CAR_Public/181121.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, November 21, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 233

                            Headlines

3M CO: Napoli Shkolnik Files Class Action Over PFAS Contamination
3M CO: Parchment Residents Join PFAS Contamination Suit
62ND & 1ST: Diaz Files ADA Suit in New York
ABC GLOBAL SYSTEMS: Fabricant Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
ACE DESIGN: Abante Rooter Sues Over TCPA Violation

AMAZON.COM DEDC: Hargrett Seeks Final Approval of $5-Mil. Accord
AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Pincus Moves to Certify Red Light Violators Class
ANGIE'S LIST: Court Grants Dismissal Bid on KCPA Suit
ARIZONA: Dismissal of Suit Over ARS ID Cards Fees Affirmed
AVIVA LONDON: Griffiths Suit Settlement Has Final Approval

AVM ENTERPRISES: Gorss Moves for Class Certification Under TCPA
BA&SH AMERICA: Figueroa Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
BANK OF AMERICA: Perez Sues Over Erroneous Credit Reports
BAR 20: Court Denies Prelim Approval of Maciel Suit Settlement
BBVA COMPASS: Appeal in Plains All American Pipeline Suit Ongoing

BBVA COMPASS: Bellissimo Case Settlement Wins Initial Approval
BBVA COMPASS: BSI Still Defends Suit by Firefighters Pension Trust
BBVA COMPASS: Still Defends Hossfeld TCPA Class Action
BEEKMAN ROOFTOP: Violates ADA, Diaz Suit Alleges
BENEFICIAL BANCORP: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action

BIRD: Updated User Agreements Following Scooter Class Action
BLACK SEED: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BOGNER DIRECT US: Faces Nixon ADA Class Action in New York
BOKF NA: Johnson Appeals N.D. Texas Decision to Fifth Circuit
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC: Faces $1-Bil. Class Action Over Rate Hikes

CANADA: B.C. Social Worker Faces Class Action Over Alleged Fraud
CAPITAL MGMT: Bid to Strike Affirmative Defenses in Diaz Denied
CAPITAL ONE: Perez Files Suit Over Erroneous Credit Reports
CEMPRA INC: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Securities Suit Dismissal
CENTRAL CREDIT: Weber Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in "Strauch"
CPC LOGISTICS: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Tonge FCRA Suit
DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Daves Appeals N.D. Texas Decision to 5th Cir.
DANIEL WELLINGTON: Figueroa Files Suit in NY for ADA Breach
DETROIT, MI: Certification of Arrestees Class Sought in "Turner"

DGNY GROUP: Cun Labor Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
EDDIE BAUER: Violates Disabilities Act, Figueroa Suit Says
ELTMAN ELTMAN: Godson FDCPA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
ENVISION: Monteverde Wins Lead Class Action Counsel Appointment
EVOQUA WATER: Jan. 7 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

FAF INC: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in Blodgett Suit
FRANKLIN COUNTY, MA: Court Modifies Class Definition in Reid Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Denies Bosch's Bid to Dismiss Counts Suit
GENERAL NUTRITION: Kaskorsis Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Talks
GENESEO, IL: Dismissal of Dawson Suit with Prejudice Affirmed

GREG STEPHEN: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Video Recording
HECLA MINING: Bid to Consolidate Merger-Related Suit Underway
HONEYWELL INT'L: Levi Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
HOTELS.COM LP: Little Rock May Join Sales Tax Class Suit
IMS VACATIONS: Gilchrist Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts

INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit From Students From Foster, Mcnutt
KANIS ESTATES: Butler Labor Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
KC WELLNESS: Gottlieb Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
KERYX BIOPHARMA: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action

LUX COSMETIC: Court Denies Cert . Bid in Rivera Suit
LYFT: Drivers File Misclassification Class-Action Lawsuits
MCDONALD'S: Faces Class Action Over Happy Meal Marketing
MCDONALD'S: Judge Dismisses Quarter Pounder with Cheese Case
MDL 2104: Settles IKO Roofing Shingles Product Liability Suit

MDL 2804: West Virginia Attorneys Seek Class Certification
MM. LAFLEUR: Faces Class Suit in E.D.N.Y. for ADA Violation
NASHVILLE, TN: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Abriq Class Suit
NESTLE SA: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Slave Labor Suit
NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Law Officers Union Suit

NEW YORK: Judge Likely to Shoot Down NYCHA Residents' Suit
NEW YORK: Spence Appeals N.D.N.Y. Decision to Second Circuit
NIKE INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Gender, Pay Discrimination Case
OHIO: Sued for Violating Jailed Individuals' Right to Vote
OYSTER PROTOCOL: Investors to Sue Over Pump and Dump Scheme

PETERSON ENTERPRISES: Bid to Dismiss Patterson FDCPA Claim Denied
PGA INC: Summary Judgment Bid in Schilling FLSA Suit Partly Granted
PHILIPPE NYC: Diaz Sues Restaurant for ADA Violation
PIPELINE PRODUCTIONS: Settlement in Music Festival Suit Reached
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Michigan Court Dismisses White FDCPA Suit

RAWSON-NEAL: Damages Awarded in Class-Action
REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in ES Class Suit
REVERSE MORTGAGE: Lavis Appeals S.D.W. Va. Decision to 4th Cir.
RIVERSIDE RESORT: Norsoph Class Has Conditional Certification
SANTA FE COUNTY, NM: Bid to Reconsider Dismissal Bid Denial Junked

SATURDAYS SURF: Nixon Sues Clothing Store for ADA Violation
SEI OUNG YOON: Feliciano Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SINEMIA INC: Faces Baird Class Suit in Delaware
SONIYA HOTEL: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Balczyrak-Lichosyt Suit
STE-ANNE'S HOSPITAL: Veteran Seeks Class Action

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bernstein Litowitz Files Class Action Suit
TALKING RAIN: Augustine Files Suit Over False and Misleading Labels
TENNESSEE: Seeks 6th Circuit Review of Ruling in Robinson Suit
TEXAS AUTO: Bollier Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
TREADWELL PARK: Violates ADA, Diaz Suit Alleges

TRIPLE CANOPY: Gaines Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
UNITED STATES: Jalbert Seeks Review of Ruling in Suit vs. SEC
UPMC JAMESON: Class Action Lawsuit Planned
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Court Certifies Class in Cassell ERISA Suit
VOLKSWAGEN AG: German Consumer Group Files Class Action

WARREN, MI: $750K NILI 2011 Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
WASHINGTON: Court Stays Proceedings in Schumacher Suit
WOOLRICH INC: Faces Nixon Class Action in NY
XOOM ENERGY: Mirkin Appeals Suit Dismissal to Second Circuit
ZOE'S KITCHEN INC: Connole Seeks to Halt Sale to Cava Group


                            *********

3M CO: Napoli Shkolnik Files Class Action Over PFAS Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC has filed a class action lawsuit against five
manufacturers of aqueous firefighting foams ("AFFF") containing
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") and perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") for the contamination of the groundwater relied upon
Dutchess County and seeks to certify a class to represent all water
providers in the State of New York that have been impacted by these
dangerous chemicals. The class action complaint was filed in the
Dutchess County Supreme Court.

The complaint was filed on October 12, 2018 and names the 3M
Company, Tyco Fire Products L.P., Buckeye Fire Equipment Company,
National Foam, Inc. and Chemguard Inc. as the defendants who
manufactured the aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) that was used at
airports across the state, including the Hudson Valley Regional
Airport, that contaminated the groundwater. The lawsuit alleges
that the manufacturers knew of the toxic nature of PFOA and PFOS,
that it does not biodegrade, and would inevitably contaminate
groundwater when released into the environment through training, or
other spills and releases.

Studies have shown an association between increased PFOA and PFOS
blood levels and an increased risk for several health effects,
including effects on the liver and the immune system, high
cholesterol, high blood pressure, changes in thyroid hormone, as
well as kidney, prostate and testicular cancers.

"The insidious nature of these chemicals was well known to these
defendants for 50 years. They should have warned our communities
long ago," said Paul Napoli, Of Counsel for the firm. "From the
heart of the Hudson Valley, we are holding these corporations
responsible for the disastrous, widespread contamination they have
caused to the State by introducing these chemicals into the
environment and putting profits above public health and safety," he
added.

         Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
         Napoli Shkolnik PLLC
         Telephone: (212) 397-1000
         Website: www.NapoliLaw.com
         Email: PNapoli@NapoliLaw.com [GN]


3M CO: Parchment Residents Join PFAS Contamination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Bryce Huffman, writing for Michigan Radio, reports that residents
of a town near Kalamazoo join a federal class action lawsuit
against 3M and Georgia-Pacific over PFAS contamination.

The lawsuit alleges that both companies played a role in the high
levels of industrial chemicals that were discovered in the city of
Parchment's municipal water in July.

Nick Coulson, Esq. an attorney with Liddle & Dubin P.C. which is
the firm that filed the lawsuit, says a group of Parchment
residents told the firm about the issue.

"Three of our clients who are seeking to represent a class of
everybody that was serviced by Parchment's water system at the time
that the contamination was detected," Coulson said.

The three plaintiffs, David Dykehouse, Kristina Boskovich, and
Elizabeth Hamblin are all Parchment city residents who were exposed
to the polluted water. It was first publically considered unsafe to
drink in July, when a State of Emergency was declared to handle the
water situation.

Coulson doesn't expect either company to respond with statements or
by filing motions to dismiss the suit anytime soon.

"The service just went out and so they have a couple months before
they have to respond to the complaint," he said.

Karen Cole, a spokeswoman for Georgia-Pacific, made it clear that
the company never owned or operated the former paper mill that the
state says is the source of the contamination. But Georgia-Pacific
does have corporate ties to the owners, which is why it is named in
the suit.

Cole also says the company is cooperating with state officials.

"Georgia-Pacific did enter into an agreement with [The Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality] to close the landfill, which
we did to the satisfaction of the state," she said in a written
statement.

More from the statement:

"It's important to keep in mind that at the present time, there is
no direct link between the city of Parchment's municipal wells and
the former Crown Vantage landfill.  Georgia-Pacific is currently
working with the state on a hydrogeological study of the area
around these wells.  The study will help the state better
understand groundwater flows in the area and potentially identify
possible sources of the contamination in the wells."

3M manufactured products using PFAS chemicals for decades that have
been found at high levels in Parchment, and at several sites across
the state. Representatives from 3M couldn't be reached for
comment.[GN]


62ND & 1ST: Diaz Files ADA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 62nd &1st LLC. The
case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 62nd & 1st LLC doing business as:
Sugar East, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10408 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 8,
2018).

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

Sugar East NYC, is a Restaurant, Bar & Lounge with designs that are
reminiscent of a NYC Speakeasy. It is one of only eight bars where
the customers can still smoke legally indoors. An outdoor cigar
lounge is also located on the rooftop of the restaurant.[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


ABC GLOBAL SYSTEMS: Fabricant Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABC Global Systems, Inc. and Does
1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-08787 (C.D.
Cal., October 12, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory
damages, treble damages and all other relief for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

ABC Global Systems, a credit card processing and small business
financing company, attempted to contact Fabricant on his mobile
phone using an automatic telephone dialing system offering its
services. He incurs a charge for incoming calls. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (877) 206-4741
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            mgeorge@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com
            twheeler@toddflaw.com


ACE DESIGN: Abante Rooter Sues Over TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ace Design & Construction,
Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-06811 (N.D. Cal., November 9, 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.

The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place
its calls to Plaintiff seeking to sell or solicit its business
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 its cellular
telephones. Plaintiff requested numerous times that Defendant stop
calling Plaintiff but despite such requests, Defendant continued to
call Plaintiff's cellular telephone, says the complaint.

Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc. is a corporation of the State of
California, whose principal place of business is in the county of
Alameda.

Ace Design & Construction, Inc., is a construction company
specializing in hotel construction.

Doe Defendants 1 through 10, inclusive, are currently unknown to
Plaintiff, who therefore sues such Defendants by fictitious
names.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMAZON.COM DEDC: Hargrett Seeks Final Approval of $5-Mil. Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuits titled DONOVAN
HARGRETT, et al. v. AMAZON.com DEDC LLC, Case No.
8:15-cv-02456-WFJ-AAS, and MICHAEL AUSTIN, et al. v. AMAZON.com
DEDC LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-2588-T-26JSS (M.D. Fla.), seek final
approval of the Settlement Agreement between Class Representatives,
the classes, and the Defendant.

On July 17, 2018, the Court granted the Parties' Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the class-wide settlement of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act claims asserted against the Defendant.  Notice
was sent to Class Members and the reaction to the Settlement is
overwhelmingly positive.  Not a single objection has been made to
the Settlement reached with Defendant, and only 75 requests for
exclusion were received while nearly 7,000 people chose to make a
claim.

The Settlement resolves the claims of one class and one subclass,
both of which stretch nationwide.  In total, class members will
recover $879,525, the maximum of such payments being over the
low-end of the range of FCRA damages available, without having to
show that the Defendant willfully violated the FCRA.  The
Disclosure Form Settlement Class consists of all individuals in the
United States who (a) applied online for work at Amazon or its
affiliates using the Salesforce platform; (b) were the subject of a
consumer report that was procured by Amazon (or caused to be
procured by Amazon); (c) to whom Amazon presented the Disclosure
Form filed as ECF No. 119-8; (d) from August 22, 2015 through the
date of preliminary approval.  The Disclosure Form Settlement Class
consists of approximately 454,000 individuals.

The Adverse Action Class, which is comprised of individuals also in
the Disclosure Form Settlement Class, includes all Disclosure Form
Class Members (a) as to whom Amazon took an adverse employment
action; (b) based in whole or in part on the contents of any
consumer report; (c) from August 22, 2015 through the date of
preliminary approval.  The Adverse Action Settlement Class consists
of an estimated 29,000 individuals.

If final approval is granted, the settlement would require Amazon
to create a settlement fund of up to $5,000,000.  The Settlement
Fund will be distributed pro rata in the form of an Amazon gift
card to each member of the Settlement Classes, who did not validly
and timely opt-out of the Settlement Class and who submits a valid
claim form.

Class Members' distributions are capped at $125 for the Disclosure
Form Settlement Class, and $150 for the Adverse Action Class.
Apart from Notice and Administrative Costs, all costs, expenses,
fees, relief, and/or any payments of any kind in connection with or
associated with this Settlement shall be paid from the Settlement
Fund.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven G. Wenzel, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: swenzel@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com


AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Pincus Moves to Certify Red Light Violators Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled STEVEN J. PINCUS, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS, INC., a Kansas corporation, Case No.
9:18-cv-80864-DMM (S.D. Fla.), seeks certification of a class
defined as:

     All persons who paid the $158 civil penalty along with an
     additional fee to American Traffic Solutions, Inc. in
     connection with a Notice of Violation for an alleged
     photo-enforced red light violation in Florida during the
     four-year period prior to the filing of the complaint in
     this action through the date of certification.

Mr. Pincus also asks the Court to appoint him and his counsel as
class representative and class counsel.

ATS is a government contractor in the business of operating
so-called "road safety cameras" for governments throughout North
America.  In 2008, ATS began contracting with local governments in
Florida to operate their socalled "photo-enforced" red light
programs.  One of ATS's responsibilities in this role is to accept
civil penalty payments from alleged violators of photo-enforced red
lights, and then forward those payments to the appropriate
government body.

For years, ATS has systematically abused this position to
unlawfully impose and collect a surcharge on civil penalty payments
made by Floridians photographed running red lights, the Plaintiff
alleges.  He adds that ATS collects these surcharges for its own
profit, even though it is separately paid for its services under
its contracts with local governments.  As these surcharges are
illegal under Florida law, this action seeks to return the sums
unlawfully collected to the putative class.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANGIE'S LIST: Court Grants Dismissal Bid on KCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas issued
a Memorandum and Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint in the case captioned STEVE
STRAUSS d/b/a CLASSIC TREE CARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ANGIE'S
LIST, INC., Defendant. Case No. 2:17-CV-02560-HLT-TJJ. (D. Kan.)

Before the Court is the Defendant's motion seeking dismissal of
Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint for failure to state a claim
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Plaintiff Steve Strauss filed this putative class action against
Defendant Angie's List, Inc. asserting violations of the Lanham Act
and the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA). The claims hinge on
allegations Defendant routinely engages in false advertising and
deceptive trade practices through statements published on its
website and other forms of media.

First, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff Strauss cannot establish at
least one essential element of his Lanham Act false advertising
claim because the representations on which Plaintiff Strauss's
claims are based do not constitute commercial advertising or
promotion.

Second, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff Strauss cannot establish
his KCPA claims because he has not plausibly pled the essential
elements of reliance or causation.

Third, Defendant asserts as an affirmative defense that Plaintiff
Strauss's Lanham Act and KCPA claims are all time-barred the Lanham
Act claims by the doctrine of laches and the KCPA claims by the
applicable statute of limitations.

Standard of Review

Under Rule 12(b)(6), to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. The plaintiff's
claim is facially plausible if he pleads sufficient factual content
to allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility
standard requires more than a sheer possibility that a defendant
has acted unlawfully but is not akin to a probability requirement.

Affirmative Defenses of Laches and Statute of Limitations

Defendant contends Plaintiff Strauss's Lanham Act and KCPA claims
under the Original Complaint are time-barred the Lanham Act claims
under a laches theory and the KCPA claims by the applicable statute
of limitations.

Plaintiff Strauss's Lanham Act Claims

Count I of the Original Complaint alleges Defendant engaged in
false advertising in violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
Section 43(a) imposes liability against any individual or entity
who in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the
nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographical origin of his
or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial
activities.

To determine whether laches applies to bar Plaintiff Strauss's
Lanham Act claims, the Court must:

(1) identify the most analogous state statute of limitations; (2)
determine whether Plaintiff Strauss's Lanham Act claims were filed
before or after the expiration of the applicable limitations period
(3) determine whether a presumption in favor of or against
application of laches exists and (4) in light of the presumption or
lack thereof, determine whether there was a lack of diligence by
Plaintiff Strauss in filing suit that has resulted in prejudice to
Defendant. Each of these issues is addressed in turn below.

Determination of the Analogous State Statute of Limitations

Determination of Whether Plaintiff Strauss's Lanham Act Claims were
Filed Before or After the Expiration of the Applicable Limitations
Period

Plaintiff Strauss filed his Original Complaint on September 22,
2017. Based on that filing date, the look-back period for Kansas's
two-year fraud statute of limitations is September 22, 2015,
assuming Plaintiff Strauss had suffered ascertainable injury at
that time.  

Defendant's Alleged Misrepresentations to Consumers Regarding
Rankings of Service Providers within

Search Results on its Website

Plaintiff Strauss has been aware of the ability of service
providers to manipulate their placement within search results on
Defendant's website since 2005. This is plain from the allegations
of his Original Complaint. Plaintiff Strauss was not only aware of
Defendant's practice of placing advertising (fee-paying) service
providers higher in search results, he personally took advantage of
the practice from 2005 to 2016 by engaging Defendant's advertising
services.  

The fact that Plaintiff Strauss only became disgruntled about the
practice after he elected to stop advertising with Defendant does
not alter the conclusion as to when the alleged damages were
ascertainable. Plaintiff Strauss also seeks damages for the period
of 2013 to 2016, based on allegations Defendant intentionally but
unjustifiably buried" him within search results during this time
period. The allegations of Plaintiff Strauss's Original Complaint
make clear Plaintiff Strauss was aware this was occurring as early
as 2013. These damages were also reasonably ascertainable before
September 22, 2015.

Defendant's Alleged False Statements of Fact about Plaintiff
Strauss on its Website

Plaintiff Strauss also alleges damages arising out of statements of
fact Defendant published on its website about Plaintiff Strauss as
a service provider. For a three-month period in 2013, Defendant
removed Plaintiff Strauss from its website entirely and falsely
conveyed to consumers that Plaintiff Strauss either had not met the
requisite qualifications to appear on Defendant's website or had no
ratings or reviews. The reason for this publication is in dispute,
but the period during which it occurred is not. Any damages
resulting from this statement on Defendant's website displayed for
three months in 2013 were reasonably ascertainable well before
September 22, 2015.

Plaintiff Strauss cannot claim he delayed in filing because he was
unaware of Defendant's practices. He has been aware of Defendant's
practices for more than a decade before the filing of this lawsuit.
He was not only aware of Defendant's business practices, he took
advantage of them by entering into advertising agreements with
Defendant dating back to 2005 in a concerted effort to improve his
placement in search results on Defendant's website. And the fact
that he only recently terminated his relationship with Defendant in
2016 does not excuse more than a decade of having slumbered on his
rights.

Plaintiff Strauss's KCPA Claims

Plaintiff Strauss also asserts a claim for unfair, deceptive, or
unconscionable acts or practices in violation of sections 4 and 5
of KCPA. KCPA imposes liability against suppliers that engage in
any deceptive or unconscionable act or practice in connection with
a consumer transaction. Unlike the Lanham Act, there is a specific
statute of limitations that applies to KCPA claims. KCPA has a
three-year statute of limitations, which starts running with the
occurrence of the alleged conduct constituting the violation, not
the discovery of the violations. The Court therefore calculates the
look-back period for this statute of limitations as September 22,
2014 three years before the filing of the Original Complaint.

The same factual allegations that underlie Plaintiff Strauss's
Lanham Act claims support his KCPA claims. And the one-year
difference between the look-back period for Plaintiff Strauss's
KCPA and Lanham Act claims does not alter the Court's conclusion.
Plaintiff Strauss's KCPA claims are time-barred, with the exception
of those claims based on the 2016 Website Statements.

Failure to Plausibly Plead an Essential Element of Each Remaining
Claim

Plaintiff Strauss's only remaining claims that are not time-barred
are those based on the 2016 Website Statements. Defendant also
seeks dismissal of Plaintiff Strauss's Lanham Act and KCPA claims
on the merits, arguing Plaintiff Strauss has failed to plausibly
plead one or more essential elements of his Lanham Act and KCPA
claims. The Court agrees. Plaintiff Strauss's remaining claims do
not plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief under either
the Lanham Act or KCPA.

Plaintiff Strauss's Remaining Lanham Act Claims

To state a claim for false advertising under the Lanham Act, a
plaintiff must plead the following elements:

(1) that defendant made material false or misleading
representations of fact in connection with the commercial
advertising or promotion of its product; (2) in commerce; (3) that
are either likely to cause confusion or mistake as to (a) the
origin, association or approval of the product with or by another,
or (b) the characteristics of the goods or services; and (4)
[injury to] the plaintiff.

Defendant argues Plaintiff has failed to plead the required
elements in multiple respects, but relevant to the Court's analysis
is the requirement within the first element that the
representations made by the defendant be in connection with
commercial advertising or promotion.

Plaintiff Strauss, on the other hand, argues it is sufficient that
the 2016 Website Statements influenced consumers to buy goods or
services from other tree care businesses. And because Defendant
received referral fees from those other tree care businesses in the
form of advertising fees or coupon retention percentages, Defendant
is an actual competitor of Plaintiff Strauss or, at the very least,
within the zone-of-interests the Lanham Act is intended to protect,
as stated by the Supreme Court in Lexmark International, Inc. v.
Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014).  

The parties in Lexmark were not direct competitors. Lexmark
manufactured and sold laser printers, as well as toner cartridges
for those printers. Static Control manufactured component parts
which it sold to companies that competed directly with Lexmark in
sales of replacement toner cartridges.  

Static Control's Lanham Act false advertising claim against Lexmark
was based on: (1) a statement printed on Lexmark's toner cartridge
packages that led consumers to believe they were legally required
to return used toner cartridges to Lexmark after a single use; and
(2) letters sent to toner cartridge remanufacturers falsely
advising them that it was illegal to sell refurbished toner
cartridges and, in particular, to use Static Control's component
parts in doing so. Static Control alleged these misrepresentations
proximately caused and were likely to cause injury to Static
Control by diverting sales from Static Control to Lexmark and had
substantially injured its business reputation.

The Supreme Court's decision in Lexmark did not, however, address
whether Lexmark's alleged representations constituted commercial
advertising or promotion sufficient to satisfy that element of a
Lanham Act false advertising claim. In fact, the Supreme Court
specifically noted that Lexmark contended Static Control's
allegations failed to describe commercial advertising or promotion'
within the meaning of the Lanham Act but that question was not
before the Supreme Court and it expressed no view on it. For
purposes of its analysis, the Supreme Court assumed without
deciding that the communications alleged by Static Control
qualif[ied] as commercial advertising or promotion.

Absent plausible allegations that Defendant's representations
influenced consumers to buy Defendant's goods or services,
Plaintiff Strauss cannot establish that those representations were
made in connection with the commercial advertising or promotion of
Defendant's goods or services.

He has failed to establish an essential element of his remaining
Lanham Act claims for false advertising and the allegations of his
Original Complaint do not plausibly give rise to an entitlement to
relief. Because Plaintiff Strauss has failed to plausibly allege an
essential element of his remaining, timely Lanham Act claims, they
are also dismissed.

Plaintiff Strauss's Remaining KCPA Claims

The upshot of Plaintiff Strauss's remaining KCPA claims, thus, is
that Defendant violated the KCPA by making the following false
representations on its website in 2016: (1) that Plaintiff Strauss
has no ratings or consumer reviews; (2) that Plaintiff Strauss has
not met certain criteria to be listed on Defendant's website; and
(3) that Plaintiff Strauss has no local offers to extend to
consumers. As noted above, Defendant seeks dismissal of these
claims because Plaintiff Strauss has not plausibly pled the
required elements of reliance or causation.

The Court agrees with Defendant.

To recover under KCPA, a plaintiff must establish a causal
connection between the alleged violation and the damages suffered.


Plaintiff Strauss has not alleged that he relied on the 2016
Website Statements to his detriment. To the contrary, he alleges he
knew they were false or misleading in every respect; rather, he
contends other consumers may have relied on the 2016 Website
Statements to their detriment.

Plaintiff Strauss has offered no authority and the Court finds none
that reliance by a third-party-consumer satisfies the causal
connection" requirement of a KCPA claim. Because Plaintiff Strauss
has not plausibly pled an essential element of his remaining,
timely KCPA claims, they are also dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s November 1, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc3x9jwg
from Leagle.com

Steve Strauss, doing business as Classic Tree Care, Plaintiff,
represented by Corbyn W. Jones , McDowell, Rice, Smith & Buchanan,
PC, James F.B. Daniels , McDowell, Rice, Smith & Buchanan, PC,
Michael J. Gorman , McDowell, Rice, Smith & Buchanan, PC & William
C. Odle , McDowell, Rice, Smith & Buchanan, PC, 605 W 47th St #350,
Kansas City, MO 64112

Angie's List, Inc., Defendant, represented by Franco A. Corrado --
franco.corrado@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, pro
hac vice, J. Gordon Cooney, Jr. -- gordon.cooney@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, pro hac vice, J. Kevin Fee --
kevin.fee@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, pro hac
vice, Lynn W. Hursh -- lhursh@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong
Teasdale LLP, Matthew R. Brunkhorst --
mbrunkhorst@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale, LLP,
Natalie M. Georges -- natalie.georges@morganlewis.com -- Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius, LLP, pro hac vice & Paul M. Croker --
pcroker@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale LLP.


ARIZONA: Dismissal of Suit Over ARS ID Cards Fees Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, YOLANDA DANIELS, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants/Appellees, Case No. 1 CA-CV 17-0466 (Ariz. App.), Judge
Paul J. McMurdie of the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One,
affirmed the superior court's judgment dismissing Cardholders
Daniels and Lisa Becker's action against the Defendants.

In 2010, Arizona voters enacted the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act,
Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 36-2801 to -2819.  The
Act provides that qualifying patients or their designated
caregivers may obtain a registry identification card from the
Department, and thereby acquire immunity from prosecution for the
acquisition, possession, and use of medical marijuana pursuant to
certain statutory conditions.

To comply with the constitutional mandate that voter initiatives
provide for an increased source of revenues sufficient to cover the
entire immediate and future costs of the proposal, the Act required
the Department to establish and enforce an application and renewal
fee scheme for registry identification cards.

On Nov. 4, 2016, the Cardholders filed a class action complaint
against the Defendants arguing the registry identification card
fees set by the Department were unlawfully excessive.  In their
complaint, the Cardholders alleged the $150 and $200 fees generated
revenues that far exceeded the amount necessary to administer the
Act's programs, created an unnecessary and wasteful fund surplus,
and the implemented fee scheme was designed to further restrict
access to medical marijuana.

The Cardholders sought two forms of relief from the court: (1)
non-statutory and statutory mandamus relief, under A.R.S. Sections
12-2021 and 36-2818(A) respectively, to compel the Defendants to
only charge patients and caregivers the fees necessary to
administer the Act's programs; and (2) a declaratory judgment
stating that the Defendants have violated the Act and the
Cardholders' rights thereunder.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Cardholders' action.  They
argued that the Cardholders had failed to demonstrate that they
were without another plain, adequate and speedy remedy at law as
required by A.R.S. Section 12-2021 for a non-statutory mandamus
action, and that the plain language of A.R.S. Section 36-2818(A)
did not authorize the Cardholders' claim for statutory mandamus
relief.  The Defendants also argued the alleged excessiveness of
the registry identification card fees was a nonjusticiable
political question.

The court agreed with the Defendants and dismissed the Cardholders'
action.  It concluded that the only way the Court could determine
what fee meets the sufficiency requirements of the Act and the
Constitution would be to take over the administration of the Act
from the Department.  The court entered a final judgment dismissing
the Cardholders' action with prejudice under Arizona Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b) (1) and 12(b)(6).

The Cardholders timely appealed from that judgment.  They assert
the superior court erred by denying their claim for non-statutory
mandamus relief, and concluding A.R.S. Section 36-2818(A) did not
authorize their claim for statutory mandamus relief.

In sum, Judge McMurdie can conceive of no judicially discoverable
and manageable standard by which a court could decide whether the
Department has exceeded its fee-setting authority under the Act.
As the superior court aptly observed, judicial review of this
question would, at best, result in improperly substituting our
judgment for that of the Department regarding a matter of public
policy.  The issue of whether the application and renewal fees for
registry identification cards exceed the Act's statutory authority
is thus a nonjusticiable political question.

His conclusion that the issue is nonjusticiable is not the same as
a determination that the registry identification card fees are
constitutional.  That determination would be a a decision on the
merits that reflects the exercise of judicial review, rather than
an abstention of judicial review.  Nor does his decision mean that
the Department is free from constitutional restraints in setting
fees now or in the future.  He holds only that he cannot review
whether the Department has exceeded the discretion granted to it by
the Act to set the fees for registry identification cards.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge McMurdie affirmed the judgment of
the superior court dismissing the Cardholders' action.  Because
they are the prevailing party, he awarded the Defendants their
costs on appeal upon compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil
Appellate Procedure 21.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 23, 2018 Memorandum Decision
is available at https://is.gd/Hk7tiK from Leagle.com.

Graif Barrett & Matura P.C., Phoenix, By Jeffrey C. Matura, Melissa
J. England, Tabitha R. Myers, Co-Counsel for
Plaintiffs/Appellants.

White Berberian P.L.C., Tempe, By Sean B. Berberian --
sberberian@wbazlaw.com -- Steven M. White -- swhite@wbazlaw.com --
Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants.

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix, By Aubrey Joy Corcoran,
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees.


AVIVA LONDON: Griffiths Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN W. GRIFFITHS, Plaintiff, v. AVIVA LONDON
ASSIGNMENT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 15-13022-NMG
(D. Mass.), Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts granted the Plaintiff's Motion
for Final Approval of Settlements and for Award of Attorney's Fees
and Expenses and Service Award.

Having preliminarily certified a Settlement Class for settlement
purposes only and appointed Class Counsel by Order on June 29,
2018, the Judge now granted final approval of the Settlement Class
as defined as all beneficiaries of structured settlement annuities
assigned to Athene London Assignment Corp. (formerly known as Aviva
London Assignment Corp. and as CGNU London Annuity Service Corp.),
which includes all annuities covered by the Capital Maintenance
Agreement between CGU International Insurance plc and CGNU London
Annuity Service Corp., dated Feb. 1, 2002, where such annuities
remained in force as of Oct. 2, 2013.

Any money remaining from the Settlement Amount and any Contingent
Settlement Payment, including any accrued interest thereon, after
the payments for administration costs, taxes, service award,
attorney's fees and expenses are made, will be distributed as
follows to the Class Members who have not excluded themselves from
the Settlement Class, provided that the payment to each such class
member will be equal to or greater than $10.

The Annuity Proportion will be calculated for each annuity by
dividing the premium paid for each annuity by the total premium
paid for all annuities assigned to Athene London Assignment
Corporation where such annuities remained in force as of Oct. 2,
2013.  The Annuity Recovery will be calculated for each annuity by
multiplying the Annuity Proportion by the Settlement Amount and any
Contingent Settlement Payment.  The Individual Recovery will be
calculated for each beneficiary of each annuity by dividing the
Annuity Recovery by the number of beneficiaries of that annuity
remaining in the Settlement Class.

Having foung that the interests of Greater Boston Legal Services is
reasonably approximate to the interests of the Settlement Class,
the Judge designated Greater Boston Legal Services as a cy pres
recipient and directed that it receive any funds remaining after
payments are made as set forth in the Settlement Agreements.

He directed that 1) the Class Counsel be awarded $4,155,123.27 in
fees plus reimbursement of attorney's litigation expenses of
$144,826.73; and 2) a service award in the amount of $25,000 should
be granted to John W. Griffiths, the Settlement Class
Representative.  The amount awarded as attorney's fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses will be paid from the Class
Settlement Fund and will be distributed in accordance with the
agreements entered into among the Class Counsel.

Finding that an individual service award to John W. Griffiths, the
Settlement Class Representative, of $25,000 for representing the
Class is warranted under the circumstances of the case, the Judge
approved such award.

Other than as set forth in the Order, the parties will bear their
own attorney's fees and costs.  The action is dismissed with
prejudice.

Consistent with the Settlement Agreements, if the Effective Dates
do not occur, or if for any other reason the Settlement Agreements
are terminated, disapproved or fail to become effective, the
parties will be deemed to have reverted to their respective status
in the action as of Sept. 19, 2017 and Dec. 22, 2017, which will
then resume proceedings in the Court, and, except as otherwise
provided in the Settlement Agreements, the parties will proceed in
all respects as if the Settlement Agreements, the Preliminary
Approval Order, the Order and any other related orders had not been
enteredSo ordered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 23, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/68O0QS from Leagle.com.

John W. Griffiths, Plaintiff, represented by Jerome M. Marcus --
info@marcusauerbach.com -- Marcus & Auerbach LLC, pro hac vice,
Jonathan Auerbach, Marcus & Auerbach LLC & Paul J. Klehm, Krasnoo
Klehm LLP.

Aviva London Assignment Corporation, Aviva Life Insurance Company,
Athene Holding, LTD, Athene London Assignment Corporation & Athene
Annuity and Life Company, Defendants, represented by Daniel C.
Craig -- DCRAIG@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice,
Hille R. Sheppard -- HSHEPPARD@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro
hac vice, Joel S. Feldman -- JFELDMAN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin,
LLP, pro hac vice, Jack W. Pirozzolo -- JPIROZZOLO@SIDLEY.COM --
Sidley Austin LLP & Kathryn Lundwall Alessi -- KALESSI@SIDLEY.COM
-- Sidley Austin LLP.

CGU International Insurance, plc, Defendant, represented by
Catherine Rebeca Jones -- catherine.jones@skadden.com -- Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Christopher G. Clark --
christopher.clark@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP, James R. Carroll -- james.carroll@skadden.com -- Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Michael S. Hines --
michael.hines@skadden.com -- kadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP.


AVM ENTERPRISES: Gorss Moves for Class Certification Under TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled GORSS MOTELS INC., a
Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons v. A.V.M. ENTERPRISES, INC.,
a Tennessee corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No.
3:17-cv-01078-KAD (D. Conn.), seeks an order certifying this
class:

     All persons or entities who were successfully sent a
     facsimile on or about June 15, 2015, and May 16, 2016
     stating: "May Savings, Amenities & More," and "Summer Sales
     - Make Us Your Bedding Supplier" identifying sales for
     bedding, can liners, air conditioners, and luggage carts.

Gorss Motels, Inc., brought this lawsuit alleging that the fax
broadcast advertisement it received from the Defendants violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

The Plaintiff also seeks an order from the Court appointing it as
class representative and appointing Ryan M. Kelly, Esq., of
Anderson + Wanca and Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq., of Bellin & Associates
as class counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plaines, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com


BA&SH AMERICA: Figueroa Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BA&SH America Corp.
The case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BA&SH America Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10411 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 8, 2018).

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

Ba&sh designs and manufactures apparel for women. Its products
include jackets and coats, knitwear, dresses, skirts and shorts,
tops and shirts, tee-shirts, pants and jeans, and accessories. The
company offers its products through stores in Africa, America,
Asia, Europe, and Oceania; and online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


BANK OF AMERICA: Perez Sues Over Erroneous Credit Reports
---------------------------------------------------------
William Perez Jr., Plaintiff, v. Bank of America Corporation
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02569-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal., November 8,
2018) seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant, in reporting erroneous negative and derogatory
information on Plaintiff's credit report.

Plaintiff brought this Complaint for damages arising out of the
systematic issuance of erroneous credit reports by Defendant, notes
the complaint. Defendant has erroneously reported continual monthly
payment obligations on accounts that have been closed and paid in
full, it adds.

Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in the City of San Diego,
County of San Diego, in the State of California.

Defendant is a corporation with its headquarters located in
Charlotte, North Carolina and authorized to do business in the
State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
     409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: (619) 222-7429
     Fax: (866) 431-3292
     Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


BAR 20: Court Denies Prelim Approval of Maciel Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE MACIEL and ELVIS BONILLA, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, and as "aggrieved employees" on
behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004, Plaintiffs, v. BAR 20 DAIRY, LLC, a
California limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00902-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.),
Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement.

Defendant Bar 20 engages in the business of dairy farming in
Kerman, California.  It employed the Plaintiffs as "milkers," whose
responsibilities included milking the cows, monitoring the health
conditions of the cows, maintaining and cleaning the corrals,
cleaning the farm, painting the scales, inseminating the cows,
delivering the calves, and assisting in the defendant's veterinary
clinic.

Plaintiff Maciel filed his original class action complaint against
the Defendant on Feb. 11, 2015 in Fresno County Superior Court,
alleging various labor violations under California law.  Plaintiff
Bonilla filed a separate class action complaint against the
Defendant on March 26, 2015, also alleging labor violations under
California law.  The parties in both actions agreed to attend a
global mediation with Hon. Howard R. Broadman (Ret.) on Nov. 9,
2015, and agreed to stay all formal discovery pending completion of
mediation.

At the mediation, the parties successfully reached a settlement.
As part of the settlement, the parties stipulated to permit
Plaintiffs Maciel and Bonilla to file a consolidated state court
action, which they did on April 14, 2016.   On April 27, 2016, the
Plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated complaint, presenting
the following causes of action: (i) failure to pay overtime; (ii)
failure to provide rest periods; (iii) failure to provide meal
periods; (iv) wage statement penalties; (v) waiting time penalties;
(vi) unfair competition; and (vii) civil penalties.

In orders dated June 7, 2016 and Aug. 31, 2016, the Fresno County
Superior Court expressed concerns about the settlement agreement.
The parties thereafter filed a renewed motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement, along with a second
amended joint stipulation of class action settlement and release.
On March 7, 2017, the Fresno County Superior Court denied
preliminary approval, again expressing concerns about the parties'
settlement agreement.

On April 14, 2017, the parties stipulated to the Plaintiffs' filing
of a fourth amended consolidated complaint, which incorporated an
additional claim that the Defendant had failed to pay wages as
required by and in violation of the Federal Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").  The Fresno County Superior Court approved the
stipulation, and on June 19, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the fourth
amended complaint which alleges eight causes of action: (i) failure
to provide rest breaks; (ii) failure to provide meal periods; (iii)
failure to pay overtime wages; (iv) wage statement penalties; (v)
waiting time penalties; (vi) violations of California Unfair
Competition Law; (vii) civil penalties; and (viii) failure to pay
wages in violation of the FLSA.

On July 10, 2017, the Defendant removed the action to the federal
court, asserting federal question jurisdiction based on the eighth
cause of action for failure to page wages in violation of the FLSA.


Thereafter, on Dec. 14, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed
motion to certify class for purposes of settlement and for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement.  At the April
5, 2018 hearing on the motion, Judge Drozd raised several concerns
regarding the proposed settlement.  The Plaintiffs requested leave
to file supplemental briefing to attempt to address the Court's
concerns, which the Court granted.  After granting them multiple
extensions of time in which to do so, the Plaintiffs filed their
supplemental memorandum in support of their motion to certify class
for purposes of settlement and for preliminary approval of class
action settlement on Aug. 28, 2018, as well as a Third Amended
Settlement.

Pursuant to the parties' Third Amended Settlement, the Plaintiffs
seek to represent a class, certified for the purposes of settlement
only, comprised of all current and former non-exempt employees of
Bar 20 Dairy, LLC employed between Feb. 11, 2011 through May 11,
2016 in the following departments and/or job categories, or any
like position(s): Breeders, Calf, Corral Maintenance, Feed Push,
Feeders, Fresh Cow, Hospital, Maintenance, Waste Management,
Maternity, Milkers, Farm Tractor and Equipment Drivers, Farm
Irrigators, and Farm Shop.

Under the proposed settlement agreement, the Defendant would pay a
gross settlement amount of $450,000.  The agreement provides for
the following allocation of that payment: (i) attorneys' fees of
not more than one-third, or $150,000, to be paid to the class
counsel; (ii) estimated litigation expenses of up to $25,000 to be
paid to the class counsel; (iii) estimated settlement
administration costs of up to $6,000 to be paid to the
administrator Simpluris, Inc.; (iv) incentive awards of $7,500 to
be paid to Plaintiffs Maciel and Bonilla each, for a total of
$15,000; (v) penalties of $5,000 under the California Private
Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), with 75% of that amount, or
$3,750, to be paid to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency
pursuant to California Labor Code Section2699(i); and (vi) the
remaining net settlement amount to be distributed to the class
members.

The Plaintiffs assert, the amount of each class claimant's
individual award will be primarily determined by the length of his
or her employment with the Defendant during the class period.  The
proposed settlement agreement further provides that the individual
settlement amount paid to each class claimant will be no less than
$100.

The Defendant also agrees to pay 60% of the net settlement amount,
even if less is claimed by the class members.  If the aggregate of
the individual settlement amounts claimed by the class members,
plus the associated taxes and required withholding, amounts to less
than 60% of the net settlement amount, the Defendant will be
required to deposit with the claims administrator the aggregate
plus any remainder up to 60% of the net settlement amount.  The
Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center ("LAS-ELC") has been
designated by the parties as the cy pres beneficiary, with the
balance of any unclaimed net settlement amount reverting to the
Defendant.

The Plaintiffs seek an order from the Court: (i) certifying the
settlement class, with appointment of the Plaintiffs as the class
representatives, appointment of attorneys David G. Spivak and Eric
B. Kingsley as the class counsel for purposes of the settlement,
and appointment of Simpluris, Inc. as the settlement administrator;
(ii) preliminarily approving the settlement agreement; (iii)
approving the proposed form and method of notice to the settlement
class; and (iv) scheduling the hearing date for the final approval
of the class settlement.

Judge Drozd finds that the Third Amended Settlement now proposed by
the parties in the case corrects some of the deficiencies the Court
identified at the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval, including refinement of the class period to February 11,
2011 to May 11, 2016, clarification of the $6,000 settlement
administration cap, exclusion of non-party Producers Dairy Foods,
Inc. from the definition of "Released Parties," and clarification
in the settlement agreement itself that the FLSA claims will only
be released for those settlement class members who submit a claim
form.

The Judge appreciates the efforts of the parties in addressing
these issues.  Nonetheless, there continue to be outdated
references scattered throughout the Third Amended Settlement, the
proposed class notice, and the proposed claim form.  These errors
notwithstanding, upon further review of the procedural history in
the case, as well as the structure and terms of the proposed
settlement, the Judge finds the granting of preliminary approval to
be unwarranted.

For these reasons, Judge Drozd denied without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary settlement approval.  The matter
is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further scheduling
consistent with the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 23, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/4rOfZP from Leagle.com.

Jose Maciel, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other
"aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorney General
Act of 2004, Plaintiff, represented by Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh
-- caroline@spivaklaw.com -- The Spivak Law Firm & David Glenn
Spivak -- david@spivaklaw.com --  The Spivak Law Firm.

Elvis Bonilla, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other
"aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorney General
Act of 2004, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Bryce Kingsley --
eric@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley & Kingsley APC & Kelsey M.
Peterson-More -- kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley &
Kingsley.

Bar 20 Dairy, LLC, a California limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Jared Hague -- jared@suttonhague.com --
Sutton Hague Law Corporation, PC, Joseph Vidal Macias --
joseph.macias@maximintegrated.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation,
PC, S. Brett Sutton -- brett@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law
Corporation, PC & Wesley Lawrence Carlson, Sutton Hague Law
Corporation.


BBVA COMPASS: Appeal in Plains All American Pipeline Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that plaintiffs'
appeal in the case, In re Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.
Securities Litigation, is still ongoing.

In January 2016, BBVA Securities Inc. ("BSI") was named as a
defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, In re
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. Securities Litigation, wherein
the plaintiffs challenge statements made in registration materials
and prospectuses filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with eight securities offerings of stock and notes
issued by Plains GP Holdings and Plains All American Pipeline and
underwritten by BSI, among others.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.

On April 2, 2018, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss with prejudice. The plaintiffs have appealed.

BBVA Compass said, "The Company believes there are substantial
defenses to these claims and intends to defend them vigorously."

BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. operates as the bank holding company
for Compass Bank that provides various banking services. It
operates in Commercial Banking and Wealth, Retail Banking,
Corporate and Investment Banking, and Treasury segments. The
company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Bilbao
Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.


BBVA COMPASS: Bellissimo Case Settlement Wins Initial Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
settlement in the case, Lara Bellissimo, et al. individually and on
behalf of similarly situated individuals v. BBVA Compass, has
received preliminary court approval.

In September 2017, BBVA Compass was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, dismissed and refiled
in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, Lara Bellissimo,
et al. individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals
v. BBVA Compass, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act in the context of collections calls to the cell
phones of individuals who were not the individuals that provided
the phone numbers to BBVA Compass. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary relief.

The parties reached a settlement in principle on February 13, 2018,
which has received preliminary court approval.

BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. operates as the bank holding company
for Compass Bank that provides various banking services. It
operates in Commercial Banking and Wealth, Retail Banking,
Corporate and Investment Banking, and Treasury segments. The
company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Bilbao
Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.


BBVA COMPASS: BSI Still Defends Suit by Firefighters Pension Trust
------------------------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that BBVA
Securities Inc. continues to defend itself from a putative class
action suit entitled, St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters'
Pension Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Southwestern Energy Company, et al.

In October 2016, BBVA Securities Inc. (BSI) was named as a
defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the District
Court of Harris County, Texas, St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Trust, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Southwestern Energy Company, et al.,
wherein the plaintiffs allege that Southwestern Energy Company, its
officers and directors, and the underwriting defendants (including
BSI) made inaccurate and misleading statements in the registration
statement and prospectus related to a securities offering. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.

BBVA Compass Bancshares said, "The Company believes there are
substantial defenses to these claims and intends to defend them
vigorously."

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

BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. operates as the bank holding company
for Compass Bank that provides various banking services. It
operates in Commercial Banking and Wealth, Retail Banking,
Corporate and Investment Banking, and Treasury segments. The
company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Bilbao
Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.


BBVA COMPASS: Still Defends Hossfeld TCPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself from a putative class action suit
entitled, Robert Hossfeld, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BBVA Compass.

In December 2016, BBVA Compass was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Robert Hossfeld,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BBVA
Compass, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act in the context of customer satisfaction survey calls to the
cell phones of individuals who have not given, or who have
withdrawn, consent to receive calls on their cell phones. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.

The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims
and intends to defend them vigorously.

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

BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. operates as the bank holding company
for Compass Bank that provides various banking services. It
operates in Commercial Banking and Wealth, Retail Banking,
Corporate and Investment Banking, and Treasury segments. The
company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Bilbao
Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.


BEEKMAN ROOFTOP: Violates ADA, Diaz Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beekman Rooftop LLC.
The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Beekman Rooftop LLC doing
business as: Ophelia Lounge, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10404
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 8, 2018).

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

Ophelia Lounge is a cocktail lounge at the top of the Beekman Tower
with 360 degree greenhouse terrace.[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


BENEFICIAL BANCORP: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC on Nov. 6 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:18-cv-09395- PGG, on
behalf of public common shareholders of Beneficial Bancorp, Inc.
("Beneficial" or the "Company") (NasdaqCM:  BNCL) who held
Beneficial securities on the record date October 29, 2018 (the
"Class Period"), and have been harmed by Beneficial and its board
of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") in connection with the sale of the Company to WSFS Financial
Corporation ("WSFS").

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each share of
Beneficial common stock issued and outstanding will be converted
into the right to receive 0.3013 shares of WSFS common stock and
$2.93 in cash (the "Merger Consideration"). The complaint alleges
that the Merger Consideration is inadequate and that the proxy
statement provides shareholders with materially incomplete and
misleading information about the proposed transaction ("the
Proxy"), in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.  In particular, the complaint alleges that the Proxy contains
materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i)
financial projections for Beneficial; and (ii) the valuation
analyses performed by Beneficial's financial advisor, Sandler
O'Neill & Partners, L.P., in support of their fairness opinion. The
special meeting of Beneficial's shareholders to vote on the
Proposed Transaction is currently scheduled for December 6, 2018.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 4, 2019.  Any member of the putative class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/beneficial-bancorp-inc.  It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

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


BIRD: Updated User Agreements Following Scooter Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Emerson Smith, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune,
reports that Pat Brogan had already picked up considerable speed on
a Lime scooter riding downhill on Laurel Street when she said she
realized the brakes weren't working.

"I thought I was going to die for sure," said the 63-year-old Bay
Area resident who was visiting family in San Diego.

Approaching a red light at a busy intersection, she said she laid
the scooter down to avoid riding into traffic, skidding for about
ten feet before coming to a stop.

The crash broke two bones in her right hand, which required
surgery, fractured a knuckle and badly bruised up her leg. The
incident, which happened in August, set her back roughly $8,000 in
out-of-pocket medical expenses.

"They publish that the (scooter's) max speed is 15 miles an hour,
but that has nothing to do with a hill," she said. "Now I don't
have the full use of either hand."

Ms. Brogan is one of a growing number of people looking to hold
scooter companies, such as Bird and Lime, legally responsible for
injuries involving their electric devices.

Her attorney Catherine Lerer with McGee, Lerer & Associates filed a
class action lawsuit against the scooter companies Lime and Bird
last month alleging, among other things, "products liability and
gross negligence, as well as aiding and abetting assault."

"They're not street worthy," Ms. Lerer said. "They're not safe for
their intended purpose."

The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, seeks damages on
behalf of nine plaintiffs, including pedestrians hit by scooter
riders. The suit alleges even scooters that aren't malfunctioning
are not properly designed for urban landscapes and too easily get
out of control.

Ms. Brogan, however, isn't part of that lawsuit. Hers is one of
another two dozen cases the law firm is now pursuing separately
based largely on malfunctions from failed brakes to stuck
throttles.

One client Vicky Leptien said she had to jump off a scooter after
the vehicle started speeding out of control in Balboa Park. "I had
a choice of getting hit by a car or jumping," said the 58-year-old.
"I did a tuck and roll and broke my arm. I had to have a plate and
screws."

Scooter companies Lime, Bird and Razor declined interviews for this
story, including questions about how frequently their scooters are
maintained and the qualifications of their mechanics.

Lime recently recalled 2,000 scooters from San Diego, Los Angeles
and Lake Tahoe due to concerns about exploding batteries.

In response to the Union-Tribune's inquiry, Bird released a
statement that read in part: "At Bird, safety is our very top
priority, and it drives our mission to get cars off the road to
make cities safer and more livable. Bird is committed to partnering
with San Diego to ensure that the community, and its visitors,
safely use our affordable, environmentally friendly transportation
option."

Since start-up scooter companies first deployed thousands of
so-called dockless rental scooters in Southern California about a
year ago, injuries have been mounting across the country.

Public health officials have raised concerns in recent months as
riders of the electric vehicles continue to crash into pedestrians,
potholes and cars, often with serious consequences --including a
handful of deaths.

So far scooter companies such as Lime and Bird -- now valued in the
billions -- have avoided having to take legal responsibility for
such accidents.

That's largely because scooter companies require riders to agree to
a lengthy legal contract through their smart-phone apps before
renting a device.

"I'm familiar with the wavier and that wavier is pretty extensive,"
said Mike Bomberger, a personal injury attorney with the San
Diego-based Estey & Bomberger. "Unless the scooter itself
malfunctions you have a difficult case against the dockless scooter
companies."

Ms. Lerer said that she initially was turning down scooter injury
cases because the user agreements so thoroughly limit legal
liability for the scooter companies.

"I think attorneys are reluctant to take these cases," she said. "I
was too, but the calls are just never ending, and they're
heartbreaking. Someone's got to go against these companies."

Shortly after she filed the class-action lawsuit, both Lime and
Bird updated their user agreements. For example, Lime's now
includes this wording: "Important notice: This agreement is subject
to binding arbitration and a waiver of class action rights . . ."

At the same time, several lawsuits have been filed in San Diego
Superior Court against Bird, including one in the past few weeks
that also named the city of San Diego as a defendant.

City Attorney Mara Elliot's office -- which has been tasked with
drafting rules to indemnify the city from liability in scooter
accidents -- declined several interview requests for this story.

After months of public outcry, the city recently announced it would
draft rules for scooter companies, including limiting speeds in
specific areas. Draft regulations are expected in early 2019.

Local attorneys said that scooter riders could file a claim against
the city if they are injured as a result of poorly maintained
streets. However, some personal injury lawyers noted that
pedestrians may also have a case if they trip over one of the
thousands of scooters that now cover downtown San Diego.

If a pedestrian is hit by a someone on a scooter, the rider's
homeowner or rental insurance can in many cases cover the injured
person.

According to a public records disclosure no claims have been filed
against the city involving dockless scooters as of early September.
City officials declined to provide any further details.

Beyond the onerous user agreements, many lawyers agreed, cases
against scooter companies could be hard to prove. The scooters are
often left at the scene, meaning there's no physical evidence of a
scooter being defective.

And most notably, a plaintiff would likely have to prove that the
injury was the result of scooter and not user error —even if the
device malfunctioned.

"I think it's going to be pretty simple that they're inherently
dangerous and there's a design defect, but the fight will be on was
that a substantial factor in the harm," said attorney
Jim Brown -- jim@brownlawaplc.com -- of the San Diego-based JB
Law.

However, if a class-action lawsuit goes to a jury trial it could
"devastate" the industry, he said. "The big analysis is going to
depend on the public view of this."

Jeffery Lee Costell -- jlcostell@costell-law.com -- with Costell &
Cornelius Law Corporation, who has teamed up with Lerer to file the
class action suit in Los Angeles, said their goal is not to shut
down the scooter industry.

"We're not trying to stamp out scooters and presume whether we know
if they have a place in the urban landscape," he said. "We just
want to make them safer."

Jarrett Charo, a personal injury lawyer with Thorsnes Bartolotta
McGuire, said he thinks some of the cases could eventually prove
successful despite the tightly written user agreements.

"Generally, there's a trend in the courts that realizes these terms
of service are overreaching and is becoming less receptive to
validating them," he said.

However, he said his office has yet to take up a case, largely
because of the legal hurdles created by the waivers.

"We looked at a potential class action and reviewed their terms of
service," he said. "Their terms of service are onerous." [GN]


BLACK SEED: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Black Seed LLC. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Black Seed LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06408 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 11, 2018).

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

Black Seed Enterprise is a privately held company in New York,
NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


BOGNER DIRECT US: Faces Nixon ADA Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bogner Direct US,
LLC. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bogner Direct US, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06365 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 8, 2018).

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

Bogner of America, Inc. offers men's and women's skiwear,
sportswear, and golfwear apparel. The company was founded in 1972
and is headquartered in Williston, Vermont. Bogner of America, Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of Willy Bogner Gmbh & Co Kg Auf
Aktien.[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


BOKF NA: Johnson Appeals N.D. Texas Decision to Fifth Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sharonda L. Johnson filed an appeal from a court ruling
in her lawsuit entitled Sharonda Johnson v. BOKF National
Association, Case No. 3:17-CV-663, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Dallas.

The appellate case is styled Sharonda Johnson v. BOKF National
Association, Case No. 18-11375, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 24, 2018, Judge
Karen Green Scholer granted BOKF's Renewed Motion to Dismiss the
case.

Pursuant to Special Order 3-318, the case was transferred from the
docket of Judge Jane J. Boyle to the docket of the Court on March
8, 2018.  The case arises out of allegations that the extended
overdraft fees charged by BOKF are interest charges and that the
rate of interest charged by BOKF is usurious under the National
Banking Act ("NBA").  Plaintiff Johnson has a checking account with
Bank of Texas, which is a division of BOKF.  That account is
governed by written Agreements and Disclosures.

Ms. Johnson was charged overdraft fees several times during 2016.
She filed the putative class action, alleging that BOKF's Extended
Overdraft Fee is actually interest in the form of a flat late fee
for the use, forbearance, or detention of money.  Thus, she
concludes, the fee should be treated as interest, and the rate of
interest far exceeds the NBA's usury limit.  Johnson does not
challenge the initial overdraft fee.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SHARONDA L. JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Warren Tavares Burns, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST, L.L.P.
          900 Jackson Street
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (469) 904-4550
          E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Marc Streisfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A.
          1 W. Las Olas Boulevard
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: streisfeld@kolawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee BOKF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION is represented by:

          John Daniel Clayman, Esq.
          FREDERIC DORWARD LAWYERS
          124 E. 4th Street
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 583-9965
          E-mail: jclayman@fdlaw.com

               - and -

          Brett Field, Esq.
          STROMBERG STOCK, P.L.L.C.
          8750 N. Central Expressway
          Dallas, TX 75231-0000
          Telephone: (972) 458-5353
          E-mail: brett@strombergstock.com


CALIFORNIA PUBLIC: Faces $1-Bil. Class Action Over Rate Hikes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lyle Adriano, writing for Insurance Business America, reports that
a pension fund providing long-term care insurance is on the
receiving end of a class-action lawsuit that could cost it $1
billion.

The lawsuit claims that, starting in 2013, California Public
Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) increased its rates for
long-term care insurance. The rate hike peaked at 85% in 2015.

According to Michael Bidart, the attorney representing the pension
fund members in the suit, the structure of the rate increases
breached the contracts his clients signed when they bought the
policies beginning in 2003. The signed agreements included
assurances that rate hikes would be evenly distributed among
long-term care insurance customers, and that those who purchased
inflation protection policies would not see their rates increase.

Mr. Bidart estimated that the plaintiffs could receive as much as
$1 billion in damages from the case.

"There are just so many people," the attorney said.

Meanwhile, CalPERS reportedly said in its most recent appeal that
it would raise rates on the plan by as much as 124% should it lose
the lawsuit, The Mercury News reported.

In July, those with the long-term plan started receiving checks
worth about $80 -- the money coming from a settlement reached by
CalPERS' consultant Towers Watson back in 2017. That settlement
separated the firm from the case but did not bring an end to the
larger claims aimed at CalPERS.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge set the trial for June 10
next year, The Mercury News reported. [GN]


CANADA: B.C. Social Worker Faces Class Action Over Alleged Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Proctor, writing for CBC News, reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit has been filed against a B.C. social worker accused
of abusing his position by siphoning funds from vulnerable First
Nations teenagers.

The B.C. Supreme Court notice of civil claim was filed on behalf of
the Public Guardian and Trustee and focuses on the alleged
experience of the lead plaintiff, a teenage girl.

She accuses Robert Riley Saunders of moving her from a stable home
into an independent living situation that would see her collect
money from the Ministry of Children and Family
Development.

The claim says Mr. Saunders then opened a joint bank account with
the girl and "stole the funds deposited by the ministry into the
joint bank accounts by moving them to his own individual account."

"She's a teenager. And she was rendered homeless, transient as a
result of the fraud against her," said Jason Gratl, the girl's
lawyer.

"The impact has been very severe. She was vulnerable to
exploitation as a result of being homeless and was, in fact,
exploited."

'Dozens of other children'
The proposed class action was filed on behalf of B.C.'s Public
Guardian and Trustee, who acts as the teen's guardian. She is known
as R.O.

The defendants include Saunders, the ministry and the bank where
the account was allegedly opened.

Mr. Gratl estimates that between 25 and 90 children could be
eligible to be part of the suit if accepted.

The court document claims Saunders "engaged in the same and similar
unlawful and inexcusable activities in respect of dozens of other
children in his care, most of whom are Aboriginal children."

The Ministry of Children and Family Development would not comment
on the case as it is before the courts. Saunders could not be
reached for comment.

The notice of civil claim was filed in Vancouver on the same day as
another action containing similar allegations was filed in
Kelowna.

The plaintiff in that action -- N.D. -- is now an adult. But
because he was a First Nations youth in the care of the province at
the time of the allegations, his lawyer said he plans to ask the
court for anonymity in the future.

'Complete control over every aspect of [her] life'

According to the claim filed by R.O., she was moved to an
independent living situation in 2016. She claims she was
manipulated into opening a joint bank account, and that Saunders
failed to ensure she had adequate care and support.

"Saunders was verbally and emotionally abusive to the plaintiff.
Saunders derided the plaintiff and her family," the notice of claim
says.

"Saunders had complete control over every aspect of the plaintiff's
life, including where the plaintiff would live, the plaintiff's
access to family members, the plaintiff's access to services and
financial assistance and the plaintiff's connection to . . . her
cultural heritage."

According to the notice of civil claim, R.O.'s physical and
psychological health suffered because of the alleged actions and
"her trust and confidence in parental authority have been severely
compromised."

R.O. claims the provincial director of child welfare is also at
fault.

"The director failed to implement adequate systems, restraints and
controls to detect and prevent Saunders' misappropriation of funds
and benefits," the lawsuit reads.

"The director failed to conduct reviews of Mr. Saunders' files to
detect whether Saunders was carrying out his duties appropriately
and in accordance with the plaintiff's best interests."

Aboriginal high-risk youth allegedly targeted

The suit also claims the director was aware of previous instances
of alleged misconduct by Saunders but failed to implement controls
that would have detected problems.

The suit filed by N.D. accuses Saunders of seeking out and
exploiting Aboriginal high-risk youth.

"Saunders knew that if Aboriginal high-risk youth complained about
this, his supervisors and managers and (the bank) would likely not
listen to them," the suit says.

Both lawsuits make claims against Mr. Saunders for alleged
negligence, misfeasance of public office and fraud. The plaintiffs
claim the province is vicariously liable for his alleged actions.

Mr. Saunders, the Ministry of Children and Family Development and
the bank named in the suit have yet to file responses to the
claims.

None of the allegations have been proven in court. [GN]


CAPITAL MGMT: Bid to Strike Affirmative Defenses in Diaz Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACKSON H. DIAZ and JANET L. BETHKE, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 17-134 (JMV) (JBC) (D. N.J.), Judge John Michael Vazquez
of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied
the Plaintiffs' motion to strike Defendants' Affirmative Defenses.

The class action alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA").  The named Plaintiffs claim that the
Defendants issued misleading debt collection letters.

CMS is a New York-based collection agency that collects past-due
debts owed to third parties.  The debts are typically for personal,
family, or household goods.  Defendants John Does 1-10 are
fictitiously named individuals at CMS or otherwise.  The Plaintiffs
are two New Jersey consumers who received debt collection letters
from CMS regarding their allegedly overdue Macy's Department Store
National Bank accounts.  Macy's assigned CMS the accounts for the
purpose of collecting the overdue debts.

On Jan. 7, 2016 and Feb. 2, 2016, CMS mailed Diaz two letters in an
attempt to collect a $256.25 debt.  CMS mailed similar letters to
Bethke on Jan. 19, 2016 and Feb. 2, 2016, in an attempt to collect
a $727.05 debt.  The Plaintiffs contend that the language of the
letter is false, deceptive, and misleading, in violation of the
FDCPA, because it fails to disclose that the Internal Revenue
Service ("IRS") only requires such reporting in limited
circumstances, meaning CMS will not report forgiveness on a number
of debts.

The Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on Jan. 6, 2017, D.E. 1, and then
filed an Amended Complaint on Dec. 27, 2017.  The Defendants
answered the Amended Complaint on Jan. 10, 2018, asserting the
following two affirmative defenses, among others: (1) the
Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the
applicable statutes of limitations (the third affirmative defense),
and (2) if the FDCPA was violated, the same being specifically
denied, the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona
fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably
adapted to avoid any such error (the eighth affirmative defense).

On Jan. 31, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the current motion to strike
the two affirmative defenses, which Defendants the opposed, and the
Plaintiffs replied.

The parties dispute the applicable standard for pleading an
affirmative defense.  The Plaintiffs seem to allege that the
Defendants' statute of limitations defense must meet the
plausibility standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a),
and that the Defendants' bona fide error defense must meet the
higher pleading standard for pleading mistake under Rule 9(b).

Judge Vazquez explains that courts are to determine whether each
affirmative defense should be struck pursuant to Rule 12(f) as
legally insufficient because (1) it could not possibly prevent
recovery under any pleaded or inferable set of facts; and (2) its
continuing presence in the pleadings will prejudice the opposing
party.  Therefore, the plausibility standard of Rule 8(a) does not
apply to the Defendants' affirmative defenses; the Rule 12(f)
standard applies instead.  Since the plausibility standard of Rule
8(a) does not apply to affirmative defenses, the heightened
pleading standard under Rule 9(b) similarly does not apply.

The Judge finds that the Defendants' statute of limitations defense
is also not redundant, immaterial, impertinent, scandalous, or
prejudicial to the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs should not be
surprised that Defendants intend to contest the timeliness of each
potential claim as the case progresses, and asserting the
affirmative defense expressly notifies Plaintiffs of such.
Further, inquiries into timeliness of additional class action
claimants' claims will not produce any more discovery than that
already necessary to prove that the additional claims fit within
the appropriate timeframe.  For these reasons, he denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to strike the Defendants' third affirmative
defense.

Finally, the Judge finds that the bona fide error defense is not
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, scandalous, or prejudicial
either.  It is not repetitive of another one of the Defendants'
affirmative defenses and would be material and pertinent if FDCPA
liability is found. Further, the Plaintiffs have not shown any
unfair prejudice in having to address the affirmative defense.  The
Judge denied the Plaintiffs' motion to strike the Defendants'
eighth affirmative defense.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 23, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/zm35f3 from Leagle.com.

JACKSON H DIAZ, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by ALAN LEE POLINER, KIM LAW FIRM, ERIC
AGLOW, ERIC N. AGLOW, ESQ. & YONGMOON KIM -- jhk@thekimlawfirm.com
-- Kim Law Firm LLC.

JANET L BETHKE, Plaintiff, represented by ALAN LEE POLINER, KIM LAW
FIRM, ERIC AGLOW, ERIC N. AGLOW, ESQ., RONALD IRA LEVINE & YONGMOON
KIM, Kim Law Firm LLC.

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP, Defendant, represented by ANDREW
EDWARD KAMPF -- MCKENNADBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD SPAHR LLC,
DANIEL J.T. MCKENNA -- MCKENNADBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD SPAHR,
LLP & DANIEL CHRISTOPHER FANASELLE -- FANASELLEDBALLARDSPAHR.COM
--BALLARD SPAHR LLP.


CAPITAL ONE: Perez Files Suit Over Erroneous Credit Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
William Perez Jr., Plaintiff, v. Capital One Financial Corporation
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02568-WQH-WVG (S.D. Cal., November 8,
2018) seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant, in reporting erroneous negative and derogatory
information on Plaintiff's credit report.

The Defendant has erroneously reported continual monthly payment
obligations on accounts that have been closed and paid in full,
says the complaint.

Any violations by Defendant were knowing and intentional, and
Defendant did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid
any such violation, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in the City of San Diego,
County of San Diego, in the State of California.

Defendant is a corporation with its headquarters located in Mclean
Virginia and authorized to do business in the State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
     409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: (619) 222-7429
     Fax: (866) 431-3292
     Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


CEMPRA INC: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Securities Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
October 26, 2018, Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina dismissed
a putative class action brought against a biopharmaceutical company
(the "Company") and certain of its officers and directors under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Hirtenstein v. Cempra, Inc.,
No. 16-cv-1303 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 26, 2018).  Plaintiffs sought to
recover for alleged stock losses occurring after the Company
allegedly failed to disclose risks associated with an experimental
antibiotic used to treat pneumonia.  The Court dismissed the
action, finding that the challenged statements about the drug's
safety constituted opinions and plaintiffs' allegations of motive
were insufficient to establish a strong inference of scienter.

The Company develops antibiotics to treat infectious diseases, and
was working on developing and releasing solithromycin, a drug for
community-acquired bacterial pneumonia ("CABP").    Plaintiffs
alleged the Company's stock price declined when the Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") published a report disclosing patterns of
liver injury connected to the drug, and an FDA advisory committee
concluded that the Company failed to adequately characterize the
risk of liver injury or toxicity.  Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia,
that the Company made false and misleading statements regarding
solithromycin's safety profile in certain clinical trials and the
differentiation of solithromycin from Ketek, another drug with
adverse side effects.

The Court found that certain statements made by the Company's
then-CEO about interpretations of clinical studies and the drug's
safety were opinions and that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently
allege that the former CEO lacked sincerely held optimistic beliefs
about the trials at the time.  The Court also held that the former
CEO did not lack an objective basis for her opinions, noting that
the Phase 3 trial about which the allegedly misleading statements
were made had met their primary end points and the overall safety
profile of the drug was open to debate.  The Court also held that
other statements by the former CEO were too vague to be actionable.
As to other statements, the Court held that the Company disclosed
the underlying trial data, and otherwise took a different view than
the FDA as to how that data should be interpreted.

The Court also held that plaintiffs failed to allege facts
sufficient to give rise to a strong inference of scienter.  The
Court first rejected allegations of fraudulent intent based on a
desire to increase the Company's value ahead of stock sales,
observing that "[e]very for-profit company is motivated by
financial gain in our free enterprise system" and noting that
plaintiffs failed to allege anything different.  The Court also
held that the former-CEO's subsequent termination failed to support
a strong inference of scienter because plaintiffs did not allege
her termination had anything to do with the FDA's conclusions that
the Company failed to adequately characterize liver injury risks.

The Court next rejected plaintiffs' argument that scienter could be
inferred from defendants' recklessness.  According to the Court,
the key inquiry was whether defendants were sufficiently reckless
with adverse information to give rise to a strong inference of
scienter.  Observing that "the '[r]eckless conduct sufficient to
establish a strong inference of scienter' must be 'severe,'" the
Court concluded that plaintiffs failed to allege plausibly that
defendants knew that certain facts would prevent the regulatory
approval or marketing of solithromycin.  It also noted that the
Company made important parts of the trial results publicly
available through two scientific articles published in
peer-reviewed medical journals and made disclosures in press
releases and its Form 8-K filed with the SEC. [GN]


CENTRAL CREDIT: Weber Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Credit
Services LLC. The case is styled as Asher Weber on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Central Credit Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06395
(E.D. N.Y., Nov. 9, 2018).

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

Central Credit Services, Inc. operates as an accounts receivable
management company. It specializes in the collection of primary,
auto, mortgage, commercial, credit card, installment loan, and
retail debt, as well as other types of accounts receivables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
     Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
     735 Central Avenue
     Woodmere, NY 11598
     Phone: (516) 668-6945
     Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in "Strauch"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Computer Sciences Corporation filed an appeal from a
District Court order issued on September 21, 2018, in the lawsuit
entitled Strauch, et al. v. Computer Sciences Corporation, Case No.
17-cv-956, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut (New Haven).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, on July 1, 2014,
Plaintiffs Joseph Strauch, Timothy Colby, Charles Turner, and
Vernon Carre filed an action in the District Court on behalf of
themselves and a putative nationwide collective of CSC system
administrators, alleging CSC's failure to properly classify these
employees as non-exempt under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").  The Plaintiffs allege similar state-law Rule 23 class
claims pursuant to Connecticut and California statutes, including
the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, the California Unfair Competition
Law, California Labor Code, California Wage Order No. 4-2001 and
the California Private Attorneys General Act.  The Plaintiffs claim
double overtime damages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, civil penalties, and other state-specific remedies.

The appellate case is captioned as Strauch, et al. v. Computer
Sciences Corporation, Case No. 18-3136, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Joseph Strauch, on behalf of himself and all
those similarly situated; Timothy Colby, on behalf of himself and
all those similarly situated; Charles Turner, on behalf of himself
and all those similarly situated; and Vernon Carre, on behalf of
himself and all those similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

Defendant-Appellant Computer Sciences Corporation is represented
by:

          William J. Anthony, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          677 Broadway
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 512-8700
          E-mail: William.Anthony@jacksonlewis.com


CPC LOGISTICS: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Tonge FCRA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Christine Tonge filed an appeal from a court ruling in
her lawsuit entitled Christine Tonge v. CPC Logistics Inc., Case
No. 2-16-cv-09579, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 8, 2018, the
District Court issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and
denying in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case.

Ms. Tonge alleges that the Defendant violated provisions of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the New Jersey Fair Credit Reporting
Act, by not providing her with proper materials and information
relating to consumer agency reports procured by the Defendant as
part of her job application to work for CPC.

The appellate case is captioned as Christine Tonge v. CPC Logistics
Inc., Case No. 18-3341, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CHRISTINE TONGE, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Ciarlanto, Esq.
          PROFY PROMISLOFF & CIARLANTO
          100 North 22nd Street, Unit 105
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 259-5156
          E-mail: ciarlanto@prolawpa.com

               - and -

          Richard H. Kim, Esq.
          Drucilla Tigner, Esq.
          THE KIM LAW FIRM
          1500 Market Street, Suite W-3110
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (855) 996-6342
          E-mail: rkim@thekimlawfirmllc.com
                  dtigner@thekimlawfirmllc.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Kotch, Esq.
          FERRARA LAW GROUP
          50 West State Street, Suite 1100
          Trenton, NJ 08608
          Telephone: (609) 571-3742
          E-mail: info@ferraralawgp.com

Defendant-Appellee CPC LOGISTICS INC. is represented by:

          Jacqueline R. Barrett, Esq.
          Jessica M. Bocchinfuso, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC
          1735 Market Street, Suite 3000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 995-2820
          E-mail: jacqueline.barrett@ogletree.com
                  jessica.bocchinfuso@ogletree.com


DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Daves Appeals N.D. Texas Decision to 5th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Erriyah Banks, Shannon Daves, Faith in Texas, Patroba
Michieka, Texas Organizing Project Education Fund, James Thompson,
Destinee Tovar and Shakena Walston filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their lawsuit titled Shannon Daves, et al. v. Dallas
County, Texas, et al., Case No. 3:18-CV-154, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 8, 2018, the
District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs moved for certification of this class:

     All arrestees who are or will be detained in Dallas County
     custody because they are unable to pay a secured financial
     condition of release.

The Order addresses Plaintiffs Shannon Daves, Shakena Walston,
Erriyah Banks, Destinee Tovar, Petroba Michieko, and James
Thompson's motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs are recent arrestees in custody at the Dallas County
Jail.  The Plaintiffs allege that the County, the Sheriff, the
Magistrates, the Felony Judges, and the Misdemeanor Judges employ
an unconstitutional system of wealth-based detention by imposing
and enforcing secured money bail without an inquiry into and
findings concerning the arrestee's present ability to pay.

The appellate case is captioned as Shannon Daves, et al. v. Dallas
County, Texas, et al., Case No. 18-11368, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants SHANNON DAVES, SHAKENA WALSTON, ERRIYAH
BANKS, DESTINEE TOVAR, PATROBA MICHIEKA and JAMES THOMPSON, On
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, are
represented by:

          Trisha Trigilio, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF TEXAS
          1500 McGowen Street
          Houston, TX 77004
          Telephone: (713) 942-8146
          E-mail: ttrigilio@aclutx.org

Plaintiffs-Appellants FAITH IN TEXAS and TEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT
EDUCATION FUND are represented by:

          Brandon Buskey, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004-2400
          Telephone: (212) 284-7364
          E-mail: bbuskey@aclu.org

Defendants-Appellees DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS; MARIAN BROWN; TERRIE
MCVEA; LISA BRONCHETTI; STEVEN AUTRY; ANTHONY RANDALL; JANET LUSK;
HAL TURLEY, Dallas County Magistrates; DAN PATTERSON, Number 1;
JULIA HAYES, Number 2; DOUG SKEMP, Number 3; NANCY MULDER, Number
4; LISA GREEN, Number 5; ANGELA KING, Number 6; ELIZABETH CROWDER,
Number 7; TINA YOO CLINTON, Number 8; PEGGY HOFFMAN, Number 9;
ROBERTO CANAS, JR., Number 10; and SHEQUITTA KELLY, Number 11
Judges of Dallas County, Criminal Courts at Law, are represented
by:

          Peter L. Harlan, Esq.
          DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          133 N. Riverfront Boulevard
          Frank Crowley Courts Building
          Dallas, TX 75207
          Telephone: (214) 653-3691
          E-mail: pharlan@dallascounty.org

Defendants-Appellees ERNEST WHITE, 194th; HECTOR GARZA, 195th;
TERESA HAWTHORNE, 203rd; TAMMY KEMP, 204th; JENNIFER BENNETT,
265th; AMBER GIVENS-DAVIS, 282nd; LIVIA LIU FRANCIS, 283rd;
STEPHANIE MITCHELL, 291st; BRANDON BIRMINGHAM, 292nd; TRACY HOLMES,
363rd; ROBERT BURNS, Number 1; NANCY KENNEDY, Number 2; GRACIE
LEWIS, Number 3; DOMINIQUE COLLINS, Number 4; CARTER THOMPSON,
Number 5; JEANINE HOWARD, Number 6; and STEPHANIE FARGO, Number 7
Judges of Dallas County, Criminal District Courts, are represented
by:

          Eric Alan Hudson, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 12548
          Capitol Station
          Austin, TX 78711-2548
          Telephone: (512) 475-4082
          E-mail: eric.hudson@texasattorneygeneral.gov


DANIEL WELLINGTON: Figueroa Files Suit in NY for ADA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daniel Wellington
Inc. The case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Daniel Wellington Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10412 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 8, 2018).

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

Daniel Wellington (stylised with a reverse capital D) is a Swedish
watch company, founded in 2011 by Filip Tysander. Headquartered in
central Stockholm in Sweden, the company has different networks in
over 25 countries. The watches are manufactured in China, designed
in Sweden and use a quartz movement made by Miyota, a Japanese
company. The company has gained success through its digital
strategy in social networks like Instagram.[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


DETROIT, MI: Certification of Arrestees Class Sought in "Turner"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled CHARLES TURNER, REUBEN BRYANT,
TIMOTHY DAVIS, and TYESHA BROWN, on behalf of themselves and a
class of others similarly situated v. CITY OF DETROIT, Case No.
2:14-cv-14036-MOB-MJH (E.D. Mich.), ask the Court to certify this
class:

     All persons arrested by the Detroit Police Department and
     detained at the Detroit Detention Center overnight from
     August 1, 2013 to September 30, 2017.

The four named Plaintiffs seek to represent this class.  They also
ask the Court to appoint their counsel to represent the class.

By this motion, the Plaintiffs seek to represent thousands of other
individuals, who have been deprived of one of the most basic human
need -- sleep -- while detained at the Detroit Detention Center.
The DDC is the Detroit Police Department's central lock-up
facility, and all individuals arrested by the DPD are housed at
this central facility.  Individuals are frequently held overnight
and may be detained for up to 72 hours.

During the proposed class period, the Defendant did not provide
detainees with bedding of any kind -- not even a floor mat, the
Plaintiffs allege.  Furthermore, they assert, the lights in the
holding cells were on 24 hours a day, seven days a week, forcing
detainees to attempt to get meaningful rest in a bright room on a
concrete floor or bench.  The Plaintiffs argue that these
conditions are inhumane and violate the requirements of the
Fourteenth Amendment.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Kanovitz, Esq.
          Arthur Loevy, Esq.
          Jon Loevy, Esq.
          Cindy Tsai, Esq.
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          311 North Aberdeen St., 3rd Floor
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: (312) 243-5900
          E-mail: mike@loevy.com
                  arthur@loevy.com
                  jon@loevy.com
                  cindy@loevy.com

               - and -

          David Haron, Esq.
          HARON LAW GROUP
          30300 Northwestern Drive, Suite 115
          Farmington Hills, MI 48334
          Telephone: (248) 539-7420
          E-mail: dharon@haronlawgroup.com


DGNY GROUP: Cun Labor Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Rolando Cun, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DGNY Group Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-14951, (D. N.J., October 12, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime compensation for work in excess of forty hours per week,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and such other legal
and equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the New Jersey Wage Payment Act.

DGNY Group Inc. operates a restaurant "Son Cubano" where Cun worked
as a cook from in or around October 2012 until on or around
December 2013, and as a sous chef from in and around January 2014
until on or around August 15, 2018. He approximately worked
fifty-seven hours per workweek and did not typically take meal or
rest breaks during his shifts, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Sackowitz, Esq.
      KATZ MELINGER PLLC
      280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 460-0047
      Email: ajsackowitz@katzmelinger.com


EDDIE BAUER: Violates Disabilities Act, Figueroa Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eddie Bauer LLC under
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Eddie Bauer LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-10413 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 8, 2018).

Eddie Bauer LLC, a sportswear company, manufactures clothing,
accessories, and gear for men, women, and kids.[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


ELTMAN ELTMAN: Godson FDCPA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER GODSON, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ELTMAN, ELTMAN, & COOPER, P.C.,
and LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:11-CV-764 EAW (W.D.
N.Y.), Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York granted final approval of the
Settlement Agreement.

Godson commenced the action, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, on Sept. 9, 2011, alleging that Eltman and LVNV
Funding, LLC sought to collect a debt from him and others in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

On March 27, 2012, the Plaintiff moved to certify the putative
class and to appoint the class counsel, and on Oct. 18, 2013, LVNV
moved for summary judgment.  However, because further discovery was
deemed necessary, the Court never reached the merits of either
motion.  The action then proceeded through several years of
discovery and related motion practice.

On Aug. 14, 2017, while discovery was still pending, the Court
referred the action to an additional mediation session during the
Court's concentrated "Settlement Week."  The mediation session was
held on Nov. 7, 2017, at which time the Plaintiff's counsel and the
Defendants' counsel negotiated a possible resolution of the matter
with the assistance of an experienced federal mediator.  As a
result, the parties were able to reach a settlement in principal.

On April 2, 2018, the parties filed a consent motion, requesting
the Court certify the class, appoint the class counsel, and
preliminarily approve the class settlement.  The Court held a
Preliminary Fairness Hearing on May 4, 2018.  The Court scheduled a
Final Fairness Hearing for Sept. 25, 2018, and entered an order
preliminarily approving the class action settlement, provisionally
granting the motion to certify the class for settlement purposes,
and appointing the class counsel.  

The provisionally certified class is defined as all consumers who,
according to the Defendant's records, had a New York address and:
(a) within one year prior to the filing of the action; (b) were
sent collection letters bearing Eltman's letterhead in a form
materially identical or substantially similar to the letter sent to
the Plaintiff and attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A; and (c)
which were not returned by the postal service as undelivered.

On Sept. 25, 2018, the Court held a Final Fairness Hearing.  After
considering additional argument from both sides, and inquiring
further into the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the
proposed class action settlement, the Court informed the parties
that the proposed settlement would be approved.  The Court also
indicated that a decision would be issued in due course.  The
Decision and Order is intended to memorialize the Court's approval
of the class action settlement in written form.

Judge Wolford granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement.
He certified the settlement class, for settlement purposes, of all
consumers who, according to the Defendant's records, had a New York
address and: (a) within one year prior to the filing of the action;
(b) were sent collection letters bearing Eltman's letterhead in a
form materially identical or substantially similar to the letter
sent to the Plaintiff and attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A;
and (c) which were not returned by the postal service as
undelivered.  Each Class Member will receive $688.

The Judge awarded to the Class Counsel, attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses in the amount of $350,000, after reviewing the Class
Counsel's declarations for fees submitted to the Court.  The
Defendants are ordered to pay this award to the Class Counsel, by
payment to the Bromberg Law Office, P.C., as attorney, within 30
days of the date of the Order.

First Class, Inc., the Settlement Administrator, is also ordered to
distribute checks to all the Class members within 30 days of the
date of the Order.  Within 120 days of the date of Order, the
Settlement Administrator is directed to file a notice apprising the
Court that the terms of the Agreement have been complied with and
providing the Court with an accounting of how all settlement moneys
were distributed.

The Final Order and Judgment dismissed the Action, in its entirety.
Ten days after the filing of the notice and accounting the
dismissal will become with prejudice and without costs, absent a
timely motion by any party.

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

Christopher Godson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian L. Bromberg, Bromberg Law
Office, P.C., Kenneth R. Hiller, Law Offices of Kenneth Hiller,
Seth Andrews, Law Offices of Kenneth Hiller, PPLC & Jonathan R.
Miller, Salem Community Law Office.

Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C. & LVNV Funding, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Nabil G. Foster -- nfoster@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw
& Culbertson LLP, Pushpa L. Piyatissa, Eltman Law, P.C., Concepcion
A. Montoya -- cmontoya@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP &
Khardeen I. Shillingford -- kshillingford@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw
& Culbertson LLP.


ENVISION: Monteverde Wins Lead Class Action Counsel Appointment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reenat Sinay, writing for Law360, reports that Monteverde &
Associates won a lead counsel appointment in the consolidation of
two class actions in a Delaware federal court on Nov. 5 over the
$9.9 billion sale of Envision Healthcare Corp. [GN]


EVOQUA WATER: Jan. 7 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC on Nov. 6 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Evoqua Water Technology Corp. (NYSE:AQUA)
("Evoqua" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between November 6, 2017 and October 30,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who purchased Evoqua's common stock during the Class
Period and suffered a financial loss in excess of $100,000 are
encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at
(888) 715–1740, or skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, to discuss their
legal rights and recovery options.  Additional information about
this action may be found at http://kaskelalaw.com/case/evoqua/.

On October 30, 2018, Evoqua announced preliminary financial results
for the fourth quarter and fiscal year ended September 30, 2018,
which fell below the Company's and analyst's expectations.
Therein, the Company disclosed that its financial shortfalls were
"primarily due to acquisition system integration issues, supply
chain disruptions influenced by tariffs and an extended delay on a
large aquatics project."  Following this news, shares of Evoqua's
common stock fell $4.78 per share, or over 34%, to close on October
25, 2018 at $9.02 per share.

The class action complaint alleges that defendants made materially
false and misleading statements during the Class Period, and failed
to disclose to investors that: (i) Evoqua failed to successfully
integrate its prior acquisitions; (ii) Evoqua was experiencing
supply chain disruptions influenced by tariffs and an extended
delay on a large aquatics project; and (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, Evoqua's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.  The complaint further alleges
that investors purchased Evoqua's common stock at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and suffered investment
losses as a result of the defendants' conduct.

IMPORTANT DEADLINE:  Investors who purchased Evoqua's common stock
during the Class Period may, no later than January 7, 2019, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the investor
class.

Investors who purchased Evoqua's common stock during the Class
Period and suffered a financial loss in excess of $100,000 are
encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC for additional information
about this action and their legal rights and recovery options.
Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in state and
federal courts throughout the country.  For additional information
about Kaskela Law LLC please visit www.kaskelalaw.com. [GN]


FAF INC: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in Blodgett Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned FREDRICK BLODGETT, d/b/a BIG
FS LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. FAF, INC., d/b/a FORWARD AIR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., and
DOES 1-25, Case No. 2:18-cv-00015-PLR-MCLC (E.D. Tenn.), asks the
Court enter an order conditionally certifying a proposed collective
pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Fredrick Blodgett also asks the Court to direct Defendant FAF,
Inc., to produce a computer-readable list of the names, last known
mailing addresses, last known telephone numbers, last known e-mail
addresses, and dates of work for all Collective Members, and the
Social Security numbers of those Collective Members whose notices
are returned undeliverable.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
                  dperry@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (965) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  mark@gregcolemanlaw.com


FRANKLIN COUNTY, MA: Court Modifies Class Definition in Reid Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK ANTHONY REID, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff/Petitioner, v. CHRISTOPHER DONELAN,
Sheriff, Franklin County, et al., Defendants/Respondents, Civil
Action No. 13-30125-PBS (D. Mass.), Judge Patti B. Saris of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (i) allowed
the Plaintiffs' motions to amend the complaint and modify the class
definition, and (ii) denied the Government's motion to decertify
the class.

In the class action, the Plaintiffs challenge the mandatory
detention of certain criminal aliens for more than six months
without the opportunity for a bond hearing during removal
proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(c) under the Fifth
Amendment Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment Excessive
Bail Clause.  

On July 1, 2013, Reid filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
and a complaint for injunctive relief.  He brought statutory and
constitutional claims challenging mandatory detention under Section
1226(c) on behalf of a class.  On Jan. 9, 2014, the Court granted
Reid's individual habeas petition.

Following its earlier decision in Bourguignon v. MacDonald, the
Court determined that Section 1226(c) included a 'reasonableness'
limit on the length of time an individual can be detained without
an individualized bond hearing to avoid due process concerns with
indefinite detention.  It then evaluated two approaches to
implementing this reasonableness requirement: an automatic bond
hearing once detention exceeds six months (six-month rule) or a
bond hearing only when detention has become unreasonable as
analyzed on a case-by-case basis (individualized reasonableness
rule).  The Court held that Reid was entitled to a bond hearing
under either approach but suggested it would adopt the six-month
rule in the future.

On Feb. 10, 2014, the Court certified the class  of all individuals
who are or will be detained within the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(c) for over six
months and have not been afforded an individualized bond hearing.

It determined that the class was sufficiently numerous because the
Plaintiffs identified between 39 and 42 class members during the
course of a one-year period in 2011 and the transient nature of the
class made it difficult to identify members at any particular time.
The Court held that Reid was an adequate class representative,
even though it had already granted his individual habeas petition,
because the inherently transitory nature of the class meant that it
was possible that no individual would be a member long enough to
reach certification.  It found the attorneys at the Jerome N. Frank
Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School adequate and
appointed them class counsel under Rule 23(g).  It certified the
class under Rule 23(b)(2), noting that the Government refused to
provide bond hearings to any class member under its Section 1226(c)
detention authority and that the class members all sought an order
that Section 1226(c) must be read as requiring bond hearings after
six months of detention.

On May 27, 2014, the Court awarded summary judgment and a permanent
injunction to the class on the basis of its holding that Section
1226(c) included a requirement for a bond hearing after six months
of detention.  The Government appealed the classwide injunction and
the earlier grant of habeas corpus for Reid.

The First Circuit affirmed the decision to grant Reid a bond
hearing on the grounds that he had been detained for 14 months, he
had a colorable argument against removal, and the end of his
removal proceedings was not imminent.  It also vacated the grant of
summary judgment on the class claim.

Two months later, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Jennings
v. Rodriguez, involving a class action in the Ninth Circuit also
challenging mandatory detention under Section 1226(c).  The First
Circuit stayed the instant lawsuit pending resolution of Jennings.

On Feb. 27, 2018, the Supreme Court held that the explicit language
in Section 1226(c) requiring mandatory detention pending removal
proceedings barred courts from invoking the canon of constitutional
avoidance to read into the statute an implicit requirement for bond
hearings.  Instead, the Court determined that Section 1226(c)
mandates detention of any alien falling within its scope and that
detention may end prior to the conclusion of removal proceedings
'only if' the alien is released for witnessprotection purposes.
Since the Ninth Circuit did not decide if this mandatory detention
is constitutional, the Court declined to rule on that question.

Shortly thereafter, the First Circuit withdrew its opinion and
vacated its judgment.  In a summary decision, it affirmed the
district court's judgment for Reid individually, vacated the
judgment for the class, and remanded the case for reconsideration
of the certification order.

The Government did not appeal the class certification order.  It
has filed a motion asking the Court to decertify this class, citing
Jennings v. Rodriguez, and Reid v. Donelan.  

The Plaintiffs oppose decertification.  They have also moved to
amend the complaint and modify the class.  They move to amend the
complaint primarily in three respects.  First, they seek to add new
class representatives.  Second, they seek to add an alternative
request for relief in light of the First Circuit's vacated
decision.  Finally, they seek to expand the geographic scope of the
class to include New Hampshire.

The Government also opposes the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the
class definition and motion to amend on the grounds that the
motions are futile for reasons that apply equally to the existing
class.

Judge Saris finds that the Plaintiffs have asserted these
constitutional claims since the start of the litigation.  Jennings'
rejection of the statutory claim therefore does not require
decertification.

The Government points to the withdrawn First Circuit opinion in
this case to argue that the individualized determination required
by due process mandates decertification, specifically its
statements that its holding casts substantial doubt on the
composition of the class and that it may well be that no suitable
class can be formed.  This read of Reid is too slim a reed to
support decertification, the Judge holds.  He says the withdrawn
opinion may doom the Plaintiffs' argument on the merits.  However,
the class still presents the common, unanswered question of whether
the Due Process Clause or the Excessive Bail Clause requires an
individualized hearing after six months of detention.

Next, the Government argues that, because a constitutional
challenge to Section 1226(c) requires an individualized analysis to
determine whether detention has become unreasonable, the Court
cannot issue an injunction or declaratory judgment that provides
relief for all class members.  Even if the Government is correct on
this merits question, the Judge holds that the Government is acting
on grounds that apply generally to the class by failing to allow
those detained under Section 1226(c) to argue they are entitled to
a bond hearing.  A holding that the Constitution provides a right
to a reasonableness hearing during a prolonged detention would
resolve all the class members' claims at once.

Finally, the Judge holds that the class does not seek monetary
damages, and each class member could use a declaratory judgment
announcing a right to an individualized hearing after prolonged
detention to secure an individual injunction requiring one.  Thus,
the available declaratory judgment in the case corresponds to final
injunctive relief as required by Rule 23(b)(2).

For these reasons, Judge Saris allowed the Plaintiffs' motions to
amend the complaint and modify the class definition.  He denied the
Government's motion to decertify the class.  He thus certified the
class of all individuals who are or will be detained within the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the State of New Hampshire
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(c) for over six months and have
not been afforded an individualized bond or reasonableness
hearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 23, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/7sVczM from Leagle.com.

Mark Anthony Reid, Petitioner, represented by Lauren Carasik,
Western New England College School of Law, Marisol Orihuela ,
Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization, pro hac vice, Matthew
Segal, American Civil Liberties Union, Michael Tan, American Civil
Liberties Union Federation Immigrants Rights Project, pro hac vice,
Michael J. Wishnie, Yale Law School, pro hac vice, Muneer I. Ahmad,
Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization Yale Law School, pro
hac vice, My Khanh Ngo, Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization
Yale Law School, pro hac vice, Zachary-John Manfredi, Jerome N.
Frank Legal Services Organization Yale Law School, pro hac vice,
Ahilan Arulanantham , American Civil Liberties Union of Southern
California, pro hac vice, Amber Qureshi, Jerome N. Frank Legal
Services Organization, Anant K. Saraswat, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks,
PC, Clare Kane, Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization, Erin
Drake, Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization & Lunar Mai,
Yale Law School, pro hac vice.

Christopher Donelan, Sheriff, Franklin County, Mass., David A
Lanoie, Superintendent, Franklin County Jail & House of Correction,
Thomas Hodgson, Sheriff, Bristol County, Mass., Joseph McDonald,
Sheriff, Plymouth County, Mass., Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, Dorothy Herrera-Niles, Director,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Boston Field Office, John
Morton, Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Eric
Holder, Attorney General of the United States, Juan Osuna, Director
of the Executive Office for Immigration Review & Executive Office
for Immigration Review, Respondents, represented by Elianis N.
Perez, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Karen L. Goodwin, United States Attorney's Office,
Catherine M. Reno, U.S. Department of Justice, Colin Abbott Kisor,
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, J. Max
Weintraub, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Janette L. Allen, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil
Division, Lauren E. Fascett, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil
Division Office of Immigration Litigation, District Court Section &
Yamileth G. Davila, U.S. Department of of Justice Civil Division,
Office of Immigration Litigation.

Steven Tompkins, Sheriff, Suffolk County, Mass., Respondent,
represented by Elianis N. Perez, U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Immigration Litigation, Karen L. Goodwin, United States
Attorney's Office, Catherine M. Reno, U.S. Department of Justice,
Colin Abbott Kisor, U.S. Department of Justice Office of
Immigration Litigation, J. Max Weintraub, U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Janette L. Allen, U.S.
Department of Justice, Civil Division, Lauren E. Fascett, U.S.
Department of Justice, Civil Division Office of Immigration
Litigation, District Court Section & Yamileth G. Davila, U.S.
Department of of Justice Civil Division, Office of Immigration
Litigation.

John A. Hawkinson, Intervenor, pro se.


GENERAL MOTORS: Court Denies Bosch's Bid to Dismiss Counts Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JASON COUNTS, et al, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS,
LLC, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, and ROBERT BOSCH, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
16-cv-12541 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern
Division, denied Robert Bosch's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs
filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint.

On June 7, 2016, nine Plaintiffs (including the first-named
Plaintiff Counts) filed a 442-page complaint framing a putative
class-action and alleging deceptive advertising, breach of
contract, and fraudulent concealment claims under the laws of 30
states against Defendant GM.  Fundamentally, the Plaintiffs allege
that GM installed a "defeat device" in the 2014 Chevrolet Cruze
Diesel which results in significantly higher emissions when the
vehicle is in use compared to when it is being tested in laboratory
conditions.

GM filed a motion to dismiss on Oct. 3, 2016, which contended that
the Plaintiffs' suit should be dismissed because they lack standing
to bring suit, their claims are preempted by the Clean Air Act
("CAA"), the primary jurisdiction doctrine mandates deference to an
EPA investigation of the claims, and the Plaintiffs have failed to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  The motion was
granted in part and denied in part.

The Court held that the Plaintiffs had standing, that their claims
were not preempted by the CAA, and that the primary jurisdiction
doctrine was inapplicable.  It also held that the Plaintiffs had
not stated a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation based on
statements GM made in its advertising campaign.  However, the Court
found that the Plaintiffs had stated a claim for fraudulent
concealment in that they had sufficiently alleged that GM had
actively concealed the existence of the defeat device and had
exclusive knowledge of the device.  The Plaintiffs did not oppose
dismissal of their breach of contract claims.

After GM's motion to dismiss was denied in part, the Plaintiffs'
counsel initiated another lawsuit, In re Duramax Litigation, Case
No. 17-cv-11661, involving similar allegations but different diesel
vehicles and naming GM as a Defendant.  That complaint also named
Bosch, a German company, as a Defendant and alleged that certain
electronic devices supplied by Bosch to GM enabled the defeat
devices.

A series of discovery motions were addressed in Counts, substantial
discovery was exchanged, and the scheduling order was modified.  On
Feb. 20, 2018, GM and Bosch's motions to dismiss were denied in the
Duramax case.  The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs had
plausibly stated a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act ("RICO") claim against both GM and Bosch.

On April 6, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
an amended complaint.  In their proposed first amended complaint,
they sought to join Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch, LLC
(collectively, "Bosch") as the Defendants, add a RICO claim against
all three Defendants, and add Bosch as the Defendants to the
Plaintiffs' state law claims.  GM opposed.  

The Court granted the motion to amend and to join Bosch.  The Court
found that the delay in filing the motion was reasonable because
the Plaintiffs sought to include corroborating information learned
during discovery which they believed would strengthen and
particularize their allegations against Bosch.  Those allegations
were predicated on internal and confidential material from GM and
Bosch which would not have been available to the Plaintiffs prior
to discovery.

Similarly, the Court found that it was reasonable for the
Plaintiffs to await the Court's decision in Duramax regarding the
viability of the RICO claims before seeking leave to amend, because
that approach conserved judicial resources rather than wasting
them.  Finally, it found that granting leave to amend would cause
no prejudice to Defendants, other than the "prejudice" that is
inherent in defending complex commercial litigation.  On June 11,
2018, the Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action
Complaint.

Defendant Bosch now moves pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 9(b), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6) for dismissal of the amended
complaint.  Defendant GM filed a notice of joinder/concurrence in
the motion.

In the motion, Bosch argues that the Plaintiffs fail to allege: 1)
that their injuries were "by reason of" a RICO violation by Bosch;
2) that they suffered a cognizable RICO injury; 3) that Bosch
engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity; 4) that Bosch
participated in the conduct of a RICO enterprise; and 5) the
existence of a conspiracy to violate RICO.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Court has already rejected these
arguments in Duramax.

Judge Ludington finds that as Bosch correctly underscores, the
doctrine of the law of the case does not apply to the Plaintiffs'
RICO claim because the Court addressed the viability of the RICO
claim in Duramax, and not in the case.  Bosch suggests that the
Court's opinion in Duramax, much like any other district court
precedent, only constitutes persuasive (not controlling) authority.
This too is true.  

As a practical matter, however, the Judge finds that the case is a
companion case to Duramax, and arises out of substantially similar
facts.  Moreover, the Court's opinion on the viability of a RICO
claim in this context has not changed since February of this year
when the Court denied GM and Bosch's motion to dismiss the Duramax
plaintiffs' RICO claim.  Thus, absent a change in applicable law, a
novel argument, or a meaningful factual distinction between the
allegations in Duramax and the allegations in the present case, the
result will be the same.

The Judge holds that the allegations concerning regulatory
violations are collateral allegations which are unnecessary to
sustain the Plaintiffs' RICO claim.  Bosch concludes that this is
somehow fatal to the Plaintiffs' RICO claim.  This conclusion does
not follow logically.  When faced with a motion to dismiss under
rule 12(b)(6), the Court is to consider whether the Plaintiffs have
pled sufficient facts to sustain their claim, not whether they have
pled more facts than necessary.

Accordingly, Judge Ludington denied Bosch's motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 23, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/GJ8Wr4 from Leagle.com.

Jason Counts, Donald Klein, Oscar Zamora, Brandon Stone, Jason
Silveus, John Miskelly, Thomas Hayduk, Joshua Hurst & Joshua
Rodriguez, Plaintiffs, represented by Caroline F. Bartlett --
cbartlett@carellabyrne.com -- Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein,
Brody and Agnello, Christopher A. Seeger -- cseeger@seegerweiss.com
-- Seeger Weiss LLP, James E. Cecchi -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com --
Carella Byrne, Jessica M. Thompson, Hagen Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Scott A. George -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP & Jason J. Thompson -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- Sommers
Schwartz, P.C.

Bassam Hirmiz, Christopher Hemberger & Derek Long, Plaintiffs,
represented by Caroline F. Bartlett, Carella, Byrne, Cecchi,
Olstein, Brody and Agnello & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

General Motors, LLC, Defendant, represented by April N. Ross --
aross@crowell.com -- Corwell & Moring LLP, Brittany J. Mouzourakis
--  BMouzourakis@dykema.com -- Dykema, Haley Lorraine Darling --
haley.darling@kirkland.com -- Kirkland and Ellis, LLP, Jeffrey S.
Bramson -- jeffrey.bramson@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, LLP,
Katherine W. Warner -- kate.warner@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis, LLP, Kathleen T. Sooy -- ksooy@crowell.com -- Crowell &
Moring LLP, Leslie M. Smith -- leslie.smith@kirkland.com --
Kirkland & Ellis, Michael P. Cooney -- mcooney@dykema.com -- Dykema
Gossett, Rebecca Baden Chaney -- cchaney@crowell.com -- Crowell &
Moring LLP & Renee D. Smith -- renee.smith@kirkland.com -- Kirkland
& Ellis, LLP.

Robert Bosch LLC, Defendant, represented by Carmine D. Boccuzzi,
Jr., Cleary, Gottlieb, Jonathan E. Lauderbach, Warner Norcross &
Judd, LLP, Matthew D. Slater, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP,
Michael G. Brady, Warner, Norcross & William R. Jansen, Warner,
Norcross.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Kaskorsis Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Talks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNA KASKORKIS and KIM CARTER, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL
NUTRITION CENTERS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, GENERAL HOLDINGS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-00990-WQH-AGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge William Q. Hayes of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted
in part and denied in part the parties' Joint Stipulation
Continuing Stay of Case.

On April 22, 2016, Kaskorkis and Carter initiated the action by
filing a Complaint.  On June 6, 2016, the Court granted a joint
motion to extend time to respond to the Complaint.  On July 18,
2016, the Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint.  On Aug. 8,
2016, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  On Aug. 25, 2016,
the Defendants filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint.

The parties engaged in discovery proceedings through September
2017, during which the Magistrate Judge granted three requests to
extend class certification briefing deadlines.  On Sept. 12, 2017,
the Court granted a joint motion to stay the case until Nov. 10,
2017.

The Court granted joint stipulations to stay the case on Nov. 13,
2017, on Jan. 25, 2018, on April 2, 2018, on May 18, 2018, on July
10, 2018, and on Aug. 30, 2018.

On Oct. 22, 2018, the parties filed a status report and joint
stipulation requesting the Court to stay the case for the eighth
time.  The report states that the parties believe that they have
made significant progress in reaching agreement on many settlement
terms, and are currently exchanging draft settlement documents.
This process is complicated by the fact that the parties are
endeavoring to settle multiple cases with multiple plaintiffs.

Having considered the parties' Joint Stipulation Continuing Stay of
Case, Judge Hayes the Court granted in part and denied in part the
parties' stipulation.  He stayed the case until Nov. 7, 2018,
including all discovery and case-related deadlines.  The parties
will promptly notify the Court if they reach a settlement.  Within
10 days after expiration of the stay set forth, the parties will
submit a revised Joint Status Report proposing how the matter will
proceed.

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

Jenna Kaskorkis, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Nick Suciu, III --
nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com -- Barbat Mansour & Suciu PLLC, pro hac
vice, Robert R. Ahdoot -- RAhdoot@ahdootwolfson.com -- Ahdoot and
Wolfson APC, Theodore Walter Maya -- tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com --
Ahdoot and Wolfson PC, Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot and Wolfson PC, Trenton
R. Kashima, Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP, Jeffrey R. Krinsk,
Finkelstein and Krinsk & William Richard Restis, Finkelstein and
Krinsk.

Kim Carter, Plaintiff, represented by Robert R. Ahdoot, Ahdoot and
Wolfson APC, Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot and Wolfson PC, Tina
Wolfson, Ahdoot and Wolfson PC, Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Finkelstein and
Krinsk, William Richard Restis, Finkelstein and Krinsk & Trenton R.
Kashima, Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP.

General Nutrition Centers, Inc., a Delaware Corporation & General
Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, represented by
James D. Nguyen , Davis Wright Tremaine, Sean M. Sullivan --
seansullivan@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Zana Zahra
Bugaighis -- zanabugaighis@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.


GENESEO, IL: Dismissal of Dawson Suit with Prejudice Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LARRY DAWSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF GENESEO,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 3-17-0625 (Ill. App.), Judge Robert L.
Carter of the Appellate Court of Illinois for the Third District
affirmed the judgment of the circuit court of Henry County
dismissing the Plaintiff's first amended complaint with prejudice.

Dawson, a retired former employee of the Defendant, the City of
Geneseo (City), filed a class action lawsuit against the City to
challenge the City's reduction of the percentage it contributed to
retiree health insurance premiums.  The Plaintiff alleged in his
first amended complaint a violation of the pension protection
clause of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 (count I) and claims of
breach of contract (count II), promissory estoppel (count III), and
equitable estoppel (count IV).

The Plaintiff previously worked for the City and subsequently
retired.  At the time of his retirement, the City's Personnel
Ordinance allowed employees who retired with 10 or more years of
service to continue to participate in the City's group health
insurance program on a shared-cost basis with the City.  The fixed
percentage of the cost that the City would pay/contribute to a
retiree's health insurance premium was specified in the ordinance
and varied depending upon the employee's years of service.  In
November 2011, however, the City amended its Personnel Ordinance
due to rising healthcare costs, reduced the contribution
percentage, and capped the amount that it would contribute to an
existing retiree's health insurance premium.  The amendment went
into effect in January 2012.

The City filed a combined motion, seeking to dismiss count I of the
first amended complaint pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of
Civil Procedure and to dismiss counts II, III, and IV pursuant to
section 2-619 of the Code.  The Plaintiff opposed the motion to
dismiss.

In August 2017, a hearing was held on the City's combined motion to
dismiss.  After listening to the arguments of the attorneys, the
trial court granted the City's combined motion, dismissed count I
of the first amended complaint with prejudice pursuant to section
2-615 of the Code, and dismissed counts II, III, and IV of the
first amended complaint with prejudice pursuant to section 2-619 of
the Code.  

The Plaintiff appeals.  As his first point of contention on appeal,
the Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting the
City's section 2-615 motion to dismiss count I (the violation of
the pension protection clause claim) of his first amended
complaint.  He contends that, although somewhat implicitly, the
count I of his complaint was sufficient to state a claim for
violation of the pension protection clause.  As his second point of
contention on appeal, the Plaintiff argues that the trial court
erred in granting the City's section 2-619(a)(9) motion to dismiss
counts II, III, and IV (the breach of contract, promissory
estoppel, and equitable estoppel claims) of his first amended
complaint, asserting that the trial court did not have sufficient
information before it to grant the City's section 2-619 motion to
dismiss.  He contends that a more thorough review of the history of
the ordinance should be undertaken through the discovery process to
determine if the disclaimer was present in the applicable prior
version.

Judge Carter affirmed the judgment of the circuit court of Henry
County.  He finds that the City was free to change its employment
policy and to reduce or change the health insurance contribution
without running afoul of the pension protection clause.  Because
the Plaintiff did not and could not plead facts sufficient to
establish a pension protection clause violation, the trial court
properly granted the City's section 2-615 motion to dismiss count I
of the Plaintiff's first amended complaint.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiff did not allege in his first
amended complaint that a different version of the Personnel
Ordinance applied or that the applicable version lacked the
disclaimer at issue.  Thus, the Judge cannot agree with the
Plaintiff's assertion that more information is needed before
dismissal could be allowed.  The Plaintiff's claims in the instant
case were negated by the disclaimer, and the trial court properly
granted the City's section 2-619 motion to dismiss counts II, III,
and IV of the Plaintiff's first amended complaint on that basis.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Carter affirmed the judgment of
the circuit court of Henry County.

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


GREG STEPHEN: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Video Recording
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Gruber-Miller, writing for Des Moines Register, reports
that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against a former Iowa
youth basketball coach who admitted to secretly recording nude
videos of hundreds of boys.

Greg Stephen, a founder and former head coach of the Iowa
Barnstormers youth basketball club, pleaded guilty on Oct. 18 to
five counts of sexual exploitation of a child as well as
transportation and possession of child pornography.

Guy Cook, Esq. a Des Moines attorney, said he filed the
class-action lawsuit on November 2 in Johnson County District
Court. The documents were not available in the state's online court
system Friday evening, but a copy was provided to the Register.

The plaintiff is identified only as John Doe, and includes "all
others similarly situated." In addition to Stephen, John Doe is
suing Barnstormers Basketball of Iowa and the Amateur Athletic
Union of the United States.

The lawsuit accuses Stephen of intrusion on his victims' seclusion
and says the Barnstormers and AAU were negligent in their duty to
protect the safety and privacy of their athletes and to implement
procedures that would have stopped Stephen's behavior.

Stephen was cut off from the Barnstormers program when news of an
investigation became public in February. He was arrested in March.

The class definition includes all Barnstormers players who have
traveled with the team from 2005 to the present who stayed in rooms
that were reserved by or accessible by Stephen, or who shared rooms
with Stephen.

John Doe played on several Barnstormers teams from March 2014
through July 2016 and attended a basketball tournament in Las Vegas
in 2016. He stayed in a hotel room for seven nights with four or
five other members of the team, where he says Stephen secretly
recorded them, including when they were dressing and showering.
Doe's father was told by the U.S. Attorney's office for the
southern district of Iowa that Doe was one of Stephen's victims,
the lawsuit states.

Cook said in a statement that the case is about getting justice for
hundreds of youth athletes who were victimized by Stephen's
"despicable conduct."

He will hold a news conference at 10 a.m. on November 5 in Des
Moines to discuss the lawsuit in more detail.

According to the copy of the lawsuit provided to the Register,
Stephen was responsible for booking hotel rooms for Barnstormers
players when they traveled out of state for games and tournaments.
He regularly arrived at the hotel rooms early, allowing him to
place hidden cameras in the hotel room bathrooms, pointed towards
the shower. He often shared a room and a bed with Barnstormer
student athletes, the suit alleges.

None of those boys were aware they were being recorded, the suit
states.

Many of the details in the lawsuit cite information in Stephen's
19-page signed plea agreement in his criminal case. In that
agreement, Stephen admitted to possessing a hard drive with more
than 400 folders labeled with boys' names that contained nude
images and videos of the boys' genitalia. Many of the videos show
the boys masturbating.

The victims include players from as recently as 2018, as well as
players and friends of players going back several years and minors
involved in other sports, according to the plea agreement.

Other videos show Stephen touching the genitals of his unconscious
victims, the lawsuit states.

In one August 2017 case, Stephen admitted to giving an 11- or
12-year-old boy medication to make him drowsy, then recording
himself touching the boy's penis with his hand while his mouth was
on or near the boy's penis.

Stephen admitted to using the identities of three teenage girls to
send nude and clothed photos and videos to boys over social media
sites like Snapchat and Facebook and encourage the boys to send
explicit images in return.

Stephen will be sentenced on his criminal charges at a later date,
but he faces a minimum of 15 years in federal prison and a maximum
of 180 years in prison if Judge C.J. Williams chooses to run the
sentences for each crime consecutively.

On October 31, U.S. District Judge C.J. Williams denied a motion
from Stephen to reconsider an earlier decision allowing prosecutors
to use evidence from a seized USB device in Stephen's criminal
case.

Stephen's guilty plea was conditional on his ability to appeal the
use of the evidence from the device, which his former
brother-in-law, Vaughn Ellison, discovered in a bathroom when he
was remodeling Stephen's Monticello home and later gave to police.

His lawyers have argued police violated his rights by holding the
device for two days before getting a warrant and that Ellison was
acting as a government agent when he took the device.[GN]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


HONEYWELL INT'L: Levi Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Honeywell International Inc. (NYSE: HON)
Class Period: February 9, 2018 - October 19, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 31, 2018
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/honeywell-international-inc-loss-form?wire=3

About the lawsuit: Throughout the class period, Honeywell
International Inc. allegedly made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Honeywell's Bendix Friction Materials ("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.  Honeywell previously owned Bendix, which used
asbestos in its brake- and clutch-pad products until 2001; the
Company sold Bendix in 2014. On August 23, 2018, Honeywell
announced it had "revised its method for reasonably estimating its
liability for unasserted Bendix asbestos-related claims by
considering the epidemiological projections through 2059 of future
incidence of Bendix asbestos-related disease. Using this method,
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 which applied a five-year
horizon when estimating the liability for unasserted Bendix
asbestos-related claims. The 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."

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

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

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


HOTELS.COM LP: Little Rock May Join Sales Tax Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Max Brantley, writing for Arkansas Times, reports that the Little
Rock City Board will soon consider whether to join other cities in
class action litigation over the amount of local sales taxes paid
to companies that do Internet hotel bookings.

A case begun by Pine Bluff has so far prevailed in behalf of class
action plaintiffs on the argument that bookers like Hotels.com are
not paying sufficient sales taxes on rooms. Rather than paying on
the amount paid by the hotel guests, the booking services want to
pay on only the discounted price by which they obtained rooms for
rental.

Here's an explanation of the issue before the city board at an
agenda session. If the plaintiffs prevail, the city would get a
share of any judgment won by the Thrash law firm in the litigation.
Here's a report on the decision at the circuit court level. There's
a good way to go before this is over.[GN]


IMS VACATIONS: Gilchrist Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
--------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Gilchrist, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. IMS Vacations, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-24205 (S.D. Fla., October 12, 2018), seeks injunctive relief
to halt IMS's illegal SMS ad blasting activities, which has
resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and
disruption of the daily life of the Plaintiff.  The lawsuit also
seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

IMS operates as "BookVIP," an entity specializing in the travel
industry. To promote its services, it engages in unsolicited
telemarketing, in this case, SMS or text ads. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired India Globalization Capital, Inc. (NYSE: IGC,
OTC: IGCC) securities between October 25, 2017 and October 29, 2018
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until January 2, 2018 to apply
to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) India Globalization's business
model was in a state of change in order to lure potential
blockchain and cannabis investors; (2) India Globalization had
overstated the benefits of its relationships with manufacturers,
partners, and distributors in order to inflate its potential
commercial success in the blockchain and cannabis markets; (3) as a
result, the New York Stock Exchange delisted India Globalization's
shares from its exchange; and (4) consequently, defendants'
statements about India Globalization's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased India Globalization securities during the Class
Period or continue to hold shares purchased before the Class
Period, have information, would like to learn more about these
claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters please;         

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 355-4648
         Email: fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com [GN]


INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit From Students From Foster, Mcnutt
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lilly ST. Angelo, writing for Indiana Daily Student, reports that a
class action lawsuit filed against the Trustees of Indiana
University regarding the residence hall mold issues moved to
federal court on November 2. The case, originally filed through the
Circuit Court of Monroe County on Oct. 17, was transferred to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

The party who initiated legal action includes seven named students
from Foster and McNutt quads, and because of its class-action
nature, an undetermined number of students are also involved.
Although students are the official plaintiffs, parents have been a
driving force in mold complaints. Allegations include breaches of
the residential contract and implied provision of livable
conditions as well as a request for the court to declare residents'
rights and the University's responsibilities.

According to court documents, families are taking these steps to
obtain more information about the official mold remediation that
began Oct. 15. and is ongoing. They also wish for the University's
current method of remediation to be stopped because they allege it
is ineffective. The families also call for reimbursement for
damages allegedly caused by IU.

"Upon information and belief, to the extent IU has attempted to
clean or remediate mold in the dormitories, it has done so only on
a piecemeal basis and without following applicable industry
standards for effective mold remediation," families said in court
documents.

Information the families have requested, among other documents, all
documents and communications showing when and how the University
obtained knowledge of the "mold infestation", all documents
containing information on the investigation of mold by the
University or other parties and all evidence of mold testing in
2018, all photo and video evidence of the mold, and all documents
containing the University's mold remediation protocols.

The University claimed, in a response, that it was too busy with
remediations to provide these documents.

In hopes of speeding up the legal process because of the public
health concerns, the families filed an "Emergency Motion to Shorten
Length of Time to Respond" on Oct. 25 and were granted this motion
on the 26. When the case was moved to federal court later that day,
the emergency motion had to be filed again. Action on the re-filed
emergency motion is pending, courtroom deputy said October 31
night.

The University responded in opposition to the motion.

"No emergency exists at this time: as of today, Indiana University
has installed high efficiency particulate air ("HEPA") purifiers in
more than 2,900 rooms across Indiana University's Bloomington
campus, including every single room in the affected dorms
identified by Plaintiffs," the University claimed in response.

To date, 3,223 HEPA air purifiers have been installed in residence
halls according to a University website. All rooms in Foster,
McNutt, Teter Quad, Wright Quad, Ashton Center and Collins Center
have received air purifiers. The University said the HEPA air
purifiers have been generally successful at bringing mold down to
acceptable levels.

John Applegate, executive vice president for University academic
affairs, said mold has been found in other residence halls than
Foster and McNutt but not nearly at the scale of the two
aforementioned residence halls. He said the air purifiers were
installed in other dorms out of an "abundance of caution."

The University also claimed its website shows the transparency that
has been provided over the course of the mold remediations. The
website provides updates on a "real-time" basis on the
investigation and remediation efforts as well as air quality test
results. The families claim otherwise.

In a response to the University's opposition to the emergency
motion, the families said as of Oct. 30, reports for only 15 to 20
percent of rooms in McNutt and Foster were published. Applegate
said the University has published all results it has gotten back
thus far. The families also claimed the HEPA filters are an
inadequate solution.

"HEPA machines do not treat existing mold colonies. Rather, they
treat airborne mold spores, i.e. the effect of existing mold
colonies," the families said in response. "A mold colony will still
exist and grow even if the HEPA machine is catching its spores."

The families said the air purifiers will lower levels of air-born
mold spores, but mold colonies may continue to flourish.

The response also includes evidence from the test results of a
handful of rooms where the mold levels only grew worse after the
installation of the air purifiers. Applegate said students in these
rooms where the HEPA air purifiers have not helped will be
relocated.

"Their safety is our top priority here," Applegate said.

Kelly Fredericks, mother of freshman Madison Fredericks, said her
daughter's room was inspected on the Oct. 15, the first official
remediation day. A worker told her daughter there was mold in the
carpet, air unit and window and that they would have to replace the
carpet and window.

The next day, Madison was told by other workers that her room was
safe and that they only had to clean the carpet and air unit. The
stuff in the window? That was bird poop, they said.

Meanwhile Kelly Fredericks contacted the University multiple times
and got nowhere. She and her husband took two days off of work to
come to Bloomington and try and get answers but went home still at
a loss of what to do.

"Everyone keeps transferring me to other people who don't know
what's going on," Fredericks said.

Not wanting her daughter to go back into a potentially
mold-infested room or live temporarily in a lounge, Kelly
Fredericks kept her daughter in the Biddle Hotel for over a week.
IU covered the expenses of the hotel for Madison Fredericks and
many others who temporarily lived there.

Madison Fredericks is now back in the dorm and her air quality
tests came back with acceptable levels, but her mother is still
concerned and hesitant to believe the University did all it should
have done.

Applegate said the University has gotten better with communication
with parents and students but said during the first weeks, the
University could have done a better job.

"It took us some time, no question about it," Applegate said. "I
really do feel for parents and students who were not getting
answers to perfectly good questions they had."

On Oct. 24, Provost Lauren Robel notified all students in Foster
and McNutt of a $3,000 credit from the University that would be put
on their bursar accounts. Though students in other residence halls
also experienced mold, Applegate said they did not receive money
because the remediations in Foster and McNutt were far more
disruptive than in other residence halls.

Applegate was not able to comment on the lawsuit.[GN]


KANIS ESTATES: Butler Labor Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Byron Butler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Kanis Estates, LLC, and Leonard Falcone, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-00760, (E.D. Ark., October 12, 2018) seeks monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.

Defendants owned and operated a Dunkin' Donuts franchise location
in Pulaski County, located at 10721 Kanis Road, Little Rock,
Arkansas, where Butler worked as an hourly-paid worker. He claims
to have regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week without
overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KC WELLNESS: Gottlieb Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
-----------------------------------------------------
Matt Gottlieb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. KC Wellness Inc., Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-81379 (S.D. Fla., October 12, 2018), seeks statutory and
actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses
incurred in this action, including expert fees, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and other and further relief under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

KC Wellness specializes in evidence-based health education. To
promote its services, it engages in unsolicited telemarketing, in
this case, SMS or text ads. Gottlieb has never provided his express
written consent to receive such SMS ads. Plaintiff has been
registered with the national do-not-call registry since 2008. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KERYX BIOPHARMA: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC on Nov. 5 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, Case No.1:18-cv-01589-LPS, on behalf of
public common shareholders of Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Keryx" or the "Company") (NasdaqCM: KERX) who held Keryx
securities on the record date October 22, 2018 (the "Class
Period"), and have been harmed by Keryx and its board of directors'
(the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection
with the sale of the Company to Akebia Therapeutics (the "Proposed
Transaction").

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Keryx shareholders are
only anticipated to receive 0.37433 shares of Akebia for each share
of Keryx common stock they hold (the "Merger Consideration"). The
complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration is inadequate and
that the proxy statement regarding the Proposed Transaction (the
"Proxy') provides shareholders with materially incomplete and
misleading information about the Proposed Transaction, in violation
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  In particular,
the complaint alleges that the Proxy contains materially incomplete
and misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections
for Keryx; (ii) the valuation analyses conducted by MTS Securities,
LLC ("MTS Securities"), an affiliate of the Company's financial
advisor, MTS Health Partners, L.P., in support of its fairness
opinion; and (iii) the Board's potential conflict of interest. The
special meeting of Keryx stockholders to vote on the Proposed
Transaction is currently scheduled for December 11, 2018.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 4, 2019.  Any member of the putative class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/keryx-biopharmaceuticals-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

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

Contact:

         Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
         MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
         The Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405
         New York, NY 10118
         United States of America
         jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
         Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]


LUX COSMETIC: Court Denies Cert . Bid in Rivera Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ursula Ungaro issued an omnibus order in the lawsuit
captioned NADIA RIVERA v. LUX COSMETIC SURGERY CENTER, CORP., et
al., Case No. 1:18-cv-23635-UU (S.D. Fla.):

   -- denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Certification of
      Collective Action for Permission to Send Court Supervised
      Notice and Incorporated Memorandum of Law; and

   -- denying as moot the Defendants' Motion to Strike
      Plaintiff's Notice of Filing Exhibits or in the Alternative
      for Surreply to Plaintiff's Motion for Certification of a
      Collective Action.

"To be sure, the burden of conditional certification is light, but
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify is woefully deficient in that it
pleads no facts demonstrating a "reasonable basis" for the
assertion that there are other similarly situated plaintiffs who
desire to opt in," Judge Ungaro opines.

On September 6, 2018, the Plaintiff filed its Collective Action
Complaint against the Defendants, seeking damages for unpaid
overtime and unpaid wages arising out of her employment as a sales
manager at Defendant Seduction Cosmetic Center Corp Defendants
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  On September 16, 2018, the
Plaintiff filed the Motion to Certify, seeking to certify a
collective action under the FLSA on behalf of:

     All persons who are currently, or who were, from the date
     this lawsuit was filed going back three years as non-exempt
     workers of the Defendants, regardless of whether they were
     misclassified as independent contractors or classified as
     employees, either directly by Defendants or through any of
     their subsidiaries or affiliated companies.[CC]


LYFT: Drivers File Misclassification Class-Action Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
Ana Valens, writing for The Daily Dot, reports that ride-hailing
app Lyft is caught up in two class-action lawsuits that may change
the future for rideshare companies. In each case, Lyft drivers
argue that they are employees working for Lyft and not independent
contractors. That means, according to the drivers, that they are
"misclassified" under state law and entitled to lost wages, Ars
Technica reports.

Massachusetts Lyft driver Eric Wickberg and California driver
Nathaniel Whitson filed two separate class-action lawsuits last
month, Wickberg v. Lyft and Whitson v. Lyft, respectively. Both
briefs argue that Lyft possesses strong control over its drivers,
treating them like employees while profiting at the drivers'
expense.

In particular, Whitson references California's "ABC" test from this
year's Dynamex v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County case. That
ruling thrust the burden of proof onto California employers to
prove workers are independent contractors, which means Lyft may
face an uphill battle in court against the Whitson brief's claims,
including how Lyft "dictates almost every aspect of how Plaintiff
provides transportation services" down to payment rates and
resolving customer complaints.

"Lyft (similar to its primary competitor, Uber) has engaged in a
ruse to deny drivers like Plaintiff their rights as employees, to
the drivers' financial detriment and Lyft's financial benefit," the
lawsuit argues. "Under federal and California law, Plaintiff should
have been classified as an employee, as he provides a service that
benefits Defendants."

If the court sides with the plaintiffs, the cases' demands could
cause a ripple effect that changes how Lyft, Uber, and other
ride-hailing services do business in both states. Wickberg requests
the court state that Lyft drivers in Massachusetts are employees,
while Whitson asks the court to declare Lyft's "policies and
practices" outlined in the brief as "unlawful under the laws of
California." Both lawsuits also request Lyft provide payment for
lost wages, among other associated damages.

Other drivers in Massachusetts and California could join the
lawsuit as well. While Lyft has an anti-class-action lawsuit
arbitration agreement that largely prevents disputes from being
handled through litigation, both Wickberg and Whitson opted out of
that clause prior to the lawsuit. Both argue that this lets them
sue on behalf of other Lyft drivers, even those that did not opt
out of the agreement.

"A class action is the superior method of trying these claims,"
Wickberg's brief argues. "The expense and burden of individual
litigation makes it impractical for members of the Class to seek
redress individually for the wrongful conduct alleged herein."[GN]


MCDONALD'S: Faces Class Action Over Happy Meal Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------
CTV Montreal reports that McDonald's children's menu is the subject
of a class action lawsuit in Quebec.

Montreal lawyer Joey Zukran claims that the fast-food giant is
violating Quebec's consumer protection laws with ads that directly
target children under the age of 13.

Traditionally packaged for children, the Happy Meal comes with a
toy, often marketed at the same time as a blockbuster movie.

"Our pretention is that McDonald's is violating the consumer
protection act by advertising toys to children and our position is
that it's illegal," said Mr. Zukran.

If the suit is authorized, customers in Quebec could make a
financial claim.

"We're certainly seeking punitive damage for a flagrant violation,
or what we consider to be a flagrant violation of the law and the
individual reimbursement of the toy sales or a portion of a Happy
Meal," said Mr. Zukran.

For a class action to proceed, a judge first has to authorize it
and determine if there's enough merit.

McDonald's is currently fighting hard against the suit, and in a
statement released on Nov. 6, the company said:

"We do not believe that this case should be authorized to proceed
as a class action; nor do we believe that it has merit. McDonald's
has been proudly serving guests in Quebec for many years, and we
are aware of our obligations under Quebec's advertising laws."

The legal challenge has supporters, though.

In Quebec, Coalition Poids, a group that encourages healthy eating
habits says McDonald's marketing tactics are questionable.

"We have to understand that marketing to kids, and specifically
food, influences their habits, their foods, their consumption, so
it's a concern for public health," said Corinne Voyer of the
coalition.

Coalition Poids is currently lobbying for a bill that's now before
the Senate, which would ban marketing for children on popular food
products right across Canada -- including cartoons on cereal boxes
and similar products. [GN]


MCDONALD'S: Judge Dismisses Quarter Pounder with Cheese Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Cohen, writing for Miami Herald, reports that two South
Florida McDonald's customers learned on Nov. 2 how difficult it is
to win a lawsuit against a major fast-food chain. The two filed a
$5 million class action lawsuit in May against McDonald's over how
it charges for one of its signature items: the Quarter Pounder with
Cheese.

On Nov. 2, U.S. District Judge William Dimitrouleas dismissed a
suit filed by Cynthia Kissner of Broward and Leonard Werner of
Miami-Dade in the U.S. District Court in Fort Lauderdale.

In that suit, the customers complained that they had been charged
the full price of a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, even after they
asked that the burger be modified to hold the cheese.

Judge Dimitrouleas granted McDonald's' motion to dismiss
Ms. Kissner and Mr. Werner's amended class action complaint -- and
he did so "with prejudice," meaning the two plaintiffs cannot file
this suit again.

Ms. Kissner and Mr. Werner failed to "state a claim" for their
damages, one of the main hurdles they would have had to clear to
make headway in their lawsuit.

Citing a federal rule of civil procedure, Judge Dimitrouleas'
decision said "a pleading must contain a 'short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.' This
pleading standard 'does not require detailed factual allegations,'
but it demands more than an unadorned, the -- defendant --
unlawfully-harmed me accusation."

In layman's language: Ms. Kissner and Mr. Werner didn't say, or
couldn't prove, they were harmed by having to pay more for a plain
Quarter Pounder, as they alleged.

In stronger language, the Nov. 2 decision called Ms. Kissner and
Mr. Werner's attempt to tie a Quarter Pounder and a Quarter Pounder
with Cheese as one "tied" product "absurd and fails."

Judge Dimitrouleas' ruling says "a Quarter Pounder with no cheese
and cheese are separate and distinct products, both of which are
offered for sale and can be purchased separately in McDonald's
restaurants."

The class action suit was filed by Andrew Lavin of the Miami-based
Lavin Law Group in May.

Mr. Lavin had argued that customers can order a cheese-less Quarter
Pounder at reduced cost (about .30 cents or so depending on the
franchise) via the McDonald's app even if the menu board inside a
franchise only shows the cheese option.

McDonald's successfully refuted this argument.

"The McDonald's App does not constitute advertising because product
availability and pricing on the App varies as a customer changes
location and the App clearly states the same," according to
McDonald's reply in support of a motion to dismiss. That dismissal
request was filed by Jennifer Olmedo-Rodriguez and attorneys at the
Miami-based Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney on Oct. 24.

The court also agreed with McDonald's that while cheese is a
component of several menu items -- that includes the Big Mac and
Filet-o'-Fish, for instance -- Kissner and Werner can't allege that
"a slice of 'cheese' is a separate and distinct menu item with a
separate and independent market that is being tied to the purchase
of the Quarter Pounder or Double Quarter Pounder."

The dismissal added: "Under any common sense analysis, there is no
market for a customer to come into a McDonald's restaurant and
order a slice or two of 'cheese' as a product that is separate,
distinct, and independent from any other product or menu item. Nor
is there a separate product market for a customer to order a slice
of tomato, or a slice of lettuce, or a slice of pickle, etc."

As a result, Judge Dimitrouleas' dismissal affirmed that Ms.
Kissner and Werner "failed to state any viable claims after two
attempts. Moreover, it is clear that additional amendments would be
futile." The Fort Lauderdale court ordered the clerk to close the
case.

Earlier, McDonald's argued that if this case was allowed to proceed
it would create "utter chaos" for the retail food industry. [GN]


MDL 2104: Settles IKO Roofing Shingles Product Liability Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Halunen Law, and Levin Sedran &
Berman, counsel for the plaintiffs in In re: IKO Roofing Shingles
Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2104 (C.D. IL),
announced today that the plaintiffs have entered into an agreement
to settle various class actions relating to IKO "organic" asphalt
roofing shingles that were installed on buildings in the United
States primarily between 1978 and 2008.  IKO denies any liability
in the actions.  The parties agreed to the settlement to avoid the
expense and distraction of further protracted litigation and to
fully resolve this matter.

This class action settlement, which must be approved by a judge,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of Illinois.  The benefits to Settlement Class Members
include extensions of shingle limited warranties by up to five
years on existing warranties and some expired warranties and
increases in the payments on certain valid warranty claims.

People who own or owned buildings with IKO organic shingles can
obtain additional information about the settlement by checking the
website at www.IKOOrganicRoofingShinglesClassActionSettlement.com.

For Further Information:  

         For Class Plaintiffs:

         Robert K. Shelquist
         Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.
         Telephone: 612-339-6900
         Website: www.locklaw.com

         Clayton Halunen
         Halunen Law
         Telephone: 612-605-4098
         Website: www.halunenlaw.com  

         Charles Schaffer
         Levin Sedran & Berman
         Telephone: 877-882-1011
         Website: www.lfsblaw.com  [GN]


MDL 2804: West Virginia Attorneys Seek Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
Annie Moore, writing for WVVA Health Matters, reports that they are
the smallest victims in the prescription pill epidemic that in the
last decade has ravaged West Virginia -- babies born addicted. For
years, their struggles have been dealt with quietly in hospitals,
at home, and in school.

For the very first time in Southern W.V.a., a group of attorneys,
including former U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin, Esq. --
rbg@goodwingoodwin.com -- are taking the nation's biggest
pharmaceutical companies to task -- suing the companies in West
Virginia, the state with the highest per capita incidence of
Neo-Natal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS) in the country.

According to Goodwin, they are starting in Wyoming County -- the
heart of West Virginia's opioid epidemic.

"We've done a great deal of research to put together a compelling
case and we're loaded for bear. We're ready to go."

The law firms filing the case in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia on behalf of NAS babies include
Goodwin & Goodwin, Tim Lupardus, Rod Jackson, and the Calwell Law
Office. Their hope is to secure class action certification.

The first plaintiffs are Beverly and Andrew Riling of Wyoming
County on behalf of their 11-year-old granddaughter, Andriana
Riling.

Beverly Riling was coasting toward retirement in 2005, when her
son, daughter-in-law, and young grandson needed a place to live.
She and her husband, Andrew, took them in.

By 2006, Riling said both her daughter-in-law and son had left
albeit separately. And once again, she found herself playing the
role of mom.

"They had taken the kids to a place where several people were
involved in drugs. Welfare said we would have to put him out of the
house and take custody of the boys."

Two more major life altering events would rock Riling's foundation
in 2006 and 2007. In December of 2006, their son was killed in a
car accident. At the time, their daughter-in-law was seven months
pregnant.

"The baby was born on Sunday night. We went to see her on a Monday.
On Tuesday, the hospital called and says both are positive for
drugs (mother and baby). She's not leaving here with that baby. If
you don't take her, she's going to foster care."

At nearly 60 years old, the Rilings' took custody of the couple's
third child, Andriana. It was not until after Andriana went off the
medication at the hospital that she learned the full extent of her
granddaughter's suffering.

"She beat herself, banging herself with her arms and legs at the
same time, and screaming. She couldn't stand noise, music. She
couldn't stand for me to sing to her."

The Rilings and their attorneys sued the pharmaceutical companies
in October for damages, claiming the "NAS epidemic and its
consequences could have been, and should have been prevented by the
defendants who control the U.S. drug distribution industry."

Goodwin said their suit will directly link the pain pill makers
with the opioids Andriana's mother obtained both legally and
illegally during her pregnancy.

"When you're traumatized like this in utero and beyond that as a
result of this, they're going to have needs. And we want to make
sure they're supported in anyway possible."

Pharmaceutical companies named in the suit include McKesson
Corporation, Cardinal Health, Amerisource Bergen Corporation, Endo
Health Solutions, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Mallinckroft
Enterprises.

Goodwin said other children impacted by the NAS epidemic could be
part of the suit. To learn more, the attorneys have launched a new
website that may not be operational until Saturday, Nov. 3.
http://www.addictedbabies.com

In the meantime, potential plaintiffs may contact the attorneys
1-800-876-5529.[GN]


MM. LAFLEUR: Faces Class Suit in E.D.N.Y. for ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MM. Lafleur Inc. The
case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MM. Lafleur Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-06366 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 8, 2018).

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

MM.LaFleur creates luxury apparel and accessories with the same
attention to detail as a high-end fashion house. It is a wardrobe
solution for professional women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NASHVILLE, TN: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Abriq Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Abdullah Abriq filed an appeal from a court ruling in his
lawsuit titled Abdullah Abriq v. Daron Hall, et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-00690, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee at Nashville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court granted the Plaintiffs' Request for Protective Order.

The Plaintiff alleges that ICE officials took custody of him,
pending civil removal proceedings.  Of the claims originally made
by the Plaintiff, only his Fourth Amendment claim remains, all
other claims having been dismissed upon Metro's motion.

Defendant Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
has filed a motion to compel the Plaintiff to answer
interrogatories and provide documentation about his immigration
status, the status of his immigration proceedings, and the
information that ICE possessed to support its arrest of the
Plaintiff.

The appellate case is captioned as Abdullah Abriq v. Daron Hall, et
al., Case No. 18-6124, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant brief is due on December 3, 2018; and

   -- Appellee brief is due on January 2, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ABDULLAH ABRIQ, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Tricia R. Herzfeld, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: triciah@bsjfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON
COUNTY, Metropolitan Courthouse Nashville, TN 37201, is represented
by:

          Allison L. Bussell, Esq.
          KLEIN BUSSELL, PLLC
          1224 Sixth Avenue, N.
          Nashville, TN 37208
          Telephone: (615) 600-4803
          E-mail: allison.bussell@kleinbussell.com


NESTLE SA: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Slave Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN DOE, I; JOHN DOE, II; JOHN DOE, III; JOHN DOE,
IV; JOHN DOE, V; and JOHN DOE, VI, each individually and on behalf
of proposed class members, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NESTLE, S.A.;
NESTLE USA, INC.; NESTLE IVORY COAST; CARGILL INCORPORATED COMPANY;
CARGILL COCOA; CARGILL WEST AFRICA, S. A.; ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND
COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-55435 (9th Cir.), Judge
D.W. Nelson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (i)
reversed the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims
for aiding and abetting slave labor that took place in the United
States under the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"); and (ii) remanded to
allow the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants, former child slaves who were forced to
work on cocoa farms in the Ivory Coast, filed a class action
lawsuit against Defendants-Appellees Nestle, SA, Nestle USA, Nestle
Ivory Coast, Archer Daniels Midland Co. ("ADM"), Cargill Inc. Co.,
and Cargill West Africa, SA.  The Plaintiffs were kidnapped and
forced to work on cocoa farms in the Ivory Coast for up to 14 hours
a day without pay.  While being forced to work on the cocoa farms,
the Plaintiffs witnessed the beating and torture of other child
slaves who attempted to escape.

The Defendants are large manufacturers, purchasers, processors, and
retail sellers of cocoa beans.  Several of them are foreign
corporations that are not subject to suit under the ATS.  Because
of their economic leverage over the cocoa market, the Defendants
effectively control cocoa production in the Ivory Coast.  They
operate with the unilateral goal of finding the cheapest source of
cocoa in the Ivory Coast.  

"Not content to rely on market forces to keep costs low, the
Defendants have taken steps to perpetuate a system built on child
slavery to depress labor costs.  To maintain their supply of cocoa,
the Defendants have exclusive buyer/seller relationships with Ivory
Coast farmers, and provide those farmers with financial support,
such as advance payments and personal spending money.  The
Defendants also provide tools, equipment, and technical support to
farmers, including training in farming techniques and farm
maintenance.  In connection with providing this training and
support, the Defendants visit their supplier farms several times
per year," the Ninth Circuit said.

"The Defendants were well aware that child slave labor is a
pervasive problem in the Ivory Coast.  Nonetheless, they continued
to provide financial support and technical farming aid, even though
they knew their acts would assist farmers who were using forced
child labor, and knew their assistance would facilitate child
slavery.  Indeed, the gravamen of the complaint is that the
Defendants depended on -- and orchestrated -- a slave-based supply
chain," the Ninth Circuit pointed out.

The Plaintiffs began the lawsuit over a decade ago, and the Court
had occasion to consider it once before in Doe I v. Nestle USA,
Inc.  On remand after Nestle I, the Defendants moved to dismiss the
operative complaint and the district court granted the motion.  In
its order, the district concluded that the complaint seeks an
impermissible extraterritorial application of the ATS because the
Defendants engaged domestically only in ordinary business conduct.
The district court did not decide whether the Plaintiffs stated a
claim for aiding and abetting child slavery.

The Plaintiffs timely appealed.

Judge Nelson finds that the allegations paint a picture of overseas
slave labor that the Defendants perpetuated from headquarters in
the United States.  This particular combination of conduct in the
United States is both specific and domestic.  He thus holds that
foregoing narrow set of domestic conduct is relevant to the ATS'
focus.

The Defendants invite the Court to rule in the alternative that the
Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged the elements of aiding and
abetting.  The Judge thinks it's unnecessary to reach that issue at
this time.  He explains that esner v. Arab Bank changed the legal
landscape on which plaintiffs constructed their case.  The
operative complaint names several foreign corporations as the
Defendants, and the Plaintiffs concede those Defendants must be
dismissed on remand.  The operative complaint also discusses the
Defendants as if they are a single bloc -- a problematic approach
that the Plaintiffs would do well to avoid.  In light of Jesner, it
is not possible on the current record to connect culpable conduct
to the Defendants that may be sued under the ATS.

As the Court observed in Nestle I, the Judge finds that it is
common practice to allow plaintiffs to amend their pleadings to
accommodate changes in the law, unless it is clear that amendment
would be futile.  He is mindful that the case has lingered for over
a decade, and that delay does not serve the interests of any party.
But he cannot conclude that amendment would be futile, so he would
remand with instructions that the Plaintiffs be given an
opportunity to amend their complaint.  On remand, the Plaintiffs
must remove those Defendants who are no longer amenable to suit
under the ATS, and specify which potentially liable party is
responsible for what culpable conduct.

For these reasons, Judge Nelson reversed the district court, and
remanded to allow the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to
specify whether aiding and abetting conduct that took place in the
United States is attributable to the domestic corporations in the
case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 23, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/ix1H3L from Leagle.com.

Paul L. Hoffman (argued), John Washington, and Catherine Sweetser,
Schonbrun Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP, Los Angeles, California;
Terrence P. Collingsworth, International Human Rights Advocates,
Washington, D.C.; for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- (argued),
Abbey Hudson -- ahudson@gibsondunn.com -- Matthew A. Hoffman --
mhoffman@gibsondunn.com -- and Perlette Michèle Jura --
pjura@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles,
California; Christopher B. Leach and Theodore B. Olson, Gibson Dunn
& Crutcher LLP, Washington, D.C.; Colleen Sinzdak --
colleen.sinzdak@hoganlovells.com -- David M. Foster --
david.foster@hoganlovells.com -- Craig A. Hoover --
craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com -- and Neal Kumar Katyal --
neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington,
D.C.; for Defendant-Appellee Nestlé USA, Inc.

Andrew John Pincus -- apincus@mayerbrown.com -- (argued) and Kevin
S. Ranlett -- kranlett@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP,
Washington, D.C.; Lee H. Rubin -- lrubin@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer
Brown LLP, Mayer Brown LLP, Palo Alto, California; for
Defendant-Appellee Cargill Incorporated.

Marc B. Robertson and Richard A. Stamp, Washington Legal
Foundation, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Washington Legal
Foundation.


NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Law Officers Union Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs The New York State Law Enforcement Officers Union
Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, et al., filed an appeal from a
memorandum decision and order, and a judgment, entered on September
24, 2018, in their lawsuit styled The New York State Law
Enforcement Officers Union Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, et al. v.
State of New York, et al., Case No. 11-cv-1525, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York (Syracuse).

The nature of suit is stated as local question - constitutional.

The appellate case is captioned as The New York State Law
Enforcement Officers Union Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, et al. v.
State of New York, et al., Case No. 18-3142, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants James Lyman, as Executive Director of the The
New York State Law Enforcement Officers Union, Council 82, AFSCME,
AFL-CIO; Michael Ladue, Individually and as President of Local
2951; Robert H. Beck, Jr., Individually and as a member of Local
635SS; John Tremark, Individually and as President of Local 2337;
Security and Law Enforcement Employees, Council 82 AFSCME, AFL-CIO;
Gary Tavormina, Individually, and as Retiree Chapter 82 President
of the Security and Law Enforcement Employees, Council 82, AFSCME,
AFL-CIO; Charles Krom, Sr., Individually, and as Retiree Chapter 82
Vice President of the Security and Law Enforcement Employees,
Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO; Laura Cestaro, On Behalf of Herself
and all Others Similarly Situated; Gerald Gallo, On Behalf of
Himself and all Others Similarly Situated; Donald Schoen, On Behalf
of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated; and The New York
State Law Enforcement Officers Union Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO,
are represented by:

          Christine Anne Caputo Granich, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS UNION,
          COUNCIL 82
          63 Colvin Avenue
          Albany, NY 12206
          Telephone: (518) 489-8424
          E-mail: christine.caputogranich@council82.org

Defendants-Appellees Patricia A. Hite, Individually, and in her
official capacity as Acting Commissioner, New York State Civil
Service Department; Caroline W. Ahl, in her official capacity as
Commissioner of the New York State Civil Service Commission; J.
Dennis Hanrahan, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the
New York State Civil Service Commission; Robert L. Megna,
Individually, and in his official capacity as Director of the New
York State Division of the Budget; Thomas P. DiNapoli, in his
official capacity as Comptroller of the State of New York; and
Andrew M. Cuomo, in his official capacity as Governor of the State
of New York, are represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          28 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 416-8000
          E-mail: barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov


NEW YORK: Judge Likely to Shoot Down NYCHA Residents' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Greg B. Smith, writing for New York Daily News, reports that for
the thousands of public housing tenants who went without heat
during last winter's cold blast, don't hold your breath about
getting a rent refund.

A Manhattan judge on November 2 made clear she's likely to shoot
down a class-action lawsuit seeking money damages for the 320,000
NYCHA residents who endured at least some heat outage last winter.

The Legal Aid Society asked Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Carol
Edmead to treat all these tenants as a single class, but NYCHA's
lawyers argued the households that lost heat each faced unique
circumstances and must file suit individually.

During a one-hour court hearing that at one point explored the
concept of the "supremacy clause" of the U.S. Constitution (that
federal law pre-empts state law), Edmead wound up siding with
NYCHA.

"I'm pretty comfortable with saying that I don't see class
certification," she said, promising a written decision soon.

Last winter heat outages plagued dozens of developments,
particularly during a brutal 14-day January freeze, with some
tenants losing heat and hot water for days on end.

The Legal Aid Society lawsuit also requested that NYCHA be ordered
to reform its heat and hot water repair system, but NYCHA lawyers
argued that reforms implemented since last winter have made that
requirement moot.

Since Mayor de Blasio vowed that this winter would be different,
NYCHA has installed new boilers in 12 developments, increased the
number of heat technicians from 476 to 491 and reduced the average
down time for boilers from 15.9 hours to 12.8 hours.

On November 2 NYCHA spokeswoman Robin Levine noted,"NYCHA's
leadership remains committed to meeting its obligations to better
serve our residents. In the last six months, we have made capital
investments, enhanced staffing and management, and improved
communications with tenants to expedite repairs, streamline
reporting, and stop outages before they happen."

Still since the heat season kicked off Oct. 1, more than 72,000
NYCHA tenants have already experienced some form of heat and/or hot
water outage.

NYCHA also argued that the federal consent decree the authority
signed off on in June pre-empts Legal Aid's suit because it would
include oversight of all health and safety issues -- including heat
and hot water -- if it's approved by Manhattan Federal Court Judge
William Pauley.

Pauley has yet to sign off on the deal which would include the
appointment of an independent monitor to ensure NYCHA complies with
local, state and federal laws and rules requiring that their
176,000 apartments be kept in habitable condition.

"I'm waiting for Judge Pauley," Judge Edmead said. "But the
likelihood is I will hold this (suit) in abeyance waiting for Judge
Pauley."[GN]



NEW YORK: Spence Appeals N.D.N.Y. Decision to Second Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Wayne Spence, et al., filed an appeal from a memorandum
decision and order, and a judgment both dated September 24, 2018,
issued by the District Court in their lawsuit titled Spence, et al.
v. State of New York, et al., Case No. 11-cv-1533, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York (Syracuse).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, retired state
employees and their unions filed seven class actions against Gov.
Andrew Cuomo and the state, for cutting their health insurance
benefits while increasing the share of premiums retirees must pay.

Gov. Cuomo on Oct. 1, 2011 decided to increase retirees'
health-care contributions by 2% -- raising them to roughly 12% from
10% for individual coverage (depending on the employee's grade) and
to 27% from 25% for family coverage.

The appellate case is captioned as Spence, et al. v. State of New
York, et al., Case No. 18-3140, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Wayne Spence, as President of the New York
State Public Employees Federation; Karen Danish; James Carr; Robert
H. Harms, Jr.; Kenneth R. Hunter; Mary Reid; Calvin Thayer; Raymond
Ferraro; and New York State Public Employees Federation, AFL-CIO,
are represented by:

          Edward J. Aluck, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FEDERATION
          1168-70 Troy-Schenectady Road
          Latham, NY 12110
          Telephone: (518) 785-1900
          E-mail: ed@pef.org

Defendants-Appellees Andrew M. Cuomo, as Governor of the State of
New York; Patricia A. Hite, Individually, and in her official
capacity as Acting Commissioner, New York State Civil Service
Department; Caroline W. Ahl, in their official capacities as
Commissioners of the New York State Civil Service Commission;
Dennis J. Hanrahan, Individually, and in their official capacities
as Commissioners of the New York State Civil Service Commission;
Robert L. Megna, Individually, and in his official capacity as
Director of the New York State Division of the Budget; Thomas P.
DiNapoli, in his official capacity as Comptroller of the State of
New York; and Gary Johnson, in his official capacity as Executive
Director of the Governors Office of Employee Relations, are
represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          28 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 416-8000
          E-mail: barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov


NIKE INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Gender, Pay Discrimination Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Kish, writing for Portland Business Journal, reports that
Nike Inc. late on Nov. 5 filed a motion to dismiss parts of a
sweeping lawsuit that alleges gender and pay discrimination.

The lawsuit, filed in August on behalf of four former Nike
employees, seeks class-action status. It came in the wake of
numerous news reports about a workplace repeatedly described as a
"boy's club." The lawsuit has since grown to seven plaintiffs.

In its partial motion to dismiss, Nike claims the lawsuit's
definition of the class is overly broad and would force the
sportswear company to endure a "thicket of discovery." Nike also
claims the lawsuit lacks sufficient facts.

"Plaintiffs have not alleged any factual predicate that makes these
claims plausible or warrants imposing upon Nike and the court the
considerable burden and expense of litigating their overbroad
claims," Nike said in the motion.

To illustrate its argument, Nike notes one of the seven plaintiffs
in the lawsuit compares her salary to a male employee in the same
job level, but doesn't provide information about the male
employee's job title or responsibilities. Another plaintiff
compares her salary to men in higher job levels with different
titles.

"The named plaintiff's inconsistent theories . . . highlight the
untenable nature of this alleged class action," Nike said in the
motion.

Of the four claims in the lawsuit, Nike asked a judge to dismiss
three of them, including violations of the Federal Equal Pay Act,
Oregon Equal Pay Act and intentional discrimination under the
Oregon Equality Act. It denied the allegations in the fourth claim
-- disparate impact violations of the Oregon Equality Act -- but
did not ask for the claim to be dismissed.

"Notably, Nike did not move to dismiss the claim that Nike's
policies and practices have resulted in lower pay and fewer
promotions for women," said Laura Salerno Owens, an attorney for
Markowitz Herbold who represents the plaintiffs, in a statement.
"No matter how the court rules on Nike's request, these brave
women's call for merit-based pay and promotion at Nike will
continue."

Nike and an attorney representing the company did not immediately
return messages. [GN]


OHIO: Sued for Violating Jailed Individuals' Right to Vote
----------------------------------------------------------
Max Londberg, writing for Cincinnati Enquirer, reports that on an
Election Day ruling, a federal judge gave two jailed Ohioans a
chance to cast midterm ballots.

Judge Michael H. Watson in the Southern District of Ohio granted a
temporary order filed and granted on Nov. 6. The order was filed on
behalf of two men jailed in Montgomery County.

A class-action lawsuit was also filed on Nov. 6 in federal court by
the Campaign Legal Center, the MacArthur Justice Center and Demos,
a think tank.

"Ohio systematically disenfranchises eligible voters who are
arrested after the absentee ballot request deadline and detained
through Election Day by refusing to provide these eligible voters
with access to the ballot," the suit says.

The suit names Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, who is also
gubernatorial candidate Mike DeWine's running mate, as the
defendant. It alleges jailed Ohioans' First and Fourteenth
Amendments are being violated.

Jailed individuals are allowed to vote in Ohio, said Mike Brickner,
the Ohio state director of the nonprofit All Voting is Local, which
was formed in July and now operates in five states.

But those arrested on the weekend before an election have no
ability or time to request an absentee ballot to vote from jail,
Mr. Brickner said, essentially disenfranchising them.

"These are people not convicted of any crime," Mr. Brickner said,
"so they're still eligible voters."

Watson, in his ruling, ordered election officials in Montgomery
County to immediately deliver absentee ballots to the jailed
individuals, who were both arrested on misdemeanor charges,
according to jail records.

Hospitalized individuals can receive absentee ballots delivered
bedside, and the same should be true for jailed registered voters,
according to the suit.

Mr. Brickner said wealthy individuals arrested the weekend before
an election can afford bail and thus still cast a ballot, while
lower-income inmates remain "stuck in jail and disenfranchised."

Mr. Brickner added that because jails don't keep data on inmates'
voter registration status, it's unclear how many people are
affected throughout the state.

"We don't know if it's a couple people in a jail or scores of
people," he said. [GN]


OYSTER PROTOCOL: Investors to Sue Over Pump and Dump Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Kihoro, writing for Crypto Digest, reports that a group of
investors have come together to seek legal representation against
Oyster Protocol that recently got blamed for carrying out a pump
and dump scheme using its network.

The investors allegedly lost lots of funds with some losing upwards
of $100,000 in the network's attack reportedly carried out by one
of its founders.

The team of investors are looking to identify legal counsel, gather
evidence and identify the plaintiffs. [GN]


PETERSON ENTERPRISES: Bid to Dismiss Patterson FDCPA Claim Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LATALIA PATTERSON, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PETERSON ENTERPRISES, INC., a
Washington collection agency doing business pursuant to UBI No.
601438603, doing business as Valley Empire Collection, Defendant,
Case No: 2:18-CV-161-RMP (E.D. Wash.), Judge Rosanna Malouf
Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Ms. Patterson's
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") claim.

Ms. Patterson alleges that her child needed medical care.  Despite
possessing two separate health insurance plans, Ms. Patterson
alleges that the child's medical providers failed to properly bill
Ms. Patterson's insurance.  As a result, she alleges that the
account went unpaid, she defaulted, and the medical provider sent
the defaulted account to Valley Empire for collections.

Ms. Patterson claims that Valley Empire reported the unpaid
accounts to major credit reporting agencies and subsequently filed
a debt collection lawsuit against her.  She alleges that she filed
and served an answer to Valley Empire's debt collection lawsuit.
She argues that serving an answer and asserting cross claims and
counterclaims constitutes "disputing" the unpaid accounts.  Ms.
Patterson alleges that she continued fighting Valley Empire's debt
collection lawsuit by opposing summary judgment.

Ms. Patterson further alleges that Valley Empire failed to report
the medical accounts as disputed after her opposition to the debt
collection lawsuit.  According to her, Valley Empire's failure to
report the credit accounts as disputed violates the FDCPA, the
Washington Collection Agency Act, and the Washington Consumer
Protection Act.  She claims that Valley Empire has acted similarly
to other people in her position, and looks to proceed with her case
against Valley Empire as a class action.

Valley Empire filed the present Motion to Dismiss Ms. Patterson's
FDCPA claim, arguing that Ms. Patterson failed to allege any FDCPA
violations within the one-year statute of limitations.  Ms.
Patterson alleges that Valley Empire's conduct occurred within the
statute of limitations.

Judge Peterson finds that Ms. Patterson alleges that Valley Empire
elected to report the unpaid medical accounts to credit reporting
agencies.  Because Valley Empire elected to report the medical
account, if Valley Empire did not disclose that the account was
disputed, that failure to disclose would be material.  Ms.
Patterson's complaint therefore alleges that Valley Empire failed
to report the credit account as disputed, and that such a failure
would be material under section 1692e.  Thus, Ms. Patterson's
complaint sufficiently states a FDCPA claim.

Valley Empire argues that Ms. Patterson's claims fall outside of
the FDCPA's statute of limitations.  The FDCPA has a one-year
statute of limitations.  However, twice in Ms. Patterson's
complaint she alleges that Valley Empire's unlawful conduct
occurred within the previous 12 months.  Thus, Ms. Patterson has
alleged conduct by Valley Empire within the FDCPA's statute of
limitations.

For these reasons, Judge Peterson denied the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss.  He directed the District Court Clerk to enter the Order
and provide copies to the counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 23, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/2I8tQD from Leagle.com.

Latalia Patterson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Wayne Mitchell, Robert
Mitchell, Attorney at Law.

Peterson Enterprises Inc, a Washington Collection Agency doing
business pursuant to UBI No 601438603, Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey I. Hasson, Hasson Law LLC.


PGA INC: Summary Judgment Bid in Schilling FLSA Suit Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC SCHILLING, BLAINE KROHN, and ERIK SINCLAIR,
Plaintiffs, v. PGA INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-202-wmc (W.D.
Wis.), Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment; (ii) denied as moot in part and granted in part
the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; (iii) denied as moot
the Defendant's motion for leave to file supplemental authority;
(iv) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file supplemental
authority; (v) granted the Plaintiffs' motion to file a
supplemental brief; and (vi) denied as moot the Defendant's motion
for leave to file a response brief.

Plaintiffs Schilling and Krohn were employed by of PGA from May 21,
2015, to Aug. 6, 2015.  During this period, both worked on the UWSP
Debot Hall Project.  Plaintiff Sinclair was also employed by PGA
between September 2014 and August 2015.  During his employment, he
worked on the Harvey Hall Renovation - Phase 2 Project.

The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development ("DWD") issues
prevailing wage determinations for each eligible project by trade
with separate columns for that trade's hourly basic rate of pay,
fringe benefit rate, and total-package-compensation hourly rate.
For each Wisconsin prevailing wage project on which PGA worked,
therefore, DWD issued a prevailing wage determination, including
the two projects on which the Plaintiffs worked.

PGA also provided some fringe benefits to its employees during this
relevant period, such as compensation for health insurance premiums
and contributions to their 401(k) plans.  Typically, the hourly
value of the fringe benefits paid by PGA on behalf of its employees
is lower than the fringe benefit rate on the prevailing wage
determination.  For prevailing wage projects, PGA must pay its
employees this deficit as a cash payment reported on a W-2 as
"wages, tips or other compensation."  The parties refer to this
payment as the "cash fringe."

Material to the Plaintiffs' claim of willfulness, the Defendant
proposes several other facts about its efforts to confirm the
method for calculating overtime.  DWD advises Wisconsin employees
that payments for cash fringe benefits need not be included in the
overtime premium calculation.  Indeed, DWD issued wage
determination letters to PGA advising how employers should
calculate overtime for state prevailing wage projects.

During the week of July 20-26, 2015, Sinclair was credited by PGA
as having worked 31 hours of straight time as a general laborer, 9
hours of straight time as a sheetmetal worker, and 8 hours of
overtime as a general laborer.  The overtime pay was calculated
using the general laborer rate of $24.21 per hour, while Sinclair's
sheetmetal worker rate was $28.05.  Applying the resulting math,
PGA would have paid Sinclair for that week total wages of
$1,293.48.  If PGA had paid Sinclair overtime using a straight time
average rate, however, he would have made $1,303.85 -- a difference
of $10.37.

Putting aside the possible problems with the Plaintiffs' proof, PGA
nonetheless admits that, at least in some instances, for some
employees, it computes overtime using the rate of work performed by
the employee during the overtime hours "pursuant to an agreement
with the employee."  In other instances, however, it would
calculate overtime pay using a blended, average straight time wage
rate earned by the employee during the workweek.  In still other
instances, PGA acknowledges calculating overtime for PGA employees
who worked on two or more trade classifications during the work
week based on the higher wage rate worked.

The bulk of the Plaintiffs' proposed findings of facts concern
individual claims brought by Schilling and Krohn specifically,
challenging the categorization of their work on the Debot Hall
project as subjourney sheet metal work, rather than general laborer
work.  As the former, they were paid $18.10 per hour for this work,
while the general laborer rate was $34.88.

As detailed in the proposed findings, Schilling and Krohn aver that
during the project -- and they kept track of their time on various
tasks -- they worked 90 to 95% of their time on drilling holes
through concrete floors and walls and related work, e.g., cleaning,
prepping, etc.  PGA does not dispute that the hole drilling work
would probably fall in the general laborer classification rather
than the subjourney sheet metal one.

The parties cross-move for summary judgment in this hybrid FLSA
collective action and Rule 23 class action claiming violations of
Wisconsin state labor laws.  Because the claims largely turn on
questions of statutory and regulatory interpretation, the Court
opted to hold an oral argument on their motions.

Having reviewed the parties' briefs and supporting materials, and
now having the benefit of additional argument, Judge Conley granted
summary judgment to the Defendant as a matter of law on (1) the
Plaintiffs' state law claim and FLSA claim based on a "cash fringe"
overtime theory and (2) the Plaintiffs' state law claim based on
the straight time average rate overtime theory.  

This leaves only Schilling's individual claim that he was
misclassified as a subjourney person, rather than as a general
laborer.  Given the parties' material factual disputes about
Schilling's alleged work as a general laborer, the Judge denied the
Plaintiffs' motion as to this claim and proceed to a bench trial to
resolve those disputes.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 23, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/yHBz72 from Leagle.com.

Eric Schilling, Blaine Krohn & Erik Sinclair, Plaintiffs,
represented by Yingtao Ho -- yh@previant.com -- The Previant Law
Firm, S.C.

PGA Inc., Defendant, represented by John H. Zawadsky --
jzawadsky@reinhartlaw.com -- Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren, SC &
Robert S. Driscoll -- rdriscoll@reinhartlaw.com -- Reinhart Boerner
Van Deuren s.c..


PHILIPPE NYC: Diaz Sues Restaurant for ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Philippe NYC I LLC.
The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Philippe NYC I LLC doing
business as: Philippe Chow, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10406 (S.D.
N.Y., Nov. 8, 2018).

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

Philippe Chow delivers a dining experience for both lunch and
dinner by providing Beijing style cuisine, quality service and an
enjoyable ambiance for the guests.[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


PIPELINE PRODUCTIONS: Settlement in Music Festival Suit Reached
---------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action involving
the Thunder on the Mountain music festival to be held in Ozark,
Arkansas in June of 2015.  The festival was cancelled just before
it was to begin, and many purchasers of various passes and vendors
buying booths were never refunded.  This summary notice informs you
of the proposed settlement so that you can decide what to do about
it.

Who's included?  
The Class is defined as all persons who purchased day passes,
children passes, VIP passes, camping passes, RV passes, hotel
passes or packages, reserved seating, shower passes, passes of any
other kind, or vendor booths to Thunder on the Mountain to be held
on Mulberry Mountain, near Ozark, Arkansas between June 26th and
28th, 2015 (the "Class")

What is the settlement?
This is only a partial settlement of the case and only involves the
organizers of the festival, which were Brett Mosiman, Pipeline
Productions, and Backwood Entertainment ("Settling Defendants").
The Settling Defendants have sued the venture capital firms,
Madison Companies and Horsepower Entertainment, which reneged on
their deal to fund the festival.  That action is pending in federal
court in Kansas.  The Settling Defendants have agreed to a 7%
assignment of their interest in those claims, allowing up to a
potential recovery of $1 million for the Class, but no less than
$450,000.  The Settlement provides that Class Counsel and other
members of the Class will file a lien in the federal court action
in Kansas and Class Counsel will enter an appearance in that case
in order to protect that lien.  Further, Class Counsel is permitted
under the terms of the Settlement to continue prosecuting the
claims against the venture capital firms in any other venue.
Although there is no settlement fund presently, the Court in this
case will also determine the amount of any fees and costs that
could be awarded, which will not exceed 1/3 of the potential
recovery with respect to the lien and costs of no more than
$50,000.   Additionally, any incentive award to the Class
Representative may not exceed the sum of $2,500.

Your options.  
If you do not exclude yourself by November 30, 2018, you will
release your rights except as provided by the settlement.  If you
do not exclude yourself, you may appear in the case through your
own attorney at your expense.  You may file an objection to the
settlement by December 3, 2018.  Your objection must set forth your
full name, current address and telephone number, the reasons for
your objection, and a statement as to whether you intend to appear
at the Final Approval Hearing on December 13, 2018 at the Pulaski
County Circuit Courthouse, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72201 at 1:30
p.m.  If you do not properly and timely file and serve your
objection by the required date, any objections you have to the
settlement will be waived and you will be foreclosed from objecting
to the settlement.  If you file an objection, you may be asked to
provide deposition testimony in support of it.

         Scott Poynter, Esq.
         Class Counsel
         Telephone: 501-251-1587
         Email: scott@poynterlawgroup.com  [GN]


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Michigan Court Dismisses White FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Avern Cohn of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, dismissed the case,
HEATHER L. WHITE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-11979 (E.D. Mich.).

The case is a debt collection case brought under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  White is suing the Portfolio
for attempting to collect a debt that had previously been
discharged as part of her bankruptcy proceeding.  White says that
she filed for bankruptcy in August of 2014 and sometime thereafter
she received a letter from Portfolio seeking to recover a
discharged credit card debt that was discharged in bankruptcy in
violation of the FDCPA.  White also seeks class action status to
represent other similarly situated individuals.

After the complaint was filed and before the motion for class
certification was filed, Portfolio offered White a Rule 68 offer of
judgment.  White accepted.

Before the Court is the issue of whether White's acceptance of the
offer of judgment renders the case, including any class action,
moot.  Portfolio says the case is over.  Portfolio argues that
acceptance of a Rule 68 offer of judgment moots the entire case,
including the underlying class action where the offer was accepted
prior to the filing of a motion for class certification.  

Another judge in the Sixth Circuit recently considered this issue.
In Wolschlager v. Law Offices of Mitchell D. Bluhm & Assocs., LLC,
the plaintiff filed a FDCPA action and also sought class action
status.  About a month after the complaint was filed, the plaintiff
accepted the defendant's Rule 68 offer of judgment and obtained the
maximum recoverable relief for his claims.  Thereafter, the
plaintiff's counsel filed a motion to certify a class with
plaintiff as the named representative.  The defendant filed a
motion to dismiss, contending that the plaintiff's acceptance of
the offer of judgment mooted the class claims.  The district court
agreed, noting that settlement of a claim moots a case and that the
Sixth Circuit has held repeatedly that the mooting of a prospective
named plaintiff's claim before the filing for class certification
moots the case.

Judge Cohn agrees with the district court in Wolschlager as to the
state of the law in the Circuit regarding the effect of a
settlement of a plaintiff's claim in a putative class action prior
to certification.  In short, Judge Cohn holds that the instant case
is identical to Wolschlager.  White voluntarily accepted an offer
of judgment before a motion for class certification was filed.  As
in Wolschlager, this moots the case, including any putative class
action.  Accordingly, Judge Cohn dismissed the case.

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

Heather L. White, Plaintiff, represented by John Evanchek --
Office@kelawpc.com -- & Curtis C. Warner --
cwarner@warnerlawllc.com -- Warner Law Firm, LLC.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by
Ashley F. Eckerly -- aeckerly@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees, LLP,
Avanti D. Bakane -- abakane@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully
Mansukhani LLP & Tyler B. Duff -- tduff@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees
Scully Mansukhani, LLP.


RAWSON-NEAL: Damages Awarded in Class-Action
--------------------------------------------
Ken Ritter, writing for Wisconsin Law Journal, reports that a
Nevada jury put the state and a former mental hospital
administrator on the hook On November 1 for class-action damages
that could range from about $9 million to more than $22 million for
putting patients on buses in Las Vegas for one-way trips to cities
around the country.

An eight-woman jury deliberated less than three hours after a
two-week trial before deciding unanimously that every Rawson-Neal
Psychiatric Hospital patient who was given a Greyhound bus ticket
to another city and no other arrangements for care after June 2011
should receive $250,000.

State law could cap damages at $100,000 per plaintiff, or $8.9
million.

State Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman Martha
Framsted said the jury decision will be appealed.

The judgment could top $22.5 million if the cap is waived, said
attorney Mark Merin, Esq. -- mark@markmerin.com -- a Sacramento,
California, lawyer who represented plaintiff James Flavy Coy
Brown.

Brown was the subject of an award-winning investigation in 2013 by
the Sacramento Bee that brought to light what the lawsuit derides
as "Greyhound therapy."

"There are at least 371 people in the class. We have been
personally in touch with 89 of them," said Merin, who took the case
to Clark County District Court after a federal judge dismissed an
American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit in 2014.

Brown, then 48, and diagnosed with psychosis, told reporters in Las
Vegas in 2013 that he arrived "homeless, confused and anxious" in
Sacramento after a 15-hour bus ride from Las Vegas. After a day on
the streets, hospital emergency room officials found him space at a
psychiatric hospital. Brown was later reunited with his daughter in
North Carolina.

Merin said he heard similar stories of indigent patients arriving
in strange cities in every U.S. state and sleeping in bus stations,
under benches and on the street if they were not arrested or
hospitalized.

"Maybe now the state will talk about a settlement," the attorney
said. "If they don't win on appeal, they're going to have to face
this verdict."

State Attorney General Adam Laxalt's office issued a statement
noting the issue came to light before Laxalt took office in 2015,
and that his "client" defendants included Southern Nevada Mental
Health Services and the state Health and Human Services
Department.

The jury found negligence on the part of officials including the
now-retired mental health services administrator Chelsea Szklany.

Laxalt, a Republican, is running for governor to replace
term-limited GOP Gov. Brian Sandoval, who reached a $400,000
settlement of a lawsuit that San Francisco officials filed in 2013
over similar patient dumping allegations involving 24 people.

Rawson-Neal opened in 2006 as the only state psychiatric facility
in Las Vegas following years of complaints that mentally ill people
were clogging emergency rooms at for-profit hospitals in southern
Nevada.

The region now has 2.2 million of Nevada's nearly 3 million
residents.

State officials reported in 2014 that Rawson-Neal treated an
average of more than 6,000 people per year during a five-year span,
and that nearly 1,500 patients had been provided bus transportation
out of the state. [GN]


REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in ES Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs E. S. and Jodi Sternoff filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their lawsuit styled E. S., et al. v. Regence Blueshield,
et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01609-RAJ, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Seattle.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was initiated on October 30, 2017.

The Defendants are engaged in the insurance business.

The appellate case is captioned as E. S., et al. v. Regence
Blueshield, et al., Case No. 18-35892, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellants E. S. and Jodi Sternoff's opening brief is due
      on December 24, 2018;

   -- Appellees Cambia Health Solutions, Inc. and Regence
      Blueshield's answering brief is due on January 22, 2019;
      and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants E. S., by and through her parents, R.S. and
J.S., on her own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals; and JODI STERNOFF, on her own behalf, and on behalf of
all similarly situated individuals, are represented by:

          Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
          Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
          SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2560
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 223-0303
          Facsimile: (206) 223-0246
          E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com
                  rspoonemore@sylaw.com

Defendants-Appellees REGENCE BLUESHIELD and CAMBIA HEALTH
SOLUTIONS, INC., FKA The Regence Group, are represented by:

          Brad Spencer Daniels, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000
          Portland, OR 97205
          Telephone: (503) 224-3380
          E-mail: bsdaniels@stoel.com

               - and -

          Maren R. Norton, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          600 University Street
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 624-0900
          E-mail: maren.norton@stoel.com


REVERSE MORTGAGE: Lavis Appeals S.D.W. Va. Decision to 4th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Teresa Lavis filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Teresa Lavis v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions Inc.,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00209, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia at Beckley.

The appellate case is captioned as Teresa Lavis v. Reverse Mortgage
Solutions Inc., Case No. 18-2257, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 26, 2018, the
Defendant filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That
appellate case is entitled Teresa Lavis v. Reverse Mortgage
Solutions Inc., Case No. 18-2180.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant TERESA LAVIS, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Bren Joseph Pomponio, Esq.
          Gary Michael Smith, Esq.
          MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE
          1217 Quarrier Street
          Charleston, WV 25301-0000
          Telephone: (304) 344-3144
          E-mail: bren@msjlaw.org
                  gary@msjlaw.org

Defendant-Appellee REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC., is represented
by:

          Megan Burns, Esq.
          Jason E. Manning, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          222 Central Park Avenue
          Virginia Beach, VA 23462-0000
          Telephone: (757) 687-7778
          E-mail: megan.burns@troutman.com
                  jason.manning@troutmansanders.com


RIVERSIDE RESORT: Norsoph Class Has Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT NORSOPH, Individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RIVERSIDE RESORT AND CASINO,
INC., THE DONALD J. LAUGHLIN FAMILY TRUST, and DONALD J. LAUGHLIN,
as sole trustee and beneficiary of such trusts, and DONALD J.
LAUGHLIN, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-580-APG-GWF
(D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada granted the Plaintiff's Motion to
Lift Stay and Motion for Circulation of Notice of the Pendency of
the Action Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and for Other
Relief.

The Plaintiff filed the collective action on April 4, 2013 on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") based on the Defendants'
alleged failure to pay minimum wages and/or overtime wages as
required by 29 U.S.C. Section 201-218 et seq.  The Plaintiff
alleges that he was employed as a casino dealer at the Riverside
Resort and Casino in Laughlin, Nevada, and that the Defendants
required him as a condition of his employment to pool and share his
tips with other employees who do not customarily and regularly
receive tips.  This tip-pooling practice allegedly violated 29
U.S.C.Sections 203(m) and 206, and the implementing regulations set
forth in 29 C.F.R. Sections 531.52 and 531.54 which became
effective on May 5, 2011.

The Plaintiff alleges that pursuant to the tip-pooling practice,
the Defendants effectively failed to pay any wages whatsoever to
the Plaintiff, in that the Defendants recoup from the Plaintiff,
through the taking of a portion of the Plaintiff's tips, an amount
far in excess of the amount it nominally pays to the Plaintiff from
the Defendants' own funds, such actions by the Defendants violating
the purpose and intent of the FLSA which is to make all employers
pay FLSA required minimum wages and overtime wages and all other
wages solely from the resources of the employer and not by
appropriating employees tips to make such wage payments.

On July 15, 2013 the parties filed a stipulation to stay the action
pending the resolution of anticipated appeals in Oregon Restaurant
and Lodging, et al. v. Perez, and Cesarz, et al. v. Wynn Las Vegas,
LLC, et al., regarding the validity of the Department of Labor
("DOL") regulations at issue in this case.  They also stipulated to
toll the running of the statute of limitations during the pendency
of the stay.  The Court granted the requested stay and tolling of
the statute of limitations on July 22, 2013.

On Feb. 23, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in the
consolidated appeals in Oregon Restaurant and Lodging and Cesarz,
upholding the validity of the regulations.  It noted that in Cumbie
v. Woody Woo, Inc., it held that a tip pooling practice that
required the sharing of tips between customarily tipped employees
and noncustomarily tipped employees did not violate 29 U.S.C.
Section 203(m), so long as the employer did not take a tip credit.
Shortly after Cumbie was decided, the DOL adopted the regulations
that extended the tip pool restrictions of Section 203(m) to all
employers, and not just to those who take a tip credit.

Applying the two-step framework set forth in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.
v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., the court held that the revised
regulations were valid.  The dissenting judge would have found the
regulations invalid.  In Marlow v. New Food Guy, Inc., the Tenth
Circuit agreed with the dissent in Oregon Restaurant and Lodging,
and held that the regulations were beyond DOL's legislative
authority to enact.

Following the Ninth Circuit's decision in Oregon Restaurant and
Lodging Ass'n v. Perez, the parties stipulated to continue the stay
in force pending a request for en banc review of the panel's
decision, or possible appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
The Ninth Circuit denied en banc review on Sept. 6, 2016.  The
Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari on June 25, 2018.


Meanwhile, 29 U.S.C. Section 203(m) was amended by Congress on
March 23, 2018.  Section 203(m)(2)(B) now provides that an employer
may not keep tips received by its employees for any purposes,
including allowing managers or supervisors to keep any portion of
employees' tips, regardless of whether or not the employer takes a
tip credit.

The Defendants argue that prior to the 2018 statutory amendment,
the Secretary of Labor was considering rescinding the regulations,
and testified before Congress that the regulations were beyond the
DOL's legislative authority to adopt.  They continue to assert that
the pre-amendment statute did not prohibit the tip pooling practice
in the absence of the employer taking a tip credit, and that the
DOL regulations were invalid.  The Plaintiff argues, however, that
nothing in the statutory amendment indicates that Congress intended
to declare the regulations invalid, and they are still enforceable
for the period between May 5, 2011 and March 23, 2018.

The Plaintiff requests that the Court lift the stay and
conditionally certify an FLSA opt-in class consisting of (A)
current or former casino table games dealers employed by the
Defendants at the Riverside in Laughlin, Nevada; (B) who performed
such work after May 5, 2011; and (C) who, as a condition of their
employment, were required to share tips with the Non-Tipped
Employees.

Magistrate Judge Foley granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay
and their Motion for Circulation of Notice of the Pendency of
theAction Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and for Other
Relief.

He conditionally certified an FLSA collective action class
consisting of all (A) current or former casino table games dealers
employed by the Defendants at the Riverside Resort and Casino in
Laughlin, Nevada; (B) who performed such work after May 5, 2011;
and (C) who, as a condition of their employment, were required to
share tips with the Non-Tipped Employees.

He authorized the sending of the written "Notice of Pendency of
Collective Action Lawsuit Under the Fair Labor Standards Act" in
accordance with the form attached as Exhibit B to the Plaintiff's
Motion, subject to modification as required by the order.  The
Notice will include an opt-in period of 90 days; will inform the
recipients of their obligation to participate in discovery or
appear at trial if they optin; and will not include the signature
of the District Judge or Magistrate Judge.  The Plaintiff will file
the revised Notice form with the Court Clerk within 10 days of the
date of the Order.

The Plaintiff and the Defendants will also agree on an approved
consent form to be signed by the class members who wish to
participate in the action and will file a copy of the consent form
with the Court.  If the parties cannot agree on the consent form,
then it should be promptly addressed with the Court.

Magistrate Judge Foley directed the Defendants to provide the
Plaintiff's counsel with the names and last known mailing
addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers of the potential
collective action class members within 30 days from the date of the
Order.  The date for providing such information may be extended
pursuant to stipulation of the parties and/or by order of the Court
upon a motion for good cause shown.

The Plaintiff will send the Notice to the potential collective
action class members within 14 days after receiving the contact
information from the Defendants.  The Plaintiff will also promptly
file a statement with the Court Clerk certifying the date that the
Notice was sent to the potential class members.

The Plaintiff is required to file with the Court Clerk all Consents
to Join Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) within 90 days from
the date that the Notice was sent to the collective action class
members.  Any individual on whose behalf a Consent is filed after
the expiration of the deadline will not be allowed to participate
as a plaintiff in the action, unless for good cause shown, the
Court enters an order permitting the individual to participate.

The running of the statute of limitations on the claims of
potential collective action class members will be tolled from July
22, 2013 through the date the Order is filed.

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

Robert Norsoph, Plaintiff, represented by Dana Sniegocki , Leon
Greenberg, James P. Kemp -- jp@kemp-attorneys.com -- Kemp & Kemp,
Mark R. Thierman, Thierman Buck, LLP, Joshua D. Buck, Thierman
Buck, LLP & Leon Marc Greenberg -- leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com --
Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation.

Riverside Resort and Casino, Inc., Donald Laughlin & Donald J.
Laughlin Family Trust, Defendants, represented by Bryan J. Cohen,
Kamer Zucker Abbott, Edwin A. Keller, Jr., Kamer Zucker Abbott,
Gregory J. Kamer, Kamer Zucker Abbott, Kaitlin H. Paxton, Kamer
Zucker Abbott & Richard T. Creer, Kamer Zucker Abbott.


SANTA FE COUNTY, NM: Bid to Reconsider Dismissal Bid Denial Junked
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GABRIEL ARMENDARIZ, ERIC DION COLEMAN, JACOB GOMEZ,
TONY LOVATO, MATTHEW J. LUCERO, EDWARD R. MANZANARES, JOE MARTINEZ,
CHRISTOPHER MAVIS, PHILIP TALACHY, FELIPE J. TRUJILLO, and JOSEPH
VIGIL, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. SANTA FE COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, and MARK GALLEGOS, in his individual and official
capacity, and INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL COATINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00339-WJ-LF (D. N.M.), Judge William P. Johnson of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico denied
Defendants Santa Fe County Board of Commissioners and Mark
Gallegos' Motion to Reconsider Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Cause of Action.

The case is a putative class action arising from the Defendants'
renovation of the shower facilities at the Santa Fe Adult
Correctional Facility ("ACF") in the spring of 2014 when the
Plaintiffs and the class members were inmates at the ACF.  The
Plaintiffs allege that they were exposed to dust, debris, and
hazardous chemicals, which caused them injury.

As mentioned in the Court's decision, the federal case before the
Court is a continuation of a prior state court class action by the
Plaintiffs in the First Judicial District Court County of Santa Fe,
State of New Mexico.  The state court action was filed in March
2016 by two of the named Plaintiffs in the case, Joe Martinez and
Christopher Mavis, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, and asserted state law claims brought
under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act ("TCA").  The federal case was
initiated a year later when Plaintiffs Mavis and Martinez joined
with additional named Plaintiffs to file a class action asserting
claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  Both the state and the
federal lawsuits are based on the same underlying facts.

Pursuant to an agreement among the parties, all claims raised in
both lawsuits are being litigated in the instant in federal court.
As part of that agreement, the Plaintiffs were granted leave to
amend the federal complaint to include the state law claims that
had been raised in the state court action and to add Industrial
Commercial Coatings, LLC as a Defendant.  Following the filing of
the amended complaint, the Plaintiffs dismissed the state case
without prejudice.

On March 20, 2018, the County Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' Tort Claims Act claims.  The Court denied the
motion, finding that the Plaintiffs' counsel had relied on the
defense counsel's representations when they agreed to dismiss the
state court and that the Plaintiffs' state law claims survived: the
Defendants have waived the statute of limitations defense, are
estopped from asserting the defense, and that the Plaintiffs' state
law claims are equitably tolled.

The Defendants seek reconsideration of the Court's ruling in that
decision.  They claim that the Court incorrectly concluded that
they waived their defense.  The Defendants also seek
reconsideration of the Court's ruling that equitable tolling
applies to the "new named Plaintiffs" state law claims brought
under the TCA.

Judge Johnson finds and concludes that the Defendants' motion for
reconsideration revisits arguments that were already presented to,
and considered by, the Court in its previous Memorandum Opinion and
Order.  The Defendants have failed to show that there was any error
in the Court's prior rulings, and their motion to reconsider will
therefore be denied.  Any argument raised by the Defendants in
their motion for reconsideration but not expressly considered may
be deemed as considered and rejected by the Court.

Therefore, the Judge denied the Defendants' Motion to Reconsider
Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Third Cause of Action for reasons set forth in his Memorandum
Opinion and Order.

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

Gabriel Armendariz, Eric Dion Coleman, Jacob Gomez, Tony Lovato,
Matthew J. Lucero, Edward R. Manzanares, Joe Martinez, Christopher
Mavis, Philip Talachy, Felipe J. Trujillo & Joseph Vigil, on their
own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, represented by Mark H. Donatelli --
mhd@rothsteinlaw.com -- Rothstein Law Firm, John C. Bienvenu --
jbienvenu@rothsteinlaw.com -- Bienvenu Law Office, Kristina
Martinez, Coberly and Martinez, LLLP & Paul M. Linnenburger --
plinnenburger@rothsteinlaw.com -- Rothstein Donatelli LLP.

Santa Fe County Board of Commissioners & Mark Gallegos, in his
individual capacity, Defendants, represented by by Alisa
Wigley-Delara -- awd@conklinfirm.com -- Conklin, Woodcock &
Ziegler, PC, Christa M. Hazlett -- cmh@conklinfirm.com -- Conklin,
Woodcock & Ziegler. P.C., Jennifer A. Noya --
jennifer.noya@modrall.com -- Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk
PA, Tiffany L. Roach Martin -- tiffany.martin@modrall.com --
Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, PA & Alex Cameron Walker
-- alex.walker@modrall.com -- Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris &
Sisk, P.A.

Industrial Commercial Coatings, LLC, Defendant, represented by Judd
C. West, West Law Firm, PLLC, Carrie A. Snow, West Law Firm, PLLC,
John D. Sear -- john.sear@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brooke
LLP, pro hac vice & Richard G. Morgan --
rick.morgan@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brooke, LLP, pro hac
vice.


SATURDAYS SURF: Nixon Sues Clothing Store for ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saturdays Surf LLC.
The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Saturdays Surf LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06364 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 8, 2018).

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

Saturdays NYC is a New York based menswear clothing and lifestyle
brand.[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


SEI OUNG YOON: Feliciano Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Garcia Feliciano, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff, v. SEI
OUNG YOON d/b/a HAE WOON DAE, "John Does", name fictitious, actual
names and number of such persons being unknown, and "XYZ
CORPORATIONS", name fictitious, actual name and number of such
corporations being unknown d/b/a HAE WOON DAE, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-06361 (S.D. N.Y., November 8, 2018) seeks recovery, for
himself and all other similarly situated individuals, against
Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
violations of Articles 6 and 19 of the New York State Labor Law and
their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations.

Plaintiff alleges pursuant to the FLSA and the NYLL, that he is
entitled to recover from the Defendants unpaid wage/minimum wage
compensation, unpaid overtime wage compensation, the full portion
of tips illegally retained by Defendants, liquidated damages,
spread of hours pay, up to five thousand dollars for Defendants'
failure to provide a Time of Hire Notice detailing rates of pay on
each pay day, pursuant to the New York State Wage Theft Prevention
Act ("WTPA"), up to five thousand dollars for Defendants' failure
to provide a paystub that accurately and truthfully lists the
employee's hours along with the name, employer's name, employer's
address and telephone number, employee's rate or rates of pay, any
deductions made from employee's wages, any allowances claimed as
part of the minimum wage, and the employee's gross and net wages
for each pay day, pursuant to the WTPA, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Feliciano is a resident of New York, New York. Plaintiff
Feliciano was employed as a busboy and delivery worker at Hae Woon
Dae from on or around January 1, 2005 through and including August
15, 2018.

Defendants XYZ Corporations are fictitious corporate entities
organized under the laws of New York for the purpose of operating
or assisting with the operation of Hae Woon Dae. The true names of
Defendants XYZ Corporations are unknown to Plaintiff at this time,
and Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to state
their true names when they have been ascertained.

Defendant Sei Oung Yoon is an individual engaging (or who was
engaged) in business within this judicial district during the
relevant time period. HAE WOON DAE is a Korean restuarant serving
Korean barbecue.  

Defendants John Does, whose names are fictitious, actual names are
unknown, upon information and belief are individual engaging (or
who were engaged) in business within this judicial district during
the relevant time period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua Levin Epstein, Esq.
     LEVIN EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     1 Penn Plaza, Suite 2527
     New York, NY 10119
     Phone: (212) 792-0046


SINEMIA INC: Faces Baird Class Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sinemia, Inc. The
case is styled as Kennethan Baird, Paul Early, Jonathan Gollner,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Sinemia, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01774-UNA
(D. Del., Nov. 9, 2018).

Sinemia is a monthly subscription-based service for movie tickets,
similar to MoviePass. Sinemia has different subscription plans,
including one which allows its members to see any movie.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
     Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
     2711 Centerville Road, Suite 201
     Wilmington, DE 19808
     Phone: (302) 656-2500
     Fax: (302) 656-9053
     Email: rjk@chimicles.com

          - and -

     Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Esq.
     Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
     2711 Centerville Road, Suite 201
     Wilmington, DE 19808
     Phone: (302) 656-2500
     Email: tjc@chimicles.com


SONIYA HOTEL: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Balczyrak-Lichosyt Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Harshad Mistry and Soniya Hotel LLC filed an appeal from
a District Court order entered on September 28, 2018, in the
lawsuit captioned Balczyrak-Lichosyt v. Soniya Hotel LLC, et al.,
Case No. 16-cv-4386, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Central Islip).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was brought to remedy alleged overtime violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and various violations of the New York Labor Law,
including overtime, delayed wages, spread of hours, wage statement,
and wage notice violations.

The appellate case is captioned as Balczyrak-Lichosyt v. Soniya
Hotel LLC, et al., Case No. 18-3134, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Gabriela Balczyrak-Lichosyt, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Steven John Moser, Esq.
          MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3 School Street
          Glen Cove, NY 11542
          Telephone: (516) 671-1150
          Facsimile: (516) 882-5420
          E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants Soniya Hotel LLC and Harshad Mistry, AKA
Harry Mistry, are represented by:

          Victor A. Carr, Esq.
          VICTOR A. CARR & ASSOCIATES
          88 2nd Street
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 747-2478
          E-mail: victor@victorcarrlaw.com


STE-ANNE'S HOSPITAL: Veteran Seeks Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Jesse Feith, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that when Wolf
William Solkin moved into Ste-Anne's Hospital in 2013 after
complications following hip surgery, he was blown away by the
facilities and care offered.

For the next two years, Solkin, a 95-year-old Second World War
veteran, says he considered himself to be living in one of the
"most outstanding" long-term care facilities in the country.

Then came April 1, 2016, the day the hospital was transferred from
federal to provincial jurisdiction and was no longer under the
responsibility of Veterans Affairs Canada.

The negative impact, Solkin says, was immediate.

"The quality has not gone down but the quantity, availability and
frequency of those services have decreased dramatically and
drastically," Solkin said. "It's not only a deterioration of
service, it's a deterioration to the point of danger."

Solkin is now behind a request for authorization of a class-action
lawsuit against the federal and provincial governments, as well as
the West Island health authority.

The demand is seeking compensation for 166 veterans, all from the
Second World War or Korean War, who reside at Ste-Anne's Hospital,
as well as for the families of those who lived there at the time of
the transfer but have since died.

According to the lawyer representing the veterans, Laurent Kanemy,
Esq.-- lkanemy@ncc-lex.com -- the two governments and the health
authority have failed to respect aspects of the contract signed for
the transfer, which included obligations to maintain the same level
of care and services that were provided before.

Kanemy said the federal government has paid the provincial
government roughly $30 million since the transfer to ensure the
services were maintained, but it hasn't been the case. The federal
government has a responsibility to make sure the money is being
used for services, he added.

"But they failed on that obligation," he said.

The class action application says 40 per cent of the staff resigned
from the hospital almost immediately after the transfer. Solkin
said he could list "dozens and dozens" of ways in which services
have been reduced since then.

For one, he said, the hospital used to have one head nurse and
assistant nurse per floor, but now has one per three floors.

Solkin, who has a permanent catheter, used to have a urologist
visit to change it once per month. Since the transfer, he said,
it's been once every three months. An on-premises blood testing
facility has also been outsourced, he added, as have cardiologist
services.

The last two years have also brought constant changes to the
hospital's staff, Solkin said. He can live with it, but for other
patients suffering from dementia or Alzheimer's disease, the
constant turnover is unsettling, depriving them of the sense of
security provided by stability and continuity.

"You're pushing the envelope too far with these kinds of
cost-cutting measures," Solkin said. "You may be cutting costs, but
it's at the cost of cutting lives."

In an email response, the West Island health authority (the
Montréal West Island Integrated University Health and Social
Services Centre) said it could not comment on this story since a
"judicial process is currently underway."

"We reiterate," a spokesperson added, "that providing our patients
and resident veterans with the care and services to which they are
entitled is always at the forefront of our priorities."

Kanemy says he's pushing to have the class action authorized
quickly to ensure as many veterans as possible "get their day in
court."

Solkin agrees time is of the essence.

At the time of the transfer, there we approximately 300 veterans
living at the hospital. Now there are 166.

Every morning -- or every morning he manages to get out of bed, he
said -- Solkin makes his way downstairs to what he called the
veteran's wall, where they post photos of each veteran who dies.
Three men died in the last week alone, he said. He stops and
salutes the photos each time.

"We're not here because we're spry, we're here because we're frail
and failing," he said. "We're here to die, not live. But we should
die in our own good time, with proper care and attention. With the
dignity we are due."

That being said, he takes comfort in knowing the class action would
also seek compensation for the estates of veterans who have died
since the transfer.

"We leave nobody behind."[GN]


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bernstein Litowitz Files Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP filed a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of Retail Wholesale Department Store Union
Local 338 Retirement Fund against Synchrony Financial ("Synchrony"
or the "Company") (NYSE: SYF) and certain of its senior executives.
The action, which is captioned Retail Wholesale Department Store
Union Local 338 Retirement Fund v. Synchrony Financial, No.
3:18-cv-01818 (D. Conn.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors
in Synchrony stock during the time period of October 21, 2016 and
November 1, 2018 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Synchrony
falsely represented that its consistent and disciplined
underwriting practices had led to a higher quality loan portfolio
than those of its competitors.  In truth, Synchrony relaxed its
underwriting standards and increasingly offered private-label
credit cards to riskier borrowers to sustain growth.  The truth
about Synchrony's credit standards began to be revealed on April
28, 2017, when the Company announced disappointing first quarter
2017 earnings driven by poor loan performance.  This news caused
Synchrony's shares to decline by $5.25 per share, or nearly 16%.

Following this disclosure, the Company represented that it had
tightened credit standards, but falsely characterized those
underwriting changes as modest.  In fact, the Company had made
significant modifications to its underwriting policies, but
concealed that these modifications were damaging its relationships
with its retail partners, including Walmart.

On July 26, 2018, multiple news outlets reported that Walmart had
chosen a competitor to replace Synchrony.  Together, these two
disclosures caused Synchrony's shares to decline nearly 14%.  Then,
on November 1, 2018, Walmart sued Synchrony accusing the Company of
improper underwriting in connection with the Walmart/Synchrony
credit card program.  As a result of this disclosure, Synchrony
shares declined by over 10%.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file
a motion with the Court no later than January 2, 2019, which is the
first business day on which the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut is open that is 60 days after the
publication date of November 2, 2018.  Accordingly, the deadline
for filing a motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff is.  Any
member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead
Plaintiff through counsel of their choice.  Members may also choose
to do nothing and remain part of the proposed Class.

If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests please;

         Avi Josefson, Esq.
         Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
         1251 Avenue of Americas
         New York, New York 10020
         Telephone: (212) 554-1493
         Email: avi@blbglaw.com. [GN]


TALKING RAIN: Augustine Files Suit Over False and Misleading Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Augustine and Terri Garfinkel, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and the general public,
Plaintiffs, v. Talking Rain Beverage Company, Inc., a Washington
corporation; Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02576-CAB-BGS (S.D. Cal.,
November 9, 2018) is a consumer class action for violations of
warranty, negligent and intentional misrepresentations/omissions
and consumer protection laws, with a nationwide and California
class for violation of consumer protection laws.

The Defendant's packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme is
intended to give consumers the impression that they are buying
premium, all-natural products with only natural flavoring
ingredients instead of products that contain artificial chemicals
and that are artificially flavored, says the complaint.

However, the labeling of the Products is false and misleading and
the Products, thus, are misbranded under California consumer
protection laws. Specifically, the Products are labeled as if they
are flavored only with natural ingredients when they in fact
contain an undisclosed artificial flavor, malic acid, in violation
of state and federal law, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff Jessica Augustine is a citizen of the State of California
and resides in San Diego, California. Augustine purchased the
Sparkling Ice products for personal consumption since 2017 in the
State of California.

Plaintiff Terri Garfinkel is a citizen of the State of California
and resides in Los Angeles, California. Garfinkel purchased the
Sparkling Ice products for personal consumption since 2016 in the
State of California.

The Defendant manufactures, distributes, advertises, markets and
sells a variety of purportedly natural fruit flavored products
known as Sparkling Ice beverage products, including, without
limitation, the Sparkling Ice Black Raspberry, Sparkling Ice Peach
Nectarine, and Sparkling Ice Crisp Apple products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
     Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
     Tania Babaie, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
     651 Arroyo Drive
     San Diego, CA 92103
     Phone: (619) 696-9006
     Fax: (619) 564-6665
     Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
            mike@consumersadvocates.com
            tania@consumersadvocates.com


TENNESSEE: Seeks 6th Circuit Review of Ruling in Robinson Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant David W. Purkey filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Fred Robinson, et al. v. David Purkey, Case
No. 3:17-cv-01263, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee at Nashville.

Mr. Purkey is the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of
Safety and Homeland Security.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs sought certification of a Statewide Class defined as
all persons whose Tennessee driver's licenses have been or will be
suspended under Tenn. Code Ann. Section 55-50-502(a)(1)(H) or (I)
for non-payment of traffic debt and who cannot now and could not at
the time of suspension afford to pay such debt.  They also sought
the certification of three subclasses: the Wilson County Subclass,
the Rutherford County Subclass and the Multi-Barrier Subclass.

The appellate case is captioned as Fred Robinson, et al. v. David
Purkey, Case No. 18-6121, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees FRED ROBINSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated; JOHNNY GIBBS, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated; and ASHLEY SPRAGUE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jonathan Jacob Cole, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC,
          211 Commerce Street, Suite 800
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 726-7335
          E-mail: jcole@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Matthew George White, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC,
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          E-mail: mwhite@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Premal Dharia, Esq.
          Eric Halperin, Esq.
          Edward P. Krugman, Esq.
          Tara Mikkilineni, Esq.
          Jonas Wang, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          910 17th Street, N.W., Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 780-7594
          E-mail: premal@civilrightscorps.org
                  eric@civilrightscorps.org
                  krugman@nclej.org
                  jonas@civilrightscorps.org

               - and -

          Theresa Lau, Esq.
          Claudia Eleaza Wilner, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
          275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 633-6967
          E-mail: lau@nclej.org
                  wilner@nclej.org

               - and -

          Josh Spickler, Esq.
          JUST CITY
          902 South Cooper Street
          Memphis, TN 38104
          Telephone: (901) 206-2226
          E-mail: josh@justcity.org

Defendant-Appellant DAVID W. PURKEY, Commissioner of the Tennessee
Department of Safety and Homeland Security, in his official
capacity, is represented by:

          Andrew Bolter Campbell, Esq.
          Alexander Stuart Rieger, Esq.
          Scott Crawford Sutherland, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 20207
          Nashville, TN 37202
          Telephone: (615) 532-0356
          E-mail: andrew.campbell@ag.tn.gov
                  alex.rieger@ag.tn.gov


TEXAS AUTO: Bollier Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Janice Bollier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Texas Auto Carriers, Inc., and Ford Earl
Wagner, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-1179 (W.D. Tex., November 9,
2018) is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest and costs, including reasonable attorney's
fees as a result of Defendants' commonly applied policy and
practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated overtime compensation for all hours worked each week that
they were/are made to work.

The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff or other dispatcher any
overtime premium for hours that they worked over forty hours per
week, says the complaint. Additionally, the regular rate that
Defendants paid Plaintiff and other dispatchers was less than the
minimum wage required by the FLSA, the complaint asserts.

For at least 3 years prior to the filing of this Complaint,
Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed violations of
the FLSA as described, according to complaint.

Plaintiff Janice Bollier is an individual and resident and
domiciliary of Bexar County. She was employed by Defendants to work
as a dispatcher within the three 3 years preceding the filing of
this Complaint.

Texas Auto Carriers, Inc. is a Texas corporation, licensed to do
business within the State of Texas. Its registered agent for
service of process in Texas is Ford Earl Wagner, located at 5765
Bicentennial, San Antonio, Texas 78219.

Ford Earl Wagner is the principal director and/or officer of
Defendant Texas Auto Carriers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TREADWELL PARK: Violates ADA, Diaz Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Treadwell Park LLC.
The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Treadwell Park LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10410 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 8, 2018).

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

Treadwell Park offers 20 rotating craft draft beers and ciders
delivered by on-site flux capacitor, and customers can find beer in
some of their cocktails, as well as in their ice cream floats. They
also offer Giant soft pretzels, foot long hot dogs banh mi and
burgers make great pairings with perfect pours. Pulled pork and
jerk chicken are just two specialties coming from their in-house
smoker. With ping pong, pinball and 12 big screen HDTVs for
entertainment.[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


TRIPLE CANOPY: Gaines Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Triple Canopy, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Kennethan Baird, Anthony Gaines,
Tomzel Prince individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. Triple Canopy, Inc., Does 1 to
100, Defendants, Case No. CGC18571235 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Nov. 9, 2018).

Triple Canopy, Inc. provides integrated security and mission
support services to government agencies, multinational
corporations, and non-governmental organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Adam Rose, Esq.


UNITED STATES: Jalbert Seeks Review of Ruling in Suit vs. SEC
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Craig R. Jalbert filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Jalbert v. Clayton, Case No. 1:17-cv-12103-FDS,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
Boston.

Walter Joseph Clayton, III, is the Chairman of the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
challenges the Securities and Exchange Commission's statutory
authority to collect fines and penalties.  The lawsuit is seeking
the return of as much as $15 billion in penalties.

Plaintiff Craig Jalbert is the liquidating trustee for F-Squared
Investment Management, which paid $30 million in disgorgements that
the SEC was not authorized to collect, the lawsuit alleges.

The appellate case is captioned as Jalbert v. Clayton, Case No.
18-2043, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CRAIG R. JALBERT, in his capacity as Trustee
for F2 Liquidating Trust, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          William R. Baldiga, Esq.
          Sunni P. Beville, Esq.
          Wayne F. Dennison, Esq.
          Sharon I. Dwoskin, Esq.
          BROWN RUDNICK LLP
          1 Financial Center
          Boston, MA 02111-0000
          Telephone: (617) 856-8586
          E-mail: wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com
                  sbeville@brownrudnick.com
                  wdennison@brownrudnick.com
                  sdwoskin@brownrudnick.com

               - and -

          Ashley Baynham, Esq.
          Selbie L. Jason, Esq.
          Alex Lipman, Esq.
          Chelsea Mullarney, Esq.
          Justin S. Weddle, Esq.
          BROWN RUDNICK LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 209-4991
          E-mail: abaynham@brownrudnick.com
                  sjason@brownrudnick.com
                  alipman@brownrudnick.com
                  cmullarney@brownrudnick.com
                  jweddle@brownrudnick.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Best, Esq.
          BROWN RUDNICK LLP
          601 13th St. NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 536-1700
          E-mail: sbest@brownrudnick.com

Defendant-Appellee WALTER JOSEPH CLAYTON, III, Chairman, US
Securities and Exchange Commission, is represented by:

          Morgan E.A. Bradylyons, Esq.
          John Boles Capehart, Esq.
          Matthew S. Ferguson, Esq.
          Melinda Hardy, Esq.
          US SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION
          100 F Street NE
          Washington, DC 20549
          Telephone: (202) 551-7926
          E-mail: bradylyonsm@sec.gov
                  hardym@sec.gov

               - and -

          Cynthia A. Young, Esq.
          US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200
          Boston, MA 02110-0000
          Telephone: (617) 748-3100


UPMC JAMESON: Class Action Lawsuit Planned
------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh's Action News reports that an attorney said he is
planning on filing a class action lawsuit against UPMC Jameson on
November 2 after more than 200 people were potentially exposed to
unclean probes during ultrasounds.

Dallas Hartman, Esq. a local lawyer, told Pittsburgh's Action News
4 reporter Chandi Chapman patients have already been in contact
with him regarding the notification about the potential exposure.

More than 200 patients were notified about potential exposure to
ultrasound probes that may not have been cleaned properly at UPMC
Jameson in New Castle.

The time frame dates back to October 2017.

UPMC issued the following statement on October 31:

"An internal quality assurance review at UPMC Jameson found that
the proper cleaning process was not documented and followed for
some ultrasound probes used in internal prostate, obstetrical and
gynecological exams. Any related health risks are extremely low."

Corrective measures were immediately implemented. A report was
filed with the Department of Health, and we have notified The Joint
Commission.

In an abundance of caution, we have contacted all potentially
affected patients with additional information, offering free
precautionary blood and urine testing to ensure patient safety.

UPMC Jameson is committed to providing high-quality care in the
safest environment possible. We apologize for the concern and
inconvenience this matter has caused our patients and their
families." [GN]


VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Court Certifies Class in Cassell ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOREN L. CASSELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VANDERBILT
UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-2086 (M.D. Tenn.),
Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

The case arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA") and alleges breach of fiduciary duties by the Defendants
in relation to the Vanderbilt University Retirement Plan and the
Vanderbilt University New Faculty Plan.  

The Plaintiffs brought the action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(a)(2), on behalf of the Plan.  The remaining claims are breach
of fiduciary duties as they relate to maintaining imprudent
investments; breach of fiduciary duties concerning unreasonable
administrative fees; breach of fiduciary duties related to
unreasonable investment management and other fees; and engaging in
"prohibited transactions" related to the Plan's initial agreements
with VALIC, Fidelity and Vanguard, if those agreements were made
within the six-year statute of limitations.

The Second Amended Complaint adds two new Counts, for breach of
fiduciary duties and engaging in prohibited transactions by failing
to protect vital and confidential participant information from
being used by one of the Plan's record-keepers, TIAA, to
aggressively market a variety of TIAA's financial products to Plan
participants.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan, excluding the Defendants, from Aug. 10,
2010, through the date of any judgment in the case.  They also move
to be appointed the class representatives and for their lawyers to
be appointed as the class counsel.

The Defendants have filed a response in opposition.  They contend
that the Plaintiffs cannot show injury-in-fact as a result of the
alleged misconduct.  They argue that the named Plaintiffs did not
invest in the majority of the funds challenged in the action and
lack standing to assert claims related to funds in which they did
not invest.

Judge Crenshaw finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
requirements of Article III because they have alleged actual injury
to their own Plan accounts, fairly traceable to the Defendants'
conduct, a causal connection between the Defendants' actions and
the Plaintiffs' losses, and the likelihood that their injuries will
be redressed by a favorable judgment.  They have standing to pursue
these claims.  Whether the Plaintiffs will be able to represent the
proposed class is a different question, dependent solely on Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23.  He finds that the Plaintiffs have met the requirements
of both Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs are adequate
representatives in the case.  Their lack of specific knowledge
about the complex case does not bar class certification.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs Loren L. Cassell, Pamela M. Steele, John E.
Rice, Penelope A. Adgent, Dawn E. Crago and Lynda Payne will be
appointed class representatives in the action.

In addition, the Plaintiffs' counsel, Schlichter, Board & Denton
LLP, are qualified and experienced in ERISA fiduciary duty cases
and will be appointed as the class counsel.

For all these reasons, Judge Crenshaw granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.  He certified a class of all
participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, excluding the
Defendants, from Aug. 10, 2010, through the date of any judgment in
the case.  An appropriate order will enter.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 23, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
Order is available at https://is.gd/5IEEgF from Leagle.com.

Loren L. Cassell, Pamela M. Steele, Penelope A. Adgent & Dawn E.
Crago, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexander L. Braitberg,
Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, Andrew D. Schlichter, Schlichter
Bogard & Denton, LLP, Eric Geoffrey Evans, Hawkins Hogan, PLC,
Ethan D. Hatch, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, Heather Lea --
hlea@uselaws.com -- Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, Jerome J.
Schlichter -- jschlichter@uselaws.com -- Schlichter Bogard &
Denton, LLP, Michael A. Wolff -- mwolff@uselaws.com -- Schlichter
Bogard & Denton, LLP, Scott A. Bumb, Schlichter Bogard & Denton,
LLP, Troy A. Doles -- tdoles@uselaws.com -- Schlichter Bogard &
Denton, LLP & William B. Hawkins, III, Hawkins Hogan, PLC.

John E. Rice & Lynda Payne, individually and as representative of a
class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Vanderbilt
University Retirement Plan and the Vanderbilt University New
Faculty Plan, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexander L. Braitberg,
Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, Andrew D. Schlichter, Schlichter
Bogard & Denton, LLP, Eric Geoffrey Evans, Hawkins Hogan, PLC,
Ethan D. Hatch, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, Michael A. Wolff,
Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, Scott A. Bumb, Schlichter Bogard &
Denton, LLP, Troy A. Doles, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP,
William B. Hawkins, III, Hawkins Hogan, PLC & Jerome J. Schlichter,
Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP.

Vanderbilt University, Vanderbilt Retirement Plan Oversight
Committee, Donald Brady, John Manning, Traci Nordberg, Brett Sweet
& Richard Willis, Defendants, represented by Abbey M. Glenn --
abbey.glenn@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Allison N.
Powers -- allison.powers@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, Anthony Joel McFarland -- amcfarland@bassberry.com --
Bass, Berry & Sims, Jeremy P. Blumenfeld --
jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Mara
E. Slakas Brown, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Sari M. Alamuddin --
sari.alamuddin@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius & William
J. Delany -- william.delany@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius.

Anders Hall, Defendant, represented by Anthony Joel McFarland ,
Bass, Berry & Sims, Mara E. Slakas Brown, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius &
Sari M. Alamuddin, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

Eric Kopstain, Defendant, represented by Abbey M. Glenn, Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius, Allison N. Powers, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,
Anthony Joel McFarland, Bass, Berry & Sims, Jeremy P. Blumenfeld,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Mara E. Slakas Brown, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius & William J. Delany, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

Barbara L. Carroll, Defendant, represented by Sari M. Alamuddin,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: German Consumer Group Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Edzard Busemann, writing for Reuters, reports that German consumer
group vzbv filed a lawsuit against Volkswagen on November 1 over
diesel emissions tests rigging, using new class-action rules which
came in on Nov. 1, potentially making it easier to win damages from
companies.

VW has already had to pay compensation over the emissions scandal
in the United States to car owners. But in Germany, VW was able to
strike a deal with regulators to fix emissions with a software
update, allowing its cars to retain their road-worthiness
certification.

The class action lawsuit seeks to ascertain whether owners of cars
with type EA 189 diesel engines had been intentionally harmed by
the carmaker's use of engine management software designed to
disguise excessive pollution levels.

Volkswagen said on November 1 the possibility of class action suits
did not change its standpoint that there was no legal basis for
consumers to make claims in connection to the diesel issue in
Germany.

Around 40,000 consumers have expressed interest in joining the
lawsuit before a statute of limitations on claiming damages expires
this year, vzbv said.

Owners of VWs with diesel engines have seen the value of their cars
tumble after regulators found they produced excessive levels of
pollution. Regulators have even sought to ban diesel cars from
inner cities, further denting residual values.

In response to the so-called dieselgate scandal, lawmakers amended
class action rules in Germany, making it easier for individuals to
join group lawsuits without having to file a new case.

Whether consumers are entitled to damages and what form these
damages may take, will need to be established in a separate
lawsuit.

Vzbv has said it wanted to get compensation for some 2 million
owners of diesel cars that were not as environmentally friendly as
VW said they were at the time of purchase.

VW admitted in 2015 it had used illegal engine control devices to
cheat U.S. emissions tests. [GN]


WARREN, MI: $750K NILI 2011 Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NILI 2011, LLC, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF WARREN,
Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-13392 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Gershwin A.
Drain of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, granted both the Plaintiffs' (i)
Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs, and Incentive Fee, and (ii) Motion
for Final Approval of Settlement.

The Named Plaintiffs and Class Representatives are NILI 2011, LLC,
EETBL, LLC, and Investment Realty Services, LLC, doing business as
SBYC Garner, LLC.  The Defendant is the City of Warren.  

The Court certified the following two classes, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3):

          a) All persons and entities who paid rental registration
and inspection fees to the City of Warren pursuant to the ordinance
permitting searches without a warrant;

          b) All persons and entities that currently own or at one
time owned any parcel of real property located within the City of
Warren for the purpose of renting or leasing a residential
structure or multiple family unit on that property who or which had
been issued a civil infraction for failing to obtain a certificate
of compliance and subsequently paid them, stemming from an
inspection under the IPMC and the City Code, at any time since
September 28, 2009 and through the date of final judgment.

Pursuant to Rule 23(g), the Court Ordered that Aaron D. Cox and
Mark K. Wasvary be appointed as the Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on Sept. 28, 2015 seeking
restitution and injunctive and declaratory relief.  They alleged
that the Defendant improperly administered its Property Maintenance
Code Ordinance in violation of due process rights under the
International Property Maintenance Code and in violation of the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.  The Defendant denied liability
to the Plaintiffs and the other Class Members on a variety of legal
and factual grounds.

The parties engaged in formal discovery, took depositions, and
exchanged necessary documents and data.  The Settlement Agreement
provides the following:

     a) The Defendant agrees to make available a common fund of up
to $750,000 to pay the valid Class Member claims, to pay an
incentive payment to the Class Representatives, to pay attorney's
fees and reasonable litigation expenses, not limited to costs, to
Class Counsel, and to pay the costs and expenses associated with
claim administration, as approved by the Court.

     b) The Defendant also agrees to waive residential rental
re-inspection fees for four years.

     c) The Settlement Class Members must submit fully completed
and executed claim forms to receive their share of the Settlement
Fund.  The claim forms will be due within 60 days after the notice
is mailed.  The Class Members may make a claim for $100 each.  The
Valid claims of the Class will be paid at the Class Members' pro
rata share of the Settlement Fund minus payments made for
attorney's fees and costs as approved by the Court, the costs of
claims administration, and payments made to the Class
Representatives.

     d) Subject to the Court's approval, the Defendant will pay
each Named Plaintiff $10,000 from the Settlement Fund for
representing the Settlement Class as the Class Representatives.
Subject to the Court's approval, the Defendant will pay attorney's
fees to Class Counsel in an amount equal to 37.5% of the total of
the Settlement Fund, plus the value of the four-year waiver of
re-inspection fees, before any other deduction ($371,250), plus
reasonable out-of-pocket expenses, up to $15,000, all payable from
the Settlement Fund.  The Defendant will not object to or oppose
any of these payments.

On June 26, 2018, the Court entered an Order Preliminarily
Approving Class Action Settlement.  That Order approved the notice
to the Class Members, set the objection deadline, and scheduled a
fairness hearing.  The notice was timely mailed to the Class
Members, published in the Macomb Daily, and posted on the Class
Counsel's website.

Present before the Court are the Plaintiffs' Motions, which are
both unopposed.  A Rule 23(e)(2) Fairness Hearing was held on Oct.
22, 2018.

Judge Drain finds that the Settlement Agreement resolves a genuine
and serious legal dispute between the Class Members and the
Defendant; that it is the product of informed, arm's-length
negotiations and mediation; that it achieves a mutually-beneficial
settlement, fairly and without any suggestion of fraud and
collusion; that it binds the Defendant, adding to the Class
Members' security; that it eliminates litigation risks and
uncertainties for all sides; that it avoids further delay, expense,
and hardship; that it serves the interests of the Class as a whole,
and presents a reasonable alternative to continued litigation; that
it conserves judicial resources and is consistent with the public
interest; that it has the parties' and counsel's endorsement; that
it is within an acceptable range of reasonableness; and finally,
considering all the circumstances, that it is fair, reasonable, and
adequate under Rule 23(e)(2).

Accordingly, for these reasons, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs, and Incentive Fee, and Motion for
Final Approval of Settlement.

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

NILI 2011, LLC, EETBL, LLC & Investment Realty Services, LLC,
Plaintiffs, represented by Mark K. Wasvary -- mark@wasvarylaw.com
-- Becker and Wasvary & Aaron D. Cox -- aaron@aaroncoxlaw.com --
Law Offices of Aaron D. Cox PLLC.

City of Warren, Defendant, represented by Caryn A. Ford --
cford@garanlucow.com -- Garan Lucow Miller, P.C., John J. Gillooly
-- jgillooly@garanlucow.com -- Garan Lucow & Thomas David Beindit
-- tbeindit@garanlucow.com -- Garan Lucow Miller, P.C.

Albert Thrower, Interested Party, pro se.

Barbara S. Delegeorge, Interested Party, pro se.


WASHINGTON: Court Stays Proceedings in Schumacher Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, stayed the proceedings in the
case, LINDA SCHUMACHER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOVERNOR JAY INSLEE,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-5535-MJP (W.D. Wash.), except
for ruling on the State Defendants' pending motion to dismiss,
until such time as the Plaintiffs, or any of them, opt out of the
tentative class-wide settlement in the related case of Routh v.
Inslee, 2:14cv-200-MJP, Ninth Cir. Case No. 16-35749.

The Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in the action on July
3, 2018.  The case was initially assigned to the Hon. Benjamin H.
Settle.  The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class comprising all
Individual Providers ("IPs) who, pursuant to RCW 41.56.113(b)(1)
and the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") between the State
and SEIU 775, had union dues and/or dues equivalent fees deducted
by the State and paid to SEIU 775 without clear, prior affirmative
consent and who objected to such deductions or union membership.

On July 27, 2018, SEIU 775 filed a Notice of Related Cases
regarding the Schumacher and Routh actions.  On Aug. 23, 2018, the
Clerk reassigned the Schumacher action to Judge Pechman.

Similar to the instant action, the Routh case was a putative class
action challenging the State's payroll deduction of SEIU 775 dues
and fees from IPs.  The Court entered final judgment in the Routh
case in favor of the State defendants and SEIU 775 on Aug. 16,
2016.  The Routh Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit the
Court's denial of their original motion for class certification;
denial of their renewed motion for class certification; denial of
their motion for summary judgment, and the grant of summary
judgment to defendants.

While the Routh appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided
Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, 138 S.Ct. 2448 (2018).  Janus disposed
of many of the legal issues in the Routh appeal.  The only issues
remaining in Routh were the claims for dues/fees refunds.  The
parties in Routh jointly requested, and the Ninth Circuit ordered,
oral argument be deferred and the case designated for mediation.
The mediation was ultimately set for Oct. 10, 2018, with Teresa
Wakeen serving as the mediator.

Meanwhile the parties in the instant action initiated their Rule
26(f) conference on Sept. 20, 2018.  Instead of proceeding with the
conference, they agreed to request a 30-day extension of the
deadlines to complete the conference and Joint Status Report
pending the outcome of the Routh mediation.  The Court granted the
parties' request.

Following a full-day of mediation, the Routh parties reached a
settlement of that action.  The settlement covers all members of
the original proposed Routh class.  Once the parties have drafted a
final settlement agreement, they will jointly move the Ninth
Circuit to remand the Routh matter to the Court for further
proceedings to effectuate the settlement.  If approved by the
Court, the Routh settlement may cover the named Plaintiffs in the
Schumacher action.

Given the settlement reached in the Routh action, the parties
believe that engaging in further litigation at this time would not
be an efficient use of attorney and judicial resources.
Accordingly, the parties jointly move the Court to stay further
proceedings in the case except for ruling on the State Defendants'
pending motion to dismiss, which has been fully briefed, until such
time as the named Plaintiffs, or any of them, opt out of the Routh
settlement and continue pursuing the instant litigation.

Judge Pechman so ordered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 23, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/l0L64Z from Leagle.com.

Linda Schumacher, Robb Israel, Surena Israel & Miranda Thorpe,
Washington Individual Providers, Plaintiffs, represented by Caleb
Jon Fan Vandenbos, FREEDOM FOUNDATION, Hannah S. Sells, FREEDOM
FOUNDATION & James Gideon Abernathy, FREEDOM FOUNDATION.

Jay Inslee, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of
Washington & Cheryl Strange, in Her Official Capacity as Acting
Secretary of the Washington Department of Social and Health
Services, Defendants, represented by Alicia O. Young, COMPLEX
LITIGATION DEPARTMENT ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE & Susan
Sackett-Danpullo, WASHINGTON STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

Service Employees International Union Healthcare 775NW, a labor
organization, Defendant, represented by Michael C. Subit, FRANK
FREED SUBIT & THOMAS & Scott A. Kronland --
skronland@altshulerberzon.com -- ALTSHULER BERZON LLP, pro hac
vice.


WOOLRICH INC: Faces Nixon Class Action in NY
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Woolrich, Inc. The
case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Woolrich, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-06362 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 8, 2018).

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

Woolrich, Inc. manufactures and sells outdoor clothing and
furniture. The company provides long-sleeve shirts, short-sleeve
shirts, polo shirts, sweaters, pants, shorts, and coats and parkas;
gift cards; and accessories, such as hats, gloves, scarves, belts,
watches, and wallets for men and women, as well as vests for men.
It also offers hoodies and sweatshirts, shorts and capris, dresses
and skirts, and pajamas and slippers; and accessories that include
bags, totes and purses, hats, and jewelry for women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


XOOM ENERGY: Mirkin Appeals Suit Dismissal to Second Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Boris Mirkin and Susanna Mirkin filed an appeal from a
District Court order dated September 21, 2018, dismissing their
case entitled Mirkin, et al. v. XOOM Energy, LLC, et al., Case No.
18-cv-2949, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (Brooklyn).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 26, 2018, Judge
Allyne R. Ross granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case
in its entirety.

Plaintiffs Susanna Mirkin and Boris Mirkin, a married couple
residing together in Brooklyn, bring the putative class action
against XOOM.  They assert claims for breach of contract, breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust
enrichment arising out of their March 2013 agreement to obtain
residential electricity services from XOOM, an independent energy
service company.

The appellate case is captioned as Mirkin, et al. v. XOOM Energy,
LLC, et al., Case No. 18-3138, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Susanna Mirkin, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and Boris Mirkin, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Steven L. Wittels, Esq.
          WITTELS LAW, P.C.
          18 Half Mile Road
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 319-9945
          E-mail: slw@wittelslaw.com

Defendants-Appellees XOOM Energy, LLC, and XOOM Energy New York,
LLC, are represented by:

          Zane C. Riester, Esq.
          MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
          4 Gateway Center
          100 Mulberry Street
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 639-8468
          E-mail: zriester@mccarter.com


ZOE'S KITCHEN INC: Connole Seeks to Halt Sale to Cava Group
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Connole, 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-01579, (D. Del., October
12, 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 complaint says the proxy statement filed in connection with the
proposed transaction 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 agreement that prevented counterparties from
requesting waivers of standstill provisions to submit superior
offers to acquire the Zoe's Kitchen, adds the complaint.

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:

      Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
      901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 778-4000
      Email: rernst@oelegal.com

            - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly K. Moran, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025
      Fax: (212) 682-3010
      Email: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
             mrogovin@weisslawllp.com
             kmoran@weisslawllp.com

             - and -

      Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE P.C.
      885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 308-5858
      Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
      Email: fortunato@bespc.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 ***