CAR_Public/181120.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, November 20, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 232

                            Headlines

1-800 REMODEL: Willis Sues over Unwanted Cellular Telephone Calls
ACETO CORP: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Mulligan & Yang Suits
ACT INC: Court Denies Bais Yaakov's Bid to Certify 2 TCPA Classes
ADIENT PLC: Fails to Report Problems in SS&M Business, Hyder Says
AIR LINE PILOTS: Bishop's Cert. Bid Cont'd; Jan. 22 Hearing Set

ALPARGATAS USA: Fails to Protect Credit Card Info, Guarisma Says
ALPHABET INC: El Mawardy Hits Share Price Drop Over Data Breach
AMAZON.COM: Lines Suit Transferred to Northern District of Texas
AMPCO PITTSBURGH: Still Defends Retired Former Employees' Suit
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Bartholomew and Myhre Suits Dismissed

AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in N.Y.
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Pompano and Cambridge Suits Consolidated
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Shust, Raul & Rabinowitz Suits Dismissed
ANDREWS AND COX: Sued by Tomlison in Indiana for Violating FDCPA
ANGI HOMESERVICES: Provisional Class Cert. Sought in Costello Case

ARENAS PARKS & STADIUM: Fafara Seeks Reimbursements, Overtime Pay
ARITZIA ILLINOIS:  Violates ADA, Nixon Suit Asserts
ATTENDING HOME CARE: Teshabaeva Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
BALMAINE USA: Website Not Blind-accessible, Diaz Says
BARCLAYS BANK: Christensen Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts

BIG BOYZ: Mondal Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
BIRD LAFAYETTE: Nixon Files ADA Class Action in NY
BLACKROCK INC: Appeal in iShares ETFs Investors Suit Still Pending
BLACKROCK INC: Bid to Dismiss Employee 401(k) Plan Suit Underway
BOB EVANS RESTAURANTS: Servers Hit Tip Credit Deduction From Wages

BRISTOL COMPRESSORS: Messer Sues Over WARN Act Violation
CAMBER PHARMACEUTICALS: Longwell Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud
CANADA: Payouts in '60s Scoop Lawsuit in Limbo
CANADA: Thalidomide Challenge Certified as Class Suit
CAPITAL FITNESS: Portions of Gooden Suit Complaint Dismissed

CAREMARK RX: Sued by Vita for Inflating Prescription Drugs Costs
CENTURYLINK INC: Faces Houser Class Action
CENTURYLINK INC: Tomasulo Case Settlement Still Pending
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Orellana Class Action Suit Stayed
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Tentative Deal Reached in Calif. Class Suit

CHEETAH EXPRESS: Newton Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay for Drivers
CHINA ZENIX: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
CITY SIGHTSEEING: Diaz Sues Tour Bus Operator for ADA Violation
CLIENT SERVICES: Miller Files FDCPA Suit in New York
COLLECTION BUREAU: Violates FDCPA, Weisshaus Suit Asserts

COMENITY BANK: Beecroft Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
CONNECTICUT WATER: Settlement Reached in Dunn & Tillotson Suits
CONNECTICUT WATER: Settlement Reached in Paskowitz & Assad Suits
CORIUM INTERNATIONAL: Klein Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Unit Continues to Defend Bass Class Suit

CSWS LLC: Rosebar Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
CYPRUS PAINTING: Duran Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
DEKALB MEDICAL: Lovette-Breedlove Seeks OT Pay under FLSA
DELAWARE NORTH: Abrica Appeals Decision in Collier Suit to 9th Cir.
DELAWARE: Class Suit Claims Brutal Inmate Abuse in Vaughn Prison

DJ SHIRLEY: Seeks 2nd Circuit Review of Ruling in Khalid Suit
DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action
EAGLE HOME: Faasua Hits Missed Breaks; Seeks Unpaid Reimbursements
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Certifies Class in Rhodes FDCPA Suit
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Certifies Class in Volkman FDCPA Suit

EQUIINET INC: Hayes Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages
FACEBOOK INC: Bendetowies Files Suit Over Data Breach
FACEBOOK INC: Sued by Heeger for Storing Users' Private Info
FAIR COLLECTIONS: Wade Files FDCPA Suit in Pa.
FARMLAND PARTNERS: Bid to Consolidate Kachmar & Mariconda Pending

FLORIDA KEYS TAXI: Jurgensmeyer Suit Seeks to Recoup Minimum Wage
FLORIDA POWER: Court Allows Class-Action Lawsuit to Move Forward
FMA ALLIANCE: Magomedov Sues over Debt Collections Practices
FOOD LION: Ratcliffe Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime for ASMs
FOOD TECHNOLOGY: Underpays Quality Control Employees, Suit Says

FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Fernandez-Cryer Consolidated Suit Ongoing
FRONTLINE ASSET: Avilia Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
GENIE ENERGY: IDT Energy Faces Mackey & Hernandez Class Suit
GENIE ENERGY: Settlement Payment in Settling 3 Suits Hits $7.6MM
GO NEW YORK TOURS: Faces Diaz Suit Asserting ADA Violation

GOOGLE INC: Ali Sues Over Illegal Data Gathering and Storing
GOOGLE INC: Sued by Lee for Secretly Tracking Users' Locations
GOOGLE LLC: Illegally Tracks Location Data, Kaufman Claims
GPM INVESTMENTS: Brooks Suit Alleges Equal Pay Act Violation
GRANITE SERVICES: Greinstein Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA

HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Okon Sues Over Tire Pressure Sensors' Flaw
HCL AMERICA: Long Seeks Overtime Pay for Systems Specialists
HIGGMARK MAINTENANCE: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Shetter Says
HONEYWELL INT'L: Bronstein Gewirtz Securities Files Class Action
HONEYWELL INT'L: Kanefsky Sues over Misleading Report, Stock Price

HONEYWELL INT'L: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
HONGS MERCHANDISING: Lee Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Ballew Sues Over Warranty Repair Denial
IAS WARRANTY: Ledoux Sues over Unsolicited Calls
IDEMIA IDENTITY: Rueda Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA

INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Harris-Carr Alleges Misleading Fin'l Reports
INNERWORKINGS INC: Bid to Dismiss Brown Suit Due November 26
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in NY
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Di Donato Class Action
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Class Suits over Opioid Sales

INVESTMENT TECH: Settlement in N.Y. Suit Granted Initial Approval
IRSA INVERSIONES: Sachsenberg Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
IZUMI SUSHI: Galicia Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
JASCO DESIGNS: Loja Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
JOHN B SANFILIPPO: $1.2MM Class Action Settlement Paid in 3Q 2018

JUST BELIEVE RECOVERY: Madden Seeks Overtime Pay for Technicians
K2M GROUP HOLDINGS: Brown Seeks to Halt Sale to Stryker
K2M GROUP HOLDINGS: Franchi Seek to Halt Stryker Merger Deal
KEMET CORP: TOKIN & TOKIN America Still Face Inductors Lawsuit
KLEIN & KLEIN: Feiss Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation

KONA BREWING: Craft Brew Appeals Cert. Order in Broomfield Suit
LAKEFRONT RESTAURANT: Holowicki Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
LAS PALMAS: Denied Payment of OT Wages, Guazozon Suit Says
LG&M HOLDINGS: Guglielmo Seeks Regular & Overtime Pay for Dancers
LIFE FOR RELIEF: Kempton Sues over Spam Text Messages

LJM PARTNERS: Guttman Sues Over Investment Mishap
LOAD TRAIL: Fails to Pay Welders Overtime Wages, Ramirez Claims
LOANME INC: Vo Appeals C.D. California Decision to Ninth Circuit
LOGAN SENIOR: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, Kimble Suit Alleges
LOTTE HOTEL: Fischler Files Class Suit Under ADA

MAMMOTH ENERGY: Still Faces Putative Class Action in Puerto Rico
MASONITE CORP: Sued Over Products' Illegal Pricing Scheme
MATCH GROUP INC: Still Defends Candelore State-Wide Class Suit
MATCH GROUP INC: Time to Appeal McCloskey Ruling Expires
MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL: Sued by Griffith for Violating TCPA

MERCK & CO: Anemone Sues over Zostavax Vaccine
MERCK & CO: Bern Sues over Zostavax Vaccine
MERCK & CO: Binder Sues over Zostavax Vaccine
MERCK & CO: Coffey Sues over Zostavax Vaccine
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Made Unsolicited Calls, Decapua Suit Says

MONSANTO COMPANY: Hiatt Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Monares Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MR COOPER GROUP: Seeks Approval of Settlement in Jordan Suit
MR COOPER GROUP: Stipulation of Dismissal Filed in Franchi Suit
MR Z TOWING: Murray Seeks to Recoup Overtime & Damages Under FLSA

NAMASTE TECHNOLOGIES: Workman Challenges Sale of Dollinger Ent.
NASHVILLE MANAGEMENT: Agreed Form of Notice Okayed in Cabot Suit
NATERA INC: Calif. Court Ruling in IPO Suit under Appeal
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces Mejia Suit in C.D. California
NCL CORP: Faces Philips Class Suit in Florida

NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
NFI, LLC: Stidwell Sues over Use of Biometric Data
NISOURCE INC: Faces Class Suits over Greater Lawrence Incident
NORTH DAKOTA: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over DAPL
NRT TITLE: Faces Lannin Suit Over Illegal Fees and Kickbacks

OC ELECTRICAL: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, Veiga Suit Claims
OMNICELL INC: Status Conference in "Mazya" Suit Set for Feb. 2019
ONESPAN INC: "Bunk" Plaintiffs Agree to Drop Lawsuit
OPHTHOTECH CORP: Bid to Nix Consolidated Class Suit Underway
OPKO HEALTH: Approval of Avraham Case Settlement Sought

OPKO HEALTH: Approval of Idan Sharon Case Settlement Sought
OVASCIENCE INC: Continues to Defend Dahhan Shareholder Class Suit
OVASCIENCE INC: Faces Adlard Class Suit in Massachusetts
OVASCIENCE INC: Westmoreland County Employee Suit Dismissed
PALMER CONSULTING: Hodge & Feeler Seek Unpaid OT Wages

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit Still in Discovery
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Grower Class Suit Remains Pending
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Reconsideration Bid in Hogan Suit Still Pending
PRESRITE CORP: Faces Swindler Suit for Not Paying Overtime Wages
PRETIUM RESOURCES: Lauferman Sues Over Share Price Drop

PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL: Sued over Sale of Adulterated Drug
PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Court Narrows Claims in Thompson Suit
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Subsidiary Faces Advance Trust & Life Class Suit
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Dodge Settlement Receives Final Court Approval
REVLON INC : Appeal in Arden Merger-Related Suit Still Underway

SANTANDER CONSUMER: Reid Sues Over Illegal Repossession Proceedings
SC MAINTENANCE: Laguerre Suit Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA
SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER: 11th Cir. Appeal Filed in Alonso Suit
SERENA & LILY: Fischler Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
SHELTER MUTUAL: Baggett Suit Removed to W.D. Arkansas

SHIRE PLC: Appeals from Dismissal of ELAPRASE Suits Remain Pending
SIXT RENT: Accused by Siglin of Not Truncating Credit Card Info
SKECHERS USA: Foster Files Suit Over Defective Sneakers
SKECHERS USA: Lawsuit by Laborers Local 235 Benefit Fund Pending
SKIL RESOURCE: Caregivers Seek OT Pay for Hrs. Worked Over 40/Week

SLEEP NUMBER: Still Faces Spade Class Action in New Jersey
SOIL MECHANICS: Gambino Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
SONY CORPORATION: Faces Delacruz ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOUNDWICH INC: Fletcher Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
SPARK ENERGY: Plaintiff's Appeal from Nixed Gillis Suit Underway

SPARK ENERGY: Still Defends Veilleux Class Action
SPARK ENERGY: Verde Companies Still Facing Richardson Class Suit
SPARK ENERGY: Verde's Bid for Summary Judgment in "Jurich" Pending
SPECTRA ENERGY: All Proceedings in Putative Class Suit Stayed
SPROUTS FARMERS: Settlement of Arizona Securities Lawsuit Underway

SPROUTS FARMERS: Still Faces Class Suits over Alleged Phishing
SSC HIGH: Elias Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
STAGE STORES: Bergeron Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
STATUE CRUISES: Diaz Sues Ferry Operator for ADA Violation
STEEL PARTNERS: Still Defends Delaware Stockholder Class Suit

STERICYCLE INC: Bid to Drop Illinois Class Suit Still Pending
SUNRISE CREDIT: Switz Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal on Class Status in Bickerstaff Case Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: ERISA Suit Defendants Seek Summary Judgment
SUPERCUTS INC: Martinez Suit Moved to S.D. California

SYNERGY PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Consolidated Class Suit in NY
TEREX CORP: Still Faces Sheet Metal Workers Pension Fund Lawsuit
TERRAFORM POWER: 80,084 Shares Issued over Chamblee Suit
TOP CHOICE: Maldonado Seeks OT Pay for Caregivers
TOUITOU INC: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

TRYKE COMPANIES: Hassen Sues over Unsolicited Text Ads
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Consolidated Amended Complaint Due Dec. 26
UDR INC: Faces Diaz Suit Over ADA Violation
UNION SQUARE: Nixon Files ADA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
UNITED SERVICE: Shortchanges Workers on Wages, Boyzo Claims

VERSANI V: Violates Disabilities Act, Dominguez Suit Says
VITAL PHARMA: Barker Disputes Energy Drink Nutritional Value
WILLIE LAMAR: Class of Employees Certified in Haynes FLSA Suit
WISE STAFFING: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, King Suit Says
WOODGRAIN MILLWORK: Johnson Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA

YELP INC: Bid to Dismiss California Class Action Pending
ZOE'S KITCHEN INC: Calcagno Files Suit Over Sale to Cava Group

                            *********

1-800 REMODEL: Willis Sues over Unwanted Cellular Telephone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TROY WILLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 1-800 REMODEL, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-at-01655 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2018), seeks damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related
regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions,
thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around April of 2018,
the Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in -6506, in an attempt to solicit
22 Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services. Defendant used an
"automatic telephone dialing system" to place its call to Plaintiff
seeking to solicit its services.

Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to
receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone. The
Defendant placed multiple calls soliciting its business to
Plaintiff on his cellular telephone ending in -6506 beginning in or
around April of 2018. Such calls constitute solicitation calls
pursuant to 47 C.F.R. section as they were attempts to promote or
sell Defendant's services. The Plaintiff received numerous
solicitation calls from Defendant within a 12-month period, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

ACETO CORP: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Mulligan & Yang Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aceto 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 court has
appointed a lead plaintiff for the cases, Mulligan v. Aceto
Corporation, et al. and Yang v. Aceto Corporation.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers are
named defendants in two putative securities class actions (the
"Securities Class Action Lawsuits") filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York in April 2018,
captioned Mulligan v. Aceto Corporation, et al, No. 2:18-cv-02425,
and Yang v. Aceto Corporation, No. 1:18-cv-02437.  

The complaints arise from the April 19, 2018 drop in the Company's
stock price following the Company's announcement on April 18, 2018
that it would recognize a substantial impairment charge for the
third fiscal quarter. The complaints generally allege that the
defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
false and misleading statements in public filings with the SEC and
seek unspecified damages.  

On June 26, 2018, five motions were filed seeking to appoint lead
plaintiff and approve lead plaintiff's counsel pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as well as to
consolidate the Mulligan or Yang actions.  

Three motions were subsequently withdrawn or abandoned, and the
remaining two motions are pending before the Court.  

Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff, the Company expects
that the appointed lead plaintiff will file a single consolidated
amended class action complaint to supersede the earlier complaints.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself.

Aceto said, "The impact of the resolution of this matter on the
Company's results of operations in a particular reporting period is
not currently known.:

Aceto Corporation engages in the development, marketing, sale, and
distribution of finished dosage form generic pharmaceuticals,
nutraceutical products, pharmaceutical active ingredients and
intermediates, specialty performance chemicals, and agricultural
protection products. The company operates in three segments: Human
Health, Pharmaceutical Ingredients, and Performance Chemicals.
Aceto Corporation was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Port
Washington, New York.


ACT INC: Court Denies Bais Yaakov's Bid to Certify 2 TCPA Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Timothy S. Hillman entered an order and memorandum in the
lawsuit styled BAIS YAAKOV OF SPRING VALLEY v. ACT, INC., Case No.
4:12-cv-40088-TSH (D. Mass.), denying the Plaintiff's motion to
certify two classes comprised of schools that received similar
faxes from the Defendant.

Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley brought this putative class action
against ACT, Inc., alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act for allegedly faxing unsolicited advertisements
without an opt-out provision.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify two classes.  Class A comprises
"[a]ll persons in the United States from July 30, 2008 through July
30, 2012 to whom Defendant sent or caused to be sent an unsolicited
facsimile advertisement, advertising the commercial availability or
quality of any property, goods, or services, which contained no
opt-out notice."  Class B includes "[a]ll persons in the United
States from July 30, 2008 through July 30, 2012 to whom Defendant
sent or caused to be sent a facsimile advertisement, advertising
the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or
services, which contained no opt-out notice."

Judge Hillman notes that Class A comprises those who received an
unsolicited fax without an opt-out provision; thus, the class fits
squarely within the definition of a "fail-safe class" because class
membership is defined by whether or not members have a valid claim.
Further, Judge Hillman states, while the Court must exercise
caution when dismissing a "fail-safe" class, the problem here
cannot be remedied by refining the class definition.

"If class membership were expanded to not only include those that
received unsolicited facsimiles, the refined class would encounter
the same predominance defeating individual inquiries of Class B.
Thus, this class is a 'fail-safe class' and is incapable of
refinement such that it is appropriate for classwide adjudication,"
Judge Hillman opines.[CC]


ADIENT PLC: Fails to Report Problems in SS&M Business, Hyder Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES ERIC HYDER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ADIENT PLC, BRUCE MCDONALD, and JEFFREY M.
STAFEIL, Case No. 1:18-cv-09630 (S.D.N.Y., October 19, 2018),
alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, and failed to disclose that:

    (i) Adient's core seat structures and mechanisms ("SS&M")
        business faced significant operational problems such that
        the repeatedly touted 200-basis-point margin expansion
        was not "on track"; and

   (ii) as a result, Adient's public statements were materially
        false and misleading at all relevant times.

The truth first began to emerge during a Deutsche Bank Global Auto
Industry Conference held on January 17, 2018, where the Defendants
made several startling disclosures indicating Adient was not
"solidly on track" to achieve the previously-touted 200 basis point
margin expansion, the Plaintiff contends.  The Plaintiff asserts
that this news drove the price of Adient shares down $8.03, or
about 9.8%, to close at $74.15 on January 18, 2018.

Adient is organized in Ireland with its principal executive offices
located in Dublin.  The Individual Defendants are or were directors
and officers of the Company.  The Company was formed when, in late
October 2016, Johnson Controls International plc completed its
spinoff of its automotive seating and interiors business.  The
Company designs, engineers, and manufactures automotive seating for
all vehicle classes and all major original equipment manufacturers
("OEMs") and claims to be the largest global automotive seating
supplier in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


AIR LINE PILOTS: Bishop's Cert. Bid Cont'd; Jan. 22 Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled DAVID BISHOP and ERIC LISH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AIR
LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL, Case No. 1:13-cv-06243
(N.D. Ill.), move for an order certifying this case as a class
action on behalf of a class defined as:

    "all United pilots who, during any part of the period from
     January 1, 2010 through December 18, 2012, worked as a
     United pilot instructor."

Plaintiffs bring this action against their union, Air Line Pilots
Association, International ("ALPA"), for ALPA's breach of its duty
of fair representation in connection with its distribution of a
lump sum payment of $225 million from United Airlines.  United
Airlines paid this amount for retroactive or "retro" pay, which was
supposed to compensate United pilots who continued to work for
nearly three years at depressed wages while ALPA and United
Airlines negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement.

Rather than apportioning this amount according to each pilot's pro
rata losses for continuing to work at reduced wages during the
three-year delay, the Plaintiffs allege that ALPA designed an
allocation formula that included numerous exceptions and special
rules that unfairly and arbitrarily discriminated against a
minority of its members, including the pilot instructor group that
is the subject of this lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter an order (i) designating
them as class representatives, and (ii) appointing Myron M. Cherry,
Esq., and Jacie C. Zolna, Esq., as class counsel.

                          *     *     *

The minute entry in the case states that:

   -- Status hearing held and continued to January 22, 2019,
      at 9:15 a.m.;

   -- The January 16, 2019 status hearing is stricken;

   -- Motion hearing held.  Defendant's motion to strike class
      action allegations and amend its answer is entered and
      continued;

   -- Plaintiff shall respond by November 29, 2018; reply due by
      December 20, 2018;

   -- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is entered and
      continued; and

   -- Defendant shall respond by November 29, 2018; reply due by
      December 20, 2018.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
          Jacie C. Zolna, Esq.
          MYRON M. CHERRY &ASSOCIATES, LLC
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-2100
          Facsimile: (312) 853-0279
          E-mail: mcherry@cherry-law.com
                  jzolna@cherry-law.com


ALPARGATAS USA: Fails to Protect Credit Card Info, Guarisma Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS GUARISMA, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ALPARGATAS USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a
HAVAIANAS, Case No. 1:18-cv-24351-JEM (S.D. Fla., October 19,
2018), arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendment to the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, which requires Alpargatas to truncate certain credit
card and debit card information on printed receipts provided to
consumers.

Despite the clear language of the statute, Alpargatas knowingly or
recklessly failed to comply with FCRA by printing nine digits of
its customers' credit card and/or debit card numbers on their
transaction receipts, the Plaintiff alleges.  As a result of
Alpargatas' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff contends that he and
the Class have suffered a violation of their substantive rights, an
invasion of their privacy, breach of their confidence in the safe
handling of their account information, exposed to an elevated risk
of identity theft, and burdened with the need to keep or destroy
the receipt, to prevent further disclosure of their account
information.

Alpargatas USA, INC. is a Delaware corporation whose principal
executive office address is in New York City.  Alpargatas does
business as Havaianas, which offers apparel for men, women, and
children, as well as rain boots, and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW LTD.
          55 W. Monroe, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com

               - and -

          Bret L. Lusskin, Esq.
          BRET LUSSKIN, P.A.
          20803 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 302
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (954) 454-5841
          Facsimile: (954) 454- 5844
          E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com


ALPHABET INC: El Mawardy Hits Share Price Drop Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Khaled El Mawardy, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alphabet, Inc., Lawrence Page and
Ruth Porat, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05704, (E.D. N.Y., October
11, 2018), seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from violations of the federal
securities laws.

Alphabet provides online advertising services in the United States
and internationally. They operate through the Google platform using
Ads, Android, Chrome, Commerce, Google Cloud, Google Maps, Google
Play, Hardware, Search and YouTube.

Defendants failed to disclose that Google exposed the private data
of hundreds of thousands of Google+ social network users, actively
concealed this data breach for several months and their conduct
violated Google's purported data privacy and security policies. On
this news, shares of Alphabet's Class A shares fell $53.01 or over
4.6% to close at $1,092.16 on October 10, 2018. Its Class C shares
fell $57.60 or over 5% to close at $1,081.22 on October 10, 2018.
As a result, Alphabet's market capitalization declined by
approximately $35 billion. Investors, including El Mawardy, have
suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
             pkim@rosenlegal.com


AMAZON.COM: Lines Suit Transferred to Northern District of Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY LINES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. AMAZON.COM, INC.; TENET CONCEPTS,
LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Respondents, Case No.: 1:17-cv-00072,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas Western, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth) on Oct. 31, 2018. The
Northern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:18-cv-00893-A to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Senior Judge John McBryde.

According to the complaint, the case is a collective and class
action brought by Plaintiff Lines challenging acts committed by
Defendants against Plaintiff Lines and those similarly situated
which amounted to violations of federal and state wage and hour
laws. Tenet Concepts maintains a service contract with Amazon, one
of the country's largest online retail stores, to provide one (1)
to 2 hour delivery services of Amazon's merchandise. The Plaintiff
Lines is a delivery driver who was employed by Defendants to carry
out deliveries of Amazon's merchandise from Amazon's warehouses to
their customers' addresses, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similary situated:

          Holt Major Lackey, Esq.
          ELLWANGER LAW LLLP
          8310-1 North Capital of Texas Hwy, Suite 190
          Austin, TX 78731
          Telephone: (737) 808-2238
          E-mail: hlackey@equalrights.law

               - and -

          James A Vagnini, Esq.
          Matthew Berman, Esq.
          Monica Hincken, Esq.
          Sara Wyn Kane, Esq
          VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
          600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7180
          Facsimile: (516) 706-0248
          E-mail: jvagnini@vkvlawyers.com
                  mberman@vkvlawyers.com
                  mhincken@vkvlawyers.com
                 skane@vkvlawyers.com

               - and -

          Jay D Ellwanger, Esq.
          ELLWANGER LAW LLLP
          400 South Zang Bouldevard, Suite 1015
          Dallas, TX 75208
          Telephone: (737) 808-2260
          Facsimile: (737) 808-2262
          E-mail: jellwanger@equalrights.law

Attorneys for Respondents:

          Darren Glenn Gibson, Esq.
          Littler Mendelson PC
          100 Congress Ave., Suite 1400
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 782-7250
          Facsimile: (512) 782-7248
          E-mail: dgibson@littler.com

               - and -

          Salvador Davila, Esq.
          THOMPSON, COE, COUSINS & IRONS, LLP
          701 Brazos, Suite 1500
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 703-5065
          Facsimile: (512) 708-8777
          E-mail: sdavila@thompsoncoe.com

AMPCO PITTSBURGH: Still Defends Retired Former Employees' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh 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
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by retired former
employees of Akers National Roll Company and the United Steel,
Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial, and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO.

In February 2017, the Corporation, its indirect subsidiary Akers
National Roll Company, as well as the Akers National Roll Company
Health & Welfare Benefits Plan were named as defendants in a class
action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, where the plaintiffs (currently
retired former employees of Akers National Roll Company and the
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial, and Service Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO) alleged that the defendants breached collective bargaining
agreements and violated the benefit plan by modifying medical
benefits of the plaintiffs and similarly situated retirees.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case, and plaintiffs petitioned
the court to compel arbitration. On June 13, 2017, the District
Court compelled arbitration and denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss as moot.

Defendants appealed this decision to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals on June 21, 2017. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the District Court's decision to compel arbitration on
August 29, 2018. The plaintiffs filed a petition for a rehearing,
which was denied.

The parties will proceed to litigating the merits of the case at
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.

Ampco-Pittsburgh said, "While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of this matter, the Corporation believes that the
final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity
or capital resources."  

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells custom designed engineering products to
commercial and industrial users worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, Forged and Cast Engineered Products; and Air and
Liquid Processing. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation was founded in 1929
and is headquartered in Carnegie, Pennsylvania.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Bartholomew and Myhre Suits Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Amtrust Financial Services, 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 cases,
Bartholomew v. AmTrust Fin'l Services, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-04178 (S.D.N.Y.) and Myhre v. AmTrust Fin'l Services, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04175 (S.D.N.Y.), have been voluntarily
dismissed.

Following the filing by the Company of its definitive proxy
statement with the SEC on May 4, 2018, in connection with the
special meeting of the stockholders of the Company to consider and
vote upon a proposal to adopt the Amended Merger Agreement by and
among Evergreen Parent, Evergreen Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Evergreen Parent
("Merger Sub"), and the Company, on May 9, 2018, purported
stockholders of the Company filed putative class action lawsuits
against the Company and members of the Board in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
Bartholomew v. AmTrust Fin'l Services, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-04178 (S.D.N.Y.) and Myhre v. AmTrust Fin’l Services,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04175 (S.D.N.Y.), respectively.

The complaints were substantially identical and alleged that the
defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
because the preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on April
9, 2018 allegedly omitted material information with respect to the
merger, thus rendering the preliminary proxy statement false and
misleading.

The complaints sought, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing the consummation of the merger and costs of the
applicable action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff
attorneys' and experts. fees.

On July 6, 2018, the Bartholomew and Myhre actions were voluntarily
dismissed.

AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. provides property and casualty
insurance in the United States and internationally. The company
operates in three segments: Small Commercial Business, Specialty
Risk and Extended Warranty, and Specialty Program. AmTrust
Financial Services, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in New
York, New York.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrust Financial Services, 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 a consolidated class action suit pending in the
Southern District of New York.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors are
defendants in three putative securities class action lawsuits filed
in March and April of 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. Another putative class action, filed
in February 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, was voluntarily dismissed (Miller v.
AmTrust, Zyskind, and Pipoly).

The three cases in the Southern District of New York have been
consolidated under the case name In re AmTrust Financial Services,
Inc. Securities Litigation. Plaintiffs in this proceeding filed a
consolidated, amended complaint on August 21, 2017.

Plaintiffs assert in the consolidated, amended complaint claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The consolidated, amended
complaint adds as defendants BDO USA LLP, Citigroup Global Markets
Inc., Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, RBC
Capital Markets, LLC, and UBS Securities LLC. Plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount in damages, attorneys' fees, and other relief.

AmTrust Financial said, "The Company believes the allegations are
unfounded and is vigorously pursuing its defenses."

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

AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. provides property and casualty
insurance in the United States and internationally. The company
operates in three segments: Small Commercial Business, Specialty
Risk and Extended Warranty, and Specialty Program. AmTrust
Financial Services, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in New
York, New York.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Pompano and Cambridge Suits Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amtrust Financial Services, 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 court has
directed counsel in the 2018 Pompano Action and the 2018 Cambridge
Action to file a proposed order to formally consolidate the 2018
Pompano Action and the 2018 Cambridge Action, designate the lead
plaintiffs, and provide for the designation or filing of an
operative consolidated complaint.

On May 31, 2018, Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement
System, City of Lauderhill Police Officers' Retirement System and
West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company's board of directors, Stone Point,
Trident Pine Acquisition LP ("Trident Pine"), Trident VII
Professionals Fund, Trident VII, Trident VII DE Parallel Fund, and
Trident VII Parallel Fund (collectively, the "Trident Funds") in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Case No.
2018-0396-AGB (the "2018 Pompano Action").

The complaint in the 2018 Pompano Action alleges that defendants
Zyskind, G. Karfunkel, L. Karfunkel, Gulkowitz, Fisch, DeCarlo, and
Rivera breached their fiduciary duties, which resulted in an unfair
merger stock price through an unfair process. The complaint alleges
additional claims for breaches of fiduciary duty against Zyskind,
G. Karfunkel and L. Karfunkel in their capacity as officers and
directors of the Company and as controlling stockholders of the
Company. The complaint alleges that Stone Point, Trident Pine and
the Trident Funds aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary
duties.

On June 4, 2018, Cambridge filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the Company's board of directors, the Estate of Michael
Karfunkel, Evergreen Parent, K-Z Evergreen, LLC, Merger Sub,
Trident Pine and Stone Point in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, Case No. 2018-0402-AGB (the "2018 Cambridge Action").


On September 24, 2018, Plaintiff in the 2018 Cambridge Action filed
a Verified Supplemental and Amended Stockholder class action
complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). Similar to the 2018 Pompano
Action, the Amended Complaint alleges that the director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties, which resulted in an unfair merger
stock price through an unfair process. The Estate of Michael
Karfunkel is not named as a Defendant in the Amended Complaint.

The complaint alleges an additional claim for breach of fiduciary
duty against Zyskind, G. Karfunkel, and L. Karfunkel in their
capacity as controlling shareholders of the Company and alleges
that Evergreen Parent, K-Z Evergreen, Merger Sub, Stone Point, and
Trident Pine aided and abetted the foregoing breaches of fiduciary
duties.

On October 10, 2018, the court directed counsel in the 2018 Pompano
Action and the 2018 Cambridge Action to file a proposed order to
formally consolidate the 2018 Pompano Action and the 2018 Cambridge
Action, designate the lead plaintiffs, and provide for the
designation or filing of an operative consolidated complaint.

AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. provides property and casualty
insurance in the United States and internationally. The company
operates in three segments: Small Commercial Business, Specialty
Risk and Extended Warranty, and Specialty Program. AmTrust
Financial Services, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in New
York, New York.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Shust, Raul & Rabinowitz Suits Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amtrust Financial Services, 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 class
action suits entitled, Shust v. AmTrust Fin'l Services, Inc., et
al., Raul v. AmTrust Fin'l Services, Inc., et al., and Rabinowitz
v. AmTrust Fin'l Services, Inc., et al., have been voluntarily
dismissed.

On May 15, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company and members of
the Board in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, captioned Shust v. AmTrust Fin'l Services, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01129 (N.D. Ohio).

On May 18, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company and members of
the Board in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Raul v. AmTrust Fin'l Services,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04440 (S.D.N.Y.).

On May 21, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company, members of the
Board (other than Mr. Serock), Evergreen Parent, Merger Sub and
Stone Point in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Rabinowitz v. AmTrust Fin'l
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04484 (S.D.N.Y.).

Similar to the complaints described above, the complaints alleged
that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act because the definitive proxy statement, in the case of
the Shust complaint and the Rabinowitz complaint, and the
preliminary proxy statement, in the case of the Raul complaint,
omitted or misrepresented material information concerning the
merger.

The complaints sought, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing the consummation of the merger unless additional
disclosure was provided and costs of the applicable action,
including for plaintiff attorneys' and experts' fees.

The Shust, Raul and Rabinowitz actions were voluntarily dismissed
on August 29, 2018, September 7, 2018 and July 23, 2018,
respectively.

AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. provides property and casualty
insurance in the United States and internationally. The company
operates in three segments: Small Commercial Business, Specialty
Risk and Extended Warranty, and Specialty Program. AmTrust
Financial Services, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in New
York, New York.


ANDREWS AND COX: Sued by Tomlison in Indiana for Violating FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
OATHER TOMLISON, JR. and DEBRA TOMLISON, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. ANDREWS and COX, P.C. d/b/a
BLEECKER BRODEY & ANDREWS, Case No. 1:18-cv-03256-TWP-TAB (S.D.
Ind., October 22, 2018), centers on the Defendant's alleged failure
to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by not
specifying in a clear, intelligible manner the current creditor for
the debts it seeks to collect.

Andrews and Cox, P.C., doing business as Bleecker Brodey & Andrews,
is a law firm based in Marion County, Indiana.  The Defendant is an
entity that uses mails and telephone, in the business of attempting
to collect a debt from the Plaintiffs and others.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com


ANGI HOMESERVICES: Provisional Class Cert. Sought in Costello Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANGI Homeservices 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 plaintiffs in
the case, Costello v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., filed a motion for
provisional class certification in connection with their recent
application for preliminary injunctive and declaratory relief.

In July 2016, a putative class action, Airquip, Inc. v.
HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. l:16-cv-1849, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint, as
amended, alleges that HomeAdvisor engages in certain deceptive
practices affecting the service professionals ("SPs") who join its
network, including charging them for substandard customer leads or
failing to disclose certain charges.

The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class consisting
of all HomeAdvisor SPs since October 2012, asserts claims of fraud,
breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and violation of the
Colorado Consumer Protection Act ("CCPA") and the federal RICO
statute and seeks injunctive relief and damages in an unspecified
amount.

In December 2016, HomeAdvisor filed a motion to dismiss the RICO
and CCPA claims. In September 2017, the court issued an order
granting the motion and dismissing those claims. In October 2017,
HomeAdvisor filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
remaining claims in the complaint. Discovery is under way, and the
issue of class certification remains to be litigated.

On May 18, 2018, more than one year after the deadline to amend
pleadings, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint that would add nine new plaintiffs, five new
defendants and 55 new claims, most of them for various violations
of the laws of nine separate states. On June 22, 2018, HomeAdvisor
filed its opposition to the motion, which remains pending.

On July 16, 2018, as an apparent hedge against denial of the
motion, plaintiffs' counsel filed a separate putative class action
in the same court on behalf of the same nine proposed new
plaintiffs, naming as defendants HomeAdvisor, the Company,
IAC/InterActiveCorp ("IAC") and CrowdSteer Inc., and asserting 45
claims largely duplicative of those asserted in the proposed second
amended complaint in the Airquip action. See Costello v.
HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-1802 (U.S. District Court,
District of Colorado).

On October 11, 2018, four of the nine named plaintiffs in the
Costello case, on behalf of themselves and certain purported
subclasses of former HomeAdvisor SPs, filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction and a declaratory judgment enjoining and
prohibiting HomeAdvisor from maintaining on its website the profile
pages of former SPs, which motion HomeAdvisor has opposed.

On October 18, 2018: (i) the Company and IAC filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint as against them; (ii) HomeAdvisor, with
respect to seven of the named plaintiffs, filed a motion to compel
arbitration; and (iii) HomeAdvisor, with respect to the remaining
two named plaintiffs, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as
against it. On October 22, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
provisional class certification in connection with their recent
application for preliminary injunctive and declaratory relief,
which motion HomeAdvisor will oppose.

The Company believes that the allegations in these lawsuits are
without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them.

ANGI Homeservices Inc. owns and operates the HomeAdvisor digital
marketplace service to connect consumers with service professionals
for home repair, maintenance, and improvement projects. The company
operates through two segments, North America and Europe. The
company was incorporated in 2017 and is headquartered in Golden,
Colorado. ANGI Homeservices Inc. is a subsidiary of
IAC/InterActiveCorp.


ARENAS PARKS & STADIUM: Fafara Seeks Reimbursements, Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Fafara, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Arenas, Parks & Stadium Solutions, Inc. and
Vincent Caccamo, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-09294, (S.D. N.Y.,
October 11, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation for work
in excess of forty hours per week, redress for failure to provide
wage statements, payment for her final nine weeks of employment,
failure to pay the minimum wage under and reimbursement for for
expenses incurred on behalf of and with the authorization of the
Defendants.

Arenas, Parks & Stadium Solutions is a full-service construction
contractor and maintenance provider where Fafara worked as Director
of Client Services, Sponsorship & Events from January 3, 2018
through her termination on August 4, 2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael H. Ansell, Esq.
     ANSELL GRIMM & AARON, P.C.
     365 Rifle Camp Road
     Woodland Park, NJ 07424
     Telephone: (973) 247-9000
     Facsimile: (973) 247-9199
     Email: mha@ansellgrimm.com


ARITZIA ILLINOIS:  Violates ADA, Nixon Suit Asserts
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aritzia Illinois,
LLC. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aritzia Illinois, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06339 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 7, 2018).

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

Aritzia Illinois LLC is a privately held company in New York, NY
and is a Unknown business, categorized under Boutiques.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ATTENDING HOME CARE: Teshabaeva Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Attending Home Care,
LLC. The case is styled as Maktumma Teshabaeva, Rakhimova Feruza,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
who were employed by Attending Home Care, Plaintiffs v. Attending
Home Care, LLC and/or any other related entities, Defendant, Case
No. 160050/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Nov. 7, 2018).

Attending Home Care provides quality home health care for
recovering and chronic patients, serving a wide range of patients,
from infants through geriatrics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP
     40 Broad St., 7th FL
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 943-9080

          - and –

     NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP
     2747 Coney Island, Ave.
     Brooklyn, NY 11230
     Phone: (718) 808-2224

The Defendant is represented by:

     LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
     290 Broadhollow RD
     Melville, NY 11747
     Phone: (631) 247-4700


BALMAINE USA: Website Not Blind-accessible, Diaz Says
-----------------------------------------------------
Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Balmaine (USA) LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10345 (S.D. N.Y., November 7, 2018) is a civil rights
action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The complaint asserts that Defendant's website, www.balmain.com is
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore, denial of its goods and services offered in conjunction
with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Plaintiff says.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a resident of Bronx, New York. Plaintiff is a blind,
visually-impaired handicapped person.

Defendant is and was at all relevant times a New York Limited
Liability Company doing business in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
     COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
     Joseph@cml.legal
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (929) 575-4175
     Fax: (929) 575-4195

          - and -

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


BARCLAYS BANK: Christensen Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Marie Christensen, Individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Barclays Bank Delaware and
Stillman Law Office, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.: BLS 18-02638,
was removed Superior Court of Suffolk, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts (Boston) on Oct. 31, 2018. The
District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-cv-12280-MPK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge M. Page Kelley.

Barclays Bank Delaware, through its subsidiary Barclaycard US,
provides customized and co-branded credit card programs for travel,
entertainment, retail, affinity, and financial institutions in the
United States. It also provides mobile payment services. Barclays
Bank Delaware was formerly known as Juniper Bank and changed its
name to Barclays Bank Delaware in February 2003. The company was
founded in 2000 and is based in Wilmington, Delaware. Barclays Bank
Delaware operates as a subsidiary of Barclays Group US, Inc.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Kenneth D. Quat, Esq.
          QUAT LAW OFFICES
          929 Worcester Road
          Framingham, MA 01701
          Telephone: (508) 872-1261
          E-mail: kquat@quatlaw.com

Attorneys for Barclays Bank Delaware:

          David Alan Casale, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          Global Customer Centre
          20 Stanwix Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 288-5937
          Facsimile: (412) 288-3063
          E-mail: dcasale@reedsmith.com

BIG BOYZ: Mondal Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------
ANUIK MONDAL, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs AKHIL CHANDRA MOLLICK,
MOLLICK ENTERPRISES, AND BIG BOYZ MARINE SPORTS, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00027 (D. NMI, Oct. 29, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007,and the Commonwealth of the
Northern  Mariana Islands Minimum Wage and Hour Act.

According to the complaint, Mondal first started at Defendants'
employ as a security guard sometime around August 2012. He
continued his employment with Defendants during the relevant time
period from September 2015 through August 2018. Mondal was not paid
the proper regular wage, not paid on time, and was not paid proper
overtime.

Defendants do not pay its employees proper overtime and thus do not
properly adhere to the FLSA. The Defendants did not pay Mondal, or
all others similarly situated, the proper regular wage nor the
proper overtime each pay period starting from the beginning of
their employment until the end despite them having actually earned
such wages, the lawsuit says.

Attorneys for Plaintif:

          Tiberius D. Mocanu, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN J. NUTTING, LLC
          P.O. Box 5093 Saipan, MP 96950
          Telephone: (670) 234-6891
          Facsimile: (670) 234-6893
          E-mail: Tiberiusmocanu@gmail.com

BIRD LAFAYETTE: Nixon Files ADA Class Action in NY
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bird Lafayette, Inc.
The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bird Lafayette, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06340 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 7, 2018).

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

Bird Lafayette is a domestic business corporation registered at
Kings county.  Located at 203 Grand Street Brooklyn, New York,
11211, the company was incorporated on December 22, 2016.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



BLACKROCK INC: Appeal in iShares ETFs Investors Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
BlackRock, 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' appeal
from the court's order of dismissal in the iShares ETF-related suit
is still pending

On June 16, 2016, iShares Trust, BlackRock, Inc. and certain of its
advisory subsidiaries, and the directors and certain officers of
the iShares ETFs were named as defendants in a purported class
action lawsuit filed in California state court.

The lawsuit was filed by investors in certain iShares ETFs (the
"ETFs"), and alleges the defendants violated the federal securities
laws by failing to adequately disclose in prospectuses issued by
the ETFs the risks to the ETFs’ shareholders in the event of a
"flash crash." Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary and rescission
damages. The plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed in December 2016
and on January 6, 2017, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On April 27, 2017, the court partially granted the defendants'
motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing certain of the
plaintiffs' claims. On September 18, 2017, the court issued a
decision dismissing the remainder of the lawsuit after a one-day
bench trial. On December 1, 2017, the plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal of their lawsuit, which is pending.

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

BlackRock, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm
primarily provides its services to institutional, intermediary, and
individual investors including corporate, public, union, and
industry pension plans, insurance companies, third-party mutual
funds, endowments, public institutions, governments, foundations,
charities, sovereign wealth funds, corporations, official
institutions, and banks. BlackRock, Inc. was founded in 1988 and is
based in New York City.


BLACKROCK INC: Bid to Dismiss Employee 401(k) Plan Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
BlackRock, 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 BlackRock is
seeking dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint in the employee
401(k) Plan-related class action suit.

On April 5, 2017, BlackRock, Inc., BlackRock Institutional Trust
Company, N.A. ("BTC"), the BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee and
various sub-committees, and a BlackRock employee were named as
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit brought in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by a former
employee on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries in the
BlackRock employee 401(k) Plan (the "Plan") from April 5, 2011 to
the present.

The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants breached their
duties towards Plan participants in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by, among other things,
offering investment options that were overly expensive,
underperformed peer funds, focused disproportionately on active
versus passive strategies, and were unduly concentrated in
investment options managed by BlackRock.

On October 18, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint,
which, among other things, added as defendants certain current and
former members of the BlackRock Retirement and Investment
Committees. The Amended Complaint also included a new purported
class claim on behalf of investors in certain Collective Trust
Funds ("CTFs") managed by BTC. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege
that BTC, as fiduciary to the CTFs, engaged in self-dealing by,
most significantly, selecting itself as the securities lending
agent on terms that plaintiffs claim were excessive.  

The Amended Complaint also alleged that BlackRock took undue risks
in its management of securities lending cash reinvestment vehicles
("STIFs") during the financial crisis. On August 23, 2018, the
court granted permission to plaintiffs to file a Second Amended
Complaint ("SAC") which, most significantly, added as defendants
the BlackRock, Inc. Management Development and Compensation
Committee, the Plan's independent investment consultant and the
Plan's Administrative Committee and its members. On October 22,
2018, BlackRock filed a motion to dismiss the SAC.

BlackRock said, "The defendants believe the claims in this lawsuit
are without merit and are vigorously defending the action."

BlackRock, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm
primarily provides its services to institutional, intermediary, and
individual investors including corporate, public, union, and
industry pension plans, insurance companies, third-party mutual
funds, endowments, public institutions, governments, foundations,
charities, sovereign wealth funds, corporations, official
institutions, and banks. BlackRock, Inc. was founded in 1988 and is
based in New York City.


BOB EVANS RESTAURANTS: Servers Hit Tip Credit Deduction From Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Williams and Doreen Walker, individually, and on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and
unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Bob Evans Restaurants, LLC, a Pennsylvania
corporation; and Bob Evans Farms, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01353, (W.D. Pa., October 10, 2018),
seeks unpaid wages for overtime compensation due, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses of this
action and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bob Evans Restaurants is a chain of family style restaurants where
Defendants own and operate over 500 outlets. Williams and Walker
were employed as servers at Bob Evans locations in Monroeville and
West Mifflin, Pennsylvania respectively. Plaintiffs spent more than
twenty percent of their time performing non-tipped duties yet
Defendants took out a tip credit, thus lowering his rate equal than
the applicable minimum wage per hour for their non-tipped work,
notes the complaint.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clifford P. Bendau II, Esq.
      Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
      THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
      P.O. Box 97066
      Phoenix, AZ 85060
      Telephone: (480) 382-5176
      Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com

             - and -

      James L. Simon, Esq.
      6000 Freedom Square Dr.
      Independence, OH 44131
      Telephone: (216) 525-8890
      Facsimile: (216) 642-5814
      Email: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com


BRISTOL COMPRESSORS: Messer Sues Over WARN Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
TONY A. MESSER, PHILIP E. BARBROW, BENJIE G. HICKS, KENDALL W.
LUTTRELL, DARRELL G. MURRAY, DAVID A. STOVALL, DENNIS J. STILTNER,
TIMOTHY M. WAMPLER, and MICHAEL L. PARKER, CHARLES E. VESTAL, and
JIMMY AMBERGEY, DAVE S. BOOHER, JOANNE T. BOOHER, JOHN S. BOOKER,
DAVID BROWNING, SUMMER CARMACK, WILLIAM C. CHURCH, MELVIN E. CLARK,
JOYCE DAUGHTERY, HOMER L. DAVIS PATRICIA C. EADS, DAVID ESTEP,
JAMES D. FOSTER, DENNIS A. FRALEY, CURTIS D. HAYDEN, PENNY HELTON,
GAYLORD K. HOBBS, JR., GARY HOUSER, SHERRIE HUBBARD, MICHAEL
LEONARD, GEARL LOWE, MANDY MARTIN, STEWART MAXFIELD, DAVID C.
McCLAIN FLOYD D. McMILLAN, JACKIE L. MULLINS, TOMMY MULLINS,
DOROTHY M. ORR, DAVID O'QUINN, LARRY J. RICHARDS, DANNY L. SALTZ,
KAREN P. SCYPHERS, JAMES E. SMITH, JAMIE STOUT, ROBERT L. SULLINS,
TIMOTHY A. THOMAS, ALISON WALLS, JEFF WAMPLER, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BRISTOL COMPRESSORS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, T/A Bristol Compressors and
GARRISON INVESTMENT GROUP, LP, Case No. 1:18-cv-00040-JPJ-PMS (W.D.
Va., October 19, 2018), alleges violations of the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated full time employees, who worked for the
Defendants at their "Bristol Compressors" Bristol, Virginia,
manufacturing facility and who were terminated without cause, as
part of an announced plant closing on July 31, 2018.  The
Plaintiffs allege that they were not provided the 60 days advance
written specific notice of plant closing and their terminations, as
required by the WARN Act.

Bristol Compressors International, LLC, is a Foreign (Delaware)
Limited Liability Company, registered to conduct business in
Virginia, with its principal place of business located in Bristol,
Virginia.

Bristol Compressors has operated the factory as a facility that
manufactured air conditioning and refrigeration compressor
components in Washington County, Virginia.

Garrison Investment Group, LP, is a Foreign (Delaware) Limited
Partnership, with its principal place of business located in New
York City.  Prior to July 31, 2018, Garrison acquired an interest
in BC and participated in or directed its recent operations
including the structure and sequence of closing the plant and
employee termination.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mary Lynn Tate, Esq.
          TATE LAW PC
          16006 Porterfield Hwy
          Abingdon, VA 24210
          Telephone: (276) 628-5185
          Facsimile: (276) 628-5045
          E-mail: mltate@tatelaw.com


CAMBER PHARMACEUTICALS: Longwell Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Longwell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hetero USA,
Inc. and Hetero Drugs, Limited, Case No. 1:18-cv-12339 (D. Mass.,
November 7, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations
of Massachusetts Consumer Fraud Act and State Consumer Protection
Laws.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and hundreds
of thousands of other Valsartan consumers who paid for Defendants'
generic Valsartan that was adulterated through its contamination
with an IARC- and EPA-listed probable human carcinogen known as
N-nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA").

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants willfully ignored warning
signs regarding the operating standards at the Zhejiang Huahai
Pharmaceuticals manufacturing plant in China, and Hetero's
laboratories facilities in India, and continued to allow ZHP and
HLF to manufacture their Valsartan products for sale to consumers
in the United States even after Defendants knew or should have
known that their Valsartan products manufactured by ZHP and HLF
contained or likely contained NDMA and/or other impurities.

The Plaintiff Veronica Longwell is a U.S. citizen who resides and
is domiciled in Massachusetts.  During the class period, she paid
money for one or more of Defendant Camber's Valsartan products.

The Defendant Camber Pharmaceuticals is a Delaware limited
liability company with its principal place of business located at
1031 Centennial Ave, Piscataway Township, NJ 08854. At all times
material to this case, Camber has been engaged in the
manufacturing, sale, and distribution of adulterated generic
Valsartan in the United States, including in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.

The Defendant Hetero USA Inc. is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business located at 2002
Eastpark Blvd., Cranbury, New Jersey 08512. Hetero USA has been
engaged in the manufacturing, sale, and distribution of adulterated
generic Valsartan in the United States, including in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The Defendant Hetero Drugs, Limited is an India company, organized
under the laws of India, with its principal place of business
located at 7-2-A2, Hetero Corporate, Industrial Estates, Sanath
Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 018 A.P. India.  On information and
belief, Hetero exercised control over subsidiary and affiliate
entities that sold generic Valsartan in the United States,
including but not limited to Camber and Hetero USA.  At all times
materials to this case, Hetero engaged in the manufacturing, sale,
and distribution of adulterated generic Valsartan in the United
States, including in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and
purposefully availed itself of doing business in the United States
and Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter J. Ainsworth, Esq.
      MEEHAN, BOYLE, BLACK & BOGDANOW, P.C.
      Two Center Plaza, Suite 600
      Boston, MA 02108
      Tel: (617) 523-8300
      Fax: (617) 523-0525
      E-mail: painsworth@meehanboyle.com


CANADA: Payouts in '60s Scoop Lawsuit in Limbo
----------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for The Hamilton Spectator, reports that a
novel effort by some survivors to challenge the court-approved
settlement of the '60s Scoop class action amid a squabble over $75
million in legal fees could delay payments to the victims, court
documents show.

The request to appeal the agreement, finalized over the summer,
rather than opt out -- fewer than a dozen class members have done
so -- comes from a group of Scoop victims unhappy with the deal and
was filed through a law firm shut out of the resulting fee
arrangement.

Among other things, the 11 plaintiffs allege they were excluded
from the process that led to court approval of the $750-million
agreement that would pay survivors as much as $50,000 a piece for
the harms done when they, as children, were taken from their
Indigenous families and placed with non-Indigenous ones.

"The applicants are concerned that their interests together with
the interests of other class members . . . . have not been
adequately protected," they claim in their Oct. 1 application for
leave to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal.

One of the applicants, Joan Frame, of Hamilton, had previously
alleged to The Canadian Press that the lawyers who negotiated the
settlement — some of whom worked on the case for free for the
better part of a decade — "resorted to trickery" to get the
agreement.

"To allow people to win illegally and make money off our backs and
suffering again should not be allowed to happen," said Frame, who
wrote the chief justice of the Federal Court after the settlement
received final approval in September.

In new filings this week, lawyer Jai Singh Sheikhupura, Esq. --
jsingh@watsongoepel.com --  with Vancouver-based Watson Goepel
writes that the applicants don't want to delay the implementation
of the settlement. Their only wish, he says, is to have the court
review class-counsel fees.

On October 31, Canadian government lawyer Catherine Moore, Esq.
warned in a letter to the court that implementation of the
settlement could not proceed until the legal action was over.

The $75 million in legal fees, which the federal government agreed
to pay to four legal firms separately from the compensation to the
Scoop survivors, became a flashpoint earlier this year when Ontario
Superior Court of Justice Edward Belobaba said they were far too
high.

Belobaba, who was fiercely critical of some of the law firms
involved, refused to sign off on the Ontario end of the
class-action settlement, prompting a scramble to separate the fee
issue from the compensation deal.

Both Belobaba and Federal Court subsequently approved the
settlement itself, although the appeal application has delayed his
decision on whether the Ontario lawyers largely responsible for the
successful deal should get their $37.5 million — half the legal
fees Canada agreed to pay.

The appeal attempt could founder on the grounds that it was filed
too late. Only if they overcome that hurdle will the Federal Court
of Appeal decide whether to hear the case.

Some of the lawyers who negotiated the settlement are adamant in
opposing any appeal as too late and an abuse of process. They are
equally adamant the legal firm involved in the appeal filing should
not get a penny in legal fees.

The Federal Court of Appeal should award legal costs against the
applicants' lawyer for "levying serious and false allegations,"
attacking Federal Court decisions without justification, and
holding the settlement as "ransom to extract legal fees," lawyers
for Toronto-based Koskie Minskie, who are waiting to take home
$12.5-million in legal fees, argue.

"If this motion is granted, it would be the first time in Canada
that a class member was permitted to appeal a consent settlement
approval," the Koskie Minskie lawyers say in their filings. "Given
the specious grounds for the motion, this honourable court ought
not use this case to set such an unwieldy and unworkable
precedent."

Two other law firms initially involved in the appeal attempt have
since withdrawn from the case.[GN]


CANADA: Thalidomide Challenge Certified as Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a legal challenge against the
Canadian government by alleged thalidomide survivors can proceed as
a class action, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled on November 1.

In addition to certifying the class action, the Appeal Court also
appointed Bruce Wenham as representative plaintiff.

"Owing to legal errors, the order of the Federal Court cannot
stand," the Federal Court of Appeal said in overturning an earlier
ruling that denied certification.

Developed by the German pharmaceutical company Chemie Grunenthal,
thalidomide is still considered one of the worst failures of drug
research. The government-approved anti-nausea and sleep drug was
widely prescribed to pregnant women in the 1950s and 1960s.
However, it turned out to cause severe fetal defects.

Among other things, babies were born with deformed limbs and other
horrific impairments.

Ottawa set up a payment scheme in 1990 and revamped it in 2015 amid
complaints that the cash payouts were not enough. The new plan gave
victims $125,000 as a one-time payment, and an annual pension of up
to $100,000.

To qualify, the government required documentary proof that included
a listing on its registry of thalidomide victims, information
showing settlement with the drug company, and proof the claimant's
mother had taken the drug during the first trimester of pregnancy.

Wenham, 60, and his family moved to England in 1959 and he was
never registered in Canada as a thalidomide victim. His parents and
the doctor who he says gave his mom the drug are now dead and the
relevant medical records no longer available, he says.

As a result, Wenham, like 167 others, was unable to meet the
documentation requirements. His application for benefits was denied
in 1991 and again in August 2016.

He turned to the Federal Court for help, asking to pursue his
judicial review of the denial as a class proceeding. The government
opposed him.

In July last year, Justice Ann Marie McDonald rejected his request.
Wenham, she said, had failed to meet the requirements for
class-action certification.

Among other things, the judge found Wenham had shown no evidence of
an identifiable class aggrieved in the same way. She also
questioned whether he could adequately represent the proposed
class.[GN]

"I am not satisfied that Mr. Wenham has established that his
application has a reasonable chance of success," McDonald wrote. "I
am also not satisfied that a class proceeding is the preferable
procedure for this application as it would appear to add elements
of complexity and delay to an application that is otherwise ready
for adjudication."

In its unanimous decision on November 1, the Federal Court of
Appeal saw things differently. In fact, the upper court said,
Wenham had satisfied all five criteria for a class action.

Noting the relatively low bar required for certification, the
Federal Court of Appeal cited the "common sense position that there
is no sense certifying a proceeding that is doomed to fail" but
said McDonald had misapplied the law and Wenham's case was
obviously far from doomed.

"Wagering on whether the cause of action will cross the finish line
is no part of the court's task," the Appeal Court said. "The test
is whether a cause of action has been pleaded that is not plain and
obvious to fail."

Wenham was not immediately available to comment.[GN]


CAPITAL FITNESS: Portions of Gooden Suit Complaint Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Manish S. Shah granted in part the Defendant's motion to
strike and dismiss portions of the complaint in the lawsuit
captioned LUNDON GOODEN, et al. v. CAPITAL FITNESS, INC., doing
business as XSPORT FITNESS, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-02200 (N.D.
Ill.).

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a collective and class of
employees against Capital Fitness in this suit alleging violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law concerning the
payment of wages.  The Defendant moves to strike the
collective/class allegations of the complaint because the
Plaintiffs signed employment agreements that contained waivers of
their rights to bring class or collective actions.

In his order, Judge Shah denied the Plaintiffs' motions for
conditional certification and equitable tolling.

"Plaintiffs waived their right to participate in a collective or
class action and, therefore, I strike their allegations in support
of a collective or class action and deny their motion for
conditional certification.  Similarly, because plaintiffs cannot
represent absent class members, their request for equitable tolling
of the claims of potential class or collective members is denied.
Such claims are not before me and I have no authority over them,"
Judge Shah opines.

The Defendant's motion to dismiss the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act claim is denied without prejudice.  The Court notes
that the Plaintiffs intend to file an amended complaint, and any
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) arguments should be made
in response to that operative complaint.[CC]


CAREMARK RX: Sued by Vita for Inflating Prescription Drugs Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIN VITA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CAREMARK RX, L.L.C.,CAREMARK, L.L.C., CAREMARKPCS,
L.L.C., and CAREMARKPCS HEALTH, L.L.C., Case No. 1:18-cv-00579
(D.R.I., October 22, 2018), alleges violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 resulting from the
Defendants' alleged violation of "the Plan" by inflating
prescription drugs costs causing consumers to pay more than they
otherwise should have paid for medically necessary prescription
drugs.

The Plaintiff is a participant, who received prescription drug
benefits through a group health plan administered by "CVS/Caremark,
Inc." (the "Plan").  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have
overcharged patients for the cost of medically necessary
prescription drugs.

The Defendants -- as prescription benefits managers ("PBMs") and/or
administrators of prescription drug benefits -- provide and
administer pharmacy benefits to patients, including managing a
network of pharmacies that will serve as participating pharmacies
at which patients obtain prescriptions; setting and dictating
copayment amounts, coinsurance amounts, and deductibles (if
applicable) to pharmacies; and processing prescription drug claims
and interfacing with patients and pharmacies regarding applicable
prescription drug coverage.

Caremark Rx, L.L.C., is a Delaware limited liability company whose
principal place of business is at the same location as CVS Health
Corporation, in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.  CVS Health is the direct
parent company of Caremark Rx, LLC.

Caremark, L.L.C., is a California limited liability company whose
principal place of business is at the same location as CVS Health.
Caremark PCS, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability.  Caremark Rx,
LLC, is the sole member of both Caremark, LLC, and Caremark PCS,
LLC.

CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C. is a Delaware limited liability company
doing business as CVS/Caremark and CVS Caremark and whose principal
place of business is at the same location as CVS Health.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent L. Greene, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          55 Cedar Street, Suite 100
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 457-7730
          Facsimile: (401) 457-7708
          E-mail: vgreene@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          William H. Narwold, Esq.
          Mathew Jasinski, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          One Corporate Center
          20 Church Street, 17th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 882-1681
          Facsimile: (860) 882-1682
          E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com
                  mjasinski@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
          Christopher M. Barrett, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
                  craabe@ikrlaw.com
                  cbarrett@ikrlaw.com

               - and -

          Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
          Joseph Gentile, Esq.
          SARRAF GENTILE LLP
          10 Bond Street, Suite 212
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 699-8890
          Facsimile: (516) 699-8968
          E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com
                  joseph@sarrafgentile.com


CENTURYLINK INC: Faces Houser Class Action
------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, 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 is
defending against a putative shareholder class action suit
entitled, Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al.

CenturyLink and certain CenturyLink board members and officers were
named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
filed on June 12, 2018 in the Boulder County District Court of the
state of Colorado, captioned Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al.

The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of
former Level 3 shareholders who became CenturyLink shareholders as
a result of the transaction. It alleges that the proxy statement
provided to the Level 3 shareholders failed to disclose material
information of several kinds, including information about strategic
revenues, customer loss rates, and customer account issues, among
other items.

The complaint seeks damages, costs and fees, rescission, rescissory
damages, and other equitable relief.

CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to
residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers
primarily in the United States. It operates in two segments,
Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in 1968 and is
based in Monroe, Louisiana.


CENTURYLINK INC: Tomasulo Case Settlement Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, 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 proposed
settlement of Jeffery Tomasulo's putative shareholder class action
lawsuit is awaiting court approval, among other conditions.

CenturyLink and certain members of the CenturyLink Board of
Directors have been named as defendants in a putative shareholder
class action lawsuit filed on January 11, 2017 in the 4th Judicial
District Court of the State of Louisiana, Ouachita Parish,
captioned Jeffery Tomasulo v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al.

The complaint asserts, among other things, that the members of
CenturyLink's Board allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to
the CenturyLink shareholders in approving the Level 3 merger
agreement and, more particularly, that: the consideration that
CenturyLink agreed to pay to Level 3 stockholders in the
transaction is allegedly unfairly high; the CenturyLink directors
allegedly had conflicts of interest in negotiating and approving
the transaction; and the disclosures set forth in the company's
preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus filed in December 2016
are insufficient in that they allegedly fail to contain material
information concerning the transaction.

The complaint seeks, among other things, a declaration that the
members of the CenturyLink Board have breached their fiduciary
duties, corrective disclosure, rescissory or other damages and
equitable relief, including rescission of the transaction.

On February 13, 2017, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for the settlement of the lawsuit.

"The proposed settlement is subject to court approval, among other
conditions, and the amount of the settlement is not material to our
consolidated financial statements," the Company said.

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

CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to
residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers
primarily in the United States. It operates in two segments,
Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in 1968 and is
based in Monroe, Louisiana.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Orellana Class Action Suit Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
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
court signed an order staying Orellana v. Grand Lux Cafe, LLC, et
al.

On June 1, 2018, a former hourly restaurant employee filed a class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York, alleging that the Company violated minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Code (Orellana v. Grand Lux Cafe, LLC, et al; Case No.
18-cv-02739).

The plaintiff seeks unspecified amounts of fees, penalties and
other monetary payments on behalf of the plaintiff and other
purported class members.

On August 31, 2018, the court signed an order staying Case No.
18-cv-02739 in favor of individual arbitration of plaintiff's
claims.

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."

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: Tentative Deal Reached in Calif. 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 in a consolidated employee class action lawsuit have
reached a tentative settlement.

On February 3, 2017, five present and former hourly restaurant
employees 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 permit required meal and rest breaks, and failing to provide
accurate wage statements, among other claims (Abdelaziz v. The
Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al.; Case No
37-2016-00039775-CU-OE-CTL).

On February 22, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the San Diego County
Superior Court, alleging similar claims to Case No.
37-2016-00039775-CU-OE-CTL (Rodriguez v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc., et al.; Case No. 37-2017-00006571-CU-OE-CTL).
The San Diego County Superior Court consolidated Case Nos.
37-2016-00039775-CU-OR-CTL and 37-2017-00006571-CU-OE-CTL.

The lawsuits seek unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to
other monetary payments. On July 24, 2018, the parties reached a
tentative settlement which covers the consolidated cases. On
October 5, 2018, the court signed an order approving the settlement
agreement. 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.


CHEETAH EXPRESS: Newton Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay for Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE NEWTON, for himself and all other similarly situated
individuals v. CHEETAH EXPRESS, INC., and NAZEER BUTT, Case No.
3:18-cv-01735 (D. Conn., October 22, 2018), is brought to recover
alleged unpaid overtime wages and other dues for drivers pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage
Act.

Cheetah Express, Inc., is a Connecticut Corporation with a
principal place of business located in Milford, Connecticut.
Nazeer Butt is sued individually in his capacity as an owner,
officer and/or agent of Cheetah.

Cheetah is a package delivery company, which employs drivers,
including the Plaintiff and the class, to pick up packages and
deliver them throughout the state of Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William G. Madsen, Esq.
          MADSEN, PRESTLEY & PARENTEAU, LLC
          402 Asylum Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 246-2466
          E-mail: wmadsen@mppjustice.com


CHINA ZENIX: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
China Zenix Auto International Limited (OTC:ZXAIY; NYSE: ZX) from
October 2, 2015 through June 14, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for China Zenix
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the China Zenix class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1361.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) China Zenix's
trading actions in connection with its compliance with the NYSE
Continued Listed Requirements were contrary to public policy; (2)
China Zenix had inadequate internal controls over financial
reporting; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
31, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1361.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website:  www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


CITY SIGHTSEEING: Diaz Sues Tour Bus Operator for ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City Sightseeing LLC
under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. City Sightseeing LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10348 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 7, 2018).

City Sightseeing is an open-top, double-decker sightseeing tour bus
operator. It provides tour bus services in more than 130 cities
around the world. As City Sightseeing has grown and expanded, the
company now also provides boat tours, sightseeing train tours, and
guided walking tours.[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


CLIENT SERVICES: Miller Files FDCPA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Scott E Miller on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Client
Services, Inc., CSI Interco, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-06350 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 7, 2018).

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

Client Services, Inc. operates as a customer relationship
management company that offers a suite of accounts receivable
management, business processing outsourcing (BPO), and healthcare
solutions. It provides customer care, technical support, customer
acquisition, cross sell/up-sell, customer retention,
product/account activation, appointment setting/reminders, disaster
support, first notice of loss, market research, customer
satisfaction surveys, and multi-channel interaction management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COLLECTION BUREAU: Violates FDCPA, Weisshaus Suit Asserts
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collection Bureau of
the Hudson Valley, Inc. The case is styled as Yoel Weisshaus on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff v. Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley, Inc. also
known as CBHV, Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-10363 (S.D. N.Y., Nov.
7, 2018).

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

Collection Bureau of Hudson Valley, Inc. (CBHV) is a third-party
collection agency based in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Levi Huebner, Esq.
     Levi Huebner & Assocaites, PC
     478 Malbone Steet, Suite 100
     New York, NY 00000
     Phone: (212) 354-5555
     Fax: (212) 350-8789
     Email: newyorklawyer@msn.com



COMENITY BANK: Beecroft Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Barry Beecroft, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Comenity Bank, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02915 (D.
Minn., October 11, 2018), seeks to recover damages and obtain
injunctive relief for injuries caused under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Defendants repeatedly called Plaintiff using an automatic telephone
dialing system, in attempts to collect a debt allegedly owed by his
estranged mother-in-law. Defendant placed more than a thousand
telephone calls to Riley's cellular telephone number using an
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
voice, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark L. Heaney, Esq.
      HEANEY LAW FIRM, LLC
      601 Carlson Parkway, Suite 1050
      Minnetonka, MN 55305
      Tel: (952) 933-9655
      Fax: (952) 544-1308
      Email: mark@heaneylaw.com


CONNECTICUT WATER: Settlement Reached in Dunn & Tillotson Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut Water Service, 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 parties
in Dunn v. Benoit, et al. and Tillotson v. Benoit, et al. have
entered into an agreement in principle to settle and release all
claims that were or could have been alleged by the plaintiffs in
those actions.

On June 14, 2018, certain shareholders of the Company filed two
nearly identical putative class-action complaints in the
Connecticut Superior Court in the Judicial District of Middlesex
against the Board of Directors, SJW Group (SJW) and Eric W.
Thornburg, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of SJW,
under the captions Dunn v. Benoit, et al., Case No.
MMX-CV18-6021536-S (Conn. Super. Ct.) and Tillotson v. Benoit, et
al., Case No. MMX-CV18-6021537-S (Conn. Super. Ct.), respectively.


The complaints, as amended on September 18, 2018 and September 20,
2018, respectively, allege, among other things, that (i) the Board
of Directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with
negotiating the Merger, (ii) the Company's preliminary proxy
statement, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 20, 2018, omits certain material information and (iii) SJW
and Mr. Thornburg aided and abetted the alleded breaches by the
Board of Directors.

Among other remedies, the actions seek to recover rescissory and
other damages and attorney's fees and costs.

The parties to these actions entered into an agreement in principle
to settle and release all claims that were or could have been
alleged by the plaintiffs in those actions.

Connecticut Water Service, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a regulated water company. The company operates through
three segments: Water Operations, Real Estate Transactions, and
Services and Rentals. Connecticut Water Service, Inc. was founded
in 1956 and is headquartered in Clinton, Connecticut.


CONNECTICUT WATER: Settlement Reached in Paskowitz & Assad Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut Water Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q ReAssad port
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
parties Paskowitz v. Connecticut Water Service, et al. and Assad v.
Connecticut Water Service, et al., entered into an agreement in
principle to settle and release all claims that were or could have
been alleged by the plaintiffs in those actions.

On October 5, 2018, a putative class action complaint and a direct
action complaint were filed against the Company and the members of
the Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut under the captions Paskowitz v. Connecticut
Water Service, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01663 (D. Conn.) and Assad
v. Connecticut Water Service, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01664 (D.
Conn.), respectively.

The nearly identical complaints allege that the defendants violated
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
causing certain supposed misstatements or omissions to be included
in the October 2, 2018 definitive proxy statement filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in respect of the special
meeting of its shareholders scheduled to be held on November 16,
2018 in connection with the Merger. Among other remedies, the
actions seek to recover rescissory and other damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The parties to these actions entered into an agreement in principle
to settle and release all claims that were or could have been
alleged by the plaintiffs in those actions.

Connecticut Water Service, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a regulated water company. The company operates through
three segments: Water Operations, Real Estate Transactions, and
Services and Rentals. Connecticut Water Service, Inc. was founded
in 1956 and is headquartered in Clinton, Connecticut.


CORIUM INTERNATIONAL: Klein Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melvyn Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Corium International, Inc., et al., Case No.
4:18-cv-06731 (N.D. Calif., November 6, 2018), is brought against
the Company and its Board of Directors for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Corium by certain affiliates of Gurnet Point
Capital.

On October 11, 2018, Corium announced that it had entered into an
agreement and plan of merger with GPC.  GPC is offering to purchase
any and all of the outstanding shares of Corium common stock for
$12.50 in cash and one Contingent Value Right of $0.50 per share.
The Transaction commenced October 26, 2018, and the Company
concurrently filed a Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9
with the SEC, recommending that the Company's shareholders tender
their shares for the Transaction price.  The Transaction is set to
expire on November 26, 2018.

The Plaintiff alleges that the 14D-9 is materially false and
misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose certain
material internal financial information about the Company, relied
on by the Individual Defendants to recommend the Transaction and by
the Company's financial advisor, Guggenheim Securities, LLC to
render an opinion that the Transaction is fair to Corium
shareholders, which omissions render the 14D-9 incomplete and
misleading.

The Plaintiff is a stockholder of Corium.

The Defendant Corium is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 235 Constitution Drive, Menlo Park,
California 94025.

The Individual Defendants are Corium's board of directors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
      TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
      1925 Century Park East. Ste. 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 278-2600
      Fax: (310) 278-2640
      E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com

          - and -

      Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
      GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
      440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 983-1300
      Fax: (212) 983-0383
      E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com


COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Unit Continues to Defend Bass Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Transportation 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
Southern Refrigerated Transport, Inc. a company's subsidiary,
continues to defend a class action lawsuit filed by David Bass.

The company's Southern Refrigerated Transport, Inc. (SRT)
subsidiary is a defendant in a lawsuit filed on December 16, 2016
in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, California.  The
lawsuit was filed on behalf of David Bass (a California resident
and former driver), who is seeking to have the lawsuit certified as
a class action case wherein he alleges violation of multiple
California wage and hour statutes over a four year period of time,
including failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to
provide meal periods and paid rest breaks, failure to pay for rest
and recovery periods, failure to reimburse certain business
expenses, failure to pay vested vacation, unlawful deduction of
wages, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, unfair and unlawful competition,
as well as various state claims.  

The case was removed from state court in February, 2017 to the U.S.
District Court in the Central District of California, and
subsequently, SRT moved the District Court to transfer venue of the
case to the U.S. District Court sitting in the Western District of
Arkansas.  

The motion to transfer was approved by the California District
Court in July, 2017, and the case will now be heard in the U.S.
District court in the Western District of Arkansas.

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

Covenant Transportation Group, Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides truckload transportation and brokerage
services primarily in the continental United States. It offers long
haul, dedicated, temperature-controlled, and regional solo-driver
services; long haul, regional, dedicated, and intermodal
temperature-controlled services; and regional solo-driver and
dedicated services. Covenant Transportation Group, Inc. was founded
in 1986 and is headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


CSWS LLC: Rosebar Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMISHA ROSEBAR, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CSWS, L.L.C. d/b/a OCEAN GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, DEBORAH DIAZ
and SEIF EL SHARIF, Case No. 1:18-cv-07081 (N.D. Ill., October 22,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages for the
Defendants' former/current dancers, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.

The Plaintiff and the putative FLSA collective and Rule 23 class
members are former/current dancers employed by the Defendants at
their Ocean Gentlemen's Club, located at 5555 W 70th Place, in
Bedford Park, Illinois.

CSWS, L.L.C., doing business as Ocean Gentlemen's Club. is a
for-profit entity created and existing under and by virtue of the
laws of the state of Illinois.  The Individual Defendants are
owners, shareholders and managers of CSWS.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          Ching-Yuan ("Tony") Teng, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          500 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
                  tonyteng@jtblawgroup.com


CYPRUS PAINTING: Duran Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
LUCAS DURAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CYPRUS PAINTING CORP. and MLCHAEL
SAITTlS , as an individual, the Defendant, Case No.: 18-6174
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime wages, compensatory
damages and liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs,
and all other legal and equitable remedies, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully failed to post
notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a
conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required
by both the NYLL and the FLSA. The Defendants willfully failed to
keep accurate payroll records as required by both NYLL and the
FLSA, the lawsuit says.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

DEKALB MEDICAL: Lovette-Breedlove Seeks OT Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
VADESSA LOVETTE-BREEDLOVE, the Plaintiff, vs. DEKALB MEDICAL
CENTER, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04976-WMR-JKL (N.D.
Ga., Oct. 29, 2018), alleges gender-based harassment and
retaliation claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, and Fair Labor Standards Act claims against the Defendant.

According to the complaint, the Defendant employed more than 500
employees and is a not-for-profit health system consisting of three
hospital campuses and more than 50 physicians group offices. The
Plaintiff began working for the Defendant as a patient account
representative in customer service in the billing department at
DeKalb Medical on May 22, 2016. Plaintiff's complaint of harassment
included concerns that Ms. Caine used inappropriate language and
profanity and made sexual remarks in the work environment. Ms.
Caine was not subject to written discipline regarding the conduct
about which Plaintiff complained. In December 2017 another employee
made a complaint to Ms. Hazelwood that Ms. Caine had made
inappropriate comments in violation of Defendant's policies during
a staff huddle. Ms. Caine again was not subject to written
discipline regarding the conduct about which the employee
complained.

Defendant required, suffered and/or permitted Plaintiff and members
of the Overtime Collective to work hours over 40 in a workweek
without paying her/them for the overtime hours worked. As a direct
and proximate cause of Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and
members of the Overtime Collective have suffered lost income and
other damages. The Plaintiff and the Overtime Collective were
similarly situated because while employed by Defendant they
performed similar tasks, were paid in the same or substantially
similar manner, were required to work in excess of forty hours per
workweek, and were subject to Defendant's unlawful policies and
practices of willfully failing to pay them at the statutorily
required rate of 1.5 times their hourly rate for all hours worked
in excess of 40 per workweek, the lawsuit says.

DeKalb Medical owns and operates hospitals in DeKalb and Gwinnett
counties, Georgia.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Tracey T. Barbaree, Esq.
          Beth A. Moeller, Esq.
          MOELLER BARBAREE LLP
          1100 Peachtree Street N.E.,Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30309


DELAWARE NORTH: Abrica Appeals Decision in Collier Suit to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Isabel Abrica filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Linda Collier, et al. v. Delaware North Companies
Travel Hospitality Services, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-01938-R-KK, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Riverside.

The nature of suit is stated as "Civil Rights Jobs."

The appellate case is captioned as Linda Collier, et al. v.
Delaware North Companies Travel Hospitality Services, Inc., Case
No. 18-56401, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

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

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

   -- Transcript is due on December 14, 2018;

   -- Appellant Isabel Abrica's opening brief is due on
      January 23, 2019;

   -- Appellees Linda Collier and Delaware North Companies Travel
      Hospitality Services, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      February 25, 2019; and

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

Objector-Appellant ISABEL ABRICA is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  MStahle@maternlawgroup.com

Plaintiff-Appellee LINDA COLLIER, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, and as
aggrieved employees pursuant to Private Attorneys General Act PAGA,
is represented by:

          Matthew Roland Bainer, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          1970 Broadway
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          E-mail: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES TRAVEL HOSPITALITY
SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, is represented by:

          Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 201-1532
          E-mail: jbrophy@seyfarth.com


DELAWARE: Class Suit Claims Brutal Inmate Abuse in Vaughn Prison
----------------------------------------------------------------
DJ McAneny, writing for Delaware 105.9 FM News Talk, reports that
as the first of several criminal trials is underway in the deadly
Vaughn prison riot, which claimed the life of correctional officer
Lt. Steven Floyd, prisoners are seeking justice for alleged abuse
they suffered at the hands of responding tactical teams and
officers.

According to a complaint filed October 31, 2018, as the first
Vaughn trial seeking to prosecute inmates the state alleged to play
key roles in the riot spanned its seventh day, 117 plaintiffs
listed 49 defendants in the suit, filed against state employees,
that range from correctional officers all way up to the warden,
deputy wardens, former and current Department of Correction
commissioners, and Governor John Carney.

On the same day that the prosecution's star witness, cooperating
prisoner Royal Downs, detailed what he described as a love affair
with a correctional officer named Tracey -- the pair donning the
moniker Bonnie and Clyde as a couple -- and faced harsh criticism
during cross-examination, the suit claimed abuse at the hands of
police in the wake of Floyd's murder with allegations like:

-- Responding Correctional Emergency Response Team officers and
state troopers failed to determine which prisoners were actually
involved in rioting and which were being held as prisoners

-- Zip-ties were too tightly applied to the wrists of prisoners,
who were then -- while complying -- spit on, stood on, kicked, and
stomped. Meanwhile, the zip-ties made taking of blood pressure too
difficult for nurses to accomplish successfully

-- Passive inmates were struck with batons and electrified riot
shields, pepper sprayed, and threatened with murder

-- Prisoners were forced to spread their buttocks for inspection,
then instructed to "put those soiled fingers in their mouths and
pull their mouths open further"

The suit alleged "systematic" torture by Delaware DOC employees
upon prisoners who were also victims in the incident, and the
lawsuit alleged the conditions that led to the revolt had been
compounding years before the discontent came to a violent head.
Our sister-station WDEL received dozens of letters, detailing what
they alleged to be abuse following the incident, telling their
story to both WDEL and Dover attorney Steve Hampton, Esq. Hampton
along with lawyers Zachary A. George, Esq. and James J. Woods Jr.,
Esq. filed the class-action lawsuit, which seeks compensatory and
punitive damages and injunctive relief from future recurrences" of
abuse.

But the lawsuit, however, must be re-filed, Hampton said.
Mistakenly, two inmates who are being criminally prosecuted were
included in the class-action lawsuit. Among them, Lawrence
Michaels, who goes by the nickname "Smoke." In testimony, Downs
said Michaels violently stabbed Floyd.

A second inmate, Hampton said, had changed his name to Luis Sierra
in an effort to be included in the lawsuit, but attorneys
discovered he is actually Abdull-Haqq-El-Qadeer, who's also charged
in the Floyd's death.

"The criminal defendants and civil plaintiff's have conflicts of
interest," said Hampton. [GN]


DJ SHIRLEY: Seeks 2nd Circuit Review of Ruling in Khalid Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants DJ Holbrook Inc., DJ Shirley 1 Inc., DJ Southhold, Inc.,
Neerja Jain, Sanjay Jain and John Doe Corps. filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled Khalid, et al. v. DJ Shirley 1
Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-5926, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip).

The appellate case is captioned as Khalid, et al. v. DJ Shirley 1
Inc., et al., Case No. 18-2987, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
sought certification of their New York Labor Law claims for unpaid
overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours, failure to provide wage
notice, and failure to provide wage statement claims on behalf of a
class defined as:

    "all hourly employees who worked in excess of forty (40)
     hours in any workweek and/or worked a shift or split-shift
     in excess of ten (10) hours at any time from October 14,
     2009 through the present, for any Dunkin' Donuts or
     combination Dunkin' Donuts/Baskin Robbins/Nathan's location
     owned and/or operated by Sanjay Jain and/or Neerja Jain in
     New York."[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents Sheraz Khalid, Suresh Patel and Mohammed
Saleh, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
are represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          PELTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
          111 Broadway
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com

Defendants-Petitioners DJ Shirley 1 Inc., DBA Dunkin Donuts, Sanjay
Jain, Neerja Jain, DJ Holbrook Inc., DBA Dunkin' Donuts, DJ
Southhold, Inc., DBA Dunkin' Donuts and John Doe Corps. # 1-13,
Jointly and Severally, are represented by:

          Alan Pearl, Esq.
          SILVERMAN ACAMPORA LLP
          100 Jericho Quadrangle
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Telephone: (516) 479-6380
          E-mail: APearl@SilvermanAcampora.com


DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, alerts
investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed against Dycom Industries, Inc. (NYSE:  DY) ("Dycom") on
behalf of purchasers of Dycom common stock between November 20,
2017 and August 10, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who purchased Dycom securities during the Class Period
may, no later than December 24, 2018, seek to be appointed as a
lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional
information or to learn how to participate in this action please
visit www.ktmc.com/dycom-industries-securities-class-action

According to the complaint, Dycom provides specialty contracting
services through subsidiaries throughout the United States and
Canada. Dycom's services include program management, engineering,
construction, maintenance, and installation services for
telecommunications providers, underground facility locating
services for various utilities, and other construction and
maintenance services for electric and gas utilities.

The Class Period begins on November 20, 2017, when Dycom issued a
press release announcing its financial and operating results for
the first fiscal quarter ended October 28, 2017.

According to the complaint, on May 22, 2018, during a conference
call regarding Dycom's financial and operating results for the
first fiscal quarter ended April 28, 2018, Dycom's Chairman,
President & CEO Steven E. Nielsen disclosed that Dycom did not have
enough work in hand to absorb the costs it had already incurred
associated with its new large projects, mainly because Dycom was
facing great uncertainties related to permitting issues. Following
this news, the price of Dycom's common stock declined $23.56, or
approximately 20.27%, to close on May 22, 2018 at $92.64 per
share.

Prior to the market opening on August 13, 2018, Dycom issued a
press release revising its guidance for the financial and operating
results for the second fiscal quarter and six months ended July 28,
2018, and announcing preliminary revenues and results for the
second quarter below the previous guidance. Following this news,
the price of Dycom common stock dropped $21.62 per share, or
24.10%, to close at $68.09 per share on August 13, 2018.

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

Dycom investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud class
action and their legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com.

Dycom investors may, no later than December 24, 2018, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

         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
         Website: www.ktmc.com
         Email: abell@ktmc.com
                jmaro@ktmc.com [GN]



EAGLE HOME: Faasua Hits Missed Breaks; Seeks Unpaid Reimbursements
------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Faasua, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Eagle Home
Mortgage, LLC, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. RG18924014 (Cal. Super., October 1, 2018), seeks redress for
Defendant's failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to
provide itemized wage statements, reimbursement of business-related
expenses and failure to pay wages on a timely basis, interest
thereon at the statutory rate, actual damages, all wages due
terminated employees, costs of suit, prejudgment interest and such
other and further relief pursuant to the California Labor Code and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders.

Eagle Home Mortgage provides home mortgage services to home buyers
where Faasua worked as a Loan Officer from February of 2014 to
April 2, 2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Certifies Class in Rhodes FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAULA RHODES individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC a
Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-04297-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind.), Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, filed on June 4, 2018, pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rhodes filed the purported class action on behalf of herself and
all those similarly situated alleging that the Defendant violated
various provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA") through the sending of a form debt collection letter that
failed to properly identify the original creditor as well as the
creditor to whom the debt was then owed.

The Defendant sent Ms. Rhodes an initial form collection letter
dated June 28, 2017, which provided that the company's records
indicate that her balance with Kohl's Department Stores, Inc.
remains unpaid.  The collection letter identified the "Original
Creditor" as "Kohl's Department Store, Inc." and the "Creditor" as
"Chase Bank USA N.A."  It did not explain the difference, if any,
between the "original creditor" and the "creditor," nor did it
identify which creditor it was representing.  Ms. Rhodes alleges
that Kohl's was never in fact the original creditor, nor was Chase
Bank the creditor to whom the debt was then owed.  Rather, both the
"original creditor" and the "creditor" should have been identified
as Capital One.

On Nov. 16, 2017, Ms. Rhodes filed her putative class action
complaint in this court, alleging that the Defendant's form
collection letter violated various provisions of the FDCPA.  

Ms. Rhodes moved for class certification on June 4, 2018,
requesting that the Court certifies a class defined as all persons
similarly situated in the State of Indiana from whom the Defendant
attempted to collect a defaulted consumer debt, via the same form
collection letter that the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff, which
identified the creditor as Kohl's Department Store, Inc. and the
original creditor as Chase Bank USA, N.A., when the creditor was
actually Capital One, from one year before the date of the initial
Complaint to the present.

Judge Barker finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule
23(a) and the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements.  Therefore, she granted
the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

The Judge accordingly certified the class of all persons within the
State of Indiana from whom the Defendant attempted to collect a
defaulted consumer debt, via the same form collection letter that
the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff, which identified the creditor
as Kohl's Department Store, Inc. and the original creditor as Chase
Bank USA, N.A., when the creditor was actually Capital One, from
one year before the date of the initial Complaint to the present.

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

PAULA RHODES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Angie K. Robertson --
angiekrobertson@aol.com -- PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD., Carissa
Rasch, PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD., David J. Philipps --
davephilipps@aol.com -- PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD., John Thomas
Steinkamp , JOHN T. STEINKAMP AND ASSOCIATES & Mary E. Philipps --
mephilipps@aol.com -- PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD.

ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Defendant, represented by Larissa G. Nefulda --
Larissa.Nefulda@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &
SMITH LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick B. Healy --
Patrick.Healy@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH,
LLP & Stephen H. Turner -- Stephen.Turner@lewisbrisbois.com --
LEWIS BRISBOI BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, pro hac vice.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Certifies Class in Volkman FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William C. Griesbach granted the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification and denied his motion to seal an exhibit
attached to the Declaration of Philip D. Stern in the lawsuit
titled DERICK VOLKMAN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a ERC,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00091-WCG (E.D. Wisc.).

The certified class is defined as:

     All persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin to whom
     Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC mailed an initial written
     communication to collect a debt between January 17, 2017 and
     February 7, 2018, which was not returned as undeliverable,
     and which stated "[y]our recently disconnected Time Warner
     Cable account has been forwarded to us to assist you in the
     resolution of your balance due."

Derick Volkman alleges that Defendant Enhanced Recovery Company,
LLC (ERC) violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by
mailing initial template collection letters to Wisconsin residents
that fail to unambiguously identify the creditor.

The Court also ordered that counsel of record for Mr. Volkman is
appointed as class counsel.  Within 30 days of the date of this
order, class counsel shall provide the court with a proposed notice
to be provided to potential class members consistent with Rule
23(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Class counsel
shall consult with ERC before submitting the proposed notice.[CC]


EQUIINET INC: Hayes Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karoline Hayes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Equiinet, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-02025 (D. Nev.,
October 19, 2018), seeks to secure redress for alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
telemarketing text messages, harming thousands of consumers in the
process, the Plaintiff alleges.

Equiinet is a Nevada Corporation whose principal office is located
in Clark County, Nevada.  The Defendant is a service provider of
secure communications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Kind, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          6069 South Fort Apache Road, Suite 100
          Las Vegas, NV 89148
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          E-mail: mkind@kazlg.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


FACEBOOK INC: Bendetowies Files Suit Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
Caryn Bendetowies and Jill Herr, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Facebook, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-06263, (N.D. Cal., October 12, 2018),
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory damages
resulting from breach of contract, intrusion into private affairs
and for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, California's Customer Records Act and the
California Penal Code.

Facebook Inc. is a publically-traded social media company with its
headquarters and principal place of business in Menlo Park,
California. It has accumulated and stored information including
accessing users' call and text histories, metadata such as the
names and phone numbers of persons contacted, and the times of such
contacts and the lengths of such contacts, says the complaint.

Facebook recently revealed that its users' personal information was
subject to a massive data security breach in September 2018,
affecting approximately 50 million Facebook users. Plaintiffs have
been Facebook users for the several years now. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      9430 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 400
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (310) 209-2468
      Fax: (310) 209-2087
      Email: pbishop@ssbla.com


FACEBOOK INC: Sued by Heeger for Storing Users' Private Info
------------------------------------------------------------
BRETT HEEGER v. FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-06399-LB (N.D.
Cal., October 19, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
all persons similarly situated alleging that Facebook has continued
to track, log, and store information about users' IP addresses and
physical location despite representing to consumers that they have
the ability to prevent Facebook from doing so.

Facebook misleads its users by offering them the option to restrict
Facebook from tracking, logging, and storing their private location
information, but then continuing to track, log, and store that
location information regardless of users' choices, the Plaintiff
asserts.  The Plaintiff contends that Facebook secretly tracks,
logs, and stores location data for all of its users, including
those who have sought to limit the information about their
locations that Facebook may store in its servers by choosing to
turn Location History off.

Facebook, Inc., is incorporated in Delaware and its headquarters
are located in Menlo Park, California.  With over 2.2 billion
monthly users, Facebook is the world's leading online social media
and networking platform.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
          Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          The Tower Building
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com
                  kaizpuru@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  vahle@stuevesiegel.com


FAIR COLLECTIONS: Wade Files FDCPA Suit in Pa.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fair Collections &
Outsourcing, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Safiya Muhammad
Wade on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Fair Collections & Outsourcing, Inc., John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04784-GJP (E.D. Penn., Nov. 6, 2018).

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

Fair Collections & Outsourcing, Inc. was founded in 2004. The
company's line of business includes collection and adjustment
services on claims and other insurance related issues.[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


FARMLAND PARTNERS: Bid to Consolidate Kachmar & Mariconda Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Farmland Partners 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
Kachmar v. Farmland Partners, Inc. and Mariconda v. Farmland
Partners Inc. have moved to consolidate both lawsuits.

On July 11, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned
Kachmar v. Farmland Partners, Inc. ("the Kachmar Action"), was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado against the Company and certain of its officers by a
purported Company stockholder.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's
disclosure related to the FPI Agribusiness Inc. (FPI) Loan Program
was materially false and misleading in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

On August 17, 2018, a second purported class action, captioned
Mariconda v. Farmland Partners Inc. (the "Mariconda Action") was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, alleging substantially identical claims as the Kachmar
Action.  

Plaintiffs in both actions have moved to consolidate the Kachmar
Action and the Mariconda Action.  Those motions are pending and the
Company will not be required to respond to either complaint until
those motions are decided.  

Farmland Partners said, "At this time, no class has been certified
in either the Kachmar Action or the Mariconda Action and we do not
know the amount of damages or other remedies being sought by the
plaintiffs. The Company can provide no assurances as to the outcome
of this litigation or provide an estimate of related expenses at
this time."

Farmland Partners Inc. is an internally managed real estate company
that owns and seeks to acquire high-quality North American farmland
and makes loans to farmers secured by farm real estate. The company
is based in Denver, Colorado.


FLORIDA KEYS TAXI: Jurgensmeyer Suit Seeks to Recoup Minimum Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN JURGENSMEYER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FLORIDA KEYS TAXI DISPATCH 2000, INC., d/b/a FIVE 6'S
CAB COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Case No. 4:18-cv-10207-KMM
(S.D. Fla., October 20, 2018), arises from alleged unpaid minimum
wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Florida Keys Taxi Dispatch 2000, Inc., doing business as Five 6's
Cab Company, is a domestic corporation doing business in Florida
with its principal place of business located in Key West, Florida.
The Defendant is a full-service transportation company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chad E. Levy, Esq.
          David M. Cozad, Esq.
          LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
          1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, # 518
          Sunrise, FL 33323
          Telephone: (954) 763-5722
          Facsimile: (954) 763-5723
          E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com
                  david@levylevylaw.com


FLORIDA POWER: Court Allows Class-Action Lawsuit to Move Forward
----------------------------------------------------------------
4 CBS Miami.com reports that an appeals court on October 31
rejected an attempt by Florida Power & Light to block a
class-action lawsuit that alleges the utility did not properly
prepare for last year's Hurricane Irma.

FPL argued, in part, that issues related to whether it complied
with a storm-hardening plan need to be determined by the Florida
Public Service Commission, rather than in the lawsuit filed in
Miami-Dade County circuit court.

But a panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled that the
Public Service Commission does not have authority to award damages
as sought in the lawsuit.

"Further, the courts are the appropriate forum for determining
whether FPL's alleged past conduct constituted a breach of contract
or gross negligence, and the mere fact that such claims may involve
questions of whether FPL failed to meet certain standards
established by the PSC does not divest the trial court of its
jurisdiction, or vest exclusive jurisdiction in the PSC, to resolve
such issues," said the five-page ruling by appeals-court judges
Roberto Suarez, Kevin Emas and Ivan Fernandez.

The lawsuit, initially filed last year and amended Feb. 1., alleges
that FPL was "grossly unprepared" for Irma and that, as a result,
customers suffered damages.

Irma made landfall in September 2017 in Monroe and Collier counties
and then barreled through much of the state.

But in a motion to dismiss the case filed in Miami-Dade County
circuit court, FPL disputed the allegations and contended that
issues about its storm-preparation and restoration efforts should
go before the Public Service Commission.

"The duties that plaintiffs allege all arose, if anywhere,
exclusively out of the requirements of a (state rule that deals
with storm-hardening plans)," the FPL motion said.

"All of FPL's storm hardening and restoration initiatives were
undertaken in compliance with that rule… Accordingly, any
failures of FPL to comply with the rule or any failures in its
implementation of projects pursuant to the rule are to be resolved
by the PSC, in accordance with the rule."[GN]


FMA ALLIANCE: Magomedov Sues over Debt Collections Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Alihan Magomedov, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FMA Alliance, Ltd. and John
Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06151 (E.D.N.Y., Nov.
2, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under
the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, on or about June 11, 2018, the
Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection letter regarding the
alleged debt owed to M and T Bank. The Letter contains a material
omission in that it fails to inform the Plaintiff of the fact that
this debt is past the statute of limitations. This omission from
Defendant's Letter is materially deceptive to the unsophisticated
consumer, who would believe that M and T Bank or a subsequent
creditor has the option to sue. Furthermore, the Collection Letter
is materially deceptive as it fails to disclose that the previously
lapsed statute of limitations to file a lawsuit may recommence
through certain actions such as a payment by Plaintiff.

These deceptive statements and material omissions by Defendant
overshadow the "G-Notice" language contained in the letter, since
they fail to clearly state the legal status of the debt and
potential ramifications for paying or not paying, lawsuit says.

FMA Alliance, a receivables management company, provides debt
collection services.[BN]

Attorneys For Plaintiff:

          Daniel Kohn, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com

FOOD LION: Ratcliffe Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime for ASMs
------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY RATCLIFFE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FOOD LION, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-01177 (M.D. Tenn.,
October 22, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime
compensation for the Defendant's exempt-classified Assistant Store
Managers ("ASMs") pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Food Lion is a corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ahold
Delhaize, an international retail group that is based in the
Netherlands and primarily active in the United States and Europe.

Food Lion has more than 1,000 grocery store locations in 10 states,
mainly throughout the Southeastern and Mid-Atlantic United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
          2002 Richard Jones Rd. Suit B-200
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 250-2000
          E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Laura Iris Mattes, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
          E-mail: imattes@outtengolden.com


FOOD TECHNOLOGY: Underpays Quality Control Employees, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUCIA GUERRERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FOOD TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN, LLC d/b/a
FOODPHARMA; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
18STCV02304 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 25, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid overtime hours and minimum wages.

The Plaintiff Guerrero was employed by the Defendants as quality
control employee.

Food Technology & Design LLC operates as a confectionery products
manufacturer. The Company offers contracting and custom
manufacturing, laboratory formula development and testing products
shelf stability. Food Technology & Design focuses its production on
dietary supplements, protein, energy and nutrition bars. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather Davis, Esq.
          Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP
          136 Main Street, Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (844) 294-3095
          Facsimile: (866) 264-7880

               - and –

          Sam Sani, Esq.
          SANI LAW, APC
          136 Main Street, Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 935-0405
          Facsimile: (310) 935-0409
          E-mail: ssani@sanilawfirm.com


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Fernandez-Cryer Consolidated Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2018,
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that company
continues to defend the consolidated Fernandez and Cryer action.

In July 2016, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit
captioned Cryer v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al. in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against Franklin, the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan
("Plan") Investment Committee ("Investment Committee"), and unnamed
Investment Committee members.

The plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), alleging
that the defendants selected mutual funds sponsored and managed by
the Company (the "Funds") as investment options for the Plan when
allegedly lower-cost and better performing non-proprietary
investment vehicles were available.

The plaintiff also claims that the total Plan costs, inclusive of
investment management and administrative fees, are excessive. The
plaintiff alleges that Plan losses exceed $79.0 million and seeks,
among other things, damages, disgorgement, rescission of the Plan's
investments in the Funds, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and
post-judgment interest.

On November 2, 2017, a second former employee, represented by the
same law firm, filed another class action lawsuit relating to the
Plan in the same court, captioned Fernandez v. Franklin Resources,
Inc., et al. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February
6, 2018, naming the same defendants as those named in the Cryer
action, as well as the Franklin Board of Directors, the Plan
Administrative Committee, individual current and former Franklin
directors, and individual current and former Investment Committee
members.

The plaintiff in this second lawsuit asserts the same ERISA breach
of fiduciary duty claim asserted in the Cryer action, as well as
claims for alleged prohibited transactions by virtue of the Plan's
investments in the Funds and for an alleged failure to monitor the
performance of the Investment Committee. The plaintiff alleges that
Plan losses exceed $60.0 million and seeks the same relief sought
in the Cryer action.

On April 6, 2018, the court consolidated the Fernandez action with
the existing Cryer action.

Franklin Resources said, "Management strongly believes that the
claims asserted in the litigation are without merit and Franklin is
defending against the consolidated action vigorously. Franklin
cannot at this time predict the eventual outcome of the litigation
or whether it will have a material negative impact on the Company,
or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may
arise from any negative outcome."

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

Franklin Resources, Inc. is a publicly owned asset management
holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides its
services to individuals, institutions, pension plans, trusts, and
partnerships. It launches equity, fixed income, balanced, and
multi-asset mutual funds through its subsidiaries. The firm invests
in the public equity, fixed income, and alternative markets.
Franklin Resources, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is based in San
Mateo, California with an additional office in Hyderabad, India.


FRONTLINE ASSET: Avilia Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Annmarie Avilia and Yankee Gindoff, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Frontline Asset
Strategies, LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company; LVNV
Funding, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Resurgent
Capital Services, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership; JH
Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company; and John Does, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06352 (E.D.
N.Y., November 7, 2018) was brought over the illegal practices of
Defendants who used false, deceptive, and misleading practices, and
other illegal practices, in connection with their attempts to
collect an alleged debt from the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated consumers.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' collection practices violate the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. These collection practices
include sending consumers written communications in an attempt to
collect debts, which falsely imply the consumers' alleged defaulted
and charged-off credit debts are continuing to accrue daily
interest, late charges, and other charges, says the complaint.

Avilia is a citizen of, and resides in, the Village of Rockville
Centre, Nassau County, New York.

Gindoff is a citizen of, and resides in, the Hamlet of Monsey,
Rockland County, New York

Frontline is a limited liability company existing pursuant to the
laws of the State of Minnesota. Frontline maintains its principal
business address at 2700 Snelling Avenue N., Suite 250, City of St.
Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota.

Resurgent is a limited partnership existing pursuant to the laws of
the State of Delaware. Resurgent maintains its principal place of
business at 55 Beattie Place, Suite 300, MS425, City of Greenville,
Greenville County, South Carolina.

LVNV is a limited liability company existing pursuant to the laws
of the State of Delaware. LVNV maintains its principal place of
business at 625 Pilot Road, Suite 3, City of Las Vegas, Clark
County, Nevada.

JH Portfolio is a limited liability company existing pursuant to
the laws of the State of California. JH PORTFOLIO maintains its
principal place of business at 5757 Phantom Drive, Suite 225, City
of Hazelwood, St. Louis County, Missouri.

John Does, are sued under fictitious names as their true names and
capacities are yet unknown to Plaintiffs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
     KLEINMAN LLC
     626 RXR Plaza
     Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
     Phone: (516) 522-2621
     Facsimile: (888) 522-1692
     Email: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com


GENIE ENERGY: IDT Energy Faces Mackey & Hernandez Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. 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 IDT Energy has been
named as defendant in a putative class action filed by Scott Mackey
and Daniel Hernandez.

On October 5, 2018, named plaintiffs Scott Mackey and Daniel
Hernandez filed a putative class action complaint against IDT
Energy in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq. IDT Energy's response
to the complaint is due on or before November 30, 2018.

The named plaintiffs filed the suit on behalf of: (1) a putative
Cell Phone class consisting of all persons in the U.S. to whom IDT
Energy and/or a third party acting on IDT Energy's behalf allegedly
made one or more telemarketing calls promoting IDT Energy's goods
or services to their cellular telephone number through the use of
an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice within the four year period preceding the filing
of the complaint and (2) a putative Do-Not-Call class consisting of
all persons in the U.S. who allegedly received more than one call
from IDT Energy and/or some party acting on IDT Energy's behalf
promoting IDT Energy's goods or services in a 12-month period on
their cellular phone or residential telephone line and whose number
appears on the National Do-Not-Call registry within the four year
period preceding the filing of the complaint.

Although IDT Energy is still investigating the allegations
contained in the complaint, IDT Energy has made a preliminary
determination that they are without merit and plans to vigorously
defend this action.

Genie Energy said, "Based upon the Company's preliminary assessment
of this matter, a loss is not considered probable, nor is the
amount of loss, if any, estimable as of September 30, 2018."

Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail
energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company. The
company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Afek
Oil and Gas, Ltd.; and Genie Oil and Gas. Genie Energy Ltd. was
incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


GENIE ENERGY: Settlement Payment in Settling 3 Suits Hits $7.6MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. 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 total
settlement payment in the settled Pennsylvania, New York and New
Jersey class action lawsuits will be approximately $7.6 million.

On March 13, 2014, July 2, 2014 and July 15, 2014, named plaintiffs
in Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey commenced three separate
putative class-action lawsuits against IDT Energy, GRE, GEIC, and
Genie (collectively, "IDTE") contending, among other things, that
they and other former and current customers of IDTE were injured as
a result of IDTE's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing
practices. The Company denied any basis for those allegations
and/or wrongdoing.

On July 5, 2017, the Company entered into a settlement of all three
actions to further its efforts to address its customers' concerns.
On July 31, 2018, the Magistrate Court issued a report and
recommendation recommending approval of the settlement and
reduction of the attorneys' fees.

On October 18, 2018, the Court entered a final order approving the
Settlement Agreement.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company has agreed to pay
certain amounts to resolve the lawsuits and obtain a release of
claims that were, or could have been, asserted in the lawsuits or
that are related to, or arise out of the conduct alleged in the
lawsuits or similar conduct, wherever it may have occurred. The
settlement payment includes payments to customers who timely made a
claim, class counsel, and the named plaintiffs, as well as the cost
of a claims administrator for administrating the claims process.

In 2017, the Company estimated, based in part on historical
participation rates, that its total settlement payment would be
approximately $9.0 million, and in the second quarter of 2017, the
Company recorded a liability in that amount for the settlement. The
period for class members to make claims has since expired, and in
first quarter of 2018, based on the claims received and related
administrative costs, the Company estimated that the total
settlement payment will be approximately $7.6 million.

Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail
energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company. The
company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Afek
Oil and Gas, Ltd.; and Genie Oil and Gas. Genie Energy Ltd. was
incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


GO NEW YORK TOURS: Faces Diaz Suit Asserting ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Go New York Tours Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit in New York
under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Go New York Tours Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10355 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 7, 2018).

Go New York Tours offers double-decker buses that are designed with
top and bottom deck seating allowing everyone a 360 degree view
while traversing the city. These buses use clean air technology and
feature a great sound system, making it easy to hear the narration
from their automated guided system.[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


GOOGLE INC: Ali Sues Over Illegal Data Gathering and Storing
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case captioned Aichi Ali, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Google
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-06262 (N.D. Cal., October 12, 2018)
seeks to recover damages and obtain injunctive relief for injuries
under the California Invasion of Privacy Act and California's
Constitutional Right to Privacy.

Google, Inc. is the developer of a mobile operating system and the
developer of mobile applications used on smart phones and
computers. It allegedly tracks and stores information about the
location of millions of users which is then used, distributed and
monetized.

Ali owned and used an Apple iPhone with Google apps and
functionalities prior to 2016 and continues to the present. Despite
turning off the location history settings, Google continued to
track her location information, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Alex R. Straus, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      10728 Lindbrook Drive
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Tel: (310) 474-9111
      Fax: (310) 474-8585
      Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
             astraus@ahdootwolfson.com


GOOGLE INC: Sued by Lee for Secretly Tracking Users' Locations
--------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE LEE, AN INDIVIDUAL AND WYOMING RESIDENT, STACY SMEDLEY, AN
INDIVIDUAL AND COLORADO RESIDENT, AND FREDRICK DAVIS, AN INDIVIDUAL
AND COLORADO RESIDENT v. GOOGLE, INC., AND ALPHABET, INC., Case No.
3:18-cv-06416 (N.D. Cal., October 19, 2018), alleges that Google
surreptitiously tracked its users' locations even when they
explicitly opted-out of such tracking.

This case involves a deliberate, deceptive practice by the
Defendants to collect personal information from which they can
generate millions of dollars in revenue by covertly recording
contemporaneous location data about Android and iPhone mobile phone
users, who are using Google Maps or other Google applications and
functionalities ("Users"), but who have specifically opted out of
such tracking, the Plaintiffs allege.

Google, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal
headquarters in Mountain View, California.  Alphabet, Inc., is a
Delaware corporation with its principal headquarters in Mountain
View.  Alphabet is a public holding company formed in a corporate
reorganization by Google and through the corporate restructuring,
Google is now a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Alphabet.

Google is the world's largest digital advertising company.  Google
is also the developer of a mobile phone operating system, Android,
and develops applications that are pre-downloaded or can be
downloaded on Android and iOS mobile phone devices.  Google
applications on both Android and iOS devices have the ability to
collect valuable personal information about Users.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ivy T. Ngo, Esq.
          FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          14426 East Evans Avenue
          Aurora, CO 80014
          Telephone: (303) 757-3300
          Facsimile: (720) 213-5131
          E-mail: ngoi@fdazar.com


GOOGLE LLC: Illegally Tracks Location Data, Kaufman Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
RONNIE KAUFMAN, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GOOGLE LLC, XXVI HOLDINGS INC., and
ALPHABET INC., the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-06685 (N.D. Cal.,
Nov. 2, 2018), alleges that the Defendants engaged in deceptive
practices of tracking and storing location data after users
deactivate Google's ability to track and store location data using
instructions provided by Google, pursuant to the California
Invasion of Privacy Act, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, Google represented to the public and
its users that it would not access users' location history if the
users took certain steps in managing their privacy settings.
History feature on their accounts or devices, then Google would be
prevented from tracking and storing location data from them.
Google's support page, stated: "You  can turn off Location History
at any time. With Location History off, the places you go are no
longer stored." Specifically, Google represented that if users
disable the "Location Google's representation was false, however.
As revealed in a recent Associated Press investigation, and
confirmed by computer-science researchers at Princeton University,
Google accesses and stores the precise geolocation information even
from individuals who have affirmatively disabled the Location
History setting. For example, even with the Location History
feature disabled, Google apps will still automatically store
time-stamped location data without obtaining consent from the user.
The AP Report revealed that Google stores a snapshot of where you
are when you merely open its Maps app. Automatic daily weather
updates on Android phones pinpoint roughly where you are. And some
searches that have nothing to do with location, like 'chocolate
chip cookies,' or 'kids science 9 kits,' pinpoint your precise
latitude and longitude -- accurate to the square foot -- and save
it to your Google account.

Location data is highly sensitive, not only because the data point
identifies where an individual is at any given time, but also
because of the personal information that can be extracted from the
location data. Therefore, the efforts of individuals who are
conscious of their privacy and wish to avoid the collection and
storage of sensitive location data should be respected and
protected. However, Google collects the data against the express
preferences and expectations of its users, thereby invading users'
reasonable expectations of privacy.

Google uses the location information it unlawfully obtains from
users for marketing and advertising purposes, and generates
enormous revenues from it. Google earned $95.4 billion from
location-related advertising. Google is profiting off of intruding
into Plaintiff's and Class members' solitude, seclusion, and
private affairs, the lawsuit says.

Google is a multinational technology company that specializes in
Internet-related services and products, which include online
advertising technologies, search engine, cloud computing, software,
hardware and which includes the development of mobile operating
systems and mobile applications.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          service@ssbla.com
          9430 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: 310-209-2468
          Facsimile: 310-209-2087
          E-mail: pbishop@ssbla.com
                  memert@ssbny.com

GPM INVESTMENTS: Brooks Suit Alleges Equal Pay Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Brooks, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, V. GPM Investments, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-03152, (S.D. Ind., October 11, 2018), seeks damages
consisting of the difference between the pay of male employees and
her pay, other legal and equitable remedies, and attorney's fees
and costs for violations of the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

GPM Investments LLC is a convenience store owner and operator based
in Richmond, Virginia where Brooks worked for GPM as a district
manager in their Indiana store. Defendant allegedly paid Brooks
less than a male employee doing substantially equal work. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason R. Ramsland, Esq.
      BALL EGGLESTON PC
      201 Main Street, Suite 810
      Lafayette, IN 47902-1535
      Tel: (765) 742-9046
      Email: jramsland@ball-law.com


GRANITE SERVICES: Greinstein Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
HERMAN GREINSTEIN, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiff, v. GRANITE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC., GENERAL
ELECTRIC CO., and FIELDCORE SERVICES SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00208-D (N.D. Tex., Nov. 2, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Granite Services International, Inc.,
which recently rebranded to become FieldCore Service Solutions
International LLC operates as an affiliate or subsidiary of
General Electric Co. The Defendants failed to pay Greinstein, and
other workers like him, overtime as required. Greinstein, and the
other workers like him, typically worked over 40 hours per week,
but Defendants did not pay these workers overtime for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.

Instead, Defendants paid Greinstein, and other workers like him,
the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in
excess of 40 in a workweek. This "straight time for overtime"
pay plan violates the overtime requirements of the FLSA, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, Texas 77046
          Telephone: 713 352-1100
          Facsimile: 713 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH , PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 877-8788
          Facsimile: 713 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Okon Sues Over Tire Pressure Sensors' Flaw
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT OKON and JUDITH OKON, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY GROUP, LLC,
Case No. 2018CH13088 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., October 19, 2018), is
brought on behalf of persons, who purchased or leased a 2017 model
year or newer FLHTKSE CVO Limited Harley-Davidson motorcycle
designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold, and leased by
the Defendant.

The Plaintiffs allege that the tire pressure monitoring sensors in
the CVO Limited Harley-Davidson motorcycle is defective in that it
does not accurately reflect the air pressure level in the
motorcycle's tires.  The Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment
asking the Court to declare that the "class action waiver" in a
written warranty is unenforceable as it is and unconscionable term;
and damages for breach of a written warranty in violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and for consumer fraud in violation of
the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

Members of the putative class have been damaged in that they
possess motorcycles the value of which are diminished due to having
tire pressure monitoring sensors that do not work and cannot be
fixed under warranty, the Plaintiffs contend.

Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC, is a Wisconsin limited
liability company with its principal place of business in
Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq.
          Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
          DITOMMASO LUBIN AUSTERMUEHLE, P.C.
          17W220 22nd Street, Suite 410
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: (630) 333-0000
          E-mail: vdt@ditommasolaw.com
                  psl@ditommasolaw.com


HCL AMERICA: Long Seeks Overtime Pay for Systems Specialists
------------------------------------------------------------
STANLEY LONG, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HCL AMERICA, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00820-BSM (E.D. Ark., Nov. 2, 2018), seeks declaratory
judgment; monetary damages; liquidated damages; prejudgment
interest; costs; and a reasonable attorney's fee, as a result of
Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff proper
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, to support its services related to
information technologies services and products, Defendant hires
individuals including Plaintiff Long as Systems Specialists. The
duties of systems specialists for Defendant are to perform tasks
related to the installation of computer systems for Defendant's
clients. The Plaintiff worked on projects or with materials, such
as computers and other electronics.

Defendant classified Plaintiff as exempt from the overtime
requirements of the FLSA and the AMWA and did not pay him proper
overtime premiums for the hours he worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek. The Defendant did not guarantee Plaintiff a salary of at
least $455 per week. Despite working more than forty hours per week
on a regular basis, the Plaintiff and other systems specialists
were only paid half their regular rates for any hours worked over
40, and not the proper overtime premium, the lawsuit says.

HCL America, Inc., provides technological products and support to
other businesses. Its services include installation and servicing
of technological product.[BN]

Attorneys for Plantiff:

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

HIGGMARK MAINTENANCE: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Shetter Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SHETTER and GUY SHARPE, on behalf of Themselves and Others
Similarly Situated v. HIGGMARK MAINTENANCE SERVICES, LLC and TIM
HIGGINS, Case No. 4:18-cv-03984 (S.D. Tex., October 22, 2018),
accuses the Defendants of not paying overtime to the hourly,
blue-collar workers they jointly employ, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

HiggMark Maintenance Services, LLC commenced operations in
September 2016 and is headquartered in Cypress, Texas.  Tim Higgins
is the owner and CEO of HMS.

The Defendants offer qualified maintenance services (mechanics &
electronic technicians) for maintenance on heavy/light equipment in
all industries in the continental U.S. and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com


HONEYWELL INT'L: Bronstein Gewirtz Securities Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Honeywell International Inc.
("Honeywell" or the "Company") (NYSE: HON) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Honeywell securities between February 9, 2018 through
October 19, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such
investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's
site: www.bgandg.com/hon.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Honeywell's Bendix asbestos-related liability
was greater than initially reported; (2) the Company maintained
improper accounting practices in connection with its Bendix
asbestos-related liability; and (3) as a result, Honeywell's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On August 23, 2018, Honeywell disclosed that "the Company's Bendix
asbestos-related liability is estimated to be $1,693 million as of
June 30, 2018. This is $1,083 million higher than the Company's
prior estimation."  Honeywell further advised investors that
"Bendix asbestos-related insurance assets are estimated to be $187
million as of June 30, 2018, which is $65 million higher than the
Company's prior estimate."  

Then, on October 19, 2018, Honeywell filed a quarterly report with
the SEC for the quarter ended September 30, 2018. In its quarterly
report, Honeywell advised investors that "the SEC's Division of
Corporate Finance had reviewed Honeywell's prior accounting for
liability for unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims" and that
"[o]n September 13, 2018, following completion of Corporation
Finance's review, the SEC Division of Enforcement advised that it
has opened an investigation related to this matter. "

Following this news, Honeywell's stock price fell $1.72 per share,
or 1.11%, to close at $153.47 per share on October 19, 2018.  Over
the following three trading sessions, Honeywell's stock price fell
by an additional $7.87, or 5.3%, to close at $140.72 per share on
October 24, 2018.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/hon or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Honeywell
you have until January 2, 2019 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Telephone: 212-697-6484
         Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


HONEYWELL INT'L: Kanefsky Sues over Misleading Report, Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID KANEFSKY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., DARIUS
ADAMCZYK, and THOMAS A. SZLOSEK, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-15536 (D.N.J., Oct. 31, 2018), seeks 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.

According to the complaint, the case is a federal securities class
action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Honeywell securities
between February 9, 2018 through October 19, 2018, both dates
inclusive. 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) Honeywell's Bendix asbestos-related liability was greater than
initially reported; (ii) the Company maintained improper accounting
practices in connection with its Bendix asbestos-related liability;
and (iii) as a result, Honeywell's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 23, 2018, Honeywell disclosed that "the Company's Bendix
asbestos-related liability is estimated to be $1,693 million as of
June 30, 2018. This is $1,083 million higher than the Company's
prior estimation." Honeywell further advised investors that "Bendix
asbestos-related insurance assets are estimated to be $187 million
as of June 30, 2018, which is $65 million higher than the Company's
prior estimate." Then, on October 19, 2018, Honeywell filed a
quarterly report with the SEC for the quarter ended September 30,
2018. In its quarterly report, Honeywell advised investors that the
SEC's Division of Corporate Finance had reviewed Honeywell's prior
accounting for liability for unasserted Bendix-related asbestos
claims" and that "on September 13, 2018, following completion of
Corporation Finance's review, the SEC Division of Enforcement
advised that it has opened an investigation related to this matter.
On Honeywell's stock price fell $1.72 per share, or 1.11%, to close
at $153.47 per share on October 19, 2018. Over the following three
trading sessions, Honeywell's stock price fell by an additional
$7.87, or 5.3%, to close at $140.72 per share on October 24, 2018.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.

Honeywell is a multinational conglomerate that makes a variety of
commercial and consumer products, engineering services, and
aerospace systems. Honeywell was incorporated in Delaware in 1985,
and its common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under
the symbol "HON". Honeywell previously owned Bendix Friction
Materials, a manufacturer of automotive, truck and industrial
brakes. Despite known health hazards, Bendix used asbestos in its
brake- and clutch-pad products until 2001. Honeywell sold Bendix in
2014.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

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

HONEYWELL INT'L: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Honeywell International Inc. (NYSE: HON) from
February 9, 2018 through October 19, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Honeywell
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Honeywell class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1441.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Honeywell's Bendix asbestos-related liability was greater
than initially reported; (2) Honeywell maintained improper
accounting practices in connection with its Bendix asbestos-related
liability; and (3) as a result, Honeywell's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 2,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1441.html

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen—firm.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


HONGS MERCHANDISING: Lee Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sung Kyu Lee, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
known and unknown v. Hongs Merchandising Group, Inc dba Hong's
Seafood, Corp, James Hong, and Charlie Hong, Case No. 1:18-cv-06343
(E.D. N.Y., November 7, 2018), is brought against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that during the course of his employment by
the Defendants, the Plaintiff regularly worked over 10 hours per
day and over 40 hours per week. However, the Defendants did not pay
his overtime wages and they never compensated the Plaintiff with
the spread of hours pay. The Plaintiff further alleges that the
Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages is willful and
intentional.

The Plaintiff performed manual labor for the Defendants from June
11, 2015 until September 4, 2018.

The Defendants own and operate a seafood wholesale business in
Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
      RYAN KIM LAW
      163-10 Northern Blvd. Suite 205
      Flushing, NY 11358
      E-mail: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Ballew Sues Over Warranty Repair Denial
------------------------------------------------------
Dana M. Ballew and Charles A. Ballew, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Hyundai Motor
America, Inc. and Hyundai Motor Company, Defendants, Case No.
7:18-cv-03014-DCC (D. S.C., November 7, 2018) brought this action,
both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
against Defendants Hyundai Motor America, Inc., and Hyundai Motor
Company for denial of warranty repair.

According to the complaint, vehicles were sold with a defect. Under
normal use and with proper maintenance, the engines in Subject
vehicles suffer from inadequate engine oil lubrication, which
causes the engines and their components to wear prematurely and
ultimately cause catastrophic engine failure.

However, Defendants failed to provide warranty repairs as required
by their New Vehicle Limited Warranty or Extended Warranty, says
the complaint.

Plaintiffs Dana M. Ballew and Charles A. Ballew are South Carolina
citizens and Spartanburg County residents. Plaintiffs are the
co-owners of a 2015 Hyundai Sonata with Vehicle Identification
Number 5NPE24AA5FH128566. Mrs. Ballew is the primary operator of
this vehicle. She is employed as a realtor and is a notary public
and volunteer Guardian.

Hyundai Motor America ("HMA") is, at all relevant times, a foreign
corporation with its principal place of business in California. HMA
is a subsidiary of Defendant Hyundai Motor Company. HMA is and has
been engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing,
distributing, marketing, and selling products to consumers in the
state of South Carolina and throughout the United States, including
the 2011 – 2015 Hyundai Sonata. HMA regularly does business in
South Carolina, and its products, including the Subject Vehicles,
are regularly sold and used by consumers in South Carolina.

Hyundai Motor Company ("HMC") is a Korean corporation headquartered
in Seoul, South Korea. HMC is the parent corporation of HMA.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     T. Christopher Tuck, Esq.
     Robert S. Wood, Esq.
     T.A.C. Hargrove, Esq.
     RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, L.L.C.
     1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd.
     Building A
     Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
     Phone: 843-727-6500
     Email: ctuck@rpwb.com
            bwood@rpwb.com
            thargrove@rpwb.com


IAS WARRANTY: Ledoux Sues over Unsolicited Calls
------------------------------------------------
RITA LEDOUX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. IAS WARRANTY, LLC, d/b/a Innovative
Aftermarket Systems, a Texas limited liability company, and CS VSC,
LLC d/b/a CarSure, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, the
Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-01419 (W.D. La., Oct. 31, 2018), seeks
to stop Defendants from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act by making unsolicited, autodialed calls to consumers without
their consent, including calls to consumers registered on the
National Do Not Call registry, and to obtain injunctive and
monetary relief for all persons harmed by Defendants' conduct.

According to the complaint, IAS provides extended auto warranty
products to consumers. IAS was purchased by CIVC Partners. At that
time, IAS provided their extended auto warranty products to dealers
who sold them direct to consumers. In 2015, IAS acquired KingStar
Holdings, a holding company that included the CarSure company,
which markets extended auto warranty products. This allowed IAS to
control a marketing company (Carsure) to sell their extended auto
warrant products direct to consumers. A significant part of
CarSure's marketing for IAS involves outbound telemarketing, a role
for which the company is often recruiting for as seen on CarSure's
own career's page.

On November 9, 2004, Plaintiff registered her cellular number on
the National Do Not Call registry to prevent unsolicited calls from
telemarketers. Between September 2017 and February 2018, Plaintiff
received a number of calls regarding an extended vehicle warranty
on her cellular phone.  The Plaintiff does not have a relationship
with either Defendant Carsure or IAS, or any of their affiliated
companies, nor has she ever requested that either Defendant place
calls to her, or consented to any contact from Defendants. Simply
put, neither Defendant IAS or Defendant CarSure obtained
Plaintiff's prior express written consent to place any solicitation
telephone calls on her cellular phone using an autodialer or
otherwise, and Plaintiff has no business with either Defendant. The
unauthorized telephone calls made by CarSure at the direction of
IAS as
alleged herein have harmed Plaintiff in the form of annoyance,
nuisance, and invasion of privacy, and disturbed LeDoux's use and
enjoyment of her phone, in addition to the wear and tear on the
phones' hardware (including the phones' battery) and the
consumption of memory on the phone, the lawsuit says.

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Classes

          J. David Andress, Esq.
          218 Rue Louis XIV, Suite A
          Lafayette, LA 70508
          Telephone: (337) 347-9919
          E-mail: david@andresslawfirm.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


IDEMIA IDENTITY: Rueda Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move for an order conditionally certifying the
action entitled Connie Rueda, Jessica Cotton, and Shelia Spencer,
individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf
of the general public v. Idemia Identity & Security USA, LLC,
MorphoTrust USA, LLC, and Does 1-50, Case No. 3:18-cv-03794-VC
(N.D. Cal.), as a collective action under the federal Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Plaintiffs move for an order:

   (1) granting conditional certification and approving a 90-day
       opt-in period for the following proposed Collective:

       All persons who work or worked for Defendants as
       Enrollment Agent I, Enrollment Agent II, Lead Enrollment
       Agent, Mobile Enrollment Agent, and other job titles
       performing the same or similar customer enrollment duties
       in a non-supervisory capacity for Defendants' Enrollment
       Services department throughout the United States
       (collectively and hereinafter, "Enrollment Agents") at any
       time from three years prior to the filing of this
       Complaint to the final disposition of this case;

   (2) requiring the Defendants, within 10 days of the Court's
       order, to identify (in Excel or similar format) for all
       potential Collective Action Members each individual's (1)
       name, (2) job title, (3) last known address, telephone
       number, (4) dates of employment, (5) location of
       employment, (6) employee number, (7) last known personal
       e-mail addresses (for former employees) or work e-mail
       addresses (for current employees), and (8) social security
       number (last four digits only).  The Plaintiffs seek a
       90-day notice period with a reminder postcard, with notice
       to be distributed by Plaintiffs' counsel via U.S. Mail and
       e-mail;

   (3) approving the Plaintiffs' proposed form of Notice and
       Consent to Join form and authorizing both forms to be sent
       by U.S. Mail, e-mail, and text-message to all potential
       Collective Action Members, with identical reminder notices
       to potential Collective Action Members to issue after the
       expiration of 30 days and 60 days from the day that the
       original notice is transmitted to any potential Collective
       Action Member who has not responded; and

   (4) permitting potential Collective Action Members to file
       Consent to Join Forms, by e-mail, fax, or e-mail until
       90 days after the day the original notice is transmitted
       to potential Collective Action Members.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 29, 2018, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan J. Schwartz, Esq.
          Rachel M. Terp, Esq.
          BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
          1330 Broadway, Suite 1630
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 444-9300
          Facsimile: (510) 444-9301
          E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
                  rachel@bryanschwartzlaw.com


INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Harris-Carr Alleges Misleading Fin'l Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GABE HARRIS-CARR, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. INDIA GLOBALIZATION CAPITAL,
INC. RAM MUKUNDA, and CLAUDIA GRIMALDI, the Defendants, the Case
No. 8:18-cv-03408-GJH (D. Md., Nov. 2, 2018), seeks to recover
damages caused by the 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 case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired India Globalization securities between June 21,
2018 and October 29, 2018, both dates inclusive. India
Globalization purports to be focused on the development and
commercialization of cannabinoid-based alternative therapies for
indications such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and
pain. Its lead product is Hyalolex, an alternative oral therapy for
the treatment of symptoms associated with Alzheimer's disease. The
Company has filed several patents for its pipeline of products
including ones for the treatment of Parkinson's Central Nervous
System related disorders, eating disorders, and seizures in cats
and dogs. Since its inception, the Company operates a legacy
business that involves trading commodities and heavy equipment
rental.

The Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) India Globalization
substantially discontinued the business that it conducted at the
time it began trading on the NYSE American; (ii) the Company had
become engaged in ventures or promotions which have not developed
to a commercial stage; (iii) consequently, the Company is not an
operating company for the purposes of continued trading and listing
on the NYSE American; and (iv) as a result, India Globalization's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. On October 28, 2018, an article was published on
the financial news website Marketwatch, entitled, "All the
potential red flags for investors in IGC, the pot stock that jumped
1,000% in three months." The article discussed the "alarming number
of red flags" it uncovered which "undermine claims made by the
Company.

Then, on October 29, 2018, the NYSE American announced "that the
staff of NYSE Regulation has determined to commence proceedings to
delist the common stock of India Globalization Capital, Inc. (NYSE:
IGC) -- ticker symbol IGC -- from the Exchange. Trading in the
Company's common stock on the NYSE American will be suspended
immediately." The NYSE American also said that the "Company or its
management have engaged in operations which, in the opinion of the
Exchange, are contrary to the public interest." Following this
news, the Company's common stock ceased trading on the NYSE
American, resulting in significant damages to the Company's
stockholders and the Class. As a result of the Defendant's wrongful
acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members
have suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Douglas Bunch, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          New York Avenue N.W. Suite 500, East Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                  dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
                  dbunch@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


INNERWORKINGS INC: Bid to Dismiss Brown Suit Due November 26
------------------------------------------------------------
InnerWorkings, 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's
deadline to file a motion to dismiss in the case entitled, Errol
Brown, et al., v. InnerWorkings, Inc., et al., is November 26,
2018.   

In May 2018, shortly following the Company's announcement of its
intention to restate certain historical financial statements, a
putative securities class action complaint was filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.  

The action, Errol Brown, et al., v. InnerWorkings, Inc., et al., is
currently pending before the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. The complaint alleges claims
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

Allegations in the complaint include that the Company and its
current and former officers and directors made untrue statements or
omissions of material fact by issuing inaccurate financial
statements for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2015, 2016, and
2017, as well as all interim periods.

The putative class seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages
as well as reimbursement of fees and costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, and other costs. The Company and individual
defendants dispute the claims. On July 27, 2018, the Court
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the case.  

Plaintiff's counsel filed an amended complaint on September 25,
2018. The Company's deadline for filing a motion to dismiss is
November 26, 2018.   

InnerWorkings, Inc. provides marketing execution solutions in North
America and internationally. The company's software applications
and databases create an integrated solution that stores, analyzes,
and tracks the production capabilities of its supplier network, as
well as detailed pricing data. The company was founded in 2001 and
is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, 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 from a consolidated class action suit
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

On or about March 17, 2017, a complaint (captioned Kayd Currier v.
Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case 1:17-cv-01954-PAC) was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the company and certain of its current and former
officers.

The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of
purchasers of the company's securities between February 23, 2016,
and March 15, 2017. In general, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants violated the anti-fraud provisions of the federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's business and financial results
during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the price
of the company's securities.

On or about March 28, 2017, a second complaint making similar
allegations (captioned Hans E. Erdmann v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc.,
et al., Case 1:17-cv-02225-PAC) was filed in the same Court.

On May 31, 2017, the Court consolidated the first and second
complaint and appointed lead counsel in the consolidated action. On
July 31, 2017, the lead counsel filed a consolidated complaint. On
October 11, 2017, the Court held a pre-motion conference, at which
the Court granted leave to plaintiffs to again amend the complaint.
The amendment was filed on October 27, 2017, and the company moved
to dismiss. The Court subsequently dismissed the complaint as to
Santosh Vetticaden, the company's former Interim CEO and Chief
Medical Officer, and otherwise denied the company's motion to
dismiss.  

Insys filed its answer on June 26, 2018. The plaintiffs in both
actions seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

Insys Therapeutic said, " We continue to vigorously defend this
matter."

Insys Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
develops and commercializes supportive care products. Insys
Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in Chandler, Arizona.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Di Donato Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, 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 from a purported class action suit
entitled, Richard Di Donato v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al.

On or about February 2, 2016, a complaint (captioned Richard Di
Donato v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case 2:16-cv-00302-NVW)
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona against the company and certain of its current and former
officers. The complaint was brought as a purported class action on
behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between March 3,
2015 and January 25, 2016.

In general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the
anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's
business, operations and compliance with laws during the class
period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's
common stock.

On June 3, 2016, the Court appointed Clark Miller to serve as lead
plaintiff. On June 24, 2016, the plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint naming a former employee of Insys Therapeutics, Inc. as
an additional defendant and extending the class period.

On December 22, 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, primarily to add allegations relating to an indictment
of Michael L. Babich and certain of the company's former employees
announced on December 8, 2016, and to extend the class period from
August 12, 2014 through December 8, 2016. On January 12, 2017, the
defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. Oral
arguments were heard by the Court on July 28, 2017, and the Court
granted the motion in part and denied it in part.

The plaintiff subsequently moved for leave to further amend the
complaint, which the company opposed. The Court denied Plaintiff's
motion on March 31, 2018, and Insys filed its answer on April 15,
2018. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

Insys Therapeutics said, "We continue to vigorously defend this
matter."

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

Insys Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
develops and commercializes supportive care products. Insys
Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in Chandler, Arizona.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Class Suits over Opioid Sales
---------------------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, 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 from class action suits related to
so-called Opioid Epidemic.

The company has been named along with various other opioid
manufacturers, opioid distributors, prescribers, pharmacies, and
others in complaints focused on the national opioid epidemic filed
by various cities, counties, states, Native American tribes, and
third-party payers in many state and federal courts in Alabama,
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West
Virginia.

The company is involved in more than 600 of these cases, the
majority of which have been consolidated into multi-district
litigation (MDL No. 2804) in the Northern District of Ohio. Most of
the cases in the multi-district litigation are presently stayed
while the Court seeks to facilitate a resolution.

On April 2, 2018, the United States filed a motion to participate
in settlement discussions and as a friend of the court.
Additionally, the Court set certain cases for a litigation track,
and those cases will move forward toward trial, which is scheduled
to commence on March 18, 2019.

The company has also been named, along with various other opioid
manufacturers and distributors, in putative class action complaints
that seek to assert claims allegedly related to the national opioid
epidemic on behalf of (1) purchasers of health insurance between
1996 and the present, and (2) children born addicted to opioids.
Most of these cases have been consolidated into MDL No. 2804.  

Finally, Insys has been named in at least one lawsuit in which a
personal injury plaintiff sued Insys and other opioid manufacturers
for harm allegedly caused by a tortfeasor who was addicted to
opioids.

Insys Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
develops and commercializes supportive care products. Insys
Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in Chandler, Arizona.


INVESTMENT TECH: Settlement in N.Y. Suit Granted Initial Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Investment Technology 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 a
stipulation and agreement of settlement in the case entitled, In re
Investment Technology Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, has been
granted preliminary approval by the court.

In connection with the announcement of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) investigation regarding AlterNet, two putative
class action lawsuits were filed with respect to the Company and
certain of its current and former executives, which were
consolidated into a single action captioned In re Investment
Technology Group, Inc. Securities Litigation before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
material misrepresentations or omitted to disclose material facts
concerning, among other subjects, the matters that were the subject
of the SEC settlement regarding AlterNet and the SEC investigation
that led to the SEC settlement.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages under the
federal securities laws. On April 26, 2017, the court granted in
part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint and granted the plaintiff leave to file a motion to amend
its complaint. On June 12, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion to
amend its complaint against certain of the individual defendants
who were dismissed from the case in the court's April opinion. On
March 23, 2018, the court denied plaintiff's motion to amend,
thereby affirming its dismissal of certain of the individual
defendants from the case.

On April 19, 2018, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the consolidated securities class action lawsuit. In
exchange for a release of claims and a dismissal with prejudice,
the settlement includes a payment to class members of $18 million,
which is well within the policy limits of, and is expected to be
paid by, the Company's insurance carrier.

The condensed consolidated statements of financial condition as of
June 30, 2018 include a payable to class members of $18.0 million
in accounts payable and accrued expenses that is fully offset by a
receivable from the Company's insurance carrier in other assets. As
a result, the settlement is not expected to impact the Company's
results. The settlement reached is solely to eliminate the
uncertainties, burden and expense of further protracted litigation
and does not constitute an admission of liability by the Company or
its current or former executives or directors.  

Specifically, the Company and its current and former executives and
directors deny any liability or responsibility for the claims made
and make no admission of any wrongdoing.

On August 8, 2018, the parties filed a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement (the "Settlement") with the court, which was amended on
October 26, 2018 and preliminarily approved by the court on
November 5, 2018.  

The Settlement is subject to certain conditions, including, among
others, notice to the class of plaintiffs in the lawsuit and final
court approval.

Investment Technology said, "There is no assurance that the final
Settlement will be completed, final court approval will be obtained
or that class member participation will be sufficient."

Investment Technology Group, Inc. operates as a financial
technology company in the United States, Canada, Europe, and the
Asia Pacific. The company offers various solutions for asset
managers and broker-dealers in the areas of execution services,
workflow technology, and analytics that provide trade execution
services and solutions for portfolio management, as well as
pre-trade analytics, and post-trade analytics and processing.
Investment Technology Group, Inc. was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


IRSA INVERSIONES: Sachsenberg Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Stefan Sachsenberg filed an appeal from the District
Court's opinion and order, and judgment, both dated September 10,
2018, dismissing his lawsuit titled Sachsenberg v. IRSA Inversiones
y Representaciones S.A., et al., Case No. 16-cv-5743, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 28, 2018, the
District Court issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint For Violations
Of Federal Securities Laws (CAC) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b).

Lead plaintiff Stefan Sachsenberg alleges that the Defendants along
with certain officers and/or directors of the Company violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Exchange Act) and the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission's corresponding rule.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements to
investors.

The appellate case is captioned as Sachsenberg v. IRSA Inversiones
y Representaciones S.A., et al., Case No. 18-3002, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Stefan Sachsenberg, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          101 Greenwood Avenue
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 600-2817
          E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com

Defendants-Appellees IRSA Inversiones y Representaciones S.A. and
Cresud Sociedad Anonima Comercial, Inmobiliaria, Financiera Y
Agropecuaria are represented by:

          George S. Wang, Esq.
          Eamonn Campbell, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 455-2000
          E-mail: gwang@stblaw.com
                  eamonn.campbell@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen J. Kastenberg, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          1735 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (856) 541-5577
          E-mail: kastenberg@ballardspahr.com


IZUMI SUSHI: Galicia Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Juan Galicia and Isabel Priego, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Izumi Sushi & Hibachi 2, Inc., and Min Chen,
Case No.  1:18-cv-06298 (E.D. N.Y., November 6, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime compensations
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants knowingly and willfully
failed to pay the Plaintiffs their lawfully earned minimum wages
and overtime compensations.

The Plaintiff Juan Galicia worked as a non-exempt busboy, porter,
and dishwasher for the Defendants' restaurant from on or about May
2, 2018 until on or about October 24, 2018.

The Plaintiff Isabel Priego worked as a non-exempt dishwasher for
the Defendants' restaurant from on or about May 10, 2018 until on
or about October 20, 2018.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 5745 Sunrise
Highway, Holbrook, New York 11741. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 209-3933
      Fax: (212) 209-7102


JASCO DESIGNS: Loja Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------
MARIA LOJA, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JASCO DESIGNS,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06190 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 2,
2018), seeks to recover damages and equitable relief based upon
willful violations that the Defendant committed of Plaintiff's
rights guaranteed to her by: (i) the overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act; (ii) the overtime provisions of the New
York Labor Law ; (iii) NYLL's requirement that employees receive
one hour's pay at the minimum wage for any day in which the spread
of hours exceeds ten; (iv) the NYLL's requirement that employers
furnish employees with wage statements containing specific
categories of accurate information on each payday; and (v) the
NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees with a wage
notice containing specific.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant, a
Brooklyn-based wholesale jewelry manufacturer and distributor, from
in or around August 2005 to in or around August 2010 and then from
in or around August 2015 until January 6, 2017. On March 9, 2017,
the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into the first of a series of
written agreement to toll the statute of limitations for all of
Plaintiff's claims arising under, inter alia, the FLSA, the NYLL,
and the NYCRR, with the most recent version operating to toll the
statute of limitations for all of Plaintiff's claims from February
13, 2017 through September 30, 2018.

Thus, for the entirety of Plaintiff's second period of employment
with Defendant from August 2015 to January 6, 2017, the Defendant
paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis, required Plaintiff to routinely
work, and Plaintiff did in fact work, in excess of 40 hours each
week, or virtually each week, but pursuant to its company policy,
only paid Plaintiff her overtime rate of one-and-one-half times her
straight-time rate for all hours that she worked each week after
42, and not for all hours worked after 40 as the FLSA and NYLL
require, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Dong Phuong V. Nguyen, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248-6027


JOHN B SANFILIPPO: $1.2MM Class Action Settlement Paid in 3Q 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1,
2018, that the US$1,200,000 settlement of an employment-related
class action complaint was paid within the quarter ended September
27, 2018.

As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter, the Company
was subject to a class-action complaint for an employment related
matter.  Mediation for this matter occurred in June 2017, which the
Company was provided with an initial monetary demand for the first
time.

In August 2017, the Company agreed to a US$1,200,000 settlement for
which the Company was fully reserved at June 29, 2017.  In the
quarter ended September 27, 2018, the settlement was paid.

John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc. is one of the leading processors and
distributors of peanuts, pecans, cashews, walnuts, almonds and
other nuts in the United States. These nuts are sold under a
variety of private brands and under the Fisher, Orchard Valley
Harvest and Sunshine Country brand names. The company was formed as
a corporation under the laws of the State of Delaware in 1979 as
the successor by merger to an Illinois corporation that was
incorporated in 1959.


JUST BELIEVE RECOVERY: Madden Seeks Overtime Pay for Technicians
----------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY MADDEN, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JUST BELIEVE RECOVERY CENTER
L.L.C., JBRC MEDICAL, LLC; JUST BELIEVE RECOVERY CENTER OF PORT
SAINT LUCIE LLC; and CYNTHIA BELLINNO, an individual, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-14446-RLR (S.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2018),
seeks to recover damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff began working for
Defendant as a Technician in June 2017, and he worked in this
capacity until March 2018. The Plaintiff and Members of the Class
worked hours in excess of 40 hours within a work week for
Defendants, and they were entitled to be compensated for these
overtime hours at a rate equal to one and one-half times their
individual regular hourly rate.

The Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and Members of the Class
an overtime premium was not accidental. Instead, the Defendants'
unlawful payroll practices were part of a calculated scheme,
orchestrated by Defendants, to avoids paying overtime to its
employees, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Christopher J. Saba, Esq.
          Patrick K. Elliot, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: csaba@wfclaw.com
                  pelliot@wfclaw.com
                  tsoriano@wfclaw.com

K2M GROUP HOLDINGS: Brown Seeks to Halt Sale to Stryker
-------------------------------------------------------
Charles Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. K2M Group Holdings, Inc., Eric D. Major,
Carlos A. Ferrer, Paul B. Queally, Daniel A. Pelak, Brett P.
Brodnax, Sean Michael Traynor, Raymond A. Ranelli and John Philip
Kostuik, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01567, (D. Del., October 11,
2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert
with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the
acquisition of K2M by Stryker Corporation, rescinding it in the
event defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs
of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's
attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

K2M's stockholders will receive $27.50 in cash for each share of
K2M common stock they hold.

The complaint says the solicitation statement filed in connection
with the proposed transaction omitted information concerning the
financial projections performed by Piper Jaffray & Co. This is
needed in order for the shareholders to make a sound decision on
the merger deal.

K2M Group Holdings, Inc. develops, commercializes, and manufactures
complex spine and minimally invasive spine technologies and
techniques used by spine surgeons globally. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
      James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
      New Yor006B, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
             jwilson@faruqilaw.com

             - and -

      Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Tel: (302) 482-3182
      Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com


K2M GROUP HOLDINGS: Franchi Seek to Halt Stryker Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Franchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. K2M Group Holdings, Inc., Eric D. Major,
Carlos A. Ferrer, Paul B. Queally, Daniel A. Pelak, Brett P.
Brodnax, Sean Michael Traynor, Raymond A. Ranelli and John Philip
Kostuik, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01568, (D. Del., October 11,
2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert
with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the
acquisition of K2M by Stryker Corporation, rescinding it in the
event defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs
of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's
attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

K2M's stockholders will receive $27.50 in cash for each share of
K2M common stock they hold.

The complaint says that the solicitation statement filed in
connection with the proposed transaction omitted information
concerning the financial projections performed by Piper Jaffray &
Co.  This is needed for the shareholders to make a sound decision
on the merger deal, the complaint asserts.

K2M Group Holdings, Inc. develops, commercializes, and manufactures
complex spine and minimally invasive spine technologies and
techniques used by spine surgeons globally. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800
      Email: rm@maniskas.com


KEMET CORP: TOKIN & TOKIN America Still Face Inductors Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kemet Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that TOKIN and TOKIN America Inc. remain as
defendants in the case styled In re: Inductors Antitrust
Litigation.

On July 2, 2018, TOKIN and TOKIN America Inc. were named as two of
20 defendants in a purported U.S. class action antitrust lawsuit,
In re: Inductors Antitrust Litigation, No. 5:18-cv-00198-EJD-NC,
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, regarding the sale of inductors brought on behalf of
direct product purchasers and indirect product purchasers.  The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman
Act, for which it seeks injunctive and equitable relief and money
damages.

Kemet Corporation is a leading global manufacturer of a wide
variety of capacitors, and Electro-magnetic compatible ("EMC")
devices, sensors and actuators. The company operates in three
segments: Solid Capacitors, Film and Electrolytic; and
Electro-Magnetic, Sensors, and Actuators. The company was founded
in 1919 and is headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.


KLEIN & KLEIN: Feiss Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Grant Feiss, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated v. Klein & Klein, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-00565
(M.D. Fla., November 6, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant has dispatched thousands
of unlawful collection letters to consumers in an attempt to
collect a debt, and in each such letter, the Defendant failed to
provide the least sophisticated consumer with mandatory disclosures
and information in violation of the FDCPA.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Marion County, Florida.

The Defendant is a Florida corporation with principal place of
business located in Ocala, Florida. The Defendant is a debt
collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
      110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 907-1136
      Fax: (855) 529-9540
      E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


KONA BREWING: Craft Brew Appeals Cert. Order in Broomfield Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., filed an appeal from a court
order certifying two classes of Kona purchasers in the lawsuit
styled THEODORE BROOMFIELD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KONA BREWING CO., LLC, KONA BREW
ENTERPRISES, LLC, KONA BREWERY LLC, and CRAFT BREW ALLIANCE, INC.,
Case No. 5:17-cv-01027-BLF, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Craft Brew wants the Appeals Court to determine whether the
District Court manifestly erred in:

   1. certifying a consumer fraud class where there was no
      provably false statement at issue;

   2. in finding that the Plaintiffs' proposed damages model
      satisfied Comcast when it did not measure damages
      attributable to the Plaintiffs' theory of liability; and

   3. in finding that the Plaintiffs could calculate damages
      using conjoint analysis in an unstable market, without
      considering both supply and demand.

In this class action, the Plaintiffs challenged Craft Brew
Alliance, Inc.'s ("CBA") marketing of its Kona brand beer.  Unlike
most food-labeling class actions, however, the Plaintiffs did not
challenge any verifiable statement about the beer, Craft Brew
contends.  Instead, Craft Brew says, they allege that imagery on
the beer packaging of certain six-and twelve-packs deceives
consumers into believing all Kona beer is brewed exclusively in the
state of Hawaii.

In certifying two classes of Kona purchasers, the District Court
committed three manifest errors, each of which independently would
justify reversal of certification, Craft Brew asserts.  The
District Court failed to conduct a rigorous analysis of the
Plaintiffs' theory of materiality as it applied to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, creating a class of purchasers
who all allegedly gleaned the same material, misleading message
from the imagery on the packaging, Craft Brew asserts.  Craft Brew
argues that the District Court failed, among other things, to
conduct a rigorous analysis of whether the Plaintiffs' proposed
"conjoint analysis" could establish classwide damages attributable
to the Plaintiffs' theory of liability sufficient to meet the
demands of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 US. 27 (2013).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
sought certification of these classes:

   (1) Six-Pack Class:

       All persons who purchased any six-pack bottles of the Kona
       Beers (defined below) in California at any time beginning
       four (4) years prior to the filing of this action on
       February 28, 2017 until the present ("Class Period"); and

   (2) Twelve-Pack Class:

       All persons who purchased any twelve-pack bottles of the
       Kona Beers (defined below) in California at any time
       beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of this
       action on February 28, 2017 until the present ("Class
       Period").

The appellate case is captioned as THEODORE BROOMFIELD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees v. KONA BREWING CO., LLC, KONA BREW
ENTERPRISES, LLC, KONA BREWERY LLC, and CRAFT BREW ALLIANCE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 18-80145, in the United States Court
Of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          Joshua Nassir, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
                  jnassir@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. Peter, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1550
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770
          Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
          E-mail: tpeter@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

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

Defendant-Appellant Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., is represented by:

          Tammy B. Webb, Esq.
          John K. Sherk III, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          One Montgomery, Suite 2700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
          E-mail: tbwebb@shb.com
                  jsherk@shb.com

               - and -

          Naoki S. Kaneko, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          5 Park Plaza, Suite 1600
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 475-1500
          Facsimile: (949) 475-0016
          E-mail: nkaneko@shb.com

               - and -

          Brent Dwerlkotte, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 474-6550
          Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
          E-mail: dbdwerlkotte@shb.com


LAKEFRONT RESTAURANT: Holowicki Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erin L. Holowicki, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Lakefront Restaurant Inc.
d/b/a Stella's Diner and MARIA MAVRAGANES ANGELO MAVRAGANES And
"GUS" MAVRAGANES as individuals under FLSA and Illinois Wage Laws,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07337 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 4, 2018),
seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, and compensation and
credit for all uncompensated work required, suffered, and/or
permitted by Defendants, liquidated and/or other damages as
permitted by applicable law, restitution and payment of all
benefits Defendants obtained from their unlawful business practices
and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the
Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges individually and
on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current, former
and future employees of the Defendant, that she, under both federal
and state wage laws, are entitled to be paid for all hours worked
and to receive minimum wage for all hours worked and/or receive
time and half for all hours worked over 40 hours per week, and/or
for theft of Plaintiff's tips.

The Defendants' policy and procedure of paying only four hours also
is a violation of the tip pool regulations in that one of the tip
pool regulations is that the Plaintiff and class are paid the "tip
rate" for hours of work, yet by only paying four hours, the
Defendants are not paying the proper and complete tip rate of pay,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff, Collective and Class:

          John C. Ireland, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
          636 Spruce Street
          South Elgin IL
          Telephone: 630-464-9675
          Facsimile: 630-206-0889
          E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com


LAS PALMAS: Denied Payment of OT Wages, Guazozon Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Santos Moto Guazozon, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff,
v. Las Palmas of Wicker Park Inc., Las Palmas Restaurant of
Chicago, Inc. and Maria Rivera, an individual, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-06849 (N.D. Ill., October 11, 2018), seeks redress for
Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation and for unlawfully
deducting 30 minutes from work hours each day for un-availed meal
breaks pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Las Palmas operates a restaurant located at 1835 W. North Ave. in
Chicago, Illinois. Guazozon worked as a dishwasher and cleaner at
their restaurant from approximately February 12, 2017 through May
5, 2018. Defendants also failed to create, maintain, and preserve
complete and accurate payroll records, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
      Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
      NOLAN LAW OFFICE
      53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Tel (312) 322-1100
      Fax (312) 322-1106
      Email: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com


LG&M HOLDINGS: Guglielmo Seeks Regular & Overtime Pay for Dancers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Guglielmo, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. LG&M Holdings, L.L.C.
d/b/a Xplicit Showclub, Fred Martori, Kevin Owensori, Jeffery
Bertoncino and Michael Scott, the Defendants, Case
2:18-cv-03718-MHB (D. Ariz., Nov. 2, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime pay and regular pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Arizona Wage Act, and the Arizona Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants required and/or
permitted Kristina Guglielmo to work as an exotic dancer at its
adult entertainment club in excess of 40 hours per week, but
refused to compensate her at the applicable minimum wage and
overtime rates. In fact, Defendants refused to compensate Plaintiff
whatsoever for any hours worked.

The Plaintiff's only compensation was in the form of tips from club
patrons. Moreover, Plaintiff was required to divide her tips with
Defendants and other employees who do not customarily receive tips.
The Defendants misclassify dancers as independent contractors.
Therefore, the Defendants have failed to compensate the Plaintiff
at the federally-mandated minimum wage rate, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: gassaad@kennedyhodges.com

LIFE FOR RELIEF: Kempton Sues over Spam Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------
TY KEMPTON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LIFE FOR RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT, a
California nonprofit corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-13404-RHC-SDD (E.D. Mich., Oct. 31. 2018), seeks to stop
Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
sending autodialed text messages to consumers who have opted out of
receiving autodialed text messages, and to obtain injunctive and
monetary relief for all persons injured by Life for Relief's
conduct.

According to the complaint, Life for Relief is a non-profit
corporation that purportedly provides aid to countries in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan and Syria. The CEO of
Life for Relief is Khalid Turaani, a controversial figure who,
among other things, has been involved in events involving radical
Islamists from Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Life
for Relief itself has come into question over its "troubling
connections to Islamist extremists." In 2015 Life for Relief,
received $51 Million in contributions. That same year, Life for
Relief executives agreed to pay a civil penalty of $780,000
because they "knowingly and willfully formed a conspiracy for the
purpose of transferring funds from the United States to Iraq."

Life for Relief uses text message marketing to solicit donations,
and continues to send solicitous text messages to consumers even
after those consumers have expressly requested that Defendant stop
texting them. In Plaintiff's case, Life for Relief sent
approximately unsolicited, unwanted autodialed text messages to his
cellular phone, despite multiple requests that Defendant stop
texting. In response to these text messages, Plaintiff files this
lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, requiring Defendant to cease
sending unwanted text messages to consumers' cellular telephone
numbers using an automatic dialing system without consent , as well
as an award of statutory damages to the members of the Class and
costs, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative Class:

          George T. Blackmore, Esq.
          BLACKMORE LAW PLC
          21411 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 845-8594
          Facsimile: (855) 744-4419
          E-Mail:george@blackmorelawplc.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

LJM PARTNERS: Guttman Sues Over Investment Mishap
-------------------------------------------------
Barney C. Guttman, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LJM Partners, Ltd, Pacific Futures And
Capital, LLC, Anthony J. Caine, J. Scott Sykora, Guillermo Bublik,
Fernando Anton, James E. Dickinson, Bryan Thurston, and Chun Liu,
Defendants, Case No. 2018CH12701, (Ill. Cir., October 10, 2018),
seeks damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this
action, including counsel fees and expert fees and such other
equitable, injunctive or other relief resulting from breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of contract.

LJM is a commodity pool operator and a commodity trading advisor
engaging in the speculative trading of commodity futures contracts
and options on commodities or commodity futures contracts where
Guttman had a total investment of approximately $350,000 as of
January 31, 2018.

Said case arises out of the rapid collapse of the partnership
wherein it lost approximately 80% of its value over two days. LJM
marketed itself as a carefully hedged strategy but employed a
highly aggressive trading strategy, making massive and unmitigated
bets which exposed investors to excessive risk and catastrophic
losses of capital, says the complaint.

On February 5 and 6, 2018, the partnership lost approximately 80%
of its value despite a modest downturn of approximately 2% in two
days in the S&P 500. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Freed, Esq.7
      William H. London, Esq.
      Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
      FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC
      2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
      Bannockburn, IL 60015
      Telephone: (224) 632-4500
      Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
      Email: mfreed@fklmlaw.com
             blondon@fklmlaw.com
             bhogan@fklmlaw.com


LOAD TRAIL: Fails to Pay Welders Overtime Wages, Ramirez Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacinto Ramirez, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Load Trail, LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-00756 (E.D. Tex.,
October 22, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiff and the class members
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek as welders of
the Defendant, but were not paid overtime premium compensation, as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Load Trail, LLC, is a domestic limited liability company with a
principal place of business in Sumner, Texas.  Load Trail is in the
business of trailer manufacturing offering a variety of models to
fit customers' needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOANME INC: Vo Appeals C.D. California Decision to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Saif Mastan, Carlos Salazar, Cayla Souvanna, Tam Van and
Tuan Vo filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled
Tuan Vo, et al. v. LoanMe, Inc., Case No. 8:17-cv-00072-AG-DFM, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Santa Ana.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Tuan Vo, et al. v. LoanMe, Inc.,
Case No. 18-56406, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 19, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on December 17, 2018;

   -- Appellants Saif Mastan, Carlos Salazar, Cayla Souvanna, Tam
      Van and Tuan Vo's opening brief is due on January 28, 2019;

   -- Appellee LoanMe, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      February 28, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants TUAN VO, TAM VAN, CAYLA SOUVANNA, CARLOS
SALAZAR and SAIF MASTAN, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated aggrieved employees, are represented by:

          Mark Boling, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK BOLING
          21986 Cayuga Lane
          Lake Forest, CA 92630
          Telephone: (949) 588-9222
          E-mail: maboling@earthlink.net

               - and -

          Dale Michael Fiola, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DALE M. FIOLA
          200 North Harbor Blvd.
          Anaheim, CA 92805
          Telephone: (714) 635-7888
          E-mail: fiolaw1@aol.com

Defendant-Appellee LOANME, INC., is represented by:

          Esra Acikalin Hudson, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          11355 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-4000
          Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
          E-mail: ehudson@manatt.com


LOGAN SENIOR: Fails to Pay OT Under FLSA, Kimble Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA KIMBLE, Individually, and on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated current and former employees v. LOGAN SENIOR
CARE, LLC d/b/a ALWAYS BEST CARE SENIOR SERVICES, a Tennessee
Limited Liability Corporation, and STEPHEN LOGAN, Individually,
Case No. 3:18-cv-01171 (M.D. Tenn., October 19, 2018), accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
pay the Plaintiff for all hours she worked by not paying her at the
rate of time and one-half her regular rate of pay for all the hours
worked over 40 hours in one workweek.

Logan Senior Care, LLC, is a limited liability company authorized
to do business, and does business, in the state of Tennessee.
Stephen Logan is the Company's registered agent and owner.

Logan Senior Care owns and operates a "Always Best Care Senior
Services" homecare franchise that provides, inter alia, homecare
and companionship services to elderly and/or disabled customers in
Middle Tennessee, including within Davidson and Williamson
Counties.  The Defendants employ home care workers or caregivers
that provide homecare and companionship services to elderly and/or
disabled customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
          Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Nathan A. Bishop, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  jholt@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com


LOTTE HOTEL: Fischler Files Class Suit Under ADA
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lotte Hotel New York
Palace, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Lotte Hotel New York Palace, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10367
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 7, 2018).

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

Lotte Hotel New York Palace, LLC owns and operates a hotel in New
York. Its amenities include rooms and suites, a bakery, cocktail
bars, a restaurant, a spa and fitness center, and venues for
business meetings and events. Lotte Hotel New York Palace, LLC was
formerly known as The New York Palace Hotel and changed its name to
Lotte Hotel New York Palace, LLC in August 2015.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAMMOTH ENERGY: Still Faces Putative Class Action in Puerto Rico
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. continues to face a putative class
action lawsuit related to an electrical failure in Puerto Rico,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

On June 27, 2018, the Company's registered agent notified the
Company that it had been served with a putative class action
lawsuit titled Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc.; Multisystem Restaurant
Inc.; Restaurant Operators Inc.; Apple Caribe, Inc.; on their own
behalf and in representation of all businesses that conduct
business in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico vs. Mammoth Energy
Services Inc.; Cobra Acquisitions, LLC; D. Grimm Puerto Rico, LLC;
Aseguradoras A, B & C; John Doe; Richard Doe, in the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico Superior Court of San Juan.

The plaintiffs allege negligent acts by the defendants caused an
electrical failure in Puerto Rico resulting in damages of at least
US$300 million.

The Company believes this claim is without merit and will
vigorously defend the action.  However, the Company continues to
evaluate the background facts and at this time is not able to
predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have a
material impact on the Company's financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.

Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company.  The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services.  It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.


MASONITE CORP: Sued Over Products' Illegal Pricing Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------
GRUBB LUMBER COMPANY, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MASONITE CORPORATION, and JELD-WEN,
INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-00718-REP (E.D. Va., October 19, 2018),
challenges the Defendants' collusive pricing and illegal scheme for
"interior molded doors" in violation of the Sherman Act and the
Clayton Act.

Interior molded doors are a type of interior door made by
sandwiching a wood frame and a hollow or solid core between two
doorskins composed of a high-density fibrous mat and formed into a
raised panel design.  Interior molded doors attempt to simulate the
aesthetics of solid wood doors at lower prices.

Masonite is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with
a principal place of business in Tampa, Florida.  Masonite is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Masonite International Corporation.

Jeld-Wen is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with
a principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Jeld-Wen is a wholly owned subsidiary of JELD-WEN Holding, Inc.

The Defendants are vertically-integrated manufacturers, i.e., they
manufacture both molded doorskins as well as interior molded doors.
The Defendants control the majority (around 85%) of the market for
interior molded doors and are the only manufacturers for doorskins,
a necessary input for interior molded doors, in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq.
          Christine A. Williams, Esq.
          Kevin J. Funk, Esq.
          DURRETTE, ARKEMA, GERSON & GILL PC
          Bank of America Center
          1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-6900
          Facsimile: (804) 775-6911
          E-mail: wdurrette@dagglaw.com
                  cwilliams@dagglaw.com
                  kfunk@dagglaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Boni, Esq.
          Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
          John E. Sindoni, Esq.
          BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
          15 St. Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 822-0200
          Facsimile: (610) 822-0206
          E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
                  jsnyder@bonizack.com
                  jsindoni@bonizack.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
          Len A. Fisher, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
          E-mail: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com
                  jspector@srkattorneys.com
                  lfisher@srkattorneys.com

               - and -

          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
                  erodette@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Istvan, Esq.
          Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, R.P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
          E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
                  jistvan@finekaplan.com
                  gdever@finekaplan.com

               - and -

          Howard Langer, Esq.
          Edward Diver, Esq.
          Peter Leckman, Esq.
          LANGER, GROGAN & DIVER P.C.
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 320-5660
          Facsimile: (215) 320-5703
          E-mail: hlanger@langergrogan.com
                  ndiver@langergrogan.com
                  pleckman@langergrogan.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Gittleman, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963–0600
          Facsimile: (215) 963–0838
          E-mail: jgittleman@barrack.com


MATCH GROUP INC: Still Defends Candelore State-Wide Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Match 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 company
continues to defend itself from a putative state-wide class action
suit entitled, Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc.

On May 28, 2015, a putative state-wide class action was filed
against Tinder in state court in California. Allan Candelore v.
Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162 (Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles).  

The complaint principally alleged that Tinder violated California's
Unruh Civil Rights Act by offering and charging users age 30 and
over a higher price than younger users for subscriptions to its
premium Tinder Plus service. The complaint sought certification of
a class of California Tinder Plus subscribers age 30 and over and
damages in an unspecified amount.  

On September 21, 2015, Tinder filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of
the complaint. On October 26, 2015, the court issued an opinion
sustaining Tinder's demurrer to the complaint without leave to
amend, ruling that the age-based pricing differential for Tinder
Plus subscriptions did not violate California law in essence
because offering a discount to users under age 30 was neither
invidious nor unreasonable in light of that age group's generally
more limited financial means.  

On December 29, 2015, in accordance with its ruling, the court
entered judgment dismissing the action. On February 1, 2016, the
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the judgment, and the
parties thereafter briefed the appeal. On January 29, 2018, the
California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division
Three) issued an opinion reversing the judgment of dismissal,
ruling that the lower court had erred in sustaining Tinder's
demurrer because the complaint, as pleaded, stated a cognizable
claim for violation of the Unruh Act.

Match Group said, "Because we believe that the appellate court's
reasoning was flawed as a matter of law and runs afoul of binding
California precedent, on March 12, 2018, Tinder filed a petition
with the California Supreme Court seeking interlocutory review of
the Court of Appeal's decision.  On May 9, 2018, the California
Supreme Court denied the petition. The case has been returned to
the trial court for further proceedings and is currently in
discovery. We believe that the allegations in this lawsuit are
without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against it."

Match Group, Inc. provides dating products. It operates a portfolio
of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid,
OurTime, and Pairs. Match Group, Inc. offers its dating products
through its Websites and applications in 42 languages approximately
in 190 countries. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match Group, Inc. is a subsidiary
of IAC/InterActiveCorp.


MATCH GROUP INC: Time to Appeal McCloskey Ruling Expires
--------------------------------------------------------
Match 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 plaintiffs in Mary
McCloskey et ano. v. Match Group, Inc. et al., have not filed a
notice of appeal from the dismissal of the case, and their time to
do so has expired.

On February 26, 2016, a putative nationwide class action was filed
in federal court in Texas against the Company, five of its officers
and directors, and twelve underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering in November 2015. David M. Stein v. Match Group,
Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-549 (U.S. District Court, Northern
District of Texas).  

The complaint alleged that the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering were materially false and misleading given their failure
to state that: (i) Match Group's Non-dating business would miss its
revenue projection for the quarter ended December 31, 2015, and
(ii) Average Revenue per Subscriber would decline substantially in
the quarter ended December 31, 2015.  

The complaint asserted that these alleged failures to timely
disclose material information caused Match Group's stock price to
drop after the announcement of its earnings for the quarter ended
December 31, 2015.  The complaint pleaded claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 for untrue statements of material fact in,
or omissions of material facts from, the registration statement,
the prospectus, and related communications in violation of Sections
11 and 12 and, as to the officer/director defendants only,
control-person liability under Section 15 for the Company's alleged
violations. The complaint sought among other relief class
certification and damages in an unspecified amount.

On March 9, 2016, a virtually identical class action complaint was
filed in the same court against the same defendants by a different
named plaintiff. Stephany Kam-Wan Chan v. Match Group, Inc. et al.,
No. 3:16-cv-668 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas).


On April 25, 2016, Judge Boyle in the Chan case issued an order
granting the parties' joint motion to transfer that case to Judge
Lindsay, who is presiding over the earlier-filed Stein case. On
April 27, 2016, various current or former Match Group shareholders
and their respective law firms filed motions seeking appointment as
lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel for the putative
class.  

On April 28, 2016, the Court issued orders: (i) consolidating the
Chan case into the Stein case, (ii) approving the parties'
stipulation to extend the defendants' time to respond to the
complaint until after the Court has appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel for the putative class and has set a schedule for the
plaintiff's filing of a consolidated complaint and the defendants'
response to that pleading, and (iii) referring the various motions
for appointment of lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel
for the putative class to a United States Magistrate Judge for
determination.  

On June 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an order appointing
two lead plaintiffs, two law firms as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel,
and a third law firm as plaintiffs' liaison counsel. In accordance
with this order, the consolidated case is now captioned Mary
McCloskey et ano. v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-CV-549-L.

On July 27, 2016, the parties submitted to the Court a joint status
report proposing a schedule for the plaintiffs' filing of a
consolidated amended complaint and the parties' briefing of the
defendants' contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. On August 17, 2016, the Court issued an order approving
the parties' proposed schedule.  

On September 9, 2016, in accordance with the schedule, the
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. The amended
pleading focused solely on allegedly misleading statements or
omissions concerning the Match Group's Non-dating business.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint on November 8, 2016. The plaintiffs filed oppositions to
the motions on December 23, 2016, and the defendants filed replies
to the oppositions on February 6, 2017. On September 27, 2017, the
court issued an opinion and order: (i) denying, without prejudice
to renewal, the defendants' motions and (ii) directing the
plaintiffs to file a further amended pleading addressing the
deficiencies in the amended consolidated complaint that were
identified in the defendants' motions.

On October 30, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated complaint, which among other things, dropped their
claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933. Pursuant to
an agreed-upon briefing schedule approved by the count, the
defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended consolidated
complaint on December 15, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an opposition
to the motions on January 29, 2018, and the defendants filed
replies to the opposition on February 20, 2018.

On March 8, 2018, the court issued an order transferring the case
from Judge Lindsay to newly appointed Judge Scholer. On June 19,
2018, the court heard oral arguments on the motions, issued an oral
ruling from the bench dismissing the second amended consolidated
complaint without leave to amend, and indicated that a written
opinion and order would be forthcoming.

On July 10, 2018, pursuant to the court's suggestion at oral
argument, the defendants submitted a proposed order formalizing the
court's dismissal ruling. On August 24, 2018, the court issued an
opinion and order dismissing the second amended consolidated
complaint without leave to amend. The plaintiffs have not filed a
notice of appeal from the dismissal, and their time to do so has
expired.

Match Group, Inc. provides dating products. It operates a portfolio
of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid,
OurTime, and Pairs. Match Group, Inc. offers its dating products
through its Websites and applications in 42 languages approximately
in 190 countries. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match Group, Inc. is a subsidiary
of IAC/InterActiveCorp.


MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL: Sued by Griffith for Violating TCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
SHIRLEE JEAN GRIFFITH, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES USA, LLC,
Case No. 3:18-cv-01239-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla., October 19, 2018),
accuses the Defendant of placing calls to the cellular telephones
of the Plaintiff and putative Class Members for non-emergency
purposes, using an automatic telephone-dialing system without their
prior express consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA, LLC, is a Delaware foreign
limited liability corporation with a principal place of business
located in Farmington Hills, Michigan.

Mercedes-Benz provides financing services for automotive and
commercial vehicle dealers, and their retail consumers in the
United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina.  The Company
offers new and pre-owned vehicle for lease; and financing for
pre-owned vehicles. Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC was
formerly known as DCFS USA LLC and changed its name in November
2010.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 222-2434
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  jcohen@forthepeople.com


MERCK & CO: Anemone Sues over Zostavax Vaccine
----------------------------------------------
Joseph Anemone, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. MERCK & CO., INC.,
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06148
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2018), alleges that Merck failed to warn the
Plaintiffs and other consumers of the defective condition of
Zostavax, as manufactured and/or supplied by Merck.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's healthcare provider(s)
recommended and/or prescribed the ZOSTAVAX vaccine to Plaintiff for
its intended purpose of permanent prevention and protection against
shingles and zoster-related conditions. On or about March 11, 2015,
a healthcare provider at CVS Pharmacy located in 2915 W 5th St
Brooklyn, New York administered the ZOSTAVAX vaccine to Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff was inoculated with the ZOSTAVAX vaccine to obtain
permanent prevention and protection against shingles and
zoster-related injuries.

The Plaintiff was diagnosed with shingles and/or other
zoster-related injuries after and despite being inoculated with the
ZOSTAVAX vaccine, and suffered serious physical, emotional,
and economic damages as a result of Plaintiff's injuries. As a
direct and proximate result of the ZOSTAVAX vaccine, Plaintiff has
and will continue suffer ongoing injuries, including but not
limited to: mental and physical pain and suffering; extensive
medical care and treatment for these injuries; significant medical
and related expenses as a result of these injuries, including but
not limited to medical losses and costs include care for
hospitalization, physician care, monitoring, treatment,
medications, and supplies; diminished capacity for the enjoyment of
life; a diminished quality of life; increased risk of premature
death, aggravation of preexisting conditions and activation of
latent conditions; and other losses and damages; and will continue
to suffer such losses, and damages in the future.

Merck developed, tested, designed, set specifications for,
licensed, manufactured, prepared, compounded, assembled, packaged,
processed, labeled, marketed, promoted, distributed, and/or sold
the Zostavax vaccine to be administered to patients throughout the
United States, including New Jersey.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Debra J. Humphrey, Esq.
          Marc J. Bern & Partners LLP
          60 E. 42nd St., Suite 950
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: 212 702.5000
          Facsimile: 212 818.0164
          E-mail: dhumphrey@bernllp.com

MERCK & CO: Bern Sues over Zostavax Vaccine
-------------------------------------------
Lewis Bern, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK
SHARP & DOHME CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-81504-WPD
(S.D. Fla., Nov. 2, 2018), alleges that Merck failed to warn the
Plaintiffs and other consumers of the defective condition of
Zostavax, as manufactured and/or supplied by Merck.

According to the complaint, In March, 2016, Plaintiff was treated
by Dr. Michael L. Shelling, MD at Shelling Dermatology located in
Boynton Beach, Florida for shingles. The Plaintiff was diagnosed
with shingles and/or other zoster-related injuries after and
despite being inoculated with the ZOSTAVAX vaccine, and suffered
serious physical, emotional, and economic damages as a result of
Plaintiff's injuries. As a direct and proximate result of the
ZOSTAVAX vaccine, Plaintiff has and will continue suffer ongoing
injuries, including but not limited to: mental and physical pain
and suffering; extensive medical care and treatment for these
injuries; significant medical and related expenses as a result of
these injuries, including but not limited to medical losses and
costs include care for hospitalization, physician care, monitoring,
treatment, medications, and supplies; diminished capacity for the
enjoyment of life; a diminished quality of life; increased risk of
premature death, aggravation of preexisting conditions and
activation of latent conditions; and other losses and damages; and
will continue to suffer such losses, and damages in the future.

ZOSTAVAX vaccine was defective due to inadequate warnings or
instructions because Defendants knew or should have known that the
product created significant risks of serious bodily harm to
consumers an d they failed to adequately warn consumers and/or
their healthcare providers of such risks. Defendants failed to
provide adequate warnings to healthcare providers and users,
including Plaintiff and Plaintiff's healthcare providers, of the
increased risk of developing severe and permanent injuries,
including, but not limited to, the risk of contracting shingles and
suffering from zoster-related injuries associated with ZOSTAVAX,
the lawsuit says.

Merck developed, tested, designed, set specifications for,
licensed, manufactured, prepared, compounded, assembled, packaged,
processed, labeled, marketed, promoted, distributed, and/or sold
the Zostavax vaccine to be administered to patients throughout the
United States, including New Jersey.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:
          Carmen A. DeGisi, Esq.
          MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS LLP
          101 West Elm Street, Suite 215
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 941-9880
          Facsimile: (610) 941-1088
          E-mail: cdegisi@bernllp.com


MERCK & CO: Binder Sues over Zostavax Vaccine
---------------------------------------------
Irwin Binder, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. MERCK & CO., INC.,
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06153
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2018), alleges that Merck failed to warn the
Plaintiffs and other consumers of the defective condition of
Zostavax, as manufactured and/or supplied by Merck.

According to the complaint, in December 2015 and on October 18,
2016, Plaintiff was treated by a healthcare provider at Westmed
Medical Group located in White Plaints, New York for shingles and
post herpetic neuralgia. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with shingles
and post herpetic neuralgia and/or other zoster-related injuries
after and despite being inoculated with the ZOSTAVAX vaccine, and
suffered serious physical, emotional, and economic damages as a
result of Plaintiff’s injuries. As a direct and proximate result
of the ZOSTAVAX vaccine, Plaintiff has and will continue suffer
ongoing injuries, including but not limited to: mental and physical
pain and suffering; extensive medical care and treatment for these
injuries; significant medical and related expenses as a result of
these injuries, including but not limited to medical losses and
costs include care for hospitalization, physician care, monitoring,
treatment, medications, and supplies; diminished capacity for the
enjoyment of life; a diminished quality of life; increased risk of
premature death, aggravation of preexisting conditions and
activation of latent conditions; and other losses and damages; and
will continue to suffer such losses, and damages in the future.

ZOSTAVAX vaccine was defective due to inadequate warnings or
instructions because Defendants knew or should have known that the
product created significant risks of serious bodily harm to
consumers an d they failed to adequately warn consumers and/or
their healthcare providers of such risks. Defendants failed to
provide adequate warnings to healthcare providers and users,
including Plaintiff and Plaintiff's healthcare providers, of the
increased risk of developing severe and permanent injuries,
including, but not limited to, the risk of contracting shingles and
suffering from zoster-related injuries associated with ZOSTAVAX,
the lawsuit says.

Merck developed, tested, designed, set specifications for,
licensed, manufactured, prepared, compounded, assembled, packaged,
processed, labeled, marketed, promoted, distributed, and/or sold
the Zostavax vaccine to be administered to patients throughout the
United States, including New Jersey.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Debra J. Humphrey, Esq.
          MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS LLP
          60 E. 42nd St., Suite 950
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: 212.702.5000
          Facsimile: 212.818.0164
          E-mail: dhumphrey@bernllp.com

MERCK & CO: Coffey Sues over Zostavax Vaccine
---------------------------------------------
Robert J. Coffey, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. MERCK & CO., INC.,
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-00740-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla., Nov. 2, 2018), alleges that Merck
failed to warn the Plaintiffs and other consumers of the defective
condition of Zostavax, as manufactured and/or supplied by Merck.

According to the complaint, in July 2016, Plaintiff was treated by
a healthcare provider at Peace River Regional Medical Center
located in Port Charlotte, Florida for shingles. The Plaintiff was
diagnosed with shingles and/or other zoster-related injuries after
and despite being inoculated with the ZOSTAVAX vaccine, and
suffered serious physical, emotional, and economic damages as a
result of Plaintiff's injuries. As a direct and proximate result of
the ZOSTAVAX vaccine, Plaintiff has and will continue suffer
ongoing injuries, including but not limited to: mental and physical
pain and suffering; extensive medical care and treatment for these
injuries; significant medical and related expenses as a result of
these injuries, including but not limited to medical losses and
costs include care for hospitalization, physician care, monitoring,
treatment, medications, and supplies; diminished capacity for the
enjoyment of life; a diminished quality of life; increased risk of
premature death, aggravation of preexisting conditions and
activation of latent conditions; and other losses and damages; and
will continue to suffer such losses, and damages in the future.

ZOSTAVAX vaccine was defective due to inadequate warnings or
instructions because Defendants knew or should have known that the
product created significant risks of serious bodily harm to
consumers an d they failed to adequately warn consumers and/or
their healthcare providers of such risks. Defendants failed to
provide adequate warnings to healthcare providers and users,
including Plaintiff and Plaintiff's healthcare providers, of the
increased risk of developing severe and permanent injuries,
including, but not limited to, the risk of contracting shingles and
suffering from zoster-related injuries associated with ZOSTAVAX,
the lawsuit says.

Merck developed, tested, designed, set specifications for,
licensed, manufactured, prepared, compounded, assembled, packaged,
processed, labeled, marketed, promoted, distributed, and/or sold
the Zostavax vaccine to be administered to patients throughout the
United States, including New Jersey.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Carmen A. DeGisi, Esq.
          Marc J. Bern & Partners LLP
          101 West Elm Street, Suite 215
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 941-9880
          Facsimile: (610) 941-1088
          E-mail: cdegisi@bernllp.com

METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Made Unsolicited Calls, Decapua Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID DECAPUA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00590-WES-LDA (D.R.I., Oct.
26, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls.

Metropolitan Property And Casualty Insurance Company provides
personal lines property and casualty insurance. Metropolitan
Property And Casualty Insurance Company was formerly known as
Metropolitan Property and Liability Insurance Company and changed
its name to Metropolitan Property And Casualty Insurance Company in
June, 1990. The company was founded in 1972 and is based in
Warwick, Rhode Island. Metropolitan Property And Casualty Insurance
Company operates as a subsidiary of MetLife, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
          1307 Chalkstone Avenue
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: 401-831-7730
          Facsimile: 401-861-6064
          E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29 th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com

               - and -

          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
          Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          1320 Dublin Road, Ste. 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224-6000
          Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
          E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
                  mboyle@meyerwilson.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Hiatt Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAN HIATT, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. 4:18-cv-01879 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 2, 2018), seeks to recover
damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Monares Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED MONARES, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01865 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 31, 2018), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of
the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          Joseph B. Carnduff, Esq.
          GORI JULIAN LAW
          156 N. Main St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659-9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com
                  jcarnduff@gorijulianlaw.com

MR COOPER GROUP: Seeks Approval of Settlement in Jordan Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cooper 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  parties in Laura
Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, are currently seeking
approval of the settlement from the court.

The Company is a defendant in a class action proceeding originally
filed in state court in March 2012, and then removed to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington under
the caption Laura Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC.

The suit was filed on behalf of a class of Washington borrowers and
challenges property preservation measures the Company took, as loan
servicer, after the borrowers defaulted and the Company's vendors
determined that the borrowers had vacated or abandoned their
properties.

The case raises claims for (i) common law trespass, (ii) statutory
trespass, and (iii) violation of Washington's Consumer Protection
Act, and seeks recovery of actual, statutory, and treble damages,
as well as attorneys' fees and litigation costs. On July 25, 2018,
the Company entered into a settlement agreement to resolve this
matter.

The parties are currently seeking approval of the settlement from
the court.

Mr. Cooper Group said, "The Company is pursuing reimbursement of
the settlement payment from the owners of the loans it serviced,
but there can be no assurance that the Company would prevail with
any claims for reimbursement."


Mr. Cooper Group Inc. provides servicing, origination, and
transaction-based services related principally to single-family
residences in the United States. It offers home loan servicers
focused on delivering various servicing and lending products,
services, and technologies. Mr. Cooper Group Inc. is based in
Coppell, Texas.


MR COOPER GROUP: Stipulation of Dismissal Filed in Franchi Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cooper 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 parties in
Franchi v. Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc., et al., filed a
stipulation of dismissal of the purported class action lawsuit.

On May 8, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit styled as Franchi
v. Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc., et al., was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
naming Nationstar, WMIH Corp., Wand Merger Corporation and the
individual members of the Nationstar board of directors as
defendants.

The complaint alleged that the defendants violated the Exchange Act
by disseminating a false and misleading registration statement. In
order to, among other things, eliminate the burden, inconvenience,
expense, risk, and disruption of continued litigation, on June 26,
2018, the plaintiff and the defendants (together, the "Parties")
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") to resolve
the claims asserted by the plaintiff without the defendants
admitting any wrongdoing or conceding the materiality of any
supplemental disclosures.

Pursuant to the MOU, the Parties agreed that the defendants would
cause to be made certain supplemental disclosures set forth in an
8-K filed with the SEC on June 26, 2018. On August 7, 2018, the
Parties filed a stipulation of dismissal of the purported class
action lawsuit which dismissed plaintiff's individual claims with
prejudice, and dismissed the claims purportedly asserted on behalf
of a putative class of Nationstar shareholders without prejudice.


Mr. Cooper Group Inc. provides servicing, origination, and
transaction-based services related principally to single-family
residences in the United States. It offers home loan servicers
focused on delivering various servicing and lending products,
services, and technologies. Mr. Cooper Group Inc. is based in
Coppell, Texas.


MR Z TOWING: Murray Seeks to Recoup Overtime & Damages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dereck Murray v. Mr. Z Towing, Inc., and Billy Frank, Case No.
1:18-cv-05880 (E.D.N.Y., October 22, 2018), alleges that due to the
Defendants' Fair Labor Standards Act violations, the Plaintiff and
all those similarly-situated are entitled to recover unpaid
overtime wages, plus maximum liquidated damages, attorney's fees,
and costs of the action.

Mr. Z Towing, Inc., is a New York for-profit corporation with a
place of business in Flushing, Queens County, New York.  Billy
Frank owns, controls or manages Mr. Z Towing.

The Defendants are engaged in the transportation and vehicle repair
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740-1000
          Facsimile: (718) 740-2000
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


NAMASTE TECHNOLOGIES: Workman Challenges Sale of Dollinger Ent.
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLARD WORKMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. NAMASTE TECHNOLOGIES INC., SEAN DOLLINGER, PHILIP VAN
DEN BERG and KENNETH NGO, Case No. 2:18-cv-09061 (C.D. Cal.,
October 22, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On November 28, 2017, Namaste announced that it had signed a stock
purchase agreement to sell its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary,
Dollinger Enterprises US Inc.

The Plaintiff alleges that Namaste failed to disclose that it had
sold its wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary to Namaste executives.
Consequently, the Plaintiff asserts, Namaste did not sell its U.S.
subsidiary in an arm's length transaction and, as a result,
Namaste's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

Namaste is incorporated and has its principal executive offices in
Canada.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of
the Company.

Namaste, through its subsidiaries, operates as a cannabis
e-commerce company.  The Company retails vaporizers and smoking
accessories through e-commerce sites in 26 countries.  The Company
is also involved in the product design and manufacturing
activities; and distribution of medical cannabis products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          468 North Camden Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (818) 532-6499
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


NASHVILLE MANAGEMENT: Agreed Form of Notice Okayed in Cabot Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on October 24, 2018, in the case
entitled Alexander Cabot v. Nashville Management, Inc., Case No.
1:18−cv−02569 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Charles R. Norgle, Sr.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Joint Motion for Order to Approve Stipulated Form of Notice
      is granted;

   -- Status hearing was held on October 24, 2018;

   -- An Agreed Written Status Report is due on February 13,
      2019.[CC]


NATERA INC: Calif. Court Ruling in IPO Suit under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Natera, 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 a California
class action lawsuit over the company's initial public offering
have filed a notice of appeal from the court's order granting the
company's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

On each of February 17, 2016, March 10, 2016, March 28, 2016 and
April 4, 2016, purported class action lawsuits were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo (the "San Mateo Superior Court"), against Natera, its
directors, certain of its officers and 5% stockholders and their
affiliates, and each of the underwriters of the Company's July 1,
2015 initial public offering (the "IPO").

The complaints assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaints allege,
among other things, that the Registration Statement and Prospectus
for the Company's IPO contained materially false or misleading
statements, and/or omitted material information that was required
to be disclosed, about the Company's business and prospects. Among
other relief, the complaints seek class certification, unspecified
compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Company removed these actions to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and the actions were
subsequently remanded back to the San Mateo Superior Court. The
Company has appealed the remand and discovery has been stayed, or
held, pending the appeal. The Company also filed a demurrer, or a
request for dismissal as a matter of law, in the San Mateo Superior
Court, which was granted on October 23, 2017.  

The San Mateo Superior Court demurred the claims under Sections
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, without
leave to re-file. The San Mateo Superior Court granted the demurrer
as to Section 11 of the Act with leave to re-file.  

Plaintiffs refiled an amended complaint on November 22, 2017. The
Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under the
amended complaint on January 25, 2018, which the plaintiffs
opposed. Hearings on the motion were held in May and July of 2018.
On August 7, 2018 the judge granted the Company's motion for
judgment on the pleadings, without leave to amend, and ordered that
judgment be entered in favor of the defendants.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on or about October 18, 2018.

Natera said, "The Company intends to continue to defend the matter
vigorously, but cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate
outcome or that an adverse resolution would not have a material
adverse effect on its financial condition and results of
operations. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome
and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range
of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome."

Natera, Inc., a diagnostics company, provides preconception and
prenatal genetic testing services.  Natera, Inc. was founded in
2003 and is headquartered in San Carlos, California.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces Mejia Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationstar Mortgage
Holdings, Inc. The case is captioned as Victor M. Mejia,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Nationstar Mortgage Holdings, Inc., and Does 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 2:18-cv-09175-PA-SS (C.D. Cal., Oct. 25,
2018). The case is assigned to Judge Percy Anderson and referred to
Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal.

Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. provides servicing, origination,
and transaction based services primarily to single-family
residences in the United States. The company was founded in 1994
and is headquartered in Coppell, Texas. As of July 31, 2018,
Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. operates as a subsidiary of WMIH
Corp. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachele R Byrd, Esq.
          Brittany DeJong, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN AND HERZ LLP
          750 B Street Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: byrd@whafh.com
                  dejong@whafh.com

               - and -

          C. Mario Jaramillo, Esq.
          ACCESS LAWYERS GROUP
          527 South Lake Avenue Suite 200
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (877) 360-3383
          Facsimile: (866) 686-5590
          E-mail: cmj@accesslg.com

               - and -

          David R. Shoop, Esq.
          Shoop APLC
          250 South Beverly Drive Suite 330
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (866) 884-1700
          Facsimile: (310) 277-8500
          E-mail: david.shoop@shooplaw.com


NCL CORP: Faces Philips Class Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------
NCL Corporation Ltd. 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 is
defending against a purported class action suit filed by Marta and
Jerry Phillips.

On September 21, 2018, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed
by Marta and Jerry Phillips and others against NCL Corporation Ltd.
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida relating to the marketing and sales of the company's
Booksafe Travel Protection Plan.

The plaintiffs purport to represent an alleged class of passengers
who purchased Booksafe Travel Protection Plans. The complaint
alleges that the Company concealed that it received proceeds on the
sale of the travel insurance portion of the plan.

NCL said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claim and
that any liability which may arise as a result of this action will
not have a material impact on our consolidated financial
statements."

NCL Corporation Ltd. operates as a cruise line operator. The
company was founded in 2013 and is based in Miami, Florida. NCL
Corporation Ltd. operates as a subsidiary of Norwegian Cruise Line
Holdings Ltd.

NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Scott+Scott Files Securities 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 Nektar
Therapeutics ("Nektar" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NKTR) and other
defendants, related to alleged violations of federal securities
laws. If you purchased Nektar securities between November 11, 2017
and October 2, 2018, you are encouraged to contact a Scott+Scott
attorney at (844) 818-6980 for more information.

Nektar is a research-based biopharmaceutical company that discovers
and develops innovative medicines in areas of high unmet medical
need. NKTR-214 is the Company's lead immune-oncology ("I-O")
candidate, designed to stimulate a patient's own immune system to
fight cancer.

On October 1, 2018, Plainview LLC ("Plainview") published a report
entitled "NKTR-214: Pegging the Value at Zero". The report
addressed the efficacy of NKTR-214, which the Company has touted as
"a promising treatment for cancer, particularly in combination with
checkpoint inhibitors." The Plainview report stated that "Nektar
hypothesized that IL-2 [a naturally occurring cytokine] could be
improved by adding polyethylene glycol molecules to it (pegylating
it) to extend the half-life and block interaction with" a specific
receptor, but that "[u]nfortunately, the anticipated benefits did
not materialize and pegylation has proved to be a drag on
efficacy." The Plainview report asserted that the core concept of
Nektar's plan to develop NKTR-214 into "a new universal cancer
treatment" "has never worked in practice", and further asserted
that Nektar's decision to only disclose certain trial results
represented "an unprecedented level of data opacity."

Following publication of the Plainview report, Nektar's stock price
fell $5.63 per share, or 9.24%, over the next two trading days,
closing at $55.33 per share on October 2, 2018.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) prior studies which
attempted to pegylate IL-2 failed; (2) NKTR-214's extended
half-life was unlikely to result in efficacy and created additional
high-dosing safety concerns; (3) NKTR-214 was less effective than
IL-2 alone; and (4) the combination of NKTR-214 with nivolumab has
not yet demonstrated significant positive results.

What You Can Do

If you purchased Nektar securities between November 11, 2017 and
October 2, 2018, inclusive, or if you have questions about this
notice or your legal rights, please contact attorney Rhiana Swartz
at (844) 818-6980, or at rswartz@scott-scott.com. The lead
plaintiff deadline is December 31, 2018.

         Rhiana Swartz, Esq.
         Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
         Telephone: 844-818-6980
         Email: rswartz@scott-scott.com [GN]



NFI, LLC: Stidwell Sues over Use of Biometric Data
--------------------------------------------------
JOHN STIDWELL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs NFI, LLC and KRONOS, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 2018CH13599 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty, Oct. 1,
2018), seeks to redress and curtail the Defendants' unlawful
collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's
sensitive biometric data.

According to the complaint, NFI is a warehouse and distribution
center that provides transit, warehousing, brokerage, and real
estate services to clients. NFI has locations throughout the
Chicagoland area. When NFI hires an employee, he or she is enrolled
in its Kronos employee database. NFI uses the employee database to
monitor the time worked by NFI hourly employees. While many
employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such
as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), NFI employees are required to
have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device.


Biometrics are not relegated to esoteric corners of commerce. Many
businesses -- such as Defendants' -- and financial institutions
have incorporated biometric applications into their workplace in
the form of biometric timeclocks, and into consumer products,
including such ubiquitous consumer products as checking accounts
and cell phones. Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be
changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are
unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each
employee. This exposes NFI's employees to serious and irreversible
privacy risks. For example, if a database containing fingerprints
or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached,
or otherwise exposed -- like in the recent Yahoo, eBay, Equifax,
Uber, Home Depot, MyFitnessPal, Panera, Whole Foods, Chipotle, Omni
Hotels & Resorts, Trump Hotels, and Facebook/Cambridge Analytica
data breaches or misuses -- employees have no means by which to
prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or
improper use of this highly personal and private information.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA"), 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq., specifically to regulate
companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics,
such as fingerprints. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal
requirements of the law, Defendants disregard NFI employees'
statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collect, store,
disseminate, and use employees' biometric data in violation of
BIPA, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 233.1550
          Facsimile: 312 233.1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  aficzko@stephanzouras.com
                  hjenkins@stephanzouras.com

NISOURCE INC: Faces Class Suits over Greater Lawrence Incident
--------------------------------------------------------------
NiSource Inc. and its subsidiary Columbia of Massachusetts are
defending themselves against various lawsuits, including several
purported class action suits, related to the fire and explosion
incident in Massachusetts, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

On September 13, 2018, a series of fires and explosions occurred in
Lawrence, Andover and North Andover, Massachusetts related to the
delivery of natural gas by Columbia of Massachusetts (the "Greater
Lawrence Incident").

The Greater Lawrence Incident resulted in one fatality and a number
of injuries, damaged multiple homes and businesses, and caused the
temporary evacuation of significant portions of each municipality.
The Massachusetts Governor's office declared a state of emergency,
authorizing the Massachusetts DPU to order another utility company
to coordinate the restoration of utility services in Lawrence,
Andover and North Andover.  The incident resulted in the
interruption of gas and other utility service for approximately
8,500 gas meters, of which approximately 700 serve businesses.
Columbia of Massachusetts is currently in the process of replacing
the cast iron and bare steel gas pipeline system to restore service
to these meters.

Various lawsuits, including several purported class action
lawsuits, have been filed by various affected residents or
businesses in Massachusetts state courts against the Company and/or
Columbia of Massachusetts in connection with the Greater Lawrence
Incident.  The class action lawsuits allege varying causes of
action, including those for strict liability for ultra-hazardous
activity, negligence, private nuisance, public nuisance, premises
liability, trespass, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
breach of contract and gross negligence, and seek punitive damages.
Many residents and business owners have submitted individual
damage claims to Columbia of Massachusetts.  The Company also has
received notice from two parties indicating an intent to assert
wrongful death claims.  In addition, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and the municipalities of Lawrence, Andover and North
Andover are seeking reimbursement from Columbia of Massachusetts
for their respective expenses incurred in connection with the
Greater Lawrence Incident.

During the quarter ended September 30, 2018, Columbia of
Massachusetts expensed approximately US$415 million for estimated
third-party claims related to the Greater Lawrence Incident,
including personal injury and property damage claims, damage to
infrastructure, and other damage claims, which include mutual aid
payments to other utilities assisting with the restoration effort,
gas-fueled appliance replacement and related services for impacted
customers, temporary lodging for displaced customers, and
claims-related legal fees.

The Company states, "We estimate that total costs related to
third-party claims resulting from the incident will range from
US$415 million to US$450 million, depending on the final outcome of
open investigations and the number, nature, and value of
third-party claims.  We also expect to incur losses for third party
business interruption claims, the costs for which are not included
in the amounts disclosed above due to insufficient information to
reasonably estimate the damages from such claims."

NiSource Inc. is a fully regulated utility company in the United
States, serving approximately 3.5 million natural gas customers and
500,000 electric customers across seven states through its local
Columbia Gas and NIPSCO brands.  The Company was formerly known as
NIPSCO Industries, Inc. and changed its name to NiSource Inc. in
April 1999.  It was founded in 1912 and is headquartered in
Merrillville, Indiana.


NORTH DAKOTA: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over DAPL
--------------------------------------------------
Talli Nauman, writing for Intercontinentalcry.org, reports that
Dakota Access Pipeline fighters filed a class action suit here in
federal District Court on Oct 18, against state and county
officials and TigerSwan, the private counter-intelligence
surveillance and security company used by Energy Transfer Partners
(ETP) to quash resistance to its construction project.

Lead plaintiffs in the case are Cissy Thunderhawk and Waste Win
Young, both enrolled tribal members of Standing Rock, together with
Rev. John Floberg, the priest for St. James' Episcopal Church in
Cannon Ball, located near the oil pipeline's crossing of the
Missouri River.

They allege the defendants' 2016-2017 road closures on North Dakota
1806 adjacent to spirit camp mobilization were a violation of the
rights to freedom of speech, assembly, religious exercise, travel,
commerce, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S.
Constitution.

They request a jury trial and compensation for damages. They also
ask the court to "require defendants to obtain approval, in
writing, from an official designated by the impacted tribe before
temporarily or permanently closing a right-of-way in a manner that
disproportionately impacts, economically or otherwise, a
reservation in or near the State of North Dakota."

On the same day as the filing, DAPL fighters joined with fellow
antagonists of Louisiana's Bayou Bridge Pipeline and opponents of
Pennsylvania's Mariner 2 East Pipeline construction to disrupt an
Energy Transfer Partners corporate shareholder meeting in Dallas.

ETP CEO and Chairman Kelcy Warren fled when frontline leaders Ellen
Gerhart (Pennsylvania, Mariner 2 East), Cherri Foytlin (Louisiana,
Bayou Bridge), and Waniya Locke (Standing Rock, Dakota Access)
began to speak to shareholders about what they called "the gross
misconduct of ETP-led projects."

As shareholders vacated the premises, a banner dropped from an
adjacent building, reading, "Kelcy Warren Hates Black and Brown
People." Locke filmed the incident. She and Foytlin were both
arrested, and Foytlin was put in solitary confinement for six
hours.

However, that didn't stop the adherents of Louisiana's L'eau Est La
Vie (Water is Life) Solidarity movement from locking down the
mansion of the man in charge of the pipeline projects the next
day.

The self-proclaimed water protectors locked themselves to gates at
the entrance of the Warren's residence, demanding his company abide
by a court order to provide an evacuation route for the African
American community of St. James.

The community on the path of the Bayou Bridge Pipeline construction
is at the terminus of the same route on which the Dakota Access
Pipeline carries its load of highly volatile fracked oil — from
the Bakken Formation centered at the Mandan Hidatsa & Arikara
Nation in North Dakota — across unceded 1851 Ft Laramie Treaty
territory of the Oceti Sakowin near the Standing Rock Nation.

St. James lies in the heart of what is dubbed Cancer Alley because
of the toxic materials handled at its cluster of chemical plants,
refineries and oil export facilities.

Although state regulations require ETP to consider the impact its
Bayou Bridge Pipeline will have on St. James, the company failed to
do so, further endangering the community, the opponents claim.

The investor meeting shutdown took place three days after Energy
Transfer Partners security guards sank two boats filled with water
protectors, an independent journalist, and a crew from "Klepper".

The Viacom Media Network primetime weekly news series, featuring
Jordan Klepper, which is set to launch in 2019, was filming
construction of the Bayou Bridge Pipeline deep within the swamps of
the Atchafalaya Basin when the incident occurred.

As the journalists were recording and maneuvering two small boats
within the narrow bayou, a larger ETP security boat passed by,
creating life-threatening wakes that sunk both within seconds,
according to survivors.

"L'eau Est La Vie Camp's all femme captains got the boats to the
banks of the swamp as they were quickly submerging into the
gator-filled swamp," they said in a media release.

The Oct. 18 shareholder meeting was to vote approval on ETP's
restructuring and merger with Fortune 500 company Energy Transfer
Equity.

The same day, Greenpeace updated earlier findings with a report
entitled "Still Too Far: Energy Transfer Continues to Display
Concerning Corporate Behavior."

The watchdog report concludes that "Energy Transfer still goes too
far in attempting to silence the free speech of its opponents, at
the expense of human rights and the environment."

As pipeline fighters stormed Warren's gates on Oct. 19, Energy
Transfer Equity announced it had been able to complete the merger
with Energy Transfer Partners, despite the disruption of the
shareholder meeting.

It stated in a media release that it will now trade publicly as
Energy Transfer LP and Energy Transfer Partners will now be called
Energy Transfer Operating LP.

"Energy Transfer is committed to operating its business in a manner
that honors and respects all people and communities in which we do
business," it says in its corporate and social stakeholder
responsibility statement.

Its toll-free contact number for Bayou Bridge Pipeline concerns and
emergency matters is 800-753-5531.

For more information about local, regional, national and
international Bayou Bridge Pipeline resistance efforts, visit
www.NoBBP.org or contact resist@nobbp.org.[GN]


NRT TITLE: Faces Lannin Suit Over Illegal Fees and Kickbacks
------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA J. LANNIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NRT TITLE AGENCY, LLC; ACRES LAND TITLE AGENCY, INC.;
BROAD STREET TITLE AGENCY, LLC; CHP TITLE AGENCY, LLC; HLT TITLE
AGENCY, LLC; JGH TITLE AGENCY, LLC; KL TITLE AGENCY, LLC; MID-TOWN
DIRECT TITLE AGENCY; TOWNE SQUARE TITLE AGENCY, LLC; TRADITIONS
TITLE AGENCY, LLC; WATERFRONT TITLE AGENCY, LLC; PONY MESSENGER
SERVICE, LLC; A-ABSOLUTE ESCROW SETTLEMENT INC.; TITLE RESOURCES
GUARANTY COMPANY; NRT, LLC; REALOGY CORPORATION; AND PETER A.
UZZOLINO, Case No. 2:18-cv-15146-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., October 19,
2018), alleges that the Defendants are sham ventures carefully
engineered to facilitate and disguise the payment of unlawful
referral fees and other kickbacks and things of value in exchange
for referrals of settlement services, including title insurance to
and among them.

Ms. Lannin alleges that the Defendants have been illegally marking
up pass-through costs, charging fees for services not performed and
giving improper kick-backs and referrals to each other, causing
substantial harm to their unwitting customers.  She contends that
their illicit practices have been uniform and consistent, thus,
victimizing almost each and every one of their customers.  She
argues that these practices violate, inter alia, the New Jersey
Title Insurance Act and its implementing regulations, the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the federal Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act's prohibitions against illegal mark-ups, referrals
and kick-backs.

NRT Title is a limited liability company doing business in New
Jersey with its principal place of business in Millburn, New
Jersey.  Peter A. Uzzolino, a member of NRT, is an individual
currently residing in Westfield, New Jersey.  Mr. Uzzolino also
partially owns the other joint venture title insurance agency
defendants.  NRT Title is a joint venture between Defendant NRT LLC
and Defendant Uzzolino.

Pony Messenger Service, LLC, is a messenger delivering title
binders exclusively for the Affiliated Title Insurance Agency
Defendants.  A-Absolute Escrow Settlement Inc., provides real
estate closing services to the Affiliated Title Insurance Agency
Defendants.

NRT LLC is a Delaware limited liability company founded in 2007,
with its headquarters in Madison, New Jersey.  NRT LLC is the
nation's largest residential brokerage company, which owns and
operates residential real estate brokerage businesses in the United
States under the Coldwell Banker, Corcoran, Sotheby's International
Realty, ZipRealty and Citi Habitats brand names.

Realogy Corporation, the parent company of NRT LLC, is incorporated
in Delaware and headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.  Realogy also
operates title and settlement services nationally through a
subsidiary called Title Resource Group ("TRG").  Title Resources
Guaranty Company, a title insurance underwriter, is an affiliate of
NRT Title and a subsidiary of Realogy.  Its registered main
business address is in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marguerite M. Schaffer, Esq.
          SHAIN SCHAFFER PC
          150 Morristown Road, Suite 105
          Bernardsville, NJ 07924
          Telephone: (908) 953-9300
          Facsimile: (908) 953-2969
          E-mail: mschaffer@shainlaw.com


OC ELECTRICAL: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, Veiga Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO VEIGA and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. OC ELECTRICAL LLC, ZAIRON ROSERO, CARLOS GARCIA, Case No.
1:18-cv-24359-JEM (S.D. Fla., October 22, 2018), alleges that the
Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

OC Electrical LLC is a Limited Liability Company that regularly
transacts business within the Southern District of Florida,
including Miami-Dade County.  The Individual Defendants are
corporate officers, owners or managers of the Defendant
Corporation.  OC Electrical holds a Certified Electrical Contractor
license and two other licenses according to the Florida license
board.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OMNICELL INC: Status Conference in "Mazya" Suit Set for Feb. 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Omnicell, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that the Company's obligation to respond to the
complaint in the "Yana Mazya" lawsuit has been held in abeyance
pending a decision of the Illinois Supreme Court in a separate case
involving Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)
issues.

On June 6, 2018, a class-action lawsuit was filed against a
customer of the Company, the customer's parent company and two
vendors of medication dispensing systems, one of which is the
Company, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division, captioned Yana Mazya, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital,
Northwestern Memorial Healthcare, Omnicell, Inc. and Becton
Dickinson, Case No. 2018-CH-07161.

The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages in the
form of statutory damages for willful and/or reckless or, in the
alternative, negligent violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), and certain declaratory,
injunctive, and other relief based on causes of action directed to
allegations of violation of BIPA and of negligence by the
defendants.  The complaint was served on the Company on June 15,
2018.

The Company's obligation to respond to the complaint has been held
in abeyance pending a decision of the Illinois Supreme Court in a
separate case involving BIPA issues.  The court has scheduled a
status conference in the case for February 20, 2019.

The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Omnicell, Inc. provides automation and business analytics software
solutions for medication and supply management in healthcare
worldwide.  The Company operates through two segments, Automation
and Analytics, and Medication Adherence.  The Company was formerly
known as Omnicell Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to
Omnicell, Inc. in 2001. Omnicell, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is
headquartered in Mountain View, California.


ONESPAN INC: "Bunk" Plaintiffs Agree to Drop Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
OneSpan Inc. (formerly VASCO Data Security International, Inc.)
disclosed in its Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that the Plaintiffs in the "Bunk" suit, which
was initially filed as the case Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data
Security International, Inc., et al., have agreed to file a joint
motion for dismissal of the case with prejudice.  Once the motion
is approved by the Court, the Company considers this case to be
concluded.

On July 28, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, captioned Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data Security
International, Inc., et al., case number 1:15‑cv‑06605, naming
the Company and certain of its current and former executive
officers as defendants and alleging violations under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The suit was purportedly filed on behalf of a putative class of
investors who purchased securities of the Company between April 28,
2015 and July 28, 2015, and seeks to recover damages allegedly
caused by the defendants' alleged violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b‑5
promulgated thereunder.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.  Pursuant
to a September 1, 2015 scheduling order entered by the court, the
lead plaintiff, once appointed, will have sixty days to file an
amended complaint or notify the defendants that the lead plaintiff
intends to rely on the current complaint.

On January 30, 2017, the appointed lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in which the allegations regarding OFAC related matters
were dropped and replaced with allegations regarding public
disclosures made by the defendants in April 2015 as compared to
public statements made in July 2015, generally regarding the
strength of the Company's business and its future prospects.  This
case is now referred to by the name of the new lead plaintiff,
Bunk.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Bunk complaint on
March 31, 2017 and several other related motions and filings took
place threafter.

On September 30, 2018, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois issued an opinion and order in which
the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss.  Plaintiffs'
amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice and the
plaintiffs were granted leave by the court to file another amended
complaint if they could find a way to remedy the deficiencies
discussed in the Court's opinion by October 22, 2018.

Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint and have subsequently
agreed to file a joint motion for dismissal of the case with
prejudice.  Once the motion is approved by the Court, the Company
considers this case to be concluded.

OneSpan is indemnifying its officers and directors for this
matter.

OneSpan Inc. (formerly VASCO Data Security International, Inc.)
designs, develops and markets digital solutions for identity,
security, and business productivity that protect and facilitate
electronic transactions, via mobile and connected devices. The
company is based in Chicago, Illinois.


OPHTHOTECH CORP: Bid to Nix Consolidated Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Ophthotech Corporation and individual defendants' motion to dismiss
a consolidated class action lawsuit in New York is still pending,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.  Plaintiff filed its opposition to the
defendants' motion to dismiss on October 12, 2018, and the
defendants' reply is due on November 19, 2018.

On January 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Frank Micholle v. Ophthotech
Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00210.

On March 9, 2017, a related putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and the same group of its current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Wasson v. Ophthotech
Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-01758.

These cases were consolidated on March 13, 2018.

On June 4, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint (the "CAC").  The CAC purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between March
2, 2015 and December 12, 2016.  The CAC generally alleges that the
Company and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading
statements concerning the results of the Company's Phase 2b trial
and the prospects of the Company's Phase 3 trials for Fovista in
combination with anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of wet AMD.
The CAC seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other
costs.

The Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
CAC on July 27, 2018.  Plaintiff filed its opposition to the
defendants' motion to dismiss on October 12, 2018, and the
defendants' reply was due on November 19, 2018.

Ophthotech Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, develops novel
therapies to treat ophthalmic diseases, with a focus on age-related
and orphan retinal diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is
based in New York, New York.


OPKO HEALTH: Approval of Avraham Case Settlement Sought
-------------------------------------------------------
OPKO Health, 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 Dalia Avraham has
filed an Application for Approval of a Class Action in Tel Aviv,
Israel District Court against the Company and Phillip Frost, M.D.,
the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

On or about September 16, 2018, Dalia Avraham filed an Application
for Approval of a Class Action in the Tel Aviv Israel District
Court against the Company and Dr. Frost.

This application was filed by a purported stockholder, both
individually and on behalf of a putative class of the Company’s
stockholders (the "Avraham Claim"). The Avraham Claim alleges a
negligent and/or deliberate act related to the trade of the
Company's shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange ("TASE") which was
intended to or which in fact caused damage to the Company's
investors based on the Company's decision to delist from TASE in
April 2018 and its subsequent decision to continue to be listed on
TASE.

The Avraham Claim seeks to declare the action to be a class action
and an estimated NIS 20 million in damages.

OPKO Health, Inc., a healthcare company, engages in the diagnostics
and pharmaceuticals business in the United States, Ireland, Chile,
Spain, Israel, Mexico, and internationally. The company was
incorporated in 1991 and is headquartered in Miami, Florida.


OPKO HEALTH: Approval of Idan Sharon Case Settlement Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
OPKO Health, 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 Idan Sharon filed
an Application for Approval of a Class Action in Tel Aviv, Israel
District Court.

On or about September 13, 2018, Idan Sharon filed an Application
for Approval of a Class Action in the Tel Aviv Israel District
Court against the Company and certain of its current and former
executive officers, and certain members of its Board of Directors
(the "Sharon Claim").

This application was filed by a purported stockholder, both
individually and on behalf of a putative class of the Company's
stockholders, claiming that in connection with the facts and
circumstances underlying the allegations in the SEC Complaint, the
Company engaged in fraudulent conduct and made false and misleading
statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading.

The Sharon Claim seeks to declare the action to be a class action
and monetary damages.

OPKO Health, Inc., a healthcare company, engages in the diagnostics
and pharmaceuticals business in the United States, Ireland, Chile,
Spain, Israel, Mexico, and internationally. The company was
incorporated in 1991 and is headquartered in Miami, Florida.

OVASCIENCE INC: Continues to Defend Dahhan Shareholder Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OvaScience, 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 a purported shareholder class action suit
entitled, Dahhan v. OvaScience, Inc., et al.

On March 24, 2017, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Dahhan v. OvaScience, Inc., et al., No.1:17-cv-10511-IT(D. Mass.))
against the Company and certain of its former officers alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Dahhan Action").  

On July 5, 2017, the Court entered an order approving the
appointment of Freedman Family Investments LLC as lead plaintiff,
the firm of Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel, and
the Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs as local counsel. Plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on August 25, 2017. The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the Court denied on
July 31, 2018.

On August 14, 2018, the company answered the amended complaint.

OvaScience said, "We believe that the amended complaint is without
merit and intend to defend against the litigation. There can be no
assurance, however, that we will be successful. A resolution of
this lawsuit adverse to the Company or the other defendants could
have a material effect on our consolidated financial position and
results of operations in the period in which the lawsuit is
resolved. At present, we are unable to estimate potential losses,
if any, related to the lawsuit."

OvaScience, Inc., a fertility company, discovers, develops, and
commercializes fertility treatment options for women and families
struggling with infertility worldwide. OvaScience, Inc. was founded
in 2011 and is headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts.


OVASCIENCE INC: Faces Adlard Class Suit in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------
OvaScience, 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 purported class action suit entitled,
Adlard v. OvaScience, Inc., et al.

On November 6, 2018, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Adlard v. OvaScience, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-12332-WGY (D.
Mass.)) against the Company, its chief executive officer and the
members of the Company's Board of Directors, alleging violations of
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder, and as against the individual defendants,
alleging violations of Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company's Definitive Proxy Statement
on Schedule 14A filed on November 6, 2018 omitted or misrepresented
material information regarding the Company's proposed merger with
Millendo, including information regarding financial projections for
Millendo, the background process leading up to the proposed
transaction, and potential conflicts of interest.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to enjoin the proposed merger
with Millendo, declaratory relief, rescissory damages in the event
that the merger with Millendo is consummated, costs, and attorneys'
fees.

OvaScience said, "We believe that the complaint is without merit
and intend to defend against the litigation. There can be no
assurance, however, that we will be successful. At present, we are
unable to estimate potential losses, if any, related to the
lawsuit."

OvaScience, Inc., a fertility company, discovers, develops, and
commercializes fertility treatment options for women and families
struggling with infertility worldwide. OvaScience, Inc. was founded
in 2011 and is headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts.


OVASCIENCE INC: Westmoreland County Employee Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
OvaScience, 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 in the
Westmoreland Federal Action entered an order approving the
Westmoreland Stipulation and dismissed the Westmoreland Federal
Action.

On October 9, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Suffolk County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (Carlson v. OvaScience, Inc. (In re OvaScience, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation), No. 15-3087-BLS2 (Mass. Sup. Ct.)) against
the company, certain of its officers and directors and certain of
the underwriters from the company's January 2015 follow-on public
offering of the company's common stock.

The plaintiffs purported to represent those persons who purchased
shares of the company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the
company's January 2015 follow-on public offering. The plaintiffs
alleged, among other things, that the Company made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material information
in the Company's January 2015 Registration Statement and
incorporated offering materials. Plaintiffs alleged violations of
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
and sought, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages,
rescission, pre-and post-judgment interest and fees, costs and
disbursements.

On February 26, 2016, a second putative class action suit was filed
in the Suffolk County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (Castellanos v. OvaScience, Inc., et al., No.
16-0645-BLS (Mass. Sup. Ct.)) against the Company, several of its
officers and directors and certain of the underwriters from the
January 2015 follow-on public offering of the Company's common
stock.

The complaint is substantially similar to the complaint filed in
October 2015. The two actions subsequently were consolidated and
plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint on June 17,
2016. In October 2016, the Superior Court granted the motion to
intervene of an additional plaintiff, Westmoreland County Employee
Retirement System ("Westmoreland"). On November 7, 2017, the
Superior Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

On August 14, 2017, the defendants filed their motion for summary
judgment against plaintiffs Heather Carlson, Cesar Castellanos,
Philipp Hofmann, and Carlos Rivas, which the plaintiffs opposed. On
November 21, 2017, the Superior Court allowed the defendants'
motion for summary judgment, and the claims asserted by plaintiffs
Heather Carlson, Cesar Castellanos, Philipp Hofmann, and Carlos
Rivas in the consolidated actions were dismissed, leaving
Westmoreland as the sole remaining plaintiff.

On November 22, 2017, Westmoreland filed a putative class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the same defendants alleging the same claims
as were alleged in the state court case (Westmoreland County
Employee Retirement System v. OvaScience, Inc., et al., No.
1:17-cv-12312-IT (D. Mass.)) (the "Westmoreland Federal Action").

On January 22, 2018, Westmoreland filed a motion to voluntarily
dismiss the Superior Court action without prejudice. The defendants
opposed that motion. Oral argument on Westmoreland's motion for
voluntary dismissal was held on April 3, 2018. On April 5, 2018,
the Superior Court allowed Westmoreland’s motion for voluntary
dismissal without prejudice. The Superior Court entered final
judgment on April 18, 2018, dismissing Westmoreland's claims
without prejudice and dismissing the claims of plaintiffs Heather
Carlson, Cesar Castellanos, Philipp Hofmann, and Carlos Rivas with
prejudice.

In the Westmoreland Federal Action, on August 24, 2018,
Westmoreland filed a stipulation and proposed order, signed by
counsel for all parties, voluntarily dismissing that action without
prejudice (the "Westmoreland Stipulation").

Pursuant to the Westmoreland Stipulation, Westmoreland agreed that
it will not re-file or reassert its claims arising under the
Securities Act that were alleged in its complaint in the
Westmoreland Federal Action and will pursue damages, if any, only
as a member of the putative class in the Dahhan Action (described
below). On August 28, 2018, the court in the Westmoreland Federal
Action entered an order approving the Westmoreland Stipulation.
Accordingly, the Westmoreland Federal Action has been dismissed.

OvaScience, Inc., a fertility company, discovers, develops, and
commercializes fertility treatment options for women and families
struggling with infertility worldwide. OvaScience, Inc. was founded
in 2011 and is headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts.


PALMER CONSULTING: Hodge & Feeler Seek Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLE HODGE, ARTHUR FEELER, Individually and for Others Similarly
Situated, v. PALMER CONSULTING & INSPECTION SERVICE, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00194 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 2, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to Pipeline
Inspectors.

According to the complaint, Palmer did not pay its Pipeline
Inspectors overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.  Instead, Palmer paid the Pipeline
Inspectors a "day rate" and "straight-time" for hours worked excess
of 10 in a day. Palmer owes the Pipeline Inspectors back pay for
1.5 times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40
in a workweek, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          James A. Jones, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, Texas 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 –
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  jjones@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, Texas 77046
          Telephone: 713 352-1100
          Facsimile: 713 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit Still in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that discovery in the case styled
In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation is proceeding and is
currently scheduled to be completed by October 14, 2019.

Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of
purported federal class action lawsuits styled as In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:16-cv-08637 were brought
against PPC and 13 other producers by and on behalf of direct and
indirect purchasers of broiler chickens alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust and unfair competition laws.

The complaints, which were filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, seek, among other relief, treble
damages for an alleged conspiracy among defendants to reduce output
and increase prices of broiler chickens from the period of January
2008 to the present.

The class plaintiffs have filed three consolidated amended
complaints: one on behalf of direct purchasers and two on behalf of
distinct groups of indirect purchasers.  The defendants, including
PPC, filed motions to dismiss these actions.

On November 20, 2017, the court denied all pending motions to
dismiss with the exception of certain state-law claims by indirect
purchasers that were dismissed or narrowed in scope.

Discovery is proceeding and is currently scheduled to be complete
by October 14, 2019.

Between December 2017 and September 2018, eleven individual direct
action complaints (Affiliated Foods, Inc., et al., v. Claxton
Poultry Farms, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-08850; Winn Dixie Stores,
Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00245; Sysco Corp. v. Tyson
Foods Inc., et al; No. 1:18-cv-00700; US Foods Inc. v. Tyson Foods
Inc., et al; No. 1:18-cv-00702; Action Meat Distributors, Inc., et
al., v. Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-03471;
Jetro Holdings, LLC, v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No.
1:18-cv-04000; Associated Grocers of the South, Inc., et al., v.
Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-4616; The Kroger Co., et
al., v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-04534; Ahold
Delhaize USA, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-05351;
Samuels as Trustee In Bankruptcy for Central Grocers, Inc. et al v.
Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc. et al.,
No. 1:18-cv-05341; W. Lee Flowers & Company, Inc. v. Norman W.
Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc. et al., No.
1:18-cv-05345; and BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,
et al., No. 1:18-cv-05877) were filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois by individual direct
purchaser entities, the allegations of which largely mirror those
in the class action complaints.

The Court's scheduling order currently requires completion of fact
discovery on October 14, 2019, class certification briefing and
expert reports proceeding from November 12, 2019 to July 14, 2020
and summary judgment to proceed 60 days after the Court rules on
motions for class certification.  The Court has ordered the parties
to coordinate scheduling of the direct action complaints with the
class complaints with any necessary modifications to reflect time
of filing.  Discovery will be consolidated.

In May 2018, an individual direct action complaint was filed with
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Associated
Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., No.
2:18-cv-02258), the allegations of which largely mirror those in
the class action complaints.  On September 13, 2018, the Court
granted the defendants' motion to transfer this action to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois where the
parties anticipate it will be coordinated with the remaining
complaints.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Grower Class Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
In relation with the Bankruptcy Court's March 12 order enjoining
from litigating the class action complaint styled as In re Broiler
Chicken Grower Litigation, Pilgrim's Pride Corporation disclosed in
its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that
as of the date of filing, plaintiffs have not amended the
consolidated complaint to comply with the Bankruptcy Court's
injunction order or the confirmation order.

On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler
chicken farmers was brought against PPC and four other producers in
the Eastern District of Oklahoma, alleging, among other things, a
conspiracy to reduce competition for grower services and depress
the price paid to growers.

Plaintiffs allege violations of the Sherman Act and the Packers and
Stockyards Act and seek, among other relief, treble damages.  The
complaint was consolidated with a subsequently filed consolidated
amended class action complaint styled as In re Broiler Chicken
Grower Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS (the "Grower
Litigation").

The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2017.  The Court
initially held oral argument on January 19, 2018, during which it
considered and granted only motions from certain other defendants,
challenging jurisdiction.  Oral argument on the remaining pending
motions in the Oklahoma court occurred on April 20, 2018.  Rulings
on the motion are pending.

In addition, on March 12, 2018, the Northern District of Texas,
Fort Worth Division ("Bankruptcy Court") enjoined plaintiffs from
litigating the Grower Litigation complaint as pled against the
Company because allegations in the consolidated complaint violate
the confirmation order relating to the Company's 2008-2009
bankruptcy proceedings.  Specifically, the 2009 bankruptcy
confirmation order bars any claims against the Company based on
conduct occurring before December 28, 2009.

On March 13, 2018, Pilgrim's notified the trial court of the
Bankruptcy Court's injunction.

To date, plaintiffs have not amended the consolidated complaint to
comply with the Bankruptcy Court's injunction order or the
confirmation order.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Reconsideration Bid in Hogan Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration of the court's order dismissing a putative class
action lawsuit by Patrick Hogan is still pending.

On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and
a putative class of persons who purchased shares of PPC's stock
between February 21, 2014 and October 6, 2016, filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
against PPC and its named executive officers.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC's SEC filings
contained statements that were rendered materially false and
misleading by PPC's failure to disclose that (i) the Company
colluded with several of its industry peers to fix prices in the
broiler-chicken market as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken
Antitrust Litigation, (ii) its conduct constituted a violation of
federal antitrust laws, (iii) PPC's revenues during the class
period were the result of illegal conduct and (iv) that PPC lacked
effective internal control over financial reporting.  The complaint
also states that PPC's industry was anticompetitive.

On April 4, 2017, the Court appointed another stockholder, George
James Fuller, as lead plaintiff.  On May 11, 2017, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, which extended the end date of the
putative class period to November 17, 2017.  PPC and the other
defendants moved to dismiss on June 12, 2017, and the plaintiff
filed its opposition on July 12, 2017.  PPC and the other
defendants filed their reply on August 1, 2017.  On March 14, 2018,
the Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and
issued final judgment in favor of PPC and the other defendants.

On April 11, 2018, the plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the
Court's decision and for permission to file a Second Amended
Complaint.  PPC and the other defendants filed a response to the
plaintiff's motion on April 25, 2018.  The plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration is currently pending.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.


PRESRITE CORP: Faces Swindler Suit for Not Paying Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES SWINDLER v. PRESRITE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-02444
(N.D. Ohio, October 22, 2018), is a "collective action" arising
from the Defendant's alleged practices and policies of not paying
its hourly, non-exempt employees, including the Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated employees, overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all of the
hours they worked over 40 each workweek, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Presrite Corporation manufactures and supplies precision forged
parts.  The Company's products include net and near-net gears;
multiple-flange track rollers that are used on crawler equipment;
and crane wheels and cluster gears. The company's forgings are used
in off-highway, truck, automotive, aerospace, railroad,
agriculture, material handling, military, and other industries, as
well as in energy and mining fields.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


PRETIUM RESOURCES: Lauferman Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------
EFRAIM LAUFERMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. PRETIUM RESOURCES, INC., JOSEPH OVSENEK, and
TOM S.Q. YIP, Case No. 1:18-cv-09624 (S.D.N.Y., October 19, 2018),
accuses the Defendants of failing to disclose that:

   -- that the "Brucejack Project" is not a high-grade,
high-output
      mine; and

   -- that, as a result, the Defendants' positive statements
      about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
      were materially false and misleading or lacked a reasonable
      basis.

Pretium is incorporated under the laws of British Columbia, Canada,
with its principal executive offices located in Vancouver, Canada.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

Pretium acquires, explores, and develops precious metal resource
properties in the Americas.  The Brucejack Project, or Brucejack
Mine, is a mine located in northwestern British Columbia and is
comprised of 4 mining leases and 6 mineral claims currently
totaling 3,304 hectares in area.  The Brucejack Project is
essential to Pretium's business and to the public market valuation
of the business.

On January 23, 2018, the Company disclosed lower gold production
for the Brucejack Mine than previously projected, and also delayed
achievement of steady state gold production and operation of the
grade control program.  On this news, the Company's share price
fell $2.86 per share, or over 26%, to close at $7.93 per share on
January 23, 2018.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL: Sued over Sale of Adulterated Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------
RON MOLINARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL INC. d/b/a SOLCO
HEALTHCARE LLC; SOLCO HEALTHCARE U.S., LLC; and HUAHAI US INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00710-UA-CM (M.D. Fla., Oct. 25, 2018)
is an action against the Defendants for manufacturing,
distributing, and sale of valsartan generic prescription
medications adulterated with N-itrosodimethylamine, a carcinogenic
substance.

According to the complaint, the adulterated Valsartan drugs were
introduced into the American market at least as far back as 2015
for the Defendants to profit from their sale to American consumers,
such as the Plaintiff and Class Members. However, evidence now
suggests that the contamination dates back at least as far as 2012.
The Plaintiff and Class Members paid for all or part of their
Valsartan prescriptions that were illegally introduced into the
market by the Defendants and which were not fit for their ordinary
use. The Defendants have been unjustly enriched through the sale of
these adulterated drugs since at least 2012.

Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc. develops, manufactures, markets, and
registers generic prescription pharmaceutical products. The
company's products include Benazepril HCl, Bupropion SR, Donepezil
HCl, Escitalopram, Irbesartan, Lamotrigine ER, Levetiracetam,
Lisinopril, Losartan Potassium, Methocarbamol, Nevirapine,
Paroxetine, Risperidone, Ropinirole HCl, and Valsartan tablets.
Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc. was founded in 2009 and is based in
Cranbury, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis I. Mussman, Esq.
          Brian T. Ku, Esq.
          KU & MUSSMAN, P.A.
          18501 Pines Blvd, Suite 209-A
          Pembroke Pines, FL 33029
          Telephone: (305) 891-1322
          Facsimile: (305) 891-4512
          E-mail: louis@kumussman.com
                  brian@kumussman.com

               - and -

          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          David J. Stanoch, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 965-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
          E-mail: rhonik@golombhonik.com
                  dstanoch@golombhonik.com

               - and -

          Allan Kanner, Esq.
          Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
          Layne Hilton, Esq.
          KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
          701 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70115
          Telephone: (504) 524-5777
          Facsimile: (504) 524-5763
          E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
                  c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
                  l.hilton@kanner-law.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Slack, Esq.
          John R. Davis, Esq.
          SLACK DAVIS SANGER, LLP
          2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 795-8686
          Facsimile: (512) 795-8787
          E-mail: mslack@slackdavis.com
                  jdavis@slackdavis.com


PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Court Narrows Claims in Thompson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICKY THOMPSON and ROBERT LIVINGSTONE, as individuals
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE
PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-60107-GAYLES/SELTZER (S.D. Fla.), Judge Darrin P. Gayles of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and to Strike Class Allegations.

The Defendant manufactures Ivory Dish Detergent.  The packaging for
Ivory Dish Detergent.

Plaintiffs Thompson and Livingstone are individual purchasers of
Ivory Dish Detergent, who bring claims on behalf of a proposed
class of Florida purchasers of the product.  The Plaintiffs allege
that despite Ivory Dish Detergent's packaging, the product contains
methylisothiazolinone ("MI"), a known contact allergen and
sensitizing agent that affects between 2-10% of the population.
They argue that the assertions that the product is "trusted,"
"mild," and "gentle on the hands," are misrepresentations and
constitute unlawful consumer deception.

On Dec. 11, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
against the Defendant in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.  They bring
claims for (1) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, (2) negligent misrepresentation, and (3) breach of
warranty.

On Jan. 18, 2018, the Defendant removed the action to the Court,
alleging federal jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
Act ("CAFA").  The Plaintiffs sought remand, arguing that the
Defendant had not met its burden to show that there was at least $5
million in controversy as required for CAFA jurisdiction.  The
Court denied the motion for remand.

The Defendant now seeks dismissal of each cause of action and
requests that the Court strikes the Plaintiffs' class allegations.

Judge Gayles granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
Motion.  He granted the Motion as to Count II and dismissed with
prejudice Count II.  He denied the Motion as to Counts I and III.
The Judge denied the Motion to Strike Class Allegations.

Among other things, the Judge finds that while the Defendant
contends that when read in context, its statements could not
possibly assure the exclusion of an allergen like MI, a
better-developed factual record is needed to determine whether
Ivory Dish Detergent could, in any way, be accurately described as
"mild" and "gentle on hands."  Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss Count I of the Complaint is denied.

He also finds that the Defendant's argument that "proven to be
gentle on hands" is "general" rather than "scientific" would
require the Court to make a factual finding about the nature of the
purported misrepresentations that is inappropriate at this stage.
The representations were contained on the product packaging itself
and retailers of Ivory Dish Detergent from whom the Plaintiffs
purchased the product could not be reasonably expected to have the
knowledge to substantiate those claims.  Accordingly, he denied the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to Count III.

As to its Motion to Strike Class Allegations, the Judge finds that
while the Plaintiffs' proposed class may ultimately fail on a
motion for class certification, the Defendant has certainly not
established at this juncture that the Plaintiffs' class allegations
are "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous."

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct 19, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/kSL0w6 from Leagle.com.

Ricky Thompson, as individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Robert Livingstone, as individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua Harris
Eggnatz , Eggnatz Pascucci, P.A., Michael James Pascucci , Eggnatz
Pascucci, P.A. & Steven Saul .

The Procter and Gamble Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew
Russell Kruppa -- andrew.kruppa@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs
(US) LLP.


PROTECTIVE LIFE: Subsidiary Faces Advance Trust & Life Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Protective Life 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 Protective Life
Insurance Company (PLICO) faces a putative class action suit filed
by Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA.

Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities
Intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective
Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290, is a putative class
action that was filed on August 13, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Plaintiff alleges that PLICO required policyholders to pay unlawful
and excessive cost of insurance charges. Plaintiff seeks to
represent all owners of universal life and variable universal life
policies issued or administered by PLICO or its predecessors that
provide that cost of insurance rates are to be determined based on
expectations of future mortality experience.

The plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and other
unspecified relief.

Protective Life said, "The Company is vigorously defending this
matter and cannot predict the outcome of or reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss that might result from this
litigation."

Protective Life Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
provides financial services primarily in the United States. The
company engages in the production, distribution, and administration
of insurance and investment products. he company was founded in
1907 and is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. Protective Life
Corporation is a subsidiary of Dai-ichi Life Holdings, Inc.


REALOGY HOLDINGS: Dodge Settlement Receives Final Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California Court has granted final approval of a settlement of
the purported class action captioned Dodge, et al. v. PHH
Corporation, et al., formerly captioned Strader, et al. and Hall v.
PHH Corporation, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California), according to Realogy Holdings Corp.'s Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

This purported class action was brought by four California
residents against 15 defendants, including Realogy and certain of
its subsidiaries, PHH Corporation and PHH Home Loans, LLC (a joint
venture between Realogy and PHH), alleging violations of Section
8(a) of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).

On May 19, 2017, the parties held a mediation session, at which
they agreed in principle to a settlement of the action, pursuant to
which the Company would pay approximately US$8 million (or one-half
of the settlement).  In settling the matter, the Company
specifically denied any wrongdoing with respect to the claims
asserted in the case.  As a result of the settlement, the Company
accrued US$8 million in the second quarter of 2017 and the
liability is included in accrued expenses and other current
liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The Court granted final approval of the settlement effective as of
August 27, 2018.

Realogy Holdings Corp. is a holding company for its consolidated
subsidiaries including Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC and
Realogy Group LLC and its consolidated subsidiaries.  Realogy,
through its subsidiaries, is a global provider of residential real
estate services.  Neither Realogy Holdings, the indirect parent of
Realogy Group, nor Realogy Intermediate, the direct parent company
of Realogy Group, conducts any operations other than with respect
to its respective direct or indirect ownership of Realogy Group.


REVLON INC : Appeal in Arden Merger-Related Suit Still Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Revlon, 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 plaintiffs have filed a
notice of appeal from the court's decision granting the motion to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in a class action lawsuit.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Elizabeth Arden
Merger Agreement, several putative shareholder class action
lawsuits and a derivative lawsuit were filed challenging the
Merger.

In addition to the complaints filed on behalf of plaintiffs Parker,
Christiansen, Ross and Stein on July 25, 2016, a lawsuit (Hutson v.
Elizabeth Arden, Inc., et al., Case No. CACE-16-013566) (referred
to as the "Hutson complaint") was filed in the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida (the "Court") against
Elizabeth Arden, the members of the board of directors of Elizabeth
Arden, Revlon, Products Corporation and Acquisition Sub.

In general, the Hutson complaint alleges that: (i) the members of
Elizabeth Arden's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Elizabeth Arden's shareholders with respect to the
Merger, by, among other things, approving the Merger pursuant to an
unfair process and at an inadequate and unfair price; and (ii)
Revlon, Products Corporation and Acquisition Sub aided and abetted
the breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of Elizabeth
Arden’s board of directors.

The plaintiff seeks relief similar to that sought in the Parker
case. By Order dated August 4, 2016, all five cases were
consolidated by the Court into a Consolidated Amended Class Action.


Thereafter, on August 11, 2016, a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint was filed, seeking to enjoin defendants from consummating
the Merger and/or from soliciting shareholder votes. To the extent
that the Merger was consummated, the Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint seeks to rescind the Merger or recover rescissory
or other compensatory damages, along with costs and fees.

The grounds for relief set forth in the Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint in large part track those grounds as asserted in
the five individual complaints, as previously disclosed. Class
counsel advised that post-consummation of the Merger they were
going to file a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.
The Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (which
superseded the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint) was
ultimately filed on or about January 26, 2017. Like the
Consolidated Amended Class Action complaint, the grounds for relief
set forth in the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
in large part track those grounds as asserted in the five
individual complaints.

The defendants' motions to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint were filed on March 28, 2017. Plaintiffs'
response was filed on June 6, 2017 and defendants' replies were
filed on July 13, 2017. A hearing on the defendants' motion to
dismiss was held on September 19, 2017 and on November 20, 2017,
the defendants' motion was granted and the case was dismissed, with
leave to amend under limited circumstances.

On December 8, 2017, plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint,
seeking relief on the same grounds sought in the First and Second
Amended Complaints, but alleged as direct, as opposed to
derivative, claims. On January 12, 2018, the defendants once again
moved to dismiss. The motion was heard on March 29, 2018 and the
parties await a decision.

On August 14, 2018, the Court granted the motion and dismissed the
Third Amended Complaint, with prejudice. On September 11, 2018, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

Revlon said, "The Company continues to believe these allegations
are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend
against them. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the
Merger Agreement or the Merger may be filed in the future."

Revlon, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures, markets,
distributes, and sells beauty and personal care products worldwide.
Revlon, Inc. was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in New York,
New York.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Reid Sues Over Illegal Repossession Proceedings
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Reid, Individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Santander Consumer USA Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03159, (Mass., October 10, 2018), seeks
to recover compensable damages caused by violations of
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Massachusetts Usury Laws and
Commercial Code.

Santander Consumer USA Inc. is a credit lender providing many types
of consumer loans. Reid entered into a loan agreement with
Santander for the purchase of a 2009 Toyota Camry amounting to
$18,973.13 with a finance charge of $14,833.03. It had an interest
rate of 21.00% per annum, exceeding the 20% per annum under
Massachusetts law.

On September 14, 2016, upon alleged default, Santander initiated
repossession of the said vehicle for purposes of re-sale and to be
applied to Plaintiff's loan. Massachusetts law requires that
consumers be given explicit notice that the fair market value of
the vehicle, not the sale price, will be deducted from the amount
owed on their loans after the sale of their vehicle, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephanie T. Ozahowski, Esq.
     Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
     Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
     99 High Street, Suite 304
     Boston, MA 02110
     Tel: (617) 338-9400
     Email: rm@mass-legal.com


SC MAINTENANCE: Laguerre Suit Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
JASON LAGUERRE, Individually and On behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SC MAINTENANCE INC., and STEPHEN S. CLEMENTS, Case No.
8:18-cv-02595-JSM-SPF (M.D. Fla., October 22, 2018), seeks to
recover overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 in a work week,
plus an equal sum in liquidated damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

SC Maintenance Inc. is a Florida for profit corporation, with a
principal place of business in Davenport, Florida.  Stephen S.
Clements is the Company's owner, president and director, and
primary supervisor of the Plaintiff.

The Company provides maintenance and janitorial services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN WILLIAMS PLLC
          6940 W. Linebaugh Ave., Suite #101
          Tampa, FL 33625
          Telephone: (813) 639-9366
          E-mail: mitch@feldmanwilliams.com


SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER: 11th Cir. Appeal Filed in Alonso Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Marta Alonso and Nehemy Antoine filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit styled Marta Alonso, et al. v. The
School Board of Collier County, et al., Case No.
2:16-cv-00379-SPC-MRM, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 2, 2018, Judge
Sheri Polster Chappell granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

Judge Chappell accepted and adopted U.S. Magistrate Judge Mac R.
McCoy's Report and Recommendation and granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.  The Motion is
granted on the due process claim (Count VI) and denied on all other
claims.

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 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' proposed class is defined as: all foreign-born,
English Language Learner ("ELL") 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.

The appellate case is captioned as Marta Alonso, et al. v. The
School Board of Collier County, et al., Case No. 18-90028, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners MARTA ALONSO and NEHEMY ANTOINE are
represented by:

          Michelle Lapointe, Esq.
          Gillian Brett Gillers, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          150 E Ponce De Leon Ave., Suite 340
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 521-6700
          E-mail: michelle.lapointe@splcenter.org
                  gillian.gillers@splcenter.org

Defendants-Respondents THE SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY and
KAMELA PATTON are represented by:

          Jonathan D. Fishbane, Esq.
          COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
          5775 Osceola Tr
          Naples, FL 34109-0919
          Telephone: (239) 377-0499
          E-mail: fishbj@collierschools.com

               - and -

          James Donald Fox, Esq.
          ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA
          850 Park Shore Drive, Floor 3
          Naples, FL 34103
          Telephone: (239) 649-6200
          E-mail: jfox@ralaw.com


SERENA & LILY: Fischler Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Serena & Lily, Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Serena & Lily,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06351 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 7, 2018).

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

Serena & Lily, Inc. designs and sells furniture for bedrooms and
bathrooms, and outdoor, dining, and living rooms. The company
provides duvet covers, quilts and blankets, sheet sets, shams,
throws, and bed essentials; and beds and headboards, dressers and
nightstands, occasional chairs, end of bed seating, decorative
pillows, storage and laundry baskets, accent mirrors, bedroom
lighting, and bedroom rugs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SHELTER MUTUAL: Baggett Suit Removed to W.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Samuel Baggett on behalf of himself and
all similarly situated persons and entities, Plaintiff v. Shelter
Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 60CV-18-1542, was
removed from Pulaski County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas on November 7, 2018, and
assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-02190-PKH.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract - Insurance.

Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, Inc. provides insurance products
and services to individuals and businesses in the United States. It
offers auto insurance for cars, motorcycles, and recreational
vehicles; renters insurance; home insurance for homeowners,
dwellings, mobile homes, and condominium; term, permanent, and
youth life insurance; annuities; farm insurance for owners,
property, liability, equipment, and livestock; and business
insurance products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David S. Mitchell, Esq.
     David S. Mitchell, PA
     1120 North Street
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Phone: (501) 663-3322
     Fax: (501) 663-3320
     Email: DavidMitchell@DavidMitchellLaw.com

          - and-

     Kenneth Jerald Mitchell, Esq.
     Taylor King & Associates, P.A.
     5209 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
     North Little Rock, AR 72116
     Phone: (870) 246-0505
     Email: rustymitchell@taylorkinglaw.com

          - and-

     Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq.
     Thrash Law Firm, P.A.
     1101 Garland Street
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Phone: (501) 374-1058
     Fax: (501) 374-2222
     Email: mbozeman@thrashlawfirmpa.com

The Defendant is represented by:

     James Melton Sayes, Esq.
     Matthews, Sanders & Sayes
     825 West Third Street
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Phone: (501) 378-0717
     Email: msayes@msslawfirm.com

          - and-

     Sarah E. Greenwood, Esq.
     Munson, Rowlett, Moore & Boone, P.A.
     1900 Regions Center
     Regions Center
     400 West Capitol, Suite 1900
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Phone: (501) 374-6535
     Fax: (501) 374-5906
     Email: sarah.greenwood@mrmblaw.com


SHIRE PLC: Appeals from Dismissal of ELAPRASE Suits Remain Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shire plc disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that the appeals from the dismissal of the
ELAPRASE-related suit are still pending.

In 2014, Shire's Brazilian affiliate, Shire Farmaceutica Brasil
Ltda, was served with a lawsuit brought by the State of Sao Paulo
and in which the Brazilian Public Attorney's office has intervened
alleging that Shire is obligated to provide certain medical care
including ELAPRASE for an indefinite period at no cost to patients
who participated in ELAPRASE clinical trials in Brazil, and seeking
recoupment to the Brazilian government for amounts paid on behalf
of these patients to date, and moral damages associated with these
claims.

On May 6, 2016, the trial court judge ruled on the case and
dismissed all the claims under the class action, which was
appealed.  On February 20, 2017, the Court of Appeals in Sao Paulo
issued the final decision on merit in favor of Shire and dismissed
all the claims under the class action.  On July 12, 2017, the
Public Prosecutor filed an appeal addressed to the Supreme Court.

During the last quarter of 2017, the State of Sao Paulo filed
appeals addressed to the Superior Court of Justice and to the
Supreme Court.

Shire plc, a biotechnology company, researches, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells medicines for rare
diseases and other specialized conditions worldwide. The company
was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


SIXT RENT: Accused by Siglin of Not Truncating Credit Card Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
PARKER SIGLIN, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. SIXT RENT A CAR, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 0:18-cv-62536-JEM (S.D. Fla., October
22, 2018), arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendment to the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, which requires it to truncate certain credit
and debit card information on receipts.

Sixt Rent A Car, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company whose
principal address and headquarters is in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
The Defendant is the fourth largest car rental company in the
United States with rental locations in more than 50 airports and
cities in more than a dozen states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Bret L. Lusskin, Esq.
          BRET LUSSKIN, P.A.
          20803 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 302
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (954) 454-5841
          Facsimile: (954) 454-5844
          E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com

               - and -

          Seth Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER, LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          E-mail: seth@epllc.com


SKECHERS USA: Foster Files Suit Over Defective Sneakers
-------------------------------------------------------
Sherry Foster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-10351 (S.D.
N.Y., November 7, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The instant action seeks relief on behalf of Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals, who purchased defective
battery-operated light-up sneakers (the "Defective Sneakers")
manufactured, marketed, promoted and sold by Defendant Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. and who, as a result of Skechers' defective products,
suffered damages as a result of the Defective Sneakers' defective
design. The Plaintiff alleges that Skechers not only failed to
properly manufacture the Defective Sneakers, but once it was aware
of the dangers inherent in the products, it then failed to disclose
the safety hazards to consumers.

The Plaintiff Sherry Foster is and was a resident of Hillsdale, New
York.  Plaintiff purchased the Defective Sneakers in or around
March 2018.

The Defendant Skechers is a global footwear and apparel brand that
designs, manufactures, markets, distributes and sells more than
3,000 lifestyle and athletic footwear styles for men, women, and
children. The Defendant's principle place of business is at 228
Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, CA 90266. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
      Daniel B. Rehns, Esq.
      Hillary M. Nappi, Esq.
      HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
      112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 213-8311
      Fax: (212) 779-0028
      E-mail: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
              drehns@hrsclaw.com
              hnappi@hrsclaw.com


SKECHERS USA: Lawsuit by Laborers Local 235 Benefit Fund Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action styled Laborers Local 235 Benefit Fund
v. Skechers USA, Inc., Robert Greenberg, David Weinberg and John
Vandemore is still ongoing, according to Skechers U.S.A., Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

The Company said, "On September 4, 2018, Laborers Local 235 Benefit
Fund filed a securities class action on behalf of itself and
purportedly on behalf of other shareholders who purchased the
company's stock between October 20, 2017 and July 19, 2018 (the
"Class Period"), against our company and certain of its officers in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, case number 1:18-cv-8039.

"The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period we made
materially false statements or omissions of material fact regarding
our sales growth and controlling expenses in an effort to
artificially inflate the price of our stock for the personal gain
of the Company's founding family.

"On October 17, 2018, a copycat case named Steven S. Fishman v.
Skechers USA, Inc. et al. was filed with nearly identical
allegations in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, 1:18-CV-09510.

"Given the early stages of these proceedings and the limited
information available, we cannot predict the outcome of these legal
proceeding or whether an adverse result in these case would have a
material adverse impact on our operations or financial position.
We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend these
matters vigorously."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide.  It operates
through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International
Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales.  Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,
California.


SKIL RESOURCE: Caregivers Seek OT Pay for Hrs. Worked Over 40/Week
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hardridge and Jessica Merida, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Southeast Kansas
Independent Living Resource Center, Inc., Skil Fiscal Agent, Inc.,
and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02544 (D. Kan., October
11, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime, liquidated
damages, penalties, fees and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a non-residential private living service to
people with disabilities where Hardridge and Merida worked as
caregivers. They claim to have worked in excess of 40 hours per
week without being paid overtime premium. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Brett Milbourn, Esq.
      Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
      HORN AYLWARD & BANDY LLC
      2600 Brand Boulevard, Suite 1100
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Telephone: (816) 421-0700
      Facsimile: (816) 421-0899
      Email: bmilbourn@hab-law.com
             tbender@hab-law.com

             - and -

      Tim J. Becker, Esq.
      Jennell K. Shannon, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
      Saint Paul, MN
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Fax: (612) 436-1801
      Email: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
             jshannon@johnsonbecker.com


SLEEP NUMBER: Still Faces Spade Class Action in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
Sleep Number Corporation is still facing a purported class action
lawsuit filed by David and Katina Spade, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2018.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiffs David and Katina Spade commenced a
purported class action lawsuit in New Jersey state court against
Sleep Number alleging that Sleep Number violated New Jersey
consumer statutes by failing to provide to purchasing consumers
certain disclosures required by the New Jersey Furniture
Regulations.  It is undisputed that plaintiffs suffered no actual
damages or in any way relied upon or were impacted by the alleged
omissions.

Nonetheless, on behalf of a purported class of New Jersey
purchasers of Sleep Number beds and bases, plaintiffs seek to
recover a US$100 statutory fine for each alleged omission, along
with attorneys' fees and costs.  Sleep Number removed the case to
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
which subsequently granted Sleep Number's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, which certified two questions of law to the New
Jersey Supreme Court relating to whether plaintiffs who have
suffered no actual injury may bring claims.

The New Jersey Supreme Court accepted the certified questions and
on April 16, 2018, ruled in the Company's favor on one of the two
questions, holding that a consumer only has standing to bring a
claim under the relevant statute if the consumer has been harmed by
the defendant's conduct.

The Third Circuit has remanded the case to the federal district
court, which, in turn, allowed plaintiffs to amend their
complaint.

The Company said, "We believe, however, that plaintiffs' amended
complaint does not cure the statutory claim as instructed by the
Third Circuit, but instead asserts fraud-based claims that were
previously dismissed and which lack merit.  We will file a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint."

Sleep Number Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets a line
of air bed mattresses. The Company provides a variety of beds,
bedding, pillows, mattress pads and layers, sheets, duvets, bed
skirts, bases, furniture, bed accessories, and kids blankets.  The
company is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


SOIL MECHANICS: Gambino Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD GAMBINO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SOIL MECHANICS DRILLING CORP., CARL VERNICK, and
VINCENT NANTISTA, Case No. 2:18-cv-05865 (E.D.N.Y., October 19,
2018), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York State Labor Law seeking to recover, inter alia, overtime
compensation, and other penalties owed to the Plaintiff by
Defendants.

Soil Mechanics Drilling Corp. is a New York State corporation with
its principal place of business in Nassau County, New York.  Carl
Vernick is the owner and CEO of Soil Mechanics.  Vincent Nantista
is the Vice-President of Soil Mechanics.

Soil Mechanics is in the business of providing geotechnical,
environmental, and construction testing and inspection services in
the New York City metropolitan area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Weinick, Esq.
          FAMIGHETTI & WEINICK, PLLC
          25 Melville Park Road, Suite 235
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 352-0050
          E-mail: mbw@fwlawpllc.com


SONY CORPORATION: Faces Delacruz ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sony Corporation of
America. The case is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Sony Corporation of America, Case No. 1:18-cv-09834-AJN (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 25, 2018). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Alison J. Nathan.

Sony Corporation of America, through its subsidiaries, manufactures
and markets in consumer electronics. Sony Corporation of America
was formerly known as Sony USA Inc. and changed its name to Sony
Corporation of America in June, 1993. The company was founded in
1960 and is based in New York, New York. Sony Corporation of
America operates as a subsidiary of Sony Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          Gottlieb & Associates
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (917) 796-7437
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com


SOUNDWICH INC: Fletcher Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
James Fletcher, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Soundwich, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-02565 (N.D. Ohio,
November 7, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act.

This is a "collective action" instituted by the Plaintiff as a
result of the Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its
hourly, non-exempt employees, including the Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated employees, overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all of the
hours they worked over 40 each workweek.

The Plaintiff was a resident of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The
Defendant employed the Plaintiff as an operator at Defendant's
Cleveland, Ohio location between July 2006 and September 2018.

The Defendant manufactures car parts in two Ohio manufacturing
facilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: (216) 696-5000
      Fax: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
              anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
              chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com


SPARK ENERGY: Plaintiff's Appeal from Nixed Gillis Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that the Plaintiffs in the "Gillis" class
action has filed their notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.  The Company also said that the
final appellate briefing has not yet been completed and that the
Third Circuit has not yet ruled or set any hearings on this
appeal.

Gillis et al. v. Respond Power, LLC is a purported class action
lawsuit that was originally filed on May 21, 2014 in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.  On June 23, 2014, the case was
removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  On September 15, 2014, the plaintiffs
filed an amended class action complaint seeking a declaratory
judgment that the disclosure statement contained in Respond Power,
LLC's variable rate contracts with Pennsylvania consumers limited
the variable rate that could be charged to no more than the monthly
rate charged by the consumers' local utility company.

The plaintiffs also allege that Respond Power, LLC (i) breached its
variable rate contract with Pennsylvania consumers, and the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing therein, by charging rates
in excess of the monthly rate charged by the consumers' local
utility company; (ii) engaged in deceptive conduct in violation of
the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law; and (iii) engaged in negligent misrepresentation and
fraudulent concealment in connection with purported promises of
savings.  The amount of damages sought is not specified.

By order dated August 31, 2015, the district court denied class
certification.  The plaintiffs appealed the district court's denial
of class certification to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.  The United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit vacated the district court's denial of class
certification and remanded the matter to the district court for
further proceedings.  The district court ordered briefing on
defendant's motion to dismiss.

On July 16, 2018, the court granted Respond Power LLCs motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's class action claims.  Plaintiffs filed
their notice of appeal to the Third Circuit Court on August 7,
2018.  The final appellate briefing has not yet been completed.
The Third Circuit has not yet ruled or set any hearings on this
appeal.

The Company states, "We currently cannot predict the outcome or
consequences of this case at this time.  We believe we are fully
indemnified for this litigation matter, subject to certain
limitations."

Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services
company founded in 1999 and now organized as a Delaware corporation
that provides residential and commercial customers in competitive
markets across the United States with an alternative choice for
their natural gas and electricity.


SPARK ENERGY: Still Defends Veilleux Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that the class action lawsuit filed by
Katherine Veilleux and Jennifer Chon is still ongoing.

Katherine Veilleux and Jennifer Chon, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated v. Electricity Maine. LLC, Provider
Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean and Emile Clavet is a
purported class action lawsuit filed on November 18, 2016 in the
United States District Court of Maine, alleging that Electricity
Maine, LLC, an entity acquired by Spark HoldCo, LLC in mid-2016,
enrolled and re-enrolled customers through fraudulent and
misleading advertising, promotions, and other communications prior
to the acquisition.  Plaintiffs further allege that some improper
enrollment and re-enrollment practices have continued to the
present date.

Plaintiffs alleged claims under RICO, the Maine Unfair Trade
Practice Act, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and breach of contract.
Plaintiffs seek damages for themselves and the purported class,
rescission of contracts with Electricity Maine, injunctive relief,
restitution, and attorney's fees.

By order dated November 15, 2017, the Court, pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6), dismissed all claims against Spark HoldCo except the
claims for violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act and
for unjust enrichment.  Discovery is limited to issues relevant to
class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Plaintiffs have recently filed a motion seeking leave to amend
their complaint to reassert RICO claims against Spark, in addition
to claims for civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and unfair trade
practices.  The proposed amended complaint involves allegations
relating to Spark's and Electricity Maine's door-to-door sales
practices in Maine.

Spark and Electricity Maine opposed the motion and the Court has
not yet ruled on these motions.  Spark HoldCo intends to vigorously
defend this matter and the allegations asserted therein, including
the request to certify a class.

The Company said, "We cannot predict the outcome or consequences of
this case at this time.  We believe we are fully indemnified for
this litigation matter, subject to certain limitations."

Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services
company founded in 1999 and now organized as a Delaware corporation
that provides residential and commercial customers in competitive
markets across the United States with an alternative choice for
their natural gas and electricity.


SPARK ENERGY: Verde Companies Still Facing Richardson Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a purported class action styled Richardson et al v.
Verde Energy USA, Inc. are still awaiting the Court's decision on
the pending dispositive motions on the named plaintiffs' claims,
according to Spark Energy, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

Verde Energy USA, Inc.; Verde Energy USA Commodities, LLC; Verde
Energy USA Connecticut, LLC; Verde Energy USA DC, LLC; Verde Energy
USA Illinois, LLC; Verde Energy USA Maryland, LLC; Verde Energy USA
Massachusetts, LLC; Verde Energy USA New Jersey, LLC; Verde Energy
USA New York, LLC; Verde Energy USA Ohio, LLC; Verde Energy USA
Pennsylvania, LLC; Verde Energy USA Texas Holdings, LLC; Verde
Energy USA Trading, LLC; and Verde Energy Solutions, LLC
(collectively, the "Verde Companies") operate as retail energy
providers and were formed on various dates from December 27, 2007
to November 13, 2014.  The Company acquired the Verde Companies on
July 1, 2017.

Richardson et al v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a purported class
action filed on November 25, 2015 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the
Verde Companies violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
placing marketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system
or a prerecorded voice to the purported class members' cellular
phones without prior express consent and by continuing to make such
calls after receiving requests for the calls to cease.

Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages for the purported class
and injunctive relief prohibiting Verde Companies' alleged conduct.
Discovery on the claims of the named plaintiffs closed on November
10, 2017, and dispositive motions on the named plaintiffs' claims
were filed on November 24, 2017.

The parties are now awaiting the Court's decision on the pending
dispositive motions.

The case was recently reassigned to a new judge and the first
status conference was held on October 12, 2018.

The Company said, "As part of an agreement in connection with the
acquisition of the Verde Companies, the original owners of the
Verde Companies are handling this matter, and we believe we are
fully indemnified for this matter, subject to certain limitations.
Given the early stages of this matter, we cannot predict the
outcome or consequences of this case at this time."

Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services
company founded in 1999 and now organized as a Delaware corporation
that provides residential and commercial customers in competitive
markets across the United States with an alternative choice for
their natural gas and electricity.


SPARK ENERGY: Verde's Bid for Summary Judgment in "Jurich" Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled Jurich v. Verde Energy USA, Inc., Verde's motion
for summary judgment and motion to decertify the class are still
pending, according to Spark Energy, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018.

Verde Energy USA, Inc.; Verde Energy USA Commodities, LLC; Verde
Energy USA Connecticut, LLC; Verde Energy USA DC, LLC; Verde Energy
USA Illinois, LLC; Verde Energy USA Maryland, LLC; Verde Energy USA
Massachusetts, LLC; Verde Energy USA New Jersey, LLC; Verde Energy
USA New York, LLC; Verde Energy USA Ohio, LLC; Verde Energy USA
Pennsylvania, LLC; Verde Energy USA Texas Holdings, LLC; Verde
Energy USA Trading, LLC; and Verde Energy Solutions, LLC
(collectively, the "Verde Companies") operate as retail energy
providers and were formed on various dates from December 27, 2007
to November 13, 2014.  The Company acquired the Verde Companies on
July 1, 2017.

Jurich v. Verde Energy USA, Inc., is a class action originally
filed on March 3, 2015 in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut and subsequently re-filed on October 8,
2015 in the Superior Court of Judicial District of Hartford, State
of Connecticut.  The Amended Complaint asserts that the Verde
Companies charged rates in violation of its contracts with
Connecticut customers and alleges (i) violation of the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. Secs. 42-110a et seq.,
and (ii) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages for
the class and injunctive relief.  The parties have exchanged
initial discovery.

On December 6, 2017, the Court granted the plaintiffs' class
certification motion.  However, the Court opted not to send out
class notices, and instead directed the parties to submit briefing
on legal issues that could result in a modification or
decertification of the class.

On June 21, 2018, the Court issued an opinion granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment.  The Court granted the motion as to liability on a
limited and discrete issue (whether Verde's terms of service
complied with a Connecticut statute's requirement of sufficient
clarity regarding rates).

The Company said, "The full implications of that ruling are not yet
clear.  The Court has questioned whether such a statutory violation
could justify an award of any compensatory damages.  In its order,
the Court also rejected the Plaintiffs' principal theory that
Verde's Terms of Service obligated Verde to track Verde's wholesale
costs in setting its retail rates."

Verde filed a motion for summary judgment and motion to decertify
the class in August 2018 and plaintiffs filed their reply to that
motion in September 2018.  No hearing has been set on these
motions.

The Company further said, "As part of an agreement in connection
with the acquisition of the Verde Companies, the original owners of
the Verde Companies are handling this matter, and we believe we are
fully indemnified for this matter, subject to certain limitations.
Given the early stage of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome
or consequences of this case at this time."

Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services
company founded in 1999 and now organized as a Delaware corporation
that provides residential and commercial customers in competitive
markets across the United States with an alternative choice for
their natural gas and electricity.


SPECTRA ENERGY: All Proceedings in Putative Class Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spectra Energy Partners, LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that all proceedings in a putative
class action lawsuit have been stayed at Plaintiff's request
pending either the closing of a proposed merger or the termination
of the Merger Agreement, and the trial originally scheduled to
begin December 11, 2018, has been removed from the Delaware Court
of Chancery's calendar.

The case is styled Paul Morris v. Spectra Energy Partners (DE) GP,
LP, Spectra Energy Corp, Defendants, and Spectra Energy Partners,
LP, Nominal Defendant.

The Company said, "A putative class action lawsuit asserting direct
and derivative claims was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery
in March of 2016 by Paul Morris (Plaintiff), a unitholder of SEP.
The claims in the lawsuit relate to a transaction in October 2015
whereby 33% ownership interests in the Sand Hills and Southern
Hills pipelines were sold by us to Spectra Energy Corp (SE Corp)
and, subsequent to that transaction, SE Corp contributed those
ownership interests to DCP Midstream, LLC, a joint venture in which
SE Corp owns a 50% ownership interest.  The lawsuit alleges that
the consideration paid to us by SE Corp in exchange for those
ownership interests was approximately US$525 million less than the
purported value of such ownership interests.  The lawsuit asserted
direct and derivative claims of breach of contract and breach of
the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing against SEP GP and
direct and derivative claims of tortious interference with the SEP
Limited Partnership Agreement against SE Corp.  SEP is also named
as a "nominal" defendant in the lawsuit for the derivative claims.

"On January 13, 2017, Plaintiff withdrew all of his direct claims
in the lawsuit.  On June 27, 2017, the Delaware Court of Chancery
issued a Memorandum Opinion dismissing the derivative claims of
tortious interference against SE Corp and the breach of the implied
duty of good faith and fair dealing against SEP GP, leaving only
the derivative claim for breach of the Limited Partnership
Agreement against SEP GP pending.  The relief sought in the
complaint includes rescission of the transaction, damages, interest
and attorneys' fees.

"On August 24, 2018, Enbridge announced that it (on behalf of
itself and certain of its wholly owned U.S. subsidiaries) had
entered into a definitive merger agreement with us under which
Enbridge would acquire, subject to certain conditions, all of the
outstanding common units of SEP (other than those held by Enbridge
and its wholly owned subsidiaries).  If the Proposed Merger closes
and Enbridge acquires all of the outstanding common units of SEP
(other than those held by Enbridge and its wholly owned
subsidiaries), we would expect that Plaintiff would lose standing
to continue his derivative claims on behalf of SEP, and we would
expect that Enbridge would become the owner of such derivative
claims.  As of September 18, 2018, all proceedings in the lawsuit
have been stayed at Plaintiff's request pending either the closing
of the Proposed Merger or the termination of the Merger Agreement,
and the trial originally scheduled to begin December 11, 2018, has
been removed from the Delaware Court of Chancery's calendar."

Spectra Energy Partners, LP operates as an investment arm of
Spectra Energy Corp. Spectra Energy Partners, LP, through its
subsidiaries, engages in the transportation of natural gas through
interstate pipeline systems, and the storage of natural gas in
underground facilities in the United States.  Spectra Energy
Partners (DE) GP, LP, operates as the general partner to Spectra
Energy Partners, LP. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


SPROUTS FARMERS: Settlement of Arizona Securities Lawsuit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the parties in the Arizona
securities action has reached an agreement in principle to settle
the claims.  The parties' settlement agreement will be presented to
the court for approval.

The Company said, "On March 4, 2016, a complaint was filed in the
Superior Court for the State of Arizona against our company and
certain of our directors and officers on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of shares of our common stock in our
underwritten secondary public offering which closed on March 10,
2015 (the "March 2015 Offering").

"The complaint purports to state claims under Sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on an alleged
failure by our company to disclose adequate information about
produce price deflation in the March 2015 Offering documents.

"The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an
unspecified amount, rescission, and an award of reasonable costs
and attorneys' fees.

"After removal to federal court, the plaintiff sought remand, which
the court granted in March 2017.  On May 25, 2017, our company
filed a Motion to Dismiss in the Superior Court for the State of
Arizona, which the court granted in part and denied in part by
order entered August 30, 2017.

"On August 15, 2018, we reached an agreement in principle to settle
these claims.  The parties' settlement agreement will be presented
to the court for approval.

"If approved by the court, the settlement will be funded from our
directors and officers liability insurance policy and will not have
a material impact on our consolidated financial statements."

Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a healthy grocery store, provides
fresh, natural, and organic food products in the United States. Its
stores offer fresh produce, meat and seafood, deli and baked goods,
packaged groceries, vitamins and supplements, bulk foods, dairy and
dairy alternatives, frozen foods, beer and wine, and natural body
care and household items. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. was founded
in 2002 and is based in Phoenix, Arizona.


SPROUTS FARMERS: Still Faces Class Suits over Alleged Phishing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. continues to defend itself against
"Phishing" Scam Class Action Suits, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

The Company said, "In April 2016, four complaints were filed, two
in the federal courts of California, one in the Superior Court of
California and one in the federal court in the District of
Colorado, each on behalf of a purported class of our current and
former team members whose personally identifiable information
(referred to as "PII") was inadvertently disclosed to an
unauthorized third party that perpetrated an email "phishing" scam
against one of our team members.

"The complaints allege we failed to properly safeguard the PII in
accordance with applicable law.  The complaints seek damages on
behalf of the purported class in unspecified amounts, attorneys'
fees and litigation expenses.

"In June 2016, a motion was filed before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (referred to as "JPML") to transfer and
consolidate all four of the cases to the federal court in the
District of Arizona.  The JPML granted the motion on October 6,
2016.  On May 24, 2017, the JPML granted our motion to stay
proceedings in the case pending a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the
question of whether arbitration agreements like those signed by
each of the named plaintiffs are enforceable.

"On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Epic
Systems Corp. v. Lewis and upheld enforceability of arbitration
agreements containing class action waivers, like the ones the named
plaintiffs signed in this matter.  Subsequent to the stay, it
remains to be seen what strategy plaintiffs will pursue following
Epic Systems.

"We intend to defend these cases vigorously, but it is not possible
at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of, or any
potential liability from, the cases."

Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a healthy grocery store, provides
fresh, natural, and organic food products in the United States. Its
stores offer fresh produce, meat and seafood, deli and baked goods,
packaged groceries, vitamins and supplements, bulk foods, dairy and
dairy alternatives, frozen foods, beer and wine, and natural body
care and household items. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. was founded
in 2002 and is based in Phoenix, Arizona.


SSC HIGH: Elias Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Amron Elias and Eligio Carmona, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. SSC High Rise Construction Inc., Timothy
Mahoney and Mickey Mahoney, Case No. 7:18-cv-10300(S.D. N.Y.,
November 6, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 each workweek.

The Plaintiff Amron Elias is a resident of Brooklyn and was
employed as a construction laborer by the Defendants from June 2016
to April 2017.

The Plaintiff Eligio Carmona is a resident of Brooklyn and was
employed as a construction laborer by the Defendants from August
2016 to September 2017.

The Corporate Defendant, SSC High Rise Construction Inc., is a
domestic business corporation organization and existing under the
laws of the State of New York and maintains its principal place of
business at 36 Ridge Street, Pearl River, NY 10965.

The Individual Defendants are owners, officers, directors and
managing agent of SSC High Rise Construction Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Lorena P. Duarte, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-20 38th Ave., Suite #10G
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      Fax: (718) 353-6288
      E-mail: lduarte@hanglaw.com


STAGE STORES: Bergeron Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Leann Copeland-Bergeron, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Stage Stores, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-01199 (S.D. Tex., October 11, 2018), seeks to
recover compensation, overtime wages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

Stage Stores, Inc. does business under the brands Stage, Peebles,
Bealls, Palais Royal, and Goody's. Stage Stores operates
approximately 187 Stage-branded specialty department store
locations across 11 states. Bergeron worked for Stage as a store
manager in their Slidell LA location. She claims to have worked in
excess of 40 hours per week without being paid overtime premium.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Paolo Chagas Meireles, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP
      951 Yamato Rd, Suite 285
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Tel: (561) 447-8888
      Fax: 447-8831
      Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
             pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
             aquiles@shavitzlaw.com

             - and -

      Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
      Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
      David A. Roth, Esq.
      Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
      Janine Kapp, Esq.
      HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
      192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545~1199
      Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
      E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
              cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
              droth@hgrlawyers.com
              rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com
              jkapp@hgrlawyers.com


STATUE CRUISES: Diaz Sues Ferry Operator for ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Statue Cruises, LLC.
The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Statue Cruises, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10346 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 7, 2018).

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

Statue Cruises, LLC was founded in 2007. The company's line of
business includes providing ferries for the transportation of
passengers or vehicles.[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


STEEL PARTNERS: Still Defends Delaware Stockholder Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners Holdings L.P. continues to defend itself against a
consolidated stockholder class action suit in Delaware, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2018.

On December 8, 2017, a putative stockholder class action, captioned
Sciabacucchi v. DeMarco, et al., was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware by a purported former stockholder of HNH
challenging the Company's acquisition, through a subsidiary, of all
of the outstanding shares of common stock of HNH not already owned
by the Company or any of its affiliates.

On June 15, 2018, this action was consolidated with a second
putative stockholder class action filed April 30, 2018, and
captioned John Levin v. DeMarco, et al.

The consolidated action names as defendants the former members of
the HNH board of directors, the Company and SPH GP, and alleges,
among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the former public stockholders of HNH in connection with
the aforementioned acquisition.  The complaint seeks, among other
relief, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 5, 2018, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  The Company believes that the claims asserted in
this action have no merit and intends to vigorously defend against
them; however, the outcome of this matter is uncertain.

Steel Partners Holdings L.P., through its subsidiaries, engages in
industrial products, energy, defense, supply chain management,
logistics, banking, and sports businesses worldwide.  It operates
through Diversified Industrial, Energy, and Financial Services
segments.  Steel Partners Holdings GP Inc. serves as the general
partner of the company. The company was founded in 1990 and is
based in New York, New York.


STERICYCLE INC: Bid to Drop Illinois Class Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. is still awaiting Court ruling on the defendants'
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit in Illinois, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2018.

On July 11, 2016, two purported stockholders filed a putative class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  The plaintiffs purported to sue for
themselves and on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
publicly traded securities between February 7, 2013 and April 28,
2016, inclusive, and all those who purchased securities in the
Company's public offering of depositary shares, each representing a
1/10th interest in a share of the Company's mandatory convertible
preferred stock, on or around September 15, 2015.  The complaint
named as defendants the Company, its directors and certain of its
current and former officers, and certain of the underwriters in the
public offering.  The complaint purports to assert claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
well as SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Company imposed unauthorized
or excessive price increases and other charges on its customers in
breach of its contracts, and that defendants failed to disclose
those alleged practices in public filings and other statements
issued during the proposed class period beginning February 7, 2013
and ending April 28, 2016.

"On August 4, 2016, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint that
purports to assert additional misrepresentations in public
statements through July 28, 2016, and therefore to change the
putative class period to the period from February 7, 2013 to July
28, 2016, inclusive.  On October 21, 2016, plaintiffs filed a
Corrected Amended Complaint adding the Company as a named defendant
in plaintiff's claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act, which
had previously been asserted only against the Underwriters and
certain officers and directors.

"On November 1, 2016, the Court appointed the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi and the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System as Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel as Lead
Counsel.  On February 1, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint with additional purported factual material
supporting the same legal claims from the prior complaints for a
class period from February 7, 2013 through September 18, 2016.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint on April 1, 2017.  On May 19, 2017, plaintiffs filed a
response in opposition to the motion to dismiss and on June 19,
2017, Defendants filed a reply brief in support of their motion.

"On March 31, 2018, plaintiffs filed a further Amended Complaint,
alleging additional corrective disclosures and extending the
purported class period through February 21, 2018.  Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on May 25,
2018.  The Motion was fully briefed on July 13, 2018, and the
Company awaits a ruling by the Court."

Stericycle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
regulated and compliance solutions to the healthcare, retail, and
commercial businesses in the United States and internationally.
Stericycle, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is based in Lake Forest,
Illinois.


SUNRISE CREDIT: Switz Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY SWITZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. SUNRISE CREDIT SERVICES, INC., a New York Corporation; and JOHN
AND JANE DOES, Case No. 1:18-cv-01677-WCG (E.D. Wisc., October 22,
2018), arises from the Defendants' illegal practices when
attempting to collect alleged debt from the Plaintiff and the
class, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The practices include attempting to collect consumer debts by
engaging in conduct prohibited by, or failing to engage in conduct
required by, the FDCPA, Ms. Switz contends.  She alleges that the
collection letter she received from the Defendants falsely implied
that Sunrise had not reported the Debt to a credit reporting agency
as of the date of the Letter.

Sunrise, a debt collector, is a for-profit corporation formed under
the laws of the state of New York and maintains its principal place
of business in Farmingdale, New York.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are presently unknown to the
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081
          Telephone (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com
                  Andrew@SternThomasson.com
                  Francis@SternThomasson.com


SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal on Class Status in Bickerstaff Case Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s appeal from the trial court's October 2017
order granting the "Bickerstaff" Plaintiff's motion for class
certification remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

The case styled Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank was filed in the
Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended
complaint was filed on August 9, 2010.  Plaintiff asserts that all
overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit card
and ATM transactions are actually interest charges and therefore
subject to the usury laws of Georgia.  Plaintiff has brought claims
for violations of civil and criminal usury laws, conversion, and
money had and received, and purports to bring the action on behalf
of all Georgia citizens who incurred such overdraft fees within the
four years before the complaint was filed where the overdraft fee
resulted in an interest rate being charged in excess of the usury
rate.

On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification and that motion was denied but the ruling was later
reversed and remanded by the Georgia Supreme Court.

On October 6, 2017, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for
class certification and the Bank filed an appeal of the decision on
November 3, 2017.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. operates as the holding company for SunTrust
Bank that provides various financial services for consumers,
businesses, corporations, and institutions in the United States.
It operates through two segments, Consumer and Wholesale.  SunTrust
Banks, Inc. was founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.


SUNTRUST BANKS: ERISA Suit Defendants Seek Summary Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the consolidated Mutual Funds ERISA Class Action
filed an additional motion for partial summary judgment on October
5, 2018, according to SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors, and
employees of the Company were named in a putative class action
alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by
offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in
the Plan.  The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in
their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek
to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly
incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual
Funds.  This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District
Court").

Subsequently, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a substantially similar
lawsuit against the Company naming two new plaintiffs.  On June 27,
2014, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., another
putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties
associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as
investment options in the Plan, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia but then was transferred to the
District Court.

After various appeals, the cases were remanded to the District
Court.

On March 25, 2016, a consolidated amended complaint was filed,
consolidating all of these pending actions into one case.  The
Company filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint on
June 6, 2016.

Subsequent to the closing of fact discovery, plaintiffs filed their
second amended consolidated complaint on December 19, 2017 which
among other things named five new defendants.  On January 2, 2018,
defendants filed their answer to the second amended consolidated
complaint.

Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment was filed on
January 12, 2018, and on January 16, 2018 the plaintiffs filed for
motion for class certification.  Defendants' motion for partial
summary judgment was granted by the District Court on May 2, 2018,
which held that all claims prior to March 11, 2005 have been
dismissed as well as dismissing three individual defendants from
action.

On June 27, 2018, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

An additional motion for partial summary judgment was filed by
defendants on October 5, 2018.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. operates as the holding company for SunTrust
Bank that provides various financial services for consumers,
businesses, corporations, and institutions in the United States.
It operates through two segments, Consumer and Wholesale.  SunTrust
Banks, Inc. was founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.


SUPERCUTS INC: Martinez Suit Moved to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
Katherine Martinez, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Supercuts, Inc., doing
business as: Encinitas Ranch Supercuts, and Does 1-20, Inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. 37-02018-00046589-CU-NP-CTL, was removed
to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego) on Nov. 2, 2018. The Southern District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-02519-DMS-LL to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dana M. Sabraw.

Supercuts is a hair salon franchise with more than 2,400 locations
across the United States. The company was founded in the San
Francisco Bay Area in 1975, by Geoffrey M. Rappaport and Frank E.
Emmett. The company's first location was in Albany, California. Its
headquarters are in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ml@kazlg.com

Attorneys for Supercuts, Inc.:

          Christopher M. Young, Esq.
          DLA PIPER US
          401 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101-4297
          Telephone: (619) 699-2700
          Facsimile: (619) 699-2701
          E-mail: christopher.young@dlapiper.com

SYNERGY PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Consolidated Class Suit in NY
------------------------------------------------------------
Synergy Pharmaceuticals 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
faces a consolidated class action suit related to the Company's
Term Loan from CRG Servicing, LLC and in connection with Trulance's
side-effect profile.

On February 8, 2018, a federal securities action, captioned David
Lee v. Synergy Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Two similar, related lawsuits—Eileen Countryman v. Synergy
Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. and Wendell Rose v. Synergy
Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. were subsequently filed in the same
court. On June 11, 2018, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
Countryman complaint.

On June 22, 2018, the court consolidated the remaining Lee and Rose
actions into a single action under the caption In re Synergy
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation. On August 31, 2018,
plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a consolidated amended
complaint that seeks to recover on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Synergy's common stock between November 10, 2016 and
November 13, 2017.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Company and
certain of its officers and directors made false and misleading
statements, including in connection with the Company's Term Loan
from CRG Servicing, LLC and in connection with Trulance's
side-effect profile. The consolidated amended complaint asserts
claims under the federal securities laws and seeks to recover
unspecified damages, legal fees, interest, and costs.

Synergy Pharmaceuticals Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development and commercialization of novel therapies to
treat gastrointestinal diseases and disorders. Synergy
Pharmaceuticals Inc. is headquartered in New York, New York.


TEREX CORP: Still Faces Sheet Metal Workers Pension Fund Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corporation still faces a consolidated class action suit by
Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis
Council Pension Fund, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018.

In 2010, the Company received complaints seeking certification of
class action lawsuits as follows:

   * A consolidated class action complaint for violations of
securities laws was filed in the United States District Court,
District of Connecticut on November 18, 2010 and is entitled Sheet
Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St.  Louis
Council Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et al.

   * A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April
12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of
Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf of
Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas J.
Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs,
William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J.
Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C. Wang,
and Terex Corporation.

These lawsuits generally cover the time period from February 2008
to February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of
the Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained
false and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when
they purchased the Company's securities and that there were
breaches of fiduciary duties.  The stockholder derivative complaint
also alleges waste of corporate assets relating to the repurchase
of the Company's shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a
result of securities sales by certain officers and directors.  The
complaints seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, costs and expenses.  As a result, the Company is unable to
estimate a possible loss or a range of losses for these lawsuits.
The stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to the
Company's corporate governance procedures in addition to
unspecified compensatory damages from the individual defendants in
its favor.

On March 31, 2018, the securities lawsuit was dismissed against all
of the named defendants except Mr. Riordan and Terex.  In addition,
certain claims were also narrowed.  However, as all claims against
Mr. Riordan were not dismissed, the case will continue against both
Mr. Riordan and as a result Terex as well.  The Company believes
that the remaining allegations in the securities suit and
allegations in the stockholder derivative claim are without merit,
and Terex and the named executive will vigorously defend against
them.  The Company believes that it has acted, and continues to
act, in compliance with federal securities laws and Delaware law
with respect to these matters.  However, the outcome of the
lawsuits cannot be predicted and, if determined adversely, could
ultimately result in the Company incurring significant
liabilities.

Terex Corporation manufactures and sells aerial work platforms,
cranes, and materials processing machinery worldwide. The company
operates through three segments: Aerial Work Platforms (AWP),
Cranes, and Material Processing (MP). Terex Corporation was founded
in 1925 and is based in Westport, Connecticut.


TERRAFORM POWER: 80,084 Shares Issued over Chamblee Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
TerraForm Power, 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
issued 80,084 shares of Class A common stock to Orion Holdings in
connection with the net losses incurred for final resolution of the
Chamblee Securities Class Action.

Pursuant to the definitive merger and sponsorship transaction
agreement (the "Merger Agreement") entered into with Orion Holdings
on March 6, 2017, the Company has agreed to issue additional shares
of Class A common stock to Orion Holdings for no additional
consideration in respect of the Company's net losses, such as
out-of-pocket losses, damages, costs, fees and expenses, in
connection with the obtainment of a final resolution of certain
specified litigation matters (being the Chamblee Class Action and
the litigation brought by the First Wind Sellers, Mr. Perez and Mr.
Domenech) within a prescribed period following the final resolution
of such matters.

The number of additional shares of Class A common stock to be
issued to Orion Holdings is subject to a pre-determined formula.
The issuance of additional shares to Orion Holdings would dilute
the holdings of the Company's common stockholders and may
negatively affect the value of the Company's common stock.

On August 3, 2018, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, the Company
issued 80,084 shares of Class A common stock to Orion Holdings in
connection with the net losses incurred for final resolution of the
Chamblee Securities Class Action. The net losses for the Chamblee
Class Action include the $1.1 million contributed by the Company to
the settlement but do not include the $13.6 million contributed by
the Company's insurers and certain attorneys' fees that TerraForm
Global, Inc. reimbursed to the Company pursuant to the insurance
allocation arrangements entered into with the Company in 2017.

TerraForm Power, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns and
operates clean power generation assets. The company was formerly
known as SunEdison Yieldco, Inc. and changed its name to TerraForm
Power, Inc. in May 2014. TerraForm Power, Inc. was founded in 2014
and is headquartered in New York, New York.


TOP CHOICE: Maldonado Seeks OT Pay for Caregivers
-------------------------------------------------
WALESKA MALDONADO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the PLAINTIFF, vs. TOP CHOICE HOME CARE LLC, the
DEFENDANT, Case No. 2:18-cv-04750-PD (E.D. Pa., Nov. 2, 2018),
seeks overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was an employee of
Defendant from on or about February 2015 to September 2018. The
Defendant is in the business of providing home care services to
elderly, disabled, and/or homebound individuals. As a home care
provider, Plaintiff was paid an hourly rate of $13.00. Collective
Plaintiffs typically and regularly worked in excess of forty hours
per workweek. The Plaintiff typically and regularly worked in
excess of forty hours per workweek. The amount of hours worked by
Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs were documented on timecards,
which were approved by Defendant.

For all of the hours that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours
per workweek, Plaintiff was not paid an overtime rate, but rather,
was paid the same rate of $13.00 per hour, pursuant to Defendant's
policy. For all of the hours that the Collective Plaintiffs worked
in excess of forty hours per workweek, the Collective Plaintiffs
were not paid an overtime rate, but rather, were paid their regular
hourly rate, pursuant to Defendant's policy.

Despite actual knowledge of the hours worked by Plaintiff and
Collective Plaintiffs, Defendant willfully failed to pay proper
overtime compensation as a matter of policy. Defendant's conduct of
failing to properly compensate Plaintiff and the Collective
Plaintiffs in accordance with the FLSA and PMWA was willful and not
in good faith, the lawsuit says.

Top Choice provides Companionship and Personal Care services in
Philadelphia.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Casey Reen, Esq.
          Colleen Heckman, Esq.
          SIDKOFF, PINCUS &GREEN, P.C.
          101 Market Street, Suite 2700
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 574-0600
          Facsimile: (215) 574-0310
          E-mail: cg@sidkoffpincusgreen.com
                  checkman@sidkoffpincusgreen.com

TOUITOU INC: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Touitou, Inc. The
case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Touitou, Inc. doing
business as: A.P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10366 (S.D. N.Y.,
Nov. 7, 2018).

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

Touitou, Inc. was founded in 1992. The company's line of business
includes the retail sale of men's and boys ready-to-wear clothing
and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRYKE COMPANIES: Hassen Sues over Unsolicited Text Ads
------------------------------------------------------
ED HASSEN, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. TRYKE COMPANIES, LLC, an
Arizona limited liability company, the Defendant, Case
2:18-cv-03725-JJT (D. Ariz., Nov. 2, 2018), seeks to stop the
Defendant from unlawfully sending unsolicited automated text
message advertisements to consumers' cellphones and to obtain
redress for all persons harmed by the Defendant's misconduct.

According to the complaint, the Defendant owns and operates a chain
of marijuana dispensaries located in Nevada and Arizona, which do
business under the name "Reef Dispensaries." In a misguided attempt
to promote its marijuana dispensaries and cannabis products,
Defendant has engaged in an invasive and unlawful form of
marketing: sending unsolicited advertisements en masse to
consumers' cellphones through automated "spam" text message calls.


By making these unsolicited, automated text message calls, the
Defendant has violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act as
well as consumers' privacy rights.  The Defendant's conduct has
thus caused actual, concrete harm to Plaintiff and other consumers,
not only because they were subjected to the aggravation and
invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies unsolicited,
automated text messages -- particularly text messages containing
unsolicited advertisements -- but also because consumers like
Plaintiff frequently have to pay their cellphone service providers
for the receipt of such text messages, even though the messages
were sent without authorization and in violation of federal law,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Scott I. Palumbo, Esq.
          PALUMBO WOLFE & PALUMBO, P.C.
          2800 N. Central Ave., Suite 1400
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 265-5777
          Facsimile: (602) 265-7222
          E-mail: pwsp@palumbowolfe.com

               - and -

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          Paul T. Geske, Esq.
          McGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  pgeske@mcgpc.com

UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Consolidated Amended Complaint Due Dec. 26
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ubiquiti Networks, 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 deadline for
the lead plaintiff to file an amended and consolidated complaint is
December 26, 2018.

On February 21, 2018, a purported class action, captioned Paul
Vanderheiden v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-01620
(the "Vanderheiden Action"), was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers.

The Vanderheiden Action complaint alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and/or
misleading statements, including purported overstatements of the
Company’s online community user engagement metrics and accounts
receivable.

On February 28, 2018 and March 13, 2018, substantially similar
purported class actions, captioned Xiya Qian v. Ubiquiti Networks,
Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-01841 (the “Qian Action”) and John Kho
v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-02242 (the "Kho
Action", together with the Vanderheiden Action and the Qian Action,
the "Class Actions"), respectively, were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On October 24, 2018, the court consolidated the Class Actions and
appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel (the "Consolidated Class
Action"). The deadline for lead plaintiff to file an amended and
consolidated complaint (the "Amended Complaint") is December 26,
2018. Defendants will have 60 days from the date on which the
Amended Complaint is filed in which to respond.

While the Company believes that the Consolidated Class Action is
without merit and plans to vigorously defend itself, there can be
no assurance that the Company will prevail. The Company cannot
currently estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any,
that it may experience in connection with this litigation.

Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. develops networking technology for service
providers, enterprises, and consumers. It focuses on three
principal technologies, including high-capacity distributed
Internet access, unified information technology, and consumer
electronics for home and personal use. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. was
incorporated in 2003 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


UDR INC: Faces Diaz Suit Over ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against UDR, Inc. The case is
styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UDR, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10343
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 7, 2018).

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

UDR, Inc., an S&P 500 company, is a multifamily real estate
investment trust.[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



UNION SQUARE: Nixon Files ADA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Union Square
Ventures, LLC. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Union
Square Ventures, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06341 (E.D. N.Y.,
Nov. 7, 2018).

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

Union Square Ventures is a private equity and venture capital firm
specializing in early stage, growth capital, late stage, and
startup financing. The firm is stage-agnostic focusing on stages
from web delivered technology startups to late stage
investments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED SERVICE: Shortchanges Workers on Wages, Boyzo Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elvia Garcia Boyzo, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. United Service
Companies, Inc., United Temps, Inc., United Maintenance Company,
Inc. and Richard Simon, individually, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-06854, (N.D. Ill., October 12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages for all time worked in excess of forty hours in
individual work weeks, liquidated damages, costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act and Illinois Day and Temporary Labor
Services Act.

Defendants operate as United Temps and United Services who employed
Boyzo as a day or temporary laborer assigned to work at various
client companies in Illinois, including numerous hotels in the
Chicago area. Plaintiff claims that her hours were reduced and her
hourly rate of pay fell below the federal and state minimum wage
rates. United also failed to provide employment notices at the time
of dispatch, says the Plaintiff. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
      WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, PC
      53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Tel: (312) 795-9121

             - and -

      Lydia Colunga-Merchant, Esq.
      Javier Castro, Esq.
      RAISE THE FLOOR ALLIANCE – LEGAL DEPT.
      1 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1275
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 795-9115
      Email: lcmerchant@raisetheflooralliance.org


VERSANI V: Violates Disabilities Act, Dominguez Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Yovanny Dominguez has filed a class action lawsuit against Versani
V, LTD. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Versani V,
LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10305 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 6, 2018).

Dominguez filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Versani offers exclusive, unique and delicate jewelry handcrafted
in NYC.[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


VITAL PHARMA: Barker Disputes Energy Drink Nutritional Value
------------------------------------------------------------
Terrell Barker, an individual and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-06898, (N.D. Ill., October 12, 2018) brings claims
for fraud, unjust enrichment and breach of express warranty under
the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and various state consumer fraud
acts.

Vital Pharmaceuticals operates as VPX Sports, a manufacturer of
nutritional supplements including, but not limited to the BANG (R)
product line. Barker disputes the Defendant's claimed nutritional
value for the product as represented in its label but not backed up
by an independent laboratory testing. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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

             - and -

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


WILLIE LAMAR: Class of Employees Certified in Haynes FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Tilman E. Self, III, grants the Plaintiff's Motion to
Certify Class in the lawsuit styled JIMMY HAYNES, on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated v. WILLIE LAMAR BLOCK & BRICK
CONSTRUCTION; and WILLIE J. LAMAR, Case No. 5:17-cv-00442-TES (M.D.
Ga.).

The Court reiterates, however, that this grant is conditional and
the Class may be decertified if further discovery produces grounds
to do so.

The Fair Labor Standards Act action arises out of the Plaintiff's
past employment relationship with Willie Lamar Block & Brick
Construction, a corporation owned by Defendant Willie Lamar.  The
substance of the Plaintiff's Complaint is that the Company failed
to pay him and similarly situated employees time-and-a-half pay for
hours worked over 40 in a week in violation of the FLSA.

After initiating this action, the Plaintiff filed the instant
Motion for Conditional Certification with a proposed notice and
declarations from the Plaintiff and Reginald Grant, a labor mason
employed by the Company, affirming the general allegations of the
Plaintiff's Complaint.  Subsequently, the Plaintiff submitted a
Notice of Filing of Consent to Join Collective Action accompanied
by two Consents to Join signed by Allen Marcus and Jeffrey Hill,
both of whom allege an employment history with the Company.

After reviewing the Parties' submissions, the Court concludes that
the Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence to justify
conditional certification.[CC]


WISE STAFFING: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, King Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHAMEYER MONIQUE KING, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WISE STAFFING SERVICES, INC. D/B/A WISE
STAFFING GROUP, AND EPSCO, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-01731-TMP (N.D.
Ala., October 19, 2018), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay
the Plaintiff and others proper overtime compensation pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Wise Staffing Services, Inc., doing business as Wise Staffing
Group, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the state of Mississippi.  Wise Staffing Group is actively doing
business in the state of Alabama, providing staffing services
either directly and/or through or as Epsco Staffing, Inc., to
various businesses in Alabama.

Espco, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the state of Alabama.  Epsco is actively doing business in
Alabama, providing staffing services either directly and/or through
or as Wise Staffing Group to various businesses in Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON+JACKSON
          2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 414-7467
          Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
          E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net


WOODGRAIN MILLWORK: Johnson Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Johnson, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Woodgrain Millwork, Inc., Case No.
3:18-cv-01314 (M.D. Fla., November 6, 2018), seeks damages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act for the Defendant's failure to pay
overtime wages.

The Plaintiff allege that the Defendant knew of the overtime
requirements of the FLSA and intentionally failed to investigate
whether their payroll practices were in accordance with the FLSA.

The Plaintiff Jonathan Johnson is a resident of Duval County,
Florida and began working for the Defendant as a field service
representative in June 2017.

The Defendant Woodgrain Millwork is a molding and millwork
manufacturer in Lawrenceville, in Gwinnett County, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donna V. Smith, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
      1110 North Florida Avenue, Ste 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Tel: (813) 224-0431
      Fax: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com


YELP INC: Bid to Dismiss California Class Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Yelp 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 U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California overseeing a putative class
action lawsuit has held a hearing on the motion to dismiss the
case, and has not yet issued a ruling.

In January 2018, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants the Company and certain of its officers.

The complaint, which the plaintiff amended on June 25, 2018,
alleges violations of the Exchange Act by the Company and its
officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements regarding its business and operations on February 9,
2017. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

On August 2, 2018, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court held a hearing
on the motion on September 20, 2018 and has not yet issued a
ruling.

Yelp said, "Due to the preliminary nature of this lawsuit, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate either the probability of
incurring a loss or an estimated range of such loss, if any, from
the lawsuit."

Yelp Inc. operates a platform that connects people with local
businesses in the United States, Canada, and internationally. The
company's platform covers various local business categories,
including restaurants, shopping, beauty and fitness, arts,
entertainment and events, home and local services, health,
nightlife, travel and hotel, auto, and others. Yelp Inc. was
founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


ZOE'S KITCHEN INC: Calcagno Files Suit Over Sale to Cava Group
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jo-Ann Calcagno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Zoe's Kitchen, Inc., Greg Dollarhyde,
Thomas Baldwin, Sue Collyns, Cordia Harrington, Kevin Miles and
Alec Taylor, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01571, (D. Del., October
11, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in
concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the
acquisition of Zoe's Kitchen, Inc. by Cava Group, Inc. and Pita
Merger Sub, Inc.; rescinding it in the event defendants consummate
the merger; rescissory damages; costs of this action; including
reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees
and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

Zoe's Kitchen stockholders will receive $12.75 in cash for each
share of common stock they hold.

The proxy statement omitted the analyses performed by the company's
financial advisor, Piper Jaffray & Co. including discounted cash
flow analysis. The company also entered into a confidentiality
agreements that prevented counterparties from requesting waivers of
standstill provisions to submit superior offers to acquire the
Zoe's Kitchen.

Zoe's Kitchen is a fast-casual restaurant group serving
Mediterranean-inspired dishes with 261 locations in twenty states
across the United States. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800
      Email: rm@maniskas.com



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***