CAR_Public/181126.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, November 26, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 236

                            Headlines

ACCEL DIRECTIONAL: Waldrop Seeks Overtime Wages for Oilfield Staff
AIRBNB INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended Harrington Suit
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Turano Suit
ALL SEASON RESTORATION: Wilson et al. Seek Minimum Wage & OT
ALTRIA GROUP: Faces 7 Class Suits in Canada

AMERICAN AUTO: Sued over Alleged Unauthorized Text Messages
AMERICAN FINANCE: Hibbard Balks at Merger Deal with RCA
APPFOLIO INC: Settlement Reached in Leo Class Suit
ARAMARK UNIFORM: Bruccheri Suit Remanded to Cal. State Court
ATLANTIC & PACIFIC: Taveras Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA

ATLANTIC CREDIT: Arbitration Denial in Stacy Suit Reversed
BARRY KORNFELD: Certification of Ponzi Scheme Victims Class Sought
BELLA VINEYARD: Faces Cruz Suit in Kern, California
BLACK DIAMOND: Perez Seeks Unpaid OT for Construction Workers
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Resolved 49,500 Mesh Cases as of Oct. 23

BRIXMOR PROPERTY: $19.5MM Settlement Balance Remains in Escrow
BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Cohen & Steers Global Suit Settled for $8MM
BROADSPECTRUM DOWNSTREAM: Villafan Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
CAPITOL WHOLESALE: African-American Workers Sue over Bias
CELGENE CORP: Amended Securities Complaint Due Dec. 10

CELGENE CORP: Expert Discovery in Antitrust Suit Ends Nov. 30
CEMPRA INC: Court Dismisses Amended Hirtenstein Securities Suit
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Rydman Sues over Contaminated Pet Food
CHEGG INC: Continues to Defend Shah Class Suit
CHG HEALTHCARE: Leiber et al. Seek to Certify Collective Action

CITIGROUP INC: Accord in Benchmark Rates Suit Wins Final Approval
CLAYTON MYRICK: $23K Attys' Fees Awarded in Piccinetti FDCPA Suit
CLECO CORPORATE: Discovery Ongoing in Merger-Related Class Suit
CMS  WESTROCK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rosa et al. Suit Says
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in NJ

COMMERCE ENERGY: Seeks 6th Cir. Review of Order in Hurt FLSA Suit
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeal in Gibson Class Suit Still Pending
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in Tennessee Suit Still Pending
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Settlement Reached in Cyber Attack Related Suits
CONTINENTAL LABORATORIES: Tompkins Seeks OT Wages for Engineers

CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Pays $45.8MM for Strack Settlement
COOK COUNTY, IL: McFields et al. Seek to Certify Class
CORECIVIC INC: Court Resolves Discovery Dispute No. 1 in Owino Suit
CRESCENT CONSULTING: Carrillo Seeks to Certify Class
CVS HEALTH: ERISA Sec. 406 Claims in EpiPen Suit Thrown Out

DTE ENERGY: Misrepresented Retirement Pension Plan, Nolan Claims
EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Dismissal of Olenik Suit under Appeal
EMILIO PUCCI: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
ENGILITY HOLDINGS: Wolf Balks at Merger Deal with SAIC
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Garey Files ADA Suit in New York

FIRST ALARM: Faces Nessim Suit in Sacramento, Califorina
FIRST CITIZENS: Virzi et al. Suit Moved to D. South Carolina
FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Baranco Suit
FOREVER 21: Court Dismisses Patterson TCCWNA Suit Without Prejudice
FRESH DEL MONTE: Continues to Defend DBCP-Related Suits

FUTURE TECH: Dominguez FLSA Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Hachem Class Suit Underway
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Seeks to Dismiss Bezio Suit
HARRAH'S NC: Clark Appeals W.D.N.C. Decision to Fourth Circuit
HEALTH CARE: E. Craft Settlement Distribution Deadline Extended

HEALTH INSURANCE: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Florida Suit
HMSHOST CORP: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Storch et al. Say
HUMANE SOCIETY: Righetti Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
IHI E&C: Walthall Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
IMPINJ INC: Bid to Join Montemarano & Baton Rouge Suit Pending

IMPINJ INC: Schultz Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Removes Thomas et al. Suit to S.D. Indiana
IQVIA INC: Wins Bid to Strike Mussat's Class Definition
JB HUNT: California Drivers to Settle Class Suit for $15MM
JCT LOGISTICS: Moreno Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass

JENSEN-LEWIS CO: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss ADA Suit
KERBEROS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Ralston Suit in Sacramento
KROGER CO: Perez Appeals C.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit
LADENBURG THALMANN: Bid for Class Cert. in Tennessee Suit Pending
LPL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Class Action Suit

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Continues to Defend Mason Class Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Kramer Class Suit Ongoing in California
MASTERCARD INC: Class Cert. Bid Filed Anew in Liability Shift Suit
MASTERCARD INC: Continues to Defend ATM Surcharge-Related Suits
MASTERCARD INC: Still Awaits Court OK on Canadian POS Case Accord

MAWKS EDELWEISS: Fails to Pay OT Waitstaff, Aniszewski Claims
MDL 2804: Pioneer Tel vs. Purdue Pharma over Opiates Consolidated
MONDELEZ INT'L: Antitrust Suit over Wheat Prices Underway
MONSANTO COMPANY: Bindon Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Singletary Sues over Use of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Sinka Suit Moved to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Sixbury Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Strong Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
NATIONAL GUNITE: Kamm et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Class
NEW YORK, NY: Elsayed Files Civil Rights Class Suit

OCEAN SPRAY: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Hilsley Suit
OLD COUNTRY ROAD: Zisholtz Sues over Security Deposits
OM PURSHANTAM: Smith Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay under FLSA
P.A.M. TRANSPORT: Browne Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
PARAMOUNT BEAUTY: Unlawfully Terminates Pregnant Women, Diaz Says

PATIENT INNOVATION: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Tomala Says
PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Tucker Files ADA Suit in New York
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Walker Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
PEPPERIDGE FARM: Underpays Distributors, Phelps et al. Allege
PGA INC: Court Decertifies Sinclair FLSA Class

PRINSTON PHARMA: Court Dismisses Molinaro Suit Without Prejudice
QUAKER OATS: Steckler Sues over Glyphosate Content in Products
RANBAXY INC: Sued over Supracompetitive Prices for Diovan & Nexium
RIVERS BILLING: Krane Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
SABER HEALTHCARE: J. Bartels' Suit Remanded to N.C. State Court

SABRE CORP: Bid for Class Cert. in Air Fare Prices Suit Denied
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Welchen Suit
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: $19K Attys' Fees Awarded in Dowling Suit
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Litivinova Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
SANFORD LP: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Spacone Class Suit

SCELZI ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Murray Alleges
SCELZI ENTERPRISES: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Murray Says
SEVEN STAR: Michelle Wells Seeks OT Pay for Fence Installers
SOLANO COUNTY, CA: Warfield May Proceed in Forma Pauperis
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Snow Case Settlement Receives Final Approval

SP PLUS: Ignored Credit Card Truncation Duties, Orsi Says
SPRINGER NATURE: Website not Accessible to Blind, Sullivan Says
STATE COLLECTION: Judgment on Pleadings on Bahr's TCPA Claim Denied
STORM TIGHT: Spinelli Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
SUSHI MARU: Court Refuses to Consolidate 2 FLSA Suits

TATA CONSULTANCY: Ct. Grants Bids in Limine Nos. 7 & 8 in Buchanan
TRI-STATE ADJUSTMENTS: Wright Sues over Debt Collection Practices
TRINET GROUP: Awaits Hearing Date on Welgus Appeal
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Isolde Consolidated Suit Still Stayed
TWITTER INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in Calif.

ULTA SALON: Tellez Suit Moved to Southern District of California
UNITED PARCEL: Morgate Class Action Concluded
UNITED PARCEL: Wright and Zislin Suit in Canada Concluded
UNITIL CORP: Continues to Defend Bellermann Class Action
US AIRWAYS: Hickcox-Huffman TCPA Suit Deal Has Prelim Approval

USG CORP: Still Defends Wallboard Price Fixing Related Suits
UZBEK LOGISTICS: Kopaleishvili Seeks to Certify Class
VENATOR MATERIALS: Final Judgment Signed in TiO2-Related Suit
W.W. GRAINGER: Rangel Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of California
WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: 7th Cir. Vacates District Court Order

WEBLOYALTY.COM INC: Remaining Claims in Wiretapping Suit Dismissed
YWL USA: Wan Seek Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
ZACKY & SONS: Vance Files Suit in C.D. California
ZACKY FARMS: Vance Seeks Wages & Benefits for Terminated Workers
ZOE'S KITCHEN: Faces Calgano and Connole Merger-Related Suits


                            *********

ACCEL DIRECTIONAL: Waldrop Seeks Overtime Wages for Oilfield Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW WALDROP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ACCEL DIRECTIONAL DRILLING, Case No.
4:18-cv-04082 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, Accel employs oilfield personnel, like
Plaintiff, to carry out its work. The Plaintiff, and the other
workers like them, were typically scheduled for 12 hour shifts, 7
days a week, for weeks at a time. But Accel does not pay all of
these workers overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
single workweek.

Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Accel pays
these workers a day-rate and improperly classifies them as
independent contractors, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON D UNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, Texas 77046
          Telephone: 713 352-1100
          Facsimile: 713 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

AIRBNB INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended Harrington Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICIA HARRINGTON, EBONY PRICE, and CARLOTTA
FRANKLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. AIRBNB, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-558-YY (D. Or.), Judge Michael H. Simon of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon (i) adopted in part and
rejected in part Magistrate Judge Youlee You's Findings and
Recommendation ("F&R") recommending that the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the first amended complaint with prejudice be granted
without leave to file a second amended complaint.

Airbnb is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in California.
Charging various fees for its services, Airbnb operates an online
platform that connects people looking to rent out their homes (or
rooms in their homes) with people looking for accommodations for
either lodging or tourism experiences.  Airbnb does not own any of
the properties that it lists for rent.  Instead, it charges fees
for processing each transaction (often to both sides of a rental
relationship), as well as for providing advertising. In 2016,
Airbnb's online platform (consisting of websites and mobile apps)
served more than 300,000 renters in Portland.

A person offering to rent out a room in his or her home (or
offering to rent his or her home) through Airbnb is referred to as
a "host."  A host must be registered with Airbnb as a "member."
Travelers who rent rooms or homes from a host using the Airbnb
online platform are referred to as "guests."  Although anyone can
search the Airbnb database of more than two million properties
worldwide, to contact a host online and request a reservation and
make a booking, a prospective guest also must be a member of
Airbnb, which requires the prospective guest to have an account and
profile with Airbnb.

Because Airbnb allows hosts to view the photograph and name of a
prospective guest before deciding whether to accept or deny a
booking request from that prospective guest, a host can deny a
booking request for any reason, including the race or color of a
prospective guest.  Because some hosts refuse to rent
accommodations to African-Americans, some accommodations listed on
Airbnb's online platform are unavailable to African-American
travelers.  African-Americans, thus, do not have full and equal
access to the accommodations and services offered on Airbnb's
online platform.

Airbnb does not dispute that some Airbnb hosts engage in racially
discriminatory conduct.  It asserts that it takes seriously the
problem of racial discrimination on its online platform.
Nonetheless, Airbnb has continued to maintain its policy of
allowing hosts to wait to make a booking decision until after the
host has seen the prospective guest's photograph, which discloses
the race or color of the prospective guest.

The Plaintiffs in the putative class action are African-American
women who reside in Oregon and wish to become members of Airbnb and
use the services of Airbnb's online platform without being subject
to racial discrimination.  The Plaintiffs, however, are only
willing to join Airbnb if they will be able to take full advantage
of the accommodations offered on the Airbnb online platform without
the risk of racial discrimination based on the inclusion of a
guest's photograph.

Before filing the lawsuit, Ms. Harrington wrote a letter to Airbnb
requesting that it change its policies so that all accommodations
on its online platform may be available to all prospective guests
regardless of race or color.  Ms. Harrington specifically asked
Airbnb to change its policy that allows a host to wait to confirm a
booking until after the host has seen the full name and photograph
of a prospective guest.  She expressly asked Airbnb not to provide
information to hosts before accepting a reservation or confirming a
booking from a prospective guest that would reveal
statutorily-protected immutable characteristics, like race.  Airbnb
denied the request to change its policy, but offered to assist Ms.
Harrington in securing alternative accommodations if she ever were
discriminated against by an Airbnb host.  Airbnb also promised to
investigate any reported claims of racial discrimination and take
appropriate action.

After hearing from the parties on the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' putative class action complaint, Magistrate Judge
You issued her F&R.  Judge You recommended that the Court dismiss
the original complaint with leave to file an amended pleading.  The
Court adopted in part Judge You's F&R, and the Plaintiffs filed
their FAC.  

The Defendant then moved to dismiss the FAC with prejudice, and
Judge You issued an F&R recommending that the motion be granted
without leave to file a second amended complaint.  Judge You
concluded that the FAC did not allege facts sufficient to show that
the Defendant acted with discriminatory intent, which is required
to state a claim under the Oregon Public Accommodations Act
("OPAA").  Because Judge You concluded that Plaintiffs did not
adequately allege discriminatory intent, she did not reach the
question of whether the Defendant's business is a place of public
accommodation, which is also required to state a claim under the
OPAA.

The Plaintiffs timely objected to the entirety of the F&R
concerning the FAC.  

After de novo review, Judge Simon adopted in part and rejected in
part the F&R at issue, and denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' FAC.  He finds that that the Plaintiffs have
alleged that Airbnb's proffered reason for its pre-booking
mandatory photograph policy is "unworthy of credence" and have
sufficiently alleged the requisite discriminatory intent to state a
claim.  He also finds that it is irrelevant that Airbnb does not
itself directly rent or own the accommodations being rented out
because what Airbnb provides to the public is the service of using
its online platform to browse, locate, book, and pay for
accommodations in private homes.  The Plaintiffs, therefore, have
sufficiently alleged that Airbnb is a place of public accommodation
under the OPAA.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/5a8ZhQ from Leagle.com.

Patricia Harrington, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua L. Ross --
jross@stollberne.com -- Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter, PC,
Nicholas A. Kahl -- nick@nickkahl.com -- Nick Kahl, LLC & Yoona
Park -- ypark@stollberne.com -- Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting &
Shlacchter PC.

Ebony Price, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Carlotta Franklin, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Nicholas A.
Kahl, Nick Kahl, LLC & Joshua L. Ross, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting &
Shlachter, PC.

Airbnb, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeremy D. Sacks --
jeremy.sacks@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP, Kennon H. Scott --
kennon.scott@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP, Taryn K. Williams --
taryn.williams@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP & Reilley D. Keating --
reilley.keating@stoel.com -- Stoel Rives LLP.


ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Turano Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CYNTHIA N. TURANO, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-06953-KAW (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (i) granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint; and (ii)
denied the Defendants' motion to strike portions of the complaint
concerning a prior case filed by the Plaintiff's counsel.

Turano filed the instant class action, bringing constitutional and
state claims related to her experience while in the custody of
Defendant Alameda County Sheriff's Office.

On Dec. 25, 2016, the Plaintiff's husband called the Oakland Police
Department ("OPD"), claiming that the Plaintiff had violated a
temporary restraining order.  On Dec. 26, 2016, at around 1:00
a.m., OPD officers responded to the call.  The OPD officers
arrested the Plaintiff for violating the restraining order and took
her to Santa Rita Jail, where she was transferred into the custody
of the County.

The Plaintiff was placed in a cell that had fecal matter spread
over the walls and benches.  She was taken out of the cell and
searched in the hallway without any privacy screening.  She was
then placed in another cell and told she would be interviewed by a
nurse.  The Plaintiff was eventually interviewed by a male deputy.


The Plaintiff was then moved to a third holding cell.  After hours
of banging on the window and door, a female deputy arrived,
bringing in another woman.  Around 9:30 a.m., Plaintiff was
discharged and given a bus ticket and BART ticket.  Prior to her
discharge, the Plaintiff never saw the cells cleaned.  The
Plaintiff took public transportation back in her wet, visibly
blood-stained clothing.

On Dec. 5, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant suit.  On Jan. 21,
2018, she filed a first amended complaint.  The Defendants then
filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted on June 20,
2018.  The Court found that Plaintiff had pled a cruel and unusual
punishment claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, but that the
Plaintiff had failed to sufficiently allege supervisory liability
as to the individual Defendants and Monell liability as to
Defendant County of Alameda.  The Court also found that the
Plaintiff failed to adequately plead her equal protection and
negligence claims.

On July 20, 2018, the Plaintiff filed her second amended complaint,
bringing claims for: (1) Fourteenth Amendment due process claim
based on conditions of confinement; (2) Fourteenth Amendment equal
protection claim; and (3) negligence.  On Aug. 10, 2018, the
Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss and motion to
strike.

Judge Westmore granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  She finds that while the Plaintiff has pled
sufficient facts for Fourteenth Amendment conditions of confinement
and equal protection claims against the County, these claims must
be dismissed with prejudice as to the individual Defendants based
on qualified immunity.  He also also dismissed the negligence claim
without prejudice.

The Judge also finds that although the Defendants argue that the
settlement cannot be used to establish liability under Federal Rule
of Evidence 408, as an initial matter, Rule 408 applies to
settlement negotiations.  Rule 408 would also not apply to the
publicly available policies adopted by the Defendants, including
its policies regarding provision of menstrual products.  And, given
the disfavored status of motions to strike, and the absence of any
allegations by the Defendants that they are prejudiced by the
presence of these statements in the complaint, the Judge denied the
Defendants' motion to strike.  

The Defendants may move to exclude evidence of the settlement
agreement at a later time if appropriate; again, however, Rule 408
would appear to be limited to the settlement negotiations and
agreement, not the existence of the Weills v. Alameda County
Sheriff's Office lawsuit or the publicly available policies that
resulted from the negotiations.

The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 30 days of the
date of the Order, consistent with the order.  The Judge continued
the case management conference set for Nov. 13, 2018 to Feb. 19,
2019 at 1:30 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/sNjgYi from Leagle.com.

ynthia N Turano, Plaintiff, represented by Yolanda Huang --
yhuang.law@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Yolanda Huang.

County of Alameda, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, Gregory J.
Ahern, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, D Skoldqvist & Tara Russell,
Defendants, represented by Gregory B. Thomas -- gthomas@bjg.com --
Boornazian, Jensen Garthe


ALL SEASON RESTORATION: Wilson et al. Seek Minimum Wage & OT
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHALINA WILSON, WILLIAM WILSON, JR., ARIEL PERRY, and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the Plaintiffs,
v. ALL SEASON RESTORATION INC. d/b/a SERVEPRO OF MIDTOWN MANHATTAN,
and ROBERT CITRANGOLA, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00225-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., Nov. 6, 2018), alleges that
Defendants have unlawfully deprived Plaintiff, and all other
employees similarly situated, of federal minimum wage and overtime
compensation during the course of their employment, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, beginning September 19, 2018, the
Plaintiffs began performing 12 hours of work per day every day of
the week for Defendants. The Defendants, however, required
Plaintiffs to underreport the hours they were actually working.
This work, and these unlawful pay practices, continued until on or
about October 10, 2018. The Defendants were expressly aware of the
work performed by each Plaintiff, but nevertheless required
Plaintiffs to underreport their hours, and Defendants have refused
to pay any of these Plaintiffs any compensation for any hours of
work at all, let alone overtime compensation at the federally
mandated rate of time and one half for work exceeding 40 hours per
week. The Plaintiffs' unpaid work for Defendants equates to
substantial unpaid overtime at the federal statutorily required
rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked over 40 in any given
workweek. During all times pertinent hereto, Defendants failed to
keep accurate time records of the hours actually worked by
Plaintiffs, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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


ALTRIA GROUP: Faces 7 Class Suits in Canada
-------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to face seven class action suit in Canada.

Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class
action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs
have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits
in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases
purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state
or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope)
and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical
injury as well.

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 61
smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1),
California (1), Delaware (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida
(2), Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland
(1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New
York (2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Oregon (1), Pennsylvania (1),
Puerto Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1).

As of October 22, 2018, PM USA and Altria are named as defendants,
along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven class actions
filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia,
Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario. In Saskatchewan,
British Columbia (two separate cases) and Ontario, plaintiffs seek
class certification on behalf of individuals who suffer or have
suffered from various diseases, including chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after
smoking defendants' cigarettes.

In the actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia,
plaintiffs seek certification of classes of all individuals who
smoked defendants’ cigarettes. See Guarantees and Other Similar
Matters below for a discussion of the Distribution Agreement
between Altria and PMI that provides for indemnities for certain
liabilities concerning tobacco products.

Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United
States. It offers cigarettes primarily under the Marlboro brand;
cigars principally under the Black & Mild brand; and moist
smokeless tobacco products under the Copenhagen, Skoal, Red Seal,
and Husky brands. ltria Group, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.


AMERICAN AUTO: Sued over Alleged Unauthorized Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT PAPA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN AUTO TRANSPORT, LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No.
9:18-cv-81458-RLR (S.D. Fla., Oct. 26, 2018), contends that the
Defendant offers both open and enclosed transport carriers for
cars, trucks, buses, vans and more.  To promote its services, the
Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing through unauthorized
text messages to cellular subscribers who never provided the
Defendant with prior express consent, as well as cellular
subscribers who expressly requested not to receive the Defendant's
text messages, harming thousands of consumers in the process in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  As a result,
the Defendant caused thousands of text messages to be sent to the
cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members who either never
provided the Defendant with consent to contact them or who had
revoked any prior express consent.  The Defendant caused Plaintiff
and Class Members injuries, including invasion of their privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

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

               - and -

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

AMERICAN FINANCE: Hibbard Balks at Merger Deal with RCA
-------------------------------------------------------
TERRY HIBBARD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN FINANCE TRUST, INC., AMERICAN
FINANCE ADVISORS, LLC, AR GLOBAL INVESTMENTS, LLC, NICHOLAS S.
SCHORSCH, WILLIAM M. KAHANE, EDWARD M. WEIL, JR., NICHOLAS RADESCU,
DAVID GONG, STANLEY R. PERLA, and LISA D. KUBNICK, the Defendants,
Case No. 655339/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 26, 2018), seeks to
recover damages as a result of Defendants violation of Section 15
of Securities Act and direct and proximate result of issuing
defective Registration Statement. The Plaintiff has suffered
damages in connection with the offering.

According to the complaint, This is a securities class action
arising from the issuance of shares of American Finance Trust, Inc.
to Plaintiff and members of the class in exchange for their shares
of American Realty Capital - Retail Centers of America, Inc. in
connection with the merger in which AFIN acquired RCA. The AFIN
shares that Plaintiff and the other RCA shareholders received in
the Merger were registered with the SEC pursuant to a defective
registration statement and joint proxy statement-prospectus.

The Registration Statement contained materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (a) the financial impact to the
merged companies and shareholders of the changes to the Advisory
Agreements between AFIN and Defendant American Finance Advisors,
Inc. and the Advisory Agreement between RCA and RCA advisers, which
were conditioned upon approval of the Merger; and (b) the material
negative impact of the 3rd Advisory Agreement upon post-Merger AFIN
and its shareholders for a public listing liquidity event. For
instance, Defendants failed to disclose in the Registration
Statement that public markets discount the value of externally
managed REITs like AFIN. When AFIN, then known as American Realty
Capital Trust V, Inc., went public in 2013, it filed a Form S-l 1
registration statement/prospectus on March 6, 20132 that disclosed
the higher advisory fees and market discounts for externally
managed REITs. Those facts remained true at the time of the Merger.
Yet when AFIN filed the Registration Statement on October 21, 2016
in connection with the Merger, Defendants omitted those
disclosures, which were even more important to RCA shareholders
where the 3rd Advisory Agreement was extended for 40 years and was
made non-cancellable, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          SQUITIERI, & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421-6553

APPFOLIO INC: Settlement Reached in Leo Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
AppFolio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a settlement has
been reached in the class action suit entitled, Leo v. AppFolio,
Inc.

On September 28, 2017, a putative federal class action styled Leo
v. AppFolio, Inc. (Civ. No. 3:17-cv-05771; W.D. Wash.) was filed
naming the company as a defendant and alleging certain violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act in connection with our tenant
screening Value+ service (the "Leo Litigation"). The parties
recently agreed to settle the Leo Litigation and filed a notice of
settlement with the court.

Key to the settlement is an agreement that the company do not admit
any liability whatsoever in connection with the claims and
allegations in the Leo Litigation. The final settlement agreement
will be subject to court approval.

AppFolio said, "As a result of the foregoing developments, we have
determined that a loss is probable and therefore recorded an
expense, net of expected insurance proceeds, of $1.1 million during
the nine months September 30, 2018, within cost of revenue. We
expect that our insurer will pay its portion of the settlement
proceeds directly to the settlement fund following final court
approval."

AppFolio, Inc. provides industry-specific cloud-based software
solutions for small and medium-sized businesses in the property
management and legal industries. AppFolio, Inc. was founded in 2006
and is headquartered in Santa Barbara, California.


ARAMARK UNIFORM: Bruccheri Suit Remanded to Cal. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kimberly K. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
remand the case, VINCENT BRUCCHERI, MARIO CONTRERAS, and JERRY
MCNEELY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES, LLC; and Does
1-100 inclusive. Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00119-KJM-KJN (E.D.
Cal.), to Sacramento County Superior Court.

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action in Sacramento County
Superior Court on Dec. 27, 2017, making the following claims under
California Labor Code Section 2698: (1) failure to pay straight,
regular rate wages for all work performed; (2) failure to pay all
overtime wages; (3) failure to keep time records; (4) failure to
provide meal periods; (5) failure to provide rest periods; (6)
failure to provide recovery periods; (7) failure to timely pay
wages upon termination; (8) knowing and intentional failure to
comply with itemized employee wage statements; and (9) failure to
reimburse expenses in discharging duties.

The Defendant removed the case to federal court, asserting federal
question jurisdiction, and supplemental jurisdiction.
Specifically, as the basis for federal jurisdiction, the Defendant
argues that the Plaintiffs' state law claims are completely
preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act
("LMRA").

The Plaintiffs' motion to remand argues that because their claims
arise from state law and do not require interpretation of any
collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") terms, Section 301
preemption does not apply.  

The Plaintiff request that the Court take judicials notice of a
remand order issued in the Northern District of California.  Judge
Mueller granted this unopposed request.

As in the case covered by the Plaintiffs' request for judicial
notice, the Judge finds that the Defendant's argument conflates the
need to analyze the agreements' provisions with the need to simply
apply those provisions.  The need to consult the CBAs to determine
the wage rate to be used in calculating liability cannot, alone,
trigger section 301 preemption, and the Defendant has not shown
more than consultation is required.  To the contrary, the
Plaintiffs do not dispute the hourly rate they are entitled to or
how it is calculated, permitting the Court simply to apply the
compensation formulas contained in the CBAs to determine the
liability amount.  Accordingly, the Judge holds that the
Plaintiffs' claim for failure to pay for all time worked is not
preempted by Section 301.


Because the Defendant has not identified any disputed or complex
CBA overtime provisions that will require the Court's
interpretation, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs' Section 510
overtime claim is not preempted by LMRA Section 301.  She finds
that when no dispute or complexity exists with respect to the terms
of the CBA, a majority of courts find interpretation of the CBA is
unnecessary to address the Section 514 exemption and, accordingly,
Section 301 preemption does not apply.

Moreover, because resolving the Plaintiffs' meal, rest and recovery
period claims under Sections 226.7 and 512 requires at most
consulting, rather than interpreting, the relevant CBAs, these
claims are not substantially dependent upon analysis of the CBAs
and Section 301 preemption does not apply.  Although the Defendant
claims the CBAs contain differing language regarding the length and
timing of rest periods, the Defendant has not identified any
dispute as to the meaning of these provisions as applied to the
Plaintiffs or otherwise shown they require interpretation by the
Court.

Finally, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' remaining claims
are derivative of the claims subsequently analyzed, and thus, the
Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining
claims.  Because the LMRA does not preempt any of the Plaintiffs'
claims, however, the Judge holds that the Court also lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over the claims and cannot exercise
supplemental jurisdiction.

For the foregoing reasons, Jugde Mueller granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to remand the case to Sacramento County Superior Court.  The
case is closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/XOouO6 from Leagle.com.

Vincent Bruccheri, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra Shipman,
Turley and Mara Law Firm, Jamie Kathryn Serb --
jserb@turleylawfirm.com  -- Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC, Tony
Roberts -- troberts@turleylawfirm.com -- Turley & Mara Law Firm,
APLC & William Turley -- wturley@nydisabilitylaw.com -- Turley &
Mara Law Firm, APLC.

Mario Contreras & Jerry McNeely, Plaintiffs, represented by Tony
Roberts, Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC, William Turley, Turley &
Mara Law Firm, APLC & Alexandra Shipman, Turley and Mara Law Firm.

Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Kathryn Nazarian -- kate.nazarian@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius LLP & Eric Meckley -- eric.meckley@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


ATLANTIC & PACIFIC: Taveras Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
JULIO A. TAVERAS, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ATLANTIC & PACIFIC ASSOCIATION
MANAGEMENT, INC., a Florida Corporation, the Defendant, Case
1:18-cv-24506-KMW (S.D. Fla., Oct. 28, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, between May 2017 and May 2018, the
Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week for
Defendant in numerous work weeks during his employment as a
non-exempt, hourly employee for the Defendant.

Likewise, the other employees of Defendants who are similarly
situated to Plaintiff have regularly worked as non-exempt
administrative office employees, however, variously titled, in
excess of 40 hours in one or more work weeks during their
employment with Defendant at numerous locations within the three
year statute of limitations period between October 2015 and the
present without being paid time and one-half wages for all of their
actual overtime hours worked for Defendant, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant owned and operated a real estate company specializing
in acquisitions, development, property management, and investments
at more than 140 properties in different locations across the
United States including in Florida - with Defendant's headquarters
in Bay Harbour Islands within Miami-Dade County—as well as in
Georgia, Texas, and California.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Keith M. Stern, Esq.
          E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
          LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
          One Flagler
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 901-1379
          Facsimile: (561) 288-9031

ATLANTIC CREDIT: Arbitration Denial in Stacy Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ATLANTIC CREDIT & FINANCE SPECIAL FINANCE UNIT, LLC,
ASSIGNEE OF SYNCHRONY BANK, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant
Below, Petitioner, v. COURTNEY R. STACY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Defendant and Counterclaim
Plaintiff Below, Respondent, Case No. 17-0615 (W. Va. App.), the
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the Circuit
Court of Wyoming County's March 6, 2017 order denying Atlantic's
motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the putative class
action counterclaim filed by Stacy.

In support of its motion to compel arbitration, the Petitioner
submitted the affidavit of Jodi Anderson, a litigation analyst with
Synchrony Bank, formerly GE Capital Retail Bank.  Ms. Anderson
attests to her personal knowledge of the bank's business records,
which showed that on Feb. 4, 2014, a Care Credit account was
applied for online in the Respondent's name with Synchrony Bank,
attaching a "true and accurate copy" of the online application to
her affidavit.  Ms. Anderson further attests that on that same day,
Synchrony Bank approved the application and opened a Care Credit
account in the respondent's name, adding that on Feb. 10, 2014, the
plastic credit card and the applicable Credit Card Account
Agreement were mailed to the respondent to the address provided in
the online application.  Ms. Anderson attached to her affidavit
what she described as a "true and accurate copy" of the effective
credit card agreement that governed the Account.

The Respondent admitted in his discovery responses that he used the
credit card account.  He did not submit any evidence challenging
Ms. Anderson's sworn affidavit, such as an affidavit of his own
denying that he applied online for the credit card or denying that
he received the plastic credit card and the Credit Agreement in the
mail.

On Dec. 28, 2015, the Petitioner filed an action against the
Respondent in the Magistrate Court of Wyoming County seeking to
collect the past due balance on the credit card in the amount of
approximately $720.22.  The Respondent removed the action to the
Circuit Court of Wyoming County where he filed an answer to the
complaint, as well as a putative class action counterclaim in which
he alleged unjust enrichment, negligence, and claims under the West
Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, West Virginia Code
Sections 46A-1-101 to -8-102.

The petitioner filed an answer to the counterclaim and, thereafter,
the parties engaged in some written discovery.  On June 7, 2016,
the respondent filed a motion to compel class discovery, which the
circuit court granted in an order entered on Aug. 31, 2016.  Soon
thereafter, the Petitioner filed a motion to compel arbitration and
to dismiss the class allegations under West Virginia Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), relying upon the arbitration agreement set
forth in the Credit Agreement.  The Petitioner asserted that the
arbitration agreement should be addressed under Utah law given the
choice of law provision in the arbitration agreement and that,
under Utah law, there was a valid and binding arbitration agreement
and the right to seek arbitration was not waived by the petitioner.


The Respondent opposed the motion, arguing, inter alia, that
Petitioner failed to prove who applied online for the credit card
or that an arbitration agreement existed; that even if such an
agreement existed, it was both procedurally and substantively
unconscionable; and that the Petitioner waived any right it might
have had to compel arbitration under West Virginia law.

The circuit court held a hearing on the motion after which it
entered an order on March 6, 2017, denying the motion to compel
arbitration.  Challenging the circuit court's order, the petitioner
filed a motion under West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
seeking an amendment of the circuit court's order and a
reconsideration of the court's findings of fact and conclusions of
law.  Alternatively, it asked the lower court to enter an amended
order that made findings of fact and conclusions of law specific to
all issues raised in the petitioner's motion to compel arbitration,
including the choice of law provision in the arbitration agreement,
whether the parties' dispute is within the scope of the arbitration
agreement, which state's laws the court applied when it found the
petitioner had waived its right to arbitration, and whether the
respondent's class allegations violated the terms of the
arbitration agreement.

On June 12, 2017, the circuit court denied the petitioner's Rule
59(e) motion.  The circuit court again found the Petitioner had
failed to establish the existence of a contract or to prove that
the respondent had been provided a copy of the contract containing
the arbitration agreement; therefore, it had no reason to address
the choice of law issue.  Additionally, the court affirmed its
earlier ruling that even if there were a contract, the petitioner
had waived its right to compel arbitration.  The appeal followed.

Based upon its de novo review of the Petitioner's evidence
presented, and in the stark absence of any evidence from the
Respondent, such as an affidavit denying that he applied for the
credit account, or denying that he received a copy of the Credit
Agreement in the mail, the Court is compelled to find, contrary to
the circuit court, that the Respondent entered into the Credit
Agreement with Synchrony Bank.

Having determined that a Credit Agreement existed between the
respondent and Synchrony Bank, the Court holds that the case must
be remanded.  On remand, the circuit court should require the
parties to provide a more thorough analysis of the choice of law
issue prior to issuing its choice of law ruling, bearing in mind
the legal precepts set forth in General Electric and Mattingly.  

Once the circuit court undertakes its choice of law analysis and
rules upon the same, it must then utilize the applicable state's
law to address the remaining issues, including whether there is a
valid arbitration agreement covering the parties' dispute; whether
the petitioner acquired or was assigned those arbitration rights
when it purchased the "receivable" on the respondent's account from
Synchrony Bank; and, if the court finds that the arbitration
agreement is valid and that the petitioner was assigned those
rights, whether the petitioner has waived arbitration.

Additionally, if the circuit court determines under the applicable
state's law that the petitioner is Synchrony Bank's assignee, the
Court observes that the arbitration agreement includes a class
action waiver that might survive even if the balance of the
arbitration agreement were found to be "null and void."
Consequently, depending upon how the circuit court rules on the
assignment issue, it may be necessary for the circuit court to
address the survival provision when it rules upon the petitioner's
motion to dismiss the Respondent's class counterclaim, a ruling the
circuit court has not made.

For the reasons stated, the Court reversed the circuit court's
March 6, 2017, order denying the Petitioner's motion to compel
arbitration, and remanded the case for further proceedings
consistent with its Memorandum Decision.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2018, 2018 Memorandum
Decision is available at https://is.gd/Wui0KQ from Leagle.com.


BARRY KORNFELD: Certification of Ponzi Scheme Victims Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL HONIG, CARLA HONIG, DAVID LIPPMAN, CAROLYN LIPPMAN, JOHN
HERTVIK, GERALD ROY, and HEMANT NANAVATY on behalf of themselves
and a class of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
BARRY M. KORNFELD, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
9:18-cv-80019-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
certify these classes:

   1. With respect to SAC Count XVI against GBH, class of:

      "all persons who, as of December 4, 2017, had purchased and
      still held Woodbridge FPCM notes or Fund Offering units";

   2. With respect to SAC Count XIII against the Sales Agent
      Defendants, class of:

      "all persons who, as of December 4, 2017, had purchased and
      still held Woodbridge FPCM notes or Fund Offering units, and

      who were either (a) residents of the State of Florida at the

      time of the purchase and purchased based on the solicitation

      or participation of the Sales Agent Defendants, or (b)
      purchased based on the solicitation or participation of the
      Kornfeld, Knowles/Goodman, and Klager Defendants";

   3. With respect to SAC Counts I through XII, class of:

      "all persons who, as of December 4, 2017, had purchased and
      still held Woodbridge FPCM notes or Fund Offering units
      based on the solicitation or participation of the Kornfeld,
      Knowles/Goodman, and/or Klager Defendants, including:

      a. a subclass of all persons who, as of December 4, 2017,
         had purchased and still held Woodbridge FPCM notes or
         Fund Offering units based on the solicitation or
         participation of the Kornfeld Defendants, and who were
         residents of the State of Florida at the time of the
         purchase;

      b. a subclass of all persons who, as of December 4, 2017,
         had purchased and still held Woodbridge FPCM notes or
         Fund Offering units based on the solicitation or
         participation of the Knowles Defendants and/or Goodman,
         and who were residents of the State of Florida at the
         time of the purchase; and

      c. a subclass of all persons who, as of December 4, 2017,  
         had purchased and still held Woodbridge FPCM notes or
         Fund Offering units based on the solicitation or
         participation of the Klager Defendants, and who were
         residents of the State of Florida at the time of the
         purchase; and

   4. other classes or sub-classes as the Court may determine.

   Excluded from the proposed classes and/or sub-classes are
   the following: (i) Defendants, and their employees and
   agents; (ii) Any officer, director, employee, or promoter of
   Shapiro or Woodbridge, as that entity has been defined
   herein or in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint; and (iii)
   Any purchaser of Woodbridge investments who has filed an
   arbitration demand and/or lawsuit (other than the instant
   lawsuit) against Defendants regarding the loss of their
   Woodbridge investment.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Jonathan B. Butler, Esq.
          JButler@ciklinlubitz.com
          CIKLIN LUBITZ
          515 North Flagler Drive, 20th Floor
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 832-5900
          Facsimile: (561) 833-4209

               - and -

          Joseph G. Galardi, Esq.
          James W. Beasley, Jr., Esq.
          Andrew S. Kwan, Esq.
          BEASLEY & GALARDI, P.A.
          505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1500
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 835-0900
          Facsimile: (561) 833-4209
          E-mail: galardi@beasleylaw.net
                  beasley@beasleylaw.net
                  kwan@beasleylaw.net


BELLA VINEYARD: Faces Cruz Suit in Kern, California
---------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Bella Vineyard AG Services, Inc. The case is captioned as SONIA
CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BELLA VINEYARD AG SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
BCV-18-102702 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., Oct. 26, 2018).

Bella Vineyard AG Services, Inc. is a California corporation
engaged in the business of providing farm services such as crop
harvesting. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Joseph Lavi, Esq.

BLACK DIAMOND: Perez Seeks Unpaid OT for Construction Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
GUILLERMO PEREZ, And other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff (s), vs. BLACK DIAMOND OF FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY and STEVEN A. KATES, individually Defendants, Case Bi,
0:18-cv-62590-FAM (S.D. Fla., Oct. 27, 2018), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid wages and failure to pay overtime,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a general construction
contractor, providing residential and commercial new construction
and remodeling services. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as
a construction worker and maintenance employee from November 1,
2017, through August 22, 2018, or 42 weeks. The Plaintiff was a
non-exempted, full-time, hourly employee.

The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours every week period.
Nevertheless, Plaintiff never was properly compensated for overtime
hours worked. Therefore, Defendant willfully failed to pay
Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half his
regular rate for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in
violation of Section 7 (a) of the FLSA of 1938, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Resolved 49,500 Mesh Cases as of Oct. 23
-----------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that as of
October 23, 2018, approximately 51,000 product liability cases or
claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to
treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have
been asserted against the company. The pending cases are in various
federal and state courts in the U.S. and include eight putative
class actions. There were also fewer than 25 cases in Canada,
inclusive of one certified and three putative class actions and
fewer than 25 claims in the United Kingdom.

Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with
use of the company's transvaginal surgical mesh products. The
plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn,
breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection
laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 3,100 of the cases have
been specially assigned to one judge in state court in
Massachusetts. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and
transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to
MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

During the fourth quarter of 2013, the company received written
discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices
regarding its transvaginal surgical mesh products. The company have
responded to those requests.

As of October 23, 2018, the company has entered into master
settlement agreements in principle or are in the final stages of
entering one with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an
aggregate of approximately 49,500 cases and claims.  These master
settlement agreements provide that the settlement and distribution
of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditional
upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant
participation thresholds. Of the approximately 49,500 cases and
claims, approximately 30,000 have met the conditions of the
settlement and are final. All settlement agreements were entered
into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or
concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing.

Boston Scientific Corporation develops, manufactures, and markets
medical devices for use in various interventional medical
specialties worldwide. It operates through three segments:
Cardiovascular, Rhythm Management, and MedSurg. The company was
founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Marlborough,
Massachusetts.


BRIXMOR PROPERTY: $19.5MM Settlement Balance Remains in Escrow
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brixmor Property Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the remaining
settlement balance of $19.5 million remains in escrow pending final
class distribution in the case filed by Westchester Putnam Counties
Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefit Funds.

On December 13, 2017, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted final approval of the
settlement of the previously disclosed putative securities class
action complaint filed in March 2016 by the Westchester Putnam
Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefit Funds related to
the review conducted by the Audit Committee of the Board of
Directors.

Pursuant to the approved settlement, without any admission of
liability, the Company will pay $28.0 million to settle the claims.
This amount is within the coverage amount of the Company's
applicable insurance policies and has been funded into escrow by
the insurance carriers. The settlement provides for the release of,
among others, the Company, its subsidiaries, and their respective
current and former officers, directors and employees from the
claims that were or could have been asserted in the class action
litigation.

During the nine months ended September 30, 2018, $8.5 million of
the settlement amount was released from escrow per the court
approved settlement agreement for the payment of plaintiff's legal
fees. The remaining settlement balance of $19.5 million remains in
escrow pending final class distribution.

Brixmor Property said, "As of September 30, 2018, the $19.5 million
amount is included in Accounts payable, accrued expenses and other
liabilities in the Company's unaudited Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets. Because the settlement amount is within the
coverage amount of the Company's applicable insurance policies, the
Company accrued a receivable of $19.5 million as of September 30,
2018. This amount is included in Accounts receivable, net in the
Company's unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets."

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

Brixmor Property Group Inc. and subsidiaries (collectively, "BPG")
is an internally-managed real estate investment trust ("REIT"). The
company is based in New York, New York.


BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Cohen & Steers Global Suit Settled for $8MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brixmor Property Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the Company entered
into an agreement to settle the claims in the suit entitled, Cohen
& Steers Global Realty Shares, Inc., et al v. Brixmor Property
Group Inc., et al., for $8.0 million.

As previously disclosed, certain institutional investors elected to
opt out of the class action settlement in the Westchester Putnam
Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefit Funds suit and
accordingly were not bound by the release and will not receive any
of the class action settlement proceeds. On June 20, 2018, the
Company and the former officers were named as defendants in a
complaint filed by all remaining equity opt out investors in the
Supreme Court for the State of New York in New York County.

The Complaint, captioned Cohen & Steers Global Realty Shares, Inc.,
et al v. Brixmor Property Group Inc., et al. (Case No.
653091/2018), was filed on behalf of thirteen commonly managed
investment funds that opted out of the federal class action
settlement. On October 10, 2018, the Company entered into an
agreement to settle these claims for $8.0 million.

This amount is within the coverage amount of the Company's
applicable insurance policies. The settlement provides for the
release of, among others, the Company, its subsidiaries, and their
respective current and former officers, directors and employees
from the claims that were or could have been asserted in the opt
out lawsuit.

Based on current information, the Company accrued $8.0 million as
of September 30, 2018 with respect to the settlement. This amount
is included in Accounts payable, accrued expenses and other
liabilities in the Company's unaudited Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets.

Brixmor Property said, "Because the settlement amount is within the
coverage amount of the Company's applicable insurance policies, the
Company has accrued a receivable of $8.0 million as of September
30, 2018. This amount is included in Accounts receivable, net in
the Company's unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets."

Brixmor Property Group Inc. and subsidiaries (collectively, "BPG")
is an internally-managed real estate investment trust ("REIT"). The
company is based in New York, New York.


BROADSPECTRUM DOWNSTREAM: Villafan Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL VILLAFAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BROADSPECTRUM DOWNSTREAM SERVICES,
INC., d/b/a BROADSPECTRUM AMERICAS, INC., d/b/a TRANSFIELD
SERVICES, formerly TIMEC COMPANY, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-06741-LB (N.D. Cal., Nov. 6, 2018), challenges
Broadspectrum's policies and practices of (1) failing to compensate
Plaintiff and putative Class and Collective members for all hours
worked; (2) failing to pay minimum wage for all hours worked; (3)
failing to pay overtime and double time wages; (4) failing to
authorize and permit to take meal and rest breaks; (5) failing to
reimburse for necessary business expenditures; (6) failing to
provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (7) failing to
timely pay wages upon termination of employmentm pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the California wage and hour laws.

According to the complaint, the Collective members are individuals
who have worked for Broadspectrum Downstream Services, Inc. as
non-exempt, hourly employees, including but not limited to Safety
Attendants. Broadspectrum provides skilled safety personnel to its
clients operating oil drilling platforms. These employees provide
support for drilling operations of Defendant's clients.

Plaintiff and putative Class and Collective members work long
hours. For example, Plaintiff is regularly scheduled to work, and
in fact works, ten or twelve hour shifts for seven or more
consecutive days. Beyond the scheduled hours for which Plaintiff
and putative Class and Collective members are scheduled to work,
the Plaintiff and putative Class and Collective members are also
required to work before and after scheduled shifts, without
compensation, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          Michelle S. Lim, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105

CAPITOL WHOLESALE: African-American Workers Sue over Bias
---------------------------------------------------------
AAMBER MCGEE, TERRELL VEAL, and KENDALL MAXEY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAPITOL
WHOLESALE MEATS, INC.; TOTAL STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC.; and ELITE
LABOR SERVICES ON 55th, LTD., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07130
(N.D. Ill., Oct. 24, 2018) is brought against the Defendants' act
of discrimination against African-American laborers in the
Defendants' practices of excluding or severely restricting job
assignments for African-American laborers.

Capitol Wholesale Meats, Inc. engages in the production and sale of
meat cuts of beef, pork, and veal; and pizza supplies, cooked
Italian sausages, fresh cut chickens, and ground hamburgers to
pizzerias, Italian restaurants, and grocery stores in Illinois and
Wisconsin. Capitol Wholesale Meats, Inc. was founded in 1960 and is
based in Chicago, Illinois. As of August 16, 2017, Capitol
Wholesale Meats, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Hormel Foods
Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
          Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
          HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
          70 W. Madison St., Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 580-0100

               - and -

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          Alvar Ayala, Esq.
          WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 795-9121


CELGENE CORP: Amended Securities Complaint Due Dec. 10
------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court has
entered a scheduling order which requires lead plaintiff to file an
amended complaint by December 10, 2018.

On March 29, 2018, the City of Warren General Employees' Retirement
System filed a putative class action against the company and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions
concerning (1) trials of GED-0301, (2) 2020 outlook and projected
sales of OTEZLA(R), and (3) the new drug application for Ozanimod.


On May 3, 2018, a similar putative class action lawsuit against the
company and certain of its officers was filed by Charles H.
Witchcoff in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey. The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by making material misstatements and/or omissions
concerning (1) trials of GED-0301, (2) 2020 outlook and projected
sales of OTEZLA(R), and (3) the new drug application for Ozanimod.


On September 27, 2018, the court consolidated the two actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel
for the putative class. On October 9, 2018, the court entered a
scheduling order which requires lead plaintiff to file an amended
complaint by December 10, 2018; defendants to file their motion to
dismiss the amended complaint by February 8, 2019; lead plaintiff
to file its opposition to the motion to dismiss by April 9, 2019;
and defendants to file their reply by May 9, 2019.

Celgene Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, engages in the
discovery, development, and commercialization of therapies for the
treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases worldwide. The
company was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Summit, New
Jersey.


CELGENE CORP: Expert Discovery in Antitrust Suit Ends Nov. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that expert discovery is
scheduled to close on November 30, 2018.

On November 7, 2014, the International Union of Bricklayers and
Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB) filed a putative
class action lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey alleging that the company violated various
antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws by (a)
allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract with Seratec
S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories allegedly could not secure its
own supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient, (b)
allegedly refusing to sell samples of our THALOMID(R) and
REVLIMID(R) brand drugs to various generic manufacturers for the
alleged purpose of bioequivalence testing necessary for ANDAs to be
submitted to the FDA for approval to market generic versions of
these products, and (c) allegedly bringing unjustified patent
infringement lawsuits in order to allegedly delay approval for
proposed generic versions of THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R). IUB, on
behalf of itself and a putative class of third-party payers, is
seeking injunctive relief and damages.

In February 2015, the companty filed a motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint, and upon the filing of a similar putative class action
making similar allegations by the City of Providence (Providence),
the parties agreed that the decision in the motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint would apply to the identical claims in Providence's
complaint. In October 2015, the court denied the company's motion
to dismiss on all grounds.

The company filed its answers to the IUB and Providence complaints
in January 2016. On June 14, 2017, a new complaint was filed by the
same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the IUB case, making
similar allegations and adding three new plaintiffs - International
Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health
and Welfare Trust Fund (Local 39), The Detectives' Endowment
Association, Inc. (DEA) and David Mitchell.

Plaintiffs added allegations that the company's settlements of
patent infringement lawsuits against certain generic manufacturers
have had anticompetitive effects. Counsel identified the new
complaint as related to the IUB and Providence cases and, on August
1, 2017, filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of IUB,
Providence, Local 39, DEA, and Mitchell. On September 28, 2017, the
same counsel filed another complaint, which it identified as
related to the consolidated case, and which made similar
allegations on behalf of an additional asserted class
representative, New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund (NEC).
The NEC action has been consolidated with the original action
involving IUB, Providence, DEA, Local 39, and Mitchell into a
master action for all purposes.

On October 2, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for certification
of two damages classes under the laws of thirteen states and the
District of Columbia and a nationwide injunction class. On February
26, 2018, the company filed its opposition to the plaintiffs'
motion and a motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing all
state law claims where the plaintiffs no longer seek to represent a
class. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the company's
motion for judgment on the pleadings on April 2, 2018, and the
company filed its reply on April 13, 2018. The plaintiffs filed
their reply in support of their class certification motion on May
18, 2018.

Fact discovery in these cases closed on May 17, 2018. The
plaintiffs filed opening expert reports on June 18, 2018;
responsive and rebuttal reports were due on August 27, 2018 and
October 15, 2018, respectively. Expert discovery in these cases is
scheduled to close on November 30, 2018. No trial date has been
set.

Celgene Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, engages in the
discovery, development, and commercialization of therapies for the
treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases worldwide. The
company was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Summit, New
Jersey.


CEMPRA INC: Court Dismisses Amended Hirtenstein Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHNATHAN HIRTENSTEIN, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CEMPRA, INC.,
PRABHAVATHI B. FERNANDES, MARK W. HAHN, DAVID W. OLDACH,
Defendants, Case No. 16cv1303 (M.D. N.C.), Judge Thomas D.
Schroeder of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss and
dismissed the Plaintiffs' amended complaint.

The case is a putative federal securities class action on behalf of
all persons who owned common stock of the biopharmaceutical
company, Cempra, between July 7, 2015, and Nov. 4, 2016.   After
the Court consolidated the cases under the first-filed action, the
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  In their amended complaint,
the Plaintiffs seek recovery for stock losses under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") and Rule
10-b5 promulgated thereunder.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the safety profile of the drug and failed to
adequately disclose instances of drug-induced liver injury ("DILI")
observed in clinical trials prior to and during the class period.
According to the amended complaint, these false and misleading
statements caused Cempra's common stock to trade at artificially
high prices, so that when the risks were revealed by the FDA at the
end of the class period, the Plaintiffs suffered losses from the
subsequent stock price decline.

The Defendants are Cempra; Fernandes, Cempra's then-CEO, president,
and member of the board of directors from the company's founding in
November 2005 until Dec. 12, 2016; Hahn, Cempra's executive VP and
CFO during the class period; and Oldach, Cempra's chief medical
officer, during the class period.

The Defendants move to dismiss the consolidated complaint,
contending that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege material false
or misleading statements or allege sufficient facts to give rise to
a strong inference of scienter under the PSLRA's heightened
pleading standards.

Before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  

The Plaintiffs oppose the motion and also filed a motion to strike
seven exhibits contained in the appendix that the Defendants
submitted in support of their motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d).  

The challenged exhibits are as follows: (1) Cempra Form 8-K filed
with the SEC on Nov. 17, 2015; (2) Carlos M Barrera et al.,
Efficacy and safety of oral solithromycin versus oral moxifloxacin
for treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia: a global,
double-blind, multicentre, randomised, active-controlled,
non-inferiority trial (SOLITAIRE-ORAL), 16 Lancet Infectious
Diseases 421 (2016); (3) Thomas M. File Jr. et al., SOLITAIRE-IV: A
Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study Comparing the Efficacy
and Safety of Intravenous-to-Oral Solithromycin to
Intravenous-to-Oral Moxifloxacin for Treatment of
Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia, 63 Clinical Infectious
Diseases 1007 (2016); (4) Cempra's FDA briefing document, which was
publicly filed on Nov. 2, 2016, in advance of the FDA Advisory
Committee meeting; (5) FDA Advisory Committee minutes from the
meeting held on Nov. 4, 2016; (6) Form 4s for Oldach, which were
filed with the SEC on three separate occasions during the class
period; and (7) Form 4s for Fernandes & Hahn, which were filed with
the SEC on Jan. 5, 2016.

On July 24, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the pending motions.

Judge Schroeder holds that the Court may take judicial notice of
(i) the Nov. 17, 2015 Form 8-K that Cempra filed with the SEC, and
(ii) second and third challenged exhibits.  As to the fourth
challenged exhibit, the Judge will consider Cempra's FDA briefing
document, as it is incorporated by reference or otherwise integral
to the complaint.  With regard to the remaining three challenged
exhibits, he concludes that he needs not rely on them to resolve
the Defendants' motion, particularly given the comprehensive nature
of the other materials that the Court has determined it may
consider.  Thus, the Judge will not consider those documents.

Turning to the Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Judge has
reviewed all alleged misrepresentations and all other alleged bases
for scienter, individually and collectively.  He finds that they
are insufficient to raise a strong inference that any Defendant
intended to mislead any investor, or acted recklessly.  He finds
that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for relief upon which
relief can be granted under Section 10(b) or Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, or Rule 10b-5.

The Judge therefore granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and
dismissed the Plaintiffs' amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2018, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/TpVRFX from
Leagle.com.

JOHNATHAN HIRTENSTEIN, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID GARRETT
SCHILLER -- david@schillerfirm.com -- SCHILLER & SCHILLER, PLLC.

DONALD B. HALLOWES, Plaintiff, represented by JANET WARD BLACK --
info@wardblacklaw.com -- WARD BLACK LAW & NANCY ROUTH MEYERS, WARD
BLACK LAW.

CHARLES CRAIG JANIES, ROBERT F. COLWELL, JR. & JENNIFER COLWELL,
Consol Plaintiffs, represented by CARISSA J. DOLAN --
cdolan@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, REGIS C.
WORLEY -- rworley@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP,
TRIG R. SMITH -- trigs@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
LLP, DAVID A. ROSENFELD -- DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER
RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, FRANK J. JOHNSON -- FrankJ@johnsonfistel.com --
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP, KRISTEN L. O'CONNOR, JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP,
LESLIE BRUCE MCDANIEL -- mcdas@mcdas.com -- MCDANIEL & ANDERSON,
LLP, MICHAEL I. FISTEL -- MichaelF@johnsonfistel.com -- JOHNSON
FISTEL, LLP, TOR GRONBORG -- torg@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER
RUDMAN & DOWD LLP & WILLIAM W. STONE -- WilliamS@johnsonfistel.com
--, JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP.

CEMPRA, INC., PRABHAVATHI B. FERNANDES & MARK W. HAHN, Defendants,
represented by JAMES R. CARROLL -- james.carroll@skadden.com --
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, MICHAEL S. HINES --
michael.hines@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
LLP, SAMUEL A. SLATER, WYRICK ROBBINS YATES & PONTON LLP, SARA J.
VAN VLIET, SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP & LEE MICHAEL
WHITMAN, WYRICK ROBBINS YATES & PONTON, L.L.P.

DAVID W. OLDACH, Defendant, represented by JAMES R. CARROLL,
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP & SAMUEL A. SLATER, WYRICK
ROBBINS YATES & PONTON LLP.

CEMP INVESTOR GROUP, Movant, represented by DHAMIAN A. BLUE, BLUE
STEPHENS & FELLERS.

YELIN LAPIDOT MUTUAL FUNDS, Movant, represented by CASEY E. SADLER
-- csadler@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP, DANIEL
KENT BRYSON -- dan@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP &
ROBERT V. PRONGAY -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY PRONGAY &
MURRAY LLP.


CHAMPION PETFOODS: Rydman Sues over Contaminated Pet Food
---------------------------------------------------------
HOLLY RYDMAN, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA,
INC., a Delaware corporation, and CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, a Canadian
limited partnership, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01578 (W.D.
Wash., Oct. 26, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to fully
disclose the presence of heavy metals and toxins in their pet food
sold throughout the United States.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufacture, market,
advertise, label, distribute, and sell pet food under the brand
names Acana and Orijen throughout the United States. The Defendants
claim to have created a niche in the pet food market by "making
biologically 'appropriate' pet food -- as close to what animals
would eat in nature as possible -- and producing it using fresh,
natural ingredients. They then charge a premium for this
purportedly higher-quality food. The founder of the company, Peter
Muhlenfeld, said, "Our core family beliefs are entrenched in the
company, and that is to make the very best food."

The Defendants tout that Biologically Appropriate ORIJEN (TM)
represents a new class of food, designed to nourish dogs and cats
according to their evolutionary adaptation to a diet rich and
diverse in fresh meat and protein" and that it is "trusted by pet
lovers everywhere." Defendants' packaging and labels further
emphasize fresh, quality, and properly sourced ingredients and even
declares their dog food has "ingredients we love".  Yet nowhere in
the labeling, advertising, statements, warranties and/or 2
packaging do Defendants disclose that the Contaminated Pet Foods
contain levels of arsenic, mercury, lead, cadmium and/or BISPHENOL
A ("BPA") -- all known to pose health risks to humans and animals,
including dogs, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Brendan W. Donckers, Esq.
          Roger Townsend, Esq.
          BRESKIN JOHNSON TOWNSEND, PLLC
          1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206)652-8660
          E-mail: bdonckers@bjtlegal.com
                  rtownsend@bjtlegal.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Charles Laduca, Esq.
          Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: 202-789-3960
          E-mail: kvandyck@cuneolaw.com
                  charles@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Depalma, Esq.
          Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                  scruzhodge@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Glen Devalerio, Esq.
          Daryl Andrews, Esq.
          ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP
          265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 936-2796
          E-mail: glen@andrewsdevalerio.com
                  daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com

               - and -

          Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
          Samuel J. Adams, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP, Esq.
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
                  sjadams@pomlaw.com

CHEGG INC: Continues to Defend Shah Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
Chegg, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in a class action suit entitled, Shah v. Chegg, Inc.
et. al.

On September 27, 2018 a purported securities class action captioned
Shah v. Chegg, Inc. et. al. (Case No. 3:18-cv-05956-CRB) was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and its CEO. The complaint was filed
by a purported Company shareholder and alleges claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, based on allegedly misleading statements regarding the
Company's security measures to protect users' data and related
internal controls and procedures, as well as Chegg's second quarter
2018 financial results.   

The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our
securities between July 30, 2018 and September 25, 2018. The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages. Our time to
respond to the complaint has not yet been set.

Chegg, Inc. operates direct-to-student learning platform that
supports students on their journey from high school to college and
into their career with tools designed to help them pass their test,
pass their class, and save money on required materials. Chegg, Inc.
was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Santa Clara,
California.


CHG HEALTHCARE: Leiber et al. Seek to Certify Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDY JO LEIBER and JORDAN LOTT, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CHG HEALTHCARE SERVICES,
INC., a foreign for profit corporation, CHG COMPANIES, INC., CHG
MEDICAL STAFFING, INC., CHG MANGEMENT, INC., COMPHEALTH ASSOCIATES,
INC., and WEATHERBY LOCUMS, INC., the Defendants, Case No.:
0:18-cv-61139-BB (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action for unpaid
      overtime wages, and permitting, under court supervision,
      notice to:

      "all current and former Inside Sales Consultants who were
      employed by CHG Healthcare nationwide, and who were required

      to complete the mandatory 6-8 week training program within
      the three year period preceding May 18, 2018";

   2. requiring CHG Healthcare to identify all putative members of

      the Putative Class by providing a list of their names, last
      known addresses, dates of employment, cell phone number, and

      e-mail addresses in electronic and importable format, e.g. a

      Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, within 14 days of an entry of
      an order;

   3. permitting Plaintiffs' counsel to send Court-approved notice

      of this action to the putative class members of the proposed

      collective action via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and text message;

   4. permitting Plaintiffs' counsel to send a reminder notice via

      e-mail and text message to putative class members at the
      half-way point in the notice period;

   5. approving a 90-day opt-in period from the date the Court-
      approved notice is sent during which the putative class
      members may join this case by returning their written
      consents; and

   6. allowing putative class members to electronically sign and
      return the Consent to Become an Opt-In Plaintiff.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Paul M. Botros, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. PINE ISLAND ROAD, SUITE 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS;
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          E-mail: PBotros@forthepeople.com

CITIGROUP INC: Accord in Benchmark Rates Suit Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that in the case, IN RE
FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the proposed class
settlements with Citigroup, Citibank, Citicorp, and Citigroup
Global Markets Inc. (CGMI), and certain other defendants.  The
ruling was entered on August 6, 2018.

Additional information concerning this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 13 Civ. 7789
(S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions. The company operates
through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). The company operates in North
America, Latin America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.
Citigroup Inc. was founded in 1812 and is based in New York, New
York.


CLAYTON MYRICK: $23K Attys' Fees Awarded in Piccinetti FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN A. PICCINETTI, Plaintiff, v. CLAYTON, MYRICK,
McCLANAHAN & COULTER, PLLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
16-4032 (TJB) (D. N.J.), Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni
of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted
in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff filed the action against the Defendants on July 5,
2016 alleging that the Defendants used an unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA").  The debt at issue involved money
purportedly owed to Gold's Gym.  

The Plaintiff stylized his Complaint as a class action brought on
behalf of a class of New Jersey consumers seeking redress for
Defendant's actions.  The Defendants answered the Plaintiff's
Complaint on Aug. 1, 2016, denying any culpable conduct and raising
several affirmative defenses.

On March 2, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion for partial
judgment on the pleadings under FED.R.CIV.P. 12(c), arguing that
they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Counts III and
IV of the Plaintiff's Complaint.  Count III asserted claims against
the PLLC and Nauseef for violations of Sections 1692e(2), 1692e(5)
and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA.  In the alternative, the Defendants
requested permission to file an Amended Answer, allowing Nauseef to
assert additional affirmative defenses.

The District Court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings.
Specifically, the District Court granted the Defendants' motion
with respect to certain claims asserted in Count III of the
Complaint and as to Count IV in its entirety.  With respect to
Count III, the District Court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims for
violations asserted under Section 1692e(2) as well as for any
purported violations of Section 1692e based on the PLLC and
Nauseef's lack of meaningful involvement in the collection of the
Plaintiff's debt, but found that the Plaintiff adequately stated
claims against the PLLC and Nauseef for violating Sections 1692e(5)
and 1692e (10).

Given the Plaintiff's failure to allege any facts regarding the
purported lack of meaningful involvement by attorneys, the District
Court granted the Defendants' motion with respect to this claim.
Finally, the District Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for alleged violations of Section
1692j.  The aforementioned dismissals were made without prejudice,
and the Plaintiff was given permission to file an Amended
Complaint.

On Sept. 19, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration with respect to the District Court's September 5,
2017 decision granting in part and denying in part Defendants'
motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. [Docket Entry No.
30]. Through their motion for reconsideration, Defendants argued
that: (1) the District Court's dismissals should have been made
with, not without, prejudice; (2) the District Court should have
also dismissed Plaintiff's claims asserted under 15 U.S.C. §§
1962e(5) and (10) and that these dismissals should be made with
prejudice; and (3) the District Court never addressed Defendants'
request for alternative relief and should Plaintiff's claims not be
dismissed with prejudice, Defendants should be permitted to amend
their Answer to allow Nauseef to raise additional defenses. (See
generally, Def. Letter Br. of 9/19/2017; Docket Entry No. 30-1).

On September 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint. In
same, Plaintiff did not pursue any claims for violations of 15
U.S.C. § 1692j. Plaintiff did, however, reassert claims based on
purported violations of § 1692e(2), adding limited additional
factual allegations in support of same. Plaintiff also made certain
changes to his class allegations and added Theodore Lachman
("Lachman") as a defendant, seeking relief from Lachman in Counts I
and II of the Amended Complaint.

Shortly after the Amended Complaint was filed, the Court scheduled
a status conference with the parties.  During the conference, the
Court engaged in settlement discussions with counsel and scheduled
a formal settlement conference for Nov. 7, 2017.  The settlement
conference was later adjourned to Dec. 12, 2017 at the parties'
request.  While the matter did not settle on Dec. 12, 2017, headway
was made, and the parties were to report back with an update by
Dec. 22, 2017.

On Dec. 28, 2017, the parties informed the Court that a settlement
had been reached.  The Defendants agreed to pay the Plaintiff
$2,500 on Jan. 15, 2018.  The parties further consented to
Magistrate Judge jurisdiction with respect to the Plaintiff's
anticipated fee application, as the parties could not reach an
agreement with respect to what was a reasonable fee for the
Plaintiff's counsel.

In light of the parties' settlement agreement, the Defendants
withdrew their motion for reconsideration as moot.  The Court set a
briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover attorneys' fees for three
professionals: Ari Marcus, Yitzchak Zelman and Lori Hague.  Both
Messrs. Marcus and Zelman have submitted declarations outlining
their credentials and experience in support of their claimed hourly
rates.  Ms. Hague has not, and neither Mr. Marcus nor Mr. Zelman
explain her role in the litigation.

Despite the Defendants' objections to the contrary, Magistrate
Judge Bongiovanni finds the hourly rates requested by Messrs.
Marcus and Zelman to be reasonable.  Everything considered, she
finds that the Plaintiff has established the reasonableness of
Messrs. Marcus and Zelman's requested hourly rates of $400 and $350
per hour respectively.

As noted, the Plaintiff also seeks to recoup fees incurred by Ms.
Hague.  As further noted, the Plaintiff has provided no information
regarding who Ms. Hague is, her role at Marcus & Zelman, LLC, her
years of experience, etc.  As a result, the Magistrate will not
award any fees for the 0.3 hours she spent working on the matter.

The Magistrate has thoroughly reviewed Messrs. Marcus and Zelman's
billing records as well as the submissions of both parties.  While
she finds that many of the hours billed by the counsel are
reasonable, given Messrs. Marcus and Zelman's level of expertise in
consumer matters in general and FDCPA cases in particular, several
hours are excessive.

Having carefully reviewed the parties' submissions, she makes the
following reductions:

     a. The time spent preparing and serving discovery on Nov. 1,
2016 will be reduced from 2.2 to 1.7 hours for Mr. Marcus and 0.5
to 0.4 hours for Mr. Zelman.

     b. The time spent revising the aforementioned discovery
requests on April 21, 2017 will be reduced from 1.8 to 0.9 hours
for Mr. Zelman.

     c. The time spent researching and drafting the Plaintiff's
opposition to the Defendants' motion for partial judgment on the
pleadings will be reduced from 6.3 to 3.2 hours for Mr. Marcus and
15.2 to 7.6 hours for Mr. Zelman.

     d. The time spent reviewing, researching, drafting and
finalizing the Plaintiff's opposition to the Defendants' motion or
reconsideration will be reduced from 3.1 to 1.6 hours for Mr.
Marcus and 13.4 to 6.7 hours for Mr. Zelman.

     e. The time spent reviewing the Defendants' reply brief
submitted in further support of the Defendants' motion for
reconsideration will be reduced from 1.2 to 0.4 hours for Mr.
Marcus.

     f. The time spent researching, drafting, reviewing and/or
editing the Plaintiff's fee application will be reduced from 2.5 to
1.3 hours for Mr. Marcus and 5.1 to 2.5 hours for Mr. Zelman.

     g. The time spent by Mr. Marcus preparing the Plaintiff's
reply brief in further support of his fee application will be
reduced from 8.5 to 4.3 hours.

In addition, the Magistrate finds that a reduction of the fee award
is warranted based on hours Messrs. Marcus and Zelman spent on
administrative tasks.  Mr. Marcus' request should be reduced from
1.5 hours to 0.6 hours, and Mr. Zelman's request should be reduced
from 1.3 hours to 0.7 hours.

Finally, she awarded the Plaintiff the following costs: (1) the
$400 filing fee; (2) the $126 process server fee incurred serving
the Defendants through the North Carolina Secretary of State; and
(3) the $10 parking fee incurred on Dec. 12, 2017.

In total then, the Plaintiff is awarded attorneys' fees in the
amount of $22,825 and $536 in costs.  With respect to the
attorneys' fees this breaks down to $16,000 (40 hours of work at
$400 per hour) for Mr. Marcus, plus $6,825 (19.5 hours of work at
$350 per hour) for Mr. Zelman.  The Defendants are directed to pay
same no later than Nov. 9, 2018.

For the reasons stated, Magistrate Judge Bongiovanni granted in
part the Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs.  An
appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2018, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/eZKsYU from Leagle.com.

BRIAN A. PICCINETTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by ARI HILLEL MARCUS --
ari@marcuszelman.com -- MARCUS ZELMAN LLC & YITZCHAK ZELMAN --
Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus Zelman, LLC.

CLAYTON, MYRICK, MCCLANAHAN & COULTER, PLLC, INTERNAL CREDIT
SYSTEMS, INC. & ROBERT J. NAUSEEF, Defendants, represented by
CHRISTOPHER J. DALTON -- christopher.dalton@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN,
INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC.


CLECO CORPORATE: Discovery Ongoing in Merger-Related Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the parties
in the merger-related class action lawsuit are engaged in discovery
in district court.

In connection with a merger deal, four actions were filed in the
Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and
three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish, Louisiana. The petitions in each action generally alleged,
among other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board
of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other
things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing
to the Merger at a price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and
failing to disclose material information about the Merger.

The petitions also alleged that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation,
Merger Sub, and in some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco
Partners, either aided and abetted or entered into a civil
conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of duty. The
petitions seek various remedies, including monetary damages, which
includes attorneys’ fees and expenses.

The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish are captioned:

* Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October 27,
2014),

* Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C
(filed October 30, 2014),

* Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014), and

* L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,515F (filed November 14, 2014).

In November 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for
a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was
granted in November 2014. In December 2014, the Court consolidated
the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-lead counsel.
Also in December 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action
Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (the
Consolidated Amended Petition).

The consolidated action named Cleco Corporation, its directors,
Cleco Partners, and Merger Sub as defendants. The Consolidated
Amended Petition alleged, among other things, that Cleco
Corporation's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's
shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the Merger
Agreement because it allegedly did not value Cleco adequately,
failing to structure a process through which shareholder value
would be maximized, engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts
of interest, and failing to disclose material information about the
Merger. The Consolidated Amended Petition further alleged that all
defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty.

Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Amended
Petition are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious
defenses to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Amended
Petition.

The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish are captioned:

* Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7,
2014),

* Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11098
(filed November 19, 2014), and

* Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November 21,
2014).

Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, BCI, and John Hancock
Financial as defendants. The Creative Life Services action names
Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA,
and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants.

In December 2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an
Amended Class Action Petition for Damages. Each petition alleged,
among other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board
of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's
shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement because it allegedly
does not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process
through which shareholder value would be maximized and engaging in
self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest.

The Butler and Creative Life Services petitions also allege that
the directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
disclose material information about the Merger.

Each petition further alleged that Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger
Sub, and certain of the investors in Cleco Partners aided and
abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. In December
2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory exceptions in each
action on the basis that each action was improperly brought in
Orleans Parish and should either be transferred to the Ninth
Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish or dismissed. Also in
December 2014, the plaintiffs in each action jointly filed a motion
to consolidate the three actions pending in Orleans Parish and to
appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.

In January 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case
sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the
case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District
Court for Rapides Parish. In February 2015, the plaintiffs in
Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal of their cases
from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred to the Ninth
Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish.

In February 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed
by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan seeking to enjoin the
shareholder vote for approval of the Merger Agreement. Following
the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. In June 2015,
three of the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended
Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition. This will be
considered according to a schedule established by the Ninth
Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. Cleco filed exceptions
seeking dismissal of the amended petition in July 2015.

In March 2016 and May 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third
Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and
Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and their Fourth Verified
Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition, respectively. The
fourth petition eliminated the request for preliminary and
permanent injunction and also named an additional executive officer
as a defendant. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the
amended Petition.

A hearing was held in September 2016, and the District Court
granted the exceptions filed by Cleco and dismissed all claims
asserted by the former shareholders. The plaintiffs appealed the
District Court's ruling to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of
Appeal. The Third Circuit Court of Appeal heard oral arguments in
the case in September 2017. In December 2017, the Third Circuit
Court of Appeal issued an order reversing and remanding the case to
the District Court for further proceedings.

In January 2018, Cleco filed a writ with the Louisiana Supreme
Court seeking review of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's
decision. The writ was denied in March 2018 and the parties are
engaged in discovery in the District Court.

Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each action
are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to the claims set forth in each of the petitions.

Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC operates as a public utility holding
company primarily in Louisiana. The company, through its
subsidiary, operates as a regulated electric utility, which owns
nine generating units with a total capacity of 3,310 megawatts and
serves approximately 290,000 customers in Louisiana through its
retail business; supplies wholesale power in Louisiana and
Mississippi; and owns 86 active transmission substations and 239
active distribution substations. Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC was
founded in 1934 and is based in Pineville, Louisiana.


CMS  WESTROCK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rosa et al. Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA ROSA; JACIE WILILAMS; BELCANYELLI FANA; MARISOL RIVAS; and
WILMER MELENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CENTRAL MEDICAL SERVICES OF WESTROCK, P.C.;
MICHAEL HEARNS; KAREN HEARNS; and CHRISTINE ROCKICIOLI, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06011-KAM-RLM (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2018) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, minimum
wages, damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Rosa was employed by the Defendants as manager.
Williams was a front desk receptionist and later promoted to team
lead. Fana, Rivas and Melendez were doctor's assistants.

Central Medical Services of Westrock, P.C. is a domestic business
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
New York. The Company provides healthcare services to people who
are injured at work or suffer from work related illness or disease.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
          FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 571-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 505-2001


COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in NJ
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that
the company continues to defend itself from a consolidated class
action suit in he United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

On October 5, 2016, October 27, 2016, and November 18, 2016, three
putative securities class action complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming
the company and certain of its current and former officers as
defendants. In an order dated February 3, 2017, the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey consolidated the
three putative securities class actions into a single action and
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.

On April 7, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who
purchased the company's common stock during the period between
February 27, 2015 and September 29, 2016, naming the company and
certain of its current and former officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the Exchange Act, based on allegedly false
or misleading statements related to potential violations of the
FCPA, the company's business, prospects and operations, and the
effectiveness of its internal controls over financial reporting and
its disclosure controls and procedures. The lead plaintiffs seek an
award of compensatory damages, among other relief, and their
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on June 6, 2017, and the motion to dismiss was fully
briefed as of September 5, 2017. On August 8, 2018, the Court
issued an order which granted the motion to dismiss in part,
including dismissal of all claims against current officers of the
Company, and denied them in part. On September 7, 2018, the company
filed a motion in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey to certify the August 8, 2018 order for immediate
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). Plaintiffs filed a response
to the motion on September 28, 2018, and we filed a reply on
October 9, 2018.

Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. provides information
technology consulting and technology services in North America,
Europe, and Asia. The company was founded in 1994 and is based in
Teaneck, New Jersey.


COMMERCE ENERGY: Seeks 6th Cir. Review of Order in Hurt FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Commerce Energy, Inc., Just Energy Group, Inc. and Just
Energy Marketing Corp. filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Davina Hurt, et al. v. Commerce Energy, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:12-cv-00758, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 8, 2018, Judge
James S. Gwin (i) granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and costs, and (ii) granted
in part and denied in part their motion for incentive awards.

In this long-lingering bifurcated litigation, a jury found that the
Defendants are liable for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("Ohio
Wage Act").  After a long and complicated damage determination, the
Court determined damages for the large collective action and class
action.

Judge Gwin ordered the Defendants to pay the Plaintiffs
$2,718,440.75 in attorney's fees and $217,120.16 in costs.  From
those attorney's fees, he ordered the Plaintiffs' attorneys to pay
$62,500 in incentive awards.  Judge Gwin granted $5,000 each to
Davina Hurt and Dominic Hill, the Plaintiffs most involved in the
case.  Judge Gwin also granted $2,500 each to the remaining
Plaintiffs for whom incentive awards are sought.

The appellate case is captioned as Davina Hurt, et al. v. Commerce
Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-4058, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees DAVINA HURT, Individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, and DOMINIC HILL, Individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, are represented by:

          Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN
          60 S. Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Telephone: (440) 352-3391
          E-mail: fbartela@dworkenlaw.com

               - and -

          James Andrew DeRoche, Esq.
          SEAMAN GARSON
          614 W. Superior Avenue, Suite 1600
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 830-1000
          E-mail: jderoche@garson.com

               - and -

          Murray Richelson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. KATZ
          50 Public Square, Suite 842 Terminal Tower
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-5250
          E-mail: Mrichelson@aol.com

Defendants-Appellants COMMERCE ENERGY, INC., doing business as Just
Energy doing business as Commerce Energy of Ohio, Inc.; JUST ENERGY
MARKETING CORP.; and JUST ENERGY GROUP, INC., are represented by:

          Shannon K. Patton, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          1100 Superior Avenue, E., 20th Floor
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 696-7600
          E-mail: spatton@littler.com

               - and -

          Bradley A. Sherman, Esq.
          SHERMAN BOSEMAN LEGAL GROUP
          800 W. Saint Clair Avenue, Fourth Floor
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 647-1070
          E-mail: bradley@shermanboseman.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeal in Gibson Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the appeal
in Gibson v. Byrd Regional Medical Center, is ongoing.

The case is a purported class action lawsuit filed in the 30th
Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana and served on
August 3, 2016, claiming the company's affiliated Leesville,
Louisiana hospital violated payor contracts by allegedly improperly
asserting hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors and
seeking class certifications for any similarly situated plaintiffs.


The court has certified a class and denied the company's motion for
summary judgment.

Community Health Systems said, "We have appealed both rulings to
the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals. That appeal is
pending. We believe these claims are without merit and will
vigorously defend the case."

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

Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly
traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading
operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities
in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare
services through the hospitals that we own and operate and
affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets
throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin,
Tennessee.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in Tennessee Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that plaintiff's
motion for class certification in the consolidated class action
suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, is pending.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; namely,
Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems,
Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis Firefighters
Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed
June 21, 2011.

All three seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock between July 27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and
allege that misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated
prices for the company's common stock. In December 2011, the cases
were consolidated for pretrial purposes and NYC Funds and its
counsel were selected as lead plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel.
In lieu of ruling on the company's motion to dismiss, the court
permitted the plaintiffs to file a first amended consolidated class
action complaint which was filed on October 5, 2015.

The company's motion to dismiss was filed on November 4, 2015 and
oral argument took place on April 11, 2016. The company's motion to
dismiss was granted on June 16, 2016 and on June 27, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals. The matter was heard on May 3, 2017. On December 13, 2017,
the Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court's dismissal of the case
and remanded it to the District Court.

The company filed a renewed partial motion to dismiss on February
9, 2018, which was denied by the District Court on September 24,
2018. The company also filed a petition for writ of certiorari with
the United States Supreme Court on April 18, 2018 seeking review of
the Sixth Circuit's decision. The United States Supreme Court
denied the petition for a writ of certiorari on October 1, 2018.
Plaintiff's motion for class certification is pending.

Community Health Systems said, "We believe this consolidated matter
is without merit and will vigorously defend this case."

Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly
traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading
operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities
in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare
services through the hospitals that we own and operate and
affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets
throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin,
Tennessee.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Settlement Reached in Cyber Attack Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
has agreed to settle the class action lawsuits related to cyber
attack, subject to approval by the District Court.

On August 18, 2014, the company's computer network was the target
of an external, criminal cyber-attack that the company has believe
occurred between April and June, 2014. The company and Mandiant (a
FireEye Company), the forensic expert engaged by the company in
connection with this matter, believe the attacker was a foreign
"Advanced Persistent Threat" group who used highly sophisticated
malware and technology to attack the company's systems.

The attacker was able to bypass the company's security measures and
successfully copy and transfer outside the Company certain
non-medical patient identification data (such as patient names,
addresses, birthdates, telephone numbers and social security
numbers), but not including patient credit card, medical or
clinical information. The company worked closely with federal law
enforcement authorities in connection with their investigation and
possible prosecution of those determined to be responsible for this
attack.

Mandiant has conducted a thorough investigation of this incident
and continues to advise us regarding security and monitoring
efforts. The company have provided appropriate notification to
affected patients and regulatory agencies as required by federal
and state law. The company have offered identity theft protection
services to individuals affected by this attack.

The company have incurred certain expenses to remediate and
investigate the matter matter. In addition, multiple purported
class action lawsuits have been filed against the company and
certain subsidiaries. These lawsuits allege that sensitive
information was unprotected and inadequately encrypted by the
company.

The plaintiffs claim breach of contract and other theories of
recovery, and are seeking damages, as well as restitution for any
identity theft. On February 4, 2015, the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the transfer of the
purported class actions pending outside of the District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama to the District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings. A consolidated complaint was filed and the
company filed a motion to dismiss on September 21, 2015, which was
partially argued on February 10, 2016.

In an oral ruling from the bench, the court greatly limited the
potential class by ruling only plaintiffs with specific injury
resulting from the breach had standing to sue. Further, on
jurisdictional grounds, the court dismissed Community Health
Systems, Inc. from all non-Tennessee based cases.

Finally, the court set April 15, 2016 for further argument on
whether the remaining plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a cause
of action to continue their cases. On April 15, 2016 in an oral
ruling from the bench, the court dismissed additional claims and
following this oral ruling only eight of the forty plaintiffs
remained with significant limitations imposed on their ability to
assert claims for damages.

These oral rulings were confirmed in a written order filed on
September 12, 2016. On October 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a
renewed motion for interlocutory appeal from the motion to dismiss
ruling and on February 15, 2017 this motion was denied. Plaintiffs
refiled their motion for permission to seek interlocutory appeal on
March 15, 2017, and that motion was also denied. The company have
settled these class action lawsuits subject to approval by the
District Court.

Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly
traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading
operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities
in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare
services through the hospitals that we own and operate and
affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets
throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin,
Tennessee.


CONTINENTAL LABORATORIES: Tompkins Seeks OT Wages for Engineers
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL TOMPKINS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CONTINENTAL LABORATORIES,
INC., the Defendant, Case 4:18-cv-04079 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 26. 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a
mud logger and mud engineer during the relevant statutory time
period. The Plaintiff and the other workers like him were typically
scheduled for 12 hour shifts, seven days a week, for weeks at a
time. But these workers never received overtime for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying by the
hour and overtime as required by the FLSA, Defendant paid these
workers a daily rate, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant provides field personnel to operators and other oil
field services companies to support mud logging operators.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON D UNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Pays $45.8MM for Strack Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Continental Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the Company made
payments totaling $45.8 million to satisfy the majority of its
obligations under the settlement in the class action suit filed by
Billy J. Strack and Daniela A. Renner

In November 2010, a putative class action was filed in the District
Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma by Billy J. Strack and Daniela A.
Renner as trustees of certain named trusts and on behalf of other
similarly situated parties against the Company. The Petition, as
amended, alleged the Company improperly deducted post-production
costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest
owners from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma.

The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims, including breach of
contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and
other claims and sought recovery of compensatory damages, interest,
punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the proposed class.


The Company denied all allegations and denied that the case was
properly brought as a class action. On June 11, 2015, the trial
court certified a "hybrid" class requested by plaintiffs over the
objections of the Company. The Company appealed the trial court's
class certification order. On February 8, 2017, the Oklahoma Court
of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling on certification
and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing which was denied by
the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. Plaintiffs then filed a
Petition for Writ of Certiorari on May 23, 2017 to the Oklahoma
Supreme Court, which was denied on October 2, 2017. On October 10,
2017, Plaintiffs filed with the trial court a "Second Amended and
Renewed Motion for Class Action Certification and Request that the
Court to Set a Briefing Schedule Related to Class Certification."

During the litigation the Company was not able to estimate a
reasonably possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any,
the ultimate resolution of the action would have on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows due to the
preliminary status of the matter, the complexity and number of
legal and factual issues presented by the matter and uncertainties
with respect to, among other things, the nature of the claims and
defenses, the existence and the potential size of the class, the
scope and types of the properties and agreements involved, the
production years involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of
the matter.

The Company further disclosed that it was reasonably possible one
or more events could occur in the near term that could impact the
Company's ability to estimate the potential effect of this matter
if any, on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.

During the litigation the Company also disclosed plaintiffs alleged
underpayments in excess of $200 million as damages, which may
increase with the passage of time, a majority of which would be
comprised of interest. After certification of the case as a class
action was reversed the parties continued settlement negotiations.


Due to the uncertainty of and burdens of litigation, on February
16, 2018, the Company reached a settlement in connection with this
matter. Under the settlement, the Company initially expected to
make payments and incur costs associated with the settlement of
approximately $59.6 million. The Company accrued a loss for such
amount at December 31, 2017, which was increased to $61.7 million
at June 30, 2018 to reflect additional settlement obligations
resulting from the passage of time.

The accrued loss was subsequently reduced due to settlement
payments made by the Company in the 2018 third quarter. On April 3,
2018, the District Court of Garfield County, Oklahoma preliminarily
approved the settlement and set certain dates applicable to the
settlement including the timing and content of Notice, Opt-out, and
Objections to Class Members. The Fairness Hearing was held on June
11, 2018. On June 12, 2018, the court entered an order formally
approving the settlement. The order approving the settlement is not
subject to appeal. In the third quarter of 2018, the Company made
payments totaling $45.8 million to satisfy the majority of its
obligations under the settlement. The Company's remaining loss
accrual for this matter totals $17.3 million at September 30, 2018,
representing additional settlement obligations expected to be
satisfied in 2019. The accrual for this matter is included in
"Accrued liabilities and other" on the condensed consolidated
balance sheets.

Continental Resources, Inc. explores for, develops, and produces
crude oil and natural gas properties in the north, south, and east
regions of the United States. Continental Resources, Inc. was
founded in 1967 and is based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


COOK COUNTY, IL: McFields et al. Seek to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Courtney McFields, et al.,
the Plaintiffs, vs. Sheriff of Cook County and Cook County,
Illinois, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07424 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court to order that this case may proceed as a
class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3) for:

   "all persons who, while detained at the Cook County Jail
   between November 1, 2013 and April 30, 2018, submitted a
   written "Health Service Request Form" complaining of dental
   pain and did not re-ceive a face-to-face assessment by a
   registered nurse or higher level practitioner after submitting
   the request."[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Kenneth N. Flaxman, Esq.
          Joel A. Flaxman, Esq.
          KENNETH FLAXMAN LAW OFFICES
          200 S Michigan Ave, Ste 201
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 427-3200
          E-mail: knf@kenlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Mr. Robert F. Kunkel, Esq.
          SANCHEZ, DANIELS & HOFFMAN, LLP, by
          333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 641-1555
          E-mail: rkunkel@sanchezdh.com

               - and -

          Mr. Brian P. Gainer, Esq.
          Ms. Monica Gutowski, Esq.
          JOHNSON & BELL, LTD.
          33 West Monroe Street, Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 372-0770
          E-mail: gainerb@jbltd.com
                  gutowskim@jbltd.com


CORECIVIC INC: Court Resolves Discovery Dispute No. 1 in Owino Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SYLVESTER OWINO, JONATHAN GOMEZ, on behalf of
themselves, and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
CORECIVIC, INC., a Maryland corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-1112-JLS-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Judge Nita L. Stormes of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California granted in
part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to set production
deadlines.

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Determination of
Discovery Dispute No. 1.  The case presents a putative class action
regarding the Defendant's use of civil immigration detainees for
labor at their facilities, either unpaid entirely or underpaid in
the "one dollar a day" program.  In sum, there are three proposed
classes, (1) the Nationwide Forced Labor class, consisting of all
detainees who performed unpaid work at any Corecivic facility; (2)
the California Forced Labor class, identical to the nationwide
class, but limited to the state of California; and (3) the
California Labor Law class, for those who participated in the "one
dollar a day" program and so were underpaid for labor.

Discovery is currently in progress and pursuant to the Scheduling
Order, the close of class discovery is March 15, 2019.  The
Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for class certification
is April 15, 2019.  They propounded requests for production of
documents, to which the Defendant responded and has since produced
various documents and spreadsheets of relevant data.

The present discovery dispute arises not over the content of any
specific requests for production, but instead, the timing for
production of documents by the Defendant.  The Plaintiffs are
primarily concerned that production at the current rate may not
provide enough time for review and subsequent depositions within
the time allotted by the Scheduling Order for completion of class
discovery.  The Plaintiffs request the Court set interim deadlines
for production to ensure sufficient time for review and
depositions.

The Defendant argues in response that many documents and
spreadsheets of the relevant information have been, and continue to
be, produced, and the timeline proposed by the Plaintiffs would
impose an undue burden in light of the volume of documents and
number of facilities involved in the process.  The Defendant also
indicates that some of the records sought may not exist because the
nature of the work involved (e.g., time records for members of the
forced labor classes who participated in cleaning of common areas
as part of their daily duties as detainees) and is concerned that
the Plaintiffs appear not to have reviewed the contents of produced
documents thus far to determine whether the information provided is
adequate.

The Plaintiffs present their motion as having four issues: (1) a
deadline for production of documents related to establishing the
class; (2) a deadline for production of documents reflecting
policies and procedures; (3) a deadline for all remaining document
production; and (4) an extension to submit a discovery dispute
related to ESI.

The Defendant agrees that the first three issues are in dispute,
and agrees with the requested extension for ESI.  But, the
Defendant also requests in the introductory section of the joint
motion that the Court establish "relevant time periods" based on
the statutes of limitations for the various claims alleged in the
complaint, and limit production accordingly.  The Plaintiffs reply
that the claims all arise from the same unlawful practices and that
the motion to dismiss establishes the relevant time frame.

Judge Stormes declines to opine on the relevant time periods
because the Defendant has not pointed to any specific request in
dispute for which definition of the relevant time period is
necessary.  He says he cannot offer advisory opinions.  If the
Defendant wished to challenge the scope of production, it was
required to identify a problematic request, show that Defendant
included an objection in its response and/or seek a protective
order as part of this discovery dispute.  The Judge finds that a
blanket request to limit the scope of production without
identifying a specific request(s) in dispute fails to identify a
dispute that the Court can reasonably adjudicate.  He therefore
denied the Defendant's request in this regard.

The Judge granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion
to set production deadlines.  He directed the Defendant to produce,
by Nov. 9, 2018, documents sufficient to establish the members of
the class, i.e., (1) the names of the detainees that performed
compensated or uncompensated work at the Defendant's California
facilities from Jan. 1, 2006 to the present and (2) the names of
the detainees that performed compensated or uncompensated work at
Defendant's facilities outside of California from Dec. 23, 2008 to
the present.  The Defendant must produce documents or supplement
its responses to the requests for production appropriately to
state, via declaration under oath, that no such documents exist, by
Jan. 15, 2018.

The Judge set a deadline for production of the policies and
procedures of Jan. 15, 2019.  This date ensures 60 days for the
Plaintiff to continue with discovery, and is 90 days prior to the
deadline for class certification.  He strongly encouraged the
Plaintiffs to review the tables of contents produced and that the
parties continue to meet and confer regarding the appropriate
production.

Though he finds it appropriate to direct that the Defendants
continue their diligent efforts and that all remaining document
production continue on a rolling basis with haste, the Judge did
not impose a hard and fast deadline beyond the present March 15,
2018 close of class discovery.

Finally, the Judge granted the parties' joint request for a 45 day
extension of time to submit a discovery dispute regarding ESI
production, custodians, and search terms.  He finds that they
represent they continue to meet and confer, and the Defendant
indicates that a list of proposed custodians and search terms has
been provided.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2018, 2018 Order is
available at https://is.gd/upSeH4 from Leagle.com.

Sylvester Owino, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly
situated & Jonathan Gomez, on behalf of themselves, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Geoffrey M. Raux ,
Foley & Lardner LLP, pro hac vice, Robert L. Teel --
lawoffice@rlteel.com -- Law Office of Robert L. Teel, Eileen Regina
Ridley -- eridley@foley.com -- Foley and Lardner LLP, J. Mark
Waxman -- mwaxman@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP & Nicholas J.
Fox  -- nfox@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner, LLP.

CoreCivic, Inc., a Maryland corporation, Defendant, represented by
Ashlee Beth Fletcher -- ahesman@strucklove.com -- Struck Love
Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC, pro hac vice, Daniel P. Struck --
dstruck@strucklove.com -- Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC, pro
hac vice, Nicholas D. Acedo -- nacedo@strucklove.com -- Struck Love
Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC, pro hac vice & Rachel Love --
rlove@strucklove.com -- Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC, pro
hac vice.

CoreCivic, Inc., a Maryland corporation, Counter Claimant,
represented by Ashlee Beth Fletcher, Struck Love Bojanowski &
Acedo, PLC, pro hac vice, Daniel P. Struck, Struck Love Bojanowski
& Acedo, PLC, Ethan H. Nelson, Law Office of Ethan H. Nelson, Jacob
Brady Lee, Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC, Nicholas D. Acedo,
Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC, Rachel Love, Struck Love
Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC & Ashlee Beth Fletcher, Struck Love
Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC.

Jonathan Gomez, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly
situated & Sylvester Owino, on behalf of themselves, and all others
similarly situated, Counter Defendants, represented by Geoffrey M.
Raux, Foley & Lardner LLP, pro hac vice, Robert L. Teel, Law Office
of Robert L. Teel, Eileen Regina Ridley, Foley and Lardner LLP, J.
Mark Waxman, Foley & Lardner LLP, Nicholas J. Fox, Foley & Lardner,
LLP, Geoffrey M. Raux, Foley & Lardner LLP & Alan R. Ouellete,
Foley & Lardner LLP.


CRESCENT CONSULTING: Carrillo Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
LUIS CARRILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CRESCENT CONSULTING, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00541-XR (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to conditionally certify and send Court-approved
notice to the Putative Class Members:

     "all day rate wellsite personnel who worked as consultants for
Crescent Consulting, LLC any time during the past 3 years (the
"Putative Class Members")".

Like many other FLSA collective actions involving misclassified oil
and gas independent contractors, Mr. Carrillo worked overtime for
Defendant Crescent Consulting, LLC but was paid a day rate -- not a
salary or overtime pay. Crescent's failure to meet the salary basis
requirement of the white-collar exemptions or pay overtime is a
clear violation of the FLSA. It is also the basis of the underlying
claim common between all day rate independent contractors
(sometimes called Company Men, Wellsite Supervisors, Drilling
Consultants, Drill Site Managers, Completions Consultants, or Rig
Supervisors) working for Crescent over the past three years.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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

CVS HEALTH: ERISA Sec. 406 Claims in EpiPen Suit Thrown Out
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: EpiPen ERISA Litigation, Civ. No. 17-1884
(PAM/HB) (D. Minn.), Judge Paula A. Magnuson of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.

The individual Plaintiffs in these consolidated putative class
actions are participants in health insurance plans that are subject
to the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA").  They allege that they or their dependents require
EpiPens, a prescription medication, to manage serious allergic
reactions.  According to the Plaintiffs, in 2007 the list price for
a pack of two EpiPens was less than $100.  That year, however,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its related entities, Mylan N.V.
and Mylan Specialty L.P., acquired the exclusive rights to market
and distribute EpiPens.  In the intervening decade, the price for
two EpiPens has soared to more than $600.  According to the
Plaintiffs, because of the high deductibles of their
health-insurance plans as well as the conduct they complain about
in the lawsuit, they are often forced to pay nearly the entire list
price for EpiPens.

Defendants CVS Health Corporation, CaremarkPCS Health L.L.C,
Caremark L.L.C., Caremark Rx L.L.C., Express Scripts Holding
Company, Express Scripts, Inc., Medco Health Solutions, Inc.,
UnitedHealthGroup, Inc., UnitedHealthcare Services, Inc., Optum,
Inc., Optum Rx Holdings, LLC, OptumRx, Inc. and Prime Therapeutics,
LLC are pharmacy benefit managers ("PBMs").  PBMs are "middlemen"
in the prescription-drug-benefit market.  They develop and maintain
lists of drugs, known as formularies, from which participants in a
health-insurance plan must choose for their pharmaceutical needs.
They also negotiate with drug manufacturers and distributors for
volume discounts and rebates in exchange for inclusion and
preferential placement of the drug on formularies, and exclusion of
competitor's drugs from formularies.  According to the Plaintiffs,
the Defendants control more than 80% of the
prescription-drug-benefit market and possess the market power of
more than 200 million Americans.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' negotiations with Mylan
caused Mylan to raise the price of EpiPens, while the Defendants
pocketed millions of dollars in rebates and other payments.
Because the price Mylan charges for EpiPens directly affects the
amount a plan's beneficiaries pay for the EpiPens, Mylan's price
increases raised the Plaintiffs' out-of-pocket costs dramatically.
The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under ERISA Section 404(a), and engaged in fiduciary
self-dealing in violation of ERISA Section 406(b).

The Defendants seek dismissal of the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1),
arguing that the Plaintiffs cannot establish that their injuries
are traceable to the Defendants' conduct, nor are their injuries
redressable by the injunctive relief they seek, and thus the
Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their claims.  In the
alternative, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs have failed
to state any claims on which relief can be granted under Rule
12(b)(6) because the PBMs are not ERISA fiduciaries.

Judge Magnuson finds that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged
that they suffered an injury that is redressable by the relief they
seek.  They have also plausibly pleaded their fiduciary-duty claim
under ERISA Section 404 but have not done so under Section 406.
Accordingly, she granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2018, 2018 Memorandum and
Order is available at https://is.gd/3K0awv from Leagle.com

Elan Klein, and all others similarly situated, Adam Klein, and all
others similarly situated & Leah Weaver, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony F. Maul --
AFMAUL@MAULFIRM.COM -- The Maul Firm PC, pro hac vice, Arielle
Wagner -- aswagner@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen Pllp,
Cari C. Laufenberg -- claufenberg@KellerRohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback LLP, David W. Asp -- dwasp@locklaw.com -- Lockridge
Grindal Nauen PLLP, Gretchen S. Obrist --
gobrist@KellerRohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, Justin N. Saif
-- jsaif@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco, pro hac vice, Karen
Hanson Riebel -- khriebel@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen
PLLP, Kate M. Baxter-Kauf -- kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com -- Lockridge
Grindal Nauen PLLP, Kathleen M. Donovan-Maher , Berman Tabacco, pro
hac vice, Marc Jeffrey Greenspon -- mgreenspon@bermantabacco.com --
Berman Devalerio, pro hac vice, Matthew Michael Gerend --
mgerend@KellerRohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice,
Patrick Thomas Egan -- pegan@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco,
pro hac vice & Steven L. Groopman -- sgroopman@bermantabacco.com --
Berman Tabacco, pro hac vice.

Susan Illis, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Anthony F. Maul, The Maul Firm PC, pro hac vice,
Arielle Wagner, Lockridge Grindal Nauen Pllp, Cari C. Laufenberg,
Keller Rohrback LLP, Christopher Heffelfinger, Berman Tabacco, pro
hac vice, David W. Asp, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Gretchen S.
Obrist, Keller Rohrback LLP, Justin N. Saif, Berman Tabacco, pro
hac vice, Karen Hanson Riebel, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Kate
M. Baxter-Kauf, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Kathleen M.
Donovan-Maher, Berman Tabacco, pro hac vice, Matthew Michael
Gerend, Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick Thomas Egan,
Berman Tabacco, pro hac vice & Steven L. Groopman, Berman Tabacco,
pro hac vice.

Amy M. Khan, Plaintiff, represented by Cari C. Laufenberg, Keller
Rohrback LLP, Gretchen S. Obrist, Keller Rohrback LLP & Kate M.
Baxter-Kauf, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

Prime Therapeutics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew B.
Brantingham, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Jaime Stilson , Dorsey & Whitney
LLP, Nicholas J. Bullard , Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Paul W. Heiring,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Stephen P. Lucke , Dorsey & Whitney LLP &
William R. Stoeri , Dorsey & Whitney LLP.

Express Scripts, Inc., Medco Health Solutions, Inc. & Express
Scripts Holding Company, Defendants, represented by Andrew S.
Corkhill , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, pro hac vice,
Donald G. Heeman , Felhaber Larson, Eric G. Serron , Steptoe &
Johnson LLP, pro hac vice, Jessica J. Nelson , Felhaber Larson,
Jonathan Gordon Cooper , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, pro
hac vice, Michael John Lyle , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
pro hac vice & Paul J. Ondrasik, Jr. , Steptoe & Johnson LLP, pro
hac vice.

CVS Health Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel M. Dockery
-- ddockery@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly, LLP, pro hac vice, Enu
A. Mainigi -- emainigi@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac
vice, Isaac B. Hall -- isaac.hall@FaegreBD.com -- Paul E. Boehm --
pboehm@wc.com -- pro hac vice, Richmond Turner Moore --
rtmoore@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice & Steven L.
Severson -- steven.severson@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP.

Caremark, L.L.C., Caremark Rx, L.L.C. & CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C.,
Defendants, represented by Daniel M. Dockery, Williams & Connolly,
LLP, pro hac vice, Enu A. Mainig, Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac
vice, Isaac B. Hall, Paul E. Boehm, pro hac vice & Steven L.
Severson, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

United HealthCare Services, Inc. & UnitedHealth Group Incorporated,
Defendants, represented by Donald T. Campbell --
donald.campbell@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP & Kadee
Jo Anderson -- kadee.anderson@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street
LLP.

Optum, Inc., OptumRx Holdings, L.L.C. & OptumRx, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Brian David Boone, Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice,
Donald T. Campbell, Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Elizabeth Broadway
Brown, Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Jordan Elise Edwards,
Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Kadee Jo Anderson, Stinson Leonard
Street LLP & William Herman Jordan, Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac
vice.

UnitedHealth Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian David
Boone, Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Donald T. Campbell, Stinson
Leonard Street LLP, Elizabeth Broadway Brown, Alston & Bird LLP,
pro hac vice, Emily C. McGowan , Alston & Bird LLP, Jordan Elise
Edwards, Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Kadee Jo Anderson,
Stinson Leonard Street LLP & William Herman Jordan, Alston & Bird
LLP, pro hac vice.

Traci Brannon, Lindsey Rizzo & Jamie Herr, Movants, represented by
Carolyn G. Anderson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Charles S. Zimmerman,
Zimmerman Reed, LLP, Lynn Lincoln Sarko --
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac vice,
Paul J. Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Rex
A. Sharp -- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, P.A., pro hac
vice, Warren T. Burns -- wburns@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest
LLP, pro hac vice & William Mark Lanier -- WML@LanierLawFirm.com --
The Lanier Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice.


DTE ENERGY: Misrepresented Retirement Pension Plan, Nolan Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie D. Nolan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. The Detroit Edison Company; DTE Energy
Corporate Services LLC, an Affiliated Company of the Detroit Edison
Company; DTE Energy Company Retirement Plan; DTE Energy Benefit
Plan Administration Committee; Janet Posler, as Designated
Representative for DTE Energy Benefit Plan Administration
Committee; Qualified Plan Appeals Committee [Michael S. Cooper,
Renee Moran, Jerome Hooper], the Defendants, Case
2:18-cv-13359-AJT-SDD (E.D. Mich., Oct. 26, 2018), seeks to recover
for herself and all other similarly situated persons who elected to
transfer to the Cash Balance Plan (i.e., "the Class Members"), the
greater of:

    (i) the pension benefits DTE promised under the A+B Benefit
Promise; that is, (A) the "frozen protected" pension benefit earned
under the Traditional Plan before the transfer plus (B) the pension
benefit earned under the Cash Balance Plan after the transfer; and

    (ii) the pension payable if they had remained in the
Traditional Plan (i.e., not elected to transfer to the Cash Balance
Plan), less any amount Nolan and the Class Members actually
received.

According to the complaint, the case is about broken promises,
misrepresentations, and material omissions on the part of
Defendants that induced an election on the part of Nolan and other
similarly situated persons that substantially reduced their pension
benefit payable upon retirement. During a two-month window in the
Spring of 2002, DTE invited employees who participated in its
"traditional" pension plan ("the Traditional Plan") -- a plan that
computed the pension as a percentage-of-pay times years of service
-- to transfer to its new "cash balance" pension plan ("Cash
Balance Plan") -- a plan that computed the pension by reference to
a hypothetical account to which the Plan added hypothetical
Interest Credits and Contribution Credits.

In connection with its invitation, DTE promised its employees that
if they elected to transfer to the Cash Balance Plan they would
receive (A) the "frozen and protected" pension benefit they earned
under the Traditional Plan before the transfer, plus (B) the
benefit they would earn thereafter under the Cash Balance Plan
("the A+B Benefit Promise"). DTE expressed the A+B Benefit Promise
in both the 2001 Plan and a Retirement Choice Decision Guide DTE
distributed to employees invited to transfer to the Cash Balance
Plan.

Under the A+B Benefit Promise, if a Participant earned (A) a $600
monthly annuity under the Traditional Plan before transferring to
the Cash Balance Plan, and (B) a $500 monthly annuity thereafter
under the Cash Balance Plan, the Participant would be entitled to a
pension benefit at retirement equal to $1,100/month. When
Participants retired, however, DTE ignored its covenant to compute
their pension benefits in accordance with the A+B Benefit Promise.
Instead, DTE used a "larger of" methodology whereby it compared the
pension the Participant earned under the Traditional Plan before
the transfer to the pension the Participant earned under the Cash
Balance Plan after the transfer, and paid the Participant only the
"larger of" the two amounts. DTE's "larger of" methodology deprives
Participants of pension benefits they earned and are entitled to
receive under the A+B Benefit Promise.

Under DTE's "larger of" methodology, all Class members experienced
a significant reduction in the rate of future benefit accrual after
they transferred to the Cash Balance Plan with some accruing no new
pension benefits for a period of time after the transfer (i.e., a
zero rate of benefit accrual for that period). However, no Class
member was ever provided with a notice that DTE intended to use a
"larger of" methodology to compute their pension at retirement,
much less an explanation of the adverse impact that methodology
would have on their future pension accruals and ultimate pension
amount. DTE's failure to provide such notice to the DTE employees
offered the Cash Balance choice was "egregious" because, at the
time, DTE was both the plan Sponsor and Plan Administrator and was
empowered to designate the person or entity to act as the Plan
Administrator and deliver the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 section 204(h) Notice. See 2001, the lawsuit says.

Ms. Nolan worked for DTE for 38 years, from December 17, 1979 until
December 1, 2017, the date she retired. She last worked for DTE as
a Financial Analyst.

DTE Energy is a Detroit-based diversified energy company involved
in the development and management of energy-related businesses and
services nationwide.

Attorneys for Leslie Nolan and all others similarly situated:

          Eva T. Cantarella, Esq.
          Bradley J. Schram, Esq.
          Robert P. Geller, Esq.
          Patricia A. Stamler, Esq.
          HERTZ SCHRAM PC
          1760 S. Telegraph Rd.
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Telephone: 248 335-5000
          Facsimile: 248 335-3346
          E-mail: ecantarella@hertzschram.com

EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Dismissal of Olenik Suit under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Earthstone Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the plaintiff in
Olenik v. Lodzinksi et al., has filed an appeal with the Delaware
Supreme Court from the decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery
granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the case.

On June 2, 2017, Nicholas Olenik filed a purported shareholder
class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against Earthstone's Chief Executive Officer, along with other
members of the Board, EnCap, Bold, Bold Holdings and OVR.

The complaint alleges that Earthstone's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the Bold Contribution
Agreement. The Plaintiff asserts that the directors negotiated the
Bold Transaction to benefit EnCap and its affiliates, failed to
obtain adequate consideration for the Earthstone shareholders who
were not affiliated with EnCap or Earthstone management, did not
follow an adequate process in negotiating and approving the Bold
Transaction and made materially misleading or incomplete proxy
disclosures in connection with the Bold Transaction.

The suit seeks unspecified damages and purports to assert claims
derivatively on behalf of Earthstone and as a class action on
behalf of all persons who held Common Stock up to March 13, 2017,
excluding defendants and their affiliates.

On July 20, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss and entered an order dismissing the
action in its entirety with prejudice. The Plaintiff filed an
appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court.

Earthstone and each of the other defendants believe the claims are
entirely without merit and they intend to mount a vigorous defense.
The ultimate outcome of this suit is uncertain, and while
Earthstone is confident in its position, any potential monetary
recovery or loss to Earthstone cannot be estimated at this time.

Earthstone Energy, Inc., an oil and natural gas development and
production company, operates in the up-stream segment of the oil
and natural gas industry in the United States. Its asset portfolio
includes the Midland Basin of west Texas and the Eagle Ford trend
of south Texas. Earthstone Energy, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is
headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.


EMILIO PUCCI: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Emilio Pucci, LTD.
The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Emilio Pucci,
LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10585 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13,
2018).

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

Emilio Pucci S.r.l. designs and markets ready-to-wear, handbags,
shoes, and eyewear. The company's products include skirts, hats,
gowns, dresses, trousers, sportswear, and hand-painted or
embroidered folkloric motifs. It sells its products through its
store network and an online store. Emilio Pucci, Ltd operates as a
subsidiary of LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton S.E.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


ENGILITY HOLDINGS: Wolf Balks at Merger Deal with SAIC
------------------------------------------------------
The case, JACK WOLF, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ENGILITY HOLDINGS, INC., JOHN BARTER,
STEVEN A. DENNING, LYNN A. DUGLE, DAVID M. KERKO, PETER A. MARINO,
KATHARINA MCFARLAND, DARYLL J. PINES, ANTHONY PRINCIPI, CHARLES S.
REAM, DAVID A. SAVNER, WILLIAM G. TOBIN, DAVID TOPPER, SCIENCE
APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, and RAPTORS MERGER SUB,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01751-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 6,
2018), stems from a proposed transaction announced on September 10,
2018, pursuant to which Engility Holdings, Inc. will be acquired by
Science Applications International Corporation and Raptors Merger
Sub, Inc. On September 9, 2018, Engility's Board of Directors
caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger
with SAIC. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
Engility's stockholders will receive 0.450 shares of Parent common
stock for each share of Engility they own.

On October 18, 2018, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Registration
Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and
misleading, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 683-3516
          E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
                  tjm@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Garey Files ADA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fidelity National
Financial, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fidelity
National Financial, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10577 (S.D.
N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018).

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

Fidelity National Financial, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides title insurance, technology, and transaction services to
the real estate and mortgage industries in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     The Law Offices of Jonathan Shalom
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748
     Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


FIRST ALARM: Faces Nessim Suit in Sacramento, Califorina
--------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
First Alarm Security & Patrol Inc. The case is captioned as Carol
Nessim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. First Alarm Security & Patrol Inc., and Does
1 to 100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00243370-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 26, 2018).

First Alarm Security & Patrol, Inc. provides professional security
and patrol services to commercial and industrial facilities in
California. The company was founded in 1966 and is based in Aptos,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Galen T Shimoda, Esq.


FIRST CITIZENS: Virzi et al. Suit Moved to D. South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Virzi and Natasha A. Brenchak, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. First Citizens
Bank of South Carolina, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Citizens
Bancshares Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CP-40-05022, was
removed from the Court of Common Pleas Richland County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina (Columbia) on
Oct. 26, 2018. The District of South Carolina Court Clerk assigned
Case No.: 3:18-cv-02902-TLW to the proceeding. The suit alleges
consumer credit violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Terry L Wooten.

First Citizens provides full range of banking products and
services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          David Andrew Maxfield, Esq.
          DAVID MAXFIELD ATTORNEY LLC
          PO Box 11865
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Telephone: (803) 509-6800
          Facsimile: (855) 299-1656
          E-mail: dave@consumerlawsc.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Emily Irene Bridges, Esq.
          Michael Kevin McCarrell, Esq.
          SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP
          2 West Washington Street, Suite 1100
          Greenville, SC 29601
          Telephone: (864) 751-7618
          E-mail: emily.bridges@smithmoorelaw.com
                  kevin.mccarrell@smithmoorelaw.com

FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Baranco Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID BARANCO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-03580-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California granted in part and denied in part Ford's partial
motion to dismiss three specific counts in the Plaintiffs' Third
Amended Complaint: (1) Plaintiff James Abbitt's breach of implied
warranty claim under North Carolina law; (2) Plaintiff April
Nicolo's New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA") claims; and (3)
Plaintiff Gary Dicken's Ohio Consumer Protection Sales Practice Act
("OCPSA") claim.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Ford manufactured vehicles
with defective door latch mechanisms that cause sensors to falsely
indicate that a door is open when it is in fact closed, posing a
variety of safety risks.  They assert causes of action for breach
of implied warranty and under consumer protection laws for failure
to disclose a material defect.

The Plaintiffs allege that Ford knew about the defect.  They
suggest that Ford intentionally used a less expensive temporary fix
during the warranty period in order to shift the cost of repairing
the underlying defect onto consumers once their warranties expire.

The Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint in August 2017,
and Ford moved to dismiss in October 2017.  On March 12, 2018, the
Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Ford's
motion.

The Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in April 2018.  The
parties then stipulated that the Plaintiffs would file a TAC
without Ford responding to the Second Amended Complaint. The TAC,
filed on May 31, 2018, added four new named Plaintiffs (Nicolo,
Dicken, Greg Garat, and John Hannah).  The TAC brings claims for
violations of the consumer protection laws of the respective states
where the Plaintiffs purchased their vehicles as well as breach of
the implied warranty of merchantability.  

Ford moves to dismiss three counts in the TAC: (1) Abbitt's breach
of implied warranty claim under North Carolina law; (2) Nicolo's
NJCFA claims; and (3) Dicken's OCPSA.

As to Plaintiff Abbitt's implied warranty claim, Judge Chen finds
that Abbitt's claim satisfies all three relation-back requirements
and is therefore not barred by the statute of limitations.  Ford
has not identified any unfair prejudice it would suffer from the
addition of Abbitt's claim, and there is an identity of interests
between Abbitt and Baranco.  Therefore, Ford's motion to dismiss
Abbitt's implied warranty claim is denied.

As to Plaintiff Nicolo's NJCFA claims, in light of the broad
legislative intent evident from the language and policy goals of
the CFA, and in keeping with New Jersey courts' instruction that
the Act should be construed liberally in favor of consumers, the
Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations that Ford's failure to
disclose the "door ajar" defect poses risks to their safety are
sufficient to state a claim under the NJCFA.  Accordingly, Ford's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' NJCFA claims is denied.
Finally, as to Plaintiff Dicken's OCSPA claim, the Judge holds that
because Dicken cannot establish an OSCPA violation by Ford within
the two years before he joined the suit, his OCSPA claim is
dimsmissed with prejudice.  An affirmative misrepresentation is
actionable post-sale, but omissions/failures to disclose are only
actionable up until the point of sale.  In addition, the Plaintiffs
point to a number of cases cited in their TAC purportedly holding
that actions substantially similar to those attributed to Ford here
violated the OCSPA.  Upon review, the Judge finds that most of
these cases do not involve violations "substantially similar" to
Ford's alleged conduct to the extent that Ford can be deemed to
have been put on notice that it was acting unlawfully.

For these reasons, Judge Chen Ford's motion to dismiss is (i)
denied as to Plaintiff Abbitt's implied warranty claim; (ii) denied
as to Plaintiff Nicolo's NJCFA claims; and (iii) granted as to
Plaintiff Dicken's OCSPA claim, with leave to amend to substitute
in a new Named Plaintiff for the putative Ohio class.  The order
disposes of Docket No. 110.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2018, 2018 Order is
available at https://is.gd/N8gZjU from Leagle.com.

David Baranco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C., pro hac vice,Erich Paul Schork, Barnow and
Associates, P.C., pro hac vice, Courtney L. Davenport --
courtney@thedavenportlawfirm.com -- The Davenport Law Firm LLC, pro
hac vice, David Christopher Wright -- dcw@mccunewright.com --
McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Leslie E. Hurst -- lhurst@bholaw.com --
Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, Matthew David Schelkopf --
mds@mccunewright.com -- McCuneWright LLP, pro hac vice, Richard
Lyle Coffman -- rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com -- The Coffman Law
Firm, pro hac vice & Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood
Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC.

Malisa Nicolau, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, James Abbitt, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Daniel Caron, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Gary Kubber, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Anita Farrell, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Harriet Abruscato,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Donald
Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
& John Furno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and
Associates, P.C., pro hac vice, Erich Paul Schork, Barnow and
Associates, P.C., pro hac vice, Leslie E. Hurst, Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon LLP, Courtney L. Davenport, The Davenport Law Firm LLC,
pro hac vice, David Christopher Wright, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP,
Matthew David Schelkopf, McCuneWright LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy
G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP.

April Nicolo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, John Hannah, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Gary Dicken, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated & Greg Garat, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Leslie
E. Hurst, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Timothy G. Blood, Blood
Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP.

Ford Motor Company, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented
by Tamara Alicia Bush -- tbush@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett LLP,
David Matthew George -- dgeorge@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC,
John Mark Thomas -- jthomas@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC &
Sherry Ann Rozell, McAfee and Taft, pro hac vice.


FOREVER 21: Court Dismisses Patterson TCCWNA Suit Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIFANY PATTERSON, Plaintiff, v. FOREVER 21, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 16-05087 (MAS) (TJB) (D. N.J.), Judge
Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey (i) dismissed the Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice,
and (ii) denied as moot the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and to
Strike.

On April 4, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased a necklace and a pair of
sunglasses from the Defendant's website, www.forever21.com.  The
Defendant markets a variety of women's apparel throughout the State
of New Jersey via its website.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant imposed unfair, one sided provisions in its Terms and
Conditions in violation of certain statutory and common law
standards and New Jersey's Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and
Notice Act ("TCCWNA").  Specifically, she asserts that the
"Disclaimer" and "Indemnification" provisions within the "Terms and
Conditions" posted on the Defendant's website unlawfully bind
consumers and therefore violate the TCCWNA.

The Plaintiff also contends that the T&C Provisions violate common
law and various Federal Regulatory Standards because it purports to
absolve the Defendant of its duty as a business to protect
consumers from the illegal acts of third parties.  She alleges that
the "Terms & Conditions" violate the New Jersey Punitive Damages
Act ("NJPDA") because it purports to bar her from seeking punitive
damages for any and all harm caused by the Defendant and because it
purports to absolve the Defendant of its legal obligation to
refrain from maliciously and/or wantonly and/or willfully creating
an unreasonable risk of harm to consumers.

The Plaintiff's sole cause of action is a violation of the TCCWNA.
She and the proposed Class Members seek the statutory relief of a
civil penalty of not less than $100 for each violation of the
TCCWNA.

On Aug. 19, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a single-count putative class
action complaint asserting that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant
to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  On Nov. 30, 2016, in
addition to filing its Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike, the
Defendant filed a Motion to Stay.  The Plaintiff opposed the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike, but did not
oppose its Motion to Stay.  The Defendant replied to both.

On Feb. 7, 2017, the Court granted the Defendant's Motion to Stay
pending the Third Circuit's decision in Russell v. Croscill Home
LLC.  In Russell, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant "imposed
the unfair, one-sided provisions in its Terms & Conditions in
violation of certain statutory and common law standards and the
TCCWNA.

The Defendant argued that the matter should be stayed because the
Third Circuit will consider whether an identically-situated
plaintiff is an 'aggrieved consumer,' as required by Section 17 of
the TCCWNA.  The Plaintiff did not oppose the stay to the extent
that the Court sought guidance from the Third Circuit  addressing
the same question as to the meaning of 'aggrieved consumer' within
Section 17 of the TCCWNA.

The Court granted the stay, noting that several cases are currently
on appeal to the Third Circuit, seeking the Third Circuit's
interpretation of standing in light of Spokeo, Inc.  The Third
Circuit, however, dismissed Russell on May 16, 2018, after the
parties filed a stipulation of dismissal.

Although the Third Circuit never provided the anticipated guidance
in Russell, a recent New Jersey Supreme Court case, Spade v. Select
Comfort Corp., addressed an issue that is determinative of the
Court's subject matter jurisdiction in the matter, as currently
pled by the Plaintiff: the meaning and scope of an "aggrieved
consumer" under the TCCWNA.

Judge Shipp finds that whether the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction on the grounds the Plaintiff has currently pled is
dependent on whether the Plaintiff is an "aggrieved consumer" under
the TCCWNA.  Specifically, the CAFA requires the Plaintiff to plead
a minimum of $5 million in controversy as to the class, and the
Plaintiff has done so.  The Plaintiff's right to relief under the
TCCWNA, however, depends upon whether she is an "aggrieved
consumer."  Accordingly, if the Plaintiff is not an "aggrieved
consumer" under the TCCWNA, then the Plaintiff cannot satisfy
CAFA's minimum amount-in-controversy requirement.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiff is not an "aggrieved consumer"
as defined in the TCCWNA and clarified in Spade.  The Plaintiff's
contention that the Defendant's alleged violations of certain New
Jersey laws, without any alleged harm arising from the violations,
entitles her to relief under the TCCWNA is vitiated by the New
Jersey Supreme Court's holding in Spade.

Specifically, like the plaintiffs in Spade, the Plaintiff has not
alleged that she was prevented from returning the items or
otherwise pursuing any remedies relating to the purchased items or
that the Defendant attempted to enforce the T&C Provisions to her
detriment.  The Plaintiff's allegations mirror the hypothetical
consumer, in Spade, who entered into a sales contract that
contained a provision allegedly violating a New Jersey statute, but
received timely delivery of conforming goods.  The New Jersey
Supreme Court stated such a consumer was not an "aggrieved
consumer," and thus was not entitled to relief under the TCCWNA.
Here, the Judge reaches the same conclusion -- Plaintiff is not an
"aggrieved consumer."

As a result of his finding that the Plaintiff is not an "aggrieved
consumer," the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has not met her
burden of establishing CAFA's $5 million minimum requirement.
Because she is not an "aggrieved consumer," the Plaintiff is not
entitled to a civil penalty of a minimum $100, actual damages, or
both, pursuant to Section 17 of the TCCWNA.  The Plaintiff, as a
result, cannot establish that the putative class members would be
entitled to an aggregated sum of $5 million, or more, to satisfy
the CAFA minimum amount in controversy.  He, accordingly, finds
that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must sua
sponte dismiss the Complaint.

The Plaintiff did not have the benefit of Spade at the time she
filed the Complaint.  The Judge, accordingly, granted the Plaintiff
leave to file an Amended Complaint.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Shipp dismissed the Complaint, and
denied as moot the Defendant's Motion.  An order consistent with
the Memorandum Opinion will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2018, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/L5K4yP from Leagle.com.

TIFANY PATTERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by GERALD H. CLARK,
Clark Law Firm, PC & MARK W. MORRIS, CLARK LAW FIRM.

FOREVER 21, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
JOSEPH D. JEAN -- joseph.jean@pillsburylaw.com -- PILLSBURY
WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP & MATTHEW D. STOCKWELL --
matthew.stockwell@pillsburylaw.com -- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Continues to Defend DBCP-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2018, that the company
and its subsidiaries continues to defend themselves in several
actions involving class actions related to the chemical
dibromochloropropane ("DBCP").

Beginning in December 1993, certain of the company's U.S.
subsidiaries were named among the defendants in a number of actions
in courts in Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii, California and the
Philippines involving claims by numerous non-U.S. plaintiffs
alleging that they were injured as a result of exposure to a
nematocide containing the chemical dibromochloropropane ("DBCP")
during the period 1965 to 1990. As a result of a settlement entered
into in December 1998, the remaining unresolved DBCP claims against
the company's U.S. subsidiaries are pending in Hawaii, Delaware,
Costa Rica and the Philippines.

On October 14, 2004, two of the company's subsidiaries were served
with a complaint in an action styled Angel Abarca, et al. v. Dole
Food Co., et al. filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of more than
2,600 Costa Rican banana workers who claim injury from exposure to
DBCP. On January 2, 2009, three of the company's subsidiaries were
served with multiple complaints in related actions styled Jorge
Acosta Cortes, et al. v. Dole Food Company, et al. filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles on behalf of 461 Costa Rican residents.

An initial review of the plaintiffs in the Abarca and Cortes
actions found that a substantial number of the plaintiffs were
claimants in prior DBCP actions in Texas. On June 27, 2008, the
court dismissed the claims of 1,329 plaintiffs who were parties to
prior DBCP actions. On June 30, 2008, the company's subsidiaries
moved to dismiss the claims of the remaining Abarca plaintiffs on
grounds of forum non conveniens in favor of the courts of Costa
Rica. On September 22, 2009, the court granted the motion to
dismiss and on November 16, 2009 entered an order conditionally
dismissing the claims of those remaining plaintiffs who allege
employment on farms in Costa Rica exclusively affiliated with our
subsidiaries. Those dismissed plaintiffs re-filed their claim in
Costa Rica on May 17, 2012 (The "Lagos" case).

On January 18, 2013, all remaining plaintiffs in California filed
Requests for Dismissal effecting the dismissal of their claims
without prejudice. On September 25, 2013, the company's
subsidiaries filed an answer to the claim re-filed with the courts
of Costa Rica. In the Lagos case, the trial court dismissed the
claims of all plaintiffs for defective powers of attorney. On
appeal from that decision, the appellate court remanded the action
for the trial court to consider a preliminary issue before
addressing the validity of the powers of attorney. The case is back
before the trial court. Two additional DBCP-related lawsuits were
filed in Costa Rica in 2015, which have since been dismissed by the
court on procedural grounds.

On May 31 and June 1, 2012, eight actions were filed against one of
the company's subsidiaries in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware on behalf of approximately 3,000
plaintiffs alleging exposure to DBCP on or near banana farms in
Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, and Guatemala. The company and its
subsidiaries were not involved with any banana growing operations
in Ecuador or Panama during the period when DBCP was in use. The
plaintiffs include 229 claimants who had cases pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
which were dismissed on September 17, 2012.

On August 30, 2012, the company's subsidiary joined a motion to
dismiss the claims of those plaintiffs on the grounds that they
have first-filed claims pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The motion was granted on
March 29, 2013 and appealed to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit. On September 21, 2012, the company's
subsidiary filed an answer with respect to the claims of those
plaintiffs who had not already filed in Louisiana. On May 27, 2014,
the court granted a motion made by a co-defendant and entered
summary judgment against all remaining plaintiffs based on the
September 19, 2013 affirmance by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit of the dismissal on statute of limitations
grounds of related cases by the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana. On July 7, 2014, the company's
subsidiary joined in a motion for summary judgment on statute of
limitations grounds as to all remaining plaintiffs on the basis of
the court’s May 27, 2014 ruling.

Plaintiffs agreed that judgment be entered in favor of all
defendants for the claims still pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware on the basis of the
summary judgment granted on May 27, 2014 and the district court
entered judgment dismissing all plaintiffs' claims on September 22,
2014. On October 21, 2014, a notice of appeal was filed with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit expressly
limited the appeal to the claims of 57 (out of the more than 2,600)
plaintiffs who had not previously filed claims in Louisiana. On
August 11, 2015, a panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of the claims of these plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Rehearing en Banc with the Third
Circuit, which was granted on September 22, 2015. On September 2,
2016, the Third Circuit en banc reversed the District Court's
dismissal on first-filed doctrine grounds of the claims of
approximately 229 of the plaintiffs and remanded the case back to
the District Court for further proceedings. On June 2, 2017, the
Third Circuit issued a Petition for Certification of State Law to
the Delaware Supreme Court to resolve the complex procedural
question pending on appeal regarding the duration of the tolling of
limitations afforded by a class action that had been pending in
Texas. The Delaware Supreme Court accepted certification of the
pending question of law.

On March 15, 2018, the Delaware Supreme court decided the complex
procedural question in favor of the plaintiffs and is in the
process of returning the case to the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware for further proceedings. On remand,
there remain approximately 285 claims pending, although roughly two
of those claims are of plaintiffs from Panama and Ecuador, where
the company have not been involved with any banana growing during
the period when DBCP was in use.

In Hawaii, plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to the Hawaii
Supreme Court based upon the Hawaii Court of Appeals affirmance in
March 2014 of a summary judgment ruling in defendants' favor at the
trial court level. The Hawaii Supreme Court accepted the petition
and oral argument was held on September 18, 2014 with respect to
whether the claims of the six named plaintiffs were properly
dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. On October 21, 2015,
the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed the Hawaii Court of Appeals and
the Hawaii state trial court's grant of partial summary judgment
against the DBCP plaintiffs on statute of limitations grounds. The
Hawaii Supreme Court remanded the claims of six remaining
plaintiffs back to the Hawaii state trial court for further
proceedings, where they remain pending without any significant
activity since 2015.

Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc., through its subsidiaries, produces,
markets, and distributes fresh and fresh-cut fruits and vegetables
worldwide. Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. was founded in 1886 and is
headquartered in Coral Gables, Florida.


FUTURE TECH: Dominguez FLSA Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAFAEL DOMINGUEZ and CESAR GRULLON, Individually and
on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v.
FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-00144
(D. Conn.), Judge Stefan R. underhill of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut granted the Plaintiffs' Uncontested
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Collective and Class Action
Settlement.

The Judge finds, for the purposes of preliminary approval, the
proposed settlement, as set forth in the Settlement and Release
Agreement, is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest
of the FLSA Class and Rule 23 Class.  He finds that the Settlement
was entered into at arm's-length by highly experienced counsel.  He
therefore preliminarily approved the proposed settlement.

The Judge conditionally certified, for settlement purposes only,
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216 an FLSA Class, defined as all
current or former technicians employed by Future Technologies, LLC
during the Class Period who properly fill out and return the Opt-in
Form (attached to the Class Notice) before the expiration of the
Opt-In/Opt-Out/Objection Deadline.

He also conditionally certified, for settlement purposes only,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), a
Rule 23 Class defined as all current or former technicians who were
employed by Future Technologies, LLC in Connecticut, Nebraska,
Virginia, Rhode Island, and Ohio during the Class Period who do not
properly fill out and return the Opt-out Form (attached to the
Class Notice) before the expiration of the Opt-In/Opt-Out/Objection
Deadline.

The Judge appointed Plaintiffs Rafael Dominguez and Caesar Grullon
as the Class Representatives; Jeffrey S. Morneau of Connor &
Morneau, LLP, 273 State Street Springfield, MA 01103 as the Class
Counsel; and KCC as the Settlement Administrator.

He approved, as to form and content, the Class Notice attached to
the Settlement Agreement.

The following schedule for dissemination of the Class Notice,
requesting exclusion, opting-in to the FLSA Class, or objecting to
the settlement, submitting papers in connection with final
approval, and the Final Approval Hearing, are approved as follows:

     a. Within 10 days after full Settlement execution and filing
with the Court, Future Technologies, LLC will provide the
Administrator with a list, in electronic form, of the names, Social
Settlement Agreement Security Numbers, and last known addresses of
all potential members of each of the classes identified.

     b. Within 21 days after entry of Preliminary Approval, the
Settlement Administrator will mail to All Class Members by
first-class mail the Class Notice, Opt-in Form, Opt-out Form, and a
Order stamped, self-addressed envelope or business reply mail
envelope.

     c. Upon mailing of Class Notice, Opt-In/Opt-Out/Objection
Period begins.

     d. Deadline for filing Objections - 45 days after mailing of
Opt-In/Opt-Out/Objection Deadline.

     e. Class Notice Deadline for postmarking and mailing Opt-in
Form and/or Opt-out Form to Settlement Administrator

     f. Within 10 days after Opt-In/Opt-Out/Objection Deadline, the
Plaintiffs will file a motion for final approval of settlement, an
application for the award of attorneys' fees, costs, and
enhancement awards for the Plaintiffs, and a proposed Final
Approval Order.

     g. Within 7 days of receipt by the Settlement Administrator,
the Class Notice will be re-mailed by the Settlement Administrator
to the new address of any Class Notice that is returned via USPS
with a forwarding address

     h. Within 7 days of receipt Class Notice, the Settlement
Administrator will conduct address searches using a skip trace on
these addresses by using Accurint (LEXISNEXIS Administrator of any
Company) and re-mail to any Person for whom updated address is
located.  No future address checking will be required or performed
without a forwarding address.

     i. At least 21 days prior to Final Approval Hearing, the Class
Counsel will serve and file an affidavit of the Settlement
Administrator declaring compliance with the notice provisions of
the Order and CAFA notice requirements.

     j. At least 7 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing, the
parties will file responses to any Objections.

     k. Earliest date for entry of Final Approval Order - 90 days
after Settlement Administrator serves notice required under 28
U.S.C. Section 1715(b)

Any Person who intends to object to the settlement must do so by
the Opt-In/Opt-Out/Objection Deadline.

The Final Approval Hearing is for Feb. 5, 2019 at 3:00 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/awa2Rf from Leagle.com.

Rafael Dominguez, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated & Cesar Grullon, Individually and on Behalf of
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Jeffrey S. Morneau -- jmorneau@cmolawyers.com -- Connor, Morneau &
Olin LLP & Lan T. Kantany -- lkantany@cmolawyers.com -- Connor,
Morneau & Olin LLP.

Future Technologies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Delaney M.
Busch -- dbusch@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, Greil Roberts --
groberts@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, Joseph James Blyskal, III
-- jblyskal@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP & William E. Murray --
wmurray@anspachlaw.com -- Law Offices of William E. Murray, LLC.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Hachem Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has
filed a motion to dismiss the case Hachem v. GE et al., and
briefing on the motion has been concluded.

Since November 2017, several putative class actions under the
federal securities laws have been filed against GE and certain
affiliated individuals. All of those actions filed to date have
been consolidated into a single action currently pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Hachem
v. GE et al.).

In May 2018, the court appointed Sjunde AP-Fonden (AP7) as Lead
Plaintiff and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Lead Counsel
for the consolidated shareholder actions.

In October 2018, AP7 filed a Fourth Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint naming as defendants GE, Jeffrey R. Immelt,
Jeffrey S. Bornstein, Jamie S. Miller, Keith S. Sherin, Jan R.
Hauser and Richard A. Laxer. It alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 related to insurance reserves and accounting for long-term
service agreements and seeks damages on behalf of shareowners who
acquired GE stock between February 27, 2013 and January 23, 2018.

GE has filed a motion to dismiss on behalf of all defendants, and
briefing on that motion concluded in October 2018.

General Electric Company operates as a digital industrial company
worldwide. It operates through Power, Renewable Energy, Oil & Gas,
Aviation, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital
segments. General Electric Company was founded in 1892 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Seeks to Dismiss Bezio Suit
---------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company is
seeking dismissal of the Bezio class suit.

In June 2018, an additional lawsuit (the Bezio case) was filed in
New York state court derivatively on behalf of participants in the
GE Retirement Savings Plan (the GE RSP), and alternatively as a
class action on behalf of shareowners who acquired GE stock between
February 26, 2013 and January 24, 2018, alleging violations of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged
misstatements and omissions related to insurance reserves and
performance of GE's business segments in a GE RSP registration
statement and documents incorporated therein by reference.

In October 2018, GE filed a motion to dismiss.

General Electric Company operates as a digital industrial company
worldwide. It operates through Power, Renewable Energy, Oil & Gas,
Aviation, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital
segments. General Electric Company was founded in 1892 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.


HARRAH'S NC: Clark Appeals W.D.N.C. Decision to Fourth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Joseph Clark filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Joseph Clark v. Harrah's NC Casino Co., LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00240-MR-DLH, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina at Asheville.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Joseph Clark v. Harrah's NC
Casino Co., LLC, et al., Case No. 18-2293, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on December 10, 2018;
      and

   -- Response Brief is due on January 8, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JOSEPH CLARK, On Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
          GIBBONS LEIS, PLLC
          14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place
          Charlotte, NC 28277
          Telephone: (704) 612-0038
          E-mail: Pgibbons@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
          QUANTUM LEGAL LLC
          513 Central Avenue
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          E-mail: Jeff@QULegal.com

               - and -

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 North Michigan Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          E-mail: Jzouras@stephanzouras.com

Defendants-Appellees HARRAH'S NC CASINO COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a
Harrah's Cherokee Casino Resort, d/b/a Harrah's Cherokee Valley
River Casino, and BROOKS ROBINSON are represented by:

          Patrick McQuillan Aul, Esq.
          Tracy Lynn Eggleston, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          301 South College Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202-6037
          Telephone: (704) 376-3400
          E-mail: paul@cozen.com
                  teggleston@cozen.com

               - and -

          Susan Nadler Eisenberg, Esq.
          Jennifer Taylor Williams, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          200 South Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 704-5941
          E-mail: seisenberg@cozen.com
                  jtwilliams@cozen.com


HEALTH CARE: E. Craft Settlement Distribution Deadline Extended
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH A. CRAFT; JANE DOE, a minor, by her next
friend and parent, ELIZABETH A. CRAFT; BRYAN L. PAUTSCH; MARY DOE,
a minor, by her next friend and parent, BRYAN L. PAUTSCH; on their
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
14 C 5853 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Administration
of Settlement by Extending Distribution Deadline.

In their class action suit, the Plaintiffs allege Defendant HCSC
engaged in discriminatory and illegal practices by restricting the
scope of their insurance coverage for treatment of mental illness
in residential treatment centers, in violation of its duties owed
to health insurance plan participants and beneficiaries pursuant to
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and
the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and
Addiction Equity Act of 2008, as incorporated into ERISA.

The parties entered settlement discussions in 2016.  On Sept. 20,
2017, the Court entered an Order preliminarily approving the Class
Action Settlement on behalf of individuals who after July 30, 2011
were participants in or beneficiaries of an ERISA-governed employee
welfare benefits plan administered and/or insured by HCSC,
submitted a claim for treatment of mental illness in a residential
treatment center, and had their claim denied by HCSC based on plan
exclusions for coverage of residential treatment of mental illness.
They identified Settlement Class Members through HCSC data and
provided these individuals Notice of the proposed settlement and
opportunity to opt out.  No Settlement Class Members opted out of
the Settlement.

On Feb. 26, 2018, the Court issued a Final Order and Judgment
approving the Settlement Agreement and dismissing the action with
prejudice.  The approved Settlement Agreement established a
Settlement Fund of $5.25 million and appointed Dahl Administration,
LLC as Settlement Administrator.  The Agreement incorporates a Plan
of Allocation for the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund
($5.25 million less certain taxes, costs, fees, etc.) to all the
Class Members who did not opt out of the Settlement Class.  The
Plan of Allocation sets forth how each Member's share is to be
calculated and provides a procedure and schedule for distributing
checks to each Member.  The Plan of Allocation then provides the
schedule for distributing the checks to the Participating
Settlement Class Members.

The Effective Date of Settlement was March 29, 2018.  The Final
Settlement Class List included approximately 300 Participating
Members.  Dahl Administration initiated the distribution of checks,
per the schedule provided in the Plan of Allocation, on May 11,
2018.  On Aug. 9, 2018, the 90-day deadline for issuing a
stop-payment request on all uncashed or undeliverable checks, Dahl
Administration informed Class Counsel that 37 checks remained: 11
undeliverable checks (totaling approximately $45,000) and 26
deliverable but uncashed checks (totaling approximately $330,000).
For five of the 26 deliverable but uncashed checks, the respective
Participating Member contacted Dahl Administration after the August
9 deadline requesting that the check be reissued.

The 120-day deadline for initiating the second-round distribution
was Sept. 8, 2018.  The Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Modify
Administration of Settlement by Extending Distribution Deadline on
Sept. 14, 2018.  In the Motion, the Plaintiffs seek a modest
adjustment to the distribution schedule to allow Dahl
Administration one further attempt to complete the distribution of
the 26 deliverable but uncashed checks.  Specifically, they seek 45
days to complete this additional processing.

The Plaintiffs argue that the 45-day extension sought is within the
Court's continuing jurisdiction as reserved in the Final Order and
Judgment and the Settlement Agreement and the Court's equitable
power to make such adjustments to the Agreement.  The Defendants
disagree, arguing the 45-day extension constitutes a substantive
change to the terms of the Agreement requiring formal modification
to the Final Order and Judgment.

Judge Kendall holds that the Court has no authority under the
jurisdiction retained through the Order and the Agreement to grant
the modification to the Plan of Allocation requested by the
Plaintiffs.  However, she finds that it is within the Court's
equitable authority to consider the requested 45-day extension.
The 45-day extension will not prejudice the Defendants, who face no
further exposure at this point in the case since the Settlement
Fund is capped.  Likewise, the 45-day extension will not cause any
harmful delay to Participating Members that have already cashed
their first-round distribution checks.  Furthermore, the delay to
any second-round distribution will be minimal.  

Finally, the Judge finds and the Defendants do not dispute that the
Plaintiffs have acted in good faith in requesting the extension.
On balance, the equities favor permitting the 45-day extension to
complete distribution of the deliverable but uncashed checks.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Kendall granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Modify Administration of Settlement by Extending
Distribution Deadline.  The Settlement Administrator will have 45
days from the date of the Order to further attempt to complete
distributions to the Settlement Class Members who received but did
not cash the checks made payable to them.  On the conclusion of the
45-day period, the Settlement Administrator will resume the
schedule and procedures under the Plan of Allocation to distribute
the Residual Settlement Fund.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2018, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/H59Ipd from
Leagle.com.

Elizabeth A. Craft & Jane Doe, on their own behalves and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam
Abelson -- aabelson@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac
vice, Caroline Elizabeth Reynolds -- creynolds@zuckerman.com --
Zuckerman Spaeder Llp, pro hac vice, D. Brian Hufford --
dbhufford@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice,
Daniel P. Moylan , Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice, George
Freeman Galland, Jr. -- ggalland@lawmbg.com -- Miner Barnhill &
Galland, P.C., Jason S. Cowart -- jcowart@zuckerman.com --
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Martin S. Himeles, Jr. --
mhimeles@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice &
Meiram Bendat, Psych-Appeal, Inc., pro hac vice.

Bryan L. Pautsch & Mary Doe, a minor, by her next friend and
parent, Bryan L. Pautsch; on their own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam Abelson,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice, Caroline Elizabeth Reynolds,
Zuckerman Spaeder Llp, pro hac vice, D. Brian Hufford, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel P. Moylan, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP,
pro hac vice, Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Martin S.
Himeles, Jr., Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice & Meiram Bendat,
Psych-Appeal, Inc., pro hac vice.

Health Care Service Corporation, Defendant, represented by Helen E.
Witt -- helen.witt@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Brian
Patrick Kavanaugh -- brian.kavanaugh@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis LLP,Catherine Morgan Cottle, Kirkland & Ellis Llp & Devon
McKechan Largio -- devon.largio@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis
LLP.


HEALTH INSURANCE: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Florida Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
company is awaiting the court's decision on its motion to dismiss
the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Health Insurance
Innovations Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:17-cv-2186-EAK-MAP
(M.D. Fla.).

In September 2017, three putative securities class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company and certain of its current and
former executive officers. The cases were styled:

     -- Cioe Investments Inc. v. Health Insurance Innovations,
Inc., Gavin Southwell, and Michael Hershberger, Case No.
1:17-cv-05316-NG-ST, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on September 11, 2017;

     -- Michael Vigorito v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.,
Gavin Southwell, and Michael Hershberger, Case No. 1:17-cv-06962,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on September 13, 2017; and

     -- Shilpi Kavra v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Patrick
McNamee, Gavin Southwell, and Michael Hershberger, Case No.
8:17-cv-02186-EAK-MAP, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on September 21, 2017.

All three of the foregoing actions (the "Securities Actions") were
filed after a decline in the trading price of the Company's common
stock following the release of a report authored by a short-seller
of the Company's common stock raising questions about, among other
things, the Company's public disclosures relating to the Company's
regulatory examinations and regulatory compliance.

All three of the Securities Actions, which were based substantially
on the allegations raised in the short-seller report, contained
substantially the same allegations, and alleged that the Company
made materially false or misleading statements or omissions
relating to regulatory compliance matters, particularly regarding
the Company's application for a third-party administrator license
in the State of Florida.

In November and December 2017, the Cioe Investments and Vigorito
cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, and on December 28, 2017, they were
consolidated with the Kavra matter under the case caption, In re
Health Insurance Innovations Securities Litigation, Case No.
8:17-cv-2186-EAK-MAP (M.D. Fla.). On February 6, 2018, the court
appointed Robert Rector as lead plaintiff and appointed lead
counsel, and lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on March
23, 2018.

The consolidated complaint, which dropped Patrick McNamee as a
defendant and added Michael Kosloske as a defendant, largely sets
forth the same factual allegations as the initially filed
Securities Actions filed in September 2017 and adds allegations
relating to alleged materially false statements and omissions
relating to the regulatory proceeding previously initiated against
the Company by the Montana State Auditor, Commissioner of
Securities and Insurance (the "CSI"), which proceeding was
dismissed on October 31, 2017 in light of CSI's decision to join
the Indiana Multistate Examination.

The complaint also adds allegations regarding insider stock sales
by Messrs. Kosloske and Hershberger. The consolidated complaint
alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), SEC Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. According to the consolidated
complaint, the plaintiffs in the action are seeking an undetermined
amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of
putative classes of individuals and entities that acquired shares
of the Company's common stock on periods ending September 11, 2017.


On May 7, 2018, the Company and the co-defendants filed a motion to
dismiss call claims set forth in the complaint, and as of October
29, 2018, the motion had been fully briefed and is awaiting the
court's decision.

Health Insurance Innovations said, "At this time, the Company
cannot predict the probable outcome of this action, and,
accordingly, no amounts have been accrued in the Company's
condensed consolidated financial statements for this action."

Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. operates as a cloud-based
technology platform and distributor of individual and family health
insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United States. .
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is based
in Tampa, Florida.


HMSHOST CORP: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Storch et al. Say
-------------------------------------------------------
AMY STORCH; SAMANTHA CURRY; and JENNA PLOTKIN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HMS HOST
CORPORATION; and HMS HOST USA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
8:18-cv-03322-PX (D. Md., Oct. 26, 2018) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, interest, maximum
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid
tipped employees.

HMSHost Corporation provides food and beverage services for people
on the move. The company creates a dining program that meets
various types of travelers' needs. HMSHost Corporation was formerly
known as Host Marriott Services Corporation and changed its name to
HMSHost Corporation in March 2000. The company was founded in 1995
and is based in Bethesda, Maryland. HMSHost Corporation operates as
a subsidiary of Autogrill S.p.A. [BN]

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

          Timothy Maloney, Esq.
          Alyse L. Prawde, Esq.
          JOSEPH GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
          6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
          Greenbelt, MD 20770
          Telephone: (301) 220-2200
          Facsimile: (240) 553-1737
          E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
                  aprawde@jgllaw.com

               - and -

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com


HUMANE SOCIETY: Righetti Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW RIGHETTI, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, vs. The Humane Society of the United
States, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-06562-DMR (N.D. Cal.. Oct
26. 2018), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending
unsolicited text messages to the cellular telephones of consumers
nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons injured by
Defendant's conduct, pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant knew Plaintiff's phone
number was a cellular telephone phone number before Defendant sent
text messages to Plaintiff's phone. The Defendant never had
permission to text or call Plaintiff's cellular phone. The
Defendant used an automated phone dialing system to text message
Plaintiff's cellular telephone.

The telephone dialing system used to call Defendant has the
capacity to store telephone numbers. Defendant sent prerecorded
text messages for Plaintiff on Plaintiff's The telephone dialing
system used to call Defendant has the capacity to call or text
telephone numbers automatically, the lawsuit says.[BN]

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

          Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
          NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
          2901 W. Coast Hwy. Suite #200
          Newport, CA 92663
          Telephone: (949) 270-2798
          E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com

IHI E&C: Walthall Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------
JOHNATHAN WALTHALL, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated,
vs. IHI E&C INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case
4:18-cv-04078 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 26, 2018), alleges that Defendant
failed to pay Mr. Walthall and other workers like him, overtime pay
as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Mr. Walthall was staffed to IHI through
Aerotek as Material Specialist. Walthall was paid by the hour and
was not guaranteed a salary. He reports the hours he works to IHI
for approval on a regular basis. If Walthall worked fewer than 40
hours in a week, he was only paid only for the hours he worked.
Walthall regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week. The hours
Walthall works are reflected in IHI's records. 24. IHI set the pay
applicable to Walthall, which was the same hourly rate for all
hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Rather than receiving time and half as required by the FLSA,
Walthall only received "straight time" pay for overtime hours
worked. Instead, IHI pays Walthall, and other workers like him, the
same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of
40 in a workweek, the lawsuit says.

IHI is an engineering firm providing design, consulting,
construction and management services. Specifically, IHI was
responsible for maintenance of the nuclear waste treatment facility
at issue.[BN]

Attorneys for Walthall:

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

               - and -

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

IMPINJ INC: Bid to Join Montemarano & Baton Rouge Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Impinj, Inc. said in iMontemarano ts Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a court has not yet
ruled on the motions to consolidate the Montemarano and Baton Rouge
action and appoint lead plaintiff.

On August 27, 2018, a class action complaint for violation of the
federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington against the company, its chief
executive officer, chief operations officer and former chief
financial officer.  

Captioned Montemarano v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint,
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's
common stock from May 4, 2017 through and including August 2, 2018,
asserts claims that the company made false or misleading statements
in its financial statements, press releases and conference calls
during the purported class period. The complaint seeks monetary
damages, costs and expenses.  

On October 2, 2018, a class action complaint for violation of the
federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington against the company, its chief
executive officer, chief operations officer and former chief
financial officer.  

Captioned Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge
and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the
complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's common stock from November 3, 2016 through and including
February 15, 2018, asserts claims that the company made false or
misleading statements in its financial statements, press releases
and conference calls during the purported class period. The
complaint seeks monetary damages, costs and expenses.

On October 10, 2018, motions to consolidate the Montemarano and
Baton Rouge action and to appoint lead plaintiff were filed.  The
court has not yet ruled on these motions.

Impinj, Inc. operates a platform that enables wireless connectivity
to everyday items by delivering each item’s unique identity,
location, and authenticity to business and consumer applications.
Impinj, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.


IMPINJ INC: Schultz Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Impinj, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that plaintiffs in Schultz v.
Impinj, Inc., et al, have voluntarily dismissed their complaint.

On August 7, 2018, a class action complaint for violation of the
federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against the company, its chief
executive officer and chief operations officer.

Captioned Schultz v. Impinj, Inc., et al, the complaint,
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's
common stock from May 7, 2018 through and including August 2, 2018,
asserted claims that the company's quarterly statement filed on
Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2018 and a concurrent press
release made false or misleading statements about the company's
business prospects and financial condition.  

The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this complaint on October 3,
2018.  

Impinj, Inc. operates a platform that enables wireless connectivity
to everyday items by delivering each item’s unique identity,
location, and authenticity to business and consumer applications.
Impinj, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.

INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Removes Thomas et al. Suit to S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of JADEN THOMAS; RYAN BRAVERMAN; KATIE
DEDELOW; JAKE RAMSEY; ISABELLA BLACKFORD; MICHAEL DUKE; and LINDSAY
FREEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. THE TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY,
Defendant,, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit
Court of the State of Indiana, County of Monroe (Case No.
53C01-1810-PL-002169) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana on October 26, 2018. The clerk of court for the
Southern District of Indiana assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-03305. The
case is assigned to Judge Tanya Walton Pratt and referred to
Magistrate Debra Mcvicker Lynch.

The Indiana University Board of Trustees is the university's
governing body. Established by the state legislature in 1820, the
board has shaped the growth of the university since its beginning.
The board is made up of nine trustees, and its business is overseen
by six officers. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas A. Barnard, Esq.
          Ann O'Connor McCready, Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 3500
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 713-3500
          Facsimile: (317) 713-3699
          E-mail: tbarnard@taftlaw.com
                  amccready@taftlaw.com


IQVIA INC: Wins Bid to Strike Mussat's Class Definition
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FLORENCE MUSSAT, M.D., S.C., on behalf of plaintiff
and the class members defined herein, Plaintiff, v. IQVIA INC., and
JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 17 C 8841 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Virginia M. Kendall of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted IQVIA's motion to
strike Mussat's class definition.

Florence Mussat, M.D, S.C. is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Illinois.  IQVIA is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.
Mussant sued IQVIA on behalf of a putative class, alleging that
IQVIA violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by
sending it two unsolicited advertisements via fax.

Mussat seeks to represent a geographically unrestricted putative
class of individuals, including (a) all persons with fax numbers
(b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of the
action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of Defendant IQVIA,
promoting its good or services for sale (d) and which did not
contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. Section 227.

Mussat contends that IQVIA violated the Act by sending junk faxes
to the unnamed members of the putative class.

On Feb. 27, 2018, Mussat amended its complaint.  IQVIA then amended
its answer on March 21, just nine days following Practice Mgmt.
Support Services, Inc. v. Cirque Du Soleil, Inc.  In its answer,
IQVIA expressly denied the existence of the Court's personal
jurisdiction over it -- whether it be general or specific --
regarding the claims of the unnamed putative class members residing
outside Illinois.  

After another district court applied Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v.
Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., to a federal
class action under the Act, IQVIA moved to strike Mussat's class
definition, arguing that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over
IQVIA with respect to the unnamed putative class members who are
not Illinois residents.

IQVIA argues that the Court cannot assert personal jurisdiction
over it regarding the nonresident putative class members' claims
because those claims do not arise out of, or relate to, IQVIA's
contacts with Illinois.  Mussat, in response, claims that IQVIA
"waived" its personal jurisdiction defense, and even if it did not,
its contention is contrary to Supreme Court precedent, which
supports the further proposition that Bristol-Myers does not apply
to class actions.

Judge Kendall explains that the focus of the personal jurisdiction
inquiry is the Defendant's relationship to the forum state.
Because there is no connection between Illinois and the absent
class members' claims, she granted IQVIA's motion to strike
Mussat's class definition to the extent that Mussat seeks to assert
those claims on behalf of nonresidents that did not allegedly
receive faxes in Illinois.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2018, 2018 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/kUDQkn from
Leagle.com.

Florence Mussat, M.D., S.C., on behalf of plaintiff and class
members defined herein, Plaintiff, represented by Cathleen M.
Combs, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Curtis Charles
Warner -- cwarner@warnerlawllc.com -- Warner Law Firm, LLC, Heather
A. Kolbus, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, James O.
Latturner, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC & Daniel A.
Edelman, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC.

IQVIA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Edward C. Eberspacher, IV --
teberspacher@meyerlex.com -- Meyer Law Group LLC.


JB HUNT: California Drivers to Settle Class Suit for $15MM
----------------------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has
reached an agreement to resolve all pending claims in
California-based drivers' class action suit for a class settlement
payment of $15 million.

J.B. Hunt Transport said, "We are a defendant in certain possible
class-action lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are current and
former California-based drivers who allege claims for unpaid wages,
failure to provide meal and rest periods, and other items."

In the lead class-action, the United States District Court for the
Central District of California issued an Order in late July 2018
granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment. In early August 2018 the Court issued an Order
decertifying the class and granting in part and denying in part the
company's motion for partial summary judgment on certain claims.
Plaintiffs requested the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit to review the Court's decertification Order and to
stay the September 2018 trial of the named plaintiffs' individual
claims.

In September 2018, the company reached an agreement to resolve all
pending claims for a class settlement payment of $15 million,
subject to Court approval. The Court's preliminary settlement
approval hearing is scheduled for late October 2018. The
overlapping claims in the other lawsuits remain stayed pending
final approval of the settlement in the lead class-action case.

J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. offers truckload freight and intermodal
transportation services, logistics management, dry van, and
e-business. The company was founded in 1969 and is based in Lowell,
Arkansas. The company has operations in the United States, Canada,
and Mexico. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
JB Hunt Transport Services Inc.


JCT LOGISTICS: Moreno Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS MORENO, an
individual and on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. JCT LOGISTICS, INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case 5:17-cv-02489-JGB-KK
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on December 3, 2018,
for an order:

   1. certifying case as a class action under Federal Rules of
      Civil Procedure, Rule 23, for the following class and
      subclass:

      Class:

      "all current and former California residents who drove for
      Defendant John Christner Trucking, LLC intra-state pursuant
      to a contract-carrier agreement at any time from July 6,
      2013 through the date notice is mailed to the Class"; and

      Reimbursement Sub-Class:

      "all current and former California residents who drove for
      Defendant intra-state pursuant to a 18 contract-carrier
      agreement where one truck was made available 19 to JCT, at
      any time from July 6, 2013 through the date notice is 20
      mailed to the Class."

   2. appointing Plaintiff's counsel, Haffner Law PC to serve as
      counsel to the class; and

   3. authorizing notice to the class of the pending action and
      its members' right to opt-out under Federal Rules of Civil
      25 Procedure, Rule 23(d)(2).[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and all others:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Graham Lambert, Esq.
          Michael K. Teiman, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
                  gl@haffnerlawyers.com
                 mt@haffnerlawyers.com

JENSEN-LEWIS CO: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss ADA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied Jensen-Lewis's motion to dismiss the
case, KATHY WU, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JENSEN-LEWIS CO., INC. and
JENSEN-LEWIS EAST, INC., Defendants, Case No. 17 Civ. 6534 (ER)
(S.D. N.Y.), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for
failure to state a claim.

The case is a putative class action by a legally blind Plaintiff,
Wu, claiming that the website of Jensen-Lewis Co., Inc. and
Jensen-Lewis East, Inc. is not compliant with the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") because it is not fully and equally
accessible to Wu and other blind or visually impaired people.

Wu is a resident of Brooklyn, New York.  As a blind person, she is
considered to be an individual with a disability under the ADA.  In
order to browse websites on her computer, Wu must use a
screen-reading software.

Jensen-Lewis is a business with its principal executive offices in
New York, New York.  It operates brick-and-mortar retail furniture
stores in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere in the
United States.  It also operates a website, www.Jensen-Lewis.com,
on which users can find information about store locations, hours of
operation, the services provided in its stores, special promotions,
return policies, and shipping and delivery policies.

Wu visited Jensen-Lewis's website multiple times, with the last
visit occurring in August 2017, and claims to have encountered
multiple access barriers while browsing the website.  Wu was unable
to access information about store location and hours, applicable
special promotions, return policies, and shipping and delivery
policies.

On Aug. 28, 2017, Wu filed the instant complaint, alleging that
Jensen-Lewis's website posed accessibility barriers in violation of
Title III of the ADA, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law.  She seeks (1) preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
preventing Jensen-Lewis from violating the applicable federal,
state, and local laws; (2) declaratory relief stating Jensen-Lewis
operates its website in a manner that discriminates against the
blind; (3) an order under Rule 23 certifying a nationwide class, a
New York State subclass, and a New York City subclass of all
legally blind individuals who have attempted to access
Jensen-Lewis's website, of which Wu would be the Class
Representative and her attorneys Class Counsel; (4) compensatory,
statutory, and punitive damages and fines under N.Y.C. Admin. Code
Section 8-107 and N.Y. Exec. L. Section 296(2) et seq.; (5) pre-
and post-judgment interest; and (6) attorneys' and experts' fees
and costs.

On Feb. 12, 2018, months after Wu filed her complaint but before
Jensen-Lewis filed the instant motion to dismiss, Jensen-Lewis
revamped its website.  It claims that its new website contains
"entirely new code" and new functions, including the ability to
electronically process sales.  Wu concedes that the revamp makes
the "old website" that she originally accessed "irrelevant."
However, Wu argues that the revamped website contains the same
barriers alleged in her complaint.

On March 7, 2018, Jensen-Lewis moved to dismiss the complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  It contends
that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case
because the complaint has been rendered moot by Jensen-Lewis' new
website, which went live on Feb. 12, 2018, after the filing of the
instant complaint.  The new website, Jensen-Lewis claims, is "fully
accessible" and was developed to be in substantial compliance with
the ADA and guidelines of WCAG 2.0.

Judge Ramos disagrees with Jensen-Lewis that the case is
consequently now moot.  He holds that Jensen-Lewis has a new
website is relevant only if the new website is ADA-compliant.
Jensen-Lewis does not convincingly show that its new website is
ADA-compliant, consequently, it has not shown that the "wrongful
behavior" has permanently ceased.  Wu's ADA claim is therefore not
moot.

Jensen-Lewis argues that, even if subject matter jurisdiction over
the ADA claim is present, Wu's ADA claim must be dismissed because
she fails to plausibly allege that Jensen-Lewis discriminated
against her.  The Judge finds otherwise.  Because the parties do
not dispute that Title III prohibits Jensen-Lewis from having a
website that discriminates against disabled people, the Judge
assumes without deciding that Title III applies to the private
commercial websites of retail outlets with brick-and-mortar stores,
like Jensen-Lewis.

Moreover, the Judge finds that Wu's allegations, taken as true,
plausibly show that Jensen-Lewis discriminated against Wu by
denying her a full and equal opportunity to use its website.  They
are specific facts concerning Jensen-Lewis's website.
Consequently, Wu has made a plausible claim under Title III of the
ADA.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Ramos denied Jensen-Lewis's motion
to dismiss.  He directed the parties to appear for an initial
pretrial conference on Nov. 3, 2018, at 10:00 a.m.  The Clerk of
the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/5fsj9i from Leagle.com.

Kathy Wu, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Justin Alexander Zeller --
Jazeller@zellerlegal.com -- The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller,
P.C.

Jensen-Lewis Co, Inc. & Jensen-Lewis East, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Maximilian Travis -- mtravis@muchmorelaw.com -- Law
Office of Andrew Muchmore.


KERBEROS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Ralston Suit in Sacramento
--------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Kerberos International Inc. The case is captioned as JASON RALSTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. KERBEROS INTERNATIONAL INC.; THE WHITESTONE GROUP
INC.; and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
34-2018-00243371-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 26,
2018).

Kerberos International, Inc. offers information technology
consulting services. The company provides communications and
scatterable media systems; spectrum security services;
electromagnetic opposing force; portable electronic warfare
systems; and electronic warfare classroom instruction services. It
caters to Energy Industry; Government and Defense; Commercial
Enterprises; and Emergency Management sectors. Kerberos
International, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is based in Temple,
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Galen T Shimoda, Esq.


KROGER CO: Perez Appeals C.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sonia Perez filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Sonia Perez v. The Kroger Co., et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-02448-ODW-AGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Otis D.
Wright, II, denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Perez's Second
Amended Class Action Complaint.

The lawsuit is a consumer product class action.  Ms. Perez alleges
that Kroger's use of the statement "No Sugar Added" on Kroger 100%
Apple Juice, Kroger 100% Natural Apple Juice, and Simple Truth
Organic 100% Apple Juice, does not comply with the applicable Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") regulations.  She alleges that
Kroger's failure to comply with FDA regulations violates various
California consumer protection statutes -- the Unfair Competition
Law ("UCL"), the False Advertising Law ("FAL"), and the Consumer's
Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").

The appellate case is captioned as SONIA PEREZ, individually, and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. THE KROGER CO., an Ohio corporation; DOES,
1-10, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-56458, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- November 28, 2018 -- Transcript shall be ordered;

   -- December 28, 2018 -- Transcript shall be filed by court
      reporter;

   -- February 6, 2019 -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts
      of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and
      9th Cir. R. 31-2.1; and

   -- March 8, 2019 -- Appellees' answering brief and excerpts of
      record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and
      9th Cir. R. 31-2.1.[BN]


LADENBURG THALMANN: Bid for Class Cert. in Tennessee Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2018, that plaintiffs' motions for class certification and to
remand the case to state court remain pending.

In November 2015, two purported class action complaints were filed
in state court in Tennessee against Miller Energy Resources, Inc.'s
("Miller") officers, directors, auditors and nine firms that
underwrote six securities offerings by Miller in 2013 and 2014,
which offerings raised approximately $151,000. Ladenburg was one of
the underwriters of two of the offerings.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the offering
materials were misleading based on the purportedly overstated
valuation of certain assets, and that the underwriters are liable
for violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other
relief.

In December 2015 the defendants removed the complaints to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee; in November
2016, the cases were consolidated. In August 2017, the court
granted in part and denied in part the underwriters' motion to
dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs' motions for class
certification and to remand the case to state court are pending.
Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

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

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. operates as a
diversified financial services company in the United States. Its
Independent Advisory and Brokerage Services segment offers advisory
and securities brokerage services for clients, including advisor
managed accounts, general securities, mutual funds, and variable
and fixed annuities; brokerage support services, such as access to
stock, bond, ETF, and options execution; products comprising
insurance, non-traded real estate investment trusts, and unit
trusts; and research, compliance, supervision, accounting, and
related services. Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. was
founded in 1876 and is based in Miami, Florida.


LPL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------
LPL Financial Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit.

A putative class action lawsuit has been filed against the Company
and certain of its executive officers in federal district court
alleging certain misstatements and omissions related to the
Company's share repurchases and financial performance in late 2015.


The Company intends to defend vigorously against the lawsuit.

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

LPL Financial Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides an integrated platform of brokerage and investment
advisory services to independent financial advisors and financial
advisors at financial institutions in the United States. LPL
Financial Holdings Inc. was founded in 1968 and is based in Boston,
Massachusetts.

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Continues to Defend Mason Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
company continues to defend itself against a purported class action
suit initiated by Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll and
Osagie Ehigie.

On or about August 15, 2017, Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan
Carroll and Osagie Ehigie filed a purported class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of all current and former store managers, store
managers in training, installation sales managers and similarly
situated current and former employees holding comparable positions
but different titles (collectively, the "Putative Class Employees")
alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by classifying the
Putative Class Employees as exempt.

The alleged violations include failure to pay for overtime work.
The plaintiffs seek certification of the Putative Class Employees
for (i) a collective action covering the period beginning three
years and 115 days prior to the filing of the complaint through the
disposition of this action for the Putative Class Employees
nationwide in connection with FLSA and (ii) a class action covering
the period beginning six years and 115 days prior to the filing of
the complaint through the disposition of this action for members of
the Putative Class Employees who currently are or were employed in
New York in connection with NYLL.

The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek class
certification, unspecified amount for unpaid wages and overtime
wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief,
restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other
damages.

The Company disputes the claims and intends to defend the matter
vigorously.

Lumber Liquidators said. "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the substantive inquiry and briefing in the
case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other
things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company
cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if
any, that may result from this action and therefore no accrual has
been made related to this. Any such losses could, potentially, have
a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the
Company's results of operations, financial condition and
liquidity."

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

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring, and hardwood flooring enhancements and accessories.
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Kramer Class Suit Ongoing in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
company continues to defend itself from a purported class action
suit filed by Robert J. Kramer.

On or about November 17, 2017, Robert J. Kramer, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated (collectively, the
"Kramer Plaintiffs") filed a purported class action lawsuit in the
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento on behalf of all
current and former store managers, all others with similar job
functions and/or titles and all current and former employees
classified as non-exempt or incorrectly classified as exempt and
who worked for the Company in the State of California
(collectively, the "CSM Employees") alleging violation of the
California Labor Code including, among other items, failure to pay
wages and overtime and engaging in unfair business practices.

The Kramer Plaintiffs seek certification of the CSM Employees for a
class action covering the prior four-year period prior to the
filing of the complaint through the disposition of this action for
the CSM Employees who currently are or were employed in California
(the "California SM Class").

The Kramer Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the Kramer Plaintiffs seek
unspecified amounts for unpaid wages and overtime wages, liquidated
and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief, restitution, statutory
penalties, injunctive relief and other damages.

The Company disputes the Kramer Plaintiffs' claims and intends to
defend the matter vigorously.

Lumber Liquidators said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case and the legal standards that must be
met for, among other things, class certification and success on the
merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss, if any, that may result from this action and
therefore no accrual has been made related to this. Any such losses
could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or
collectively, on the Company’s results of operations, financial
condition and liquidity."

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

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring, and hardwood flooring enhancements and accessories.
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


MASTERCARD INC: Class Cert. Bid Filed Anew in Liability Shift Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that plaintiffs in the
shift fraud liability litigation have filed a renewed motion for
class certification, following the district court's denial of their
initial motion.

In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was
filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard,
Visa, American Express and Discover (the "Network Defendants"),
EMVCo, and a number of issuing banks (the "Bank Defendants")
engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present
transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance
with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the
"EMV Liability Shift"), in violation of the Sherman Act and
California law.

Plaintiffs allege damages equal to the value of all chargebacks for
which class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability
Shift on October 1, 2015. The plaintiffs seek treble damages,
attorney's fees and costs and an injunction against future
violations of governing law, and the defendants have filed a motion
to dismiss.

In September 2016, the court denied the Network Defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a motion for EMVCo and
the Bank Defendants. In May 2017, the court transferred the case to
New York so that discovery could be coordinated with the U.S.
merchant class interchange litigation. The plaintiffs have filed a
renewed motion for class certification, following the district
court's denial of their initial motion.

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. It facilitates the processing of
payment transactions, including authorization, clearing, and
settlement, as well as delivers related products and services. The
company was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Purchase, New
York.


MASTERCARD INC: Continues to Defend ATM Surcharge-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend class action lawsuits related to ATM Surcharge
Fees.

In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both Mastercard
and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint"). Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals that
operate in the United States with the discretion to determine the
price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they operate.

Plaintiffs allege that Mastercard and Visa have violated Section 1
of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM operators to
charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for transactions processed
over Mastercard's and Visa's respective networks that are not
greater than the surcharge for transactions over other networks
accepted at the same ATM. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and
monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have
sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of
suit, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have not quantified
their damages although they allege that they expect damages to be
in the tens of millions of dollars.

Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against Mastercard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints"). The claims in these actions largely mirror
the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint, although these
complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of ATM services who
pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and non-bank ATM
operators as a result of the defendants' ATM rules. Plaintiffs seek
both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages
they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations
and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs have
not quantified their damages although they allege that they expect
damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars.

In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the
district court granted Mastercard's motion to dismiss the
complaints for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals reversed the district court's order in August 2015 and sent
the case back for further proceedings.

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

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. It facilitates the processing of
payment transactions, including authorization, clearing, and
settlement, as well as delivers related products and services. The
company was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Purchase, New
York.


MASTERCARD INC: Still Awaits Court OK on Canadian POS Case Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company's class
settlement agreement to resolve all of the Canadian class action
litigation related to point-of-sale (POS) acceptance rules is still
subject to court approval in each applicable province.

In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced
against Mastercard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. The
suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a
previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to
the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in Mastercard's favor)
concerning certain Mastercard rules related to point-of-sale
acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge"
rules.

The Quebec suit sought compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. In the first
half of 2011, additional purported class action lawsuits were
commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against Mastercard, Visa
and a number of large Canadian financial institutions. The British
Columbia suit sought compensatory damages in unspecified amounts,
and the Ontario suit sought compensatory damages of $5 billion on
the basis of alleged conspiracy and various alleged breaches of the
Canadian Competition Act.

Additional purported class action complaints were commenced in
Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that largely mirror those in
the other suits. In June 2017, Mastercard entered into a class
settlement agreement to resolve all of the Canadian class action
litigation. The settlement, which is subject to court approval in
each applicable province, requires Mastercard to make a cash
payment and modify its "no surcharge" rule. During the first
quarter of 2017, the Company recorded a provision for litigation of
$15 million related to this matter.

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

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. It facilitates the processing of
payment transactions, including authorization, clearing, and
settlement, as well as delivers related products and services. The
company was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Purchase, New
York.


MAWKS EDELWEISS: Fails to Pay OT Waitstaff, Aniszewski Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA ANISZEWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAWKS EDELWEISS, LTD. d/b/a
EDELWEISS RESTAURANT; MATTHEW KOSCH; and WALTER KOSCH, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-07195 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 28, 2018) is an action
against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Plaintiff Aniszewski was employed by the Defendants as
waitstaff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Ireland, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
          636 Spruce Street
          South Elgin, IL 60177
          Telephone: (630) 464-9675
          Facsimile: (630) 206-0889
          E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com


MDL 2804: Pioneer Tel vs. Purdue Pharma over Opiates Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Pioneer Telephone Cooperative Inc. Employee Benefits Plan
and Bios Companies Inc as Plan Sponsor and Fiduciary of Bios
Companies Inc Welfare Plan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Purdue Dharma LIP.,
Purdue Dharma Inc.; Cephalic Inc.; Neva Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd.; Neva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Johnson & Johnson; Aramco Inc.; Or tho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Jansen Pharmaceutical Inc., now known as Jansen Pharmaceuticals
Inc.; Undo Health Solutions Inc.; Undo Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Allergen PL, formerly known as: Activist PL; Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Activist Inc.; Watson
Laboratories Inc.; Activist Dharma, Inc., formerly known as: Watson
Dharma, Inc.; Activist LLC; Maeterlinck PL; Maeterlinck LLC;
McPherson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; Counterinsurgency Drug
Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 5:18-cv-00994, was transferred from the US. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma, to the US. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on Oct. 26, 2018. The
Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:18-op-46186-PAD to the proceeding.

The Pioneer case is being consolidated with ML 2804 in re: NATIONAL
PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The ML was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multi district Litigation on
December 5, 2017. These cases concern the alleged improper
marketing of and inappropriate distribution of various prescription
opiate medications into cities, states and towns across the
country. Responding plaintiffs' positions on centralization vary
considerably. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or potential tag-along
actions support centralization. Plaintiffs in 15 actions or
potential tag-along actions oppose centralization altogether or
oppose transfer of their action. In addition to opposing transfer,
the State of West Virginia suggests that the ML Panel delay
transferring its case until the Southern District of West Virginia
court decides its motion to remand to state court. Third party
payer plaintiffs in an Eastern District of Pennsylvania potential
tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers Health and Welfare Fund)
oppose centralization of third participatory actions. Western
District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes
centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case.
Northern District of Illinois tag-along Plaintiff City of Chicago
asks the Panel to defer transfer of its action until document
discovery is completed. The Presiding Judge in the ML is Sarah S.
Vance, United States District Judge. The lead case is
1:17-MD-02804-PAD.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Brandon P Long, Esq.
          Henry D Hiss, Esq.
          Mark D. Spencer, Esq.
          Richard D Nix, Esq.
          CAFE & TAFT-KC
          211 N Robinson Ave., 10th Fl
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235-9621
          Facsimile: (405) 235-0439
          E-mail: brandon.long@mcafeetaft.com
                  henry.hoss@mcafeetaft.com
                  mark.spencer@mcafeetaft.com
                  richard.nix@mcafeetaft.com

MONDELEZ INT'L: Antitrust Suit over Wheat Prices Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Mondelez International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
company, together with Kraft Foods Group, continues to defend a
lawsuit over alleged market manipulation of wheat prices.

On April 1, 2015, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
("CFTC") filed a complaint against Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez
Global LLC ("Mondelez Global") in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the "CFTC action")
following its investigation of activities related to the trading of
December 2011 wheat futures contracts that occurred prior to the
spin-off of Kraft Foods Group.

The complaint alleges that Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global
(1) manipulated or attempted to manipulate the wheat markets during
the fall of 2011; (2) violated position limit levels for wheat
futures and (3) engaged in non-competitive trades by trading both
sides of exchange-for-physical Chicago Board of Trade wheat
contracts. The CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties of either triple
the monetary gain for each violation of the Commodity Exchange Act
(the "Act") or $1 million for each violation of Section 6(c)(1),
6(c)(3) or 9(a)(2) of the Act and $140,000 for each additional
violation of the Act, plus post-judgment interest; an order of
permanent injunction prohibiting Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez
Global from violating specified provisions of the Act; disgorgement
of profits; and costs and fees.

Additionally, several class action complaints were filed against
Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois by investors in wheat futures
and options on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated.
The complaints make similar allegations as those made in the CFTC
action and seek class action certification; an unspecified amount
for damages, interest and unjust enrichment; costs and fees; and
injunctive, declaratory and other unspecified relief. In June 2015,
these suits were consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois.


Mondelez International said, "It is not possible to predict the
outcome of these matters; however, based on our Separation and
Distribution Agreement with Kraft Foods Group dated as of September
27, 2012, we expect to bear any monetary penalties or other
payments in connection with the CFTC action."

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

Mondelez International, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and markets snack food and beverage products
worldwide. It offers biscuits, including cookies, crackers, and
salted snacks; chocolates; gums and candies; coffee and powdered
beverages; and cheese and grocery products. Mondelez International,
Inc. was founded in 2000 and is based in Deerfield, Illinois.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Bindon Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
ANNETTE A. BINDON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01854 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 29, 2018), seeks
to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate
result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb #51236
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Singletary Sues over Use of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARY B. SINGLETARY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01851 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 29, 2018), seeks
to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate
result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb No. 51236
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Sinka Suit Moved to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled TIM SINKA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01422, was removed from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
October 26, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-06550 to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon.
Vince Chhabria.

Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was
formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to
Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in
2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018,
Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC.
          9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Sixbury Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAN L. SIXBURY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01821 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 26, 2018), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of
the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb #51236
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Strong Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
MARIE STRONG, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01824 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 26, 2018), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of
the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb #51236
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


NATIONAL GUNITE: Kamm et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA ZIEMBOWICZ, RONALD KAMM, and PHILIP WIRTH, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
NATIONAL GUNITE CO., INC., and STEVEN MILLIGAN, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:18-cv-12561-LVP-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs move
the Court for an order:

   1. certifying collective action for unpaid overtime wages under
      29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act:

      "all hourly workers employed by Defendants in the past three
      years";

   2. appointing Ziembowicz and Kamm as class representatives, and

      Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel;

   3. directing Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with the names
      and last-known addresses and contact information of all
      potential Class members; and

   4. directing Court-supervised notice at Defendants' expense to
      all potential Class members.[CC]

Attorney for Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective:

          Amy Marino, Esq.
          MARINO LAW, PLLC
          18977 W. Ten Mile Rd., Ste. 100E
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 797-9944
          E-mail: amy@marinopllc.com

NEW YORK, NY: Elsayed Files Civil Rights Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the city of New York,
et al. The case is styled as Gehad Elsayed, Laila Ibrahim on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. City of
New York, NYPD Officer Chenise Brodie, NYPD Officers John and Jane
Doe # 1, 2, 3, etc., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10566 (S.D. N.Y.,
Nov. 13, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

The City of New York, often called New York City (NYC) or simply
New York (NY), is the most populous city in the United States. With
an estimated 2017 population of 8,622,698 distributed over a land
area of about 302.6 square miles, New York City is also the most
densely populated major city in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Luna Droubi, Esq.
     Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP
     99 Park Ave 26th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 277-5875
     Fax: (212) 277-5880
     Email: ldroubi@blhny.com


OCEAN SPRAY: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Hilsley Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CRYSTAL HILSLEY, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC.;
ARNOLD WORLDWIDE LLC; and DOES defendants 1 through 5, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 17cv2335-GPC(MDD)(S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P.
Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The action was removed to the Court pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act on Nov. 16, 2017.  Plaintiff Hilsley brings a
purported consumer class action against Defendants Ocean Spray
Cranberries, Inc. and Arnold Worldwide, LLC for violations of
California consumer protection laws based on misrepresentation of
labels on certain Ocean Spray products.

Ocean Spray manufactures, distributes, advertises, markets and
sells a variety of juices and juice-based beverage products.
Arnold participates in the labeling and advertising of these
products for Ocean Spray.  According to Hilsley, the labels on the
Defendants' juice-based beverage products labeled "Cran-Apple" and
"Cran-Grape" states "No artificial flavors."   The Cran-Apple juice
drink includes fumaric acid and malic acid as ingredients.  The
Cran-Grape juice drink contains fumaric acid.

According to Hilsley, the Cran-Apple juice drink contains an
artificial ingredient called d-l malic acid.  Dl-malic acid is a
racemic mixture that does not occur naturally but is produced
synthetically by hydration of fumaric acid or maleic acid.  The
complaint alleges that Ocean Spray uses a synthetic form of fumaric
acid to simulate the flavor of grapes in its Cran-Grape product.

The Plaintiff purchased four Ocean Spray juice drinks: 1) Ocean
Spray Cran-Apple; 2) Ocean Spray Cran-Grape; 3) Ocean Spray 100%
Apple Juice; and 4) Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice Cocktail.  She
concedes that Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice Cocktail does not contain
malic acid or fumaric acid and she is no longer asserting claims as
to the Cranberry Juice Cocktail.

While the Plaintiff agrees that the Ocean Spray 100% Apple Juice
does not contain fumaric acid, she disputes the Defendants' claim
that Ocean Spray 100% Apple Juice does not contain malic acid and
refers to Ocean Spray's own website where malic acid is an
ingredient in the 100% Apple Juice product for the 15.2-ounce
bottles.

The Defendants argue that since the Plaintiff purchased the
64-ounce3 100% Apple Juice product which does not contain malic
acid, her reference to the single-serve bottle is not relevant in
the case.  The Court disagrees.  Neither party has explained the
difference in the ingredient labels of the 15.2-ounce and 60-ounce
bottle of the same exact product.  Accordingly, the Court concludes
that this is a disputed issue of fact.

When the Plaintiff purchased the Defendants' juice products, she
read and relied on the products' labels including "No artificial
flavors or preservatives" and the fact that the labels failed to
state that they contained artificial flavorings.  The Plaintiff
would not have purchased the juice products had she known they
contained artificial ingredients.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants' product labels stating
the products contain "No Artificial Flavors" are false and
misleading because their juice products contain artificial flavor
ingredients of dl-malic acid and fumaric acid.  The complaint also
claims that the products' ingredient list violates federal and
state law because it incorrectly identifies malic acid as a generic
"malic acid" instead of using the correct, specific, non-generic
chemical name.

The Plaintiff alleges six causes of action for violation of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act; violation of the unlawful prong of the
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); violation of the unfair prong of
the UCL; violation of California's False Advertising Law, breach of
express warranty and breach of implied warranty.

Before the Court is the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on
all six causes of action arguing that malic and fumaric acids do
not function as flavors in their juice products but instead are
acidulants used to control the pH and titratable acid levels in
their juices.  Because each cause of action is dependent on the
determination that malic and fumaric acids function as flavors in
the Defendants' products, they argue that summary judgment should
be granted on all causes of action.  The Plaintiff responds arguing
there are genuine issues of material fact that malic and fumaric
acids act as flavors in the Defendants' products.

Judge Curiel concludes that there is a material issue of disputed
fact whether malic acid and fumaric acid function as flavors in the
Defendants' juice products.  He finds that (i) simply because malic
and fumaric acids are not on the FDA lists does not mean that the
FDA has determined they are not artificial flavors; and (ii) use of
"taste" and "flavor profile" to describe l-malic acid in Ocean
Spray's own documents challenges the Defendants' assertion that
taste and flavor are distinct.  Based on the competing
declarations, the Judge denied the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment.

The Defendants argue malic acid, as stated in the regulations, is
the common and usual name that is properly placed on their labels'
ingredient list.  Whether the Defendants failed to comply with
federal labeling laws is dependent on whether malic and fumaric
acids function as flavors in the Defendants' juice products.  At
this stage, since there is a genuine issue of material fact whether
malic acid and fumaric acid are flavors, there remains an issue as
to how those specific ingredients must be labeled.  Accordingly,
the Judge rejects the Defendants' argument as premature.

The Defendants filed a Request for Judicial Notice of two court
orders from the Southern District of California denying motions to
dismiss in Allred v. Kellogg Co., No. 17-cv-1354-AJB, Dkt. No. 20,
Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Feb. 23, 2018); and
Allred v. Frito-Lay North Am., Inc., No. 17-cv-1345-JLS, (Dkt. No.
26), Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Mar. 7, 2018).
The Plaintiff did not file an opposition.  Accordingly, the Judge
granted the Defendants' request for judicial notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/wu0RDU from Leagle.com.

Crystal Hilsley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Elliot, The Elliott Law
Firm, Michael Houchin -- mike@consumeradvocates.com -- Law Offices
of Ronald A. Marron, Ronald Marron -- ron@consumersadvocates.com --
Law Office of Ronald Marron & Tania Babaie --
tania@consumersadvocates.com -- Law Offices of Ronald A Marron.

Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. & Arnold Worldwide LLC, Defendants,
represented by Ricky Lynn Shackelford -- shackelfordr@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

The Nielsen Company (U.S.), LLC, Miscellaneous Party, represented
by Heather Elizabeth Belville -- heatherbelville@quinnemanuel.com
-- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP & Robert James Slobig --
rslobig@torshen.com -- Torshen, Slobig & Axel, Ltd., pro hac vice.


OLD COUNTRY ROAD: Zisholtz Sues over Security Deposits
------------------------------------------------------
ZISHOLTZ & ZISHOLTZ, LLP, individually and for and on behalf of all
the occupants and residents similarly situated occupying portions
of the premises known as and located at 170 Old Country Road,
Mineola, New York, the Plaintiff, vs. OLD COUNTRY ROAD REALTY, LP,
SKYLINE MANAGEMENT CORP. and EMPIRE NATIONAL BANK, the Defendants,
Case No. 613416/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 4, 2018), demands
$42,849.01 in judgment against the Defendants, as well as an
accounting to the plaintiff and all other parties similarly
situated occupying the premises located at 170 Old Country Road,
Mineola, New York, with respect to the security deposits delivered
to the Defendants and the benefits derived from the deposits.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff and the class have
judgment against the Defendants for all taxes and electric bills
paid to the Defendants and the calculations used to determine the
appropriate calculations. The Defendants derived substantial
benefits and income as a result of the use and manipulation of
Plaintiffs' security deposit.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

          Gerald Zisholtz, Esq.
          ZISHOLTZ & ZISHOLTZ LLP
          170 Old Country Road
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 741-2200

OM PURSHANTAM: Smith Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
MALLORY SMITH, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OM PURSHANTAM, LLC and TANVI DESAI,
the DEFENDANTS, Case No.: 4:18-cv-00797-KGB (E.D. Ark., Oct. 29,
2018), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendants' failure to pay
Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees lawful overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants as
a front desk worker for Defendants' motel. The basic duties of
Plaintiff included checking guests in and out, assisting guests and
cleaning the lobby of the motel. The Plaintiff and other
hourly-paid employees were paid an hourly rate by Defendants.

The Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees routinely worked more
than 40 hours in a single workweek. The Defendants had a practice
of not paying Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees one and
one-half (1.5) times their regular rate for any hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

P.A.M. TRANSPORT: Browne Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID BROWNE, et al., the
Plaintiffs, vs. P.A.M. TRANSPORT, INC., et al., the Defendants,
Case 5:16-cv-05366-TLB (W.D. Ark.), the Plaintiffs move the Court
for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "individuals who were employed by Defendants as over-the-
      road truck drivers, whether employed as a solo or team
      driver, from December 9, 2013 to the present";

   2. certifying two subclasses:

      "all individuals who were were paid wages and/or advances by

      Defendants via COMDATA from December 9, 2013 to the
      present"; and

      "all individuals who were discharge from employment from
      December 9, 2013 to the present".

   3. directing to facilitate notice to putative class.

   4. permitting counsel for the parties to work out the language
      of the opt-out notice following the Court's decision on
      instant motion.

   5. appointing Swartz Swidler LLC, Justin Swidler, Richard
      Swartz, Joshua Boyette and Travis Martindale-Jarvis as class

      counsel;

   6. appointing David Browne, Antonio Caldwell and Lucretia Hall
      as class representatives.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
          Travis B. Martindale-Jarvis, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway N, Ste. 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com

PARAMOUNT BEAUTY: Unlawfully Terminates Pregnant Women, Diaz Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LETICIA MENJIVAR DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARAMOUNT BEAUTY DISTRIBUTING
ASSOCIATES, INC.; and JEFFREY HAGLER, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-05922 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2018) alleges violation of the
Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

According to the complaint, on July 6, 2018, the Plaintiff informed
the Defendant that she was pregnant and requested light duty. The
Defendant summarily terminated the Plaintiff's employment that same
date without warning or justification.

Paramount Beauty Distributing Associates, Inc. wholesales and
distributes personal care products. The Company provides hair, nail
and skincare products. Paramount Beauty Distributing Associates
serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          825 Veterans Highway-Ste B
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com


PATIENT INNOVATION: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Tomala Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boguslawa Tomala individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated as class representative under Illinois Law
and/or as members of the Collective as permitted under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, vs. Patient Innovation Center, NFP and
Christopher Gay and Angelica Magana Named as an Employers under the
IWPCA, the Defendants, Case No.: 2018L011666 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty., Oct. 26, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage for all hours
worked and overtime pay for all hours worked over 40 hours per week
pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a
healthcare insurance advisor, assistant and call center employee,
helping persons to sign up for insurance. The Plaintiff was hired
and promised an Agreed-To rate of pay of $20.00 per hour and $30.00
per hour for an overtime rate of pay. The Plaintiff began working
on October 22, 2015 and she worked for Defendants full time and
overtime.

During the two months of work for Defendants from October 22, 2015
to December 31, 2015, Plaintiff worked a total of 279.4 hours and
6.63 hours of overtime. Despite Plaintiff working these hours in
2015 for PIC, Plaintiff was only paid a single paycheck for those
279.4 hours, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff and Class:

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

PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Tucker Files ADA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Payless Shoesource,
Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Payless Shoesource,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10609 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 14,
2018).

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

Payless ShoeSource Inc. is an American discount footwear retailer
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Established in 1956 by cousins
Louis and Shaol Pozez, Payless is a privately held company owned by
Blum Capital, and Golden Gate Capital.[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


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Walker Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
--------------------------------------------------
TERRIANN WALKER, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PEOPLE'S UNITED BANK and DOES 1
through 100, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00304-AVC (D. Conn.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify these classes:

   Account Balance Class:

   "all United States residents who have or have had accounts with
   People’s United Bank who incurred an overdraft fee or
   overdraft fees when the balance in the checking account was
   sufficient to cover the transaction or transaction at issue
   during the period beginning six years prior to the filing of
   the Complaint (i.e., February 21, 2011) and ending on November
   1, 2016"; and

   Regulation E Class:

   "all United States residents who have or have had accounts with

   People’s United Bank who incurred overdraft fee or overdraft
   fees for ATM or non-recurring debit card transaction(s) during
   the period beginning August 15, 2010 and through the present."

   Excluded from the Classes are: any entity in which Defendant
   has a controlling interest; officers or directors of Defendant;

   this Court and any of its employees assigned to work on the
   case; and all employees of the law firms representing Plaintiff

   and the Class members.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Classes:

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
          McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  ejk@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
          221 Main Street, Suite 502
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 522-8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
          E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          Robert J. Dart, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 395-2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
          E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
                  Robert@kicklawfirm.com

PEPPERIDGE FARM: Underpays Distributors, Phelps et al. Allege
-------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY PHELPS; KEVIN TANEY; and RANDOLPH LATIMER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
PEPPERIDGE FARM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-03313-PWG (D.
Md., Oct. 26, 2018) is an action against the Defendant for failure
to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as distributors.

Pepperidge Farm, Inc. provides fresh bakery products, cookies,
crackers, and frozen foods. The Company offers crackers, chips,
breakfast, fresh breads, roll frozen breads and rolls, desserts and
puff pastry, meals, and goldfish crackers. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jon Pels, Esq.
          PELS LAW FIRM, LLC
          4845 Rugby Avenue, Third Floor
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (301) 986-5570

               - and –

          Anthony S. Fernandez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY S. FERNANDEZ, LLC
          4845 Rugby Avenue, Third Floor
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (301) 656-5500


PGA INC: Court Decertifies Sinclair FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIK SINCLAIR and DAVID KRALL, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PGA INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-224-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 class certification
of the state law claim; and (2) granted the Defendant's motion to
decertify the FLSA collective action.

In this hybrid FLSA collective action and state labor law putative
class action, Plaintiffs Sinclair and Krall assert claims against
Defendant PGA for: (1) a violation of the FLSA by failing to
calculate a straight time average rate and pay overtime based on
that rate, rather than the rate of pay for the work performed
during overtime hours; and (2) a violation of state law by
misclassifying employees as general laborers on prevailing wage
projects.  

In a related lawsuit, Schilling v. PGA, Inc., No. 16-cv-202 (W.D.
Wis. filed Apr. 1, 2016), the Court denied the plaintiffs leave to
amend their complaint to add a claim challenging the defendant's
classification of employees on prevailing wage projects, finding
that the plaintiff unduly delayed in asserting that claim and the
defendant would be prejudiced by the addition of it so late in the
procedural posture of that case.  The court similarly denied the
plaintiffs leave to add an individual claim on the part of
plaintiff Sinclair based on weekend work on one project.  

The Plaintiffs then filed the present lawsuit in state court,
asserting those two state law claims but also asserting an FLSA
claim based on the same "straight time average rate" theory pursued
in the Schilling case under state law.  The assertion of an FLSA
claim provided the federal question jurisdictional hook for the
defendant to remove the case to federal court.

By stipulation of the parties, the Court previously conditionally
certified an FLSA collective action on the first claim.  However,
no members opted into the FLSA collective action.  Nevertheless,
the Plaintiffs attempt to piggyback on the previous FLSA collective
notice and opt-ins from the Schilling case.  

As to their misclassification state law claim, the Plaintiffs seek
to certify a class of all hourly employees who worked on a
prevailing wage jobsite for PGA, Inc. during the time period on or
after Feb. 17, 2015.

Before the Court are: (1) the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of the state law claim; and (2) the Defendant's
motion to decertify the FLSA collective action.

Before addressing the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a state law
class and the Defendant's motion to decertify the FLSA collective
action, the Court must address two preliminary issues.  First, the
Plaintiffs move for leave to file a second amended complaint,
seeking to add Dale Mills as a Plaintiff and replace David Krall as
the class representative.  Second, the Defendant moves to dismiss
voluntarily its counterclaim for unjust enrichment against
Plaintiff Sinclair.

Judge Conley requires any dismissal of the counterclaim to be with
prejudice.  He, however, gave the Defendant until Nov. 6, 2018, to
inform the Court and the Plaintiffs whether it wishes to stand on
its motion for leave to voluntarily dismiss its counterclaim, with
that dismissal being with prejudice, or whether it wishes to
withdraw its motion and continue to prosecute this counterclaim.

The Plaintiffs move for certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which
requires them to show both that: (1) questions of law and fact
common to class members predominate over any questions affecting
only individual members; and (2) a class action is superior to
other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy.  Judge Conley finds that the Plaintiffs' motion
stumbles on both of these requirements.

While the Plaintiffs could prove on a classwide basis that PGA had
a policy of breaking out work into different trades, whether that
policy violates state law would necessarily require individual
determinations of the degree of "relatedness" between the work
classified by PGA as general laborer work and any skilled trade
work proffered by the individual worker.  These type of individual
questions are not amenable to class treatment, and liability would
turn on the answer to those individual questions.

For the same reasons numerosity and predominance are not satisfied,
the Judge further finds that a class action is not a superior
method of resolving a fairly limited number of individualized
employee claims.  Not only would there be significant difficulties
in managing that class action, but it is not clear what, if any,
economies of scale would be achieved.  Accordingly, he will deny
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The individual
Plaintiffs may continue to pursue their state law claims based on
the misclassification of their work on prevailing wage jobs as
general laborer work.

As to the Defendant's motion to decertify the FLSA collective
action, Judge Conley will grant it, finding that the lack of
opt-ins undermines the entire purpose of a collective action.  The
named Plaintiffs are free to pursue the FLSA claim on an individual
basis.  Accordingly, he decertified the FLSA collective action.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Conley (i) granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file second amended complaint; (ii) denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class under Rule 23; (iii) granted
the Defendant's motion to decertify the FLSA collective action;
(iv) reserved the Defendant's motion to voluntarily dismiss its
counterclaim without prejudice.

Having never submitted an opt-in form to join the FLSA collective
action at issue in the case, the clerk of court is directed the
terminate the following individuals as Plaintiffs: Eric Schilling,
Blaine Krohn, Douglas P. Bannister, Wyly D. Schiebe, Ryan W.
Bergeman, Jeremy R. Buck and Timothy J. Danley.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/Nt0dvJ from Leagle.com.

Erik Sinclair, David Krall & Dale B. Mills, 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.

PGA, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by John H. Zawadsky,
Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren, SC & Robert S. Driscoll, Reinhart
Boerner Van Deuren s.c.

Erik Sinclair, Counter Defendant, represented by Yingtao Ho, The
Previant Law Firm, S.C..


PRINSTON PHARMA: Court Dismisses Molinaro Suit Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RON MOLINARO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL INC. d/b/a
Solco Healthcare LLC, SOLCO HEALTHCARE U.S., LLC and HUAHAI US
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-710-FtM-99CM (M.D. Fla.), Judge
Sheri Polster Chappell of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, dismissed Molinaro's
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice
to filing an amended complaint.

Molinaro brings the seven-count class action suit against
Defendants Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc, Soloco Healthcare U.S.,
LLC, and Huahai U.S. Inc., alleging breach of express warranties,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud, violation of
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act, unjust
enrichment, negligence and negligence per se.  Molinaro pleads
diversity under the Class Action Fairness Act as the basis for the
Court's subject matter jurisdiction.

Judge Chappell finds that she takes issue with the citizenship of
Defendant Solco.  She explains that limited liability companies are
citizens of every state in which one of its members is domiciled.
Molinaro pleads that Defendant Solco is a Delaware limited
liability company with its principal place of business in New
Jersey.  The Judge finds this insufficient.  Each member of an LLC
and their citizenship must be pled to confirm that the parties are
minimally diverse.  

Furthermore, the Plaintiff alleges that he is a Florida resident,
residing in Estero, Florida, which is insufficient as well.  In
order to be a citizen of a State within the meaning of the
diversity statute, a natural person must both be a citizen of the
United States and be domiciled within the State.

Finally, the Plaintiff states that Prinston's principal place of
business is in Cranbury, New Jersey.  However, a corporation is a
citizen of any State by which it is incorporated and of the State
where it has its principal place of business.  The Plaintiff has
not pled Prinston's state of incorporation.

Because the Complaint lacks the allegations, the Judge cannot
determine whether the parties are minimally diverse.  She thus
dismissed without prejudice the Complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, and the Plaintiff is provided the opportunity
to state the presence of federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1653.  The Amended Complaint must be filed by Nov. 7, 2018.
Failure to do so will result in the Court closing the case without
further notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2018, 2018 Order is
available at https://is.gd/YKh5sA from Leagle.com.

Ron Molinaro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Allan Kanner --
a.kanner@kanner-law.com -- Allan Kanner & Associate, P.C., Brian T.
Ku --  info@kumussman.com -- Ku & Mussman, PA, Conlee S. Whiteley
-- c.whiteley@kanner-law.com -- Kanner & Whiteley, L.L.C., David J.
Stanoch -- dstanoch@golombhonik.com -- Golomb & Honik, P.C., John
R. Davis -- jdavis@slackdavis.com -- Slack Davis Sanger, LLP, Layne
Hilton -- l.hilton@kanner-law.com -- Kanner & Whiteley, LLC,
Michael L. Slack -- mslack@slackdavis.com -- Slack & Davis, L.L.P.,
Ruben Honik -- rhonik@golombhonik.com -- Golomb & Honik, PC & Louis
I. Mussman, Ku & Mussman, PA.


QUAKER OATS: Steckler Sues over Glyphosate Content in Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
MORGAN STECKLER, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PEPSICO, INC., a North Carolina
Corporation and THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY, INC., a New Jersey
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-09211-DDP-AFM (C.D.
Cal., Oct. 26, 2018), contends that in marketing its Products,
Defendants seek to appeal to the consuming public's ever-growing
health consciousness and increasing appetite for nutritious,
wholesome foods that will benefit their health and avoidance of
highly-processed foods with non-healthy attributes such as
genetically modified organisms, artificial additives, gluten, added
sugars, and hydrogenated oils. The Defendants make several detailed
representations about the health attributes of the Products on the
front of the Product packages. For example, Defendants represent on
the front of the Old Fashioned Oats Product that the Product is
"100% Whole Grain" and verified "NON GMO", that it provides
"Lasting Energy" and a "Good source of fiber to help support a
healthy digestive system", and that it can help reduce
cholesterol", and "may reduce the risk of heart disease".
Similarly, the front of the Quaker Steel Cut Oats Product states
that the Product contains "HEARTY 100% WHOLE GRAIN OATS", is a
"Good source of fiber to help support a healthy digestive system",
"can help reduce cholesterol", "may reduce the risk of heart
disease", is "Non GMO verified", and provides "lasting energy".
Defendants make one or more similar attribute representations on
the front of the other Product packages.  The Product Health
Representations lead reasonable consumers to believe the Products
will foster their "good health" and not pose safety risk to or
potentially harm their health.

However, recent testing by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a
nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting human health and the
environment, revealed that Defendants' Products contain glyphosate,
with Quaker Old Fashioned Oats having the highest levels of the 45
products tested. EWG's Children's Health
Initiative, "Breakfast With a Dose of Roundup?" August 15, 2018,
available at
https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/glyphosateincereal/#.W3TTbPZFw2w
("EWG') (last visited August 23, 2018); see also EWG, "Roundup for
Breakfast, 21 Part 2: In New Tests, Weed Killer Found in All Kids'
Cereals Sampled.” October 24, 22 2018, available at
https://www.ewg.org/release/roundup-breakfast-part-2-new-tests-
23 weed-killer-found-all-kids-cereals-sampled ("EWG 2") (last
visited October 26, 24 2018). Glyphosate is one of the most widely
used weed killing poisons in the United States. EWG. Each year,
more than 250 million pounds of glyphosate is sprayed on American
crops, including wheat, barley, and oats just before they are
harvested. Glyphosate adheres to the crops and Defendants the
glyphosate residue.

Even though Defendants knew that the Products contain the probable
carcinogen glyphosate or, at a minimum, that they could not
guarantee the Products did not contain glyphosate given its wide
use as a pesticide, Defendants do not disclose this information on
the front of the Product labels, choosing instead to specifically
identify only the healthy attributes of the Products. Nor do
Defendants include this information on the back or sides of the
packages, where more detailed Product information is generally
found, instead choosing to repeat and reinforce the Health
Representations identified on the front of the packages. In fact,
nowhere on the Product packages -- inside or out -- do Defendants
disclose that the Products contain or likely contain glyphosate,
such that Defendants' Product Health Representations are false,
deceptive, or, at a minimum, misleading half-truths, the lawsuit
says.

Quaker Oats Company, known as Quaker, is an American food
conglomerate based in Chicago. It has been owned by PepsiCo since
2001.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Carrie A. Laliberte, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 798-4593
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com
                  mmuecke@bffb.com
                  eryan@bffb.com
                  claliberte@bffb.com

               - and -

          Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
          Todd L. McLawhorn, Esq.
          Michael Chang, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          E-mail: sweltman@siprut.com
                  tmclawhorn@siprut.com
                  mchang@siprut.com

RANBAXY INC: Sued over Supracompetitive Prices for Diovan & Nexium
------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND OF
NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. RANBAXY INC., RANBAXY
LABORATORIES, LTD. RANBAXY U.S.A., INC., and SUN PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES LTD., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04807-GEKP (E.D.
Pa., Nov. 6, 2018), alleges that Ranbaxy committed fraud and
delaying tactics, resulting to consumers paying supracompetitive
prices for the branded Diovan, Nexium, and Valcyte products when a
safe, effective, and cheaper generic alternative(s) should have
been available.

According to the complaint, beginning in the early 2000s, Ranbaxy,
one of the world's largest generic pharmaceutical manufacturers,
pursued an aggressive business growth strategy at the expense of
quality and integrity. Instead of abiding by the limited
regulations required of ANDA applicants, Ranbaxy adopted a practice
of blatantly disregarding testing, storage, and documentation
protocols. While most generic pharmaceutical companies devoted 18
months to the necessary testing before filing an ANDA, Ranbaxy
required only 12 months. Ranbaxy routinely received "first-to-file"
status. As coveted first filers, Ranbaxy positioned itself to reap
enormous profits. First-to-file status guaranteed Ranbaxy 180 days
of exclusivity over the generics market. During the 180-day
exclusivity period, no other generic manufacturer can gain final
FDA approval and enter the market. The 180-day or 6 month window
begins from the date Ranbaxy starts to sell its product. As the
first entry generic and only competitor to the brand product,
Ranbaxy can price its drug slightly below the brand competitor,
gain most of the market share, and all the associated profits with
none of the front-end research and development costs required to
develop new drugs.

If the first filer diligently pursues final approval from the FDA,
consumers can enjoy a 20% to 30% percent reduction in costs when
the first generic enters the market and often 80% to 90% reduction
once the 180-day exclusionary period is over and additional
competitors enter the market. Ranbaxy, however, exploited the ANDA
process by routinely submitting applications filled with falsified
information to obtain the first-filer status. Ranbaxy then
maintained its first-filer status by perpetuating that fraud as it
continued to engage with the FDA throughout the approval process.
Once the FDA identified Ranbaxy's deceptive practices and
fraudulent submissions, Ranbaxy hired an outside law firm and an
ostensibly independent consultant to further audit their
manufacturing facilities and reassure the FDA of their compliance.
The FDA provided Ranbaxy with numerous opportunities to correct
their practices, re-test their products, and re-submit their ANDA
applications, all while maintaining their first-to-file status for
multiple drugs, including Diovan, Nexium, and Valcyte. Instead of
correcting their misrepresentations and complying, Ranbaxy used the
law firm and audit consultant to further perpetuate their fraud.

During several years, Ranbaxy, the law firm, and the consultant
continued to falsely represent to the FDA regarding Ranbaxy's
compliance and the status and outcome of the audits. Based on these
false representations, the FDA granted "tentative approval" to
Ranbaxy for manufacturing Diovan, Nexium, Valcyte, and other drugs.
With tentative approval, Ranbaxy had the authority to bring Diovan,
Nexium, Valcyte, and other drugs to market pending the resolution
of litigation. Instead of diligently pursuing market entry,
Ranbaxy, supported by their law firm and consultant, employed
further delay tactics: settling patent infringement litigation with
corresponding brand manufacturers by accepting huge lump sum
payments in exchange for delaying entry of their generic product;
preventing the FDA from obtaining access to audits of Ranbaxy's
facilities; and threatening the FDA with litigation if they didn't
grant tentative approvals, among other tactics. In 2012, after
issuing subpoenas, executing search warrants, and launching a
criminal investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a
civil complaint and consent decree.  Ranbaxy agreed to try to
remedy its misconduct and bring its drug manufacturing operations
in compliance. Many Ranbaxy ANDAs were withdrawn, resubmitted, or
placed on hold.

In 2013, Ranbaxy entered into a plea agreement with the federal
government, paying $350 million in fines for selling adulterated
drugs in the United States. Ranbaxy pled to serious compliance
violations and multiple examples of fraud related to their
regulatory submissions. Under the government settlements, Ranbaxy
maintained their ANDA status for five "Excepted Applications,"
including Nexium, Diovan, and Valcyte. These drugs were subject to
additional FDA audits, but did not lose their right to the 180-day
exclusivity period. Despite the opportunity, once again, to comply
and bring these Excepted Application drugs to market, Ranbaxy's
obstinate delay tactics and excessive compliance failures
continued. Their scheme of fraud and deception prevented generic
alternatives for Nexium, Diovan, and Valcyte from promptly entering
the market . Ranbaxy originally applied for the Diovan, Nexium, and
Valcyte ANDAs in 2004-2005. Patent settlements did not allow for
the entry of generic Diovan, Nexium, and Valcyte until 2012, 2014,
and 2013 respectively. Still, Ranbaxy's failure to comply delayed
the entry of a generic product onto the market for at least another
28 months for Diovan, 9 months for Nexium, and 20 months for
Valcyte, the lawsuit says.

In the pharmaceutical industry, generic drugs offer consumers
substantial cost savings compared to their brand alternative, but
must conform to regulatory requirements that ensure they are truly
a safe and effective alternative to the brand medication. While new
brand or "innovator" drugs require years of research, development,
testing, and trials before they can gain approval for sale in the
United States, Congress recognized that an expedited application
and approval process for the nearly identical generic drug would
benefit U.S. consumers by generating competition and driving down
costs. To accomplish this end, Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman Act
and established the Abbreviated New Drug Application. To balance
the desire to bring generics to market faster with the need to
ensure a generic drug's safety, effectiveness, and equivalence to
the brand drug, the United States Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) oversees the ANDA application process, which requires generic
manufacturers to submit to certain testing, documentation, and
storage protocols.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

         Gerald Lawrence, Esq.
         Julia R. McGrath, Esq.
         Renee A. Nolan, Esq.
         LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
         One Tower Bridge
         100 Front Street, Suite 520
         West Conshohocken, PA 19428
         Telephone: (215) 399-4770

              - and -

         Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
         44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
         White Plains, NY 10601
         Telephone: (914) 997-0500
         E-mail: PStPhillip@lowey.com

RIVERS BILLING: Krane Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
JILL KRANE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. RIVERS BILLING, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01750-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order certifying proposed classes in this case,
appointing Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi
& O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a Defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative’s claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2017).
One defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified
check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio,
Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern
Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


SABER HEALTHCARE: J. Bartels' Suit Remanded to N.C. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Western Division, remanded the case,
EDWARD BARTELS, Administrator of The ESTATE OF JEANNE T. BARTELS,
and JOSEPH J. PFOHL, Executor of the Estate of BERNICE C. PFOHL, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
5:16-CV-283-BO (E.D. N.C.), remanded to Franklin County Superior
Court.

The Plaintiffs primarily argue that the Defendants should each be
bound by the forum-selection clause under an alter ego theory,
which requires the presence of factors including inadequate
capitalization, noncompliance with corporate formalities, lack of a
separate corporate identity, excessive fragmentation, siphoning of
funds by the dominant shareholder, nonfunctioning officers and
directors, and an absence of corporate records.  In its opinion in
the case, the court of appeals also recognized other paths through
which the Defendants could by bound by Franklin Manor's
forum-selection clause, which include: where the non-signatory is
closely related to the dispute and it would be foreseeable that the
non-signatory would be bound, where the dispute against a parent
and subsidiary are based on the same facts and are inherently
inseparable, and where a non-signatory is equitably estopped from
contesting a party's standing to invoke a forum-selection clause.

The Plaintiffs have named five Defendants in their amended
complaint: Saber Healthcare Group, LL; Saber Healthcare Holdings,
LLC; Franklin Operations, LLC, doing business as Franklin Manor
Assisted Living Center; Smithfield East Health Holdings, LLC, doing
business as Gabriel Manor Assisted Living Center; and Queen City AL
Holdings, LLC, doing business as The Crossings at Steele Creek.
The Plaintiffs have alleged that the Defendants are all alter egos
of one another.  The evidence further supports that the Plaintiffs
have satisfied their burden to show that all of the Defendants
should be bound by the Franklin Manor forum-selection clause.

The Defendants contend that the Court must look to the law of the
state of incorporation to determine whether the corporate veil may
be pierced, and must therefore apply North Carolina, Ohio, and
Virginia law to determine whether the Plaintiffs may pierce the
corporate veil of the Defendants and find that they are alter egos.
They further contend that Ohio law would prohibit veil piercing in
this context, at least as to Saber Group and Franklin Operations.

Because North Carolina state courts have applied North Carolina law
when considering whether to pierce the veil of a foreign
corporation, Judge Boyle will do the same.  Under North Carolina
law, the presence or absence of a particular factor is not
determinative, and the alter ego or instrumentality theory of
liability is an equitable one which aims to place the burden of
loss on the party who should be held responsible.  He finds that
the Plaintiffs' evidence of interrelated corporate structure,
siphoning of funds, and domination or control over the day-to-day
activities of the NC care centers is sufficient to make a prima
facie showing that all of the named Defendants were, in fact, Saber
entities or alter egos of one another.  Moreover, where multiple
corporations have functioned as a single business enterprise in
substance, if not in form, North Carolina courts have permitted the
corporate veil to be pierced.

The Plaintiffs' evidence further supports that the conduct of the
defendants was sufficiently closely related to bind them all to the
Franklin Manor forum-selection clause.  The interrelated corporate
and financial structure of the Defendant entities is sufficient to
show at this stage of the proceedings that interests of the
Defendants are directly related to, if not predicated upon the
interests of Franklin Manor, the signatory to the contract
containing the forum-selection clause at issue.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Boyle holds that the Plaintiffs
have satisfied their burden to show that the Defendants should all
be bound by the Franklin Manor forum-selection clause.  The action
is remanded in its entirety to the Superior Court of Franklin
County, North Carolina.  He granted the motions to seal, allowed
the motion for leave to file surreply, and denied as moot the
motion for leave.  The Judge directed the clerk to amend the docket
to reflect the voluntary dismissal of the claims of Claire M.
Murphy and to reflect the corrected party for Plaintiff Jeanne
Bartels, pursuant to the state court's order entered Aug. 17,
2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2018, 2018 Order is
available at https://is.gd/BHn10h from Leagle.com.

Joseph J. Pfohl, Executor of the Estate of Bernice C. Pfohl,
Plaintiff, represented by Andrew D. Hathaway, Gugenheim Law
Offices, P.C., Daniel K. Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield,
Bryson & Mason, LLP, Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson and Mason LLP,
Jeremy Richard Williams, Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP, Matthew E.
Lee -- matt@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP & Stephen
J. Gugenheim, Gugenheim Law Offices, P.C.

Saber Healthcare Group, LLC, Saber Healthcare Holdings, LLC,
Franklin Operations, LLC, d/b/a Franklin Manor Assisted Living
Center, Smithfield East Health Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Gabriel Manor
Assisted Living Center & Queen City Al Holdings, LLC, d/b/a The
Crossings at Steele Creek, Defendants, represented by Edward
Bennett, Williams and Connolly LLP, Mary Beth Hickcox-Howard --
mhickcox-howard@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP, Robert A.
Leandro -- robbleandro@parkerpoe.com -- Parker, Poe, Adams &
Bernstein, LLP, Scott Elliot Bayzle -- scottbayzle@parkerpoe.com --
Parker Poe Adams & Berstein, LLP & Stephen V. Carey --
stevecarey@parkerpoe.com -- Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP.


SABRE CORP: Bid for Class Cert. in Air Fare Prices Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification of a lawsuit over air fare prices has been
denied with prejudice.

In July 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and two other Sabre global distribution system (GDSs), in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The plaintiffs, who are asserting claims on behalf of a
putative class of consumers in various states, are generally
alleging that the GDSs conspired to negotiate for full content from
the airlines, resulting in higher ticket prices for consumers, in
violation of various federal and state laws.

The plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of damages in
connection with their state law claims, and they requested
injunctive relief in connection with their federal claim. In July
2016, the court granted, in part, the company's motion to dismiss
the lawsuit, finding that plaintiffs' state law claims are
preempted by federal law, thereby precluding their claims for
damages. The court declined to dismiss plaintiffs' claim seeking an
injunction under federal antitrust law.

The plaintiffs may appeal the court's dismissal of their state law
claims upon a final judgment. In August 2018, the plaintiffs sought
leave from the court to withdraw their motion for class
certification. In October 2018, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, with prejudice.

Sabre said, "We believe that the losses associated with this case
are neither probable nor estimable and therefore have not accrued
any losses as of September 30, 2018. We may incur significant fees,
costs and expenses for as long as this litigation is ongoing. We
intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims."

Sabre Corporation, through its subsidiary, Sabre Holdings
Corporation, provides technology solutions to the travel and
tourism industry worldwide. It operates through two segments,
Travel Network, and Airline and Hospitality Solutions. Sabre
Corporation was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Southlake,
Texas.


SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Welchen Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARY WAYNE WELCHEN, Plaintiff, v. THE COUNTY OF
SACRAMENTO, KAMALA HARRIS, in her official capacity as the
California Attorney General, and SCOTT JONES, in his official
capacity as the Sacramento County Sheriff, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-00185-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted in
part and denied in part the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.

The Plaintiff, a 50-year-old indigent and homeless resident of
Sacramento, was arrested by Sacramento police on Jan. 29, 2016, for
suspicion of second-degree burglary of an uninhabited dwelling.
The Plaintiff alleges that after he was taken to jail, he was
informed he would be kept in jail unless he paid $10,000 for bail.
He alleges that because he could not afford to pay $10,000, he was
detained for six days before he was released by the Sheriff's
Department.  That same day, the Plaintiff filed the class action
against the County and AG alleging that enforcement of California
Penal Code section 1269b ("Bail Law") and the County's bail
schedule adopted pursuant to that law  violate his Constitutional
rights under the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Plaintiff later named the Sheriff as
an additional Defendant in the FAC for the same claims.

The Plaintiff alleges the Bail Law violates substantive due process
because the system is not narrowly tailored to public safety or
ensuring court appearances.  He alleges that the Defendants' policy
and practice of enforcing the money-based bail system is excessive
in relation to the Bail Law's regulatory purpose.

The Plaintiff brings suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging
the County violates the Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment rights by
its policy and practice of implementing the Bail Law's wealth-based
detention system.  He alleges the Sheriff, in his official
capacity, violates the Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment rights by
implementing the Bail Schedule through his oversight of the county
jail, by implementing the state's bail laws, and by enforcing
provisions of California state law regarding the use of money bail.
Finally, Plaintiff alleges the AG, in her official capacity,
violates the Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment rights by requiring
the County and Sheriff to adopt and implement a bail schedule that
results in detaining them solely because they cannot afford to pay
money bail.

The Plaintiff requests declaratory judgment that: (1) the
Defendants violated and continue to violate the Plaintiff's and
proposed class members' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; (2)
the Defendants must follow the requirements of the Equal Protection
and Due Process Clauses, regardless of contrary state law or
contrary policies and practices; (3) California Penal Code section
1269b(b) and any other state statutory or constitutional provisions
that require the use of secured money bail to detain any person
without an inquiry into ability to pay are facially
unconstitutional; and (4) as applied by the Defendants against the
Plaintiff and the class members, California Penal Code section
1269b(b) and any other state statutory or constitutional provisions
that require the use of secured money bail to detain any person
without an inquiry into ability to pay are unconstitutional.

The Plaintiff also seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief enjoining the Defendants and all involved employees of the
County from enforcing the bail policy and practices against all the
proposed class members and request money damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Judge Nunley (i) granted County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to
the Plaintiff's claims for monetary damages against the Sheriff,
and as to the Plaintiff's claims against the County; and (ii)
denied both the County Defendants' and AG's Motions to Dismiss as
to the Plaintiff's Due Process claim.

He finds that the Plaintiff's allegations suggest that
implementation of the Bail Law necessarily results in the
deprivation of liberty even where not necessary to ensure
appearance at trial.  Given the Plaintiff's allegations, the Judge
finds that the Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded the Bail Law is
excessive in relation to its purpose of ensuring court appearances.
Thus, the Sheriff and AG's motions to dismiss the Due Process
claim under Rule 12(b)(6) are denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2018, 2018 Order is
available at https://is.gd/1U24If from Leagle.com.

Gary Wayne Welchen, Plaintiff, represented by Phil Telfeyan, Equal
Justice Under Law.

Kamala Harris & Kathleen A. Kenealy, Defendants, represented by
Jose Alfonso Zelidon-Zepeda, Department of Justice, Office of the
Attorney General.

Sacramento County, Defendant, represented by Carl L. Fessenden --
cfessenden@porterscott.com -- Porter Scott, PC, Terence John
Cassidy -- tjcass@comcast.net -- Porter Scott, APC & Jeffrey A.
Nordlander -- jnordlander@hhlawyers.com -- Porter Scott Attorneys.

Scott Jones, Defendant, represented by Carl L. Fessenden, Porter
Scott, PC & Jeffrey A. Nordlander, Porter Scott Attorneys.


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: $19K Attys' Fees Awarded in Dowling Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Dowling et al., v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics
Corp. et al, Civil No. 18-cv-180-JL (D. N.H.), Judge Joseph N.
Laplante of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Hampshire awarded the Defendants their costs ($2,063) and attorney
fees ($18,799) occasioned by removing the actions and opposing the
motions to remand them.

The Plaintiffs initiated these actions as proposed class actions by
filing complaints in the Court on Dec. 5, 2016.  After
consolidation with other, related cases, and after the Court
appointed other counsel as the interim class counsel, these
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims with the stated
intention of refiling those claims in state court.  Though the
Court expressed concern that dismissal and refiling would simply
result in the cases returning to the Court, resulting in an
unnecessary expenditure of judicial and litigant resources, the
Plaintiffs' counsel assured the Court that their state-court
complaints would be structured to avoid the Court's subject-matter
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.  Despite these
assurances, the Plaintiffs' state-court complaints contained
several references to the "class members."  The Defendants removed
the actions to Court on that basis.

On July 6, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motions to
remand these consolidated actions to Hillsborough County Superior
Court.  At the same time, having found that the Plaintiffs'
counsel's inartful pleading occasioned the cases' removal and the
Defendants' motions to remand, the Court awarded the Defendants
their costs and attorney fees occasioned by removing these actions
and opposing the motions to remand them.  

It further ordered the parties to attempt to agree on the precise
amount and file a stipulation accordingly.  The Plaintiffs have
reached such an agreement with one of the Defendants, the Merrimack
Village District Water Works.  They have been unable to do so with
Defendants Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., Gwenael Busnel,
and Chris Gilman ("Saint-Gobain").  These Defendants seek an award
of more than $85,000, though have indicated a willingness to accept
$55,000.  The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, deem an award of
around $6,000 more appropriate.  Having been informed of this
impasse, and at the request of both parties, the Court ordered the
Ddefendants to produce their counsels' relevant billing record for
in camera review.

Judge Laplant awarded the Defendants their costs and attorney fees
occasioned by removing these actions and opposing the motions to
remand them.  As a first step, therefore, the Judge reviewed the
defense counsel's billing records.  A dozen of the defense
counsel's entries within that timeframe lacked sufficient detail
for the Court to determine whether those tasks related to removal
or objecting to the motion to remand, as opposed to other tasks.
Because approximately half of the defense counsel's entries related
to tasks for which the Court intended to award fees, it considers
half of the 3.7 hours accounted for in those entries.  These
calculations resulted in consideration of a total of 13 hours
completed by partners, 67.1 hours of work completed by associates
and counsel, and 0.9 hours of work completed by paralegals.

At the second step, the Judge determines a reasonable hourly rate
or rates, which is often benchmarked to the prevailing rates in the
community for lawyers of like qualifications, experience, and
competence.  In doing so, he attributed to all partners a rate
commensurate with that of an experienced partner in the New
Hampshire legal market -- specifically, the rate charged by
Attorney Bruce Felmly ($525 per hour) -- and to all associates and
counsel a rate commensurate with that of a senior associate in the
New Hampshire legal market -- specifically, the rate charged by
Attorney Nicholas Casolaro ($270 per hour).  And, it attributed to
all paralegals a rate of $137 per hour.  Multiplying the total
hours remaining after the first step by the rates established in
the second results in a lodestar of $25,065.

The final step allows the Judge to "further adjust" the lodestar
calculation based on other considerations.  Here, the Defendants
proposed to reduce their rates by a further 25%.  The Judge
likewise discounts the lodestar total by 25%, for a final award of
$18,799 in fees.  The Defendants are also entitled to $2,063 in
costs associated with removing the case.

The clerk will remand the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2018 Memorandum Order is
available at https://is.gd/7nUmhT from Leagle.com.

Jean Dowling, James Bollengier, Brian Mendez, Amy Mendez,
Individually and as natural parent and personal representative for
M.M., Beverly Volner, James Volner, Administrator of the Estate of
Judith Volner, Dawna Worcester, Craig Worcester, Richard Slide,
Erin Slide, Individually and as natural parent and personal
representative for C.S. and M.S, Jonathan Kiley, Jennifer Kiley,
Individually and as natural parent and personal representative for
A.K., K.K., E.K.1, and E.K.2, Shauna Morten, Raymond Forrest,
Barbara Forrest, John Mooney, Linda Morrison, Jeffrey Richelson,
Brenda Morse, Jean Murphy, Stephen Patch, Administrator of the
Estate of Michelle Patch, Individually and as natural parent and
personal representative for C.P., L.P., and M.P., Jennie Paulette,
Virginia Slide & Cathryn Warrington, Plaintiffs, represented by
Kirk C. Simoneau -- ksimoneau@davenixonlaw.com -- Nixon Vogelman
Barry Slawsky & Simoneau PA, David P. Slawsky --
dslawsky@davenixonlaw.com -- Nixon Vogelman Barry Slawsky &
Simoneau PA, Lawrence A. Vogelman -- lvogelman@davenixonlaw.com --
Nixon Vogelman Barry Slawsky & Simoneau PA, Patrick J. Lanciotti --
PLanciotti@napolilaw.com -- Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice &
Tate J. Kunkle -- TKunkle@napolilaw.com -- Napoli Shkolnik PLLC,
pro hac vice.

Dianne Hunter, Heather Irving, Brian McCrossin, Gerard Miner, Tanya
O'Mara, Individually and as natural parent and personal
representative for A.O.(1), A.O.(2), L.O., and V.O., Lynda
Albert-Brown, Karen Russell, Individually and as natural parent and
personal representative for K.R.(1) and K.R.(2), Alan Sandler,
Walter Scott, Priscilla Sepessy, George Simard, Doris Simard,
Melissa Simard, Debbie Simon, Desire Upton, Charles Williams,
Phyllis Provencher, Richard Provencher, April Provencher, Thomas
Russell & Kyle Russell, Consol Plaintiffs, represented by David P.
Slawsky, Nixon Vogelman Barry Slawsky & Simoneau PA, Kirk C.
Simoneau, Nixon Vogelman Barry Slawsky & Simoneau PA, Lawrence A.
Vogelman, Nixon Vogelman Barry Slawsky & Simoneau PA, Patrick J.
Lanciotti, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice & Tate J. Kunkle,
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice.

Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., Individually and as
successor in interest to Chemfab, Chris Gilman & Gwenael Busnel,
Defendants, represented by Lincoln D. Wilson --
lincolnwilson@quinnemanuel.com -- Dechert LLP, pro hac vice,
Douglas E. Fleming, III -- douglasfleming@quinnemanuel.com --
Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Cheffo --
markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas
F. Casolaro -- nicholas.casolaro@mclane.com -- McLane Middleton,
Paul A. LaFata, Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Sheila L. Birnbaum --
sheilabirnbaum@quinnemanuel.com -- Dechert LLP, pro hac vice &
Bruce W. Felmly -- bruce.felmly@mclane.com -- McLane Middleton.

Merrimack Village District Water Works, Defendant, represented by
Thomas B.S. Quarles, Jr., Devine Millimet & Branch PA, Chad W.
Higgins, Bernstein Shur, pro hac vice, Christina Ann Ferrari,
Bernstein Shur PA, Christopher D. Hawkins, Devine Millimet & Branch
PA, Katherine A. Joyce, Bernstein Shur, pro hac vice & Roy W.
Tilsley, Jr., Bernstein Shur PA.


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Litivinova Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LITVINOVA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
The CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, the Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-01494-R (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying proposed Fair Labor Standards Act collective
      action;

   2. directing Defendant to produce a class list to Plaintiff's
      counsel; and

   3. directing the dissemination of notice of the pendency of the

      action on the proposed terms.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Eduardo G. Roy, esq.
          John R. Hurley, esq.
          PROMETHEUS PARTNERS L.L.P.
          220 Montgomery Street Suite 1094
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 527 0255

SANFORD LP: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Spacone Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David Spacone filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled David Spacone v. Sanford, LP, Case No.
2:17-cv-02419-AB-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as David Spacone v. Sanford, LP,
Case No. 18-56465, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate
case is entitled David Spacone v. Sanford, LP, Case No. 18-56208.

The Hon. Andre Birotte, Jr., previously denied the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification of:

    "all individuals who purchased one or more KG Stay Fresh
     Container Products in California from January 31, 2013,
     until the date of trial."

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 28, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on December 28, 2018;

   -- Appellant David Spacone's opening brief is due on
      February 6, 2019;

   -- Appellee Sanford, LP's answering brief is due on March 8,
      2019; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID SPACONE, individually, and on behalf of
others members of the general public similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Ryan Wu, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4177
          E-mail: Ryan.Wu@CapstoneLawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee SANFORD, LP, Erroneously Sued As Elmers
Products, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is represented by:

          Jean-Paul P. Cart, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          One Market
          Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 901-8732
          Facsimile: (415) 901-8701
          E-mail: jcart@schiffhardin.com


SCELZI ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Murray Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
RODERICK MURRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCELZI ENTERPRISES, INC.; and DOES 1 to 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01492-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal.,
Oct. 26, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal
and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Murray was employed by the Defendants as an hourly,
non-exempt employee.

Scelzi Enterprises, Inc., is a California Corporation with its
principal place of business in Fresno, California. The Company
designs and manufactures service buddies for utility trucks. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277-0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 824-3828
          Facsimile: (310) 862-6851
          E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com


SCELZI ENTERPRISES: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Murray Says
----------------------------------------------------------
RODERICK MURRAY an individual, on behalf of the State of
California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SCELZI ENTERPRISES,
INC, a California corporation, and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case
No. 1:18-at-00786 Document (E.D. Cal., Oct. 26, 2018), alleges that
the Defendants failed to provide off-duty rest breaks and/or pay
missed rest break premiums; failed to provide complete and accurate
wage statements within one year prior to the filing of this
complaint; and failed to pay all wages owed upon termination,
pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to have a lawful
rest period policy in place that informed Plaintiff, the Class
Members, and all Aggrieved Employees of their right to take rest
periods for shifts that were a major fraction of a four hour work
period and to make rest breaks available to these employees.

Instead, the Defendants' rest period policy advised Plaintiff, the
Class Members, and all Aggrieved Employees to take rest breaks
on-site and to remain on duty during their rest periods. In fact,
the Defendants' rest period policy advised Plaintiff and the other
Aggrieved Employees that they "may not leave the work premises
during the rest period", the lawsuit says.

Scelzi builds utility truck bodies in the USA, including flatbed
bodies, water truck bodies, custom truck bodies, and service truck
bodies.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, the Class and the Aggrieved Employees:

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277-0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 824-3828
          Facsimile: (310) 862-6851
          E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com

SEVEN STAR: Michelle Wells Seeks OT Pay for Fence Installers
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE WELLS, Individually and on behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SEVEN STAR HOTELS GROUP INC; KHURRAM
CHAUDHRY; and MOHAMAD AYACHE, the Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-00828-SWW (E.D. Ark., Nov. 6, 2018), seeks declaratory
judgment; monetary damages; liquidated damages; prejudgment
interest; costs; and a reasonable attorney's fee, as a result of
Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other fence installers
lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other hourly-paid
employees routinely were scheduled to work and did work more than
40 hours in a single workweek. The Defendants had a practice of not
paying Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees 1.5 times their
regular rate for any hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
Rather than pay Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees 1.5 times
their regular rate for their hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek, Defendants simply paid hourly employees their regular
rate for all hours worked, including hours worked in excess of 40
per week, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plantiff:

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


SOLANO COUNTY, CA: Warfield May Proceed in Forma Pauperis
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRODERICK WARFIELD, Plaintiff, v. HEATHER McCOUGH, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-2620 DB P (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Deborah Barnes of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California (i) granted the Plaintiff's request for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and (ii) dismissed the action
without leave to amend as frivolous.

The Plaintiff brings the class action against an array of the
Defendants, including "Mike P. Solano County Nurse County Jail
(Asian)," "rich inmate Vacaville Resident (Meth user)," ("Guy in
I-#14 before moved to H-#4," "Suisun Homeless church suspect cowboy
hat trenchcoat," "Solano County Nurse Claudine 1st-2nd generations
and siblings x husbands and husband if any step-children," and
"others castrated."

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants, collectively, of illegal
criminal activity that range from first degree murder, second
degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, capital case murder,
and as well statutory rape, rape and child molestation committed by
pedophiles and other sexual offenses, sexual trafficking, pimping
and pandering adults and minors, money laundering, exhortion
illegal possessions of firearms automatic weapons, racketeering
incorporated corrupt organizations by arbitrary contract forgery
and fraud all crimes of either state or federal violations of law.

By way of relief, the Plaintiff seeks "full retirement benefits," a
transfer to a military retirement facility, the issuance of arrest
warrants for the Defendants, castration, lobotomies, and the death
penalty.

Magistrate Judge Barnes finds that the Plaintiff's complaint does
not comply with the standards of Rule 8.  It is confusing and fails
to set forth the facts in a comprehensible manner.  It also fails
to clearly articulate the facts giving rise to any claim.  For this
reason, it is must be dismissed.

The Plaintiff's allegations are also fanciful rather than merely
unlikely.  The allegations rise to the level of irrational or the
wholly incredible.  Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed as
frivolous.

The Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se.  He seeks
relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and has requested leave
to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915.
He has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by
28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a).  Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Barnes
granted the request to proceed in forma pauperis.

The Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350
for the action.  By the order, the Plaintiff will be assessed an
initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(1).  By separate order, Magistrate Judge
Barnes will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial
partial filing fee from the Plaintiff's trust account and forward
it to the Clerk of the Court.  Thereafter, the Plaintiff will be
obligated for monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month's
income credited to the Plaintiff's prison trust account.  These
payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk
of the Court each time the amount in the Plaintiff's account
exceeds $10 until the filing fee is paid in full.

All fees will be collected and paid in accordance with the Court's
order to the Director of the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation filed concurrently with the Order.

The findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States
District Judge assigned to the case.  Within 14 days after being
served with these findings and recommendations, the Plaintiff may
file written objections with the Court.  The document should be
captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendations."  Any response to the objections will be filed and
served within 14 days after service of the objections.  The
Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's
order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2018, 2018 Order is
available at https://is.gd/l3tBbv from Leagle.com.

Broderick James Warfield, Plaintiff, pro se.


SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Snow Case Settlement Receives Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the settlement in
the case entitled Snow et al. v. SEECO, Inc., et al., received
final approval by the court during the third quarter, and the
deadline to appeal the order approving the settlement passed
without any appeals filed.

The Company has been a defendant in three certified class actions
alleging that the Company underpaid lessors of lands in Arkansas by
deducting from royalty payments costs for gathering, transportation
and compression of natural gas in excess of what is permitted by
the relevant leases. Two of the these class actions were filed in
Arkansas state courts and the third in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The Company denied
liability in all these cases.

In June 2017, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
Company on all counts in Smith v. SEECO, Inc. et al., the class
action in the federal court, whose plaintiff class comprises the
vast majority of the lessors in these cases. The plaintiff had
asserted claims for, among other things, breach of contract, fraud,
civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and violation of certain
Arkansas statutes. Following the verdict, the court entered
judgment in favor of the Company on all claims.  

The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial, and
the plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Independent of the
plaintiff's appeal, several different parties sought to intervene
in the Smith case prior to or shortly after trial, and have
appealed the trial court's order denying their request to
intervene. Briefing is complete in these appeals, and oral argument
has been granted but has not yet been scheduled.

In the second quarter of 2018, the Company entered into an
agreement to settle another of the class actions, which has been
pending in the Circuit Court of Conway County, Arkansas under the
caption Snow et al. v. SEECO, Inc., et al. The settlement received
final approval by the court during the third quarter, and the
deadline to appeal the order approving the settlement passed
without any appeals filed. The amount of the settlement is
reflected in the Company's consolidated statement of operations for
the second quarter of 2018 and was paid early in the fourth quarter
of 2018. The third class action was dismissed in the second quarter
of 2018.

The Smith and the Snow cases cover all affected lessors, except a
small percentage who opted out.  Most of those have filed separate
actions. The Company does not expect those cases to have a material
adverse effect on the results of operations, financial position or
cash flows of the Company.  Additionally, it is not possible at
this time to estimate the amount of any additional loss, or range
of loss, that is reasonably possible.

Southwestern Energy Company, an independent energy company, engages
in the exploration, development, and production of natural gas and
oil in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Exploration and Production, and Midstream. Southwestern Energy
Company was founded in 1929 and is headquartered in Spring, Texas.


SP PLUS: Ignored Credit Card Truncation Duties, Orsi Says
---------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER ORSI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SP PLUS CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-62589-UU (S.D. Fla.,
Oct. 27, 2018), alleges that SP Plus knowingly or recklessly
ignored its credit card truncation duties by printing receipts with
more than five digits of their credit or debit card numbers. As a
result, SP Plus violated their trust and exposed them to a
heightened level of identity theft.

According to the complaint, SP Plus is one of the leading providers
of parking management and other ancillary services at airports
across the United States, including Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. SP
Plus accepts credit card and debit card payments from consumers for
these services. SP Plus has willfully violated Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act causing Plaintiff and the other class
members concrete injuries, which entitles them to statutory damages
between $100 and $1,000, as well as attorney's fees and costs, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          J. Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
          Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION , P.A.
          721 US Highway 1, Ste. 201
          North Palm Beach, FL 33408
          Telephone: 561 822-3446
          E-mail: Dennis@cloorg.com
                  Darren@cloorg.com

               - and -

          Christopher W. Legg, Esq.
          CCHRISTOPHER W. LEGG , P.A.
          499 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Ste. 228
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: 954 962-2333
          E-mail: Chris@theconsumerlawyers.com

SPRINGER NATURE: Website not Accessible to Blind, Sullivan Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP SULLIVAN, JR., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SPRINGER NATURE AMERICA,
INC., the Defendant, Case 1:18-cv-09983 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 29, 2018),
alleges that the Defendant denies deaf and hard-of-hearing
individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods
and services that it provides to non-disabled individuals, through
its web site at https://www.scientificamerican.com

The Defendant provides a wide array of goods, services to the
public through its Website. However, the
Website contains access barriers that make it difficult for deaf
and hard-of-hearing individuals to use the Website. In fact, the
access barriers make it impossible for deaf and hard-of-hearing
users to comprehend the audio portion of videos that are posted on
the Website. Defendant thus excludes the deaf and hard of hearing
from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet
economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common
marketplace and daily living. In the wave of technological advances
in recent years, assistive technology is becoming an increasingly
prominent part of everyday life, allowing deaf and hard-of-hearing
people to fully and independently access a variety of services,
including accessing online videos.

The Plaintiff, who currently lives in New York City, is a deaf
individual. He brings this civil rights class action against
Defendant for failing to design, construct, and/or own or operate a
website that is fully accessible to, and independently usable by,
deaf and hard-of-hearing people.

According to the complaint, approximately 36 million people in the
United States are deaf or hard of hearing. Many of these
individuals require captioning to meaningfully comprehend the audio
portion of video content. Just as buildings without ramps bar
people who use wheelchairs, video content without captions excludes
deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. Closed captioning is a
viewer-activated system that displays text on, for instance, online
videos, television programming, or DVD movies. This is different
from open captioning or subtitles, which are burned into the video
file and automatically displayed for everyone to see, such as
subtitles in foreign language movies. With closed captioning, deaf
and hard-of-hearing individuals have the opportunity to watch
videos by reading the captioned text, the lawsuit says.

Despite readily available accessible technology, such as the
technology in use at other heavily trafficked websites, which makes
use of closed captioning for hard-of-hearing individuals, such as
YouTube and Netflix, Defendant has chosen to post videos without
closed captioning, or with limited closed captioning, that are
inaccessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. Without
closed captioning, deaf and hard-of-hearing people cannot
comprehend the audio portion of the videos on the Website. By
failing to make the Website accessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing
persons, Defendant is allegedly violating basic equal access
requirements under both state and federal law.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class

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

STATE COLLECTION: Judgment on Pleadings on Bahr's TCPA Claim Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW BAHR, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STATE COLLECTION SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 18 C 2910 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Sara L. Ellis of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, denied SCS' motion for judgment on the pleadings
regarding Count II of Bahr's Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") claim.

Bahr brings the putative class action complaint against Defendant
SCS, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA"), and the TCPA.  Bahr claims that SCS violated the FDCPA
by sending a letter requiring him to speak with an SCS
representative even after SCS received notice that Bahr had
attorney representation.  He also claims that SCS violated the TCPA
by calling his cellular telephone using an automatic telephone
dialing system ("ATDS") without his express consent.

SCS, a debt collection agency, sought to collect a consumer debt
from Bahr, which Bahr allegedly owed to Advocate Lutheran General,
the original creditor.  From November 2017 to February 2018, SCS
sent Bahr a series of collection letters informing Bahr of the debt
he owed.  However, the letters made inconsistent assertions
regarding both the account number and the amount owed.

Bahr consulted with an attorney because he was confused about the
discrepancies and whether he owed the alleged debt.  On Feb. 12,
2018, Bahr's attorney faxed a letter to SCS that included his and
his firm's contact information and indicated that Bahr disputed the
debt.  In addition, the fax from the counsel stated his office
represents Bahr with respect to any and all debts SCS seeks to
collect, now or in the future, until notified otherwise by his
office.  As legal representative for Bahr, all communication must
be through the counsel's office, and stated not to contact Bahr
directly.

After receiving the fax, SCS sent Bahr a letter acknowledging his
counsel's letter while also stating that Bahr would need to contact
SCS if he wanted SCS to discuss the account with a third party.
Bahr did not respond to SCS' letter.  SCS then began using an ATDS
to call Bahr on his cellular phone in March 2018, calling numerous
times and leaving multiple voicemails.  SCS persisted in calling
Bahr right to the filing of the lawsuit.

SCS has filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) regarding Bahr's TCPA claim.
It argues both that Bahr failed to plead a lack of prior express
consent and that he did not effectively revoke his prior express
consent to phone calls under the TCPA.

Judge Ellis holds that at the pleading stage, where consent is an
affirmative defense, Bahr's allegation that SCS made calls without
consent suffices to allow his TCPA claim to proceed.  Having
determined that Bahr's complaint does not conclusively demonstrate
consent so as to require dismissal of the TCPA claim, the Judge
holds she needs not reach SCS' argument that Bahr's counsel's fax
did not effectively revoke any prior consent.  She leaves this
determination to a later motion for summary judgment upon a more
fully developed record.

Because she concludes that Bahr's complaint does not conclusively
establish the existence of prior express consent, Judge Ellis
denied SCS' motion for judgment on the pleadings on Bahr's TCPA
claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/MUZl4L from Leagle.com.

Matthew Bahr, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Stacy Michelle Bardo --
stacy@bardolawpc.com -- Bardo Law, P.C., Bryan Paul Thompson --
bryan.thompson@cclc-law.com -- Chicago Consumer Law Center, P.C. &
Robert W. Harrer -- rob.harrer@cclc-law.com -- Chicago Consumer Law
Center, P.C.

State Collection Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by Patrick
Daniel Newman -- pnewman@bassford.com -- Bassford Remele.


STORM TIGHT: Spinelli Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY SPINELLI, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STORM TIGHT WINDOWS, INC.,
the Defendant, Case 0:18-cv-62592-WPD (S.D. Fla., Oct. 28, 2018),
seeks statutory damages for himself and the classes along with an
injunction prohibiting Defendant from making impermissible,
Telephone Consumer Protection Act violative calls in the future.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has received text
message(s) to his cellular phone from Defendant consisting of the
advertising of various promotions for services and goods offered by
Defendant. All the text messages sent by Defendant were without
Plaintiff's prior express written consent to be sent
marketing/promotional text messages by use of an automatic
telephone dialing system in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Defendant's unsolicited text messages caused Plaintiff actual harm,
including invasion of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance,
intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. The Defendant's
text messages also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption
to his daily life, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plainttiff:

Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
T HE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI , PLLC
110 SE 6th Street
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com



SUSHI MARU: Court Refuses to Consolidate 2 FLSA Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey denied the Plaintiff's motion to
consolidate the case, DAE SUB CHOI, Plaintiff, v. SUSHI MARU
EXPRESS CORP., SUSHI NARA, KOMOLO, INC., KEVIN KIM, HAK JAE LIM, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-5230 (MCA) (MAH) (D. N.J.),
with another matter pending in the district, Chun v. Sushi Maru
Express Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 17-6411 (JMV)(MF).

In Choi, Plaintiff Dae Sub Choi originally filed a putative class
and collective action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against various Defendants alleging wage and
hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants employed him as a sushi chef
from approximately November 2011 through November 2016.  He further
alleges that he was hired to make sushi products at one or more of
the Defendants' locations.  The Plaintiff is a New Jersey resident.


On Jan. 30, 2017, District Judge Swain of the Southern District of
New York ordered the Plaintiff to show cause why venue was proper
in the Southern District of New York ("SDNY"), and why the case
should not be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey or the Eastern District of New York
("EDNY").  The Plaintiff filed a response to the Order to Show
Cause on Feb. 8, 2017.  The Defendants also filed a response to the
Order to Show Cause on Feb. 20, 2017.

On Feb. 21, 2017, the Court deemed the Order to Show Cause
satisfied by the Plaintiff's response without prejudice to motion
practice by the Defendant in accordance with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.  Thereafter, the Defendants moved to transfer the
matter to the District of New Jersey.  On July 10, 2017, the Court
issued an Order and Opinion granting the Defendants' motion and
transferring the action to the district.

On Aug. 3, 2017, the Plaintiff sought to "retransfer" the action to
the SDNY or to the EDNY.  In an Opinion dated Feb. 27, 2018, the
Court denied that request.  While the motion was pending, the
Plaintiff petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Second
Circuit for a writ of mandamus or prohibition to direct the SDNY to
vacate its order transferring the action to the District of New
Jersey.  On Oct. 19, 2017, the Second Circuit denied the petition
and dismissed the proceeding because the Plaintiff has not
demonstrated that exceptional circumstances warrant the requested
relief.

In Chun, on the other hand, Plaintiff Lois Chun originally filed a
Complaint on Aug. 25, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey naming the same Defendants as Plaintiff
Choi, with the exceptions of Defendant Hak Jae Lim, Defendant ABC
Companies 1-50, and Defendant John Does 1-30.  While Plaintiff Lois
Chun's Complaint similarly alleges wage and hour violations under
the FLSA as well as New Jersey Labor Law violations and failure to
keep proper records, it also alleges defamation, violation of the
New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act ("NJ CEPA"), and
retaliation for filing a worker's compensation request.

Specifically, Plaintiff Chun, a New Jersey resident, alleges that
the Defendants employed her for nearly six months, from April 2016
through September 2016.  Plaintiff Chun submits that she was hired
as a marketing employee to be in charge of the then-future
marketing direction of the Maru-Nara-Komolo combination of entities
towards the next 'chapter' of their development.

However, within one week of working as a marketing employee,
Plaintiff Chun was allegedly informed that there was insufficient
marketing work and she would be expected to do other things, such
as addressing sanitary code violations.  According to her
Complaint, since the first month of her being on the job with
defendants, she reported to upper management about unsanitary and
unlawful practices and warned the officers and companies that they
required immediate, remedial and compliance actions.  Plaintiff
Chun's reports were allegedly to no avail, and, as retaliatory
actions against her grew worse, she was forced to stop going to
work.

Furthermore, while a description of the matter is unnecessary as it
does not appear to be included in the Plaintiff's consolidation
request, it is worthwhile to mention that there is also a related
state court action, Choi v. Sushi Maru Express Corp., et al.,
BER-L-2113-18, pending in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law
Division, Bergen County.

The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion to
consolidate Choi with Chun.  The Plaintiff submits that the two
cases should be consolidated for judicial economy.  The Plaintiff
further submits that because the cases are related; involve
essentially the same Defendants; involve employment and labor law
issues; and most if not all the parties are amenable to process in
New Jersey, consolidation is most favorable and clearly supported
by the law.

The Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's consolidation request,
generally arguing that the actions should remain independent due to
their different procedural postures and the different legal issues
involved.

Magistrate Judge Hammer finds consolidation of the two matters
inappropriate.  While Sushi Maru Express Corp., Sushi Nara, Komolo,
Inc., and Kevin Kim are named as Defendants in both Complaints, and
both Complaints allege wage and hour violations under the FLSA, New
Jersey Labor Law violations, and failure to keep proper records,
the similarities end there.  Most of the facts alleged in the
operative Chun Complaint relate to her NJ CEPA, defamation, and
retaliation claims -- claims that are not alleged in the operative
Choi Complaint.  Most relevant, however, is the fact that discovery
for the NJ CEPA, defamation, and retaliation claims will be vastly
different than discovery for the FLSA, New Jersey Labor Law, and
failure to keep proper records claims.

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge finds no benefit in
consolidating these matters.  In fact, consolidation is more likely
to be confusing, prejudicial, and inefficient given the discovery
differences.  Furthermore, the Plaintiff did not explain, nor can
the Court infer, any benefits related to expediting pretrial
discovery that outweigh the potential for confusion, prejudice, and
inefficiency by consolidating these matters.

For the reasons he stated, Magistrate Judge Hammer denied the
Plaintiff's motion to consolidate.  The Court will issue an order
consistent with the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/GOkW62 from Leagle.com.

DAE SUB CHOI, Plaintiff, represented by ADAM GARCIA --
support@kimmlaw.com -- KIMM LAW FIRM & MICHAEL S. KIMM.

Sushi Maru Express Corp., Sushi Nara, Komolo, Inc., KEVIN KIM & Hak
Jae Lim, Defendants, represented by SUKJIN HENRY CHO.


TATA CONSULTANCY: Ct. Grants Bids in Limine Nos. 7 & 8 in Buchanan
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN BUCHANAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. TATA
CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-01696-YGR
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California granted the
Plaintiffs' motions in limine nos. 7 and 8.

The pretrial conference on the motions was held on Oct. 12, 2018.
The Plaintiffs' motion in limine no. 7 seeks to Exclude TCS'
termination forms.  Judge Rogers finds that the termination forms
contain hearsay and do not fall within any of the exceptions to the
rule against hearsay.  These forms are prepared by the human
resources department in preparation of a request to terminate an
employee.  They are reviewed and, in some cases, revised after the
legal department reviews them.  They are not shown to the employee
nor are they used for any ongoing business purpose.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Judge will allow a witness to
discuss the existence of the forms and the lack of any statement
therein of intent to discriminate.  In addition, the forms can be
used as a demonstrative, i.e., a witness can show the jury how many
pages exist if all the forms were to be printed out, but the forms
themselves will not be admitted.  Further, she will allow the
introduction of a template or redacted termination form which shows
only the questions included on the form, but no other content
and/or appended materials.

The Plaintiffs' motion in limine no. 8 seeks to exclude TCS'
termination form summaries.  In light of her ruling regarding the
Plaintiffs' motion in limine no. 7, she also granted this motion.

Her Order terminates Docket Numbers 525 and 527.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 23, 2018 Pretrial Order is
available at https://is.gd/O4KJh4 from Leagle.com.

Brian Buchanan & Christopher Slaight, Plaintiffs, represented by
Daniel A. Kotchen -- dkotchen@kotchen.com -- Kotchen & Low LLP,
Daniel Lee Low -- dlow@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low LLP, Michael
J. von Klemperer -- mvonklemperer@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low
LLP, Lindsey Grunert -- ltremaine@kotchen.com -- Kotchen and Low
LLP, Michael F. Brown -- mbrown@dvglawpartner.com -- DVG Law
Partner LLC & Steven Gregory Tidrick -- sgt@tidricklaw.com -- The
Tidrick Law Firm.

Seyed Amir Masoudi & Nobel Mandili, Plaintiffs, represented by
Lindsey Grunert, Kotchen and Low LLP, Michael J. von Klemperer,
Kotchen and Low LLP & Daniel A. Kotchen , Kotchn & Low LLP.

Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Michelle
M. LaMar -- mlamar@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb LLP, Bernard Robert
Given, II -- bgiven@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb, Erin Michelle Smith --
esmith@loeb.com -- Loeb and Loeb LLP, Laura Ann Wytsma --
lwytsma@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb LLP, Patrick Norton Downes --
pdownes@loeb.com -- Loeb And Loeb LLP, Terry D. Garnett --
tgarnett@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb LLP & William Michael Brody --
wbrody@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb.

Apple Inc., Movant, represented by Danielle Conley --
DANIELLE.CONLEY@WILMERHALE.COM -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP, Kathryn Diane Zalewski -- KATHRYN.ZALEWSKI@WILMERHALE.COM
-- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP & Kimberly A. Parker --
KIMBERLY.PARKER@WILMERHALE.COM -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP.


TRI-STATE ADJUSTMENTS: Wright Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERROL WRIGHT, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TRI-STATE ADJUSTMENTS, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-06018 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2018),
seeks to recover for damages brought by an individual consumer for
Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent to plaintiff a
collection letter dated November 28, 2016. In the letter, Defendant
fails to identify the current creditor to whom the debt is owed.
Defendant's failure to identify clearly and effectively the current
creditor of the debt contravenes the FDCPA, the lawsuit says.

TSA is a debt collection agency located in La Crosse,
Wisconsin.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Novlette R. Kidd, Esq.
          FAGENSON & PUGLISI, PLLC
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 704
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 268-2128
          E-mail: Nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com

TRINET GROUP: Awaits Hearing Date on Welgus Appeal
--------------------------------------------------
TriNet Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company is
awaiting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to
schedule a hearing date on plaintiff's appeal in the case entitled,
Welgus v. TriNet Group, Inc., et. al.

In August 2015, Howard Welgus, a purported stockholder, filed a
putative securities class action lawsuit, Welgus v. TriNet Group,
Inc., et. al., under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The complaint was later amended in April 2016 and again in March
2017. On December 18, 2017, the district court granted TriNet's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, without
leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the district
court's order on January 17, 2018. Plaintiff-Appellant filed his
opening appeal brief before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on
April 27, 2018. TriNet filed a responsive brief on June 28, 2018.
Plaintiff-Appellant filed his reply brief on August 20, 2018.

TriNet Group said, "We are now waiting for the Ninth Circuit to
schedule a hearing date, which could be 15 to 30 months from the
date of appeal (a hearing date between April 2019 and July 2020 is
likely). We see no basis for a reversal of the district court's
decision. We are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or
expense, or range of losses and expenses, if any, arising from this
litigation."

TriNet Group, Inc. provides human resources solutions for small and
midsize businesses in the United States and Canada. The company
offers multi-state payroll processing and tax administration;
employee benefits programs, including health insurance and
retirement plans; workers compensation insurance and claims
management; employment and benefit law compliance; and other
services. TriNet Group, Inc. was founded in 1988 and is
headquartered in San Leandro, California.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Isolde Consolidated Suit Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that that the Isolde
suit has remained administratively closed pending the conclusion of
the appeal in the Joshua Harman FCA case.

On January 11, 2016, the previously reported cases styled Thomas
Nemky, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated
v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E.
Perry, Case No. (2:15-CV-00732) ("Nemky") and Richard J. Isolde,
Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v.
Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry,
Case No. (3:15-CV-2093) ("Isolde"), were consolidated in the
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, with all future
filings to be filed in the Isolde case.

On March 9, 2016, the Court appointed the Department of the
Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment
and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and United
Association Local Union Officers & Employees’ Pension Fund as
co-lead plaintiffs ("Lead Plaintiffs"). On May 11, 2016, the Lead
Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Complaint alleging defendants
Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, James E. Perry, and
Gregory B. Mitchell violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
defendants Mr. Wallace and Mr. Perry violated Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and
misleading statements and/or by failing to disclose material facts
about Trinity's ET Plus and the FCA case styled Joshua Harman, on
behalf of the United States of America, Plaintiff/Relator v.
Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:12-cv-00089-JRG
(E.D. Tex.).

On August 18, 2016, Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr.
Mitchell filed motions to dismiss Lead Plaintiffs Consolidated
Complaint, which remain pending. On March 13, 2017, the Court
granted defendant's motion to stay and administratively close
proceedings pending Fifth Circuit appeal. The Isolde matter is
stayed and remains administratively closed pending the conclusion
of the appeal in the Joshua Harman FCA case.

Trinity Industries said, "Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr.
Mitchell deny and intend to vigorously defend against the
allegations in the Isolde case. Based on the information available
to the Company, we currently do not believe that a loss is probable
with respect to this shareholder class action; therefore, no
accrual has been included in the accompanying consolidated
financial statements. Because of the complexity of these actions as
well as the current status of certain of these actions, we are not
able to estimate a range of possible losses with respect to these
matters."

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

Trinity Industries, Inc. provides various products and services to
the energy, chemical, agriculture, transportation, and construction
sectors in the United States and internationally. Trinity
Industries, Inc. was founded in 1933 and is headquartered in
Dallas, Texas.


TWITTER INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court has
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
consolidated securities action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Beginning in September 2016, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the
United States against Twitter, Twitter's directors, and/or certain
officers alleging false and misleading statements in violation of
securities laws and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Company disputes the claims and intends to continue to defend
the lawsuits vigorously.

The putative class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. On October 16, 2017,
the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion
to dismiss.

On July 17, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the consolidated securities action.

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

Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real time. The company offers various products and
services, including Twitter that allows users to consume, create,
distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a mobile
application that enables user to broadcast and watch video live
with others. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.


ULTA SALON: Tellez Suit Moved to Southern District of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raycheal Tellez, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees
pursuants to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), the
Plaintiff, vs. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No.: 37-02018-00050739-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the
Superior Court of CA, San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego) on Oct. 29, 2018. The
Southern District of California Court Clerk assignes Case No.
3:18-cv-02480-CAB-KSC to the proceeding. The suit alleges
labor-related violations. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Cathy Ann Bencivengo.

Ulta Beauty Inc., is a chain of beauty stores in the United States,
headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois. Ulta Beauty carries
cosmetics and skincare brands, men's and women's fragrances, and
haircare products. Each store is also equipped with a salon.[BN]

Attorneys for Raycheal Tellez:

          Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
          THE BAINER LAW FIRM
          1901 Harrison St., Suite 1100
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 922-1802
          Facsimile: (510) 844-7701
          E-mail: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Lena Kae Sims, Esq.
          Littler Mendelson
          501 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3577
          Telephone: (619) 232-0441
          Facsimile: (619) 232-0442
          E-mail: lsims@littler.com

UNITED PARCEL: Morgate Class Action Concluded
---------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that Court approval on
the settlement in the case entitled, Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc.
et al., was received and the case was resolved in the third quarter
of 2018.

UPS and its subsidiary The UPS Store, Inc. were defendants in
Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc. et al., an action in the Los Angeles
Superior Court brought on behalf of a certified class of all
franchisees who chose to rebrand their Mail Boxes Etc. franchises
to The UPS Store in March 2003.

Plaintiff alleged that UPS and The UPS Store, Inc. misrepresented
and omitted facts to the class about the market tests that were
conducted before offering the class the choice of whether to
rebrand to The UPS Store.

In May 2018, the company reached an agreement to resolve the case
for an immaterial amount, subject to court approval. Court approval
was received and the case was resolved in the third quarter of
2018.

United Parcel Service, Inc. provides letter and package delivery,
specialized transportation, logistics, and financial services. It
operates through three segments: U.S. Domestic Package,
International Package, and Supply Chain & Freight. United Parcel
Service, Inc. was founded in 1907 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.


UNITED PARCEL: Wright and Zislin Suit in Canada Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that court approval of
the settlement in the case entitled, Ryan Wright and Julia Zislin
v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd., was received and the case was
resolved in the third quarter of 2018.

United Parcel Service said, "We are a defendant in Ryan Wright and
Julia Zislin v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd., an action
brought on behalf of a certified class of customers in the Superior
Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada. Plaintiffs filed suit in
February 2007, alleging inadequate disclosure concerning the
existence and cost of brokerage services provided by us under
applicable provincial consumer protection legislation and
infringement of interest restriction provisions under the Criminal
Code of Canada."

Partial summary judgment was granted to the company and the
plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court in August 2011, when it
dismissed plaintiffs' complaint under the Criminal Code and granted
plaintiffs' complaint of inadequate disclosure. The company
appealed the Court's decision pertaining to inadequate disclosure
in September 2011.

In June 2018, the company reached an agreement to resolve the case
for an immaterial amount, subject to court approval. Court approval
was received and the case was resolved in the third quarter of
2018.

United Parcel Service, Inc. provides letter and package delivery,
specialized transportation, logistics, and financial services. It
operates through three segments: U.S. Domestic Package,
International Package, and Supply Chain & Freight. United Parcel
Service, Inc. was founded in 1907 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.


UNITIL CORP: Continues to Defend Bellermann Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 25, 2018, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend a putative
class action suit entitled, Bellermann et al v. Fitchburg Gas and
Electric Light Company.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against
Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, in Massachusetts'
Worcester Superior Court, (captioned Bellermann et al v. Fitchburg
Gas and Electric Light Company). The Complaint sought an
unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of temporary
housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain
and suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers
in connection with the loss of electric service during the ice
storm in Fitchburg's service territory in December 2008.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an order denying
class certification status in July 2016, though the plaintiffs'
individual claims remain pending.

The Company continues to believe these claims are without merit and
will continue to defend itself vigorously.

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

Unitil Corporation, a public utility holding company, engages in
the distribution of electricity and natural gas in the United
States. It operates through three segments: Utility Gas Operations,
Utility Electric Operations, and Non-Regulated. Unitil Corporation
was incorporated in 1984 and is headquartered in Hampton, New
Hampshire.


US AIRWAYS: Hickcox-Huffman TCPA Suit Deal Has Prelim Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HAYLEY HICKCOX-HUFFMAN, Plaintiff, v. US AIRWAYS,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 10-cv-05193-VKD (N.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division,
preliminarily approved the class action settlement.

On Nov. 16, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a proposed nationwide class
action lawsuit against Defendants US Airways, Inc. and US Airways
Group, Inc., which asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
negligent misrepresentation, and interference with use of
property/bailment.

On Jan. 31, 2011, the Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint,
which asserted claims for breach of self-imposed undertaking,
breach of contract (express), breach of contract (implied), breach
of contract (federal law), breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, intentional
misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation, that related to
or arose from US Airways' transporting baggage for passengers on
its airline.

The Parties briefed a number of motions directed to the pleadings
as well as an appeal to the Ninth Circuit of the Court's ruling on
the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint.  The
Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the matter to the Court in May
2017.  On remand, the Parties stipulated to dismiss certain causes
of action and the Court dismissed a number of others, leaving only
Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract (express).

The Parties have entered into a Stipulation of Class Action
Settlement, in which they have agreed to settle the Action pursuant
to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, and which will result
in dismissal of the Action with prejudice.

Magistrate Judge DeMarchi finds that the Class Counsel have
conducted an extensive investigation into the facts and law
relating to the matters alleged in the Action.  The Parties reached
a settlement following extensive arms'-length negotiations that
occurred over the course of two full-day, in-person mediation
sessions with Jill Sperber, Esq., of Judicate West.

Having carefully reviewed the Agreement, including the exhibits
attached thereto and all file, records and prior proceedings to
date in the matter, and good cause appearing based on the record,
the Magistrate Judge preliminarily approved the Agreement, adopted
and incorporated the definitions contained in the Agreement.  She
stayed all proceedings in the Action, other than proceedings
necessary to carry out or enforce the terms and conditions of the
Agreement and the Order.  The Action is preliminarily certified as
a class action, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3).

The Class will consist of all passengers of US Airways who traveled
on a domestic flight between Nov. 16, 2005 and April 29, 2010,
checked baggage that was lost or delayed, reported to US Airways
during the Class Period that their checked baggage was lost or
delayed, and whose checked baggage fee was not previously refunded.
The "Subject Service" is US Airways' commitment to transport a
passenger's checked baggage to a passenger's destination on
domestic flights at any time between Nov. 16, 2005 and April 29,
2010, inclusive.

The Magistrate designated the Plaintiff as the representative of
the conditionally certified Class; and Karczag and Associates PC,
Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP, and the Law Office of William M.
Aron, as the Class Counsel.

A Fairness Hearing will be held before the Court on April 1, 2019,
10:00 a.m.  Objections to the Agreement or the Fee Application will
be filed with the Court on or before the Objection Deadline set,
and papers in response to such objections must be filed on March
25, 2019.

The Magistrate approved the form and content of the proposed Long
Form Notice and Summary Notice, and the notice methodology
described in the Agreement.  Pursuant to the Agreement, she
appointed KCC, LLC as the Settlement Administrator to help
implement the terms of the Agreement.

No later than Nov. 23, 2018, the Settlement Administrator will
provide notice to the Class pursuant to the terms of the Agreement
and the deadlines set, in accordance with the notice program set
forth in the Agreement.  The Parties will coordinate with the
Settlement Administrator to provide notice to the Class pursuant to
terms therein.

Any Request for Exclusion must be postmarked and sent or
electronically submitted via the Settlement website to the
Settlement Administrator no later than Feb. 21, 2019.  The
Settlement Administrator will file a list reflecting all timely
requests for exclusion with the Court no later than seven days
before the Fairness Hearing.

In summary, the deadlines set by the Order may be extended by order
of the Court, for good cause shown, without further notice to the
Class.  The Class Members must check the Settlement Website
regularly for updates and further details regarding the
Settlement:

     (a) The Long Form Notice will be published on the Settlement
Website no later than Nov. 23, 2018.

     (b) The Summary Notice will be published as soon as possible
after the Notice Date.

     (c) The Settlement Website and Toll-Free Telephone Number will
be established and become operational no later than Nov. 23, 2018.

     (d) The Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees will be filed
no later than Feb. 7, 2019.

     (e) All completed Claim Forms must be postmarked and mailed to
the Settlement Administrator or uploaded to the Settlement Website
no later than Feb. 21, 2019.

     (f) All written objections to the Agreement will be filed with
the Court no later than Feb. 21, 2019.

     (g) All Requests for Exclusion will be postmarked and sent to
the Settlement Administrator no later than Feb. 21, 2019.

     (h) All written notices of an objector's intention to appear
at the Fairness Hearing will be filed with the Court no later than
March 25, 2019.

     (i) A Fairness Hearing will be scheduled for April 1, 2019 at
10:00 a.m.

     (j) Not later than seven calendar days before the date of the
Fairness Hearing, the Settlement Administrator will file with the
Court: (a) a list of those persons who have opted out or excluded
themselves from the Settlement; and (b) the details regarding the
number of valid Claim Forms received and processed by the
Settlement Administrator.

     (k) The Plaintiff's motion in support of final approval of the
Settlement will be filed no later than Feb. 25, 2019 and posted to
the Settlement Website as soon as practicable thereafter, and may
be supplemented no later than seven days prior to the Fairness
Hearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2018, 2018 Order is
available at https://is.gd/auaSpi from Leagle.com.

Hayley Hickcox-Huffman, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Roger N. Behle, Jr.
-- rbehle@foleybezek.com -- Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP, Thomas
G. Foley, Jr. -- tfoley@foleybezek.com -- Foley Bezek Behle &
Curtis, LLP, Justin Potter Karczag -- Justin@EncoreLaw.com --
Karczag and Associates PC, Kevin David Gamarnik --
kgamarnik@foleybezek.com -- Foley Bezek Behle Curtis LLP, Robert A.
Curtis -- rcurtis@foleybezek.com -- Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP
& William Michael Aron -- bill@aronlawfirm.com -- Law Office of
William M. Aron.

US Airways, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kelly S. Wood --
kwood@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Michael Gerard McGuinness
-- mmcguninness@omm.com -- O'Melveny Myers LLP & Robert Alan Siegel
-- rsiegel@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP.

U.S. Airways Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kelly S. Wood,
O'Melveny and Myers LLP & Michael Gerard McGuinness, O'Melveny
Myers LLP.


USG CORP: Still Defends Wallboard Price Fixing Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself against lawsuits alleging price fixing
of wallboards.

In 2015, USG, the company's subsidiary United States Gypsum
Company, the company's former subsidiary L&W Supply Corporation,
and seven other wallboard manufacturers were named as defendants in
a lawsuit filed by twelve homebuilders alleging that the defendants
conspired to fix the price of wallboard sold in the United States.


Earlier, in 2013, class action lawsuits making similar allegations
were filed in Canada on behalf of a class of purchasers of
wallboard in Canada.

USG said, "We believe that the cost, if any, of resolving the
homebuilders' lawsuit and Canadian class action litigation will not
have a material effect on our results of operations, financial
position or cash flows."

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

USG Corporation, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells
building materials worldwide. The company's Gypsum division
manufactures and markets gypsum and related products to construct
walls, ceilings, roofs, and floors of residential, commercial, and
institutional buildings, as well as for various industrial
applications. USG Corporation was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


UZBEK LOGISTICS: Kopaleishvili Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned RAUL KOPALEISHVILI, the
Plaintiff, vs. UZBEK LOGISTICS, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00702-TSB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff move the Court for
an Order:

   1. certifying action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 23;

   2. authorizing that notice of this matter be sent to members of
      the putative class;

   3. appointing the law firms of Virginia & Ambinder, LLP and
      Croskery Law Offices as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule
      23(g), together with such other and further relief as the
      Court may deem just and proper; and

   4. granting certification of the following class and appointing

      Plaintiff Raul Kopaleishvili as Class Representative:

      "Plaintiffs and all individuals hired as truck drivers by
      Uzbek Logistics, Inc. and/or Uzbek Transport Express, LLC,
      from April 2009 through March 2018."

The Court said, "Corporate officers, shareholders, directors and
administrative employees shall not be part of the proposed
class."[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Class:

          LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Robert F. Croskery, Esq.
          CROSKERY LAW OFFICES
          3905 Eastern Avenue, Suite 200
          Cincinnati, OH 45226
          Telephone: (212) 232-5297

VENATOR MATERIALS: Final Judgment Signed in TiO2-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Venator Materials PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the judge in the
TiO2-related antitrust class action suit has signed a final
judgment resolving the case.

In the past, the company was named as a defendant in multiple civil
antitrust suits alleging that the company, its co-defendants and
other alleged co-conspirators conspired to fix prices of TiO2 sold
in the U.S. The company settled litigation involving both direct
purchasers of TiO2 and purchasers who opted out of the direct
purchaser litigation for amounts immaterial to the company's
unaudited condensed consolidated and combined financial
statements.

The company was also named as a defendant in a class action civil
antitrust suit filed on March 15, 2013 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California by purchasers of products
made from TiO2 (the "Indirect Purchasers") making essentially the
same allegations as did the direct purchasers.

On October 14, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class
Action Complaint narrowing the class of plaintiffs to those
merchants and consumers of architectural coatings containing TiO2.
On August 11, 2015, the court granted othe company's motion to
dismiss the Indirect Purchasers litigation with leave to amend the
complaint. A Third Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on
September 29, 2015 further limiting the class to consumers of
architectural paints.

Plaintiffs have raised state antitrust claims under the laws of 15
states, consumer protection claims under the laws of nine states,
and unjust enrichment claims under the laws of 16 states. On
November 4, 2015, the company and its co-defendants filed another
motion to dismiss.

On June 13, 2016, the court substantially denied the motion to
dismiss except as to consumer protection claims in one state.

Venator Materials said, "We have agreed to settle this matter for
an amount immaterial to our unaudited condensed consolidated and
combined financial statements. The court gave final approval on
August 16, 2018 and the judge signed the final judgment on October
22, 2018."

The Indirect Purchasers sought to recover injunctive relief, treble
damages or the maximum damages allowed by state law, costs of suit
and attorneys' fees. The company is not aware of any illegal
conduct by it or any of its employees.

Venator Materials PLC manufactures and markets chemical products
worldwide. It operates through two segments, Titanium Dioxide and
Performance Additives. The company was founded in 2017 and is
headquartered in Stockton-On-Tees, the United Kingdom.


W.W. GRAINGER: Rangel Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Selina Rangel, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. W.W. Grainger, Inc., an
Illinois Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. CV-18-003041, was
removed from the Stanislaus County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court Eastern District of California (Sacramento) on Oct
26, 2018. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:18-at-01649.

W.W. Grainger, Inc. is a Fortune 500 industrial supply company
founded in 1927 in Chicago by William W. Grainger. He founded the
company in order to provide consumers with access to a consistent
supply of motors.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

Attorneys for W.W. Grainger, Inc.:

          Ryan H. Crosner, Esq.
          Michael John Nader, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-9800
          Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
          E-mail: ryan.crosner@ogletreedeakins.com
                  michael.nader@ogletree.com

WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: 7th Cir. Vacates District Court Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
Waterstone Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has issued a ruling vacating a
district court's order enforcing an arbitration award.

Waterstone Mortgage Corporation is a defendant in a class action
lawsuit that was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin and subsequently compelled to
arbitration before the American Arbitration Association. The
plaintiff class alleged that Waterstone Mortgage Corporation
violated certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and failed to pay loan officers consistent with their employment
agreements.

On July 5, 2017, the arbitrator issued a Final Award finding
Waterstone Mortgage Corporation liable for unpaid minimum wages,
overtime, unreimbursed business expenses, and liquidated damages
under the FLSA. On December 8, 2017, the District Court confirmed
the award in large part, and entered a judgment against Waterstone
in the amount of $7,267,919 in damages to Claimants, $3,298,851 in
attorney fees and costs, and a $20,000 incentive fee to Plaintiff
Herrington, plus post-judgment interest.

On February 12, 2018, the District Court awarded post-arbitration
fees and costs of approximately $98,000. The judgment was appealed
by Waterstone to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where oral
argument was held on May 29, 2018. On October 22, 2018, the Seventh
Circuit issued a ruling vacating the District Court's order
enforcing the arbitration award.

Waterstone Financial said, "If the District Court determines the
agreement only allows for individual arbitration, the award would
be vacated and the case sent to individual arbitration for a new
proceeding. If the District Court determines the arbitration
agreement nevertheless allows for collective arbitration, the
District Court could confirm the prior award."

Waterstone Financial finally said, "If the judgment is upheld in
full, the Company has estimated that the award, which includes
attorney's fees, costs, and interest, could be as high as $11
million. However, Waterstone has meaningful appellate rights and
intends to vigorously defend its interests in this matter,
including arguing for complete reversal on appeal. Although the
Company believes there is a strong basis to vacate the award, there
remains a reasonable possibility that the Court's judgment will be
affirmed in whole or in part, with the possible range of loss from
$0 to $11 million. We do not believe that the loss is probable at
this time, as that term is used in assessing loss contingencies.
Accordingly, in accordance with the authoritative guidance in the
evaluation of contingencies, the Company has not recorded an
accrual related to this matter."

Waterstone Financial, Inc. operates as a bank holding company for
WaterStone Bank SSB that provides various financial services to
customers in southeastern Wisconsin, the United States. It operates
through two segments, Community Banking and Mortgage Banking.
Waterstone Financial, Inc. was founded in 1921 and is based in
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.


WEBLOYALTY.COM INC: Remaining Claims in Wiretapping Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, L.S., a minor, by P.S., his parent and next friend, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
WEBLOYALTY.COM, INC., GAMESTOP CORPORATION, and VISA INC.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-1372 (CSH) (D. Conn.), Judge
Charles S. Haight, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut (i) granted Webloyalty's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on Plaintiff's EFTA claim, and (ii) denied Webloyalty and
GameStop's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff's
CUTPA claim.

In November 2009, the Plaintiff purchased a video game from
GameStop's website.  A banner for Defendant Webloyalty appeared on
the wepbage after the Plaintiff completed his online purchase, but
the banner included a "Continue" button that led the Plaintiff to
believe he was still in the process of completing his GameStop
purchase.  Clicking on the banner led the Plaintiff to Webloyalty's
enrollment page that advertised a $20 GameStop coupon and included
references to GameStop throughout its description of Webloyalty's
membership program.  The page at issue required the Plaintiff to
enter the last four digits of his debit card number and to enter
and verify his email.  He apparently did so.

Webloyalty asserts that the Plaintiff was then shortly presented
with an acknowledgment page, and an email to confirm his
enrollment.  Both the Acknowledgment Page and Join Email indicate
to an enrollee that he was being given a 30-day free trial, but
that he would be charged $12 per month after the trial unless he
cancelled his program membership.  Neither the Acknowledgment Page
nor Join Email is an exact reproduction of the Enrollment Page.

The Plaintiff asserts Webloyalty violated the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act ("EFTA") by not providing a copy of the electronic
fund transfer authorization, i.e., the Enrollment Page.  Webloyalty
contends that the Acknowledgment Page and Join Email satisfy the
copy requirement under EFTA.

The Court had considered the parties' arguments before in the case,
ruling in Webloyalty's favor on its motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's entire complaint.  However, the Second Circuit vacated
the Court's grant of the motion to dismiss on the EFTA claim on the
basis that the Court considered the Join Email in its decision even
though it was not referenced in the Plaintiff's complaint, not
relied on in the course of the complaint's allegations, and the
Plaintiff contends that he never saw it.

On remand, the legal viability of the Plaintiff's EFTA claim
against Webloyalty is again challenged by that Defendant, this time
in the form of a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. The
Second Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the Court's
opinion in L.S. v. Webloyalty.com, Inc.  Specifically, the Second
Circuit affirmed dismissal of a number of Plaintiff L.S.' claims,
but vacated the Court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's (1) EFTA claim
against Webloyalty, and (2) Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act
("CUTPA") claim against Defendants Webloyalty and GameStop.  These
are the only surviving claims from the Plaintiff's second amended
complaint.  

Webloyalty now moves for summary judgment on the EFTA claim, and
Webloyalty and GameStop move for judgment on the pleadings on the
CUTPA claim.

Even in light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Judge Haight finds
that the Plaintiff's EFTA claim must be rejected and Webloyalty
granted summary judgment on that claim.  The Plaintiff's strict
reading of EFTA's copy requirements does not further the objectives
of the statute and cut against prevailing interpretations.
Webloyalty, through the Acknowledgment Page and Join Email, met
EFTA's requirements by providing a copy of membership terms and
other relevant information.  Arguments that the Acknowledgment Page
and Join Email, although meeting EFTA's copy requirements, are
still unfair and deceptive are best adjudicated outside of the EFTA
claim.  For these, the Judge granted Webloyalty's motion for
partial summary judgment on the Plaintiff's EFTA claim.  Judgment
will enter dismissing that claim.

Turning to the Plaintiff's CUTPA claim against Defendants
Webloyalty and GameStop, the Judge finds that because CUTPA is a
state statute, he can only rule on the CUTPA claim if he chooses to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction.  He holds that although the
case was first filed 10 years ago in the Court, discovery is still
incomplete, and trial would be many months away.  Considerations of
"judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor state
adjudication of this state claim.  The potential uncertainty
regarding the viability of the case as a class action in federal
court also suggests that the Court should choose not to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction.  Therefore, the Judge declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's CUTPA
claims.  Accordingly, he dismissed the CUPTA claims without
prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

As a result, there are no pending claims in the action.  The Clerk
is directed to close the file.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2018, 2018 Omnibus Ruling
is available at https://is.gd/jIQmc8 from Leagle.com.

L. S., a minor, by P.S., his parent and next friend, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented
by David C. Katz -- dkatz@weisslawllp.com -- WeissLaw LLP, pro hac
vice, James E. Miller -- jmiller@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP & Laurie Rubinow, Sheperd Finkelman
Miller & Shah, LLP.

Webloyalty.Com, Inc., Defendant, represented by James T. Fawcett --
james.fawcett@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale &
Dorr, LLP, James E. Nealon -- james.nealon@withersworldwide.com --
Withers Bergman, LLP, Jessica R. Lisak --
jessica.lisak@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr, pro hac vice, John J. Butt --, john.butts@wilmerhale.com --
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, pro hac vice & John J. Regan
-- john.regan@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr,
pro hac vice.

Visa Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan B. Orleans --
jborleans@pullcom.com -- Pullman & Comley, Matthew A. Eisenstein --
matthew.eisenstein@apks.com -- Arnold & Porter, pro hac vice &
Robert C. Mason -- Robert.mason@apks.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer LLP, pro hac vice.

GameStop Corporation, Defendant, represented by James E. Nealon,
Withers Bergman, LLP, Jessica R. Lisak, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale & Dorr, pro hac vice & James T. Fawcett --
james.fawcett@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale &
Dorr, LLP.


YWL USA: Wan Seek Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------
LU WAN, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. YWL USA INC d/b/a Buddha Asian Bistro
Sushi Hibachi Steak House; JWC GROUP INC d/b/a Buddha Asian Bistro
Sushi Hibachi Steak House; MEI LAN INC d/b/a Buddha Asian Bistro
Sushi Hibachi Steak House; FENG HUA INC d/b/a Buddha Asian Bistro
Sushi Hibachi Steak House; 251 USA INC d/b/a Buddha Asian Bistro
Sushi Hibachi Steak House; FANG LAN INC d/b/a Buddha Asian Bistro
Sushi Hibachi Steak House; AI QIN CHEN, CHO YI JUEY WONG, YU WEI
LI, FANG QI LI, SUK ANG CHEUNG, and JANE DOE, the Defendants, Case
No. 7:18-cv-10334 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
and post-judgement interest; and or attorney's fees and cost under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its
employees, including Plaintiffs, minimum wage for each hour worked
and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek, the lawsuit says.

Attorney for the Plaintiffs, proposed FLSA Collective and potential
Rule 23 Class:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324

ZACKY & SONS: Vance Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zacky & Sons Poultry,
LLC. The case is styled as Karen Vance, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zacky & Sons Poultry,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-ap-01375-RK (C.D. Cal., Nov. 14,
2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Injunctive Relief.

Zacky & Sons Poultry, LLC grows, processes, and distributes poultry
products. The Company offers turkey and deli products such as
sausages, franks, and sliced meat. Zacky & Sons Poultry operates in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gail L Chung, Esq.
     Outten and Golden LLP
     685 Third Avenue
     25th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (646) 824-0803
     Fax: (646) 509-2073
     Email: GL@outtengolden.com

The Defendant is represented by:

     Zacky & Sons Poultry, LLC
     PO BOX 12556
     FRESNO, CA 93778
     Tax ID / EIN: 46-1989252
     PRO SE

The U.S. Trustee may be reached at:

     United States Trustee (LA)
     915 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1850
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Phone: (213) 894-6811


ZACKY FARMS: Vance Seeks Wages & Benefits for Terminated Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN VANCE on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. ZACKY FARMS, LLC and ZACKY & SONS POULTRY, LLC,
the Defendants, Case 1:18-at-00813 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 6, 2018), seeks
to recover 60 days' wages benefits, pursuant to the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, and the California
Labor Code (CAL-WARN Act).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants at
its facility in 2020 S East Ave, Fresno, CA until she was
terminated without cause on or about October 29, 2018. Beginning on
or about that date, Defendants ordered the terminations of
approximately 500 employees without cause. The Plaintiff brings
this action on behalf of herself and the other similarly situated
former employees who worked for Defendants and who were terminated
without cause, as part of, or as the result of, the mass layoffs or
plant closings ordered by Defendants on or about October 29, 2018
and within 30 days of that date, and who were not provided 60 days
advance written notice of their terminations by Defendants, as
required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act,
and the California Labor Code (CAL-WARN Act), the lawsuit says.

Defendants operate a vertically-integrated business based in
Fresno, California that is engaged in the growing, processing,
distributing, and wholesaling of turkey products in the United
States.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Karen Vance, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated:

          Jahan Sagafi, Esq.
          Gail Lin Chung, Esq.
          Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
          Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One California Street, 12 th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
                  gl@outtengolden.com
                  rsr@outtengolden.com
                  jar@outtengolden.com


ZOE'S KITCHEN: Faces Calgano and Connole Merger-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe's Kitchen, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on October 29, 2018, 2018,
that faces two putative class action suits entitled, Jo-Ann
Calcagno, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Zoe's Kitchen, Inc., Greg Dollarhyde, Thomas Baldwin,
Sue Collyns, Cordia Harrington, Kevin Miles, and Alec Taylor and
Jason Connole, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Zoe's Kitchen, Inc., Greg Dollarhyde, Kevin Miles,
Thomas Baldwin, Sue Collyns, Cordia Harrington and Alec Taylor

On August 16, 2018, Zoe's Kitchen, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (as
it may be amended from time to time, the "Merger Agreement") with
Cava Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and Pita
Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, subject to
the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will
merge with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company
continuing as the surviving corporation and as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent.

A putative class action captioned Jo-Ann Calcagno, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Zoe's Kitchen, Inc.,
Greg Dollarhyde, Thomas Baldwin, Sue Collyns, Cordia Harrington,
Kevin Miles, and Alec Taylor, Case No. 1:18-cv-01571-MN, was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on
October 11, 2018.

The complaint alleges claims under Sections 14(a) and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78n(a) and 78t(a), and SEC
Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.14a-9, against the defendants in
connection with the proposed Merger.  

The complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement omitted certain
material information relating to the Proposed Transaction,
including, among other things, (i) certain details relating to the
financial analyses and valuation methodologies used by Piper
Jaffray in connection with its fairness opinion, (ii) certain
provisions of the confidentiality agreements entered into by the
Company and (iii) the fact that Ron Shaich will serve as Chairman
of the combined company.

The complaint seeks (i) to enjoin the defendants from proceeding
with, and consummating, or closing the Proposed Transaction, (ii)
in the event the defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, to
rescind it and set it aside or award rescissory damages, (iii) to
direct the defendants to file a proxy statement that states all
material facts required in it or necessary to make the statements
contained therein not misleading, (iv) to declare that the
defendants violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and (v) the award of
unspecified costs, including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
fees, to the plaintiff.

The second action, a putative class action captioned Jason Connole,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
Zoe's Kitchen, Inc., Greg Dollarhyde, Kevin Miles, Thomas Baldwin,
Sue Collyns, Cordia Harrington and Alec Taylor, Case No.
1:99-mc-09999, was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware on October 12, 2018.

The complaint alleges claims under Sections 14(a) and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78n(a) and 78t(a), and SEC
Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.14a-9, against the defendants in
connection with the proposed Merger. The complaint alleges that the
Proxy Statement omitted or misrepresents certain material
information, including, among other things, certain information
relating to (i) potential conflicts of interest faced by Company
insiders and Piper Jaffray, (ii) the background process leading to
the Proposed Transaction and (iii) certain details concerning the
financial analyses and valuation methodologies used by Piper
Jaffray in connection with its fairness opinion.

The complaint seeks (i) to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the
defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the
Proposed Transaction, unless and until the defendants disclose the
information allegedly omitted from the Proxy Statement, (ii) in the
event the defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, to
rescind it and set it aside or award rescissory damages, (iii) to
declare that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and (iv)
the award of unspecified costs, including reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees, to the plaintiff.

The Company believes that plaintiffs' claims and allegations in the
Litigation are entirely without merit and that no additional
disclosure is required to supplement, amend or update any of the
disclosures contained in the Proxy Statement previously
disseminated to holders of record of the Company's common stock,
and that the disclosures contained in the previously disseminated
Proxy Statement are legally sufficient to enable such holders to
make a fully informed voting decision whether to adopt the Merger
Agreement at the special meeting.  

Accordingly, while the Company believes that the disclosures set
forth in the Proxy Statement previously disseminated to holders of
record of the Company's common stock comply fully with all
applicable federal and state disclosure laws, in order to avoid the
administrative nuisance, potential defense costs and possible
transaction delays inherent in the defense of any litigation,  the
Company voluntarily includes in the Proxy Statement the additional
disclosures to render moot plaintiffs' claims and allegations.

A copy of the additional disclosures to proxy statement is
available at https://goo.gl/HWD4xL.

Zoe's Kitchen, Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops and
operates a chain of fast-casual restaurants. It operates a range of
restaurant formats, including in-line, end-cap, and free-standing
restaurants. Zoe's Kitchen, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is based
in Plano, Texas.



                            *********

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 ***