CAR_Public/181129.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, November 29, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 239

                            Headlines

1ST CHOICE HOME CARE: Adolphe Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
ABBVIE INC: Bid for Class Cert. in Medical Mutual Suit Denied
ALCON LAB: Court Won't Review Class Definition Ruling
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action
ALTISOURCE ASSET: Still Defends Cambridge Retirement System Suit

AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER Related Suit
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Generic Drugs Pricing Suit Still Ongoing
APPLE INC: Court Dismisses Orshan Suit Without Leave to Amend
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: McGrath Hits Share Drop from Product Flaw
ATENCION FAMILY SERVICES: Bringas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime

AVIVA: Windsor Law Firm Mulls Car Crash Insurance Class Action
CAFEPRESS INC: Franchi Seeks to Halt Sale to Snapfish
CAMPBELL SOUP: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Suit
CAMPING WORLD: Vincent Wong Files Securities Fraud Class Action
CANADA: Attempt to Appeal '60s Scoop Settlement Ditched

CASH DEPOT: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in FLSA Suit
CHEGG INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action
CIT BANK: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Wieck Suit
CITRUS COUNTY, FL: Sheriff's Office Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
CLEVELAND, OH: Permanent Injunctions in Williams Flipped

CLIENT SERVICES: Yancy Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
COCA-COLA CO: Frankfurt Kurnit Discusses Diet Coke Suit Ruling
COLUMBIA DEBT: Epps Disputes Collection Letter
CONTAINER KING: Chenault Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: Shafir Sues Over Debt Collection Practices

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Saraci Files FDCPA Class Action
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Jan. 7 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
CUCINA & AMORE INC: Flolo Sues Over Product Mislabeling
CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP: Partial Bid to Dismiss Schenck FCRA Suit Nixed
CV SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Smith Class Suit

CV SCIENCES: Still Awaits Scheduling Order in Sallustro Suit
DEPLOYED DATA SOLUTIONS: Denied Payment of OT Wages, Dicks Says
DJO GLOBAL: Dreifort Alleges Shoe Flaw Caused Hip Injury
DRIVELINE RETAIL: Merchandisers Sue to Recover Unpaid Overtime
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Neglia Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices

ENCLARITY INC: Womble Bond Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
EVOQUA WATER: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
FINANCE SYSTEM: Washington Files Suit in Ohio Under FDCPA
FITBIT INC: Dec. 31 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
FITBIT INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Class Action

FITBIT INC: RM Law Files Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
FITBIT INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Fraud Class Action
FRONT YARD: Discovery Still Ongoing in Martin Class Suit
HONEYWELL INT'L: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action
INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action

JACQUES TORRES: Figueroa Sues Chocolatier for ADA Breach
KAYNE LLC: Faces Figueroa Suit Asserting ADA Violation
LAGUNA BEACH, CA: Judge Okays Homeless Class Action Settlement
LEAFFILTER NORTH: Federman & Sherwood Files Data Class Action
LEON MAX: Violates Disabilities Act, Figueroa Suit Asserts

MANHATTAN DINER: Delivery Staff Hit Tip Credit, Seek Overtime Pay
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Can Compel Arbitration in Benson Suit
MDL 1720: Optium Fund Buying Goodmans Stores' Claim for $392,000
MEADOWBROOK CARE: Sued for Resident's Injuries, Untimely Death
MELINTA THERAPEUTICS: Wins Dismissal of Merger-Related Suit

NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action
NEUHAUS INC: Faces Garey Suit in NY Alleging ADA Violation
NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Violates ADA, Camacho Suit Says
OHIO NATIONAL: Murray Murphy Files Broker-Dealer Class Action

PACESETTERS INC: Faces Scantland Wage-and-Hour Suit
PEACEHEALTH: Oregon Man Files Overbilling Class Suit
PETCO: Mini Tanks for Betta Fish Are Harmful, Lawsuits Allege
PREMIER AUTOMOTIVE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Torres TCPA Suit
PRINSTON PHARMA: Borkowski Sues Over Carcinogen in Hypertension Med

PRO FOOTBALL: Lawyers Seek Ticketholders Class-Action Status
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Takano Suit Answer Deadline Moved to Dec. 5
PURDUE PHARMA: Shaffer Files Personal Injury Class Action
RIDER UNIVERSITY: Camacho Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROCHESTER INSTITUTE: Camacho Suit Asserts ADA Violation

SACRED HEART: Camacho Files ADA Class Action in New York
SAG-AFTRA: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Class Action Lawsuit
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Court Junks Suit Over Defective Plasma TV
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Merits Discovery in Deka Suit Stayed

SERENITY TRANSPORTATION: Court Stays Johnson FLSA Suit
SKECHERS: Kicked With Defective Light-Up Shoes Class Action
SOUTHERN METHODIST: Camacho Sues in New York for ADA Breach
STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Faces FCRA Lawsuit
STATE COLLECTION: Judge Rejects Motion to Dismiss Class Action

STEVEN ALAN: Website not Accessible to Blind, Nixon Says
STITCH FIX: Vincent Wong Files Securities Fraud Class Action
SUNRUN INC: Seeks Initial Approval of $5.5MM Slovin Settlement
SUNRUN INC: Settlement of California Suit Wins Initial Approval
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Vincent Wong Files Securities Suit

TESARO INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
TG THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Suit
TOWER RESEARCH CAPITAL: Boutchard Hits Illegal Futures Manipulation
TREVENA INC: Vincent Wong Files Securities Fraud Class Action
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Camacho Files ADA Class Action

WORKPAC: Adero Law Firm to Intervene in Casual Worker Test Case
[*] Calif.'s New Class Action Guidelines Raises Fresh Concerns
[*] Gibson Dunn Promotes 17 Lawyers to Partnership

                            *********

1ST CHOICE HOME CARE: Adolphe Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
Fridane Adolphe, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated who were employed by 1st Choice Home Care
Services, Inc., and/or 1st Aide Home Care, Inc. along with other
entities affiliated or controlled by 1st Choice Home Care Services,
Inc. and/or 1st Aide Home Care, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. 1st Choice
Home Care Services, Inc. and 1st Aide Home Care, Inc., and/or any
other related entities, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05876 (E.D.
N.Y., October 21, 2018), seeks to recover wages and benefits
pursuant to New York Labor Law and Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants are primarily engaged in providing nursing and home
health aide services at the residences of its clients where Adolphe
worked as a home health care attendant. She regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours in any given week, without being provided the
proper overtime hourly compensation, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      1517 Voorhies Ave, 2nd Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Tel: (718) 808-2224
      Email: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


ABBVIE INC: Bid for Class Cert. in Medical Mutual Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the putative class action lawsuit, Medical
Mutual of Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was denied.

In November 2014, a putative class action lawsuit, Medical Mutual
of Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed against several
manufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies (TRTs),
including AbbVie, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all insurance companies,
health benefit providers, and other third party payers who paid for
TRTs, including AndroGel.

The claims asserted include violations of the federal RICO Act and
state consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices laws. The
complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

In July 2018, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.


ALCON LAB: Court Won't Review Class Definition Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMERICA'S HEALTH & RESOURCE CENTER LTD., AND
AFFILIATED HEALTH GROUP, LTD. individually and as the
representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. ALCON LABORATORIES, INC., NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS
CORPORATION, AND JOHN DOES 1-12, Defendants, Case No. 16 C 4539
(N.D. Ill.), Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the Court's June 15, 2018 order
granting the Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiffs' class
definition, or in the alternative, transfer the proceeding to the
District of Delaware.

At the crux of the Plaintiffs' arguments is the Supreme Court
decision in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh.  In American Pipe &
Constr. Co. v. Utah, the Supreme Court held that the timely filing
of a class action tolls the applicable statute of limitations for
all persons encompassed by the class complaint.  The court also
held that where class-action status has been denied, members of the
failed class could timely intervene as individual plaintiffs in the
still-pending action.

Later, in Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, the court clarified
American Pipe's tolling rule to state that putative class members
need not intervene in or join an existing suit.  Instead, the rule
also applies to putative class members who, after denial of class
certification, prefer to bring an individual suit rather than
intervene once the economies of a class action are no longer
available."  The circuit courts then split as to whether the
American Pipe tolling rule includes successive class action suits.

The Supreme Court in China Agritech resolved the circuit split, and
held that the American Pipe rule tolls only a putative class
member's individual claims -- it does not allow a putative class
member to file a new class action after the statute of limitations
has expired.  It explained that equitable tolling is available for
individual claims because economy of litigation favors delaying
those claims until after a class-certification denial.  But the
efficiency and economy of litigation that support tolling of
individual claims do not support maintenance of untimely successive
class actions; any additional class filings should be made early
on, soon after the commencement of the first action seeking class
certification, so that all would-be early representatives come
forward to allow the district court to select the best plaintiff.

With that background, Judge Durkin turns to the Plaintiffs'
arguments.  He finds that the Plaintiffs have a pending putative
class comprised of Illinois residents who received faxes in
Illinois.  If they wish to expand that class, they must do so in a
forum that can exercise personal jurisdiction over the Defendants
with regard to all of the Plaintiffs' proposed class members.  And
if they wish to encompass as many faxes as possible, they should
file suit in that forum, rather than continuing to seek
reconsideration of this Court's application of clear Supreme Court
precedent while the statute of limitations continues to run.  For
these reasons, the Judge denied Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider.

In the alternative, the Plaintiffs request the Court transfer these
proceedings to the District of Delaware under 28 U.S.C. Section
1631.  The Judge agrees with the Defendants' argument that the
Court cannot transfer the case under Section 1631 because the Court
has jurisdiction, and thus there is no "want of jurisdiction" as
required by the section.  The Court has jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' claims because the Plaintiffs are Illinois residents
and allegedly received their faxes in Illinois.  Accordingly,
Section 1631 cannot apply.  Therefore, the Judge denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to transfer.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 6, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/MjV75h from Leagle.com.

America's Health & Resource Center, Ltd., an Illinois corporation,
Plaintiff, represented by Phillip A. Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com
-- Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC,
Daniel J. Cohen -- danieljaycohen209@gmail.com -- Bock, Hatch,
Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, pro hac vice, David Max Oppenheim --
david@classlawyers.com -- Bock, Hatch, Lewis and Oppenheim, LLC,
James Michael Smith, Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis &
Oppenheim, LLC, Jonathan B. Piper, Bock & Hatch, LLC, Molly
Elizabeth Stemper, Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC & Tod Allen
Lewis -- tod@classlawyers.com -- Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock,
Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC.

Affiliated Health Group, Ltd., an Illinois corporation,
individually and as the respresentatives of a class of
similarly-situated perosns, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip A.
Bock, Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC &
Molly Elizabeth Stemper, Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC.

Alcon Laboratories Inc, Defendant, represented by Francis A. Citera
-- citeraf@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP., Gregory Edward
Ostfeld -- ostfeldg@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP & Kyle L.
Flynn -- flynnk@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig.

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Francis A. Citera, Greenberg Traurig, LLP., Gregory Edward Ostfeld,
Greenberg Traurig, LLP & Kyle L. Flynn, Greenberg Traurig.

WestFax, Inc., Respondent, represented by William B. Hayes, William
B. Hayes, pro hac vice.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Align Technology, Inc.  If
you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Align Technology, Inc. (NASDAQGS: ALGN)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 4, 2019
Class Period: July 25, 2018 and October 24, 2018

Get additional information about ALGN:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/align-technology-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Telephone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


ALTISOURCE ASSET: Still Defends Cambridge Retirement System Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altisource Asset Management 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 company continues to defend itself from a putative
shareholder class action suit entitled, City of Cambridge
Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management Corp., et al.

On January 16, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands
by a purported shareholder of Altisource Asset Management
Corporation (AAMC) under the caption City of Cambridge Retirement
System v. Altisource Asset Management Corp., et al., 15-cv-00004.

The action names as defendants AAMC, its former Chairman, William
C. Erbey, and certain officers of AAMC and alleges that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose
material information to AAMC shareholders concerning alleged
conflicts of interest held by Mr. Erbey with respect to AAMC's
relationship and transactions with Front Yard, Altisource Portfolio
Solutions S.A., Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., Southwest
Business Corporation, NewSource Reinsurance Company and Ocwen
Financial Corporation, including allegations that the defendants
failed to disclose (i) the nature of relationships between Mr.
Erbey, AAMC and those entities; and (ii) that the transactions were
the result of an allegedly unfair process from which Mr. Erbey
failed to recuse himself.

The action seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages
to the putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of
attorney's and other fees and expenses. AAMC and Mr. Erbey are the
only defendants who have been served with the complaint.

On May 12, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of
Denver Employees Retirement Plan to be lead plaintiff, and lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 19, 2015.

AAMC and Mr. Erbey filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and
on April 6, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss.

On May 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint and, at the same time, filed a proposed first amended
consolidated complaint. AAMC and Mr. Erbey opposed the motion, and
on July 5, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order denying with
prejudice the motion of the Plaintiff for leave to file the first
amended consolidated complaint.

On July 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals with respect to the federal district
court's April 6, 2017 memorandum and order granting Defendants'
motion to dismiss, the April 6, 2017 order granting Defendants'
motion to dismiss and the July 5, 2017 order denying with prejudice
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file the first amendment
consolidated complaint in the matter. On September 18, 2017,
Appellant filed its appeal brief, and briefing on the appeal motion
was completed on November 15, 2017.

On May 24, 2018, the parties made oral arguments with respect to
the briefs in response to the Plaintiff's appeal of our successful
motions to dismiss in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

Altisource said, "We believe the amended complaint is without
merit. At this time, we are not able to predict the ultimate
outcome of this matter, nor can we estimate the range of possible
loss, if any."

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

Altisource Asset Management Corporation, an asset management
company, provides portfolio management and corporate governance
services to institutional investors in the United States. The
company offers its services under an asset management agreement to
Altisource Residential Corporation, which acquires and manages
single-family rental properties for working class families. It also
provides management services to NewSource Reinsurance Company Ltd.
The company was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in
Christiansted, Virgin Islands.


AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 discovery
is still ongoing in the Opana ER(R) Antitrust class action
lawsuit.

From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and end-payor (indirect) purchasers, as
well as by certain direct purchasers, against the manufacturer of
the brand drug Opana ER(R) and Impax.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge
20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 6, 2018,
Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. filed a motion to
voluntarily dismiss its complaint with prejudice. The court granted
that motion on June 11, 2018.

On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff
withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re-filed
the same complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On November 17, 2014, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company
d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred to
the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation.

On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated. On January 27, 2015, the Defendants
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On March 26, 2015 Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB
Grocery Company L.P., Albertson’s LLC, direct purchasers, filed a
separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On April 23, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,
direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an
anticompetitive settlement agreement with Impax to delay generic
competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal
antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and
restitution. Consolidated amended complaints were filed on May 4,
2015 by direct purchaser plaintiffs and end-payor (indirect)
purchaser plaintiffs.

On July 3, 2015, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaints, as well as the complaints of the
"Opt-Out Plaintiffs" (Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc.,
HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, Rite Aid Corporation and
Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.).

On February 1, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The parties agreed that CVS Pharmacy, Inc. would be bound by the
Court's ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss the Opt-Out
Plaintiffs' complaints.

On February 10, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the end-payor purchaser plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint, and denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the direct purchaser plaintiffs' consolidated amended
complaint.

The end-payor purchaser plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended complaint and Impax moved to dismiss certain state law
claims. On August 11, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion to dismiss the end-payor purchaser
plaintiffs' second consolidated amended complaint. Impax has filed
its answer. On September 15, 2018, the claims of Mary Davenport
were voluntarily dismissed from the end-payor action.

On February 25, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints, with leave to amend.
The Opt-Out Plaintiffs and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. have filed amended
complaints and Impax has filed its answer.

Discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been scheduled.

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

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic
areas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions.
The company has operations in North America, Asia, and Europe.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Generic Drugs Pricing Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself in the case entitled, In re Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation.

From March 2016 to April 2017, 22 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers against
manufacturers of generic digoxin and doxycycline and Impax alleging
a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of these
generic products. From January 2017 to April 2017, three complaints
were filed on behalf of indirect purchasers against manufacturers
of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and Impax alleging a conspiracy to
fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of these generic products.

On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
June 9, 2016.

On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff Tulsa Firefighters Health and Welfare
Trust, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff Pipe Trade Services MN, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 25, 2016, Plaintiff Edward Carpinelli, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge
20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff Nina Diamond, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff The City of Providence, Rhode Island, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Rhode Island on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a
Kinney Drugs, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff Philadelphia Federation of Teachers
Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff United Food & Commercial Workers and
Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff Ottis McCrary, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff César Castillo, Inc., a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 33 Health
and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On July 1, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health
and Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On September 7, 2016, Plaintiff United Here Health, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 20, 2016, Plaintiff Valerie Velardi, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On January 13, 2017, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated against manufacturers of generic
lidocaine/prilocaine and the Company alleging a conspiracy to fix,
maintain and/or stabilize prices of this generic drug.

On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated against
manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and Impax alleging a
conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of this generic
drug.

On April 25, 2017, Plaintiff Louisiana Health Service Indemnity
Company, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated
against manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and Impax
alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of
this generic drug.

On May 19, 2016, several indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a
motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
transfer and consolidate the actions in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Judicial Panel
ordered the actions consolidated in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and ordered that the actions be renamed "In re Generic
Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust Litigation."

On January 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed two consolidated class action
complaints.

On April 6, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the consolidation of all civil actions involving
allegations of antitrust conspiracies in the generic pharmaceutical
industry regarding 18 generic drugs to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. The consolidated actions have been renamed In re
Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. Consolidated
class action complaints for each of the 18 drugs were filed on
August 15, 2017. Direct purchaser plaintiffs, end-payer plaintiffs,
and indirect reseller plaintiffs filed consolidated class
complaints against Impax for two products, digoxin and
lidocaine-prilocaine.

On October 6, 2017, Impax filed a motion to dismiss the digoxin
complaint. On February 9, 2018, the Court issued an order denying
the discovery stay and allowing certain fact discovery to proceed.
On October 16, 2018, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the
digoxin complaint.

On January 19, 2018, Plaintiffs The Kroger Co., Albertsons
Companies, LLC, and H.E. Butt Grocery Company L.P., opt-outs, filed
a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against 35 companies, including Impax,
alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of
30 drugs and specifically digoxin and lidocaine/prilocaine with
respect to Impax. No schedule has been set.

On June 22, 2018, Plaintiffs Ahold USA, Inc., Cesar Castillo, Inc.,
FWK Holdings, L.L.C., KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., a/k/a Kinney
Drugs, Inc., and Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. filed a
complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
against 23 companies, including Impax, and one individual, alleging
a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig
bids, and allocate markets or customers for various drugs,
specifically glyburide-metformin and metronidazole with respect to
Impax. No schedule has been set.

On June 27, 2018, Plaintiffs Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC and
Marion Healthcare, LLC filed a motion seeking leave to file a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against seven named defendants, alleging a
horizontal and vertical distributor conspiracy to fix prices and
allocate sales of lidocaine products. On September 7, 2018, the
Court denied the Marion Plaintiffs' motion without prejudice. On
September 25, 2018, the Marion Plaintiffs filed a new civil action
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania regarding other generic
drugs that does not name Impax as a defendant.

On August 3, 2018, Plaintiff Humana Inc. filed a complaint against
37 companies, including the Company, as the successor to Impax,
alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise
prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for various
drugs, specifically digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine with respect
to Impax. No schedule has been set.

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

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic
areas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions.
The company has operations in North America, Asia, and Europe.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


APPLE INC: Court Dismisses Orshan Suit Without Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL ORSHAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:14-cv-05659-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J.
Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted Apple's motion to dismiss
all of the claims in the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") with
prejudice.

Plaintiffs Orshan, Endara, and Henderson filed the class action
suit against Apple on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, alleging that Apple violated various consumer protection
laws by misleading consumers regarding the storage capacity of
certain mobile devices running iOS 8.

The Plaintiffs initiated the action on Dec. 30, 2014 and filed
their First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on April 9, 2015.  The
Plaintiffs are California consumers who purchased Apple products
running iOS 8.  According to the allegations in the FAC, all the
three Plaintiffs purchased their devices in reliance on the
Defendant's claims, on its website, advertisements, product
packaging, and other promotional materials, that the devices came
with 16 GB of storage space and they expected that capacity would
be available for their personal use.  Contrary to these
expectations, anywhere from 18.1% to 23.1% of this capacity (2.9 to
3.7 GB) was used by iOS 8 and not available to the Plaintiffs for
personal storage.  The Plaintiffs alleged that had they known this,
they would not have upgraded to iOS 8, would not have purchased the
16 GB of storage capacity or would not have been willing to pay the
same price for it.

The Plaintiffs also alleged that in addition to not meeting
consumer expectations, Apple exploits the discrepancy between
represented and available capacity for its own gain by offering to
sell, and by selling, cloud storage capacity through its iCloud
service.  The FAC stated that Apple charges anywhere from $0.99 to
$29.99 per month for iCloud subscriptions, and Apple does not
permit its users to use cloud storage services from other vendors.

The Plaintiffs' FAC asserted the following causes of action: (1)
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (2)
violation of the False Advertising Law ("FAL"); and (3) violation
of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").  Apple filed a motion
to dismiss on May 15, 2015.  On March 27, 2018, the Court issued an
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss First Amended Class Action
Complaint.

The Plaintiffs filed the SAC on May 1, 2018.  The SAC asserts the
same UCL, FAL and CLRA claims based upon the same core allegation:
that Apple represented on its website, advertisements, product
packaging, and other promotional materials that the Plaintiffs'
devices came with 16 GB of storage space.  Newly added to the SAC
is that it is the principle false representation made by the
Defendant and relied upon by Named Plaintiffs Orshan, Endara and
Henderseon .  The Plaintiffs continue to allege that in reliance on
the allegedly false representation, the Plaintiffs expected that 16
GB would be available for personal use.  Contrary to their
expectations, anywhere from 18.1% to 21.3% of the 16 GB of storage
capacity (2.9 to 3.4 GB) was used by iOS 8 and not available for
the Plaintiffs' personal use.  They also continue to allege Apple
did not adequately disclose in conjunction with upgrades to iOS 8
the additional and substantial storage capacity that would be
consumed by the upgrade.  The Plaintiffs estimate that iOS 8 uses
between 600 MG and 1.3 GB more storage space than iOS 7, and that
"no consumer could reasonably anticipate" this increase.

The Plaintiffs add to the SAC that the Plaintiffs and consumers did
not expect the iOS update to include unnecessary and unwanted
applications that cannot be erased.  They also reallege that Apple
exploits the discrepancy between represented and available capacity
for its own gain by offering to sell, and by selling, cloud storage
capacity to purchasers whose internal storage capacity is at or
near exhaustion.

As a preliminary matter, Apple requests that the Court again takes
judicial notice of items the Court took judicial notice of in
ruling on the previous motion to dismiss.  The Plaintiffs do not
oppose Apple's request. Apple's request is granted for the reasons
previously stated in the court's March 27, 2018 Order Granting
Motion to Dismiss.  The Court will take judicial notice of the
items, but will not accept the truth of the factual statements or
opinions expressed therein.

As a result of the Court's ruling on Apple's previous motion to
dismiss, the only potentially viable theory of fraud remaining in
the case depends on the Plaintiffs' allegation that Apple deceived
them into thinking that iOS 8 would not consume as much storage
capacity as it did.  Despite having been given leave to amend,
Judge Davila finds that the SAC still fails to allege facts to
plausibly support this theory of fraud.

The Plaintiffs attempt to insert a new theory of fraud in the SAC,
alleging that Apple's statement that "actual formatted capacity
less" is misleading.  The Plaintiffs allege that this disclaimer
was not sufficient to put them on notice of the difference between
the 16 GB of space promised and the usable space received because
the dictionary definition of "format" does not reference the
operating system, and it certainly does not mean the inclusion of
software that cannot be erased or a partition of the available
storage space beyond what is even required for the operating
system.

None of these allegations salvage the Plaintiffs' claims, the Judge
holds.  The Plaintiffs do not allege that they understood the term
"formatted capacity" in the manner proposed.  And regardless of the
dictionary definition of "format," no reasonable consumer could
have read Apple's disclaimer and expected that all of the 16 GB
would be available for personal use on their devices because the
average consumer would know and expect that their Apple devices
come pre-installed with an operating system and applications.

Furthermore, no consumer could have read Apple's disclaimer and
reasonably expected that iOS 8 would not consume a substantial
amount of storage; the disclosure simply does not imply anything
about the amount of storage iOS 8 would or would not consume.  In
sum, the Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts that would make it
plausible that they reasonably expected iOS 8 not to consume a
substantial amount of storage.

Judge Davila therefore granted Apple's motion to dismiss.  Given
the futility of further amendment, the Plaintiff's claims are
dismissed without leave to amend.  The Clerk will close the file.

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

Paul Orshan, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Christopher Endara, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Amy Elizabeth
Boyle -- boyle@halunenlaw.com -- Halunen Law, Charles J. LaDuca --
charlesl@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Jon Michael
Herskowitz -- jon@bhfloridalaw.com -- pro hac vice, Matthew Evan
Miller -- mmiller@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP,
Melissa S. Weiner, Halunen Law, Michael Andrew McShane --
mmcshane@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners LLP, S. Clinton Woods,
Audet & Partners, LLP. & William H. Anderson --
wanderson@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP.

David Henderson, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Andrew McShane,
Audet & Partners LLP, Amy Elizabeth Boyle, Halunen Law, Charles J.
LaDuca, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Jon Michael Herskowitz, pro
hac vice, Ling Yue Kuang, Audet & Partners, LLP, S. Clinton Woods,
Audet & Partners, LLP & William H. Anderson, Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca, LLP.

Apple Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew David Powers --
mpowers@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.


APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: McGrath Hits Share Drop from Product Flaw
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen McGrath, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Chih-Hsiang
Lin and Stefan J. Murry, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03914 (S.D.
Tex., October 18, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Applied Optoelectronics is a provider of fiber-optic networking
products for the internet data center, cable television, and
telecommunications markets.

On September 27, 2018, an analyst reported that the company was
experiencing product quality issues with certain transceivers that
were prone to fail after thousands of hours of operation. Said
report lowered gross margin and revenue expectations because the
product quality issues suggested that the company would outsource
its lasers externally through 2019. On this news, the company's
stock price fell $2.98 per share, or more than 9%, to close at
$28.36 per share on September 27, 2018, on unusually heavy trading
volume. Then, on September 28, 2018, it reduced its revenue
guidance for the third quarter 2018 and stated that it had
identified a problem with its lasers that required the temporary
suspension of certain transceivers. On this news, its share price
fell further down 13%, to close at $24.66 per share on September
28, 2018, on unusually high trading volume.

McGrath purchased Applied Optoelectronics common stock and lost
substantially. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:


      Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
      THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
      700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 227-7720

             - and -

      Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
      Marion Passmore, Esq.
      Shaelyn Gambino-Morrison, 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
             passmore@bespc.com
             gambino-morrison@bespc.com


ATENCION FAMILY SERVICES: Bringas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Bringas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Atencion Family Services and Jennifer
Muller, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00965 (D. N.M., October 18,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New Mexico common law.

Bringas was employed by Atencion Family Services as a caregiver,
providing companionship services to clients in their homes. She
routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime,
notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Benoit, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF LYNN COYLE, P.L.L.C.
      2515 North Stanton
      El Paso, TX 79902
      Tel: (915) 532-5544
      Fax: (915) 532-5566
      Email: chris@coylefirm.com

             - and -

      Brandt Milstein, Esq.
      MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
      1123 Spruce Street, Suite 200
      Boulder, CO 80302
      Tel: (303) 440-8780
      Fax: (303) 957-5754
      Email: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com


AVIVA: Windsor Law Firm Mulls Car Crash Insurance Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
CTV Windsor reports that there's a Windsor connection to a series
of class action lawsuits proposed against six Ontario auto insurers
and their regulator the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

Jennifer Bezaire, a partner at Greg Monforton & Partners in
Windsor, announced on Nov. 7 that she and her firm are members of
the consortium of lawyers formed to commence the lawsuits.

"This $600-million lawsuit seeks to force these insurers to pay
back HST wrongly charged to policyholders injured in car crashes,"
says Ms. Bezaire, a member of the Board of Directors of the Ontario
Trial Lawyers Association.

It also seeks an injunction prohibiting these insurers from
continuing their practice against the direction of FSCO and case
law from the License Appeal Tribunal.

Ms. Bezaire, pointing to a FSCO Bulletin which told all insurers
"The HST is a tax and is not part of the benefit limits" said "FSCO
could not have been clearer. But these insurers unilaterally took
the position that HST should be deducted from our clients'
benefits."

Ms. Bezaire says a few weeks ago, one of the insurers (Aviva) wrote
to a Windsor accident victim saying: "Aviva intends to maintain its
position that any applicable HST is inclusive of the benefit
limit."

Ms. Bezaire added: "these insurers seemingly ignored FSCO and where
they could they refused to pay HST or they used HST to wrongfully
reduce benefits, resulting in less care for injured
policyholders."

"FSCO turned a blind eye to the unfair industry practices, even
when it knew people were being unfairly denied benefits," says Ms.
Bezaire.

"In response to repeated complaints, FSCO acknowledged the practice
and indicated that the offending insurers had been told to stop the
practice and had promised to follow the directive. However,
insurers continued ignoring FSCO and the practice continued."

Ms. Bezaire says this deceitful action by insurers appears
widespread and our investigation of other insurers continues.

The lawyers have established a toll free hotline (1-866-540-2747)
and website (autohstclassaction.com) to receive complaints from the
public. [GN]


CAFEPRESS INC: Franchi Seeks to Halt Sale to Snapfish
-----------------------------------------------------
Adam Franchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, plaintiff, v. Cafepress Inc., Fred E. Durham III, Anthony
C. Allen, Mary Ann Arico, Kenneth T. Mcbride, Alan B. Howe,
Snapfish LLC and Snapfish Merger Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-01620 (D. Del., October 18, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the acquisition of CafePress Inc. by
Snapfish, LLC and Snapfish 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.

Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, Snapfish will
acquire all of CafePress' outstanding common stock for $1.48 per
share in cash.

CafePress, Inc. is an online retailer of stock and user-customized
on demand products, including custom t-shirts, stickers, posters,
coffee mugs and more.

The complaint says the solicitation statement filed in connection
with the transaction omitted material information regarding
CafePress' financial projections and the analyses performed by its
financial advisor, Needham & Company, LLC.  The statement failed to
disclose the timing and nature of all communications regarding
future employment and directorship of the its officers and
directors and failed to disclose whether CafePress entered into any
confidentiality agreements that contained standstill and/or "don't
ask, don't waive" provisions that are or were preventing the
counterparties from submitting superior offers to acquire the
Company, it adds. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


CAMPBELL SOUP: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has
commenced on behalf of Campbell Soup Company (NYSE: CPB).  If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Campbell Soup Company (NYSE: CPB)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 27, 2018
Class Period: August 31, 2017 and May 17, 2018

Get additional information about CPB:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/campbell-soup-company-loss-submission-form?wire=3

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway, Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Telephone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


CAMPING WORLD: Vincent Wong Files Securities Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Camping World Holdings, Inc.
(NYSE: CWH).  If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff.

Camping World Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: CWH)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 18, 2018
Class Period: March 8, 2017 and August 7, 2018

Get additional information about CWH:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/camping-world-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Telephone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


CANADA: Attempt to Appeal '60s Scoop Settlement Ditched
-------------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for Global News, reports that  a last-ditch
effort to challenge the court-approved settlement of the '60s Scoop
class action failed on November 9 when a judge tossed the novel
attempt as lacking any substance.

In his decision, Judge John Laskin of the Federal Court of Appeal
said the applicants had provided no support for their highly
unusual motion seeking leave to appeal the settlement.

"The evidence filed by the applicants is inadequate in the
extreme," Laskin wrote.

The ruling, barring any further court machinations, paves the way
for implementation of the $750-million class-action settlement. The
federal government had said it could not proceed with payouts to
victims pending finality in the court proceedings.

The request to appeal the agreement finalized over the summer
rather than opt out -- fewer than a dozen class members did so --
came from a group of 11 claimants who said they were Scoop victims,
although two of the plaintiffs subsequently dropped out of the
proceeding.

They filed their application through a law firm that had been shut
out of the $75 million in legal fees agreed to as part of the
class-action settlement.

Among other things, they alleged they were excluded from the
process that led to court approval of the agreement that would pay
survivors as much as $50,000 a piece for the harms done when they,
as children, were taken from their Indigenous families and placed
with non-Indigenous ones. They also expressed unhappiness over the
fees awarded to the lawyers who negotiated the deal.

Laskin noted the applicants had failed to show they were survivors
of the '60s Scoop and therefore members of the class. Nor did they
provide evidence that an appeal of the settlement would be in the
best interests of survivors, he said.

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

"To allow people to win illegally and make money off our backs and
suffering again should not be allowed to happen," Frame had said.

Laskin also took issue with such assertions, saying the applicants
had offered no evidence in support.

While it is normal in litigation for the losing party to be on the
hook for the legal costs incurred by the winners, the winning
lawyers are seeking costs personally from the lawyer who filed the
appeal motion given the serious misconduct allegations he made
against them.

Laskin declined to award costs until Jai Singh Sheikhupura with
Vancouver-based Watson Goepel has had an opportunity to make
submissions. He has until Nov. 19 to do so.

"We are pleased that the Federal Court of Appeal has cleared away
the last impediment to the settlement being implemented," said Kirk
Baert, Esq. -- kmbaert@kmlaw.ca -- one of the lawyers involved in
the class action. "Now the settlement funds can flow to the
survivors as intended."

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


CASH DEPOT: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIMOTHY J. FAST, Plaintiff, v. CASH DEPOT LTD.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-C-1637 (E.D. Wis.), Judge William C.
Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin (i) denied Fast's motion for attorney's fees and costs,
and (ii) granted Cash Depot's motion for summary judgment.

Fast sued his former employer, Cash Depot, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated current and former non-exempt Field
Service Technicians, alleging Cash Depot violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), in failing to lawfully compensate
them at a correct rate of overtime pay and for all overtime hours
worked at that overtime rate of pay.  

After Fast filed his complaint, Cash Depot tendered the full amount
of the underpayment in overtime pay calculated by its accountants
to its current and former employees and filed motions to dismiss
Fast's claims on mootness grounds and for summary judgment.  The
Court denied the motions on Nov. 7, 2017, noting that Fast disputed
whether the full amount owed to him and the members of the putative
class had been paid.  It also recognized that under current law a
collective or class action plaintiff may refuse an offer of
settlement for the full value of his individual claim to avoid
rendering his potential class or collective action moot.  The Court
nevertheless observed that, if Cash Depot had cured its prior FLSA
violations by paying what is owed to its current and former
employees, the case should promptly resolve.

Cash Depot provided Fast's counsel with its calculations and
payment information for all of its employees, even though Fast had
not moved for class certification, in December 2017.  On Feb. 2,
2018, Fast's counsel stated that Cash Depot had paid all wages owed
to its employees resulting from its FLSA violations and that the
only outstanding issue was reimbursement of Fast's attorney's fees
and costs.

Cash Depot's counsel did not expect Cash Depot would pay
approximately $50,000 in fees but indicated he would discuss the
matter with Cash Depot.  On Feb. 14, 2018, Fast's counsel emailed
Cash Depot's counsel seeking an update regarding the reimbursement
of fees.  Cash Depot's counsel never responded.  

On June 20, 2018, Fast filed a motion for attorney's fees and
costs.  He maintains that he is the prevailing party and is
entitled to attorney's fees and costs, totaling $50,137.04,
pursuant to Section 216(b).  Cash Depot opposes Fast's motion on
the ground that he is not a prevailing party, as that term has been
defined by the Supreme Court in Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc.
v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services.  Cash
Depot then filed its own motion to dismiss, or in the alternative,
for summary judgment on July 25, 2018.

Judge Griesbach finds that the payment Fast received from Cash
Depot was never submitted as a settlement for judicial approval.
Because there is no court order confirming the resolution of Fast's
claims or other judicially sanctioned material alteration in the
legal relationship between the parties, Fast does not qualify as a
prevailing party.  Accordingly, Fast is not the prevailing party
and is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees.

Lastly, Cash Depot contends the case should be dismissed because
the matter is now nonjusticiable and moot.  Fast concedes that he
has been fully paid the wages owed pursuant to the FLSA.  In short,
a live controversy no longer exists, and the court lacks
jurisdiction as a result.  Cash Depot's motion for summary judgment
will therefore be granted.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Griesbach denied Fast's motion for
attorney's fees and costs, and (ii) granted Cash Depot's motion for
summary judgment.  The case is dismissed as moot.  The Clerk is
directed to enter judgment accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 6, 2018 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/A6DIcq from Leagle.com.

Timothy J Fast, Plaintiff, represented by Scott S. Luzi --
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com -- Walcheske & Luzi LLC & James A.
Walcheske -- jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com -- Walcheske & Luzi LLC.

Cash Depot Ltd, Defendant, represented by George Burnett, Law Firm
of Conway Olejniczak & Jerry SC & Jodi Arndt Labs, Law Firm of
Conway Olejniczak & Jerry SC.


CHEGG INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that
purchasers of Chegg, Inc. filed a class action complaint against
the company's officers and directors for alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between July 30, 2018 and September
25, 2018. Chegg operates a direct-to-student learning platform that
supports high school and college students.

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

Chegg Accused of Failing to Maintain Sufficient Data Security
Measures

According to the complaint, in July 2018, Chegg announced
impressive financial growth and raised full year 2018 guidance.
That same month, Chegg acknowledged in an SEC filing that computer
malware, viruses, hacking, phishing attacks, and spamming could
harm its business. On September 25, 2018, Chegg revealed that an
unauthorized party had gained access in April 2018 to approximately
40 million users' data. In the massive security breach, usernames,
email addresses, shipping addresses, and hashed Chegg passwords had
been compromised. On this news, Chegg's stock fell over 12%,
closing at $28.42 on September 26, 2018, and has since fallen even
further.

Chegg 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
         Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


CIT BANK: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Wieck Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JULIA WIECK, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CIT BANK, N.A.; FINANCIAL
FREEDOM; SEATTLE SPECIALTY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.; CERTAIN
UNDERWRITERS OF LLOYD'S, LONDON, and GREAT LAKES REINSURANCE (UK),
PLC, Defendants, Civ. No. 16-00596 JMS-RLP (D. Haw.), Judge J.
Michael Seabright of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Hawaii granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions
to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

On March 30, 2018, the Court issued a comprehensive decision that
granted in part and denied in part several motions to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint ("FAC") in the putative class action, which
arises out of lender-placed hurricane insurance on reverse
mortgages.  The March 30th Order determined that some of Wieck's
claims -- certain non-preempted breach of contract, and unfair or
deceptive trade practices allegations -- survived the motions to
dismiss, but the Order dismissed other claims.  

The court granted the Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint ("SAC") solely to attempt to rectify pleading
deficiencies with the claims that were dismissed without prejudice
as explained in the March 30th Order.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a SAC on May 11, 2018.  Similar to
the FAC, the SAC alleges the following Counts:

     a. Count One (Breach of Contract) against Defendants Financial
Freedom and CIT Bank, N.A. (collectively sometimes referred to as
CIT)

     b. Count Two (Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and
Fair Dealing) against Financial Freedom

     c. Count Three (Violations of Hawaii Revised Statute ("HRS")
Section 480-2) against Financial Freedom

     d. Count Four (Violations of HRS Section 480-2) against
Defendants Certain Underwriters of Lloyd's, London (Lloyd's); Great
Lakes Reinsurance (UK), PLC (Great Lakes); Seattle Specialty
Insurance Services, Inc. (Seattle Specialty); and National General
Lender Services, Inc., (National General)

     e. Count Five (Tortious Interference with a Business
Relationship) against Lloyd's, Great Lakes, Seattle Specialty, and
National General, (construed as a claim for tortious interference
with contract under Hawaii law)

     f. Count Six (Violations of the Racketeering Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") against all the Defendants

     g. Count Seven (Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
(conspiracy)) against all the Defendants

Unlike the FAC, the SAC no longer alleges a violation of the Truth
in Lending Act ("TILA") against Financial Freedom and CIT (a claim
that the March 30th Order dismissed without prejudice).

The Defendants now move to dismiss the repleaded claims.  CIT's
Motion to Dismiss challenges aspects of Counts One, Two, Three, Six
and Seven.  Seattle Specialty and National General's Motion to
Dismiss challenges the addition of National General as a Defendant,
and Counts Five, Six, and Seven.  Similarly, Lloyd's and Great
Lakes challenge aspects of the SAC's additional allegations in
Count Four, as well as Counts Five, Six, and Seven.

the Plaintiff filed an omnibus Opposition on Aug. 3, 2018.  Replies
were filed on Aug. 17, 2018.  The Court heard the Motions on Sept.
10, 2018.

Judge Seabright granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss the SAC.  

With respect to CIT's Motion to Dismiss, the Judge dismissed
Financial Freedom as a separate Defendant and any remaining claims
against "Financial Freedom" are construed as being made against CIT
Bank, N.A., itself.  He again dismissed with prejudice Count II.
Finally, the Judge struck the Section 431:13-103(a)(8) allegations
in paragraph 154 of Count Three of the SAC as to CIT.

As to Seattle Specialty and National General's Motion to Dismiss,
the Judge (i) dismissed National General without prejudice to the
Plaintiff filing an appropriate Rule 15 motion to amend the SAC to
add a new Defendant; and (ii) dismissed Count Five and because the
Plaintiff was already given leave to amend to attempt to rectify
pleading deficiencies, the dismissal is with prejudice.

Next, the Judge denied Lloyd's and Great Lakes' Motion to Dismiss.
In addition to also challenging Count Five, Lloyd's and Great Lakes
seek to dismiss or strike the SAC's new allegations in Count Four,
which (as in the FAC) asserts violations of HRS Section 480-2 for
unfair or deceptive trade acts or practices.  The Judge holds that
it would be inappropriate for the Court at this stage to opine on
this complicated and important issue of state law, and address
whether an entire class of insurers would be immune from all
statutorily-defined unfair methods of competition or unfair or
deceptive trade acts or practices in Hawaii.

Finally, Judge Seabright dismissed with prejudice the RICO Counts.
He finds that the SAC fails to establish all the elements of a RICO
claim, and the RICO claims are time-barred.  The Plaintiff
discovered, or could have discovered, her alleged injury when
lender-placed insurance was first placed on her property in 2010
(more than four years before the Complaint was filed in 2016).

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/MYBqq8 from Leagle.com.

Julia Wieck, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bridget G. Morgan --
morgan@bsds.com  -- Bickerton Dang LLLP, Catherine E. Anderson --
canderson@gslawny.com -- Giskan Solotaroff & Anderson LLP, pro hac
vice, James J. Bickerton -- bickerton@bsds.com -- Bickerton Dang
LLLP, Roosevelt N. Nesmith -- roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com -- Law
Office of Roosevelt N. Nesmith, LLC, pro hac vice & Stephen M.
Tannenbaum -- tannenbaum@bsds.com -- Bickerton Dang LLLP.

CIT Bank, N.A. & Financial Freedom, Defendants, represented by Judy
A. Tanaka -- judy.tanaka@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Louis Smith
-- smithlo@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice &
Michelle N. Comeau, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing.

Seattle Specialty Insurance Services, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Andrew James Lautenbach -- alautenbach@starnlaw.com -- Starn
O'Toole Marcus & Fisher, Judy A. Tanaka, Dentons US LLP, Robyn C.
Quattrone, Buckley Sandler LLP, pro hac vice, Scott Sakiyama --
ssakiyama@buckleysandler.com -- BuckleySandler LLP, pro hac vice &
Stephen LeBlanc -- sleblanc@buckleysandler.com -- Buckley Sandler
LLP, pro hac vice.

Certain Underwriters of Lloyd's, London & Great Lakes Reinsurance
(UK), PLC, other Great Lakes Reinsurance SE, Defendants,
represented by Eileen T. McCabe, Mendes & Mount, LLP, pro hac vice,
Judy A. Tanaka, Dentons US LLP, Stephen Thomas Roberts, Mendes &
Mount, LLP, pro hac vice, Steven M. Egesdal, Carlsmith Ball LLP
Honolulu & William M. Harstad, Carlsmith Ball LLP Honolulu.

National General Lender Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Andrew James Lautenbach, Starn O'Toole Marcus & Fisher, Robyn C.
Quattrone, Buckley Sandler LLP, pro hac vice, Scott Sakiyama,
BuckleySandler LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen LeBlanc, Buckley Sandler
LLP, pro hac vice.

MS Amlin Corporate Member, Ltd. & Liberty Corporate Capital Ltd.,
Defendants, represented by Nicholas M. McLean, Cades Schutte LLP,
Peter W. Olson, Cades Schutte LLP, Gregory L. Mast, Fields Howell
LLP, pro hac vice, Paul Lindsey Fields, Jr., Fields Howell LLP, pro
hac vice & Taryn Michelle Kadar, Fields Howell LLP, pro hac vice.


CITRUS COUNTY, FL: Sheriff's Office Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Buster Thompson, writing for Citrus County Chronicle, reports that
an attorney for Citrus County Sheriff Mike Prendergast has asked a
federal judge to throw a class-action lawsuit by a trio of deputies
alleging the sheriff's office's physical fitness test is
discriminatory to both female and older deputies.

Tampa-based lawyer Carly Wilson, Esq. -- cwilson@anblaw.com --
filed a motion on November 8 with the U.S. District Court in Ocala
to have Judge James S. Moody dismiss an eight-count complaint
against Prendergast alleging the violation of U.S. and Florida
gender and age protections, according to Wilson's court filing.

Wilson also filed a second motion on November 8 to have Moody
strike several "irrelevant" and "scandalous" allegations in the
suit filed Oct. 9 by former sheriff's deputies Dawn Alexander and
Michele Tewell, and current deputy Lisa Ventimiglia, the attorney's
motion shows.

Wilson's filings are the first response to the deputies'
accusations, which contend the sheriff's "uniform, unvalidated and
unreliable" fitness test is unfair and harms female and older
deputies by suppressing their pay and promotions -- and that
sheriff's officials are aware of this, continue to mandate the
fitness test and better accommodate male deputies if they're unable
to take it.

According to her first 12-page motion, Wilson states the
plaintiffs' claims have no standing because they don't allege the
test caused them injury or threat of injury; did not provide data
on how the test discriminates against a particular group; and
speculated about how the test discriminates, even though they
continued to pass their quarterly tests.

"This irrational fear cannot form the basis for an injury in fact,"
Wilson wrote, "and therefore plaintiffs have no standing and their
disparate claims should be dismissed."

Attorneys representing Alexander, Tewell and Ventimiglia could not
be reached for comment on November 9.

Alexander, Ventimiglia and Tewell are seeking back pay, benefits,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, payment of attorney fees
and an injunction to end the sheriff's current fitness test policy,
which began in 2008.[GN]


CLEVELAND, OH: Permanent Injunctions in Williams Flipped
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TYNISA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of a class
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF
CLEVELAND, Defendant-Appellant, Case Nos. 16-4237/17-3508 (6th
Cir.), Judge Eugene Edward Siler, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit (i) reversed the district court's summary
judgment and permanent injunction orders; and (ii) remanded with
instructions to grant summary judgment in favor of the City on all
counts and to vacate the permanent injunction.

In 2009, Williams brought suit against the City , on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.  She alleged that the City's intake procedures
conducted at its House of Corrections ("HOC") -- consisting of
strip searches and mandatory delousing -- violated the Fourth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

On Oct. 30, 2009, Williams was pulled over and cited for driving
with a suspended license.  She was brought into the Justice Center,
Cleveland's downtown city jail.  After spending the night in the
downtown jail, Williams was driven to the HOC in a van with several
other inmates.  She was placed in a holding cell for three to four
hours with approximately 10 other female detainees.  A female
correctional officer took her to a back room with two other female
detainees and gave them uniforms.  The officer then provided the
detainees with lock bins in which to store their street clothes and
ordered the detainees to remove their clothing, including their
bras and underwear.  The detainees were then ordered to get into
the shower, which had three separate stalls, and they were given
about one minute to shower.  The women were ordered to exit the
shower, which left them standing approximately one foot from each
other in the nude.

The correctional officer then proceeded to spray the detainees with
a delousing solution, one at a time.  The officers then directed
the detainees to put on their uniforms, without being given the
opportunity to shower again.  Williams waited for ten to fifteen
minutes in the holding cell before being escorted to the pod: a
large room with several bunks.  She was then immediately released
on bail, at approximately 6:00 p.m.

Later in 2009, Williams brought the class action against the City,
arguing that she and similarly situated pretrial detainees were
deprived of their Fourth Amendment rights when they were subjected
to mandatory strip searches and delousing upon entry at the HOC
without individualized suspicion of lice or concealed contraband.
She sought monetary damages, a declaration that the City's policies
were unconstitutional, and an injunction precluding the City from
continuing its allegedly unconstitutional practices.

Back in the district court, both Williams and the City moved for
summary judgment.  The district court granted Williams' motion in
part, awarding summary judgment to Williams on her Fourth Amendment
claim challenging the manner in which the City conducted delousing
and strip-search procedures.  With regard to Williams's
strip-search claim, the district court found that the City's policy
of strip searching multiple detainees at a time did not strike a
reasonable balance between Williams' privacy interests and the need
to provide safety and security at the jail.  It rejected the City's
provided justification that the jail was 'busy,' and corrections
officers need to strip search multiple detainees for expediency.

The district court also issued a permanent injunction forbidding
the City from conducting: (1) the physical delousing of detainees
by utilizing a pressurized spray canister except in instances of
purposeful avoidance or misapplication of a delousing solution by a
detainee; and (2) the showering of detainees in the jail booking
area absent detainees being allowed to enter and use those showers
in the absence of any other detainees.  If the City chose to
conduct strip searches during the intake process in groups of two
or more, the district court ordered that the City must install a
privacy partition/curtain between the detainees being searched to
completely preclude each detainee from seeing the other in a state
of partial and/or complete undress.  If the City did not install
such partitions, the strip searches had to be conducted
individually and privately.

The City now appeals the district court's decisions partially
granting summary judgment in favor of Williams, partially denying
summary judgment to the City, and issuing a permanent injunction
against the City.

Judge Siler finds that the district court erred by granting
Williams' motion for summary judgment on her third and fourth
causes of action -- demanding declaratory and injunctive relief --
because Williams lacked standing to bring these claims.  He
accordingly reversed those portions of the district court's
orders.

Next, he finds that Williams has not provided evidence questioning
the legitimacy of the City's proffered justification.  Indeed,
processing detainees in groups of two or three during high-volume
hours would presumptively speed up the intake process.  He finds
that the City's policy of allowing strip searches to be conducted
in groups of two or three during busy periods, such as Williams'
time of intake, was reasonably related to the City's legitimate
penological interest of expediting the intake procedure.

Finally, the Judge finds that based on the undisputed facts, the
City's delousing policy did not violate Williams' Fourth Amendment
rights.  The City's decision to delouse detainees with a fine mist
was reasonably related to its interest in maintaining the
cleanliness and habitability of the HOC.  The need for delousing
outweighed the admittedly substantial invasion of personal rights
that resulted from the policy.  The City has set forth "good
reasons" for its decision to delouse detainees at the HOC with a
fine mist -- and consequently, its delousing procedure was not a
needless intrusion into the detainees' constitutional rights.

Accordingly, Judge Siler reversed the district court's partial
grant of summary judgment in favor of Williams on her Fourth
Amendment claim.  He remanded with instructions for the district
court to grant summary judgment in favor of the City on all counts
and to vacate the permanent injunction order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/097bVD from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Stephen W. Funk -- sfunk@ralaw.com -- ROETZEL & ANDRESS,
LPA., Akron, Ohio, for Appellant.

Elmer Robert Keach, III , LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III,
PC., Albany, New York, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Stephen W. Funk, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA., Akron, Ohio,
Thomas J. Kaiser, CITY OF CLEVELAND, Cleveland, Ohio, for
Appellant.

Elmer Robert Keach, III, LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III,
PC., Albany, New York, D. Aaron Rihn --  arihn@peircelaw.com --
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, PC., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Nicholas
Migliaccio -- nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com -- MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD,
LLP., Washington, D.C., Daniel Karon -- dkaron@karonllc.com --
KARON LLP., Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.


CLIENT SERVICES: Yancy Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Laura Yancy individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Client
Services, Inc., John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-16163-CCC-MF (D. N.J., Nov. 15, 2018).

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

Client Services, Inc. operates as a customer relationship
management company that offers a suite of accounts receivable
management, business processing outsourcing (BPO), and healthcare
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COCA-COLA CO: Frankfurt Kurnit Discusses Diet Coke Suit Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dorian Thomas, Esq. -- dthomas@fkks.com -- of Frankfurt Kurnit
Klein & Selz PC, in an article for Lexology, reports that in yet
another suit against The Coca-Cola Company alleging that it was
misleading to call Diet Coke a "diet" drink, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted
Coca-Cola's motion to dismiss.

In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that Diet Coke was falsely
advertised as "diet" because the drink leads to weight gain.
Plaintiffs alleged the aspartame in Diet Coke contributes to weight
gain as well as an increased risk of metabolic disease, diabetes,
and cardiovascular disease. Plaintiffs' claims were based, in part,
on ads depicting thin men and women drinking Diet Coke. In
response, Coca-Cola argued that it never advertised Diet Coke as
contributing to weight loss or aiding in weight management.

In dismissing the complaint, Judge Louis L. Stanton relied upon, in
part, a survey the plaintiffs conducted that found that only 15% of
respondents believed that drinks labeled "diet" would aid in weight
loss. Judge Stanton held that "[t]he brand name 'Diet Coke' conveys
to reasonable consumers that the soft drink contains fewer calories
than non-diet soft drinks -- not that it will, on its own, lead to
weight loss or healthy weight management."

Although Judge Stanton granted Coca-Cola's motion to dismiss, Judge
Stanton did reject Coca-Cola's argument that plaintiffs' claims
were preempted under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
[GN]


COLUMBIA DEBT: Epps Disputes Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------
Cody Epps, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Columbia Debt Recovery Group, LLC (previously Genesis Credit
Management, LLC), Defendant, Case No. No. 18-cv-00327, (E.D. Wash.,
October 18, 2018) seeks to pursue remedies under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, Washington Collection Agency Act and the
Consumer Protection Act.

Columbia is a collection agency that regularly conducts business in
Eastern Washington. It attempted to collect a debt via collection
letter that Epps incurred for residential tenancy rents and related
fees, in particular, "general cleaning" charges that were not
agreed to in advance, says the complaint.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian G. Cameron, Esq.
      KIRK D. MILLER, P.S.
      421 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 660
      Spokane, WA 99201
      Tel: (509)413-1494
      Fax: (509)413-1724


CONTAINER KING: Chenault Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Wiley Chenault, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Container King Inc., Cole Smith and
Paula Pacanins, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00752, (E.D. Tex.,
October 18, 2018), seeks unpaid back wages due with liquidated
damages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation, reimbursement
of costs of this action, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and
such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Container Kings Inc. is a shipping container supplier which
specializes in containers for both storage and office space use.
Chenault was employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid accounts
receivable clerk from approximately April 2015 until August 2018.
She was often required to work in excess of 40 hours but was not
paid time-and-one-half her regular rate of pay for all the hours
that she worked over 40 hours per week, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Forester, Esq.
      D. Matthew Haynie, Esq.
      FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
      1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 210-2100 phone
      Fax: (214) 346-5909
      Website: www.foresterhaynie.com

               - and -

      M. Shane McGuire, Esq.
      THE MCGUIRE FIRM, PC
      102 N. College, Suite 301
      Tyler, TX 75702
      Tel: (903) 630-7154
      Fax: (903) 630-7173


CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: Shafir Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent Healthcare
Recoveries, Inc. The case is styled as Ilya Shafir on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Convergent Healthcare Recoveries, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06518 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018).

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

Convergent provides a wide range of customer contact management
services which help to lower cost, manage uneven call volumes, deal
with specific call types and prepare for unexpected outages or
natural disasters.[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


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Saraci Files FDCPA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Sunaj Saraci on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06505-BMC
(E.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Jan. 7 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Nov. 8 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Costco Wholesale Corporation ("Costco" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:
COST ) for violations of Secs. 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 June 6, 2018
and October 25, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before January 7, 2019.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Sherin Mahdavian,
of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of
charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com

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. Costco failed to maintain appropriate
internal controls over financial reporting. The Company admitted on
October 4, 2018, that "in its upcoming fiscal 2018 Annual Report on
Form 10-K, it expects to report a material weakness in internal
control. The weakness relates to general information technology
controls in the areas of user access and program change-management
over certain information technology systems that support the
Company's financial reporting processes. The access issues relate
to the extent of privileges afforded users authorized to access
company systems." 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 Costco,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation. [GN]


CUCINA & AMORE INC: Flolo Sues Over Product Mislabeling
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark Flolo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Cucina & Amore Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-06374,
(N.D. Cal., October 18, 2018), seeks declaratory relief, damages,
costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for
plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees for violations of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law,
False Advertising Law and various state consumer protection laws.

Cucina & Amore Inc. develops, markets, and sells food products
under the "Cucina & Amore" brand name throughout the United States.
Flolo disputes their "No Preservatives" labeling, and claims that
they actually contain the preservatives citric acid and/or ascorbic
acid. Flolo purchased the 7.9 oz. Cucina & Amore Sundried Tomato
Pesto Sauce at a Safeway supermarket on 4495 First Street in
Livermore CA. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      CK Lee, Esq.
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181
      Email: cklee@leelitigation.com

             - and -

      Nadir O. Ahmed, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF NADIR O. AHMED
      401 West A Street, # 1100
      San Diego CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 800-4214
      Email: nadir.ahmed@noalaw.net


CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP: Partial Bid to Dismiss Schenck FCRA Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUSTIN SCHENCK, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. CURTISS-WRIGHT
CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-164 (W.D. Pa.),
Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania (i) without prejudice the
Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss and (ii) denied the
Plaintiff's Motion for Remand.

The Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint in the Court of Common
Pleas of Allegheny County, raising claims of violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the Pennsylvania Criminal History
Record Information Act.  On Feb. 5, 2018, the Defendant removed the
action to the Court.

the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint on Aug.
15, 2018.  Therein, he added an additional claim under the FCRA.
On Sept. 5, 2018, the Defendant filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss
seeking the dismissal of Count One (a FCRA claim) on the basis of
lack of standing, and the dismissal of Counts One, Two and Three
(all FCRA claims) on the basis of the insufficiency of the
allegations in the Amended Complaint.

On Sept. 20, 2018, the Defendant filed a Notice of Supplemental
Authority in support of its Partial Motion to Dismiss, citing a
Sept. 10, 2018, decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, Long v. SEPTA.  It argued that the holding in Long
conclusively resolved the standing issue as to Count One and
further established that the Plaintiff does not have standing to
assert Counts Two and Three.  Therefore, the Defendant sought to
amend its Partial Motion to Dismiss to incorporate its standing
argument as to Counts Two and Three.

On Sept. 25, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to
Remand, as well as a Motion to Vacate the Court's Scheduling Order
as to the Partial Motion to Dismiss pending a determination on the
Motion for Remand.  On Sept. 26, 2018, the Court granted the Motion
to Vacate the Scheduling Order.  The Defendant filed an Opposition
to the Motion to Sever and Remand on Oct. 11, 2018.  On Oct. 19,
2018, the Plaintiff filed a Reply Memorandum in Support of the
Motion to Remand.  On Nov. 2, 2018, the Defendant filed a
Sur-Reply.

Judge Kelly notes that in Long, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit held: (1) that the plaintiffs therein had standing to
assert a claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 b(b)(3)(A)(i), a
provision of the FCRA which prohibits a potential employer from
taking adverse action on the basis of a consumer report before
providing to the consumer a copy of the report; and (2) that the
plaintiffs therein did not have standing to assert a claim under 15
U.S.C. Section 1681 b(b)(3)(A)(ii), a provision of the FCRA which
prohibits a potential employer from taking adverse action on the
basis of a consumer report before providing to the consumer a
written description of the consumer's rights under the FCRA.  The
Long court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing for the latter
claim because, although they did not receive FCRA rights
disclosures, they understood their rights sufficiently to be able
to bring this lawsuit.

In the instant case, the FCRA-based claims are as follows.  Count
One is based on the alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681
b(b)(2)(A)(i), a provision of the FCRA which prohibits a potential
employer from procuring a consumer report before providing to the
consumer a written stand-alone disclosure to the consumer that a
report may be obtained for employment purposes.  Count Two is based
on the alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 b(b)(2)(A)(ii),
a provision of the FCRA which prohibits a potential employer from
procuring a consumer report before obtaining a written
authorization to do so from the consumer.  Count Three is based on
the alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681(d)(a), a provision
of the FCRA which prohibits a potential employer from procuring an
investigative consumer report without making certain disclosures to
the consumer.  Count Four is based on the alleged violation of 15
U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i), based on the failure to provide a
copy of the consumer report used to make an employment decision.
Count Five is based on the alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. Section
1681 b(b)(3)(A)(ii), based on the failure to provide a summary of
rights.  Counts Six and Seven are based on alleged state law
violations of the Pennsylvania CHRIA.

As should be clear, the Judge holds that only Counts Four and Five
of the instant case share the statutory bases with the claims
addressed in Long.  The Long court held that plaintiffs therein had
standing to bring a claim with the same statutory basis as Count
Four but no standing to bring a claim with the same statutory basis
as Count Five.  The Long court did not address claims with the same
statutory bases as Counts One, Two and Three.  Thus, the Plaintiffs
Motion to Remand, which is based on the holding in Long, a case in
which the Plaintiff claims the Court examined whether FCRA claims
virtually identical to those alleged in Counts I to III of the
First Amended Complaint, is flawed.

Perhaps the rationale expressed in Long may be extended to claims
like those set forth in Counts One through Three, but such a
conclusion is not expressly dictated by the holding in Long and
thus immediate remand of these claims is not warranted at this
time.  Accordingly, the Judge denied without prejudice the Motion
to Remand to raise the arguments therein in response to a Motion to
Dismiss, if necessary.

As to the pending Partial Motion to Dismiss, because the state of
the law has changed since it was filed and because the Defendant
has sought to amend its Motion to reflect this change, the pending
Partial Motion to Dismiss is denied without prejudice to refile, by
Dec. 6, 2018, a Motion to Dismiss encompassing all relevant
arguments and current legal support therefor.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 6, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/y3PSlp from Leagle.com.

JUSTIN SCHENCK, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Rabenold
-- ERABENOLD@FDPKLAW.COM -- Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC,
James M. Pietz --  JPIETZ@FDPKLAW.COM -- Feinstein, Doyle, Payne &
Kravec, LLC & Taylor E. Gillan -- TGILLAN@FDPKLAW.COM -- Feinstein
Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC.

CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by Kevin D.
Holden -- Kevin.Holden@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, Pc, pro
hac vice, Marla N. Presley -- Marla.Presley@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis P.C. & Joanna M. Rodriguez --
Joanna.Rodriguez@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C..


CV SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Smith Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself from a purported class action suit filed
by David Smith.

The Company has been made aware of a series of complaints and one
derivative suit filed by various plaintiffs alleging violations of
securities law related to the Company's disclosures regarding
patent prosecution of its various drug development assets.

On August 24, 2018, David Smith filed a purported class action
complaint against the Company in the United States District Court
District of Nevada. This complaint and the other complaints that
the Company has been made aware of were filed directly after Citron
Research published on Twitter on August 20, 2018 its belief that
the Company misled investors by failing to disclose that the
Company's efforts to secure patent protection had been "finally
rejected" by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).


The Company believes these claims are without merit, and intends to
vigorously defend any claims in the event it is served with a
complaint.

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

CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates
through two segments, Specialty Pharmaceuticals and Consumer
Products. The company focuses on developing and commercializing
prescription drugs utilizing synthetic cannabidiol (CBD) as the
active pharmaceutical ingredient. Its initial drug candidate is
CVSI-007 that combines CBD and nicotine for the treatment of
smokeless tobacco use and addiction. CV Sciences, Inc. was founded
in 2010 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


CV SCIENCES: Still Awaits Scheduling Order in Sallustro Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, 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 parties in the
class action suit filed by Tanya Sallustro are still awaiting entry
of a case scheduling order by the Court.

On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class action
complaint (the "Complaint") in the Southern District of New York
(the "Court") alleging securities fraud and related claims against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors and seeking
compensatory damages including litigation costs.

Ms. Sallustro alleges that between March 18-31, 2014, she purchased
325 shares of the Company's common stock for a total investment of
$15,791. The Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form 8-K and
Current Reports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company on April
3, 2014 and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended previously
disclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1,275,000 were
restated to $1,082,375 - a reduction of $192,625) and restated
goodwill as $1,855,512 (previously reported at net zero).

On March 19, 2015, the Court issued a ruling appointing Steve
Schuck as lead plaintiff. Counsel for Mr. Schuck filed a
"consolidated complaint" on September 14, 2015, asserting two
claims: (1) for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
SEC Rule 10B-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and
(2) for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants. Plaintiffs sued the Company, Michael Mona,
Jr., Bart Mackay, Theodore Sobieski, Edward Wilson, Stuart Titus,
and Michael Llamas.

On December 11, 2015, the Company and the individuals (except for
Messrs. Titus and Llamas) filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. On April 2, 2018, the Court issued an order
granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. With
respect to the First Claim for violation of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, the court ruled that plaintiffs failed to allege
misstatements or omissions attributable to Messrs. Mackay,
Sobieski, or Titus, and so granted the motion on that claim as to
those parties. The court found the allegations sufficient as to the
Company and Messrs. Wilson, and Mona Jr., and so denied the motion
as to those parties.

Under plaintiffs' separate theory of "market manipulation," the
Court granted the motion in favor of all defendants. The parties
are currently awaiting entry of a case scheduling order by the
Court.

CV Sciences said, "Management intends to vigorously defend the
allegations and an estimate of possible loss cannot be made at this
time."

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

CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates
through two segments, Specialty Pharmaceuticals and Consumer
Products. The company focuses on developing and commercializing
prescription drugs utilizing synthetic cannabidiol (CBD) as the
active pharmaceutical ingredient. Its initial drug candidate is
CVSI-007 that combines CBD and nicotine for the treatment of
smokeless tobacco use and addiction. CV Sciences, Inc. was founded
in 2010 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


DEPLOYED DATA SOLUTIONS: Denied Payment of OT Wages, Dicks Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Dicks, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Deployed Data Solutions, LLC and Michael
Finnegan, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04828, (N.D. Ga., October 18,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Deployed Data Solutions provides technical staff augmentation and
support services to specialized sectors of the telecommunications
industry. Dicks worked for Deployed Data Solutions as a technician,
installing, maintaining and repairing cable lines for residential
and commercial clients. He was allegedly misclassified as an
independent contractor and denied overtime pay despite working over
forty hours in most weeks. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roger Orlando, Esq.
      THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C.
      315 W. Ponce de Leon Avenue Suite 400
      Decatur, GA 30030
      Tel: (404) 373-1800
      Fax: (404) 373-6999
      Email: roger@orlandofirm.com

             - and -

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      Nicholas R. Conlon, Esq.
      BROWN, LLC
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Tel: (877) 561-0000
      Fax: (855) 582-5297
      Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
             nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


DJO GLOBAL: Dreifort Alleges Shoe Flaw Caused Hip Injury
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Dreifort, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DJO Global, Inc., DJO, LLC, and
Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02393, (S.D. Cal., October
18, 2018), seeks redress for fraud and for violation of
California's False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

DJO is a manufacturer and distributer of orthopedic rehabilitation
products. Dreifort bought a pair of boots whose one sole is
approximately 1-2 inches thicker than the other. He claims that the
boot has caused permanent injury resulting in a hip replacement
operation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Scott Sanborn, Esq.
       THE LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT SANBORN
       707 10th Ave #609
       San Diego, CA 92101
       Phone: (619)808-5912
       Email: ss@scottsanborn.law
       Website: www.scottsanborn.law


DRIVELINE RETAIL: Merchandisers Sue to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Black, Rena McCraw and Rebecca Morris, each individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Driveline Retail
Merchandising, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00778, (E.D. Ark.,
October 19, 2018) seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees
as a result of failure to pay lawful overtime compensation for
hours worked in excess of forty hours per week under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant owns and operates a retail merchandising agency that
conducts business throughout the United States. Plaintiffs work as
merchandisers. They claim to have regularly worked in excess of
forty hours per week without overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Neglia Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Olga Neglia, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06507 (E.D. N.Y., 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:

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


ENCLARITY INC: Womble Bond Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Artin Betpera, Esq. -- artin.betpera@wbd-us.com -- of Womble Bond
Dickinson (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that the Sixth Circuit held that a plaintiff in a junk fax
class action alleged sufficient facts to establish that a fax --
which was seemingly informational on its face -- was nonetheless an
"unsolicited advertisement" within the meaning of the TCPA.  So
what kind of sorcery did the Sixth Circuit use to reach this
conclusion?

Before diving in, let's orient ourselves on the statutory
definition of "unsolicited advertisement". The TCPA defines the
term as:

[A]ny material advertising the commercial availability or quality
of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any
person without that person's prior express invitation or
permission, in writing or otherwise.

47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(a)(5).

Seems straightforward enough . . . At least compared to the ATDS
definition.  But,  TCPAland, right?

In Matthew N. Fulton, D.D.S., P.C. v. Enclarity, Inc., No. 17-1380,
2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31077 (6th Cir. Nov. 2, 2018), the defendant
sent a fax to a dentist office for the purpose of verifying certain
information relating to the dental practice such as address, phone
number, and secure fax numbers.  Defendant maintained a database of
medical provider business and professional demographic data that it
licensed to its customer base of health insurance plans,
pharmacies, life science companies, and the like.  According to the
fax, the purpose of the request was to "help preserve the privacy
and security," of patient information, and to facilitate sensitive
communications.  The fax also contained the phone number and a link
to the FAQ page on the defendant's website.

Plaintiff sued Defendant in a nationwide putative class action
claiming this fax was an unsolicited advertisement that violated
the TCPA.  But the District Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint
under Fed.  R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because "nothing mentioned in the
fax is available to be bought or sold," and the fax "lacked the
commercial components inherent in ads." Makes sense.  On its face
this fax doesn't contain any sort of advertising material.  I mean,
it's literally asking to verify information, so this would seem to
be pretty clearly informational in nature.  Right?

But according to the Sixth Circuit, that's wrong… At least
judging from the face of the Plaintiff's complaint and construing
it in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.

The court goes through some machinations in reaching its holding.
But at the heart of the decision was the court's finding that an
"unsolicited advertisement" as defined under the TCPA includes
"faxes that serve as pretext for a commercial solicitation." This
was based on the Sixth Circuit's prior holding Sandusky Wellness
Ctr., Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Medco Health Sols., Inc., 788 F.3d 218 (6th
Cir. 2015), as well as FCC guidance on the issue which states:

[F]acsimile messages that promote goods or services even at no
cost, such as free magazine subscriptions, catalogs, or free
consultations or seminars, are unsolicited advertisements under the
TCPA's definition. In many instances, "free" seminars serve as a
pretext to advertise commercial products and services. Similarly,
"free" publications are often part of an overall marketing campaign
to sell property, goods, or services. For instance, while the
publication itself may be offered at no cost to the facsimile
recipient, the products promoted within the publication are often
commercially available. Based on this, it is reasonable to presume
that such messages describe the "quality of any property, goods, or
services." Therefore, facsimile communications regarding such free
goods and services, if not purely "transactional," would require
the sender to obtain the recipient's permission beforehand…

In light of the pretextual fax rule – the Sixth Circuit had a
problem with the District Court concluding on the face of
Plaintiff's complaint that the fax at issue wasn't an "unsolicited
advertisement".  It said "[f]inding a fax to be pretext for a
subsequent advertising opportunity would require looking into what
came after the fax.  A court could not possibly resolve a claim
that a fax was pretextual if it confined its evaluation to the fax
itself."  In other words, the court is allowed to "peek behind the
curtain" so to speak and evaluate circumstances beyond just the
face of the fax to determine whether it falls within the definition
of an "unsolicited advertisement".  According to the court, "a fax
could be an advertisement without overtly offering a product or
service for sale, such as offers for free seminars that turn out to
be pretext for a later solicitation."

The Sixth Circuit therefore held that the District Court erred in
granting the defendant's motion to dismiss.  The complaint
contained certain allegations that "the fax was a pretext to
increase awareness and use of Defendants' proprietary database
service and increase traffic to Defendants' website," and that
Defendant uses the verified contact information it was seeking from
Plaintiff to compile a commercially available product or service
that Defendants sell or lease to their subscribers and licensees."
Plaintiff was able to reinforce the plausibility of these
allegations -- in part -- with some of the content from Defendant's
own website as well.  On that record, therefore, the Sixth Circuit
held that Plaintiff had "adequately alleged that the fax 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."

The Sixth Circuit's holding reinforces just how careful businesses
need to be when creating and sending these sorts of faxes.  Under
Fulton, the fact that the fax appears informational on its face may
not be enough to defeat liability where the Plaintiff can establish
it was a pretext for downstream solicitation.  And, at the very
least, it's likely not going to cut it to defeat a nationwide TCPA
class action at the pleading stage.

It's a perilous landscape out there. [GN]


EVOQUA WATER: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP disclosed that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. (NYSE:  AQUA) ("Evoqua") on behalf
of purchasers of Evoqua securities on the open market between
November 6, 2017 and October 30, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Important Deadline: Investors who purchased Evoqua securities
during the Class Period may, no later than January 7, 2019, 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/evoqua-securities-class-action.

According to the complaint, Evoqua purports to be a leading
provider of mission critical water treatment solutions, offering
services, systems and technologies to support its customers' full
water lifecycle needs. With over 200,000 installations worldwide,
Evoqua holds leading positions in the industrial, commercial and
municipal water treatment markets in North America. Evoqua offers a
portfolio of differentiated, proprietary technology solutions sold
under a number of brands. Evoqua claims that the customer intimacy
created through its service network is a significant competitive
advantage.

The Class Period commences November 6, 2017, the date of the
completion of Evoqua's initial public offering ("IPO"). In the IPO
prospectus, filed with the SEC on November 2, 2017 and part of its
IPO registration statement, Evoqua touted its "[e]xperienced
management team with proven operational capabilities" as one of its
strengths.

According to the complaint, on October 30, 2018, Evoqua announced
disappointing preliminary financial results for the fourth quarter
and fiscal year ended September 30, 2018. Evoqua said the
shortfalls are "primarily due to acquisition system integration
issues, supply chain disruptions influenced by tariffs and an
extended delay on a large aquatics project."

Following this news, Evoqua's stock price fell $4.78 per share, or
34.64%, to close at $9.02 on October 30, 2018.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Evoqua failed to successfully integrate its
prior acquisitions; (ii) Evoqua was experiencing supply chain
disruptions influenced by tariffs and an extended delay on a large
aquatics project; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Evoqua's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

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.

Evoqua investors may, no later than January 7, 2019, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

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


FINANCE SYSTEM: Washington Files Suit in Ohio Under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Finance System of
Toledo, Inc. The case is styled as Sallie C. Washington on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Finance
System of Toledo, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02653 (N.D.
Ohio, Nov. 15, 2018).

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

Finance System of Toledo, Inc., is one of the largest and most
experienced full-service collection agencies in Northwest
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric D. Coleman, Esq.
     Sulaiman Law Group
     2500 South Highland Avenue, Ste. 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: (630) 575-8181
     Fax: (630) 575-8188
     Email: ecoleman@sulaimanlaw.com

          - and -

     Taxiarchis Hatzidimitriadis, Esq.
     Sulaiman Law Group
     2500 South Highland Avenue, Ste. 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: (630) 575-8181
     Fax: (630) 575-8188
     Email: thatz@sulaimanlaw.com

          - and -

     Nathan C. Volheim, Esq.
     Sulaiman Law Group
     2500 South Highland Avenue, Ste. 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: (630) 575-8181
     Fax: (630) 575-8188
     Email: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com


FITBIT INC: Dec. 31 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP alerts investors
that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against
Fitbit, Inc. (NYSE: FIT) ("Fitbit") on behalf of purchasers of
Fitbit securities between August 2, 2016 and January 30, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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.

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

Fitbitinvestors 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.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check -- http://www.ktmc.com-- prosecutes
class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country
involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other
violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has
recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.
The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers
(private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the
government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The
complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check. [GN]


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

Fitbit Inc. (NYSE: FIT)
Class Period: August 2, 2016 - January 30, 2017
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 31, 2018
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fitbit-inc-loss-form?wire=3

The lawsuit alleges: Fitbit Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements throughout the class period and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the company was struggling to transition its
mission and differentiate itself from Apple Inc. and other
competitors; (2) as such, the Company was experiencing increased
competition; (3) as a result, demand and sell-through for the
Company's existing and new products were being negatively impacted;
(4) as a result, the Company's sales and financial results were
weakening, and growth was slowing; (5) the Company's financial
guidance was overstated; and (6) as a result of the foregoing,
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.

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

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


FITBIT INC: RM Law Files Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Fitbit, Inc.
(NYSE: FIT) ("Fitbit" or the "Company") common stock between August
2, 2016 and January 30, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Fitbit shareholders may, no later than December 31, 2018, move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you
purchased shares of Fitbit and would like to learn more about these
claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign
up online, click here.

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.

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

The 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 are a member of the class, you may, no later than December
31, 2018, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of
the class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed 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.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other
counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
         RM LAW, P.C.
         1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
         Berwyn, PA 19312
         Telephone: 484-324-6800
                    844-291-9299
         Email: rm@maniskas.com [GN]


FITBIT INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that
purchasers of Fitbit, Inc. (NYSE: FIT) have filed a class action
complaint against the company's officers and directors for alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between August 2,
2016 and January 30, 2017. Fitbit, a technology company, provides
health solutions in the United States and internationally.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
https://www.robbinsarroyo.com/fitbit-inc-nov-2018/.

Fitbit Accused of Failing to Disclose Impact of Competitive
Pressures

According to the complaint, Fitbit touted that the company was on
the cusp of transitioning its mission from a consumer electronics
company to a digital healthcare company and that it sold the number
one best-selling fitness tracker on Amazon. However, Fitbit was
struggling to differentiate itself from Apple Inc., leading to
slowing demand for Fitbit's products. On November 2, 2016, Fitbit
released disappointing financial results and lowered its full year
2016 revenue guidance. The company again lowered its guidance in
January 2017. Since Fitbit's financial outlook started declining,
the company's stock price lost over half of its value, closing at
$6.06 per share on January 30, 2017. Nearly two years later, Fitbit
trades at approximately the same price.

Fitbit 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
         E-mail: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com[GN]


FRONT YARD: Discovery Still Ongoing in Martin Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Front Yard Residential 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
discovery is still ongoing in the case, Martin v. Altisource
Residential Corporation et al.

On March 27, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands
by a purported shareholder of the Company under the caption Martin
v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 15-cv-00024.

The action names as defendants the Company, its former Chairman,
William C. Erbey, and certain officers and a former officer of the
Company and alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by, among other things, making materially false statements
and/or failing to disclose material information to the Company's
shareholders regarding the Company's relationship and transactions
with AAMC, Ocwen Financial Corporation ("Ocwen") and Home Loan
Servicing Solutions, Ltd.

These alleged misstatements and omissions include allegations that
the defendants failed to adequately disclose the Company's reliance
on Ocwen and the risks relating to its relationship with Ocwen,
including that Ocwen was not properly servicing and selling loans,
that Ocwen was under investigation by regulators for violating
state and federal laws regarding servicing of loans and Ocwen’s
lack of proper internal controls.

The complaint also contains allegations that certain of the
Company's disclosure documents were false and misleading because
they failed to disclose fully the entire details of a certain asset
management agreement between the Company and AAMC that allegedly
benefited AAMC to the detriment of the Company's shareholders. The
action seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages to
the putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of
attorney's and other fees and expenses.

In May 2015, two of the company's purported shareholders filed
competing motions with the court to be appointed lead plaintiff and
for selection of lead counsel in the action. Subsequently,
opposition and reply briefs were filed by the purported
shareholders with respect to these motions. On October 7, 2015, the
court entered an order granting the motion of Lei Shi to be lead
plaintiff and denying the other motion to be lead plaintiff.

On January 23, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.

On March 22, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims
in the action. The plaintiffs filed opposition papers on May 20,
2016, and the defendants filed a reply brief in support of the
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 11, 2016.

On November 14, 2016, the Martin case was reassigned to Judge Anne
E. Thompson of the United States District Court of New Jersey. In a
hearing on December 19, 2016, the parties made oral arguments on
the motion to dismiss, and on March 16, 2017 the Court issued an
order that the motion to dismiss had been denied. On April 17,
2017, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Court’s decision to deny the motion to dismiss.

On April 21, 2017, the defendants filed their answer and
affirmative defenses. Plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant'
motion for reconsideration on May 8, 2017. On May 30, 2017, the
Court issued an order that the motion for reconsideration had been
denied. Discovery has commenced and is ongoing.

Front Yard said, "We believe this complaint is without merit. At
this time, we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this
matter, nor can we estimate the range of possible loss, if any."

Front Yard Residential Corporation, is an industry leader in
providing quality, affordable rental homes to America's families in
a variety of suburban communities that have easy accessibility to
metropolitan areas.


HONEYWELL INT'L: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Honeywell International Inc.
(NYSE: HON).  If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff.

Honeywell International Inc. (NYSE: HON)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 31, 2018
Class Period: February 9, 2018 and October 19, 2018

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Telephone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of India Globalization Capital
Inc. (NYSE American: IGC).  If you suffered a loss you have until
the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you
as lead plaintiff.

India Globalization Capital Inc. (NYSE American: IGC)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 2, 2019
Class Period: October 25, 2017 and October 29, 2018

Get additional information about IGC:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/india-globalization-capital-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3


         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Telephone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN]




JACQUES TORRES: Figueroa Sues Chocolatier for ADA Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jacques Torres
Retail, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jacques
Torres Retail, LLC doing business as: Mr. Chocolate, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-10669 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018).

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

Jacques Torres is a pastry chef and chocolatier. Torres is a member
of the International Culinary Center community, as Dean of Pastry
Arts as well as holding pastry demonstrations.[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


KAYNE LLC: Faces Figueroa Suit Asserting ADA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kayne, LLC. The case
is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kayne, LLC doing business as:
Jenni Kayne, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10677 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15,
2018).

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

Kayne, LLC, doing business as Jenni Kayne, LLC, designs and
manufactures women's apparel and footwear. The company's products
include shirts, tee shirts, pants, coats, blazers, 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


LAGUNA BEACH, CA: Judge Okays Homeless Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Sclafani, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that a
federal judge approved a settlement between Laguna Beach and the
American Civil Liberties Union in a 2015 class-action lawsuit
involving accommodations for people with disabilities at area
homeless shelters, authorities said.

The settlement, filed in federal court in June, outlines changes in
accommodations for disabled homeless people at the city's night
shelter.

No money was exchanged as part of the settlement, which marked an
end to a lawsuit that spanned nearly three years.

Instead, the agreement details changes to area homeless shelters to
help disabled residents and expand available accommodations.

Furthermore, language was included that prevents parties to the
class-action suit from filing similar future claims against the
city, according to Laguna Beach City Manager John Pietig.

"Though we are pleased with the outcome, the money and time we've
spent over the last three years defending ourselves against the
unfounded allegations in this lawsuit would have been better spent
elsewhere," Mr. Pietig said in a statement on Nov. 5. "We are ready
to move on and put this behind us."

Despite the city's enthusiasm to have the case concluded, advocates
see the settlement as a symbolic win.

"It's a call to county government to get serious about taking a
leadership role in a regional solution to ending homelessness,"
ACLU homeless policy analyst and advocate Eve Garrow said in June
when the document was filed.

The ACLU filed the suit in 2015 on behalf of five chronically
homeless people with mental and physical disabilities. The
organization accused Laguna Beach of trying to push homeless people
-- especially those with disabilities -- out of the city by not
providing adequate accommodations for them.

As part of the settlement, Laguna Beach and the nonprofit
Friendship Shelter will create a pilot program including daytime
services for shelter residents and a streamlined enrollment process
giving priority to local homeless residents and those deemed most
vulnerable, the city said.

That includes guaranteeing beds to qualifying people for up to 30
days with the aim of helping to move candidates into transitional
housing, the city said.

"There are more than 85 formerly homeless men and women
participating in the program who have been placed in housing
throughout south Orange County," the city said in a news release on

Nov. 5.

As part of the settlement, the Laguna Beach City Council agreed to
adopt a resolution to affirm its commitment to end homelessness in
the city, encourage Orange County to fund and expand affordable
housing for unsheltered people and coax other cities in the county
to take a similar stance.

The 17-page agreement, signed March 23, focuses extensively on
conditions at the shelter in Laguna Canyon called the Alternative
Sleeping Location. The site provides shelter nightly for up to 45
homeless people, plus meals, laundry, showers and van service to
Laguna's bus depot. The Laguna Beach-based Friendship Shelter has
operated the facility under contract with the city since 2009.

The settlement came at a critical time for Orange County
communities that have been grappling to find locations for homeless
shelters. A civil lawsuit was filed in federal court in January
after hundreds of homeless people were removed from encampments
along the Santa Ana River.

U.S. District Judge David Carter, who is overseeing that lawsuit,
has called for a regional approach to homelessness in which the
county would be split into three zones, each with a shelter. [GN]


LEAFFILTER NORTH: Federman & Sherwood Files Data Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on November 2, 2018, it filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, against LeafFilter
North, LLC and LeafFilter North of Texas, LLC ("LeafFilter"),
alleging that LeafFilter failed to meet its legal duty to protect
the private, personal information of the plaintiff and thousands of
others. According to the Complaint, on or before August 21, 2018,
LeafFilter discovered that unauthorized persons had used a phishing
email to gain access to LeafFilter employees' email accounts and
were able to obtain and/or view the private, personal information
of the plaintiff and others. The compromised data may include
social security number, date of birth, driver's license number, and
bank account information. On behalf of himself and all class
members, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages suffered
by class members as a result of LeafFilter's failure to maintain
the security of the private, personal information in its
possession.

LeafFilter is an Ohio company, with offices in forty (40) states,
that sells a gutter protection system to consumers across the
United States. If you are or were an employee, prospective
employee, contractor, or other person who provided PII to
LeafFilter via email between April 1, 2018 and August 21, 2018 and
believe you have been affected by the LeafFilter security breach,
please contact:

          Allicia Bolton
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120 [GN]


LEON MAX: Violates Disabilities Act, Figueroa Suit Asserts
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leon Max, Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Figueroa on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Leon Max, Inc. doing business as:
Max Studio, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10678 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15,
2018).

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

Leon Max, Inc. offers clothing for women. The company offers its
products through stores, boutiques, Internet, and department
stores.[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


MANHATTAN DINER: Delivery Staff Hit Tip Credit, Seek Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nereo Cuahua Tetlactle, Placido Xochiquiquisqui Garcia and Sergio
Cuahua Mayahua, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Karpenisi Rest. Inc., Fofios Milas, Fotios
Hilas, Fanis Tsiamtsiouris, Angelo Kantlis, John Doe, Candido Doe
and Tony Doe, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-09554 (S.D. N.Y., October
18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum, overtime and
spread-of-hours wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a diner, located at 2532
Broadway New York, NY 10025 under the name "Manhattan Diner" where
Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers.  The Plaintiffs were
required to spend a considerable part of their work day performing
non-tipped duties. Accordingly, Defendants are not entitled to take
a tip credit because their non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each
workday, asserts the complaint. Moreover, Plaintiffs worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that they
worked. They also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Can Compel Arbitration in Benson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LORETTA JEAN BENSON, an individual on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MAXIM
HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-00771-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
granted the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration on an
Individual Basis and to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.

Through the present action, Benson pursues claims arising out of
her employment with the Defendant.  As a condition of her
employment, however, the Plaintiff signed a Mutual Arbitration
Agreement ("MAA") agreeing to arbitrate on an individual basis
claims against Defendant arising from her employment or the
termination of her employment.  Accordingly, the Defendant now
seeks an order compelling arbitration in accordance with the MAA.

There is no dispute that the arbitration agreement on which the
Defendant relies extends to the bulk of the Plaintiff's instant
claims.  Instead, the Plaintiff argues that the MAA is: (1)
procedurally unconscionable since the Plaintiff was required to
sign it as a condition of her employment and certain provisions
were hidden within the class action waiver; and (2) substantively
unconscionable because the Plaintiff is prohibited from joining
claims against the Defendant on behalf of other individuals or
seeking damages/penalties on behalf of other individuals, but the
Defendant is purportedly not likewise restricted.

Judge England holds these arguments cannot carry the day.  First,
the fact that the Plaintiff's employment was conditioned on her
acceptance of the MAA does not itself render the agreement
unenforceable.  Second, the Plaintiff has not shown that the MAA is
substantively unconscionable.

More specifically, the Plaintiff contends that the MAA imposes a
one-way prohibition on the ability of employees to join and
consolidate their claims against Maxim but no reciprocal
prohibition on the ability of Maxim to join and consolidate its
claims against employees.  The Judge finds that when read in
context, it is clear that the provision is intended to be
reciprocal.  It does not limit its application to claims brought by
the employee only.  And throughout the paragraph, it refers to the
"parties."  Nor is the agreement one-sided with respect to the
parties' ability to recover damages.

Given this, and the fact that the Defendant is, again by
definition, precluded from joining claims against other employees
in any arbitration against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's
contention that the MAA is substantively unconscionable is not well
taken.

For the reasons just stated, Judge England granted the Defendant's
Motion to Compel Arbitration on an Individual Basis and to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint.  He dismissed the action is DISMISSED.  The
Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 6, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/qC1Mgx from Leagle.com.

Loretta Jean Benson, Plaintiff, represented by Kye Douglas Pawlenko
-- kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com -- Hayes, Pawlenko, LLP & Matthew
Bryan Hayes -- mhayes@helpcounsel.com -- Hayes Pawlenko LLP.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by John
Spivey Battenfeld -- john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP & Andrea L. Fellion --
andrea.fellion@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


MDL 1720: Optium Fund Buying Goodmans Stores' Claim for $392,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
G-Estate Liquidation Stores, Inc., formerly known as Gordmans
Stores, Inc., and its affiliates ask the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Nebraska to authorize them to enter into an Asset
Purchase Agreement with Optium Fund 2, LLC in connection with their
sale of class action interchange claim for $392,000.

On Oct. 20, 2005, numerous merchants, retailers, and trade
associations commenced a class action case against Visa U.S.A. Inc.
and Mastercard International Inc., among other entities, styled In
re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation (Case No. 1:05 md-1720-JG-JO) in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.  The Plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that the Defendants conspired to unlawfully fix the
price of "interchange fees" and other fees charged to merchants for
transactions that were processed through the Defendants' networks.

On Sept. 18, 2018, the parties filed the Superseding and Amended
Definitive Class Settlement Agreement with the District Court
seeking approval of a proposed $5.56 to $6.26 billion settlement.

As of the date of the Motion, the District Court has not granted
preliminary approval of the Proposed Settlement.  Moreover,
inclusion in a specific class, as well as monetary allocations
based on potential claim amounts, have not yet been determined, and
the District Court has not yet approved a claim form for claimants
or a timetable for claim submissions.

The Post-Effective Date Debtors may have a right to a share in the
Proposed Settlement or other recovery the Plaintiffs may obtain in
the Class Action Interchange Litigation on account of interchange
fees paid to the Defendants.

The ultimate value of the Interchange Claim and the timing of any
distribution or recovery to the Post-Effective Date Debtors are
unknown, as a result, the Post-Effective Date Debtors determined
that soliciting bids from certain parties that specialize in the
purchase and sale of claims in the Class Action Interchange
Litigation would reduce the costs and expenses attendant to the
sale, while simultaneously serving to maximize value.

Nine Potential Purchasers were given access to an electronic data
room and provided identical information concerning the interchange
fees charged to the Debtors.  Subsequently, the Post-Effective Date
Debtors sent the bid procedures and proposed asset purchase
agreement to the Potential Purchasers.

The Bid Procedures set forth the procedures for the auction whereby
the Potential Purchases were instructed to submit their proposals
by Oct. 26, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. (PET).  The Post-Effective Date
Debtors also required that all Qualified Proposals be accompanied
by a good faith deposit in an amount equal to 10% of the value of
the Potential Purchaser's Qualified Proposal made payable to Frost
Brown Todd, LLC, the counsel for the Post-Effective Date Debtors.

On Nov. 1, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. (PET), the Post-Effective Date
Debtors conducted the auction.  Four Potential Purchasers
participated in the Auction.  At the end of the Auction, the
Post-Effective Date Debtors determined the bid of Optium to be the
highest and best offer.  

The APA provides for the sale of the Interchange Claim by the
Post-Effective Date Debtors to Optium for the purchase price of
$392,000.  

The APA also provides for the following:

     a. Optium agrees to purchase all rights, title and interest in
the Claim from Seller, and Seller agrees to sell, transfer and
assign right, title and interest in the Claim to Optium for the sum
of $392,000, plus the reimbursement by Optium of the Seller's
reasonable costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees) in an
amount not to exceed $15,000 in connection with the Seller's
efforts to obtain the Approval Order.

     b. The closing of the purchase and sale of the Claim will take
place via electronic mail within two business days after entry of
the Approval Order, provided there is no stay pending appeal.

     c. Optium does not assume any obligation or liability of
Seller related to or in connection with the Claim.

     d. The Seller expressly disclaims and does not make any
warranties, guarantees, promises, or representations of any kind
whatsoever regarding the Claim, including, but not limited to: (i)
the value of the Claim; and (ii) the anticipated recovery or timing
of recovery on the Claim.

     e. The transaction contemplated by the APA is subject to the
approval of the Bankruptcy Court.

The Post-Effective Date Debtors request that the Interchange Claim
be transferred to Optium free and clear of liens, claims, interests
and other encumbrances.  They respectfully ask leave to submit a
proposed order for the Court's consideration to grant the relief
requested.

The relief requested is necessary and appropriate and in the best
interests of the estates and creditors.  Accordingly, the
Post-Effective Date Debtors ask the Court to waive the stay under
Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h).

A copy of the APA attached to the Motion is available for free at:

   http://bankrupt.com/misc/Gordmans_Stores_1609_Sales.pdf

The Purchaser:

         Neil B. Kornswiet, CEO
         OPTIUM FUND 2, LLC
         610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 610
         Newport Beach, CA 92660
         E-mail: nkornswiet@optiumcapital.com

                       About Gordmans Stores

Founded in 1915, Gordmans Stores, Inc. -- http://www.gordmans.com/
-- was a retail company engaged in the sale of apparel, home goods,
and other merchandise.  Then with 106 stores in 22 states, Gordmans
Stores and five affiliates sought protection under Chapter 11 of
the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Neb. Lead Case No. 17-80304) on
March 13, 2017, disclosing $274 million in assets and $131 million
in liabilities.

Houston, Texas-based Stage Stores and a joint venture of
liquidators Tiger Capital Group and Great American Group were
declared winning bidders for Gordmans' assets at an auction in
March 2017.  Stage Stores said at that time it plans to operate at
least 50 of Gordmans' 105 locations and keep the warehouse in Omaha
as a going concern.  Stage operates about 800 locations nationwide
under the Peebles, Bealls and Goody's brands, among others.  The
winning bid amounted to $75.6 million.

The Debtor changed its name to G-Estate Liquidation Stores, Inc.,
following the asset sale.


MEADOWBROOK CARE: Sued for Resident's Injuries, Untimely Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Polatz as executor of the estate of Anna Polatz, deceased,
and Dominic Polatz, individually, and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Meadowbrook Care Center,
Oceanside Care Center and South Nassau Communities Hospital,
Defendants, Case No. 614195/2018, (N.Y. Sup., October 19, 2018)
seeks punitive and compensatory damages, costs, disbursements and
attorneys' fees for violation of Public Health Law Section 2801-d.

Defendant operated a nursing home in New York where Anna Polatz was
a resident and sought their professional care for certain medical
care, long term care, rehabilitation and nursing home care. She
suffered pain and prematurely died allegedly from malfeasance,
negligence and the lack of reasonable care within their care. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Silverman
      CELLINO & BARNES
      532 Broad Hollow Road
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (800) 888-8888
      Email: david.silverman@cellinoandbarnes.com


MELINTA THERAPEUTICS: Wins Dismissal of Merger-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court has
granted defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated class action
suit related to Cempra, Inc. now known as Melinta Therapeutics,
Inc.

On November 3, 2017, Melinta merged with Cempra, Inc. in a business
combination. Prior to the merger, on November 4, 2016, a securities
class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District
Court, Middle District of North Carolina, Durham Division, naming
Cempra, Inc. (now known as Melinta Therapeutics, Inc.) (for
purposes of this Contingencies section, "Cempra") and certain of
Cempra's officers as defendants.

Two substantially similar lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court, Middle District of North Carolina on November 22,
2016, and December 30, 2016, respectively. Pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act, on July 6, 2017, the court
consolidated the three lawsuits into a single action and appointed
a lead plaintiff and co-lead counsel in the consolidated case. On
August 16, 2017, the plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

Plaintiff alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the defendants between July 7, 2015,
and November 4, 2016 (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff sought to
represent a class comprised of purchasers of Cempra's common stock
during the Class Period and sought damages, costs and expenses and
such other relief as determined by the court.

On September 29, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. After the motion to dismiss was
fully briefed, the court heard oral arguments on July 24, 2018. On
October 26, 2018, the court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
and dismissed plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint in its
entirety.

Melinta Therapeutics said, "It is possible that plaintiff may
appeal or otherwise seek to reinstate the lawsuit or that similar
lawsuits may yet be filed in the same or other courts that name the
same or additional defendants, in which case Defendants intend to
defend any such lawsuits vigorously."

Melinta Therapeutics, Inc., a commercial-stage pharmaceutical
company, discovers, develops, and commercializes various
anti-infectives for the treatment of bacterial infectious diseases
in North America.  The company was founded in 2000 and is
headquartered in New Haven, Connecticut.


NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that
purchasers of Nektar Therapeutics. (NASDQ: NKTR) have filed a class
action complaint against the company's officers and directors for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between
November 11, 2017 through October 2, 2018. Nektar discovers and
develops innovative medicines in areas of high unmet medical needs.
The company's lead clinical-stage drug is NKTR-214.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
https://www.robbinsarroyo.com/nektar-therapeutics/

Nektar Accused of Misrepresenting the Viability of its Drug
NKTR-214

According to the complaint, NKTR-214 is a modified version of
cytokine IL-2. Nektar hypothesized that it could improve IL-2 --
which had been approved for treating cancer in 1992, but has
limitations -- by adding polyethylene glycol molecules to it to
extend the half-life and cause fewer side effects than IL-2 alone.
On November 11, 2017, Nektar issued a press release touting the
viability of NKTR-214 and announcing its active enrollment of
patients in the next phase of the trial. On March 1, 2018, in
announcing its financial results for the fourth quarter and year
ended December 31, 2017, Nektar noted that its year was "truly
transformative … as we achieved a number of successes…" and
noted the advances it had made in relation to the NKTR-214 trial.
Nektar continued to make these representations until Plainview LLC
published a report on October 1, 2018, addressing the efficacy of
NKTR-214. The report asserted that the core concept of Nektar's
plan to develop NKTR-214 into "a new universal cancer treatment"
"has never worked in practice," and further asserted that Nektar's
decision to only disclose certain trial results represented "an
unprecedented level of data opacity." Nektar's stock price fell
$5.63 per share, or over 9%, over the following two trading session
to close at $55.33 per share on October 2, 2018, and continues to
decline.

Nektar 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.
         Telephone: (619) 525-3990
         Toll Free: (800) 350-6003
         Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Nektar Therapeutics (NASDAQ:
NKTR).  If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Nektar Therapeutics (NASDAQ: NKTR)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 31, 2018
Class Period: November 11, 2017 and October 2, 2018

Get additional information about NKTR:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/nektar-therapeutics-loss-submission-form?wire=3

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Telephone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN]



NEUHAUS INC: Faces Garey Suit in NY Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Neuhaus, Inc. The
case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Neuhaus, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10656 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018).

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

Neuhaus is a notable Belgian chocolatier which manufactures and
sells luxury chocolates, biscuits and ice cream. The company was
founded in 1857 by Jean Neuhaus, a Swiss immigrant, who opened the
first store in the Galeries Royales Saint-Hubert in central
Brussels.[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

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Violates ADA, Camacho Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northeastern
University. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Northeastern
University, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10693 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15,
2018).

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

Northeastern University is a private research university in Boston,
Massachusetts, established in 1898. It is categorized as an R1
institution by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of
Higher Education.[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


OHIO NATIONAL: Murray Murphy Files Broker-Dealer Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Federal class action lawsuit was filed against Ohio National
Financial Services, Inc. ("Ohio National") by Veritas Independent
Partners ("Veritas"), an independent broker-dealer based in Conway,
Arkansas.  The suit is the first to seek class action status for
thousands of broker-dealers nationwide who had previously sold
annuities for Ohio National and who were informed recently that the
company would no longer pay commissions under its selling
agreements with the broker-dealers.  

Veritas, which had sold annuity contracts offered by Ohio National
to many of its clients, alleges in the lawsuit that Ohio National
decided that it was in its best interest to exit as many existing
annuity contracts as possible because they had become unprofitable
for the company.  However, because many clients decided to continue
holding the annuity contracts, Ohio National decided to eliminate
paying ongoing commission obligations to the class of
broker-dealers who had previously sold the annuity contracts
irrespective of the company's existing contractual obligations.

The suit alleges that Ohio National held $23.6 billion in annuities
under management at the end of 2017 and that thousands of
broker-dealers may be owed commissions totaling in the tens of
millions of dollars under the contracts that Veritas is seeking to
hold Ohio National to for itself and other broker-dealers in the
class.

The case was filed in the Southern District of Ohio and has been
assigned to Judge Michael R. Barrett.  Veritas and the putative
class of broker-dealers are represented in the case by Murray
Murphy Moul + Basil LLP ("MMMB"), a Columbus, Ohio law firm with
extensive experience in complex litigation and securities class
actions.

         Geoffrey J. Moul, Esq.
         Email: moul@mmmb.com [GN]


PACESETTERS INC: Faces Scantland Wage-and-Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------
SHELLY MARIE SCANTLAND, Individually, on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all other similarly situated current and former
employees, the Plaintiff, v. PACESETTERS, INCORPORATED, A Tennessee
Nonprofit Corporation, the Defendant, Case 2:18-cv-00095 (M.D.
Tenn., Nov. 8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
overtime compensation and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and putative class
members are current or former non-exempt hourly-paid Direct Support
Professional employees of Defendant. The net effect of Defendant's
common plan, policy, and practice of working Plaintiff and class
members "off the clock" and "editing out/shaving" their compensable
work time from its timekeeping system is that by doing so, it
willfully violated the FLSA and enjoyed ill-gained profits at the
expense of Plaintiff and the class. Although at this stage
Plaintiff is unable to state the exact amount owed to her and other
members of the class, she believes such information will become
available during the course of discovery. However, when an employer
fails to keep complete and accurate time records, employees may
establish the hours worked solely by their testimony and the burden
of proof of overcoming such testimony shifts to the employer, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Nathan A. Bishop, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          Attorneys at Law
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com

PEACEHEALTH: Oregon Man Files Overbilling Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reports that an Oregon man has filed what may be
a first of its kind Medicare lawsuit against PeaceHealth, claiming
the organization didn't follow federal Medicare guidelines specific
to Oregon and overbilled him for treatment.

The Register-Guard in Eugene reported that Donald Griffith filed
the complaint in U.S. District Court in Portland.

Griffith alleges that PeaceHealth overbilled him by nearly $15,000
for treatment after a car crash in 2015. The suit claims the
overbilling happened despite a state of Oregon exception to federal
law that says a Medicare provider may only ask for money from a
medical settlement if the insurance company pays the settlement
within a certain amount of time.

Griffith is seeking a class-action lawsuit against PeaceHealth and
three times whatever economic losses a jury sees fit to give him.

PeaceHealth officials wouldn't comment specifically on the
case.[GN]


PETCO: Mini Tanks for Betta Fish Are Harmful, Lawsuits Allege
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maxine Bernstein, writing for The Oregonian, reports that a Lewis &
Clark Law School student, fresh from completing a consumer
protection litigation class during his last semester, began
researching betta fish and how to care for them as he considered
buying one to celebrate his graduation last spring.

By September, after passing the state bar exam, Alex Hostetler, 31,
was dismayed to read that the mini aquariums often advertised for
the vibrantly colored tropical fish weren't adequate and could be
harmful to their health.

He approached his consumer protection law professor, attorney
Michael Fuller, with an idea.

Hostetler and Fuller are now representing a Portland woman, Echo
Gray, in class-action lawsuits filed in Multnomah County Circuit
Court against three major sellers of the mini betta fish aquariums,
Petco, Aqueon and Rolf C. Hagen Inc. Marina Aquarium Products.

The suits allege the companies are engaged in unlawful trade
practices through deceptive advertising and are profiting from
faulty merchandise.

They urge a judge to bar the sale of betta fish aquariums of less
than 1.5 gallons, contending they don't provide healthy housing for
the fish and cause them to die much sooner than if kept in a larger
aquarium.

"They're creatures that don't deserve to be put in tiny tubs,"
Hostetler said on November 9. "It's needlessly cruel."

The Siamese fighting fish, or betta, is a tropical freshwater fish
often seen swimming solo.  With proper care, they can live from two
to four years. They take in oxygen from both water and the air and
prefer to be independent.

According to PetSmart's website, a betta fish tank should hold a
minimum of 3 to 5 gallons of water.

Petco spokeswoman Ventura  Olvera did not respond to messages for
comment.

Nick Sranske, manager of warranties and technical support at
Aqueon, said he wasn't aware of the lawsuit.

In the suits, Hostetler and Fuller cite a National Geographic
article headlined, "Betta fish often mistreated in pet industry,
evidence suggests." Though advertised as easier to care for, the
fish don't thrive in tanks of less than 2.5 gallons, the article
says.

They need filtration, warm water, plants and caves to explore and
regular feeding and tank cleaning, it says.

If not, the suits say, they often die of fish ammonia excretion.
Ammonia is stored in the body of fish but becomes toxic if allowed
to accumulate.

The suits ask a judge to order the companies to permanently stop
the sale of the mini betta aquariums, provide an accounting of
their profits from the sale of such aquariums and reimburse
plaintiffs for the costs of buying the aquariums. The mini tanks
range from $20 to $40.

"I feel bad for the consumer, and I also feel very bad for these
fish," Hostetler said. "I'd like to see more transparency and
honesty in what these companies are selling and curtail the abuse
of these fish.  We're not looking to make a whole lot of money off
of Petco.''

Hostetler is working on this case as he continues to search for a
job in consumer protection law, employment law or criminal
defense.

The rookie lawyer hasn't yet bought a betta fish himself.  He said
he still remembers having one when he was in middle school, kept in
a small container that it came in.  And, he remembers when he
discovered it had died.

"I don't think it made it past a few months," Hostetler said.

For now, he keeps freshwater shrimp in a large aquarium at his
Beaverton home.[GN]



PREMIER AUTOMOTIVE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Torres TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLOS TORRES, Plaintiff, v. INTELIQUENT, INC., ET
AL., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-10022 (E.D. La.), Judge Susie
Morgan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana denied Defendant Premier Automotive, L.L.C.'s motion to
dismiss Torres' second amended complaint.

On Oct. 3, 2017, the Plaintiff brought an action against Defendants
Inteliquent, Inc. and Neutral Tandem-Louisiana LLC on behalf of
himself and a class of persons whose wireless telephone number the
Defendants, or someone on the Defendants' behalf, called using an
automated telephone dialing system ("ATDS") or an artificial or
prerecorded voice without prior express written consent of the
called party.  The Plaintiff brought the class action under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") to stop their practice
of making unlawful and unsolicited text message calls to the
cellular telephones of consumers and to obtain redress for all
persons injured by their conduct.  On Nov. 1, 2017, the Plaintiff
amended his complaint to add Premier Automotive, LLC and Twilo,
Inc. as Defendants.  The Plaintiff dismissed Defendants Ineliquent,
Inc. and Twilo, Inc. on Jan. 31, 2018 and dismissed Defendant
Neutral Tandem-Louisiana, LLC on Feb. 6, 2018.

The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file his second amended
complaint,10 which he filed on March 13, 2018.  The Plaintiff's
second amended complaint brings the class action against Premier
Automotive on behalf of himself and those whose wireless telephone
number the Defendant, or someone on the Defendant's behalf, called
as part of the Defendant's text message marketing efforts.  The
Plaintiff's second amended complaint again alleges a violation of
the TCPA.

More specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant used a
third-party platform, DirectMail.io, to create and implement the
text message marketing campaign at issue in the lawsuit.  The
Defendant's use of DirectMail.io resulted in the delivery of
thousands of telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff and Class.

Premier Automotive filed the instant motion to dismiss on March 27,
2018, arguing that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim for a
violation of the TCPA because he did not properly plead that an
ATDS was used.

Judge Morgan holds that because little is required to properly
allege a violation of the TCPA and because the Plaintiff provides
some facts to complement his allegation that an ATDS was used, the
allegations in the second amended complaint allow the Court to
infer that an ATDS was used.  It would be unreasonable, at this
juncture, to hold the Plaintiff to a higher standard because it
would be virtually impossible, absent discovery, for any plaintiff
to gather sufficient evidence regarding the type of machine used to
justify a higher pleading standard.  Although the Court may
ultimately determine DirectMail.io does not qualify as an ATDS as a
matter of law, the allegations in the second amended complaint
allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct alleged.  At this stage, the Plaintiff
has sufficiently alleged a violation of the TCPA.

Accordingly, he denied Premier Automotive's motion to dismiss and
request for a stay until the FCC provides further guidance.  He
denied as moot the Defendant's request for oral argument.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 6, 2018 Order and Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/Mg0eTv from Leagle.com.

Carlos Torres, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Roberto L. Costales --
rlc@beaumontcostales.com -- Costales Law Office, Jonathan Mille
Kirkland, Beaumont Costales LLC & William Henry Beaumont --
whb@beaumontcostales.com -- William H. Beaumont Law.

Premier Automotive, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by James M.
Garner -- jgarner@shergarner.com -- Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter,
Klein & Hilbert, LLC, Ashley Gremillion Coker --
acoker@shergarner.com -- Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC, Joshua Simon Force -- jforce@shergarner.com -- Sher,
Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC & Matthew M. Coman --
mcoman@shergarner.com -- Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein &
Hilbert, LLC.


PRINSTON PHARMA: Borkowski Sues Over Carcinogen in Hypertension Med
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alphonse Borkowski, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc.
d/b/a SOLCO Healthcare LLC, SOLCO Healthcare U.S., LLC and Huahai
US Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01150 (W.D. N.Y., October 19,
2018), seeks preliminary and/or final injunctive relief, exemplary
or punitive damages, and/or restitution, attorneys' fees, expert
witness fees and costs resulting from negligence, unjust
enrichment, fraud, breach of implied and express warranty and for
violation of New York General Business Law and various state
consumer protection laws.

Valsartan is a non-peptide tetrazole derivative used in the
treatment of hypertension, heart failure and post-myocardial
infarction. It was adulterated with N-nitrosodimethylamine, a
probable human carcinogen.

Huahai US Inc. is a New Jersey corporation, with its principal
place of business located at 2002 Eastpark Blvd., Cranbury NJ
08512. Huahai US is a subsidiary of Huahai Pharmaceutical. Prinston
Pharmaceutical Inc. (d/b/a Solco Healthcare LLC) is a subsidiary of
Huahai Pharmaceutical and has been engaged in the manufacturing,
sale, and distribution of adulterated generic Valsartan in the
United States. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul G. Joyce, Esq.
      COLUCCI & GALLAHER, P.C.
      2000 Liberty Building
      424 Main Street
      Buffalo, NY 14202
      Tel: (716) 853-4080
      Fax: (716) 853-4070
      Email: pjoyce@colucci-gallaher.com

             - and -

      Ruben Honik, Esq,
      David Stanoch, Esq.
      GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
      1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 965-9177
      Fax: (215) 985-4169
      Email: rhonik@golombhonik.com
             dstanoch@golombhonik.com

             - and -

      Michael L. Slack, Esq.
      John R. Davis, Esq.
      SLACK DAVIS SANGER, LLP
      2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220
      Austin, TX 78746
      Tel: (512) 795-8686
      Fax: (512) 795-8787
      Email: mslack@slackdavis.com
             jdavis@slackdavis.com

             - and -

      Allan Kanner, Esq.
      Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
      Layne Hilton, Esq.
      KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
      701 Camp Street
      New Orleans, LA 70115
      Tel: (504) 524-5777
      Fax: (504) 524-5763
      Email: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
             c.whiteley@kanner-law.com
             l.hilton@kanner-law.com


PRO FOOTBALL: Lawyers Seek Ticketholders Class-Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Matas, writing for IndeOnline.com, reports that the class
only would include people who haven't accepted the reimbursement
package offered by the Hall, and the court only would decide
whether the Hall breached its contract by canceling the game.

The attorneys suing the Pro Football Hall of Fame on behalf of fans
who attended the canceled 2016 Hall of Fame Game still are trying
for a class-action lawsuit.

The firms representing ticketholders filed a renewed motion for
class-action certification, which would allow one person who
attended the game to represent an entire group of people who
purchased tickets.

This time, however, the class only would include people who haven't
accepted the reimbursement package offered by the Hall, and the
court only would decide whether the Hall breached its contract by
canceling the game -- the awarding of damages would be handled on
an individual basis after the court ruled on liability.

The document was filed by an attorney from the Becker Law Firm in
Elyria and attorneys from the Eagan Avenatti law firm in Newport
Beach, Calif., including Michael Avenatti, who also represents
pornographic actress Stormy Daniels in her fight against President
Donald Trump.

Originally, Avenatti wanted to receive class certification to award
damages to all fans. He argued the reimbursement package the Hall
offered -- including up to $289 for a one-night hotel stay and the
face value of tickets -- didn't adequately cover what people spent
to come to Canton, court documents show.

Avenatti in 2016 told The Canton Repository he expected each person
who attended the game would be awarded upward of $1,500 as a result
of the lawsuit and the court would throw out any reimbursement the
Hall gave to fans.

But a federal judge in September ruled in favor of the Hall, saying
its reimbursement method was superior to what Avenatti proposed and
agreeing with the Hall that each person's situation was too unique
to be able to award damages as a group.

The judge said the attorneys were permitted to seek liability-only
class-action certification and to submit a new definition for the
class that excluded anyone who already had taken money from the
Hall -- more than 19,650 of the 22,800 people who attended the
game, according to court documents.

In the newest filing, it is suggested damages could be determined
and awarded on a case-by-case basis following the liability
determination. Potential class members would be asked to provide
evidence of travel expenses.

The 2016 Hall of Fame Game was canceled after congealed paint on
the field made playing conditions unsafe. The lawsuit argues the
Hall breached its contract with fans by canceling the game after
crews waited too long to begin prepping the field for the Sunday
game and Hall officials waited to announce the game was canceled as
a last-minute money grab for merchandise and concessions revenue.

The plaintiff who would represent the class is Carmelo Treviso, a
Wisconsin resident who came to Canton for the game with his son.
They paid more than $1,000 for their trip, court documents show.
[GN]


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Takano Suit Answer Deadline Moved to Dec. 5
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TOM TAKANO and TRACY McCARTHY, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE PROCTER &
GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00385 TLN-AC (E.D.
Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California extended the time for the Defendant
to answer the Complaint up to and including Dec. 5, 2018.

Takano and McCarthy filed their Class Action Complaint in the
action on Feb. 21, 2017.  The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss
on March 29, 2017, which was ruled upon by the Court on Oct. 24,
2018, and therefore the date by which P&G must respond to the
Complaint currently is set for Nov. 7, 2018.

In accordance with Local Rule 144, the Plaintiffs and P&G have
agreed to extend the time for P&G to answer the Complaint up to and
including Dec. 5, 2018, which is 28 days from the date that the
answer is currently due and does not exceed the 28 days allowed
under Local Rule 144.  This is the first extension of time to
respond to the Complaint agreed to by the parties.

Accordingly, the parties stipulated and Judge Nunley approved, that
P&G's time to answer the Complaint will be extended to Dec. 5,
2018.  Pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), approval of the stipulation
by the Court is not necessary.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 6, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/KX2pFD from Leagle.com.

Tom Takano & Tracy McCarthy, Plaintiffs, represented by Yeremey
Olegovich Krivoshey -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher,
P.A.

Procter & Gamble Company, Defendant, represented by Raymond A.
Cardozo -- rcardozo@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.


PURDUE PHARMA: Shaffer Files Personal Injury Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P.,
et al. The case is styled as Jodi Shaffer individually and as next
friend and guardian of minor, R. C. on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Purdue Pharma LP, Purdue
Pharma Inc., Purdue Frederick Company Inc., Allergan PLC formerly
known as: Actavis PLC, Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc. now known as
Actavis, Inc., Watson Laboratories Inc., Actavis LLC, Actavis
Pharma Inc. formerly known as: Watson Pharma, Inc., Cephalon Inc.,
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.,
Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Johnson &
Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Jannsen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
R.C. Son & R.C. Son, Noramco, Inc., Mallinckrodt, PLC,
Mallinckrodt, LLC, Amerisourcebergen Corporation, Cardinal Health
Inc., McKesson Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01448
(S.D. Va., Nov. 15, 2018).

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

Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned
principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and Raymond
Sackler. The company's branches include Purdue Pharma Inc., The
Purdue Frederick Company, Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P., and
Purdue Products L.P.

The Frederick Purdue Company provides research, development,
production, marketing, sales, and licensing of prescription and
non-prescription medicines and healthcare products. The Company
offers specializes in pain medication research, as well as other
therapeutic areas, including sleep and gastrointestinal disorders.
The Frederick Purdue operates in the United States.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
The Generic Medicines segment offers sterile products, hormones,
narcotics, high-potency drugs, and cytotoxic substances in various
dosage forms, including tablets, capsules, injectables, inhalants,
liquids, ointments, and creams. This segment also develops,
manufactures, and sells active pharmaceutical ingredients.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. manufactures and markets generic
drugs in the United States. It offers generic products for various
therapeutic options, such as cardiovascular, anti-infective,
central nervous system, anti-inflammatory, oncolytic,
anti-diabetic, analgesic, dermatologic, respiratory, and women's
health. The company offers its products in various dosage forms,
such as tablets, capsules, injectables, creams, ointments,
inhalants, solutions, and suspensions. It serves patients through
distributors. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. was formerly known as
Lemmon Pharmacal Company and changed its name to Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. in 1996.

Cephalon, Inc. engages in the discovery and development of
medicines for central nervous system disorders, pain, and cancer.
It offers NUVIGIL (armodafinil) tablets for improving wakefulness
in patients with excessive sleepiness associated with treated
obstructive sleep apnea and shift work disorder, also known as
shift work disorder and narcolepsy; TREANDA (bendamustine HCl) for
injection for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and AMRIX (Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride extended-release
capsules), which is indicated as an adjunct to rest and physical
therapy for relief of muscle spasm associated with acute and
painful musculoskeletal conditions.

Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational medical devices,
pharmaceutical and consumer packaged goods manufacturing company
founded in 1886. Its common stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and the company is listed among the Fortune
500.

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. manufactures and markets prescription
pharmaceutical products. It provides medicines for health concerns
in various therapeutic areas, including attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder, pain management, acid reflux and infectious
diseases, women's health, and mental health (bipolar I disorder and
schizophrenia); neurologics, including Alzheimer's disease,
epilepsy, and migraine prevention and treatment; and SYMTUZATM, a
darunavir-based single-tablet regimen for the treatment of human
immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in treatment-naïve and
certain virologically suppressed adults.

Endo Health Solutions Inc. provides specialty healthcare solutions
in the United States and internationally. The company's Endo
Pharmaceuticals segment offers branded prescription products,
including Lidoderm, Opana ER, Percocet, Voltaren Gel, Frova,
Supprelin LA, Vantas, Valstar, and Fortesta Gel for pain, urology,
endocrinology, and oncology. Its Qualitest segment provides
non-branded generic products in the pain management, urology,
central nervous system disorders, immunosuppression, oncology,
women's health, and hypertension markets.

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. engages in the research and development,
production, sale, and marketing of branded and generic
pharmaceutical products primarily in the United States. It offers
injections, sustained release capsules, gels, tablets, oral
suspensions, nasal sprays, extended-release tablets, capsules,
mucoadhesive for buccal administration, subcutaneous implants, and
sterile solutions for intravesical instillation; and clinical
research services.

Actavis Generics is a global pharmaceutical company focused on
developing, manufacturing and commercializing branded
pharmaceuticals, generic and over-the-counter medicines, and
biologic products. Actavis has a commercial presence across
approximately 100 countries.

Watson Laboratories, Inc. manufactures pharmaceutical drugs. The
company was incorporated in 1992 and is based in Corona,
California. Watson Laboratories, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
ATeva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited.

McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies
in the United States and internationally. It operates in three
segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European
Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. The
company distributes branded, generic, specialty, biosimilar, and
over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs, as well as other
healthcare-related products; and offers practice management,
technology, clinical support, and business solutions to
community-based oncology and other specialty practices.

Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services
and products company in the United States and internationally. It
provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that
enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems,
pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and
physician offices.

AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation distributes pharmaceuticals
products, equipment, and systems. The company provides global
product sourcing, generic purchasing programs, technology
solutions, pharmacy network and programs, and pharmaceutical
packaging solutions. The company serves healthcare providers,
independent retailers, and pharmacies. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation was formerly known as AmeriSource Corporation and
changed its name to AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation in January
1995.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Thomas E. McIntire, Esq.
     THOMAS E. MCINTIRE & ASSOCIATES
     82 1/2 14th Street
     Wheeling, WV 26003
     Phone: (304) 232-8600
     Email: tom@mcintirelaw.com


RIDER UNIVERSITY: Camacho Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rider University. The
case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rider University, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-10700 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018).

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

Rider University is a private, coeducational and nonsectarian
university located chiefly in the Lawrenceville section of Lawrence
Township in Mercer County, New Jersey, 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


ROCHESTER INSTITUTE: Camacho Suit Asserts ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rochester Institute
of Technology. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rochester
Institute of Technology, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10699 (S.D.
N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018).

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

Rochester Institute of Technology is a private doctoral university
within the town of Henrietta in the Rochester, New York
metropolitan area. RIT is composed of nine academic colleges,
including the National Technical Institute for the Deaf.[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


SACRED HEART: Camacho Files ADA Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sacred Heart
University, Inc. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sacred Heart
University, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10697 (S.D. N.Y.,
Nov. 15, 2018).

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

Sacred Heart University (SHU) is a private Roman Catholic
university located in Fairfield, Connecticut, United States. Sacred
Heart was founded in 1963 by the Most Reverend Walter W. Curtis,
Bishop of the Diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticut.[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


SAG-AFTRA: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Sanchez, writing for Digital Music News, reports that
despite suffering a setback in his case, a federal judge has
allowed songwriter/producer Kevin Risto's key claim against
SAG-AFTRA to proceed.

On November 5, SAG-AFTRA filed a motion to dismiss an important
class-action lawsuit.

According to the powerful performers union, it has the right to
collect a fee from money collected by the Intellectual Property
Rights Distribution Fund.

Unfortunately, a federal judge has disagreed.

So, what's the case all about?

Last June, award-winning songwriter and record producer Kevin Risto
filed a class-action lawsuit against SAG-AFTRA, the American
Federation of Musicians, and the trustees of the Fund.

Risto claimed that the performers unions had unfairly collected
millions from sessions musicians and backup singers.  Trustees of
the Fund -- employees of the unions -- had unfairly tacked on a 3%
fee on all royalties collected.  SAG-AFTRA alone collected $1.7
million in service fees from in 2016.  It has also collected
similar fees since 2013.  The performers unions apply this
questionable fee even to nonmembers, like Risto.

The performers' unions had set up the Fund 15 years ago to help
them identify and pay non-featured musicians.  Yet, prior to 2013,
the Fund hadn't taken any fee.

Risto wrote in June,

"All of the obligations conferred on the unions in the service
agreement were activities that the unions were already performing
as a benefit to its members.  No new consideration was provided by
the unions in exchange for the service fee."

According to the motion to dismiss filed last November 5, SAG-AFTRA
claimed it 'needed' to take this additional amount.  The rise of
digital services and platforms requires extra work.  Thus, the
performers unions need to be fairly compensated.

US District Court Judge Christina Snyder didn't buy SAG-AFTRA's
argument.  Yet, she largely dismissed most of Risto's claims
without prejudice.

He can no longer sue on the grounds that the Fund's trustees had
breached their duty of impartiality, along with two other claims.

Snyder wrote, "Plaintiffs allege that the unions already provided
those services, that the trustees received no additional benefit
from the agreement, and that the agreement was entered into solely
for the benefit for the unions."

Risto, however, can pursue the claims SAG-AFTRA had broken its
fiduciary duty of breaches of loyalty.  The performers union had
benefited from the transactions, Risto's key claim.

In a statement celebrating Snyder's ruling, Risto's attorney,
Jordanna Thigpen, Esq. -- jthigpen@jjllplaw.com -- said.

"We are very pleased with Judge Snyder's decision as it will allow
these claims to proceed so that we may work towards recovery of
these funds for artists.  It is very important for claims for
breach of fiduciary duty to proceed especially when there is no
other method of challenging a given trustee's conduct, as is the
case here."[GN]


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Court Junks Suit Over Defective Plasma TV
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, dismissed the case, ALEXIS BRONSON, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., Defendants, Case No. C 18-2300 WHA (N.D. Cal.).

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its wholly owned subsidiary
Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. manufactured plasma
television sets from January 2009 through November 2014, after
which the Defendants stopped manufacturing plasma televisions and
any spare or replacement parts.  In August 2013, Bronson purchased
one of the Defendants' 51-inch plasma Smart 3D HDTV televisions for
$1,700.  The television proved defective.  It displayed red lines
on the screen, a problem defendants fixed once under warranty, but
the red lines returned.  Starting in August 2016, the unit would
take a long time to turn on (if it turned on at all) and would
sporadically power on and off.

The complaint alleges that inferior component parts caused at least
one of the television's defects.  Because plasma televisions
require more energy to run, excessive heat and/or excessive voltage
caused components -- such as capacitors -- to overheat and
prematurely fail.  The Plaintiff concluded in August 2016 that the
television could not be fixed because the Defendants had
discontinued making any parts available.

The Plaintiff filed the putative class action in federal court in
April 2018 asserting diversity jurisdiction and alleging violations
of Section 1793.03(b) of the California Civil Code under the
Song-Beverly Consumer Protection Act and Section 17200 of
California's Business and Professions Code.  The Plaintiff amended
his complaint in June 2018 primarily adding a claim against
Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (but not Defendant
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.) for violating California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").

The amended complaint alleged separate claims for recovery under
the foregoing three statutes, alleging that the Defendants failed
to (1) maintain an adequate supply of replacement parts for seven
years and (2) that such failure left the Plaintiff's television
prematurely obsolete.  In addition, under Section 17200 and the
CLRA only, the complaint alleged the Defendants failed to disclose
information concerning the inadequate supply of parts and the
defects that caused the televisions to become prematurely obsolete.

The Defendants now move to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.

Among other things, Judge Alsup finds that counting four years from
that point, the statute of limitations under the Act would run
until November 2018.  As the Plaintiff filed the initial complaint
in April 2018, well before any limitations period could have run,
the statute of limitations does not bar the Plaintiff's claims
under the Song-Beverly Act.

As to the complaint's allegations that at the time of purchase the
Defendants failed to disclose the defects, the Judge finds that the
Defendants meet their initial burden.  Nowhere does the complaint
plead facts as to the "time and manner of discovery" or any
diligent investigation.  The Plaintiff's claim that the Defendants
failed to disclose defects in the television are deemed time-barred
subject to possible amendments.

Finally, as pleaded, the Plaintiff's complaint alludes to discovery
of the defect when red lines appeared on the Plaintiff's television
for the second time.  At that point, the Plaintiff's suspicion
should have been triggered.  Because the complaint alleges no other
facts, the Plaintiff has not adequately rebutted that the
limitations period bars this claim.  The Order accordingly deems
the failure to disclose claim under the CLRA to be time-barred.

Judge Alsup granted the motion to dismiss.  The Plaintiff may move
for leave to amend by Nov. 29 at noon.  Any such motion should
include as an exhibit a redlined version of the proposed amendments
that clearly identifies all changes from the initial complaint.
Moreover, should the Plaintiff amend, the parties are required to
abide by the rulings at the hearing -- namely, that the Plaintiff
submit his television to inspection by the Defendants by the end of
November.  Should the Defendants have parts available that would
fix the Plaintiff's television, the Defendants must provide the
Plaintiff the list specifically providing not only the parts they
have available but which part fixes which problem.

The order highlights certain deficiencies in the initial complaint,
but it will not necessarily be enough to add a sentence parroting
each missing item identified.  If the Plaintiff so moves, he should
be sure to plead his best case.  Any motion should explain how the
proposed complaint overcomes all deficiencies, even those the Order
did not reach.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 6, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ya2BOe from Leagle.com.

Alexis Bronson, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Rothstein , pro hac
vice & Alan J. Sherwood -- alansherwood@earthlink.net -- Law Office
of of Alan J. Sherwood.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. & Samsung Electronics Co., LTD.,
Defendants, represented by Shannon Suzanne Broome --
sbroome@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Beth Sharon
Coplowitz -- bcoplowitz@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP,
Michael J. Mueller -- mmueller@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth
LLP & Thomas Richard Waskom -- twaskom@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton
Andrews Kurth LLP.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA 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 the
court in Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al.,
has entered an order granting the motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement of the lawsuit.

The Company is a defendant in two purported securities class
actions lawsuits that were filed in March and April 2016 in the
United States District Court, Northern District of Texas.

The lawsuits were consolidated and are now captioned Parmelee v.
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783. The
lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its current
and former directors and executive officers on behalf of a class
consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired our
securities between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016.

The complaint alleges that the Company violated federal securities
laws by making false or misleading statements, as well as failing
to disclose material adverse facts, in its periodic reports filed
under the Exchange Act and certain other public disclosures, in
connection with, among other things, the Company's change in its
methodology for estimating its allowance for credit losses and
correction of such allowance for prior periods.

In March 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
In January 2018, the court granted the Company's motion as to
defendant Ismail Dawood (the Company's former Chief Financial
Officer) and denied the motion as to all other defendants. In July
2018, the lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement of the lawsuit for a cash
payment of $9,500.

In September 2018, the court entered an order granting the motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement of the lawsuit.

Santander Consumer USA Inc., a consumer finance company, provides
vehicle finance and unsecured consumer lending products. The
company offers new and used car loans, and auto and cash-back
refinance services. It provides products through dealers in the
United States. The company was incorporated in 1981 and is based in
Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Inc. operates as a subsidiary
of Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Merits Discovery in Deka Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA 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 the
court has vacated the order staying the Deka Investment GmbH et al.
v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., and ordered that
merits discovery in the Deka Lawsuit be stayed until the court
ruled on the issue of class certification.

The Company is a defendant in a purported securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern District of
Texas, captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer
USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K. The Deka Lawsuit,
which was filed in August 26, 2014, was brought against the
Company, certain of its current and former directors and executive
officers and certain institutions that served as underwriters in
the Company's Initial Public Offering (IPO) on behalf of a class
consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's IPO
registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent public
disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing
misleading statements concerning the Company's ability to pay
dividends and the adequacy of the Company's compliance systems and
oversight. In December 2015, the Company and the individual
defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which was denied.

In December 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed
classes. On in July 2017, the court entered an order staying the
Deka Lawsuit pending the resolution of the appeal of a class
certification order in In re Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
No. H-14-3428, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15,
2017).

In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka
Lawsuit and ordered that merits discovery in the Deka Lawsuit be
stayed until the court ruled on the issue of class certification.

Santander Consumer USA Inc., a consumer finance company, provides
vehicle finance and unsecured consumer lending products. The
company offers new and used car loans, and auto and cash-back
refinance services. It provides products through dealers in the
United States. The company was incorporated in 1981 and is based in
Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Inc. operates as a subsidiary
of Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.


SERENITY TRANSPORTATION: Court Stays Johnson FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CURTIS JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SERENITY
TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-02004-JSC
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (i) denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of that portion of the
Court's August 2018 order; and (ii) granted the Plaintiffs' motion
to stay proceedings pending disposition of their petition for
permission to appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(f).

In this wage and hour class action, Plaintiffs Gary and Curtis
Johnson allege that Defendants Serenity Transportation, Inc. and
David Friedel misclassified their employment status as independent
contractors instead of employees, and therefore denied them the
benefits of federal and California wage-and-hour laws.  The
Plaintiffs also seek to recover damages from Defendants Service
Corp. International Inc. ("SCI") and SCI California Funeral
Services, Inc. ("SCI-Cal").  

The Plaintiffs insist that the SCI Defendants are liable as client
employers under Section 2810.3 for their minimum wage, overtime,
and meal and rest break claims.  Their motion for class
certification sought to certify the subclass as to the SCI
Defendants of all persons from the class who were made available to
SCI/SCI-Cal between Jan.1, 2015 through class certification.

The Court denied class certification as to the Plaintiffs' claims
against the SCI Defendants after determining that common questions
did not predominate as to the SCI subclass.  Specifically, the
Court held that the SCI Defendants may be held liable for wages
owed for work performed on their premises or worksite, but not for
time the drivers spent waiting for Serenity's dispatch to send them
to any Serenity client.  It follows that common questions do not
predominate as to the overtime, minimum wage and meal and rest
break claims against the SCI Defendants.  While an individual
driver may be able to prove that the driver is owed overtime or
minimum wages based on time spent on SCI removals, such an inquiry
will be highly individualized.  The same for whether the driver was
owed a meal or rest break while performing SCI removals.

On Aug. 15, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Ninth
Circuit seeking review of the Court's order pursuant to Rule 23(f).
The Plaintiff then filed with the Court a motion for leave to file
motion for reconsideration, which the Court granted in part as to
the claims under Section 2810.3 against the SCI Defendant.

Now pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of that portion of the Court's August 2018 order.
Also before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion to stay proceedings
pending disposition of their petition for permission to appeal
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f).

Judge Corley finds that the Plaintiffs' theory of liability must at
least provide a viable basis for certifying the proposed SCI
subclass.  Here, liability for client employers under Section
2810.3 extends only to work performed for that client employer;
thus, the proposed SCI subclass is overbroad.

The Judge incorporates by reference the analysis and conclusions
set forth in its order denying class certification of the SCI
subclass, and will not repeat the same statutory interpretation.
As the Court previously explained, SCI-Cal acted as a "client
employer" (i.e., end user) for purposes of liability under Section
2810.3 only for the time Serenity drivers spent performing SCI
removals.  This conclusion is supported by the plain terms and
legislative history of the statute.  

As with Serenity's other 75 to 80 "regular" clients between 2015
and 2016 to whom Serenity made its drivers available, the Judge
holds that SCI-Cal was not a client employer during the time
drivers spent waiting on-call to be sent to any client because
drivers were not performing work on SCI-Cal's premises or worksite
during that time (i.e., performing an SCI removal); instead,
SCI-Cal became liable as a client employer under Section 2810.3
only when Serenity drivers performed actual work for SCI-Cal.

As to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay, Judge finds that the
Plaintiffs' petition raises serious legal questions regarding the
proper interpretation of Section 2810.3, and she recognizes that
this is a matter of first impression.  Further, the SCI Defendants
do not argue that they will be prejudiced by a stay.  The
Plaintiffs filed their Rule 23(f) petition on Aug. 15, 2018, and
the Judge anticipates that Ninth Circuit will dispose of the
petition soon.  Simply put, a brief stay pending disposition of the
petition will not unduly delay these proceedings or harm the SCI
Defendants.

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Corley denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration because the Court's order denying
certification of the proposed SCI subclass was neither clearly
erroneous nor manifestly unjust.  The proposed SCI subclass does
not meet the commonality requirement under Rule 23(a)(2) or the
predominance requirement under Rule 23(b) because Section 2810.3
extends liability to client employers only for work performed, and
determining whether persons from the class who were made available
to SCI/SCI Cal between Jan. 1, 2015 through the class certification
performed actual work for SCI-Cal is a highly individualized
inquiry.

She granted the Plaintiffs' motion to stay proceedings pending
disposition of their petition for permission to appeal the Court's
order denying class certification pursuant to Rule 23(f).  In light
of this order, she continued the Oct. 17, 2018 hearing on the
Defendants' motion to decertify the Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action, to Dec. 20, 2018 at 9:00 a.m., under the
assumption that the Ninth Circuit will have ruled by that date.
Further, she continued the case management conference scheduled for
Oct. 17, 2018 regarding the briefing schedule for the parties'
motions for summary judgment to Dec. 20, 2018, as well.

The Order disposed of Docket Nos. 284 & 289.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 12, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/hD3Rwo from Leagle.com.

Curtis Johnson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated & Gary Johnson, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Peter Scott Rukin --
prukin@rukinhyland.com -- Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP, Jean K. Hyams
-- jean@levyvinick.com -- Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP, Jessica
Lee Riggin -- jriggin@rukinhyland.com -- Rukin Hyland & Riggins LLP
& Valerie Jean Brender -- vbrender@rukinhyland.com -- Rukin Hyland
& Riggin LLP.

Jean Katheryn Hyams, Plaintiff, pro se.

Serenity Transportation, Inc. & David Friedel, Defendants,
represented by William Frederick Schauman --
wschauman@schauman-hubins.com  -- Schauman & Hubins.

Service Corporation International, Inc., Defendant, represented by
John A. Mason -- info@gurneelaw.com -- Gurnee Mason & Forestiere
LLP.

SCI California Funeral Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Steven Hazard Gurnee, Gurnee, Mason & Forestiere LLP, Candace Holly
Shirley -- cshirley@gurnee-law.com -- Gurnee Mason Forestiere LLP &
William Frederick Schauman, Schauman & Hubins.

County of Santa Clara, Defendant, represented by Nancy Joan Clark,
Office of County Counsel.

Service Corporation International, Inc., Cross-claimant,
represented by John A. Mason, Gurnee Mason & Forestiere LLP.


SKECHERS: Kicked With Defective Light-Up Shoes Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Keshner, writing for Market Watch, reports that Skechers
allegedly made dangerously defective battery powered light-up shoes
for kids and then didn't disclose the safety risks, according to a
new class-action lawsuit led by the mother of a boy who sustained
chemical burns on his feet.

It's a case Skechers SKX, says it's ready to boot out of court,
telling MarketWatch "our lighted footwear has always been and
remains safe."

The dust-up started when Sherry Foster's 9-year-old son laced up
his light-up Skechers for the last day of school and came home with
red, burned feet and shoe lights that no longer blinked, according
to a new Manhattan federal lawsuit.

The following day, a podiatrist determined the grade schooler's
burns were second-degree and "chemical" in nature, said the lawsuit
filed on November 7.

Almost a year earlier, Skechers allegedly knew there were potential
problems with some of its battery-operated light-up shoes, the
lawsuit claimed.

The shoemaker stopped making the "problematic styles" and brought
new kicks to market, court papers said, "all while quietly
replacing sneakers of a handful of consumers who raised the dangers
of the defective sneakers to the company."

But some of the shoes allegedly remained available at third-party
sellers, which is how Foster, who lives in Hillsdale, N.Y., bought
the shoes in question. She bought the "sporty mesh" footwear at
issue in March 2018 for $65, according to the lawsuit.

In a statement to MarketWatch, Skechers called the case "frivolous"
and said Foster's lawyers were getting their facts wrong about the
shoe batteries at issue.

The company said even though it had "serious doubts that Ms.
Foster's son's burns were caused by our shoes, we took the
complaint, as we do all safety-related complaints, seriously and
immediately contacted Ms. Foster to seek her assistance with our
safety investigation."

Skechers said the lawsuit failed to note that the company
repeatedly asked to have its experts look at the shoes and speak
with the podiatrist. Foster "refused all assistance with our safety
investigation," it said.

Even without her cooperation, Skechers said it had the style
tested, with engineers concluding there was no grounds for the
claim.

Daniel Rehns, Esq. -- drehns@hrsclaw.com -- a lawyer for Foster,
declined to comment.[GN]


SOUTHERN METHODIST: Camacho Sues in New York for ADA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southern Methodist
University Inc. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Southern
Methodist University Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10695 (S.D.
N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018).

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

Southern Methodist University is a private research university in
metropolitan Dallas, with its main campus spanning portions of the
town of Highland Park and the cities of University Park and Dallas
in Texas, United States. SMU also operates satellite campuses in
Plano, Texas and Taos, New Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

     Jason Camacho, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St.
     New York, NY 10003
     c/o Gottlieb & Associates
     PRO SE


STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Faces FCRA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for Employment Screening Resources, reports
that a class action lawsuit filed in a Northern California District
Court in October of 2018 claims Stanford University procured
background checks for employment purposes without obtaining the
proper authorization from job applicants in an alleged violation of
the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that regulates the
collection, dissemination, and use of consumer information in
America.

The complaint claims that before plaintiff Theresa Richard was
hired as a worker at defendant Stanford University's "residential
and dining enterprises" she completed Stanford's standard
application form during the job application process which permitted
Stanford to obtain a "consumer report" -- the FCRA's term for a
background check. The complaint claims Stanford's standard
application form stated:

"I authorize a thorough investigation of my prior employment,
education background, criminal record, and where applicable to a
position, credit check and/or driving record. I agree to cooperate
in such an investigation, to execute any consent forms required in
connection with those investigations, and release form [sic] all
liability and responsibility all persons or entities requesting or
supplying such information. I understand that employment is
conditional based on investigation results."

Under FCRA 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) and (ii), it is unlawful
to procure a consumer report for employment purposes without:
"Providing a clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing in a
standalone document before the report has been pulled that a
consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes; and
Obtaining authorization in writing from a consumer for whom a
report will be procured."

The class action lawsuit claims: "Because defendant unlawfully
included extraneous information in its standard form permitting
defendant to obtain a consumer report verifying plaintiff's
background and experience, plaintiff was confused by the standard
form document and did not understand that defendant would be
requesting a 'consumer report' as defined in the FCRA."

The class action lawsuit against Stanford University seeks
statutory damages of $1,000 for each violation of the FCRA,
punitive damages, court costs, and attorneys' fees. The complaint
also seeks to represent a Class of individuals estimated to include
more than 1,000 job applicants who applied to work at Stanford
University and had a consumer report obtained on their background
since August 16, 2015.

This is not the first time Stanford University has been sued over
alleged FCRA violations for unlawfully including extraneous
information in its standard application form. In 2015, Stanford
faced the same claims from another employee in Lagos v. Leland
Stanford Junior University. In December 2015, Lagos survived a
motion to dismiss the case and proposed class certifications
deadlines in November 2017.

Other companies have faced similar lawsuits over the FCRA's "clear
and conspicuous disclosure in writing in a standalone document"
requirement and lost. In August 2018, ESR News reported that a
California federal judge approved a proposed $1.3 million class
action lawsuit settlement against a healthcare company for using
disclosures "embedded with extraneous information" instead of a
standalone document.

In July 2018, ESR News reported that a bottling subsidiary of
PepsiCo agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle a class action lawsuit
that claimed the company violated the FCRA by procuring background
reports for employment purposes without making certain required
disclosures and failing to disclose that it would obtain a consumer
report for employment purposes in a document consisting solely of
the disclosure.

In April 2018,  ESR News also reported that Frito-Lay Inc. --
another subsidiary of PepsiCo -- agreed to pay $2.4 million to
settle a class action lawsuit that claimed the snack food
manufacturer violated the FCRA by using improper disclosure forms
for background checks on job applicants without providing a "clear
and conspicuous disclosure… in a document that consists solely of
the disclosure."

On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins -- which involved a man who claimed FCRA
violations for suffering an injury after incorrect information
about him was published online -- that consumers must prove
"concrete injury" in lawsuits for alleged "bare" violations of
federal statutes such as the FCRA as required under Article III of
the U.S. Constitution.

The fact that employers are still targeted in lawsuits for
technical violations of the FCRA even after the Spokeo ruling is
one of the "ESR Top Ten Background Check Trends" for 2018 selected
by Employment Screening Resources(R)(ESR). "In no way did the
Supreme Court decision in Spokeo mean employers could relax
obligations for FCRA compliance," explained ESR founder and CEO
Attorney Lester Rosen, Esq.

Passed by Congress in 1970, the FCRA promotes the accuracy,
fairness, and privacy of consumer information contained in the
files of consumer reporting agencies. It is intended to protect
consumers from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of inaccurate
information in their credit reports and regulates the collection,
dissemination, and use of consumer information, including consumer
credit information.

ESR Offers Two White Papers on Avoiding FCRA Lawsuits

Employment Screening Resources(R)(ESR) -- a leading global
background screening firm -- offers a complimentary white paper
library that includes two white papers that examine the causes that
can lead to FCRA class action lawsuits: "Common Ways Prospective or
Current Employees Sue Employers Under the FCRA" and "Common Ways
Consumer Reporting Agencies are Sued Under the FCRA."[GN]


STATE COLLECTION: Judge Rejects Motion to Dismiss Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Neves, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge has refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought against a
debt collector, saying the plaintiff could continue with the action
accusing the collector of wrongly placing collection calls to him,
even after he had sent a fax telling them he was represented by a
lawyer.

The judge also said she would likely rule later on the question of
whether the plaintiff effectively waived his prior express consent
to receive such calls when he sent the fax.

U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis issued a five-page ruling on Oct.
30, rejecting State Collection Service Inc.'s motion for judgment
on the pleadings in the class action lawsuit filed by Matthew Bahr
over the allegation SCS violated federal law.

Bahr alleged SCS violated federal law when it sent him a letter
directing him to speak to one of its representatives after the
company was told that Bahr had legal representation. He also
claimed SCS violated telecommunications law by calling his number
using an automated system without his previous consent.

SCS filed the pleadings motion stating, per the ruling, that Bahr
"failed to plead a lack of prior express consent and that he did
not effectively revoke his prior express consent to phone calls
under the TCPA."

The company is attempting to collect an alleged debt from Bahr, who
allegedly owes money to original creditor Advocate Lutheran
General.

"From November 2017 to February 2018, SCS sent Bahr a series of
collection letters informing Bahr of the debt he owed," Ellis wrote
in the ruling. "However, the letters made inconsistent assertions
regarding both the account number and the amount owed."

Bahr consulted with an attorney about discrepancies and whether he
owed the alleged debt. He faxed a letter to SCS stating that he had
an attorney in February, the ruling states, but SCS sent another
letter stating that Bahr "would need to contact SCS if he wanted
SCS to discuss the account with a third party."

Bahr did not respond, and the company then started calling him via
an automated calling system, according to the ruling.

"Having determined that Bahr's complaint does not conclusively
demonstrate consent so as to require dismissal ... the court need
not reach SCS' argument that Bahr's counsel's fax did not
effectively revoke any prior consent," Ellis wrote. "The court
leaves this determination to a later motion for summary judgment
upon a more fully developed record."  

Bahr is represented by attorney Stacy M. Bardo, Esq. of Bardo Law
P.C., of Chicago, and attorneys from Chicago Consumer Law Center
P.C., of Chicago.

SCS is represented by attorneys from the firm of Bassford Remele,
of Minneapolis.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois case
number 1:18-cv-02910[GN]


STEVEN ALAN: Website not Accessible to Blind, Nixon Says
--------------------------------------------------------
DONALD NIXON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. STEVEN ALAN OPERATIONS, LLC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06363 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2018), seeks to
put an end to systemic civil rights violations committed by
Defendant, against sight-impaired, disabled individuals, under
Americans with Disability Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
access and read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff
uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all
individuals with visual impairments who meet the legal definition
of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of
less than or equal to 20/200. Some blind individuals who meet this
definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a
2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million
individuals in the United States are visually impaired, including
2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation
for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually
impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action against the
Defendants for the Defendants' failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendants' denial of full
and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its
products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its
physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff’s rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Because the
Defendants' website is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired individuals, it violates the ADA, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 971-9474
          Facsimile: (718) 865-0943
          E-mail: Jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com

STITCH FIX: Vincent Wong Files Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Stitch Fix, Inc.  If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Stitch Fix, Inc. (NASDAQ: SFIX)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 10, 2018
Class Period: June 8, 2018 and October 1, 2018

Get additional information about SFIX:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/stitch-fix-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Telephone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN]



SUNRUN INC: Seeks Initial Approval of $5.5MM Slovin Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrun Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that plaintiffs in Slovin et al.
v. Sunrun Inc. and Clean Energy Experts, LLC, Case No.
4:15-cv-05340, are seeking preliminary approval to settle all
claims against the Company for $5.5 million.

On November 20, 2015, a putative class action captioned Slovin et
al. v. Sunrun Inc. and Clean Energy Experts, LLC, Case No.
4:15-cv-05340, was filed in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California. The complaint generally alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") on
behalf of an individual and putative classes of persons alleged to
be similarly situated.

Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on December 2, 2015, and
a Second Amended Complaint on March 25, 2016, also asserting
individual and putative class claims under the TCPA. By Order
entered on April 28, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motion
to strike the class allegations set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint, and granted leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on July 12, 2016
asserting individual and putative class claims under the TCPA. On
October 12, 2016, the Court denied the Company's motion to again
strike the class allegations set forth in the Third Amended
Complaint. On October 3, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, seeking to, among other things,
revise the definitions of the classes that plaintiffs seek to
represent. The Company has opposed that motion, which remains
pending before the Court. In each iteration of their complaint,
plaintiffs seek statutory damages, equitable and injunctive relief,
and attorneys' fees and costs, on behalf of themselves and the
absent classes.

On April 12, 2018, the Company and plaintiffs advised the Court
that they reached a settlement in principle, and the Court vacated
all deadlines relating to the motion for class certification. On
September 27, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval to settle all claims against the Company for $5.5 million,
which was accrued as of March 31, 2018.

Most, if not all, of the claims asserted in the lawsuit relate to
activities allegedly engaged in by third-party vendors, for which
the Company denies any responsibility. The vendors are
contractually obligated to indemnify the Company for losses related
to the conduct alleged. The Company has denied, and continues to
deny, the claims alleged and the settlement does not reflect any
admission of fault, wrongdoing or liability. The settlement is
subject to definitive documentation, class notice and court
approval.

Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. It also sells solar leads. The company markets
and sells its products through direct channels, partner channels,
mass media, digital media, canvassing, referral, retail, and field
marketing. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in
San Francisco, California.


SUNRUN INC: Settlement of California Suit Wins Initial Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrun 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 a California court has
granted preliminary approval of the settlement in the consolidated
class action suit.

On April 13, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Pytel v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538215, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, against the
Company, certain of the Company's directors and officers, the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and certain
other defendants.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
(the "Securities Act"), by making false or misleading statements in
connection with the Company's August 5, 2015 initial public
offering regarding the continuation of net metering programs. The
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who acquired the
Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the initial public
offering. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, including interest,
rescission or rescissory damages, an award of reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees, and any equitable or injunctive relief deemed
appropriate by the court.

On April 29, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Baker et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538419, was filed
in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.

On May 10, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Nunez v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538593, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.

The Baker and Nunez complaints are substantially similar to the
Pytel complaint, and seek similar relief against similar defendants
on behalf of the same purported class.

On May 3, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
including allegations related to the alleged effect of customer
cancellations on the Company's business.

On April 21, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Cohen, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538304, was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo,
against the Company, certain of the Company's directors and
officers, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act by making false or
misleading statements in connection with an August 5, 2015 initial
public offering regarding the Company's business practices and its
dependence on complex financial instruments. The Cohen plaintiffs
seek to represent the same class and seek similar relief as the
plaintiffs in the Pytel, Nunez, and Baker actions.    

On September 26, 2016, the Baker, Cohen, Nunez, and Pytel actions
were consolidated (such consolidated action referred to as the
"state court litigation"). On December 27, 2017, the court granted
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Following a mediation on May 4, 2018, the parties entered into an
agreement in principle to settle all claims asserted in the state
court litigation against all defendants. The aggregate amount of
the proposed settlement is $32.0 million, $30.1 million of which
will be funded by the Company's insurers and the remaining $1.9
million of which was accrued as of June 30, 2018.

The Company and all defendants have denied, and continue to deny,
the claims alleged in the state court litigation and the settlement
does not reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing or liability as
to any defendant.

On September 14, 2018, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement. The settlement is subject to definitive
documentation, shareholder notice and final court approval.

Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. It also sells solar leads. The company markets
and sells its products through direct channels, partner channels,
mass media, digital media, canvassing, referral, retail, and field
marketing. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in
San Francisco, California.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Vincent Wong Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Synchrony Financial (NYSE:
SYF).  If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Synchrony Financial (NYSE: SYF)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 2, 2019
Class Period: October 21, 2016 and November 1, 2018

Get additional information about SYF:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/synchrony-financial-loss-submission-form?wire=3

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Telephone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


TESARO INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Tesaro, Inc. ("Tesaro" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TSRO) and
certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States
District Court, District of Massachusetts, and indexed under
18-cv-12352, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased
or otherwise, acquired Tesaro securities between November 4, 2016
through November 14, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Tesaro securities between
November 4, 2016, and November 14, 2016, both dates inclusive, you
have until January 9, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Tesaro is an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company that
identifies, acquires, develops, and commercializes cancer
therapeutics and oncology supportive care products in the United
States. The Company describes its focus as "responsibly
develop[ing] and commercializ[ing] innovative treatments where
others may not."

On July 7, 2016, Tesaro announced the closing of a previously
announced underwritten public offering of common stock, pursuant to
which the Company sold 5,347,500 shares at an offering price to the
public of $81.00 per share (the "July Offering"). In a press
release, Tesaro advised investors that the net proceeds from the
July Offering would be approximately $409 million.

On November 4, 2016, Tesaro filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q
with the SEC, reporting the Company's financial and operating
results for the quarter ended September 30, 2016 (the "Q3 2016
10-Q").  The Q3 2016 10-Q stated, inter alia, that "[o]ur balance
of cash and cash equivalents as of September 30, 2016, and the cash
we expect to generate from sales of VARUBI, are expected to be
sufficient to meet our existing cash flow requirements and fund our
existing operations at their currently planned levels through at
least the twelve months."

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
notwithstanding the completion of the July Offering, Tesaro's
liquidity position was insufficient to meet its cash flow
requirements and fund its existing operations; (ii) accordingly,
unbeknownst to investors, an additional public offering of Tesaro
common stock was imminent; and (iii) as a result, Tesaro's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Aftermarket close on November 14, 2016 -- less than four months
after the July Offering, and just ten days after assuring investors
that VARUBI sales would be sufficient to fund the Company's cash
flow requirements and necessary operational funding for the next 12
months -- Tesaro abruptly announced another proposed public
offering (the "November Offering").  In a press release, Tesaro
stated that the Company had "commenced an underwritten public
offering of 1,750,000 shares of its common stock", "pursuant to its
automatic shelf registration statement on Form S-3 filed with the
[SEC] on June 30, 2016."  That same day, Tesaro filed a preliminary
prospectus supplement and related prospectus for the November
Offering with the SEC.

Then, on November 15, 2016, Tesaro issued a second press release,
announcing that the offering price for the November Offering would
be $135.00 per share -- roughly 9%, lower than the price of Tesaro
stock at market close on November 14, 2016 ($148.50), the last
trading session prior to the announcement of the November
Offering.

Following these announcements, Tesaro's share price plunged $17.46
per share, or roughly 11.76%, to close at $131.04 on November 15,
2016, wiping out approximately $607 million in shareholder value.

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Telephone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


TG THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of TG Therapeutics, Inc.
(NASDAQCM: TGTX).  If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff.

TG Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQCM: TGTX)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 3, 2018
Class Period: June 4, 2018 and September 25, 2018

Get additional information about TGTX:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/tg-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway, Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Telephone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


TOWER RESEARCH CAPITAL: Boutchard Hits Illegal Futures Manipulation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Boutchard, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kamaldeep Gandhi, Yuchun Mao
(a/k/a Bruce Mao), Krishna Mohan, Tower Research Capital LLC and
John Doe Nos. 1 – 5, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-07141, (N.D.
Ill., October 19, 2018), seeks damages with prejudgment interest,
restitution of any and all sums derived from unjust enrichment,
reimbursement of costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' and
experts' fees and expenses, and such other relief for violation of
the Commodity Exchange Act.

Defendants are a group of futures traders and the trading firms
that employ them. In October 2018, the United States Department of
Justice brought criminal charges against Mao, Gandhi and Mohan for
participating in a scheme to manipulate the prices of E-mini Index
Futures contracts traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

Boutchard transacted in thousands of E-mini S&P 500 Futures
contracts and E-mini NASDAQ 100 Futures contracts and lost money by
trading them at artificial prices brought about by the Defendants'
unlawful manipulation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
      Brian O'Connell, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
      150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 782-4880
      Fax: (312) 782-4485
      Email: afata@caffertyclobes.com
             boconnell@caffertyclobes.com

             - and -

      Vincent Briganti, Esq.
      Raymond P. Girnys, Esq.
      Christian P. Levis, Esq.
      Lee J. Lefkowitz, Esq.
      Johnathan Seredynski, Esq.
      Peter Demato, Jr., Esq.
      LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
      44 South Broadway
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Tel: (914) 997-0500
      Fax: (914) 997-0035
      Email: vbriganti@lowey.com
             rgirnys@lowey.com
             clevis@lowey.com
             llefkowitz@lowey.com
             jseredynski@lowey.com
             pdemato@lowey.com


TREVENA INC: Vincent Wong Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Trevena, Inc.  If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Trevena, Inc. (NASDAQGS: TRVN)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 10, 2018
Class Period: May 2, 2016 and October 9, 2018

Get additional information about TRVN:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/trevena-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Telephone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Camacho Files ADA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vanderbilt
University. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vanderbilt
University, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10694 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 15,
2018).

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

Vanderbilt University is a private research university in
Nashville, Tennessee. Founded in 1873, it was named in honor of
shipping and rail magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt, who provided the
school its initial $1 million endowment despite having never been
to the South.[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


WORKPAC: Adero Law Firm to Intervene in Casual Worker Test Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana McCauley, writing for The Age, reports that a class action law
firm representing thousands of workers allegedly owed more than
$320 million in entitlements will apply to intervene in a casual
worker test case.

ACT-based law firm Adero was set to apply in the Federal Court to
intervene in the case between mining industry labour hire firm
WorkPac and its former worker Robert Rossato, which seeks to
clarify the definition of a casual worker.

WorkPac is seeking a declaration that Mr Rossato was a casual
employee and not entitled to annual leave, after being hit with an
earlier ruling that a truck driver it employed on a casual basis,
Paul Skene, was entitled to leave.

It comes after Federal Industrial Relations Minister Kelly O'Dwyer
last month applied to intervene in the case on behalf of the
Commonwealth, saying the law must be clarified to prevent workers
from "double dipping" by claiming leave on top of casual loadings.

A WorkPac spokesman said Adero's attempt to join the test case
"underscores the real threat posed by opportunistic class action
lawyers seeking to double dip on entitlements and exposes the legal
minefield potentially faced by small businesses employing
casuals".

"Businesses small and large are at risk of job-destroying back
payment claims from Adero and other class action law firms that
want casual employees to be paid twice for the same entitlements,"
the spokesman said.

Adero Law managing director Rory Markham -- who is preparing class
actions against Australia's four biggest mining industry labour
hire firms, including WorkPac -- said the intervention, on behalf
of another former WorkPac employee and class action participant,
Beau Daniel Meaney, aimed to ensure that the test case did not
adversely impact his clients.

"We'll apply tomorrow and suggest the class action should go
first," Mr Markham said on Nov. 7.

"It is not appropriate that the Commonwealth, or WorkPac on its
own, get involved in matters that are the subject of a class
action."

The firm wants the WorkPac case to be delayed until after the class
action has been heard.

The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union and
Mr Skene, a union member, have also applied to intervene in the
fresh WorkPac case.

Mr Markham said WorkPac had cherry-picked Mr Rossato, whose legal
fees the company is paying, for the test case because he had worked
a more regular pattern of hours than the typical labour hire
worker, as represented by Mr Skene.

He argued that any finding in relation Mr Rossato's employment
status was unlikely to bind the thousands of workers who would be
able to participate in the WorkPac class action.

Mr Markham said he planned to file four class action suits in
December - claiming more than $320 million in unpaid entitlements -
against WorkPac and fellow mining industry labour hire firms Hays
Recruitment, Programmed and One Key Resources.

He said the class action against WorkPac would proceed
"irrespective of the court's decision" in relation to Adero's
intervention application.

A WorkPac spokesman said casual employees "are already paid for
their entitlements in the form of a higher hourly rate".

"That's the way the system was designed to work, and this approach
is reflected in agreements and awards approved by the Fair Work
Commission," the spokesman said.

"Double dipping is manifestly unfair and poses a significant risk
to businesses and the Australian economy."

The Australian Industry Group last month referred Adero's class
action to the ACCC, citing concerns about the wording of an
agreement with overseas litigation funder Augusta Ventures, which
requires a 250 per cent return on costs.

A spokesman for the competition watchdog said on Nov. 7: "The ACCC
has received the Ai Group's letter and is considering the issues
raised."

AI Group chief executive Innes Willox said it was "obviously
unfair" for an employee to pursue a claim for years of back-pay for
annual leave if they had been paid a casual loading.

"It is important that Parliament legislates without delay to
prevent opportunistic double-dipping claims being pursued by class
action lawyers," Mr Willox said. [GN]


[*] Calif.'s New Class Action Guidelines Raises Fresh Concerns
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The Recorder, reports that the
Northern District of California's new procedural guidance for class
action settlements is among the most detailed in the nation,
prompting welcome relief to critics but raising fresh concerns for
some practitioners.

The guidance, announced on Nov. 1, comes as little surprise to
lawyers who practice in the Northern District of California, which
is home to numerous consumer class actions and judges who have
spoken out about reforms. The guidance also mimics proposed changes
to the Federal Rule 23 of Civil Procedure.

But the Northern District's guidance seeks to implement some of the
most far-reaching revisions in the country. Many lawyers said it
creates transparency that's been long needed in the class action
process.

"It's a good first step," said Joel Fleming -- joel@blockesq.com --
a partner at Block & Leviton in Boston. "Sunlight is the best
disinfectant and, generally speaking, having more information to
the courts and the class is a good thing."

Defense attorneys and law professors who have called for more
transparency in the class action process praised the new
procedures.

"They've done a wonderful job of figuring out what are the most
important things to worry about, and let's make sure every judge
has a checklist," said Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt
University Law School. "They are wise to focus on what happens to
the money after the settlement's approved because we don't know."

The guidelines apply to all of the district's judges, some of whom
already have detailed standing orders on class action settlements.
Others have raised numerous questions about class action
settlements before approving them.

"It's been my experience that the judges in the Northern District
of California have been more attentive to these issues than others
in the country," said William Rubenstein, a professor at Harvard
Law School.

Among other things, the guidance asks lawyers to provide billing
calculations in class counsel's fee request, identify the process
used to select the settlement administrator, consider social media
and a marketing specialist for the notice program, disclose
relationships between the parties and cy pres recipients, and file
an accounting of the settlement 21 days after distributing the fund
to the class.

Most of the concerns, such as poor claims rates or leftover
settlement funds that revert to the defendants, focus on consumer
class actions, not securities fraud cases, Mr. Fleming said. For
most lawyers, he said, the guidelines shouldn't impact how they do
their jobs.

"If a settlement is reached that would benefit the attorneys more
than class members, this information being required will probably
serve as a deterrent because it's getting at information that's
useful for class members to know," Mr. Fleming said. "But for
plaintiffs' lawyers doing their jobs, and keeping the best
interests of class members at heart, I don't think any of this
would change the way you'd litigate your case or change the way
you'd structure a settlement. It will require careful review of
your materials to make sure you're complying, but it won't have a
strategic impact."

The biggest change in the guidelines is the accounting guidance.
That revision is noteworthy because, in most cases, judges don't
keep up with what happens to a class action settlement after
granting final approval. And there's a slew of information that
lawyers are supposed to post on the settlement's website: The
number of notices sent to class members, claim forms submitted,
opt-outs and objections, for example, and the average, largest and
smallest amounts paid to class members, methods of notice and
payment, number and amount of checks not cashed—all in an
"easy-to-read chart."

The accounting revision is similar to a requirement tucked into a
class action reform bill that the U.S. House of Representatives
passed last year.

"It's very hard to determine whether class settlements are doing
what they're supposed to be doing if you don't know where the money
goes and where it winds up, and you don't know how much of the
class gets paid," said Andrew Trask -- atrask@shb.com -- of counsel
at Shook, Hardy & Bacon in San Francisco. "In the past, it's the
propriety information of the settlement vendor. So the defendant
might see that information in a few cases, but usually they don't.
To the degree we continue to have debates over what class
certification ought to be and what class settlement ought to look
like, having that information publicly available is better than not
having it."

Mr. Fitzpatrick said the data also would help law professors who
study class action trends.

"The data that we will be able to gather from these new guidelines
will help inform a lot of debate and discussions about whether the
class action system is working as intended," he said. "They're
making a great contribution to the public understanding of class
actions by requiring the lawyers to be transparent and return to
the court with this data."

But the guidelines haven't come without new concerns.

Mr. Rubenstein said the guidance could "dissuade lawyers from
filing in the Northern District because it feels like more hoops to
jump through."

Mr. Fitzpatrick specifically flagged the revisions prompting
plaintiffs attorneys to turn over their lodestar billing, which are
the hours they worked on the case multiplied by their hourly rate.
He said such a mandate could encourage more judges to use the
lodestar when assessing an attorney fee request that is based on a
percentage of the settlement fund. That's not required in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, he said.

More importantly, he said, the practice raised concerns about the
motivations of plaintiffs attorneys in settling class actions.

"The more and more courts that are doing lodestar cross-checks, the
more lawyers are going to worry they need to bill a bunch of hours
in order to get a decent fee award instead of focusing on the most
important thing, which is getting the most recovery for the class,"
Mr. Fitzpatrick said.

Mr. Fleming agreed that requiring lodestar could create "misaligned
incentives" but, in most cases, plaintiffs lawyers are prepared to
submit billing records as part of their fee requests in the event
judges use them as cross-checks.

Ted Frank, a frequent critic of class action settlements, raised
another question about the guidance: "What are the consequences
when the guidelines are shirked?"

Frank, director of litigation at the Center for Class Action
Fairness at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, noted that the
Ninth Circuit, in an unpublished decision on Nov. 5, found a
district judge's noncompliance with one provision of Rule 23 to be
"harmless." That provision requires that class members have the
opportunity to oppose attorney fee requests before a settlement's
approval. But the Ninth Circuit, in a class action involving false
advertising claims against Kohl's, found that remanding the fee
issue, while upholding the settlement, would remedy the error.

"If there aren't consequences for, say, failing to disclose cy pres
conflicts or previous settlement track records, settling parties
will be worse off if they comply -- and simply won't," Mr. Frank
wrote in an email. [GN]


[*] Gibson Dunn Promotes 17 Lawyers to Partnership
--------------------------------------------------
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP on Nov. 26 disclosed that the firm has
elected 17 new partners, effective January 1, 2019.

"We would like to congratulate our new partners on this important
professional achievement," said Ken Doran, Chairman and Managing
Partner of Gibson Dunn.  "The new partners come from diverse
backgrounds and experiences, but they all exemplify the core values
of the firm -- excellence, professionalism and collegiality and, as
our partners, I know that they will continue to uphold our highest
traditions."

The new partners are:

Jefferson Bell, Esq. -- jbell@gibsondunn.com -- (Litigation,
Securities/New York) -- Mr. Bell's experience includes a wide
variety of complex civil litigation and securities/M&A litigation,
with an emphasis on high stakes disputes in the financial services
industry.  Mr. Bell graduated cum laude in 2006 from Harvard Law
School, where he was an articles editor for the Harvard Civil
Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review.

Ryan T. Bergsieker, Esq. -- rbergsieker@gibsondunn.com --
(Litigation, White Collar, Privacy and Cybersecurity/Denver) -- Mr.
Bergsieker is a former federal cybercrime prosecutor who has tried
more than 45 civil and criminal cases to verdict.  His practice is
focused on government investigations, complex civil litigation, and
information security/data privacy counseling.  Mr. Bergsieker
graduated from Yale Law School in 2004, where he served as Comments
Editor of the Yale Law Journal.  He clerked for Judge David M. Ebel
on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Michael H. Dore, Esq. -- mdore@gibsondunn.com -- (Litigation, White
Collar/Los Angeles) -- A former federal prosecutor, Mr. Dore
focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation matters,
particularly law firm defense and media and entertainment
litigation, as well as white collar criminal defense matters and
internal investigations.  He has particular experience representing
technology companies in financial fraud and data security matters.
Mr. Dore graduated in 2003 from the University of Virginia School
of Law, where he was a member of the Virginia Law Review.

Krista P. Hanvey, Esq. -- khanvey@gibsondunn.com -- (Executive
Compensation and Employee Benefits/Dallas) -- Ms. Hanvey has
significant experience with all aspects of executive compensation,
retirement plan, and health and welfare benefit plan compliance,
planning, and transactional matters.  She also regularly advises
clients with respect to general corporate governance matters.  She
graduated first in her class from William and Mary School of Law in
2009, where she served as Senior Articles Editor of the William &
Mary Law Review.  

Abbey Hudson, Esq. -- ahudson@gibsondunn.com -- (Litigation,
Environmental and Mass Tort / Los Angeles) -- Hudson practices
complex trial litigation, with an emphasis on environmental,
transnational and technological litigation.  She also helps clients
navigate environmental and emerging regulations and related
governmental investigations.  Hudson graduated from Columbia
University in 2009, where she was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar and
president of OutLaws, Columbia's LGBT law student organization.

Jeffrey M. Jakubiak, Esq. -- jjakubiak@gibsondunn.com -- (Energy,
Regulation and Litigation / New York and Washington, D.C.) -- Mr.
Jakubiak's practice focuses on energy matters at the crossroads of
law and economics before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) and the federal courts, particularly those involving
electric company mergers, power sales, electric transmission rates,
market development, and allegations of market manipulation.  Mr.
Jakubiak graduated from Cornell Law School in 1997, where he was an
Olin Foundation Law and Economics Scholar.

Allison H. Kidd, Esq. -- akidd@gibsondunn.com -- (Real Estate / San
Francisco) -- Mr. Kidd's practice encompasses a wide variety of
commercial real estate transactions and land use/development
matters, including acquisitions and dispositions, construction and
permanent financing, joint ventures, processing of entitlements and
structuring of public-private partnerships.  She received a law
degree and master of public policy, with an emphasis on urban
development policy, in 2008 from the University of California, Los
Angeles.

Andrew LeGrand, Esq. -- alegrand@gibsondunn.com -- (Litigation /
Dallas) -- Mr. LeGrand is a complex commercial litigator who
principally focuses on class actions and other high-stakes
commercial disputes.  He has successfully defended corporate
clients against claims of fraud, breach of contract, products
liability, consumer protection violations, and antitrust
violations.  He graduated in 2009 from Columbia Law School, where
he was an editor of the Columbia Law Review and a Harlan Fiske
Stone scholar.  Mr. LeGrand clerked for Judge A. Joe Fish in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and Judge
Ann Claire Williams in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.

Mary Beth Maloney, Esq. -- mmaloney@gibsondunn.com -- (Litigation /
New York) -- Mr. Maloney's practice focuses on high-stakes complex
commercial and business litigation in state, federal, and
bankruptcy courts.  She is a trusted advisor to numerous public
companies, asset funds, fund managers, and portfolio companies.
Mr. Maloney graduated from University of Southern California Gould
School of Law in 2007, where she was the Editor-in-Chief of the
Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, and clerked for
Judge Alicemarie Stotler, then-chief judge of the Central District
of California.

Keith R. Martorana, Esq. -- kmartorana@gibsondunn.com -- (Business
Restructuring / New York) -- Mr. Martorana represents debtors,
financial institutions, creditor groups and hedge funds inside and
outside of chapter 11 in numerous industries, including the retail,
communications, energy, homebuilding, automotive, emergency
services, commercial real estate, and manufacturing sectors.  Mr.
Martorana graduated magna cum laude from New York Law School in
2007, where he served as Executive Articles Editor of the New York
Law School Law Review.

Jason R. Meltzer, Esq. -- jmeltzer@gibsondunn.com -- (Litigation,
Class Actions / Washington, D.C.) -- Mr. Meltzer has experience in
a wide range of complex commercial litigation, with an emphasis on
securities and consumer products class action defense.  He also has
extensive experience representing clients in antitrust, mass tort,
breach of contract, commercial fraud, insurance and merger-related
litigation.  Mr. Meltzer graduated from the University of
Pennsylvania Law School in 2005.

Jeremy Robison, Esq. -- wrobison@gibsondunn.com -- (Litigation,
Antitrust / Washington, D.C.) -- Mr. Robison's practice focuses on
antitrust and white-collar criminal defense matters, including
litigation, internal investigations, and regulatory enforcement
actions.  He received his law degree magna cum laude in 2010 from
the Georgetown University Law Center, where he served as Managing
Editor of The Georgetown Law Journal and was a member of the Order
of the Coif.

Lena Sandberg, Esq. -- lsandberg@gibsondunn.com -- (Antitrust /
Brussels) -- Ms. Sandberg's practice covers competition law,
especially State aid and other aspects of competition law, such as
abuse of a dominant position, cartels, and merger filings.  In
addition, she has extensive sectoral regulatory experience in the
energy/environmental and electronic communications sectors.  She
also has strong experience in public procurement.  Ms. Sandberg
graduated from the University of Copenhagen in 1995.

Akiva Shapiro, Esq. -- ashapiro@gibsondunn.com -- (Litigation / New
York) -- Mr. Shapiro's practice focuses on a broad range of
high-stakes constitutional, commercial, and appellate litigation
matters.  He has successfully represented clients in suits
involving civil RICO, securities fraud, breach of contract,
tortious interference, and forgery claims, as well as
constitutional and other exceeding-the-scope-of-authority
challenges to government actions and regulations.  Shapiro
graduated in 2008 from Columbia Law School, where he was a senior
editor of the Columbia Law Review, a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar,
and a semifinalist in the Harlan Fiske Stone Honors Moot Court
competition.

Jeffrey L. Steiner, Esq. -- jsteiner@gibsondunn.com -- (Financial
Institutions, Derivatives / Washington, D.C.) -- Mr. Steiner
advises a range of clients, including commercial end-users,
financial institutions, dealers, hedge funds, private equity funds,
clearinghouses, industry groups and trade associations on
regulatory, legislative and transactional matters related to
over-the-counter and listed derivatives, commodities and
securities.  He also advises clients on regulatory and enforcement
matters relating to digital currencies and distributed ledger
technology.  Before joining Gibson Dunn, Steiner was special
counsel in the Division of Market Oversight at the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission.  He graduated from Tulane Law School in
2004, where he was a Business Editor of the Tulane Environmental
Law Journal.

Daniela L. Stolman, Esq. -- dstolman@gibsondunn.com -- (Corporate,
Mergers and Acquisitions, Private Equity / Los Angeles) -- Ms.
Stolman advises companies and private equity firms across a wide
range of industries on public and private merger transactions,
stock and asset sales, and public and private capital-raising
transactions.  She also advises public companies on federal
securities law and corporate governance matters.  She graduated
from University of Southern California Law School in 2006 where she
was elected to the Order of the Coif and was a Senior Editor of the
Southern California Law Review.

Daniel A. Zygielbaum, Esq. -- dzygielbaum@gibsondunn.com -- (Tax /
Washington, D.C.) -- Mr. Zygielbaum's practice focuses on tax
planning for mergers & acquisitions, joint ventures, fund
formations, REITs, real estate investments, and capital markets
transactions.  He has worked on a wide range of matters, including
public and private mergers & acquisitions, cross-border
transactions, REIT formations, acquisitions and dispositions,
investment fund formations, and real estate joint ventures.  He has
also represented clients in tax controversy matters before the
Internal Revenue Service.  
Mr. Zygielbaum received his J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law
School in 2010.

                         About Gibson Dunn

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP -- https://www.gibsondunn.com -- is an
international law firm.  Consistently ranking among the world's top
law firms in industry surveys and major publications, Gibson Dunn
is distinctively positioned in today's global marketplace with more
than 1,300 lawyers and 20 offices, including Beijing, Brussels,
Century City, Dallas, Denver, Dubai, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Houston,
London, Los Angeles, Munich, New York, Orange County, Palo Alto,
Paris, San Francisco, Sao Paulo, Singapore, and Washington, D.C.



                            *********

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 ***