CAR_Public/181128.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, November 28, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 238

                            Headlines

3M CO: 75 Suits Related to Aqueous Film Forming Foam Underway
3M CO: Class Action Over Use of Scotchgard Pending
3M CO: Continues to Defend King Class Suit in Alabama
3M CO: Continues to Defend St. John Class Action in Alabama
3M CO: Stover Class Action Still Shelved

3M CO: Suit in Lawrence County State Court Remains Stayed
AARON'S INC: Continues to Defend Byrd Class Action
AARP INC: Court Dismisses 2nd Amended Levay Suit
ACCOUNTABLE HEALTHCARE: Faces Juarez Suit in N.D. California
ACUITY BRANDS: Still Defends Georgia Consolidated Securities Suit

ADVANCE AUTO: Kessler Topaz to Lead Securities Suit
AGENT PROVOCATEUR: Figueroa Files Class Action Under ADA
AIRCRAFT SERVICE: $715K Canlas Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
AK STEEL: 7th Cir. Affirms District Court Judgment
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Jan. 4 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
ALLEGIS GROUP: Faces Garey Class Action Filed Under ADA
AMERICAN AIRLINES: $45 Million Settlement Receives Initial Okay
APP GROUP: Violates Disabilities Act, Figueroa Suit Asserts
ARGENTINA: U.S. Court Has No Jurisdiction Over Bond Default Suit

AT&T CORP: Call Center Agents Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
AVEO GROUP: Continues to Defend Class Action in Australia
BANK OF NEW YORK: Agreement Reached in Depositary Receipt Suits
BEACON HILL: Faces Class Action in New York for ADA Violation
BELLICUM PHARMA: Bid for Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Still Pending

BETO FOR TEXAS: Wants Class Action Over Text Messages Dismissed
BHH LLC: Ct. Won't Review Summary Judgment Denial in Hart
BHP BILLITON: March 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BHP BILLITON: SPG Law Files Class Action Over Samarco Disaster
BITCONNECT INTERNATIONAL: Paige Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida

BONPOINT USA: Figueroa Files Class Suit Under Disabilities Act
BRISTOL COMPRESSORS: Employees Files Class Action Lawsuit
BROKEN ENGLISH: Figueroa Sues Jewelry Maker for ADA Violation
C R BUNS INC: Fails to Pay Proper OT, McCoy Suit Alleges
CANADA: Lawsuit Alleges Ottawa Overcharged Visa Applicants

CANADA: Saskatoon Health Sued Over Indigenous Women Sterilization
CARHARTT RETAIL: Violates ADA, Figueroa Suit Alleges
CECIL LAWRENCE: Court Certifies Class Under FLSA in Melton Suit
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Kater Suit Denied
CLARE V: Faces ADA Class Action Filed by Jose Figueroa

CO-OPERATORS: Sued for Withholding Medical Benefit HST Payments
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in NY
COLLEGE OF THE HOLY CROSS: Camacho Files Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
CONCEPTS INTERNATIONAL: Kevin Garey Brings ADA Class Action in NY
CONSUMERS ENERGY: Still Defends Gas Index Price Reporting Suit

CORELOGIC INC: Still Defends Feliciano Class Action in New York
CORIUM INTERNATIONAL: Violates Securities Exchange Act
CPI CARD: Feb. 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
DANSKE BANK: USMA Preparing to File Securities Class Action
DAVID CHEN: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

DIGITAL FEDERAL: Overdraft Fee Class Action Can Proceed
DOUGH JOE LLC: Underpays Kitchen Staff, Espinoza and Sucup Say
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Bell Files Suit in Penn. Under FDCPA
EHEALTH INC: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Wage-and-Hour Class Suit
EHEALTH INC: Settlement Agreement Entered in TCPA-Related Suit

EHEALTH INC: Settles 2 Class Suits in California
ENCLARITY INC: 6th Cir. Flips Dismissal of M. Fulton's TCPA Suit
ENERGEN CORP: Gross Seeks to Halt Sale to Diamondback Energy
EQUIFAX INC: Bid to Dismiss Georgia Securities Suit Still Pending
EQUIFAX INC: Still Defends Suits over 2017 Data Breach

ESSENDANT INC: $3 Million Paid to Settlement Administrator
ETON MADISON: Faces Class Action in New York Under ADA
EVOQUA WATER: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
FIORELLA INSURANCE: Sued over Telemarketing and Spam Activities
FIRST HAWAIIAN: Agreement in Principle Reached in Suit vs. Unit

FIRST SOLAR: Smilovits Petition for Writ of Certiorari Pending
FITBIT INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
FLOWERS BAKING: Underpays Sales Managers, Button Suit Alleges
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Sullivan Seeks to Certify 2 Insureds Classes
GREYHOUND LINES: Sued Over Warrantless Stopping

GUARANTEED RATE: Pereyra Seeks Lawful Wages under Labor Code
H.E. SHEIKH: Boyd Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
HARMONY GOLD: Settlement Reached in African Mineworkers' Suit
HOTELS.COM: Little Rock Joins Internet Hotel Tax Class Action
INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Misled Shareholders, Robbins Arroyo Suit Says

INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Violates Securities Exchange Act, Samn Says
INTEL CORP: Still Defends Security Vulnerabilities-Related Suits
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Continues to Defend Connecticut Class Suit
ITALY: Journalist Mulls Class Action Against Luigi Di Maio
ITHACA COLLEGE: Camacho Disabilities Act Suit Filed in NY

JACKSONVILLE, FL: Court Denies Bid for Sanctions in ADA Suit
JUUL LABS: Faces Class Action Over Vaping Products
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Settlement in NY Suit Awaits Court Approval
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Bid to Stay Moses Suit Pending
LENDINGCLUB SECURITIES: Cal. Consolidated Securities Suit Tossed

LOGMEIN INC: Continues to Defend Wasson Securities Class Suit
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Garcia Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
MARRIOTT: Couple Files Class Action Over Hotel Workers' Strike
MATLET GROUP: Iovinelli Suit Asserts WARN Act Violation
MATTEL INC: Dismissal of California Class Suit under Appeal

MCDONALDS: Judge Set to Decide on Case in Next Few Months
MDL 2445: Expert Discovery Ongoing in Suboxone Suit
MOOSEJAW: Faces Class Action for "Wiretapping" Website Users
MORE NATURALLY: Soto Sues over Unauthorized Text Messages
NHL: Reaches $18.9MM Settlement with Retired Players

NICE GROUP: Sanchez Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Securities Suits Filed in New York & Illinois
OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Bid to Dismiss Dextenza-Related Suit Ongoing
OHIO NATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Trailing Commissions
OXFORD FERTILITY: Sued Over Add-On Fertility Treatments

PFIP, LLC: Rodriguez Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal Denied in Public Prosecutor's Suit in Brazil
PHILIP MORRIS: Bourassa Class Suit in Canada Still Ongoing
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend McDermid Class Suit in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Dorion Class Action Remains Dormant

PHILIP MORRIS: Letourneau Suit in Canada Still Ongoing
PHILIP MORRIS: No Action Taken in Jacklin Suit in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions in Adams Suit Still Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Semple Class Suit in Canada Remains Dormant
PHILIP MORRIS: Smoker Health Defense Association's Suit Ongoing

PHILIP MORRIS: Unit Continues to Defend Blais Suit in Canada
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Bell Files FDCPA Suit in Penn. Ct.
RADIUS GLOBAL: Henry Files FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Class of Individuals Certified in Blair Suit
RITE AID: Bailer Sues Over False, Misleading Product Labels

SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC: Lenczner Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
SCO FAMILY: David Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
SEI INVESTMENTS: Stanford Trust-Related Suits Still Ongoing
SINEMIA: Faces Class Action Over New "Processing Fee"
SJW GROUP: Continues to Defend CTWS-Merger Related Suits

SNAP INC: Continues to Defend Suits over Initial Public Offering
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Unit Still Defends Ferguson ERISA Class Suit
SSC KERRVILLE: Conditional Class Certification Sought
ST. ANTHONY MEDICAL: Owens Seeks to Certify Class of Beneficiaries
STEINHOFF INT'L: 100,000+ Shareholders Join Litigation Group

SWEET SAM'S: Mendez et al. Seek Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
SYNCHRONY BANK: McMullen Renews Bid for Class Certification
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Retirement Fund Sues over Underwriting
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Still Defends Cambell, Neal & Mott TCPA Suits
T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Defend Class Suit over 401(k) Plan

TAMKO BUILDING: 11th Cir. Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration
TAVA CAFE: Reyes Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA
TESLA INC: $5.4MM Sheikh Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
TICKETMASTER L.L.C.: Messing Sues over Ticket Purchasing Limits
TIM HORTONS: Ontario Superior Court Trims Franchisees' Claims

TREASURE ISLAND: Demesa Sues Over Illegal SMS Marketing Ads
TRI-CED COMMERCIAL: Otero Sues Over Sexual Harassment, Termination
TRIPLE S PROPERTIES: Martinez Moves to Certify MO Residents Class
UNIFUND CCR: Ehrnfeld Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
UNITED STATES: Certification of Class Sought in Caldwell Suit

UNITED STATES: NYCLU Sues Over Immigrant Fingerprint Requirement
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL: To Pay $820K for Discovery Violations
UNUM GROUP: Continues to Defend Cunningham Securities Class Suit
UNUM GROUP: Continues to Defend Pittman Securities Suit
UNUM GROUP: Still Faces Suit by Taylor Police Retirement System

VEREIT INC: Inks Settlement with 4 Class Action Opt-Out Entities
VRE CHICAGO: Court Denies Reconsideration Bid in Walls Class Suit
WELBILT INC: Jan. 8 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
WELLS FARGO: Customers Sue Over Auto Insurance Program
WELLS FARGO: Settles 2 RMBS Trust Class Actions for $43MM

WORLD WRESTLING: Court Dismisses Laurinaitis Suit
YAHOO! INC: Faces $50MM Fine Following Hacking Class Action Ruling
YALE UNIVERSITY: Failed to Secure Personal Info, Mason Suit Says

                            *********

3M CO: 75 Suits Related to Aqueous Film Forming Foam Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
3M 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 is facing 75
putative class action and other lawsuits in connection to its
Aqueous Film Forming Foam products.

3M manufactured and marketed Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) for
use in firefighting at airports and military bases from
approximately 1963 to 2000. As of September 30, 2018, 75 putative
class action and other lawsuits have been filed against 3M and
other defendants in various state and federal courts in Colorado,
Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and
Washington where current or former airports, military bases, or
fire training facilities are or were located.

In these cases, plaintiffs typically allege that certain PFAS used
in AFFF contaminated the soil and groundwater where AFFF was used
and seek damages for loss of use and enjoyment of properties,
diminished property values, investigation costs, remediation costs,
and in some cases, personal injury and funds for medical
monitoring.

everal companies have been sued along with 3M, including Ansul Co.
(acquired by Tyco, Inc.), Angus Fire, Buckeye Fire Protection Co.,
Chemguard, National Foam, Inc., and United Technologies Corp.

3M Company operates as a diversified technology company worldwide.
The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul,
Minnesota.


3M CO: Class Action Over Use of Scotchgard Pending
--------------------------------------------------
3M 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 punitive class action suit related to Wolverine World Wide
and Waste Management, Inc.'s use of 3M Scotchgard in its
manufacturing process.

In December 2017, plaintiffs filed a punitive class action in
federal court against 3M, Wolverine World Wide and Waste
Management, Inc., alleging negligence, trespass, intentional and
negligent infliction of emotional distress, battery, products
liability, public and private nuisance, fraudulent concealment, and
unjust enrichment. Each count was filed against each defendant.

The action arises from Wolverine's allegedly improper disposal of
materials and wastes related to their shoe manufacturing
operations. Plaintiffs allege Wolverine used 3M Scotchgard in its
manufacturing process and that chemicals from 3M's product have
contaminated the environment after being disposed of near drinking
water sources. In addition to the federal court class action, as of
September 30, 2018, 3M has been named a defendant in 122 private
individual actions in Michigan state court based on similar
allegations.

3M is aware of additional cases filed against Wolverine in Michigan
state court in which 3M is likely to be added as a defendant in the
future.

3M Company operates as a diversified technology company worldwide.
The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul,
Minnesota.


3M CO: Continues to Defend King Class Suit in Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------
3M 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 purported class action suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama.

In November 2017, a purported class action (the "King" case) was
filed against 3M, its subsidiary Dyneon, Daikin America, and the
West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (Water
Authority) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama. The plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence and Morgan
County, Alabama who receive their water from the Water Authority.

They assert various common law claims, including negligence,
nuisance, wantonness, and fraudulent concealment, and they seek
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, compensatory and punitive
damages for their alleged personal injuries. The plaintiffs contend
that the defendants own and operate manufacturing and disposal
facilities in Decatur that have released and continue to release
perfluorooctanoate ("PFOA"), perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS") and
related chemicals into the groundwater and surface water of their
sites, resulting in discharge into the Tennessee River.

The plaintiffs also contend that the defendants have discharged
chemicals into the Decatur Utilities Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant, which, in turn, discharged wastewater containing these
chemicals into the Tennessee River. The plaintiffs contend that, as
a result of the alleged discharges, the water supplied by the Water
Authority to the plaintiffs was, and is, contaminated with PFOA,
PFOS, and related chemicals at a level dangerous to humans.

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

3M Company operates as a diversified technology company worldwide.
The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul,
Minnesota.


3M CO: Continues to Defend St. John Class Action in Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------
3M 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 St. John class action
litigation is still pending in the Circuit Court of Morgan County,
Alabama.

As previously reported, a former employee filed a purported class
action lawsuit in 2002 in the Circuit Court of Morgan County,
Alabama (the "St. John case"), seeking unstated damages and
alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased risk,
subclinical injuries, and property damage from exposure to certain
perfluorochemicals at or near the Company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility. The court in 2005 granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's personal injury-related
claims on the basis that such claims are barred by the exclusivity
provisions of the state's Workers Compensation Act.

The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November
2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a
purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity of
the Decatur plant. In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint adding additional defendants, including BFI Waste
Management Systems of Alabama, LLC; BFI Waste Management of North
America, LLC; the City of Decatur, Alabama; Morgan County, Alabama;
Municipal Utilities Board of Decatur; and Morgan County, Alabama,
d/b/a Decatur Utilities.

In 2005, the judge in a second purported class action lawsuit filed
by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated
compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged damage to their
property from emissions of certain perfluorochemical compounds from
the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility that
formerly manufactured those compounds (the "Chandler case") –
granted the Company's motion to abate the case, effectively putting
the case on hold pending the resolution of class certification
issues in the St. John case. Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint seeking damages for alleged personal injuries and
property damage on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members
of a purported class. No further action in the case is expected
unless and until the stay is lifted.

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

3M Company operates as a diversified technology company worldwide.
The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul,
Minnesota.


3M CO: Stover Class Action Still Shelved
----------------------------------------
3M 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 Stover class action
lawsuit is still on hold pending the resolution of the class
certification issues in the St. John case.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County (the "Stover case") seeking compensatory damages and
injunctive relief based on the application by the Decatur utility's
wastewater treatment plant of wastewater treatment sludge to
farmland and grasslands in the state that allegedly contain
perfluorooctanoate ("PFOA"), perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS") and
other perfluorochemicals.

The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons
within the State of Alabama who have had PFOA, PFOS, and other
perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their property. In
March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case transferred
from Franklin County to Morgan County.

In May 2010, consistent with its handling of the other matters, the
Morgan County Circuit Court abated this case, putting it on hold
pending the resolution of the class certification issues in the St.
John case.

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

3M Company operates as a diversified technology company worldwide.
The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul,
Minnesota.


3M CO: Suit in Lawrence County State Court Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
3M 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 class action filed in the
state court in Lawrence County, Alabama, remains stayed.

In August 2016, a group of over 200 plaintiffs filed a class action
against West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (Water
Authority), 3M, Dyneon, Daikin, BFI, and the City of Decatur in
state court in Lawrence County, Alabama. Plaintiffs are residents
of Lawrence, Morgan and other counties who are or have been
customers of the Water Authority.

They contend defendants have released PFAS that contaminate the
Tennessee River and, in turn, their drinking water, causing damage
to their health and properties.

In January 2017, the court in the St. John case, stayed this
litigation pending resolution of the St. John case.

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

3M Company operates as a diversified technology company worldwide.
The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in St. Paul,
Minnesota.


AARON'S INC: Continues to Defend Byrd Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled Crystal and Brian
Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., John Does
(1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC.

In Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises,
Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC,
filed on May 16, 2011, in the United States District Court, Western
District of Pennsylvania, plaintiffs allege the Company and its
independently owned and operated franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises
("Aspen Way") knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy in violation
of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") and the
Computer Fraud Abuse Act and sought certification of a putative
nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use
of a software program called "PC Rental Agent."

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, asserting claims under the
ECPA, common law invasion of privacy, seeking an injunction, and
naming additional independently owned and operated Company
franchisees as defendants. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages as well
as injunctive relief.

In March 2014, the United States District Court dismissed all
claims against all franchisees other than Aspen Way Enterprises,
LLC, dismissed claims for invasion of privacy, aiding and abetting,
and conspiracy against all defendants, and denied plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class action, but denied the Company's motion
to dismiss the claims alleging ECPA violations. In April 2015, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the
denial of class certification on the grounds stated by the District
Court, and remanded the case back to the District Court for further
consideration of that and the other elements necessary for class
certification.

On September 26, 2017, the District Court again denied plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. Plaintiffs have filed a petition
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for
permission to appeal the denial of class certification. The Company
is opposing this petition, and a decision remains pending. In March
2018, the District Court granted plaintiff's motion to reconsider
the prior dismissal of the Wyoming invasion of privacy claim. That
claim is now under evaluation for class certification. The Court
also denied the Company's pending motion for summary judgment as
moot, but the Company is free to re-file the motion at a future
date.

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

Aaron's, Inc. operates as an omnichannel provider of lease-purchase
solutions. It operates through three segments: Progressive Leasing,
Aaron's Business, and DAMI. The company engages in the sale, lease
ownership, and specialty retailing of furniture, consumer
electronics, home appliances, and accessories. Aaron's, Inc. was
founded in 1955 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


AARP INC: Court Dismisses 2nd Amended Levay Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the case, SIMON LEVAY, JUDITH WILLIS, and LIONEL BROWN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AARP, INC., AARP SERVICES, INC., UNITEDHEALTH GROUP,
INC., UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY and DOES 1 through 60, Defendants, Case No. 17-09041 DDP
(PLAx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California granted the
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

The named Plaintiffs bring the putative class action challenging
the Defendants' marketing of AARP-branded insurance policies.  The
SAC alleges that the Plaintiffs are AARP members and prospective
insureds who are at least 65 years of age and have seen and/or
heard the advertisements, solicitations, marketing materials, and
offers of AARP branded insurance services and products.  The
Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of being AARP members, they are
at an increased risk of being targeted with unlawful and unfair
advertisements for AARP-branded insurance policies.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that AARP's endorsement of the
insurance policies is misleading because they presume the
endorsement is AARP's actual stamp of approval for the best senior
insurance company.  The SAC alleges that the Plaintiffs placed
their trust in the AARP name, while AARP sold their name to the
highest-bidding insurance companies, Defendants UnitedHealth and
New York Life.  Furthermore, the SAC alleges that the primary
reason persons join AARP is for the numerous discounts available to
AARP members, and that the Plaintiffs relied] on the presumption
that the insurance services offered, especially the AARP-branded
insurance policies, are at a discounted rate.

The SAC alleges violations of (1) California Insurance Code
Sections 785 and 787, (2) violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), and (3) violations of California's False
Advertising Law ("FAL").

The Defendants now move to dismiss the SAC pursuant to Rules
12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6).

As to the Motions to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(1), Judge Pregerson
finds that the Plaintiffs have not articulated a viable theory of
injury.  However, he will grant them a final opportunity to amend
the SAC to state a theory of injury that corresponds to the measure
of damages they seek, namely the the cost of the AARP membership
fees paid by the Plaintiffs.

In addition, the Plaintiffs must establish standing for each form
of relief sought.  To seek the remedy of prospective injunctive
relief, a plaintiff must allege an "actual and imminent" injury.
Past exposure to illegal conduct does not itself show a present
case or controversy regarding injunctive relief if unaccompanied by
any continuing, present adverse effects.  In its prior Order, the
Court instructed the Plaintiffs that they must allege how they will
continue to be harmed by the Defendants' representations.  As the
Plaintiffs have not amended the Complaint to plead imminent
prospective harm, the Judge concludes that the Plaintiffs lack
standing to seek injunctive relief.  Accordingly, he will grant the
Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.

As to the Motions to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6), the Judge finds
that (i) the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek restitution of their
membership fees from the insurance carrier Defendants; (ii) the
Plaintiffs' theory concerning the discounted status of AARP
policies too attenuated to merit relief; and (iii) the sole basis
for the Plaintiffs' claim under the unlawful prong of the UCL is a
violation of Section 785, a code provision that applies only with
respect to AARP-branded life insurance policies.

Finally the Judge finds that the allegations in the SAC set forth a
unified source of fraudulent conduct.  These allegations do not
satisfy the requirements of Rule 9(b).  For example, the Plaintiffs
generally allege they have seen and/or heard the advertisements,
solicitations, marketing materials, and offers of AARP branded
insurance services and products.  Accordingly, the Judge will
dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims with leave to amend in order for
them to allege the "who, what, when, where, and how" of the alleged
fraudulent conduct.

For the reasons stated, Judge Pregerson granted the Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss.  In particular, he dismissed Defendants New
York Life and UnitedHealth with prejudice.  He further dismissed
the Plaintiffs' claims under Insurance Code Sections 785 and 787
with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs will file an amended complaint within 14 days of the
date of the Order, or by Nov. 16, 2018.  No amendments are
permitted beyond those for which the Court has expressly granted
leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/uMUzi8 from Leagle.com.

Simon Levay, Judith Willis & Lionel Brown, Individually and on
Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Alan I. Schimmel -- aischimmel@spattorneys.com -- Schimmel and
Parks APLC, Arash Homampour -- arash@homampour.com -- Homampour Law
Firm PLC, Danielle Nicole Lincors -- Danielle@homanpour.com --
Homampour Law Firm &Michael W. Parks -- mwparks@spattorneys.com --
Schimmel and Parks APLC.

AARP, Inc. & AARP Services, Inc., Defendants, represented by Sarah
Beth Burwick -- sarah.burwick@bclplaw.com -- Bryan Cave Leighton
Paisner LLP, Jeffrey S. Russell -- jsrussell@bclplaw.com -- Bryan
Cave LLP, pro hac vice & John W. Amberg -- jwamberg@bclplaw.com --
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP.

UnitedHealth Group, Inc. & Unitedhealthcare Insurance Company,
Defendants, represented by Brian David Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com --
OMelveny and Myers LLP, Aaron Dane Henson -- ahenson@omm.com --
O'Melveny and Myers LLP & Meaghan VerGow - mvergow@omm.com --
O'Melveny and Myers LLP, pro hac vice.

New York Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Carol
Lynn Thompson -- CTHOMPSON@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Lauren
Marie De Lilly -- LDELILLY@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP & Joshua
E. Anderson -- JANDERSON@SIDLEY.COM  -- Sidley Austin LLP.


ACCOUNTABLE HEALTHCARE: Faces Juarez Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Accountable Healthcare Staffing, Inc. The case is captioned as
SARAH REYNOSA-JUAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCOUNTABLE HEALTHCARE STAFFING,
INC.; and ACCOUNTABLE HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS CORP., Defendants, Case
No. 5:18-cv-06302-NC (N.D. Cal., Oct. 15, 2018). The case is
assigned to Nathanael M. Cousins.

Accountable Healthcare Staffing, Inc. provides healthcare staffing
services. The company offers personnel and resources to hospitals
and other healthcare facilities. The company was founded in 1999
and is based in Boca Raton, Florida. As of July 25, 2012,
Accountable Healthcare Staffing, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Accountable Healthcare Holdings Corp. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan Bunnell Piller, Esq.
          Joshua Geoffrey Konecky, Esq.
          Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP
          2000 Emeryville Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: npiller@schneiderwallace.com
                  jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com


ACUITY BRANDS: Still Defends Georgia Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Acuity Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018, for
the fiscal year ended August 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend itself from a securities class action suit entitled, In
re Acuity Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia

On January 3, 2018, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
against the Company and certain of its officers on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock
between June 29, 2016 and April 3, 2017. On February 20, 2018, a
different shareholder filed a second class action complaint in the
same venue against the same parties on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock between October
15, 2015 and April 3, 2017.

The cases were transferred on April 30, 2018, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and
subsequently were consolidated as In re Acuity Brands, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02140-MHC (N.D.
Ga.).

On October 5, 2018, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint (the "Consolidated
Complaint") which supersedes the initial complaints.

The Consolidated Complaint is brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock between October 7, 2015 and
April 3, 2017 and alleges that the Company and certain of its
current officers and one former executive violated the federal
securities laws by making false or misleading statements and/or
omitting to disclose material adverse facts that (i) concealed
known trends negatively impacting sales of the Company's products
and (ii) overstated the Company's ability to achieve profitable
sales growth. The plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified
monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and intends
to move to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint and to vigorously
defend against the claims.

Acuity Brands said, "Estimating an amount or range of possible
losses resulting from litigation proceedings is inherently
difficult, particularly where the matters involve indeterminate
claims for monetary damages and are in the stages of the
proceedings where key factual and legal issues have not been
resolved. For these reasons, the Company is currently unable to
predict the ultimate timing or outcome of or reasonably estimate
the possible losses or a range of possible losses resulting from
the matters described above. The Company is insured, in excess of a
self-retention, for Directors and Officers liability."

Acuity Brands, Inc. provides lighting and building management
solutions and services for commercial, institutional, industrial,
infrastructure, and residential applications in North America and
internationally. Acuity Brands, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


ADVANCE AUTO: Kessler Topaz to Lead Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEWEL WIGGINTON, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC.,
THOMAS R. GRECO and THOMAS OKRAY, Defendants, C.A. No. 18-212 (MN)
(D. Del.), Judge Maryellen Noreika of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware appointed Public Employees' Retirement
System of Mississippi as the Lead Plaintiff and its selection of
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as the Lead Counsel and
Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A. as the Liaison Counsel for the
proposed class.

On Feb. 6, 2018, Wigginton filed the present action against Advance
Auto, its CEO Greco, and its CFO Okray, on behalf of all purchasers
of Advance Auto securities between Nov. 14, 2016 and Aug. 15, 2017.
The Complaint asserts claims against the Defendants arising under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
well as under Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule
10b-5.

Advance Auto provides aftermarket automotive parts in North
America.  Serving professional installers, independently-owned
operators, and 'do-it-yourself' retail customers, it sells items
such as original equipment manufacturer parts, private label
replacement parts, and other accessories and maintenance items for
automotive vehicles.

The Plaintiff alleges that she and all other purchasers of Advance
Auto securities suffered damages arising out of the Defendants'
failure to disclose material adverse facts about Advance Auto's
financial well-being, business relationships, and prospects
throughout the Class Period.  Specifically, she alleges that,
during the Class Period, the Defendants failed to disclose that
Advance Auto's acquisition of the Carquest brand, as well as
increased competition, were negatively affecting Advance Auto's
sales.  According to the Plaintiff, Advance Auto securities traded
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period because of
the Defendants' misleading statements and withholding of
information.  The Plaintiff claims that once the allegedly
concealed information became public, the price of Advance Auto
securities significantly declined, which caused the Plaintiff and
other purported class members to suffer economic loss.

On the same day that the Plaintiff filed the Complaint, the
Plaintiffs counsel published notice of the purported class action
with Business Wire, which informed potential class members that
they could seek appointment as the Lead Plaintiff until April 9,
2018.  On April 9, 2018, Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund,  Local
338 RWDSU/UFCW Retirement Fund, and Mississippi PERS each filed a
motion for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff in the present action,
as well as for approval of their selection of counsel for the class
action.

Teamsters 710 is a pension fund that purchased 8,122 shares of
Advance Auto securities during the Class Period.  Local 338 is a
retirement fund that purchased 10,435 shares of Advance Auto
securities during the Class Period.  And Mississippi PERS is a
retirement system that purchased 31,102 shares of Advance Auto
securities during the Class Period.  Each party filed oppositions
to the other two competing motions, as well as a reply, and all
three motions were fully briefed as of April 30, 2018.

Judge Noreika finds that Mississippi PERS suffered the largest
approximate loss out of the competing movants.  Using the
Last-In-First-Out ("LIFO") method to calculate losses,  Mississippi
PERS claims losses estimated at more than $2.1 million.  In
contrast, Teamsters 710 has losses estimated at just under
$540,000, and Local 338 claims losses at approximately $460,000.
Mississippi PERS purchased 31,102 shares during the Class Period,
whereas Teamsters 710 and Local 338 purchased 8,122 and 10,435
shares, respectively.  Similarly, Mississippi PERS claims net
expenditures in excess of $4.5 million during the Class Period,
while Teamsters 710 claims just over $1.3 million, and Local 338
claims over $1.4 million in net expenditures during the Class
Period.

Because Mississippi PERS has the largest financial interest in the
relief sought by the proposed class action, and because Mississippi
PERS otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23, it is
entitled to the PSLRA's presumption of Lead Plaintiff in the
present action.

Judge also finds that Mississippi PERS's status as the Lead
Plaintiff in seven other securities class actions does not bar it
from serving as Leathe d Plaintiff.  Neither Teamsters 710 nor
Local 338 offer any other challenge to Mississippi PERS's ability
to serve as the Lead Plaintiff in the present action.  Instead,
both focus exclusively on the fact that, in their view, Mississippi
PERS should automatically be barred from serving as the Lead
Plaintiff under the 5-in-3 Rule.  Having found that Mississippi
PERS is not barred from serving as the Lead Plaintiff on these
grounds, the Judge finds that no party has rebutted the presumption
in favor of Mississippi PERS as the Lead Plaintiff.

Finally, the Judge approves of Mississippi PERS' selection of
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as the Lead Counsel and
Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A. as the Liaison Counsel for the
proposed class.  Kessler Topaz has extensive experience in
securities fraud litigation, as well other types of class actions,
and it has served as lead (or co-lead) counsel in many cases over
the last 20 years.  Rosenthal Monhait is a Delaware firm that has
served as liaison counsel in many securities litigations and other
class actions in both state and federal court in Delaware.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Noreika granted Mississippi PERS's
motion in its entirety, and denied Teamsters 710's motion and Local
338's motio.  An appropriate order will follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/cYxj7Q from Leagle.com.

Jewel Wigginton, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian E. Farnan --
bfarnan@farnanlaw.com -- Farnan LLP & Michael J. Farnan --
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com -- Farnan LLP.

Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Thomas R. Greco & Thomas Okray,
Defendants, represented by Renee Marie Mosley -- mosley@rlf.com --
Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Douglas P. Baumstein --
dbaumstein@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, pro hac vice,
Katharine Lester Mowery -- mowery@rlf.com -- Richards, Layton &
Finger, PA, Samuel A. Nolen -- nolen@rlf.com -- Richards, Layton &
Finger, PA & Susan L. Grace -- susan.grace@whitecase.com -- White &
Case LLP, pro hac vice.

Gardiner Murphy, Movant, represented by Brian E. Farnan, Farnan
LLP.

Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, Movant,
represented by Peter Bradford deLeeuw -- bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com --
Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A.

Sudhir Kapoor, Movant, represented by Ryan M. Ernst --
rernst@oelegal.com -- O'Kelly Ernst & Joyce, LLC.


AGENT PROVOCATEUR: Figueroa Files Class Action Under ADA
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Agent Provocateur
International (US) LLC. The case is styled as Jose Figueroa on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Agent Provocateur International (US) LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10670 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018).

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

Agent Provocateur, Inc. went out of business as per its Chapter 11
liquidation filing under bankruptcy. Agent Provocateur, Inc. owns
and operates a retail store selling lingerie, nightwear, and
swimwear products. The company was incorporated in 2000 and is
based in New York, 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


AIRCRAFT SERVICE: $715K Canlas Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEZEN CANLAS, GEORGE STO. DOMINGO, on behalf of
himself, and on behalf of others similarly situated, and the
general public, Plaintiffs, v. AIRCRAFT SERVICE INTERNATIONAL,
INC., and DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-02355-JSW (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Attorney's fees, costs, Settlement Administrator Costs,
PAGA allocation, and Incentive Awards to Plaintiffs.

Canlas and Sto. Domingo filed the wage and hour class action
lawsuit against Aircraft Service.  The operative First Amended
Complaint filed by the Plaintiffs alleges causes of action on
behalf of nonexempt employees for (1) failure to provide meal
period compensation; (2) failure to provide rest period
compensation; (3) unpaid wages; (4) failure to pay overtime
compensation; (5) waiting time penalties; (6) failure to furnish
accurate wage statements; (7) unfair compensation in violation of
Cal. Bus. Section Prof. Code sections 17200, et seq. ("UCL"); and
(8) civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA").  The Complaint sought recovery of unpaid wages,
restitution, penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On Aug. 31, 2017, the Court issued an order granting in part, the
Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, which resulted in
a judgment in favor of Defendant with respect to the Plaintiffs'
individual claims for unpaid wages; failure to pay overtime
compensation; and waiting time penalties.  Following the Summary
Judgment Order, only the Plaintiffs' meal and period claims, wage
statement claim, UCL claim and PAGA claim remained.

In January 2018, the Parties engaged in a mediation session with
Francis "Tripper" Ortman of Ortman Mediation, which resulted in a
class-wide settlement limited to the Remaining Claims and further
limited to those persons employed as fuelers or similarly-situated
positions at the Defendant's worksite at San Francisco
International Airport, California.

The Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval was granted on June
11, 2018, which resulted in the Court conditionally certifying, for
settlement purposes only, the Rule 23(b)(3) Class of all similarly
situated persons who were employed by the Defendant at its worksite
located at San Francisco International Airport, California at any
time between Feb. 18, 2012 through July 31, 2017 in any of the
following positions: (a) fueler, (b) gse fueler, (c) lead fueler,
(d) fueling supervisor I and (e) fueling supervisor II.

The gross settlement amount is $715,000.  This amount is
non-reversionary and there was no claims requirement.  The
Defendant will fund the settlement no later than 10 days, if there
are no objectors, after the Court signs the Final Approval Order
and Final Judgment.  If there are objectors, Defendant will fund
the settlement no later than 10 days after the lapse of any time to
appeal the order granting final approval of the class action
settlement.  If any such appeal is filed, the Defendant's payment
to the Settlement Administrator will be made no later than 10 days
after a final resolution of all appeals that results in the
upholding of the parties' settlement.

The net settlement amount, or the "Potential Gross Individual
Settlement Proceeds," is the gross settlement amount minus the
following: (i) $7,500 as an Enhancement Award to Plaintiff Canlas;
(ii) $7,500 as an Enhancement Award to Plaintiff Sto. Domingo;
• $214,500 for attorney fees (30% of the gross settlement); (iii)
$9,660.98 for attorney's costs and expenses; (iv) $13,000 in
settlement administration costs for CPT Group, Inc.; (v) $7,500
(75% of $10,000 PAGA penalty) paid to the California Labor &
Workforce Development Agency; and (vi) employee's share of payroll
taxes.  

The net settlement will be distributed in the following specific
manner:

     a. Payment will be made to all class members because there are
no opt outs.

     b. Each Class Member's Individual Settlement Award will equal
the remainder of the of the Potential Gross Individual Settlement
Proceeds, divided by the total number of weeks worked by Settlement
Class Members at Defendant's worksite at San Francisco
International Airport, California and in any of the fueler
positions described in the Class Definition during the Class Period
(as determined by the Defendant's records), and multiplied by the
total number of weeks worked by the individual Settlement Class
Member at the Defendant's worksite in San Francisco International
Airport, California and in any of the fueler positions described in
the Class Definition during the Class Period (as determined by the
Defendant's records) subject to deductions and withholdings to be
paid to taxing authorities.

     c. For tax withholding purposes, the Individual Settlement
Awards for the Class will be allocated as follows: one third
(33.3%) to alleged unpaid wages which will be reported to the IRS
on Form W-2, including amounts to be deducted for employee taxes;
one third (33.3%) to alleged interest, which will be reported to
the IRS on Form 1099; and one third (33.3%) to alleged penalties,
which will be reported to the IRS on Form 1099.

     d. Settlement checks will be valid for 60 days from mailing.
If any check is not cashed within 60 days, the settlement
administrator will void the checks and the uncashed amount(s) will
be redistributed to those Class Members who cashed their initial
payments.  After another 60 days, any settlement checks from the
redistributed amounts, that remain uncashed will be cancelled and
the outstanding amount paid on a cy pres basis to Instituto Laboral
de La Raza.

     e. The members who do not opt out will release the Defendant
(and related entities) from any and all claims all claims, demands,
rights, liabilities, and causes of action that were or could have
been asserted in the Lawsuit remaining after the Court's Aug. 31,
2017 Order granting in part, the Defendant's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.

Following the Court's order granting the motion for preliminary
approval, the approved Settlement Administrator, CPT Group, Inc.,
provided a Court-approved Notice of Class Action Settlement to
members of the Class, who were given an opportunity to opt out or
object to the settlement.

Now before the court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's
fees, costs, Settlement Administrator Costs, PAGA allocation, and
Incentive Awards to Plaintiffs.

Judge White granted both Motions.  He (i) granted class
certification for purposes of settlement; (ii) granted final
approval of the settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate; (iii)
awarded $214,500 in attorney fees and $9,660.98 in costs to the
Class Counsel; (iv) awarded $7,500 to Plaintiff Canlas, and $7,500
to Plaintiff Sto. Domingo as incentive awards; (v) awareded $13,000
in settlement administration costs to CPT Group, Inc.; (vi)
approved the allocation of $10,000 to the LWDA, with payment of
$7,500 to the LWDA and $2,500 distributed to the settlement class
for PAGA penalties; and (vii) designated Instituto Laboral de La
Raza as cy pres.

A Status Conference re: Final Report re: Distribution of Settlement
Funds is set for Dec. 21, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.  A joint status
conference will be filed by no later than Dec. 14, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/j0Qag5 from Leagle.com.

Jezen Canlas, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, and the general public & George Sto Domingo, on
behalf of himself, and on behalf of others similarly situated, and
the general public, Plaintiffs, represented by Arlo Garcia Uriarte
-- info@liberationlawgroup.com -- Liberation Law Group, Ernesto
Sanchez, Liberation Law Group, P.C. & Un Kei Wu, Liberation Law
Group, P.C.

Aircraft Service International, Inc., DOES, 1-25, Defendant,
represented by Alexandria Marie Witte -- awitte@fordharrison.com --
Ford & Harrison LLP, David Lishian Cheng -- dcheng@fordharrison.com
-- Ford & Harrison LLP & Michelle Brauer Abidoye --
mabidoye@fordharrison.com -- Ford Harrison LLP.


AK STEEL: 7th Cir. Affirms District Court Judgment
---------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding 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 30, 2018, that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has affirmed the judgment
of the District Court in class action lawsuits against steel
manufacturers.

On September and October 2008 and again in July 2010, several
companies filed purported class actions in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against nine
steel manufacturers, including the company. The case numbers for
these actions are 08CV5214, 08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700,
08CV5942, 08CV6197 and 10CV04236. On December 28, 2010, another
action, case number 32,321, was filed in state court in the Circuit
Court for Cocke County, Tennessee.

The defendants removed the Tennessee case to federal court and in
March 2012 it was transferred to the Northern District of Illinois.
The plaintiffs in the various pending actions are companies that
purport to have purchased steel products, directly or indirectly,
from one or more of the defendants and they claim to file the
actions on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased steel
products for delivery or pickup in the United States from any of
the named defendants at any time from at least as early as January
2005.

The complaints allege that the defendant steel producers have
conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict output and to
fix, raise, stabilize and maintain artificially high prices for
steel products in the United States.

In March 2014, the company reached an agreement with the direct
purchaser plaintiffs to settle the claims asserted against the
company. According to that settlement, the company agreed to pay
$5.8 to the plaintiff class of direct purchasers in exchange for
the members of that class to completely release all claims. The
company continues to believe that the claims made against it lacks
any merit, but the company elected to enter the settlement to avoid
the ongoing expense of defending ourselves in this protracted and
expensive antitrust litigation.

The company provided notice of the proposed settlement to members
of the settlement class. After several class members received the
notice, they elected to opt out of the class settlement. Following
a fairness hearing, on October 21, 2014 the Court entered an order
and judgment approving the settlement and dismissing all of the
direct plaintiffs' claims against the company with prejudice as to
the settlement class.

On March 3, 2017, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the indirect plaintiffs' amended complaint on the grounds
that the plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing. On April 4, 2017,
the indirect plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration and the
defendants filed an opposition to that motion. On July 13, 2017,
the Court denied the indirect plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration. On September 15, 2017 the indirect plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
On September 6, 2018, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of
the District Court.

AK Steel Holding said, "At this point, it is uncertain whether the
indirect plaintiffs will file a petition for a writ of certiorari
with the United States Supreme Court. Because we have been unable
to determine that a potential loss in this case for the indirect
plaintiffs is probable or estimable, we have not recorded an
accrual for this matter. If our assumptions used to evaluate a
probable or estimable loss for the indirect plaintiffs prove to be
incorrect or change, we may be required to record a charge for
their claims."

AK Steel Holding Corporation, through its subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation, produces flat-rolled carbon, stainless, and electrical
steels, and tubular products in the United States and
internationally. It produces flat-rolled carbon steel products,
including coated, cold-rolled, and hot-rolled carbon steel
products; grain-oriented specialty stainless and electrical steels;
and carbon and stainless steel tubing products. AK Steel Holding
Corporation was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in West
Chester, Ohio.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Jan. 4 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the January 4,
2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action
filed on behalf of investors that purchased Align Technology, Inc.
("Align" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ALGN ) securities between  July
25, 2018 and October 24, 2018,  inclusive (the "Class Period").
Align investors have until January 4, 2019  to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Align investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

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

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

If you purchased shares of Align during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than  January 4, 2019 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters please;

         Howard G. Smith, Esq.
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
         Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
         Telephone: (215) 638-4847
         Toll-free: (888) 638-4847
         Email:  howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. [GN]


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Align
Technology, Inc. ("Align" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: ALGN) for
violations of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between July 25, 2018
and October 24, 2018, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before January 4, 2019.         

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Align offered larger discounts to promote
its orthodontics solution, Invisalign. These discounts and
promotions had a material impact on revenue. Based on these facts,
the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Align, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: 310-301-3335
                    424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: brian@schallfirm.com
                sherin@schallfirm.com [GN]


ALLEGIS GROUP: Faces Garey Class Action Filed Under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allegis Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allegis Group, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10653 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018).

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

Allegis Group, Inc., along with its subsidiaries, provides
recruiting and staffing solutions in the United States, the United
Kingdom, Canada, Puerto Rico, Europe, the Middle East, the Pacific
Rim, and internationally.[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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: $45 Million Settlement Receives Initial Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the $45 million
settlement received preliminary approval from the Court and the
company expects the Court to issue final approval of the settlement
later this year.

Subsequent to announcement of the delivery of  Civil Investigative
Demand's (CIDs) by the Department of Justice (DOJ), American, along
with Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United
Airlines, Inc. and, in the case of litigation filed in Canada, Air
Canada, have been named as defendants in approximately 100 putative
class action lawsuits alleging unlawful agreements with respect to
air passenger capacity. The U.S. lawsuits have been consolidated in
the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.

On June 15, 2018, American reached a preliminary settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs in the amount of $45 million that,
once approved, will resolve all claims in the U.S. lawsuits. That
settlement received preliminary approval from the Court on June 18,
2018. American expects the Court to issue final approval of the
settlement later this year.

American Airlines, Inc. operates as a network air carrier. The
company provides scheduled air transportation services for
passengers and cargo. It also offers freight and mail services. The
company operates hubs in Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, Los
Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, and Phoenix, as well as in
Washington, D.C. American Airlines, Inc. is a subsidiary of
American Airlines Group Inc.


APP GROUP: Violates Disabilities Act, Figueroa Suit Asserts
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A.P.P. Group Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A.P.P. Group Inc. doing business
as: Mackage, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10675 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15,
2018).

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

APP Group Inc. engages in design, manufacture, and distribution of
outerwear and ready-to-wear products under various labels. The
company is based in Montreal, Canada.[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


ARGENTINA: U.S. Court Has No Jurisdiction Over Bond Default Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Loretta A. Preska of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Republic of Argentina's motion to
dismiss, with prejudice, the case, DRAW Capital Partners, LLC, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-00548 (LAP) (S.D.
N.Y.), under a number of provisions of Rule 12(b).

Plaintiff DRAW Capital brings the class action for breach of
contract and conversion against the Republic of Argentina based on
the Republic's failure to pay interest on overdue interest on bonds
owned by the Plaintiff.

In 2001, the Republic defaulted on its debts.  In 2005 and 2010,
the Republic restructured some of its debts and issued bonds in
both years.  The Plaintiff holds beneficial interests in these
bonds.  These bonds are governed by a Trust Indenture.  Not all
holders of the Republic's original debt agreed to debt
restructuring and they subsequently brought legal action against
the Republic when the Republic paid the Exchange bondholders.

The Republic was enjoined by the Court from making certain payments
on its debt and therefore was in default on the Exchange bonds
owned by the Plaintiff.  The Court lifted the injunction in April
of 2016, and payment of past due interest was made in May of 2016.
The Republic did not pay interest on the missed periodic interest
payments.

The Plaintiff filed suit in the Court alleging that failure to pay
interest on interest was a breach of contract and conversion.  It
seeks damages based on the Republic's nonpayment of interest on
interest.

The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on May 14, 2018.  It seeks
dismissal of the claims based on the Plaintiff's lack of standing
and failure to state a claim, as well as the Court's lack of
jurisdiction.

Judge Preska concludes that the Plaintiff does not have standing to
bring the claim.  Even still, the Plaintiff's claim for interest on
interest is neither legally cognizable nor distinct from its
conversion claim.  Finally, the Judge holds that the Court does not
have jurisdiction over the claims governed by English law.
Accordingly, all of the Plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Judge Preska granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Complaint, and dismissed the Complaint with prejudice.  The Clerk
of Court will mark the action closed and all pending motions denied
at moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/azS9Lf from Leagle.com.

DRAW Capital Partners, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Robert Stern,
Sack & Sack, LLP & Jonathan Scott Sack, Sack & Sack, LLP.

The Republic of Argentina, Defendant, represented by Carmine D.
Boccuzzi, Jr. -- cboccuzzi@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb & Rahul
Mukhi -- rmukhi@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.


AT&T CORP: Call Center Agents Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
Diane Calloway, Doretta Wagner, Carolyn Adamsharris, Bridgett Tift,
James Bloch, Mary Hanley, Audrey Michelle Otis, China Kellam and
Sharon McKenzie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. AT&T Corp., AT&T Inc., AT&T Teleholdings,
Inc. , AT&T Services, Inc. and AT&T Operations, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-06975 (N.D. Ill., October 17, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

AT&T Inc. is a telecommunications holding company where Plaintiffs
worked as call center agents in their various locations. They claim
to have performed uncompensated work at the beginning of their
shifts, logging into AT&T's system and operating a variety of
software programs used in their work. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
      JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C.
      221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 789-9700
      Email: Jeff@JGBrownlaw.com

             - and -

      Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
      GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 546-5056
      Email: GDunn@GJDLaw.com


AVEO GROUP: Continues to Defend Class Action in Australia
---------------------------------------------------------
Bob Kohut, writing for TheBull, reports that Retirement Village
operator Aveo Group Limited (AOG) renamed itself in 2013, shedding
its property development business to focus exclusively on the
retirement village sector.  The prior entity, FKP Property, had
seen its dividend payments decline from a high of $0.165 per share
in FY 2007 to $0.01 at the time of the strategic change and
renaming.  Dividend payments have risen every year since, from
$0.04 in FY 2014 to $0.09 in FY 2018.

The company has 5 retirement properties in the US and 90 retirement
and aged care properties across Australia, with the process of
divesting its non-retirement assets almost completed.  Aveo has
expanded into health care for the aged, through residential
accommodations staffed with on-site and visiting healthcare
professionals and its Freedom Care, a unique offering providing a
home-like setting for nursing care.

The company operates in a high growth sector and has grown both
rental income and net profit in each of the last three fiscal
years, with rental income up 68% between FY 2016 and FY 2018 and
net profit up 44%.  The company reported EPS (earnings per share)
of $0.012 in FY 2018, with forecasted growth to $0.194 in FY 2019
before declining slightly to $0.187 in FY 2020.

Despite this solid financial performance, the stock price has been
declining since August of 2016.

The slide began following a capital raise in mid-2016, with the
bottom falling out in early 2017 on the release of an ABC Four
Corners and Fairfax Media investigation that uncovered
bewilderingly complex legal contracts for residents along with
reportedly exorbitant fees and safety issues.  In mid-year 2017 the
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) announced its
own investigation into Aveo.  Toward the close of the year Aveo was
facing inquiries from the Victorian government and a class action
lawsuit.

The company has promised to simplify its contracts and improve its
complaint process. Commenting on the class action suit in a 1 May
2018 Investor presentation, company management said "Aveo will
continue to deny the applicant's allegations and strenuously defend
its practices and product offerings."

The risk with Aveo should be obvious -- regulatory oversight.
Although there is little news on the ACCC investigation, on 19
September the federal government announced yet another Royal
Commission, this one to look into quality and safety issues in the
sector.   The RACGP (Royal Australian College of General
Practitioners) has made a submission to the commission regarding
Government oversight and management.

The terms of reference for the commission do not directly mention
increased government oversight and the demand for retirement living
and aged care will continue unabated, but more regulations could
impact profitability. [GN]


BANK OF NEW YORK: Agreement Reached in Depositary Receipt Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that agreements in
principle have been reached to resolve class action lawsuits.

Between late December 2015 and February 2016, four putative class
action lawsuits were filed against BNY Mellon asserting claims
relating to BNY Mellon's foreign exchange pricing when converting
dividends and other distributions from non-U.S. companies in its
role as depositary bank to Depositary Receipt issuers. The claims
are for breach of contract and violations of ERISA.

The lawsuits have been consolidated into two suits that are pending
in federal court in the Southern District of New York.

The parties in the lawsuits have reached agreements in principle to
resolve the suits, which are subject to court approval.

The Bank of New York Mellon provides commercial banking and other
financial services to corporations and individuals. The bank
engages in six core businesses: securities servicing, global
payment services, asset management and private client services,
corporate banking, global market services, and retail banking. The
Bank of New York Mellon was formerly known as The Bank of New York,
Inc. and changed its name to The Bank of New York Mellon in July,
2008. The company was founded in 1784 and is based in New York, New
York. The Bank of New York Mellon operates as a subsidiary of The
Bank of New York Mellon Corporation.


BEACON HILL: Faces Class Action in New York for ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beacon Hill Staffing,
LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Beacon Hill Staffing, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10654 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018).

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

Beacon Hill Staffing Group, LLC provides staffing solutions. The
company provides direct hire, executive search, temporary staffing,
contract consulting, and temporary/contract-to-hire solutions to
emerging growth companies and the Fortune 500 across various market
sectors, career specialties/disciplines, and industries.[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


BELLICUM PHARMA: Bid for Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2018, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, that the
District Court has yet to rule on the motions filed by putative
class members for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of
lead counsel in a consolidated class action lawsuit.

On February 6, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair
and Alan Musso was filed against the Company, and certain of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division.

A second substantially similar class action was filed on March 14,
2018 by plaintiff Frances Rudy against the same defendants in the
same court.  

The lawsuits purport to assert class action claims on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from May
8, 2017 through January 30, 2018. The complaints allege that the
defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"), by making materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's clinical trials being conducted
in the U.S. to assess rivo-cel (rivogenlecleucel, formerly known as
BPX-501) as an adjunct T-cell therapy administered after allogeneic
hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.  

The complaints purport to assert claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaints seek, on behalf of the purported class,
an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and
expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief. On April 9,
2018, the District Court consolidated the two lawsuits under the
Kakkar action and motions were filed by putative class members for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel. The
District Court has yet to rule on the motions.

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

Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company, focuses on discovering and developing novel cellular
immunotherapies for the treatment of hematological cancers, solid
tumors, and orphan inherited blood disorders in the United States
and internationally. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in
2004 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


BETO FOR TEXAS: Wants Class Action Over Text Messages Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that the U.S. Senate
campaign of Texas Democrat Beto O'Rourke is asking a federal judge
to dismiss a class-action complaint alleging violations of a law
restricting text messages.

Mr. O'Rourke, who narrowly lost his bid to replace Republican
Senator Ted Cruz, argues in new court papers that the Texas
resident who brought suit didn't suffer the kinds of injuries that
warrant a federal lawsuit.

"The complaint lacks any mention of an invasion of privacy, charges
incurred, a reduction in usable minutes, or occupation of his
telephone line," the campaign, Beto for Texas, writes in papers
filed on Nov. 12 with U.S. District Court Judge Sam Lindsay in
Dallas.

The papers come in response to a lawsuit filed last month by Collin
County, Texas resident Sameer Syed, who alleged the campaign
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. That law prohibits
the use of automated dialers to send messages to consumers without
their permission, and provides for damages of up to $500 per
violation.

Beto for Texas argues that people can't sue in federal court unless
they have suffered a concrete injury -- even where a statute like
the TCPA appears to give people the right to sue. It's not clear
whether judges in Texas will agree with that interpretation, but
appellate judges in other parts of the country have rejected it and
allowed people to sue over violations of TCPA without proving
financial harm.

O'Rourke's campaign also says Syed's complaint is too vague. He
alleged he received at least 9 text messages from the campaign, all
from different phone numbers, and unable to be returned.

Beto for Texas says those allegations are deficient. Syed "does not
allege sufficient facts regarding the source of the texts, such as
the telephone numbers, that would indicate Beto for Texas is
responsible," the campaign argues. "No additional facts identify or
link Beto for Texas specifically to the alleged texts, such as
caller ID information, the contents of the messages, or screenshots
of the texts identifying Beto for Texas." [GN]


BHH LLC: Ct. Won't Review Summary Judgment Denial in Hart
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOANNE HART and SANDRA BUENO, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BHH, LLC d/b/a
BELL + HOWELL and VAN HAUSER LLC, Defendants, Case No. 15cv4804
(S.D. N.Y.), Judge William H. Pauley, III of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York denied BHH's motion for
reconsideration of the Court's Sept. 5, 2018 Opinion & Order
denying their motion for summary judgment.

In the Order, the Court denied summary judgment and permitted
cross-jurisdictional class action tolling, deeming the action
commenced on April 16, 2015, the date that a similar class action
against BHH, Steigerwald v. BHH, LLC, No. 15-cv-741 (N.D. Ohio),
was filed in Ohio.  BHH now argues that an intervening Supreme
Court case -- China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 138 S.Ct. 1800 (2018)
-- warrants reconsideration.

The Steigerwald action was commenced on April 16, 2015.  The
Plaintiffs commenced the action on June 19, 2015, prior to the
class certification in the Steigerwald action.  Although both
actions set forth claims for breach of express warranty, only the
Steigerwald action included a fraud claim.

On Feb. 22, 2016, the district judge granted Steigerwald's motion
for class certification.  Thereafter, Joanne Hart, a named
Plaintiff in the intant action, moved to intervene in the
Steigerwald action, but that motion was denied in November 2016.
Later that month, the district judge granted BHH's motion for
summary judgment in Steigerwald and dismissed that case.
On Jan. 23, 2017, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint in the
action, adding a claim for fraud and a new Plaintiff -- Sandra
Bueno -- who purported to represent the fraud and breach of
warranty classes.

Now, in view of China Agritech, BHH argues that because the
Steigerwald action was dismissed, the Plaintiffs claims cannot
benefit from cross-jurisdictional class action tolling.  First, BHH
argues that the breach of warranty and fraud claims should be
limited to the time period not covered by the same claims in
Steigerwald, namely, between April 17, 2015 and June 15, 2016.
Specifically, it asserts that similar claims covering the same time
period as in Steigerwald should be barred as res judicata.  Second,
and in the alternative, BHH argues that China Agritech precludes
cross-jurisdictional class action tolling, so the action should be
deemed commenced on the date the Complaint was filed (June 19,
2015), rather than on the date Steigerwald began (April 16, 2015).

Judge Pauley explainst that rhe Supreme Court's chief concern was
that if tolling in circumstances similar to those in China Agritech
were allowed, the statute of limitations would be extended time and
again; as each class is denied certification, a new named plaintiff
could file a class complaint that resuscitates the litigation.
These concerns are not triggered in the instant case, and China
Agritech does not warrant reconsideration of the Court's Order.

With respect to BHH's res judicata argument, the Judge finds that
it is inappropriate on a motion for reconsideration.  China
Agritech does not address res judicata, as it relates only to the
statute of limitations.  BHH's argument regarding when thes action
should be deemed commenced fares no better.  The linchpin of the
China Agritech decision was that plaintiffs there brought the
action after the denial of class certification in the prior action.
IN the instant case, the Plaintiffs brought the action before
Steigerwald's dismissal.

In addition, BHH's interpretation of China Agritech would lead to
an absurd result if applied.  BHH argues that because Steigerwald
was dismissed, the action should be deemed commenced when the
original Complaint was filed (June 2015), rather than benefitting
from tolling and being deemed commenced at the same time as
Steigerwald.  But, the Judge holds that the Steigerwald class
action was dismissed in November 2016, over a year after
thePlaintiffs filed the original Complaint.  In other words, the
very reason BHH argues that tolling should not apply --
Steigerwald's dismissal -- did not exist at the time BHH argues the
action should be deemed commenced.  This would distort the timeline
of the litigation.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Pauley denied BHH's motion for
reconsideration.  The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the
motion pending at ECF No. 175.  The Court adopted the proposed
subclasses set forth in the Plaintiffs' Sept.r 26, 2018 letter.
The parties are directed to appear for a status teleconference on
Nov. 14, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.  The counsel for BHH is directed to
circulate dial-in information prior to the teleconference.


A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/eVPnv7 from Leagle.com.

Joanne Hart, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Frederick John Klorczyk --
fklorczyk@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Joshua David Arisohn
-- jarisohn@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher P.A., Neal Jamison
Deckant -- ndeckant@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Yitzchak
Kopel -- ykopel@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. & Joseph
Ignatius Marchese -- jmarchese@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Sandra Bueno, Plaintiff, represented by Yitzchak Kopel, Bursor &
Fisher, P.A.

BHH LLC, doing business as Bell + Howell & Van Hauser LLC,
Defendants, represented by Donald J. Reinhard --
donaldreinhard@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP, Howard B. Randell -- hbr@lefltd.com -- Leahy,
Eisenberg & Franenkel, Ltd., pro hac vice, Robert J. Ostojic --
ro@lefltd.com -- Leahy Eisenberg & Frankel, Ltd. & Scott Wing --
sw@lefltd.com -- Leahy, Eisenberg & Franenkel, Ltd., pro hac vice.


BHP BILLITON: March 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the BHP Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

In re BHP BILLITON LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-01445-NRB

This Document Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS.

CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO:
  
ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
AMERICAN DEPOSITARY RECEIPTS ("ADRs") OF BHP BILLITON LIMITED
AND/OR BHP BILLITON PLC (COLLECTIVELY, "BHP") DURING THE PERIOD
FROM SEPTEMBER 25, 2014 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2015, INCLUSIVE (THE
"CLASS")

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") has been certified
for the purpose of settlement only as a class action on behalf of
the Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded
from the Class by definition as set forth in the full printed
Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement (the
"Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Litigation have
reached a proposed settlement of the Litigation for $50,000,000.00,
that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Litigation.

A hearing will be held on March 5, 2019, at 11:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald, United States District Judge, at
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street, Courtroom 21A, New York, NY 10007-1312, for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in
the Litigation for the principal amount of $50,000,000.00, plus
interest, should be approved by the Court as fair, just,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the Court dismissing
the Litigation with prejudice against Defendants, and whether the
releases specified and described in the Stipulation of Settlement
(the "Stipulation") dated September 14, 2018 (and in the Notice)
should be granted1; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether
the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses and Plaintiffs' expenses in connection with this
Litigation should be approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ADRs DURING THE PERIOD FROM
SEPTEMBER 25, 2014 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2015, INCLUSIVE, YOUR
RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. If you
have not received a detailed Notice and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to BHP
Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC,
P.O. Box 404090, Louisville, KY 40233-4090, or at
www.bhpsecuritieslitigation.com.

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release by mail (postmarked no later than April 2, 2019) or
electronically (no later than April 2, 2019), establishing that you
are entitled to recovery. If you are a Class Member and do not
submit a proper claim form, you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the net proceeds of the settlement, but you
will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Litigation.

If you are a Class Member and you desire to be excluded from the
Class, you must submit a request for exclusion, in writing and in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice, to BHP
Securities Litigation, Exclusions, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, 3301
Kerner Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901, postmarked no later than
January 15, 2019. All Class Members who do not timely and validly
request exclusion from the Class in response to the Notice will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the
Stipulation.

Any objection to the settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the fee
and expense application must be in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Notice and received by each of the following
recipients no later than January 15, 2019:

Court:

         CLERK OF THE COURT
         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
         SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
         DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
         UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
         500 Pearl Street
         New York, NY 10007-1312

Lead Counsel:

         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         JOSEPH RUSSELLO
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747

Defendants' Counsel:

         SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
         BRENDAN P. CULLEN
         1870 Embarcadero Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94303

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK 'S OFFICE, BHP OR BHP'S
COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the
settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed
above or by an e-mail to Lead Counsel at bhpclaims@rgrdlaw.com.
Copies of certain pleadings and other documents filed in the
Litigation can also be found at www.bhpsecuritieslitigation.com.

DATED: October 31, 2018   

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

1 All capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice that are not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them
in the Stipulation, which is available at
www.bhpsecuritieslitigation.com.


BHP BILLITON: SPG Law Files Class Action Over Samarco Disaster
--------------------------------------------------------------
Max Walters, writing for The Law Society Gazette, reports that US
class action firm which entered the UK market to something of a
fanfare earlier this year says it is running 'one of the largest
claims in British legal history'.

SPG Law is seeking compensation for victims of an environmental
disaster in Brazil. Around 240,000 claimants have joined the group
action, seeking GBP5bn from mining company BHP Billiton. The
claimants are all alleged victims of the 2015 Samarco dam collapse
in Mariana, which was reported to have killed 19 people and
displaced around 700.

SPG Law, a partnership between US and UK lawyers, has filed a
complaint in the Liverpool High Court. It is believed the complaint
was filed in English courts as claimants will have more chance of
obtaining a quicker determination in England and Wales than Brazil.
The case was also filed in the UK because BHP is a UK-registered
company, SPG said.

Multiple claims have been filed in Brazil against BHP subsidiaries
but this is the first claim to target the parent company.

Tom Goodhead, partner at SPG Law, said the firm chose to litigate
the case in Liverpool not only because it is based in the city but
also because it was keen to show other cities besides London can be
an attractive forum for dispute resolution.

Among the claimants are Brazilian municipalities, the Roman
Catholic Archdiocese of Mariana and members of the Krenak
indigenous community. Around 10,000 fisherman who had their
livelihoods impacted are also among the claimants.

Mr. Goodhead added: "Three years on from the tragedy, nearly a
million Brazilian citizens affected by the disaster have either not
been compensated at all or have received low financial settlements.
The process of compensation has so far been in the hands of the
defendants. This is about putting the claimants in control."

SPG will work on a no-win no-fee basis, taking a maximum of 30% of
any compensation they are able to secure for the plaintiffs,
according to Mr. Goodhead. It will not be levied in the case of the
indigenous community.

In September, the Gazette reported that US-based class action
specialist Sanders Phillips Grossman was to launch the new British
firm, in Liverpool. In the US, Sanders Phillips Grossman has won
over $1bn for its clients against major corporations including VW,
Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson.

BHP Billiton has been approached for comment. [GN]


BITCONNECT INTERNATIONAL: Paige Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Brian Paige individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, BitConnect Investor Group,
Plaintiffs v. BitConnect International PLC, Bitconnect LTD,
Bitconnect Trading LTD, Ryan Maasen, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-00058 filed on January 29, 2018, was transferred from
Kentucky Western to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on November 13, 2018, and assigned Case No.
9:18-cv-81549-BB.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract and was filed under
the Securities Exchange Act.

BitConnect (BCC) was an open-source cryptocurrency which has been
described as a high-yield investment program and a Ponzi
scheme.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Abigail M. Green, Esq.
     Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney PC
     One Oxford Centre
     301 Grant Street, 20th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Phone: (412) 562-8800
     Email: abigail.green@bipc.com

          - and -

     Alex C. Davis, Esq.
     Jones Ward PLC
     1205 E. Washington Street, Suite 111
     Louisville, KY 40206
     Phone: (502) 882-6000
     The Pointe

          - and -

     Jacob E. Levy, Esq.
     Gray & White
     713 E. Market Street, Suite 200
     Louisville, KY 40202
     Phone: (502) 458-5555

          - and -

     Jasper D. Ward, Esq.
     Jones Ward PLC
     1205 E. Washington St. Suite 111
     Louisville, KY 40206
     Phone: (502) 882-6000

The Defendants are represented by:

     Bridget M. Bush, Esq.
     Landrum & Shouse, LLP
     220 W. Main Street, Suite 1900
     Louisville, KY 40202
     Phone: (502) 589-7616

          - and -

     R. Kent Westberry, Esq.
     Landrum & Shouse, LLP
     220 W. Main Street, Suite 1900
     Louisville, KY 40202
     Phone: (502) 589-7616


BONPOINT USA: Figueroa Files Class Suit Under Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bonpoint USA Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bonpoint USA Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-10671 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018).

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

BONPOINT SA manufactures apparel, accessories, and footwear for
babies and children. The company offers vests, jeans, socks,
blouses, dresses, body suits, tights, tunics, overalls, shoes,
jacquards, shorts, ponchos, and t-shirts. The company also provides
boots, pouches, shoulder bags, hats, brooches, jerseys, gloves,
mittens, leather belts, and scarves.[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


BRISTOL COMPRESSORS: Employees Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bristol Herald Courier reports that more than 40 current and former
employees at Bristol Compressors have filed a lawsuit against the
plant and the investment group that own it.

The lawsuit, filed in Abingdon, said Bristol Compressors violated
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act which requires employers
with more than 100 employees to provide 60 calendar day advanced
notification of a plant closing or mass layoffs.

Bristol Compressors and Garrison Investment Group are named as
defendants. According to the lawsuit, management at the plant
informed employees via letter that the company would permanently
close "by or about Aug. 31, 2018" and layoffs would commence
immediately and continue through August.

More than 50 employees were terminated on July 31, Aug. 1 and Aug.
2 without cause. Many of the terminated employees said they were
not provided with the all the defined benefits they were due.

Later, Bristol Compressors would post a memo on a bulletin board
sometime after the initial layoffs that said, "for the first time
that certain benefits were terminated including severance." It also
included a new plant closing date: Sept. 30.

The lawsuit stated Bristol Compressors violated the WARN Act by not
providing 60 days notice of the plant closing.

"Defendants failed to provide the required written notice to
Plaintiffs or to Defendants' other affected employees at Bristol
Compressors, prior to closing the plant beginning on July 31,
2018."

The suit stated since employees received the layoff notice, more
than 33 percent of the workforce has been laid off without cause.

Damages are sought in the case. Employees are requesting the court
to order Bristol Compressors and Garrison Investment Group to pay
up to the maximum amount of statutory damages, including interest.


Employees are asking the court to pay all defined benefits
including severance along with court and attorney fees.

Because the lawsuit was brought on behalf of all 470 employees at
the plant, the lawsuit seeks to make it a class action lawsuit. The
suit said a class action is needed because all employees suffered
damages and some are likely unemployed and not in a position to
retain an attorney.

Bristol Compressors is expected to close on Nov. 19.[GN]


BROKEN ENGLISH: Figueroa Sues Jewelry Maker for ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Broken English LLC.
The case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Broken English LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10665 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018).

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

Broken English is luxury brand that manufactures jewelry.
Established in 2006 by owner Laura Freedman, the brand's three
boutiques offer its curated mix of contemporary and vintage jewelry
in chic, intimate surroundings. It opened its original boutique, in
Los Angeles California, Brentwood Country Mart.[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



C R BUNS INC: Fails to Pay Proper OT, McCoy Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT MCCOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. C R BUNS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-VOE-2018-12898 (Cal. Super., San
Joaquin Cty., 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. McCoy was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee.

C R BUNS, INC. is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren M. Cohen, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903


CANADA: Lawsuit Alleges Ottawa Overcharged Visa Applicants
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Keung, writing for The Star, reports that the Canadian
government has taken advantage of unsuspecting foreign visitors by
charging them more than it cost to process their visa applications,
according to a class action lawsuit demanding $194 million in
compensation.

"This is an issue of public accountability. If the law only allows
you to charge a fee of what it costs and shouldn't be making a
profit, we need to hold the government accountable," said Lorne
Waldman, Esq. -- lorne@waldmanlaw.ca -- one of the three lawyers
for the plaintiffs.

On November 7, Federal Court Justice Sean Harrington approved a
motion for the parties to notify eligible litigants to join the
legal action.

The lawsuit covers more than two million multiple-entry visa
applicants who, between October 2009 and March 2015, overpaid the
Canadian government, some by as much as $55 per application,
according to their lawyers. Under the Financial Administration Act,
the government cannot charge service fees in excess of the actual
cost of providing a service.

People coming from visa-required countries, such as China, India
and the Philippines, are automatically included in the class action
whether they had applied to come to visit, study or work in
Canada.

"Non-citizens are definitely more vulnerable," says Waldman. "It's
much easier to overcharge people who are not in Canada. The
government is not accountable to them the same way it's accountable
to Canadian citizens."

It's almost unheard of for immigration-related class actions to be
granted by the Federal Court. In fact, the only time such a
proceeding was certified was in 2003, when immigrants seeking
permanent resident status asked the court to compel Ottawa, which
had changed the selection criteria, to process their backlogged
applications under the old rules. The case was ultimately settled
in 2004.

"This is so rare to see, but it's what class proceedings are for.
Who would go to the federal government for a $60 refund?" said
Richard Kurland, Esq. -- lexbase@canimmigrate.com -- a lawyer
involved in the case. "This is not about taxpayers' money. This is
money overpaid by people who came to visit, study or work here."

For a long time, Kurland, also an immigration policy analyst,
suspected visa application fees were a "cash cow" for the
government. In 2006, he found a couple, Alan Hinton and Irene
Popapova of Coquitlam, B.C., who agreed to lead the class action as
representative plaintiffs.

The couple met in Moscow in 2001 and got married the next year.
Hinton paid $75 to get his wife a visitor's visa to Canada in 2003,
but claimed the actual cost for processing the application was only
$36.69, resulting in a profit for the government of $38.31.

Since then, more plaintiffs have joined the action and the scope of
the claim has expanded to include other visa applicants, including
those who came to study or work, but the case couldn't proceed
without the data on processing costs, which Immigration, Refugees
and Citizenship Canada were finally ordered to hand over two years
ago.

The government had initially argued that it cost officials more to
process visa applications than it collected in service fees and
that even if it was less than the fees collected, the excess fees
were not recoverable.

However, according to the parties' recent agreed statement of
admitted facts, the application fee for a multiple-entry visa was
$150 until February 2014, when Ottawa reduced it to $100.
Meanwhile, the processing cost to the government varied from year
to year but was always under $150, except in 2009, when it was
$165.55.

The Financial Administration Act allows the federal government to
make money to balance out the costs of its different services, but
Kurland said it must first ask for Parliament's permission, which
immigration officials did not do in this case.

At issue at the trial, said Waldman, would be how costing of the
process should be tabulated and whether the plaintiffs should
receive refunds if they were indeed overcharged.

The estimates submitted to the court by the Immigration Department
also included costs that authorities claimed were incurred by other
government agencies, such as border and intelligence services for
preliminary security and criminality "clearance" processing or
background checks and sending appropriate documentation to
successful and refused applicants.

"Should we include the visa officer (salary), heating and other
associated costs?" asked Waldman. "We need to find out how much it
really costs when we go to court next year."

Potential litigants who don't want to be part of the class action
lawsuit have until Nov. 30 to opt out of the proceeding.[GN]


CANADA: Saskatoon Health Sued Over Indigenous Women Sterilization
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristy Kirkup, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that when
she was 17 years old, Liz was coerced by a Children's Aid worker
into having an abortion and being sterilized at a northwestern
Ontario hospital, she says -- an experience she's carried for 40
years.

"It was a matter of me almost (being) cornered, if you will, by my
worker at the time saying, 'You better have an abortion because if
you don't, either way, we are going to take that child from you',"
Liz says.

New research shows the forced sterilization of Indigenous women is
not just a shameful part of Canadian history. Reports from Alberta,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and the territories suggest it is
still happening.

Tubal ligations carried out on unwilling Indigenous women is one of
the "most heinous" practices in health care happening across
Canada, says Yvonne Boyer, a Metis lawyer and former nurse who is
now a senator for Ontario.

She was first contacted by Liz (who asked not to have her last name
published, so she could talk freely about something so personal) in
2017 after a news story detailed research Boyer produced with Metis
physician and researcher Dr. Judith Bartlett. Their report detailed
how Indigenous women were coerced into tubal ligations -- the
severing, burning or tying of the Fallopian tubes that carry eggs
from the ovaries to the uterus -- after childbirth in the Saskatoon
Health Region.

Ms. Boyer now wants the Senate to study the scope of the issue
nationally, making it the focus of her first address to the upper
chamber.

"If it's happened in Saskatoon, it has happened in Regina, it's
happened in Winnipeg, it's happened where there's a high population
of Indigenous women," Ms. Boyer says in an interview. "I've had
many women contact me from across the country and ask me for
help."

Some Indigenous women interviewed for the report also felt pushed
into signing consent forms for the procedures while they were in
active labour or on operating tables, Ms. Boyer says, noting a
class-action lawsuit against the Saskatoon Health Region was
launched in 2017 by two of the affected women.

Each claimed $7-million in damages. Now about 60 women are part of
the lawsuit, she adds.

"If there are 60 women just in the Saskatoon area, there are many
more that haven't come forward in that area and there are many more
that wanted to come forward but were too traumatized to," Ms. Boyer
says. "There's many more that have buried those memories."

Alisa Lombard, an associate with Maurice Law -- a firm leading the
proposed class action -- says women from outside Saskatoon Health
Region have also reported being sterilized without proper and
informed consent. She says she's heard from others in Saskatchewan
as well as Manitoba, Ontario and Alberta.

Records and research show the practice was prevalent in the
Northwest Territories and Nunavut as well, she adds.

Ms. Lombard says her firm will raise the issue of coerced
sterilizations of Indigenous women at the UN Committee Against
Torture this month.

In its submission to the committee, Ms. Lombard's firm calls out
provincial and federal authorities for not investigating and
punishing those responsible for the practice despite having
received "numerous reports of numerous cases of forced
sterilization."

It also outlines specific steps to combat the practice, including
criminalizing forced sterilization through the Criminal Code and
having Health Canada issue guidance to health professionals
regarding sterilization procedures.

"I think any and all attention brought to such egregious
human-rights breaches is not only necessary, but it ought to be
expected," Ms. Lombard says. "I think upon any kind of inkling that
something this terrible is happening, that it is reported and the
fact it is reported by so many women . . .  I think our governments
have an obligation to look into it deeply and to fix it, mostly
importantly."

Canada must ensure the practice stops, says Indigenous Services
Minister Jane Philpott, with policies, education and
awareness-raising.

"The issue of forced sterilization of vulnerable people, including
Indigenous women, is a very serious violation of human rights," she
says, noting it has gone on in Canada for a long time.

She also calls what happened to Liz "absolutely appalling and
reprehensible."

"The story that you're telling where not only was apprehension
being threatened ... that she was forced into not only giving up
the baby she was carrying but give up her future unborn children,
is frankly a horrifying concept," Ms. Philpott says.

Liz remains haunted by what has stolen from her. Sometimes she
hears her baby in her sleep.

"I've had a few dreams ... where you could hear a baby crying or
you could have a sense of a baby," she says. "The first time I had
it I didn't know if it was a boy or a girl. And then another time I
had it, it was a boy."

She says it took years before she understood that what happened
wasn't her fault.

"You say to yourself, 'I deserve this, this is my sacrifice, this
is my cross to bear'." [GN]


CARHARTT RETAIL: Violates ADA, Figueroa Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carhartt Retail LLC.
The case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Carhartt Retail LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10672 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018).

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

Carhartt, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets work wear. It
offers outerwear, hunting gears, twill work wear, accessories,
knives, bibs and coveralls, shirts, scrubs, thermals, pants and
jeans, and outfitters for men; and outerwear, shirts, pants and
jeans, accessories, thermals, and scrubs for women.[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


CECIL LAWRENCE: Court Certifies Class Under FLSA in Melton Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee granted in part the
motion for conditional certification of a collective action and an
order facilitating notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
filed by Horace Tracy Melton, a Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled
HORACE TRACY MELTON and SUZANNE BASKETTE, individually, and on
behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. CECIL LAWRENCE,
DALE LAWRENCE, CECIL LAWRENCE, INC., and LAWRENCE GROUP MANAGEMENT
CO., LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00167-SKL (E.D. Tenn.).

The parties are ordered to confer within seven days of the entry of
this memorandum and order to attempt to jointly submit an amended
proposed notice and consent form.  If the parties are unable to
agree on a joint submission, the Plaintiff is ordered to file a
motion with his amended proposed notice and consent form within 14
days of the entry of this memorandum and order.  The Defendants are
ordered to file a response within seven days of the Plaintiff's
motion and the Plaintiff may file a reply within three days of the
Defendants' response.

The Plaintiff is further ordered to disseminate any Court approved
notice and consent form consistent with the instructions in this
memorandum and order; specifically, to send the notice and consent
form initially by the United States Postal Service.  For any notice
and consent form returned as undelivered, the Plaintiff is
permitted to resend the notice and consent form, including by
e-mail.

The Defendants are ordered to provide the Plaintiff with the last
known address and phone number of all potential class members
within 14 DAYS of entry of the Court's order approving the notice
and consent form.  The Defendants are further ordered to provide
the Plaintiff with the e-mail address, birth date, and partial
social security number for any class member whose initial USPS
mailing is returned as undeliverable within 48 hours of receiving
notice of the returned mail from the Plaintiff.[CC]


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Kater Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHERYL KATER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHURCHILL DOWNS INCORPORATED, a
Kentucky corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-00612-RBL (W.D.
Wash.), Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Tacoma, denied Churchill Downs'
Motion to Compel Arbitration.

Kater filed her Complaint against Churchill Downs on April 17,
2015, alleging that Churchill Downs' Big Fish Casino game
constitutes illegal gambling in violation of RCW Section 4.24.070.
Big Fish Casino is a game available as a smart phone app and allows
users to play popular gambling games with virtual "chips" that may
be purchased in the app after users run out of the initial free
allotment.  Despite the fact that these chips cannot be redeemed
for actual money, Kater alleges that they are nonetheless valuable
because they can be used to continue playing or be sold to others.
Therefore, Kater alleges that Churchill Downs' game amounts to
gambling as defined by statute and that she is entitled to recover
the money she lost playing.

The Complaint spends all three pages allotted to the first cause of
action explaining why Big Fish Casino is illegal gambling, and
Kater's two additional causes of action derive from the alleged
violation of RCW Section 4.24.070. Id. at 16-22.

The trial court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim,
but the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case in 2018.

Now, after three years and three months of litigation, Churchill
Downs has moved to compel arbitration.  Despite the lengthy delay,
Churchill Downs argues that it has not waived its right to enforce
the arbitration provision in its Terms of Use because its only
substantive action in this case was filing a motion to dismiss.  In
any case, according to Churchill Downs, the arbitration provision
that Kater accepted delegated all threshold issues, including
waiver through litigation conduct, to the arbitrator.  Finally,
Churchill Downs contends that the agreement located in its Terms of
Use is enforceable because Kater manifested her assent and it is
not unconscionable.

Kater contests Churchill Downs' disavowal of its litigation conduct
in the federal forum.  She asserts that Churchill Downs' motion to
dismiss went to the heart of the case and constituted an attempt to
resolve the dispute on the merits in Court.  Furthermore, Kater
points out that Churchill Downs went on to defend its victory in
the Ninth Circuit and subsequently petitioned for rehearing en banc
when it lost.  Kater insists that she would be highly prejudiced if
forced to re-litigate the same issues in front of an arbitrator.

Judge Leighton holds that it is clear that Kater would suffer
prejudice if compelled to arbitrate.  Aside from the fact that
Churchill Downs' motion to dismiss sparked the subsequent appeal,
even the seven months of litigation in 2015 at the district court
go well beyond limited litigation regarding issues directly related
to the complaint's filling.  Rather, the motion to dismiss went to
the heart of the case and forced Kater to marshal her best legal
arguments from the get-go.

Furthermore, it is telling that Churchill Downs does not deny its
intent to re-litigate whether Big Fish Casino constitutes gambling,
but rather tries to down-play the importance of this issue.  If
this issue is so inconsequential, it is odd that Churchill Downs
has doggedly pursued a favorable ruling on it through three
different forums for the past 3+ years.  Contrary to Churchill
Downs' suggestion, re-litigating this issue would prejudice Kater
and give Churchill Downs a second bite at the apple through
arbitration.  Rather than let this happen, the Judge holds that
Churchill Downs waived its right to arbitration when it took its
first bite of the apple and chewed thoroughly for over three
years.

For the reasons stated, Judge Leighton denied Churchill Downs'
Motion to Compel Arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/nYCx5A from Leagle.com.

Cheryl Kater, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander G. Tievsky --
atievsky@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, Amir C. Missaghi,
EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, Benjamin H. Richman --
brichman@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, Eve-Lynn Rapp --
erapp@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, Rafey S. Balabanian
-- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, Todd Logan
-- tlogan@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, Cecily C. Shiel
-- cshiel@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Janissa Ann
Strabuk -- jstrabuk@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS &
Clifford A. Cantor.

Churchill Downs Incorporated, a Kentucky corporation, Defendant,
represented by Robert Rivera -- RRIVERA@SusmanGodfrey.com -- SUSMAN
GODFREY, pro hac vice, Matthew R. Berry -- mberry@SusmanGodfrey.com
--  SUSMAN GODFREY & Steven M. Seigel -- sseigel@gmail.com --
SUSMAN GODFREY.


CLARE V: Faces ADA Class Action Filed by Jose Figueroa
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clare V., LLC. The
case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Clare V., LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10666 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018).

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

Clare V. manufactures and sells bags. Its product line includes
laptop cases, handbags, clutches, totes, iPAD cases, sacs, travel
totes, and accessories.[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


CO-OPERATORS: Sued for Withholding Medical Benefit HST Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Cribb, writing for Toronto Star, reports that five more
Canadian insurance companies have been served with class action
lawsuits -- in addition to six others first reported by the Star
this month -- for withholding medical benefit HST payments from car
accident victims in violation of the provincial regulator.

After just a week, scrutiny of the issue inspired some
reconsideration by the industry, the Star's investigation has
found.

Co-operators, Wawanesa, Economical, Commonwell and Echelon were
served individual lawsuits on Nov. 8, each alleging $100 million in
damages for HST costs on medical benefits that were passed on to
claimants. The practice, according to the claims, is in defiance of
repeated demands from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario
(FSCO), which regulates the industry.

A week earlier, Intact, Aviva, Unifund Assurance, Belairdirect,
Certas Direct and Allstate received nearly identical claims.

The 11 suits, which have not been certified or tested in court, now
claim a total of $1.1 billion in damages.

Each statement of claim alleges the companies engaged in "unfair or
deceptive acts or practices" by failing to pay or reimburse HST on
medical benefits or by including HST in calculating a claimant's
benefit limits.

Since 2009, FSCO has issued a dozen notices and guidelines to the
industry making clear HST on medical benefit claims is to be paid
by insurers.

Spokespersons for all 11 companies either declined or did not
respond to requests for interviews. Only Aviva issued a written
statement earlier this month, saying the company "has followed the
industry position on HST being included within the maximum benefit
amounts . . . and continues to support this interpretation."

A week later, new statements from two of the largest insurers
signalled change.


On Nov. 9, Intact spokesperson Hazel Tan wrote: "We can confirm
that we are paying the HST and are not counting it towards the cap,
as per current FSCO guidelines."

A statement on Nov. 8 from Aviva spokesperson Fabrice De Dongo
continued to defend the company's HST policy but offered a more
conciliatory tone:

"On behalf of our customers, we have actively and repeatedly sought
clarification from the government regarding the tax handling on
goods and services provided to our customers. This is part of our
commitment to continually explore ways to reduce or eliminate
complexity for them, and to increase trust in the insurance
industry overall."

An Oct. 18 email from an Aviva claims representative to a claimant
-- obtained by the Star -- says FSCO's direction to the industry on
HST payments is "incorrect and inconsistent," and says that the
regulator's statements "do not operate to create or change the
law."

"In the absence of legislative change or binding judicial authority
to the contrary, Aviva intends to maintain its position that any
applicable HST is inclusive of the benefit limit," the email
reads.

Aviva declined a request for comment on the email.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada, which represents the industry,
declined to comment on the lawsuits. A statement from the
association says the industry is "committed to working with
government to provide clear, definitive guidance and to help return
injured motorists to good health."

FSCO is also named in the claims as a defendant for allegedly
failing to ensure the "government-designed, mandatory insurance was
operated fairly."

The Star has obtained letters of complaint to FSCO -- from injury
advocates and the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association -- dating back
to 2015.

In an August 2016 response to the Trial Lawyers Association, FSCO
chief executive Brian Mills wrote that the regulator continues to
monitor the issue and that "those insurers who, to FSCO's
knowledge, have failed to pay HST . . . have indicated that they
will follow the direction set out by (FSCO) in future."

FSCO declined repeated requests for an interview. A written
statement on Nov. 9 said the agency is "aware of the recent
statements of claim involving FSCO. As the matter is before the
courts, FSCO is unable to comment further."

Paul Harte, one of the lawyers involved in the proposed class
actions, says the lawsuits have revealed there is no clear industry
position on whether insurers should cover HST costs in car accident
medical benefits.

"We have learned that some auto insurance companies have been
following the rules all along. Others, such as Intact, have
acknowledged their error and have agreed to change their policies.
A handful of companies, including Aviva, continue to shortchange
their customers. The marketplace may decide this issue before the
courts."

Mr. Harte said that since the Star's first news story, the lawyers
have been overwhelmed with calls and that the "unfair practices we
identified appear to be widespread." [GN]


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive 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 company
continues to defend itself from a putative class action suit
involving its Employees' Retirement Income Plan.

In June 2016, a putative class action claiming that residual
annuity payments made to certain participants in the
Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the
"Plan") did not comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act was filed against the Plan, the Company and certain individuals
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. This action has been certified as a class action. The
relief sought includes recalculation of benefits, pre- and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees.

Colgate-Palmolive said, "The Company is contesting this action
vigorously. Since the amount of any potential loss from this case
currently cannot be reasonably estimated, the range of reasonably
possible losses in excess of accrued liabilities disclosed above
does not include any amount relating to the case."

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

Colgate-Palmolive Company, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells consumer products worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Oral, Personal and Home Care; and Pet
Nutrition. Colgate-Palmolive Company was founded in 1806 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


COLLEGE OF THE HOLY CROSS: Camacho Files Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against College of The Holy
Cross. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. College of The Holy
Cross, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10659-VSB (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15,
2018).

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

The College of the Holy Cross or better known simply as Holy Cross
is a private, undergraduate, Roman Catholic, Jesuit liberal arts
college located in Worcester, Massachusetts, United States. Founded
in 1843, Holy Cross is the oldest Catholic college in New England
and one of the oldest in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


CONCEPTS INTERNATIONAL: Kevin Garey Brings ADA Class Action in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concepts
International, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Concepts
International, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10651 (S.D. N.Y.,
Nov. 15, 2018).

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

Concept International LLC is incorporated in the Sultanate of Oman
as a Limited Liability Company.[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


CONSUMERS ENERGY: Still Defends Gas Index Price Reporting Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself in the Gas Index Price Reporting
Litigation.

CMS Energy, along with CMS MST, CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural
Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, were named as defendants in
four class action lawsuits and one individual lawsuit arising as a
result of alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to
publications that report trade information. Allegations include
price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and artificial
inflation of natural gas retail prices in Kansas, Missouri, and
Wisconsin.

In 2016, CMS Energy entities reached a settlement with the
plaintiffs in the Kansas and Missouri class action cases for an
amount that was not material to CMS Energy. In August 2017, the
federal district court approved the settlement. Plaintiffs are
making claims for the following: treble damages, full consideration
damages, exemplary damages, costs, interest, and/or attorneys'
fees.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to a single federal district court pursuant to the multidistrict
litigation process. In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMS Energy
defendants were dismissed by the district court based on FERC
preemption. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the district court decision. The appellate court
found that FERC preemption does not apply under the facts of these
cases. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of
leave to amend to add federal antitrust claims. The matter was
appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2015 upheld the Ninth
Circuit's decision. The cases were remanded back to the federal
district court.

In 2016, the federal district court granted the defendants' motion
for summary judgment in the individual lawsuit filed in Kansas
based on a release in a prior settlement involving similar
allegations; the order of summary judgment was subsequently
appealed. In March 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the lower court's ruling and remanded the case
back to the federal district court.

In March 2017, the federal district court denied plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in the two pending class action cases in
Wisconsin. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and in August 2018, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the matter back to
the federal district court for further consideration. In June 2017,
an unaffiliated company that is also a defendant in these cases
filed for bankruptcy, which could increase the risk of loss to CMS
Energy.

Consumers Energy said, "These cases involve complex facts, a large
number of similarly situated defendants with different factual
positions, and multiple jurisdictions. Presently, any estimate of
liability would be highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's
reasonably possible loss would be based on widely varying models
previously untested in this context. If the outcome after appeals
is unfavorable, these cases could negatively affect CMS Energy's
liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations."

Consumers Energy Company operates as an electric and gas utility in
Michigan. The company operates Electric Utility and Gas Utility
segments. The company was founded in 1886 and is based in Jackson,
Michigan. Consumers Energy Company operates as a subsidiary of CMS
Energy Corporation.


CORELOGIC INC: Still Defends Feliciano Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions, LLC
(RPS) continues to defend a class action suit filed by Claudinne
Feliciano in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

In July 2017, CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC (n/k/a CoreLogic Rental
Property Solutions, LLC (RPS) was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit styled Claudinne Feliciano, et. al.,
v. CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The named plaintiff alleges that RPS prepared a background
screening report about her that contained a record of a New York
Housing Court action without noting that the action had previously
been dismissed. On this basis, she seeks damages under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act and the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act on
behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated consumers with
respect to reports issued during the period of July 2015 to the
present.

RPS has denied the claims and intends to defend the case
vigorously.

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

CoreLogic, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides property
information, insight, analytics, and data-enabled solutions in
North America, Western Europe, and the Asia Pacific. The company
operates in two segments: Property Intelligence & Risk Management
Solutions (PIRM) and Underwriting & Workflow Solutions (UWS). The
company was formerly known as The First American Corporation and
changed its name to CoreLogic, Inc. in June 2010. CoreLogic, Inc.
was incorporated in 1894 and is headquartered in Irvine,
California.


CORIUM INTERNATIONAL: Violates Securities Exchange Act
------------------------------------------------------
JAY SCHWARTZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs.CORIUM INTERNATIONAL, INC., DAVID L.
GREENWOOD, PAUL GODDARD, PH.D, PHYLLIS I. GARDNER, M.D., PETER D.
STAPLE, BHASKAR CHAUDHURI, PH.D, RONALD W. EASTMAN, ERIC H.
BJERKHOLT, ROBERT W. THOMAS, and IVAN P. GERGEL, M.D., the
Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-06670-LHK (N.D. Cal., Nov. 2, 2018),
seeks to enjoin a tender offer or, in the event the tender offer is
consummated, recover damages resulting from the Defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, on October 11, 2018, the Company
announced that it had entered into an agreement and plan of merger
with GPC, by which GPC is offering to purchase any and all of the
outstanding shares of Corium common stock (the "Tender Offer") for
$12.50 in cash and one Contingent Value Right of $0.50 ("CVR") 1
per share (the "Merger Consideration").

The Tender Offer commenced October 26, 2018, and the Company
concurrently filed a Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9
with the SEC, recommending that the Company's stockholders tender
their shares for the Tender Offer price. The Tender Offer is set to
expire on November 26, 2018. The Plaintiff alleges that the 14D-9
is materially false and/or misleading because, inter alia, it fails
to disclose certain material internal financial information about
the Company, relied on by the Individual Defendants to recommend
the Tender Offer and by the Company's financial advisor, Guggenheim
Securities, LLC to render an opinion that the Tender Offer is fair
to Corium stockholders, which omissions render the 14D-9 incomplete
and/or misleading.

The failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, among other reasons, because Corium stockholders are entitled
to such information in order to make a fully-informed decision
regarding whether to tender their shares in connection with the
Tender Offer, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

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

CPI CARD: Feb. 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE CPI CARD GROUP INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION

No. 16 Civ. 04531 (LAK)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT,
AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

To:

All Persons Who Purchased or Acquired CPI Card Group Inc. ("CPI")
Common Stock Pursuant to or Traceable to the Registration Statement
Issued in Connection with CPI's October 9, 2015 Initial Public
Offering, and Who Were Damaged Thereby (the "Settlement Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that Lead Plaintiff Alex
Stewart, on behalf of himself and the Settlement Class, and CPI,
Steven Montross, David Brush, Jerry Dreiling, Bradley Seaman,
Nicholas Peters, Robert Pearce, and David Rowntree, Tricor Pacific
Capital Partners (Fund IV), Limited Partnership, Tricor Pacific
Capital Partners (Fund IV) US, Limited Partnership, and Tricor
Pacific Capital, Inc., and BMO Capital Markets Corp., Goldman Sachs
& Co. LLC (f/k/a Goldman, Sachs & Co.), CIBC World Markets Inc.,
Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, William Blair & Company,
L.L.C., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Scotia Capital (USA)
Inc., and Griffiths McBurney Corp. (collectively, the
"Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the
above-captioned action (the "Action") in the amount of $11,000,000
that, if approved, will resolve the Action in its entirety (the
"Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street,
New York, NY 10007, Courtroom 21B, at 4:30 p.m. on February 5, 2019
(the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine
whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with
prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, dated September 21, 2018; (iii) approve the proposed
Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Net Settlement Fund; and
(iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application.  The Court
may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing
another notice.  You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing
to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT.  If you have not yet received a Notice and Proof
of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of
these documents by visiting the website dedicated to the
Settlement, www.CPISecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting the
Claims Administrator at:

         CPI Securities Litigation
         Claims Administrator
         c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
         P.O. Box 173056
         Milwaukee, WI 53217
        (866) 778-6568

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead
Counsel:

          Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          www.labaton.com
          settlementquestions@labaton.com
         (888) 219-6877

If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or received no later than January 30, 2019.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a
valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless
be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action, whether favorable or unfavorable.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice such that it is received no later than January 15, 2019.  If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application must
be filed with the Court and mailed to counsel for the Parties in
accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are
filed and received no later than January 15, 2019.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: November 15, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


DANSKE BANK: USMA Preparing to File Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Market Advisors Law Group PLLC (USMA) is preparing for the
filing of a securities fraud class action against Danske Bank A/S
on behalf of investors that traded Danske Bank American Depositary
Receipts (ADRs) (OTC:DNKEY) between February 4, 2014 and November
9, 2018. The proposed class action complaint alleges Danske Bank
violated federal securities laws in connection with an ongoing $230
billion money laundering investigation. Danske Bank investors that
experienced losses should contact USMA ( www.usmarketlaw.com ) to
participate in the action and review the proposed complaint before
it is filed.

USMA Law Group has spent months investigating Danske Bank, which
involved working and consulting with sources in Danske Bank's home
country of Denmark. The 70-page proposed complaint the law firm has
prepared details its findings and investors' claims for losses. The
Managing Attorney of USMA Law Group is available to answer
investors' questions about the investigation and allegations
against Danske Bank: David P. Abel: (202) 274-0237;
dabel@usmarketlaw.com. There is no obligation or cost to discuss
the matter.

According to the proposed complaint, Danske Bank made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose: (i) Danske Bank's
internal controls related to anti-money laundering (AML) were
materially weak, deficient and frequently disregarded; (ii) Danske
Bank's Board of Directors and Executive Board failed to monitor for
and address money laundering activities; and (iii) Danske Bank's
AML operations did not comply with applicable laws.

Through a series of partial disclosures, Danske Bank's investors
began to learn the truth about the bank's operations and money
laundering exposure. These revelations include: (i) a May 3, 2018
report from Denmark's financial authority detailing how Danske Bank
has "historically not lived up to its obligations in the AML area";
(ii) a September 19, 2018 internal investigation report from Danske
Bank admitting AML failures and that the probe encompasses more
than $230 billion in transactions; and (iii) an October 4, 2018
announcement that Danske Bank was speaking with U.S. authorities
about the money laundering scandal and had received a request for
information from the Department of Justice.

As a result of the cascading negative disclosures, Danske Bank's
ADR price declined by nearly 50% between February 2018 and October
2018, causing severe harm to investors.

                         About USMA

USMA -- http://www.usmarketlaw.com-- is a national law firm based
in the District of Columbia. The law firm represents investors in
antitrust, securities and shareholder litigation. [GN]


DAVID CHEN: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Bartolo Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. David Chen Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a
David Chen Chinese Restaurant, David Chen, and Tung Lin Lu,
Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-10692 (S.D. N.Y., November 15, 2018)
seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the
"spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiff Bartolo and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours
per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations,
notes the complaint.

The Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Bartolo appropriately for
any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. The Defendants also failed to pay
Plaintiff Bartolo the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in
which he had to work over 10 hours a day, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff Carlos Bartolo is an adult individual residing in Queens
County, New York. Bartolo was employed by Defendants at David Chen
Chinese Restaurant from approximately July 20, 2013 until on or
about October 2018.

David Chen Restaurant, Inc. is a domestic corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York. It maintains its
principal place of business at 85 Old Mt. Kisco Road, Armonk, NY
10504.

David Chen is an individual engaging (or who was engaged) in
business in this judicial district during the relevant time period.
David Chen is sued individually in his capacity as owner, officer
and/or agent of Defendant Corporation.

Defendant Tung Lin Lu is an individual engaging (or who was
engaged) in business in this judicial district during the relevant
time period. Tung Lin Lu is sued individually in his capacity as
owner, officer and/or agent of Defendant Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DIGITAL FEDERAL: Overdraft Fee Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Angell, writing for Credit Union Journal, reports that a
federal judge in Massachusetts has rejected a request to dismiss a
class action suit regarding overdraft fees at $8.5 billion-asset
Digital Federal Credit Union.

The Marlborough, Mass.-based institution is charged in a June 15
complaint with assessing improper overdraft fees, one of several
recent credit unions to be hit with such lawsuits. The plaintiff,
named in court paperwork as Brandi Salls, alleges that she was
charged a $30 overdraft fee for a Dec. 2014 Amazon purchase in the
amount of $37.18 when her account held a positive balance of
$311.15. She further alleges that DFCU charged her another $30 fee
on a $27.97 purchase that same month when her account balance was
$253.58.

Ms. Salls is joined by 100 other unnamed defendants seeking
monetary damages, restitution and injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs claim DFCU "failed to describe its actual overdraft
service in its Opt-In Contract" and alleges the credit union
charges unusual and unfairly high overdraft fees.

Of the six counts in the complaint, the court dismissed charges of
unjust enrichment, though four counts remain, including alleged
breach of contract, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing, and violation of the Electronic Funds Transfers Act.

The Digital FCU suit follows similar instances at Apple FCU and
Envision CU and calls from potential 2020 Democratic presidential
candidates Cory Booker and Sherrod Brown for lawmakers to crack
down on overdraft fees.

A 2015 study conducted by Moebs $ervices found that the median
overdraft fee charged by credit unions was not statistically
significantly less than the median overdraft fees charged by banks.
[GN]


DOUGH JOE LLC: Underpays Kitchen Staff, Espinoza and Sucup Say
--------------------------------------------------------------
SELVIN ESPINOZA, and ALEJANDRO SUCUP, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOUGH JOE LLC D/B/A
HINOMARU RAMEN; and MIN LEE, Defendants, Case No. CV18-5745
(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.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as kitchen staff.

Dough Joe LLC d/b/a Hinomaru Ramen is a corporation oraganized
under the laws of the State of New York. The Company is engaged in
the restaurant business. [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


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Bell Files Suit in Penn. Under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Shelly Bell on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC, Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC, John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04951-MMB (E.D. Penn., Nov. 15,
2018).

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

Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full-service collection agency
based in South Carolina. Dynamic Recovery Solutions is experienced
in collecting late-stage debt for small, medium, and high-volume
businesses. Dynamic Recovery Solutions deals with delinquencies
dating back as far as 2000.

Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC, purchases portfolios of both
domestic (U.S.) and international consumer debt owned by credit
grantors including banks and finance companies, and by other debt
buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO PC
     1500 Walnut St., Ste 900
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Phone: (215) 351-0200
     Fax: (215) 922-3874
     Email: rcocco@rcn.com


EHEALTH INC: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Wage-and-Hour Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
eHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that discovery is
ongoing in the California wage-and-hour class action suit.

On April 6, 2018, a former California employee filed a complaint
against the company in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Sacramento. The plaintiff's complaint
was filed pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), purportedly on behalf of all current
and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who work or have
worked for the company in California.  

The complaint alleges that we violated a number of wage and hour
laws with respect to these non-exempt employees, including, among
other things, the failure to comply with California law as to (i)
the payment of overtime wages; (ii) the payment of minimum wages;
(iii) providing uninterrupted meal and rest periods, (iv) the
payment of wages earned during employment and owed upon the
termination of employment; (v) providing complete and accurate wage
statements, (vi) keeping of accurate payroll records; and (vii) the
proper reimbursement  for necessary business-related expenses and
costs.  The complaint seeks allegedly unpaid wages, civil penalties
and costs, expenses and attorneys' fees.  

eHealth said, "Discovery has only recently commenced, and as a
result we cannot estimate the likelihood of liability or the amount
of potential damages."

eHealth, Inc. provides private online health insurance exchange
services to individuals, families, and small businesses in the
United States and China. The company operates through two segments,
Medicare; and Individual, Family and Small Business. eHealth, Inc.
was incorporated in 1997 and is headquartered in Mountain View,
California.


EHEALTH INC: Settlement Agreement Entered in TCPA-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
eHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has
entered into a settlement agreement with the original plaintiff in
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act related class action
complaint.

On May 8, 2018, an individual filed a putative class action
complaint against the company. The complaint alleges that the
company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Section 227(c) and certain provisions of 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200
promulgated thereunder by initiating or causing to be initiated
telephone solicitations to telephone subscribers who registered
their respective telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call
Registry.  

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the company (i)
made more than one unsolicited telephone call to Plaintiff and
putative class members within a 12-month period without express
consent to place such calls in violation of 47 U.S.C. Section
227(c)(5); and (ii) initiated calls for telemarketing purposes
without instituting procedures that comply with regulatory minimum
standards for implementing Do Not Call in violation of 47 C.F.R.
Section 64.1200(d).  

The complaint sought (i) an order certifying a class of individuals
in the United States who (A) received more than one telephone call
made by or on behalf of eHealth within a 12-month period; and (B)
to a telephone number that had been registered with the National Do
Not Call Registry for at least 30 days; (ii) an award of actual and
statutory damages for each negligent violation to each member of
the class pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3)(B); (iii) an
award of actual and statutory damages for each knowing and/or
willful violation to each member of the class pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
Section 227(b)(3)(A); (iv) an injunction requiring the company and
its agents to cease all unsolicited telephone activities and
otherwise protecting the interest of the class pursuant to 47
U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3)(A); and (v) pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest on monetary relief.

A first amended complaint was filed in the action in September 2018
to add an additional plaintiff, and we answered the first amended
complaint in October 2018.

eHealth said, "In October 2018, we also entered into a settlement
agreement with the original plaintiff that included a release of
the original plaintiff's individual claims. Due to the preliminary
nature of this matter and uncertainty of litigation, we are unable
at this time to estimate the likelihood of liability or the amount
of potential damages."

eHealth, Inc. provides private online health insurance exchange
services to individuals, families, and small businesses in the
United States and China. The company operates through two segments,
Medicare; and Individual, Family and Small Business. eHealth, Inc.
was incorporated in 1997 and is headquartered in Mountain View,
California.


EHEALTH INC: Settles 2 Class Suits in California
------------------------------------------------
eHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has
settled two class action suits in California and has no remaining
accrual outstanding as of September 30, 2018.

On January 26, 2017, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara. The complaint alleged that the
company negligently failed to take necessary precautions required
to protect from unauthorized disclosure of personally identifiable
information contained on 2016 Form W-2s for current and former
employees.  

The complaint purported to allege causes of action against the
company for negligence, violation of Section 17200 et seq. of the
California Business & Professions Code, declaratory relief and
breach of implied contract. The complaint sought actual damages,
punitive damages, statutory damages, costs, including experts' fees
and attorneys' fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as
prescribed by law and equitable, injunctive and declaratory relief
as appropriate.  

In April 2017, an additional purported class action lawsuit was
filed against the company in the Superior Court of State of
California, County of Santa Clara, relating to the same
circumstances.   The second complaint purported to allege causes of
action against the company for negligence, violation of California
Customer Records Act (California Civil Code Section 1798.80 et
seq.), violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act (California Civil Code Section 56 et seq.),
invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts, breach
of confidentiality and violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law (California Business & Professions Code Section
17200 et seq.). The causes of action for violations of the
California Customer Records Act and the California Confidentiality
of Medical Information Act were dismissed without prejudice.

The second complaint sought actual damages, statutory damages,
restitution, disgorgement, equitable, injunctive and declaratory
relief, costs, including experts’ fees and attorneys' fees and
costs of prosecuting the action, and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest as prescribed by law.  

In July 2017, the company entered into a binding settlement term
sheet where the company and the plaintiffs in each of the cases
agreed to enter into a settlement, pursuant to which the company
would receive a release of all claims that were or could have been
alleged related to the unauthorized disclosure at issue in each of
the cases. In exchange for the release, the company agreed to (i)
pay, subject to an aggregate cap of $250,000, up to $2,500 to each
impacted individual for reasonable, documented out-of-pocket losses
or expenses related to the data security incident; (ii) offer to
individuals who signed up for identity theft protection that the
company offered at the time of the incident a one-year extension of
the identity theft protection; (iii) offer to individuals who did
not sign up for identity theft protection that the company offered
at the time of the incident three-years of identity theft
protection; and (iv) not oppose a request by class counsel for
attorneys' fees, costs and class representative enhancements of up
to $245,000 in the aggregate.  

In December 2017, the company entered into a joint stipulation for
settlement of class action consistent with the settlement term
sheet. The court entered an order preliminarily approving the
settlement on April 23, 2018 and finally approved the settlement on
September 7, 2018.

eHealth said, "We settled this matter during the third quarter of
2018 and therefore no remaining accrual was outstanding as of
September 30, 2018."

eHealth, Inc. provides private online health insurance exchange
services to individuals, families, and small businesses in the
United States and China. The company operates through two segments,
Medicare; and Individual, Family and Small Business. eHealth, Inc.
was incorporated in 1997 and is headquartered in Mountain View,
California.


ENCLARITY INC: 6th Cir. Flips Dismissal of M. Fulton's TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW N. FULTON, D.D.S., P.C., individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENCLARITY, INC.; LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS,
INC.; LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS GA, INC.; LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS
FL, INC.; JOHN DOES 1-12, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-1380
(6th Cir.), Judge Jane B. Stranch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit (i) reversed the district court's judgment in
favor of the Defendants, and (ii) remanded Fulton's TCPA and
conversion claims for further proceedings consistent with her
Opinion.

Plaintiff Matthew N. Fulton, DDS, P.C., a dental practice in
Linden, Michigan, brings the suit on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.  Fulton alleges that it received a fax from the
Defendants in September 2016 that was an unsolicited advertisement
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), but that
failed to include the requisite opt-out provision.

Fulton filed a two-count class action complaint in October 2016.
Count I asserted that the fax violated the TCPA, and Count II
asserted a state law conversion claim.  The complaint included the
fax itself, as well as printouts from the Defendants' referenced
website, including the FAQs, a provider lookup form, the
Defendants' privacy policy, and the Defendants' terms and
conditions.  Fulton alleged that the fax was a pretext to obtain
both participation in the Defendants' proprietary database and
consent to send additional marketing faxes to recipients.  Fulton
alleged that both the Defendants and the third parties will use the
information to contact the recipients regarding products, services,
competitions and promotions.

Fulton also contended that the fax was a pretext to increase
awareness and use of the Defendants' proprietary database service
and increase traffic to their website.  According to Fulton, the
Defendants consolidate healthcare provider contact information into
their proprietary Master Provider Referential Database, a
commercially available product or service that Defendants sell or
lease to their subscribers and licensees.  The complaint set forth
class allegations, including that the Defendants sent the same fax
that Fulton received to at least 39 other similarly situated
individuals.

The Defendants responded to the complaint by filing a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  They argued that the fax did not meet
the TCPA's definition of an advertisement and therefore was not
required to have an opt-out provision.  The district court agreed.
It found that nothing mentioned in the fax is available to be
bought or sold, and concluded that the fax lacked the commercial
components inherent in ads.  The court also found that even if the
Defendants might profit from verifying the Plaintiff's contact
information to third parties, there is no allegation or argument
that the Defendants are advertising -- or will advertise -- any
goods or services to the Plaintiff.  The district court disregarded
the attachments to the complaint, on the basis that the Court's
decision in Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Medco Health
Solutions, Inc., constrained its analysis to the four corners of
the fax.  After dismissing Fulton's TCPA claim with prejudice, the
district court determined that the state law conversion claim
belonged in state court and dismissed it without prejudice.  

Judge Stranch explains that the district court misconstrued
Sandusky when it disregarded the exhibits attached to Fulton's
complaint.  The exhibits are part of the record, and the Court may
consider them when evaluating Fulton's TCPA claim.  And they may do
so without converting tge Defendants' motion to dismiss into one
for summary judgment.  Under this circuit's precedent, documents
attached to the pleadings become part of the pleadings and may be
considered on a motion to dismiss.  Indeed, the Defendants do not
challenge the authenticity of Fulton's exhibits, having conceded
that their contents may be accepted as facts.  The Judge's review
of the Defendants' motion to dismiss properly includes the exhibits
Fulton attached to the complaint.

Taking the complaint's allegations as true and drawing all
inferences in Fulton's favor, as they must at the motion to dismiss
stage, the Judge finds that Fulton has adequately alleged that the
fax Fulton received was an unsolicited advertisement because it
served as a commercial pretext for future advertising
opportunities.  Fulton has therefore stated a plausible TCPA claim
under the fax-as-pretext theory.  Because this conclusion is
sufficient to warrant reversing and remanding the case, the Judge
holds that she needs not reach Fulton's alternative theory that the
fax was an advertisement because Defendants sent it with a profit
motive.

After dismissing Fulton's TCPA claim, the district court dismissed
Fulton's state law conversion claim.  The district court concluded
that because no federal law claim remains before the Court, and
because the case is in its preliminary stages, the court concludes
that the litigation of the Plaintiff's state law claim would most
appropriately be conducted in state court.  Because Fulton stated a
TCPA claim over which the district court had original jurisdiction,
Fulton's conversion claim also remains before the district court.

Jugd Stranch concludes that applying the standards governing
dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, she finds
that Fulton has plausibly alleged that the fax was an unsolicited
advertisement insofar as it alleged that the fax served as a
pretext to send Fulton additional marketing materials.
Accordingly, she reversed and remanded the case for additional
proceedings consistent with her Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/687PIF from Leagle.com.

ON BRIEF: Phillip A. Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com -- David M.
Oppenheim -- david@classlawyers.com -- BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS &
OPPENHEIM, LLC., Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant.

Tiffany Cheung -- tcheung@mofo.com -- Benjamin F. Patterson --
bpatterson@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP., San Francisco,
California, Joseph R. Palmore -- jpalmore@mofo.com -- Bryan J.
Leitch -- bleitch@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP., Washington,
D.C., for Appellees.


ENERGEN CORP: Gross Seeks to Halt Sale to Diamondback Energy
------------------------------------------------------------
Melvin Gross, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Energen Corporation, Jonathan Z. Cohen,
Kenneth W. Dewey, M. James Gorrie, Jay Grinney, William G. Hargett,
Frances Powell Hawes, Vincent J. Intrieri, Alan A. Kleier, Lori A.
Lancaster and James T. McManus, II, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-01711, (N.D. Ala., October 17, 2018), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of Energen
by Diamondback Energy, Inc. through Diamondback's wholly-owned
subsidiary Sidewinder Merger Sub Inc., rescinding it in the event
defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this
action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys'
and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Energen stockholders will be entitled to receive 0.6442 of a share
of Diamondback common stock per Energen common share. The Proposed
Transaction is valued at approximately $9.2 billion.

The complaint says the proxy statement filed in connection with the
transaction omits the financial projections performed by the
company's financial advisers, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and Tudor
Pickering Holt & Co. Advisors LP.

Energen is an oil-focused exploration and production company.
Diamondback is an independent oil and natural gas company engaged
in the acquisition, development, exploration and exploitation of
onshore oil and natural gas reserves in the Permian Basin. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Guin, Esq.
      Tammy M. Stokes, Esq.
      GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC
      300 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd.
      North Suite 600, Title Building
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 503-4505
      Fax: (205) 226-2357
      Email: davidg@gseattorneys.com
             tstokes@gseattorneys.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly K. Moran, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025
      Fax: (212) 682-3010
      Email: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
             mrogovin@weisslawllp.com
             kmoran@weisslawllp.com

             - and -

      Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE P.C.
      885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 308-5858
      Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
      Email: fortunato@bespc.com


EQUIFAX INC: Bid to Dismiss Georgia Securities Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated putative class action suit filed in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, is still
pending.

A consolidated putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of
various federal securities laws in connection with statements and
alleged omissions regarding our cybersecurity systems and controls
is pending against the company and certain of its current and
former executives, officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The consolidated complaint seeks certification of a class of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Equifax securities from
February 25, 2016 through September 15, 2017 and unspecified
monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint.

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

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S.
Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions,
and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


EQUIFAX INC: Still Defends Suits over 2017 Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself in several class action suits related to the 2017
cybersecurity incident.

Following the 2017 cybersecurity incident, hundreds of class
actions were filed against the company in federal and state courts
relating to the 2017 cybersecurity incident. The plaintiffs in
these cases, who purport to represent various classes of consumers
and small businesses, generally claim to have been harmed by
alleged actions and/or omissions by Equifax in connection with the
2017 cybersecurity incident and assert a variety of common law and
statutory claims seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and
other related relief.

In addition, certain class actions have been filed by financial
institutions that allege their businesses have been placed at risk
due to the 2017 cybersecurity incident and generally assert various
common law claims such as claims for negligence and breach of
contract, as well as, in some cases, statutory claims. The
financial institution class actions seek compensatory damages and
other related relief.

Furthermore, a lawsuit has been filed against the company by the
City of Chicago with respect to the 2017 cybersecurity incident
alleging violations of state laws and local ordinances governing
protection of personal data, consumer fraud and breach notice
requirements and business practices and seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief and the imposition of fines the aggregate amount
of which the complaint does not specifically quantify.

Additionally, two Indian Tribes filed suits in federal court
asserting putative class actions relating to the 2017 cybersecurity
incident brought on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated federally recognized Indian Tribes and Nations.

Beginning on December 6, 2017 and pursuant to multiple subsequent
orders, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered
the consolidation and transfer for pre-trial proceedings with
respect to the U.S. cases pending in federal court discussed above,
including the City of Chicago action and the Indian Tribal suits,
to the Northern District of Georgia as the single U.S. District
Court for centralized pre-trial proceedings.

Based on this order, consolidated proceedings with respect to U.S.
consumer and financial institution federal class actions related to
the 2017 cybersecurity incident have been conducted in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ("MDL Court").
The MDL Court has established separate tracks for the consumer and
financial institution cases and appointed lead counsel on behalf of
plaintiffs in both tracks.

The cases before the MDL Court are in preliminary stages. The
company have moved to dismiss the consolidated complaints filed by
the U.S. consumer and financial institution plaintiffs.

Additionally, four putative class actions arising from the 2017
cybersecurity incident were filed against the company in Fulton
County Superior Court and Fulton County State Court in Georgia
based on similar allegations and theories as alleged in the U.S.
consumer class actions pending in the MDL Court and seek monetary
damages, injunctive relief and other related relief on behalf of
Georgia citizens. These cases have been transferred to a single
judge in the Fulton County Business Court and three of the cases
were consolidated into a single action.

On July 27, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court granted the
Company's motion to stay the remaining single case, and on August
17, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court granted the Company's
motion to stay the consolidated case.

In Canada, seven Canadian class actions, five of which are on
behalf of a national class, have been filed against us in Ontario,
Saskatchewan, Quebec and British Columbia. Each of the proposed
Canadian class actions asserts a number of common law and statutory
claims seeking monetary damages and other related relief in
connection with the 2017 cybersecurity incident. All such actions
are at the preliminary stages and one action has been stayed.

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S.
Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions,
and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


ESSENDANT INC: $3 Million Paid to Settlement Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------
Essendant Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the Company funded
the settlement and transmitted the gross settlement amount of $3.0
million to the Settlement Administrator.

In 2017, the Company was named in a class action lawsuit filed by a
former employee in the Los Angeles Superior Court. During the
second quarter of 2017, the parties finalized a settlement
agreement, which was subject to court approval.

On May 10, 2018, the court granted the parties' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the settlement agreement. Notice to the
class was issued on May 31, 2018. In consideration of the
settlement, in the second quarter of 2017, the Company recorded a
$3.0 million pre-tax reserve within "Warehousing, marketing and
administrative expenses" in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of
Operations.  

On September 28, 2018, the court entered a Final Approval Order
approving the terms of the settlement agreement. On October 5,
2018, the Company funded the settlement and transmitted the gross
settlement amount of $3.0 million to the Settlement Administrator.

Essendant Inc. operates as a distributor of workplace items in the
United States and internationally. It offers janitorial and
sanitation supplies, breakroom items, foodservice consumables,
safety and security items, and paper and packaging supplies.
Essendant Inc. was founded in 1922 and is headquartered in
Deerfield, Illinois.


ETON MADISON: Faces Class Action in New York Under ADA
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eton Madison Avenue,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Eton
Madison Avenue, Inc., Eton AB [SE], Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-10673 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018).

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

Eton Madison Avenue, Inc. manufactures luxury men shirts and
furnishings.[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


EVOQUA WATER: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. from November 6, 2017
through October 30, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Evoqua investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Evoqua class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1446.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Evoqua failed to successfully integrate its prior
acquisitions; (2) Evoqua was experiencing supply chain disruptions
influenced by tariffs and an extended delay on a large aquatics
project; and (3) as a result, Evoqua's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 7,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1446.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

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

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


FIORELLA INSURANCE: Sued over Telemarketing and Spam Activities
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEROME NEWBERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FIORELLA INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-24738-KMW (S.D. Fla., Nov. 13, 2018),
seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all illegal
telemarketing and spam activities and an award of statutory damages
to the class members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a regional insurance
company based in Stuart, Florida. In an effort to solicit potential
customers, Defendant recruited, or employed call centers which
began making telephone calls, en masse, to consumers across the
country. On information and belief, Defendant and or its agents
purchase leads from multiple lead generators that obtain consumer
contact and demographic information from a number of sources.

The Defendant conducted wide scale telemarketing campaigns and
repeatedly made unsolicited calls to consumers' telephones -- whose
numbers appear on the National Do Not Call Registry -- without
consent, and with a pre-recorded voice, all in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.
          FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC
          261 Northeast First St., Suite 502
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 901-2209
          Facsimile: (786) 870-4030
          E-Mail: ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law

               - and -

          W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          Galleria Tower I
          2700 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1120
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
                  jarrett@hughesellzey.com


FIRST HAWAIIAN: Agreement in Principle Reached in Suit vs. Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Hawaiian, 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 parties in the
purported class action suit involving First Hawaiian Bank have
reached an agreement in principle.

On January 27, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
Bank customer alleging that First Hawaiian Bank (FHB) improperly
charges an overdraft fee in circumstances where an account had
sufficient funds to cover the transaction at the time the
transaction is authorized but not at the time the transaction is
presented for payment, and that this practice constitutes an unjust
and deceptive trade practice and a breach of contract.

The lawsuit further alleged that FHB's practice of assessing a
one-time continuous negative balance overdraft fee on accounts
remaining in a negative balance for a seven-day period constitutes
a usurious interest charge and an unfair and deceptive trade
practice.

On October 2, 2018, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to resolve this class action lawsuit. In connection with the
anticipated settlement agreement, the Company recorded an expense
of approximately $4.1 million during the three months ended
September 30, 2018. The settlement agreement will be subject to
court approval.

First Hawaiian, Inc. operates as a bank holding company for First
Hawaiian Bank that provides a range of banking services to consumer
and commercial customers in the United States. It operates through
Retail Banking and Commercial Banking segments. The company was
founded in 1858 and is headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii. First
Hawaiian, Inc. is a subsidiary of BancWest Corporation.


FIRST SOLAR: Smilovits Petition for Writ of Certiorari Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Solar, 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 defendants'
petition for writ of certiorari filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, is
pending.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-DGC,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against the Company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers.

The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between
April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 (the "Class Action"). The
complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial
performance and prospects. The action includes claims for damages,
including interest, and an award of reasonable costs and attorneys'
fees to the putative class. The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses and will vigorously defend this action.

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the Class Action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively, the "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar
allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. On
December 17, 2012, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.
On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted the Pension
Schemes' motion for class certification and certified a class
comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of the Company between April 30, 2008
and February 28, 2012 and were damaged thereby, excluding
defendants and certain related parties. Merits discovery closed on
February 27, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2015.
On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted defendants'
motion in part and denied it in part, and certified an issue for
immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Ninth
Circuit"). First Solar filed a petition for interlocutory appeal
with the Ninth Circuit, and that petition was granted on November
18, 2015. On May 20, 2016, the Pension Schemes moved to vacate the
order granting the petition, dismiss the appeal, and stay the
merits briefing schedule. On December 13, 2016, the Ninth Circuit
denied the Pension Schemes' motion.

On January 31, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming
the Arizona District Court's order denying in part defendants'
motion for summary judgment. On March 16, 2018, First Solar filed a
petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc with the Ninth
Circuit. On May 7, 2018, the Ninth Circuit denied defendants'
petition. On August 6, 2018, defendants filed a petition for writ
of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has not yet
ruled on that petition. Meanwhile, the case is currently pending in
the Arizona District Court and expert discovery is ongoing. A trial
is scheduled to begin on April 9, 2019.

First Solar said, "This lawsuit asserts claims that, if resolved
against us, could give rise to substantial damages, and an
unfavorable outcome or settlement may result in a significant
monetary judgment or award against us or a significant monetary
payment by us, and could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, and results of operations. Even if
this lawsuit is not resolved against us, the costs of defending the
lawsuit may be significant, as may be the cost of any settlement,
and would likely exceed the coverage limits of, or may not be
covered by, our insurance policies. Given the need for further
expert discovery, and the uncertainties of trial, at this time we
are not in a position to assess the likelihood of any potential
loss or adverse effect on our financial condition or to estimate
the range of potential loss, if any."

First Solar, Inc. provides photovoltaic solar energy solutions in
the United States and internationally. It operates through two
segments, Components and Systems. The company was formerly known as
First Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to First Solar,
Inc. in 2006. First Solar, Inc. was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Tempe, Arizona.


FITBIT INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed against Fitbit, Inc. on behalf of purchasers of Fitbit
securities between August 2, 2016 and January 30, 2017, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

Important Deadline: Investors who purchased Fitbit securities
during the Class Period may, no later than December 31, 2018, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class.
For additional information or to learn how to participate in this
action please visit
www.ktmc.com/fitbit-2018-securities-class-action

According to the complaint, Fitbit claims to be a technology
company focused on health-related devices. Fitbit's products
purportedly include wearable devices -- health and fitness trackers
and smartwatches -- that enable users to view data about their
daily activity, exercise, and sleep, in real-time.

The Class Period commences on August 2, 2016, when Fitbit issued a
press release entitled "Fitbit Reports $587M Q216 Revenue, $0.03
GAAP EPS/$0.12 Non-GAAP EPS, and Confirms Revenue and Profit
Guidance for FY16."

According to the complaint, on November 2, 2016, Fitbit issued a
press release announcing its third quarter 2016 financial results.
In the press release, Fitbit disclosed that it was lowering its
full year 2016 revenue guidance to "between $2.320 billion and
$2.345 billion," down from the previously announced "$2.5 to $2.6
billion." Following this news, Fitbit's share price fell $4.30 per
share, or 33.6%, to close at $8.51 per share on November 3, 2016.

Then, on January 30, 2017, Fitbit issued a press release announcing
its preliminary fourth quarter 2016 financial results. In the press
release, Fitbit disclosed that it expected fourth quarter of 2016
revenue to be in the range of $572 million to $580 million, rather
than its previously announced guidance range of $725 million to
$750 million. Fitbit also disclosed expected annual revenue growth
of approximately 17%, rather than the previously announced forecast
of 25% to 26%. Following this news, Fitbit's share price fell $1.15
per share, or 16%, to close at $6.06 per share on January 30,
2017.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Fitbit was struggling to
transition its mission and differentiate itself from Apple Inc. and
other competitors; (2) as such, Fitbit was experiencing increased
competition; (3) as a result, demand and sell-through for Fitbit's
existing and new products were being negatively impacted; (4) as a
result, Fitbit's sales and financial results were weakening, and
growth was slowing; (5) Fitbit's financial guidance was overstated;
and (6) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' statements
during the Class Period about Fitbit's business, operations,
financial results and prospects, were materially false and/or
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888)
299–7706 or (610) 667–7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com.

Fitbit investors may, no later than December 31, 2018, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff. Returning any form or communicating
with any counsel is not necessary to participate or share in any
recovery achieved in this case.

         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (888) 299-7706
                    (610) 667-7706
         Email: abell@ktmc.com
                jmaro@ktmc.com [GN]


FLOWERS BAKING: Underpays Sales Managers, Button Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD BUTTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF HENDERSON, LLC; FBC OF
HENDERSON, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 18STCV00865 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., 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. Button was employed by the Defendants as sales manager.

Flowers Caking Co. of Henderson, LLC operates as a bakery and
manufactures baked products. The Company is headquartered in
Henderson, Nevada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
                  alvin@yeremianlaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
          5500  Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (310) 652-2242
          E-mail: whaines@uelg.com


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Sullivan Seeks to Certify 2 Insureds Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuits captioned ELIZABETH
SULLIVAN, and ANTHONY COOK, and WILSON SANTOS, and MAURICE JONES,
as Personal Representative and on behalf of the Estate of Kailyn
Jones, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation,
and GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Case
No. 6:17-cv-00891-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla.); and ANTHONY LORENTI and
ASHLEY BARRETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 6:17-cv-01755-PGB-KRS
(M.D. Fla.), ask the Court to certify:

   (1) a Florida class of owned (not leased) vehicle insureds
       harmed by GEICO's uniform failure to pay title fees and
       tag transfer fees upon total loss of their vehicles; and

   (2) a Nationwide Class of non-Florida insureds (owned and
       leased vehicles) injured by the same conduct.

The Lorenti case is the sister putative class action to the Roth v.
GEICO class action.  Earlier this year, the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida in the Roth case granted
plaintiff's motion for class certification, and granted plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment on the merits.  Both cases involve a
straightforward breach of contract claim arising out of uniform
insurance policy language contained within identical "form"
policies for the Plaintiffs and for each member of the class, the
Plaintiffs assert.  In short, the Plaintiffs contend, the GEICO
Defendants breached their uniform private passenger auto ("PPA")
insurance policies covering "total loss claims" for vehicles --
which require GEICO to pay the full "replacement cost" to insureds
suffering a total loss of their vehicles.

The Roth case involves leased vehicles, and the Southern District
of Florida concluded GEICO breached its contracts with the class
members by failing to pay mandatory sales tax and title transfer
fees incurred on the replacement of leased vehicles which were a
total loss.  The Lorenti case involves owned vehicles.  While GEICO
does pay sales tax incurred on the replacement of owned vehicles,
GEICO does not pay mandatory title or tag transfer fees incurred on
the replacement of owned vehicles which were a total loss, the
Plaintiffs contend.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bradley W. Pratt, Esq.
          PRATT CLAY, LLC
          4401 Northside Parkway, Suite 520
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (404) 949-8118
          Facsimile: (404) 949-8159
          E-mail: bradley@prattclay.com

               - and -

          Tracy L. Markham, Esq.
          AVOLIO & HANLON, P.C.
          2800 N 5th Street, Suite 302
          St. Augustine, FL 32084
          Telephone: (904) 794 7005
          Facsimile: (904) 794 7007
          E-mail: tlm@avoliohanlonfl.com

               - and -

          Christopher Hall, Esq.
          Andrew Lampros, Esq.
          HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
          600 Galleria Parkway, Suite 990
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 876-8100
          E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com
                  alampros@hallandlampros.com

               - and -

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
          NORMAND LAW PLLC
          P.O. Box 140036
          Orlando, FL 32814
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          Facsimile: (509) 267-6468
          E-mail: Ed@EdNormand.com
                  jacob@ednormand.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Lynch, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER J. LYNCH, P.A.
          6915 Red Road, Suite 208
          Coral Gables, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 443-6200
          Facsimile: (305) 443-6204
          E-mail: clynch@hunterlynchlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
          Alexander Fuchs, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          The Grace Building, 40th Floor
          1114 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 389-5068
          Facsimile: (212) 389-5099
          E-mail: kymberlykockis@eversheds-sutherland.com
                  alexfuchs@eversheds-sutherland.com

               - and -

          Susan B. Harwood, Esq.
          KAPLAN ZEENA LLP
          2 South Biscayne Boulevard
          One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3050
          Miami, FL 33131-1806
          Telephone: (305) 530-0800
          Facsimile: (305) 530-0801
          E-mail: SusanHarwood@kaplanzeena.com


GREYHOUND LINES: Sued Over Warrantless Stopping
-----------------------------------------------
Spencer S. Hsu, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
lawyers for a California woman asked a state judge on November 8 to
order Greyhound Lines to stop allowing federal immigration agents
to board its buses and demand identification and proof of
citizenship from passengers.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status for all California
residents, was filed in Alameda County by a U.S. citizen, Rocio
Cordova, who said she was traveling from San Diego to Phoenix by
Greyhound in November 2017 when the bus on which she was riding
pulled over on a highway to allow U.S. Customs and Border
Protection officers to interrogate passengers.

Cordova accused the nation's largest motor coach operator of
violating state consumer protection laws barring unfair and
unlawful business practices by allegedly consenting to racial
profiling by law enforcement officers despite promises not to
discriminate on the basis of race, skin color, national origin or
language. Cordova said she also suffered economic injury from
delays, and the suit seeks a court order barring the alleged
practice.

The suit comes as civil rights groups, labor unions and Democratic
lawmakers have stepped up a campaign against U.S. travel and
transportation companies this year, urging them to stop tactics
that the companies say are not new but which Customs and Border
Protection officials say have been on the rise under the Trump
administration.

Motel 6 agreed to pay up to $8.9 million to settle a class-action
lawsuit in federal court alleging that employees at two Phoenix
properties provided the personal information of several Latino
guests to immigration officials without a warrant, leading to their
being detained. That lawsuit, filed in January, asserted that the
motels invaded guests' privacy and discriminated against them on
the basis of race and national origin.

In addition to targeting Greyhound, whose 1,600 vehicles move 17
million passengers a year in the United States, Canada and Mexico,
critics of such tactics have conveyed objections to Amtrak and
other bus companies.

"Greyhound's policy of voluntarily opening its bus doors to law
enforcement officers to intimidate customers based on the color of
their skin is not just offensive; it is unlawful. It needs to stop
now," said Darren J. Robbins, Esq. -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com --
founder of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, a San Diego law firm that
specializes in class-action lawsuits and is representing Cordova.

A Greyhound spokesman, when asked about contentions in the new
lawsuit, referred to an October statement by the company addressing
CBP practices, in which Greyhound said it understood its customers'
concerns, called on Congress to change the law and said "it will
support positive efforts to do so."

Greyhound said in the statement that it neither coordinates with
nor supports the CBP's actions, adding, "CBP officers do not ask
permission to board our buses. We do not want to put our drivers'
safety or the safety of our passengers at risk by attempting to
stop a federal agent from conducting checks."

The Border Patrol, which is a part of the Customs and Border
Protection agency, said its practice of targeting bus stations and
other transportation hubs for human smuggling and drug trafficking
is decades old, although the frequency and intensity of such checks
has increased in response to rising threats. Border agents have
broad authority to question people within 100 miles of a U.S.
border, an area in which more than half the U.S. population lives.

Critics of the stops say Greyhound also has a history of upholding
its customers' civil rights, serving most famously as the vehicle
for the "Freedom Riders" in 1961 who traveled on Greyhound buses to
challenge racial segregation in public transit in the South.

Since March, the American Civil Liberties Union and 10 of its local
affiliates around the country, 23 Democratic lawmakers and the
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1700 — which represents 3,500
Greyhound drivers, mechanics and terminal workers — have sent
letters and a 200,000-signature petition to Greyhound urging the
bus line "to stand up for passengers" and require federal border
officers who want to board to show probable cause or warrants as a
protection against unconstitutional searches and seizures.

"Civil liberties and civil rights groups, along with members of
Congress and Greyhound's own drivers, have urged Greyhound to
change its policy. Greyhound's ongoing conduct is in deliberate
disregard for its customers' rights," plaintiffs attorney Rachel
Jensen, Esq. -- rachelj@rgrdlaw.com -- said.

The ACLU said it has documented CBP boardings of buses in Vermont,
Calif., Washington state, Arizona and Michigan during which agents
tended to focused on people of color or nonnative speakers of
English, stating no other reasons for boarding and questioning
passengers.

The publisher Consumer Affairs has reported that passengers receive
little or no notice that they can be asked to reveal the contents
of their luggage or to show proof of citizenship, and that stops
can occur at random and can cause passengers to miss connections.

The complaint by Cordova said immigration officers target Greyhound
because its riders are disproportionately nonwhite and low-income,
particularly Latino.

The complaint included several videos, reports and statements by
passengers of "coercive scenes" of armed officers blocking "narrow
bus aisles, singling out passengers of color by hovering over them
and accusing many of being 'illegal.'"

The suit was filed by Robbins and Jensen, who was a lead attorney
in litigation that resulted in a $25 million settlement for
students who alleged fraud by Trump's defunct real estate seminars,
Trump University. Trump did not admit fault in the settlement.

Federal officers' searches inflict humiliation, discrimination and
delays of up to 30 minutes on bus passengers, and searches are
being carried out more than 100 miles inside the country, the suit
alleged.

Lawyers for Cordova said her bus was stopped on a highway in
California after daybreak as it was en route to Phoenix.

In its Oct. 19 statement, Greyhound said, "CBP searches have
negatively impacted both our customers and our operations," adding,
"We also encourage all our customers to know their rights and share
their opinion on this important issue with their members of
Congress."[GN]


GUARANTEED RATE: Pereyra Seeks Lawful Wages under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
KARLA PEREYRA, individually and on behalf of and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GUARANTEED RATE, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-06669-DMR (N.D. Cal., Nov. 2, 2018), alleges unlawful
violations Plaintiff's rights under California Business and
Professions Code and California Labor Code committed by Guaranteed
Rate, Inc. which have deprived the Plaintiff, as well as others
similarly situated of their lawful wages.

According to the complaint, the Defendant breached its compensation
agreement with Plaintiff and class members and did not compensate
Guaranteed Rate Employees in accordance with its employment
agreement including statutory violations under the Labor Code for
all hours they worked, including, but not limited to proper
overtime and failed to compensate for missed meal/rest breaks or
based on deduction of wages in California.

Defendants' pay policies and practices included a systemic failure
to pay overtime and a miscalculation of the overtime rate for wage
compensation, which is predicated on Plaintiff and all similarly
situated employees' hourly rate and commissions/bonuses. The
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants failed to properly incorporate
these commission and bonus payments into the regular rate of pay
when calculating overtime compensation for both the California
Class, the lawsuit says.

Guaranteed Rate Inc., is a U.S. residential mortgage company
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Founded in 2000 by Victor
Ciardelli, the company was a top 5 mortgage lender in 2016 with
$22.9 billion in funded volume.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Matthew Righetti, Esq.
          John Glugoski, Esq.
          RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
          456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 983-0900

               - and -

          Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
          NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 700,
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 272-7014

H.E. SHEIKH: Boyd Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Boyd, Graham Bancroft, and Chantelle McGuffie, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. H.E.
Sheikh Jassim bin Abdulaziz Al-Thani and H.E. Sheikha Al Mayassa
bint Hamad Al-Thani, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-10698 (S.D. N.Y., November 15, 2018) is an action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act seeking to remedy Defendants' wrongful
withholding of Plaintiffs' earned wages and overtime compensation.
Plaintiffs also bring these claims under New York Labor Law as well
as the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations
for violations of minimum wage and overtime wage requirements,
unpaid straight wages, and notice and record-keeping requirements.

According to the complaint, the Defendants repeatedly suffered or
permitted Plaintiffs to work in excess of 40 hours per week without
paying them the appropriate premium overtime pay of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay. The Defendants also
failed to pay Plaintiffs any compensation during the last several
days of their employment in violation of the FLSA's and NYLL's
minimum wage requirements, and in further violation of their
employment agreements, it adds.

Plaintiffs Benjamin Boyd, Graham Bancroft, Chantelle McGuffie
reside in the State of New York, County of New York.

H.E. Sheikh Jassim bin Abdulaziz Al-Thani was, at all relevant
times, Plaintiffs' employer and employed Plaintiffs individually
and/or jointly.

H.E. Sheikha Al Mayassa bint Hamad Al-Thani was, at all relevant
times, Plaintiffs' employer and employed Plaintiffs individually
and/or jointly.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq.
     Pardalis & Nohavicka, LLP
     950 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (718) 777-0400
     Facsimile: (718) 777-0599


HARMONY GOLD: Settlement Reached in African Mineworkers' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October
25, 2018, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, that the parties
in the African Mine workers-related class action suit have reached
a settlement.

On August 23, 2012, Harmony and certain of its subsidiaries
(Harmony defendants) were served with court papers in terms of
which three former employees made application to the South Gauteng
High Court to certify a class action for purposes of instituting
action against the Harmony defendants.

In essence, the applicants want the court to declare them as
suitable members to represent a class of current and former
mineworkers who have contracted occupational lung diseases for
purposes of instituting a class action for certain relief, and to
obtain directions from the court as to what procedure to follow in
pursuing the relief required against the Harmony defendants.
Similar applications were also brought against various other gold
mining companies for similar relief during August 2012.

On January 8, 2013, the Harmony defendants, alongside other gold
mining companies operating in South Africa (collectively the
respondents), were served with another application to certify
another class action. In this application, two classes of persons
were sought to be established representing, firstly, a class of
current and former mine workers who have silicosis (whether or not
accompanied by any other disease) and who work or have worked on
gold mines owned and/or controlled by the respondents, and
secondly, a class of dependents of mine workers who have died as a
result of silicosis (whether or not accompanied by any other
disease) and who worked on gold mines owned and/or controlled by
the respondents. The Harmony defendants opposed both applications.

Following receipt of the aforesaid application in 2013, the Harmony
defendants were advised that there was a potential overlap between
the application of August 23, 2012 and the application of January
8, 2013. On October 17, 2013, the five certification applications
were consolidated by order of court.

The consolidated application was heard in October 2015. On May 13,
2016, the Gauteng Local Division of High Court, Johannesburg,
ordered the certification of a class action consisting of current
and former underground mineworkers who have contracted silicosis
and dependents of underground mineworkers who have died of
silicosis (silicosis class), and current and former underground
mineworkers who have contracted TB, and the dependents of deceased
underground mineworkers who died of TB (a tuberculosis class),
which classes are to proceed as a single class action against the
mining companies cited in the consolidated application.

The High Court also ordered that any claimant who has a claim for
general damages, and who dies before the finalization of his case,
will have such general damages transmitted to the estate of the
deceased claimant. The High Court did not make an order on the
merits of the claimants' cases or any potential claims to be
instituted by the mineworkers or their dependents.

On June 24, 2016, the High Court granted leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court of Appeal against the order of transmissibility of
general damages. The Harmony defendants submitted their notice of
appeal in respect of the transmissibility of the general damages
order to the Supreme Court of Appeal on July 25, 2016.

The mining companies, including the Harmony defendants, also
requested leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Appeal against
the balance of the judgment and orders of the High Court certifying
the class action in respect of the silicosis class and tuberculosis
class. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal was granted
on September 13, 2016. The Harmony defendants submitted their
notice of appeal in respect of the remainder of the order
certifying a class action in respect of the silicosis class and the
tuberculosis class to the Supreme Court of Appeal on September 27,
2016.

The matter was set down to be argued in the Supreme Court of Appeal
on March 19, 2018 to March 23, 2018. However, the parties agreed to
postpone the matter to conclude settlement negotiations. The matter
was subsequently settled on May 3, 2018. The terms of the
settlement agreement are confidential. The settlement agreement
must be made an order of court before it can be given effect to.
Such an application to court will be brought within the near
future.

Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited engages in the exploration,
extraction, and processing of gold in South Africa and Papua New
Guinea. The company also explores for copper and silver deposits.
Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited was incorporated in 1950 and is
based in Randfontein, South Africa.


HOTELS.COM: Little Rock Joins Internet Hotel Tax Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Herzog, writing for Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette,
reports that Little Rock has joined a class-action lawsuit seeking
to allow the city to collect unpaid taxes from the Internet rental
of hotel rooms, and its tourism agency plans to do the same.

The claim is against a number of online travel companies that
haven't paid all taxes due to cities, counties or other commissions
for hotel and motel rooms rented at a discount through the
companies' websites.

For years, the city and the Little Rock Advertising and Promotion
Commission have collected taxes only on the incomes that hotels
receive and not on the portions that a travel website such as
Hotels.com receives.

The issue is whether the state's tax law allows for localities and
commissions to collect taxes on a travel company's earnings. The
city is seeking to collect gross receipts sales taxes, and the
commission is seeking unpaid hotel and motel taxes.

"The foundational argument is just that the locality should get the
total amount," said Gretchen Hall, president and chief executive
officer of the Little Rock Convention and Visitors Bureau, which is
governed by the Advertising and Promotion Commission.

The city Board of Directors approved a resolution authorizing the
city to enter into an agreement with Thrash Law Firm, a Little Rock
office representing plaintiffs in the case. Per the resolution, the
agreement costs the city nothing upfront, and legal fees will be
subtracted from any settlement the city receives if the litigation
is successful.

Ms. Hall said that the city's Advertising and Promotion Commission
plans to join the suit, but has not yet entered into an official
agreement. The Advertising and Promotion Commission is the
governing body for the Convention and Visitors Bureau.

There are no clear estimates on how much money the city would gain
from a possible settlement. Jack Williams of Little Rock law firm
Williams and Anderson, a co-counsel with Thrash Law Firm on the
case, said he believes it would be a consequential amount and that
the decision could have national implications.

"This is going to be an important case, one way or the other," Mr.
Williams said. "We know it's significant money."

The class-action suit stems from a 2009 lawsuit against the online
travel companies out of Jefferson County, in which the county and
the Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission were the
initial plaintiffs.

On May 14, Jefferson County Circuit Judge Robert H. Wyatt Jr. ruled
that Hotels.com and 11 other online travel companies are liable for
taxes dating as far back as 1995.

North Little Rock became a plaintiff in 2011, and that city's
Advertising and Promotion Commission joined the class-action suit
in July.

The online travel companies have since appealed the Jefferson
County decision to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Mr. Williams said he
expects the high court to release a decision in early spring.

If the state Supreme Court decides in favor of the localities and
local commissions, Williams said, the case will go to trial court,
and that court will set a deadline for other plaintiffs to join the
case.

Mr. Williams said he believes the state could become a plaintiff in
the future.

"The state's just not getting its fair share, in our view," he
said.

It's difficult to determine how much the cities and commissions
stand to gain from the suit because the online travel companies
make private arrangements with hotels or chains of hotels, Mr.
Williams said.

The Little Rock Convention and Visitors Bureau is funded primarily
by a hotel, motel and restaurant tax levied by the city's
Advertising and Promotion Commission. The lodging tax is 4 percent,
Ms. Hall said.

Half of the lodging tax revenue is dedicated to paying off bonds to
pay for a planned expansion and renovation of the Arkansas Arts
Center, Hall said. Little Rock sold $31.2 million in hotel-tax
revenue bonds for that purpose on Nov. 5.

The other half goes to the Convention and Visitors Bureau for its
purposes, Ms. Hall said.

The city also collects its 1.5 percent sales tax on hotel rooms.
City Attorney Tom Carpenter said any money the city gets from the
case would go into its operating budget. [GN]


INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Misled Shareholders, Robbins Arroyo Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that
purchasers of India Globalization Capital, Inc. (OTC: IGCC) have
filed a class action complaint against the company's officers and
directors for alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1934
between October 25, 2017 and October 29, 2018. IGC develops and
commercializes cannabis-based therapies to treat various medical
and psychological conditions.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
https://www.robbinsarroyo.com/india-globalization-capital-inc/

IGC Accused of Misstating Its Business Prospects

According to the complaint, the company touted its business
prospects, including importation and distribution of its
cannabinoid-based therapies to pharmacies in Germany and
distribution of its cannabinoid-based therapies to dispensaries in
Puerto Rico to aid Alzheimer's patients. On September 28, 2018, IGC
announced yet another distribution agreement and partnership - to
distribute cannabis-infused energy drinks in Canada. This
announcement caused IGC's stock to sky-rocket by 458%, to go from
$2.33 per share on September 25, 2018, to $13.00 on October 2,
2018.

On October 4, 2018, MarketWatch published an article noting "10
potential red flags for investors in IGC…" including IGC's past
troubles with the SEC, its history of changing course as new
businesses become popular, and the fact that its business partners
appear to be sham companies. As a result, IGC's stock fell $2.44
per share, or over 27% on October 4, 2018, and by closing on
October 5, 2018, IGC's stock had dropped an additional almost 37%.
Then, on October 29, 2018, the NYSE announced that IGC's stock
would be delisted because IGC "has substantially discontinued the
business that it conducted at the time it was listed or admitted to
trading. . . ." On October 30, 2018, shares of IGC began trading
OTC. The stock plummeted over 77% to close at $0.56 per share.

IGC Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov
at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

         Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         Telephone: (619) 525-3990
         Toll Free: (800) 350-6003
         Website: www.robbinsarroyo.com
         Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Violates Securities Exchange Act, Samn Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN SAMN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. INDIA GLOBALIZATION TECHNOLOGY, RAM
MUKUNDA, CLAUDIA GRIMALDI, and ROHIT GOEL, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-06199 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2018), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal
securities laws and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The case is federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and
their affiliates, who purchased publicly traded India Globalization
securities from October 25, 2017 through October 29, 2018, both
dates inclusive. On October 25, 2017, India Globalization issued a
press release entitled, "IGC to Distribute its Formulations in
Germany in Early 2018," announcing that it had entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with MediCann Handels GmbH for the
import and distribution of India Globalization’s
cannabinoid-based therapies to pharmacies in Germany.

Bitcoin is a popular type of cryptocurrency. Blockchain is the
technology used for verifying and recording Bitcoin transactions.
In other words, blockchain enables the existence of bitcoin and
other cryptocurrencies. On December 26, 2017, when bitcoin futures
traded near all-time highs, India Globalization issued a well-timed
press release entitled, "India Globalization to use Blockchain to
Address Issues Specific to the Medical Cannabis Industry," stating
the Company would "leverage its existing team of technology and
healthcare experts to develop methods of utilizing blockchain in
areas such as product identification assurance (PIA)."

On June 21, 2018, the Company filed a Form 10-K with the SEC, which
provided the Company's financial results and position for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2018. The 2017 10-K was signed by
Defendants Mukunda, Grimaldi and Goel. The 2017 10-K contained
signed certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by
Defendants Mukunda, Grimaldi and Goel attesting to the accuracy of
financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the
Company's internal control over financial reporting and the
disclosure of all fraud. The 2017 10-K stated the Company's
disclosure controls and procedures, and internal controls over
financial reporting were effective.

On this news, shares of India Globalization fell $2.44 per share or
over 27.5% to close at $6.41 per share on October 4, 2018, damaging
investors. The Company's shares continued to fall $2.36 per share
the following trading day or over 36.8% to close at $4.05 per share
on October 5, 2018. On October 29, 2018, the NYSE announced the
delisting process would commence for India Globalization's stock
traded on its exchange. The NYSE commenced delisting because "the
issuer has substantially discontinued the business that it
conducted at the time it was listed or admitted to trading, and has
become engaged in ventures or promotions which have not developed
to a commercial stage or the success of which is problematical.

On this news, shares of India Globalization were halted. The next
day, October 30, 2018, shares of India Globalization began trading
OTC under the ticker symbol "IGCC." The stock price plummeted $1.93
per share or over 77.5% to close at $0.56 per share on October 30,
2018. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com

INTEL CORP: Still Defends Security Vulnerabilities-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 company
continues to defend multiple class action suit related to security
vulnerabilities.

In June 2017, a Google research team notified the company and other
companies that it had identified security vulnerabilities (now
commonly referred to as "Spectre" and "Meltdown") that affect many
types of microprocessors, including the company's products. As is
standard when findings like these are presented, the company worked
together with other companies in the industry to verify the
research and develop and validate software and firmware updates for
impacted technologies. On January 3, 2018, information on the
security vulnerabilities was publicly reported, before software and
firmware updates to address the vulnerabilities were made widely
available. Numerous lawsuits have been filed against Intel and, in
certain cases, the company's executives and directors, in U.S.
federal and state courts and in certain courts in other countries
relating to the Spectre and Meltdown security vulnerabilities, as
well as another variant of these vulnerabilities ("Foreshadow")
that has since been identified.

As of October 24, 2018, 47 consumer class action lawsuits and three
securities class action lawsuits have been filed. The consumer
class action plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes
of end users of the company's products, generally claim to have
been harmed by Intel's actions and/or omissions in connection with
the security vulnerabilities and assert a variety of common law and
statutory claims seeking monetary damages and equitable relief. Of
the consumer class action lawsuits, 43 have been filed in the
United States, two in Canada, and two in Israel.

In April 2018, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered the U.S. consumer class action lawsuits
consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon. Intel filed a motion to dismiss
that consolidated action in October 2018, and a hearing on that
motion has been scheduled for February 2019.

There has been no activity in the case pending in the Superior
Court of Justice of Ontario, and in October 2018 the Superior Court
of Justice of Quebec entered an order staying the case pending in
that court for one year. In Israel, both consumer class action
lawsuits were filed in the District Court of Haifa. The Supreme
Court of Israel stayed the first case pending disposition of an
appeal by one of Intel’s co-defendants of an order by the
District Court of Haifa. Intel filed a motion to stay the second
case, which is scheduled for hearing in November 2018.

In the securities class action litigation, the lead securities
class action plaintiffs, who purport to represent classes of
acquirers of Intel stock between October 27, 2017 and January 9,
2018, generally allege that Intel and certain officers violated
securities laws by making statements about Intel's products that
were revealed to be false or misleading by the disclosure of the
security vulnerabilities. The securities class actions have been
consolidated and are pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California. Defendants moved to
dismiss those actions on various grounds, and a hearing on that
motion has been scheduled for November 2018.

Intel said, "Additional lawsuits and claims may be asserted on
behalf of customers and shareholders seeking monetary damages or
other related relief. We dispute the claims described above and
intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Given the procedural
posture and the nature of these cases, including that the
proceedings are in the early stages, that alleged damages have not
been specified, that uncertainty exists as to the likelihood of a
class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class
or classes if certified, and that there are significant factual and
legal issues to be resolved, we are unable to make a reasonable
estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, that
might arise from these matters."

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.


INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Continues to Defend Connecticut Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers Group, 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 class action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a
purported class action complaint against  Interactive Brokers LLC
(IB LLC), Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. (IBG, Inc.), and Thomas
Frank, PhD, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief
Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut. The complaint alleges that the purported class of IB
LLC's customers were harmed by alleged “flaws” in the
computerized system used to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions
in customer brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The
complaint seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory damages
and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order
granting the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety, and without providing plaintiff leave to amend. On
September 28, 2017, plaintiff appealed to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On September 26, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal
of plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and commercially
unreasonable liquidation but vacated and remanded back to the
District Court plaintiff's claims for negligence.

The Company expects that further proceedings will take place in the
District Court at which the Court will consider whether plaintiff
can assert negligence claims under Connecticut law based on the
facts alleged.

The Company believes that after such proceedings the District Court
again will dismiss the negligence claims. Regardless of the
ultimate outcome of the motion to dismiss, the Company does not
believe that a purported class action is appropriate given the
great differences in portfolios, markets and many other
circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any particular
customer's margin-deficient account.

Interactive Brokers said, "IB LLC and the related defendants intend
to continue to defend themselves vigorously against the case and,
consistent with past practice in connection with this type of
unwarranted action, any potential claims for counsel fees and
expenses incurred in defending the case shall be fully pursued
against the plaintiff."

Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. operates as an automated
electronic broker in approximately 120 electronic exchanges and
market centers worldwide. It specializes in executing and clearing
trades in securities, futures, foreign exchange instruments, bonds,
and mutual funds. The company provides electronic execution and
clearing services. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. was founded in
1977 and is headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut.


ITALY: Journalist Mulls Class Action Against Luigi Di Maio
----------------------------------------------------------
ANSA reports that an Italian journalist is suing for defamation the
leader and a bigwig of the ruling anti-establishment 5-Star
Movement (M5S) for allegedly slandering Italian journalists after
Rome Mayor Virginia Raggi was cleared of lying over an
appointment.

Palermo-based Franco Viviano also proposed a class-action lawsuit
by all Italian journalists against M5S leader Luigi Di Maio, who
called reporters of the Raggi case "dirty low-down jackals", and
former No.2 Alessandro Di Battista who called them "prostitutes and
hacks".

The M5S have long had a confrontational stance with most of the
Italian media but observers said their invective has now reached
new heights after Raggi was acquitted saying two years of
"mud-slinging" had ended.

Mr. Viviano said "I've been doing this job for decades, also
risking a lot, but always to inform the public.

"Therefore I have decided to sue Luigi Di Maio and Alessandro Di
Battista for the offensive remarks towards journalists who still
believe in this work".

He added: "We will promote a class action lawsuit against those who
denigrate and offend all honest journalists". [GN]


ITHACA COLLEGE: Camacho Disabilities Act Suit Filed in NY
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ithaca College. The
case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ithaca College, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-10690 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018).

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

Ithaca College is a private, nonsectarian, liberal arts college in
Ithaca, New York. The college was founded by William Egbert in 1892
as a conservatory of music and is set against the backdrop of the
city of Ithaca, Cayuga Lake, waterfalls, and gorge.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


JACKSONVILLE, FL: Court Denies Bid for Sanctions in ADA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SCOTT MONACO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
JACKSONVILLE, Defendant, Case No. 3:09-cv-1169-J-32PDB (M.D. Fla.),
Judge Timothy J. Corrigan of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, (i) denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. Section
1927; and (ii) granted Bogen Law Group, P.A.'s Motion to Withdraw
as Counsel.

The cause is before the Court on two motions.  On June 26, 2018,
the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Sanctions against the City
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1927.  In the Motion for Sanctions,
the Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to sanctions because
the City unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied these proceedings
causing the Plaintiffs to incur excess attorney's fees and costs.
The City filed a response in opposition to the motion for sanctions
on July 10, 2018.

In addition, on July 2, 2018, the Plaintiffs' sole remaining
counsel, Bogen Law Group, P.A., filed a Motion to Withdraw.
Specifically, Bogen Law Group requests that the Court permit it to
withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiffs except as to the prosecution
of the Motion for Sanctions.  In addition, the counsel requests
that the Plaintiffs be given 30 days to seek out their own counsel
before the case is closed.

The Plaintiffs filed the case on Dec. 2, 2009, alleging that they
were excluded from the City's Retirement System because of their
actual or perceived disabilities in violation of the ADA.  On March
1, 2010, they moved to certify the case as a class action.  The
City agreed to allow the case to proceed as a class action, and by
all appearances the case was moving toward settlement.  When the
parties were unable to reach a settlement agreement, the City began
to contest the case and lengthy litigation ensued.  Eventually, the
matter came before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment,
and on Sept. 30, 2014, the Court entered an Order granting the
Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs'
class action claims, and denying the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for
Summary Judgment.  Having found that the ADA class action claim
failed on the merits, the Court ordered that the case would proceed
no further as a class action.

On Aug. 31, 2015, the Court entered a Partial Final Judgment Under
Rule 54(b) in favor of the City and against the Plaintiff Class,
and the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal.  The Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals issued an Opinion affirming the Court's Order on
Nov. 23, 2016, and a month later entered its decision as the
Judgment of the Court of Appeals.

At that time, the Court noted that prior to appellate review, the
Plaintiffs had expressed their intention to proceed with the
individual claims of the named Plaintiffs and potentially, the
individual claims of other class members.  As such, on Jan. 4,
2017, the Court entered an Order directing the parties to file a
joint notice detailing how the case should proceed.

On March 31, 2017, the parties filed a Joint Notice to Court
Regarding Intention to Proceed.  In the Joint Notice, the
Plaintiffs' counsel stated that while they believed the case should
proceed on an individual basis with the named Plaintiffs and former
class members, they do not have the staff or resources necessary to
represent the potentially large number of the Plaintiffs who may
pursue their individual claims.  The Plaintiffs' counsel
represented to the Court that they were seeking substitute counsel,
and failing that, would seek to withdraw.  As such, the Court
entered an Order on April 17, 2017, directing the Plaintiffs to
file a notice indicating how they intend to proceed in the action
on June 15, 2017.

In the months that followed, this pattern continued.  On June 15,
2017, the Plaintiffs had still been unable to secure new counsel.
They requested that they and Bogen Law Group be given an additional
60 days within which to secure new counsel to present any
individual claims to the Court.  The Court then entered an Order
directing the Plaintiffs to file a notice in 60 days informing the
Court of the status of their search for counsel and whether they
still intend to proceed with the case.

On Aug. 28, 2017, Plaintiffs stated that Bogen Law has attempted to
secure new counsel to represent the individual Plaintiffs who wish
to pursue their claims before the Court, but has been unable to do
so.  On Sept. 20, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Notice
of Intent to Move for Leave to Withdraw explaining that as a result
of Hurricane Irma, they would need additional time to file their
requests for leave to withdraw or voluntarily dismiss the action.
The Plaintiffs indicated that they would file such requests by Oct.
9, 2017.

Despite the representations in the August and September Notices,
Bogen Law failed to file a motion for leave to withdraw from the
case, or to voluntarily dismiss the action. Accordingly, on April
19, 2018, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiffs to show
cause why the Court should not dismiss the case for failure to
prosecute.  In response, Plaintiffs advised the Court that Bogen
Law Group, P.A. was in the process of securing substitute counsel
to take over the litigation and requested an additional thirty days
to "take action necessary to prosecute the case.  The Court granted
this request and gave Plaintiffs until July 2, 2018, to file a
notice advising the Court how they intend to proceed.

In all this time, Plaintiffs made no mention of a motion for
sanctions.  Thus, it was much to the Court's surprise when on June
26, 2018, over three and a half years after the Court's Summary
Judgment Order, two years and nearly ten months after entry of the
Partial Final Judgment, and over one and a half years after the
resolution of the appeal, the Plaintiffs filed the Motion for
Sanctions.  In the Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiffs make the rather
audacious argument that by not opposing the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, and instead consenting to the Plaintiffs'
request for a class action, the City unreasonably and vexatiously
multiplied these proceedings.  The Plaintiffs' Motion appears to be
premised on their mistaken belief that, in response to the City's
arguments at summary judgment, the Court decertified the class in
its Summary Judgment Order.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs argue that had the City opposed class
certification in 2010, the Court would have ruled in 2010 that the
case could not have proceeded as a class action rather than in 2014
after four years of discovery, motions and other judicial and
non-judicial activities related to the prosecution of the case as a
class action.

Judge finds this argument flawed for two reasons.  First, the
Plaintiffs' Motion is premised on arguments the City made in the
summary judgment briefing as well as the Court's rulings set forth
in the Sept. 30, 2014 Summary Judgment Order. As is plain from the
procedural history outlined, the Plaintiffs' Motion is entirely too
late.  Requesting sanctions based on the outcome of the class claim
in the case nearly four years after the resolution of that claim is
plainly unreasonable.  The Plaintiffs offer no explanation as to
why they waited until June 26, 2018, to file their motion for
sanctions.  The Plaintiffs had all the information they needed to
make their argument as of Sept. 30, 2014, when the Court ruled on
the summary judgment motions, or at the latest, on Nov. 23, 2016,
when the Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling.  Accordingly, the
Motion for Sanctions is due to be denied as untimely.

Moreover, even if the Motion for Sanctions had been timely filed,
it is without merit as the Motion is premised on a misunderstanding
of the Court's Summary Judgment Order.  Thus, as Plaintiffs' Motion
for Sanctions is both untimely and based on a misapprehension of
the record in the case, the Judge finds that it is due to be
denied.

Finally, the Judge turns to Bogen Law Group, P.A.'s Motion to
Withdraw.  The Counsel requests that the Court permit it to
withdraw, and allow the Plaintiffs an additional 30 days to seek
their own counsel before closing the case.  Finding good cause, the
Judge will grant the motion to withdraw and allow the Plaintiffs
one last period of time to commence prosecution of any individual
claims remaining in the action.  However, as a condition of this
withdrawal, he will require the counsel to notify each of his
clients of this final deadline and provide them with a copy of the
Order.

In accordance with the foregoing, Judge Corrigan denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions, and granted Bogen Law Group,
P.A.'s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel subject to the conditions set
forth.  On Dec. 3, 2018, Bogen Law Group, P.A. will notify each of
its clients of their final opportunity to pursue the action,
provide them with a copy of this Order, and file a certification
with the Court that it has done so.  The Plaintiffs will have up to
and including Jan. 25, 2019, to indicate their intent to proceed in
the action.  If neither an attorney, nor any party proceeding pro
se, has filed a notice by that date, the Court will dismiss the
case for failure to prosecute without further notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/xGn49d from Leagle.com.

Scott Monaco, Brian Nicholson, Bruce Foisey, Valarie McCray,
Stephen Foster, George Carrasquillo, Christy Sames, Amy Nichols,
Ernest Haynes, Jr., Bobby Haga, Steven Mixon, Patrick Green, Thomas
Collins, Deshon Edgerton, James Thigpen, Yvonne Wilson, Kenneth
Vaughn, Jose Guerra, Joshua Rabe, Travell Thomas, Joshua Oliver,
Chris Prohaska, Donald Boston, Tyler Baker, James Chafen, David
Thies, Jr., Kenneth Tanner, Lyle Nelson, Marie Horton, Jason
Tranumn, Daniel Hysler, IV, Martin Sattler, III & George Knight,
Plaintiffs, represented by Mark David Bogen -- Mark@condolaw.com --
Bogen Law Group, PA, Mark S. Willis -- mwillis@srkw-law.com --
Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, PC, Michael Bogen , Bogen Law
Group, PA & Willie Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson &
Gary, PL.

City of Jacksonville, a Florida municipality, Defendant,
represented by Adina Teodorescu, Office of General Counsel, Carol
Mirando , Office of General Counsel, Craig D. Feiser, Office of
General Counsel & David J. D'Agata, School Board of Clay County.

Lynette Clinch, Movant, represented by Mark David Bogen, Bogen Law
Group, PA, Mark S. Willism Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willie
Edward Gary, Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson & Gary, PL.


JUUL LABS: Faces Class Action Over Vaping Products
--------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Juul Labs defrauds the public about the nicotine levels in its
vaping products, and their "narcotic," addictive and dangerous
effects, a class claims in Miami-Dade County Court. [GN]


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Settlement in NY Suit Awaits Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, 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 28, 2018, that the terms of the
proposed settlement in the case entitled, In Re: SAIC, Inc.
Securities Litigation, remains subject to court approval.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions against the Company and several
former executives relating to the Company's contract to develop and
implement an automated time and attendance and workforce management
system for certain agencies of the City of New York ("CityTime").

One case was withdrawn and two cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York in In Re:
SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation. The consolidated securities
complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that the
Company and individual defendants made misleading statements or
omissions about the Company's revenues, operating income and
internal controls in connection with disclosures relating to the
CityTime project.

The plaintiffs sought to recover from the Company and the
individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages class
members allegedly incurred by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated
price.

The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice
and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs then appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which issued
an opinion affirming in part, and vacating in part, the District
Court's ruling.

The Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S.
Supreme Court, which was granted on March 27, 2017. The District
Court granted the Company's request to stay all proceedings,
including discovery, pending the outcome at the Supreme Court. In
September 2017, the parties engaged in mediation resulting in an
agreement to settle all remaining claims for an immaterial amount
to be paid by the Company. The amounts payable by the Company are
covered by an insurance policy. The terms of the proposed
settlement remain subject to court approval.

Leidos Holdings, Inc. provides services and solutions in the
defense, intelligence, civil, and health markets primarily in the
United States. The company operates through three segments: Defense
Solutions, Civil, and Health. The company was founded in 1969 and
is headquartered in Reston, Virginia.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Bid to Stay Moses Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation 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 motion to stay
the class action captioned as, Moses v. LendingClub Corp., is
pending.

In December 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the State of Nevada (Moses v. LendingClub Corp.,
2:17-cv-03071-JAD-PAL) alleging violations of the federal Fair
Credit Reporting Act. The complaint alleges that the Company
improperly accessed the credit report of the plaintiff, who had
formerly had a loan serviced by the Company.

The complaint further alleges, on information and belief, that the
Company improperly accessed credit reports of other similarly
situated individuals. The lawsuit is in its early stages and the
Company denies the allegations of the complaint and will vigorously
defend against the allegations.

The Company has filed a motion to stay the class action on the
grounds that the plaintiff has waived the right to bring a class
action and must individually arbitrate any claim. The motion is
pending.

The Company denies and will vigorously defend against the
allegations.

LendingClub Corporation operates an online marketplace platform
that connects borrowers and investors in the United States. Its
marketplace facilitates various types of loan products for
consumers and small businesses, including unsecured personal loans,
unsecured education and patient finance loans, auto refinance
loans, and unsecured small business loans. The company also
provides an opportunity to the investors to invest in a range of
loans based on term and credit. LendingClub Corporation was founded
in 2006 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


LENDINGCLUB SECURITIES: Cal. Consolidated Securities Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation 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 consolidated
securities class action lawsuit in California has been dismissed
with prejudice.

Cases were filed in California Superior Court, naming as defendants
the Company, current and former directors, certain officers, and
the underwriters in the December 2014 initial public offering (the
IPO). All of these actions were consolidated into a single action
(Consolidated State Court Action), entitled In re LendingClub
Corporation Shareholder Litigation, No. CIV537300. The Court
ultimately granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and a
trial date was set for October 2018.

In May 2016, two related putative securities class actions
(entitled Evellard v. LendingClub Corporation, et al., No.
16-CV-2627-WHA, and Wertz v. LendingClub Corporation, et al., No.
16-CV-2670-WHA) were filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the
Company and certain of its officers and directors; these matters
were subsequently consolidated into a single action. Again, the
Court ultimately granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. In the order granting class certification, the Court
also granted a motion by the plaintiffs in the Consolidated State
Court Action to intervene in the federal action for the purposes of
settlement.

Following court-ordered mediation in November 2017 and January
2018, the Company agreed to a preliminary settlement in which the
Company would pay a total of $125.0 million in exchange for a
dismissal of both the federal and state securities class actions
with prejudice. Of that amount, $47.75 million has been paid from
insurance. The Court issued an order granting final approval of the
settlement on July 19, 2018.

To satisfy the payment obligations, insurance carriers directly
paid $38.2 million to a settlement administrator in March 2018 and
an additional $9.6 million in April 2018. The Company paid $14.75
million to the settlement administrator in April 2018 and paid the
remaining $62.5 million in July 2018.

Following the notice to class members and the payment of funds, on
September 24, 2018, the Court ordered that all claims be dismissed
with prejudice. Settlement proceeds will be distributed to members
of the impacted class.

The Company was self-insured for the deductible amount under its
director and officers' liability insurance policy for these
matters. The Company exceeded the deductible in 2016 and was
reimbursed by insurance carriers for costs related to the
litigations and investigations prior to the settlement. As a result
of such reimbursed costs and the amount paid in the settlement, the
policy limits under available insurance policies have been
exhausted.

These matters have now been resolved and the claims dismissed with
prejudice.

LendingClub Corporation operates an online marketplace platform
that connects borrowers and investors in the United States. Its
marketplace facilitates various types of loan products for
consumers and small businesses, including unsecured personal loans,
unsecured education and patient finance loans, auto refinance
loans, and unsecured small business loans. The company also
provides an opportunity to the investors to invest in a range of
loans based on term and credit. LendingClub Corporation was founded
in 2006 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


LOGMEIN INC: Continues to Defend Wasson Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
LogMeIn, 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 securities class action suit
entitled, Wasson v. LogMeIn, Inc. et al.

On August 20, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was initiated
by purported stockholders of the Company in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against the Company and
certain of its officers, entitled Wasson v. LogMeIn, Inc. et al.,
(Case No. 2:18-cv-07285).

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged misstatements
or omissions concerning renewal rates for the Company's
subscription contracts. The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
fees and costs.

LogMeIn said, "The Company believes the lawsuit lacks merit and
intends to defend it vigorously. Given the inherent
unpredictability of litigation and the fact that this litigation is
still in its early stages, the Company is unable to predict the
outcome of this litigation or reasonably estimate a possible loss
or range of loss associated with this litigation at this time."

LogMeIn, Inc. provides a portfolio of cloud-based communication and
collaboration, identity and access, and customer engagement and
support solutions. It enables people to connect with each other
worldwide to drive meaningful interactions, deepen relationships,
and create better outcomes for individuals and businesses. he
company was formerly known as 3am Labs, Inc. and changed its name
to LogMeIn, Inc. in March 2006. LogMeIn, Inc. was founded in 2003
and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with additional
locations in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.


LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Garcia Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL GARCIA, an individual, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, a public entity, et al., Defendants, Case No.
CV 09-8943-DMG (SHx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dolly M. Gee of the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California granted (i)
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement, and
(ii) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs.

Among other thigs, the Judge finds that rhe Class Settlement
Agreement provides meaningful relief to the certified Class,
including: (i) requiring the  California Department of Education
("CDE") to invite the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to
subscribe to any Listserv that CDE uses to communicate information
about special education to and amongst stakeholders; (ii) mandating
that CDE disseminate a Guidance Letter to all special education
local plan areas ("SELPAs") and local educational agencies ("LEAs")
in California informing them of their obligations to provide
special education and related services to eligible students in
county jails in compliance with California and federal law; (iii)
mandating that CDE post the Guidance Letter to its website; and
(iv) requiring CDE to conduct discussions with all CDE personnel
within the Special Education Division with responsibilities for
complaint investigations and/or monitoring regarding the legal
obligations of SELPAs and LEAs to provide special education and
related services to students detained in county jails.

She finds that an award of fees and expenses of $90,000 to the
Plaintiffs' Counsel as compensation for their work on the lawsuit,
as provided for in the Settlement Agreement, is warranted.

Therefore, Judge Gee, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(e), granted final approval of the Class Settlement Agreement,
incorporatee the terms of the Class Settlement Agreement into her
Order as though fully set forth therein, and ordered all parties to
perform all of their obligations thereunder.

She awarded fees and expenses to the Plaintiffs' counsel in the
amount of $90,000, which will be paid in accordance with the Class
Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Km6VDe from Leagle.com.

Michael Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Mumford Perry --
dperry@milbank.com -- Milbank Tweed Hadley and McCloy LLP, Linda S.
Dakin-Grimm -- ldakin-grimm@milbank.com -- Milbank Tweed Hadley and
McCloy LLP, Samir Lalit Vora -- svora@milbank.com -- Milbank Tweed
Hadley and McCloy LLP, Anna Mercedes Rivera --
anna.rivera@drlcenter.org -- Disability Rights Legal Center &
Maronel Barajas -- mbarajas_law@yahoo.com -- Disability Rights
Legal Center.

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, a public entity,
Defendant, represented by Justin W. Clark -- jclark@lbaclaw.com --
Lawrence Beach Allen and Choi PC, Paul B. Beach --
pbeach@lbaclaw.com -- Lawrence Beach Allen and Choi PC & Laurie N.
Adamson, Office of Attorney General California Department of
Justice.

Leroy Baca, in his official capacity as Sheriff of the County of
Los Angeles & The County of Los Angeles, Defendants, represented by
Justin W. Clark, Lawrence Beach Allen and Choi PC & Paul B. Beach ,
Lawrence Beach Allen and Choi PC.

Los Angeles County Office of Education, Defendant, represented by
Vibiana Andrade, Los Angeles County Office of Education & Karli
Eisenberg, Office of Attorney General California Department of
Justice.

Darlene P. Robles, in her official capacity as Superintendent of
Los Angeles County Office of Education, Defendant, represented by
Vibiana Andrade, Los Angeles County Office of Education.

Ramon C. Cortines, in his official capacity as Superintendent of
Los Angeles Unified School District, Defendant, represented by
Barrett K. Green -- bgreen@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Daniel
L. Gonzalez , Littler Mendelson, Diane H. Pappas, Los Angeles
Unified School District Office of the General Counsel, Donald A.
Erwin, Los Angeles Unified School District Office of the General
Counsel & Mampre R. Pomakian , Los Aneles Unified School District
Office of General Counsel.

Hacienda La Puente Unified School District & Barbara Nakaoka, in
her official capacity as Superintendent of Hacienda La Puente
Unified School District, Defendants, represented by Jack Byron
Clarke, Jr. , Best Best and Krieger.

The California Department of Education, a public entity, Defendant,
represented by Ismael A. Castro, Office of Attorney General
California Department of Justice & Julie Weng-Gutierrez, Office of
Attorney General California Department of Justice.

Jack O'Connell, in his official capacity as Superintendent of
Public Instruction for the State of California, Defendant,
represented by Ismael A. Castro, Office of Attorney General
California Department of Justice, Julie Weng-Gutierrez, Office of
Attorney General California Department of Justice & Laurie N.
Adamson, Office of Attorney General California Department of
Justice.

Phyllis Wei-Erh Cheng, Mediator (ADR Panel), pro se.

Ramon C. Cortines, in his official capacity as Superintendent of
Los Angeles Unified School District, Cross Claimant, represented by
Barrett K. Green , Littler Mendelson, Daniel L. Gonzalez , Littler
Mendelson, Diane H. Pappas , Los Angeles Unified School District
Office of the General Counsel, Donald A. Erwin , Los Angeles
Unified School District Office of the General Counsel & Mampre R.
Pomakian , Los Angeles Unified School District Office of General
Counsel.

Los Angeles Unified School District, Cross Claimant, represented by
Barrett K. Green , Littler Mendelson, Daniel L. Gonzalez , Littler
Mendelson & Donald A. Erwin , Los Angeles Unified School District
Office of the General Counsel.

The California Department of Education, a public entity, Cross
Defendant, represented by Ismael A. Castro , Office of Attorney
General California Department of Justice & Julie Weng-Gutierrez ,
Office of Attorney General California Department of Justice.

Jack O'Connell, in his official capacity as Superintendent of
Public Instruction for the State of California, Cross Defendant,
represented by Ismael A. Castro , Office of Attorney General
California Department of Justice, Julie Weng-Gutierrez , Office of
Attorney General California Department of Justice & Laurie N.
Adamson , Office of Attorney General California Department of
Justice.


MARRIOTT: Couple Files Class Action Over Hotel Workers' Strike
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Associated Press, a North Carolina couple has
filed a class-action lawsuit saying they should have been warned
about a Hawaii hotel workers' strike before their honeymoon.

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports Dr. Ovais Inamullah and Sana
Khalique booked a five-night stay at The Royal Hawaiian Hotel in
Waikiki for more than $2,000. They say they weren't told of the
strike before arriving.

The lawsuit says they were still charged full price even though
there was no housekeeping, valet parking and other services.

Thousands of Marriott employees on Oahu and Maui have been on
strike since Oct. 8. They work at five properties operated by
Marriott. The properties are all owned by Kyo-ya Hotels and
Resorts.

A representative for Kyo-ya had no comment. Marriot didn't respond
to the newspaper's requests for comment. [GN]


MATLET GROUP: Iovinelli Suit Asserts WARN Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Iovinelli, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Matlet Group, LLC and Packaging Graphics,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00573 (D. R.I., October 17, 2018),
seeks collection of unpaid wages and benefits for sixty calendar
days pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act of 1988.

Matlet Group, LLC is in the commercial printing business, and
conducts business under the names The Matlet Group, Packaging
Graphics, Central Florida Press and NOVA Marketing Services.
Iovinelli was employed by Defendants as an Information Technology
Business Service Manager at Matlet's facility located at 60 Delta
Drive, Pawtucket, RI until his termination on October 9, 2018,
without cause as a consequence of the mass layoff and/or plant
closure on or about October 9, 2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard A. Sinapi, Esq.
     SINAPI LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD.
     2374 Post Road Suite 201
     Warwick, RI 02886
     Phone: (401) 739-9690
     Fax: (401) 739-9490
     Email: ras@sinapilaw.com

            - and -

     Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
     René S. Roupinian, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: (212) 245-1000
     Fax: (646) 509-2070
     Email: rsr@outtengolden.com
            jar@outtengolden.com


MATTEL INC: Dismissal of California Class Suit under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the plaintiff in a
consolidated class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California has taken an appeal from the
dismissal of the case.

A purported class action lawsuit is pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California
(consolidating Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System
v. Mattel, Inc., et al., filed June 27, 2017; and Lathe v. Mattel,
Inc., et al., filed July 6, 2017) against Mattel, Christopher A.
Sinclair, Richard Dickson, Kevin M. Farr, and Joseph B. Johnson
alleging federal securities laws violations in connection with
statements allegedly made by the defendants during the period
October 20, 2016 through April 20, 2017.

In general, the lawsuit asserts allegations that the defendants
artificially inflated Mattel's common stock price by knowingly
making materially false and misleading statements and omissions to
the investing public about retail customer inventory, the alignment
between point-of-sale and shipping data, and Mattel's overall
financial condition. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants'
conduct caused the plaintiff and other stockholders to purchase
Mattel common stock at artificially inflated prices.

On May 24, 2018, the Court granted Mattel's motion to dismiss the
class action lawsuit, and on June 25, 2018, the plaintiff filed a
motion informing the Court he would not be filing an amended
complaint. Judgment was entered in favor of Mattel and the
individual defendants on September 19, 2018. The plaintiff filed
his Notice of Appeal on October 16, 2018.

Mattel, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets a range of toy
products worldwide. The company operates in three segments: North
America, International, and American Girl. Mattel, Inc. was founded
in 1945 and is headquartered in El Segundo, California.


MCDONALDS: Judge Set to Decide on Case in Next Few Months
---------------------------------------------------------
Émilie Clavel, writing for Huffington Post, reports that a
proposed class-action lawsuit has been filed by a group of Quebec
parents against McDonald's, accusing the fast-food chain of
illegally marketing its popular "Happy Meals" to children under the
age of 13.

Filed on Nov. 6 at the Montreal courthouse, the lawsuit alleges
that McDonald's is breaking a provincial law, which prohibits any
form of publicity aimed at children, by showcasing the Happy Meal
toys on displays placed at the kids' eye-level. The plaintiffs
argue that the displays encourage children to ask their parents to
buy them a Happy Meal.

The proposed class action comes just as a bill restricting
marketing of unhealthy foods to children is set to undergo its
final vote in Canada's Senate. Introduced by Sen. Greene Raine in
2016, Bill S-228 draws its inspiration from the Quebec
legislation.

Article 248 of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act states that "no
person may make use of commercial advertising directed at persons
under thirteen years of age."

Currently in other Canadian provinces, advertising to children is
only regulated by the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising
Initiative, a voluntary program in which McDonald's takes part.

Not a 'direct incitement,' says McDonald's The definition of what
constitutes advertising will be at the heart of the proposed class
action, since the language of the Quebec law is pretty vague.
According to the text, "to advertise" means "to prepare, utilize,
distribute, publish or broadcast an advertisement, or to cause it
to be distributed, published or broadcast."

Quoted in La Presse, one of McDonald's' lawyers emphasized that the
legislation makes certain exceptions when it comes to store
windows, displays and packaging. Douglas Mitchell argued that the
fact the toys are placed in direct view of the children does not
constitute "direct incitement" to ask for a Happy Meal. He believes
the displays are no different than cereal boxes with free toys,
which are legally sold in grocery stores.

Justice Pierre-C. Gagnon of the Superior Court of Quebec should
decide in the next few months whether to allow the class action
against McDonald's to go forward.

In February, McDonald's promised it would make some of its Happy
Meals healthier before 2022. [GN]


MDL 2445: Expert Discovery Ongoing in Suboxone Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that expert
discovery ongoing in In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride
and Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2445.

On September 22, 2016, forty-one states and the District of
Columbia, or the States, brought suit against Indivior and the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust
statutes and state unfair trade and consumer protection laws
relating to Indivior's launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film in 2010.


After filing, the case was consolidated for pre-trial purposes with
the In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone)
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2445, or the Suboxone MDL, a
multidistrict litigation relating to putative class actions on
behalf of various private plaintiffs against Indivior relating to
its launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film.

While the company was not named as a defendant in the original
Suboxone MDL cases, the action brought by the States alleges that
the company participated in an antitrust conspiracy with Indivior
in connection with Indivior's launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film
and engaged in related conduct in violation of federal and state
antitrust law. The company moved to dismiss the States' conspiracy
claims, and by order dated October 30, 2017, the Court denied the
company's motion to dismiss. The company filed an answer denying
the States' claims on November 20, 2017. The fact discovery period
closed July 27, 2018, but the parties agreed to conduct certain
fact depositions in August 2018. The case is proceeding to expert
discovery, which is scheduled to close May 3, 2019.

Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
focuses on identifying, developing, and commercializing various
products to address unmet medical needs. Aquestive Therapeutics,
Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Warren, New
Jersey.


MOOSEJAW: Faces Class Action for "Wiretapping" Website Users
------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Lopez, writing for Law.com, reports that Moosejaw, a retail
company specializing in outdoor garb, is being sued for
"wiretapping" computers of its website visitors.

Brought by California plaintiff Jeremiah Revitch, the complaint,
authored by L. Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- of the
boutique Bursor & Fisher, alleges Moosejaw and fellow defendant
NaviStone Inc., a data broker, violated California privacy law when
they "secretly embedded" computer code on Moosejaw.com "to
de-anonymize and identify" people visiting the website.

These "wiretaps," the plaintiff claims, "observe visitors'
keystrokes, mouse clicks and other electronic communications in
real time" to gather personally identifying information on
anonymous users and unveil their addresses, names and information
on browsing habits, regardless of whether a purchase is made.

According to the complaint, NaviStone requests e-commerce partners
such as Moosejaw add a line of code to their websites that creates
a "back door" for the data broker to execute its own remote code
that "functions as a wiretap" by allowing PII such as IP addresses
be sent to NaviStone. The complaint also claims the code "scans the
visitor's computer for data files that could reveal the visitor's
identity."

The code will "spy on the visitor as he or she browses the website"
and redirect collected information to NaviStone. "This real-time
interception and transmission of visitors' electronic
communications begins as soon as the visitor loads Moosejaw.com
into their web browser," according to the complaint. "NaviStone
then uses this information to attempt to de-anonymize website
visitors."

NaviStone's actions were documented in 2017 by Gizmodo, which
reported that the company was nabbing data on users filling out
info on websites provided by companies such as Quicken Loans and
Acurian Health regardless of whether a user clicked "submit." Ryan
Calo, a law professor at University of Washington, told Gizmodo
that sending their info regardless of whether they clicked was a
clear violation of user expectation, and that could violate unfair
and deceptive practices law.

NaviStone and Moosejaw, Mr. Fisher notes in the complaint,
"intended to commit tortious acts including disclosures of the
intercepted information" by embedding the backdoor code on
Moosejaw.com, which in addition to violating California's Invasion
of Privacy also renders them out of bounds with privacy rights
granted by the California Constitution, as well as California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law.

"None of these actions was undertaken in the ordinary course of
business. On the contrary, these actions are contrary to the
legitimate expectations of website visitors, and are contrary to
established industry norms," Fisher adds.

The Moosejaw litigation isn't Bursor & Fisher's first foray into a
privacy suit. The firm was appointed by Judge Richard Seeborg as
interim class counsel in a nationwide class action against Facebook
over the company's alleged collection of user call and text history
via apps without consent. The firm also represented plaintiffs in a
suit against Hearst Communications, alleging the media company
violated Michigan privacy law by selling subscriber information
without consent.

Mr. Fisher is joined by colleagues Joel D. Smith --
jsmith@bursor.com -- and Frederik Klorczyk III --
fklorczyk@bursor.com -- neither of whom responded to requests for
comment. Partner Scott Bursor -- scott@bursor.com -- is also listed
in the complaint.

Moosejaw and NaviStone didn't respond to requests for comment.
[GN]


MORE NATURALLY: Soto Sues over Unauthorized Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
Nelson Soto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. More Naturally, Inc. d/b/a More Hair
Naturally, a California corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-09384 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 2, 2018), seeks to secure redress
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a corporation that
sells natural topical treatments for thinning hair. To promote its
services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming
thousands of consumers in the process. This case arises from
Defendant's unauthorized text messages to cellular subscribers who
never provided Defendant with prior express consent, as well as
cellular subscribers who expressly requested not to receive
Defendant's text messages.

As a result, Defendant caused thousands of text messages to be sent
to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members who
either never provided Defendant with consent to contact them or who
had revoked any prior express consent. The Defendant caused
Plaintiff and Class Members injuries, including invasion of their
privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass,
and conversion, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and Proposed Class:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Andrea Gold, Esq.
          Annick Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L. Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  agold@tzlegal.com
                  apersinger@tzlegal.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

NHL: Reaches $18.9MM Settlement with Retired Players
----------------------------------------------------
The Salem News' Stephen Whyno, The Associated Press' John Wawrow
and Amy Forliti, report that the National Hockey League announced a
tentative $18.9 million settlement on Nov. 12 with more than 300
retired players who sued the league and accused it of failing to
protect them from head injuries or warning them of the risks
involved with playing.

The lawsuit, consolidated in federal court in Minnesota, was by far
the largest facing the league. The NHL, as it has for years, did
not acknowledge any liability for the players' claims in the
proposed settlement and can terminate the deal if all 318 players
or their estates don't elect to participate.

The settlement is significantly less than the billion-dollar
agreement reached between the NFL and its former players on the
same issue of head injuries. Each player who opts in would receive
$22,000 and could be eligible for up to $75,000 in medical
treatment.

"The cash amount of $22,000, that's small, but we were always
looking for (medical) coverage to begin with," said former player
Reed Larson, who was among the first to sue the league over head
injuries that could lead to the brain disease Chronic Traumatic
Encephalopathy. "The bottom line is this is monitoring, testing and
hopefully help for players that will either have (CTE) now or could
get it in the future."

Players' attorney Stuart Davidson said he knows there will be
comparisons between the NHL and NFL settlements, even though they
differ drastically.

"When you have a defendant who has spent millions of dollars
litigating a case for four years to prove that nothing is wrong
with getting your brain bashed in, you can only get so far,"
Mr. Davidson told The Associated Press. "I think it's important for
players who have an opportunity to settle their case with the NHL
now to understand that before they get anything through a trial
against the NHL it's going to cost millions of dollars in experts
to get there, and that's going to have to be paid for before they
see a penny from any recovery, assuming they win."

An NHL spokesman said the league would not make any comment until
after the opt-in period of 75 days for players. There were 146
players who added their names to the lawsuit as plaintiffs between
November 2013 and this August and 172 more who joined as
claimants.

In addition to the cash payment, the settlement includes
neurological testing and assessment for players paid for by the
league; up to $75,000 in medical treatment for players who test
positive on two or more tests; and a "Common Good Fund" for retired
players in need, including those who did not participate in the
litigation, worth $2.5 million.

Pittsburgh star Sidney Crosby, who has dealt with concussion
problems throughout his career but is not involved in the lawsuit
that includes only retired players, told reporters after practice
the league, Players' Association and others must all have a role in
the issue.

"It's something as players that we know that risk," Crosby said.
"Obviously we know a lot more now than we did before, even a lot
more than we did when I had my first one. It's something you hope
they can mutually agree on. It's something that I think is
important from both sides."

Retired player Daniel Carcillo, one of the plaintiffs, urged
players not to accept the settlement. In a series of tweets , he
said players would be forced to see the same NHL and NHLPA doctors
to determine if they'd be eligible for treatment.

Mr. Carcillo also asked for Wayne Gretzky's thoughts: "I want him
to use his platform to help the men who protected him throughout
his career. Lack of pressure from former players is a direct result
of this insulting attempt at a settlement."

Charles Zimmerman, who was a lead attorney for players, said he was
most disappointed the lawsuit couldn't assure future benefits for
all retired players like in the NFL.

"I think it's a very appropriate result and a good outcome in a
very contested, hotly litigated matter," Mr. Zimmerman said. "The
main goal in the case was to get medical testing and treatment for
the players, something that the NHL wouldn't agree to for the four
years that we'd been litigating and that's what we achieved."

The settlement comes four months after a federal judge denied
class-action status for the retired players, a significant victory
for the league in the lawsuit filed in November 2013. U.S. District
Judge Susan Richard Nelson in July denied class-action status,
citing "widespread differences" in state laws about medical
monitoring that would "present significant case management
difficulties."

The bid for class-action status would have created one group of all
living former NHL players and one group of all retired players
diagnosed with a neurological disease, disorder or condition. Had
Judge Nelson certified the class action, more than 5,000 former
players would have been able to join the case.

"It's not surprising after the NHL prevailed on the class-action
motion that there would have been movements in this direction,"
NHLPA executive director Don Fehr told reporters in Toronto. "I'm
glad for the parties that it's all over. Hopefully people can go on
with their lives and now we can perhaps deal with these issues with
the NHL without having to worry about the effect on the
litigation."

Mr. Davidson called Judge Nelson's decision a "watershed moment"
for the case and that players lost leverage as a result.

"It severely limited the damages to the NHL owners and benefits to
the NHL players," Vanderbilt University sports economic professor
John Vrooman wrote in an email to the AP. "This decision
essentially forced the 140 (plus) players involved in the suit to
settle and prevented the participation of all other potential
litigants. So it will seem that both sides 'won' in what was really
a lopsided victory for the owners. It's just that all of the owners
won by gaining current and future protection from damages and a
minor fraction of the players won something that they would have
zero chance in obtaining in isolation versus the league."

Settlement talks ramped back up in July with an agreement reached
Nov. 7.

Bettman and Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly have, on multiple
occasions, said the lawsuit had no merit.

"When it comes to focusing on concussions and trying to understand
them and how to treat them, we've been leaders in the field,"
Bettman told the AP in May. "And that gets completely lost in the
rhetoric of the litigation, and I don't like discussing the
litigation. There is a sense because it gets sensationalized that
the reality of our position with player safety is somehow at odds
with the reality of the science and the medicine and it's not true.
We study it very closely."

The NFL settlement covers more than 20,000 retired players, and
lawyers expect payouts to top $1.5 billion over 65 years. As of
last month, the NFL concussion lawsuit claims panel has approved
more than $500 million in awards and paid out $330 million. [GN]


NICE GROUP: Sanchez Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NICE GROUP USA, INC., the Defendant,
Case 5:18-cv-01154 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 2, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a
production supervisor. Mr. Sanchez and other similarly situated
manufacturing employees were paid a salary but no overtime
compensation when working more than 40 hours a week and were
misclassified as exempt, the lawsuit says.

Nice originally paid Sanchez hourly with overtime. However,
starting in 2014, Nice began paying Sanchez a salary without any
change to his job duties and job title. Sanchez and the Class
Members worked for Nice as employees over the past three years in
Texas. As a result of Nice's pay policies, Sanchez and the Class
Members were denied the overtime pay required by federal law, the
lawsuit says.

Nice Group distributes home automation systems.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 877-8788
          Facsimile: 71 -877-8065

NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Securities Suits Filed in New York & Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nielsen Holdings plc 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 is
facing three putative class action suits in connection with the
company's violations on certain provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

In August 2018, two putative stockholder class action lawsuits were
filed in the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants
Nielsen, Chief Executive Officer Dwight Mitchell Barns, and former
Chief Financial Officer Jamere Jackson. A third lawsuit, which
alleges similar facts but also names other defendants, including
former Chief Operating Officer Stephen Hasker, was filed in the
Northern District of Illinois in September 2018.

These lawsuits assert violations of certain provisions of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on allegedly false and
materially misleading statements relating to the outlook of
Nielsen's Buy segment, Nielsen's preparedness for changes in global
data privacy laws and Nielsen's reliance on third-party data.
Nielsen expects that an amended or consolidated complaint relating
to these cases will be filed after appointment of a lead plaintiff
and intends to file a motion to dismiss the amended or consolidated
complaint. Nielsen intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously.

Nielsen Holdings SAID, "Based on currently available information,
Nielsen believes that it has meritorious defenses to these actions
and that their resolution is not likely to have a material adverse
effect on its business, financial position, or results of
operations."

Nielsen Holdings plc, together with its subsidiaries, operates as
an information and measurement company. It operates through Buy and
Watch segments. Nielsen Holdings plc was founded in 1923 and is
headquartered in Oxford, the United Kingdom.


OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Bid to Dismiss Dextenza-Related Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ocular Therapeutix, 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 motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action suit related to DEXTENZA is
ongoing.

On July 7, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and certain of the Company's  current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, captioned Thomas Gallagher v. Ocular
Therapeutix, Inc, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-05011. The complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
Company's common stock between May 5, 2017 and July 6, 2017.

The complaint generally alleges that the Company and certain of the
Company's current and former officers violated Sections 10(b)
and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly
false and/or misleading statements concerning the Form 483 issued
by the FDA related to DEXTENZA and the Company's manufacturing
operations for DEXTENZA. The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees, and other costs.  

On July 14, 2017, an amended complaint was filed; the amended
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between May 5, 2017 and July
11, 2017, and otherwise includes allegations similar to those made
in the original complaint.

On July 12, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, captioned Dylan Caraker v. Ocular
Therapeutix, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-05095. The complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
Company's common stock between May 5, 2017 and July 6, 2017. The
complaint includes allegations similar to those made in the
Gallagher complaint, and seeks similar relief.

On August 3, 2017, a third putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, captioned Shawna Kim v. Ocular Therapeutix,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-05704. The complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's
common stock between March 10, 2016 and July 11, 2017. The
complaint includes allegations similar to those made in the
Gallagher complaint, and seeks similar relief.

On October 27, 2017, a magistrate judge for the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the
defendants' motion to transfer the above-referenced Gallagher,
Caraker, and Kim litigations to the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.  These matters were assigned the
following docket numbers in the District of Massachusetts:
1:17-cv-12288 (Gallagher), 1:17-cv-12146 (Caraker), and
1:17-cv-12286 (Kim).

On March 9, 2018, the court consolidated the three actions and
appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel for the
consolidated action. On May 7, 2018, co-lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint. The amended complaint
makes allegations similar to those in the original complaints,
against the same defendants, and seeks similar relief on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between March
10, 2016 and July 11, 2017.  The amended complaint generally
alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

On July 6, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  Plaintiffs' filed an opposition to
the motion to dismiss on September 4, 2018, and defendants filed a
reply on October 4, 2018.

The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend against these lawsuits.

Ocular Therapeutix, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the formulation, development, and commercialization of therapies
for diseases and conditions of the eye using its bioresorbable
hydrogel platform technology. The company was founded in 2006 and
is headquartered in Bedford, Massachusetts.


OHIO NATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Trailing Commissions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rita Raagas De Ramos, writing for Financial Advisor IQ, reports
that up in arms over Ohio National Financial Services' decision to
terminate variable annuities selling agreements with broker-dealers
and stop paying trailing commissions, an LPL Financial broker has
brought a class action suit against the firm. The suit reveals that
while some broker-dealer groups may be suffering heavy losses in
annuities trailing commissions, Morgan Stanley is still getting
preferential treatment from Ohio National.

Lawyers of Lance Browning filed the class action suit against The
Ohio National Life Insurance Company, Ohio National Life Insurance
Company and Ohio National Equities on Nov. 6 before the U.S.
District Court Southern District of Ohio Western Division.

"Ohio National is unlawfully trying to change the rules after the
game has already started," according to the complaint. Browning is
represented by Meyer Wilson -- a law firm dedicated solely to
investor claims and class and mass action suits -- and Carlile,
Patchen & Murphy.

FA-IQ reached out to Ohio National for this article but did not
receive a reply as of this writing.

On September 28, Ohio National sent a letter to broker-dealer firms
saying it was terminating its variable annuities selling agreements
with them effective December 12 and that it would no longer pay
trailing commissions stemming from annuities already in existence,
according to the complaint.

The class action suit is seeking an injunction to prevent Ohio
National from terminating its obligations to Browning and other
similarly situated individuals who acted as representatives in the
sale of the annuities or solicited the sale. The complaint notes
that the members or beneficiaries of the class action suit are
"likely in the thousands" and their identities can be determined
through Ohio National or broker-dealer records.

The class action suit also wants to obtain a declaratory relief
resolving Ohio National's future obligations to the selling
agreements.

While registered representatives like Browning are not named
parties in the selling agreements between Ohio National and the
broker-dealer firms, the agreement "makes clear they are the
intended beneficiaries of the contract," according to the
complaint.

The issuance of these policies involves four parties, according to
the complaint:

   -- Ohio National as the issuer
   -- a broker-dealer firm that has a selling agreement with Ohio
National, permitting it to sell the policies
   -- a securities representative who advises the customer about
the policy
   -- a customer who purchases the policy.

Dennis Concilla, Columbus, Ohio-based head of Carlile, Patchen &
Murphy's securities litigation and regulation practice group, tells
FA-IQ that Ohio National issued billions of dollars worth of
variable annuity policies with guaranteed income benefit riders.
Mr. Concilla is among the lawyers representing Browning.

According to Ohio National's 2017 annual report to policy holders,
the firm had $24.9 billion in annuity assets as of last year.

"Simple math tells you that's worth a tremendous amount of trailing
commissions," Mr. Concilla says, depending on how many basis points
in trailing commissions in specified in the selling agreements.

Browning has sold more than 100 Ohio National annuities that have
not yet been surrendered or annuitized by customers, according to
the complaint.

That's a "significant part of his business" that has generated
around $89,000 in annual trailing commissions for Browning for many
years, the complaint adds.

Incredibly, Ohio National has not even implemented this unfair and
improper policy evenly to all broker-dealers. It's continuing to
pay trailing commissions to its own captive broker-dealer, Ohio
National Equities and Morgan Stanley.

Class action complaint
Mr. Concilla says he has spoken to individual production groups of
brokers who say "they are losing upwards of $300,000 to $400,000 a
year" in trailing commissions.

"Ohio National has induced the sale of its policies by promising
annual, recurring commissions to the broker-dealers and, by
extension, the securities representatives," the complaint says.
"Customers have purchased these policies believing that they will
be able to rely on their trusted securities representatives to
advise them on how to manage the investments in the policy and
whether or when to annuitize or surrender the policy."

Despite making those promises, "Ohio National has announced that it
does not intend to hold up its end of the bargain -- it is refusing
to pay the promised recurring commissions, and thereby effectively
cutting off customers from receiving financial advice about these
policies from their trusted financial advisors," according to the
complaint.

The complaint notes that Browning is one of thousands of licensed
securities representatives who have sold variable annuities to
customers nationwide that feature a guaranteed minimum income
benefit or so-called GMIB rider, offered by the three Ohio National
Companies listed as defendants in the class action suit.

In return for promoting, selling and servicing the variable
annuities, the broker-dealer firms and their affiliated securities
representatives receive commissions, including trailing commissions
yearly until the annuities are surrendered or annuitized, according
to the complaint.

"While Ohio National has the right to discontinue future sales of
the annuities, it may not unilaterally terminate its obligation to
pay trailing commissions on existing annuities," the complaint
says.

"Perhaps even worse, Ohio National's decision to stop paying
trailing commissions for which it is already obligated will not
even reduce the expenses for investors. The costs of the annuities
will not go down one penny. Rather, instead of paying trailing
commissions to the broker-dealers and their securities
representatives, Ohio National has decided to simply pocket that
money itself instead," the complaint adds.

The complaint also calls out Ohio National for exempting two
broker-dealer firms from the non-payment of traling commissions:
Ohio National Equities and Morgan Stanley.

"Incredibly, Ohio National has not even implemented this unfair and
improper policy evenly across the board as to all broker-dealers,"
according to the complaint. "It is continuing to pay trailing
commissions to its own captive broker-dealer, Ohio National
Equities, Inc. Furthermore, Ohio National is continuing to pay
trailing commissions to broker-dealer Morgan Stanley Smith Barney
LLC and its securities representatives."

It is understood that Morgan Stanley will continue receiving its
trailing commissions because of the wording of Ohio National's
selling agreement with the wirehouse. Morgan Stanley could not be
reached as of this writing.

FA-IQ reached out to Finra for comments on Ohio National's decision
terminate its variable annuities selling agreements with
broker-dealer firms and stop paying trailing commissions; the class
action suit; and the impact of these developments on the
broker-dealer industry and consumers. Finra declined to comment for
this article.

At least one other lawsuit has been brought against the same
defendants in this case. Commonwealth Equity Services filed its
complaint on Nov. 5 before the U.S. District Court District of
Massachusetts. Among other things, that complaint is seeking a
declaration that Ohio National is obligated to pay the annuities
trailing commissions.

Beyond the variable annuities of Ohio National, the firm's actions
have "fairly serious ramifications" on the broker-dealer industry
and the customers, according to Carlile, Patchen & Murphy's
Concilla.

Mr. Concilla says brokers have questions about the reliability of
selling agreements with variable annuities providers.

"They sold these products with the belief that it was in the best
interest of their clients and they are going to be compensated for
not selling other things while their clients' assets are tied up in
these products," he says.

Mr. Concilla notes that the trailing commissions are the broker's
compensation for "assisting their clients in selecting annuities,
in selecting the sub-accounts, in advising them when it's time to
start drawing money or to annuitize, etcetera."

Customers -- particularly "average" investors who don't have a
significant amount of other assets in their brokerage accounts --
will lose the advice of their brokers who will no longer be paid
trailing commissions, Mr. Concilla says.

Mr. Concilla notes that it's likely that brokers who manage other
big ticket or important clients with other assets in their accounts
will keep providing these clients their variable annuities services
for free. To that end, he says Ohio National is telling brokers
"they can continue to access the product and provide services but
they just won't get paid for it."

According to an October 26 filing with the SEC, Ohio National says
it will offer to buy back some variable annuities with guaranteed
minimum income benefit riders from November 12 to February 11.
[GN]


OXFORD FERTILITY: Sued Over Add-On Fertility Treatments
-------------------------------------------------------
Sanchez Manning, writing for Daily Mail, reports that a couple who
spent thousands of pounds on controversial "add-on" fertility
treatments that experts say are useless and possibly harmful are
set to become the first in Britain to sue a clinic for
"mis-selling" therapies.

Legal secretary Tracy Wint underwent two years of unsuccessful IVF
treatment, spending more than GBP20,000 in her desperation to have
a second child with her husband Mark.

During that time she claims Oxford Fertility convinced her and her
husband to fork out an extra GBP7,000 for add-ons doctors said
would boost their chances of having a baby. However, the pair now
believe they were "worthless".

Couples are often persuaded by private doctors to buy expensive
top-up procedures such as "glue" to stick embryos to the womb, or
genetic tests to screen for abnormalities.

But a report last year by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology
Authority (HFEA) said many such treatments have no scientific
basis, are dangerous, and could even harm a woman's chances of
becoming pregnant.

Mrs Wint, 41, said: "We feel like we've paid out thousands for
add-ons that are not proven to work and carry health risks. We were
desperate. If they had said they could sprinkle fairy dust and it
will make you pregnant we would have bought it."

The couple are now planning to sue Oxford Fertility for
"mis-selling" what they believe were pointless extra therapies. The
legal action is the first known case of its kind.

Vardags, the lawyers advising the Wints, also hope other couples
will join in a class action suit to sue clinics offering treatments
with no proven benefit.

Mrs Wint started IVF in 2014 when she discovered she was unable to
have a second child because her fallopian tubes were damaged.

She and her husband attended the Cotswold Fertility Unit near their
home in Cheltenham -- the unit is part of Oxford Fertility.

After a miscarriage, Mrs Wint went on to have three cycles of IVF,
all of which failed. The couple say the clinic then convinced them
to spend GBP600 on embryo glue to boost their odds of conceiving.

But the report by the HFEA said more evidence was needed to show
that the glue increases a woman's chance of having a baby. The pair
also paid GBP300 for an endometrial "scratch" to the womb's lining,
which helps the embryo nestle in the furrow created.

The HFEA has said "stronger evidence" is needed to prove this
raises the likelihood of pregnancy and has warned that it can cause
infections to spread in the uterus.

Mrs Wint then had a GBP400 experimental test to find out if her
womb was harbouring "natural killer" (NK) cells, which were
preventing her from conceiving.

The clinic told the couple in a letter that these cells -- part of
the immune system -- can increase the chances of an embryo failing
to implant, but can be treated with steroids. But the HFEA states
on its website that there is 'no evidence' a woman's immune system
will reject an embryo and taking steroids could cause blood
pressure or diabetes.

Finally, the Wints paid GBP2,100 for Pre-implantation Genetic
Screening (PGS) that tests embryos for genetic abnormalities to
ensure the best ones are implanted.

Yet Mrs Wint said that when the results came back, they were
"inconclusive" so the exercise felt like a "complete waste of
money".

The HFEA has warned this screening can show up non-existent
problems and does not benefit women aged over 37. In an interview
with The Mail on Sunday, the couple told how doctors "dangled"
treatments in front of them when they were at their most
vulnerable.

During one IVF round, Mrs Wint recalled that Oxford Fertility staff
told them it's "up to you", but they "might look back and regret
it" if they did not use the embryo glue.

On another occasion they received an information sheet which
claimed that research showed an endometrial scratch boosted the
odds of IVF resulting in a birth by up to 70 per cent. "Those are
big claims and you're not going to dismiss that so we bought the
add-on," she said.

In February last year, the HFEA published a report stating that a
number of the extra treatments being offered by fertility clinics
carried "serious" risks, including kidney failure and septicaemia.


Lawyer Louisa Ghevaert, of Vardags, said: "Clinics have a duty to
be vigilant and clear about the benefits of 'add-ons' while they
remain questionable. It also begs the question why they are being
offered at all if they offer no benefit."

A spokeswoman for Oxford Fertility said the HFEA did not advise
against top-ups, adding: "We are very clear with all of our
patients on the pros and cons of treatments."

"The HFEA uses a traffic-light system to grade evidence for
emerging techniques. It grades embryo glue, endometrial scratch and
PGS as yellow, and states that research consistently shows benefit.
However, further evidence is needed." [GN]


PFIP, LLC: Rodriguez Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
GENESIS RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PFIP, LLC, DBA PLANET
FITNESS, and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.:
2:18-cv-03748-DMF (D. Ariz., Nov. 2, 2018), seeks to recover
damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant, in negligently contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, on or about December 27, 2017,
Plaintiff received a text message from Defendant on her cellular
telephone, number ending in -8593. During this time, Defendant
began to use Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the purpose of
sending Plaintiff spam advertisements and/or promotional offers,
via text messages, including a text message sent to and received by
Plaintiff in or about December of 2017.

Plaintiff responded to Defendant's text message notification by
sending a letter to Defendant on or about Jan. 5, 2018 requesting
that Defendant cease sending text messages to Plaintiff. Despite
Plaintiff's responses, Defendant continued to send unwanted text
messages to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff continued to receive text
messages from Defendant until about January 10, 2018, the lawsuit
says.

Planet Fitness is an American franchisor and operator of fitness
centers based in Hampton, New Hampshire. The company reports that
it has 1,600 clubs, making it one of the largest fitness club
franchises by number of members and locations.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: 602 265-3332
          Facsimile: 602 230-4482
          E-mail: david@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: 800 400-6808
          Facsimile: 800 520-5523
          E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com

PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal Denied in Public Prosecutor's Suit in Brazil
------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
plaintiff's appeal in the case entitled, Public Prosecutor of Sao
Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda., to the
Superior Court of Justice was denied.

In a class action in Brazil, Public Prosecutor of Sao Paulo v.
Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda., Civil Court of the
City of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6, 2007, the company's
subsidiary is a defendant. The plaintiff, the Public Prosecutor of
the State of Sao Paulo, is seeking (i) damages on behalf of all
smokers nationwide, former smokers, and their relatives; (ii)
damages on behalf of people exposed to environmental tobacco smoke
nationwide, and their relatives; and (iii) reimbursement of the
health care costs allegedly incurred for the treatment of
tobacco-related diseases by all Brazilian States and
Municipalities, and the Federal District.

In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial court
limited the scope of this claim to the State of Sao Paulo only. In
December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo issued a
decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because the case
involved issues similar to the  Smoker Health Defense Association
(ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris Marketing, S.A.,
Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central Courts of the Judiciary
District of Sao Paulo, Brazil case and should be transferred to the
Nineteenth Lower Civil Court in Sao Paulo where the ADESF case is
pending. The court further stated that these cases should be
consolidated for the purposes of judgment.

In April 2010, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals reversed the Seventh
Civil Court's decision that consolidated the cases, finding that
they are based on different legal claims and are progressing at
different stages of proceedings. This case was returned to the
Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo, and the company's subsidiary
filed its closing arguments in December 2010. In March 2012, the
trial court dismissed the case on the merits. In January 2014, the
Sao Paulo Court of Appeals rejected plaintiffss appeal and affirmed
the trial court decision. In July 2014, plaintiff appealed to the
Superior Court of Justice, and in August 2018, the appeal was
denied.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products. Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Parliament, Bond Street, Chesterfield, L&M,
Lark, Philip Morris, Merit, Virginia S., Muratti, and Next. Philip
Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Bourassa Class Suit in Canada Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the class
action suit entitled, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited,
et al., is still ongoing.

In a class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco
Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada,
filed June 25, 2010, the company, its subsidiaries, and its
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants.

The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the
decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from
emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is
seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed
class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and
who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly caused by
smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus
disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1,
1954, to the date the claim was filed.

In December 2014, plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products. Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Parliament, Bond Street, Chesterfield, L&M,
Lark, Philip Morris, Merit, Virginia S., Muratti, and Next. Philip
Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend McDermid Class Suit in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit in Canada entitled,
McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al.

In a class action pending in Canada, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco
Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada,
filed June 25, 2010, the company, its subsidiaries, and its
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were
alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease
allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family
members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants
from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products. Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Parliament, Bond Street, Chesterfield, L&M,
Lark, Philip Morris, Merit, Virginia S., Muratti, and Next. Philip
Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Dorion Class Action Remains Dormant
--------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International 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 there is
still no activity in the case entitled, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al.

In a class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta, Canada,
filed June 15, 2009, the company, its subsidiaries, and its
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections
resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family
members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government
health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.

Philip Morris said, "To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our
indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint. No
activity in this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel
pursues the class action filed in in Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council,
et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada."

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products. Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Parliament, Bond Street, Chesterfield, L&M,
Lark, Philip Morris, Merit, Virginia S., Muratti, and Next. Philip
Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Letourneau Suit in Canada Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
company's subsidiary in Canada continues to defend a class action
suit entitled, Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd.,
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp.

In a class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial
Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald
Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September 1998, the
company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial
Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-MacDonald Corp.) are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, sought compensatory and
punitive damages for each member of the class who is deemed
addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005. Trial began
in March 2012 and concluded in December 2014. The trial court
issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found  sthe
company's subsidiary and two other Canadian manufacturers liable
and awarded a total of CAD 131 million (approximately $100 million)
in punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $35
million) to the  company's subsidiary.

The trial court found that defendants violated the Civil Code of
Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the
Quebec Consumer Protection Act by failing to warn adequately of the
dangers of smoking. The trial court also found that defendants
conspired to prevent consumers from learning the dangers of
smoking. The trial court further held that these civil faults were
a cause of the class members' addiction.

The trial court rejected other grounds of fault advanced by the
class, holding that: (i) the evidence was insufficient to show that
defendants marketed to youth, (ii) defendants'  advertising did not
convey false information about the characteristics of cigarettes,
and (iii) defendants did not commit a fault by using the
descriptors light or mild for cigarettes with a lower tar delivery.
The trial court estimated the size of the addiction class at
918,000 members but declined to award compensatory damages to the
addiction class because the evidence did not establish the claims
with sufficient accuracy. The trial court ordered defendants to pay
the full punitive damage award into a trust within 60 days and
found that a claims process to allocate the awarded damages to
individual class members would be too expensive and difficult to
administer.

The trial court ordered a briefing on the proposed process for the
distribution of sums remaining from the punitive damage award after
payment of attorneys' fees and legal costs. In June 2015, the
company's subsidiary commenced the appellate process by filing its
inscription of appeal of the trial court's judgment with the Court
of Appeal of Quebec. The company's subsidiary also filed a motion
to cancel the trial court's order for payment into a trust within
60 days notwithstanding appeal. In July 2015, the Court of Appeal
granted the motion to cancel and overturned the trial court's
ruling that the company's subsidiary make the payment into a trust
within 60 days.

In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court of Appeal
seeking security in both the Letourneau case and the Conseil
Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial
Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald
Corp. case. In October 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion
and ordered the company's subsidiary to furnish security totaling
CAD 226 million (approximately $173 million), in the form of cash
into a court trust or letters of credit, in six equal consecutive
quarterly installments of approximately CAD 37.6 million
(approximately $28.8 million) beginning in December 2015 through
March 2017.

The Court of Appeal heard oral arguments on the merits appeal in
November 2016. The company's subsidiary and PMI believe that the
findings of liability and damages were incorrect and should
ultimately be set aside on any one of many grounds, including the
following: (i) holding that defendants violated Quebec law by
failing to warn class members of the risks of smoking even after
the court found that class members knew, or should have known, of
the risks, (ii) finding that plaintiffs were not required to prove
that defendants' alleged misconduct caused injury to each class
member in direct contravention of binding precedent, (iii) creating
a factual presumption, without any evidence from class members or
otherwise, that defendants' alleged misconduct caused all smoking
by all class members, (iv) holding that the addiction class
members' claims for punitive damages were not time-barred even
though the case was filed more than three years after a prominent
addiction warning appeared on all packages, and (v) awarding
punitive damages to punish defendants without proper consideration
as to whether punitive damages were necessary to deter future
misconduct.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products. Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Parliament, Bond Street, Chesterfield, L&M,
Lark, Philip Morris, Merit, Virginia S., Muratti, and Next. Philip
Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: No Action Taken in Jacklin Suit in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International 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 plaintiff's
counsel in Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers'
Council, et al., has indicated that he does not intend to take any
action in this case in the near future.

In a class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, filed June 20, 2012, the company, its subsidiaries, and
its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked
a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or
suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution
of profits.

Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that he does not intend to take
any action in this case in the near future.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products. Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Parliament, Bond Street, Chesterfield, L&M,
Lark, Philip Morris, Merit, Virginia S., Muratti, and Next. Philip
Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions in Adams Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International 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 preliminary
motions in the case, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers'
Council, et al., are still pending.

In a class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan,
Canada, filed July 10, 2009, the company, its subsidiaries, and its
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked
a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or
suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as
restitution of profits. Preliminary motions are pending.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products. Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Parliament, Bond Street, Chesterfield, L&M,
Lark, Philip Morris, Merit, Virginia S., Muratti, and Next. Philip
Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Semple Class Suit in Canada Remains Dormant
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International 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 no activity
is anticipated while counsel pursues the class action filed in
Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The
Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada.

In a class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court),
Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the company, its
subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other
members of the industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf
of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates,
dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits,
and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused
by tobacco products.

Philip Morris said, "No activity in this case is anticipated while
plaintiff's counsel pursues the class action filed in Adams v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Saskatchewan, Canada.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products. Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Parliament, Bond Street, Chesterfield, L&M,
Lark, Philip Morris, Merit, Virginia S., Muratti, and Next. Philip
Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Smoker Health Defense Association's Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International 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 plaintiff's
en banc appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice in Brazil and
defendants' constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Tribunal
on the basis that plaintiff did not have standing to bring the
lawsuit, are still pending.

In the class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health Defense
Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central Courts
of the Judiciary District of São Paulo, Brazil, filed July 25,
1995, the company's subsidiary and another member of the industry
are defendants.

The plaintiff, a consumer organization, is seeking damages for all
addicted smokers and former smokers, and injunctive relief. In
2004, the trial court found defendants liable without hearing
evidence and awarded "moral damages" of R$1,000 (approximately
$271) per smoker per full year of smoking plus interest at the rate
of 1% per month, as of the date of the ruling. The court did not
award actual damages, which were to be assessed in the second phase
of the case. The size of the class was not estimated.

Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals, which
annulled the ruling in November 2008, finding that the trial court
had inappropriately ruled without hearing evidence and returned the
case to the trial court for further proceedings. In May 2011, the
trial court dismissed the claim. In February 2015, the appellate
court unanimously dismissed plaintiff's appeal.

In September 2015, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of
Justice. In February 2017, the Chief Justice of the Superior Court
of Justice denied plaintiff's appeal. In March 2017, plaintiff
filed an en banc appeal to the Superior Court of Justice. In
addition, the defendants filed a constitutional appeal to the
Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis that plaintiff did not have
standing to bring the lawsuit. Both appeals are still pending.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products. Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Parliament, Bond Street, Chesterfield, L&M,
Lark, Philip Morris, Merit, Virginia S., Muratti, and Next. Philip
Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Unit Continues to Defend Blais Suit in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
company's subsidiary continues to defend a class action suit in
Canada entitled, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and
Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp.

In a class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac
Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior
Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, the company's subsidiary and
other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and
JTI-MacDonald Corp.) are defendants.

The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual
smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of
the class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-related
diseases. The class was certified in 2005. Trial began in March
2012 and concluded in December 2014. The trial court issued its
judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found the company's
subsidiary and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and found
that the class member' compensatory damages totaled approximately
CAD 15.5 billion, including pre-judgment interest (approximately
$11.8 billion).

The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and several
liability basis, allocating 20% to our subsidiary (approximately
CAD 3.1 billion, including pre-judgment interest (approximately
$2.37 billion)). In addition, the trial court awarded CAD 90,000
(approximately $69,000) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000
(approximately $23,000) to the company's subsidiary and found that
defendants violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of
Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act
by failing to warn adequately of the dangers of smoking. The trial
court also found that defendants conspired to prevent consumers
from learning the dangers of smoking. The trial court further held
that these civil faults were a cause of the class members'
diseases.

The trial court rejected other grounds of fault advanced by the
class, holding that: (i) the evidence was insufficient to show that
defendants marketed to youth, (ii) defendants’ advertising did
not convey false information about the characteristics of
cigarettes, and (iii) defendants did not commit a fault by using
the descriptors light or mild for cigarettes with a lower tar
delivery. The trial court estimated the disease class at 99,957
members. The trial court ordered defendants to pay CAD 1 billion
(approximately $764 million) of the compensatory damage award into
a trust within 60 days, CAD 200 million (approximately $153
million) of which is the company's subsidiary's portion and ordered
briefing on a proposed claims process for the distribution of
damages to individual class members and for payment of attorneys'
fees and legal costs.

In June 2015, the company's subsidiary commenced the appellate
process by filing its inscription of appeal of the trial court's
judgment with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. The company's
subsidiary also filed a motion to cancel the trial court's order
for payment into a trust within 60 days notwithstanding appeal. In
July 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel and
overturned the trial court's ruling that the company's subsidiary
make an initial payment within 60 days.

In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court of Appeal
seeking an order that defendants place irrevocable letters of
credit totaling CAD 5 billion (approximately $3.8 billion) into
trust, to secure the judgments in both the Letourneau and Blais
cases. Plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their motion for security
against JTI-MacDonald Corp. and proceeded only against the
company's subsidiary and Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. In October
2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion and ordered the
company's subsidiary to furnish security totaling CAD 226 million
(approximately $173 million) to cover both the Létourneau and
Blais cases. Such security may take the form of cash into a court
trust or letters of credit, in six equal consecutive quarterly
installments of approximately CAD 37.6 million (approximately $28.8
million) beginning in December 2015 through March 2017.

The Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. to furnish
security totaling CAD 758 million (approximately $579 million) in
seven equal consecutive quarterly installments of approximately CAD
108 million (approximately $82.5 million) beginning in December
2015 through June 2017. In March 2017, the company's subsidiary
made its sixth and final quarterly installment of security for
approximately CAD 37.6 million (approximately $28.8 million) into a
court trust. This payment is included in other assets on the
condensed consolidated balance sheets and in cash used in operating
activities in the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows.


The Court of Appeal ordered that the security is payable upon a
final judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the trial court's
judgment or upon further order of the Court of Appeal. The Court of
Appeal heard oral arguments on the merits appeal in November 2016.


The company's subsidiary and PMI believe that the findings of
liability and damages were incorrect and should ultimately be set
aside on any one of many grounds, including the following: (i)
holding that defendants violated Quebec law by failing to warn
class members of the risks of smoking even after the court found
that class members knew, or should have known, of the risks, (ii)
finding that plaintiffs were not required to prove that defendants'
alleged misconduct caused injury to each class member in direct
contravention of binding precedent, (iii) creating a factual
presumption, without any evidence from class members or otherwise,
that defendants' alleged misconduct caused all smoking by all class
members, (iv) relying on epidemiological evidence that did not meet
recognized scientific standards, and (v) awarding punitive damages
to punish defendants without proper consideration as to whether
punitive damages were necessary to deter future misconduct.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other tobacco products, and
other nicotine-containing products. Its portfolio of brands
comprises Marlboro, Parliament, Bond Street, Chesterfield, L&M,
Lark, Philip Morris, Merit, Virginia S., Muratti, and Next. Philip
Morris International Inc. was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Bell Files FDCPA Suit in Penn. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Shelly Bell on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-04952-CDJ (E.D. Penn., Nov. 15, 2018).

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

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor
Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts. It serves
customers through account representatives. The company was
incorporated in 1996 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC operates as a subsidiary of PRA Group,
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO PC
     1500 Walnut St., Ste 900
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Phone: (215) 351-0200
     Fax: (215) 922-3874
     Email: rcocco@rcn.com


RADIUS GLOBAL: Henry Files FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Nadia Henry
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Radius Global Solutions, LLC formerly known as:
Northland Group, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-04945-MAK (E.D. Penn., Nov. 15, 2018).

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

Radius Global Solutions LLC provides accounts receivable and
customer relations management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Antranig Garibian, Esq.
     GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES PC
     1800 John F Kennedy Blvd, Suite 300
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 326-9179
     Email: ag@garibianlaw.com


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Class of Individuals Certified in Blair Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William Alsup granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled
PAULA BLAIR, ANDREA ROBINSON, and FALECHIA HARRIS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, RENT-A-CENTER WEST, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1–50, inclusive, Case No. 3:17-cv-02335-WHA
(N.D. Cal.).

The certified class is defined as:

    "All individuals who, on or after March 13, 2013, entered
     into a rent-to-own transaction with RAC in California."

The class definition shall apply for all purposes, including
settlement.  This class is certified only as to plaintiffs' usury
claim and, to the extent described in the Order, the Plaintiffs'
CLRA and Section 17200 claims, Judge Alsup notes.

Plaintiffs Paula Blair, Andrea Robinson, Falechia Harris, and
Celinda Garza are appointed as class representatives.  The
Plaintiffs' counsel from Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP and
Altshuler Berzon LLP are appointed as class counsel.

Judge Alsup also directs the parties to jointly submit a proposal
for class notification with a plan to distribute notice, including
by first-class mail, by November 30, 2018.

In crafting their joint proposal, Judge Alsup notes, counsel shall
please keep in mind the undersigned judge's guidelines for notice
to class members in the "Notice and Order Regarding Factors to be
Evaluated for Any Proposed Class Settlement."[CC]


RITE AID: Bailer Sues Over False, Misleading Product Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Bailey on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Rite Aid Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-06926 (N.D. Cal., November 15, 2018) seeks damages and
appropriate equitable relief given that Rite Aid's conduct violated
well-established contract, tort, and consumer protection laws of
California and the United States.

In 2005, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. introduced the name brand
Tylenol Extra Strength Rapid Release Gels to the American public as
"specially designed" gelcaps "with holes to allow the release of
powerful medicine even faster than before". Three years later,
Tylenol PM Rapid Release Gels were launched with the same promises.
Rite Aid then introduced its own version of the Tylenol Extra
Strength Rapid Release Gels called Rite Aid Acetaminophen Rapid
Release Gelcaps.

Since the release of its generic versions of the rapid release
gelcaps, the Defendant has misled and continues to mislead
consumers about the nature, quality, and effectiveness of its
so-called rapid release Rite Aid products through its advertising
and labeling, asserts the complaint.

The complaint says the Defendant sells its rapid release gelcaps
with false, misleading, unfair, deceptive labeling and marketing in
an effort to dupe consumers into purchasing these gelcaps for
prices that exceed their true value. Rite Aid has pursued and
continues to pursue this course of conduct in order to profit off
of unassuming, unwitting consumers looking for the fastest
pain-relief possible from an over-the-counter acetaminophen
product, it adds.

Plaintiff Thomas Bailey is a citizen and resident of Freemont,
Alameda County, California.

Rite Aid is the third largest drugstore chain in the United States.
It sells a variety of health and wellness products, including
over-the counter pharmaceuticals. It also produces, manufactures,
markets, distributes, and sells a generic version of certain
over-the-counter drugs under the Rite Aid brand to families,
children, and other consumers, including analgesic or pain
relieving medicines using acetaminophen. It is a Delaware
corporation that maintains its headquarters at 30 Hunter Lane,
Cumberland County, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Crystal Foley, Esq.
     Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC
     100 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1350
     Los Angeles, CA 90245
     Phone: (310) 322-3555
     Email: cfoley@simmonsfirm.com

          - and -

     Mitchel M. Breit, Esq.
     112 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016-7416
     Phone: (212) 784-6400
     Email: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC: Lenczner Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul-Erik Veel, Esq. -- pveel@litigate.com -- of Lenczner Slaght
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that product liability cases
are routinely certified as class proceedings. Indeed, allegations
that a product was negligently manufactured, or that a manufacturer
failed to warn consumers of a particular risk, seem particularly
amenable to resolution on a class-wide basis. However, not every
such case is certified as a class proceeding. The recent decision
of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Richardson v Samsung
Electronics Canada Inc is one example of a case that was not
certified. More importantly, it shows what steps defendants can
proactively take to avoid certification of class actions against
them.

By way of background, Richardson was a proposed class action
against Samsung relating to the Galaxy Note7. The Galaxy Note7 was
a smartphone released by Samsung in Canada in August 2016.
Unfortunately, as was widely reported at the time, there was a
defect in one of the batteries used in the Note7 that caused the
device to overheat, creating the risk of fire or explosion.

Within a few weeks of the Note7 being released to the Canadian
market, Samsung halted sales. Shortly thereafter, it announced the
availability of replacement phones, and it exhorted customers to
power down and replace their Note7 smart phones as soon as
possible. Approximately a month later, Samsung began offering
various credits to persons who had purchased the Note7.

Unsurprisingly, class proceedings was brought against Samsung,
pleading a number of claims, including negligent design, failure to
warn, negligence, and unjust enrichment, and various
misrepresentation claims. When the matter came before the courts
for a certification motion, the Ontario Superior Court declined to
certify the claim.

Perhaps most notable in the court's decision is the court's
preferable procedure analysis. It is a requirement for
certification of a class action that a class action be the
preferable procedure for resolving common issues. In conducting the
preferable procedure analysis, one set of facts the courts will
look to in conducting the preferable procedure analysis is whether
another means of compensation to class members is provided.

In this case, the court found that there was an alternative
mechanism for resolving the harm that consumers had suffered. After
the defects with the Note7 came to light, Samsung engaged in a
recall of the defective products and offered customers new phones
as well as credits. The court held that this compensation scheme
was an appropriate alternative compensation scheme for dealing with
class members of the claims. The Court held as follows:

First, the defendant's compensation program is the preferable
procedure. The existence of this voluntary compensation scheme
squarely addresses access to justice and behaviour modification
concerns.

In my view, the defendant's prompt response in concert with Health
Canada to safety issues, the recall, the termination of sales, and
the compensation package, demonstrates the response of a
responsible corporate citizen. It is behaviour that should be
encouraged rather than discouraged.

The court acknowledged that the common nature of the compensation
scheme across all class members meant that there might be some
class members who had suffered greater losses as a result of the
defects in the Note7. However, the court held that this was
sufficient:

As to the adequacy of the plan, it is quite possible that some
people are out of pocket to some extent. It is also the case that
some people sustained no loss at all as the plaintiff's expert
acknowledges. In any event, no recall program is likely to satisfy
every purchaser. However, the law does not demand perfect
compensation.  Indeed, perfect compensation is unlikely even if
pursued by way of class action.

There were features of the defendant's package that were
advantageous to consumers. Those advancing claims under it were not
required to prove liability, causation or damages in order to
receive a full refund for the phone plus a $25 credit; or a
replacement phone and a $100 credit. Refunds for Note7 accessories
were also offered.

Furthermore, surely there is a certain amount of stress, upset,
anxiety, inconvenience and irritation associated with daily living.
However, they must rise to a sufficient level beyond de minimus in
order to attract compensation in excess of what was offered by the
defendant.

Richardson v Samsung is not an example of clever lawyering
defeating class action certification; rather, it is an example of
what companies can do to try to protect themselves against class
action risk. As this case demonstrates, proactive steps by a
company to address defective products and compensate customers can
have the effect of stopping a potential class action in its tracks.
This can bring significant benefits to the company, including lower
costs, fewer business resources diverted to addressing the proposed
class action, and diminished reputational risk. [GN]


SCO FAMILY: David Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Elsie David, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, v. SCO Family of Services, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-05803, (E.D. N.Y., October 17, 2018) seeks redress
for underpayment of overtime wages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs of the action, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
liquidated damages, and other compensatory and equitable relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

SCO is a provider of human and social services for the elderly and
infirm in and around the City of New York and its metropolitan area
where David worked as a full-time nurse from 1996 through February
2018 at their Long Island New York facility. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Wims, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS
      1430 Pitkin Ave., 2nd Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11233
      Tel: (646) 393-9550
      Email: dwims@wimslaw.com


SEI INVESTMENTS: Stanford Trust-Related Suits Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sei Investments 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 and its
subsidiary continue to defend several lawsuits related to the role
of SEI Private Trust Company in providing back-office services to
Stanford Trust Company.

SEI has been named in seven lawsuits filed in Louisiana courts;
four of the cases also name SEI Private Trust Company (SPTC) as a
defendant. The underlying allegations in all actions relate to the
purported role of SPTC in providing back-office services to
Stanford Trust Company.

The complaints allege that SEI and SPTC participated in some manner
in the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford
International Bank so as to be a "seller" of the certificates of
deposit for purposes of primary liability under the Louisiana
Securities Law or so as to be secondarily liable under that statute
for sales of certificates of deposit made by Stanford Trust
Company.

Two of the actions also include claims for violations of the
Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy, and a third
also asserts claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform fiduciaries law,
negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of
the Louisiana Racketeering Act, and conspiracy.

The procedural status of the seven cases varies. The Lillie case,
filed originally in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish
of East Baton Rouge, was brought as a class action and is
procedurally the most advanced of the cases. SEI and SPTC filed
exceptions, which the Court granted in part, dismissing claims
under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and permitting the
claims under the Louisiana Securities Law to go forward.

On March 11, 2013, newly-added insurance carrier defendants removed
the case to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana. On August 7, 2013, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred the matter to the Northern
District of Texas where MDL 2099, In re: Stanford Entities
Securities Litigation ("the Stanford MDL"), is pending. On
September 22, 2015, the District Court on the motion of SEI and
SPTC dismissed plaintiffs' claims for primary liability under
Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability under Section
714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law based on the allegations
pled by plaintiffs.

On November 4, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under Section 712(D) of the
Louisiana Securities Law. Consequently, the only claims of
plaintiffs still pending before the District Court in Lillie are
plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability against SEI and SPTC
under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law. On May 2,
2016, the District Court certified the class as being "all persons
for whom Stanford Trust Company purchased or renewed Stanford
Investment Bank Limited certificates of deposit in Louisiana
between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009". Notice of the
pendency of the class action was mailed to potential class members
on October 4, 2016.

On December 1, 2016, a group of plaintiffs who opted out of the
Lillie class filed a complaint against SEI and SPTC in the United
States District Court in the Middle District of Louisiana, alleging
claims essentially the same as those in Lillie. In January 2017,
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the
proceeding to the Northern District of Texas and the Stanford MDL.
During February 2017, SEI filed its response to the Complaint and
in March 2017 the District Court for the Northern District of Texas
approved the stipulated dismissal of all claims in this complaint
predicated on Section 712(D) or Section 714(A) of the Louisiana
Securities Law.

Another one of the cases, filed in the 23rd Judicial District Court
for the Parish of Ascension, also was removed to federal court and
transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
the Northern District of Texas and the Stanford MDL. The schedule
for responding to that Complaint has not yet been established.

The plaintiffs in two of the cases remaining in the Parish of East
Baton Rouge have granted SEI and SPTC indefinite extensions to
respond to the petitions.

In the two additional cases, filed in East Baton Rouge and brought
by the same counsel who filed the Lillie action, virtually all of
the litigation to date has involved motions practice and appellate
litigation regarding the existence of federal subjection matter
jurisdiction under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act (SLUSA). After the matter was removed to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, that
court dismissed the action under SLUSA. The Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit reversed that order, and the Supreme Court of the
United States affirmed the Court of Appeals judgment on February
26, 2014. The matter was remanded to state court and no material
activity has taken place since that date.

SEI Investments said, "While the outcome of this litigation remains
uncertain, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to
plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.
Because of uncertainty in the make-up of the Lillie class, the
specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for
summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the relative lack of
discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other
aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not
reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with
respect to the foregoing lawsuits."

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

SEI Investments Co. is a publicly owned asset management holding
company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides wealth
management, retirement and investment solutions, asset management,
asset administration, investment processing outsourcing solutions,
financial services, and investment advisory services to its
clients. SEI Investments Co. was founded in 1968 and is based in
Oaks, Pennsylvania.


SINEMIA: Faces Class Action Over New "Processing Fee"
-----------------------------------------------------
Nathan McAlone, writing for Business Insider, reports on Nov. 9,
the law firm Chimicles & Tikellis LLP filed a class action lawsuit
in Delaware on behalf of two plaintiffs, alleging that MoviePass
competitor Sinemia "essentially became a bait-and-switch scheme."

The crux of the suit is a new $1.80 per-movie "processing fee"
introduced by Sinemia in mid-October, even to subscribers who had
already prepaid for a yearly subscription.

Over 40 Sinemia subscribers contacted Business Insider with
negative stories about the company, many of whom expressed anger
and frustration with its fees and lack customer service.

Over 40 Sinemia subscribers contacted Business Insider with
negative stories about the company, many of whom expressed anger
and frustration with its fees and lack customer service.
When MoviePass was forced to drastically change its business model
in the face of mounting losses in August, competitor Sinemia
stepped into the spotlight.

The movie-ticket subscription startup was founded in Turkey in 2015
and had operated overseas, but in early 2018 it capitalized on the
hype around MoviePass to launch in the US. Despite their
similarities, Sinemia CEO Rifat Oguz positioned his company as the
anti-MoviePass, focused on "profit" and "sustainability" where
MoviePass was focused on hypergrowth.

But as MoviePass began to introduce unpopular new restrictions,
Sinemia went for the jugular, introducing a plan at the same price
as MoviePass (around $10 per month), with the same number of movies
(three per month), but with no restrictions on movies or showtimes
-- and with the ability to book tickets in advance.

For some movie fans, including myself, it seemed we had finally
found a subscription service we could rely on. That feeling didn't
last for many.

On Nov. 9, the law firm Chimicles & Tikellis LLP filed a class
action lawsuit in Delaware on behalf of two plaintiffs, alleging
that Sinemia "essentially became a bait-and-switch scheme."

"It lures consumers in by convincing them to purchase a purportedly
cheaper movie subscription, and then adds undisclosed fees that
make such purchases no bargain at all," the lawsuit claims.
"Sinemia fleeces consumers with an undisclosed, unexpected, and
not-bargained-for processing fee each time a plan subscriber goes
to the movies using Sinemia's service."

"I, too, encountered Sinemia's sneaky fees and wrote about them in
a piece. In the piece, I urged the company to be more transparent
with customers about its pricing structure. After the article
published, I was contacted by over 40 Sinemia subscribers, many of
whom expressed anger and frustration with its fees and lack of
customer service," Mr. McAlone says.

"On Nov. 11, less than a week after my story, Sinemia deactivated
my personal account without explanation. A button to "reactivate"
my subscription didn't function and my email to customer support
hasn't been answered. Despite paying a $20 activation fee, my
account was only active for two months before Sinemia shut it
off."

I saw one movie, "A Star Is Born," which I highly recommend."

How did it all go so wrong so quickly?

Fees upon fees
The crux of the class action lawsuit against Sinemia is a new $1.80
"processing fee" that the company began to roll out in
mid-October.

To understand how the new fee changes the value proposition of the
service, it's helpful to look at one of the lawsuit plaintiffs:
Paul Early of California.

Early signed up for Sinemia in August and paid $191.88 for a year
plan of two movies per month for two people, plus $9.99 for early
activation, according to the suit. All in he paid over $200. The
first five times Early used Sinemia, he incurred a $1.50
third-party "convenience fee" (from using ticketing sites like
Fandango). Sinemia had disclosed before he'd bought the
subscription that he'd have to pay that fee.

But then when Early went to use the app on October 22, he was
charged a further $1.80 "processing fee" per ticket, according to
the suit.

After getting hit with this new fee a few more times, Early
contacted customer support asking to cancel his plan and get a
refund for the remainder. He never heard anything, according to the
suit.

"The movie plan Early is now stuck with has lost significant value
with the imposition of the processing fees," the suit argues.

Many Sinemia subscribers echoed these sentiments to Business
Insider, saying they felt taken advantage of by the fees,
especially when "processing fees" were added on top of "convenience
fees." Multiple subscribers said they had requested refunds for the
remainder of their yearly subscriptions and been told Sinemia was a
"non-refundable service."

Others simply never heard from Sinemia's customer support despite
multiple follow-ups (including myself).

Sinemia provided the following statement to Business Insider after
publication:

"From the beginning, the goal of Sinemia has been to make the
moviegoing experience much more affordable and enjoyable for
moviegoers by covering for the cost of the movie ticket. While
nobody enjoys fees, there are certain costs related to booking and
processing outside of the price of the movie ticket that are out of
our control. A processing fee of up to $1.80 applies so that
Sinemia can continue to provide access to all showtimes for all
movies in all theaters without restrictions as well as to keep our
subscription plans and services consistent, as they have been since
the founding of the company. Also, Sinemia is developing a feature
in the app which will allow users to order physical cards in
December or earlier." [GN]


SJW GROUP: Continues to Defend CTWS-Merger Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
SJW Group 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 two class action suits related to Connecticut Water Service,
Inc. and SJW Group's merger.

On June 14, 2018, certain shareholders of Connecticut Water
Service, Inc. (CTWS) filed two nearly identical class-action
complaints in Connecticut state court against the CTWS board of
directors, SJW Group, Eric W. Thornburg, Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer of SJW Group, and CTWS. The complaints, as
amended on September 18, 2018 and September 20, 2018, allege that
the CTWS board breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
Merger, that CTWS's preliminary proxy statement, filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) on August 20, 2018, omits
certain material information and that SJW Group and Mr. Thornburg
aided and abetted the alleged breaches by the CTWS board of
directors. Among other remedies, the actions seek to recover
rescissory and other damages and attorney's fees and costs.

SJW Group believes the claims in these complaints are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend this litigation. At this time, SJW
Group cannot determine the likelihood that liability exists on the
part of SJW Group or Mr. Thornburg and the company is unable to
provide a reasonable estimate of potential loss, if any.

SJW Group, through its subsidiaries, provides water utility
services in the United States. It engages in the production,
purchase, storage, purification, distribution, wholesale, and
retail sale of water. The company was formerly known as SJW Corp.
and changed its name to SJW Group in November 2016. SJW Group was
founded in 1866 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.


SNAP INC: Continues to Defend Suits over Initial Public Offering
----------------------------------------------------------------
Snap 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 securities class action suits related to to
the company's Initial Public Offering.

Beginning in May 2017, the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters for the company's Initial Public
Offering (IPO) were named as defendants in securities class actions
purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's Class
A common stock, alleging violation of securities laws in connection
with our IPO.

Snap Inc. said, "Management believes these lawsuits are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend them. Based on the
preliminary nature of the proceedings in this case, the outcome of
this matter remains uncertain."

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

Snap Inc. operates as a camera company in the United States and
internationally. The company offers Snapchat, a camera application
that helps people to communicate through short videos and images.
The company was formerly known as Snapchat, Inc. and changed its
name to Snap Inc. in September 2016. Snap Inc. was founded in 2010
and is headquartered in Venice, California.

SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Unit Still Defends Ferguson ERISA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SS&C Technologies Holdings 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 DST
Systems, Inc. is facing a putative class action lawsuit entitled,
Ferguson, et al v. Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc, et al.

A putative class action suit was filed against DST Systems, Inc.
(DST), the Compensation Committee of DST's Board of Directors, the
Advisory Committee of DST Systems, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan
(the "Plan") and certain of DST's present and/or former officers
and directors, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and other
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  

On September 1, 2017, a complaint was filed purportedly on behalf
of the Plan in the Southern District of New York, captioned
Ferguson, et al v. Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc, et al., naming as
defendants the DST, the Compensation Committee of DST's Board of
Directors, the Advisory Committee of the Plan and certain of DST's
present and/or former officers and directors.

SS&C Technologies said, "The Company intends to defend this case
vigorously, and, because it is still in its preliminary stages, has
not yet determined what effect this lawsuit will have, if any, on
its financial position or results of operations."

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

SS&C Technologies, Inc. develops mission-critical software and
offers software enabled-services and software-as-a-service (SaaS)
solutions for the financial industry. The company offers a suite of
software including portfolio accounting and reporting, trading and
trade order management, reconciliation and exception management,
performance measurement and global markets risk, enterprise
reporting, private equity, benefits administration, municipal
finance, property management, loan origination and servicing,
investor relationship management, web-based issuance and investor
record-keeping, and screening/lending tools. The company was
founded in 1986 and is based in Windsor, Connecticut with
additional offices in North America, Europe, the Asia Pacific, and
Australia. SS&C Technologies, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of SS&C
Technologies Holdings, Inc.


SSC KERRVILLE: Conditional Class Certification Sought
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSARIO PASSMORE and
BRENDA L. CHAFTON, f/k/a BRENDA AGBEYE, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SSC KERRVILLE
HILLTOP VILLAGE OPERATING COMPANY LLC; SSC KERRVILLE EDGEWATER
OPERATING COMPANY, LLC; SSC KERRVILLE ALPINE TERRACE OPERATING
COMPANY, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00782-FB-ESC (W.D.
Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify a
class, and authorize counsel for the Plaintiffs to send notice and
consent forms, to the following group of individuals:

   "all current and former nurses of Defendants who worked for
   Defendants at any of Defendants' Facilities in Kerrville, Texas
   at any time in the last three years".

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and Class Members worked
as nurses for Defendants. They were not exempt from the protections
of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants deduct 30 minutes for
"meal periods" for nurses even though nurses are subject to, and in
fact experience, frequent work interruptions during their unpaid
meal periods. Because Plaintiffs and Class Members are rarely
completely relieved of their duties during their , meal periods,
Defendants have failed to assure they are provided a "bona fide"
meal break, as required by 29 C.F.R. section 785.19. Thus,
Plaintiffs contend, Defendants' practice of deducting 30 minutes
for a meal break violates the FLSA.

There are other similarly situated employees who are likely unaware
of this suit or their rights to proceed in this forum. Therefore,
under the "lenient" legal standards applicable at this stage of the
case, Plaintiffs request that the Court conditionally certify a
class of similarly situated nurses, direct prompt disclosure by
Defendants of contact information for potential class members, and
authorize Plaintiffs' counsel to notify putative class members of
this lawsuit.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr.
          MORELAND VERRETT, P.C.
          700 West Summit Drive
          Wimberley, TX 78676
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
          THE COMMISSIONERS HOUSE AT HERITAGE SQUARE
          2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: daniel@morelandlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants.

          Lara C. de Leon, Esq.
          Mark A. McNitzky, Esq.
          Jeffrey C. Londa, Esq.
          OGLETREEE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK &
          STEWART, P.C.
          2700 Weston Centre
          112 East Pecan Street
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 354 1300
          Facsimile: (210) 277 2702
          E-mail: lara.deleon@ogletreedeakins.com
                  mark.mcnitzky@ogletreedeakins.com
                  jeffrey.londa@ogletreedeakins.com


ST. ANTHONY MEDICAL: Owens Seeks to Certify Class of Beneficiaries
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled LENORE R. OWENS, JEAN L.
JEWETT, LORI L. BUKSAR, and JULIA SNYDER, on behalf of themselves,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ST.
ANTHONY MEDICAL CENTER, INC. ("SAMC"), THE FRANCISCAN SISTERS OF
CHICAGO SERVICE CORPORATION ("FSCSC"), FRANCISCAN COMMUNITIES, INC.
f/k/a FRANCISCAN HOMES & COMMUNITY SERVICES, FRANCISCAN HOLDING
CORPORATION, DONNA GOSCIEJ, LINDA HORNYAK, the SAMC RETIREMENT
COMMITTEE, the members of the SAMC RETIREMENT COMMITTEE, LEONARD
WYCHOCKI, WALTER GARBARCZYK, JULIE SECVIAR, CHESTER LABUS, and
SISTER HELENE GALUSZKA, the members of the FSCSC BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, SISTER M. FRANCIS CLARE RADKE, SISTER M. FRANCINE LABUS,
ANNETTE SHOEMAKER, JILL KRUEGER, LAWRENCE LEAMAN, SANDRA SINGER,
SUSAN NORDSTROM LOPEZ, and JOHN and JANE DOES, each an individual,
1-40, Case No. 1:14-cv-04068 (N.D. Ill.), move the Court for an
order certifying this action as a class action on behalf of this
Class:

     All participants or beneficiaries of the Retirement Plan who
     suffered a reduction in accrued benefits under the Plan at
     the time the Retirement Plan was terminated.

Excluded from the Class are any high-level executives at SAMC
and/or FSCSC or any employees who had responsibility for or
involvement in the administration of the Plan or who are
subsequently determined to be fiduciaries of the Retirement Plan,
including the Individual Defendants.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as
representatives for the Class, and to appoint Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC and Keller Rohrback, L.L.P. as Class
Counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Karen L. Handorf, Esq.
          Julie Goldsmith Reiser, Esq.
          Julie Selesnick, Esq.
          Jamie Bowers, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Suite 500, East Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: khandorf@cohenmilstein.com
                  jresier@cohenmilstein.com
                  jselesnick@cohenmilstein.com
                  jbowers@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 357-0370
          Facsimile: (312) 357-0369
          E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Erin M. Riley, Esq.
          Laura R. Gerber, Esq.
          Havila Unrein, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  eriley@kellerrohrback.com
                  lgerber@kellerrohrback.com
                  hunrein@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Ron Kilgard, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK P.L.C.
          3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 248-0088
          Facsimile: (602) 248- 2822
          E-mail: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com


STEINHOFF INT'L: 100,000+ Shareholders Join Litigation Group
------------------------------------------------------------
Lameez Omarjee, writing for Fin24, reports that over 100,000
Steinhoff shareholders have registered with the International
Steinhoff Litigation group.

According to a statement issued by Zain Lundell of LHL Attorneys,
which is leading the South African class action, more investors
both institutional and retail have registered with the
international litigation.

The international litigation is a multi-jurisdictional approach
which includes Germany and the Netherlands. The hope is to get a
global solution all shareholders can benefit from.

The South Africa class action was filed against over 40 defendants
including Steinhoff, Deloitte, Absa Bank, Standard Chartered Bank,
Commerzbank and PSG Capital, as well as current and ex-directors of
Steinhoff including former board chair Christo Wiese and former CEO
Markus Jooste, and others.

This is with the hopes to recover compensation for the shareholder
losses of up to €12bn (approximately R185bn), Fin24 reported
previously.

The international litigation group held investor conferences and
meetings in Cape Town and Johannesburg.

"We greatly appreciate the overwhelming feedback and support we
have received for the local 'People's Action' we launched. I am
especially happy about the fact that both institutional investors
as well as retail investors are joining forces to support what we
believe is the best option for maximum recovery for all
shareholders alike", Mr. Lundell said.

The Public Servants Association (PSA) met with the litigation group
and later issued a statement indicating their support of the class
action. The PSA represents members whose pension was invested by
the Public Investment Corporation on behalf of the government
employee pension fund.

Most of the defendents have been served which include auditors
Deloitte, chairperson Heather Sonn, former chairperson Christo
Wiese, and former CFO Ben La Grange.

A case management conference is expected to be scheduled soon in
the High Court of Gauteng, according to Mr. Lundell.

"In Amsterdam, the Netherlands, a writ of summons has been served
upon Steinhoff and Markus Jooste. And in Germany, the case filed in
the Regional Court of Frankfurt just received certification as a
model case," the statement read. [GN]


SWEET SAM'S: Mendez et al. Seek Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
KELVIN MEJIA MENDEZ and ANDRES PEREZ, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SWEET SAM'S BAKING
COMPANY LLC (D/B/A SWEET SAM'S BAKING COMPANY), DAVID GROGAN, and
ESPERANZA LOPEZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-09910 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 26, 2018), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants own, operate, or control
a baking company, located at 1261 Seabury Avenue, Bronx, New York
10462 under the name "Sweet Sam's Baking Company". The Plaintiffs
have been employed as production employees at the bakery. The
Plaintiffs have worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation
for the hours that they have worked.

Rather, Defendants have failed to maintain accurate record keeping
of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium, the lawsuit 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

SYNCHRONY BANK: McMullen Renews Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled VALERIE McMULLEN, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SYNCHRONY BANK, et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01983-JEB (D.D.C.), renews her bid for class
certification.

Ms. McMullen also asks the Court to:

   (1) require the One World Fitness Defendants to produce a list
       of every class member, including the last known address,
       telephone number, and email address for each individual
       Class member;

   (2) approve the form and content, and direct the distribution,
       of the proposed Notice and accompanying forms; and

   (3) appoint Regan Zambri Long PLLC and Klaproth Law PLLC as
       Class Counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salvatore J. Zambri, Esq.
          Patrick M. Regan, Esq.
          Christopher J. Regan, Esq.
          REGAN ZAMBRI LONG PLLC
          1919 M Street, NW, Suite 350
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 463-3030
          Facsimile: (202) 463-0667
          E-mail: szambri@reganfirm.com
                  pregan@reganfirm.com
                  cregan@reganfirm.com

               - and -

          Brendan J. Klaproth, Esq.
          Jesse C. Klaproth, Esq.
          KLAPROTH LAW PLLC
          406 5th Street NW, Suite 350
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 618-2344
          Facsimile: (202) 618-4636
          E-mail: bklaproth@klaprothlaw.com
                  jklaproth@klaprothlaw.com


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Retirement Fund Sues over Underwriting
-----------------------------------------------------------
RETAIL WHOLESALE DEPARTMENT STORE UNION LOCAL 338 RETIREMENT FUND,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL, MARGARET M. KEANE, and BRIAN D.
DOUBLES, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01818 (D. Conn., Nov. 2,
2018), asserts that Defendants' misrepresentations regarding the
Company's underwriting practices and the impact those changes in
underwriting were having on its private-label card business,
violates Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The case is a federal securities class action is brought on behalf
of purchasers of Synchrony common stock between October 21, 2016
and November 1, 2018, inclusive. Synchrony is the largest provider
of private-label credit cards in the United States. The Company
provides a broad range of credit products through programs
established with leading retailers. Specifically, Synchrony issues
store-branded credit cards from retailers such as Lowe's, Walmart,
Amazon, and The Gap, which promote Synchrony's credit products on
the expectation of increased sales and strengthened customer
loyalty.

As a private-label card provider, Synchrony's compliance with
prudent underwriting policies is critical to its success. While
Synchrony's retailer partners share in Synchrony's profits from
proceeds collected from individual borrowers, Synchrony bears all
the credit risk on the branded credit cards it issues. Moreover,
Synchrony's store-branded credit card business is focused on
riskier borrowers. Private-label cards are generally easier to
obtain than conventional bank-issued credit cards and, given the
business demographics of its retail partners, these cards often
attract a larger segment of higher-risk borrowers.

A decline in the credit quality of Synchrony's loan portfolio can
have a significant impact on both Synchrony's balance sheet and
stock price. Under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and
reporting standards required by the Financial Accounting Standards
Board, the Company must set aside assets or reserve for probable
loan losses. Moreover, as a regulated bank, Synchrony is subject to
stringent capital, liquidity and leverage ratio requirements. If
the credit quality of its portfolio deteriorates, Synchrony must
increase provisions for loan losses, which offsets the Company's
net income.

According to the complaint, at the beginning of the Class Period,
Synchrony falsely represented that its "consistent" and
"disciplined" underwriting practices and "focus on stronger
underwriting" had led to "stable asset quality" and a "higher
quality" loan portfolio than those of its competitors. In truth,
Synchrony relaxed its underwriting standards and increasingly
marketed, offered, and extended its private-label credit cards to
riskier borrowers in order to sustain growth. Synchrony's
undisclosed loosening of its underwriting standards resulted in the
Company's loan portfolio presenting a greater credit risk than what
investors were led to believe and a markedly higher likelihood of
defaults, reserves and charge-offs. Defendants, however, failed to
properly account for the Company's deteriorating loan portfolio. In
particular, Synchrony set inadequate reserves for probable loan
losses and overstated its net earnings.

The truth about Synchrony's credit standards and quality of its
loan portfolio began to be revealed on April 28, 2017, when the
Company announced disappointing first quarter 2017 earnings driven
by poor loan performance. The Company disclosed that it would be
setting aside over $1.3 billion in reserves to cover probable loan
losses, a 21% increase in the reserves over the prior quarter.
Synchrony also announced that its write-off rate climbed to 5.33%,
the highest rate since at least 2012, and that it expected the
write-off rate for the full year to be 5% or slightly higher, as
compared to its earlier forecast of 4.75%. These revelations caused
Synchrony's shares to decline by $5.25 per share, or nearly 16% --
the Company's worst day of trading since its shares began trading
in 2014.

Following these disclosures, the Company represented that it had
"tightened" credit standards. Synchrony stated that tightening
underwriting policies would prevent future charge-offs and free up
significant capital the Company had reserved to cover probable loan
losses. However, the Company falsely characterized these
underwriting changes as "modest" and "surgical" in nature, when in
fact the Company had made significant modifications to its
underwriting and credit extension policies, including changing its
new account acquisition strategies, tightening up credit line
increases, and decreasing existing credit lines. In addition, the
Company concealed from investors that its shift to more
conservative underwriting practices -- i.e., the "disciplined"
approach that it told investors it followed throughout the Class
Period -- was damaging relations with its retail partners.

Specifically, Synchrony's tightening of its credit approval and
extensions placed its partnership with Walmart, Synchrony's most
significant store-branded credit card program, in danger. The
Walmart credit program, which dated back nearly 20 years, was the
Company's highest revenue-producing account, generating more than
$10 billion in annual loan receivables and 19% of Synchrony's
overall retail card balances. Unknown to investors, throughout
2017, Walmart officials complained to Synchrony executives that the
Company's new credit restrictions were suppressing sales growth by
denying too many applicants. Walmart also complained that the
existing contract allowed Synchrony to keep too much card revenue.
These executive-level discussions included a meeting in 2017 where
Walmart executives complained directly to the Synchrony Board.

Despite being told privately by Walmart of its dissatisfaction with
the new underwriting standards and existing retail share
arrangement, Synchrony and its Chief Executive Officer falsely
stated that the Company was "not getting any pushback on credit"
from its partners. In fact, Synchrony and its CEO stated that its
partners supported the underwriting changes since "they don't want
to put credit in the hands of people that can't handle it" and
because of the revenue sharing arrangements between the companies.
The Company also misrepresented its relationship with Walmart,
stating it had "a good relationship" and "great partnership" with
Walmart, had a "great dialogue going on," and that the Company was
"very confident" that it would secure Walmart's renewal. The truth
about the impact that Synchrony's changes in underwriting were
having on its private-label card business began to emerge on July
12, 2018, when it was reported that Walmart was considering ending
its relationship with Synchrony. Two weeks later, on July 26, 2018,
multiple news outlets confirmed that Walmart had chosen a
competitor to replace Synchrony. Together, these two disclosures
caused Synchrony's shares to decline nearly 14%. Then, on November
1, 2018, Walmart sued Synchrony alleging that the Company
deliberately underwrote the Walmart/Synchrony credit card program
in a way that exposes the program to significant unique credit
risk. Walmart is seeking damages "in an amount estimated to be no
less than $800 million." As a result of this disclosure, Synchrony
shares declined by over 10%, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          Scott R. Foglietta, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
            & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com
                  scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Still Defends Cambell, Neal & Mott TCPA Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial 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 company
continues to defend itself from three putative class action
lawsuits alleging violations of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Bank or the Company is, or has been, defending a number of
putative class actions alleging claims under the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") as a result of phone calls made by
the Bank. The complaints generally have alleged that the Bank or
the Company placed calls to consumers by an automated telephone
dialing system or using a pre-recorded message or automated voice
without their consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation,
without specifying an aggregate amount.

Campbell et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on January 25, 2017 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. The
original complaint named only J.C. Penney Company, Inc. and J.C.
Penney Corporation, Inc. as the defendants but was amended on April
7, 2017 to replace those defendants with the Bank.

Neal et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Synchrony Bank, for which
the Bank is indemnifying Wal-Mart, was filed on January 17, 2017 in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.
The original complaint named only Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. as a
defendant but was amended on March 30, 2017 to add Synchrony Bank
as an additional defendant.

Mott et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on February 2, 2018 in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

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

Synchrony Financial operates as a consumer financial services
company in the United States. The company offers private label
credit cards, dual cards, general purpose co-branded credit cards,
and small and medium-sized business credit products; and
promotional financing for consumer purchases, such as private label
credit cards and installment loans. The company was incorporated in
2003 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Defend Class Suit over 401(k) Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself against a putative class suit in
Maryland over its 401(k) Plan.

On February 14, 2017, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price
Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Trust Company, current and former
members of the management committee, and trustees of the T. Rowe
Price U.S. Retirement Program were named as defendants in a lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland.

The lawsuit alleges breaches of ERISA's fiduciary duty and
prohibited transaction provisions on behalf of a class of all
participants and beneficiaries of the T. Rowe Price 401(k) Plan
from February 14, 2011, to the time of judgment. The plaintiffs are
seeking certification of the complaint as a class action.

T. Rowe Price believes the claims are without merit and is
vigorously defending the action.

T. Rowe Price said, "This matter is in the early stages of
litigation and we cannot predict the eventual outcome or whether it
will have a material negative impact on our financial results, or
estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from any
negative outcome."

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

T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager.
The firm provides its services to individuals, institutional
investors, retirement plans, financial intermediaries, and
institutions. It launches and manages equity and fixed income
mutual funds. The firm was previously known as T. Rowe Group, Inc.
and T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. was
founded in 1937 and is based in Baltimore, Maryland.


TAMKO BUILDING: 11th Cir. Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Takesha Thomas, writing for Florida Record, reports that a shingle
producer has been granted an appeal against homeowners who claim
that the company should pay for repairs after allegedly defective
shingles were installed on their homes.

The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Middle
District of Florida granted Tamko Building Products' motion to
compel arbitration and to dismiss a homeowners' complaint after
homeowners Steven Dye and Douglas Bohn filed suit against the
company.

The homeowners alleged that they had shingles installed on their
homes that were manufactured by Tamko, but that Tamko's "Heritage
30" shingles contained "less asphalt than necessary to comply with
industry standards and building codes, which caused the shingles to
crack and split."

The homeowners filed claims for breach of express and implied
warranties, strict products liability, negligence, and violations
of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

But in the Nov. 2 decision, the court ruled that Tamko had complied
with Florida law and therefore was not responsible for paying for
the repairs. Furthermore, the court also denied a request to allow
the homeowners to file a class-action suit against Tamko.

Tamko's Heritage 30 shingles come with a 30-year limited warranty,
which is printed—in full—on the outside wrapper of every
shingle package, the court ruling said.

"The warranty further specifies that any action against Tamko must
be arbitrated individually rather than as part of a consolidated or
class action," the ruling said.

The homeowners had argued that because they hired contractors to
install the shingles onto their roofs, they never became aware of
the labeling on the products. Therefore, they could not have read
the warranty information prior to installation.

"Tamko contended that by unwrapping and retaining its shingles the
homeowners had accepted the terms of its purchase agreement and
were thus bound, pursuant to the agreement's plain terms, to
arbitrate their claims," the court ruling said.

"Applying Florida law, we conclude that the homeowners are bound --
and must therefore arbitrate any product-related claims that they
allege against the manufacturer," it said. [GN]


TAVA CAFE: Reyes Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------
YOEL JULIAN REYES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TAVA CAFE LLC (D/B/A BALZEM), BOBUS
BALAHAN (A.K.A. HARZEN), SALIM MOHAMMED, and MEHDI MOKRANI, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10210 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2018), seeks
minimum wage and overtime compensation under Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff Reyes worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the
hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
Reyes appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight
rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further,
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Reyes the required "spread of
hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day.
Defendants employed and accounted for Plaintiff Reyes as a food
runner, busboy and a delivery worker in their payroll, but in
actuality his duties required a significant amount of time spent
performing the non-tipped duties.

Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising Plaintiff
Reyes’s actual duties in payroll records by designating him as a
a food runner, busboy and a delivery worker instead of as a
non-tipped employee. This allowed Defendants to avoid paying
Plaintiff Reyes at the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay
him at the tip-credit rate (which they still failed to do).
Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff Reyes to all other
similarly situated employees, the lawsuit 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
          E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com

TESLA INC: $5.4MM Sheikh Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEAN SHEIKH, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. TESLA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02193-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson
Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted (i) the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and (ii) the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Service Awards, Attorneys' Fees, and Costs
and Expenses.

In October 2016, Defendant Tesla, a commercial seller of
battery-powered electric vehicles, announced it would release
Enhanced Autopilot for certain of its Hardware 2 ("HW2") vehicles,
which consumers could purchase for $5,000.  Enhanced Autopilot
added new capabilities to Tesla's existing Autopilot function.  At
the time of its release of Enhanced Autopilot, Tesla represented
that the software for these features was expected to complete
validation and be rolled out to one's car via an over-the-air
update in December 2016, subject to regulatory approval

Tesla began rolling out Enhanced Autopilot features to the vehicles
(via remote updates) in January 2017.  Over the next several
months, the features were improved and augmented, with
substantially all promised features delivered by September 2017.
All of the HW2 vehicles were also to be equipped with standard
safety features, which Tesla represented would become available in
December 2016.  The safety features were rolled out beginning in
January 2017, and the rollout was substantially completed in May
2017.

The Plaintiffs are residents of several different states and each
purchased or leased an HW2 vehicle, as well as the optional $5,000
Enhanced Autopilot package.  When they received their vehicles in
December 2016, the standard safety and Enhanced Autopilot features
were not yet operational.  As of May and September 2017, the
standard safety and Enhanced Autopilot features, respectively, were
substantially fully operational.  

Because they did not receive these features by December 2016, the
Plaintiffs brought the putative class action law suit, asserting
claims individually and on behalf of others who purchased Tesla
vehicles with Enhanced Autopilot under California's Unfair
Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and False
Advertising Law, California common law, and, in the alternative,
consumer protection and common law claims under the laws of the
states of each of the named Plaintiffs.

After the Plaintiffs filed two amended complaints and engaged in
preliminary discovery, the parties agreed to engage in early
mediation on Nov. 2, 2017.  The parties reached the contours of a
settlement agreement on that date and reached a final settlement on
April 27, 2018.  On June 8, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and set
a fairness hearing for Oct. 17, 2018.

The Agreement defines the Settlement Class as all U.S. residents
who purchased Enhanced Autopilot in connection with their purchase
or lease of a Tesla Hardware 2 Model S or Model X vehicle delivered
to them on or before Sept. 30, 2017.

Under the Agreement, the Defendants have agreed to provide a
Settlement Fund in the amount of $5,415,280.  The Settlement Fund
will be used to pay any attorneys' fees and costs, any service
awards to the class representatives, and payments to the settlement
class members, but settlement notice and administration costs will
be paid separately by Tesla.  Any residual amount after the second
attempted distribution of funds to the class members will be
donated to the Ohio State University Center for Automotive Research
and/or Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Center for
Transportation Safety.

Each class member will be paid a portion of the fund based on a
combination of the following: (1) Tesla's representations regarding
the timing of the release of the Enhanced Autopilot features as of
the date the Settlement Class Members ordered their vehicles, (2)
the timing and content of Tesla's Enhanced Autopilot software
releases, and (3) the date that the Settlement Class Members took
delivery of their vehicles.

The Settlement Administrator provided notice to the 32,410 class
members via direct mail on July 23, 2018.  It also maintained a
toll-free phone number and website to provide notice.  The
Settlement Administrator represents that the notice by mail reached
98.61% of all class members and the phone number received 195
calls.  It received 94 requests for exclusion1 and no objections.
Two objections were filed with the Court.

On Oct. 17, 2018, the Court heard the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Service Awards, Attorneys' Fees, and Costs and Expenses. The Court
indicated on the record that both motions would be granted.

Judge Freeman concludes that the requirements of Rule 23 are met
and thus that certification of the class for settlement purposes is
appropriate.  Dean Sheikh, John Kelner, Tom Milone, Daury Lamarche,
and Michael Verdolin are appointed as the class representatives and
the Steve W. Berman, Thomas E. Loeser, and Robert F. Lopez of
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as the class counsel.

Next, the Judge finds that notice of the proposed settlement was
adequate, the settlement was not the result of collusion, and the
settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable.  She therefore granted
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement.

The Plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys' fees totaling $961,018,
reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses in the amount of
$14,981.95, and a service award of $4,800 for each class
representative.  The Judge has no hesitation in approving an award
in the requested amount of $14,981.95.  The Class Counsel has
submitted an itemized list of expenses.  The Judge has reviewed the
list and finds the expenses to be reasonable.  She likewise is
satisfied that the request for attorneys' fees is reasonable.
Accordingly, she granted the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees
and expenses.  The Plaintiff is awarded expenses in the amount of
$14,981.95 and attorneys' fees in the amount of $961,018.

Finally, the Judge concludes that the requested $4,800 incentive
award is appropriate in the case.  The class representatives'
participation in the case was substantial and was essential to
obtaining the considerable monetary recovery which will be enjoyed
by each class member.

Within 21 days after the distribution of the settlement funds and
payment of attorneys' fees, the parties will file a
Post-Distribution Accounting in accordance with the District's
Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/6Jy1NS from Leagle.com.

Dean Sheikh, John Kelner & Tom Milone, Plaintiffs, represented by
Robert F. Lopez -- robf@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Shana E. Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice.

Daury Lamarche & Michael Verdolin, Plaintiffs, represented by
Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice &
Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Michael Verdolen, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Tesla, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Claudia Maria Vetesi -- cvetesi@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster
LLP, Lauren Lynn Wroblewski -- lwroblewski@mofo.com -- Morrison &
Foerster LLP, Penelope Athene Preovolos -- ppreovolos@mofo.com --
Morrison & Foerster LLP & Sean Paul Gates -- spg@charislex.com --
Charis Lex P.C..


TICKETMASTER L.L.C.: Messing Sues over Ticket Purchasing Limits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Messing and Scott Forschein, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TICKETMASTER L.L.C.,
a Virginia corporation, LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Delaware
corporation, the Defendants, Case 2:18-cv-09386 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2,
2018), alleges that Defendants purported to maintain purchasing
limits designed to prevent scalpers from using bots to buy tickets
on a mass scale.

According to the complaint, Ticketmaster, owned by Live Nation, is
the world's largest ticket supplier with a near monopoly on major
event seating in North America and the United Kingdom. In recent
years, Ticketmaster has expanded into the ticket reseller arena
through its "verified resale" program that lets scalpers sell
directly on Ticketmaster's website. This program gives Ticketmaster
a new revenue source - a second commission on every "verified
resale" ticket sold on Ticketmaster.com (on top of the commission
it collects on the original purchase of each ticket).

Ticketmaster developed a professional reseller program and recently
created TradeDesk, a web-based inventory management system for
scalpers. TradeDesk allows scalpers to upload large quantities of
tickets purchased from Ticketmaster's site and quickly list them
again for resale. Ticketmaster is well aware that many of the
scalpers using TradeDesk are in violation of their terms of service
limiting ticket quantities per person per event. They have in fact
created an incentive to the scalpers to upload mass quantities of
tickets through TradeDesk which would result in a reduction in the
commission fee the scalpers pay. When scalpers are permitted to
circumvent the rules set by Ticketmaster, it creates a shortage of
tickets for events which then drives up ticket prices. This
behavior hurts the consumer by inflating the prices, but benefits
Ticketmaster through the additional fees they earn on the resale
ticket. In 2017, Ticketmaster earned $2.1 billion from ticket
sales, up seventeen percent the prior year.

As Ticketmaster has a virtual monopoly on live ticket event sales
in the United States, they serve as the gatekeeper to the
entertainment industry's most coveted events. In that capacity,
Ticketmaster purports to maintain purchasing limits designed to
prevent scalpers from using bots to buy tickets on a mass scale. As
a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendants' acts and
otherwise wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and Class members suffered
damages. Defendants profited and benefitted from the fact that
Plaintiffs to pay higher ticket prices and fees. Defendants have
voluntarily accepted and retained these profits and benefits,
derived from their customers, including Plaintiffs and Class
members, with full knowledge and awareness that retention of such
profits and benefits is wrong and unlawful, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed class:

          David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
          Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
          Wendy M. Behan, Esq.
          Angela Jae Chun, Esq.
          Alyssa Williams, Esq.
          CASEY GERRY SCHENK
          FRANCAVILLA BLATT &
          PENFIELD, LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1811
          Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
          E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
                  gmb@cglaw.com
                  jrobinson@cglaw.com
                  wbehan@cglaw.com
                  ajc@cglaw.com
                  awilliams@cglaw.com

               - and -

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

TIM HORTONS: Ontario Superior Court Trims Franchisees' Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marina Strauss, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that
rebellious Tim Hortons franchisees have been dealt a setback in
their legal feuds with the chain's parent company over restaurant
costs and the right to associate.

An Ontario Superior Court judge has struck out many of the claims
that franchisees had made in two separate legal actions in which
they are seeking class-action status against the
coffee-and-baked-goods chain.

Justice Edward Morgan threatened to throw out the franchisees'
legal actions if they don't amend their pleadings within 30 days by
dropping many of their claims and providing some more details to
back the allegations that remain.

Unless the franchisees fix their pleadings in 30 days, "those
pleadings shall be struck out in their entirety, without further
leave to amend," Justice Morgan ruled on Oct. 22.

The often-public dispute between the Tim Horton's Inc. franchisees
and their parent company, Restaurant Brands International Inc., has
largely gone quiet over the past two months because the two sides
are trying to resolve their differences behind closed doors,
industry sources said. The underlying disagreements focus on how
much in costs the franchisees must shoulder as the company pursues
new initiatives, such as renovating restaurants, to help pump up
sluggish sales growth.

In the meantime, new executives at Tim Hortons are trying to strike
a more conciliatory tone with franchisees, patch up the poor
relations and restore some of the brand's lost lustre.

RBI spokeswoman Jane Almeida said that it has always believed the
legal actions were designed primarily for media attention,
initiated last year "during a more difficult time in the
relationship between Tim Hortons and a select group of
franchisees."

"This latest court victory for Tim Hortons reaffirms that the
lawsuits are lacking in merit and facts," she said. She added that
the company is working with its elected advisory board of
restaurant owners and is optimistic about the future relationship
with all franchisees. Dissident franchisees say that the advisory
group has no real power and is simply a rubber stamp for corporate
decisions.

Richard Quance -- richard@himprolaw.com -- a lawyer at Himelfarb
Proszanski LLP who represents the franchisees, said that while the
judgment is a setback, he's confident the cases will proceed with
key issues intact. "It's inconceivable we're not going to deliver
an amended statement of claim" by the deadline, he said.

In March of 2017, an unhappy group of franchisees formed the Great
White North Franchisee Association (GWNFA) to challenge what many
restaurant owners called excessive cost-cutting and corporate
mismanagement that they said were hurting the Tim Hortons brand and
franchisees' profits.

In June of that year, franchisee Mark Kuziora sought class-action
status for a lawsuit, claiming RBI, its executives and its
franchisor TDL Group were misusing the restaurant owners'
advertising money. Four months later in another legal action, two
other franchisees -- David Hughes, GWNFA president, and Mark Walker
-- sought class-action status, alleging the company, its executives
and TDL were interfering with the franchisees' right to associate.

By this summer, both Mr. Hughes and Mr. Kuziora, two of the most
prominent franchisee rebels, had left the company after RBI
negotiated settlements with each of them for undisclosed amounts.
Mr. Kuziora had sued RBI in the spring after it had blocked the
renewal of one of his two restaurant licences. Meanwhile, on the
Labour Day weekend, RBI locked out Mr. Hughes from his four Alberta
restaurants. Mr. Walker has now replaced Mr. Hughes as president of
GWNFA, whose spokeswoman declined to comment for this story.

But even as meetings behind the scenes between Great White North
and RBI continue, the legal cases are moving through the courts.

Legal experts said the latest judgment is a disappointment for the
franchisees but the cases can still go ahead. However, the
franchisees may have to pay the company heavy costs as part of the
decision, they said.

"It's a symbolic blow to the lawsuits' optics and certainly to the
momentum," said Ben Hanuka, a franchise lawyer at Law Works.

But the lawsuits can still go forward, he said. "This is just the
first battle. The next one, I suspect, is even going to be more
difficult for them." The franchisees still have to win
certification for class-action status.

Matthew Kelly, managing partner at consultancy Level5 St Strategy
Group, said the wrangling can become a big distraction for Tim
Hortons in its efforts to improve its restaurants and customers'
experience amid heated competition.

Mr. Kelly, a former executive at Yum Brands Inc., which owns Pizza
Hut, KFC and Taco Bell, said the spat can become a competitive
disadvantage for Tim Hortons. "When you're in an ultra-competitive,
low-growth business like fast food, you really need everyone rowing
in the same direction to compete with juggernauts like Starbucks
and McDonald's," said Mr. Kelly, who has worked extensively with
franchisees at Yum.

Justice Morgan said the franchisees' claim of breach of contract
can be sustained in both of the legal actions as well as claims of
breach of duty regarding fair dealing in the right-to-associate
action -- as long as the franchisees amend their pleadings within
30 days and produce "particulars" to back some of the allegations.

The judge also struck out defendants RBI and a number of its
executives, including chief executive officer Daniel Schwartz, in
both cases but kept TDL Group, the franchisor that is owned by RBI,
as the sole party that is being sued. [GN]


TREASURE ISLAND: Demesa Sues Over Illegal SMS Marketing Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Demesa, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Treasure Island, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 18-cv-02007, (D. Nev., October 17, 2018), seeks statutory
damages and injunctive relief for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act through its unauthorized contact of
consumers on their respective cellular telephones using a virtual
concierge platform by sending consumers unsolicited text messages
for marketing and advertising purposes.

Treasure Island owns and operates the Treasure Island Hotel and
Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada. It has a guest-engagement platform and
virtual concierge that uses a messaging service designed to
interact with hotel guests. Demesa's cellular-telephone number was
linked to a subscription plan under which she was charged each
month for cellular-telephone and data services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. O'Mara, Esq.
      THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C.
      311 E. Liberty St.
      Reno, NV 89501
      Telephone: (775) 323-1321
      Facsimile: (775) 323-4082
      E-mail: david@omaralaw.net

              - and -

      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
      Email: michael@jlglawyers.com
             ryan@jlglawyers.com


TRI-CED COMMERCIAL: Otero Sues Over Sexual Harassment, Termination
------------------------------------------------------------------
Heysell Otero, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TRI-CED Commercial Recycling and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG18925070 (Cal.
Super., October 17, 2018), seeks to recover punitive damages,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit as provided by the
California Government Code.

Otero was initially hired by TRI-CED as a dispatcher and was later
promoted to route supervisor. Otero complained about sexually
discriminatory and harassing actions taken towards her. She was
then placed on a three-week paid suspension from her employment and
eventually terminated. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robin G. Workman, Esq.
      Rachel Davey, Esq.
      WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC
      177 Post Street, Suite 800
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 782-3660
      Facsimile: (415) 788-1028
      Email: robin@workmanlawpc.com
             rachel@workmanlawpc.com


TRIPLE S PROPERTIES: Martinez Moves to Certify MO Residents Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled ELIZABETH MARTINEZ, ET AL. v.
TRIPLE S PROPERTIES, INC., Case No. 6:17-cv-03195-RK (W.D. Mo.),
move the Court to certify this class:

     All persons residing in Missouri who, within the five years
     preceding the filing of this petition who,

     (a) submitted a lease application to Defendant, and

     (b) Defendant obtained a consumer credit report and

     (c) Defendant took adverse action as to their lease
         application based upon the contents of their consumer
         credit report and

     (d) who did not receive any FCRA adverse action notice from
         Defendant.

     Excluded from the above class definition are Defendants, any
     entity in which any Defendants has a controlling interest,
     any of the officers, directors, or employees of Defendants,
     the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of
     Defendants, or their immediate family and Plaintiffs'
     counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig R. Heidemann, Esq.
          Nathan A. Duncan, Esq.
          Nickolas W. Allen, Esq.
          DOUGLAS, HAUN & HEIDEMANN, P.C.
          111 West Broadway, P.O. Box 117
          Bolivar, MO 65613
          Telephone: (417) 326-5261
          Facsimile: (417) 326-2845
          E-mail: craig@dhhlawfirm.com
                  nathan@dhhlawfirm.com
                  nick@dhhlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Patrick R. Baird, Esq.
          Brett Roubal, Esq.
          Rachel Riso, Esq.
          BAIRD, LIGHTNER, MILLSAP PC
          1901-C S Ventura
          Springfield, MO 65804
          Telephone: (417) 887-0133
          E-mail: pbaird@blmlawyers.com
                  broubal@blmlawyers.com
                  rriso@blmlawyers.com


UNIFUND CCR: Ehrnfeld Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifund CCR, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Aaron Ehrnfeld on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Unifund CCR,
LLC, Distressed Asset Portfolio III, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-06504 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018).

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

Unifund CCR Partners, Inc. purchases, sells, and manages
under-performing and distressed consumer receivables in the United
States.[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



UNITED STATES: Certification of Class Sought in Caldwell Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Daniel Caldwell v. Jefferson
Sessions, Attorney General, Kierstjen Nielsen, Secretary of DHS,
and Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, Case No. 4:18-cv-01719 (S.D.
Tex.), moves for class action certification under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Mr. Caldwell contends that the class is so numerous that joinder of
all members is impracticable.  He asserts that the number of U.S.
citizen K-1 visa sponsors annually is so sufficiently large as to
be too impracticable to join all members.

Mr. Caldwell, of Houston, Texas, appears pro se.[CC]

Defendants Jefferson Sessions and Kierstjen Nielsen are represented
by:

          Eleanor Robinson-Gaither, Esq.
          US ATTORNEY OFFICE
          1000 Louisiana Avenue, Suite 2300
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 567-9000
          E-mail: eleanor.robinson-gaither@usdoj.gov

Defendant Mike Pompeo is represented by:

          Jennifer G. Newstead, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE LEGAL ADVISER
          U.S. Department of State
          L/EX Room 5.600, SA-17
          600 19th St., N.W.
          Washington, DC 20522-1705
          Telephone: (202) 647-5036


UNITED STATES: NYCLU Sues Over Immigrant Fingerprint Requirement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Grant, writing for Law.com, reports that the New York Civil
Liberties Union has launched a national putative class action
claiming that a Trump administration policy on fingerprint-based
background checks for immigrant household members has led to the
highest level in history of migrant children being locked up in
government custody away from their parents.

Calling the policy and the "predictable" administrative delays that
come with it "unconscionable," the civil rights group filed its
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on Nov. 6. The 23-page suit, which the group brought in
conjunction with Morrison & Foerster and the National Center for
Youth Law, names as plaintiffs six migrant children currently in
custody who allegedly have been waiting between two weeks and
nearly four months for the results of their sponsors' fingerprint
background checks.

In September, the number of migrant children in government custody
stood at 12,800, which has been reported as the highest amount
ever, Naomi Dann, an NYCLU spokeswoman, said in an email to the Law
Journal.

The complaint contends that the Trump administration's
fingerprinting requirements, made effective in June, violate the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, a federal
statute that requires the prompt release of children from
immigration detention.

Moreover, the suit alleges, the requirements also violate
constitutional-based due process rights of the children and their
parents, the federal Administrative Procedure Act and a 1997
consent decree governing the care of unaccompanied immigrant
children known as the "Flores Settlement."

The Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is the agency responsible
for immigrant children in government custody and is part of the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said on Nov. 7 in an
email that, as a matter of policy, Health and Human Services does
not comment on matters related to pending litigation.

ORR began requiring fingerprint checks of children's parents and
all of their household members in June 2018, soon after adopting
new policies to share fingerprints with Immigration and Customs
Enforcement for enforcement purposes, the lawsuit and an NYCLU news
release said.

The fingerprint-based background checks are now allegedly adding
weeks and months to the length of time migrant children are
detained, while family members wait for appointments to have their
fingerprints taken at one of "the limited sites" ORR has set up,
the NYCLU claims.

Then the family members wait weeks longer—and sometimes months
longer—for results to be processed, the lawsuit claims.

"The longer children are detained the more likely they are to
suffer irreversible psychological harm, relive trauma, fall behind
in school, and, for those who turn 18 in custody, risk being
transferred to an adult facility facing deportation proceedings,"
said Paige Austin, an NYCLU staff attorney, in a statement. She
added that the long delays also "exposed the [children's] family
members to the risk of deportation."

Prior to implementation of ORR's June policy, only nonparent
relatives and nonrelatives seeking to sponsor children in ORR
custody were required to submit fingerprints for background checks.
Household members didn't need to be fingerprinted unless there was
a special concern for the child's safety, the lawsuit and news
release said.

Because more than 40 percent of children in ORR custody are
released to a parent, the changes have "hugely increased" the
number of people who have to be fingerprinted, but ORR has not
taken the steps needed to ensure that fingerprinting can occur in a
timely fashion, the NYCLU said.

The suit is seeking to represent a class of more than 1,000
children in custody whose release is contingent on the
fingerprint-based background check of their sponsor or the
sponsor's household members.

Morrison & Foerster, the American Civil Liberties Union and the
National Center for Youth Law all filed the lawsuit with the NYCLU
and are working the case.  Michael Birnbaum -- mbirnbaum@mofo.com
-- a Morrison & Foerster partner in New York, noted in a statement
made in the news release that "Morrison & Foerster is proud to
stand alongside the NYCLU, ACLU, and NCYL as we continue our
advocacy on behalf of migrant children." [GN]


UNIVERSITY MEDICAL: To Pay $820K for Discovery Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Ayla Ellison, writing for Beckers Hospital Review reports that a
Nevada federal judge has ordered Las Vegas-based University Medical
Center to pay nearly $820,000 in sanctions for destroying evidence
and discovery violations in a class-action employee wages lawsuit.

The civil lawsuit alleges University Medical Center employees,
including nurses, routinely worked through their meal breaks
without pay. The lawsuit was filed after a Department of Labor
investigation addressed similar issues. The DOL concluded that the
hospital violated the record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act "by not keeping accurate records of hours worked for
all employees due to the fact that employees were not taking lunch
breaks, but it was automatically deducted in pay records."

In the civil lawsuit, the court appointed a special master after
University Medical Center failed to produce electronically stored
information in response to plaintiffs' discovery requests. The
special master's report revealed several discovery violations.

"The court found that UMC had repeatedly violated its discovery
obligations and its duty to preserve," wrote U.S. Magistrate Judge
Peggy A. Leen in an order filed Nov. 5. "Its multiple failures to
implement timely preservation procedures, and to identify and
collect information from relevant responsive repositories, resulted
in the destruction of electronically stored information responsive
to plaintiffs' discovery requests. It also resulted in considerable
delay of discovery, consumed an extraordinary amount of judicial
resources, and cost the parties enormous, unnecessary time and
expense."

The judge gave the hospital until Dec. 5 to pay $819,715 in
sanctions, including $570,885 in attorneys' fees and costs of
$248,830. [GN]


UNUM GROUP: Continues to Defend Cunningham Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself against a securities class action suit entitled,
Scott Cunningham v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John McGarry, and
Daniel Waxenberg.

On July 13, 2018, an alleged securities class action lawsuit
entitled Scott Cunningham v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John
McGarry, and Daniel Waxenberg was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The
allegations, class period, and damages claimed mirror those in the
Pittman matter.

The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously
defend the litigation.

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

Unum Group, together with its subsidiaries, provides financial
protection benefit solutions in the United States, the United
Kingdom, and internationally. It operates through Unum US, Unum UK,
Colonial Life, and Closed Block segments. The company was founded
in 1848 and is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


UNUM GROUP: Continues to Defend Pittman Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself from a securities class action suit entitled, Cynthia
Pittman v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John McGarry, and Daniel
Waxenberg.

On June 13, 2018, an alleged securities class action lawsuit
entitled Cynthia Pittman v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John
McGarry, and Daniel Waxenberg was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The plaintiff
seeks to represent purchasers of Unum Group publicly traded
securities between January 31, 2018 and May 2, 2018.

The plaintiff alleges the Company caused its shares to trade at
artificially high levels by failing to disclose information about
the rate of long-term care policy terminations and long-term care
claim incidence resulting in misleading statements about capital
management plans and long-term care reserves. The complaint asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and seeks compensatory
damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously
defend the litigation.

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

Unum Group, together with its subsidiaries, provides financial
protection benefit solutions in the United States, the United
Kingdom, and internationally. It operates through Unum US, Unum UK,
Colonial Life, and Closed Block segments. The company was founded
in 1848 and is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


UNUM GROUP: Still Faces Suit by Taylor Police Retirement System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself from a securities class action suit entitled, City of
Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System v. Unum Group, Richard
McKenney, John McGarry, Steve Zabel, and Daniel Waxenberg.

On July 25, 2018, an alleged securities class action lawsuit
entitled City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System v. Unum
Group, Richard McKenney, John McGarry, Steve Zabel, and Daniel
Waxenberg was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee. The plaintiff seeks to represent
purchasers of Unum Group publicly traded securities between October
27, 2016 and May 1, 2018. The allegations and damages claimed
mirror those in the Cynthia Pittman v. Unum Group, Richard
McKenney, John McGarry, and Daniel Waxenberg matter.

The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously
defend the litigation.

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

Unum Group, together with its subsidiaries, provides financial
protection benefit solutions in the United States, the United
Kingdom, and internationally. It operates through Unum US, Unum UK,
Colonial Life, and Closed Block segments. The company was founded
in 1848 and is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


VEREIT INC: Inks Settlement with 4 Class Action Opt-Out Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vereit, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on October 29, 2018, 2018, that the
company has reached a deal with four class action opt-out entities.


On October 26, 2018, VEREIT Inc., a Maryland corporation, and
VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. a Delaware limited partnership
(collectively "VEREIT" or the "Company"), entered into Settlement
Agreements and Releases (the "Settlement Agreements") to settle the
previously disclosed litigations with four class action opt out
entities serving as plaintiffs in the following actions pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York:

     -- Archer Capital Master Fund, L.P., et al. v. American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc. et al, No. 1:16-cv-05471-AKH;

     -- Atlas Master Fund, Ltd., et al. v. American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-05475-AKH;

     -- Fir Tree Capital Opportunity Master Fund, L.P., et al. v.
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No.
1:17-cv-04975-AKH; and

     -- Cohen & Steers Institutional Realty Shares, Inc. et al v.
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No.
1:18-cv-06770-AKH (collectively, the "Actions", and such plaintiffs
collectively, the "Opt Out Plaintiffs").

The Opt Out Plaintiffs' claims arose out of the disclosures made by
the Company in October 2014 and March 2015 regarding its financial
statements, which included the Company's March 2015 restatement of
certain of its previously issued financial statements. Pursuant to
the terms of the Settlement Agreements, the parties have agreed
that the Opt Out Plaintiffs will dismiss all claims against the
Company and the other defendants with prejudice and the Company
will pay the Opt Out Plaintiffs the sum of $42.5 million in
connection with the settlement of the claims.

The Settlement Agreements contain mutual releases by both the Opt
Out Plaintiffs and the Company, although the Company retains the
right to pursue any and all claims against the other defendants in
the Actions and/or third parties, including claims for contribution
for amounts paid in the settlement. The Settlement Agreements do
not contain any admission of liability, wrongdoing or
responsibility by any of the parties.

Including the previously announced settlements with Vanguard
Specialized Funds and other Vanguard funds, and eight additional
opt out plaintiffs, the Company has now settled claims brought by
plaintiffs representing approximately 31 percent of VEREIT's
outstanding shares of common stock and swaps referencing common
stock held at the end of the period covered by the various pending
shareholder actions for a total of $217.5 million.

Vereit said, "There can be no assurance as to whether or how these
settlements may affect any potential future resolution of any other
pending lawsuit, the timing of any such resolution, or the amount
at which any other matter may be resolved."

Vereit, Inc. is a full-service real estate operating company which
owns and manages one of the largest portfolios of single-tenant
commercial properties in the U.S. VEREIT is a publicly traded
Maryland corporation listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


VRE CHICAGO: Court Denies Reconsideration Bid in Walls Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Thomas M. Durkin denied the Baker Monroe defendants'
motion to reconsider or to certify a question of law for an
immediate appeal in the lawsuit styled RAYMOND L. and TERRYLL ANN
WALLS, as Co-Trustees of the RAYMOND L. WALLS AND TERRYLL ANN WALLS
DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED MAY 30, 2002, AS AMENDED JULY 18, 2013
v. VRE CHICAGO ELEVEN, LLC, VERDAD REAL ESTATE, INC., EXP REALTY
ADVISORS, INC., TARTAN REALTY GROUP, INC., BAKER MONROE PLLC, B.
JASON KEEN, ROBERT J. MOORHEAD, RUSSELL SMITH, CHRIS BAKER, JUSTIN
HUSTON, VPC CHICAGO11, LLC, VESTAPOINT CAPITAL II LLC, AARON
STEARNS, and MATT LANGFIELD, Case No. 1:16-cv-04048 (N.D. Ill.),
VERDAD REAL ESTATE, INC., and VRE CHICAGO ELEVEN, LLC, Third-Party
Plaintiffs v. MARK A. REINSCH, MARK A. REINSCH, P.A., DTZ AMERICAS,
INC., CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC., and MATTHEW MCNEILL, Third-Party
Defendants.

According to Judge Durkin's memorandum opinion and order, a court
may exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if that
defendant has "certain minimum contacts" with the state "such that
the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of
fair play and substantial justice.'" International Shoe Co. v.
Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).  Since International Shoe,
the Supreme Court has provided guidelines for what constitutes
"minimum contacts" for courts exercising jurisdiction over
nonresident defendants.  Most recently, courts have explained that
a defendant's "minimum contacts" with the state must arise out of
contacts that the defendant himself creates with the forum state
itself, and cannot be based solely on plaintiff's contacts with the
forum or on defendant's contacts with persons who reside in the
forum state.  See Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014).

Judge Durkin notes that the Baker Monroe defendants compare their
case to cases dismissing defendants for lack of personal
jurisdiction under Walden because defendants' only connection to
the forum was their contact with or impact on third parties who
reside in the forum.  For this reason, Judge Durkin opines, both
Ariel Investments, LLC v. Ariel Capital Advisors LLC, 881 F.3d 520
(7th Cir. 2018) and Monco v. Zoltek, 2018 WL 4538728 (N.D. Ill.
Sept. 21, 2018), where the only connection to Illinois were the
plaintiffs, are inapplicable.

"But this case implicates a simpler notion of personal
jurisdiction, based on the defendant's contacts with the forum
state itself," Judge Durkin states.  He explains that the Supreme
Court in Walden did nothing to alter the basic principle that
courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants who have
"purposefully 'reach[ed] out beyond' their state and into another
by, for example, entering a contractual relationship that
'envisioned continuing and wide-reaching contacts' in the forum
state, . . . or by circulating magazines to 'deliberately
exploi[t]' a market in the forum state."  In those cases, as the
Walden Court explained, physical entry is not a prerequisite.

"Physical entry into Illinois by the Baker Monroe defendants would
make this an easier case, but it is not necessary to find the
exercise of personal jurisdiction appropriate here.  The crux of
the jurisdictional inquiry is whether the defendant's own actions
connect him to the forum state itself, and not simply to a
plaintiff who resides there," Judge Durkin writes.

The Court notes that the Baker Monroe defendants misconstrue the
portion of the Court's previous opinion addressing Reinsch, the
attorney who represented plaintiffs in the transaction.  Unlike the
Baker Monroe defendants, who plaintiffs allege were directly
involved in the fraudulent scheme, the allegations concerning
Reinsch relate only to his representation of plaintiffs.  The
Plaintiffs were located in California, and Reinsch was located in
Florida.  Reinsch is not alleged to have done anything whatsoever
directed at Illinois itself, according to the order.[CC]


WELBILT INC: Jan. 8 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. on Nov. 11 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Welbilt, Inc. (NYSE: WBT)
securities between February 24, 2017 and November 2, 2018 (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until January 8, 2019 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Welbilt made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the company lacked effective internal control
over financial reporting; (ii) the company was incorrectly
recording the tax basis of foreign subsidiaries and the
amortization of their intangible assets; and (iii) as a result of
the foregoing, defendants' statements about Welbilt's business,
operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

If you purchased Welbilt securities during the Class Period or
continue to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon
Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com,
or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact
form. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a New
York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities
litigation. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Customers Sue Over Auto Insurance Program
------------------------------------------------------
Matt Egan, writing for CNN Business, reports that Wells Fargo
executives were warned that the bank's auto insurance program was
harming customers four years before it was shut down, according to
a lawsuit.

Wells Fargo admitted last year to charging hundreds of thousands of
borrowers for auto insurance they didn't need. Some customers even
had their vehicles repossessed because of the needless charges.

Members of Wells Fargo's executive risk management committee were
alerted in April and July 2012 to "critical issues" about the
insurance program known as collateral protection insurance, or CPI,
a complaint unsealed by a judge on Nov. 5 alleges.

"Although senior Wells Fargo executives had long known that the CPI
scheme harmed customers, Wells Fargo only shut it down in September
2016," the class action lawsuit brought by customers said.

The executives who were allegedly informed of Wells Fargo's flawed
insurance program include David Julian, the bank's former chief
auditor.

Wells Fargo (WFC) announced last month that Julian had taken a
leave of absence. The bank gave few details about the sudden
change, other than to say the move was linked to "ongoing reviews"
by regulators into the bank's retail sales practices.
Reached by phone on Nov. 7, Julian declined to comment on the
allegations or to detail why he is on a leave of absence.

The lawsuit alleges that other executives informed of the auto
insurance problems include former chief administrative officer Pat
Callahan, former general counsel James Strother and former chief
risk officer Michael Loughlin. Those executives, all of whom
retired over the past three years, could not be reached for
comment.

Kenneth Zimmerman, former head of deposit products at Wells Fargo,
was also named in the lawsuit. Mr. Zimmerman took a leave of
absence in early 2016 and left in July 2017, according to the Wall
Street Journal. Mr. Zimmerman could not be reached for comment.

News of the unsealed complaint was first reported by Reuters. In a
statement, Wells Fargo pointed out that the bank ended the
insurance program in September 2016.

"Since then, we have been reviewing customer accounts and
developing a remediation plan -- which we hope to finalize very
soon -- to provide impacted customers with the compensation they
deserve," the bank said.

Up to 20,000 cars repossessed

Wells Fargo set aside $241 million in the third quarter to go
towards refunding customers who were harmed by the insurance
program.

The bank has faced a series of scandals over allegedly abusing
customers and even employees. Wells Fargo has admitted to opening
millions of bank and credit card accounts without customers'
knowledge. And Wells Fargo has said it charged homebuyers mortgage
fees they didn't deserve. Earlier, Wells Fargo identified another
145 customers who lost their homes due to a computer glitch.

The auto insurance class action lawsuit was brought by more than a
dozen borrowers who were charged for insurance after obtaining car
loans through Wells Fargo.

Wells Fargo has said that up to 570,000 auto loan borrowers were
charged for car insurance without their knowledge. As many as
20,000 of those customers may have defaulted on their car loans or
had their vehicles repossessed in part due to these unnecessary
insurance costs.

Samir Hanef, a clinical social worker from North Carolina, said his
Honda Civic was repossessed even though he kept up with his car
loan payments each month.

"My car was held as extortion," Mr. Hanef told CNN last year, "and
I was forced to pay for Wells Fargo's mistake." [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Settles 2 RMBS Trust Class Actions for $43MM
---------------------------------------------------------
Rick Baert, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that Wells
Fargo Bank will pay a total of $43 million to settle two
class-action lawsuits filed by a group of institutional investors
including BlackRock (BLK) and Pacific Investment Management Co.
over the bank's role as trustee of residential mortgage-backed
securities trusts.

The bank, which denies the allegations in the lawsuits, also will
release up to $70 million from certain trust reserve accounts
established in connection with the litigation, according to a joint
news release from Wells Fargo and PIMCO issued Nov. 9.

The suits were filed in U.S. District Court in New York and New
York Superior Court, according to Wells Fargo's latest 10-Q filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission. According to the 10-Q
filing, the lawsuits claimed Wells Fargo did not meet its duties as
trustee of 271 RMBS trusts created between 2004 and 2008.

Wells Fargo said in the release that its duties were limited to
administering the trusts, and it had no role in the origination or
servicing of the mortgages at issue.

Separate lawsuits filed by other institutional investors concerning
58 trusts are not covered by the agreement, according to the news
release.

"Following more than four years of litigation, including fact and
expert discovery, we concluded that this agreement provides a fair
and reasonable resolution of the claims," according to a statement
from the plaintiffs in the case issued through their attorney,
Timothy A. DeLange -- timothyd@blbglaw.com -- partner at the law
firm of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. [GN]


WORLD WRESTLING: Court Dismisses Laurinaitis Suit
-------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25,
2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
Court has granted the motion to dismiss filed by the Company and
Vincent K. McMahon in the case, Joseph M. Laurinaitis, et al. vs.
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and Vincent K. McMahon,
individually and as the trustee of certain trusts.

On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William Albert Haynes
III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. This complaint was amended on January
30, 2015 and alleged that the Company ignored, downplayed, and/or
failed to disclose the risks associated with traumatic brain
injuries suffered by WWE's performers and seeks class action
status.

On March 31, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended class action complaint in its entirety or, if not
dismissed, to transfer the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut. Without addressing the merits of the
Company's motion to dismiss, the Court transferred the case to
Connecticut on June 25, 2015. The plaintiffs filed an objection to
such transfer, which was denied on July 27, 2015.

On January 16, 2015, a second lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entitled
Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
alleging many of the same allegations as Haynes. On February 27,
2015, the Company moved to transfer venue to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut due to forum-selection
clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs and that
motion was granted on March 23, 2015.  

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2015 and,
following a scheduling conference in which the court ordered the
plaintiffs to cure various pleading deficiencies, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on June 15, 2015. On June 29,
2015, WWE moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in its
entirety.

On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the Central District of California, entitled Russ
McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew
R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
asserting similar allegations to Haynes. The Company again moved to
transfer the lawsuit to Connecticut due to forum-selection clauses
in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs, which the
California court granted on July 10, 2015.  

On September 21, 2015, the plaintiffs amended this complaint, and,
on November 16, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. Each of these suits seeks unspecified actual,
compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief, including
ordering medical monitoring.  

The Haynes and McCullough cases purport to be class actions. On
February 18, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Tennessee state court and
subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, entitled Cassandra Frazier, individually and
as next of kin to her deceased husband, Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr.,
and as personal representative of the Estate of Nelson Lee Frazier,
Jr. Deceased, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

A similar suit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas entitled Michelle James, as mother and
next friend of Matthew Osborne, minor child, and Teagan Osborne, a
minor child v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

These lawsuits contain many of the same allegations as the other
lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further allege that
the injuries contributed to these former talents' deaths. WWE moved
to transfer the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut based on forum-selection
clauses in the decedents' contracts with WWE, which motions were
granted by the respective courts.

On November 23, 2015, amended complaints were filed in Frazier and
Osborne, which the Company moved to dismiss on December 16, 2015
and December 21, 2015, respectively. On November 10, 2016, the
Court granted the Company's motions to dismiss the Frazier and
Osborne lawsuits in their entirety. On June 29, 2015, the Company
filed a declaratory judgment action in the U. S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut entitled World Wrestling Entertainment,
Inc. v. Robert Windham, Thomas Billington, James Ware, Oreal Perras
and various John and Jane Does seeking a declaration against these
former performers that their threatened claims related to alleged
traumatic brain injuries and/or other tort claims are time-barred.


On September 21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
this complaint, which the Company opposed. The Court previously
ordered a stay of discovery in all cases pending decisions on the
motions to dismiss. On January 15, 2016, the Court partially lifted
the stay and permitted discovery only on three issues in the case
involving Singleton and LoGrasso. Such discovery was completed by
June 1, 2016. On March 21, 2016, the Court issued a memorandum of
decision granting in part and denying in part the Company's motions
to dismiss the Haynes, Singleton/LoGrasso, and McCullough lawsuits.


The Court granted the Company's motions to dismiss the Haynes and
McCullough lawsuits in their entirety and granted the Company's
motion to dismiss all claims in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit
except for the claim of fraud by omission.

On March 22, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing the Windham
lawsuit based on the Court's memorandum of decision on the motions
to dismiss. On April 4, 2016, the Company filed a motion for
reconsideration with respect to the Court's decision not to dismiss
the fraud by omission claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and,
on April 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration
with respect to the Court dismissal of the Windham lawsuit.

On July 21, 2016, the Court denied the Company's motion in the
Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and granted in part the Company's motion
in the Windham lawsuit. On April 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed
notices of appeal of the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits. On April
27, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of
appellate jurisdiction, which motions were granted, and the appeals
were dismissed with leave to appeal upon the resolution of all of
the consolidated cases. The Company filed a motion for summary
judgment on the sole remaining claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso
lawsuit, which was granted on March 28, 2018. The Company also
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings against the Windham
defendants.

Lastly, on July 18, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, entitled Joseph M.
Laurinaitis, et al. vs. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and
Vincent K. McMahon, individually and as the trustee of certain
trusts. This lawsuit contains many of the same allegations as the
other lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further
alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were misclassified
as independent contractors rather than employees denying them,
among other things, rights and benefits under the Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), federal tax law,
and various state Worker's Compensation laws.

This lawsuit also alleges that the booking contracts and other
agreements between the plaintiffs and the Company are
unconscionable and should be declared void, entitling the
plaintiffs to certain damages relating to the Company's use of
their intellectual property. The lawsuit alleges claims for
violation of RICO, unjust enrichment, and an accounting against Mr.
McMahon. The Company and Mr. McMahon moved to dismiss this
complaint on October 19, 2016.  

On November 9, 2016, the Laurinaitis plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint. On December 23, 2016, the Company and Mr. McMahon moved
to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 29, 2017, the Court
issued an order on the motion to dismiss pending in the Laurinaitis
case and on the motion for judgment on the pleadings pending in the
Windham case. The Court reserved judgment on the pending motions
and ordered that within thirty-five (35) days of the date of the
order the Laurinaitis plaintiffs and the Windham defendants file
amended pleadings that comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The Court further ordered that each of the Laurinaitis plaintiffs
and the Windham defendants submit to the Court for in camera review
affidavits signed and sworn under penalty of perjury setting forth
facts within each plaintiff's or declaratory judgment-defendant's
personal knowledge that form the factual basis of their claim or
defense. On November 3, 2017, the Laurinaitis plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint.  

The Company and Mr. McMahon believe that the second amended
complaint failed to comply with the Court's September 29, 2017
order and otherwise remained legally defective for all of the
reasons set forth in their motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Also on November 3, 2017, the Windham defendants filed a second
answer. The Company does not know if the Laurinaitis Plaintiffs and
Windham Defendants submitted the affidavits required under the
Court's September 29, 2017 order.

On November 17, 2017, the Company and Mr. McMahon filed a response
that, among other things, urged the Court to grant the motion for
judgment on the pleadings against the Windham defendants and
dismiss the Laurinaitis plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice and
award sanctions against the Laurinaitis plaintiffs' counsel because
the amended pleadings fail to comply with the Court's September 29,
2017 order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On September 17, 2018, the Court granted the motion to dismiss
filed by the Company and Mr. McMahon in the Laurinaitis case in its
entirety, awarded sanctions against the Laurinaitis plaintiffs'
counsel, and granted the Company's motion for judgment on the
pleadings against the Windham defendants.

World Wrestling Entertainment said, "The Company believes all
claims and threatened claims against the Company in these various
lawsuits were prompted by the same plaintiffs' lawyer and that all
are without merit. The Company intends to continue to defend itself
against any appeal of these decisions vigorously."

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., an integrated media and
entertainment company, engages in the sports entertainment business
in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia
Pacific, and Latin America. The company operates through Network,
Television, Home Entertainment, Digital Media, Live Events,
Licensing, Venue Merchandise, WWEShop, and WWE Studios segments.
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1980 and is
headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


YAHOO! INC: Faces $50MM Fine Following Hacking Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Moore, writing for Norman Transcript, reports that wow, if
there has ever been a story of Internet company craziness, the
story of Yahoo! has to be in the top 10. Hacking, breaches,
excuses, investigations, fines and CEO golden parachutes have shown
Yahoo! to be one of the Internet's biggest scams.

Wait a minute. What? Did I really say, "Scam?" Why, how dare I say
such a thing! What the heck am I talking about? Please, allow me to
elaborate.

Ah, Yahoo!. The only Internet company that has ever had a
punctuation mark as part of its official name. Started in the
1990s, and named "Jerry and David's Guide to the World Wide Web"
the venture was renamed Yahoo in 1994.

The ups and down of Yahoo seem the same as Oklahoma weather: calm
one minute, insane the next. Stock prices peaking at $188.75, and
then diving to $8.11. An Internet titan one day, the next, laying
off 2,000 employees. Rejecting a $44.6 billion buyout from
Microsoft in 2008, and then being sold for $4.48 billion to Verizon
in 2017. A darling to millions of unsuspecting Internet users, and
then, the target of harsh government investigations.

What happened? How failed the promise of the jangly Yahoo logo, and
the cheery one-word Yahoo jingle, that of the twangy yodeling
cowboy voice encouraging us to join the herd and, "Yahoo-oo-ooo?"

Lousy security. Horrible safety precautions. Preying on the
ignorance and exploiting the trust of Internet users, when they
should and could have been safety champions. A company culture
oriented towards security negligence. Rewarding ousted (oh, sorry,
"retired") incompetent former CEOs when they should have landed in
jail.

The Yahoo history is not pretty. 2010: research by antivirus
company Avast tags Yahoo as the number one deliverer of dangerous
ads. 2012: Internet crooks steal usernames and passwords for over
450,000 Yahoo accounts. 2013: Yahoo allows phony virus-infected ads
masquerading as Google's Chrome browser to harm Yahoo customers.
January 2014: Yahoo fails after allowing dangerous infected
"malvertising" ads on its website, placing Yahoo users in harms
way. August 2014: same story. August 2015: same story, Yahoo allows
dangerous infected ads to prey upon its users.

But, wait: there's more.

2016: Yahoo admits over 500 million Yahoo accounts were stolen in
2014, complete with names, addresses, passwords, etc. That's right:
500 million Yahoo users had their account information stolen 2014,
but Yahoo didn't report it until 2016.

October 2017: Yahoo stuns the Internet world by admitting that, no,
it wasn't just 500 million accounts that were hacked in 2013 and
2014, it was all of them. All three billion. All of the accounts.
All 3 billion Yahoo accounts were hacked.

Because of Yahoo's shockingly bad security, all three billion Yahoo
accounts were stolen by Internet criminals, and are actively being
used to steal massive amounts of money from Yahoo users. That means
your Yahoo email address, your Yahoo email password, and any other
information you have ever given to Yahoo, is now in the hands of
Internet crooks. That will continue years into the future.

Do you have a Yahoo account? Think about it very carefully. Have
you ever used the same password for Yahoo email and also for any
other Internet account, like shopping or banking?

After U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ruled in March of this year that
a class action lawsuit against Yahoo seeking damages for the
devastating hack of three billion email accounts could continue,
Yahoo is being fined $50 million. People with damages can seek
compensation. Anyone proving lost time can receive up to 15 hours
at $25 per hour. Those without documentation can still be
compensated for up to five hours, totaling $125. Suckers who paid
for premium Yahoo accounts are entitled to a 25 percent refund.

Even so, after so many people have been hurt, fired Yahoo CEO
Marissa Mayer (oh, sorry, she "resigned") gets a $20 million payoff
(oh, sorry, "severance package"). For most of the hapless Yahoo
users screwed by Mayer's negligent oversight, their "severance
package" equals zero.

In the meantime, even though Yahoo.com and Yahoo email will be
around for a while, the company formerly known as Yahoo, after
being bought by Verizon, is disappearing by being renamed Altaba,
and fading in the the Internet noise.

That's my story of the Yahoo scam. Time to ditch Yahoo for good.
How the mighty are fallen. [GN]


YALE UNIVERSITY: Failed to Secure Personal Info, Mason Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW MASON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YALE UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-01716-VLB (D. Conn., Oct. 15, 2018) is an action against
the Defendants for failure to protect the Plaintiff and the Class's
personal information.

Between April 2008 and January 2009, unauthorized persons gained
access to a database containing personal information of Yale
alumni, faculty, and staff that was stored on a Yale server.

The Breach affected thousands of individuals associated with Yale
located across the United States and internationally.

On June 16, 2018, Yale discovered the Breach. More than a month
later -- on or about July 26, 2018 and July 27, 2018 –Yale began
notifying Yale Victims of the Breach by sending notices via U.S.
Mail. Yale offered twelve months of free identity theft services to
persons receiving the Notification.

On July 30, 2018, the Plaintiff received the Notification from Yale
that his personal information was compromised as a result of the
breach. As a result, the Plaintiff must now closely monitor his
accounts to safeguard against fraud and theft, and to deal with
potential issues flowing from the breach.

Yale University is a higher educational institution that offers
undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral courses in the fields of
biological sciences, engineering, health and medicine, humanities,
and physical and social sciences. The institution was formerly
known as Yale College and changed its name to Yale University on
May 25, 1887. Yale University was founded in 1701 and is based in
New Haven, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER
          & SHAH, LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (860) 526-1100
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                  lrubinow@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW | Ste 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 640-1168
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
                  dperry@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
          One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 345-8297
          Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***