CAR_Public/181127.MBX
              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, November 27, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 237

                            Headlines

20 EAST: Tucker Files Suit in NY for ADA Violation
60-10 BAKERY: Underpays Catering Staff, Capir Suit Alleges
ACCESS WITH SUCCESS: Faces Theodore Suit in D. Massachusetts
ACURIAN INC: Vallianos Sues over Autodialed Text Messages
AEFFE USA: Olsen Files Suit Over ADA Breach

AETNA INC: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Isett FLSA Class Suit
AGA TRUCK: Haikevich Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA
ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: California Case Settlement Awaits Initial OK
AMERICAN GENERAL: Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended Buck Suit Denied
ASPEN INSURANCE: Supplemental Brief on Representative Claim Ordered

ASSET RECOVERY: Povolotsky Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
ASSET RECOVERY: Rossi Suit in NY Asserts FDCPA Breach
AUPAIRCARE INC: 10th Cir. Flips Arbitration Bid Denial in Beltran
AVATAR VENTURES: Fischler Asserts ADA Breach
AXON ENTERPRISE: Richey Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed

BATH & TENNIS: Violates Disabilities Act, Tucker Says
BRANCH BANKING: Court Narrows Claims in Lee TCPA Suit
BRISTOL MYERS: Still Faces CheckMate-026 Trial-Related Suit
BROOKLINEN INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in New York
CAMPING WORLD: Strougo Sues over Share Price Drop, Gander Deal

CELGENE CORP: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Antitrust Suit Denied
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: J. Gillespie Suit Stayed Until May 2019
CENTURY PARK: Penarouque Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Loeb Seeks to Certify Class
CHANGE GROUP: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

CHARLES FIERGOLA: Kitchner Suit Moved to W.D. Wisconsin
CHICO PRODUCE: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Continued Dec. 13
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Kelley Suit
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Bid to File 3rd Amended "Ong" Complaint Pending
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Claims in Gordon and Lawson/Conard Suit Narrowed

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Court Narrows Claims in Credit Unions' Suit
CNA NATIONAL: Fourth Circuit Appeals Filed in Justice Suit
COLORADO: Rabinkov Files Civil Rights Class Suit v. DOC
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Spek Files FDCPA Suit in Penn.
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Court Preliminarily Approves Class Settlement

DAYTON ANDREWS: Ditmar Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads
DENKA PERFORMANCE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Taylor Suit
DRAFTKINGS INC: Fischler Suit Asserts ADA Violation
DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Tung Sues over Misleading Financial Reports
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Partly Strikes Answer to Keller FDCPA Suit

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Sturgis Sues over Debt Collection Practices
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Oral Argument in Patterson Suit Set for Dec. 3
FIFTH THIRD: Seldomridge Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
FINANCIAL CORP: Court Denies Bid to Stay Encarnacion FDCPA Suit
FIRST NATIONAL: Days Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses

FIRSTFLEET INC: Carnegie Seeks to Certify 2 COBRA Classes
FLIGHT SERVICES: $540K Settlement in Allen Suit Has Final Approval
FLOOR AND DECOR OUTLETS: Faces Tucker ADA Class Action in NY
FLOWERS FOODS: Coyle Class Action Dismissed
FLOWERS FOODS: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in Georgia

FLOWERS FOODS: Zapata and Rodriguez Suits Dismissed
FROST ARNETT: Golubchik Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
GEM HOTEL: Violates Disabilities Act, Tucker Suit Asserts
GOOGLE LLC: Mischaracterizes Free Data Storage, Roley Claims
GRAY TELEVISION: John O'Neil Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois

GREAT KILLS: NY Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Suit
GREYHOUND LINES: J. Smith Remanded to Calif. State Court
HANRO USA: Faces Garey Class Action Under ADA
HARDEE'S FOOD: Bid to Remand HepA Exposure Suit to State Ct. Denied
HEALTH ACQUISTION: Bazoe Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.

HIGHGATE HOTELS: Faces Tucker Class Action for ADA Violation
HOMETOWN AMERICA: Craw Suit Moved to Massachusetts District Court
INDEPENDENT BANK: Trial in BOH Acquisition Suit Set for Jan. 2020
INDIANA: Ganus Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit v. DOC Officers
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Martin Suit Removed to Arizona

INTEL CORP: Trial in McAfee Shareholder Suit Set to Begin December
ISSEY MIYAKE: Diaz Files Class Action for ADA Violation
JPMORGAN CHASE: Melissinos Suit Asserts CEA Violation
JUUL LABS: Claims in Colgate Suit Over Vape Products Safety Trimmed
KIKKERLAND RETAIL: Violates ADA, Garey Suit in Alleges

L2T INC: Faces Class Action in New York Asserting ADA Violation
LADENBURG THALMANN: Appeal from Nixed Texas Class Suit Pending
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Fosbre Consolidated Class Action Concluded
LCK DESIGN: Violates ADA, Garey Suit Asserts
LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Continues to Defend Wolf Class Suit

LILLA P: Garey Brings ADA Class Action
LIZETTE ARGUELLO: Garcia Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
LLOYD PEST CONTROL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Miranda Suit Says
LSP PRODUCTS: Harris Product Liability Suit Transferred to E.D. Ca.
MDL 2326: Boston Scientific Seeks to Dismiss Caldwell Case

MDL 2591: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in MIR 162 Corn Case Denied
MDL 2741: Fuller Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Lamb Suit vs. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MECTA CORPORATION: Riera Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir.
MIDLAND CREDIT: Vlastelica Sues over Debt Collection Practices

MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Certification of Two Classes Sought
MONSANTO COMPANY: Anderson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Bindon Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Calkins et al Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Hogan Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Jarrett Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Kruppas Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
NABORS INDUSTRIES: Consolidated Class Action in Texas Ongoing
NECESSARY CLOTHING: Sued by Garey Over Disabilities Act Breach
NEW YORK ADORNED: Garey Sues Piercing Shop for ADA Breach

NEWALTA ENVIRONMENTAL: Bid to Strike Third-Party Complaint in Berry
OAK NYC APPAREL: Faces ADA Class Action in New York
OKLAHOMA: Court Dismisses Fishinghawk Suit Without Prejudice
OLIVE & BETTE'S: Garey Files Class Action Under ADA
OPTIMUM HEALTHCARE: $4.9MM Arrington Suit Deal Has Final Approval

PBF ENERGY: Removed Kendig Case to Central District of California
PERCEPTA LLC: Renewed Bid to Certify Collective Action Denied
PETER MANNING: Garey Files Class Suit Asserting ADA Breach
PLS CHECK: Fails to Supply Sufficient Uniforms to Staff, Suit Says
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Certifies Class in Pozzuolo Suit

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Pariot Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal in Trojan Class Action Still Pending
PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Order in Lorenzo Suit to 4th Cir.
PROJECT BUILDERS: Medina Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
QUALITY CUSTOM: D. Hession's Suit Remanded to Colo. State Court

QUANTA SERVICES: Continues to Defend Benton Class Action
RABBEX LLC: Medero Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
RED ROBIN: Mina Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
REISS USA: Violates ADA, Garey Suit Alleges
RITE CHECK: Violates Disabilities Act, Tucker Suit Says

ROCKWATER ENERGY: Tuggle Seeks to Certify Wellsite Personnel Class
RUSHMORE SERVICE: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in Torres FDCPA Suit
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TN: K.W. et al Seek to Certify Four Classes
SAN GALLAN INC: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
SEMPRA ENERGY: 388 Suits Filed over Aliso Canyon Leak at Nov. 2

SHUTTERFLY INC: Continues to Defend Monroy Class Suit
SHUTTERFLY INC: Continues to Defend Taylor Class Suit
SHUTTERFLY INC: Continues to Defend Vigeant Class Action Suit
SKYLINE BUILDING: Abante Rooter Sues for Invasion of Privacy
SOUTH SIDE SERVICES: Ortiz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

SOUTHERN POWER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Remaining Claims
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Failed to Pay Wages & Overtime, Garay Says
SPEEDYPC SOFTWARE: Certification Orders in Beaton Suit Affirmed
ST. FRANK LTD: Garey Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
STATE FARM MUTUAL: Stinson Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky

STATE FARM: PIP Statute Unconstitutional, Lowry Says
STERIGENICS U.S.: Removes Suit over Ethylene Oxide to N.D. Ill.
STRAT LAND: Class Certification in Whisenant Suit Reversed
SUNRISE SENIOR: Heredia Moved to C.D. Calif.
TATMAR REST: Marillo Sees Unpaid Wages & Overtime under FLSA

THE WILLIAM: Tucker Sues Hotel for ADA Violation
TODISCO TOWING: Sued over Alleged Involuntary Towing Services
TRANS WORLD: Rovinelli Files Class Suit in Massachusetts
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Violates FDCPA, Khaytin Suit Says
TRIUMP GROUP: Leu Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA

UNITED STATES: Federal Circuit Appeal Filed in Baker Class Suit
VENUS BY MARIA: Garey Sues Over Disabilities Act Violation
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Jacobs Bid to Transfer Subpoena Granted
VICTORY PREPARATORY: Faces Civil Rights Class Action in Colorado
VIRGINIA: Kirschmann Files Civil Rights Suit v. State Under ADA

WELTMAN & WEINBERG: Court Certifies Class in Gibbons FDCPA Suit
WEST MEMPHIS FENCE: Palma Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
WISCONSIN: Permanent Injunction Entered in LHS Strip Search Suit
WYNN RESORTS: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff in Ferris Case Pending
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Still Defends Evans Class Action


                            *********

20 EAST: Tucker Files Suit in NY for ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 20 East 76th Street
Co., LLC. The case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 20 East 76th Street
Co., LLC doing business as: Surrey Hotel, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10618 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018).

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

The Surrey is a luxury hotel in Manhattan's Upper East Side,
offering business and leisure travelers spacious rooms and
suites.[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


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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ACURIAN INC: Vallianos Sues over Autodialed Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
CASSANDRA VALLIANOS, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ACURIAN, INC., a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-62560-DPG (S.D. Fla.,
Oct. 25, 2018), seeks to stop Acurian from violating the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by sending autodialed text messages to
consumers without their consent and to consumers registered on the
Do Not Call registry, and to otherwise obtain injunctive and
monetary relief for all persons injured by Acurian's conduct.

Acurian is a patient recruiter and enrollment company for
pharmaceutical companies looking to enroll consumers in medical
studies and trials. This is a lucrative and competitive business as
pharmaceutical companies are anxious to sign up would-be consumers
to test their latest products so they can introduce them into the
marketplace. These companies hire Acurian since they specialize in
recruiting these consumers. Acurian boasts that it will provide its
clients such as pharmaceutical companies with access to patients
that these companies would not normally have access to. On its
website, Acurian states that it acquires patients through
technology and boasts that they have a database of 100 million
people. At least part of the technology that Acurian refers to is
autodialed text message marketing, which Acurian uses to solicit
consumers about upcoming medical studies for its pharmaceutical
company clients.

According to the complaint, in its efforts to reach as many
potential patients as possible and increase its compensation,
Acurian fails to acquire the consent that is required in order to
send autodialed text messages. In Plaintiff's case, Acurian sent
unsolicited, autodialed text messages to her cellular phone without
her consent. These text messages are sent by Acurian to solicit a
commercial transaction to which Acurian is a beneficiary. In
response to these text messages, Plaintiff files this lawsuit
seeking injunctive relief, requiring Defendant to cease from
sending text messages to consumers' cellular telephone numbers
using an automatic telephone dialing system, as well as to
consumers registered on the national Do Not Call registry, and to
recover an award of statutory damages to the members of the Classes
and costs, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative Classes:

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

               - and -

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


AEFFE USA: Olsen Files Suit Over ADA Breach
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AEFFE USA, Inc. et a.
The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AEFFE USA, Inc.,
YNAP Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10639 (S.D. N.Y.,
Nov. 14, 2018).

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

Aeffe USA Inc was founded in 1987. The company's line of business
includes the wholesale distribution of women's, children's, and
infants' clothing and accessories.

YNAP Corporation designs and sells fashion products under the Karl
Lagerfeld brand name worldwide. The company offers ready-to-wear
for men and women, accessories, bags, watches, and eyewear; urban
menswear and fragrances; and kids wear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AETNA INC: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Isett FLSA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sharon Isett filed an appeal from the District Court's
judgment issued on September 30, 2018, in the lawsuit styled Isett
v. Aetna, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-1698, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut (New Haven).

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for
work more than 40 hours per week.

Aetna Inc. is a health and supplemental benefits company, providing
health insurance benefits under health maintenance organization,
Private Fee-For-Service, and preferred provider organization
plans.

The appellate case is captioned as Isett v. Aetna, Inc., Case No.
18-3271, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Sharon Isett, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals, is represented by:

          Rachhana Srey, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          E-mail: srey@nka.com

Defendant-Appellee Aetna Life Insurance Company is represented by:

          Wendy C. Butler, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          250 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 326-7822
          E-mail: wbutler@jonesday.com


AGA TRUCK: Haikevich Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
ANDREI L. HAIKEVICH, ALDAR VANDANOV, ANVAR SATYBALDIEV, ROMAN
NENKIN, AND SHUKHRAT M. IZBAKIYEV, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. AGA TRUCK PARTS,
INC. (D/B/A/ AGA TRUCK PARTS), and ALEX SKORY (A.K.A. ALEX SKORKY),
Case 1:18-cv-06008 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

According to the complaint, the Defendants own, operate, or control
a truck parts manufacturing company, located at 210 41 Street, Ste
202 2802, Brooklyn, NY, 11232. The Plaintiffs are former employees
of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and
overtime compensation for the hours that they worked.

Rather, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for
any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium.  The Defendants' conduct extended
beyond Plaintiffs to all other similarly situated employees, the
lawsuits says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES , P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: California Case Settlement Awaits Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on October 26, 2018, 2018,
that the parties in the putative class action suit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, have
reached a settlement agreement and awaits court approval.

On August 31, 2018, the Company reported in a filing on Form 8-K
that it had reached a tentative settlement of a putative class
action lawsuit filed against Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. and Alarm.com
Incorporated (together, "Alarm.com" or the "Company") in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (the
"Court") on December 30, 2015, alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (the ???TCPA???). The tentative settlement
was subject to the negotiation and execution of a definitive
settlement agreement and Court approval. On October 25, 2018, the
Company entered into the definitive settlement agreement (the
"Settlement Agreement") relating to this matter and submitted it to
the Court for approval.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, among other things, (1) the
Company has agreed to pay total cash consideration of $28.0 million
into a settlement fund, (2) the Company has agreed to implement
certain business practice changes to increase awareness of TCPA
compliance, (3) each party to the Settlement Agreement agreed to a
mutual release of claims relating to any claim or potential claim
relating to the marketing activities described in the complaint,
and (4) each party covenanted not to sue the other with regard to
the released claims. Further, the Company has agreed to no longer
allow the service provider identified in the litigation as
purportedly violating the TCPA to continue activating new accounts
for Alarm.com products and services after preliminary Court
approval of the Settlement Agreement, which the Company does not
anticipate will have a material impact on the Company's financial
statements.

An initial payment by the Company of $5.0 million is required to be
made to the settlement administrator within ten business days of
preliminary approval by the Court of the Settlement Agreement. The
remaining payment by the Company shall take place ten business days
after the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, which is five
business days following the later of the following events: (1) the
date upon which the time expires for filing a notice of appeal of
the Court's Final Approval Order and Judgment; or (2) if there is
an appeal or appeals of the Final Approval Order and Judgment, and
the appellate court enters an order either dismissing the appeal(s)
or affirming the Final Approval Order and Judgment without material
modification, the date upon which the time expires for seeking
review of that order. The release of claims includes all alleged
damages incurred related to the lawsuit. Any attorneys' fees
awarded by the Court and all costs of notice and claims
administration will be paid from the settlement fund. In entering
into the Settlement Agreement, the Company is making no admission
of liability.

Alarm.com Holdings said, "The Settlement Agreement is subject to
approval by the Court. If the Court preliminarily approves the
settlement, the Settlement Agreement provides for a period of time
during which class members will be notified of the settlement and
given an opportunity to file a claim form to receive a settlement
payment, opt out of the class, object to the settlement or do
nothing. The Company expects that the Court will schedule a
fairness hearing to occur after the notice period, at which time
the parties will request final approval of the settlement and at
which any objectors to the settlement will be heard. If the Court
gives final approval to the settlement, the release will be
effective as to all class members who do not validly out opt of the
class, regardless of whether they filed a claim form and received a
payment."

Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. provides cloud-based software platform
solutions for smart residential and commercial properties in the
United States and internationally. The company provides interactive
security solutions to control and monitor their security systems,
as well as connected security devices, including door locks, motion
sensors, thermostats, garage doors, and video cameras; and high
definition video monitoring solutions, such as live streaming,
smart clip capture, secure cloud storage, video alerts, continuous
HD recording, and commercial video surveillance solutions.
Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered
in Tysons, Virginia.


AMERICAN GENERAL: Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended Buck Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DUANE BUCK and ANN BUCK, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil No. 17-13278 (NLH/KMW) (D.
N.J.), Judge Noel L. Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (i) granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint;
and (ii) denied without prejudice the Defendant's Motion to Strike
Class Allegations.

In 1984, Duane and Buck purchased a universal life insurance policy
on the life of Duane Buck with his wife, Ann, as an additional
insured.  The Policy was issued by The Old Line Life Insurance Co.
of America, a company later acquired by the Defendant.

Initially, the Policy provided a $70,000 death benefit for Duane
Buck, a $25,000 rider for Ann Buck, and three $5,000 riders, one
for each of the couple's children.  The Policy guaranteed an
interest rate of 4.5%, compounded yearly, for all premiums paid in
excess of cost.  The Policy also granted the Plaintiffs the right
to effectuate a partial or total surrender of the Policy at certain
points with certain predetermined fees.  AGLIC also provided
"Annual Reports" which show the policy's current death benefit,
current cash value, total amount of premiums paid, total
accumulated growth, and total charges assessed.  As the name
suggests, the Policy promised that these Annual Reports would be
sent ??? at least ??? on a yearly basis.

At some point thereafter, the Plaintiffs increased Duane Buck's
death benefit to $100,000 and Ann Buck's death benefit to $50,000.
In 2008, the Plaintiffs requested that AGLIC reduce the death
benefit for both Duane and Ann Buck to $25,000 and that it
eliminate the $15,000 in riders the couple had maintained for their
children.  AGLIC complied.

In connection with the 2008 decrease in death benefit, AGLIC
provided the Bucks with a "Supplemental Illustration" dated Sept.
29, 2008.  The Illustration provides policyholders with projections
to help them decide how desired changes to their policy may affect
the ability of their investment to grow while maintaining preferred
tax status.  The Plaintiffs allege the Illustrations provided by
AGLIC determined the amount of yearly or monthly premiums they
paid.  The Bucks paid the premium as described in the
Illustration.

On Jan. 7, 2016, AGLIC sent the Plaintiffs a letter which claimed
the Policy had been funded to its limit and was at risk of losing
its preferred tax status.  The Plaintiffs allege that the reason
the Policy was at risk of losing its preferred tax status was
because the Defendant used faulty compliance procedures and
software which failed to adequately predict the amount of premiums
required to keep the Policy tax compliant throughout its life.  The
Defendant, in this letter, claimed that it was a combination of the
decrease in death benefits and premium amount which led to this
compliance issue.

AGLIC presented the Bucks with three options that would allow the
Policy to maintain its tax status: (1) increasing the death benefit
(which would have required additional underwriting), (2)
surrendering the Policy, or (3) maintaining the Policy, allowing
annual refunds, and ceasing premium payments until the cash value
of the Policy was exhausted.  AGLIC, in the letter, reserved the
right to completely surrender the Policy if the Plaintiffs did not
choose one of the three listed options.

The Plaintiffs chose none of these options.  Each option presented
the Plaintiffs with either a loss of the Policy, increased
premiums, or loss of the benefit of the 4.5% interest rate being
applied to their future premium payments (as they would be
prohibited from making any further premium payments until a later
date).  AGLIC continued to send letters over the following year,
reiterating the options available and that it reserved the right to
unilaterally surrender the policy if no option was chosen.

On Jan. 13, 2017, AGLIC sent a letter stating (1) the Policy
remained non-compliant, (2) a check would be sent in the amount of
$3,260 representing the amount the Policy was overfunded, and (3)
the cash value of the Policy would be used to pay premiums until it
had been exhausted, at which time Plaintiffs could resume paying
premiums.

Finally, on Dec. 11, 2017 AGLIC sent a letter stating the
Plaintiffs may pay enough into the policy each year as necessary to
maintain coverage without building up any excess policy value.  The
Plaintiffs allege this prohibits them from gaining the benefit of
the 4.5% interest rate and building any cash value within the
Policy.  In effect, the Plaintiffs allege, the Policy has been
transformed into a year-to-year term policy.

On Dec. 19, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Court,
which included class action allegations.  The Plaintiffs present
two claims for relief: breach of contract and rescission.  The
Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Class
Allegations on March 5, 2018.  

The Defendant moves to dismiss the breach of contract and
rescission claims pleaded in the amended complaint.  It generally
argues that the breaches complained of are not breaches of any
contractual terms.

The Defendant argues on two grounds that the Court should strike
all nationwide class allegations.  The Defendant does not dispute
that Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) in their complaint, but instead focus on: (1)
whether the Plaintiffs have satisfied the predominance requirement
of 23(b)(3) and (2) whether the putative class action presents
manageability issues which may make collective adjudication unwise
and impracticable.

Judge Hillman granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.  He finds
that  while the Court does not decide at this stage whether the
Annual Reports and Illustrations does, in fact, constitute a
breach, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the
Plaintiffs, he finds that Plaintiffs may move forward with a theory
of breach of contract on the basis of the Illustration.  

The Judge also finds that the Policy raises the reasonable
possibility that a partial surrender could have occurred without a
corresponding reduction in death benefit.  At this early stage, he
must draw this reasonable inference in favor of the Plaintiffs.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs may not continue to pursue a breach of
contract claim under the "refund" theory, but may do so under the
"partial surrender" theory.

The Defendant argues it did not breach the Policy, as a matter of
law, because it refused to accept premium payments from the
Plaintiffs.  At this stage, the Judge does not decide this issue,
but he cannot dismiss this theory of breach as a matter of law.
While the Defendant is correct that the Plaintiffs' case law does
not address the special case of the universal life insurance
policy, it has not brought forth any case law, assuming the facts
in the Plaintiffs' case as true, that require dismissal.  The Judge
allowed the Plaintiffs to proceed under this theory of breach.

Finally, the Defendant's argument for dismissing the Plaintiffs'
rescission claim depends exclusively on its argument for dismissing
the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim.  In other words, the
rescission claim can be dismissed only if no breach of contract
claim survives Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  Because the Judge
did not dismiss the breach of contract claim, he did not dismiss
the rescission claim.

Turning to the Motion to Strike Class Allegations, the Judge denied
without prejudice the Defendant's Motion to Strike Class
Allegations.  The Defendant has presented arguments that may well
prove persuasive.  The Judge does not yet decide whether those
arguments are meritorious.  Thus, while the Defendant's Motion to
Strike Class Allegations is denied, it is denied without prejudice.
The Defendant is free to raise these same grounds in later
filings, whether it be another motion to strike or in response to
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs request in their brief in opposition that they be
given the opportunity to amend their complaint if either of the
Defendant's motions were granted in whole or in part.  Although
leave to amend should be freely given, it need not be given in
cases where amendment would be futile.  Here, the Court has only
foreclosed the Plaintiffs from pursuing a breach of contract claim
under the theory that a unilateral refund by AGLIC may have
amounted to breach.  Considering this ruling, amendment would be
futile, as the clear text of the Policy shows this would not be a
breach.  Therefore, the judge denied the Plaintiffs' request for
leave to amend.

An appropriate Order will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/Bq4qsN from Leagle.com.

DUANE BUCK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated & ANN BUCK, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by SCOTT B. GORMAN --
sgorman@gormanlegal.com -- LIBERTY VIEW GORMAN & G0RMAN, ESQS.,
CRAIG S. HILLIARD -- chilliard@stark-stark.com -- STARK & STARK,
PC, STEFANIE LYNN COLELLA-WALSH -- scolella-walsh@stark-stark.com
-- STARK & STARK & MARTIN P. SCHRAMA -- mschrama@stark-stark.com --
STARK & STARK, PC.

AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by
ANDREW P. FISHKIN -- afishkin@fishkinlucks.com -- FISHKIN LUCKS LLP
& ZACHARY WINTHROP SILVERMAN -- zsilverman@fishkinlucks.com --
FISHKIN LUCKS LLP.


ASPEN INSURANCE: Supplemental Brief on Representative Claim Ordered
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALBERT D. SEENO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. ASPEN INSURANCE UK LIMITED, Defendant, Case No.
17-cv-03765-SI (N.D. Cal.), Judge Susan Illston of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California directed the
parties to file supplemental briefs regarding whether the
Plaintiffs may pursue a representative section 17200 claim in
federal court without also seeking class certification.

The parties have submitted a letter brief regarding a discovery
dispute.  The Plaintiffs seek an order compelling the Defendant to
respond to interrogatories and document requests that seek
information about other Aspen policyholders whose policies contain
self-insured retention endorsements similar to the endorsements
contained in the Plaintiffs' policies.  They assert that they are
entitled to this discovery because they are bringing a
"representative" claim under California Business & Professions Code
section 17200.

The Defendant opposes the discovery on numerous grounds, including
its argument that "representative" actions under section 17200 were
eliminated by Proposition 64 in 2004.  It cites Arias v. Superior
Court in which the California Supreme Court construed the statement
in section 17203, as amended by Proposition 64, that a private
party may pursue a representative action under the unfair
competition law only if the party complies with Section 382 of the
Code of Civil Procedure to mean that such an action must meet the
requirements for a class action.

In connection with earlier motion practice in the case, the Judge
finds that the Plaintiffs indicated that they did not intend to
seek class certification, and instead wished only to pursue their
representative section 17200 claim.  However, Arias and Circle
Click suggest that the Plaintiffs may not pursue a representative
section 17200 claim without also seeking class certification under
Rule 23.

Therefore, he directed the parties to file supplemental briefs
regarding whether the Plaintiffs may pursue a representative
section 17200 claim in federal court without also seeking class
certification.  If the Plaintiffs are not able to pursue a
representative section 17200 claim without also seeking class
certification, he directed plaintiffs to state whether they intend
to amend the complaint to allege class allegations under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  The parties will file the supplemental
briefs no later than Nov. 13, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/JHLZ4k from Leagle.com.

Albert D. Seeno Construction Company, Albert D. Seeno Construction
Co., Inc., Discovery Builders, Inc., West Coast Home Builders,
Inc., Black Diamond Land Investors, LLC, Seecon Financial and
Construction Co., Inc., North Village Development, Inc. & Sanctuary
North Village, LLC, Plaintiffs, represented by Robert Lee
Sallander, Jr. -- rsallander@gpsllp.com -- Greenan Peffer Sallander
& Lally LLP & Robert Glenn Seeds -- rseeds@gpsllp.com -- Greenan,
Peffer, Sallander & Lally, LLP Attorneys At Law.

Aspen Insurance UK Limited, Defendant, represented by Aaron Jeremy
Susman -- aaron.sussman@clydeco.us -- CLYDE & CO US LLP, Maria
Louise Cousineau -- mcousineau@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor & James
P. Koelzer -- james.koelzer@clydeco.us -- CLYDE & CO US LLP.

Aspen Insurance UK Limited, Counter-claimant, represented by Aaron
Jeremy Susman, CLYDE & CO US LLP, Maria Louise Cousineau, Cozen
O'Connor & James P. Koelzer, CLYDE & CO US LLP.

Albert D. Seeno Construction Co., Inc., Albert D. Seeno
Construction Company, Black Diamond Land Investors, LLC, Discovery
Builders, Inc., North Village Development, Inc., Sanctuary North
Village, LLC, Seecon Financial and Construction Co., Inc. & West
Coast Home Builders, Inc., Counter-defendants, represented by
Robert Lee Sallander, Jr., Greenan Peffer Sallander & Lally LLP &
Robert Glenn Seeds, Greenan, Peffer, Sallander & Lally, LLP
Attorneys At Law.


ASSET RECOVERY: Povolotsky Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Dmitry Povolotsky on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06479
(E.D. N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018).

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

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full service asset recovery
management company. ARS is a partner to many of the largest credit
issuers in the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Maxim Maximov, Esq.
     Maxim Maximov, LLP
     1701 Avenue P
     Brooklyn, NY 11229
     Phone: (718) 395-3459
     Fax: (718) 408-9570
     Email: m@maximovlaw.com


ASSET RECOVERY: Rossi Suit in NY Asserts FDCPA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Joe Rossi, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Asset
Recovery Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06454 (E.D.
N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018).

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

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full service asset recovery
management company. ARS is a partner to many of the largest credit
issuers in the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
     Marcus & Zelman LLC
     701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
     Asbury Park, NJ 07712
     Phone: (732) 695-3282
     Fax: (732) 298-6256
     Email: ari@marcuszelman.com

          - and -

     Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
     Marcus Zelman LLC
     701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
     Asbury Park, NJ 07712
     Phone: (732) 695-3282
     Fax: (732) 298-6256
     Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


AUPAIRCARE INC: 10th Cir. Flips Arbitration Bid Denial in Beltran
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Johana Paola Beltran; Lusapho Hlatshaneni; Beaudette
Deetlefs; Alexandra Ivette Gonzalez; Juliane Harning; Nicole
Mapledoram; Laura Mejia Jiminez; Sarah Caroline Azuela RASCON,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AUPAIRCARE, INC., Defendant-Appellant, and
INTEREXCHANGE, INC.; USAUPAIR, INC.; GREATAUPAIR, LLC; EXPERT GROUP
INTERNATIONAL INC., d/b/a Expert Au Pair; EURAUPAIR INTERCULTURAL
CHILD CARE PROGRAMS; CULTURAL HOMESTAY INTERNATIONAL; CULTURAL
CARE, INC., d/b/a Cultural Care Au Pair; AU PAIR INTERNATIONAL,
INC.; APF GLOBAL EXCHANGE, NFP, d/b/a Aupair Foundation; AMERICAN
INSTITUTE FOR FOREIGN STUDY, d/b/a Au Pair in America; AMERICAN
CULTURAL EXCHANGE, LLC, d/b/a GoAuPair; AGENT AU PAIR; A.P.E.X.
AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL EXCHANGE, LLC, d/b/a ProAuPair; 20/20 CARE
EXCHANGE, INC., d/b/a The International Au Pair Exchange;
ASSOCIATES IN CULTURAL EXCHANGE, d/b/a GoAu Pair; GOAUPAIR
OPERATIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17-1359 (10th Cir.), Judge
Carolyn B. McHugh of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (i)
reversed the district court's ruling denied APC's motion to compel
arbitration; and (ii) remanded for proceedings consistent with her
decision.

Beltran, a former au pair sponsored by InterExchange, Inc., filed
suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on
Nov. 13, 2014, against her host family, her sponsor InterExchange,
APC, and other organizations approved to sponsor au pairs in the
United States.  Ms. Beltran amended her complaint on March 13,
2015, to add four former au pairs as Plaintiffs.  After receiving
authorization, Ms. Beltran filed a second amended complaint that
added an additional four Plaintiffs, including Ms. Harning and Ms.
Jimenez, in a class action against the sponsoring agencies.  Of the
named plaintiffs, APC sponsored only Ms. Harning and Ms. Jimenez.
The second amended complaint alleged the sponsors had violated
antitrust laws, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act ("RICO"), the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), federal and
state minimum wage laws, and various other state laws.

After Ms. Beltran filed her second amended complaint, which added
the former APC au pairs, APC filed a motion to compel arbitration
and dismiss the lawsuit or alternatively to stay the lawsuit.  Ms.
Harning and Ms. Jimenez opposed APC's motion.

The district court denied APC's motion, finding the arbitration
provision unconscionable.  It concluded the au pair agreements were
contracts of adhesion and procedurally unconscionable because the
au pairs were relatively young at the time they signed the
contracts, were foreigners, spoke English as a second language, and
had no experience with contracts or contract law.  The district
court also concluded the arbitration provision was substantively
unconscionable.  Finding the arbitration provision both
procedurally and substantively unconscionable, the district court
refused to sever any offending clauses because the provision was
"permeated" by unconscionability.

APC timely appealed from the district court's order.

Judge McHugh concludes on de novo review that the Au Pair
Agreements are procedurally unconscionable, but to a moderate
degree.  The agreements are contracts of adhesion, presented to the
au pairs on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.  Ms. Harning's and Ms.
Jimenez's youth, status as foreigners, and inexperience with
contracts do not increase the procedural unconscionability to any
significant degree, and because the provision was not concealed in
the agreement, no element of surprise can be inferred.  Where Ms.
Harning and Ms. Jimenez reviewed translations of the contract in
their native languages, the Judge is also convinced no procedural
unconscionability attaches to their limited proficiency in English.
Finally, participation in the au pair program is not necessary
employment and reasonable alternatives are viable, which weigh
against procedural unconscionability.  Considering all of the
circumstances as a whole, we find the au pair agreement suffers
from "moderate" procedural unconscionability.

Under de novo review and considering each Au Pair Agreement on the
whole, the Judge finds that the agreements have significant
substantive unconscionability.  The arbitration provider selection
clause clearly lacks mutuality -- the clause allows APC to select
indirectly a biased arbitrator.  But neither the fee shifting
clause nor the forum selection clause is unconscionable or
contributes to substantive unconscionability.

Because the au pair agreements have moderate procedural
unconscionability and significant substantive unconscionability due
to the arbitration provider selection clause, the au pair agreement
is unconscionable and unenforceable as written.  The Judge now
determines whether the arbitration provider selection clause, the
only substantively unconscionable clause, is severable from the
agreement.

She finds that because the arbitration provision has only one
substantively unconscionable clause, the arbitration provider
selection clause, the district court abused its discretion by not
severing the offending clause.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge McHugh reversed the district
court's denial of APC's motion to compel arbitration.  She remanded
to the district court to sever the arbitration provider selection
clause and to compel the parties to arbitrate.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/N4o81f from Leagle.com.

Thomas B. Quinn -- tquinn@grsm.com -- (Peggy E. Kozal --
pkozal@grsm.com -- Nathan A. Huey -- nhuey@grsm.com -- and Jennifer
Arnett-Roehrich -- jarnett-roehrich@grsm.com -- with him on the
briefs), Gordon & Rees LLP, Denver, Colorado, for
Defendant-Appellant.

David H. Seligman -- info@towardsjustice.org -- Towards Justice,
Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.


AVATAR VENTURES: Fischler Asserts ADA Breach
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avatar Ventures,
L.L.C. The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Avatar
Ventures, L.L.C. doing business as: Fantrax, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06475 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018).

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

Avatar Ventures LLC, a development stage company, focuses on
developing aftermarket electronic accessories for consumer motor
vehicles in China. The company is developing a cellular phone car
adapter that enables cellular text messages and wireless emails to
be displayed on a small liquid crystal display screen attached to
the car's dashboard area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AXON ENTERPRISE: Richey Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Axon Enterprise, 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 class action
lawsuit filed by Douglas Richey has been voluntarily dismissed.

On June 25, 2018, consumer weapon purchaser Douglas Richey
("Richey") filed a class action lawsuit against the company in the
Northern District of California (Case No. 3:18-cv-03751-WHA)
purporting to assert claims on behalf of all persons in the United
States who purchased or acquired a TASER Pulse, TASER X2 and TASER
X26P model CEW in the four-year period preceding the complaint.

Richey claimed his Pulse CEW discharged while in its case in his
jacket pocket due to a faulty safety switch. He was not injured.

Richey voluntarily dismissed the case on August 9, 2018.

Axon Enterprise, Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells conducted
electrical weapons (CEWs) worldwide. The company operates through
two segments, TASER Weapons, and Software and Sensors. Axon
Enterprise, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in
Scottsdale, Arizona.

BATH & TENNIS: Violates Disabilities Act, Tucker Says
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bath & Tennis Hotel
Corp. The case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bath & Tennis Hotel
Corp. doing business as: The Ocean Resort, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10621 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018).

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

Bath & Tennis Hotel Corp is a full service resort located on the
ocean in Westhampton Beach, NY. It is open for the spring, summer
and fall seasons, May through September. It is a hotel/co-op with
101 hotel rooms, a 52 slip, full service marina as well as cabins
and cabanas, available for rent seasonally, monthly, weekly and
daily.[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


BRANCH BANKING: Court Narrows Claims in Lee TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ralph Lee, and others, Plaintiffs, v. Branch Banking &
Trust Company, Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-21876-Civ-Scola (S.D.
Fla.), Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida granted in part and denied in part
the BB&T's motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs assert one claim under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class for
damages and injunctive relief arising from allegedly improper
telephone marketing calls made by the Defendant.  BB&T is a large,
national bank, incorporated in North Carolina with 2,100 branches
throughout the United States.  Around 2015, BB&T contracted with
certain call centers to telephonically recruit new and former
customers to the bank.

The four named Plaintiffs each allege that they registered their
phone number with the National Do Not Call Registry, but
nonetheless received multiple calls from BB&T to solicit their
business without their consent.  Specifically, Lee, a citizen of
Maryland and former customer of BB&T, alleges he received over 50
calls from the campaign.  Plaintiff Jeorge Irizarry is a citizen of
Florida who claims that BB&T placed three calls per week to his
phone in December 2015.  Similarly, Plaintiff Sharon Montmimy, who
is a citizen of Massachusetts, was never a customer of BB&T and
claims she received over 100 calls from the bank in 2016.  And
finally, Ben Newman, a citizen of California, alleges that BB&T
called his phone over 50-times in the fall of 2015.

On those core allegations, the Plaintiffs assert one claim for
violations of the TCPA, seeking injunctive relief and damages on
behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of others similarly
situated.  BB&T responds and moves to dismiss the Complaint,
arguing the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over BB&T and the
Complaint fails to state a claim.

Judge Scola granted in part and denied in part the Motion.  The
claims of Plaintiffs Lee, Montmimy and Newman are dismissed without
prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction over BB&T.  The
requests to dismiss Irizarry's claim and the claims of non-Florida
resident members of the putative class are denied.  BB&T's motion
to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is denied.  BB&T will respond to the
Amended Complaint within 14 days from the date of the order.

He finds that the Amended Complaint alleges that Irizarry is a
citizen of Florida, and received phone calls from the Defendant or
its agents in December 2015.  In its opposition brief, the
Plaintiffs assert that Irizarry received the telephone calls in
Florida, meaning the injury occurred in Florida.  Drawing all
reasonable inferences in favor of Irizarry, the Judge finds that he
makes a prima facie showing of specific jurisdiction under
Florida's Long-Arm statute.

The Judge also finds that exercising specific jurisdiction over
BB&T for Irizarry's claim comports with due process.  First, that
claim arises out of BB&T's "contacts with the forum" -- namely, its
phone calls to Irizarry in Florida.  Second, under the effects test
enunciated in Calder, BB&T purposefully availed itself of the
privilege of conducting activities within Florida.  Finally, he
finds that exercising specific jurisdiction over BB&T for
Irizarry's claim complies with due process.

The Judge granted in part the motion to stay discovery pending
determination of the Motion or alternatively to enlarge the
deadlines to respond to discovery requests.  The Judge oredered the
parties to respond to all pending discovery requests within 30 days
from the date of the Order, or as otherwise agreed upon by the
parties.

The motion to stay all remaining scheduling order deadlines is
denied.  The Judge, however, ordered the parties to meet and confer
and submit a proposed amended scheduling order with seven days of
the date of the Order.  The Court will consider a reasonable
continuance of the April 1, 2018, trial setting, should either
party request one.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/TKcN0j from Leagle.com.

Ralph Lee, Jeorge Irizarry, Ben Newman & Sharon Montmimy,
Plaintiffs, represented by Raymond Renato Dieppa, Florida Legal,
LLC.

Branch Banking & Trust Company, Defendant, represented by David
Stockton Hendrix -- david.hendrix@gray-robinson.com -- Gray
Robinson, PA.


BRISTOL MYERS: Still Faces CheckMate-026 Trial-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb 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 company
continues to defend a putative class action suit related to the
CheckMate-026 clinical trial in lung cancer.

Since February 2018, two separate putative class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of
California and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, Giovanni Caforio, the Company's Chief Financial Officer,
Charles A. Bancroft and certain former and current executives of
the Company.

The case in California has been voluntarily dismissed. The
remaining complaint alleges violations of securities laws for the
Company's disclosures related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial
in lung cancer. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in
this litigation.
cancer.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this
litigation.

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

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes biopharmaceutical products
worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in 1887 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


BROOKLINEN INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooklinen, Inc. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Brooklinen, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06462 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018).

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

Brooklinen Inc. manufactures and sells bedding products. It offers
classic and luxury sheets, blankets, comforters, pillows, candles,
and fabric care products. The company also offers its products
online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAMPING WORLD: Strougo Sues over Share Price Drop, Gander Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT STROUGO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CAMPING WORLD HOLDINGS, INC., MARCUS
A. LEMONIS, THOMAS F. WOLFE, BRENT L. MOODY, STEPHEN ADAMS,
CRESTVIEW PARTNERS II GP, L.P. and CRESTVIEW ADVISORS, L.L.C., Case
No. 1:18-cv-07158 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 25, 2018), seeks to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
purchasers of Camping World Class A common stock between March 8,
2017 and August 7, 2018, both dates inclusive. Camping World has
long been majority owned and controlled by its Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, Marcus Lemonis, and private equity firm
Crestview Partners II GP, L.P. and its affiliates. Historically,
the Company specialized in selling recreational vehicles ("RVs")
and related services such as travel assist programs, emergency
roadside assistance, property and casualty insurance programs,
extended vehicle service contracts, and vehicle financing and
refinancing. In October 2016, defendants took Camping World public
in a $261 million initial public offering. In the months that
followed the IPO, defendants emphasized the Company's earnings
growth and profit potential as Camping World engaged in a number of
strategic acquisitions. Most significantly, in May 2017, Camping
World announced that it would be expanding its operations to
include retail stores for outdoor sporting supplies and accessories
by acquiring certain assets of Gander Mountain Co. from
bankruptcy.

According to the complaint, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company failed to successfully integrate the assets acquired from
Gander due to operational failures; (ii) the acquisition of Gander
assets negatively impacted the Company's profit margin, which
consequently resulted in the Company's inability to meet previously
provided financial guidance; (iii) the Company maintained material
weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting, which
resulted in numerous errors and misstatements in every quarterly
reporting period since the IPO; and (iv) as a result, the
Company???s public statements were materially false and
misleading.

Beginning in February 2018, the Company issued a series of
disclosures which revealed, inter alia: (i) that it needed to
withdraw and restate its prior financial statements for 2016 and
the first three quarters of 2017; (ii) that the integration and
rollout of the Gander stores had suffered severe operational
setbacks; (iii) that, rather than increasing profitability as
represented, the Gander stores were negatively impacting margins;
and (iv) that the Company had fallen far behind previously provided
2018 earnings figures. Camping World abruptly changed its auditor
of 13 years soon after the Company admitted its prior financial
statements were materially misstated and its internal controls
suffered from material weaknesses. Upon the full disclosure of the
above facts, the Company's Class A common stock fell from over $28
per share from the Class Period high of $47.09 on January 24, 2018,
to close at $18.88 on August 7, 2018, the last day of the Class
Period. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


CELGENE CORP: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Antitrust Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE THALOMID AND REVLIMID ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
Civil Action No. 14-6997 (D.N.J.), Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Celgene
Corp.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Three years ago, the Plaintiffs filed two putative class action
complaints against Celgene, purportedly on behalf of nationwide
classes of individuals and entities based on alleged violations of
the laws of all U.S. states and territories except Ohio and
Indiana.

In August 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint, purporting to represent two "Damages" classes: an
"Antitrust/Consumer Protection Damages Class" of persons and
entities in 32 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico,
and an "Unjust Enrichment Damages Class" of persons and entities in
every state and territory in the United States except for Ohio and
Indiana.

In their pleadings, the five entity Plaintiffs allege that they
reimbursed some or all of the purchase price for Revlimid and
Thalomid in 13 states and that Plaintiff Mitchell brings claims
under District of Columbia law.

On Oct. 2, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and appointment of the class counsel, seeking
certification of an "Antitrust/Consumer Protection Damages Class"
and an "Unjust Enrichment Damages Class" under the 14 Class
Jurisdictions -- the 13 states along with the District of Columbia
-- and an "Injunction Class" under Rule 23(b)(2).

The  Plaintiffs' motion for class certification makes no arguments
regarding the laws of the non-class jurisdictions, nor do the
Plaintiffs assert that they have standing to bring such claims.
Fact discovery in the case, which has been pending since 2014, is
now closed, and there are no pending motions to intervene.

The Defendant thus seek judgment on the pleading pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(c)1 because none of the named Plaintiffs alleges
injury under the antitrust, consumer protection, or unjust
enrichment laws of the Non-Class jurisdictions and, thus,
Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of establishing the
elements of standing in the Non-Class jurisdictions.

The Plaintiffs argue that the instant motion would curtail the
rights of potential additional Plaintiffs from seeking to become
class representatives in the action and, if motions to intervene
are filed during the pendency of their motion for class
certification that would justify certification of the class claims
under additional states' laws, it would be more efficient to add
those claims to the pending certification motions than it would be
to start a new and duplicative lawsuit.

They further argue that the "cut-off" point to alter a class action
certification order is at final judgment and that granting
Celgene's motion prior to the decision on class certification would
unduly prejudice their ability to alter or amend their class
definition, as may be appropriate as the case progresses.

Judge Arleo finds that given the denial of the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification without prejudice, shet will not at this
time grant Celgene's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.  To the
extent the Plaintiffs seek to amend their claims or any additional
Plaintiffs from jurisdictions outside the 13 represented states
that District of Columbia, the Defendant is free to challenge the
timeliness of such motions.

For these reasons, Judge Arleo denied Celgene's Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/Ilark7 from Leagle.com.

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED CRAFT WORKERS LOCAL 1
HEALTH FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by DANIEL B. REHNS --
drehns@hrsclaw.com -- Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie, LLP, FRANK
ROCCO SCHIRRIPA -- fschirripa@hrsclaw.com -- Hach Rose Schirripa &
Cheverie LLP, JEFFREY B. GITTLEMAN -- jgittleman@barrack.com --
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE, JOHN ANTHONY BLYTH -- jblyth@hrsclaw.com
-- HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE, WHITNEY ERIN STREET --
wstreet@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP & KATIE ROSE BERAN --
kberan@hausfeld.com -- HAUSFELD LLP.

International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers
Local 39 Health and Welfare Trust Fund, THE DETECTIVES' ENDOWMENT
ASSOCIATION, INC. & David Mitchell, Plaintiffs, represented by
KATIE ROSE BERAN, HAUSFELD LLP & FRANK ROCCO SCHIRRIPA, Hach Rose
Schirripa & Cheverie LLP.

CITY OF PROVIDENCE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by JAMES
STUART NOTIS, GARDY & NOTIS, JEFFREY B. GITTLEMAN, BARRACK, RODOS &
BACINE, JENNIFER SARNELLI, GARDY & NOTIS, LLP & FRANK ROCCO
SCHIRRIPA, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP.

NEW ENGLAND CARPENTERS HEALTH BENEFITS FUND, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff Consolidated,
represented by FRANK ROCCO SCHIRRIPA, Hach Rose Schirripa &
Cheverie LLP.

CELGENE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by GAVIN J. ROONEY --
grooney@lowenstein.com -- LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, PC, FRANK CHARLES
CALVOSA -- frankcalvosa@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL UQUHART &
SULLIVAL LLP & JOSEPH ALDO FISCHETTI -- jfischetti@lowenstein.com
-- LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: J. Gillespie Suit Stayed Until May 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California, Sacramento Division, stayed the case,
JESSICA GILLESPIE, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VERIZON, an unknown corporate
entity; CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, an unknown corporate entity; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02429-TLN-DB
(E.D. Cal.), until May 30, 2019.

The Plaintiff and Cellco stipulate that the action should be stayed
because an earlier-filed, substantially similar action is pending
in California state court.  The parties have agreed to participate
in the mediation of that pending state court action to attempt to
resolve both disputes.  They jointly request that the Court issues
an order staying these proceedings and vacating all deadlines, as
stipulated, while they pursue mediation.

The class action Complaint in the case was filed on Sept. 4, 2018.
It alleged a single cause of action for violation of California
Labor Code Section 226 based on allegations that Cellco failed to
provide accurate itemized wage statements to certain of its
non-exempt employees.  The Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint on Oct. 24, 2018, adding a claim for penalties under the
Private Attorneys General Act.

On June 2, 2017, a separate state-wide class action was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, titled Farid
Harchegani and Mohamed Elhosainy, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Cellco Partnership, Inc. dba Verizon
Wireless, a Delaware Partnership; AirTouch Cellular, Inc. dba
Verizon Wireless, a California Corporation; and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. 37-2017-000199977-CU-OE-CTL.  The Harchegani
Action alleges that Cellco and Airtouch Cellular, Inc., doing
business as Verizon Wireless, failed to provide accurate itemized
wage statements and that the Harchegani Action putative class
members are owed overtime and other wages, as well as wage
statement penalties, under the California Labor Code.

The named plaintiffs in the Harchegani Action purport to bring
claims on behalf of all current and former retail sales
representatives who worked for the Defendants in California during
the Class Period and received non-discretionary bonuses.  On Feb.
16, 2018, the plaintiffs in the Harchegani Action filed a Second
Amended Complaint eliminating their claims for unpaid wages and
adding a claim under the PAGA.  The Harchegani Action's operative
complaint therefore only alleges claims for inaccurate wage
statements and PAGA penalties, like the FAC in the intant case.

The Harchegani Action has been coordinated with 10 other actions
that are part of the AirTouch Cellular Wage and Hour Cases
Coordination Proceeding, Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding
No. 4693.  Out of the 11 actions in the Coordinated Proceeding, six
remain pending, including the Harchegani Action.  The other five
have been dismissed or settled on an individual basis.  In all 11
of the coordinated actions, the plaintiffs brought claims on behalf
of California Verizon Wireless non-exempt employees, as well as
Verizon Wireless employees alleged to be non-exempt.

The proposed class definition in the FAC overlaps with the proposed
class in the Harchegani Action.  The FAC seeks to certify a class
of all current and former California employees of the Defendants
who received any wage statements from the Defendants at any time
from Sept. 4, 2017, through the present.  

The FAC also seeks to certify two sub-classes including all current
and former non-exempt California employees of the Defendants who
were paid any 'FLSA True Up' wages from the Defendants, and all
current and former non-exempt California employees of the
Defendants who were paid any 'Sunday Worked Premium' wages from
Defendant at any time from Sept. 4, 2017 through the present.

The Parties agree that, given the overlapping class definitions and
claims in the intant action and the Harchegani Action, they will
involve substantially similar or overlapping issues, evidence, and
witnesses.  They discussed alternative dispute resolution of the
intant action and agreed to coordinate their efforts to include the
Plaintiff and her counsel in the mediation that has already been
agreed to by the parties in the Harchegani Action, so that
settlement of the claims in this action can be discussed in
conjunction with a potential settlement of the Harchegani Action.

The Parties have agreed to set a mediation, and anticipate that the
mediation will take place no later than April 31, 2019.  They
agreed that good cause exists to stay all proceedings in the action
to avoid potentially unnecessary litigation efforts and expenses,
given the similarity between this action and the Harchegani Action,
and the agreement to mediate both actions.

Accordingly, the Parties stipulated and requested that the Court
stay the action until May 30, 2019, to give the Parties time to
participate in a mediation.  They stipulated that the stay of the
action will lift on May 30, 2019, unless that date is extended by
the Court.  They further agreed that the agreement to stay the
action until May 30, 2019, is without prejudice to Cellco's right
to seek a further stay of this action on other grounds, including
on the grounds that a stay is appropriate because of the overlap
between the action and the Harchegani Action.

Pursuant to the Parties' Stipulation, Judge Nunley so ordered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Stipulated Order is
available at https://is.gd/SB72H1 from Leagle.com.

Jessica Gillespie, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis Hyun , Hyun
Legal, APC, Larry W. Lee -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law
Group, William Lucas Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com -- Polaris
Law Group, LLP & Kwanporn Tulyathan -- ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com
-- Diversity Law Group.

Cellco Partnership, Defendant, represented by Allison Elizabeth
Crow -- acrow@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & Steven M. Zadravecz --
szadravecz@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.


CENTURY PARK: Penarouque Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------
Barbara Penarouque, On behalf of herself and others similarly
situated Plaintiffs, vs. Century Park Associates, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-CV-00122 (E.D.), the Plaintiff moves the
Court for an order to:

   1. conditionally certifying case as a collective action
      pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section
      216(b), on behalf of:

      "all non-exempt Business Office Managers (BOMs) working for
      Defendant within three years prior to the filing of this
      case who were not paid overtime wages as required by the
      FLSA";

   2. directing Defendant to immediately provide a list of names,
      last known address and last known phone numbers for all
      putative class members;

   3. directing notice be sent to all putative class members;

   4. directing that notice be prominently posted at Defendant's
      facilities where putative class members work, attached to
      the employees' next scheduled paycheck and mailed to the
      employees so that they can assert their claims on a timely
      basis as part of this case; and

   5. directing that opt-in plaintiffs' consents be deemed filed
      on the date they are postmarked.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Derrick A. Reed, Esq.
          Marrick Armstrong, Esq.
          SMITH REED & ARMSTRONG, PLLC
          1920 Country Place Pkwy, Suite 350
          Pearland, TX 77584
          Telephone: (281) 519-7606
          Facsimile: (281) 506-8693
          E-mail: derrick@srapllc.com
          marrick@srapllc.com

               - and -

          James M. Johnson, Esq.
          JAMES M. JOHNSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          620 Lindsay Street, Suite 210
          Chattanooga, TN 37403
          E-mail: jj@jamesmjohnsonatty.com
          Telephone: (423) 648-4093
          Facsimile: (423) 648-4094

CHAMPION PETFOODS: Loeb Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLIE LOEB, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
CHAMPION PETFOODS USA, INC., and CHAMPION PETFOODS, LP, the
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-494 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons and entities who purchased a Champion dry dog
      food product for end use and not for resale within the State

      of Wisconsin during the period from March 28, 2015 up to and

      including March 28, 2018";

   2. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative;

   3. appointing Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., as Class

      Counsel; and

   4. entering any other such relief that the Court deems just and

      appropriate.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Erich P. Schork, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 621-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                  e.schork@barnowlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
          Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
          CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES
          120 N. LaSalle St., Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 899-9090
          Facsimile: (312) 251-1160
          E-mail: rac@cliffordlaw.com
                  smm@cliffordlaw.com

               - and -

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 E. Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 5311
          Telephone: 414 482-8000
          Facsimile: 414 482-8001
          sademi@ademilaw.com
          jblythin@ademilaw.com
          E-mail: meldridge@ademilaw.com

CHANGE GROUP: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Change Group New
York, Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Change Group
New York, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10611 (S.D. N.Y., Nov.
14, 2018).

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

The Change Group New York Inc was founded in 1997. The company's
line of business includes performing functions related to
depository banking.[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


CHARLES FIERGOLA: Kitchner Suit Moved to W.D. Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------------
Megan G. Kitchner on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Charles Fiergola, Joseph R Johnson,
Lucas P. Bennewitz, Tyler M. Helsel, and Jan or John Does, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00133, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Madison) on
Oct. 12, 2018. The Western District of Wisconsin Court Clerk
assigned Case No.: 3:18-cv-00841 to the proceeding.

Plaintiff filed her complaint on January 25, 2018.  She alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et
seq., and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1692 et seq., against four named Wisconsin lawyers and a set of
John Doe lawyers.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Thomas J Lyons, Sr., Esq.
          LYONS LAW FIRM PA
          367 Commerce Ct.
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127-8506
          Telephone: (651) 770-9707
          Facsimile: (651) 770-5830
          E-mail: tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joshua D. Christianson, Esq.
          Christianson & Freund, LLC
          920 South Farwell St
          PO Box 222
          Eau Claire, WI 54702-0222
          Telephone: (715) 832-1800
          Facsimile: (888) 979-8101
          E-mail: lawfirm@cf.legal

               - and -

          Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770-9707
          E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Kevin M. Fetherston, Esq.
          VON BRIESEN & ROPER SC
          411 E Wisconsin Ave-Ste 1000
          Milwaukee, WI 53202-4427
          Telephone: (414) 221-6601
          E-mail: kfetherston@vonbriesen.com

               - and -

          Terry E. Johnson, Esq.
          PETERSON, JOHNSON & MURRAY, S.C.
          733 North Van Buren Street, 5th Floor
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 287-6605
          E-mail: tjohnson@vonbriesen.com

CHICO PRODUCE: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Continued Dec. 13
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit caption JAMES CUNHA, the Plaintiff, vs.
CHICO PRODUCE, INC., the Defendant, Case 3:17-cv-00597-JST (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order on Oct. 29,
2018:

   1. terminating as moot Plaintiffs' original motion for class
certification; and

   2. continuing hearing on amended motion, to December 13, 2018 at
2:00 p.m., where parties' existing briefing schedule for the motion
remains in effect.

The Court said, "On September 5, 2018, the Court denied Defendant's
motion for sanctions and to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel. The
Court set a hearing on Plaintiff's previously filed motion for
class certification, for November 15, 2018. The motion was already
fully briefed. On October 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an amended
motion for class certification. The Plaintiff noticed the amended
motion for a hearing on November 15, 2018, in violation of Civil
Local Rule 7-2(a). The Court's prior order did not grant Plaintiff
leave to file an amended motion or modify the requirements of Local
Rule 7-2(a)".[CC]


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Kelley Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
still awaits the court's ruling on its motion to dismiss the class
action suit filed by Elizabeth Kelley.

On July 20, 2017, Elizabeth Kelley filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of shares of the company's common
stock between February 5, 2016 and July 19, 2017, with claims and
factual allegations similar to the Susie Ong complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, based
primarily on media reports regarding illnesses associated with a
Chipotle restaurant in Sterling, Virginia.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
February 12, 2018, and a ruling on the motion remains pending.

Chipotle Mexican said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend
the Kelley case, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from the suit."

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

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants. The company was
founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Bid to File 3rd Amended "Ong" Complaint Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
plaintiffs' motion for relief from the judgment and seeking leave
to file a third amended complaint, still remains pending.

On January 8, 2016, Susie Ong filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of shares of the company's  common
stock between February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016. The complaint
purports to state claims against the company, each of the co-chief
executive officers serving during the claimed class period and the
chief financial officer under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and related rules, based on the company's alleged
failure during the claimed class period to disclose material
information about the company's quality controls and safeguards in
relation to consumer and employee health.

The complaint asserts that those failures and related public
statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the
market price of the company's stock was artificially inflated
during the claimed class period. The complaint seeks damages on
behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest,
and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other
costs.

On March 8, 2017, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the complaint, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on April 7, 2017. On March 22, 2018, the court granted
the company's motion to dismiss, with prejudice. On April 20, 2018,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from the judgment and
seeking leave to file a third amended complaint, and a ruling on
the motion remains pending.

Chipotle Mexican said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend
the Ong case, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from the case."

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

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants. The company was
founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Claims in Gordon and Lawson/Conard Suit Narrowed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court
in Gordon and Lawson/Conard consolidated suit issued an order
granting in part, and denying in part, the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, including a dismissal of the
negligence and unjust enrichment claims in their entirety.

On June 9, 2017, Todd Gordon filed a purported class action
complaint in the U. S. District Court for the District of Colorado
alleging that the company negligently failed to provide adequate
security to protect the payment card information of the plaintiff
and other similarly situated customers alleged to be part of the
putative class, causing some customers to suffer alleged injuries
and others to be at risk of possible future injuries.

The complaint also claims that the company was negligent per se
based on alleged violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act and similar state laws, and also alleges breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Arizona Consumer
Fraud Act.

Additionally, on August 21, 2017, Greg Lawson and Judy Conard filed
a purported class action complaint in the U. S. District Court for
the District of Colorado making allegations substantially similar
to those in the Gordon complaint, and stating substantially similar
claims as well as claims under the Colorado Consumer Protection
Act. The Gordon and Lawson/Conard cases have been consolidated and
will proceed as a single action.

On September 26, 2018, the court issued an order granting in part,
and denying in part, the company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, including a dismissal of the negligence and
unjust enrichment claims in their entirety.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants. The company was
founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Court Narrows Claims in Credit Unions' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court
has issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint by the
Bellwether Community Credit Union and Alcoa Community Credit Union,
dismissing all claims other than those brought under state unfair
competition laws in California and New Hampshire and plaintiffs'
request for declaratory relief.

On May 4, 2017, Bellwether Community Credit Union filed a purported
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado alleging that the company negligently failed
to provide adequate security to protect the payment card
information of customers of the plaintiffs and those of other
similarly situated credit unions, banks and other financial
institutions alleged to be part of the putative class, causing
those institutions to suffer financial losses.

The complaint also claims that the company was negligent per se
based on alleged violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act and similar state laws. The plaintiff seeks monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  

On May 26, 2017, Alcoa Community Credit Union filed a purported
class action complaint in the U. S. District Court for the District
of Colorado making substantially the same allegations as the
Bellwether complaint and seeking substantially the same relief. The
Bellwether and Alcoa cases have been consolidated and will proceed
as a single action.

On October 24, 2018, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint, dismissing all claims other than those brought under
state unfair competition laws in California and New Hampshire and
plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants. The company was
founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California.


CNA NATIONAL: Fourth Circuit Appeals Filed in Justice Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lori D. Justice filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Lori Justice v. CNA National Warranty Corp.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01997, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia at Charleston.

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 17, 2018, the
District Court awarded $32,775 in attorney's fees in the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Lori Justice v. CNA National
Warranty Corp., Case No. 18-2299, 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 9, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant LORI D. JUSTICE, individually, and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated persons, is represented by:

          Raymond S. Franks, II, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301-0000
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          E-mail: rfranks@baileyglasser.com
                  jmarshall@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          J. Christopher White, Esq.
          Steven S. Wolfe, Esq.
          WOLFE WHITE & ASSOCIATES
          P. O. Box 536
          Logan, WV 25601
          Telephone: (304) 752-7715
          E-mail: Jcwhite@Wolfelawwv.com
                  swolfe@wolfelawwv.com

Defendant-Appellee CNA NATIONAL WARRANTY CORPORATION, an Arizona
foreign corporation, is represented by:

          Brent Austin, Esq.
          Jacob M. Hamann, Esq.
          EIMER STAHL LLP
          224 South Michigan Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 660-7684
          E-mail: baustin@eimerstahl.com
                  jhamann@eimerstahl.com

               - and -

          Karen E. Klein, Esq.
          MOORE & BISER, PLLC
          317 5th Avenue
          South Charleston, WV 25303
          Telephone: (304) 343-8928
          E-mail: kklein@moorebiserlaw.com

               - and -

          William Michael Moore, Esq.
          MOORE & BISER, PLLC
          405 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301-0000
          Telephone: (304) 414-2300
          E-mail: mmoore@moorebiser.com


COLORADO: Rabinkov Files Civil Rights Class Suit v. DOC
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colorado Department
of Corrections. The case is styled as Leonid Rabinkov, Cathy
Begano, Andrew Atkins, Marc Trevithick on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Colorado Department of
Corrections, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02926-GPG (D. Colo., Nov.
14, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

The Colorado Department of Corrections is the principal department
of the Colorado state government that operates the state prisons.
It has its headquarters in the Springs Office Park in
unincorporated El Paso County, Colorado, near Colorado Springs. The
Colorado Department of Corrections runs 20 state-run prisons and
also has been affiliated with 7 for-profit prisons in Colorado, of
which the state currently contracts with 3 for-profit prisons.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Amy Farr Robertson, Esq.
     Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center-Denver
     104 Broadway, Suite 400
     Denver, CO 80203
     Phone: (303) 757-7901
     Fax: (303) 595-9705
     Email: arobertson@creeclaw.org


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Spek Files FDCPA Suit in Penn.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Heather Spek individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff
v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc, Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-04931-JD (E.D. Penn., Nov. 14, 2018).

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

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. offers business process outsourcing,
revenue cycle, and receivables management services. It also
provides receivables collection services to credit grantors in
retail, telecommunications, and utilities industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nicholas J. Linker, Esq.
     ZEMEL LAW LLC
     1373 Broad St., Suite 203-C
     Clifton, NJ 07013
     Phone: (862) 227-3106
     Email: nl@zemellawllc.com


CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Court Preliminarily Approves Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY M. BASSETT,
individually and as heir and Personal Representative of the estate
of James M. Bassett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CREDIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. and
JASON MORLEDGE, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00069-JFB-MDN (D.
Neb.), the parties move the Court for an order:

   1. preliminarily approving settlement of this class action and
      conditions on the settlement as fair and reasonable and
      satisfactory to the Court;

   2. approving form and method for providing class-wide
      notice, and scheduling a hearing at which the following will

      be considered:

      -- request for final approval of the proposed settlement;

      -- request for attorneys' fees and costs and incentive award

         to Plaintiff;

      -- unopposed motion to vacate Order granting in part and
         denying in part summary judgment, consideration of any
         objections filed, and entry of Final Order.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Pamela A. Car, Esq.
          William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
          CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO
          2120 S 72nd St., No. 1125
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Telephone: (402) 391-8484
          Facsimile: (402) 391-1103
          E-mail: pacar@cox.net
                  billr205@gmail.com

               - and -

          O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES
          25 East Washington Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-8822
          Facsimile (312) 372-1673
          E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Christopher R. Morris, Esq.
          Jessica L. Klander, Esq.
          BASSFORD REMELE
          100 South 5th Street, Suite 1500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1254
          Telephone: (612) 333-3000
          Facsimile: (612) 333-8829
          E-mail: cmorris@bassford.com
                  jklander@bassford.com

DAYTON ANDREWS: Ditmar Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads
------------------------------------------------
Grant Ditmar, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dayton Andrews, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-02560, (M.D. Fla., October 17, 2018), seeks
statutory damages and injunctive relief for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant is a car dealership specializing in the sales and
servicing of Dodge, RAM, Jeep and Chrysler automobiles. Ditmar
claims to have received multiple monthly text messages to his
cellular phone from Dayton Andrews consisting of various promotions
and services via marketing/promotional text messages by use of an
automatic telephone dialing system. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
       THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
       110 SE 6th Street
       Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
       Telephone: (954) 907-1136
       Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
       Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


DENKA PERFORMANCE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Taylor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT TAYLOR, JR., ET AL, v. DENKA PERFORMANCE
ELASTOMER LLC, ET AL, Section "F", Civil Action No. 17-7668 (E.D.
La.), Judge Martin L.C. Feldman of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Third Amended and Restated Complaint under Rule
12(b)(6).

The environmental tort litigation arises from the production of
neoprene at the Pontchartrain Works Facility ("PWF") in St. John
the Baptist Parish.  Neoprene production allegedly exposes those
living in the vicinity of the PWF to concentrated levels of
chloroprene well above the upper limit of acceptable risk, and may
result in a risk of cancer more than 800 times the national
average.

Thirteen people living St. John the Baptist Parish filed the
lawsuit originally seeking injunctive relief in the form of
abatement of chloroprene releases from their industrial neighbor,
the PWF.  The PWF is the only facility in the United States still
manufacturing neoprene, which is made from chloroprene, and which
the Environmental Protection Agency has classified as a "likely
human carcinogen."

E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. invented neoprene in 1931.  In 1969,
DuPont built a neoprene manufacturing unit at its Pontchartrain
Works facility in LaPlace, Louisiana.  During the manufacturing
process, chloroprene is emitted into the air and discharged into
the water.  By 2008, the PWF was the only facility manufacturing
neoprene in the United States. Effective Nov. 1, 2015, DuPont sold
the PWF to Denka Performance Elastomer LLC, but DuPont retained
ownership of the land underlying the facility.

It is alleged that Denka had knowledge of harmful concentrations of
chloroprene emitted from the PWF, but concealed its knowledge and
associated data from the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"),
the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality ("LDEQ"), and
local St. John the Baptist Parish officials.  In December 2015, the
EPA again classified chloroprene as a likely human carcinogen when
it released a screening-level National Air Toxics Assessment
("NATA"), which analyzes exposure levels to toxins, estimates the
expected number of incidences of cancer per one million people
based on exposure to air toxins from industry, and also announces
an upper limit of "acceptable risk" threshold.  The NATA acceptable
risk exposure threshold for chloroprene was established as 0.2
??g/m3; that is, chloroprene emissions must stay below 0.2
micrograms per cubic meter3 in order to comply with the limit of
acceptable risk threshold (which is a risk of 100 in 1 million
people).

Despite knowledge of this upper limit of the acceptable risk
threshold, it is alleged that DPE continues to emit chloroprene at
hundreds of times the 0.2 ??g/m3 threshold. Since May 25, 2016, the
EPA has collected 24-hour air samples every three days from six
locations around the Pontchartrain Works facility; air samples at
all six locations frequently exceed 700 times the 0.2 ??g/m3
threshold. DPE's own sampling numbers at five locations surrounding
the facility indicate that average chloroprene emissions range from
20.4 to 33.25 times the 0.2 ??g/m3 threshold.

The EPA's National Enforcement Investigation Center ("NEIC")
conducted a Clean Air Act ("CAA") inspection of the Pontchartrain
Works facility in June 2016.  The NEIC inspection report revealed
various areas of non-compliance by both DuPont and DPE in their
operation of the facility.

On Jan. 6, 2017, DPE entered into an Administrative Order on
Consent ("AOC") with LDEQ with a target to reduce its chloroprene
emissions by 85%.  Even if this reduction is achieved, the
Plaintiffs allege that DPE's emission levels will nevertheless
exceed the 0.2 ??g/m3 threshold.

Robert Taylor, Jr., individually and on behalf of his minor
daughter, N.T., Kershell Bailey, Shondrell P. Campbell, Gloria
Dumas, Janell Emery, George Handy, Annette Houston, Rogers Jackson,
Michael Perkins, Allen Schnyder, Jr., Larry Sorapuru, Sr.,6 Kellie
Tabb, and Robert Taylor, III are all individuals living near the
PWF in Reserve, Edgard, and LaPlace, Louisiana.  

On June 29, 2017, these individuals, individually and as
representatives of a putative class of similarly situated
Plaintiffs, sued DPE and DuPont in the Louisiana 40th Judicial
District Court in St. John the Baptist Parish.  The Plaintiffs
allege that DuPont has emitted chloroprene for many years at levels
resulting in concentrations many times the upper limit of
acceptable risk, and DPE continues to do so.  They advance
Louisiana state law causes of action for nuisance, trespass,
negligence, and strict liability; they seek injunctive relief in
the form of abatement of chloroprene releases such that the
concentration of chloroprene does not exceed the 0.2 ??g/m3
threshold; damages for deprivation of enjoyment of occupancy of
property; punitive damages; and additional damages including
medical monitoring to the extent personal injury claims become
mature.

The Defendants jointly removed the lawsuit, invoking the Court's
diversity jurisdiction.  The Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to
remand.  The Plaintiffs filed an untimely request to extend the
deadline to seek class certification, which the Defendants opposed.
The Court denied the Plaintiffs' request to extend the deadline to
seek class certification, and later denied the Plaintiffs' motion
to reconsider its ruling.

Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended and Restated
Class Action Complaint and DPE and DuPont filed Rule 12 motions to
dismiss.  On July 26, 2018, the Court granted DuPont's motion to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but allowed the
Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to correct deficiencies in
their nuisance allegations as they apply to DPE.  The Plaintiffs
then filed a Third Amended and Restated Complaint solely against
DPE, seeking injunctive relief only for the nuisance claim. DPE now
moves to dismiss the third amended complaint under 12(b)(6).

Before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6) on the grounds that the Plaintiffs still fail to plead a
plausible claim for relief.  They contend that the Plaintiffs fail
to allege factual and legal elements to state a claim for
injunctive relief and that the Plaintiffs' nuisance claim fails to
plead factual allegations based on their alleged exposure to
chloroprene.

The Plaintiffs counter that their third amended complaint alleges
specific facts regarding how Denka's chloroprene emissions
constitute a nuisance for each Plaintiff.  They further submit that
the Defendants ignore the permissive 12(b)(6) standard by arguing
numerous fact issues regarding causation of the Plaintiffs' alleged
harms and that this procedural stage is not proper for such
arguments.

Judge Feldman agrees with the Plaintiffs.  He finds that unlike the
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, this time, the Plaintiffs
offer not only detailed "background facts" providing an overview of
the PWF and the EPA's designation of chloroprene as a likely human
carcinogen, but also a factual predicate detailing how the
chloroprene exposure constitutes a nuisance allegedly perpetrated
as to each Plaintiff.  

Each Plaintiff specifically alleges that time spent outdoors or
exposure to outside air on their properties manifests itself in the
form of, among other alleged injuries, chronic headaches, fatigue,
chest pain, stomach problems, kidney disease, skin irritation,
occasional chest pain, and dizziness.  In paragraph 47, the Judge
finds that the Plaintiffs allege that several of them have taken
urinalysis tests that have confirmed the presence of chloroprene
metabolites in their bodies.  Accepting the Plaintiffs' allegations
as true, these alleged injuries and fear of chloroprene exposure
rise above the speculative level.

Each Plaintiff further submits that these physical manifestations
of their alleged chloroprene exposure abate when inside their homes
or away from their properties.  The Defendant disputes the
causation of these injuries and suggests that any number of sources
could be responsible for the symptoms.  Maybe so, the Judge holds.
But at this procedural stage, it is not the appropriate setting for
dismissal.

The Judge concludes that the latest complaint contains sufficient
factual allegations to state a nuisance claim and avoid dismissal.
Accordingly, he denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Order and Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/2ASvZy from Leagle.com.

Robert Taylor, Jr., individually and as representative of all those
similarly situated, Kershell Bailey, individually and as
representative of all those similarly situated, Shondrell P.
Campbell, individually and as representative of all those similarly
situated, Gloria Dumas, individually and as representative of all
those similarly situated, Annette Houston, individually and as
representative of all those similarly situated, Rogers Jackson,
individually and as representative of all those similarly situated,
Michael Perkins, individually and as representative of all those
similarly situated, Allen Schnyder, Jr., individually and as
representative of all those similarly situated, Larry Sorapuru,
Sr., individually and as representative of all those similarly
situated, Robert Taylor, III, individually and o/b/o his Minor
Daughter, N.T. and as representative of all those similarly
situated, Janell Emery, Originally named Janelle Emory & Kellie
Tabb, Orginally named Kelli Tabb, Plaintiffs, represented by Hugh
Palmer
Lambert -- hlambert@thelambertfirm.com -- Lambert Firm, APLC, Cayce
Christian Peterson -- cpeterson@thelambertfirm.com -- Lambert Firm,
APLC, Darryl Jude Tschirn, Law Office of Darryl J. Tschirn,
Eberhard D. Garrison -- egarrison@jonesswanson.com -- Jones,
Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Gladstone N. Jones, III --
gjones@jonesswanson.com --  Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison,
LLC, Harvey Sylvanous Bartlett, III- tbartlett@jonesswanson.com --
Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, John J. Cummings, III,
Cummings & Cummings, PLC, Joseph M. Bruno --
jbruno@brunobrunolaw.com -- Bruno & Bruno, Kevin Earl Huddell,
Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Lindsay E. Reeves, Jones,
Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Lynn E. Swanson, Jones, Swanson,
Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Morgan M. Embleton --
membleton@thelambertfirm.com -- The Lambert Firm & Randal Leroy
Gaines, Randal L. Gaines Law Office.

George Handy, individually and as representative of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Hugh Palmer Lambert,
Lambert Firm, APLC, Cayce Christian Peterson, Lambert Firm, APLC,
Eberhard D. Garrison, Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC,
Gladstone N. Jones, III, Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC,
Harvey Sylvanous Bartlett, III, Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison,
LLC, John J. Cummings, III, Cummings & Cummings, PLC, Joseph M.
Bruno, Bruno & Bruno, Kevin Earl Huddell, Jones, Swanson, Huddell &
Garrison, LLC, Lindsay E. Reeves, Jones, Swanson, Huddell &
Garrison, LLC, Lynn E. Swanson, Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison,
LLC, Morgan M. Embleton, The Lambert Firm & Randal Leroy Gaines,
Randal L.Gaines Law Office.

Denka Performance Elastomer LLC, Defendant, represented by James
Conner Percy, Jones Walker, Brett S. Venn bvenn@joneswalker.com --
Jones Walker, Justin J. Marocco -- jmarocco@joneswalker.com --
Jones Walker, Michael A. Chernekoff, Jones Walker & Michael R.
Rhea, Jones Walker.

Lydia Gerard, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Sylvia Elaine
Taylor, Law Office of Sylvia Taylor, L.L.C., Cayce Christian
Peterson, Lambert Firm, APLC, Darryl Jude Tschirn, Law Office of
Darryl J. Tschirn, Hugh Palmer Lambert, Lambert Firm, APLC, John J.
Cummings, III, Cummings & Cummings, PLC, Joseph M. Bruno, Bruno &
Bruno & Randal Leroy Gaines, Randal L.Gaines Law Office.

Denka Performance Elastomer LLC, Consol Defendant, represented by
James Conner Percy, Jones Walker, Brett S. Venn, Jones Walker,
Justin J. Marocco, Jones Walker, Michael A. Chernekoff, Jones
Walker & Michael R. Rhea, Jones Walker.

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Consol Defendant, represented
by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Weiner, LLC, Kevin T. Van
art, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, pro hac vice, Bradley H. Weidenhammer,
Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua Doguet, Kuchler Polk
Weiner, LLC, Rebecca C. Fitzpatrick, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, pro hac
vice, Sarah E. Iiams, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, L.L.C.
& Stanley M. Wash, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, pro hac vice.


DRAFTKINGS INC: Fischler Suit Asserts ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Draftkings Inc. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Draftkings Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06474 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018).

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

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada. It offers daily leagues for fantasy football, baseball,
basketball, hockey, golf, college football, and college basketball;
and DraftKings Sportsbook, a legal online and mobile sports betting
product in New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Tung Sues over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER TUNG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs., DYCOM INDUSTRIES, INC., STEVEN E.
NIELSEN and ANDREW DEFERRARI, the Defendants, Case
9:18-cv-81448-RLR (S.D. Fla., Oct. 25, 2018), is a federal
securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Dycom common stock between November 20, 2017,
and August 10, 2018, inclusive.

According to the complaint, Defendants had actual knowledge of the
misrepresentations and omissions of material facts, or acted with
reckless disregard for the truth in that they failed to ascertain
and to disclose such facts, even though such facts were available
to them. Such Defendants' material misrepresentations and/or
omissions were done knowingly or recklessly and for the purpose and
effect of concealing Dycom's operating condition and future
business prospects from the investing public and supporting the
artificially inflated price of its securities.

In ignorance of the fact that market prices of Dycom's
publicly-traded securities were artificially inflated, and relying
directly or indirectly on the false and misleading statements made
by Defendants, or upon the integrity of the market in which the
common stock trades, and/or on the absence of material adverse
information that was known to or recklessly disregarded by
Defendants but not disclosed in public statements by Defendants
during the Class Period, the Plaintiff and the other members of the
Class acquired Dycom's common stock during the Class Period at
artificially high prices and were or will be damaged thereby. As a
direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct,
Plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered damages in
connection with their purchases of the Company's common stock
during the Class Period.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and Proposed Lead Counsel for the Class:

          Cullin O'Brien, Esq.
          CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
          6541 NE 21st Way
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
          Telephone: (561) 676-6370
          Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
          E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          55 Broadway, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: ek@zlk.com

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Partly Strikes Answer to Keller FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIE DWIGHT KELLER, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-15 (N.D. Ind.), Magistrate Judge Andrew
P. Rodovich of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, Lafayette Division, granted in part and denied in part
Keller's Motion to Strike Answer and Affirmative Defenses .

Keller initiated the matter against the Defendant on March 12,
2018.  On April 28, 2018, before Enhanced Recovery had answered the
complaint, Keller filed an amended complaint.  Keller, on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated, brought the civil class
action for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").  Additionally, Keller has asserted a negligence claim.
Enhanced Recovery answered the amended complaint on June 18, 2018.

Keller filed the instant motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(f) requesting the Court to strike specific paragraphs
and unnumbered affirmative defenses in Enhanced Recovery's answer.
He asserts that the specified paragraphs fail to adequately respond
to the allegations asserted in the amended complaint and contain
impermissibly qualified responses.  Moreover, he asserts that
Enhanced Recovery's answer contains affirmative defenses that are
insufficient.  Enhanced Recovery filed a response in opposition on
July 23, 2018, and Keller filed a reply on July 29, 2018.

Keller has argued that Enhanced Recovery's answer contains
responses that fail to adequately respond to the allegations in the
amended complaint.  Specifically, he has indicated that paragraphs
8, 42, 43, 44, 50, 53, and 55 of Enhanced Recovery's answer state
that the allegation is a legal conclusion, and therefore, the
Defendant is not required to respond.  Keller has argued that
Enhanced Recovery is required to respond to each allegation, even
if it calls for a legal conclusion.  Thus, Keller contends that
Enhanced Recovery has failed to adequately respond, and those
responses should be stricken.

Moreover, Keller asserts that paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16,
and 18 also contain impermissible qualified responses.  These
paragraphs state that the allegation is a legal conclusion, and
therefore, the Defendant is not required to respond.  To the extent
a response is required, the Defendant denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph [X] of the Amended Complaint.  Keller has
argued that due to Enhanced Recovery's use of the language "to the
extent" the Court and the Plaintiff are unable to determine what
facts it is admitting or denying.

The Plaintiff has argued that Enhanced Recovery's reliance on
exercising due diligence and good faith representations are not
affirmative defenses.  He contends that the affirmative defenses
would not provide relief notwithstanding a proven FDCPA violation.
Next, he requests the Court to strike Enhanced Recovery's
affirmative defense that it acted in furtherance of a legitimate
business purpose.  Finally, Keller contends that Enhanced
Recovery's statute of limitation defense is a bare assertion and
conclusory.

Magistrate Judge Rodovich granted in part and denied in part
Keller's Motion.  He struck paragraphs 8, 42, 43, 44, 50, 53, and
55 of the answer to amended complaint and the statute of limitation
defense.  He granted Enhanced Recovery leave to file an amended
answer for the purpose of amending paragraphs 8, 42, 43, 44, 50,
53, and 55 and the statute of limitation defense, as required by
Rule 8.  The amended answer is to be filed by Nov. 7, 2018.

Among other things, the Magistrate finds that the District courts
within the Seventh Circuit consistently have found that responses
that an allegation is a "legal conclusion" or that a document
"speaks for itself" are insufficient and contrary to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  Enhanced Recovery's responses in
paragraphs 8, 42, 43, 44, 50, 53, and 55 do not meet Rule 8(b)'s
requirements.  The Magistrate granted the motion to strike as to
paragraphs 8, 42, 43, 44, 50, 53, and 55.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/nGHINs from Leagle.com.

Willie Dwight Keller, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bryant H. Dunivan, Jr. --
bdunivan@mjolegal.com -- Owen & Dunivan PLLC & Duran L. Keller --
duran@kellerlawllp.com -- Keller Law LLP.

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Larissa
Guerrero Nefulda -- larissa.nefulda@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick B. Healy --
Patrick.Healy@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP & Stephen H. Turner -- Stephen.Turner@lewisbrisbois.com --
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, pro hac vice.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Sturgis Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN STURGIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, the
Defendant, Case 1:18-cv-24353-JEM (S.D. Fla., Oct. 20, 2018),
contends that the collection practices of the Defendant violate the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, in or around September 19, 2018,
Enhanced mailed a debt collection letter to the Plaintiff regarding
an alleged debt owed to "AT&T." The alleged debt was incurred for
telecommunications services used for personal, family, or household
purposes. As a practical matter, the unsophisticated consumer is
not an FDCPA lawyer. She does not know that the purpose of the
statement that "we are not obligated to renew this offer" is to
make her "realize that there is a renewal possibility but that it
is not assured." Instead, where the debt collector states that it
is not obligated to renew an offer but does not include an
expiration date by which payment must be made, the unsophisticated
consumer would understand the safe-harbor language to mean that the
offer was subject to revocation.  The unsophisticated consumer may
even believe that the law requires a debt collector to include the
Seventh Circuit's safe-harbor language if it will rescind the
offer. Without an expiration date, the unsophisticated consumer
would interpret a debt collector's statement that it is "not
obligated to renew" as an implied threat to revoke the settlement
offer at any time and without notice, the lawsuit says.

Enhanced Recovery Company LLC provides business process outsourcing
services that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research
primarily for Fortune 500 companies in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Oral Argument in Patterson Suit Set for Dec. 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26,
2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that in
the class action captioned Patterson, et al. v. Fidelity National
Title Insurance Company, et al., Case No. GD 03-021176, oral
argument on which party should bear the burden of ascertaining the
class and calculating damages, and determine whether the damages
should be trebled, is scheduled for December 3, 2018.

The class action was originally filed on October 27, 2003 and
pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania.  The plaintiffs allege the named Company underwriters
violated Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law ("UTPCPL") by failing to provide premium discounts
in accordance with filed rates in refinancing transactions.

Contrary to rulings in similar federal court cases that considered
the rate rule and agreed with the Company's position, the court
held that the rate rule should be interpreted such that an
institutional mortgage in the public record is a "proxy" for prior
title insurance entitling a consumer to a discount rate when
refinancing when there is a mortgage of record within the number of
years required by the rate rule. The rate rule requires sufficient
evidence of a prior policy, and because not all institutional
mortgages were insured, the Company's position is that a recorded
first mortgage alone does not constitute sufficient evidence of an
earlier policy entitling consumers to a discounted rate.

The court certified the class refusing to follow prior Pennsylvania
Supreme Court and appellate court decisions holding that the UTPCPL
requires proof of reliance, an individual issue which precludes
certification. After notice to the class, plaintiffs moved for
partial summary judgment on liability, and defendants moved for
summary judgment. On June 27, 2018, the court entered an order
granting plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on
liability, and denying the Company's motion finding that the
Company failed to advise it's agents how to interpret the rate rule
so that it would be uniformly applied, thereby having engaged in
"deceptive conduct."

The Company plans to seek interlocutory review of the summary
judgment order. The court approved the parties' stipulation in
which they agreed that before interlocutory review is appropriate,
the court will first determine which party should bear the burden
of ascertaining the class and calculating damages, and determine
whether the damages should be trebled. Briefing on these issues is
ongoing, with oral argument scheduled for December 3, 2018.

Fidelity National said, "There has been no determination as to the
size of the class. It is unknown whether plaintiffs will seek
statutory or actual damages, whether the judge will exercise
discretion to award treble damages or award prejudgment interest,
or what plaintiffs' counsel will seek as reasonable attorneys'
fees. Accordingly, damages are not reasonably estimable at this
time. We will continue to vigorously defend this matter, and we do
not believe the result will have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition."

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. The
company operates in Title, and Corporate and Other segments.
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. was founded in 1847 and is
headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.


FIFTH THIRD: Seldomridge Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER SELDOMRIDGE, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
FIFTH THIRD BANK, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00553-SJD-SKB
(S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff moves the Court to enter an order
pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act:

   1. conditionally certifying case as a FLSA collective action
      against Defendant Fifth Third Bank on behalf of Plaintiff
      and others similarly situated;

   2. directing that notice be sent by United States mail and
      email to all former and current Service to Solutions
      Employees and similarly situated call center employees
      employed by Defendant at any time in the period measured
      from three years prior to the filing of this Complaint to
      the present;

   3. directing the parties to jointly submit within 14 days a
      proposed Notice informing such present and former employees
      of the pendency of this collective action and permitting
      them to opt into the case by signing and submitting a
      Consent to Join Form;

   4. directing Defendant to provide within 14 days a Roster of
      such present and former employees that includes their full
      names, their dates of employment, and their last known home
      addresses and personal email addresses;

   5. directing that the Notice, in the form approved by the
      Court, be sent to such present and former employees within
      30 days using the home and email addresses listed in the
      Roster; and

   6. providing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent in

      the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses or
      email addresses are found for one or more of such present or

      former employees.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, Ohio 44646
          Telephone: 330-470-4428
          Facsimile: 330-754-1430
          E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
                  hans@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: 614 949-1181
          Facsimile: 614 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

FINANCIAL CORP: Court Denies Bid to Stay Encarnacion FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OMAR ENCARNACION, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-566-FtM-38CM (M.D. Fla.),
Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, denied the
Defendant's motion to stay the case pending resolution of Lait v.
Medical Data Systems, Inc. currently pending before the Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint against FCA on Oct.
16, 2017, alleging one count of violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  The Plaintiff alleges he is a
consumer, and FCA is a collection agency and debt collector under
the FDCPA.

The Plaintiff asserts he allegedly incurred a debt to creditor
Lehigh Regional Medical Center some time prior to June 26, 2017.
He claims Lehigh Regional Medical Center contracted FCA to collect
the debt, and FCA sent the Plaintiff a collection letter on June
26, 2017.  The Plaintiff alleges the letter failed to clearly and
explicitly convey that Lehigh Regional Medical Center is the
current creditor to whom the debt is owed as required by the FDCPA.
Accordingly, he seeks actual damages, statutory damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiff brings his claim on behalf of the class of (a) all
individuals with addresses in the State of Florida (b) to whom FCA
(c) sent an initial collection letter attempting to collect a
consumer debt (d) without properly identifying the name of the
creditor to whom the alleged debt was owed (e) which letter was
sent on or after a date one year prior to the filing of the action
and on or before a date 21 days after the filing of the action.

FCA filed its Answer on Nov. 22, 2017.

On June 8, 2018, the Court entered a Case Management and Scheduling
Order setting the discovery deadline for Dec. 3, 2018, the
dispositive motion deadline for Jan. 2, 2019, and the trial for May
6, 2019.

On Aug. 20, 2018, FCA filed the present motion to stay the case
pending resolution of a similar case pending before the Eleventh
Circuit: Lait v. Medical Data Systems, Inc., 11th Cir. Doc. No.
18-12255.  The Plaintiff did not file a response within the
allotted time.

Magistrate Judge Mirando finds that although both Lait and the case
involve the issue of properly identifying a creditor under the
FDCPA, it is not clear to the Court that the Eleventh Circuit
decision in Lait is likely to have a substantial or controlling
effect on the claims and issues in the instant case.  Given the
distinctions, there is no indication the stay would simplify and
clarify the issues or otherwise promote judicial economy.  Further,
the FCA has not demonstrated any hardship or inequity in being
required to continue defending this lawsuit.  Therefore, the Court
finds a stay of the case neither necessary nor prudent.
Accordingly, she denied the Motion to Stay.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Z2R9S4 from Leagle.com.

Omar Encarnacion, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Katie Marguerite
Miller -- attorneykstone@gmail.com -- The Law Offices of Katie M.
Miller, PA & Yitzchak Zelman --  Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus
& Zelman, pro hac vice.

Financial Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by Charles
James McHale, Jr., Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC.


FIRST NATIONAL: Days Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY DAY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
FIRST NATIONAL CREDIT BUREAU, INC., a foreign for-profit
corporation, PINNACLE CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited
liability company, RESURGENT HOLDINGS, LLC, a foreign limited
liability company, and RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., a foreign
limited partnership, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02397-CEH-JSS
(M.D. Fla.), seeks an order from the Court certifying classes and
subclasses:

   1. Fair Debt Collection Practices (FDCPA) Statutory Damage
Class:

      "all debtors to whom Defendants sent a form letter, sent in
      an attempt to collect a consumer debt, in substantially the
      same form as the Form Debt Collection Letter to the Amended
      Complaint, to an address in the state of Florida, where such

      Debt was credit-reported either on a date within one-year
      prior to the date of the filing of the original Complaint
      or the date RCS began acting as PCS's and/or RH's master
      servicer, whichever is later, up through the present date";

   2. Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) Statutory
      Damage Class:

      "all debtors to whom Defendants sent a form letter, sent in
      an attempt to collect a consumer debt, in substantially the
      same form as the Form Debt Collection Letter to the Amended
      Complaint, to an address in the state of Florida, where
      such Debt was credit-reported either on a date within two-
      years prior to the date of the filing of the original
      Complaint or the date RCS began acting as PCS's and/or RH's
      master servicer, whichever is later, up through the present
      date";

   3. FDCPA Actual Damages Sub-Class:

      "all persons who are members of the FDCPA Statutory Damages
      Class who, after of receiving the Form Debt Collection
      Letter, paid any portion of the Debt (i.e., actual
      damages)"; and

   4. FCCPA Actual Damages Sub-Class:

      "all persons who are members of the FCCPA Statutory
      Damages Class who, after receiving the Form Debt
      Collection Letter, paid any portion of the Debt (i.e.,
      actual damages)."[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Class Members:

          Ian R. Leavengood, Esq.
          Gregory H. Lercher, Esq.
          Sean E. McEleney, Esq.
          LEAVEN LAW
          Northeast Professional Center
          3900 First Street North, Suite 100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33703
          Telephone: 727 327-3328
          Facsimile: 727 327-3305
          E-mail: consumerservice@leavenlaw.com
                  glercher@leavenlaw.com
                  smceleney@leavenlaw.com

               - and -

          SWIFT & ISRIGNHAUS, P.A.
          Aaron M. Swift, Esq.
          10460 Roosevelt Boulevard North, Suite 313
          St. Petersburg, FL 33716
          Telephone: (727) 490-9919
          Facsimile: (727) 255-5332
          E-mail: aswift@swift-law.com


FIRSTFLEET INC: Carnegie Seeks to Certify 2 COBRA Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER CARNEGIE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FIRSTFLEET, INC. OF
TENNESSEE d/b/a FIRST FLEET, INC., the Defendant, Case
8:18-cv-01070-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff ask the Court for
an order:

   1. certifying classes;

      Untimely Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
      1985 (COBRA) Notice Class:

      "all participants and beneficiaries in the Defendant's
      Health Plan in the United States who were entitled to be
      provided notice of their COBRA rights due to a qualifying
      event pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 1163(a)(1), (2) and(4)
      and who were not provided a COBRA notice in the timeframe
      mandated by 29 U.S.C. section 1166, within the applicable
      statute of limitations"; and

      Deficient COBRA Notice Class:

      "all participants and beneficiaries in the Defendant's
      Health Plan in the United States who were sent a COBRA
      notice by Defendant in the form attached as Exhibit A,
      during the applicable statute of limitations period, as a
      result of a qualifying event as determined by Defendant,
      who did not elect continuation coverage";

   2. appointing Christopher Carnegie as Class Representative;

   3. appointing Luis A. Cabassa and Brandon J. Hill of Wenzel
      Fenton Cabassa, P.A., and Felipe Fulgencio of Fulgencio Law,
      as class counsel; and

   4. allowing them to notify the Class members.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: 813-224-0431
          Facsimile: 813-229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com
                  mk@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Felipe B. Fulgencio, Esq.
          FULGENCIO LAW, P.L.L.C.
          205 N. Armenia Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: 813 463 0123
          Facsimile: 813 251 4017
          E-mail: felipe@fulgenciolaw.com


FLIGHT SERVICES: $540K Settlement in Allen Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANANAIS ALLEN, an individual, and AUSTIN CLOY, an
individual, Plaintiffs, v. FLIGHT SERVICES AND SYSTEMS, INC., a
foreign corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-1137-RSL (W.D.
Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the parties'
motion for final approval of settlement.

The Judge finally and unconditionally certified the Class defined
all employees of the Defendant who are alleged to have been either
Hospitality Workers or Transportation Workers and who worked one or
more hours within the City of SeaTac at any time during the time
period from Jan. 1, 2014, to Feb. 14, 2016, and who were paid less
than the prevailing minimum wage prescribed by City of SeaTac
Ordinance 7.45.050, i.e., a base rate of $15 per hour in 2014 and
$15.24 in 2015 and 2016.

The Settlement Agreement, which requires FSS to pay $540,000 as
consideration to the Class Members, was the result of arm's length
negotiations between FSS and the Class Counsel.  The Settlement
Agreement is fair and reasonable.

The Judge approved the proposed class action settlement and ordered
the following: (a) FSS is directed to fund the settlement, (b) FSS
is authorized to distribute the Settlement Funds, and (c) FSS is
directed to distribute the attorney's fees and incentive awards as
provided in the Order Granting Motion for Attorney's Fees and
Incentive Awards, of even date.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/7vvzP7 from Leagle.com.

Ananais Allen, an individual & Austin Cloy, an individual,
Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel R. Whitmore, Duncan Calvert
Turner, BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC & Mark A. Trivett --
mtrivett@badgleymullins.com -- BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

Flight Services and Systems, Inc., a foreign corporation,
Defendant, represented by Alan D. Schuchman --
aschuchman@skellengerbender.com -- SKELLENGER BENDER, PS, Jimmy Goh
-- jgoh@constangy.com -- CONSTANGY, ROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP,
pro hac vice & Rochelle Y. Nelson -- rnelson@skellengerbender.com
-- SKELLENGER BENDER, PS.

Opt-Outs, Interested Party, represented by David N. Mark --
david@marklawoffice.com -- WASHINGTON WAGE CLAIM PROJECT & Beau C.
Haynes, WASHINGTON WAGE CLAIM PROJECT.


FLOOR AND DECOR OUTLETS: Faces Tucker ADA Class Action in NY
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Floor And Decor
Outlets of America, Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Floor And Decor Outlets of America, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10610 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018).

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

Floor and Decor Outlets of America, Inc. retails hard surface
flooring products in the United States. The company offers tiles,
stone, wood, laminate and vinyl, decoratives, and installation
materials for backsplashes, walls, bathrooms, kitchen, living
rooms, and patios applications.[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


FLOWERS FOODS: Coyle Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, 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 court has
dismissed the case captioned, Coyle v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and
Holsum Bakery, Inc.

On March 23, 2018, the court dismissed the lawsuit and approved an
agreement to settle the matter for $4.3 million, comprised of $1.2
million in settlement funds, $2.9 million in attorneys' fees, and
$0.2 million as an incentive for class members who are active
distributors not to opt out of certain portions of the new
distributor agreement.

The settlement consisted of approximately 190 class members.

Flowers Foods said, "This settlement charge was recorded as a
selling, distribution and administrative expense in our
Consolidated Statements of Income during the third quarter of
fiscal 2017 and was paid during the first quarter of fiscal 2018."

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States. It operates through two segments,
Direct-Store-Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery. Flowers Foods,
Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Thomasville,
Georgia.



FLOWERS FOODS: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, 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 company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

On August 12, 2016, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by Chris B.
Hendley (the "Hendley complaint") against the company and certain
senior members of management (collectively, the "defendants").

On August 17, 2016, another class action complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Scott
Dovell, II (the "Dovell complaint" and together with the Hendley
complaint, the "complaints") against the defendants.

Plaintiffs in the complaints are securities holders that acquired
company securities between February 7, 2013 and August 10, 2016.
The complaints generally allege that the defendants made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
(1) the company's labor practices were not in compliance with
applicable federal laws and regulations; (2) such non-compliance
exposed the company to legal liability and/or negative regulatory
action; and (3) as a result, the defendants' statements about the
company's business, operations, and prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

The counts of the complaints are asserted against the defendants
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 under the Exchange Act. The complaints seek (1) class
certification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2)
compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and all other class
members against the defendants, jointly and severally, for all
damages sustained as a result of wrongdoing, in an amount to be
proven at trial, including interest, and (3) awarding plaintiffs
and the class their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the
actions, including counsel and expert fees.

On October 21, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York consolidated the complaints into one action
captioned "In re Flowers Foods, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the
"consolidated securities action"), appointed Walter Matthews as
lead plaintiff ("lead plaintiff"), and appointed Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP and Johnson & Weaver, LLP as co-lead counsel for the
putative class.  

On November 21, 2016, the court granted defendants' and lead
plaintiff's joint motion to transfer the consolidated securities
action to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia.  Lead plaintiff filed his Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on January 12, 2017, raising the same counts and general
allegations and seeking the same relief as the Dovell and Hendley
complaints. On March 13, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit which was granted in part and denied in part on
March 23, 2018.

The court dismissed certain allegedly false or misleading
statements as nonactionable under federal securities laws, and will
allow others to proceed to fact discovery.  On July 23, 2018, lead
plaintiff filed his motion for class certification. The defendants
filed their memorandum of law in opposition to class certification
on October 5, 2018. The deadline for lead plaintiff to file his
reply in support of class certification is November 13, 2018.

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States. It operates through two segments,
Direct-Store-Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery. Flowers Foods,
Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Thomasville,
Georgia.


FLOWERS FOODS: Zapata and Rodriguez Suits Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, 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 court has
dismissed two class action suits filed in U.S. District Court
Southern District of Texas, entitled, Zapata et al. v. Flowers
Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of Houston, LLC and the
Rodriguez et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of
Houston, LLC.

On September 12, 2018, the court dismissed the case Zapata et al.
v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of Houston, LLC,
4:16-cv-00676 and the Rodriguez et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and
Flowers Baking Co. of Houston, LLC, 4:16-cv-00245 and approved an
agreement to settle both matters for $740,700, including attorneys'
fees, on behalf of 43 distributors.

Flowers Foods said, "This settlement was paid and recorded as a
selling, distribution and administrative expense in our Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations during the third quarter of
fiscal 2018."

Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the
United States. It operates through two segments,
Direct-Store-Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery. Flowers Foods,
Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Thomasville,
Georgia.



FROST ARNETT: Golubchik Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frost Arnett Company,
et al. The case is styled as Yosef Golubchik, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Frost Arnett
Company, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-16113 (D.
N.J., Nov. 13, 2018).

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

Frost-Arnett Company operates as a account receivable management
company. The Company offers collections, recovery on delinquent
accounts, early-out, return on investment- enhancing, insurance
follow-up, pre-registration, and extended business office services.
Frost-Arnett serves customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yaakov Saks, Esq.
     Stein Saks, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext 101
     Fax: (201) 282-6501
     Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


GEM HOTEL: Violates Disabilities Act, Tucker Suit Asserts
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 300 West 22 Realty
LLC. The case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 300 West 22 Realty LLC
doing business as: The Gem Hotel Chelsea, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10616 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018).

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

The GEM Hotel-Chelsea is an 81-room boutique hotel located in
Chelsea, the world's headquarters for high profile art
galleries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOOGLE LLC: Mischaracterizes Free Data Storage, Roley Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW ROLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff vs Google LLC and DOES 1-50, the
Defendants, Case No. 180V336773 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 25, 2018),
seeks preliminary, permanent and mandatory injunctive relief
prohibiting Google, their officers, agents and all those acting in
concert with them, from committing in the future
mischaracterization of "free" data storage. This action is intended
to stop Google's misrepresentations, and to restore the benefit of
the bargain to those Local Guides who attained a free terabyte of
data.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has enlisted millions of
individuals around the United States (and millions more around the
world) to enhance the quality of its products through
"crowdsourcing." According to Google, crowd sourcing is the
practice of obtaining information or input into a task or project
by enlisting the services of a large number of people, either paid
or unpaid, typically Via the Internet.

One such example of Google's use of crowdsourcing is its efforts to
improve Google Maps and Google Earth products by using individuals
Who present in a location featured in Google product. The use of
"local knowledge" allows unprecedented reach corners of the globe,
and enhances and improves the quality of Google's offerings.

Google formalized its use of locals when it established its "Local
Guides" See https://plus.google.c0m/+GoogleMaps/posts/eGqahcAfme.
The program purpose of the program, like the one it replaced called
"City Experts," was to have locals photograph and comment on
businesses and locations around the world in order to improve the
quality and quantity of reviews about these locations.

Google does not pay Local Guides for their efforts on the company's
behalf. Instead, to encourage participation by individuals in its
Local Guide Program, Google offered other incentives, such as
"thank you gifts" and invitations to events for certain high volume
Local Guide reviewers Whose reviews were approved by Google. For
example, Google promised Local Guides who achieved "Level 4 status"
a free terabyte of data storage. A terabyte is an immense amount of
storage. It is estimated that a terabyte could hold more than
310,000 photographs, or 500 movies, or 17,000 hours of music, or 40
days' worth of videos. There are 1000 gigabytes in one terabyte.

After Plaintiff became a Level 4 Local Guide, he claimed his
terabyte of data. However, after inducing Plaintiff to perform the
work necessary to become a Level 4 Local Guide, Google informed
Plaintiff that its offer of a free terabyte of data storage was, in
fact, only free for two years. Google's mischaracterization of the
"free" data storage is patently unreasonable. No person would
understand an offer from Google for a "free terabyte of storage" to
be limited to "two years of free data storage" because Google
intentionally failed to qualify its offer as limited in such a
manner.

Google's misrepresentation was intended to induce Plaintiff and
other class members to perform the work that benefitted Google,
which it did. Worse yet, Google's fraudulent inducement has the
insidious effect of creating "subs" ??? industry slang for
subscribers ??? who, having moved data onto Google's storage
platforms, must then pay $10 per month beyond the two-year period
to maintain access to their stored data, the lawsuit says.

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Monique Oliver, Esq.
          Christian Schreiber, Esq.
          OLIVIER SCHREIBER & CHAO LLP
          201 Filbert 201 Street, Suite
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 484 0980
          Facsimile: (415) 231 0037
          E-mail: monique@osclegal.com
                  christian@osclegal.com

               - and -

          Rebecca K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Robert A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Vildan A. Teske, Esq.
          Marisa C. Katz, Esq.
          TESKE, KATZ, KITZER & ROCHEL, PLLP
          222 South 9th Street, Suite 4050
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 746-1558
          Facsimile: (651) 846-5339
          E-mail: teske@tkkrlaw.com
                  katz@tkkrlaw.com

               - and -

          Seth Leventhal, Esq.
          LEVENTHAL PLLC
          527 Marquette Ave. S., Suite 2100
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1273
          Telephone: 612 234-7349
          Facsimile: 612 437-4980
          E-mail: seth@leventhalpllc.com

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


GREAT KILLS: NY Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Lipsky Lowe LLP disclosed that the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York recently conditionally certified the
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act filed by
Nicholas Mendez and authorized a notice to mailed to the putative
collective action members, advising them about the case and their
ability to join (i.e. "opt-in") the case.

On December 15, 2017, Nicholas Mendez filed a putative class and
collective action complaint against Great Kills Marina Cafe, Inc.,
Joseph Labriola, Robert Parascandola and Rosemary Saldino in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which is
assigned Case Number 1:17:Cv-7323

Scope of Class and Collective Action Members:

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all individuals whom Defendants
employ or have employed as waiters since December 15, 2011.

Claims in the Lawsuit:

The lawsuit alleges the following causes of action on behalf of the
class and collective action members.

   1. Unpaid minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("Labor Law"). The Complaint
alleges the waiters effective hourly rate was below the statutory
minimum wage. The Complaint further alleges Defendants unlawfully
claimed a tip credit against the minimum wage and are therefore
required to pay the waiters at the minimum wage.

   2. Off the clock work under the FLSA and Labor Law. The
Complaint alleges Defendants failed to pay the waiters for every
hour worked, but rather paid them only 5 hours per shift with a
maximum of 35 hours per week.

   3. Unpaid overtime under FLSA and Labor Law. The Complaint
alleges Defendants failed to pay waiters overtime premium pay for
any hour worked above forty in a week.

   4. Unpaid spread of hours pay under the Labor Law. The Complaint
alleges Defendants failed to pay the waiters an extra hour at the
minimum wage for any day they worked more than ten hours.

   5. Unlawful tip retention under the Labor Law. The Complaint
alleges Defendants unlawfully kept the waiters tips by keeping a
percentage of the tips paid for large parties.

   6. Unlawful deductions under the Labor Law. The Complaint
alleges Defendants unlawfully deducted from the waiters pay the
cost of any meals customers did not pay.

   7. Failure to provide the Notice and Acknowledgement of Pay Rate
and Payday under the Labor Law. The Complaint alleges Defendants
failed to provide the waiters this notice when they were hired at
any point in their employment.


GREYHOUND LINES: J. Smith Remanded to Calif. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California, remanded the case, JUSTIN SMITH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-CV-02238-TLN-AC
(E.D. Cal.), to Sacramento County Superior Court.

The Plaintiff filed a Class Action against the Defendant in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento, Case No.
34-2017-00219188 on Sept. 15, 2017.  The Defendant removed the
Plaintiff's Action to the Court and filed a Notice of Removal on
Oct. 25, 2017 pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

The Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand on Nov. 21, 2017 and the
Hearing for that Motion is currently scheduled for Nov. 15, 2018.
The Defendant filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings on Nov. 21, 2017
and the Hearing for that Motion is currently scheduled for Nov. 15,
2018.

The Defendant has not filed an opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion
to Remand and the Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the
Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings.

The Parties met and conferred regarding the matters at issue in
these Motions and stipulated that good cause exists to remand the
case back to state court, Sacramento County Superior Court.  They
wish to vacate the Motion to Remand and Motion to Stay Hearings
scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on Nov. 15, 2018.  Judge Nunley so
ordered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Stipulated Order is
available at https://is.gd/AvFYT4 from Leagle.com.

Justin Smith, Plaintiff, represented by  Galen T. Shimoda --
attorney@shimodalaw.com -- Shimoda Law Corp. & Justin Paul
Rodriguez -- jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com - Shimoda Law Corp.

Greyhound Lines, Inc., Defendant, represented by David J. Dow --
ddow@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Pc & Kelsey Elizabeth Papst
-- kpapst@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.


HANRO USA: Faces Garey Class Action Under ADA
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hanro U.S.A., Inc.
The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hanro U.S.A., Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10567 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018).

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

Hanro U.S.A. Inc. was founded in 1993. The company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of women's,
children's, and infants' clothing and accessories.[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



HARDEE'S FOOD: Bid to Remand HepA Exposure Suit to State Ct. Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Frank D. Whitney of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the case, E.P. and S.F., individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HARDEE'S
FOOD SYSTEMS LLC, HARDEE'S RESTAURANTS LLC, CKE RESTAURANTS
HOLDINGS, INC., and MORNING STAR, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-00483-FDW-DCK (W.D. N.C.) to state court.

The Plaintiffs filed the class action in state court after a
Hepatitis A exposure event occurring at a Hardee's restaurant in
Charlotte, North Carolina.  According to the Plaintiffs, an
employee diagnosed with Hepatitis A potentially exposed thousands
of customers to the illness.

The Mecklenburg County Health Department announced around June 26,
2018 that all persons who consumed food or drink at the restaurant
between June 13, 2018 and June 23, 2018 were at risk of contracting
Hepatitis A.  As a result of this incident, the Mecklenburg County
Health Department offered free Hepatitis A prevention treatment,
and 2,056 individuals obtained such treatment.

The Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit on behalf of all persons who
dined on food and/or beverages purchased at the Hardee's
quick-service restaurant located at 2604 Little Rock Road,
Charlotte, North Carolina between June 13 and 23, 2018.  They
allege three claims against all Defendants: 1) negligence, 2)
product liability, and 3) breach of implied warranty of
merchantability

The Plaintiffs allege that as a result of the Defendants'
misconduct, the Plaintiffs and the class members have incurred the
need for necessary medical care, treatment, and services; incurred
inconvenience and loss of time associated with such medical care,
treatment, and services; and suffered serious emotional distress.
They state that both the Plaintiffs' and the Class members'
injuries are unknown and will require and will continue to require
expensive medical care and treatment.  In addition to the damages,
the Plaintiffs further ask for punitive damages and attorney fees.

The Defendants filed a Notice of Removal with the Court on Aug. 31,
2018.  The Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand on Sept. 20, 2018,
arguing that the Court does not have jurisdiction over the case
under the Class Action Fairness Act because 1) the amount in
controversy in the case does not exceed $5 million, and 2)
diversity does not exist in the case.  The Plaintiffs ask for a
remand to state court.

Judge Whitney finds that because 1) the amount in controversy
likely exceeds $5 million, 2) minimal diversity exists, and 3)
there are more than 100 members in the proposed Plaintiff class,
the Court has jurisdiction over the case under CAFA.  Therefore, he
denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.

However, the Judge noted sua sponte that the presence of Defendant
Hardee's may trigger the local controversy exception to CAFA
jurisdiction.  He ordered the Parties to submit additional briefing
to the Court on this issue no later than Nov. 16, 2018.  The
Parties are further ordered to proceed according to the guidelines
laid out in the Court's earlier orders entered on Sept. 24, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Gp1w9J from Leagle.com.

E. P., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Kent Bryson --
dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP, Joseph G. Sauder
-- jgs@sstriallawyers.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice
& Scott Crissman Harris -- scott@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield, Bryson &
Mason, LLP.

S. F., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Kent Bryson, Whitfield, Bryson &
Mason, LLP & Scott Crissman Harris, Whitfield, Bryson & Mason,
LLP.

CKE Restaurants Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Hardee's
Food Systems LLC, a North Carolina Corporation, Hardee's
Restaurants LLC, a Delaware Corporation & Morning Star, LLC, a
Florida Corporation, Defendants, represented by Alan M. Maxwell --
amaxwell@wwhgd.com -- Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC,
pro hac vice, Jennifer Anne Adler -- jadler@wwhgd.com -- Weinberg,
Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC, pro hac vice, Nicholas P.
Panayotopoulos -- npanayo@wwhgd.com -- Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins,
Gunn & Dial, LLC, pro hac vice & Shawn D. Scott -- sscott@wwhgd.com
-- Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC.


HEALTH ACQUISTION: Bazoe Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healh Acquistion
Corp. The case is styled as Marriaff Bazoe and on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated who were
employed by Healh Acquistion Corp., Plaintiff v. Healh Acquistion
Corp. and/or any other related or affiliated entities, Defendant,
Case No. 150679/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 14, 2018).

Health Acquisition Corporation., doing business as Allen Health
Care Services, provides home health care services. The Company
offers services which includes diabetes, dementia, hospice and
pediatric care, and live-in care services. Allen Health Care
Services serves patients in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants is represented by:

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


HIGHGATE HOTELS: Faces Tucker Class Action for ADA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Highgate Hotels, L.P.
The case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Highgate Hotels, L.P. doing
business as: The Wagner Hotel, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10619
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018).

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

Highgate Hotels, L.P. invests in, operates, and manages hospitality
properties. The company was founded in 1988 and is based in Irving,
Texas.[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



HOMETOWN AMERICA: Craw Suit Moved to Massachusetts District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of BARBARA CRAW, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOMETOWN
AMERICA, LLC; HOMETOWN AMERICA MANAGEMENT, LLC; HOMETOWN OAKHILL,
LLC; HOMETOWN OAKPOINT I, LLC; and HOMETOWN OAKPOINT II, LLC,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of Massachusetts, County of Plymouth (Case No.
1883CV01017) to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on October 15, 2018. The clerk of court for the
District of Massachusetts assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-12149-MPK (D.
Mass, Oct. 15, 2018). The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge M.
Page Kelley.

Hometown America LLC provides real estate management services. The
Company offers recreational facilities such as swimming pools,
clubhouses, basketball courts, as well as online payment, green
mission, and insurance services. Hometown America markets services
for home financing and insurance sectors in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ethan R. Horowitz, Esq.
          NORTHEAST JUSTICE CENTER
          50 Island Street, Ste. 203B
          Lawrence, MA 01840
          Telephone: (781) 599-7730
          E-mail: ehorowitz@njc-ma.org

The Defendants are represented by:

         Tristan P. Colangelo, Esq.
         SUGARMAN, ROGERS, BARSHAK & COHEN, P.C.
         101 Merrimac Street, 9th Floor
         Boston, MA 02114
         Telephone: (617) 619-3423
         E-mail: colangelo@srbc.com

              - and -

         Lisa C. Goodheart, Esq.
         SUGARMAN, ROGERS, BARSHAK & COHEN, P.C.
         101 Merrimac Street
         Boston, MA 02114-4737
         Telephone: (617) 227-3030
         Facsimile: (617) 523-4001
         E-mail: goodheart@srbc.com


INDEPENDENT BANK: Trial in BOH Acquisition Suit Set for Jan. 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Bank 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 that the
Court has entered a scheduling order providing that the case be
ready for trial on January 27, 2020.

Independent Bank is a party to a legal proceeding inherited by
Independent Bank in connection with the Company's acquisition of
BOH Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Bank of Houston, or BOH,
that was completed on April 15, 2014. Several entities related to
R. A. Stanford, or the Stanford Entities, including Stanford
International Bank, Ltd., or SIBL, had deposit accounts at BOH.

Certain individuals who had purchased certificates of deposit from
SIBL filed a class action lawsuit against several banks, including
BOH, on November 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, in a case styled Peggy Roif
Rotstain, et al. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. Trustmark National Bank, et al., Civil Action No.
3:09-CV-02384-N-BG. The suit alleges, among other things, that the
plaintiffs were victims of fraud by SIBL and other Stanford
Entities and seeks to recover damages and alleged fraudulent
transfers by the defendant banks.

On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting permission
to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this case, which
motion was subsequently granted. The Second Amended Class Action
Complaint asserted previously unasserted claims, including aiding
and abetting or participation in a fraudulent scheme based upon the
large amount of deposits that the Stanford Entities held at BOH and
the alleged knowledge of certain BOH officers.

The plaintiffs seek recovery from Independent Bank and other
defendants for their losses. The case was inactive due to a
court-ordered discovery stay issued March 2, 2015 pending the
Court's ruling on plaintiff's motion for class certification and
designation of class representatives and counsel. On November 7,
2017, the Court issued an order denying the plaintiff's motion. In
addition, the Court lifted the previously ordered discovery stay.
On January 11, 2018, the Court entered a scheduling order providing
that the case be ready for trial on January 27, 2020.

The Company anticipates an increase in legal fees associated with
the defense of this claim as the case proceeds to trial.

Independent Bank notified its insurance carriers of the claims made
in the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The insurance
carriers have initially indicated that a "loss" has not yet
occurred or that the claims are not covered by the policies.
However, Independent Bank is continuing to pursue insurance
coverage for these claims, as well as for the reimbursement of
defense costs, through the initiation of litigation and other
means.

Independent Bank believes that the claims made in this lawsuit are
without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit.

Independent Bank said, "This is complex litigation involving a
number of procedural matters and issues. As such, Independent Bank
is unable to predict when this matter may be resolved and, given
the uncertainty of litigation, the ultimate outcome of, or
potential costs or damages arising from, this case."

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

Independent Bank Group, Inc. operates as the bank holding company
for Independent Bank that provides a range of commercial banking
products and services to businesses, professionals, and individuals
in the United States. Independent Bank Group, Inc. was founded in
2002 and is headquartered in McKinney, Texas.


INDIANA: Ganus Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit v. DOC Officers
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carter, et al. The
case is styled as Thomas R. Ganus, on his own behalf and on behalf
of a class of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Robert E
Carter, Jr., Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction,
Ron Neal warden, Mark Newkirk executive assistant, Marion Thatcher
unit team manager, Pauline Williams corrections lieutenant, Bessie
Leonard Law Library Supervisor, Kimberly Creasy Law Library
Supervisor, Erin Jones Law Library Supervisor, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-00928-RLM-MGG (N.D. Ind., Nov. 14, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.




INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Martin Suit Removed to Arizona
--------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Ramon Martin individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Insys Therapeutics
Incorporated a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No.
CV2018-013354 was removed from Maricopa County Superior Court to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on November 13,
2018, and assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-04052-DMF.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sean James O'Hara, Esq.
     Kercsmar & Feltus PLLC
     7150 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 285
     Scottsdale, AZ 85251
     Phone: (480) 421-1001
     Fax: (480) 421-1002
     Email: sjo@kflawaz.com

          - and -

     Todd Feltus, Esq.
     Kercsmar & Feltus PLLC
     7150 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 285
     Scottsdale, AZ 85251
     Phone: (480) 421-1001
     Fax: (480) 421-1002
     Email: tfeltus@kflawaz.com

The Defendant is represented by:

     Brian Schulman, Esq.
     Ballard Spahr LLP - Phoenix, AZ
     1 E Washington St., Ste. 2300
     Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
     Phone: (602) 798-5419
     Fax: (602) 798-5595
     Email: SchulmanB@ballardspahr.com

          - and -

     J Matthew Donohue, Esq.
     Holland & Knight LLP - Portland, OR
     2300 US Bancorp Twr.
     111 SW 5th Ave.
     Portland, OR 97204
     Phone: (503) 243-2300
     Fax: (503) 241-8014
     Email: matt.donohue@hklaw.com

          - and -

     Joseph L Franco, Esq.
     Holland & Knight LLP - Portland, OR
     2300 US Bancorp Twr.
     111 SW 5th Ave.
     Portland, OR 97204
     Phone: (503) 243-2300
     Fax: (503) 241-8014

          - and -

     Michael Stephen Myers, Esq.
     Ballard Spahr LLP - Phoenix, AZ
     1 E Washington St., Ste. 2300
     Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
     Phone: (602) 798-5400
     Fax: (602) 798-5595
     Email: myersms@ballardspahr.com


INTEL CORP: Trial in McAfee Shareholder Suit Set to Begin December
------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 29, 2018, that the court in the
McAfee, Inc. Shareholder Litigation set the case trial to begin in
December 2018.

On August 19, 2010, the company announced that it has agreed to
acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. (McAfee) for $48.00
per share. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-action
lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior Court
challenging the proposed transaction.

The cases were ordered consolidated in September 2010. Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint that named former McAfee board members,
McAfee, and Intel as defendants, and alleged that the McAfee board
members breached their fiduciary duties and that McAfee and Intel
aided and abetted those breaches of duty. The complaint requested
rescission of the merger agreement, such other equitable relief as
the court may deem proper, and an award of damages in an
unspecified amount.

In June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the
value of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages
should be $62.08.

In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action,
appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the class
representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January 2013. In
March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the California Court
of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the class certification
order; the petition was denied in June 2012. In March 2012, at
defendants' request, the court held that plaintiffs were not
entitled to a jury trial and ordered a bench trial.

In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the California
Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that order, which
the court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August 2012, defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted that
motion in November 2012, and entered final judgment in the case in
February 2013.

In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed the final judgment. The
California Court of Appeal heard oral argument in October 2017, and
in November 2017, affirmed the judgment as to McAfee's nine outside
directors, reversed the judgment as to former McAfee director and
chief executive officer David DeWalt, Intel, and McAfee, and
affirmed the trial court's ruling that the plaintiffs are not
entitled to a jury trial.

At a June 2018 case management conference following remand, the
Superior Court set an October hearing date for any additional
summary judgment motions that may be filed, and set trial to begin
in December 2018. In July 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
to amend the complaint which the court denied in September 2018.
Also in July 2018, McAfee and Intel filed a motion for summary
judgment on the aiding and abetting claims asserted against them;
in October 2018, the court granted the motion as to McAfee and
denied the motion as to Intel.

Intel said, "Because the resolution of pretrial motions may
materially impact the scope and nature of the proceeding, and
because of uncertainties regarding the disposition of theories that
may be asserted at trial and the extent of Intel's responsibility,
if any, with respect to such claims, we are unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if
any, arising from this matter. We dispute the class-action claims
and intend to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously."

Intel Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells computer,
networking, data storage, and communication platforms worldwide.
The company operates through Client Computing Group, Data Center
Group, Internet of Things Group, Non-Volatile Memory Solutions
Group, Programmable Solutions Group, and All Other segments. The
company was founded in 1968 and is based in Santa Clara,
California.


ISSEY MIYAKE: Diaz Files Class Action for ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Issey Miyake U.S.A.
Corp. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Issey Miyake U.S.A. Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10508 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018).

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

Issey Miyake U.S.A. Corp. designs and manufactures apparels. The
Company offers women's and men's designer clothes, bags, and other
related accessories. Issey Miyake U.S.A. serves customers in the
United States.[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


JPMORGAN CHASE: Melissinos Suit Asserts CEA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Melissinos Trading, LLC, Plaintiff, v. & JPMorgan Chase & Co.; John
Edmonds; and John Doe Nos. 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10628
(S.D. N.Y., November 14, 2018) is brought to recover for injuries
to Plaintiff and members of the Class caused by Defendants'
violations of the Commodity Exchange Act.

This class action alleges that, from no later than January 1, 2009
through December 31, 2015, the Defendants engaged in the unlawful
and intentional manipulation of gold, silver, platinum, and
palladium futures contracts traded on the New York Mercantile
Exchange and the Commodity Exchange, Inc. and options on precious
metals futures contracts traded on NYMEX and COMEX.

On October 9, 2018, Defendant Edmonds, an employee of Defendant
JPMorgan Chase & Co., pleaded guilty to a two-count information.
The counts charged in the information were, respectively,
conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of commodities fraud,
commodities price manipulation, and spoofing.

The Defendant Edmonds' guilty plea is Defendants' price
manipulations with respect to NYMEX and COMEX precious metals
futures contracts and options on those contracts, notes the
complaint. These manipulations were effectuated during the Class
Period through the use of a technique known as "spoofing".
Spoofing, as defined by the Commodity Exchange Act, is the act of
"bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the bid or offer
before execution", says the complaint.

Melissinos Trading, LLC is a limited liability company with
headquarters in New Jersey. During the Class period, Plaintiff
transacted in COMEX gold and silver futures contracts as well as
NYMEX palladium futures contracts.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
this District at 270 Park Ave., New York, New York 10017. JPM,
through its trading employees in the United States, transacted in
precious metals futures contracts and options on those contracts on
both NYMEX and COMEX throughout the Class Period.

Edmonds was employed as a precious metals trader by JPM throughout
the Class Period. Defendant Edmonds is a resident of Brooklyn, New
York.

Defendants John Does 1-10, inclusive, are other persons whose
identities are currently unknown to Plaintiff. John Does 1-10
include, but are not necessarily limited to, precious metals
traders in the employ of JPM that conspired with Edmonds to
manipulate the prices of precious metals futures contracts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott Martin, Esq.
     33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: 646-357-1100
     Facsimile: 202-540-7201
     Email: smartin@hausfeld.com

          - and -

     Timothy S. Kearns, Esq.
     Reena A. Gambhir, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: 202-540-7200
     Facsimile: 202-540-7201
     Email: tkearns@hausfeld.com
            rgambhir@hausfeld.com

          - and -

     Adam Frankel, Esq.
     GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES, LLC
     881 Lake Avenue
     Greenwich, CT 06831
     Phone & Fax: 203-622-6001
     Email: AFRANKEL@GRWLEGAL.COM


JUUL LABS: Claims in Colgate Suit Over Vape Products Safety Trimmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRADLEY COLGATE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JUUL LABS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02499-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge
William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (i) granted in part and denied in part
JUUL's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint,
with leave to amend; and (ii) denied JUUL's motion to strike the
Plaintiffs' nationwide class allegations pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(f), 23(c)(1)(A), and 23(d)(1)(D).

The Plaintiffs bring class claims against JUUL, a market leader in
the burgeoning electronic cigarette industry, for various state law
violations related to JUUL's advertising and labelling of its
electronic cigarettes.  The Plaintiffs are 13 individuals from
seven states: California, New Jersey, Washington, Pennsylvania, New
York, Michigan, and Massachusetts.  The Plaintiffs fall into two
categories, (1) adults who use JUUL's electronic nicotine delivery
systems ("ENDS") and (2) minors who use JUUL's ENDS.

Plaintiffs Bradley Colgate, Kaytlin McKnight, Anthony Smith, Corey
Smith, Kacie Ann Lagun, Tommy Benham, and David Langan ("Adult
Plaintiffs") fall into the first group.  Except for McKnight, the
Adult Plaintiffs smoked cigarettes prior to using JUUL's ENDS.  The
second group consists of M.H. and her mother and natural Guardian
Jennifer Hellman, A.U. and her mother and natural guardian
Commitante, and Jill Nelson, who appears to bring claims on behalf
of her daughter L.B. ("Minor Plaintiffs").

JUUL is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.  PAX Labs, Inc. is also a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco,
California.  JUUL originally operated under the name PAX Labs, Inc.
In 2017, it was renamed JUUL Labs, Inc. and a new company was spun
out as Pax Labs, Inc.

The Plaintiffs bring 11 causes of action: (1) False Advertising;
(2) Violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (3) Fraud; (4)
Unfair, Unlawful and Deceptive Trade Practices; (5) Unjust
Enrichment, (6) Strict Liability - Failure to Warn; (7) Strict
Product Liability - Design Defect; (8) Strict Liability ???
Manufacturing Defect; (9) Breach of Implied Warranty of
Merchantability; (10) Breach of Express Warranty; and (11)
Negligent Misrepresentation.

They propose to define the class as all persons who purchased, in
the United States, a JUUL e-cigarette and/or JUULpods.  They also
allege a subclass consisting of all class members who at the time
of their purchase were under the age of 18.

JUUL moves to dismiss for three reasons.  First, they argue that
the Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act ("FDCA") as amended by the TCA, which provides the
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") with exclusive authority to
promulgate regulations on ENDS labeling.  Second, they contend the
Plaintiffs' fraud claim fails to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirements.  Third, they
assert that the Plaintiffs' failed to allege sufficient facts to
plausibly satisfy the elements of any of their claims.

JULL also moves to strike Plaintiffs' nationwide class allegations
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(f), 23(c)(1)(A),
and 23(d)(1)(D).

Judge Orrick granted in part and denied in part JUUL's motion to
dismiss.  Insofar as the Plaintiffs' claims are based on
misrepresenting the pharmacokinetics of JUUL's nicotine formulation
on the product labelling, they are preempted and dismissed with
prejudice.  The Plaintiffs' claims based on JUUL's alleged
misrepresentation of the percentage of nicotine on the labelling of
JUUL's pods are not preempted.  The Plaintiffs' claims based on
JUUL's advertising which sound in fraud fail to meet the heightened
pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) and are dismissed with
prejudice.

To the extent that the Plaintiffs' remaining claims are based on
mislabeled nicotine percentage on the packaging for JUUL's pods,
JUUL's motion to dismiss is granted only as to the breach of
express warranty claim and the unidentified state law consumer
protection statutes claim.  These claims are dismissed with leave
to amend.

The Judge denied JUUL's motion to strike the Plaintiffs' nationwide
class allegations as it is not ripe at this stage of the
litigation.  For one thing, the pleadings are not settled and the
Plaintiffs indicated at oral argument that they will amend with
sufficient specificity to allow all of their claims to proceed.
Second, while class allegations may be stricken at the pleading
stage in the appropriate case, doing so is not warranted as the
Defendant has not presented any argument that would completely
preclude class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/6K8Y5O from Leagle.com.

Mr. Bradley Colgate & Kaytlin McKnight, Plaintiffs, represented by
Adam Gutride -- adam@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP,
Esfand Nafisi --  enafisi@classlawdc.com -- Migliaccio & Rathod
LLP, Seth Adam Safier-- seth@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier
LLP, Todd Michael Kennedy -- todd@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride
Safier LLP, Jason Samual Rathod , Migliaccio and Rathod LLP, pro
hac vice, Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Migliaccio & Rathod & Anthony J.
Patek -- anthony@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP.

Anthony Smith, David Langan, Corey Smith, Jennifer Hellman, Tommy
Benham, Jill Nelson & Lisa Commitante, Plaintiffs, represented by
Seth Adam Safier, Gutride Safier LLP & Anthony J. Patek, Gutride
Safier LLP.

M. H., a minor, by her Mother and Natural Guardian, Jennifer
Hellman appointed guardian ad litem, L. B., a minor, by her Mother
and Natural Guardian, JIll Nelson appointed guardian ad litem,
Kacie Ann Lagun, on behalf of themselves, the general public and
those similarly situated & A. U., a minor, by her Mother and
Naturual Guardian, Lisa Commitante appointed guardian ad litem,
Plaintiffs, represented by Adam Gutride, Gutride Safier LLP, Esfand
Nafisi, Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, Jason Samual Rathod, Migliaccio
and Rathod LLP, Seth Adam Safier, Gutride Safier LLP & Anthony J.
Patek, Gutride Safier LLP.

JUUL Labs, Inc., Defendant, represented by Austin Van Schwing --
aschwing@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Charles
Joseph Stevens -- cstevens@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn Crutcher
LLP, Jessica Reed Culpepper -- jculpepper@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson,
Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Joshua D. Dick -- jdick@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Peter C. Squeri --
psqueri@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Winston Y.
Chan -- wchan@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn Crutcher LLP.


KIKKERLAND RETAIL: Violates ADA, Garey Suit in Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kikkerland Retail,
LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kikkerland Retail, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10565 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018).

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

Kikkerland Design, Inc. provides living, solar, lighting, clocks,
kitchen, bathroom, stationary, and bar products. It offers
chandeliers and flash lighting products; laundry bags and shower
curtains; and ashtrays, cube jigger, stash openers, corkscrews,
openers, and bottle openers.[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


L2T INC: Faces Class Action in New York Asserting ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against L2T, Inc. The case is
styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. L2T, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10569
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018).

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

L2t, Inc., doing business as Trina Turk, provides ready-to-wear
apparel, accessories, and home collections. It offers dresses,
tops, bottoms, jumpsuits, jackets, jewelry, swimwear, tech
accessories, sweaters, tunics, coats and outerwear, sunglasses,
handbags, and accessories for women; and jackets, shirts, pants,
shorts, and swimwear for men.[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


LADENBURG THALMANN: Appeal from Nixed Texas Class 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' notice of appeal of a dismissal order is
still pending.

In January 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Plains
All American Pipeline, L.P. and related entities as well as their
officers and directors. The amended complaint added Ladenburg and
other underwriters of securities offerings in 2013 and 2014 that in
the aggregate raised approximately $2,900,000 as defendants to the
purported class action. Ladenburg was one of the underwriters of
the October 2013 initial public offering.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the offering
materials were misleading based on representations concerning the
maintenance and integrity of the issuer's pipelines, and that the
underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws.


In April 2018, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss
the second amended complaint with prejudice and entered final
judgment for the defendants.

In May 2018 the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
dismissal order.

Ladenburg Thalmann said, "If the plaintiffs' appeal is successful,
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.


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Fosbre Consolidated Class Action Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the consolidated
class action suit entitled, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. v. Las Vegas Sands
Corp., Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner, has been
concluded.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against Las Vegas
Sands Corp. (LVSC), Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The
complaint alleged that LVSC, through the individual defendants,
disseminated or approved materially false information, or failed to
disclose material facts, through press releases, investor
conference calls and other means from August 1, 2007 through
November 6, 2008. The complaint sought, among other relief, class
certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.


On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon
G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC,
through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false information, or failed to disclose material facts,
through press releases, investor conference calls and other means
from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The complaint, which
was substantially similar to the Fosbre complaint, discussed above,
sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order
consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases
are reported as one consolidated matter. On November 1, 2010, a
purported class action amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William P.
Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the
individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false
and misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts,
through press releases, investor conference calls and other means
from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The amended complaint
seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part
and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On
November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the
allegations remaining in the amended complaint. On July 11, 2012,
the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing defendants' Motion
for Partial Reconsideration of the U.S. District Court's order
dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the
plaintiffs' complaint and reducing the class period to a period of
February 4 to November 6, 2008.

On August 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action
second amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") seeking
to expand their allegations back to a time period of 2007 (having
previously been cut back to 2008 by the U.S. District Court)
essentially alleging very similar matters that had been previously
stricken by the U.S. District Court. On October 16, 2012, the
defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss on
November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their reply on November 12,
2012. On November 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted a stay
of discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
pending a decision on the new motion to dismiss and therefore, the
discovery process was suspended.

On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On July
30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion to dismiss and
took the matter under advisement. On November 7, 2013, the judge
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss.
On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the
Second Amended Complaint. Discovery in the matter resumed. On
January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the certified
class period, which was granted by the U.S. District Court on June
15, 2015. Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2015, and expert
discovery closed on December 18, 2015. On January 22, 2016,
defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the motions for summary judgment on March 11, 2016.
Defendants filed their replies in support of summary judgment on
April 8, 2016. Summary judgment in favor of the defendants was
entered on January 4, 2017.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on February 2, 2017, and
their opening brief in support of their appeal on July 14, 2017.
Defendants filed their answering briefs in opposition to the appeal
on October 13, 2017. Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in support
of their appeal on December 14, 2017. On May 1, 2018, a three judge
panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
unanimously affirmed the U.S. District Court's summary judgment
ruling for the defendants. Plaintiffs have failed to file a
certiorari petition with the United Supreme Court by the deadline
and therefore, this matter is concluded.

Las Vegas Sands Corp., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
owns, and operates integrated resorts in Asia and the United
States. It owns and operates The Venetian Macao Resort Hotel, the
Sands Cotai Central, The Parisian Macao, The Plaza Macao and Four
Seasons Hotel Macao, Cotai Strip, and the Sands Macao in Macao, the
People???s Republic of China; and iconic Marina Bay Sands in
Singapore. Las Vegas Sands Corp. was founded in 1988 and is based
in Las Vegas, Nevada.


LCK DESIGN: Violates ADA, Garey Suit Asserts
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LCK Design, LLC. The
case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LCK Design, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-10572 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018).

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

Lck Design, LLC is a privately held company in Sunny Isle Beach, FL
and is a Single Location business, categorized under Design
Services.[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


LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Continues to Defend Wolf Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
LifePoint Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself from a putative class action suit
entitled, Wolf v. LifePoint Health, Inc., et al.

On July 22, 2018, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Me rger Agreement") with RegionalCare Hospital
Partners Holdings, Inc. (D/B/A RCCH HealthCare Partners), a
Delaware corporation ("RCCH"), and Legend Merger Sub, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of RCCH ("Merger
Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into the
Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a
subsidiary of RCCH on the terms and conditions set forth in the
Merger Agreement. RCCH is owned by certain funds managed by
affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC.   

On September 7, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware challenging the Merger. The
case, captioned Wolf v. LifePoint Health, Inc., et al., Case No.
18-cv-01397-UNA, names the Company and the members of the Company's
Board of Directors as the defendants.

The complaint, among other things, alleges that the Company omitted
from its proxy statement certain material information in violation
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"), and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks,
among other things, class action certification, injunctive relief
prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, a declaration that the
defendants have violated the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, an order
directing the filing of a non-deficient proxy statement and an
award of attorneys' fees.

The Company believes that the action lacks merit and intends to
defend vigorously against this action.

LifePoint Health, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and operates
community hospitals, regional health systems, physician practices,
outpatient centers, and post-acute facilities in the United States.
Its hospitals provide a range of medical and surgical services,
such as general surgery, internal medicine, obstetrics, emergency
room care, radiology, oncology, diagnostic care, coronary care,
rehabilitation, and pediatric, as well as specialized services,
including open-heart surgery, skilled nursing, psychiatric care,
and neuro-surgery. LifePoint Health, Inc. was founded in 1997 and
is based in Brentwood, Tennessee.


LILLA P: Garey Brings ADA Class Action
---------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lilla P, LLC. The
case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lilla P, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10573 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018).

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

Lilla P is a contemporary brand offering easy, elevated everyday
basics for a stylish lifestyle.[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


LIZETTE ARGUELLO: Garcia Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
HENRY GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LIZETTE ARGUELLO INSURANCE INC. D/B/A
ESTRELLA INSURANCE,a Florida Profit Corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-24477-KMM (S.D. Fla., Oct. 26, 2018), seeks
injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has
resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and
disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals, and to
secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant is an insurance company that
sells auto, commercial, home/renters, business, health/life,
boat/RV, and motorcycle policies. To promote its services,
Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of
consumers in the process. On or about September 25, 2018, the
Defendant sent the following telemarketing text messages to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 4000. Defendant's
text messages were transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone,
and within the time frame relevant to this action. Defendant's text
messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the
future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services,
i.e., selling Plaintiff insurance.

The Plaintiff received the subject texts within this judicial
district and, therefore, Defendant's violation of the TCPA occurred
within this district. The Defendant caused other text messages to
be sent to individuals residing within this judicial district. At
no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express
written consent to be contacted using an ATDS. The Plaintiff is the
subscriber and sole user of the 4000 Number, and is financially
responsible for phone service to the 4000 Number. The Plaintiff has
been registered with the national do-not-call registry since
December 4, 2014. The impersonal and generic nature of Defendant's
text message, demonstrates that 2014.[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

LLOYD PEST CONTROL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Miranda Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
EMILIO MIRANDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE LLOYD PEST CONTROL CO.; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2018-00052510-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Oct. 15,
2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and
rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff Miranda was employed by the Defendants as a
non-exempt employee from July 2016 to July 2018.

The Lloyd Pest Control Co. Inc. provides pest control services in
San Diego, Riverside, and Orange County. It offers protection
against ants, fleas, roaches, spiders, carpet beetles, rats, mice,
termites, wasps, bed bugs, and bees. The company was founded in
1931 and is based in San Diego, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Drew Koning, Esq.
          Blake Zollar, Esq.
          KONING ZOLLAR LLP
          2210 Encinitas Blvd, Ste. S
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Telephone: (858) 252-3234
          Facsimile: (858) 252-3238

               - and -

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


LSP PRODUCTS: Harris Product Liability Suit Transferred to E.D. Ca.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Tiffany Harris individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LSP
Products Group, Inc., NCH Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-03091 (C.D. Cal., April 12, 2018) was transferred to the
Eastern District of California and assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-02973-TLN-KJN on Nov. 14, 2018.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

LSP Products Group, Inc. designs and manufactures plumbing
products. It offers bathtub drain assemblies and repair kits, turn
ball valves, washing machine outlet boxes, icemaker boxes,
mini-hammer arresters, gas outlet boxes and faceplates, clamps,
clamp systems, hangers, groundwork items, flashings and shields,
test plugs, cleanout covers, bathwaste assemblies, and trim kits
and accessories.

NCH Corporation is an international marketer of maintenance
products. It is one of the largest companies in the world to sell
such products through direct marketing channels. NCH has several
wholly owned subsidiaries, some of them in the maintenance products
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (877) 206-4741
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com

          - and -

     Meghan George, Esq.
     Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, PC
     21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (877) 206-4741
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: mgeorge@toddflaw.com

          - and -

     Thomas Edward Wheeler, Esq.
     Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman
     21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (888) 595-9111
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: twheeler@toddflaw.com

          - and -

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq., PHV
     Greg Coleman Law PC
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Phone: (865) 247-0080
     Fax: (865) 522-0049
     Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

          - and -

     Lisa A. White, Esq., PHV
     Greg Coleman Law PC
     500 W. Main Avenue, Suite 600
     Knoxville, TN 37902
     Phone: (865) 247-0080
     Fax: (865) 522-0049
     Email: lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

          - and -

     Mark E. Silvey, Esq., PHV
     Greg Coleman Law PC
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Phone: (865) 247-0080
     Fax: (865) 522-0049
     Email: mark@gregcolemanlaw.com

          - and -

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (877) 206-4741
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Teresa Zintgraff Youhanaie, Esq., NCAED
     Timothy D McGonigle PC
     1880 Century Park East, Suite 516
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 478-7110
     Fax: (888) 266-9410
     Email: tyouhanaie@icloud.com

          - and -

     Adam W Green, Esq.
     Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell and Berkowitz PC
     1301 McKinney Street Suite 3700
     Houston, TX 77010
     Phone: (713) 650-9700 x 7180
     Fax: (713) 650-9701
     Email: agreen@bakerdonelson.com

          - and -

     Amy L Champagne, Esq.
     Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell and Berkowitz PC
     100 Vision Drive Suite 400
     Jackson, MI 39211
     Phone: (601) 351-8912
     Fax: (601) 974-8912
     Email: achampagne@bakerdonelson.com

          - and -

     Samuel D Gregory, Esq.
     Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell and Berkowitz PC
     100 Vision Drive Suite 400
     Jackson, MI 39211
     Phone: (601) 969-4656
     Fax: (601) 714-9956
     Email: sdgregory@bakerdonelson.com

          - and -

     Timothy D. McGonigle, Esq., NCAED
     Timothy D McGonigle Law Offices
     1880 Century Park East Suite 516
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 478-7110
     Fax: (888) 266-9410
     Email: tim@mcgoniglelaw.net


MDL 2326: Boston Scientific Seeks to Dismiss Caldwell Case
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CALDWELL, Sandra and David
Caldwell vs. Boston Scientific Corporation (d/b/a Mansfield
Scientific, Inc. & Microvasive, Inc.), and John Doe Corporations
1-50, the Case 2:12-cv-03403 (S.D. W.Va.), the Defendant moves the
Court to dismiss this case with prejudice, pursuant to the
procedure and requirements established by Pretrial Order No. 186
[MDL No. 2326, Re: Boston Scientific Corp., Pelvic Repair System
Products Liability Litigation].

In support of the motion, Defendant attests that:

   1. Defendant has received a valid, executed settlement release
      from plaintiff.

   2. Settlement funds (via a QSF or otherwise) have been
      disbursed to plaintiff's counsel.

   3. Defendant has been informed that disbursement of the
      settlement funds to plaintiff has occurred.[CC]

Counsel for Boston Scientific Corp.:

          Jon A. Strongman, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MI 64108
          Telephone: (816) 474 6550
          Facsimile: (816) 421 5547
          E-mail: jstrongman@shb.com

MDL 2591: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in MIR 162 Corn Case Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN LITIGATION. This
Document Relates To: Louis Dreyfus Company Grains Merchandising LLC
v. Syngenta AG, et al., No. 16-2788-JWL, MDL No. 2591, Case No.
14-md-2591-JWL (D. Kan.), Judge John W. Lungstrum of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas denied Syngenta's motion
for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the remaining claims
asserted by Plaintiff Louis Dreyfus Co. Grains Merchandising, LLC.

The MDL includes hundreds of similar suits filed against Syngenta
by corn farmers and others in the corn industry.  The suits
generally relate to Syngenta's commercialization of
genetically-modified corn seed products, Viptera and Duracade,
which contained the trait MIR 162, without approval of that trait
by China, an export market.  The plaintiffs have alleged that
Syngenta's commercialization of its products caused the
genetically-modified corn to be commingled throughout the corn
supply in the United States; that China rejected imports of all
corn from the United States because of the presence of MIR 162;
that such rejection caused corn prices to drop in the United
States; and that corn farmers and others in the industry were
harmed by that market effect.  The Court certified state-wide
classes for tort claims by producers under the law of eight
different states.

The particular case within the MDL to which the order relates was
brought by Plaintiff LDC in the District of Minnesota.  LDC alleges
that it operates grain elevators and that it buys, sells, and
exports corn.  By its first amended complaint, LDC asserted claims
against Syngenta under the federal Lanham Act and state-law claims
for negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, and tortious
interference with business expectations.  By Memorandum and Order
of Jan. 19, 2018, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Lanham Act and
fraud claims, as well as the negligence claim to the extent based
on certain theories.

Syngenta now seeks judgment on the remaining negligence and
tortious interference claims.

Judge Lungstrum finds that Section 52-577 sets an absolute
three-year bar on tort claims, and there is no evidence that the
Connecticut Legislature did not mean what it stated in that
statute.  Moreover, LDC has not identified any Connecticut court
that has extended American Pipe beyond the U.S. Supreme Court's own
limitation to toll the statute's three-year period.  In the absence
of authority from Connecticut, the Judget will not create such an
exception to the plain language of Section 52-577.  Accordingly, he
rejects LDC's argument for application of American Pipe tolling in
the case.

Alternatively, LDC argues that it is entitled to tolling under the
continuing course of conduct doctrine.  The Judge finds that LDC
has alleged related conduct continuing after October 2013, which
would allow the doctrine to apply in the case.  LDC has alleged
non-segregable injuries -- the drop in the price of corn and the
closure of the Chinese market -- from the commercialization of both
products, and the Connecticut Supreme Court has distinguished
conduct causing such a cumulative injury from the case in which
repeated events give rise to discrete injuries, which case would
not fall within the tolling doctrine.

LDC will be required eventually to produce evidence of a continuing
course of conduct sufficient to support application of the tolling
doctrine.  At this stage, however, based solely on the pleadings,
the Judge concludes that the doctrine could apply to toll the
running of the three-year period in Section 52-577 in the case.
Thus, he cannot conclude that LDC's claims are untimely as a matter
of law, and it therefore denied Syngenta's motion for judgment on
the pleadings.

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

All Plaintiffs, represented by Don M. Downing -- ddowning@grgpc.com
-- Gray, Ritter & Graham, PC, pro hac vice, Patrick J. Stueve --
stueve@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Richard L.
Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm, Scott A. Powell -- scott@hwnn.com --
Hare Wynn Newell & Newton, pro hac vice & William B. Chaney --
wchaney@grayreed.com -- Gray Reed & McGraw, LLP, pro hac vice.

All Defendants, represented by Michael D. Jones --
michael.jones@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice &
Thomas P. Schult -- tschult@berkowitzoliver.com -- Berkowitz Oliver
Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP.

Ellen K. Reisman, Special Master, represented by Ellen K. Reisman
-- tschult@berkowitzoliver.com -- Reisman Karron Greene LLP.

Stracener Farming Company, Plaintiff, represented by Clark W. Mason
-- clark@clarkmason.com -- Clark Mason Attorneys, pro hac vice,
James J. Thompson, Jr. --  JT@JimThompsonLaw.com -- pro hac vice,
Jerry Obe Kelly, Kelly Law Firm, PA, pro hac vice, John Paul Byrd
-- wwinfo@paulbyrdlawfirm.com -- Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin J. Phipps -- mphipps@phippscavazos.com -- Phipps
Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts -- mcwatts@wattsguerra.com --
Watts Guerra, LLP & Nolan E. Awbrey, Riley Jackson, PC, pro hac
vice.

David Stracener, Plaintiff, represented by Clark W. Mason, Clark
Mason Attorneys, pro hac vice, James J. Thompson, Jr., pro hac
vice, Jerry Obe Kelly, Kelly Law Firm, PA, pro hac vice, John Paul
Byrd, Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin J. Phipps,
Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP &
Nolan E. Awbrey, Riley Jackson, PC, pro hac vice.

Larry Petit, Plaintiff, represented by Clark W. Mason, Clark Mason
Attorneys, pro hac vice, James J. Thompson, Jr., pro hac vice,
Jerry Obe Kelly, Kelly Law Firm, PA, pro hac vice, John Paul Byrd,
Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps
Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP & Nolan E.
Awbrey, Riley Jackson, PC, pro hac vice.

Trans Coastal Supply Company Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jayne
Conroy -- JConroy@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons Hanly Conroy, Martin
J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts
Guerra, LLP, Patrick J. Stueve, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Paul J.
Hanly -- phanly@simmonsfirm.com -- Jr., Simmons Hanly Conroy, Sarah
Burns, Simmons Hanly Conroy & William B. Chaney --
wchaney@grayreed.com -- Gray Reed & McGraw, LLP.

Luke Claas, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt --
wchaney@grayreed.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice,
Edmund S. Aronowitz, Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice, J. Brett
Milbourn -- BMILBOURN@WBSVLAW.COM -- Walters Bender Strohbehn &
Vaughan, PC, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice,
Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts
Guerra, LLP, Paul D. Lundberg -- paul@lundberglawfirm.com --
Lundberg Law Firm, PLC, pro hac vice & Thomas V. Bender --
TBENDER@WBSVLAW.COM -- Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, PC.

Meinke Farms, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant &
Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice, Edmund S. Aronowitz, Grant &
Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice, J. Brett Milbourn, Walters Bender
Strohbehn & Vaughan, PC, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac
vice, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts,
Watts Guerra, LLP, Paul D. Lundberg, Lundberg Law Firm, PLC, pro
hac vice & Thomas V. Bender, Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan,
PC.

Cargill International SA, Defendant, represented by Clifford M.
Greene -- cgreene@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP, Erin
Sindberg Porter -- esindbergporter@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel
PLLP, Janine W. Kimble, Greene Espel PLLP, John W. Ursu --
jursu@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP, Martin J. Phipps,
Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP & X.
Kevin Zhao -- kzhao@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP.

Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff, represented by
D. Scott Aberson -- scott.aberson@maslon.com -- Maslon Edelman
Borman & Brand, LLP, David S. Chipman, CASA of Shawnee County, pro
hac vice, Edwin J.U. -- edwin.u@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis,
Michael D. Jones -- michael.jones@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis,
Patrick F. Philbin -- patrick.philbin@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis & Thomas P. Schult -- tschult@berkowitzoliver.com --
Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP.

Syngenta Corporation, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by David
S. Chipman, CASA of Shawnee County, pro hac vice.

Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff, represented by David
S. Chipman, CASA of Shawnee County, pro hac vice.

Cargill International SA, Defendant, represented by Clifford M.
Greene, Greene Espel PLLP, Erin Sindberg Porter, Greene Espel PLLP,
Janine W. Kimble, Greene Espel PLLP, John W. Ursu, Greene Espel
PLLP, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts,
Watts Guerra, LLP & X. Kevin Zhao, Greene Espel PLLP.


MDL 2741: Fuller Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MELISSA FULLER, the Plaintiff, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01726, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 26, 2018. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-06542-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant 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 Sonnier case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          Joseph B. Carnduff, Esq.
          156 N. Main St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659-9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com
                  jcarnduff@gorijulianlaw.com


MDL 2741: Lamb Suit vs. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled WILLIAM A. LAMB, and SARAH E. LAMB,
the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
5:18-cv-00552, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 26, 2018.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-06541-VC to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant 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 Lamb case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jennifer A. Moore, Esq.
          Ashton Rose Smith, Esq.
          GROSSMAN & MOORE, PLLC
          One Riverfront Plaza
          401 West Main Street, Suite 1810
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 657-7100
          Facsimile: (502) 657-7111
          E-mail: jmoore@gminjurylaw.com
                  asmith@gminjurylaw.com

MECTA CORPORATION: Riera Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jose Riera, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
in their lawsuit titled Jose Riera, et al. v. Somatics, LLC, et
al., Case No. 2:17-cv-06686-RGK-PJW, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is entitled Jose Riera, et al. v. Somatics, LLC,
et al., Case No. 18-56470, filed in the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit.  That
appellate case is styled as Jose Riera, et al. v. Mecta
Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-80043.

The Plaintiffs have sought certification of these classes:

   (1) All individuals in the United States who received ECT
       treatment in California, and suffered resulting injuries
       from May 28, 1982 through to the date of judgment, where
       such treatment was administered by an ECT device
       manufactured, sold, and/or distributed by either
       Defendant, Mecta or Somatics, after May 28, 1982; and

   (2) The spouses of the patients who have suffered related loss
       of consortium damages.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 29, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on December 31, 2018;

   -- Appellants Daniel Benjamin, Marcia Benjamin, Deborah Chase,
      Michelle Himes, Jose Riera and Diane Scurrah's opening
      brief is due on February 7, 2019;

   -- Appellees Mecta Corporation and Somatics, LLC's answering
      brief is due on March 11, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSE RIERA, DEBORAH CHASE, MICHELLE HIMES,
DIANE SCURRAH, MARCIA BENJAMIN and DANIEL BENJAMIN, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          David M. Karen, Esq.
          DK LAW GROUP LLP
          3155 Old Conejo Road
          Thousand Oaks, CA 91320
          Telephone: (805) 498-1212
          Facsimile: (805) 498-3030
          E-mail: dk@dk4law.com

Defendant-Appellee SOMATICS, LLC, is represented by:

          David Sean Poole, Esq.
          POOLE & SHAFFERY, LLP
          25350 Magic Mountain Parkway
          Valencia, CA 91355
          Telephone: (213) 439-5390
          Facsimile: (213) 439-0183
          E-mail: dpoole@pooleshaffery.com

Defendant-Appellee MECTA CORPORATION is represented by:

          Ian Stewart, Esq.
          WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
          555 S. Flower Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2407
          Telephone: (213) 443-5100
          E-mail: ian.stewart@wilsonelser.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Vlastelica Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
DARLENE VLASTELICA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, and ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07161 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 25, 2018),
seeks to recover statutory damages, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses and costs of suit, under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, Ms Darlene Vlastelica is a resident of
the State of Illinois and natural person, from whom Defendants
attempted to collect several delinquent consumer debts allegedly
owed for a defaulted personal cell phone account and two defaulted
credit card accounts used for personal or household purposes.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. is engaged in the business of a
collection agency, using the mails and telephone to collect
defaulted consumer debts originally owed to others.

The Defendants sent a collection letter to Plaintiff threatening to
unlawfully report credit information to a third party, falsely
representing that a debt was enforceable when in fact it was not,
failing to inform Plaintiff that the partial payment it was seeking
would in fact reset the statute of limitations on an alleged debt,
thereby permitting Defendants to sue Plaintiff to enforce the debt,
and misrepresenting the impact of agreeing to a settlement offer on
an alleged debt, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff has thus suffered an injury as a result of
Defendants' conduct, giving rise to standing before this Court.
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1544 (2016), quoting Lujan
v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 580 (1992) (Congress has
the power to define
injuries and articulate chains of causation that will give rise to
a case or controversy where none existed before.); Bellwood v.
Dwivedi, 895 F. 2d 1521, 1526-27 (7th Cir. 1990) ("Congress can
create new substantive rights, such as a right to be free from
misrepresentations, and if that right is invaded the holder of the
right can sue without running afoul of Article III, even if he
incurs no other injury."). The Plaintiff has a congressionally
defined right to receive all communications from a debt collector
free from any false representations and false threats.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Mario K. Kasalo, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD.
          20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-726-6160
          Facsimile: 312-698-5054
          E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Wood, Esq.
          Celetha Chatman, Esq.
          Community Lawyers Group, Ltd.
          73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 514
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 757 1880
          Facsimile: (312) 265 3227
          E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com
                  cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com


MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Certification of Two Classes Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY OF
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY,
TENNESSEE, d/b/a NASHVILLE GENERAL HOSPITAL and AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 HEALTH
& SECURITY PLAN, the Plaintiffs, vs. MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
and SANDOZ INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01100 (M.D.
Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying Classes:

      Damages Class:

      "all persons and entities who indirectly purchased, paid
      for, and/or reimbursed some or all of the purchase price
      for, generic enoxaparin or Lovenox(TM), in Arizona,
      Arkansas, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii,

      Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
      Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,

      New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North
      Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West
      Virginia, and Wisconsin, from September 21, 2011, through
      September 30, 2015, for the purpose of personal consumption
      by themselves, their families, or their members, employees,
      insureds, participants, patients, beneficiaries or anyone
      else."

      Excluded from the proposed Damages Class are:

      a) Persons and entities who only bought for purposes of
         resale;

      b) Defendants, their officers, directors, management,
         employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates;

      c) Federal and state governmental agencies except for
         cities, towns, municipalities, counties or other
         municipal government entities, if otherwise qualified;

      d) Payors that received 100% reimbursement on all
         transactions, such as fully insured health plans (i.e.,
         plans that purchased insurance covering 100% of their
         reimbursement obligation to members);

     e) Persons and entities who purchased, or paid or reimbursed
        only for branded Lovenox (TM), and not generic enoxaparin,
        from a pharmacy or other retail outlet;

     f) "Flat co-pay" consumers, whose only purchases were paid or
        reimbursed in part by a third-party payor, and whose
        copayment was the same regardless of the retail purchase
        price; and

     g) Judges assigned to this case and any members of their
        immediate families.

     Nationwide Injunctive Relief Class:

     "all persons and entities residing in the United States that,
     during the period from September 21, 2011, through the
     present (the ???Class Period???), indirectly purchased Lovenox

     (TM) or generic enoxaparin for their own use and not for
     resale."

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as Class representatives;

   3. appointing Lieff Cabraser as Class Counsel; and

   4. excluding in its entirety the testimony of Dr. Cremieux.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Adam Gitlin, Esq.
          Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
          Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
          Bruce W. Leppla, Esq.
          Katherine L. Benson, Esq.
          Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
          John T. Spragens, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 946111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008

Attorneys for Sandoz Inc.:

          Teresa T. Bonder (pro hac vice)
          Liz Brodway Brown (pro hac vice)
          D. Andrew Hatchett (pro hac vice)
          Michael P. Kenny (pro hac vice)
          Matthew D. Kent (pro hac vice)
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          One Atlantic Center
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Telephone: (404) 881-7000
          Facsimile: (404) 881-7777

               - and -

          Timothy L. Warnock (TN Bar No. 12844)
          RILEY WARNOCK & JACOBSON, PLC
          1906 West End Avenue
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 320-3700
          Facsimile: (615) 320-3737

Attorneys for Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc.:

          Jeremy Lowe, Esq.
          Jason T. Murata, Esq.
          Thomas G. Rohback, Esq.
          AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
          90 State House Square
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 275-8100
          Facsimile: (860) 275-8101

               - and -

          Richard B. Dagen, Esq.
          Bradley D. Justus, Esq.
          Michael L. Keeley, Esq.
          Daniel K. Oakes, Esq.
          AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
          950 F Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 912-4700
          Facsimile: (202) 912-4701

               - and -

          R. Dale Grimes, Esq.
          Clark D. Milner, Esq.
          BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC
          150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 742-6200

MONSANTO COMPANY: Anderson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA ANDERSON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01827 (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 Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          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: 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: Calkins et al Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS CALKINS and MARY CALKINS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01828 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 26,
2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, 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
Plaintiffs' 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, Esq.
          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: Hogan Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARTHA HOGAN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01822 (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 Plaintiff 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
Plaintiffs' 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, Esq.
          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: Jarrett Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM E. JARRETT, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01823 (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 Plaintiff 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
Plaintiffs' 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, Esq.
          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: Kruppas Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER KRUPPA and DINAH KRUPPA, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01825 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 26,
2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, 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
Plaintiffs' 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, Esq.
          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

NABORS INDUSTRIES: Consolidated Class Action in Texas Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries Ltd. 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 company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division.

On September 29, 2017, Nabors and Nabors Maple Acquisition Ltd.
were sued, along with Tesco Corporation ("Tesco") and its Board of
Directors, in a putative shareholder class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division.

The plaintiff alleges that the September 18, 2017 Preliminary Proxy
Statement filed by Tesco with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission omitted material information with respect to
the proposed transaction between Tesco and Nabors announced on
August 14, 2017.

The plaintiff claims that the omissions rendered the Proxy
Statement false and misleading, constituting a violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and alleges liability by Nabors as a control person of Tesco.

The court consolidated several matters and entered a lead plaintiff
appointment order. The plaintiff filed their amended complaint,
adding Nabors Industries, Ltd. as a party.

Nabors has filed its motion to dismiss and will vehemently defend
itself against the allegations.

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

Nabors Industries Ltd. provides drilling and drilling-related
services and technologies for land-based and offshore oil and
natural gas wells. It operates through five segments: U.S., Canada,
International, Drilling Solutions, and Rig Technologies. The
company offers equipment manufacturing, rig instrumentation,
optimization software, and directional drilling services. Nabors
Industries Ltd. was founded in 1952 and is headquartered in
Hamilton, Bermuda.


NECESSARY CLOTHING: Sued by Garey Over Disabilities Act Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Necessary Clothing,
Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Necessary Clothing, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10574 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018).

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

Necessary Clothing Inc is a privately held company in New York, NY
and is a Single Location business, categorized under Clothing
Stores.[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


NEW YORK ADORNED: Garey Sues Piercing Shop for ADA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York Adorned,
Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. New York Adorned, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10509 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018).

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

New York Adorned, Inc., was established in 1996 by Lori Leven
before the ban on tattooing was lifted in NYC. They are a piercing
and jewelry store that believes in the power of individual
creativity and collaborative effort.[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


NEWALTA ENVIRONMENTAL: Bid to Strike Third-Party Complaint in Berry
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRIS BERRYMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NEWALTA ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC., Defendant/Third-party Defendant. v. SMITH
MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING, LLC, Third-party Defendant, Civil Action
No. 18-793 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Nora Barry Discher of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied
Berryman's motion to strike or sever Newelta's third-party
complaint.

The labor law dispute involves alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
("PMWA").  In his complaint, Berryman avers that Newalta employed
him to perform services as a solids control technician in the oil
and gas industry.  He alleges that Newalta improperly classified
him and other similarly situated workers as independent contractors
to avoid paying them overtime.  He therefore brings the
class-action suit to recover overtime pay under the FLSA and the
PMWA.

In response, Newalta asserts that it is not an employer for
purposes of the FLSA or PMWA.  Although Newalta admits that
Berryman performed some very limited services for the company, it
claims that Smith Management and Consulting, LLC employed him for
those services.  Newalta further asserts that Smith Management was
a third-party services provider for Newalta and that Smith
Management was responsible for paying Berryman.

Newalta filed a third-party complaint against Smith Consulting on
July 23, 2018.  There, Newalta asserts that Smith Management
controlled all aspects of Berryman's employment.  It also claims
that, to the extent there was any violation of the FLSA or PMWA,
Smith Management is fully liable for such violation, not Newalta.
Accordingly, Newalta brings forth claims for breach of contract,
common law indemnity, and contribution.

On Aug. 13, 2018, Berryman filed a motion to strike or sever
Newalta's third-party complaint.  Citing Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 14, he claims that the third-party complaint is wholly
improper because the employer cannot contract around FLSA
obligations.  In other words, Berryman argues that the FLSA does
not allow an employer to seek indemnity or contribution.  He
further contends that the Court does not have diversity or
supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in the third-party
complaint.  Finally, he argues that it would be inefficient for the
court to hear the claims in the third-party complaint in this
current class-action suit.

With that legal framework in mind, Judge Discher turns to the
sufficiency of the third-party complaint.  First, as long as
Newalta brought a proper third-party complaint, the Court has no
difficulty in finding subject matter jurisdiction.  Second,
third-party complaints are proper under Rule 14 provided that the
pleadings provide a basis for the third-party defendant's liability
to the defendant/third-party plaintiff.  Finally, the Judge
disagrees with Berryman to the extent he argues that it would be
"inefficient" to allow the third-party complaint to proceed in the
suit.

Judge Discher concludes that to the extent Newalta seeks
indemnification or contribution for relief under the FLSA, those
claims are preempted and will be dismissed with prejudice.  The
third-party complaint is otherwise proper.  The Court has
supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in the third-party
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a).  Additionally, the
third-party complaint comports with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
14(a).  Finally, the third-party claims should be heard in the suit
to further judicial efficiency and to prevent the necessity of
trying related claims in different lawsuits.  Accordingly she
denied Berryman's motion.  An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/TJanrC from Leagle.com.

CHRIS BERRYMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Dunlap --
adunlap@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, Michael A.
Josephson -- mjosephson@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap Law
Firm, Jennifer Solak , Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, pro hac vice,
Joshua P. Geist -- josh@goodrichandgeist.com -- Goodrich & Geist,
P.C. & Richard J. Burch -- rburch@brucknerburch.com -- Bruckner
Burch PLLC.

NEWALTA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, represented by
Rebecca B. Decook -- becky.decook@moyewhite.com -- Moye White LLP,
pro hac vice, Andrew T. Flynn -- andrew.flynn@moyewhite.com -- Moye
White LLP, pro hac vice, Bruce C. Fox -- bruce.fox@obermayer.com --
Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, Jeffrey B. Cadle --
jeffrey.cadle@obermayer.com -- BNY Mellon Center & Rachel E. Yeates
-- rachel.yeates@moyewhite.com -- Moye White LLP, pro hac vice.

NEWALTA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., ThirdParty Plaintiff,
represented by Andrew T. Flynn, Moye White LLP, pro hac vice,
Rebecca B. Decook, Moye White LLP, Bruce C. Fox, Obermayer Rebmann
Maxwell & Hippel LLP, Jeffrey B. Cadle, BNY Mellon Center & Rachel
E. Yeates, Moye White LLP.

SMITH MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING, LLC, ThirdParty Defendant,
represented by Daniel D. Fassio -- dfassio@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth
Shaw LLP.


OAK NYC APPAREL: Faces ADA Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oak NYC Apparel Co.,
L.P. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Oak NYC Apparel Co., L.P.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10506 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018).

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

Oak NYC Apparel Co., L.P. is a privately held company in Brooklyn,
NY, categorized under Boutiques.[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



OKLAHOMA: Court Dismisses Fishinghawk Suit Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Scott L. Palk of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma dismissed without prejudice the case, EVAN C.
FISHINGHAWK, Plaintiff, v. CARL BEAR, WARDEN, et al., Defendants,
Case No. CIV-18-926-SLP (W.D. Okla.).

The Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se, brings the action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging violations of his
federal constitutional rights.  The matter was referred to U.S.
Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1)(B)-(C) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

On Oct. 16, 2018, Judge Erwin issued a Report and Recommendation in
which he recommended the Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without
prejudice due to the Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's
Order directing the Plaintiff to either pay the $400 filing fee or
submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis conforming to the
statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(2) on Oct. 11,
2018.

In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Erwin advised the Plaintiff
of his right to object to the findings set forth therein and
further advised him that failure to timely object would constitute
a waiver of his right to appellate review of the factual and legal
matters in the Report and Recommendation.

On Oct. 26, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted what appears to be an
objection to the Report and Recommendation.  He states he has no
funds to appeal and has turned the case into a class action and
references a class action complaint mailed on Oct. 18, 2018.  A
review of the Court's docket demonstrates that he did commence a
separate action purportedly as a class action by filing a complaint
on Oct. 19, 2018.

The Plaintiff does not object to the findings set forth in the
Report and Recommendation or attempt to demonstrate cause for his
failure to cure the deficiencies noted by the Court.  Instead, he
states that he objects to not refiling and asks that if the Court
dismisses his action, it do so without prejudice so that the
Plaintiff can "file properly."

Although the Court could construe the Plaintiff's submission as a
notice of voluntary dismissal, Judge Palk declined to do so.  The
Plaintiff has demonstrated his ability to file a notice of
voluntary dismissal in other litigation before the Court and did
not expressly do so in the action.  Instead, the Judge adopted the
Report and Recommendation and dismissed the action without
prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) based on the
Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/UNgGIu from Leagle.com.

Evan C. Fishinghawk, Plaintiff, pro se.


OLIVE & BETTE'S: Garey Files Class Action Under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Olive & Bette's Co.,
LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Olive & Bette's Co., LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10510 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018).

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

Olive and Bette's Co., Inc. designs and retails apparel for women.
It also offers accessories. The company offers its products through
its boutiques and a Web boutique.[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



OPTIMUM HEALTHCARE: $4.9MM Arrington Suit Deal Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREA ARRINGTON, ET AL. v. OPTIMUM HEALTHCARE IT,
LLC, Civil Action No. 17-3950 (E.D. Pa.), Judge R. Barclay Surrick,
J.  of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted both (i) the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Approval of Settlement of Class and Collective Action, and (ii) the
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and
Costs

Arrington, Terry Scott, Lakina Taylor, and Jarmond Johnson, on
behalf of themselves and the putative class, request the Court's
final approval of a negotiated collective and class action
settlement with Defendant Optimum, which would resolve their claims
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the wage hour
statutes of various states, including Pennsylvania.  The Court
previously granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary
approval.  The Plaintiffs now seek final certification of their
settlement class and final approval of the class and collective
action settlement.  The Plaintiffs also seek approval of attorneys'
fees and costs.

The proposed Settlement Agreement provides for a gross settlement
amount of $4.9 million.  The parties have agreed that this amount
will be distributed in three installments.  The first 50% of the
gross settlement amount, $2.45 million, will be wired to a
settlement escrow account on Dec. 1, 2018.  The second installment
of $500,000 will be wired to the settlement escrow account on June
1, 2019.  Finally, the third installment of $1.95 million will be
wired to the settlement escrow account on Dec. 1, 2019.

The parties have also agreed to deduct the following amounts from
the gross settlement: (1) service awards of $7,500 for each of the
named Plaintiffs; (2) attorneys' fees in an amount of one-third of
the gross settlement amount, or $1,633,333.33; and (3) the class
counsel's reasonable out of pocket costs in the amount of
$21,091.56.  These amounts subtracted from the gross settlement
amount results in a net settlement amount of $3,215,576.

Each of the "Eligible Class Members" will be paid a settlement
award from this net settlement amount.  Eligible Class Members
include the named Plaintiffs, any opt-in Plaintiffs and the
settlement class members who have submitted claim forms.  The
amount of each award will be determined in accordance with the
number of overtime hours the Eligible Class Member worked during
the class period.  Based on the number of claims that class counsel
has received, they predict that settlement class members who have
submitted valid claims forms will receive, on average, $1,487.57.

In exchange for this amount, the Settlement Class Members,
including the named Plaintiffs, will provide a release to Optimum
that is limited to the alleged claims in the Amended Complaint.
The release is not a general release, and only releases claims
related to wage and hour/unpaid overtime claims. In addition, the
release of FLSA claims applies only to "Eligible Class Members,"
which includes Plaintiffs, Opt-in Plaintiffs, and Settlement Class
Members who submitted claim forms.  Those class members who did not
submit claim forms do not release their claims.

A hearing on the final approval of the proposed settlement was held
on Sept. 17, 2018.  During the hearing, the parties notified the
Court of certain amendments to the payment terms contained in the
Settlement Agreement.  The parties determined that these amendments
were necessary to address the declining financial condition of
Optimum.

Based upon the parties' representations at the hearing, Judge
Surrick concluded that the Settlement Agreement, including the
proposed changes, was fair and reasonable.  He also concluded that
the award of attorneys' fees as requested by the class counsel was
fair and reasonable.  

For these foregoing reasons, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Approval of Settlement of Class and Collective
Action and the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Approval of
Attorneys' Fees and Costs.  An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/yNsiFm from Leagle.com.

ANDREA ARRINGTON & TERRY SCOTT, Plaintiffs, represented by DAVID M.
BLANCHARD -- blanchard@bwlawonline.com -- BLANCHARD & WALKER PLLC,
ERIC LECHTZIN -- elechtzin@bm.net -- BERGER MONTAGUE PC, HAROLD L.
LICHTEN -- hlichten@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC, OLENA
SAVYTSKA -- osavytska@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC,
SHANON J. CARSON -- scarson@bm.net -- BERGER MONTAGUE PC & CAMILLE
FUNDORA -- cfundora@bm.net -- Berger Montague PC.

JARMOND JOHNSON & LAKINA TAYLOR, Plaintiffs, represented by HAROLD
L. LICHTEN, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC, SHANON J. CARSON, BERGER
MONTAGUE PC & ERIC LECHTZIN, BERGER MONTAGUE PC.

OPTIMUM HEALTHCARE IT, LLC, Defendant, represented by CRAIG BENSON
-- cbenson@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., MARC D. ESTEROW
-- mesterow@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. & MATTHEW J.
HANK -- mhank@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C..


PBF ENERGY: Removed Kendig Case to Central District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy Limited and Torrance Refining Company LLC remove the
case captioned as MICHELLE KENDIG and JIM KENDIG, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees,
the Plaintiffs, vs. EXXONMOBIL OIL CORP.; EXXONMOBIL PIPELINE
COMPANY; PBF ENERGY LIMITED; TORRANCE REFINING COMPANY, LLC; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC 722119, from the Los
Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Oct. 26, 2018. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-09224 to the
proceeding.

The complaint concerns alleged breaches of Defendants' obligations
to authorize and permit rest periods and to furnish timely and
accurate wage statements, pursuant to California Labor Code.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendants PBF Energy Limited and Torrance Refining
Company LLC:

          Gary T. Lafayette, Esq.
          Barbara L. Lyons, Esq.
          LAFAYETTE & KUMAGAI LLP
          1300 Clay Street, Suite 810
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 357-4600
          Facsimile: (415) 357-4605


PERCEPTA LLC: Renewed Bid to Certify Collective Action Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN LAYTON, TAHARRIA HAMILTON, DEBORAH ESTES and LISA DAVINO,
the Plaintiffs, v. PERCEPTA, LLC, the Defendant, Case
6:17-cv-01488-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Carlos E. Mendoza
entered an order on Oct. 29, 2018:

   1. adopting and confirming a Report and Recommendation submitted
by Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick and making a part of this
Order; and

   2. denying Plaintiffs' renewed motion to conditionally certify a
collective action.[CC]


PETER MANNING: Garey Files Class Suit Asserting ADA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peter Manning LLC.
The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Peter Manning LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10570 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018).

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

Peter Manning LLC is a privately held company in New York, NY and
is a Headquarters business, categorized under Wholesale Men's
Apparel.[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


PLS CHECK: Fails to Supply Sufficient Uniforms to Staff, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JESENA SOLIMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. PLS CHECK CASHIERS OF NEW YORK, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 159898/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 25, 2018),
seeks to recover damages and other legal and equitable relief
against Defendant under the New York State Labor Law, the New York
Code of Rules and Regulations, and the New York Wage Theft
Prevention Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant is not employer in the
Hospitality Industry, but rather, owns and operates check cashing
facilities. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a
cashier/teller from August 15, 2016 through present. The Plaintiff
worked approximately five to six days per week with shifts lasting
from eight to ten hours.

Defendant required Plaintiff and the Class to wear a uniform
consisting of a shirt emblazoned with Defendant's logo for each of
shift worked.  Defendant only provided Plaintiff and the Class with
one to three uniforms each despite each them working five or more
days per week. Defendant failed to supply sufficient articles of
uniform clothing consistent with the average number of days per
week worked by Plaintiff and the Class. Defendant did not launder
Plaintiff or the Class's required uniforms, nor did Defendant offer
to launder them. The Plaintiff and the Class's uniforms were issued
by Defendant for the express benefit of Defendant and it was a
condition of their employment to wear them during each shift. The
Defendant never paid any uniform maintenance pay or reimbursement
for the cost of maintaining uniforms. The Plaintiff and the Class
routinely spent time off-the-clock and money to clean and maintain
their uniforms consistent with the uniform appearance standards
Defendant required, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Mark Gaylord, Esq.
          BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
          Attorneys for Plaintiffs
          400 Jericho Turnpike Suite 226
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Telephone: (516) 742-4949
          Facsimile: (516) 742-1977

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Certifies Class in Pozzuolo Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned ROBERT J. POZZUOLO, and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, LLC, the Defendant., Case No. 2:18-cv-01797-TJS (E.D.
Pa), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Savage entered an order on Oct. 25,
2018:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

      "a) All persons with addresses within Philadelphia County,
      Pennsylvania; b) who were sent a two-sided initial collection

      letter from Defendant PRA; c) attempting to collect a
consumer
      debt alleged due in connection with a Capital One Bank
(USA),
      N.A. account; d) which stated "DISPUTES: Call 1-800-772-1413
      [or other telephone number] or write to Portfolio Recovery
      Associates, LLC, Disputes Department", e) where the letter
      bears a send date of April 27, 2017 through the date of this
      class certification Order";

   2. designating Robert Pozzuolo as Class Representative, and
      authorizing Cary L. Flitter, Andrew M. Milz, and Jody T.
Lopez-
      Jacobs of the Flitter Milz, P.C. firm to serve as Class
Counsel
      for the Class;

   3. directing parties to confer Notice and any proposed Class
      Action Notice Administration firm and directing Plaintiff to

      submit a proposed form of Class notification to the Court for

      review and approval within 20 days of this Order; and

   4. directing Defendant to produce a Class List with names and
last
      known address to Plaintiff???s counsel within 20 days of this

      Order for use in mailing Notice to the Class.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
          Drew M. Milz, Esq.
          Jody T. Lopez-Jacobs, Esq.
          FLITTER MILZ , P.C.
          450 N. Narberth Avenue, Suite 101
          Narberth, PA 19072
          Telephone: (610) 822-0782

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Pariot Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Latasha Pariot, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-09614 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2018).

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

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor
Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts. It serves
customers through account representatives.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
     Law Offices of Jonathan A Stieglitz
     11845 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 800
     Los Angeles, CA 90064
     Phone: (323) 979-2063
     Fax: (323) 488-6748
     Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal in Trojan Class Action Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26,
2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
Court of Appeals for the State of Oregon has yet to issue a
decision on plaintiffs' appeal related to customer class action
lawsuits.

In 1993, Portland General Electric Company (PGE) closed the Trojan
nuclear power plant (Trojan) and sought full recovery of, and a
rate of return on, its Trojan costs in a general rate case filing
with the OPUC. In 1995, the Public Utility Commission of Oregon
(OPUC) issued a general rate order that granted the Company
recovery of, and a rate of return on, 87% of its remaining
investment in Trojan.

Numerous challenges and appeals were subsequently filed in various
state courts on the issue of the OPUC's authority under Oregon law
to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment. In
2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon
Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the matter to the
OPUC for reconsideration.

In 2003, in two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed
against PGE on behalf of two classes of electric service customers:
i) Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland General
Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court; and ii) Morgan v.
Portland General Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court. The
class action lawsuits seek damages totaling $260 million, plus
interest, as a result of the Company's inclusion, in prices charged
to customers, of a return on its investment in Trojan.

In August 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) issued a ruling
ordering the abatement of the class action proceedings. The OSC
concluded that the OPUC had primary jurisdiction to determine what,
if any, remedy could be offered to PGE customers, through price
reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan
investment that the Company collected in prices.

In 2008, the OPUC issued an order (2008 Order) that required PGE to
provide refunds of $33 million, including interest, which refunds
were completed in 2010. Following appeals, the 2008 Order was
upheld by the Oregon Court of Appeals in 2013 and by the OSC in
2014.

In June 2015, based on a motion filed by PGE, the Marion County
Circuit Court (Circuit Court) lifted the abatement on the class
action proceedings and in July 2015, heard oral argument on the
Company's motion for Summary Judgment. In March 2016, the Circuit
Court entered a general judgment that granted the Company's motion
for Summary Judgment and dismissed all claims by the plaintiffs. In
April 2016, the plaintiffs appealed the Circuit Court dismissal to
the Court of Appeals for the State of Oregon. A Court of Appeals
decision remains pending.

PGE believes that the 2014 OSC decision and the Circuit Court
decisions that followed have reduced the risk of any loss to the
Company beyond the amounts previously recorded and discussed above.
However, because the class actions remain subject to a decision in
the appeal, management believes that it is reasonably possible that
such a loss to the Company could result. As these matters involve
unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of potential
outcomes, sufficient information is currently not available to
determine the amount of any such loss.

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

Portland General Electric Company, an integrated electric utility
company, engages in the generation, wholesale purchase,
transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the
state of Oregon. The company operates seven thermal plants; seven
hydroelectric plants; and two wind farms. The company was founded
in 1930 and is headquartered in Portland, Oregon.


PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Order in Lorenzo Suit to 4th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Prime Communications, L.P., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Rose Lorenzo v. Prime
Communications, L.P., Case No. 5:12-cv-00069-H-KS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at
Raleigh.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court denied the Defendant's Motion to Decertify Class and granted
the Defendant's Alternative Motion to Amend Class Definition.

The Court previously certified this Fair Labor Standards Act
class:

     All natural persons employed by Prime Communications, L.P.,
     in retail stores and kiosks in the State of North Carolina
     from May 4, 2010 to November 30, 2013 who were paid
     commissions or bonuses during that same period based on
     point of sales transactions.

The appellate case is captioned as Rose Lorenzo v. Prime
Communications, L.P., Case No. 18-2297, 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 9, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee ROSE LORENZO, and all others similarly situated,
is represented by:

          Zev H. Antell, Esq.
          Harris D. Butler, Esq.
          BUTLER ROYALS, PLC
          140 Virginia Street
          Richmond, VA 23219-0000
          Telephone: (804) 648-4848
          E-mail: zev.antell@butlerroyals.com
                  harris.butler@butlerroyals.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Dunn, Esq.
          EMANUEL & DUNN
          130 South Salisbury Street
          P. O. Box 426
          Raleigh, NC 27602-0000
          Telephone: (919) 792-3703
          E-mail: sdunn@emanuelanddunn.com

Defendant-Appellant PRIME COMMUNICATIONS, L.P., a Texas General
Partnership, is represented by:

          Thomas M. Miller, Esq.
          John W. Smith, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP
          1819 5th Avenue, N
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 521-8243
          E-mail: mmiler@bradley.com
                  jsmth@bradley.com

               - and -

          Amy Elizabeth Puckett, Esq.
          Avery A. Simmons, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP
          214 North Tryon Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 332-6000
          E-mail: apuckett@bradley.com
                  asimmons@bradley.com

               - and -

          Scott Burnett Smith, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP
          200 Clintion Avenue West
          Huntsville, AL 35801-0000
          Telephone: (256) 517-5100
          E-mail: ssmith@bradley.com


PROJECT BUILDERS: Medina Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
OMAR MEDINA, On Behalf of Himself And All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. PROJECT BUILDERS CONSTRUCTION CORP.,
PROJECT BUILDERS GROUP LLC, MAXIE DEVELOPMENT LLC, BESSIE
GIANNOPULOS, PARIS GIANNOPULOS and WILLIAM MADDEN, the Defendants,
Case 1:18-cv-06336 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2018), seeks to recover
damages and equitable relief based upon Defendants' flagrant and
willful violations of Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed to them by the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act; the overtime
provisions of New York Labor Law; the requirement that employers
furnish employees with wage statements on each payday containing
specific categories of information under the NYLL section 195(3);
and the requirement that employers furnish employees with a wage
notice at the time of hiring containing specific categories of
accurate information, NYLL section 195(1).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants --
construction companies and their owners/managers -- as a carpenter
and/or laborer from in or about July 1, 2015 until July 25, 2017.
Throughout his employment, the Defendants required Plaintiff to
work, and Plaintiff did work, at least 51 hours a week. However,
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff at the overtime rate of pay
of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for each hour
that Plaintiff worked per week in excess of forty, as the FLSA and
the NYLL require. Furthermore, Defendants failed to furnish
Plaintiff with accurate and/or complete wage statements on each
payday as the NYLL requires or provide Plaintiff with a wage notice
containing the criteria enumerated under the NYLL. The Defendants
paid and treated of all their non-managerial employees who worked
for them in the same manner, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Louis M. Leon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39 th Street, Suite 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 583-7400
          E-mail: LLeon@Cafaroesg.com

QUALITY CUSTOM: D. Hession's Suit Remanded to Colo. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado remanded the case, DREW HESSION, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QUALITY
CUSTOM DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Civil Action No 18-cv-01867-RBJ (D. Colo.), to Arapahoe
County District Court.

Thhe Plaintiff moves to remand the case to state court, arguing
that the Defendant has not established that the matter in
controversy exceeds $75,000, and therefore, the Court does not have
diversity jurisdiction.

Hession was employed by QCD as a warehouse worker from November
2017 to April 2018.  He alleges that he and "dozens" of employees
on his team regularly worked more than 12 hours per shift, but that
QCD did not pay them for all the time he and the others worked and
did not pay them overtime compensation required by Colorado law.

He filed the suit in the Arapahoe County District Court on June 20,
2018 on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.  QCD
removed the case to the Court, invoking federal jurisdiction on
grounds of diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section

The Plaintiff does not dispute that there is diversity of
citizenship between him and QCD.  However, he insists that the
amount in controversy now, i.e., claimed by him individually, does
not exceed the sum or value of $75,000 as required by 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(a).

QCD disagrees. In its Notice of Removal it stated that adding its
estimate of the Plaintiff's attorney's fees in the amount of
$106,400 to the $3,600 estimated damages for Mr. Hession, QCD
arrives at a grand total amount in controversy of $110,032.07.

The Plaintiff notes that such an attorney's fee would be
approximately 30 times the estimated damages and would not be
remotely proportional to the estimated damages.  He notes that his
case at this point is simply an individual action with a prayer for
class action certification that has not been ruled on, and that as
such, there is no possibility that Mr. Hession's individual damages
plus reasonable attorney's fees could reach $75,000.

Judge Jackson agrees that the Court does not, at this time, have
subject matter jurisdiction.  He agree that thes Court would not
consider awarding attorney's fees in the range of teh Defendant's
estimates on the type and size of Mr. Hession's individual claim.
Even if he were to include taxable costs and pre-judgment interest,
an award exceeding $75,000 on his individual claim would not be
reasonable.  Nor would the Court permit the discovery envisioned by
the Defendant for an individual claim of $3,600 in unpaid wages and
overtime, as that level of discovery would be grossly
disproportionate to the size of the claim.  Moreover, the Judge
interpretes the Plaintiff's statements in the motion to remand and
reply brief as implicit if not explicit representations that they
would not request an attorney's fee that would cause the amount in
controversy to exceed $75,000.

The elephant in the room, of course, is that the Plaintiff hopes to
get a class certified on behalf of the purported "dozens" of
workers whom they claim to have be similarly situated.  If a class
were certified, then it might be that the amount in controversy
would exceed $75,000.  At that point, if the addition of class
members has not destroyed diversity, the Defendant could
potentially be in a position to try removal again.  That, however,
is a question for another day.  At this point, the Judge finds that
QCD has not established a basis for federal jurisdiction.

For these reasons, Judge Jackson granted the Plaintiff's motion to
remand, and remanded the case to the Arapahoe County District
Court.  He denied as moot the Defendant's motion to dismiss, or in
the alternative, to stay proceedings and compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ZFwF5s from Leagle.com.

Drew Hession, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Murdoch-Kitt Harrison --
AHarrison@sawayalaw.com -- Sawaya Law Firm & David H. Miller --
DMiller@sawayalaw.com -- Sawaya Law Firm.

Quality Custom Distribution Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Jonathan Helmsley Geneus --
Jonathan.Geneus@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Ryan Paul
Lessmann -- Ryan.Lessmann@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C..


QUANTA SERVICES: Continues to Defend Benton Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Quanta 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 the company
continues to defend itself in Lorenzo Benton v. Telecom Network
Specialists, Inc., et al.

In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom
Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta. Quanta
retained liability associated with this matter pursuant to the
terms of Quanta's sale of TNS in December 2012.

Benton represents a class of workers that includes all persons who
worked on certain TNS projects, including individuals that TNS
retained through numerous staffing agencies. The plaintiff class in
this matter is seeking damages for unpaid wages, penalties
associated with the failure to provide meal and rest periods and
overtime wages, interest and attorneys' fees.

In January 2017, the trial court granted a summary judgment motion
filed by the plaintiff class and found that TNS was a joint
employer of the class members and that it failed to provide
adequate meal and rest breaks and failed to pay overtime wages. In
February 2018, a hearing was held on a final motion for summary
judgment on damages filed by the plaintiff class seeking
approximately $11.1 million for its claims; however, a final
determination regarding the amount of damages was not made.

Quanta believes the court's decision on liability is not supported
by controlling law and continues to contest its liability and the
damage calculation asserted by the plaintiff class in this matter.

Additionally, in November 2007, TNS filed cross complaints for
indemnity and breach of contract against the staffing agencies,
which employed many of the individuals in question. In December
2012, the trial court heard cross-motions for summary judgment
filed by TNS and the staffing agencies pertaining to TNS's demand
for indemnity.

The court denied TNS's motion and granted the motions filed by the
staffing agencies; however, the California Appellate Court reversed
the trial court's decision in part and instructed the trial court
to reconsider its ruling. In February 2017, the court denied a new
motion for summary judgment filed by the staffing companies and has
since stated that the staffing companies would be liable to TNS for
any damages owed to the class members that the staffing companies
employed.

Quanta Services said, "The final amount of liability, if any,
payable in connection with this matter remains the subject of
pending litigation and will ultimately depend on various factors,
including the outcome of Quanta's appeal of the trial court's
ruling on liability, the final determination with respect to any
damages owed by Quanta, and the solvency of the staffing agencies.
Based on review and analysis of the trial court's rulings on
liability, Quanta does not believe, at this time, that it is
probable this matter will result in a material loss. However, if
Quanta is unsuccessful in this litigation and the staffing agencies
are unable to fund damages owed to class members, Quanta believes
the range of reasonably possible loss to Quanta upon final
resolution of this matter could be up to approximately $11.1
million, plus attorneys' fees and expenses of the plaintiff
class."

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

Quanta Services, Inc. provides specialty contracting services to
the electric power, communication, and oil and gas industries in
the United States, Canada, Australia, Latin America, and
internationally. Quanta Services, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Houston, Texas.


RABBEX LLC: Medero Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO MEDERO, and other similarly-situated individuals, the
Plaintiff (s), v. RABBEX LLC and FRANCISCO DIEZ, individually, the
Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-24501-CMA (S.D. Fla., Oct. 27, 2018),
seeks to recover money damages for unpaid half-time overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was hired to work as a
laborer/production employee at Defendants' processing plant. The
Plaintiff was a full time non-exempt hourly employee, working 5-6
days per week more than 40 hours every week. The Plaintiff was
entitled to be paid for overtime hours as established by the FLSA.

The Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly
situated to Plaintiff worked during one or more weeks on or after
October 2017 without being properly compensated for overtime hours
at the rate of time-and-a-half their regular rate, for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, 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

RED ROBIN: Mina Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------
MARK MINA, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.; RED
ROBIN GOURMET BURGERS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-09472
(C.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2018), alleges that Red Robin has violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Ac through its unauthorized contact
of consumers on the consumers' respective cellular telephones, by
sending consumers unsolicited text messages for marketing and
advertising purposes, without prior express written consent,
invading the consumers' right to privacy.

According to the complaint, Red Robin is a restaurant chain with
over 500 restaurants throughout the United States and Canada. Red
Robin offers a loyalty program called "Red Robin Royalty" to drive
guest traffic and build brand awareness by providing loyalty guests
with various incentives and rewards. Red Robin regularly promoted,
and continues to promote, the Red Robin Royalty program through
text message marketing. Red Robin does so, at least in part,
because text message marketing is a relatively inexpensive way to
reach out to restaurant guests that enables Red Robin to compete
with restaurant chains that have larger marketing resources and
more extensive marketing strategies, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          Danielle L. Manning, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
          GREENSTONE LAW APC
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9156
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq.
          Ryan A. Stubbe, Esq.
          JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
          300 West Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 300
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: (818) 630-7280
          Facsimile: (888) 879-1697
          E-mail: michael@jlglawyers.com
                  ryan@jlglawyers.com

REISS USA: Violates ADA, Garey Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reiss USA Limited.
The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Reiss USA Limited,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10514 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018).

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

Reiss Ltd. engages in the manufacture of design-led menswear,
womenswear, and accessories. It offers men's suits and tailoring,
blazers, coats and jackets, knitwear, shirts, tops, trousers,
jeans, shoes, accessories, bags, and underwear; women's dresses,
jumpsuits, tops, knitwear, coats and jackets, suiting, skirts,
trousers, jeans, bags, shoes, and accessories.[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


RITE CHECK: Violates Disabilities Act, Tucker Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rite Check Cashing
Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rite Check Cashing
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10613 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 14,
2018).

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

Rite Check Cashing Inc provides banking services. The Bank offers
personal banking, wealth management, loans, savings accounts,
leasing, retirement plans, investment management, and insurance
services. Rite Check Cashing serves customers in the State of New
York.[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


ROCKWATER ENERGY: Tuggle Seeks to Certify Wellsite Personnel Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES TUGGLE, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ROCKWATER ENERGY SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case
5:18-cv-00595-OLG (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
   Rockwater Energy Solutions, Inc. any time during the past 3
   years."[CC]

Attorneys in Charge for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          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 -

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER , PLLC
          819 North Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.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

RUSHMORE SERVICE: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in Torres FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL TORRES, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RUSHMORE SERVICE CENTER, LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-9236 (SDW) (LDW) (D. N.J.), Judge
Susan D. Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey denied without prejudice the Defendant's Motion to
Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings.

The Plaintiff, a consumer, allegedly incurred a debt that was
subsequently assigned or otherwise transferred to the Defendant, a
debt collector.  In a letter to the Plaintiff dated Dec. 8, 2017,
the Defendant advised that it had been retained by PREMIER
Bankcard, LLC to collect on the Plaintiff's overdue account.  The
Letter further stated that unless the Plaintiff notifies the office
within 30 days after receiving the notice that he disputes the
validity of this debt or any portion thereof, the office will
assume the debt is valid.

On May 15, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
alleging that the Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA").  The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that
because the Letter provided both a telephone number and mailing
address, Plaintiff was not properly notified that to effectively
dispute the alleged debt, such dispute must be in writing.

On Aug. 1, 2018, the Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, attaching an exemplar of First
Premier Bank's Credit Card Contract and Account Opening
Disclosures, which includes an arbitration provision and
class-action waiver.  The Plaintiff opposed the motion on Aug. 21,
2018, and the Defendant replied on Aug. 28, 2018.

Judge Wigenton finds that the existence of the Card Agreement and
its arbitration provision and class-action waiver is not referenced
in the Complaint but is raised for the first time in the
Defendant's motion.  Because the question of arbitrability cannot
be resolved without considering evidence extraneous to the
pleadings, it would be inappropriate to apply a Rule 12(b)(6)
standard in deciding the instant motion.  As the Third Circuit
instructed in Guidotti, in this type of scenario, the motion to
compel arbitration must be denied pending further development of
the factual record.

Thus, Judge Aleo denied the Defendant's motion without prejudice,
and ordered the parties to conduct limited discovery on the issue
of arbitrability.  Afterwards, the Defendant may file a renewed
motion to compel arbitration, which the Court will review under a
Rule 56 standard.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/GAwrwa from Leagle.com.

DANIEL TORRES, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by TODD D. MUHLSTOCK --
ECF@MuhlstockLaw.com -- BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC.

RUSHMORE SERVICE CENTER, LLC, Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.T.
MCKENNA -- MCKENNADBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD SPAHR, LLP & WILLIAM
PATRICK REILEY -- REILEYWBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD SPAHR.


RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TN: K.W. et al Seek to Certify Four Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as K.W., EX REL KANISA DAVIS
; A.B., EX REL SANDRA BRIEN ; AND J.B., EX REL JAQUELINE BRINKLEY,
DYLAN J. GEERTS, the Plaintiffs, vs. RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TENNESSEE,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-1975 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs seek
certification pursuant to Rule 23(a), Rule, 23(b)(2) and Rule
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of these four
classes:

   1) Illegal Custodial Arrest Classes:

      Subclass A. "The Injunctive Arrest Class" (for declaratory
      and injunctive relief):

      "all juveniles who may, because of Rutherford County's
      policies or de facto practices, be illegally taken into
      custody by Rutherford County Sheriff's deputies for a status
      or misdemeanor delinquent charge where such juveniles have a
      Tennessee state law right to be released with a summons or
      citation in lieu of custodial arrest because (a) no law
      enforcement officer personally witnesses the offense, (b)
      the alleged offense is not one of the few named misdemeanors
      for which a warrantless arrest is specifically authorized
      even if the offense occurs outside the presence of an
      officer, (c) the offense is not one of the categorical
      exceptions to T.C.A. section 40-7-118's mandatory ???cite
and
      release" requirement, and (d) no court orders has issued an
      arrest order prior to the custodial arrest being conducted."

      Subclass B. "The Damages Arrest Class" (for compensatory
      damages):

      "all persons who have been taken into custody as juveniles
      by Rutherford County Sheriff's deputies for unruly or
      misdemeanor delinquent charges where such juveniles had a
      Tennessee state law right to be released with a summons or
      citation in lieu of a custodial arrest because (a) no law
      enforcement officer personally witnessed the alleged
      offense, (b) the alleged offense was not one of a few named
      misdemeanors for which a warrantless arrest is specifically
      authorized even if the offense occurred outside the
      officer's presence, (c) the alleged offense was not one of
      the categorical exceptions to T.C.A. section 40-7-118's
      mandatory "cite and release" requirement, and (d) the arrest
      was not made pursuant to a previously-issued court arrest
      order."

   2) Detention Classes:

      Subclass C. "The Injunctive Detention Class" (for
      declaratory and injunctive relief):

      "all juveniles who may, because of Rutherford County's
      policies or de facto practices, be securely detained
      pretrial as a juvenile in Subject to the one-year
      limitations period for "civil actions brought under the
      federal civil rights statutes," which period is in turn
      tolled by Plaintiffs??? and putative class members???
minority
      until their respective 18th birthdays, circumstances that do

      not meet the prerequisites for secure detention under T.C.A.

      section 37-1-114(c) and the United States Constitution.

      Subclass D. "The Damages Detention Class" (for compensatory
      damages):

      "all persons who have, because of Rutherford County's
      policies or de facto practices, been securely detained
      pretrial as a juvenile in circumstances that did not satisfy

      any of the categorical prerequisites for secure detention
      listed in T.C.A. secvtion 37-1-114(c)(1) ??? (6)".[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Wesley B. Clark, Esq.
          WESLEY B. CLARK
          2706 LARMON DR.
          NASHVILLE, TN 37204
          Telephone: 615 984-4681
          Facsimile: 615 514-9674
          E-mail: wesley@brazilclark.com

               - and -

          Mark J. Downton, Esq.
          2706 LARMON DR.
          NASHVILLE, TN 37204
          Telephone: 615 984-4681
          Facsimile: 615 514-9674
          E-mail: lawyerdownton@gmail.com

               - and -

          Kyle F. Mothershead, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KYLE MOTHERSHEAD
          414 Union St., Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: 615 982-8002
          Facsimile: 615 229-6387
          E-mail: kyle@mothersheadlaw.com

SAN GALLAN INC: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID B. HERNANDEZ and other similarly-situated individuals, the
Plaintiff(s), vs. SAN GALLAN, INC. d/b/a BRAVO GOURMET SANDWICH
a/k/a BRAVO PERUVIAN CUISINE and DENNIS QUIROZ, and VANESA OLIVA
Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-62591-JIC (S.D.
Fla., Oct. 27, 2018), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a non-exempt, hourly,
full-time restaurant employee from May 14, 2018 to October 12, 2018
or 21 weeks. The Plaintiff was hired to work as a cook.

The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours every week, but he was
not paid for overtime hours. The Plaintiff was paid for all his
working hours at his regular rate of $12.00 an hour. Therefore,
during the relevant period of time Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff overtime wages 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, 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


SEMPRA ENERGY: 388 Suits Filed over Aliso Canyon Leak at Nov. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy 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 as of November 2,
2018, 388 lawsuits, including approximately 48,000 plaintiffs, are
pending against SoCalGas, some of which have also named Sempra
Energy.

On October 23, 2015, SoCalGas discovered a leak at one of its
injection-and-withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural
gas storage facility (the Leak), located in the northern part of
the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County.  The Aliso Canyon
natural gas storage facility has been operated by SoCalGas since
1972.  SS25 is one of more than 100 injection-and-withdrawal wells
at the storage facility.  SoCalGas worked closely with several of
the world's leading experts to stop the Leak, and on February 18,
2016, the California Department of Conservation's Division of Oil,
Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) confirmed that the well was
permanently sealed. SoCalGas calculated that approximately 4.62 Bcf
of natural gas was released from the Aliso Canyon natural gas
storage facility as a result of the Leak.

As of November 2, 2018, 388 lawsuits, including approximately
48,000 plaintiffs, are pending against SoCalGas, some of which have
also named Sempra Energy.

All of these cases, other than a matter brought by the Los Angeles
County District Attorney and the federal securities class action
are coordinated before a single court in the LA Superior Court for
pretrial management (the Coordination Proceeding).

Pursuant to the Coordination Proceeding, in March 2017, the
individuals and business entities asserting tort and Proposition 65
claims filed a Second Amended Consolidated Master Case Complaint
for Individual Actions, through which their separate lawsuits will
be managed for pretrial purposes.

The consolidated complaint asserts causes of action for negligence,
negligence per se, private and public nuisance (continuing and
permanent), trespass, inverse condemnation, strict liability,
negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress,
fraudulent concealment, loss of consortium and violations of
Proposition 65 against SoCalGas, with certain causes also naming
Sempra Energy. The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory and
punitive damages for personal injuries, lost wages and/or lost
profits, property damage and diminution in property value,
injunctive relief, costs of future medical monitoring, civil
penalties (including penalties associated with Proposition 65
claims alleging violation of requirements for warning about certain
chemical exposures), and attorneys' fees.

In January 2017, pursuant to the Coordination Proceeding, two
consolidated class action complaints were filed against SoCalGas
and Sempra Energy, one on behalf of a putative class of persons and
businesses who own or lease real property within a five-mile radius
of the well (the Property Class Action), and a second on behalf of
a putative class of all persons and entities conducting business
within five miles of the facility (the Business Class Action). Both
complaints assert claims for strict liability for ultra-hazardous
activities, negligence and violation of California Unfair
Competition Law.

The Property Class Action also asserts claims for negligence per
se, trespass, permanent and continuing public and private nuisance,
and inverse condemnation. The Business Class Action also asserts a
claim for negligent interference with prospective economic
advantage. Both complaints seek compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

In December 2017, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate
District ruled that the purely economic damages alleged in the
Business Class Action are not recoverable under the law. In
February 2018, the California Supreme Court granted a petition
filed by the plaintiffs to review that ruling.

In September and October of 2017, property developers filed two
complaints, one of which was amended in July 2018, against SoCalGas
and Sempra Energy alleging causes of action for strict liability,
negligence per se, negligence, continuing nuisance, permanent
nuisance and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, as
well as claims for negligence against certain directors of
SoCalGas. The complaints seek compensatory, statutory and punitive
damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. These claims are
joined in the Coordination Proceeding.

Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, invests in,
develops, and operates energy infrastructure, as well as provides
electric and gas services in the United States and internationally.
The company primarily serves residential, commercial, and
industrial customers. Sempra Energy was founded in 1998 and is
headquartered in San Diego, California.


SHUTTERFLY INC: Continues to Defend Monroy Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Shutterfly, 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 company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Monroy v.
Shutterfly, Inc.

On November 30, 2016, Alejandro Monroy on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a complaint against the company in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint asserts that the Company violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act by extracting his and others'
biometric identifiers from photographs and seeks statutory damages
and an injunction.

The Company believes the suit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.

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

Shutterfly, Inc. manufactures and retails personalized products and
services primarily in the United States, Canada, and the European
Community. The company operates through Consumer and Shutterfly
Business Solutions segments. It offers a range of personalized
photo-based products and services that enable consumers to upload,
edit, enhance, organize, find, share, create, print, and preserve
their memories. The company was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Redwood City, California.


SHUTTERFLY INC: Continues to Defend Taylor Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Shutterfly, 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 company
continues to defend itself from a purported class action suite
entitled, Taylor v. Shutterfly, Inc.

On December 12, 2017, Megan Taylor filed a purported class action
complaint on behalf of herself and other customers in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. Taylor
alleges that the Company misrepresents a deal it currently offers
through Groupon because it does not allow purchasers of the Groupon
offer to combine or "stack" it with other promotional codes offered
by the Company.

Taylor is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief.

The Company believes the suit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.

Shutterfly, Inc. manufactures and retails personalized products and
services primarily in the United States, Canada, and the European
Community. The company operates through Consumer and Shutterfly
Business Solutions segments. It offers a range of personalized
photo-based products and services that enable consumers to upload,
edit, enhance, organize, find, share, create, print, and preserve
their memories. The company was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Redwood City, California.


SHUTTERFLY INC: Continues to Defend Vigeant Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shutterfly, 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 company
continues to defend itself from a purported class action suit
entitled, Vigeant v Meek et al.

On March 1, 2018, a purported class action complaint was filed
against several directors of Lifetouch, Inc. (which became a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of Shutterfly on April 2, 2018) and the
trustee of the Lifetouch Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "ESOP")
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

On April 2, 2018, the complaint was amended to include the prior
ESOP trustees and plan sponsor (Lifetouch) as additional named
defendants. The complaint alleges violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, including that the ESOP should not
have been permitted to continue investing in Lifetouch stock during
a period in which the Lifetouch stock price was declining.

The plaintiffs seek recovery for damages arising from the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.

The Company believes this suit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.

Shutterfly, Inc. manufactures and retails personalized products and
services primarily in the United States, Canada, and the European
Community. The company operates through Consumer and Shutterfly
Business Solutions segments. It offers a range of personalized
photo-based products and services that enable consumers to upload,
edit, enhance, organize, find, share, create, print, and preserve
their memories. The company was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Redwood City, California.


SKYLINE BUILDING: Abante Rooter Sues for Invasion of Privacy
------------------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc., and Sidney Naiman, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Skyline Building Care, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and
each of them, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-06909 (N.D. Cal.,
November 14, 2018) seeks damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant
in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and related regulations, specifically the
National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy.

The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place
its calls to Plaintiffs seeking to solicit its services. During all
relevant times, Defendant did not possess Plaintiffs' "prior
express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on its
cellular telephones, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs requested numerous times that Defendant put its cellular
numbers on Defendant's internal Do-Not-Call list. Despite such
requests, Defendant continued to call Plaintiffs' cellular
telephones, the Plaintiff asserts.

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

Plaintiff Sidney Naiman is a natural person residing in the county
of Contra Costa.

Skyline Building Care, Inc. is a janitorial service company.

The true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as Doe
Defendants 1 through 10, inclusive, are currently unknown to
Plaintiff, who therefore sues such Defendants by fictitious
names.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


SOUTH SIDE SERVICES: Ortiz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Ortiz and Luis Espinoza, Plaintiffs, v. South Side Services,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 717490/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty.,
November 14, 2018) alleges that, pursuant to the New York Labor Law
("NYLL"), Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Defendant:
unpaid wages at the overtime wage rate; unpaid wages; statutory
penalties; liquidated damages; prejudgment and post-judgment
interest; and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendant knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs the
overtime wage rate for all hours worked over 40 hours in a week in
contravention of the NYLL, says the complaint.

Plaintiff, Adrian Ortiz, is an adult resident of Queens County, New
York. From in or about November 2014 to in or about May 2018,
Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a carpenter.

Plaintiff, Luis Espinoza, is an adult resident of Queens County,
New York. From in or about November 2014 to in or about April 2018,
Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a carpenter.

South Side Services, Inc., is a domestic business corporation,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York,
with a place of business located at Westchester County, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN, P.C.
     52 Duane Street, 7th Floor
     New York, NY 10007
     Phone: (212) 374-0009
     Fax: (212) 374-9931
     Email: ls@jfslaw.net


SOUTHERN POWER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Remaining Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Power Company 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 court has
denied the motion for reconsideration and a separate motion to
certify the issue for interlocutory appeal.

In January 2017, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed against Southern Company, certain of its officers, and
certain former Mississippi Power officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, by
Monroe County Employees' Retirement System on behalf of all persons
who purchased shares of Southern Company's common stock between
April 25, 2012 and October 29, 2013.

The complaint alleges that Southern Company, certain of its
officers, and certain former Mississippi Power officers made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Kemper
County energy facility in violation of certain provisions under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The complaint seeks,
among other things, compensatory damages and litigation costs and
attorneys' fees.

In June 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
provided additional detail about their claims, increased the
purported class period by one day, and added certain other former
Mississippi Power officers as defendants. In July 2017, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended
complaint with prejudice, to which the plaintiffs filed an
opposition in September 2017.

On March 29, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, issued an order granting, in
part, the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed
certain claims against certain officers of Southern Company and
Mississippi Power and dismissed the allegations related to a number
of the statements that plaintiffs challenged as being false or
misleading.

On April 26, 2018, the defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's order, seeking dismissal of the
remaining claims in the lawsuit. On August 10, 2018, the court
denied the motion for reconsideration and denied a motion to
certify the issue for interlocutory appeal.

Southern Power Company, a public utility company, develops,
acquires, constructs, owns, and manages generation assets,
primarily renewable energy projects. It owns 100 megawatt wind
project located in Oklahoma. The company was founded in 2001 and is
based in Atlanta, Georgia. Southern Power Company is a subsidiary
of The Southern Company.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Failed to Pay Wages & Overtime, Garay Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO GARAY, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO, a Texas corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.: RG18926106
(Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 25, 2018), alleges that Defendant failed to
provide meal periods, failed to provide rest periods, failed to pay
hourly wages, failed to provide accurate written wage statements,
and failed to timely pay all final wages under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants as
a non-exempt, hourly employee from August 1, 2002 through September
2015. During his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff regularly
worked shifts of eight or more hours per day, without being
afforded a meal period during the first five hours, and/or a second
meal break after ten hours, as required by California law. The
Defendants had a policy of automatically deducting time from
Plaintiffs timesheets, regardless of whether Plaintiff took a meal
period or not.

The Plaintiff and the putative class were also allegedly not paid
for all hours worked in excess of eight hours a day, and/or forty
hours a week at the correct overtime rate. For example, when
Plaintiff picked up a double shift by agreeing to work an
additional shift for another employee after working his regularly
scheduled shift, he would be paid straight time for all hours
worked, even though Plaintiff would have worked in excess of eight
hours per day and/or forty hours in the workweek. As a result,
Plaintiff and the putative was not paid for all overtime hours
worked at the correct rate of pay.

The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class
members all earned wages every pay period at the correct rates,
including overtime rates. The Defendants paid Plaintiff premium
wages based on a rate of compensation that did not reflect, among
other things, non-discretionary bonuses and/or shift differential
pay, as required by Labor Code section 226.7(b) and Sections 11 and
12 of the applicable Wage Order on the occasions when Defendants
paid her premium wages in lieu of meal and/or rest periods. The
Defendants have the ability to provide them with accurate wage
statements but have intentionally provided them with written wage
statements that Defendants have known do not comply with Labor Code
section 226(a). That Defendants have the ability to pay final wages
in accordance with Labor Code but have intentionally adopted
policies or practices that are incompatible with those
requirements, the lawsuit says.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a major United States airline
headquartered in Dallas, Texas, and is the world's largest low-cost
carrier.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          William M. Pao, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com
                  william@setarehlaw.com

SPEEDYPC SOFTWARE: Certification Orders in Beaton Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARCHIE BEATON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SPEEDYPC
SOFTWARE, a British Columbia Company, Defendant-Appellant, Case No.
18-1010 (7th Cir.), Judge Diane Wood of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order
certifying the nationwide class and the Illinois subclass of
software purchasers.

Beaton's laptop started misbehaving, he looked for an at-home fix.
An internet search turned up a product from SpeedyPC Software that
offered both a diagnosis and a cure.  Beaton took advantage of
Speedy's free trial, which warned that his device was in bad shape
and encouraged him to purchase its software solution: SpeedyPC Pro.
He did.  But he was disappointed with the outcome: despite
Speedy's promises, the software failed to improve his laptop's
performance.

Beaton became convinced that he was the victim of a scam.  He filed
a consumer class action against Speedy, raising both contract and
tort theories.  Beaton sued Speedy in 2013 on behalf of a class of
consumers defined as all individuals and entities in the United
States who have purchased SpeedyPC Pro.

Despite Speedy's lofty pledges, Beaton claimed, the software failed
to perform as advertised.  Instead, it indiscriminately and
misleadingly warned all users that their devices were in critical
condition, scared them into buying SpeedyPC Pro, and then ran a
functionally worthless "fix."

Speedy twice tried, and twice failed, to get the lawsuit thrown
out.  The district court first rejected its effort to have the
complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief
could be granted.  Speedy then tried a motion to dismiss on forum
non conveniens grounds, based on the fact that the software's End
User License Agreement contained a choice-of-law provision
selecting the law of British Columbia (Canada) to govern any claims
arising from it.  The district court, however, decided to retain
the case without definitively resolving the choice-of-law issue at
that juncture.

Four years after the suit was filed, Beaton moved to certify a
class and subclass of software purchasers.  Beaton's proposed class
definition was narrower than the one in his complaint.  It included
all individuals living in the United States who downloaded a free
trial of SpeedyPC Pro and thereafter purchased the full version
between Oct. 28, 2011 and Nov. 21, 2014.  He also proposed a
subclass of the class members "who reside in Illinois" and several
other states.

The district court certified Beaton's class claims for breaches of
the implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and
merchantability.  On behalf of a subclass consisting only of
Illinois residents, the court certified claims for fraudulent
misrepresentation under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act ("ICFA").  It rejected the proposed subclass
insofar as it included residents from other states, because Beaton
failed to identify the relevant consumer-protection laws of those
states.

Speedy filed and the Seventh Circuit granted a petition for
interlocutory appeal of the class certification decisions.  The
Court note s that Speedy's petition may have been untimely, but
Beaton chose not to press the issue.  The time limit for an appeal
under Rule 23(f) is not statutory, and so a failure to abide by it
does not affect its jurisdiction.

Hoping to dodge the consumer class action, Speedy turned to the
Court for relief.  Speedy complains that the class definitions and
legal theories covered by the court's certification orders
impermissibly differ from those outlined in the original complaint.


Judge Wood affirmed the district court's decisions to certify the
nationwide class and the Illinois subclass.  He finds no abuse of
discretion in the court's certification orders.  

The Judge holds that the Defendants spend much time and money
fighting Rule 23 certifications to the hilt.  Yet certification is
largely independent of the merits and a certified class can go down
in flames on the merits.  He is satisfied that the court reasonably
exercised its discretion in adopting its class definition.  He
similarly find no reversible error in the district court's decision
to certify Beaton's two implied warranty claims.  Speedy forfeited
its estoppel argument by not raising it before the district court.
It merely acknowledged that Beaton changed his position on whether
British Columbia or Illinois law controlled his contract claims.
Even on the merits, Speedy's estoppel theory falls short.  Finally,
the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs satisfy the requirements of
Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3).

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/auRykg from Leagle.com.

James K. Borcia -- jborcia@tresslerllp.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Ryan D. Andrews -- randrews@edelson.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Roger Perlstadt -- rperlstadt@edelson.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

John Lawson, for Plaintiff-Appellee.


ST. FRANK LTD: Garey Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against St. Frank LTD. The
case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. St. Frank LTD., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-10564 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018).

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

St. Frank, Ltd. sources and sells various handmade textiles. It
sells textiles online. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is
based in San Francisco, California.[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


STATE FARM MUTUAL: Stinson Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Richard Stinson individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No.
18-CI-006033 was removed from Jefferson Circuit Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on November 13,
2018, and assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00752-DJH.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company provides various
insurance and financial services in the United States and Canada.
Its insurance products include general, auto, accident, homeowners,
condo owners, renters, life and annuities, fire and casualty,
health, disability, long term care, business, and boat insurance
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abigale R. Green, Esq.
     Abigale Rhodes Green Inquiry Law, PLLC
     239 S. Fifth Street, Suite 1800
     Louisville, KY 40202
     Phone: (502) 736-8159
     Fax: (502) 736-8150
     agreen@arglawfirm.com

          - and -

     Christina T. Natale, Esq.
     Jones Ward PLC
     1205 E. Washington Street, Suite 111
     Louisville, KY 40206
     Phone: (502) 882-6000
     Fax: (502) 887-2007
     Email: christina@jonesward.com

          - and -

     Jasper D. Ward, IV, Esq.
     Jones Ward PLC
     1205 E. Washington Street, Suite 111
     Louisville, KY 40206
     Phone: (502) 882-6000
     Fax: (502) 587-2007
     Email: jasper@jonesward.com

          - and -

     Sam Aguiar, Esq.
     Sam Aguiar Injury Lawyers, PLLC
     1201 Story Avenue, 3rd Fllor
     Louisville, KY 40206
     Phone: (502) 400-6969
     Fax: (502) 491-3946
     Email: Sam@kylawoffice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

     David T. Klapheke, Esq.
     Boehl Stopher & Graves, LLP - Louisville
     400 W. Market Street, Suite 2300
     Louisville, KY 40202
     Phone: (502) 589-5980
     Fax: (502) 561-9400
     Email: dklapheke@bsg-law.com



STATE FARM: PIP Statute Unconstitutional, Lowry Says
----------------------------------------------------
ERA LOWRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case 0:18-CV-62575-PD (SAD. Fla., Oct. 26,
2018), asks the Court to declare that parts of Section 627.736,
Florida Statutes (the "PIP" statute) is unconstitutional both
facially and as applied to the Plaintiff and the putative class.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff brings this case because
Defendant as a general business practice, has been systematically
and routinely denying all PIP claims when the person injured in an
automobile collision does not receive initial treatment within 14
days of the accident. Plaintiff understands that Defendant bases
these denials on recent changes to Section 627.736, Florida
Statutes, as amended by Chapter 2012-197, Laws of Florida, which
added a 14-day prerequisite to PIP coverage.

After the effective date of these amendments, a person injured in
an automobile collision is completely precluded from PIP coverage
and benefits if they do not initially receive services or care
within 14 days of the automobile collision. The Plaintiff alleges
that the 14-day prerequisite to PIP coverage is unconstitutional,
and as such Defendant cannot and has not lawfully denied PIP claims
of insureds and their assigners, including Plaintiff and class
members, the lawsuit says.

State Farm is a large group of insurance and financial services
companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters
in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Edward H. Berserk, Esq.
          Mark S. Fists, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP
          110 SEE. 6 ht Street, Suite 2150
          Ft. Lauder dale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989-6333
          Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
          E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com
                  mfistos@zpllp.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Farmer, Jr., Esq.
          GARY M. FARMER, JR., PA.
          4420 NEE. 24 ht Avenue
          Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
          Telephone: (954) 648-3903
          E-mail: gary@pathtojustice.com

               - and -

          Kimberly A. Riggers, Esq.
          DIGGERS LAW, PA
          3770 Piney Grove Drive
          Tallahassee, FL 32311
          Telephone: (850) 597-1355
          E-mail: gravediggers-law.com


STERIGENICS U.S.: Removes Suit over Ethylene Oxide to N.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sterigenics U.S. LLC removes to case captioned as NEIL GRAVES,
Individually and On Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated; and
MARJORIE GRAVES, Individually and On Behalf of All Those Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. STERIGENICS U.S. LLC and GTCR LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 2018L010510, from the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, to the Northern District of Illinois. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.:
1:18-cv-07189 to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, on September 27, 2018, the Plaintiffs
filed their Complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois. Sterigenics is a leading provider of state-of-the-art
sterilization services. Ethylene oxide, a gas, is a heavily
regulated chemical.

The Company claims its use of ethylene oxide at the Willowbrook
facility is subject to federal regulations promulgated by United
States Environmental Protection Agency and the federal Food and
Drug Administration, as well as Illinois regulations promulgated by
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Sterigenics'
Willowbrook facility is operating legally and in compliance with
applicable regulations. Indeed, Sterigenics' Willowbrook facility
not only meets federal and state standards, but exceeds them.[BN]

Attorneys for Sterigenics U.S. LLC and GTCR LLC:

          Maja C. Eaton, Esq.
          Gerard D. Kelly, Esq.
          Elizabeth M. Chiarello, Esq.
          Michael L. Lisak, Esq.
          Stephanie C. Stern, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
          E-mail: meaton@sidley.com
                  gkelly@sidley.com
                  echiarello@sidley.com
                  mlisak@sidley.com
                  sstern@sidley.com




STRAT LAND: Class Certification in Whisenant Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TONY R. WHISENANT, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. STRAT LAND EXPLORATION
CO., Defendant/Appellant, Case No. 115660 (Okla. Civ. App.), Judge
Deborah B. Barnes of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,
Division IV, (i) reversed the trial court's order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and (ii) remanded for
further proceedings.

In February 2015, Whisenant filed his Second Amended Class Action
Petition asserting claims based upon Strat Land's underpayment or
non-payment of royalties on natural gas and/or constituents of the
gas stream produced from wells in Oklahoma.  Whisenant asserts he
has a royalty interest in a well -- in particular, the Tretbar
Family 1-15 well in Beaver County, Oklahoma -- owned in part and
operated by Strat Land].  He asserts Strat Land has operated over
100 wells which produce gas in Oklahoma and many more in which it
holds a working interest, and that the members of the proposed
class are so numerous and geographically dispersed that joinder of
all members is impracticable.  The wells in question are all
located on or adjacent to the Oklahoma Panhandle in Ellis, Harper,
Beaver, and Texas Counties.

Whisenant asserts there are questions of law and fact common to
Whisenant and the other class members, including, among others,
whether raw gas is in Marketable Condition at the meter
run/gathering line inlet; whether Strat Land deducted (in cash or
in kind) amounts for placing the gas (and its constituents) into
Marketable Condition before paying royalty to Whisenant and the
other Class Members; whether Strat Land paid royalty to Whisenant
and the other Class Members for all gas constituents, such as
condensate, fractionated NGLs, nitrogen, and helium, produced from
their wells; and whether Strat Land's uniform practice of paying
royalties based on the net, instead of the gross, gas contract
value constituted a breach of Strat Land's lease obligations to
Whisenant and the other Class Members.

Whisenant asserts he is typical of other Class Members because
Strat Land pays royalty to him and the other Class Members using a
common method -- i.e., Strat Land pays royalty based upon the net
revenue it receives under its marketing contracts rather than based
upon the gross amount the midstream company -- in particular, DCP
Midstream -- receives from its sale of the gas at the interstate
(or intrastate) pipeline.

In December 2015, Whisenant filed a motion for class certification.
As set forth in the trial court's order granting class
certification, the proposed class consists of all royalty owners in
Oklahoma wells (a) operated by Strat Land; (b) marketed by Strat
Land to DCP Midstream (formerly known as Duke Energy Field
Services); and (c) that have produced gas and/or gas constituents
(such as residue gas, natural gas liquids, helium, or condensate)
from Feb. 12, 2009 to the time Class Notice is given.

In its order granting the motion for class certification, the trial
court determined the requirements under 12 O.S. Supp. 2014 Section
2023 were satisfied.  From the trial court's order granting the
motion for class certification, Strat Land appeals.

Judge Barnes concludes the requisites for a class action have not
been met.  She finds that that questions of law or fact common to
the members of the class do not predominate over questions
affecting only individual members, and that a class action is not
superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of the controversy.  Upon her de novo review, she
concludes the trial court erred in granting the motion for class
certification.

Fo these reasons, Judge Barnes reversed the trial court's order
granting class certification.  The matter is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with her Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/OT0vdr from Leagle.com.

Rex A. Sharp -- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- REX A. SHARP, P.A.,
Prairie Village, Kansas, for Plaintiff/Appellee.

Mark Banner -- mbanner@hallestill.com -- HALL, ESTILL, HARDWICK,
GABLE, GOLDEN & NELSON, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for
Defendant/Appellant.


SUNRISE SENIOR: Heredia Moved to C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------
In the case, AUDREY HEREDIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SUNRISE SENIOR
LIVING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00616-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (i) granted the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration; (ii) granted its motion to transfer, and (iii)
deferred ruling on the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

In this putative class action, Plaintiffs Heredia, Amy Fearn, and
Helen Ganz allege three causes of action against the Defendant
under (1) California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (2)
California's Unfair Competition Law; and (3) Cal. Welf. & Inst.
Code Section 15610.30 (elder financial abuse).  The Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendant, an operator of assisted living
facilities for seniors, misrepresented how it used an
individualized resident assessment in determining the level of care
required by its residents.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's facilities are not
sufficiently staffed to meet the aggregate assessed needs of all
facility residents, a fact which the Defendant does not disclose to
residents, their families, and the public.  On information and
belief, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant has the capability
to determine the facility staffing levels required to meet the
aggregate care scores promised to residents, but does not do so
because certain corporate directives discourage facilities from
providing compensation and benefits sufficient to attract and
retain sufficient numbers of qualified staff.  The Defendant uses
this resident assessment system to assign Service Levels and charge
the corresponding daily rates, as a matter of corporate policy and
practice, Sunrise has failed to ensure sufficient staffing is
provided to meet assessed resident needs.

The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint in Alameda
County Superior Court on June 27, 2017.  The Defendant filed a
notice of removal on Jan. 29, 2018. It initially filed a version of
the motion on Feb. 5, 2018, after which the Plaintiffs filed the
FAC.

The Plaintiffs filed the motion to appoint Helen Ganz's daughter,
Elise, as her guardian ad litem on Feb. 23, 2018.  The Defendant
confirmed it did not oppose that motion on March 8, 2018.  On March
30, 2018, the Defendant filed its renewed motions to compel or
dismiss for improper venue, to transfer, and to dismiss for failure
to state a claim.  The Plaintiffs filed their opposition on April
30, 2018, and the Defendant replied on May 21, 2018.

On June 7, 2018, the Court heard argument on the pending motions
and granted the Plaintiffs' motion to appoint Elise Ganz as her
mother's guardian ad litem.

Judge Gilliam will grant the Defendant's unopposed motion to compel
arbitration of Heredia's claims and will stay the proceedings with
respect to Heredia only.

He will also grant the Defendant's motion to transfer.  He finds
that (i) transferring the action to the Central District serves the
convenience of both the parties and non-party witnesses --
particularly if the case is ultimately certified; (ii) while there
are more putative class members and more of the Defendant's
facilities in the Central District, the District is home to (1) the
majority of the parties' counsel, (2) the named Plaintiffs, (3) a
substantial number of putative class members, and (4) a substantial
number of the Defendant's facilities; (iii) the transfer will
facilitate ease of access to documentary evidence in both the
parties' and non-parties' possession; and (iv) because more than
half of the putative class lives in the Central District and the
Defendant has more communities in the Central District than in the
Northern District, the convenience to the parties outweighs the
Plaintiff's choice of forum and favors transfer.

Finally, because the case will be transferred to the Central
District of California, the Judge will defers ruling on the
Defendant's motion to dismiss, so that it may be considered by the
transferee court.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gilliam (i) granted the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration; (ii) granted the motion
to transfer; and (iii) deferred ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The Clerk of Court will transfer the case to the U.S.District Court
for the Central District of California.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/VDkxlL from Leagle.com.

Audrey Heredia, as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Carlos
Heredia & Corbina Mancuso, as successor-in-interest to the Estate
of Ruby Mancuso; on their own behalves and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Petitioners, represented by Christopher J.
Healey -- chris.healey@dentons.com -- Dentons LLP, George Nobuo
Kawamoto -- george@stebnerassociates.com -- Stebner and Associates,
Guy Burton Wallace -- gwallace@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Jennifer Ann Uhrowczik --
juhrowczik@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrel
Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Julie C. Erickson -- jce@arnslaw.com -- The
Arns Law Firm, Kathryn Ann Stebner -- Kathryn@stebnerassociates.com
-- Stebner & Associates, Michael Dougald Thamer --
mthamer@trinityinstitute.com -- Law Offices Of Michael D. Thamer
PC, Robert Stephen Arns -- ddl@arnslaw.com -- The Arns Law Firm,
Sarah S. Colby -- sscolby@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP & William Timothy Needham --
tneedham@janssenlaw.com -- Janssen Malloy LLP.

Sunrise Senior Living LLC, Respondent, represented by Rachel S.
Brass -- rbrass@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Jason
C. Schwartz -- jschwartz@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
LLP & Katherine C. Warren, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP.


TATMAR REST: Marillo Sees Unpaid Wages & Overtime under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
MILES MARILLO, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TATMAR REST., INC., d/b/a
"Quartorze Bis Restaurant", and JOHN DOES No. 1-10, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-09930 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2018), seeks unpaid
wages, minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages for overtime work for
which they were not paid time and one half their regular hourly
wage rate, and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor.

According the Plaintiff and the other members of the putative class
worked numerous hours as wait staff employees for Defendants and
were not paid their share of tips and were not paid their proper
wages, minimum wages, overtime wages and spread of hour wages by
Defendant.

The Plaintiff also complains that Defendants failed to provide to
him and the Class notice of each Class member's rate of pay and the
name of each class member's employer in violation of the NYLL
section 195(1), and is therefore each Class member is entitled to
$50 for each workday in which the violations occurred or continued
to occur on or after April 9, 2011, or a maximum total of $5,000,
as provided for by NYLL section 198(1)-b.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          William C. Rand, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
          501 Fifth Ave., Suite 1500
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 286-1425
          Facsimile: (646) 688-3078

THE WILLIAM: Tucker Sues Hotel for ADA Violation
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 24 E 39 LLC. The case
is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 24 E 39 LLC doing business as: The
William, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10614 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 14,
2018).

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

The William is a modern boutique hotel located in the Bryant Park
area of Manhattan, New York City.[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


TODISCO TOWING: Sued over Alleged Involuntary Towing Services
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALGENIS FIGUEROA-ADAMS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TODISCO TOWING LLC, the
Defendant, Case 18-3009 (Mass. Super. Ct., Oct. 19, 2018), alleges
that Defendant has engaged in unlawful, unfair and/or deceptive
billing  practices as it relates to its involuntary towing and
storage services.

Specifically, Figueroa-Adams contends that Todisco has a practice
of demanding and/or collecting impermissible amounts of money in
connection with its involuntary towing and storage practices in
violation of the requirements of law.

As a result of this scheme, Figueroa-Adams alleges that Todisco has
reaped the benefit of collecting amounts of money it was not
authorized to collect by law; and accordingly, Todisco has
committed various violations of M.G.L. c. 93A, section 2, and has
been unjustly enriched by its practices, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          John R. Yasi, Esq.
          Brian P. McNiff, Esq.
          FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH,
          2 Salem Green, Suite 2
          Salem, MA 01970
          YASI & YASI, P.C.
          Telephone: (617) 231-7829
          E-mail: jyasi@forrestfamothe.com
                  bmcniff@forrestlamothe.com

TRANS WORLD: Rovinelli Files Class Suit in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trans World
Entertainment et al. The case is styled as Adam Rovinelli, Jennifer
Carlos, Juan Vasquez individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trans World Entertainment, Synapse
Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-12377-DPW (D. Mass., Nov.
14, 2018).

Trans World Entertainment Corporation is an American company which
operates entertainment media retail stores across the United States
of America. It currently operates just over 300 freestanding and
shopping mall-based stores under several brand names, down from
about 540 in August 2010.

Synapse Group, Inc. is a multichannel marketing company. Synapse is
also the largest consumer magazine distributor in the United
States, with access to over 700 magazine titles from all the major
publishers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Angela M. Edwards, Esq.
     Law Office of Angela Edwards
     72 Canterbury Circle
     East Longmeadow, MA 01028
     Phone: (413) 525-3820
     Email: angelaedwards@charter.net



TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Violates FDCPA, Khaytin Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems,
Inc. The case is styled as Mikhail Khaytin on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Transworld
Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06477 (E.D. N.Y., Nov.
14, 2018).

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

Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt
recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical
companies, dental companies, education facilities, Fortune 500
companies, and small businesses in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Maxim Maximov, Esq.
     Maxim Maximov, LLP
     1701 Avenue P
     Brooklyn, NY 11229
     Phone: (718) 395-3459
     Fax: (718) 408-9570
     Email: m@maximovlaw.com


TRIUMP GROUP: Leu Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
STEFAN LEU, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE TRIUMP GROUP OPERATIONS, INC., and
APA AVIATION SERVICES, LLC, the Defendants, Case 6:18-cv-06106-SOH
(W.D. Ark., Oct. 26, 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 all other hourly-paid aircraft
maintenance employees 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 was employed by
Defendants from 2015 to Dec. 8, 2018 as an hourly-paid senior
aircraft painter. The Defendants had a practice of not paying
Plaintiff, and other hourly-paid aircraft maintenance employees one
and one-half times their regular rate for any hours worked in
excess of forty hours per workweek.

Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed violations of
the FLSA and AMWA, the lawsuit says.

Triump Group owns and operates a sheet metal parts and
manufacturing facility for various aircrafts and aircraft
components in Hot Springs. Apa Aviation operates as a staffing
company for customers in the company for customers in the aerospace
and aircraft industry across the United States including the Triump
Group.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Chris Burks, Esq.
          Joshua 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: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


UNITED STATES: Federal Circuit Appeal Filed in Baker Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Mary A. Baker, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their lawsuit entitled Baker, et al. v. US, Case No.
1:14-cv-00548-RHH, in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

The nature of suit is stated as "Taking - Rails to Trails."

The appellate case is captioned as Baker, et al. v. US, Case No.
19-1137, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

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

   -- Docketing Statement is due on November 30, 2018; and

   -- Appellant/Petitioner's brief is due on December 31,
      2018.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Mark F. Hearne, II, Esq.
          ARENT FOX, LLP
          112 South Hanley Road
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 296-4000
          E-mail: thor@arentfox.com

Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by:

          Clare Marie Boronow, Esq.
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          999 18th Street, North Tower
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 844-1362
          E-mail: clare.boronow@usdoj.gov


VENUS BY MARIA: Garey Sues Over Disabilities Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Venus by Maria Tash,
Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Venus by Maria Tash, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10512 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018).

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

Maria Tash is an American jeweller and a professional body
piercer.[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


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Jacobs Bid to Transfer Subpoena Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff filed a Motion to Transfer Enforcement and Motion to
Transfer Subpoena on October 15, 2018, in the case captioned as
MELINA N. JACOBS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC;
VERIZON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CORP; VERIZON EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
COMMITTEE; MARC C. REED; MARTHA DELEHANTY; ANDREW H. NEBENS; CONNIA
NELSON; SHANE SANDERS; ROBERT J. BARISH;  DONNA C. CHIFFRILLER;
DONNA C. HIFFRILLER, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-mc-00144-JDB (D.
Col., Oct. 15, 2018).

Judge Randolph D. Moss granted the Plaintiff's Motion on November
1, 2018.

Verizon Communications Inc., through its subsidiaries, offers
communications, information, and entertainment products and
services to consumers, businesses, and governmental agencies
worldwide. The company was formerly known as Bell Atlantic
Corporation and changed its name to Verizon Communications Inc. in
June 2000. Verizon Communications Inc. was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Garrett Webster Wotkyns, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          8501 N Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
          Scottsdale, AZ 85253
          Telephone: (480) 428-0142
          Facsimile: (866) 505-8036
          E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com


VICTORY PREPARATORY: Faces Civil Rights Class Action in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Victory Preparatory
Academy, et al. The case is styled as Maria Castaneda on behalf of
minor children on behalf of M. F. on behalf of J. F., Mary Flores
on behalf of minor child on behalf of E. F., Mary (I) Flores
individually, Joel Flores on behalf of minor child on behalf of E.
F., Joel (I) Flores individually, Bertha Ceja on behalf of V. S.,
B. F. an individual on behalf of those similarly-situated; and John
Does 1-150, minor children, Plaintiffs v. Victory Preparatory
Academy a governmental entity, Ron Jajdelski in his official
capacity and in his individual capacity, Jeff Smith in his official
capacity and in his individual capacity, Camil DeLaCruz in her
official capacity and in her individual capacity, Rosalie Montano
in her official capacity, Norma Clinkinbeard in her offical
capacity and in her individual capacity and in her individual
capacity, Jeff Reed in his official capacity and in his individual
capacity, James Seay in his individual capacity and in his
individual capacity, Nancy Brooks in her official capacity and in
her individual capacity; and John Does 1-10, in their individual
and official capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02916 (D.
Colo., Nov. 13, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Victory Preparatory Academy serves middle and high school students
in Commerce City and is an expansion of a successful elementary
program, Community Leadership Academy. The now K-12 schools serve
over 900 students, 86 percent who qualify for free or reduced
lunch, 93% who identify as Hispanic or Latino, and over 55% who are
English Language learners???percentages higher than those of the
geographic district.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Nicholas Alexander Lutz, Esq.
     Rathod & Mohamedbhai LLC
     2701 Lawrence Street, Suite 100
     Denver, CO 80205
     Phone: (303) 578-4400
     Fax: (303) 578-4401
     Email: nl@rmlawyers.com


VIRGINIA: Kirschmann Files Civil Rights Suit v. State Under ADA
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the State Of
Virginia, et al. The case is styled as Rhonda Kirschmann, L.D.K.,
minor brought by next friend and parent, Rhonda Kirschmann and all
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. State Of Virginia, Virginia
Department of Social Services, Chesapeake Department of Child
Protective Services, Elise Pugh Chesapeake CPS Worker, Beverly
Jackson Chesapeake CPS Worker, Rachquel Gibbons-Jackson Chesapeake
CPS Worker, Vickie Haralson Chesapeake CPS Director, Wendy Holland
Cheaspeake CPS Worker, Gail Heath Davidson CPS Regional Specialist,
Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court, Judge
Rufus Banks Chief Judge of the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court, Judge Larry D. Willis CHIEF Judge in the
Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Judge Eileen
Anita Olds Presiding Judge of the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court, Attorney Peter Imbrogno Guardian Ad Litem to
PLAINTIFF L.D.K., Leonard Brown Chesapeake City Attorney's Office,
Dr. Brian K. Wald, Psy D. Parenting Capacity Evaluator, James Ryan
Davidson, L.P.C. Therapist, Virginia Department of Criminal Justice
Services Office of Programs (Over CASA), Chesapeake CASA Program,
Darnell Gaddis Chesapeake CASA Program Director, Safiya Reynolds
CASA, Chesapeake Circuit (de Novo Trial) Court, Judge John W. Brown
Presiding Judge in the Chesapeake Circuit De Novo Trial Court,
James E. Schliessmann Assistant Attorney General, Corie Wolf
Assistant Attorney General, Judge Marjorie Taylor Arrington
Presiding Judge of the Chesapeake Circuit De Novo Trial Court,
Attorney Marc P. Messier Criminal Defense attorney, Lisa Mallory
Criminal Defense attorney, Douglas Walter Criminal Defense
Attorney, Norfolk Circuit Court, Judge Junius P. Fulton, III Chief
Judge of the Norfolk Circuit Court, Judge Louis A. Sherman
Presiding Judge of the Norfolk Circuit Court, Hampton Police
Department, Chesapeake Commonwealth Attorney's office, Nancy G.
Parr Commonwealth's Attorney for the City of Chesapeake, Hampton
Commonwealth Attorney's office, Anton A. Bell Commonwealth's
Attorney for the City of Hampton, The Court of Appeals of Virginia,
Judge Walter S. Felton CHIEF Judge in the Court of Appeals of
Virginia, Judge James W. Haley Panel Judge of the Court of Appeals
of Virginia, Judge Sam Coleman Panel Judge of the Court of Appeals
of Virginia, Judge Rosemarie Annunziata Panel Judge of the Court of
Appeals of Virginia, Judge Glen A. Huff Panel Judge of the Court of
Appeals of Virginia, Judge Robert P. Frank Panel Judge in the Court
of Appeals of Virginia, Supreme Court of Virginia, JUSTICE Leroy R.
Hassell, Sr. CHIEF JUSTICE in the Supreme Court of Virginia,
JUSTICE Cynthia D. Kinser CHIEF JUSTICE in the Supreme Court of
Virginia, Chief Justice Donald Wayne Lemons CHIEF JUSTICE in the
Supreme Court of Virginia, Justice Samuel Bernard Goodwyn En Banc
Panel Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Justice William C.
Mims En Banc Panel Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia,
Justice Elizabeth A. Mc Clanahan En Bane Pane! Justice of the
Supreme Court of Virginia, Justice Cleo E. Powell En Banc Panel
Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Justice D. Arthur Kelsey
En Banc Panel Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Interim
Justice Jane Marum Roush En Banc Panel Justice of the Supreme Court
of Virginia, Hampton Circuit Court, Judge Wilford Taylor, Jr. CHIEF
Judge in the Hampton Circuit Court, Judge Bonnie L. Brown Presiding
Judge of Hampton Circuit Court, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-00600-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va., Nov. 13, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights, and was filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Virginia, a southeastern U.S. state, stretches from the Chesapeake
Bay to the Appalachian Mountains, with a long Atlantic coastline.
It's one of the 13 original colonies, with historic landmarks
including Monticello, founding father Thomas Jefferson's iconic
Charlottesville plantation.

The Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS) is a state
supervised and locally administered social servicessystem that
provides oversight and guidance to 120 local offices across the
state.

Child Protective Services (CPS) identifies, assess, and provide
services to children and families in an effort to protect children,
preserve families, whenever possible, and prevent
maltreatment.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


WELTMAN & WEINBERG: Court Certifies Class in Gibbons FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MEGHAN GIBBONS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO.,
LPA, Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-1851 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Joel L.
Slomsky of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

A hearing on the Motion was held on Oct. 15, 2018.

Judge Slonsky certified, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the class of all persons with
addresses within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit who, beginning one year prior to the
filing of the Complaint through and including the final resolution
of the case, were sent an initial letter from Defendant attempting
to collect a consumer debt which was printed on law firm
letterhead.

The Judge grantes Rule 23 certification for the following
Plaintiff's claims: (i) the Defendant violated Section 1692e of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by using false,
deceptive, and misleading representations in debt-collection
communications; (ii) the Defendant violated Section 1692e(3) of the
FDCPA by falsely representing or implying that any communication is
from an attorney; and (iii) the Defendant violated Section
1692e(10) of the FDCPA by using false representations or deceptive
means to collect or attempt to collect a debt.

Plaintiff Meghan Gibbons is appointed as the Class Representative;
and Francis & Mailman, P.C. as the Class Counsel.

The parties will confer regarding an appropriate notice of the Rule
23 class action.  The Plaintiff will submit a proposed form of
notice to the Court for review within 30 days following entry of
the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/dGn92B from Leagle.com.

MEGHAN GIBBONS, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID A. SEARLES --
info@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C., JAMES A.
FRANCIS, FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC, JOSEPH L. GENTILCORE --
jogentilcore@gmail.com -- Francis & Mailman, P.C. & JOHN SOUMILAS,
FRANCIS & MAILMAN,P.C.

WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO., LPA, Defendant, represented by
RICHARD J. PERR -- rperr@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN KREKSTEIN &
HARRIS, P.C. & GRAEME E. HOGAN -- ghogan@finemanlawfirm.com --
FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, P.C.


WEST MEMPHIS FENCE: Palma Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO PALMA, Individually and on behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WEST MEMPHIS FENCE & CONSTRUCTION,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00208-DPM (E.D. Ark., Nov. 2,
2018), seeks declaratory judgment; monetary damages; liquidated
damages; prejudgment interest; costs; and a reasonable attorney's
fee, as a result of Defendant's 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
similarly-situated employees worked in excess of 40 hours per week
throughout their tenure with Defendant. On average, Plaintiff and
other similarly-situated employees worked over 50 hours per week.
They did not receive any overtime compensation. Within the time
period relevant to this case, Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees were misclassified as exempt and paid a day
rate. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees never
agreed that their day rate would be sufficient to cover all hours
worked, 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, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

WISCONSIN: Permanent Injunction Entered in LHS Strip Search Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, J.J., by and through his next friend, Sakeena Jackson,
for themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
JON E. LITSCHER, in his official capacity as Secretary of the
Wisconsin Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants, Case No.
17-CV-47 (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin approved the parties'
stipulated Consent Decree and Permanent Injunction.

On Jan. 23, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, initiating the action under 42
U.S.C. section 1983.  On Jan. 24, 2017, they filed a Motion for
Class Certification.  The Plaintiffs amended their Complaint on
April 18, 2017, and filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on
April 19, 2017.  The Defendants answered the Complaint and Amended
Complaint, and responded to the Plaintiffs' motions.  The parties
conducted significant discovery.

The claims in the action relate to the use of restrictive housing
(also known as room confinement), chemical agents, mechanical
restraints, and strip searches at Lincoln Hills School ("LHS") and
Copper Lake School ("CLS").  Following briefing, hearings, and
rulings by the Court, and the parties' input, the Court entered a
preliminary injunction on July 10, 2017.  The Court entered an
order certifying a class on Sept. 15, 2017.

Anticipating the costs of litigation and recognizing a shared
interest in improving the conditions of confinement for youth at
LHS and CLS, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants intend for the full
compliance with the Agreement to resolve all claims in the action.

In entering into the Agreement, the State does not admit any
violations of constitutional rights of youth confined at LHS and
CLS, nor does it admit any violation of state or federal law.  The
Agreement may not be used as evidence of liability in any other
legal proceeding.  However, the State remains firmly committed to
improving the conditions of confinement for youth at LHS and CLS.

The Consent Decree Consent Decree and Permanent Injunction includes
provisions on room confinement; OC-spray and other chemical agents;
mechanical restraints; strip searches; de-escalation training;
programming; and staffing' amendments to administrative code.

The terms of this Agreement are incorporated into an Order to be
entered by the Court.  The Court will retain jurisdiction over the
action until the Agreement terminates and all claims for injunctive
relief in the Action have been dismissed.

The Parties agree that Teresa Abreu will be retained to serve as
the Parties' jointly appointed Monitor.  Should Teresa Abreu become
unwilling or unable to act as Monitor, the Parties will meet and
confer to attempt to agree upon a replacement.  Should the Parties
be unable to agree on a Monitor within 45 days of Teresa Abreu
becoming unavailable, they will each recommend two potential
Monitors, from which the Court will select a replacement.

The Defendants will pay the Monitor's reasonable fees and costs.
The Parties recognize that DOC needs to be able to anticipate the
costs associated with the Monitor's services.  Accordingly, the
Monitor's fees will be presumed reasonable if they are less than or
equal to $130,000 for the first year of monitoring and $100,000 per
year for any subsequent years.

The Defendants agree to pay the Plaintiffs' counsel the $885,000 in
full satisfaction of all claims for fees and costs for work done by
the Plaintiffs' counsel through June 18, 2018, in connection with
the litigation.  The payment will be made within 20 days of the
Court's entry of an Order granting Final Approval to the Settlement
Agreement.

The Defendants agree to pay the Plaintiffs' Counsel's reasonable
expenses and fees for time reasonably spent on the case from June
19, 2018, through the date of the Court's entry of an Order
granting Final Approval to the Settlement Agreement.  The Parties
agree that the plaintiffs will be compensated for their time at the
rate of $220.50/hour (the current Prison Litigation Reform Act
cap).  Such payment will be in full satisfaction of all claims for
fees and costs for work done by the Plaintiffs' counsel in
connection with this litigation from June 19, 2018, through the
date of the Court's entry of an Order granting Final Approval to
the Settlement Agreement.

The Defendants further agree to pay the Plaintiffs' Counsel's
reasonable expenses and fees for time reasonably spent on the case
from the date of the Court's entry of an Order granting Final
Approval to the Settlement Agreement. The Parties agree that
Plaintiffs will be compensated for their time at the highest rate
permitted by the Prison Litigation Reform Act at the time each
request for fees is submitted to Defendants.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Sitpulated Order is
available at https://is.gd/JVGqaX from Leagle.com.

J. J., By and through his next friend Sakeena Jackson, K. D., By
and through her next friends John Levy and Meranda Davis, C. M., By
and through his next friend Toinette Ducksworth, R. N., By and
through his next friend Gloria Norwood, M.S., By and through his
next friend Jolene Waupekanay, A.V., By and through his next friend
Veronica Rocha-Montejano, M.R., By and through his next friend
Autumn Rodgers, S.K., By and through her next friend Thomas Korn,
A.P., By and through her next friend Louise Plaskey, C.B., By and
through his next friend and grandmother, Flossie Johnson & D.P., By
and through her mother and next friend, Earnestine Perry,
Plaintiffs, represented by Emily Logan Stedman --
emily.stedman@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady, Jessica R. Feierman
-- jfeierman@jlc.org -- Juvenile Law Center, Karen U. Lindell,
Juvenile Law Center, Karyn L. Rotker, ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation,
Inc., Laurence J. Dupuis -- ldupuis@aclu-wi.org -- Aclu Of
Wisconsin Foundation, Inc., Marsha L. Levick, Juvenile Law Center,
Matthew J. Splitek, Quarles & Brady LLP, Rachel Anne Graham --
rachel.graham@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP, Asma Imtiazali
Kadri, American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation,
Katherine E. Burdick, Juvenile Law Center, R. Timothy Muth, Aclu Of
Wisconsin Foundation, Inc. & Zachary T. Eastburn --
zachary.eastburn@quarles.com -- Quarles and Brady LLP.

Jon E. Litscher, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Corrections,
John D. Paquin, Administrator, Juvenile Division of Corrections, WI
Dept. of Corrections, Wendy A. Peterson, Superintendent, Lincoln
Hills School for Boys & Copper Lake School for Girls & Brian
Gustke, Director of Security, Lincoln Hills School for Boys &
Copper Lake School for Girls, Defendants, represented by Benjamin
Andrew Sparks -- bsparks@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello Carlson,
S.C. & Samuel C. Hall, Jr. -- shall@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello
Carlson, S.C.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The Wisconsin State Journal, The
Associated Press, The Wisconsin Newspaper Association & The
Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, Intervenors, represented
by Dustin Brett Brown -- dbrown@gklaw.com -- Godfrey & Kahn, S.C..


WYNN RESORTS: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff in Ferris Case Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wynn Resorts, Limited 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 parties in the
securities class action suit initiated by John V. Ferris and Joann
M. Ferris, are awaiting an order from the court appointing a lead
plaintiff's counsel.

On February 20, 2018, a securities class action was filed against
the Company and certain current and former officers of the Company
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York
(which was subsequently transferred to the United States District
Court, District of Nevada) by John V. Ferris and Joann M. Ferris on
behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between February 28, 2014 and January 25, 2018.

The complaint alleges, among other things, certain violations of
federal securities laws and seeks to recover unspecified damages as
well as attorneys' fees, costs and related expenses for the
plaintiffs. The parties are awaiting an order from the court
appointing a lead plaintiff's counsel.

The defendants in these actions will vigorously defend against the
claims pleaded against them. These actions are in preliminary
stages and management has determined that based on proceedings to
date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the
outcome of these actions or the range of reasonably possible loss,
if any.

Wynn Resorts, Limited owns and operates destination casino resorts.
The company was founded in 2002 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Still Defends Evans Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation, National Association 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 appellate briefing process in Evans v. CB&T, has
been completed with a ruling anticipated in 2019.

A civil class action lawsuit, Evans v. CB&T, brought against the
company in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California in May 2017. This case was filed on behalf
of a class of up to 50 investors in International Manufacturing
Group (IMG) and seeks to hold the company liable for losses of
class members arising from their investments in IMG, alleging that
the company conspired with and knowingly assisted IMG and its
principal in furtherance of an alleged Ponzi scheme.

In December 2017, the District Court dismissed all claims against
the Bank. In January 2018, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appellate briefing
process has been completed with a ruling anticipated in 2019.

Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking
and related services primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company offers community banking services, such as
small and medium-sized business and corporate banking; commercial
and residential development, construction, and term lending; retail
banking; treasury cash management and related products and
services; residential mortgage servicing and lending services;
trust and wealth management services; capital markets services,
including municipal finance advisory and underwriting; and
investment services. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was
founded in 1873 and is based in Salt Lake City, Utah.



                            *********

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 ***