agreements to settle two pending class actions involving
ASR(TM) XL Acetabular System and DePuy AS(TM) Hip Resurfacing
System, which have been approved by the Quebec Superior Court and
the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

In August 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (DePuy) announced a
worldwide voluntary recall of its ASR(TM) XL Acetabular System and
DePuy AS(TM) Hip Resurfacing System used in hip replacement
surgery. Claims for personal injury have been made against DePuy
and Johnson & Johnson.

The number of pending lawsuits is expected to fluctuate as certain
lawsuits are settled or dismissed and additional lawsuits are
filed. Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been
organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Litigation has
also been filed in countries outside of the United States,
primarily in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Ireland,
Germany and Italy.

In November 2013, DePuy reached an agreement with a Court-appointed
committee of lawyers representing ASR Hip System plaintiffs to
establish a program to settle claims with eligible ASR Hip patients
in the United States who had surgery to replace their ASR Hips,
known as revision surgery, as of August 31, 2013. DePuy reached
additional agreements in February 2015 and March 2017, which
further extended the settlement program to include ASR Hip patients
who had revision surgeries after August 31, 2013 and prior to
February 15, 2017. This settlement program has resolved more than
10,000 claims, therefore bringing to resolution significant ASR Hip
litigation activity in the United States.

However, lawsuits in the United States remain, and the settlement
program does not address litigation outside of the United States.
In Australia, a class action settlement was reached that resolved
the claims of the majority of ASR Hip patients in that country.

In Canada, the Company has reached agreements to settle two pending
class actions which have been approved by the Quebec Superior Court
and the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The British Columbia
order is currently the subject of an appeal.

The Company continues to receive information with respect to
potential additional costs associated with this recall on a
worldwide basis. The Company has established accruals for the costs
associated with the United States settlement program and DePuy
ASR(TM) Hip-related product liability litigation.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. Johnson & Johnson was founded in 1885 and is
based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend INVOKANA(R)-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend class action lawsuits involving INVOKANA(R).

Claims for personal injury have been made against a number of
Johnson & Johnson companies, including Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, arising out of the use of INVOKANA(R),
a prescription medication indicated to improve glycemic control in
adults with Type 2 diabetes.

Lawsuits filed in federal courts in the United States have been
organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Cases have also been filed in state courts in Pennsylvania,
California and New Jersey. Class action lawsuits have been filed in
Canada. Product liability lawsuits continue to be filed, and the
Company continues to receive information with respect to potential
costs and the anticipated number of cases.

The Company has settled or otherwise resolved many of the cases and
claims in the United States and the costs associated with these
settlements are reflected in the Company's accruals.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. Johnson & Johnson was founded in 1885 and is
based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend XARELTO(R)-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend class action lawsuits related to XARELTO(R).

Claims for personal injury arising out of the use of XARELTO(R), an
oral anticoagulant, have been made against Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (JPI); Johnson & Johnson; and JPI's collaboration partner for
XARELTO(R) Bayer AG and certain of its affiliates.

The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to
increase, and the Company continues to receive information with
respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases.
Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been
organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

In addition, cases have been filed in state courts across the
United States. Many of these cases have been consolidated into a
state mass tort litigation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and there
are coordinated proceedings in Delaware, California and Missouri.
Class action lawsuits also have been filed in Canada.

Johnson & Johnson said, "The Company has established an accrual for
defense costs only in connection with product liability litigation
associated with XARELTO(R).

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. Johnson & Johnson was founded in 1885 and is
based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Ongoing in McNeil Medicine Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that discovery is
ongoing in the putative class action suit related to the various
McNeil PPC, Inc.(now known as Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.)
over-the-counter products

In April 2016, a putative class action was filed against Johnson &
Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Sales and Logistics Company, LLC and
McNeil PPC, Inc. (now known as Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.) in
New Jersey Superior Court, Camden County on behalf of persons who
reside in the state of New Jersey who purchased various McNeil
over-the-counter products from December 2008 through the present.

The complaint alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act. Following the grant of a motion to dismiss and the filing of
an amended complaint, in May 2017, the Court denied a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

Discovery is underway.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. Johnson & Johnson was founded in 1885 and is
based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Defends Remicade Antitrust Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that beginning in
September 2017, multiple purported class actions were filed against
Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (collectively Janssen)
alleging that Janssen's REMICADE(R) contracting strategies violated
federal and state antitrust and consumer laws and seeking damages
and injunctive relief.

In November 2017, the cases were consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania as In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation.

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

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. Johnson & Johnson was founded in 1885 and is
based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Verdicts in PINNACLE(R)  Suits Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that several adverse
verdicts that have been rendered against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.,
in relation to PINNACLE(R) Acetabular Cup System suits are
currently being appealed.

Claims for personal injury have also been made against DePuy and
Johnson & Johnson (collectively, DePuy) relating to the PINNACLE(R)
Acetabular Cup System used in hip replacement surgery.

The number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to
increase, and the Company continues to receive information with
respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases.

Cases filed in federal courts in the United States have been
organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Litigation has
also been filed in some state courts and in countries outside of
the United States.

Several adverse verdicts have been rendered against DePuy, which
are currently being appealed. The Company has established an
accrual for defense costs only in connection with product liability
litigation associated with the PINNACLE® Acetabular Cup System.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. Johnson & Johnson was founded in 1885 and is
based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JULEP BEAUTY: Bunting Files Suit in NY Asserting ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Julep Beauty, Inc.
The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Julep Beauty, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06296 (E.D.
N.Y., Nov. 6, 2018).

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

Julep Beauty, Inc. operates as an ecommerce beauty products
company. It also offers beauty, makeup, skincare, body, and hair
care, as well as nail, hand, and foot care products. In addition,
the company operates boutique nail salons. It sells its products
online, as well as through stores. The company was formerly known
as Julep Nail Parlor Company and changed its name to Julep Beauty,
Inc. in December 2006.[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


MAIDEN REST: Faces Delacruz ADA Class Action
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maiden Rest LLC. The
case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Maiden Rest LLC doing
business as: Industry Kitchen, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10313
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 6, 2018).

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

Industry Kitchen is located along the East River next to the
historic South Street Seaport. The restaurant which is a 5,000
square-foot venue accommodates up to 300 guests with indoor and
outdoor seating, allowing views of the Brooklyn and Williamsburg
Bridges and Brooklyn Skyline. Industry Kitchen offers modern
American cuisine based on seasonal market ingredients and simply
prepared dishes that New Yorkers know.[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


MASIMO CORP: 11th Cir. Affirms Decision in Alabama Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 29, 2018, that the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the decision of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

On January 31, 2014, an amended putative class action complaint was
filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama by and on behalf of two participants
in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized
Trial at the University of Alabama. On April 21, 2014, a further
amended complaint was filed adding a third participant.

The complaint alleges product liability and negligence claims in
connection with pulse oximeters the Company modified and provided
at the request of study investigators for use in the trial. On
August 13, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama granted summary judgment in favor of the Company on all
claims. The plaintiffs appealed the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama's decision.

The appellate hearing before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
was held on December 13, 2016. On March 3, 2018, the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

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

Masimo Corporation, a medical technology company, develops,
manufactures, and markets noninvasive monitoring technologies
worldwide.  The company was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Irvine, California.


MASIMO CORP: Bid for Class Certification Due Feb. 4
---------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 29, 2018, that the deadline for
Physicians Healthsource, Inc. to file its motion for class
certification is February 4, 2019.

On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. (PHI). The
complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005
and related regulations.

The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged violation, treble damages
if the District Court finds the alleged violations to be knowing,
plus interest, costs and injunctive relief.

On April 14, 2014, the Company filed a motion to stay the case
pending a decision on a related petition filed by the Company with
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). On May 22, 2014, the
District Court granted the motion and stayed the case pending a
ruling by the FCC on the petition. On October 30, 2014, the FCC
granted some of the relief and denied some of the relief requested
in the Company's petition. Both parties appealed the FCC's decision
on the petition.

On November 25, 2014, the District Court granted the parties' joint
request that the stay remain in place pending a decision on the
appeal. On March 31, 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
vacated and remanded the FCC's decision, holding that the
applicable FCC rule was unlawful to the extent it requires opt-out
notices on solicited faxes. On April 28, 2017, PHI filed a petition
seeking rehearing by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals denied the requested rehearing on June 6,
2017.

The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the
United States Supreme Court on September 5, 2017 seeking review of
the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision. The Company and the
FCC filed oppositions to this petition on January 16, 2018. On
February 20, 2018, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. The
District Court lifted the stay on April 9, 2018 and set a trial
date of November 5, 2019. The deadline for PHI to file its motion
for class certification is February 4, 2019.

Masimo said, "The Company believes it has good and substantial
defenses to the claims in the District Court litigation, but there
is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. The Company is
unable to determine whether any loss will ultimately occur or to
estimate the range of such loss; therefore, no amount of loss has
been accrued by the Company in the accompanying condensed
consolidated financial statements.

Masimo Corporation, a medical technology company, develops,
manufactures, and markets noninvasive monitoring technologies
worldwide.  The company was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Irvine, California.


MCKESSON CORP: Bleichmar Fonti Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP filed a class action lawsuit on behalf
of a class (the "Class") consisting of persons and entities that
acquired McKesson Corporation ("McKesson" or the "Company")
(NYSE:MCK) common stock between October 24, 2013 and January 25,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case was filed in the
Northern District of California and is captioned Evanston Police
Pension Fund v. McKesson, No. 3:18-cv-06525.

McKesson delivers pharmaceutical and medical products and business
services to retail pharmacies and institutional healthcare
providers such as hospitals and health systems throughout North
America and internationally. The majority of its income is derived
from its business as a pharmaceutical wholesaler in which it
purchases drugs in bulk directly from manufacturers and then sells
and distributes those drugs to pharmacy networks, hospitals, and
independent pharmacies.

The Complaint asserts claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against McKesson, its Chief Executive Officer
("CEO") John H. Hammergren, and its former Chief Financial Officer
("CFO") James Beer.

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) McKesson and several of its industry peers colluded to
fix the price of certain generic drugs; (ii) the collusive conduct
constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws; (iii)
consequently, McKesson's revenues during the Class Period were, in
part, the result of illegal conduct and were therefore
unsustainable; (iv) McKesson lacked effective internal controls
over financial reporting; and (v) as a result, McKesson's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you are a member of the Class, you may move the Court no later
than 60 days from the date of this notice, to serve as Lead
Plaintiff.

         Joseph A. Fonti, Esq.
         Wilson M. Meeks, Esq.
         Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, LLP
         7 Times Square, 27th Floor
         New York, NY 10036
         Telephone: (212) 789-1340
         Website: www.bfalaw.com/
         Email: wmeeks@bfalaw.com
                jfonti@bfalaw.com [GN]


MDL 2724: Court Narrows Claims in Generic Pharma Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: IN RE: CLOBETASOL CASES All
Direct Purchaser, End-Payer, and Indirect Reseller Actions IN RE:
DIGOXIN CASES All Direct Purchaser, End-Payer, and Indirect
Reseller Actions IN RE: DIVALPROEX ER CASES All Direct Purchaser,
End-Payer, and Indirect Reseller Actions IN RE: DOXYCYCLINE CASES
All Direct Purchaser, End-Payer, and Indirect Reseller Actions IN
RE: ECONAZOLE CASES All Direct Purchaser, End-Payer, and Indirect
Reseller Actions IN RE: PRAVASTATIN CASES All Direct Purchaser,
End-Payer, and Indirect Reseller Actions, Case Nos. MDL 2724,
16-MD-2724, Nos. 16-CB-27240, 16-CB-27241, 16-CB-27242,
16-CB-27243, Nos 16-DG-27240, 16-DG-27241,16-DG-27242, 16-DG-27243,
Nos. 16-DV-27240, 16-DV-27241,16-DV-27242, 16-DV-27243, Nos.
16-DX-27240, 16-DV-27241,16-DX-27242, 16-DX-27243, Nos.
16-EC-27240, 16-EC-27241,16-EC-27242, 16-EC-27243, Nos.
16-PV-27240, 16-PV-27241,16-PV-27242, 16-PV-27243 (E.D. Pa.), Judge
Cynthia M. Rufe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
joint and individual motions to dismiss the Sherman Act claims in
the operative consolidated class action complaints brought on
behalf of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPPs"), the End-Payer
Plaintiffs ("EPPs"), and the Indirect-Reseller Plaintiffs ("IRPs")
with respect to the following drugs: (1) clobetasol; (2) digoxin;
(3) divalproex ER; (4) doxycycline; (5) econazole; and (6)
pravastatin ("Group 1 drugs").

The multidistrict antitrust litigation alleges that certain
pharmaceutical companies engaged in an unlawful scheme or schemes
to fix, maintain and stabilize prices, rig bids, and engage in
market and customer allocations of certain Generic pharmaceutical
products.  The Defendants are alleged to have engaged in conduct
that subverted the operation of a competitive marketplace for
Generic pharmaceuticals.

The Class Plaintiffs contend the Defendants engaged in
anticompetitive conduct that was part of a larger conspiracy or
series of conspiracies involving many Generic pharmaceutical
manufacturers and many Generic pharmaceuticals.  Group 1 DPPs
specifically allege the Defendants and co-conspirators engaged in
an overarching anticompetitive scheme in the market for each Group
1 drug to artificially inflate prices through unlawful agreements.

In support of their claims, Group 1 DPPs' complaints include
allegations based on information made public during ongoing
government investigations of Defendants and other Generic
pharmaceutical companies for alleged unlawful price-fixing and
other conduct in the Generic pharmaceutical industry and Group 1
EPPs and IRPs contend these investigations have uncovered the
existence of a broad, well-coordinated and long-running series of
schemes to fix the prices and allocate markets for a number of
Generic pharmaceuticals in the United States.

Judge Rufe considers Group 1 Defendants' joint motions to dismiss
the Sherman Act claims by the Group 1 Plaintiffs and, to the extent
they pertain to Group 1 Plaintiffs' Sherman Act claims, the pending
motions to dismiss: (1) DPPs' clobetasol claims by Actavis, the
Hi-Tech Defendants, Perrigo, and Wockhardt; (2) DPPs' digoxin
claims by Impax, the Mylan Defendants, Par, and West-Ward; (3)
DPPs' divalproex ER claims by Dr. Reddy's, the Mylan Defendants,
and Zydus; (4) DPPs' doxycycline claims by Actavis, Mayne, the
Mylan Defendants, Par, and West-Ward; (5) DPPs' econazole claims by
Teligent; and (6) DPPs' pravastatin claims by Dr. Reddy's,
Glenmark, and Sandoz.

Among other things, the Judge finds that viewed in the context of
the timing of Teligent's econazole price increases (which are
alleged to have peaked several months after those instituted by
either Perrigo or Taro) and given the absence of any allegation
that Teligent has received a subpoena or has been specifically
touched by a government investigation, she finds that econazole
Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that Teligent had an
opportunity to conspire with the other econazole Defendants.  The
Econazole Plaintiffs' claims against Teligent will be dismissed
with leave to amend.

She also finds that Group 1 Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
that there is a plausible link between the federal and state
investigations, the alleged Doxy DR conspiracy, and Group 1
Defendants' conduct with respect to the other Group 1 drugs such
that they may rely on the investigations and the guilty pleas as
plus factors in support of their Sherman Act claims.  Whether the
connections between the guilty pleas, the government
investigations, and each Defendant will be proven on summary
judgment is a question that remains, but more is not required to
permit the Court to consider them at this stage of the litigation.

To the extent that the Court has been asked to analyze the issue of
antitrust standing on a motion to dismiss, the Judge analysis falls
under the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard governing motions to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).  She is also mindful of the Third
Circuit's caveat that antitrust standing is more properly viewed as
an element of an antitrust claim that can be resolved at summary
judgment.  At this stage of the litigation, she finds that the
allegations of the EPPs and the IRPs are sufficient to plead that
they have suffered harm that is an essential component of
Defendants' anticompetitive scheme, as opposed to an ancillary
byproduct of it.  Further discovery is warranted before Defendants
can show that the losses alleged by EPPs and IRPs are not merely
byproducts of the anticompetitive effects of the restraints
alleged.  She declines to dismiss the Sherman Act claims of the
EPPs and IRPs for want of antitrust standing.

The Judge granted Teligent's motion to dismiss Group 1 Plaintiffs'
Sherman Act claims because econazole Plaintiffs have not
sufficiently alleged that it engaged in parallel conduct, and did
so without prejudice to econazole Plaintiffs' ability to seek the
Court's leave to amend their claims against Teligent.  She
otherwise concluded that Group 1 Plaintiffs' claims under Section 1
of the Sherman Act are sufficient to withstand dismissal, and
denied the motions to dismiss Group 1 Plaintiffs' Sherman Act
claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 16, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/EIRHJu from Leagle.com.

DEFENSE LIAISON COUNSEL, Defendant, represented by CHUL PAK --
cpak@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI PC, JAN P. LEVINE
-- levinej@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, LAURA S. SHORES --
laura.shores@arnoldporter.com -- ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP,
SAUL P. MORGENSTERN -- saul.morgenstern@arnoldporter.com -- ARNOLD
& PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP & SHERON KORPUS -- skorpus@kasowitz.com
-- KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP.

DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS PSC, Plaintiffs, represented by DAVID
F. SORENSEN -- dsorensen@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C., DIANNE
M. NAST -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NASTLAW LLC, LINDA P. NUSSBAUM --
lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com -- NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP PC, MICHAEL L.
ROBERTS -- mlr@alabamatortlaw.com -- ROBERTS LAW FIRM, ROBERT N.
KAPLAN -- rkaplan@kaplanfox.com -- KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP,
THOMAS M. SOBOL -- tom@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP & ROBERTA D. LIEBENBERG -- mail@finekaplan.com -- FINE, KAPLAN
AND BLACK.

END-PAYER PLAINTIFFS PSC, Plaintiffs, represented by ADAM J. ZAPALA
-- azapala@cpmlegal.com -- COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP, BONNY
SWEENEY -- bsweeney@hausfeld.com -- HAUSFELD LLP, DENA C. SHARP --
Dena Sharp -- GIRARD GIBBS LLP, ELIZABETH JOAN CABRASER --
ecabraser@lchb.com -- LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP,
GREGORY S. ASCIOLLA -- gasciolla@labaton.com -- LABATON SUCHAROW
LLP, HEIDI M SILTON -- hmsilton@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL
NAUEN PLLP, JAMES R. DUGAN, II, THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, JAYNE A.
GOLDSTEIN, SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP, JOSEPH R. SAVERI
-- jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, MICHAEL M.
BUCHMAN -- mbuchman@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC & MINDEE J.
REUBEN -- mreuben@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC.

INDIRECT RESELLERS PSC, Plaintiffs, represented by DANIEL S. MASON,
FURTH SALEM MASON & LI LLP, ELIZABETH TIPPING --
info@nealharwell.com -- NEAL & HARWELL, PLC, FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA
-- fos@scarpullalaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA &
JONATHAN W. CUNEO -- jonc@cuneolaw.com -- CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA
LLP.

INDIRECT RESELLERS PSC, plaintiffs represented by DON BARRETT --
donbarrettpa@gmail.com -- BARRETT LAW OFFICES.

STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL, Plaintiffs, represented by W. JOSEPH
NIELSEN, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, LAURA JOHNSON MARTELLA,
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, MAX M. MILLER, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF IOWA, ROBERT L. HUBBARD, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK,
TIMOTHY M. FRASER, FL OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & WADE ELLIS
BEAVERS, OFFICE OF THE NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL.

DAVID H. MARION, Special Master, pro se.

BRUCE P. MERENSTEIN, Special Master, pro se.

LINDA D. PERKINS, Special Master, pro se.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor, represented by ANDREW J.
EWALT, U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE, ELLEN R. CLARKE, U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE,
JAY OWEN, U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE, JOSEPH C. FOLIO, III, U.S. DEPT OF
JUSTICE & RYAN J. DANKS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANTITTRUST
DIVISION.


MDL 2862: Bryn Hill vs. BASF over Isocyanate Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRYN HILL INDUSTRIES, INC. on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BASF SE; BASF CORP.; BAYER
AG; BAYER CORP., COVESTRO AG; COVESTRO LLC; DOWDUPONT INC.; DOW
CHEMICAL CO.; HUNTSMAN CORP.; HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL LLC.; LANXESS
AG, LANXESS CO.; MCNS POLYURETHANES USA INC.; MITSUI CHEMICALS,
INC.; MITSUI CHEMICALS AMERICA, INC.; MITSUI CHEMICALS & SKC
POLYURETHANES, INC.; WANHUA CHEMICAL GROUP CO., LTD.; WANHUA
CHEMICAL (AMERICA) CO. LTD.; WANHUA CHEMICAL US HOLDING, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-07852, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) on
Oct. 25, 2018. The Western District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01453-DWA-LPL to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Donetta W. Ambrose.

The Bryn Hill case is being consolidated with MDL 2862 in re:
DIISOCYANATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
Oct. 3, 2018. The MDL Panel held that these actions involve common
questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions share complex
factual questions arising from allegations that defendants engaged
in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of
methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) and toluene diisocyanate
(TDI) sold in the United States, from early 2015 or 2016 through
the present, including through 3 agreements to limit supply of MDI
and TDI through planned manufacturing shutdowns at plants worldwide
and implementing coordinated price increases. The record indicates
that discovery is likely to be international in scope and will
include a significant number of nonparties. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings, especially with respect to class certification and Daubert
motions; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel
and the judiciary.

In its Oct. 3 Order, the MDL Panel concluded that the Western
District of Pennsylvania is an appropriate transferee forum. One
defendant has its U.S. headquarters in this district, and five
other defendants have their headquarters in adjacent or nearby
districts. Relevant documents and witnesses therefore are likely to
be located in or close to this area. Nearly all responding
defendants agree that the Western District of Pennsylvania is an
appropriate venue, along with plaintiffs in one action on the
motion and one potential tag-along action. Judge Donetta W. Ambrose
is an experienced transferee judge with the ability and willingness
to manage this litigation efficiently.  The Panel is confident she
will steer this matter on a prudent course.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
          Arun Subramanian, Esq.
          Seth Ard, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32 nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 336-3330
          Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
          E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
                  asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com
                  sard@susmangodfrey.com

MDL 2862: Isaac Indus. vs. BASF over Isocyanate Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
ISAAC INDUSTRIES, INC., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BASF SE; BASF CORP.; BAYER
AG; BAYER CORP., COVESTRO AG; COVESTRO LLC; DOWDUPONT INC.; DOW
CHEMICAL CO.; HUNTSMAN CORP.; HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL LLC.; LANXESS
AG, LANXESS CO.; MCNS POLYURETHANES USA INC.; MITSUI CHEMICALS,
INC.; MITSUI CHEMICALS AMERICA, INC.; MITSUI CHEMICALS & SKC
POLYURETHANES, INC.; WANHUA CHEMICAL GROUP CO., LTD.; WANHUA
CHEMICAL (AMERICA) CO. LTD.; WANHUA CHEMICAL US HOLDING, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-12089, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, to the U.S.
District Court Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) on
Oct. 25, 2018. The Western District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01456-DWA-LPL to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Donetta W. Ambrose.

The Isaac Industries case is being consolidated with MDL 2862 in
re: DIISOCYANATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on Oct. 3, 2018. The MDL Panel held that these actions
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions share
complex factual questions arising from allegations that defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the
price of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) and toluene
diisocyanate (TDI) sold in the United States, from early 2015 or
2016 through the present, including through 3 agreements to limit
supply of MDI and TDI through planned manufacturing shutdowns at
plants worldwide and implementing coordinated price increases. The
record indicates that discovery is likely to be international in
scope and will include a significant number of nonparties.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings, especially with respect to class
certification and Daubert motions; and conserve the resources of
the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

In its Oct. 3 Order, the MDL Panel concluded that the Western
District of Pennsylvania is an appropriate transferee forum. One
defendant has its U.S. headquarters in this district, and five
other defendants have their headquarters in adjacent or nearby
districts. Relevant documents and witnesses therefore are likely to
be located in or close to this area. Nearly all responding
defendants agree that the Western District of Pennsylvania is an
appropriate venue, along with plaintiffs in one action on the
motion and one potential tag-along action. Judge Donetta W. Ambrose
is an experienced transferee judge with the ability and willingness
to manage this litigation efficiently. The Panel is confident she
will steer this matter on a prudent course.[BN]

Attorneys for Isaac Industries, Inc. and the proposed class:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: 248-841-2200
          Facsimile: 248-652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Anthony D. Shapiro, Esq.
          Ronnie Seidel Spiegel, Esq.
          Jason A. Zweig, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eight Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  tony@hbsslaw.com
                  ronnie@hbsslaw.com
                  jasonz@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          Kevin Bruce Love, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: 305-357-9010
          Facsimile: 305-357-9050
          E-mail: klove@cridenlove.com

               - and -

          Simon B Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT &
          BENDESKY PC
          One Liberty Place, 52 nd Floor
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-496-828
          Facsimile: 215-496-0999
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2700
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 267-519-8306
          Facsimile: 973-623-0858
          E-mail: sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com

MDL 2862: NCP Coatings vs. BASF over Isocyanate Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
NCP COATINGS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BASF SE; BASF CORP.; BAYER
AG; BAYER CORP., COVESTRO AG; COVESTRO LLC; DOWDUPONT INC.; DOW
CHEMICAL CO.; HUNTSMAN CORP.; HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL LLC.; LANXESS
AG, LANXESS CO.; MCNS POLYURETHANES USA INC.; MITSUI CHEMICALS,
INC.; MITSUI CHEMICALS AMERICA, INC.; MITSUI CHEMICALS & SKC
POLYURETHANES, INC.; WANHUA CHEMICAL GROUP CO., LTD.; WANHUA
CHEMICAL (AMERICA) CO. LTD.; WANHUA CHEMICAL US HOLDING, INC., the
Defendants, Case No., 2:18-cv-13617, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District
Court Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) on Oct. 25,
2018. The Western District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:18-cv-01457-DWA-LPL to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Donetta W. Ambrose.

The NCP Coatings case is being consolidated with MDL 2862 in re:
DIISOCYANATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
Oct. 3, 2018. The MDL Panel held that these actions involve common
questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions share complex
factual questions arising from allegations that defendants engaged
in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of
methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) and toluene diisocyanate
(TDI) sold in the United States, from early 2015 or 2016 through
the present, including through 3 agreements to limit supply of MDI
and TDI through planned manufacturing shutdowns at plants worldwide
and implementing coordinated price increases. The record indicates
that discovery is likely to be international in scope and will
include a significant number of nonparties. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings, especially with respect to class certification and Daubert
motions; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel
and the judiciary.

In its Oct. 3 Order, the MDL Panel concluded that the Western
District of Pennsylvania is an appropriate transferee forum. One
defendant has its U.S. headquarters in this district, and five
other defendants have their headquarters in adjacent or nearby
districts. Relevant documents and witnesses therefore are likely to
be located in or close to this area. Nearly all responding
defendants agree that the Western District of Pennsylvania is an
appropriate venue, along with plaintiffs in one action on the
motion and one potential tag-along action. Judge Donetta W. Ambrose
is an experienced transferee judge with the ability and willingness
to manage this litigation efficiently.  The panel is confident she
will steer this matter on a prudent course.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
          Sean Cooper, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 984 8100
          E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com

               - and -

          Andrew G. Finkelstein
          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson
          Antonino B. Roman
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
          FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281
          Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
          E-mail: afinkelstein@lawampm.com
                  jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
                  aroman@fbfglaw.com

MERCY HEALTH: Judge Affirms Dismissal of ERISA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sam Knef, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that U.S. District
Judge Catherine D. Perry has denied a plaintiffs' motion to
reconsider an order dismissing a proposed class action against
Mercy Health that alleged under-funding of its pension fund in
violation of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).

In her Aug. 27 ruling, Judge Perry held that she did not have
jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs' ERISA and constitutional
claims against Mercy, which runs one of largest Catholic health
care systems in the U.S., because the Mercy plan is an ERISA-exempt
church plan.

On Oct. 29, Judge Perry stood firm in her decision in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

"Plaintiffs make no legal or factual arguments convincing me that
my prior decision was in error," she wrote. "I am also not
persuaded that I erred procedurally in my ruling. I will therefore
deny the motion to alter or amend judgment."

According to the order, the plaintiffs had argued that Perry erred
in reviewing materials outside the pleadings when considering
defendants' motion to dismiss and, further, that she determined
"with finality" a legal issue that was not presented in court.

"By doing this, plaintiffs argue, I denied them the opportunity to
not only present evidence but to present their own legal argument
on the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction, and specifically,
federal-question jurisdiction," she wrote. "Plaintiffs also contend
that I erred when I considered the substance of the
church-plan-exemption question by improperly conflating a merits
determination with subject-matter jurisdiction."

Perry also disagreed with a contention that she "wrongfully"
determined the merits of plaintiffs' claims -- that defendants
violated various provisions of ERISA that impose requirements
relating to reporting and disclosure, minimum funding, written
instruments, trusts, future benefits, and fiduciary obligations.

"I did not decide the merits of these claims because I did not have
the jurisdiction to do so. In order to decide the merits of
plaintiffs' ERISA claims, I must have first been presented with an
ERISA plan," she wrote. "For the reasons stated in my Memorandum
and Order, the plan at issue here was not an ERISA plan. Therefore,
under well-established Eighth Circuit precedent, I did not have
subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' ERISA claims. Because
of this determination, I had no choice but to dismiss plaintiffs'
ERISA claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction." [GN]


MONARCH RECOVERY: Ortiz Sues Over Debt  Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery
Management, Inc. et al. The case is styled as Melinda Ortiz on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-04782-CDJ (E.D. Penn., Nov. 6, 2018).

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

Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., an accounts receivable
management company, provides financial recovery solutions. It
offers collection and payment processing services in various asset
classes and industry sectors, including auto deficiencies,
commercial paper, credit union accounts, government receivables,
student loan receivables, bank credit card receivables, retail
credit card receivables, sub-prime credit card receivables, debt
buyer paper, lines of credit, skip to collect, mortgage
delinquencies, direct merchant accounts, dismissed bankruptcy, and
department of defense.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO PC
     1500 Walnut St., Ste. 900
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Phone: (215) 351-0200
     Fax: (215) 922-3874
     Email: rcocco@rcn.com


MOROSO USA: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moroso USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Moroso USA, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10304 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 6, 2018).

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

Moroso Usa, Inc is a privately held company in New York, NY and is
a Single Location business, categorized under Office
Furniture.[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


MORTGAGE CONTRACTING: Weinstein Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Lawrence Weinstein, Plaintiff, v. Mortgage Contracting
Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. EDCV 14-02521 JGB (SPx) (C.D.
Cal.), Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

Pursuant to the Judgment, the Judge (i) granted final approval of
the Settlement Agreement; (ii) awarded the class Counsel attorneys'
fees in the amount of $1 million and costs in the amount of
$20,175.40; (iii) awarded $15,000 to Plaintiff Weinstein; (iv)
ordered the payment of $18,750 to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency; (v) ordered the payment of $108,484
to the claims administrator; and (vi) dismissed the complaint with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 23, 2018 Judgment is available
at https://is.gd/Nk4jdc from Leagle.com.

Lawrence Weinstein, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis Frank Moss --
dennis@dennismosslaw.com -- Dennis Moss Law Offices, Samuel S.
Deskin, Deskin Law Firm & Ari Emanuel Moss, Moss Bollinger LLP.

Mortgage Contracting Services LLC, Defendant, represented by
Allison Elizabeth Crow -- acrow@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Liat
Yamini -- lyamini@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & Richard J. Bergstrom,
III -- rjbergstrom@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.


NATIONAL COUNCIL: Sullivan Files Suit in New York for ADA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The National Council
for Certified Personal Trainers. The case is styled as Phillip
Sullivan, Jr. on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The National Council for Certified Personal
Trainers, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10316 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 6,
2018).

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

The National Council for Certified Personal Trainers is a
nationally accredited personal trainer certification company.[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


NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Dec. 31 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Nov. 4 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Nektar
Therapeutics. 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.

Nektar Therapeutics (NASDAQ: NKTR)
Class Period: November 11, 2017 - October 2, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 31, 2018
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/nektar-therapeutics-loss-form?wire=3

About the lawsuit: Nektar Therapeutics allegedly made materially
false and/or misleading statements during the class period and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) prior studies which attempted to
pegylate IL-2 failed; (2) the extended half-life of the Company's
lead I-O candidate, NKTR-214, was unlikely to result in efficacy
and created additional high-dosing safety concerns; (3) NKTR-214
was less effective than IL-2 alone; (4) the combination of NKTR-214
with nivolumab has yet to demonstrate significant positive results;
and (5) as a result, Nektar's public statements as set forth above
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

To learn more about the Nektar Therapeutics 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.

Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with
offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.
The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience
representing investors in securities litigation, and have recovered
hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

CONTACT:

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


NEWELL BRANDS: Consolidated Securities Suit in New Jersey Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself in the consolidated class action suit
entitled, In re Newell Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation, in New
Jersey.

The Company and certain of its officers have been named as
defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits, each
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired our common stock between February 6, 2017 and January 24,
2018.

The first lawsuit was filed on June 21, 2018 and is captioned Bucks
County Employees Retirement Fund, Individually and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk,
Ralph J. Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No.
2:18-cv-10878.

The second lawsuit was filed on June 27, 2018 and is captioned
Matthew Barnett, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk, Ralph J.
Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No.
2:18-cv-11132.

On September 27, 2018, the court consolidated these two cases under
Civil Action No. 18-cv-10878 (JMV)(JBC) bearing the caption In re
Newell Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court also named
Hampshire County Council Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff in the
consolidated case.

The complaints allege certain violations of the securities laws,
including, among other things, that the defendants made certain
materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
the Company's business, operations, and prospects between February
6, 2017 and January 24, 2018. The plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but have
not specified the amount of damages being sought.

Newell Brands said, "The Company intends to defend the litigation
vigorously."

Newell Brands Inc. designs, manufactures, sources, and distributes
consumer and commercial products worldwide. Newell Brands Inc. was
formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and changed its name to
Newell Brands Inc. in April 2016. The company was founded in 1903
and is headquartered in Hoboken, New Jersey.


NEWELL BRANDS: Faces Oklahoma Firefighters Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has
been named as defendant in a putative securities class action suit
entitled, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v.
Newell Brands Inc., et al.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in a putative securities
class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Hudson County, on behalf of all persons who acquired Company common
stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the April 2016 acquisition of
Jarden (the "Registration Statement").

The action was filed on September 6, 2018, and is captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell
Brands Inc., et al., Civil Action No. HUD-L-003492-18. The
complaint alleges certain violations of the securities laws,
including, among other things, that the defendants made certain
materially false and misleading statements and omissions in the
Registration Statement regarding the Company's financial results,
trends, and metrics.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but has not specified the amount of
damages being sought.

Newell Brands said, "The Company intends to defend the litigation
vigorously."

Newell Brands Inc. designs, manufactures, sources, and distributes
consumer and commercial products worldwide. Newell Brands Inc. was
formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and changed its name to
Newell Brands Inc. in April 2016. The company was founded in 1903
and is headquartered in Hoboken, New Jersey.


NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: 2d Cir. Vacates Order Denying Stay
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS HEALTH FUND, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NOVASTAR
MORTGAGE, INC.; NOVASTAR MORTGAGE FUNDING CORPORATION; SCOTT F.
HARTMAN; GREGORY S. METZ; W. LANCE ANDERSON; MARK HERPICH; RBS
SECURITIES INC. F/K/A GREENWICH CAPITAL MARKETS, INC. D/B/A RBS
GREENWICH CAPITAL; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; AND WELLS FARGO
ADVISORS, LLC F/K/A WACHOVIA SECURITIES LLC, Defendants-Appellees,
v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION AND FEDERAL HOUSING
FINANCE AGENCY, in its capacity as Conservator of the Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation, Objectors-Appellants, Case No. 17-2859
(2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (i)
dismissed as moot the appeal of Objectors-Appellants Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation and Federal Housing Finance Agency, in
its capacity as Conservator of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation ("FHFA"), from an order by the U.S. for the Southern
District of New York, dated Sept. 14, 2017, denying its request for
a 45-day stay pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Section 4617(b)(10) and (ii)
vacated the district court's order.

In July 2008, the Congress enacted the Housing and Economic
Recovery Act ("HERA") to address the ongoing subprime mortgage
crisis.  As part of the legislation, the Congress created the
Federal Housing Finance Agency and authorized it to place into
conservatorship two critical government-sponsored enterprises --
the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
FHFA formally placed Freddie Mac into conservatorship in September
2008 and, among other things, immediately succeeded "all rights,
titles, powers, and privileges" of Freddie Mac and its
stockholders, directors, and officers.

On May 21, 2008, Plaintiff-Appellee New Jersey Carpenters Health
Fund commenced a securities class action in New York state court
against the Defendants-Appellees.  The Defendants removed the class
action to federal district court on June 10, 2008.

Approximately nine years later, on March 8, 2017, the Appellees
entered a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement.  The
Plaintiff-Appellee then filed the Settlement Agreement with the
federal district court, together with an unopposed motion seeking
approval of the parties' proposed settlement.

On May 9, 2017, the district court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement, certifying the settlement class,
approving notice to the class, and scheduling a final approval
hearing.  The settlement class as drafted would encompass FHFA.
However, the preliminary order carved out from the class those
Persons that timely and validly request exclusion from the class
pursuant to and in accordance with the terms of that order.   To be
timely, any requests for exclusion from the Settlement Class must
be submitted for receipt by the Claims Administrator no later than
28 calendar days prior to the Final Approval Hearing.  The court
scheduled the Final Approval Hearing for Sept. 13, 2017.

FHFA did not file a request for exclusion before the court-mandated
deadline.  It instead filed an objection to the proposed settlement
with the district court on Aug. 30, 2017, and argued that the court
(1) lacked authority to approve the proposed settlement pursuant to
HERA Section 4617(f); and (2) should reject the settlement because
FHFA did not receive sufficient notice of its right to opt out.

The next day, on Aug.31, 2017, FHFA sent an untimely request to the
Claims Administrator that it be excluded from the proposed
settlement class.  The Settling Parties opposed both motions, which
are not at issue in the interlocutory appeal.  Instead, the appeal
concerns FHFA's subsequent request for a statutory stay.  On Sept.
12, 2017, FHFA sought a 45-day stay of the settlement proceedings
pursuant to Section 4617(b)(10) of HERA.

The district court denied FHFA's request.  It reasoned that Section
4617(b)(10) did not apply to class action settlements because the
language read in whole, reading the statute as a whole, seems to
apply in very different circumstances, when the conservator is a
party, when they're trying to preserve assets.  It further found,
based on the concessions of FHFA's counsel, that FHFA did get
notice of the proposed settlement agreement.  The court accordingly
denied the stay request, adjourned the Final Approval Hearing by a
week, and did not rule on FHFA's objection to the settlement
agreement.

FHFA subsequently filed an interlocutory appeal challenging only
the district court's denial of its motion for a 45-day stay under
Section 4617(b)(10).  FHFA simultaneously moved the Court for a
stay of the district court's settlement proceedings pending the
resolution of that interlocutory appeal.

The Court referred that motion to a three-judge panel and granted
an interim stay of district court proceedings pending resolution of
the motion.  A three-judge panel heard argument on Oct. 17, 2017,
and denied the motion and dissolved the stay on Oct. 19, 2017.  On
Nov. 21, 2017, the district court sua sponte stayed the Final
Approval Hearing pending resolution of the instant interlocutory
appeal.  The district court accordingly has not approved or
rejected the proposed settlement agreement.

The Second Circuit agrees with the Defendants-Appellees that it
lack subject matter jurisdiction to resolve the instant appeal.
HFA acknowledges that the Court and the district court have stayed
the settlement proceedings for nearly a year.  It nonetheless
argues that nothing prevents the Court from directing the district
court to issue a 45-day stay on remand.  FHFA asserts that this
will provide it two types of relief.  First, FHFA argues that it
has an enduring interest in HERA's interpretation because such a
stay would establish that HERA necessarily applies to class actions
and their settlements.  Second, FHFA asserts that it would be
entitled on remand to have the District Court consider whether a
substantive HERA stay renders the Opt-Out Request timely.

The Court finds that FHFA's arguments fail as both a legal and
factual matter.  First, FHFA's enduring interest in HERA's
interpretation is too abstract to permit the Court to grant
"effectual relief."  Second, FHFA is incorrect that an additional
HERA stay could make its opt-out request timely.  Accordingly,
granting a 45-day HERA stay would also not affect the deadline to
opt out.  FHFA does not argue that the district court abused its
discretion in coming to this conclusion, and the Court finds no
fault in the district court's interpretation.

The Court further concludes that (i) FHFA's appeal does not fall
within an exception to the mootness doctrine for situations that
are "capable of repetition, yet evading review"; (ii) the equities
support vacating the district court's order.  The
Sefendants-Appellees seem to argue that the equities do not favor
vacatur because FHFA forfeited its right to vacatur by securing a
temporary stay from the Court pending the resolution of its
interlocutory appeal.  However, the Court agrees with FHFA that it
did not seek the stay with the purpose of mooting its appeal.  Had
FHFA not sought such an order, the class action proceedings would
have continued, and the district court might have approved the
proposed settlement agreement.  Had that occurred, FHFA's appeal
would have become moot because there would be nothing left to
stay.

For the reasons stated, the Second Circuit dismissed as moot the
appeal, and vacated the order of the district court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Oct 19, 2018 Summary Order is
available at https://is.gd/Lvr5n5 from Leagle.com.

JOEL P. LAITMAN -- jlaitman@cohenmilstein.com -- (Christopher
Lometti -- clometti@cohenmilstein.com -- Michael B. Eisenkraft --
meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com -- on the brief), Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll, PLLC, New York, NY., for Plaintiff-Appellee.

ALAN C. TURNER -- aturner@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
LLP, New York, NY; William F. Alderman -- walderman@orrick.com --
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, San Francisco, CA., for
Defendants-Appellees.

CHRISTOPHER P. JOHNSON -- cpjohnson@mckoolsmith.com -- (Kyle
Lonergan -- klonergan@mckoolsmith.com -- on the brief), McKool
Smith, P.C., New York, NY., for Objectors-Appellants.


OCH-ZIFF: Pomerantz, Rosen Law Reach $28.75MM in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. disclosed that the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action
settlement that would benefit purchasers of securities of Och-Ziff
Capital Management Group LLC (NYSE:OZM):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL APPROVAL
HEARING

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York that a hearing will be held
before Honorable J. Paul Oetken on January 16, 2019, at 11 a.m., in
Courtroom 706 of the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse,
40 Foley Square, New York, New York 10007, to determine whether (1)
the proposed Settlement of the Action for $28,750,000.00 should be
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Plan of
Allocation is fair and reasonable and should be approved; (3) the
application by Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses should be approved; (4) the Class Plaintiffs' application
for reimbursement of costs and expenses should be granted; and (5)
the Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the
Settlement Stipulation filed with the Court.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired any securities of Och-Ziff
Capital Management Group LLC between February 9, 2012 and August
22, 2014, both dates inclusive, your rights may be affected by the
Settlement of this Action.  If you have not received a detailed
Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Final Approval Hearing (the
"Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you
may obtain copies by writing to the Claims Administrator at: OZM
Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Strategic Claims
Services, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA
19063; info@strategicclaims.net.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to share in
the Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later
than January 9, 2019 establishing that you are entitled to
recovery.  As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by
any judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you
submit a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, in accordance with the procedures set forth in
the Notice, by no later than January 2, 2019.  Any objections to
the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or attorney's fees and expenses
must be filed and served, in accordance with the procedures set
forth in the Notice, no later than January 2, 2019.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to;

         Class Counsel:
         Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         10 South La Salle Street
         Suite 3505, Chicago, Illinois 60603

         Or:
         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, New York 10016
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com [GN]


OHIO: Mays Files Civil Rights Class Action
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against John Husted. The case
is styled as Tommy Ray Mays, II, Quinton Nelson, Sr. individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Jon
Husted in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Ohio,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01376-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 6,
2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights - Voting.

Jon A. Husted is the 53rd and current Ohio Secretary of State. A
member of the Republican Party, he previously represented the 6th
District of the Ohio Senate from 2009 to 2011 and was a member of
the Ohio House of Representatives from 2001 to 2009.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Naila S. Awan, Esq.
     Demos
     80 Broad Street, 4th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 485-6065
     Fax: (212) 633-2015
     Email: nawan@demos.org

          - and -

     Chiraag Bains, Esq.
     Demos
     740 6th Street NW
     Second Floor
     Washington, DC 20001
     Phone: (202) 864-2746
     Email: cbains@demos.org

          - and -

     Jonathan Diaz, Esq.
     1411 K St., NW, Suite 1400
     Washington, DC 20005
     Phone: (202) 736-2200
     Fax: (202) 736-2222
     Email: jdiaz@campaignlegal.org

          - and -

     Mark P. Gaber, Esq.
     1411 K St., NW, Suite 1400
     Washington, DC 20005
     Phone: (202) 736-2200
     Fax: (202) 736-2222
     Email: mgaber@campaignlegal.org

The Defendant is represented by:

     Elizabeth Thym Smith, Esq.
     Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease-2
     PO Box 1008
     52 E Gay Street
     Columbus, OH 43216-1008
     Phone: (614) 464-5443
     Fax: (614) 719-4976
     Email: etsmith@vorys.com

          - and -

     Daniel E Shuey, Esq.
     Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
     52 East Gay Street
     Columbus, OH 43216
     Phone: (614) 464-6400
     Email: deshuey@vorys.com


OUTERNATIONAL BRANDS: Anderson Files Fraud Class Suit in Ca.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit asserting fraud has been filed against
Outernational Brands Inc. The case is styled as Ariel Anderson
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Outernational Brands Inc. a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02550-JLS-WVG (S.D. Cal., Nov. 6,
2018).

Outernational Brands Inc. was founded in 2010. The company's line
of business includes the wholesale distribution of distilled
spirits, including neutral spirits and ethyl alcohol used in
blended wines and distilled liquors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ronald Marron. Esq.
     Law Office of Ronald Marron
     651 Arroyo Drive
     San Diego, CA 92103
     Phone: (619) 696-9006
     Fax: (619) 564-6665
     Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com


P15 LLC: Delacruz Files Suit Asserting ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against P15 LLC. The case is
styled as Emanuel Delacruz on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. P15 LLC doing business as: Cones
Cafe and Watermark Bar & Lounge, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10310
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 6, 2018).

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

Cones Cafe Watermark Bar Lounge is a restaurant located in the
famous South Street Seaport. It is located on the waterfront and
has views of the Brooklyn Bridge.[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


PAM TRANSPORT: Judgment on Pleadings in Browne Suit Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID BROWNE; ANTONIO CALDWELL; and LUCRETIA HALL, on
behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated Plaintiffs,
v. P.A.M. TRANSPORT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:16-CV-5366 (W.D.
Ark.), Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, denied both
the Defendant's (i) Motion for Partial Dismissal and (ii) Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings.

The Plaintiffs are individuals who worked for PAM as truck drivers.
They have asserted a variety of claims against PAM in the case for
alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Law.  The Plaintiffs brought their claims as
a putative collective action under the FMLA and a putative class
action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

On May 8, 2017, the Court conditionally certified the collective
action, and roughly 3,000 individuals subsequently opted in as
collective-action Plaintiffs.  Nov. 2, 2018 is the deadline for PAM
to move for decertification of the collective action and for
Plaintiffs to move for class certification under Rule 23.

On May 24, 2018, PAM filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).  In that Motion, PAM seeks dismissal of all
the Plaintiffs' "sleeper berth" claims, and of the Arkansas state
law claims brought by Plaintiffs Browne and Hall.  The following
day, PAM filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(c).  In that Motion, it seeks dismissal of all claims by
Plaintiff Caldwell along with 54 additional opt-in Plaintiffs.  

With respect to sleeper berth claims, Judge Brooks finds that 29
C.F.R. Section 785.41 is unambiguous that a truck driver is not
"working" when he is sleeping, but it is completely silent on
whether a truck driver's time spent sleeping should nevertheless
"count as hours worked."  In the regulatory context, such silence
typically constitutes ambiguity.  However, any ambiguity on the
topic disappears once one looks to 29 C.F.R. Section 785.22(a).
The regulation tells exactly how to determine whether sleeping time
is compensable -- and the analysis has nothing to do with whether
the employee is driving or riding in a truck.  So the ambiguity is
gone, and the Judge needs not give controlling deference to the
DOL's interpretation of its own regulations on the matter.
Therefore, PAM's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' sleeper berth
claims will be denied.

PAM also seeks dismissal of the Arkansas state law claims brought
by Plaintiffs Browne and Hall, on the grounds that they are Nevada
residents and Arkansas state law cannot be applied
extraterritorially, for reasons both statutory and constitutional.
The Judge believes that Rule 12 motion practice is not the
appropriate place to resolve the issue, as it must confine itself
at this stage to the pleadings and construe them in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs' Arkansas state law
claims are sufficiently well pleaded to place PAM on notice of what
those claims are.  Accordingly, he will deny PAM's motion to
dismiss the Arkansas state law claims brought by Plaintiffs Browne
and Hall, without prejudice to PAM's right to re-raise issues of
extraterritorial application at a time when the standard of review
will permit the Court to consider facts not in the pleadings.

Finally, as to PAM's May 25 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
the Judge believes a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the
pleadings is not an appropriate vehicle for resolving such a
fact-intensive issue.  Especially in light of the "extraordinary
remedy" being requested, the Plaintiffs are entitled to the
opportunity to gather and provide evidence of their subjective
intent with respect to these alleged nondisclosures.  Accordingly,
PAM's motion will be denied, without prejudice to its right to
re-raise these issues at a later time in a motion for summary
judgment.

For these reasons, Judge Brooks denied both the Defendant PAM's
Motion for Partial Dismissal and Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct 19, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/h5tmXZ from Leagle.com.

David Browne, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, Antonio Caldwell, on behalf of himself and all those
similarly situated & Lucretia Hall, on behalf of herself and all
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua S.
Boyette -- jboyette@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz Swudler LLC, pro hac
vice, Justin L. Swidler -- jswidler@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz
Swidler LLC, pro hac vice, Richard Swartz --
rswartz@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz Swidler LLC, pro hac vice &
Travis Martindale-Jarvis -- tmartindale@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz
Swudler LLC, pro hac vice.

PAM Transport Inc, Defendant, represented by Amber Prince --
aprince@cwlaw.com -- Conner & Winters, Martin D. Holmes --
mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, Morris Reid
Estes, Jr. -- restes@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC,
Peter Fredrick Klett -- pklett@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson
Wright PLLC, Robert L. Jones, III -- bjones@cwlaw.com -- Conner &
Winters, K. Scott Hamilton -- khamilton@dickinsonwright.com --
Dickinson Wright PLLC & Kerri E. Kobbeman -- kkobbeman@cwlaw.com --
Conner & Winters, LLP.

John Does, Defendant, represented by Martin D. Holmes , Dickinson
Wright PLLC, Morris Reid Estes, Jr., Dickinson Wright PLLC, Peter
Fredrick Klett, Dickinson Wright PLLC & K. Scott Hamilton,
Dickinson Wright PLLC.


PANDORA MEDIA: Sheridan Suits in Cal. and N.J. Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the class action
lawsuits filed by Arthur and Barbara Sheridan in the federal
district courts for the Northern District of California and the
District of New Jersey remains stayed.

Between September 14, 2015 and October 19, 2015, Arthur and Barbara
Sheridan filed separate class action suits against the Company in
the federal district courts for the Northern District of California
and the District of New Jersey.

The complaints allege a variety of violations of common law and
state copyright statutes, common law misappropriation, unfair
competition, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of rights
of publicity arising from allegations that the company owes
royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded
prior to February 15, 1972.

The actions in California and New Jersey are currently stayed
pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v.
Pandora Media, Inc.

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

Pandora Media, Inc. provides music discovery platform services in
the United States and internationally. The company offers streaming
radio and on-demand music services, which enable the listeners to
create personalized stations and playlists, as well as search and
play songs and albums on-demand. Pandora Media, Inc. was founded in
2000 and is headquartered in Oakland, California.


PANDORA MEDIA: Still Defends Flo & Eddie Inc. Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company still
defends a class action lawsuit filed by Flo & Eddie Inc.

On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit
against Pandora Media Inc. in the federal district court for the
Central District of California.

The complaint alleges misappropriation and conversion in connection
with the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to
February 15, 1972.

On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the
complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute, which was appealed to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The district court litigation
is currently stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's decision.

On December 8, 2016, the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on the
Anti-SLAPP motion. On March 15, 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested
certification to the California Supreme Court on the substantive
legal questions. The California Supreme Court has accepted
certification and has received all written briefing on the case,
but has not yet scheduled oral argument.

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

Pandora Media, Inc. provides music discovery platform services in
the United States and internationally. The company offers streaming
radio and on-demand music services, which enable the listeners to
create personalized stations and playlists, as well as search and
play songs and albums on-demand. Pandora Media, Inc. was founded in
2000 and is headquartered in Oakland, California.


PANDORA MEDIA: Still Defends Ponderosa Twins Plus One Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Ponderosa
Twins Plus One.

On September 7, 2016, Ponderosa Twins Plus One et al. filed a class
action suit against the Company alleging claims similar to that of
Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media Inc.

The action is currently stayed in the Northern District of
California pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Flo & Eddie,
Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc.

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

Pandora Media, Inc. provides music discovery platform services in
the United States and internationally. The company offers streaming
radio and on-demand music services, which enable the listeners to
create personalized stations and playlists, as well as search and
play songs and albums on-demand. Pandora Media, Inc. was founded in
2000 and is headquartered in Oakland, California.


PG&E CORP: Still Defends Securities Litigation in California
------------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated securities class action suit
entitled, In Re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation.

In June 2018, two purported securities class actions were filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, naming PG&E Corporation and certain of its current and
former officers as defendants, entitled David C. Weston v. PG&E
Corporation, et al. and Jon Paul Moretti v. PG&E Corporation, et
al., respectively.  

The complaints allege material misrepresentations and omissions
related to, among other things, vegetation management and
transmission line safety in various PG&E Corporation public
disclosures.

The complaints assert claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and seek unspecified monetary relief,
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. Both complaints identify
a proposed class period of April 29, 2015 to June 8, 2018.

On September 10, 2018, the court consolidated both cases and the
litigation is now denominated In Re PG&E Corporation Securities
Litigation. The court also appointed the Public Employees
Retirement Association of New Mexico as lead plaintiff.

Plaintiffs currently have until November 9, 2018 to file an amended
consolidated complaint and defendants currently have until January
8, 2019 to move to dismiss, answer or otherwise respond to that
complaint.  

PG&E Corporation and the Utility are unable to predict the timing
and outcome of these proceedings.

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. PG&E Corporation was founded in 1905 and is based in
San Francisco, California.


PHILIP MORRIS: Kessler Topaz Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, disclosed that
it has filed a class action complaint against Philip Morris
International Inc. (NYSE: PM) ("Philip Morris" or the "Company") on
behalf of investors who purchased Philip Morris common stock
between February 8, 2018 and April 18, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  This action, captioned Gilchrist v. Philip Morris
International Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv09856 was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(the "Gilchrist Action").

Philip Morris is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes,
tobacco products, and other nicotine-containing products, including
heated-tobacco units. The Gilchrist Action alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, the defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse
facts about Philip Morris's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Gilchrist Action alleges that the defendants
failed to disclose that: (i) Philip Morris was experiencing a
faster decline in overall cigarette and heated-tobacco sales
volumes than investors had been led to believe, (ii) the Company's
highly touted heated-tobacco sales initiatives had faltered, and
(iii) the Company was experiencing adverse sales headwinds in key
markets.  As a result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive
statements about Philip Morris's business, operations, and
prospects during the Class Period were materially false and/or
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On April 19, 2018, the Company issued a press release announcing
disappointing first quarter 2018 financial results, including
stalled growth in key sales initiatives. Specifically, Philip
Morris reported that combined cigarette and heated-tobacco unit
shipment volumes in the first quarter of 2018 had declined by 2.3%
compared to the prior year's first quarter.  Key sales initiatives
fared particularly poorly, as Philip Morris's heated-tobacco unit
growth plateaued.  Further, cigarette shipments fell by 5.3%
compared to the first quarter of 2017, signaling persistent adverse
trends for the Company.

Following this news, the price of Philip Morris common stock fell
over 15%, from a close of $101.44 per share on April 18, 2018, to
close at $85.64 per share on April 19, 2018.

Any member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as
Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class.  Your ability to
share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or
not to serve as a Lead Plaintiff.  If you wish to serve as Lead
Plaintiff for the Class, you must file a motion with the Court no
later than 60 days from the date that notice of pendency of an
action asserting substantially the same claims as the Gilchrist
Action was published.  On September 4, 2018, counsel for plaintiff
City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System published notice
of the pendency of an action asserting substantially the same
claims as the Gilchrist Action.  SeeCity of Westland Police and
Fire Retirement System v. Philip Morris International Inc. et al.,
No. 1:18-cv-08049-RA (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 4, 2018).  Accordingly,
the deadline for filing a motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is November 5, 2018.

Investors who wish to discuss this action and their legal options
may contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr.,
Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706, at info@ktmc.com or
click on the following link:
www.ktmc.com/philip-morris-securities-class-action.

         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (888)-299-7706
                    (610)-667-7706
         Email: abell@ktmc.com
                jmaro@ktmc.com [GN]


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces Class Suit in Virginia for FDCPA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Latrice Mason on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-00587 (E.D. Va., Nov. 6, 2018).

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

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor
Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts. It serves
customers through account representatives. The company was
incorporated in 1996 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC operates as a subsidiary of PRA Group,
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Romy Lynn Radin, Esq.
     Radin Law, PLC
     2200 Colonial Ave., Suite 6
     Norfolk, VA 23517
     Phone: (757) 623-1216
     Fax: (757) 624-1718
     Email:  radinlaw@hotmail.com


PRAIRIE PIZZA: Dec. 5 Fairness Hearing on Chenkus FLSA Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HEATHER CHENKUS and GENE MICHAEL CHRSTIANSEN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. PRAIRIE PIZZA, INC. d/b/a "Domino's", Defendant, Docket No.
3:17-cv-00723-FDW-DCK (W.D. N.C.), Judge Frank D. Whitney of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Charlotte Division, has issued an order directed the Plaintiffs to
(i) send notice to all the class members of the class action
settlement fairness hearing on Dec. 5, 2018 at 3:00 p.m.; and (ii)
file a certificate of compliance with the Court within 14 days of
the Order's entry.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 23, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/jGBEeQ from Leagle.com.

Heather Chenkus & Gene Michael Christiansen, Individually and on
behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, represented by
Philip J. Gibbons, Jr. -- phil@philgibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons Leis,
PLLC.

Prairie Pizza, Inc., doing business as Domino's, Defendant,
represented by Amy Yager Jenkins -- amy.jenkins@mgclaw.com --
McAngus, Goudelock & Courie, LLC.


PTC THERAPEUTICS: Consolidated Securities Suit in NJ Concluded
--------------------------------------------------------------
PTC Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey has approved the
settlement in, and dismissed the case entitled In re PTC
Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation.

In March 2016, three purported securities class action lawsuits
were commenced in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey (one each on March 3, 10, and 11), naming as
defendants the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its former
Chief Financial Officer.

The lawsuits were consolidated into one action captioned In re PTC
Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 16-1224 (KM) (the
"Securities Class Action"). A consolidated amended complaint was
filed on January 13, 2017. The complaint alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the Company about its business, operations, and
prospects as it relates to the NDA for Translarna for the treatment
of nmDMD that the Company submitted to the FDA in December 2015.

The plaintiffs sought, among other things, compensatory damages for
purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 6, 2014
and February 23, 2016, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 14, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On August 28, 2017, the motion to
dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. On September 25,
2017, defendants filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the
consolidated amended complaint.

On January 10, 2018, the parties agreed to a settlement in
principle of all legal claims, subject to court approval, funded by
the Company's insurance subject to the applicable deductible. The
Court approved the settlement and dismissed the case on September
10, 2018.

PTC Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the
discovery, development, and commercialization of medicines for the
treatment of rare disorders. PTC Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in
1998 and is headquartered in South Plainfield, New Jersey.


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Trial on Hsu Suit to Continue Jan. 19
---------------------------------------------------------
Puma Biotechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the trial on the
remaining claims in the class action suit initiated by Hsingching
Hsu has been continued to January 15, 2019 on the court's own
motion.

The trial was initially set for November 6, 2018.

On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu or the "plaintiff," individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class
action lawsuit against the company and certain of its executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California (Case No. 8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG).  

On October 16, 2015, lead plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund filed a
consolidated complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased our
securities between July 22, 2014 and May 29, 2015. The consolidated
complaint alleges that the company and certain of its executive
officers made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the company's business, operations,
prospects and performance in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and
other unspecified equitable relief. On July 10, 2018, the company
and two of its executive officers filed a motion for summary
judgment seeking judgment in the company's favor on all claims.  

At the same time, the lead plaintiff filed its own motion for
summary judgment, seeking judgment in favor on some, but not all,
of its claims. The motions were heard in September 2018. The court
granted the parties' motions in part and denied them in part. Among
the determinations by the court, the court granted summary judgment
in favor of defendant Charles Eyler, the company's Senior Vice
President, Finance and Administration and Treasurer, and dismissed
the claims against him. The court also granted summary judgment in
defendants' favor with respect to certain statements alleged by the
plaintiff to include false or misleading statements.

A trial on the remaining claims, which was initially set for
November 6, 2018, has been continued to January 15, 2019 on the
court's own motion.

Puma Biotechnology said, "We intend to vigorously defend against
this matter."

Puma Biotechnology, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of products to enhance cancer
care in the United States. Puma Biotechnology, Inc. was founded in
2010 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.


REMINGTON: Landmark Rifle Class Action Settlement Takes Effect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Backus, writing for Ravalli Republic, reports that so when
the news came that the landmark class action settlement requiring
Remington to replace triggers on over 7 million of the company's
most popular rifles became official on the 18th anniversary of his
son's death, Barber was certain of one thing.

"It was an act of God," he said.

Nine-year-old Gus Barber died on Oct. 23, 2000, after his mother's
Remington Model 700 rifle fired without her touching the trigger.
The bullet struck Gus, who, unbeknownst to the family, had run to
other side of a horse trailer.

Three days after the tragedy, someone from the sheriff's office
gave the family a 1994 Business Week article titled "Remington
Faces a Misfiring Squad." It detailed the case of Glenn Collins of
Texas, whose Remington Model 700 accidentally discharged and
wounded him in the foot, which had to be amputated.

Collins, 53, claimed the rifle fired without him touching the
trigger. After a six-week trial, Remington was ordered to pay
Collins $17 million, including $15 million in punitive damages.

"I think what the jury was telling Remington and all gun
manufacturers is that if you have a defective or unsafe product,
you'd better do something about it," Collins said in the article.

Right after that, Barber remembers that other people started
telling him their Remington rifles also had fired without them
touching the triggers. He learned his son was one of three people
shot with the Model 700 in Montana during that same hunting season.
He contacted Wyoming officials and learned that three people there
also had been shot with a Remington.

"I had discovered an alarming trend," Barber said. "So I began an
investigation to find the truth for myself."

He vowed he wouldn't stop until he found it.

"I promised Gus that it ends here and now," he said. "That I would
never be bought off and I would never quit until I effected change
in your memory. That's the exact promise I made to Gus.''

The quest consumed Barber for nearly two decades.

"I went case to case to case, state to state, recovering as many
documents as I could,'' Barber said. He made contact with retired
Remington engineers and people within the company sent him
information "telling me I was right."

"All of those factors kept me moving forward, never stopping," he
said.

Over the years, Barber gathered more than a million pages of
internal company documents dating back to the 1940s. They showed
engineers were concerned about "theoretical unsafe conditions" of
the trigger before it even went on the market.

Barber spent countless hours organizing the documents
chronologically and breaking them down by topic. The national
nonprofit legal advocacy organization, Public Justice, published
many of them at http://www.remingtondocuments.com/

"People can now sit in the comfort of their own homes and analyze
the material like I did and draw their own conclusions," Barber
said. "I've leveled the playing field. Today I believe I have more
answers than questions."

But he paid a heavy toll.

"This promise I made -- thinking I was doing the right thing to
help other people and prevent more Gus Barbers -- would really
become a curse," he said. "The things that I and my family had to
endure. My family wasn't necessarily a willing partner through all
of this.

"I was home, but wasn't there," he said. "So my daughter lost a
father, not only her brother . . . . during her high school years.
My wife did not necessarily have a husband at home with her. There
is a steep price that was paid."

He hopes that owners of Remington rifles will take note of the
settlement and have their triggers replaced.

The settlement officially went into effect after critics of an
original 2017 agreement declined to take their case to the Supreme
Court by the Oct. 23 deadline. The agreement covers the popular
Model 700 as well as Remington bolt-action rifle models Seven,
Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, 721, 722, 725 and the
XP-100 bolt action pistol.

Owners have 18 months to file claims for a replacement of the
triggers.

"It's time now for the public to do their part because I've done
everything that I can,'' Barber said.

In Montana, Remington rifle owners can have the new triggers put in
at Capital Sports, 1092 Helena Ave, Helena, MT. 59601. People also
can learn more about the settlement and process to replace the
trigger by going to www.remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com
or call a toll-free hotline at 1-800-876-5940.

Remington did not respond to a request for comment, instead
referring the newspaper to the website.

Allison & Carey Gunworks Inc., in Portland, Oregon, is one of about
20 Remington Authorized Repair Centers listed on a map on the
settlement website.

The company's owner, Jeff Thompson, said they had not received the
final go-ahead from Remington to start the retrofit program by
mid-week. Gun owners interested in having a new trigger installed
will need to get a service request number from Remington before the
work can be completed.

While he has never had a Remington fire without the trigger being
pulled, Thompson said he hopes that people will take advantage of
the limited-time offer.

"If nothing else, it's a really good trigger that we will be
installing in their rifles," he said. "It's a whole new assembly.
We go through all the steps and set the trigger correctly. It's a
good deal."

And one that's going to cost Remington a lot of money.

Thompson said the new trigger retails for about $110 and that
doesn't include labor or shipping costs.

Al Smith, executive director of the Montana Trial Lawyers
Association in Helena, won't hunt with anyone who owns one of the
Remington rifles covered by the settlement unless the trigger has
been switched out.

"When this first occurred, one of my hunting buddies had a Model
700," Smith said. "We told him to get it fixed or don't come with
us. He got it fixed.

"Remington is still tip-toeing around the issue and saying their
rifles are OK," he said. "They are saying they'll replace the
trigger because they are such good guys, but that's BS. Those
triggers are defective. People have died."

Barber, he said, was key to forcing the change.

"If it wasn't for the dogged determination of Richard Barber, who
decided to turn tragedy into a situation where people can be
helped, this would not have happened," Smith said.

With a new home in Willow Creek, four grandchildren -- all boys --
and the settlement completed, Barber said he feels like his life is
finally moving forward again.

"People told me early on that nothing I would do could ever have an
effect on this issue," he said. "I think at the end of the day as I
sit here and reflect on it, I think the message is that people will
always tell other humans that one person can't make a difference in
the world. I beg to differ. I believe that one person can make a
difference in the world if you are willing to pay the price.

"This should inspire others," he said. "We hear today with all
that's going on that this country is too far gone. I don't believe
that. I believe that if people invested themselves in issues that
are important to them, they'll find time and talents that they
don't even know they have yet."

In the end, though, nothing will replace the son that he's lost.

"I'm the last one," he said. "When I die, my name, my family's name
dies with me," he said. "That deeply disturbs me.''

But, he said, he "had to live up to that promise.''

"People can say what they want about me, but my word is gold. If I
give my word and my promise, I will stay the course no matter how
hard.

"Eighteen years to the day that he was killed, that promise I made
to him is fulfilled," Barber said. "I'm excited for the future for
the first time in I don't know how long because I know I lived up
that promise. There's no more that I have to do." [GN]


RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Initial Case Hearing Set for Jan. 24
----------------------------------------------------------
Restoration Robotics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California has set an
initial hearing in the case entitled, In re Restoration Robotics,
Inc. Securities Litigation for January 24, 2019.

On May 23, 2018, a putative shareholder class action complaint was
filed in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Mateo (the "Superior Court"), captioned Wong v. Restoration
Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 18CIV02609.

On June 21, 2018 and June 28, 2018, two putative class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, captioned Guerrini v. Restoration
Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD and Yzeiraj v.
Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03883-BLF,
respectively.

On July 24, 2018, the U.S. Northern District Court related the
Guerrini and Yzeiraj actions and reassigned the Yzeiraj action to
Judge Edward J. Davila.

The Wong and Guerrini complaints name the company as defendants,
and certain of its current and former executive officers and
directors, certain of its venture capital investors and the
underwriters in the company's Initial Public Offering (IPO). The
Yzeiraj complaint names the company as defendants and certain of
its current and former executive officers and directors.

The Wong complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Act. The
Guerrini and Yzeiraj complaints assert claims under Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act.

The complaints all allege, among other things, that the company's
Registration Statement filed with the SEC on September 1, 2017 and
the Prospectus filed with the SEC on October 13, 2017 in connection
with the company's IPO were inaccurate and misleading, contained
untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading and omitted to
state material facts required to be stated therein. The complaints
seek unspecified monetary damages, other equitable relief and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 8, 2018, the company, along with certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors, filed a motion to
dismiss the Wong complaint based on the forum selection clause
designating the federal district courts as the exclusive forum for
claims arising under the Securities Act contained in the company's
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, and which asked
the court in the alternative to stay the Wong action.

Also, on August 8, 2018, the venture capital investor and
underwriters' defendants in the Wong action filed demurrers to the
Wong complaint, and the company, along with certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors, joined in the venture
capital investor defendants' demurrer. A hearing on the company's
motion to dismiss and the demurrers to the Wong complaint was held
on October 24, 2018.  The company is unable to predict the date on
which the Superior Court will issue any decision at this time.

On October 2, 2018, the U.S. Northern District Court granted a
Motion for Consolidation of Related Actions, Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Counsel filed by Plaintiff Edgardo
Guerrini, which consolidated the Guerrini and Yzeiraj actions under
the caption In re Restoration Robotics, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD. The U.S. Northern District Court has
set an initial hearing for January 24, 2019.

Restoration Robotics said, "We believe that these lawsuits are
without merit and we intend to vigorously defend against these
claims."

Restoration Robotics, Inc., a medical device company, develops and
commercializes image-guided robotic systems in the United States
and internationally. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Court Decertifies Class in Bund Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN R. BUND II, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAFEGUARD
PROPERTIES LLC, Defendant, Case No. C16-920 MJP (W.D. Wash.), Judge
Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, (i) granted in part and denied in
part the laintiffs' Surreply and Motion to Strike Portions of
Defendant's Reply in Support of Its Motion to Decertify Class; and
(ii) granted the Defendant's Motion to Decertify Class and Dismiss
the Action.

The case is a putative class action challenging the legality of the
Defendant's "property preservation services" on homes which have
gone into default but not yet been foreclosed.  The Defendant's
services run the gamut from winterization to lawn care, but it is
the practice of removing and replacing locks on the homes that is
the focus of this litigation.  The case alleges causes of action
for trespass (statutory and common law) and Consumer Protection Act
violations, and is one of a related series of cases in the State of
Washington brought against mortgage holders and their agents
regarding these post-default, pre-foreclosure practices.

The matter was originally filed in Island County Superior Court in
Washington State; at that time, the sole named Plaintiff was John
R. Bund II, who was identified in the caption and the pleadings as
"Executor of the Estate of Richard C. Bund, deceased."  The
Defendant removed the matter to federal court on June 16, 2016.

A second amended complaint was filed on Jan. 4, 2017, adding as
proposed representatives Mandy and Garett Hanousek.  One year
later, the Hanouseks were dismissed based on the Court's finding
that their only evidence that Safeguard's agents had been at their
home was insufficient to survive summary judgment.

A third amended complaint was filed on June 20, 2017, and a third
class representative was proposed: Plaintiff Crystal Haynes.  On
Feb. 7, 2018, Haynes was dismissed on the basis of a joint
stipulation that she was not only not a typical class member, she
was not even a member of the certified class.

On Jan. 12, 2018, the Court certified a class in the matter,
defined as all current and former citizens of Washington State who
own or owned residential property in Washington State subject to a
loan that was in default, which residence was entered by Safeguard
or its agents and the lock(s) changed prior to completion of a
foreclosure and within the applicable statute of limitations.  

At that point, the only remaining named Plaintiff was Bund, still
in his capacity as the executor of the Bund Estate.

In March 2018, the parties stipulated to the entry of a fourth
amended complaint, which (among other things) added a fourth set of
Plaintiffs, S. Scott and Noel James.  The Defendant filed the
instant motion for decertification in July of 2018; while that
motion was still pending, the Court issued rulings on a series of
dispositive motions.  Most relevant to the pending motion was a
summary judgment ruling which held that the class would not be
permitted to pursue its statutory claims (violations of statutory
trespass and the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA")) for
any act of the Defendant which occurred prior to the Washington
Supreme Court's decision in Jordan.  Both Bund and the Jameses are
"pre-Jordan" Plaintiffs.

Also relevant to the outcome of the motion was the discovery by the
Defendant that, in February 2013, Bund (acting as the personal
representative of the Bund Estate) had undertaken to create the
Richard C. Bund Family Trust, and in November of that same year had
transferred ownership of the property at issue in this litigation
to the Trust.  Thus, at the time that the lawsuit was filed and at
the time that the class was certified with Bund as its sole named
Plaintiff and class representative, the Estate did not have title
to the Property at issue.

The Plaintiffs responded to the situation initially by filing a
Motion to Substitute Party, requesting that Bund in his capacity as
Trustee for the Trust be substituted for Bund in his capacity as
Executor/Personal Representative of the Estate.  Prior to the
noting date, however, the Plaintiffs withdrew that motion.  Bund
opted instead to prepare a Non-Judicial Binding Agreement ("NJBA")
which was signed by all the beneficiaries of the Estate and
purported to render the creation of the Trust a nullity on the
grounds that Bund had no authority to transfer the Property to the
Trust.

Of further relevance to these proceedings is the fact that
settlements have been reached (pending final approval) in two
related matters: Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, supra; and
Rhodes v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2:17-cv-00193-SMJ (E.D.
Wash.).  Both settlement proposals contain "opt-out" requirements;
i.e., the class members must affirmatively exclude themselves from
receiving a payout from the settlement.  Bund is a member of the
Jordan class, and neither side disputes that the Jordan and Wells
Fargo classes overlap with the class certified with the lawsuit.
Neither side disputes that accepting a settlement in either case
would operate to release Safeguard from liability to the settling
class member.  However, the Plaintiffs represent (without citation
to the record) that Bund has previously stated his intention to
exclude himself and his father's estate from the Nationstar
settlement.

Finally, there is one additional aspect of the case which is
germane to the Court's ruling.  Although the Court certified a
class in the matter, the class counsel was never appointed, as
required by FRCP 23(g)(1).  While the absence of any formal motion
in this regard serves as a partial explanation for this oversight,
at the end of the day it is the Court's duty to attend to such
requirements and the Court bears the responsibility for the
omission.

Judge Pechman finds that on the basis of the legal status of the
Property at the initiation of the lawsuit, Bund had no standing as
Executor of the Estate to bring suit.  In the absence of standing
on the part of the sole named Plaintiff at the outset of the
litigation, the law of the Ninth Circuit is clear: the class must
be decertified and the matter dismissed.

Furthermore, Lierboe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. is clear:
the class representative's lack of standing could not be cured by
substituting another representative, and dismissal is required.
Here, the case for dismissal is even stronger, as the proposed
substitute is a Plaintiff named two years after the initiation of
the suit.  The Defendant's motion is granted: the class will be
decertified and the matter is dismissed without prejudice.

Despite the Plaintiffs' representation that Bund intends to opt out
of the Jordan settlement, the Court continues to be troubled by the
impact of both settlements on the viability of the class.  First,
Judge Pechman has seen no indication that Bund's intention reflects
the will of the remainder of the beneficiaries of the Bund Estate
who will be impacted by a decision to release the bird in the hand
for the possible two in the bush -- a concern justified by evidence
that Bund created the Trust which has so thoroughly muddied the
waters of this case without the knowledge of the other family
members/beneficiaries.  Second, she is concerned that the
settlements may impact the ability of the Plaintiffs' counsel to
effectively and ethically represent the interests of clients who
are members of overlapping lawsuits, some with settlements and some
currently without.

While the Judge has acknowledged the Court's responsibility in
neglecting to appoint the class counsel at the point of
certification, the ruling decertifying the class and dismissing the
lawsuit essentially renders the issue of the appointment of class
counsel moot; there is no class to represent, and no case to
prosecute.

Because standing is determined at the time of filing and the class'
sole named Plaintiff and class representative had no standing to
sue in his capacity of Executor/Personal Representative at the time
the lawsuit was filed, Judge Pechman concludes that the Court had
no jurisdiction over the matter from the beginning.  Ninth Circuit
law dictates that such a situation requires a decertification of
the class and a dismissal without prejudice of the lawsuit, and it
is so ordered.  The clerk is ordered to provide copies of the order
to all counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct 19, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/7taj6o from Leagle.com.

John R. Bund, II, personally,as Executor of the Estate of Richard
C. Bund, deceased, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Clay M. Gatens -- clayg@jdsalaw.com --
JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD, Honea Lee Lewis, IV --
leel@jdsalaw.com -- JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD, Sally F.
White -- sallyw@jdsalaw.com -- JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD,
Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL
LAW GROUP PLLC, Blythe H. Chandler -- bchandler@terrellmarshall.com
-- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Devon Amy Gray --
devong@jdsalaw.com -- JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD & Michael
dDuane Daudt -- mike@daudtlaw.com -- DAUDT LAW PLLC.

S. Scott James & Noel L. James, a married couple, and on behalf of
others similarly situated., Plaintiffs, represented by Beth E.
Terrell, TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Blythe H. Chandler,
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Devon Amy Gray  JEFFERS DANIELSON
SONN & AYLWARD, Michael Duane Daudt, DAUDT LAW PLLC & Clay M.
Gatens, JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD.

Safeguard Properties LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Benjamin O'Connor -- benjamin.oconnor@kirkland.com
-- KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Howard M. Kaplan --
howard.kaplan@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Jaime
Drozd Allen -- jaimeallen@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, Kelli
M. Mulder -- kelli.mulder@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac
vice, Leonid Feller -- leonid.feller@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND &
ELLIS, pro hac vice, R. Allan Pixton -- allan.pixton@kirkland.com
-- KIRKLAND & ELLIS, pro hac vice, Amanda M. McDowell --
amandamcdowell@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE & Mark N. Bartlett
-- markbartlett@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.


SAMSUNG: Settles CRT Price-Fixing Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Gary Ng, writing for iPhone in Canada, reports that a recent class
action lawsuit involving CRT (cathode ray tube) products (TVs,
computer monitors, etc.) purchased between 1995-2007 was approved
by courts, with the settlement payout at $49.8 million. The lawsuit
was regarding alleged price fixing by numerous companies in Canada,
including Samsung, Panasonic, Toshiba and more:

Class actions were commenced in Canada alleging that the Defendants
unlawfully conspired to fix prices for CRTs and CRT Products. CRTs
were commonly used in televisions and computer monitors. CRTs have
now largely been replaced by flat-panel technology, including LCDs
and plasmas.

"The court-approved protocol we are announcing  will allow eligible
Canadians to recover money they should have never been charged in
the first place," said Linda Visser -- linda.visser@siskinds.com --
of LLP Siskinds, to CTV News.

The Canadian class action lawsuit was approved by the courts. Any
Canadian who made a CRT product purchase can file a claim,
regardless whether they have a receipt or not. The minimum payout
is $20, sent via e-Transfer. The information required is your name,
phone number, email and mailing address.

Samsung SDI paid the most at nearly $17 million.

These defendants have not admitted to any wrongdoing or liability,
but have agreed to pay the amounts listed above. The class action
lawsuit was launched back in 2008 and settled a decade later.

Canadians have until March 1, 2019, to file a claim online. [GN]


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

Before the Court is U.S. Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy's Report and
Recommendation ("R&R").  Judge McCoy recommends granting in part
and denying in part the Motion for Class Certification.  The
Plaintiffs object to the R&R, and the Defendants have responded to
the objections.

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

The Plaintiffs and others like them have been denied enrollment in
a public high school.  They want a free public education alongside
their peers, the chance to learn core educational content and
skills, and to participate in extracurricular activities.  And they
are suing the Defendants to achieve this result.  The Plaintiffs
assert that the Defendants' policy and practice, namely Policy
5112.01, violates the following laws: (i) Count I - Equal
Educational Opportunities Act of 1974; (ii) Count II - Section 601
of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (iii) Count III -
Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution; (iv) Count IV - Due Process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (v)
Count V: Florida Educational Equity Act.

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

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

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

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

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

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 17, 2018 Amended Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/3BNo7D from Leagle.com.

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

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

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

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

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


SCMP USA: Violates ADA, Dominguez Suit Says
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SCMP USA. Inc. The
case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCMP USA Inc. doing
business as: Maje, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10307 (S.D. N.Y.,
Nov. 6, 2018).

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

Maje is a French women's ready-to-wear brand created in 1999 in
Paris by Judith Milgrom, the younger sister of Sandro founder
Evelyne Chetrite.[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


SEABOARD CORP: Pork Buyers' Lawsuits Grouped Into 3
---------------------------------------------------
Seaboard Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 29, 2018, that the complaints
filed by Wanda Duryea and 11 other indirect purchasers of pork
products, have been amended and consolidated, and the cases are now
organized into three consolidated putative class actions brought on
behalf of (a) direct purchasers, (b) consumer indirect purchasers,
and (c) commercial and institutional indirect purchasers.

On June 28, 2018, Wanda Duryea and 11 other indirect purchasers of
pork products, acting on behalf of themselves and a putative class
of indirect purchasers of pork products, filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
against several pork processors, including Seaboard Foods and Agri
Stats, Inc., a company described in the complaint as a data sharing
service.

Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional
class action complaints making similar claims on behalf of putative
classes of direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaints
allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2009, the
defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and
stabilize the price of pork products in violation of U.S. antitrust
laws by coordinating their output and limiting production,
allegedly facilitated by the exchange of non-public information
about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand through Agri Stats,
Inc.

The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state laws,
including state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer
protection statutes, and state common law claims for unjust
enrichment. The complaints also allege that the defendants
concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the
putative classes.

The relief sought in the respective complaints includes treble
damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs,
and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative classes.

The complaints were amended and consolidated, and the cases are now
organized into three consolidated putative class actions brought on
behalf of (a) direct purchasers, (b) consumer indirect purchasers,
and (c) commercial and institutional indirect purchasers.  

The amended complaints named Seaboard Corporation as an additional
defendant.

Seaboard intends to defend these cases vigorously. It is impossible
at this stage either to determine the probability of a favorable or
unfavorable outcome resulting from these suits, or to estimate the
amount of potential loss, if any, resulting from the suits.

Seaboard Corporation operates as a diverse agribusiness and
transportation company worldwide. The company’s Pork division is
involved in the hog production and pork processing activities. The
company was founded in 1918 and is headquartered in Merriam,
Kansas.


ST. BERNARD'S: Court Sets Schedule to File Brief in Scott Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas, Jonesboro Division, issued an setting schedule to file
Brief in the case captioned TRACEY SCOTT and LORRENZO HAMPTON
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. REVCLAIMS, LLC; and ST. BERNARD'S HOSPITAL, INC.,
Defendants. No. 3:18CV00056 JLH. (E.D. Ark.).

The complaint alleges in a conclusory fashion only that the Court
has subject matter jurisdiction due to the amount and type of
relief sought and because the amount in controversy exceeds the
minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court.

Both named plaintiffs are citizens of Arkansas, as is one of the
defendants.

Hence, complete diversity between the plaintiffs and the defendants
is lacking. Nor do the named plaintiffs appear to seek an amount
exceeding $75,000 for their individual claims.

Because the Court cannot ascertain from the pleadings whether it
has subject matter jurisdiction, it orders the parties to brief the
issue. The plaintiffs, who invoked this Court's jurisdiction, must
file their brief within 14 days from the entry of this Order. The
brief must explain the factual and legal basis for the allegation
that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction.

If jurisdiction is asserted under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), the
brief must explain the basis for the assertion that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5,000,000 as required by 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)(2) and must also address the elements of Section
1332(d)(4).

The defendants may, if they choose, respond within 14 days after
the plaintiffs have filed their brief.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 29, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7jg92gm from Leagle.com.

Tracey Scott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Lorrenzo Hampton, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Brandon W.
Lacy, Lacy Law Firm & Jeffrey Owen Scriber, Attorney at Law.

Revclaims LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey W. Puryear --
jpuryear@wpmfirm.com -- Womack Phelps Puryear Mayfield & McNeil,
P.A., Joseph L. Adams -- jojoadams@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker
LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Alan Mayfield -- mmayfield@wpmfirm.com --
Womack Phelps Puryear Mayfield & McNeil, P.A. & Ryan M. Wilson --
rwilson@wpmfirm.com -- Womack Phelps Puryear Mayfield & McNeil,
P.A.

St Bernard's Hospital Inc, Defendant, represented by Paul D.
Waddell -- pwaddell@wcjfirm.com -- Waddell, Cole & Jones, PLLC &
Sam Waddell -- swaddell@wcjfirm.com -- Waddell, Cole & Jones,
PLLC.


STARKIST CO: 9th Cir. Affirms Hendricks Settlement Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICK HENDRICKS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRITTANY FERENCE,
Objector-Appellant, COLIN MOORE, KATHY DURAND GORE, Intervenor, v.
STARKIST CO., Defendant-Appellee. PATRICK HENDRICKS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. KELLY MARIE SPANN, Objector-Appellant, COLIN MOORE, KATHY DURAND
GORE, Intervenor, v. STARKIST CO., Defendant-Appellee. PATRICK
HENDRICKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JULIUS DUNMORE; et al.,
Objectors-Appellants, COLIN MOORE, KATHY DURAND GORE, Intervenor,
v. STARKIST CO., Defendant-Appellee. PATRICK HENDRICKS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERIC MICHAEL LINDBERG, Objector-Appellant,
COLIN MOORE, KATHY DURAND GORE, Intervenor, v. STARKIST CO.,
Defendant-Appellee. PATRICK HENDRICKS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KERRY ANN
SWEENEY, Objector-Appellant, COLIN MOORE, KATHY DURAND GORE,
Intervenor, v. STARKIST CO., Defendant-Appellee. PATRICK HENDRICKS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRITTANY FERENCE; et al.,
Objectors-Appellees, COLIN MOORE, KATHY DURAND GORE, Intervenor, v.
STARKIST CO., Defendant, Case Nos. 16-16992, 16-16993, 16-16994,
16-16995, 16-17020, 16-17056 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit affirmed district court's approval of a class
action settlement.

The Objectors appeal the approval of a class action settlement
resolving a dispute over the alleged under-filling of Starkist tuna
cans.  Distinguishing the case from its recent decision in Romero
v. Provide Commerce (In re Easysaver Rewards Litigation), No.
16-56307, 2018 WL 4763174 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2018), the Ninth
Circuit affirmed.  

The Objectors raise four issues on appeal.  The Court rejects each
issue.  It finds that the settlement notice satisfied due process
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  It adequately identified
the total value of the settlement fund and the fact that individual
claims were subject to "dilution" in the event that individuals
filed a higher than expected number of claims.

The Court likewise affirmed the district court's determination that
the award of tuna vouchers was not a form of coupon relief under
the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).  The vouchers did not expire,
they were freely transferrable, they could be used at a wide
variety of stores (any retailer selling Starkist products), and the
vouchers had sufficient value that class members could use them to
purchase tuna without additional out-of-pocket expense.

Where the underlying harm stems from something other than a failure
to provide a promised coupon, as was the case in Romero, a voucher
that is sufficiently usable and related to the harm suffered can be
acceptable under Online DVD-Rental.  Supplying missing tuna or
providing a replacement for a defective product may be accomplished
most efficiently by way of a voucher, and the use of a voucher to
deliver an in-kind settlement to class members will not by itself
transform a non-coupon settlement into a coupon settlement subject
to CAFA.  Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's
determination that the settlement was not subject to CAFA's
coupon-settlement requirements.  Because this was the only basis
raised for faulting the district court's award of attorney fees, it
likewise affirmed the award of attorney fees to the Plaintiff's
counsel.

Lastly, the Court affirmed the district court's determination that
the Plaintiff's counsel had not engaged in any improper conduct
under our standard in In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability
Litigation, 654 F.3d 935, 947 (9th Cir. 2011).  The district court
correctly determined that none of the three factors identified in
Bluetooth Headset were present and that there was no other evidence
of collusion.  Accordingly, the district court correctly denied the
Objectors' motion to remove the class counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct 19, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/SgCxxA from Leagle.com.


STATE FARM MUTUAL: Vang Files Class Action in Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Chee
Vang, Vee Vang, Xeng Thao, Yeng Her on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03870-BSB (D. Ariz., Nov. 6, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company provides various
insurance and financial services in the United States and Canada.
Its insurance products include general, auto, accident, homeowners,
condo owners, renters, life and annuities, fire and casualty,
health, disability, long term care, business, and boat insurance
products.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company provide property insurance for
State Farm customers in the United States. The company offers
insurance cover for boats, motors, and boat trailers, and cover for
boat equipment against loss and damage from sinking, fire, storms,
theft, capsizing, stranding, collision, and explosion.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Hart Lawrence Robinovitch, Esq.
     Zimmerman Reed PLLP
     14646 N Kierland Blvd., Ste. 145
     Scottsdale, AZ 85254-2762
     Phone: (480) 348-6400
     Fax: (480) 348-6415
     Email: AZDocketing@zimmreed.com


STATE STREET: Has Agreement in Principle to Settle Suit for $4.9M
-----------------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that company has agreed
in principle to settle the purported class action suit filed by its
shareholder a class basis for $4.9 million, subject to final
approval by the Court.

A State Street shareholder has filed a purported class action
complaint against the Company alleging that the Company's financial
statements in its annual reports for the 2011-2014 period were
misleading due to the inclusion of revenues associated with the
invoicing matter and the facts surrounding the company's 2017
settlements with the U.S. government relating to its transition
management business.

The company have agreed in principle to settle the matter on a
class basis for $4.9 million, subject to final approval by the
Court.

In addition, a State Street shareholder has filed a derivative
complaint against the Company's past and present officers and
directors to recover alleged losses incurred by the Company
relating to the invoicing matter and to the company's Ohio public
retirement plans matter.

State Street Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides a
range of financial products and services to institutional investors
worldwide. State Street Corporation was founded in 1792 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.


STATE STREET: Still Defends Suit Over Invoicing Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself in a purported class action suit related
to the company's invoicing practices.

In March 2017, a purported class action was commenced against the
company alleging that its invoicing practices violated duties owed
to retirement plan customers under ERISA.

In addition, the company have received a purported class action
demand letter alleging that its invoicing practices were unfair and
deceptive under Massachusetts law.

State Street said, "A class of customers, or particular customers,
may assert that we have not paid to them all amounts incorrectly
invoiced, and may seek double or treble damages under Massachusetts
law."

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

State Street Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides a
range of financial products and services to institutional investors
worldwide. State Street Corporation was founded in 1792 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.


STATION CASINOS: Court Extends Deadline to Respond in Coyne Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order extending time to respond First Amended Complaint in the
case captioned ARTHUR F. COYNE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STATION CASINOS LLC., a Nevada
Limited Liability Company, RED ROCK RESORTS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.
2:17-cv-01603-JAD-PAL. (D. Nev.).

The Plaintiff filed his First Amended Collective and Class Action
Complaint.  Defendants' current deadline to answer or otherwise
respond to the FAC is November 2, 2018.

Due to the Defendants' counsel's travel and scheduling conflicts,
counsel for the Defendants requested, and the Plaintiff's counsel
agreed, to an extension of time for the Defendants to respond to
the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 29, 2018 Order is
available at
https://tinyurl.com/yare9f4c from Leagle.com.

Arthur F. Coyne, Plaintiff, represented by Charles A. Jones, Jones
Law Firm, Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Joshua D.
Buck -- josh@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP, Leah Lin Jones
-- leah@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP & Mark R. Thierman
-- mark@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP.

Station Casinos LLC & Red Rock Resorts, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Jarrod L. Rickard -- jlr@skrlawyers.com -- Semenza
Kircher Rickard, Luanne Sacks -- lsacks@srclaw.com -- Sacks,
Ricketts & Case, LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher D. Kircher --
cdk@skrlawyers.com -- Semenza Kircher Rickard, Lawrence J. Semenza,
III -- ljs@skrlawyers.com -- Semenza Kircher Rickard & Robert Brett
Bader -- rbader@srclaw.com -- Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP, pro hac
vice.


STITCH FIX: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Stitch Fix, Inc. ("Stitch Fix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
SFIX) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in
United States District Court, Northern District of California, and
index under 18-cv-06565, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates,
who purchased or otherwise, acquired Stitch Fix common stock
between June 8, 2018, and October 1, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period") seeking remedies under §§10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Stitch Fix securities
between June 8, 2018, and October 1, 2018, both dates inclusive,
you have until December 10, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you
as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact
Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Stitch Fix is an online retail fashion subscription service. Stitch
Fix purchases clothing, shoes, and accessories from name-brand
manufacturers and designs more in-house that it has manufactured.
Stitch Fix personnel then select and deliver curated boxes of items
to "clients" to try on, buy what they like, and return the rest.
While some or all of the items can be returned free of charge,
clients are incentivized to accept the entire selection through a
25% price discount that is only applied if the client accepts the
entire shipment.

Beginning in 2017, the Company started to advertise its services on
television, which attributed to its considerable active client
growth during 2017 and 2018.  For investors in Stitch Fix, reported
active clients is a key metric for them to value the Company and
make investment decisions.

When the Company was marketing its IPO in November 2017, it
specifically touted that its active client base had grown from
867,000 at August 1, 2015, to 1,674,000 at July 30, 2016, to
2,194,000 at July 29, 2017, representing year-over-year growth
rates of 93.1% and 31.1%, respectively.

Throughout the Class Period, 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: (1) its
active client growth was weakening; (2) the Company would cease its
investment in television advertising; and (3) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On October 1, 2018, after the close of trading, Stitch Fix reported
its 4Q18 financial results, which fell short of projected active
client growth expectations, disclosing that the Company had signed
up far fewer than expected new active clients during 4Q18, which
had ended more than two months earlier, on July 28, 2018. The
Company reported that its active client count was virtually flat
and that its active client growth had declined by 70%
quarter-over-quarter.

On this news, the price of Stitch Fix common stock fell $15.69 per
share, greater than 35%, to close at $31.58 per share on October 2,
2018.

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Telephone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


STOCKX.COM: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Li Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GUANYU LI, Plaintiff, v. STOCKX.COM, Defendant, Case
No. JKB-18-0911 (D. Md.), Judge James K. Bredar of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, or,
in the alternative, to dismiss the action, under the Federal
Arbitration Act.

Guanyu Li filed the putative class action against StockX.com,
alleging violations of Maryland's Consumer Protection Act, fraud,
and negligence in the operation of StockX's online marketplace.  

According to undisputed facts, StockX maintains an online
marketplace allowing users to buy and sell merchandise, including
athletic wear.  Li registered for an account on StockX.com on Nov.
2, 2017, at which time he was provided with terms of service dated
Oct. 17, 2017.  According to Li, StockX did not provide an Opt-Out
Notice form when he registered, nor did it provide one by email at
a later date.

The Defendant moved to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, or,
in the alternative, to dismiss the action, under the FAA.

Li makes four arguments under Michigan law to resist arbitration,
all of which turn on the mechanics of the opt-out procedure: first,
that the arbitration agreement lacked consideration and mutuality
of obligation; second, that StockX materially misrepresented the
terms of the arbitration agreement; third, that the arbitration
agreement is unconscionable; and, fourth, that the agreement to
arbitrate was an "illusory contract."

Judge Bredar finds that none of Li's arguments succeed.  He finds
that (i) the provision of the form was not a condition precedent,
and the agreement to arbitrate was sufficiently mutual and
supported by adequate consideration as a matter of law; (ii) Li
failed to meet his burden on an essential element of a
misrepresentation defense; (iii) Li failed to carry his burden of
showing that the arbitration agreement is substantively
unreasonable; and (iv) Li's fourth argument fails as a matter of
law.

The final question before the Judge is whether to grant a stay
pending arbitration or to dismiss the case.  In light of these
precedents, although either disposition might be justified, the
Judge will issue a stay, rather than dismissing the case.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Bredar granted the Defendant's
motion to the extent that it seeks to compel arbitration and stay
proceedings pending arbitration of the dispute.  In light of that
decision, he denied in part the Defendant's motion to the extent
that it seeks the alternative relief of dismissal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 17, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/xnKs5a from Leagle.com.

Guanyu Li, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Nyombi --
front-desk@knapearl.com -- KNA PEARL, Onyebuchim Aduire Chinwah,
The Chinwah Firm LLC & Ikechukwu K. Emejuru -- info@emejurulaw.com
-- Emejuru Law LLC.

STOCKX.com, Defendant, represented by Brittany A. Nash --
bnash@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton
LLP, pro hac vice, C. Allen Garrett, Jr. --
agarrett@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton
LLP, pro hac vice & Lawrence Michael Prosen --
lprosen@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton,
LLP.


SUNPOWER CORP: Deadline to Appeal Dismissal Order Already Lapsed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE SUNPOWER CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case
No. 16-cv-04710-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
without leave to amend the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

SunPower Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the deadline to
appeal the dismissal of the class action complaint has expired.

On August 16, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors (the
"Defendants") in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a class consisting of those who
acquired the Company's securities from February 17, 2016 through
August 9, 2016 (the "Class Period").

On December 9, 2016, the court appointed a lead plaintiff.
Following the withdrawal of the original lead plaintiff, on August
21, 2017, the court appointed an investor group as lead plaintiff.
An amended complaint was filed on October 17, 2017.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule
10b-5. The complaints were filed following the issuance of the
Company's August 9, 2016 earnings release and revised guidance and
generally allege that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business,
operations, and prospects.

On April 18, 2018, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to
state a claim, with leave to amend. On May 8, 2018, a second
amended complaint was filed. On October 9, 2018, the court
dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, with no
further opportunity to amend. The deadline to appeal was November
9, 2018.

SunPower Corporation researches, develops, manufactures, and
delivers solar solutions worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Residential, Commercial, and Power Plant. The company was
incorporated in 1985 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.
SunPower Corporation is a subsidiary of Total Solar International
SAS.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bernstein Litowitz Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") on Nov. 2
disclosed that it has filed a securities class action lawsuit on
behalf of Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338
Retirement Fund against Synchrony Financial ("Synchrony" or the
"Company") (NYSE: SYF) and certain of its senior executives.  The
action, which is captioned Retail Wholesale Department Store Union
Local 338 Retirement Fund v. Synchrony Financial, No. 3:18-cv-01818
(D. Conn.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in Synchrony
stock during the time period of October 21, 2016 and November 1,
2018 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Synchrony
falsely represented that its consistent and disciplined
underwriting practices had led to a higher quality loan portfolio
than those of its competitors.  In truth, Synchrony relaxed its
underwriting standards and increasingly offered private-label
credit cards to riskier borrowers to sustain growth.  The truth
about Synchrony's credit standards began to be revealed on April
28, 2017, when the Company announced disappointing first quarter
2017 earnings driven by poor loan performance.  This news caused
Synchrony's shares to decline by $5.25 per share, or nearly 16%.

Following this disclosure, the Company represented that it had
tightened credit standards, but falsely characterized those
underwriting changes as modest.  In fact, the Company had made
significant modifications to its underwriting policies, but
concealed that these modifications were damaging its relationships
with its retail partners, including Walmart.

On July 26, 2018, multiple news outlets reported that Walmart had
chosen a competitor to replace Synchrony.  Together, these two
disclosures caused Synchrony's shares to decline nearly 14%.  Then,
on November 1, 2018, Walmart sued Synchrony accusing the Company of
improper underwriting in connection with the Walmart/Synchrony
credit card program.  As a result of this disclosure, Synchrony
shares declined by over 10%.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file
a motion with the Court no later than January 2, 2019, which is the
first business day on which the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut is open that is 60 days after the
publication date of November 2, 2018.  Accordingly, the deadline
for filing a motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff is.  Any
member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead
Plaintiff through counsel of their choice.  Members may also choose
to do nothing and remain part of the proposed Class.

If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Avi
Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at
avi@blbglaw.com.  Information about BLB&G can be found online at
www.blbglaw.com. [GN]


TATA CONSULTANCY: Bid for Remote Testimony in Slaight Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER SLAIGHT, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. TATA
CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-01696-YGR
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California denied without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to permit remote contemporaneous
testimony from a remote location pursuant to Rule 43(a).

As noted during the Oct. 12, 2018 pretrial conference, the
Plaintiffs' motion only relates to Amit Jindal.  Jindal is TCS'
Head of Immigration and works in TCS' Rockville, Maryland office.
The Plaintiffs would like to question Jindal regarding the number
of expats that travel each year to the U.S. to staff positions and
associated filings/plans needed to enable expats to work in the
U.S. as well as audits by PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ernst & Young.


Although TCS employs, and therefore exerts some control, over
Jindal and the suit is a multiparty, multi-state, class action, in
light of the availability of witnesses Kant, Srinivasan, and
Ganapathy, whom the Plaintiffs intend to ask about the
PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ernst & Young audit reports, and the
Court's order granting in part the Defendant's motion to exclude at
trial evidence of visa fraud, Judge Rogers finds that the
Plaintiffs have not shown good cause in compelling circumstances to
compel remote testimony of Jindal.  Accordingly, she denied without
prejudice their motion.  Her Order terminates Docket Number 497.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 17, 2018 Pretrial Order is
available at https://is.gd/53gvuu from Leagle.com.

Brian Buchanan & Christopher Slaight, Plaintiffs, represented by
Daniel A. Kotchen -- dkotchen@kotchen.com -- Kotchen & Low LLP,
Daniel Lee Low -- dlow@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low LLP, Michael
J. von Klemperer -- mvonklemperer@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low
LLP, Lindsey Grunert -- ltremaine@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low
LLP, Michael F. Brown -- mbrown@dvglawpartner.com -- DVG Law
Partner LLC & Steven Gregory Tidrick -- sgt@tidricklaw.com -- The
Tidrick Law Firm.

Seyed Amir Masoudi & Nobel Mandili, Plaintiffs, represented by
Lindsey Grunert, Kotchen and Low LLP, Michael J. von Klemperer,
Kotchen and Low LLP & Daniel A. Kotchen , Kotchn & Low LLP.

Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Michelle
M. LaMar -- mlamar@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb LLP, Bernard Robert
Given, II -- bgiven@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb, Erin Michelle Smith --
esmith@loeb.com -- Loeb and Loeb LLP, Laura Ann Wytsma --
lwytsma@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb LLP, Patrick Norton Downes --
pdownes@loeb.com -- Loeb And Loeb LLP, Terry D. Garnett --
tgarnett@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb LLP & William Michael Brody --
wbrody@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb.

Apple Inc., Movant, represented by Danielle Conley --
DANIELLE.CONLEY@WILMERHALE.COM -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP, Kathryn Diane Zalewski -- KATHRYN.ZALEWSKI@WILMERHALE.COM
-- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP & Kimberly A. Parker --
KIMBERLY.PARKER@WILMERHALE.COM -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP.


TENNANT CO: Court Narrows Claims in Watson Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDWARD WATSON, an Individual, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and the general public,
Plaintiff, v. TENNANT COMPANY, a Minnesota Corporation, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-CV-02462-WBS-DB
(E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California (i) granted in part and denied
in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss various claims for
failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6); and (ii) and granted in part and denied in part
the Defendant's motion to strike various claims pursuant to Rule
12(f).

Watson initiated the putative class action against his former
employer Defendant Tennant and Does 1 through 50, alleging multiple
violations of state law arising out of his employment with the
Defendant.

The Defendant specializes in the sale and upkeep of cleaning
equipment.  It employs hourly non-exempt service technicians to
repair and maintain its customers' cleaning equipment.  The
Plaintiff previously worked for the Defendant in this capacity,
including during some portion of 2016.  The Plaintiff's claims
concern the Defendant's practices with respect to, inter alia,
overtime wages, meal and rest periods, and wage statements.

On Aug. 18, 2017, the Plaintiff made an online submission notifying
California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency of facts and
theories regarding the Defendant's alleged Labor Code violations.
Nearly one year later, on Aug. 7, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a civil
action in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Solano.

The complaint asserts claims against all the Defendants for: (1)
unpaid overtime; (2) unpaid minimum wages; (3) meal and rest break
violations; (4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; (5) waiting time penalties; (6) conversion; (7)
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and (8)
penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act of
2004 ("PAGA").

On Sept. 7, 2018, the Defendant removed the action to the Court.
The Defendant now moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's PAGA and
conversion claims.  It also moves to strike elements of the
Plaintiff's requests for damages in the complaint's first, second,
third, and fourth causes of action, as well as to strike the
Plaintiff's conversion and PAGA claims in their entirety.

Judge Shubb granted with leave to amend the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the eighth cause of action of the Plaintiff's complaint.
He also granted with leave to amend the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the sixth cause of action of the Plaintiff's complaint to
the extent that it concerns minimum wages and overtime wages, and
without leave to amend to the extent that it concerns meal and rest
period premiums.

Among other things, the Judge finds that while the Defendant's
assumption that the Plaintiff's last alleged wrong occurred no
later than Dec. 31, 2016 may be reasonable, the current language of
the complaint leaves open the possibility that there was less than
one year and 65 days between the Plaintiff's last alleged wrong and
the filing of the Plaintiff's civil action on Aug. 17, 2018.
Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
eighth cause of action is granted with leave to amend.

The Judge denied the Defendant's motion to strike with respect to
the following elements of the complaint: Complaint paragraph 28,
page 9, lines 1-2; Complaint paragraph 34, page 9, line 25;
Complaint paragraph 35, page 10, lines 1-3; Complaint paragraph 36,
page 10, lines 4-7; Complaint paragraph 41, page 11, line 2-3;
Complaint paragraph 1, page 11, line 3; Complaint paragraph 41,
page 11, line 3; Complaint paragraph 44, page 11, line 19;
Complaint paragraphs 50-56; Complaint paragraph 61, page 14, lines
26-28; Complaint paragraphs 62-68; Complaint, Prayer for Relief
paragraph 3, page 16, lines 26-27; Complaint, Prayer for Relief
paragraph 4, page 17, lines 1-2; and Complaint, Prayer for Relief
paragraph 8, page 17, lines 8-9.  He granted the motion with
respect to Complaint, Prayer for Relief paragraph 11, page 17,
lines 12-13.

In its notice of motion to strike portions of the Plaintiff's
complaint pursuant to Rule 12(f), the Judge finds that the
Defendant enumerates the 15 portions of the complaint it moves to
strike.  He expresses no opinion about the validity of any
particular legal theory advanced by the Defendant in support of its
motion to strike the first 14 portions.  The Defendant may have
raised valid concerns about the materiality and relevance of
several portions of the complaint.  Regardless, at this stage in
the litigation, the Judge is unable to determine that these
elements have no logical connection to the controversy at issue.
Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to strike is denied with
respect to the portions of the complaint enumerated in paragraphs
1-14 of the notice of motion to strike.

The Plaintiff has 20 days from the date the Order is signed to file
an amended complaint, if he can do so consistent with the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 17, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/rmIuX7 from Leagle.com.

Edward Watson, an Individual, Individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff,
represented by Alireza Alivandivafa -- aalivandi@gmail.com -- &
Azad M. Marvazy -- azad@lightlawgroup.com.

Tennant Company, a Minnesota Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Leigh A. White -- lwhite@cdflaborlaw.com -- Carothers Disante &
Freudenberger LLP & Jeffrey C. Bils -- jbils@cdflaborlaw.com --
Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger, LLP.


TESLA INC: Receives SEC Subpoena Amid Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria Sage, writing for Reuters, reports that Tesla Inc said
on Nov. 2 it had received a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission over forecasts it made about Model 3 production
in 2017, a set of targets the electric vehicle company failed to
hit on time.

The SEC issued subpoenas over "certain projections that we made for
Model 3 production rates during 2017 and other public statements
relating to Model 3 production," Tesla said in a quarterly filing
on Nov. 2. A subpoena can compel a company to turn over materials
that the requesting agency wants to review.

The SEC had also issued subpoenas in connection with Chief
Executive Elon Musk's previous statements that he was considering
taking the company private, it said.

Both the SEC and U.S. Department of Justice are looking at whether
Tesla misled investors about its business.

"To our knowledge no government agency in any ongoing investigation
has concluded that any wrongdoing occurred," Tesla wrote in its
filing.

The SEC issued subpoenas over "certain projections that we made for
Model 3 production rates during 2017 and other public statements
relating to Model 3 production," Tesla said in a quarterly filing
on Nov. 2. A subpoena can compel a company to turn over materials
that the requesting agency wants to review.

The SEC had also issued subpoenas in connection with Chief
Executive Elon Musk's previous statements that he was considering
taking the company private, it said.

Both the SEC and U.S. Department of Justice are looking at whether
Tesla misled investors about its business.

"To our knowledge no government agency in any ongoing investigation
has concluded that any wrongdoing occurred," Tesla wrote in its
filing.

The SEC declined to comment.

The company also said on Nov. 2 that 44 percent of its
third-quarter net profit was from previously undisclosed regulatory
credits.

Investors have been trying to ascertain if the worst is over for
the Silicon Valley company amid the fallout from Musk's short-lived
plan in August to take the company private, and determine if Tesla
has finally stabilized its rocky Model 3 production and can build
the car at a profit.

Following the launch of the Model 3 last year, Tesla repeatedly
missed aggressive production targets for the new vehicle, blaming
"manufacturing bottlenecks."

Jay Dublow -- dubowj@pepperlaw.com -- a partner with Pepper
Hamilton LLP and former branch chief in the SEC's enforcement
division, said the agency was likely looking at whether Tesla's
projections had been "based on fact or not."

"It is possible for another SEC enforcement action down the road if
it turns out that the projections were purposefully or recklessly
made without a basis," Mr. Dublow said.

Tesla is already facing a proposed class action shareholder lawsuit
claiming that the company and top executives made false statements
about the readiness of the Model 3 for volume production. The
lawsuit cites repeated promises in 2017 that Tesla was "on track"
to build 5,000 Model 3s per week by the end of that year at its
factory in Fremont, California.

Tesla finally met that target in June of this year.

Tesla has denied the claims, saying it disclosed production
bottlenecks once identified, and pointing to Musk's public
statements that the company was undergoing a period of "production
hell" in 2017.

A Tesla spokesperson told Reuters last week that the company had
received a voluntary request from the Department of Justice for
documents related to Model 3 production forecasts, but had not
received a subpoena. [GN]


THOMSON REUTERS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Dochnal FCRA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAREK A. DOCHNAL, Plaintiff, v. THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-CV-00044 (E.D. Tenn.), Judge Pamela L.
Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee (i) granted TRC's motion to dismiss, and (ii) denied
Dochnal's motion to amend complaint.

Dochnal sued TRC in the Eastern District of Tennessee, alleging
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Tennessee
Consumer Protection Act.  The Plaintiff alleges that TRC operates a
subscription-only, public records database known as World-Check,
that is used by financial institutions and governments to combat
crime and international terrorism.  Dochnal avers his profile on
World-Check is harmful to his reputation.  For jurisdictional
purposes, Dochnal avers that TRC does business in Washington
County, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is a Polish activist, who resides outside the United
States and is a citizen of a foreign country.  TRC is incorporated
in Ontario, Canada, and maintains a place of business in Toronto,
Canada.  One of TRC's many subsidiaries is World-Check, a
London-based group that compiles information about individuals and
businesses gathered through various public sources.  World-Check is
managed by Reuters Limited, a subsidiary of TRC located in London,
England.

Dochnal's World-Check profile contains his name, date of birth,
place of birth, citizenship, location, companies, biography, and a
summary report.  The narrative section of the profile addresses
criminal history, including dates of arrest, convictions, and
releases from detention.  All data comes from publicly-available
sources and is not generated by World-Check.  World-Check provides
cites to publicly available sources for the information contained
therein.  World-Check profiles contain a general legal notice that
subscribers should conduct independent checks to verify its
profile, and that World-Check is not responsible for the content of
third party sites or sources.

According to his World-Check profile, Dochnal's criminal history
includes convictions for corruption, racketeering, and bribing
members of the Polish Parliament.  Dochnal claims that as a result
of this information being compiled and provided to subscribers by
World-Check, he has experienced harm to his reputation and economic
damages.  He further alleges mysterious lost business opportunities
due to denial of his right to open a bank account at several banks
in different countries, including the United States.  Dochnal
alleges TRC has violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act as well as
the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.  Dochnal is seeking
injunctive relief requiring all records concerning him be removed
from TRC's databases and reports, as well as unspecified damages.


TRC moves to dismiss the complaint on three grounds (1) lack of
personal jurisdiction over TRC, (2) improper venue, and (3)
Dochnal's lack of standing to bring suit in the Court.

Judge Reeves finds that because Dochnal fails to plead any facts
connecting his claims to Tennessee, TRC's motion to dismiss is
granted.

Dochnal offers no facts to support an alter-ego theory, or that
would indicate the presence of any unfairness in failing to apply
the test.  He will not be denied the opportunity to bring suit in
another jurisdiction and denial of personal jurisdiction in the
Eastern District of Tennessee is unlikely to substantially affect
his ability to recover damages.  The Judge finds Dochnal has failed
to meet the purposeful availment requirement to bring this action
in the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Dochnal states that he was denied credit by a bank in Switzerland.
He has not alleged any TRC activity in Tennessee; he has only
alleged actions by subsidiaries.  His entire argument depends on
the Court imputing subsidiary action to the parent company.  As
discussed, TRC is not the alter-ego of these subsidiaries, and
corporate ownership alone is insufficient for the purposes of
exercising personal jurisdiction.  Dochnal provides no factual
support for his claim that the events giving rise to his alleged
harm occurred in Tennessee, and he thus fails to meet the second
prong of the test.

Moreover, Dochnal has made no showing that his interests in
obtaining relief will be seriously affected by the case being
dismissed.  Cases that are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction do
not act as an adjudication on the merits.  Dochnal will not be
precluded from refiling his suit in a more appropriate location
such as Canada, Poland, or England.  Since all of the relevant
events underlying the controversy did not occur in Tennessee and
most of the discovery will necessarily involve the production of
foreign legal papers and deposing foreign witnesses, the Judge
finds exercising jurisdiction over TRC would not be reasonable.

Next, the Judge finds that the problem with the case venue is there
is no forum within the United States that appears to be an
appropriate venue for the case.  The only harm Dochnal has
specifically alleged is being denied a bank account in Switzerland.
General jurisdiction cannot be obtained anywhere in the United
States, specific jurisdiction only seems appropriate in Poland,
Canada, England or Switzerland.  Transfer out of the country is not
contemplated under Section 1406.  Rather, it appears more
appropriate to dismiss the case without prejudice and allow Dochnal
to file suit in a more appropriate forum.  Although Dochnal has
alleged violations of Tennessee law as well, he should not be
permitted by means of a transfer to resurrect claims which might be
lost due to a complete lack of diligence in determining the proper
forum in the first place.

Finally, the proposed amended complaint attaches requests from the
proposed Plaintiffs sent by their counsel in Miami, Florida to
"World Check" in London England.  Because the proposed Plaintiffs'
cause of action does not arise from the activities of any Defendant
in Tennessee, the Judge holds that the Court has no specific
jurisdiction.  Because the proposed amended complaint does not cure
the defects of the original complaint, he finds it would not
survive a motion to dismiss.  Accordingly, the motion to amend is
denied.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Reeves granted Thomson Reuter's
motion to dismiss, and denied Dochnal's motion to amend complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 17, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/TBMBzi from Leagle.com.

Marek A. Dochnal, Plaintiff, represented by Edward Buchanan --
ebuchanan@swblegal.com -- Law Office of Edward Buchanan, pro hac
vice.

Thomson Reuters Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ashley M.
Strittmatter -- astrittmatter@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker, Donelson,
Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Eric C. Bosset --
ebosset@cov.com -- Covington & Burling, LLP, pro hac vice &
Katharine R. Goodloe -- kgoodloe@cov.com -- Covington & Burling,
LLP, pro hac vice.


TRIBUNE MEDIA: 22 Television Advertising-Related Class Suits Filed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribune Media Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has
been named as defendant in at least 22 class action suits related
to price-fixing of television advertising rates.

Starting in July 2018, a series of plaintiffs have filed putative
class action lawsuits against the company, Tribune Broadcasting
Company, Sinclair, and other named and unnamed defendants,
including Hearst Television, Inc., Nexstar Media Group Inc., TEGNA
Inc., Gray Television, Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants")
alleging that the Defendants coordinated their pricing of
television advertising, thereby harming a proposed class of all
buyers of television advertising time from one or more of the
Defendants since at least January 1, 2014.

The plaintiff in each lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and money
damages caused by the alleged antitrust violations. Currently, at
least twenty-two lawsuits have been filed and are being
consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs are
expected to file an amended complaint once the lawsuits are
consolidated.

Tribune Media said, "We believe the above lawsuits are without
merit and intend to defend them vigorously."

Tribune Media Company, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
media and entertainment company in the United States. It offers
news, entertainment, and sports programming through Tribune
Broadcasting local television stations, including FOX television
affiliates, CW Network, LLC television affiliates, CBS television
affiliates, ABC television affiliates, MY television affiliates,
NBC television affiliates, and independent television stations; and
television series and movies on WGN America, a national general
entertainment cable network. Tribune Media Company was founded in
1847 and is based in Chicago, Illinois.


TRIBUNE MEDIA: Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund Files Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tribune Media Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has
been named as a defendant in a putative securities class action
suit initiated by Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund.

On September 10, 2018, the Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund filed a
putative securities class action complaint (the "Securities
Complaint") against the company and members of its senior
management in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

The Securities Complaint alleges that Tribune Media Company and its
senior management violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by misrepresenting and omitting
material facts concerning Sinclair's conduct during the Merger
approval process. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages in favor
of the Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund and other putative class
members, defined as purchasers of the company's stock between
November 29, 2017 and July 16, 2018, in an amount to be proven at
trial.

Tribune Media said, "We believe this lawsuit is without merit and
intend to defend it vigorously."

Tribune Media Company, through its subsidiaries, operates as a
media and entertainment company in the United States. It offers
news, entertainment, and sports programming through Tribune
Broadcasting local television stations, including FOX television
affiliates, CW Network, LLC television affiliates, CBS television
affiliates, ABC television affiliates, MY television affiliates,
NBC television affiliates, and independent television stations; and
television series and movies on WGN America, a national general
entertainment cable network. Tribune Media Company was founded in
1847 and is based in Chicago, Illinois.


TRINIDAD: Greenvale Residents Mull Class Action Over Flooding
-------------------------------------------------------------
Camille Hunte, writing for Trinidad Express, reports that as the
Greenvale community continues to pick up the pieces following the
devastating flooding two weeks ago, residents are moving to bring a
class-action lawsuit against the State for compensation.

This as they say the grants of $15,000 and $20,000 being given by
the Government are insufficient to cover the hundreds of thousands
of dollars worth of damage they suffered and the emotional trauma
they experienced. [GN]


UNDER ARMOUR: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Under Armour Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the Court in In re
Under Armour Securities Litigation dismissed the Securities Act
claims with prejudice and the Exchange Act claims without
prejudice.

On March 23, 2017, three separate securities cases previously filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland (the "Court") were consolidated under the
caption In re Under Armour Securities Litigation, Case No.
17-cv-00388-RDB (the "Consolidated Action").

On August 4, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action,
North East Scotland Pension Fund, joined by named plaintiff Bucks
County Employees Retirement Fund, filed a consolidated amended
complaint (the "Amended Complaint") against the Company, the
Company's Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial
Officers, Lawrence Molloy and Brad Dickerson.  

The Amended Complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) (and Rule
10b-5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act") and Section 20(a) control person liability under
the Exchange Act against the officers named in the Amended
Complaint, claiming that the defendants made material misstatements
and omissions regarding, among other things, the Company's growth
and consumer demand for certain of the Company's products.

The class period identified in the Amended Complaint is September
16, 2015 through January 30, 2017. The Amended Complaint also
asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), in connection with the
Company's public offering of senior unsecured notes in June 2016.


The Securities Act claims are asserted against the Company, the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Molloy, the Company's
directors who signed the registration statement pursuant to which
the offering was made and the underwriters that participated in the
offering. The Amended Complaint alleges that the offering materials
utilized in connection with the offering contained false and/or
misleading statements and omissions regarding, among other things,
the Company's growth and consumer demand for certain of the
Company’s products.

On November 9, 2017, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On September 19, 2018,
the Court dismissed the Securities Act claims with prejudice and
the Exchange Act claims without prejudice. The lead plaintiff will
have an opportunity to submit a further amended complaint with
respect to the Exchange Act claims.

Under Armour said, "The Company continues to believe that the
claims previously asserted in the Consolidated Action are without
merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. However,
because of the inherent uncertainty as to the outcome of this
proceeding, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the
possible impact of the outcome of this matter."

Under Armour Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes a
range of apparel and accessories using synthetic microfiber
fabrications in the U.S. and internationally. The company was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Baltimore.


UNDER ARMOUR: MyFitnessPal Application Breach Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Under Armour Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has
been named as defendant in a consumer class action suit related to
the unauthorized third party acquired data of the Company's
MyFitnessPal application and website.

During the quarter ended March 31, 2018, an unauthorized third
party acquired data associated with the Company's Connected Fitness
users' accounts for the Company's MyFitnessPal application and
website.

A consumer class action lawsuit has been filed against the Company
in connection with this incident, and the Company has received
inquiries regarding the incident from certain government regulators
and agencies.  

Under Armour said, "The Company does not currently consider these
matters to be material and believes its insurance coverage will
provide coverage should any significant expense arise.

Under Armour Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes a
range of apparel and accessories using synthetic microfiber
fabrications in the U.S. and internationally. The company was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Baltimore.


UNITED STATES: Migrant Caravan Members File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Caitlin Cruz, writing for Bustle, reports that on Nov. 1 in U.S.
District Court in Washington, D.C., 12 Honduran migrants traveling
toward U.S. sued President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff
Sessions as well as leaders of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
and the Department of Homeland Security, alleging that the
administration is in violation of their due process rights as
guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. The class-action lawsuit, which
was filed by parents and on behalf of their children, called
Trump's "professed and enacted policy" toward the group of migrants
slowly making their way toward the U.S. through Mexico to seek
asylum as "shockingly unconstitutional." Bustle has reached out to
the White House for comment.

The suit contends that Trump and his administration are abusing
their constitutional rights. "President Trump continues to abuse
the law, including constitutional rights, to deter Central
Americans from exercising their lawful right to seek asylum in the
United States, and the fact that innocent children are involved
matters none to President Trump," according to the suit.

The filing also mentioned Trump's plan to deploy 5,200 active-duty
military troops to the southern border. USA Today reported that
roughly 2,100 National Guard members were already deployed to the
border this year by Trump.

"The legal problem with Trump's plan to stop caravan persons from
entering this country is that Plaintiffs are seeking asylum, and
Trump simply cannot stop them from legally doing so by using
military, or anyone," according to the suit.

News of the slow-moving group of migrants -- which began in
Honduras -- has dominated headlines recently. A study by
left-leaning watchdog organization Media Matters found that
mainstream outlets are flooding the market with stories about the
caravan, which has since slowed as members started moving through
Mexico on foot. Media Matters found that The New York Times and The
Washington Post have written 115 stories about the caravan.

While coverage of the caravan continued to dominate headlines and
newscasts, Trump tweeted on Oct. 18 that the caravan contains "MANY
CRIMINALS" but has not produced evidence to support his claims. The
lawsuit has seized on this.

"President Trump has begun hysterically asserting without any
evidence that 'many criminals' and 'many gang members' are in this
'onslaught' of migration. In an effort to create fear and hysteria,
Trump has gone so far as to call this 'an invasion of our
Country,'" the plaintiffs' write, according to the lawsuit.
"Despite these statements and actions, Trump has been unable to
produce any evidence of criminals and gang members within the
caravan, which has largely proceeded peacefully on its journey."

Mike Donovan, the president of Nexus Derechos Humanos (the law firm
that filed the suit), told The Daily Beast that the Trump
administration has violated asylum seekers' rights. "The President
is violating federal law, trampling the rights of Americans and
legal immigrants to be free from use of the military for law
enforcement, and has set up a potential catastrophe at the
US/Mexico border all in the name of white nationalism and with the
objective of scoring political points," Donovan said in a
statement.

On Nov. 2, Trump said he expects to sign an executive order to curb
rules of who can seek asylum, largely seen as targeting those in
the caravan. It remains to be seen how this lawsuit will effect
Trump's potentially coming executive order. [GN]


USAA GENERAL: Court Dismisses MSP Recovery Suit Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, Plaintiff, v. USAA
GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
18-21626-CIV-ALTONAGA/Goodman (S.D. Fla.), Judge Cecilia M.
Altonaga of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third
Amended Class Complaint for Damages ("Fourth Motion"), filed Aug.
6, 2018.

MSP Series filed its first Complain in the action in state court,
naming as the Defendant, United Services Automobile Association, on
Aug. 10, 2017.  Some eight months after US Auto moved to dismiss
the Complaint, MSP Series filed an Amended Class Action Complaint
for Damages.  The Amended Complaint introduced a cause of action
alleging a violation of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, in
relation to a "representative" accident claim of K.N., who was
enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan issued and administered by
Heath First Administrative Plans ("HFAP").  HFAP is allegedly a
Medicare Advantage Organization ("MAO") that was charged for K.N.'s
bills and then assigned its rights to recover conditional payments
to MSP Recovery, LLC .  MSP Recovery then assigned the recovery
rights to the Plaintiff.  US Auto removed the action on April 24,
2018.

Then, on May 8, 2018, US Auto filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Amended Class Action Complaint ("Second Motion") on the basis
certain assignment agreements upon which the Plaintiff relied were
insufficient to confer standing upon MSP Series.  US Auto learned
from public records and case law that HFAP is not an MAO, and only
MAOs may bring claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1395y, the Medicare
Secondary Payer Act.  US Auto also asserted MSP Series failed to
allege any nexus or reason why US Auto might owe anything to the
Assignor that allegedly assigned its claims to the Plaintiff.

On May 24, 2018, MSP Series filed an Unopposed Motion for Leave to
File Second Amended Complaint.  Consequently, the Court denied the
Second Motion as moot and allowed MSP to file its third pleading.
On May 25, 2018, MSP Series filed its third pleading, a Second
Amended Complaint ("SAC").  The SAC alleged (1) a different entity,
Health First Health Plans, Inc. ("HFHP") is actually the MAO in
which K.N. was enrolled, (2) HFHP paid K.N.'s bills, and (3) HFHP
owned the conditional recovery rights, which itassigned to MSP
Series.

On June 15, 2018, US Auto filed a Motion to Dismiss ("Third
Motion"), arguing, among other things, because of defective
assignments, the Plaintiff lacked standing; and it had sued the
incorrect defendant.  On June 21, 2018, MSP Series filed a Motion
for Leave to Amend and Corrected Motion for Leave to Amend, asking
it be allowed to file a fourth pleading, a third amended complaint,
to add clarifying allegations regarding assignment of all rights of
recovery and to change the named Defendant.

Following a hearing on June 29, 2018, the Court denied the Third
Motion, allowed the Plaintiff to file its third and final amended
complaint, and gave MSP Series until July 9, 2018 to serve the new
Defendant.  On July 2, 2018, MSP Series filed its Third Amended
Complaint ("TAC"), for the first time naming USAA.  The present,
Fourth Motion followed, challenging (1) the Plaintiff's Article III
standing, (2) the Plaintiff's compliance with prerequisites to
filing suit, and (3) the Plaintiff's ability to allege a
breach-of-contract or subrogation claim.  Because the Court agrees
Plaintiff lacks standing to bring the claims, the Court does not
reach the remaining arguments.

The matter came before the Court for a hearing on Sept. 13, 2018 on
USAA's Motion to Dismiss the Fourth Motion.  It moves to dismiss
for lack of standing because based on the allegations and exhibits
to the TAC, the Plaintiff fails to allege facts supporting its
purported standing or a valid claim for relief.  Because USAA does
not ask the Court to consider any extrinsic evidence outside of the
TAC or its attachments, the Motion constitutes a facial attack on
the Plaintiff's standing.

In light of the ever-shifting allegations the Plaintiff has
presented in its four versions of its pleading, Judge Altonaga
concludes it is evident thhe Plaintiff has played fast and loose
with facts, corporate entities, and adverse judicial rulings.  The
Plaintiff has inexorably been forced to recognize there never
existed an MAO with the ability to bring or assign a claim under
the MSP Act for recovery of payment of K.N.'s bills.  Undeterred,
the Plaintiff sought to rewrite history with a convoluted story,
told by Mr. Keeler and his counsel, that there was an MAO all along
that properly assigned those rights.  Yet, that is not so.  The
Judge finds that the somewhat careless drafting of documents by
lawyers clearly referencing a non-MAO as the assigning entity --
HFAP -- cannot be cured by attempting post facto to create and
dispel an ambiguity that never existed.

Being fully advised, she granted Defendant, USAA's Motion and
dismissed the case without prejudice.  The Clerk is instructed to
mark the case closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct 19, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/g8pzlM from Leagle.com.

MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, a Delaware entity, Plaintiff,
represented by Arturo Alvarez -- aalvarez@dlp-law.com -- Arturo
Alvarez attorney at law, Eduardo Enrique Bertran , Armas Law Firm,
Frank Carlos Quesada -- fquesada@msprecovery.com -- MSP Recovery
Law Firm, John Hasan Ruiz -- jruiz@msprecovery.com -- MSP Recovery
Law Firm, Natalia Marrero -- nmarrero@armaslaw.com -- Armas Bertran
Pieri, Francesco Antonio Zincone, III -- fzincone@armaslaw.com --
Armas Bertran Pieri & Gino Moreno, La Ley Law Firm.
USAA General Indemnity Company, a Foreign Profit Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Jonathan Dov Lamet --
jonathan.lamet@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP & Stacy Jaye Rodriguez --
stacy.rodriguez@akerman.com -- Akerman Senterfitt.


VBI VACCINES: SciVac Ltd. Faces Putative Class Suit in Israel
-------------------------------------------------------------
VBI Vaccines Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that SciVac Ltd., a
subsidiary, has been named as defendant in a putative class action
suit in Israel.

On September 13, 2018, two unidentified minors filed, through their
parents, a claim in the District Court of the central district in
Israel against the company's subsidiary SciVac Ltd., alleging,
among other things, defects in certain batches of Sci-B-Vac
discovered in July 2015; that Sci-B-Vac was approved for use in
children and infants in Israel without sufficient evidence
establishing its safety; that SciVac Ltd. failed to provide
accurate information about Sci-B-Vac to consumers and that each
child suffered side effects from the vaccine.

The claim was filed together with a motion seeking approval of a
class action on behalf of 428,000 children vaccinated with
Sci-B-Vac in Israel from April, 2011 and seeking damages in a total
amount of NIS 1,879,500,000 (not in thousands).

VBI Vaccines said, "SciVac Ltd. believes this matter to be without
merit and intends to oppose this motion and otherwise defend this
matter vigorously."

VBI Vaccines Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops and sells
vaccines to address unmet needs in infectious disease and
immuno-oncology in Israel and internationally. The company is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. VBI Vaccines Inc. is a
subsidiary of FDS Pharma ASS.


WELLS FARGO: Hit With Nationwide Lawsuit Over Robocalls
-------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for AOL, reports that 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.

Filed on October 25 on behalf of a nationwide class, the lawsuit
accuses Wells Fargo of calling wrong numbers with auto-dialing
equipment and failing to honor requests to stop. The complaint
seeks triple damages under the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, or up to $1,500 for each call.

A spokesman for Wells Fargo could not immediately be reached for
comment.

The lawsuit makes use of a recent 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
ruling in Marks v Crunch San Diego, a consumer class action against
a gym operator. That decision broadened the definition of
automatically dialed calls, which are barred by the TCPA if made to
cell phones.

Previously, autodialers were defined as devices that randomly
generate phone numbers and call them. But the 9th Circuit on Sept.
20 ruled that the definition also includes equipment that
automatically dials numbers stored on a list.

The 9th Circuit's ruling sparked an outcry from business groups,
which have been urging the Federal Communications Commissions to
issue an interpretative rule restoring a narrower definition of an
auto dialer.

In a comment letter to the FCC on Oct. 24, the American Bankers
Association said the 9th Circuit's ruling ignores Congress' intent
in restricting auto-dialing when it passed the TCPA in 1991.
Congress meant to ban mass calls to random numbers, not calls to
lists of a company's customers or similar stored numbers, the ABA
said.

Citing the 9th Circuit's decision, October 25 lawsuit said Wells
Fargo's equipment meets the definition of an automatic dialing
system because it automatically dials numbers from stored lists.
Wells Fargo often leaves prerecorded messages on cell phones, which
is also barred by the TCPA, the lawsuit alleged.

The lawsuit was filed by Michigan resident Lisa Barnes, who alleged
that Wells Fargo began calling her cell phone in 2016 asking to
speak to a Richard Loutman, a man Barnes did not know.

Barnes was never a Wells Fargo customer and did not consent to be
called, the complaint said. Barnes asked Wells to stop calling, but
the calls continued, her lawsuit said.

The Federal Communications Commission has been reconsidering its
rules on auto dialers since May, when it issued a notice seeking
comments.

The case is Barnes v Wells Fargo Bank, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California, No 18-6520 [GN]


WESTERN UNION: Settles Unwanted Text Class Action for $8.5MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Armbruster, writing for News4JAX, reports that if you've
received an unwanted text message from Western Union, you could be
owed some money.

The company has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit.

Though it denies the allegations, Western Union officials said the
company will pay out $8.5 million.

The settlement has been granted final approval, and the deadline
has been extended to Nov. 25.

Qualified participants could each get up to $250. [GN]


WOOD GROUP: Court Partly Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Fenley Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TOMMY L. FENLEY, Plaintiff, v. WOOD GROUP MUSTANG,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-326 (S.D. Ohio), Judge George C.
Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, (i) denied as moot WGM's Motion for Leave to File
Interlocutory Appeal; (ii) granted in part and denied in part WGM's
Motion for Summary Judgment; (iii) denied WGM's Motion to Reopen
Discovery; (iv) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Equitable
Tolling; and (v) granted WGM's Motion to Withdraw Richard Ashley
from Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

The matter is based upon the Defendant's treatment of various
Inspectors as exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio
Revised Code Chapter 4111, et seq., the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

On March 30, 2018, the Court issued an Opinion and Order in which
it granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification
and denied WGM's Motion to Decertify Plaintiffs' Conditionally
Certified FLSA Class.  In reaching these conclusions, it ultimately
determined that the outcome of this matter is dependent on whether
the Inspectors' salaries were in fact guaranteed, or whether they
were simply something that the Defendant had not so far availed
itself of its right to reduce.

Further, in the context of its FLSA decertification analysis, the
Court found that the differences among the Plaintiffs simply did
not outweigh the similarities of the practices to which they were
allegedly subjected.  Similarly, in the context of the Court's Rule
23 class certification analysis, it found that the Plaintiffs'
claims and WGM's defenses are common to all Inspectors and
resolution of that central issue is certainly likely to drive
resolution of the case.

In the wake of the Court's March 30 Opinion and Order, WGM
petitioned the Sixth Circuit for permission to appeal that Opinion
and Order as it pertains to the certification of the Plaintiffs'
Rule 23 classes.  WGM now seeks to have the Court certify for
interlocutory appeal the portion of the March 30 Opinion and Order
pertaining to the decertification of the FLSA collective action.

In addition, WGM has moved: 1) for summary judgment to preclude
several of the opt-in Plaintiffs from participating in the
collective action due to either their failure to participate in
discovery or because they are outside the putative class to strike
one of the FLSA Plaintiffs from its motion for summary judgment;
and 3) to reopen discovery for the "limited purpose" of deposing
each and every FLSA Plaintiff and Rule 23 Class Member.

Finally, the Plaintiffs have moved for equitable tolling for a
certain subset of the FLSA Plaintiffs.

Judge Smith finds that even though WGM's Motion for Interlocutory
Appeal had not yet been decided, the Sixth Circuit has explicitly
stated that it has considered the matter and found immediate appeal
to be inappropriate.  Consistent therewith, WGM's Motion for
Interlocutory Appeal will be denied as moot.

WGM's Motion for Summary Judgment seeks to have the claims of 24
individuals dismissed with prejudice.  The purported reasons for
which are as follows: Fourteen for claims that are time barred,
eight for failure to participate in discovery, and two for being
outside the defined FLSA and Rule 23 classes.  The Judge will not
bar Keyes and Robbins from pursuing their claims outside of the
present action, but the Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence to
suggest that tolling the statute of limitations for the two
Plaintiffs who are clearly situated outside the scope of the
approved FLSA and Rule 23 classes would be appropriate.
Accordingly, he will dismiss Keyes and Robbins without prejudice.

The Judge believes that the Plaintiffs have likewise conceded that
Galvan's claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
Accordingly, he will dismiss Enriquez, Stanley, Wiley, and Galvan
with prejudice.  Finally, WGM filed an unopposed Motion to Withdraw
Richard Ashley from its Motion for Summary Judgment.  Ashley was
included in WGM's Motion for Summary Judgment in error.
Accordingly, the Judge will grant WGM's Motion to Withdraw Richard
Ashley from its Motion for Summary Judgment.

While it appears that the individual Plaintiffs cited by WGM are
not entirely without blame, there is no evidence to suggest that
the relevant Plaintiffs acted with bad faith, that they were
provided notice that their alleged disobedience could result in the
termination of their claims, and no lesser sanctions were imposed
or considered.  Accordingly, the Judge is not prepared to dismiss
the individuals' claims when they were not afforded the procedural
safeguards set forth in Rule 37 and Local Rule 37.1.  As such, he
will deny WGM's Motion for Summary Judgment, as it pertains to
putative Plaintiffs Green, Kizzire, Miller, Pearson, Sumrall,
White, and White.

As to WGM's Motion to Reopen Discovery, the Judge finds that WGM
has failed to show that the Court should reopen discovery at this
juncture of the litigation.  Accordingly, the Motion willl be
denied.

Finally, with respect to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Equitable
Tolling, the Judge will deny it.  He finds that when weighing the
five factors for Group 1, it is clear that Plaintiffs Nicholas and
Whitmire had actual or constructive notice of the filing
requirements and did not diligently pursue their rights and/or act
reasonably in remaining ignorant of the legal requirement for
filing their claims.  The Plaintiffs in Group 2 have declared they
did not receive any correspondence prior to prior to June 2016, but
do not explain how or why they did not receive correspondence in
2015, but then received correspondence in 2016 that was distributed
by identical means.  That is, the Plaintiffs in Group 2 were either
negligent in receiving and opening the 2015 notice or they were
willfully ignorant of the mailing and the contained notice.  In
either case, the Plaintiffs in Group 2 do not appear to have been
diligent in the pursuit of their rights or reasonable in remaining
ignorant of the filing requirement.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Smith (i) denied as moot WGM's
Motion for Leave to File Interlocutory Appeal; (ii) granted in part
and denied in part WGM's Motion for Summary Judgment; (iii) denied
WGM's Motion to Reopen Discovery; (iv) denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Equitable Tolling; and (v) granted WGM's Motion to
Withdraw Richard Ashley from Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment.

The parties must contact Magistrate Judge Jolson's chambers to
schedule a mediation during the December 2018 Settlement Week.  The
Clerk will remove Documents 127, 129, 136, 138, and 143 from the
Court's pending motions list.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 17, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/IXlzHF from Leagle.com.

Tommy L. Fenley, William Peveto, Brockrobert Tagarook & Lewis
Whitmire, Plaintiffs, represented by Jack Landskroner, Landskroner
- Grieco - Merriman, LLC, Alexandra Koropey Piazza --
apiazza@bm.net -- Berger Montague PC, pro hac vice, Drew T.
Legando, Landskroner - Grieco - Merriman, LLC, Sarah R.
Schalman-Bergen -- sschalman-bergen@bm.net -- Berger Montague PC,
pro hac vice & Shanon J. Carson , -- scarson@bm.net -- Berger
Montague PC, pro hac vice.

Wood Group Mustang, Inc., Defendant, represented by S. Mark Klyza
-- smk@kullmanlaw.com -- The Kullman Firm, Eric R. Miller --
em@kullmanlaw.com -- The Kullman Firm, A Professional Law
Corporation, pro hac vice, Franck G. Wobst --
fwobst@porterwright.com -- Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, Michael
S. Hudson, The Kullman Firm, pro hac vice & Robert P. Lombardi --
rpl@kullmanlaw.com -- The Kullman Firm A Professional Law
Corporation, pro hac vice.


XPO LOGISTICS: Intermodal Drayage Classification Claims Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself from the so-called Intermodal Drayage
Classification Claims.

Certain of the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries are party
to putative class action litigations and other administrative
claims in California brought by independent contract carriers who
contracted with these subsidiaries.

In these litigations, the contract carriers assert that they should
be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors.

said, "XPO LogisticsThe Company believes that it has adequately
accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies that are
probable and reasonably estimable relating to the claims. The
Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued
liability that it may incur as a result of these claims given,
among other reasons, that the range of potential loss could be
impacted substantially by future rulings by the courts involved,
including on the merits of the claims."

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

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Spain, Europe, Asia, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.


XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself from the so-called Last Mile Logistics
Classification Claims.

Certain of the Company's last mile logistics subsidiaries are party
to several putative class action litigations brought by independent
contract carriers who contracted with these subsidiaries. In these
litigations, the contract carriers assert that they should be
classified as employees, rather than independent contractors.

The particular claims asserted vary from case to case, but the
claims generally allege unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, or failure
to provide meal and rest periods, and seek reimbursement of the
contract carriers' business expenses.

The cases include four related matters pending in the Federal
District Court, Northern District of California: Ron Carter, Juan
Estrada, Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald and Joel Morales
v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in March 2016; Ramon Garcia v. Macy's
and XPO Logistics Inc., filed in July 2016; Kevin Kramer v. XPO
Logistics Inc., filed in September 2016; and Hector Ibanez v. XPO
Last Mile, Inc., filed in May 2017.

The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the
potential impact of loss contingencies relating to the foregoing
claims that are probable and reasonably estimable.

XPO Logistics said, "The Company is unable at this time to estimate
the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess
of its accrued liability that it may incur as a result of these
claims given, among other reasons, that the number and identities
of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain and the range of
potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by
the courts involved, including on the merits of the claims."

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

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Spain, Europe, Asia, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.


XPO LOGISTICS: Settlement Funds Distribution in Leug Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that distribution of the
settlement funds in the Leung v. XPO Logistics, Inc., began in
September 2018.

The Company is a party to a putative class action litigation (Leung
v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in May 2015 in the U.S. District
Court, Illinois ("Illinois Court")) alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") related to an automated
customer call system used by a last mile logistics business that
the Company acquired.

The Company has reached an agreement to resolve the Leung case, and
the Illinois Court has approved the settlement and entered final
judgment.

The Company has accrued the full amount of the approved settlement,
and distribution of the settlement funds began in September 2018.

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Spain, Europe, Asia, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.



                            *********

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 ***