CAR_Public/181204.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, December 4, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 242

                            Headlines

ACCELERATED RECEIVABLES: Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
ADT INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Action Suits
AE OUTFITTERS: Nixon Sues Clothing Retailer Under ADA
AIG DIRECT: Willis Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
AKAL SECURITY: Appeals Ruling in Gelber FLSA Suit to 11th Cir.

ALTERYX INC: Suits over Amazon Web Services Dismissed
AMERICAN HONDA: Sued Over Defective 2018 Honda Civic CVT
APPLE INC: Grace Appeals N.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit
ARIZONA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Redgrave Class Action
ATLANTIC CREDIT: Ventura Sues over Debt Collection Practices

ATRIUM STAFFING: Violates Disabilities Act, Says Nixon
AVON: Sued for Allegedly Discriminating Against Pregnant Women
B&D&F LLC: Nixon Brings ADA Class Action in E.D.N.Y.
BALDOR SPECIALTY: Faces ADA Class Action in New York
BAT-EL AHARON: Noira Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage under FLSA

BBVA COMPASS: Lopez Class Action Concluded Following Accord
BBVA COMPASS: Still Defends Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Suit
BEACH RESORT SERVICES: Underpays Technicians, Hernandez Says
BLUE CROSS: Faces Suit over Denial of Insurance Claims
BOAT BOTTOM: Vanderbilt Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA

BUBBYS PIE: Fischler Sues Resto for ADA Breach
BUILDERTREND SOLUTIONS: Violates ADA, Sullivan Suit Asserts
CAC FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Eaves Suit Claims
CALIFORNIA: Fails to Comply to Inmate Psychiatric Care Timeframes
CANNAE HOLDINGS: Otis Suit Remains Stayed Amid Arbitration

CARDINAL HEALTH: Faces 50 Opioid-Related Class Suits
CATHOLIC CHURCH: 6 Americans File Sexual Abuse Class Action
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Philadelphia Man Joins Sexual Abuse Class Action
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Westmont Resident Joins Sexual Abuse Suit
CENTRAL CREDIT: Biston Files FDCPA Class Action

CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Bid to Drop City of Livonia Suit Pending
COMMERCE BACSHARES: Sullivan Files Suit in S.D.N.Y. Under ADA
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Can't Compel Arbitration in Motley TCPA Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement in Backer Law's Suit Has Final OK
DEMAND PROGRESS: Robinson Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls

DITECH FINANCIAL: Can Compel Arbitration in Kincaid Suit
DOUBLE DOWN: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in Benson Suit
ECO SCIENCE: Glancy Prongay to Lead in Securities Suit
ENERGEN CORP: Faces Diamondback & Sidewinder-Merger Related Suits
ET PUBLISHING: Underpays Art Directors, Norte Suit Claims

FCNH INC: 10th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Nesbitt FLSA Suit
FIVE STAR SENIOR: Dominguez Suit Asserts ADA Violation
FORD MOTOR: Fails to Disclose Corrosion Defect, Simmons et al. Say
FORD MOTOR: Kasper, et al. Sue over Online Hiring Process
GENPACT COLLECTIONS: Prendergast Sues over Unwanted Telephone Call

GOLDEN KRUST 4: Fails to Pay OT to Cashiers, Samuel Suit Alleges
GREEN TREE: All Pending Motions in Kamimura Denied w/o Prejudice
GREYHOUND LINES: Illegally Records Phone Calls, Fliegelman Alleges
GROUPON INC: Diaz Suit Asserts ADA Violation
GURSTEL LAW: Boudreaux Files FDCPA Suit in Wisconsin

GURSTEL LAW: Dec. 21 Filing of Borges Deal Prelim Approval Bid
HANGER INC: Petitions in City of Pontiac Class Suits Pending
HEALTH INSURANCE: Donisi Partly Compelled to Reply to RFPs in Moser
HERTZ GLOBAL: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal in Ramirez Class Suit
HIGHGATE HOTELS: Filing of 4th Amended Henkel to Add Plaintiffs OKd

HOME BOX OFFICE: Burke Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HPM CORPORATION: Slover Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
INDUSTRIAL ALLIANCE: Connolly Obagi Launches Class Action
IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Awaits Initial Approval of Rabkin Accord
JPMORGAN CHASE: Settlement in Mansor Suit Has Final Approval

JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued over Spoof Orders for Precious Metals Futures
JUUL: Faces Vaping Product Deceptive Marketing Class Action
KE ZHANG: Seeks Minimum Wage & Overtime Wages under FLSA
KONG TECHNOLOGIES: Cy Pres Distribution in Opperman Suit Okayed
KRAFT HEINZ: 6 Classes in Vazquez Unpaid Wages Suit Certified

L.A. COLLEGE OF MUSIC: Faces Camacho ADA Class Suit
LANNETT CO: Faces Pennsylvania Class Action Suit
LANNETT CO: Securities Suit over Drug Pricing Ongoing
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Pomerantz LLP to Lead in Veal Securities Suit
LIFE INSURANCE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Walker Class Suit

LIFETOUCH INC: Court Dismisses Vigeant ERISA Suit with Prejudice
MAINE: Dismissal of Class Action Claims in Gladu Suit Recommended
MASTERCARD INC: Appeals Court to Hear Antitrust Class Action
MCDONALD'S CORP: Ontario Judge Allows Happy Meal Suit to Proceed
MERCK & CO: Taha Sues over Zostavax Vaccine

MERIDIAN SENIOR: Dominguez Files ADA Class Action
MINNESOTA: Court Affirms Ruling on Bids to Compel in Murphy Suit
MIYOKOS KITCHEN: Faces Class Action Over Vegan Butter Claims
MODIS INC: Brown Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
MOG INTERNATIONAL: Trusty Seeks OT Pay for Direct Care Workers

MONEYGRAM INT'L: Jan. 14 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
MONSANTO COMPANY: Lis Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MORRISONS: Sheppard Mullin Discusses Data Leak Ruling
MOSAIC FERTILIZER: Fla. App. Reverses Curd Class Certification
MUY PIZZA-TEJAS: Scott et al Seek Unpaid Wages for Drivers

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Negligent Over Athletes' Health, Dobson Says
NEW GREAT WALL: Underpays Delivery Persons, Chen Suit Claims
NEW HAMPSHIRE INSTITUTE: Camacho Suit Alleges ADA Violation
NEW YORK: Campbell Seeks Wages & OT for Boiler Makers and Welders
ONE BRANDS: Faces Melendez Product Liability Class Suit

PALM BEACH HOME: Dominguez Brings Suit v. Home Under ADA
PARRENT SMITH: Griffin Sues Over Unauthorized Credit Report Probe
PAUL BLANCO'S: Karla Black Sues over Commission Scheme
PDR NETWORK: Supreme Court Hears Fax Advertisement Class Action
PFIZER INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Nixon Suit Says

PHOENIX COMPLETE: Underpays Mechanics, Caba Suit Alleges
POINT PARK UNIVERSITY:  Camacho Bring Class Suit for ADA Breach
QUICKEN LOANS: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Amended Allen TCPA Suit
RAE FRANKS: Thompson Sues over Debt Collection Practices
RANDSTAD US: Court Dismisses Lopez Labor Suit Without Prejudice

RELADYNE, LLC: Marzec Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers
REO CONTRACTORS: Underpays Project Supervisors, Chavez Alleges
RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Jan. 7 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ROBERT BOSCH: Martinez et al. Sue over Defective Bosch CP4 Pump
ROWAN COMPANIES: Shareholders File Class Action Over Ensco Merger

SANDIA CORP: Proposed Kennicott Case Schedule Revised
SANTA CLARA, CA: Settles Disabled Inmates' Discrimination Suit
SANTA FE COUNTY, NM: Court Denies Dismissal Bids in Armendariz Suit
SAVANNAH COLLEGE: Camacho Files ADA Class Action in NY
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Settlement in Mendis Suit Has Final Approval

SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Bid to Dismiss Raqqa et al. Suit Still Pending
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Bid to Drop Fife Class Suit Still Pending
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Anderson Sues Over Federal Civil Rights Breach
SETERUS INC: Sued over Alleged Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
SHELTER MUTUAL: Baggett Suit Moved to W.D. Arkansas

SUNPOWER CORP: Court Dismisses Jannarone Suit Without Prejudice
SWEET HOME: Williams FLSA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
TARGET CORPORATION: Boegeman Suit Moved to S.D. California
TEXAS: Williams et al. Allege Improper Treatment of Prisoners
TORRENT PHARMA: Valsartan Drugs Contaminated, Robin Roberts Claims

ULTA SALON: Ct. Enters Stipulated Protective Order in E. Wise Suit
UNIFIED CARING: Schick Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Won't Hear Immigration Class Action
UNITED STATES: Faces Singh Suit in Oregon over Religious Freedom
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Bid to Drop Teamsters Local Suit Still Pending

UTZ QUIALITY: Lepiane Files Fraud Class Suit in Calif.
VALEANT PHARMA: Timber's Bid for Relief from Consolidation Denied
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Jacobs Files Class Suit in New York
VINEYARD VINES: Nixon Says Retailer Breached Disabilities Act
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Sued over Defective Joists Used in Construction

WIDEOPENWEST INC: Continues to Defend Suits in New York over IPO
WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Court Narrows Claims in Kutza Suit
WINESHOP AT HOME: Diaz Suit Alleges ADA Violation
XO GROUP: Faces Driscoll Securities Suit Over WeddingWire Merger
YAHOO! INC: Lawyers Submit New Details of $85MM Data Breach Deal

YIR, LLC: Vega Sues over Unsolicited Marketing Phone Calls
YUBA COUNTY, CA: Court OKs Amended Consent Decree in Hendrick Suit

                            *********

ACCELERATED RECEIVABLES: Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
----------------------------------------------------------
ROSA M. WILLIAMS-HOPKINS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCELERATED RECEIVABLES
MANAGEMENT, INC.; FRANCINE CLAIR LANDAU; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-15599-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., Nov. 1, 2018)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Katharine S. Hayden
and referred to Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor.

Accelerated Receivables Management, Ltd. ("ARM") provides solution
and services to healthcare industry. The company offers different
services including short and long term outsourcing solutions,
comprehensive receivables management, action oriented consulting,
flexible funding programs, interim patient accounting and
admitting/registration management, onsite training, healthcare
information management, claim scanning and document management,
electronic claims processing, and practice management. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


ADT INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Action Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend
itself from several class action suits related to its January 2018
initial public offering (IPO).

Five substantially similar shareholder class action lawsuits
related to the January 2018 initial public offering (IPO) of ADT
Inc. common stock were filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida in March,
April, and May 2018. The actions are entitled Goldstrand
Investments Inc. v. ADT Inc., Krebsbach v. ADT Inc., Katz v. ADT
Inc., Sweet v. ADT Inc., and Lowinger v. ADT Inc.

These cases have been consolidated for discovery and trial and are
now entitled In re ADT Inc. Shareholder Litigation. The Lead
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of similarly situated
shareholders and assert claims for alleged violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended ("Securities Act").

Plaintiffs allege that the ADT Inc. defendants violated the
Securities Act because the registration statement and prospectus
used to effectuate the IPO were false and misleading in that they
allegedly misled investors with respect to litigation involving ADT
Inc., ADT Inc.'s efforts to protect its intellectual property, and
the competitive pressures faced by ADT Inc. Defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated complaint on October 23, 2018.

Briefing on the motion is in progress. A similar shareholder class
action lawsuit also related to the January 2018 IPO was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida in May 2018. The action is entitled Perdomo v. ADT Inc.

In September and October 2018, four substantially similar
shareholder derivative complaints were also filed against various
ADT Inc. officers, directors and controlling shareholders in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The actions are entitled, Velasco v. Whall; Myung v. Whall; Scheel
v. Whall; and Bradel v. Whall.

Plaintiffs allege breaches of fiduciary duties as directors,
officers, and/or controlling shareholders of ADT Inc., unjust
enrichment, and violations of the federal securities laws for
alleged misrepresentations regarding competitive pressures in the
marketplace, litigation involving ADT Inc. intellectual property,
and certain financial and operational metrics. On November 1, 2018,
the Velasco action was transferred to the judge presiding over the
earlier filed Perdomo action.

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
burglary, video, access control, fire and smoke alarm, and medical
alert solutions to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.


AE OUTFITTERS: Nixon Sues Clothing Retailer Under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AE Outfitters Retail
Co. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AE Outfitters Retail Co.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06678 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., now known as simply American
Eagle, is an American clothing and accessories retailer,
headquartered in the Southside Works Neighborhood of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. AE Outfitters Retail Co. operates as a subsidiary of
American Eagle Outfitters, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AIG DIRECT: Willis Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
TROY WILLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs AIG DIRECT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-at-01709 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2018), seeks damages
and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from
the illegal actions of the Defendant, in negligently, knowingly,
and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy and causing him to incur unnecessary
and unwanted expenses.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around July of 2018,
Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in -6506, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to
purchase Defendant's services. Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. sections
227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its
services. The Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff
from telephone number (858) 309-3000, confirmed to belong to
Defendant.

The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency
purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). The
Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number assigned to
cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for
incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1), the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

AKAL SECURITY: Appeals Ruling in Gelber FLSA Suit to 11th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant AKAL Security, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit titled Elliott Gelber, et al. v. AKAL Security,
Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-23170-FAM, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
accuses the Defendant of violating the minimum wage provisions and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Gelber is employed by the Defendant as an air security officer.
He is responsible for the supervision of deportees during flights
back to their home country.

Akal Security Inc. is a New Mexico corporation with its principal
place of business in New Mexico.  The Company maintains an
operations facility in Miami, Florida, where the Plaintiff works.
The Defendant is a government contractor.

The appellate case is captioned as Elliott Gelber, et al. v. AKAL
Security, Inc., Case No. 18-14496, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees ELLIOTT GELBER, and all others similarly
situated, RUBEN YERO, SIGFREDO HERNANDEZ, MONICA VILA, FARA DIAZ,
JORGE AGULAR, CASSANDRA BAKER, SYLVIA BATISTA, SANDRA AMENEIRO,
JEAN VALBRUM, ANGEL LOPEZ, CARLOS TOLENTINO, MAGALIE SANTIAGO, LUIS
PAGAN, LAREZO MORERA, RUBEN CATALA, ROSARIO ANEWRYS and REY RIJOS
are represented by:

          Manuel Arteaga-Gomez, Esq.
          GROSSMAN ROTH, PA
          2525 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 1150
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 442-8666
          E-mail: aag@grossmanroth.com

               - and -

          Matthew Seth Sarelson, Esq.
          KAPLAN YOUNG & MOLL PARRON
          600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1715
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: 305) 330-6090
          E-mail: msarelson@kymplaw.com

Defendant-Appellant AKAL SECURITY, INC., is represented by:

          Jenna Rassif, Esq.
          Valerie L. Hooker, Esq.
          Derek H. Sparks, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS, PC
          2 S Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 577-7600
          E-mail: jenna.rassif@jacksonlewis.com
                  Valerie.Hooker@jacksonlewis.com
                  derek.sparks@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Tony H. McGrath, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS, PC
          1 S Pinckney St., Suite 930
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 807-5274
          E-mail: Tony.McGrath@jacksonlewis.com


ALTERYX INC: Suits over Amazon Web Services Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Alteryx, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the four putative
consumer class action suits filed against the company in connection
to the Amazon Web Services or AWS breach have been dismissed with
prejudice.

On December 19, 2017, the company disclosed that individuals with
an Amazon Web Services, or AWS, login could have had access to a
third-party marketing dataset that provided consumer marketing
information intended to help marketing professionals advertise and
sell their products, or the AWS Matter. This dataset is
commercially available and provides some location information,
contact information and other estimated information that is used
for marketing purposes. It does not include names, credit card
numbers, social security numbers, bank account information or
passwords.

Four putative consumer class action lawsuits have been filed
against the company in U.S. federal courts relating to the AWS
Matter:

     (1) Kacur v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 8:17-cv-2222 (C.D. Cal)
(asserting claims for putative national class and Ohio subclass);

     (2) Jackson v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-02021 (D. Or.)
(asserting claims for putative Oregon class);

     (3) Foskaris v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-03088 (D.
Nev.), (asserting claims for putative national class and Nevada
subclass); and

     (4) Ruderman et al. v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 8:18-cv-00022
(C.D. Cal.) (asserting claims for putative national class and
Florida, New Jersey, and New York subclasses).

Three actions were filed on December 20, 2017 (Kacur, Jackson,
Foskaris), and the fourth was filed on January 8, 2018 (Ruderman).
The plaintiffs in these cases, who purported to represent various
classes of individuals whose information was contained within the
dataset, claimed to have been harmed or to be facing harm as a
result of the exposure of their personal information.

The complaints assert claims for violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1681 et seq. and state
consumer-protection statutes, as well as claims for common-law
negligence. Additional actions alleging similar claims could be
brought in the future.

The Jackson action was dismissed with prejudice on April 30, 2018.


On February 9, 2018, the Ruderman and Kacur actions were
consolidated into a single action pending at Case No. 8:17-cv-2222
(C.D. Cal.)  

On June 5, 2018, the Foskaris action was transferred from the
District of Nevada to the Central District of California at Case
No. 8:18-cv-00963.  

On September 19, 2018, the Kacur, Ruderman, and Foskaris actions
were dismissed with prejudice.

Alteryx, Inc. operates a self-service data analytics software
platform that enables organizations to enhance business outcomes
and the productivity of their business analysts. The company also
provides technical support, instruction, and customer services.
Alteryx, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Irvine,
California.


AMERICAN HONDA: Sued Over Defective 2018 Honda Civic CVT
--------------------------------------------------------
SHERYL TENZYK; and LARRY ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
INC.; and HONDA NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-06121-JS-ARL (Nov. 1, 2018) is brought against the
Defendants' defective 2018 Honda Civic vehicles equipped with CVT
transmissions.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants' 2018
Honda Civic vehicles equipped with CVT transmissions ("Class
Vehicles") have a common defect such that the drivers are unable to
determine whether the Class Vehicles are properly placed in "Park"
before exiting the vehicles. The Class Vehicles fail to provide
notice to drivers that their Vehicle is out-of-gear, they fail to
automatically activate the Electric Parking Brake in certain
situations, such as when the driver exits the vehicle or when the
driver's door is opened, and they are prone to -- and actually do
-- unintentionally roll away, often causing crashes or injuries.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. manufactures and sells Honda
automobiles. It sells its products through automobile, motorcycle,
and power-equipment dealerships in the United States. The company
was founded in 1959 and is based in Torrance, California. American
Honda Motor Co., Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Honda Motor Co.,
Ltd. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          45 Main Street, Suite 528
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 336-0171
          Facsimile: (917) 336-0177
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          900 W. Morgan St.
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: 919-600-5000
          Facsimile: 919-600-5035
          E-mail: Dan@wbmllp.com
                  Hunter@wbmllp.com


APPLE INC: Grace Appeals N.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Christina Grace and Ken Potter filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit styled Christina Grace, et al. v.
Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-00551-LHK, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Jose.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 25, 2018, Judge
Lucy H. Koh (i) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, and (ii) denied the Plaintiffs'
motion to strike the report of Apple's technical expert.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Apple for
trespass to chattels and violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL") on Feb. 2, 2017.  Grace sought to represent
a class consisting of all owners of Apple iPhone 4 or Apple iPhone
4S devices in the United States who on April 16, 2014, had the iOS6
or earlier operating system on their iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S.  The
complaint alleged causes of action against Apple for (1) trespass
to chattels, and (2) violations of the UCL, each based on Apple's
intentional disabling of FaceTime on iOS 6 and earlier operating
systems.

Judge Koh granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  She certified the class seeking
restitution and damages for violation of the UCL and trespass to
chattels pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) defined as all owners of
non-jailbroken Apple iPhone 4 or Apple iPhone 4S devices in
California who on April 16, 2014, had iOS 6 or earlier operating
systems on their iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S devices.

The appellate case is captioned as Christina Grace, et al. v.
Apple, Inc., Case No. 18-80161, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners CHRISTINA GRACE and KEN POTTER, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are represented
by:

          Jill M. Manning, Esq.
          Donald Scott Macrae, Esq.
          Allan Steyer, Esq.
          STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
          One California Street, Third Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 421-3400
          Facsimile: (415) 421-2234
          E-mail: jmanning@steyerlaw.com
                  smacrae@steyerlaw.com
                  asteyer@steyerlaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce Lee Simon, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNEY, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
          E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel Leon Warshaw , Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON WARSHAW & PENNEY, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

Intervenor BRIGHTSTAR CORPORATION is represented by:

          Joseph M. Wahl, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 239-3741
          E-mail: Joseph.Wahl@btlaw.com

Intervenor AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., is represented by:

          James L. Day, Esq.
          FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 954-4400
          E-mail: jday@fbm.com

Defendant-Respondent APPLE, INC., is represented by:

          Jacob H. Johnston, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          555 California Street, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 439-1443
          E-mail: jacob.johnston@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Joseph Allen Loy, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4800
          E-mail: joseph.loy@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Raghav Krishnapriyan, Esq.
          Joshua H. Lerner, Esq.
          Sonal Naresh Mehta, Esq.
          DURIE TANGRI LLP
          217 Leidesdorff Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 362-6666
          E-mail: rkrishnapriyan@durietangri.com
                  jlerner@durietangri.com
                  smehta@durietangri.com


ARIZONA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Redgrave Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Marcie A. Redgrave filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Marcie Redgrave v. Doug Ducey, et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-01247-DLR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, Phoenix.

The lawsuit arises from job-related issues.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit was filed against Doug Ducey, Arizona Governor, and
others.

The appellate case is captioned as Marcie Redgrave v. Doug Ducey,
et al., Case No. 18-17150, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by December 5, 2018;

   -- Transcript is due on January 4, 2019;

   -- Appellant Marcie A. Redgrave's opening brief is due on
      February 13, 2019;

   -- Appellees Arizona Department of Economic Security, Arizona
      Division of Developmental Disabilities, Thomas J. Betlach
      and Doug Ducey's answering brief is due on March 15, 2019;
      and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant MARCIE A. REDGRAVE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq.
          Stanley Lubin, Esq.
          Kaitlyn Redfield-Ortiz, Esq.
          LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C.
          349 North Fourth Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 234-0008
          Facsimile: (602) 626-3586
          E-mail: nick@lubinandenoch.com
                  stan@lubinandenoch.com
                  kaitlyn@lubinandenoch.com

Defendants-Appellees DOUG DUCEY, Governor; ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMIC SECURITY; and ARIZONA DIVISION OF DEVELOPMENTAL
DISABILITIES are represented by:

          Mark Ogden, Esq.
          Cory G. Walker, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2425 East Camelback Road
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 474-3601
          Facsimile: (602) 957-1801
          E-mail: mogden@littler.com
                  cgwalker@littler.com

Defendant-Appellee THOMAS J. BETLACH, in his official capacity as
Director of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, is
represented by:

          Amy Jo Gittler, Esq.
          Monica Marie Ryden, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          2111 E. Highland Avenue, Suite B-250
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 714-7057
          Facsimile: (602) 714-7045
          E-mail: Amy.Gittler@jacksonlewis.com
                  Monica.Ryden@jacksonlewis.com


ATLANTIC CREDIT: Ventura Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
MAXIMA VENTURA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ATLANTIC CREDIT & FINANCE, INC.; and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Case No. 1:18-cv-10131-AT (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2018) seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect
a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Analisa Torres.

Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc. purchases and manages unsecured and
consumer-distressed assets. Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Roanoke, Virginia with
branch offices in Roanoke and Richmond, Virginia; and Phoenix,
Arizona. As of August 6, 2014, Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          CHULSKY KAPLAN LLC
          280 Prospect Avenue, Apt. 6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (877) 827-3395
          Facsimile: (877) 827-3394
          E-mail: benkap232@aol.com


ATRIUM STAFFING: Violates Disabilities Act, Says Nixon
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atrium Staffing
Services, LTD. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Atrium
Staffing Services, LTD, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06688 (E.D.
N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

Atrium Staffing Services, Ltd. operates as a staffing and
recruitment solutions company in the United States. It offers
payroll, outsourcing and independent contractor vetting, and
consulting services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AVON: Sued for Allegedly Discriminating Against Pregnant Women
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Monllos, writing for AdWeek, reports that a New York law
firm has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of two former Avon
employees alleging the beauty company practiced "systematic
discrimination" against women "based on pregnancy, maternity and
the rights of nursing mothers to pump breast milk at work." The
suit, which was filed on Nov. 13 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, takes aim at the
company's branding, specifically its claims that it's a "company
for women."

The suit alleges, "Avon distinguishes itself from mainstream
companies based on its 'passionate commitment' to empowering women"
and that "because of this branding, women spend millions on Avon
products." The suit goes on to allege that "because of this
branding, women apply to work at Avon, believing that the company
will empower them to succeed and provide women opportunities for
advancement."

"In the complaint we filed on behalf of our clients, individually
and on behalf of a proposed U.S. class of pregnant employees and a
New York class of women that were discriminated against because
they needed to pump breast milk during work hours, Avon must
account for why the company 'for women' allows such discrimination
to occur and why the male leaders of Avon insist on silencing women
through the use of forced arbitration to handle complaints rather
than the transparent court system," said Jeanne M. Christensen --
jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com -- a partner at Wigdor LLP, the law firm
handling the suit, in an emailed statement.

Wigdor filed the suit on behalf of Caroline Ruiz and
Olivera Krstanoska as well as "all other similarly situated female
employees." Both New Avon and Avon Products are named as
defendants. In March 2016, Avon spun off North American business
(now New Avon), which is controlled by the private equity firm
Cerberus Capital Management. The suit also notes that while there
are two separate entities, the company "continues to brand itself
collectively as 'Avon.'"

"The Company strongly denies claims of discrimination," said an
Avon spokesperson in an email. "It is company policy to not comment
on pending litigation. We are very proud of our reputation as 'the
company for women' and our strong and ongoing commitment to
empowering women since our founding over 130 years ago."

The spokesperson continued: "As a preeminent employer of women,
with a workforce comprised of more than two-thirds women, we
understand the particular needs working mothers have, and we are
committed to supporting them before, during, and after maternity
leave. Our dedication to women's advancement in the workplace
includes ensuring work-life balance, a comprehensive benefits
package that provides incremental women's health features, a
generous maternity leave and well-equipped mother's rooms."

The suit alleges that Ms. Ruiz, who started working for Avon in
January 2018, was made aware of alleged "performance issues" on
Feb. 2, "only one day after [Ruiz] informed Avon of her pregnancy."
The suit also details how Ruiz had recently found out her pregnancy
was "high-risk," that she could possibly miscarry and therefore
required bed rest. So, she requested to work from home—something
the suit alleges was commonplace at Avon—a request her boss
denied, according to the suit. On Feb. 5, the suit states, Ruiz
ignored her doctor's orders for bed rest and went in to the office,
only to be terminated due to "performance deficiencies."

"Avon intentionally and recklessly placed [Ruiz's] health and
pregnancy in jeopardy by compelling her to travel to the Manhattan
office on February 5, 2018, just to be terminated," the suit
states.

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Krstanoska was "subject to
discriminatory hostile working conditions and an unsafe work
environment" after she disclosed that she was pregnant.
Ms. Krstanoska, who joined Avon in January 2014 as a
microbiologist, was exposed to chemicals, the suit states, that
"posed a risk for pregnant women and that could impact
detrimentally the healthy development of the fetus."

In the suit, Ms. Krstanoska alleges that she explained to her
department supervisor and co-workers that she should "avoid
particular tasks while at work so that she could avoid these
chemicals" and that her boss insisted she "continue to work with
potentially harmful chemicals." The suit alleges that the workplace
was hostile to Ms. Krstanoska during her pregnancy, after she
returned from maternity leave, when she was breastfeeding, when she
disclosed her second pregnancy and when she requested again not to
work with chemicals that could harm her pregnancy.

The suit also alleges that Ms. Krstanoska's supervisor confronted
her in 2016 when she started documenting her hostile work
environment and "started yelling about her efforts." After
reporting the incident, Ms. Krstanoska was transferred to a
department she "had no experience in" for a position she was
"unqualified for" and was "constructively discharged" two weeks
later, according to the lawsuit.

At least one other pregnant employee who worked as a microbiology
lab technician faced similar harassment at Avon, Ms. Krstanoska
alleges in the suit.

Wigdor did not immediately respond to requests for comment. [GN]


B&D&F LLC: Nixon Brings ADA Class Action in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against B&D&F, LLC. The case
is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. B&D&F, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06685 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

B&D&F, LLC is a retail consulting and commercial brokerage firm
with offices in New York, Los Angeles, and Denver.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BALDOR SPECIALTY: Faces ADA Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baldor Specialty
Foods, Inc. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Baldor Specialty
Foods, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10928 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21,
2018).

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

Baldor Specialty Foods, Inc. distributes fresh produce and
specialty food in Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. The company
offers fruits, vegetables, organics, fresh cuts, meat and poultry,
specialty and grocery, cheese, and dairy products. It serves
restaurants, hospitals, schools, and stadiums; and corporate, food
service, wholesale, and retail customers.[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



BAT-EL AHARON: Noira Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
WALTER NOIRA, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
the Plaintiff, vs. BAT-EL AHARON INC. d/b/a TAAM TOV, and ARSEN
AHARON, the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-10625 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14,
2018), seeks unpaid minimum wage, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff claims that Defendants willfully violated Plaintiff's
and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs' rights by failing to pay the lawful
minimum wage. With respect to tipped employees, Defendants were not
entitled to claim tip credit allowance under the FLSA, because they
failed to properly provide notice to tipped employees that
Defendants were taking a tip credit, failed to provide proper wage
statements informing tipped employees of the amount of tip credit
taken for each payment period, and failed to maintain daily records
of tips on behalf of tipped employees, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39 th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212 465-1188
          Facsimile: 212 465-1181

BBVA COMPASS: Lopez Class Action Concluded Following Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the parties
in Petra Lopez and Colea Wright, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. BBVA Compass, have reached a
settlement and the matter is now concluded.

In January 2018, BBVA Compass was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Petra Lopez and Colea
Wright, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. BBVA Compass, challenging BBVA Compass' assessment of certain
overdraft fees and ATM fees. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary relief. In August 2018, the parties reached a settlement
and the matter is now concluded.

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

BBVA COMPASS: Still Defends Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
and BBVA Securities Inc. continues to defend themselves in a
putative class action suit entitled, In re Mexican Government Bonds
Antitrust Litigation.

In March 2018, the Company and  BBVA Securities Inc. (BSI) were
named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, alleging that
the defendant financial institutions engaged in collusion with
respect to the sale of Mexican government bonds. Five substantially
similar lawsuits were filed and consolidated with the original
lawsuit. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.

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

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


BEACH RESORT SERVICES: Underpays Technicians, Hernandez Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CARLOS HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEACH RESORT SERVICES, INC. d/b/a
BRS POOL SPA FOUNTAIN; and MICHAEL J FLORES, Defendants, Case No.
80126171 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., Oct. 31, 2018) seeks to
recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, minimum
wages, interest, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees,
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Hernandez was employed by the Defendants as
supervising technician.

Beach Resort Services, Inc. d/b/a BRS Pool Spa Fountain specialize
in the service of commercial swimming pools which include:
municipal, institutional, competition, leisure, activity, water
parks, therapy pools, high end residential, condominium and hotel.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          Max L. Horowitz, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com
                  mhorowitz@rgpattorneys.com


BLUE CROSS: Faces Suit over Denial of Insurance Claims
------------------------------------------------------
STEVE C.; KELLY W.; and JANE DOE; individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD
OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12278 (D.
Mass., Oct. 31, 2018) is an action against the Defendant's denial
of payment of claims for inpatient intermediate mental health
residential treatment of mental health disorders.  The lawsuit
alleges violation of the terms of the Company's insurance policies
and the self-funded medical benefits plans it administers.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. provides health
plans for individuals, families, and businesses. It offers popular
health plans, young adult health plans, Medicare plans, health
insurance resources, life and disability insurance, federal
employee plans, vision insurance plans, and dental insurance plans.
The company was formerly known as Blue Cross and changed its name
to Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. in 1988. Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. was founded in 1937
and is based in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian S. King, Esq.
          BRIAN S. KING, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          336 South 300 East, Suite 200
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-1739
          Facsimile: (801) 532-1936
          E-mail: brian@briansking.com

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN M. FEIGENBAUM
          184 High Street, Suite 503
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 357-9700
          Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
          E-mail: jonathan@erisaattorneys.com

               - and -

          Sean K. Collins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SEAN K. COLLINS
          184 High Street, Suite 503
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 320-8485
          Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
          E-mail: sean@neinsurancelaw.com


BOAT BOTTOM: Vanderbilt Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
VALERIE VANDERBILT, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff(s), vs. BOAT BOTTOM EXPRESS LIMITED
LIABIITY COMPANY, a Florida limited liability company, and JEFFREY
PEER, individually, the Defendants, Case 4:18-cv-10261-JLK (S.D.
Fla., Nov. 13, 2018), alleges Defendants have engaged in an
intentional and unlawful scheme to misclassify Plaintiff, and all
others similarly situated, as independent contractors during all
time periods pertinent to their employment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have required Plaintiff,
and similarly situated individuals, to incur additional taxation,
and in doing so, the Defendants have defrauded the federal
government. The Defendants have also deprived Plaintiff, and all
other employees similarly situated, of federal overtime
compensation during certain periods of their employment, the
lawsuit says.

BBE is a boat restoration service company based in Ramrod Key,
Florida, that has been operating in the State of Florida since
2012.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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

BUBBYS PIE: Fischler Sues Resto for ADA Breach
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bubbys Pie Co. Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bubbys Pie Co.
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10945 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21,
2018).

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

Bubbys Pie Co. Inc. is a restaurant that offers the classic
American food.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BUILDERTREND SOLUTIONS: Violates ADA, Sullivan Suit Asserts
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Buildertrend
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr. on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Buildertrend Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10880
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018).

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

BuilderTREND Solutions, Inc. develops cloud based construction
management software for homebuilders and remodelers. The company's
software, Buildertrend, offers real-time access to construction
scheduling, change orders, documents, photos, warranty management,
and homebuyer selections.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street
     2nd Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 465-1188
     Fax: (212) 465-1181
     Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


CAC FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Eaves Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
KARALEE EAVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAC FINANCIAL CORP., Defendant, Case No.
5:18-cv-01074-HE (W.D. Okla., Oct. 31, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

CAC Financial Corp. provides financial services. The Company offers
accounts receivable solutions. CAC Financial serves customers in
the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.
          43 Danbury Road, 3 rd Floor
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424


CALIFORNIA: Fails to Comply to Inmate Psychiatric Care Timeframes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that suicide rates remain "sky-high" among California prisoners
with mental illness, an attorney told a Ninth Circuit panel on Nov.
13, because the state refuses to adhere to its own timeframes for
providing them with psychiatric care.

All three judges on the panel appeared to disagree with the state's
argument that failing to comply 100 percent with timeframes ranging
between 24 hours and 30 days for transferring inmates between
levels of care doesn't amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

California contended in part that the timeframes, formalized under
court supervision in 2006 to address previous Eighth Amendment
issues, go above and beyond the amendment's minimum requirements --
so failure to comply 100 percent of the time doesn't constitute a
violation.

But the panel said the state had already been allowed to comply
less than 100 percent of the time via court-approved exceptions to
the timeframes -- such as delays associated with medical or legal
issues -- and that the state itself had deemed any delays outside
those exceptions a constitutional violation.

"[I]t was concluded with the state's acquiescence that 24 hours was
essentially necessary to cure the Eighth Amendment violation that
was occurring," U.S. Circuit Judge Paul Watford told
Kevin Voth, the state's attorney, on Nov. 13.

"As of at least 2017, some substantial number of inmates was taking
longer than that, so you were all not in compliance with what the
program guide spelled out," Watford continued. "And what was the
district court supposed to do other than say, ‘Look, you need to
comply with this, I'm serious, we're not playing games here. I
recognize that there are going to be situations outside the state's
control and we'll work on developing those exceptions, but in all
other cases, you do have to do it within 24 hours.' I don't see
what's wrong with that."

Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder agreed.

"Are you arguing that the court should have said you only have to
comply 90 percent? Because that seems rather arbitrary," she said.
"It would seem sensible to say, comply with it, and then if there
are instances in which there's not compliance, there could be, of
course, discussion for whether there should be some kind of
sanction."

When Judge Voth countered there must be a "current and existing
constitutional violation" to grant relief under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, Senior U.S. District Judge Edward Korman
replied, "And they found that."

Judge Korman is sitting by designation from the Eastern District of
New York.

The case stretches back to 1990, when prisoner Ralph Coleman filed
a federal class action on behalf of prisoners with serious mental
illness over California's failure to provide timely psychiatric
care, according to court documents.

Finding "delays everywhere" exacerbating "illness and patient
suffering" in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the trial court in
1995 appointed a special master to help the state fix the
violation, according to the class.

In 2006, the court formally approved a revised plan requiring that
prisoners in psychiatric crisis be hospitalized within 24 hours.
Transfers to acute inpatient care must be completed within 10 days
of a clinician's referral, and to longer-term inpatient care within
30 days.

But the delays continued. In March 2017, U.S. District Court Judge
Kimberly Mueller of Sacramento found the delays were resulting in
patients being held in settings unequipped to provide the emergency
care required to stabilize them, according to the class.

The following month, Judge Mueller ordered the state to attain 100
percent compliance with transfer timeframes.

Class counsel Lisa Ells -- lells@rbgg.com -- countered on Nov. 13
that, despite what the state's attorneys say, Judge Mueller didn't
"suddenly" require California to achieve perfect compliance with
its transfer timeframes the state has been under court order to
comply for more than a decade.

Ms. Ells, who is with Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, described the
effect of the delays on prisoners on Nov. 13.

Suicide rates "remained sky-high, far above the national average,"
according to a 2017 report by the California State Auditor, Ms.
Ells said, because the state failed to implement its own
suicide-prevention policies.

A suicide prevention expert's report that same year found prisoners
were still being housed in "horrendous, outrageous settings" while
awaiting crisis care, Ells added.

"There were people strapped to gurneys for three days, who were
suicidal, who urinated all over themselves because they were
waiting for crisis care. There were people not observed -- as they
were required to be by defendants' policies -- who killed
themselves," she said.

"Defendants like to say those are outlier examples in 2017," she
said. "The suicide prevention expert found 40 percent of the
institutions he reviewed were not compliant with their suicide
prevention policies. That's not an outlier."

The panel did not indicate when it will rule.


CANNAE HOLDINGS: Otis Suit Remains Stayed Amid Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------
Cannae Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the case, Otis v.
O'Charley's, LLC, remains stayed pending the completion of
arbitration proceedings, which have not yet commenced.

Cannae Holdings said, "O'Charley's is the defendant in a lawsuit,
Otis v. O'Charley's, LLC, filed on July 13, 2016, in U.S. District
Court, Central District of Illinois. The lawsuit purports to bring
a national class action on behalf of all O'Charley's servers and
bartenders under the Fair Labor Standards Act and similar state
laws.

The complaint alleges that O'Charley's failed to pay plaintiffs the
applicable minimum wage and overtime by requiring tipped employees
to: (a) spend more than twenty percent of their time performing
non-tipped duties, including dishwashing, food preparation,
cleaning, maintenance, and other "back of the house" duties; and
(b) perform "off the clock" work. Plaintiffs seek damages and
declaratory relief.

The named plaintiffs and members of the putative class are parties
to employment agreements with O'Charley's that provide, inter alia,
for individual arbitration of potential claims and disputes.

On October 25, 2016, the District Court entered an Order staying
all proceedings in the Otis case pending the United States Supreme
Court's resolution of certain petitions for certiorari filed in
several Circuit Courts of Appeals cases that address the issue of
whether agreements between employers and employees to arbitrate
disputes on an individual basis are enforceable under the Federal
Arbitration Act. The Order provides that, if certiorari is granted
in any of the Circuit Courts of Appeals cases, the stay of the Otis
case will continue until the Supreme Court reaches a final decision
on the merits in the cases.

On January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in three
of the Circuit Courts of Appeals cases that address the
enforceability of arbitration agreements. On May 21, 2018, the
Supreme Court ruled on the issue, holding that class-action waivers
in employment arbitration agreements are enforceable.

The District Court has continued the stay pending the completion of
such arbitration proceedings, which have not yet commenced.

Cannae Holdings, Inc. engages in the restaurant business. It owns
and operates the O'Charley's, Ninety Nine, Village Inn, and Bakers
Square restaurants; and food service concepts, as well as its
Legendary Baking bakery. The company offers a range of services and
software to employers, such as payroll, payroll related tax filing,
human resource information systems, employee self-service, time and
labor management, employee assistance and work-life programs, and
recruitment and applicant screening. Cannae Holdings, Inc. was
incorporated in 2017 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Faces 50 Opioid-Related Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company is
facing 50 opioid-related class action suits.

Pharmaceutical wholesale distributors, including the company, have
been named as defendants in over 1,000 lawsuits relating to the
distribution of prescription opioid pain medications. These
lawsuits have been filed in various federal, state, and other
courts by a variety of plaintiffs, primarily counties,
municipalities and other political subdivisions from 48 states.

Plaintiffs also include state attorneys general, unions and other
health and welfare funds, hospital systems and other healthcare
providers. Of these lawsuits, 50 are purported class actions.

The lawsuits seek equitable relief and monetary damages based on a
variety of legal theories including various common law claims, such
as negligence, public nuisance, unjust enrichment as well as
violations of controlled substance laws and various other statutes.
Many also name pharmaceutical manufacturers, retail pharmacy chains
and other entities as defendants.

The vast majority of these lawsuits were filed in U.S. federal
court and have been transferred for consolidated pre-trial
proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation proceeding in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The court,
among other things, ordered that three lawsuits be set for trial in
2019. In connection with these proceedings, distributors have
engaged in preliminary discussions with various parties, including
state attorneys general, regarding possible resolution structures.

In addition, 39 state attorneys general have formed a multi-state
task force to investigate the manufacturing, distribution,
dispensing and prescribing practices of opioid medications.

Cardinal Health said, "We have received requests related to this
multi-state investigation, as well as civil investigative demands,
subpoenas or requests for information from these and other state
attorneys general offices. We are cooperating with the offices
conducting these investigations. We are vigorously defending
ourselves in all of these opioid matters. Given the uncertainty
surrounding these lawsuits and investigations and their early
stages, we are unable to predict their outcome or estimate a range
of reasonably possible losses."

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. Cardinal Health, Inc. was founded in 1979 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ohio.

CATHOLIC CHURCH: 6 Americans File Sexual Abuse Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corky Siemaszko, writing for NBC News, reports that six men who
claim they were sexually abused as children by members of the Roman
Catholic clergy have filed a class-action lawsuit against the
Vatican and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Claiming to be victims of "endemic, systematic, rampant and
pervasive rape and sexual abuse," the six say in a lawsuit filed on
Nov. 13 at U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., that the Church
protected their alleged abusers and "took extraordinary measures to
conceal their wrongful conduct."

Instead of going to bat for the victims, the Church "robbed them of
their childhood, youth, innocence, virginity, families, jobs,
finances, assets -- in short, their lives," the suit states.

The victims were all minors when the alleged abuse happened and
lived in Iowa, Mississippi, Illinois, California, Pennsylvania and
New Jersey when it happened, according to the court papers.

The lawsuit was filed by attorneys Mitchell Toups, Richard Coffman,
Joe Whatley Jr. and Henry Quillen, all veteran litigators who have
handled class action lawsuits for other clerical sexual abuse
victims.

Both the Conference and The Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy
See to the United Nations did not return requests for comment from
NBC News. [GN]


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Philadelphia Man Joins Sexual Abuse Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Philadelphia man who alleges he was sexually abused by a priest
while he attended Roman Catholic High School back in 1969 has
joined a class-action lawsuit against the nation's Catholic bishops
and the Vatican, KYW Newsradio's Mark Abrams reports. [GN]


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Westmont Resident Joins Sexual Abuse Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Dave Sutor, writing for The Tribune-Democrat, reports that a
Westmont resident is one of six named plaintiffs in a federal class
action civil suit filed on Nov. 13 against the U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops and the Holy See.

Shaun Dougherty, an alleged victim of childhood sexual abuse at the
hands of a priest within the Roman Catholic Diocese of
Altoona-Johnstown, has joined the lawsuit that is about the alleged
"endemic, systemic, rampant, and pervasive rape and sexual abuse of
Plaintiffs and Class Members" perpetrated by cardinals, bishops,
monsignors, priests, sisters, lay leaders and members of church
orders, according to the document, obtained late on Nov. 13 by The
Tribune-Democrat.

Plaintiffs also argue that the alleged abuse and coverup
constitutes a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
case, because multiple alleged violations involved the federal mail
and wire fraud.

In the case, which was brought in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, the Holy See is identified in its capacity as
a foreign state -- Vatican City -- and as an unincorporated
association and head of an international religious organization.

There are 14 counts, including conspiracy, assault, gross
negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiffs are seeking actual, consequential, compensatory,
economic, punitive and RICO treble damages, along with declaratory
and injunctive relief and legal fees.

"I've waited my entire adult life to do something like this," said
Mr. Dougherty, who is one of more than 100 class members in the
suit. "This is something that I never thought I'd get the
opportunity to do."

In 2016, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General released a
report providing details of an alleged decades-long coverup by the
Altoona-Johnstown Diocese to protect predator priests. Dougherty
believes his abuse was mentioned in that report, albeit with a
redacted name. Since then, he has been an outspoken advocate for
victims, talking to countless news outlets.

Mr. Dougherty said participating in the class action suit "was
offered to me through an associate that I know, through an advocate
that I know, that I've met over the last couple years because of
the publicity and things that I've been getting. It was brought to
my attention."

The action was filed late in the afternoon, according to Dougherty,
who passed along the information to The Tribune-Democrat around 9
p.m.

No effort could be made to reach the defendants before press time.
[GN]


CENTRAL CREDIT: Biston Files FDCPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Credit
Services LLC. The case is styled as Zalman Biston on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Central
Credit Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10931 (S.D. N.Y.,
Nov. 21, 2018).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (929) 575-4175
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: dan@cml.legal


CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Bid to Drop City of Livonia Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the motion
to dismiss filed in City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v.
Chemical Financial Corporation, et. al., Docket No. 1:16-cv-12229,
is pending.

On June 16, 2016, the same putative class plaintiff that filed the
City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Chemical Financial
Corporation et. al., Case No. 2016-151641-CB. state court action
filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, styled City of Livonia Employees'
Retirement System v. Chemical Financial Corporation, et. al.,
Docket No. 1:16-cv-12229. The plaintiff purports to bring this
action "individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated," and requests certification as a class action.

The Complaint alleges violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges, among other things,
that the Defendants issued materially incomplete and misleading
disclosures in the Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to the
proposed merger. The Complaint contains requests for relief that
include, among other things, that the Court enjoin the proposed
transaction unless and until additional information is provided to
Talmer Bancorp, Inc.'s (Talmer's) shareholders, declare that the
Defendants violated the securities laws in connection with the
proposed merger, award compensatory damages, interest, attorneys'
and experts' fees, and that the Court grant such other relief as it
deems just and proper.

Talmer, the Corporation, and the individual defendants all believe
that the claims asserted against each of them in this lawsuit are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.


On October 18, 2016, the Federal Court entered a stipulated order
staying this action until the Oakland County Circuit Court issues
rulings on motions for summary disposition In re Talmer Bancorp
Shareholder Litigation, case number 2016-151641-CB. Following the
Oakland County Circuit Court's denial of the Motions by KBW and the
individual defendants and their ensuing application for leave to
appeal that ruling, the Federal Court issued an order extending the
stay of this action.

On November 13, 2017, the Federal Court issued an Order Directing
Plaintiff To Show Cause Why The Stay Should Not Be Lifted. On June
29, 2018, the Court issued an Order Lifting Stay. The plaintiff
filed an amended complaint on July 27, 2018. In response to the
amended complaint, the Defendants filed a Motion To Dismiss on
August 24, 2018. A ruling on the Defendant's motion is awaited.

Chemical Financial Corporation operates as a financial holding
company of Chemical Bank that offers banking and fiduciary products
and services to residents and business customers. Chemical
Financial Corporation was founded in 1917 and is headquartered in
Detroit, Michigan.


COMMERCE BACSHARES: Sullivan Files Suit in S.D.N.Y. Under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Commerce Bacshares,
Inc. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr. on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Commerce
Bacshares, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10881 (S.D. N.Y., Nov.
20, 2018).

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

Commerce Bancshares, Inc. operates as the holding company for
Commerce Bank that provides retail, mortgage banking, corporate,
investment, trust, and asset management products and services to
individuals and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street
     2nd Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 465-1188
     Fax: (212) 465-1181
     Email: cklee@leelitigation.com



CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Can't Compel Arbitration in Motley TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied ContextLogic's motion to compel
arbitration in the case, SHARON MOTLEY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONTEXTLOGIC, INC.,
d/b/a Wish.com, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02117-JD (N.D. Cal.).

In the putative class action, Motley alleges that the Defendant
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending
unsolicited SMS text messages to her cell phone.  

ContextLogic operates e-commerce websites including Wish.com, which
appears to specialize in a bargain hunting experience for shoppers.
Motley registered as a Wish.com user in January 2017.
ContextLogic does not contend that the January 2017 interaction
created an agreement to arbitrate.  Instead, it focuses on a log-in
screen Motley used in September 2017 to provide an email address
and password.  ContextLogic also relies on an "Order History"
screen that Motley accessed in October 2017.  This screen included
a box for a user to check if she wanted to receive SMS updates
about my delivery status and deals sent to phone number.  As a
final element, ContextLogic refers to other log-in screens that it
says Motley accessed in March 2018.

The parties agree that Wish.com's terms of service contain a clause
providing for arbitration of disputes with a class-action waiver,
and a choice of law provision designating California law.  They
also agree that the Federal Arbitration Act governs ContextLogic's
motion to compel.  The main bone of contention is whether the
parties formed an agreement to arbitrate their disputes.

Judge Donato finds that an agreement to arbitrate cannot be found
on the record.  ContextLogic suggests that making the terms of
service accessible via a conspicuous hyperlink, without more, was
enough to create an agreement.  This theory has been definitively
rejected in the circuit.  In the absence of evidence demonstrating
actual or constructive notice and acceptance of the arbitration
clause by Motley, ContextLogic's motion must be denied.

ContextLogic also puts substantial emphasis on the fact that the
"Order History" screens featured a box asking if the user would
like to receive text messages from Wish.com.  In its view, the
imperative mood of the screen language and the presence of the
hyperlink were enough to put Motley on notice that she was subject
to the terms of service.  That again, according to the Judge, goes
too far.  The "Order History" screen is substantively
indistinguishable from the log-in screen, and so faces the same
fate under Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.  If anything, it is even
less susceptible to binding Motley to the terms of service because
"here" is not referring to the terms of service.

Finally, the parties dispute whether Motley in fact checked the box
to accept text messages, but that is of no moment for the
arbitration motion.  If the evidence ultimately shows that Motley
agreed to receive the messages, a good argument might be made that
she is not well-positioned to bring a TCPA claim.  That question,
however, is not germane to the issue of whether she agreed to
arbitration.  Even assuming purely for discussion that she did
check the box, it would not establish a meeting of the minds on the
arbitration clause.

For these reasons, Judge Donato denied ContextLogic's motion to
compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/OG3AYX from Leagle.com.

Sharon Motley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David William Hall, Hedin Hall
LLP & Frank S. Hedin -- fhedin@hedinhall.com -- Hedin Hall LLP.

Contextlogic,Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Jacobson --
jjacobson@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Lauri Anne
Mazzuchetti -- lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye Warren
LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah E. Diamond -- sdiamond@kelleydrye.com --
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP & Steven Spencer Elg --
selg@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, pro hac vice.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement in Backer Law's Suit Has Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THE BACKER LAW FIRM, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:15-CV-00327-SRB (W.D. Mo.),
Judge Stephen R. Bough of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri granted the Plaintiff's (i) Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and (ii) Motion for Award of
Attorney Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Incentive Award.

The Parties entered into a September 2018 Settlement Agreement.
The Court entered a Sept. 19, 2018 Order preliminarily ordering
notice to potential class members, scheduling a Final Approval
Hearing and providing those persons identified as members of the
class with an opportunity either to exclude themselves from the
settlement class or to object to the proposed settlement.  It held
a Final Approval Hearing on Nov. 13, 2018.

Judge Bough contemporaneously issued a Final Judgment that granted
final certification of the settlement class and approved the
proposed settlement.  He finally certified for settlement purposes
a class consisting of all persons or entities appearing in the List
of Class Members to whom Defendant sent one or more facsimiles
promoting its products, services, or memberships between April 2,
2011 and April 2, 2015.

For the reasons stated in the Plaintiff's motion and suggestions in
support of final settlement approval, the terms and provisions of
the Settlement have been entered into in good faith and are fully
and finally approved as fair, reasonable and adequate.  The parties
and the administrator are directed to administer the plan of
allocation in accordance with its terms and provisions.

The Judge awarded the Class Counsel $99,726.67 in attorneys' fees
and $16,584.23 in reimbursed costs, for a total of $116,310.90; and
an incentive award in the amount of $5,000 paid to Plaintiff The
Backer Law Firm, LLC, which will all be distributed from the Gross
Settlement Amount in the manner specified in the Settlement.

The Judge is contemporaneously entering the Final Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Judgment and Order is
available at https://is.gd/b02qao from Leagle.com.

The Backer Law Firm, on behalf of itself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Aristotle N. Rodopoulos --
ari@woodlaw.com -- Wood Law Firm LLC & Noah K. Wood --
noah@woodlaw.com.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, Defendant, represented by Rebecca J.
Schwartz -- rschwartz@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP & Todd
W. Ruskamp -- truskamp@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP.


DEMAND PROGRESS: Robinson Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
FREDERICK ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DEMAND PROGRESS ACTION,
INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the
Defendant, Case 2:18-cv-09563 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2018), seeks
damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently,
knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, and related regulations, thereby invading
Plaintiff' privacy and causing him to incur unnecessary and
unwanted expenses.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around July of 2018,
the Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's home telephone
number ending in -6241, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to
purchase Defendant's services. Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1)
to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The
Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from
telephone number (888) 250- 3780, confirmed to belong to Defendant.
Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency
purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Defendant's
calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a cellular
telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming
calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1), the lawsuit says.

Demand Progress Action operates as a non-profit organization. The
Organization focus on issues of civil liberties, civil rights, and
government reform.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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



DITECH FINANCIAL: Can Compel Arbitration in Kincaid Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LESIA KINCAID, Plaintiff, v. DITECH FINANCIAL LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:18-CV-85 (N.D. W.Va.), Judge John
Preston Bailey of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of West Virginia in Elkins granted Ditech's Motion to Compel
Arbitration and to Dismiss Action, filed on Oct. 2, 2018.

Kincaid filed a Class Action Complaint against the Defendant,
alleging violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and
Protection Act.  She alleges that Ditech, while attempting to
collect on a debt, used fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading
language in its letters to individual.  The Plaintiff alleges that
Ditech's letter stated the creditor "will not sue you" for the debt
owed, instead of the required "cannot sue you" language.  Ditech
moved to compel the case to arbitration based on an arbitration
provision in a contract the Plaintiff entered into for the purchase
of a manufactured home.  

In 1999, the Plaintiff entered into a contract titled as "Retail
Installment Contract, Security Agreement, Waive f Trial by Jury and
Agreement to Arbitration or Reference or Trial by Judge Alone" with
Carrico Mobile Homes, Inc. to purchase a manufactured home.
Greenpoint Credit Corp. financed the Plaintiff's purchase.

In 2004, Greenpoint assigned its loan servicing rights to certain
loans to Green Tree Servicing, LLC, now as Ditech, the Defendant in
the case.  One of the servicing agreements now assigned to Ditech
was the Plaintiff's.  The Plaintiff's loan which was previously
serviced by Greenpoint is now serviced by Ditech.  

In collection for a debt owed on the loan, the Plaintiff alleges
Ditech violated the law.  She filed her claim as a Class Action
Complaint to represent a class of multiple unnamed and unknown
other people who have been sent letters by Ditech that also contain
the "will not sue you" language.  

Ditech points to the Contract, which Ditech argues requires this
dispute to be handled by arbitration.  Most relevant to the instant
dispute, the Contract contains a section titled "Arbitration of
Disputes and Waiver of Jury Trial."  Ditech filed the instant
motion to compel arbitration, arguing that these provisions require
arbitration for the case.  The Plaintiff argues that the provisions
do not require arbitration of the instant claims.

Judge Bailey finds that the Contract reads that any controversy
concerning whether an issue is arbitrable will be determined by the
arbitrator(s).  Determining whether arbitration is required or not
depends on whether the case constitutes (1) a single claimant or
(2) multiple persons asserting claims from separate transactions.
Since it cannot be determined whether arbitration is required
without determining that threshold issue and the Contract clearly
delegates that determination to an arbitrator, the case will be
referred to arbitration.

Delegation provisions that move the threshold decisions of
arbitrability from the judicial system and into the arbitration
arena are enforceable.  Therefore, the Judhe holds that the case
will be referred to arbitration because (1) there is a question of
whether this case constitutes a single claimant case or if it is
class of multiple cases and separate transactions; (2) the Contract
provides that questions of arbitrability are to be determined by
the arbitrator; and (3) the Contract refers to the AAA.  The
arbitrator is required in order to determine how the case will be
categorized and, once that determination is made, whether the case
should be handled in arbitration or in the Court.

Based on this, Judge Bailey granted Ditech's Motion to Compel
Arbitration and to Dismiss Action.  He stayed the matter pending
arbitration.  The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of the Order
to all the counsel of record.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/IixZyD from Leagle.com.

Lesia Kincaid, Plaintiff, represented by Steven R. Broadwater, Jr.,
Hamilton Burgess Young & Pollard, PLLC.

Ditech Financial LLC, Defendant, represented by John C. Lynch --
john.lynch@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP & Jason E. Manning
-- jason.manning@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP.


DOUBLE DOWN: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in Benson Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADRIENNE BENSON AND MARY SIMONSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DOUBLE DOWN
INTERACTIVE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, and
INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, a Nevada corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00525-RBL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ronald B. Leighton
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Tacoma, denied the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration.

The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Double Down on April
17, 2018, alleging that Double Down Casino constitutes illegal
gambling in violation of RCW Section 4.24.070.  Double Down Casino
is a game available as a computer or mobile app and allows users to
play gambling games with virtual "chips" that may be purchased in
the app after users run out of the initial free allotment.  Despite
the fact that these chips cannot be redeemed for actual money, the
Plaintiffs allege that they are nonetheless valuable because they
can be used to continue playing.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs allege
that Double Down's game amounts to gambling as defined by statute
and that they are entitled to recover the money they lost playing.


Benson played Double Down Casino on Facebook.  Simonson played
Double Down Casino by downloading it as an iPhone app.  The matter
is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Compel
Arbitration.  The underlying dispute is a class action to recover
money lost playing electronic gambling games available through
different platforms, including Facebook and iPhone.  Hyperlinks to
Double Down's Terms of Use, which include an arbitration provision,
exist at various points from when a user initially accesses the
game through the gameplay experience.

Double Down argues that these hyperlinks are sufficiently
conspicuous to put a reasonable user on inquiry notice that playing
the Double Down Casino game entails agreeing to the Terms of Use.
Benson and Simonson respond that they were never bound by Double
Down's Terms because the hyperlinks were either hidden at the
bottom of the window or obscured from view.  Furthermore, they
argue that none of the hyperlinks were coupled with a notification
alerting a user that they were entering a binding contract.

Judge Leighton finds that if there is no actual notice, a
browsewrap agreement must at least provide a conspicuous link with
some accompanying notification alerting a user that they are
entering into a contract.  In the case, Double Down has not met
these requirements for inquiry notice.  Neither the initial link on
Facebook nor on the mobile app, is coupled with a notification
informing a user that downloading or playing Double Down Casino
creates a binding agreement.  The hyperlinks within the game itself
also do not put a user on inquiry notice.  The notification does
not identify any action by the user that would manifest assent, nor
does the reference to "Terms of Service" in the notification even
match the "Terms of Use" hyperlink above it.

Finally, the Judge finds that the case that Double Down cites in
support of his proposition that the "Apple Media Terms and
Conditions," somehow bound Simonson to Double Down's Terms did not
involve browsewrap and focused on a contract between a user and the
owner of the app store (Google), not a user and an app developer.
In any case, the issue in the case is not whether a contract of
some nature was created when Simonson downloaded the app, but
rather whether Simonson agreed to be bound by Double Down's Term of
Use.  In light of the foregoing, he concludes Simonson did not.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Leighton denied Double Down's
Motion to Compel Arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ANriUh from Leagle.com.

Adrienne Benson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Mary Simonson, Plaintiffs, represented by Cecily C.
Shiel -- cshiel@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Janissa Ann
Strabuk -- jstrabuk@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Benjamin
H. Richman -- brichman@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice,
Eve-Lynn Rapp -- erapp@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, J.
Eli Wade-Scott -- ewadescott@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac
vice, Rafey S. Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC,
pro hac vice & Todd Logan -- tlogan@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro
hac vice.

Double Down Interactive, LLC, a Washington limited liability
company, Defendant, represented by Cyrus E. Ansari --
cyrusansari@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, Jaime Drozd Allen --
jaimeallen@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE & Stuart R. Dunwoody --
stuartdunwoody@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.

International Game Technology, a Nevada corporation, Defendant,
represented by Adam T. Pankratz -- adam.pankratz@ogletree.com --
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, Bonnie Lau --
bonnie.lau@dentons.com -- DENTONS US LLP, pro hac vice & William M.
Gantz -- bill.gantz@dentons.com -- DENTONS US LLP, pro hac vice.


ECO SCIENCE: Glancy Prongay to Lead in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT STIRES, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ECO SCIENCE SOLUTIONS,
INC.; JEFFREY TAYLOR; and DON LEE TAYLOR, Defendants, DAVID
PENHOLLOW, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ECO SCIENCE SOLUTIONS, INC.; JEFFREY
TAYLOR; and DON LEE TAYLOR, Defendants, JIAXIN LU, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ECO
SCIENCE SOLUTIONS, INC.; JEFFREY TAYLOR; DON LEE TAYLOR; and GANNON
GIGUIERE, Defendants, Civil Nos. 17-3707 (RMB/KMW), 17-3760
(RMB/KMW), 17-5161 (RMB/KMW) (D. N.J.), Judge Renee Marie Bumb of
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden
Vicinage, granted Lead Plaintiff Richard Roschke's motion to
approve his selection of Glancy, Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") as
the lead counsel with Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody &
Agnello, P.C., as the liaison counsel for the proposed class.

On Feb. 14, 2018, the Court consolidated the three captioned class
action lawsuits, brought on behalf of individuals and entities that
acquired Eco Science Solutions securities between Dec. 2, 2016 and
May 19, 2017 against Eco Science and the individual Defendants.

In the same Feb. 14, 2018 Order and Opinion, the Court granted
Roschke's motion to be appointed the Lead Plaintiff, but reserved
its decision on the appointment of the lead counsel for the
putative class pending additional briefing from Roschke regarding
the reasonableness of his selected counsel.  On March 2, 2018,
Roschke filed supplemental briefing addressing the issue.

Judge Bumb has reviewed the resumes of both law firms retained by
Roschke and finds that both firms have considerable experience and
expertise in securities litigation.  Roschke's supplemental brief
states that GPM retained Carella as the liaison counsel, among
other reasons, for assistance on navigation of the New Jersey court
system, generally.  The supplemental brief further explains that
GPM will rely upon Carella for advice on local rules within the
District of New Jersey and to file documents.  Given the described
division of labor, the Judge finds that the anticipated
relationship between the lead and the liaison counsel is
appropriate.

After reviewing the supplemental briefing and Roschke's
declaration, the Judge is satisfied that the Lead Plaintiff's
choices were the result of a good faith selection and negotiation
process and were arrived at via meaningful arms-length bargaining.


Accordingly, she granted Roschke's motion to appoint GPM and
Carella as the lead and the liaison counsel, respectively.  An
accompanying Order will issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/x5fZ1F from Leagle.com.

Robert Faucheux, Movant, represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA.

Richard Roschke, Movant, represented by DONALD A. ECKLUND --
DEcklund@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY
& AGNELLO, P.C.
  
Suzanne Rice, Juzo Mizuno, Fred Torbaty, Ken Shollmier & Steven
Glogowski, Movants, represented by JENNIFER SARNELLI --
jsarnelli@gardylaw.com -- GARDY & NOTIS, LLP & JAMES STUART NOTIS
-- jnotis@gardylaw.com -- GARDY & NOTIS.

ROBERT STIRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN, THE ROSEN
LAW FIRM, PA.

DAVID PENHOLLOW, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by BRUCE DANIEL
GREENBERG -- bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG,
LLC.

JIAXIN LU, INDIVIDUALY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by JAMES E. CECCHI --
JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY &
AGNELLO, P.C..


ENERGEN CORP: Faces Diamondback & Sidewinder-Merger Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Energen Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has
been named as defendant in two purported class action suits in
relation to its merger with Diamondback and Sidewinder Merger Sub
Inc.

On August 14, 2018, Energen Corporation  entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement) with Diamondback and
Sidewinder Merger Sub Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Diamondback (Merger Sub).

In connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby, two purported class action lawsuits and an
individual lawsuit have been filed. Two of the complaints,
captioned Melvin Gross v. Energen Corporation, et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-01711-RDP (filed October 17, 2018) and Shiva Stein v.
Energen Corporation, et al., Case 2:18-cv-01746-JHE (filed October
22, 2018), were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama.

One complaint, captioned Jordan Rosenblatt v. Energen Corporation,
et al., Case No. 01-CV-2018-9043232100 (filed October 26, 2018),
was filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama.

The complaints assert claims against Energen and its directors. In
general, the complaints allege that the defendants violated
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because the joint
proxy statement/prospectus with respect to the Merger filed with
the SEC allegedly misrepresents or omits material information or
assert state law breaches of fiduciary duty based on such alleged
misrepresentations or omissions.

The complaints generally seek, among other things, injunctive
relief preventing the consummation of the Merger, rescission in the
event the Merger is consummated, and damages.

Energen said, "The defendants believe that the actions are without
merit."

Energen Corporation, through its subsidiary, Energen Resources
Corporation, engages in the exploration, development, and
production of oil, natural gas liquids, and natural gas. The
company has operations within the Midland Basin, the Delaware
Basin, and the Central Basin Platform areas of the Permian Basin in
west Texas and New Mexico. The company was founded in 1929 and is
headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama.


ET PUBLISHING: Underpays Art Directors, Norte Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
FIDEL NORTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ET PUBLISHING INTERNATIONAL, LLC, DEFENDANT,
Case No. 80115161 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., Oct. 31, 2018) seeks
to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, minimum
wages, interest, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees,
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Norte was employed by the Defendant as art director
for the production department from May 16, 2005 to May 4, 2018.

ET Publishing International, LLC, doing business as Televisa
Publishing, operates as a publishing company. The Company provides
printing of periodicals and magazines. Televisa Publishing serves
customers in the State of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          Max L. Horowitz, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com
                  mhorowitz@rgpattorneys.com


FCNH INC: 10th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Nesbitt FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RHONDA NESBITT, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FCNH, INC.;
VIRGINIA MASSAGE THERAPY, INC.; MID-ATLANTIC MASSAGE THERAPY, INC.;
STEINER EDUCATION GROUP, INC.; STEINER LEISURE LTD.; SEG CORT LLC,
d/b/a Steiner Education Group, Defendants-Appellees, and NATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION AND ECONOMICS/BUSINESS PROFESSORS
(WILLIAM H. KAEMPFER, NADELLE GROSSMAN, PAULA COLE, and MIRIAM
CHERRY), Amici Curiae, Case No. 17-1084 (10th Cir.), Judge Paul
Joseph Kelly, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting summary
judgment in favor of the Defendants.

Plaintiff Nesbitt is a former massage therapy student who attended
a for-profit vocational school operated by the Defendants-Appellees
("Steiner").  Ms. Nesbitt, on behalf of a class of former students,
brought suit claiming the students qualified as employees of
Steiner under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and alleging
that Steiner violated the FLSA by failing to pay minimum wage.

Steiner operated for-profit vocational schools in multiple states.
Its schools' curriculum included classroom and clinical education
required for one to become licensed as a massage therapist.  The
clinical component included approximately 100, 50-minute massages,
which counted toward the minimum clinical hours necessary for
students to acquire their state licenses.  The massages were
performed at Steiner facilities on members of the public, who paid
discounted rates for the massages.  Ms. Nesbitt alleges Steiner
profited from the clinics with the students as free labor.

Rhonda Nesbitt brought her class-action suit under the FLSA in the
District of Colorado on April 7, 2014.  Steiner moved to compel
arbitration of the claims and to prohibit litigation of the issues
as a class.  The district court denied that motion, and the Court
affirmed.

On remand, the district court addressed the issue of whether Ms.
Nesbitt and the students she seeks to represent qualified as
employees under the FLSA.  The district court found they did not.
The district court determined that the six factors announced in
Reich v. Parker Fire Protection District, when considered in their
totality, resulted in a finding that the students were not
employees of Steiner.

The district court came to that conclusion because (1) the students
received vocational training from Steiner, (2) the training
primarily benefited the students because they were required to
complete hours of clinical time for their licenses, (3) the
students did not displace regular employees and worked under
supervision of Steiner instructors, (4) there was no genuine issue
of material fact regarding the profit Steiner made from operating
its schools, (5) the students were not entitled to employment upon
completion of their training, and (6) the students and Steiner both
understood that the students were not entitled to wages during
their time spent training.  Accordingly, the district court granted
summary judgment in favor of Steiner on the question of Ms.
Nesbitt's FLSA claim.  The appeal followed.

On appeal, Ms. Nesbitt first argues that the district court erred
when it applied Reich v. Parker Fire Protection District as the
governing framework, contending that the court should have applied
the test in Marshall v. Regis Educational Corp, where the court
held, after looking at the totality of the circumstances, that
student resident hall assistants working for a college were not
employees under the FLSA.

Judge Kelly finds that Regis Educational Corp. is merely another
application of the totality of the circumstances test first
articulated in Walling v. Portland Terminal Co. and later relied
upon in Reich to examine the economic reality of the relationship
between the entity providing training and the plaintiffs.

Ms. Nesbitt next invites the Court to apply the "primary
beneficiary" test set forth by the Second Circuit in Glatt v. Fox
Searchlight Pictures, Inc., a case involving unpaid college
interns, not a mandatory clinical training program leading to a
state-licensed profession.  The Judge sees no need to do so given
the breadth of the test, which relies on the totality of the
circumstances and accounts for the economic reality of the
situation.

Finally, Ms. Nesbitt argues that even if Reich is the correct test,
the district court erred in its application of the Reich factors
and its assessment of the totality of the circumstances.  The Judge
finds that the presence of some supervision when combined with the
other factors weighs in favor of finding that the students were
trainees.  Moreover, there is no need for each and every one of the
six factors to point toward the same outcome.  He also finds that
the hours students spent performing massages as part of their
Steiner curriculum allowed them to advance toward their minimum
licensing requirements and provided them an obvious benefit.  The
other factors also weigh in favor of finding that the students were
trainees, not employees.

Given that background, the Judge holds there can be no doubt the
students understood they were entering an educational program that
would not entitle them to wages.  For the foregoing reasons, he
finds that the district court did not err when it found that Ms.
Nesbitt and the students she seeks to represent are not employees
of Steiner under the FLSA.  Accoringly, he affirmed.  The motion of
the National Employment Lawyers Association et al. for leave to
file a brief as amici curiae is granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/23TsLs from Leagle.com.

David H. Miller David H. Miller -- dmiller@sawayalaw.com -- (and
Adam Harrison of Sawaya & Miller Law Firm, on the briefs), Denver,
Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Todd Wozniak David H. Miller -- dmiller@sawayalaw.com -- Sawaya Law
Firm of Greenberg, Traurig, L.L.P., Atlanta, Georgia (and Jeffrey
M. Lippa -- LippaJ@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg, Traurig, L.L.P.,
Denver, Colorado, with him on the brief), for
Defendants-Appellees.

Scott A. Moss -- mosslawpractice@gmail.com -- of Moss Law Practice,
and Hunter A. Swain -- kg@kinggreisen.com -- of King & Greisen,
L.L.P., Denver, Colorado, for Amici Curiae.


FIVE STAR SENIOR: Dominguez Suit Asserts ADA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Five Star Senior
Living Inc. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Five Star
Senior Living Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10874 (S.D. N.Y.,
Nov. 20, 2018).

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

Five Star Senior Living Inc. operates and manages senior living
communities in the United States. It operates through Senior Living
Communities, and Rehabilitation and Wellness segments. Its senior
living communities comprise independent living communities,
assisted living communities, and skilled nursing facilities
(SNFs).[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


FORD MOTOR: Fails to Disclose Corrosion Defect, Simmons et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
CLARENCE SIMMONS, BRANDON MUNGUIA, JORGE ARROYAVE, JOSEPH DABBS,
JENNIFER DEWITT, ANNE ERDMAN, MARK JAMES, SHANE JACKSON, MIKE
TIERNEY, MARK VAN BUS KIRK, JOHN BUCZYNSKI, ILJA LOPATIK, BRIAN
YARBOROUGH, WILLIAM MACSAVENY, RYAN MARSHALL, ALLYSON ROGERS, PETER
TULENKO, and GREG LICHTENBERG, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case 9:18-cv-81558-DMM (S.D. Fla., Nov. 14, 2018),
seek damages, injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief due
corrosion defect in class vehicles, as well as Ford's unlawful
conduct in concealing the Defect, failing to cure the Defect,
and/or failing to adequately compensate Plaintiffs and Class
members for the economic harm they have suffered as a result of the
Defect.

The Plaintiffs brought this action individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated owners and lessees of Ford Mustang-,
Ford Expedition-, and Ford Explorer-branded vehicles, model years
2013-2018, with aluminum hoods and panels and sold in the United
States, all of which were delivered to consumers by Ford with an
identical and inherent defect in the Class Vehicles' design and/or
manufacturing process that Ford has acknowledged.

The defect, which was latent, but existed at the time that the
Class Vehicles left Ford’s possession and control, manifests
itself over time, and causes the Class Vehicles' aluminum panels to
corrode and the exterior paint on the aluminum body parts to
bubble, flake, peel, rust and/or blister. Many Class members with
Class Vehicles that have manifested the Corrosion Defect have
learned of the futility of making a warranty claim for the Defect,
or bringing in their Vehicle for a repair to address the Defect,
through online complaints and the experiences of others that have
had their warranty claims denied and/or inadequate repairs made to
their Vehicles. As a result, many Class members have decided to not
present their Class Vehicles to Ford dealerships for warranty
claims and/or repairs, a requirement from which Class members are
excused in light of the futility of Ford's warranty remedy, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

          Mark. J. Dearman
          Jason H. Alperstein
          Eric S. Dwoskin
          Ricardo J. Marenco
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
                  jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com
                  edwoskin@rgrdlaw.com
                  rmarenco@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven G. Calamusa, Esq.
          Robert. E. Gordon, Esq.
          Daniel G. Williams, Esq.
          GORDON & DONER, P.A.
          4114 Northlake Boulevard
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 799-5070
          Facsimile: (561) 799-4050
          E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com
                  rgordon@fortheinjured.com
                  dwilliams@fortheinjured.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq.
          Michael A. Innes, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
          OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  cbartlett@carellabyrne.com
                  minnes@carellabyrne.com

FORD MOTOR: Kasper, et al. Sue over Online Hiring Process
---------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD KASPER, et al., 3402 Parklane Dr. Parma, OH 44134, the
Plaintiffs, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY C/O Statutory Agent CT
CORPORATION SYSTEM 4400 EASTON COMMONS WAY, Ste. 125 COLUMBUS OH
43219, the Defendant, Case No. CV 18 906893 (Ohio Common Pleas,
Cuyahoga Cty.), seeks punitive and compensatory damages to
compensate for economic loss, loss of opportunity, stress, and
physical sickness damages caused by Ford's failure to provide equal
access to its online hiring process in violation to the Ohio
Revised Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff suffers from a disability
caused by a brain injury.  Defendant Ford operates a number of
facilities in the State of Ohio, including Cuyahoga County. The
only two means of applying for an entry-level job at Defendant Ford
is through its website, or through Ohio Means Jobs, a government
program. In or around the summer of 2014, Plaintiff Kasper was told
that Defendant Ford had job openings in the Cleveland area.

The Plaintiff attempted to access http://corporate.ford.comto
submit an application online for employment, but he was unable to
do so due to his disability. Mr. Kasper's disability makes it
extremely difficult for him to fill out an application online
because the amount of information contained on the website makes it
difficult for him to concentrate and find the information he needs,
the lawsuit says.

Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automaker
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. It was
founded by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903. The
company sells automobiles and commercial vehicles under the Ford
brand and most luxury cars under the Lincoln brand.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

          Shawn A. Romer, Esq.
          ROMER LAW FIRM, LLC
          2012 W. 25th St, Ste. 716
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 644-3722
          Facsimile: (216) 803-6674
          E-mail: sromer@romerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Lewis Zipkin, Esq.
          ZIPKIN WHITING CO., LPA
          The Zipkin Whiting Building
          3637 South Green Road, 2nd Floor
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 514-6400
          Facsimile: (216) 514-6406
          E-mail: zfwlpa@aol.com

GENPACT COLLECTIONS: Prendergast Sues over Unwanted Telephone Call
------------------------------------------------------------------
YENMA PRENDERGAST, on behalf of Herself and other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GENPACT COLLECTIONS, LLC and SYNCHRONY
BANK, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07547 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 14,
2018), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants in
contacting Plaintiff on her cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act. These calls are harassing,
constitute a nuisance, a trespass to chattels, and are an invasion
of privacy, according to the lawsuit.

Synchrony is, in part, in the business of offering and servicing a
wide range of store-branded credit cards, including the Amazon
Credit Card, to consumers throughout the nation. Genpact offers
outsourced collection services to financial institutions, including
Defendant Synchrony. Synchrony retains Genpact to service certain
delinquent accounts that Defendant Synchrony holds or owns,
including placing automated calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice to consumers who
have fallen behind in their payments. Synchrony knows that Genpact
places collection calls using an ATDS or artificial or prerecorded
voice. Synchrony directs the manner and means by which Genpact
places the calls. During the collection calls that Genpact
initiates, the operator identifies him or herself as affiliated
with the Synchrony Bank collections department. Synchrony ratifies
Defendant Genpact's actions by accepting the benefits of Genpact's
calls through continuing to use Genpact to service these accounts
despite knowledge that it is using this equipment and messages, and
accepting payments on the accounts generated by Genpact's telephone
solicitation activities.

The Defendants make calls using an ATDS or artificial or
prerecorded voice to cellular telephones whose owners have not
provided prior express written consent to receive such calls. The
Plaintiff received such calls without providing any type of prior
consent. The Defendant also fails to cease such improper calls even
after it has been told not to call the customer using an ATDS
and/or artificial or prerecorded voice. The Plaintiff received such
calls even after telling Defendant to cease calling her, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Larry P. Smith, Esq.
          David M. Marco, Esq.
          SMITH MARCO, P.C.
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 546-6539
          Facsimile: (888) 418-1277
          E-mail: lsmith@smithmarco.com
                  dmarco@smithmarco.com

               - and -

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729-5288
          Facsimile: (312) 729-5289
          E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com

GOLDEN KRUST 4: Fails to Pay OT to Cashiers, Samuel Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON A. SAMUEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDEN KRUST 4, LLC; KEITH A.
CLAYBORNE; BERNADETTE P. CLAYBORNE; KISHON A. CLAYBORNE; and KYLE
A. CLAYBORNE, Defendants, Case No. 80154475 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade
Cty., Oct. 31, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
overtime compensation, minimum wages, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as cashier.

Golden Krust 4, LLC is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


GREEN TREE: All Pending Motions in Kamimura Denied w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada denied without prejudice all pending motions in the case,
LEE C. KAMIMURA, Plaintiff, v. GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00783-APG-CWH (D. Nev.), in light of
the parties' notice of settlement and agreement to withdraw all
pending motions without prejudice.

On Jan. 2, 2019, the parties will file either a motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement or a status report
regarding settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/4igsQd from Leagle.com.

Lee C. Kamimura, Plaintiff, represented by David H. Krieger --
info@hainesandkrieger.com -- Haines & Krieger, LLC, Abbas
Kazerounian, Kazerouni Law Group, APC & Michael Kind, Kazerouni Law
Group, APC.

Ditech Financal LLC, formerly known as Green Tree Servicing, LLC,
Defendant, represented by Donald H. Cram -- dhc@severson.com --
Severson & Werson, pro hac vice, John B. Sullivan --
dhc@severson.com -- Severson & Werson, Mary C. Kamka --
marykate.kamka@troutman.com -- Severson & Werson, pro hac vice,
Laszlo Ladi -- ll@severson.com -- Severson & Werson & Laura R.
Jacobsen -- ljacobsen@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald Carano &
Wilson.


GREYHOUND LINES: Illegally Records Phone Calls, Fliegelman Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE FLIEGELMAN, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., FIRSTGROUP,
AMERICA, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No.: RG18928355 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 13, 2018), alleges that
Defendants violated the California's Invasion of Prrvacy Act and
California Penal Code by recording phone calls without the consent
of all parties, consumer-initiated calls made to Defendant-toll-fre
customer service telephone number 1-800-231-2222.

According to the complaint, Greyhound is the largest intercity bus
company in the United States. Greyhound markets, sells, and
provides bus transit services to consumers throughout California
and this County, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintif and Proposed Class:

          Zev B. Zysman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ZEV B. ZYSMAN
          5760 Ventura Boulevard, 16th Floor
          411 Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 783-8836
          Facsimile: (818) 783-9985
          E-mail: zev@zysmanlawca.com

GROUPON INC: Diaz Suit Asserts ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------
Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Groupon, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10935
(S.D. N.Y., November 21, 2018) is a class action under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Groupon, Inc. operates online local commerce marketplaces that
connect merchants to consumers by offering goods and services at a
discount in North America and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West12 Fl.
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (929)575-4175



GURSTEL LAW: Boudreaux Files FDCPA Suit in Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gurstel Law Firm,
P.C. The case is styled as Tanya Boudreaux on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gurstel Law Firm, P.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00957 (W.D. Wis., Nov. 20, 2018).

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

Gurstel Law Firm, P.C. (GLF) is a law firm based in Minnesota that
specializes in third-party debt collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas J Lyons, Sr., Esq.
     Lyons Law Firm PA
     367 Commerce Ct
     Vadnais Heights, MN 55127-8506
     Phone: (651) 770-9707
     Fax: (651) 770-5830
     Email: tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com

          - and -

     Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Esq.
     Consumer Justice Center, P.A.
     367 Commerce Court
     Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
     Phone: (651) 770-9707
     Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com


GURSTEL LAW: Dec. 21 Filing of Borges Deal Prelim Approval Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TOMAS BORGES, JR., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. GURSTEL LAW FIRM, PC, f/k/a
Gurstel Chargo, P.A., and CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
8:18CV344 (D. Neb.), Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska ordered the parties to
file their proposed Settlement Agreement, Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement, and any supporting briefing or
other documents by Dec. 21, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/X07t6G from Leagle.com.

Tomas Borges, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph Bragg --
rand@horwitzlaw.com -- HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM, Pamela A. Car --
pacar@cox.net -- CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM & William L. Reinbrecht ,
CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM.

Gurstel Law Firm, PC, formerly known as Gurstel Chargo, P.A. &
Cavalry SPV I, LLC, Defendants, represented by Manuel H. Newburger
-- mnewburger@bn-lawyers.com -- BARRON, NEWBURGER LAW FIRM.


HANGER INC: Petitions in City of Pontiac Class Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Hanger, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that the petition for panel
rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc in the case
entitled, City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v.
Hanger, et al., are pending.

In November 2014, a securities class action complaint, City of
Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Hanger, et al.,
C.A. No. 1:14-cv-01026-SS, was filed against the company in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The
complaint named the company and certain of its current and former
officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements regarding, inter alia, the company's financial
statements, RAC audit success rate, the implementation of new
financial systems, same-store sales growth, and the adequacy of the
company's internal processes and controls.  

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The complaint
sought unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and equitable
relief.

On April 1, 2016, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, and permitted plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. On
July 1, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On September
15, 2016, the company and certain of the individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit. On January 26, 2017, the
court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed with prejudice
all claims against all defendants for failure to state a claim.  

On February 24, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Appellate
briefing was completed on August 18, 2017 and the Court of Appeals
held oral argument for the appeal on March 5, 2018. On August 6,
2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.


The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case against
individual defendants Vinit Asar, the company's current President
and Chief Executive Officer, and Thomas Kirk, the company's former
President and Chief Executive Officer, but reversed the dismissal
of the case against George McHenry, the company's former Chief
Financial Officer, and Hanger, Inc.  

On August 20, 2018, Hanger, Inc. and George McHenry filed a
petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc
with the Court of Appeals. On September 10, 2018 the Court of
Appeals asked plaintiffs to file a response to the petition for
rehearing en banc, and plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
petition for rehearing en banc on September 17, 2018. Both
petitions are pending with the Court of Appeals.  

Hanger said, "We believe the remaining claims are without merit,
and intend to continue to vigorously defend against these claims."

Hanger, Inc. provides orthotic and prosthetic (O&P) services; and
distributes O&P devices and components, manages O&P networks, and
provides therapeutic solutions to patients and businesses in acute,
post-acute, and clinic settings in the United States. It operates
through two segments, Patient Care and Products & Services. The
company was formerly known as Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. and
changed its name to Hanger, Inc. in June 2012. Hanger, Inc. was
founded in 1861 and is headquartered in Austin, Texas.


HEALTH INSURANCE: Donisi Partly Compelled to Reply to RFPs in Moser
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENNETH J. MOSER, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEALTH INSURANCE
INNOVATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, et al., Defendants. AND
RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS, Case No. 17cv1127-WQH (KSC) (S.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in
part the parties' Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery
Dispute.

The original class action Complaint was filed on June 5, 2017.  The
Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint on June 7, 2017.
The First Amended Complaint includes two causes of action for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  In
the first cause of action, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants violated the TCPA by making multiple, unauthorized calls
to his cellular telephone using an automatic dialing system or
artificial, pre-recorded voice starting on Jan. 28, 2015.  The
second cause of action alleges that the Defendants violated the
TCPA by making multiple, unauthorized telephone calls to his
residential telephone line using an artificial or pre-recorded
voice to deliver a message beginning on Jan. 28, 2015.

According to the First Amended Complaint, Defendant HII is the
principle actor in a scheme to sell short term non-Affordable Care
Act compliant medical insurance plans and other low quality
insurance related services through fraud and deceit.  The scheme
allegedly begins when agents under contract to HII make cold calls
to consumers using an automatic dialing system and a pre-recorded
message.  The First Amended Complaint also includes a fairly
detailed summary of the calls.  

The Plaintiff also alleges in the First Amended Complaint that he
received 32 autodialed, pre-recorded calls from Defendant
Nationwide Health Advisors between April 6, 2017 and May 10, 2017.
He believes he has been receiving calls from the Defendants in
violation of the TCPA since early 2015, but he has not documented
all of the calls, so some of the specific dates and times of calls
are unknown without the aid of discovery.  

On June 27, 2014, in a separate case, the Plaintiff sued Defendants
HII and Unified Life Insurance Co., but the action was later
settled.  The First Amended Complaint also alleges there are a
number of outstanding junk call complaints against the the
Defendants.

The class allegations section of the First Amended Complaint
indicates that the Plaintiff plans to seek certification of two
sub-classes of Plaintiffs: (1) those who have received
unauthorized, auto-dialed calls on their cellular telephones from
the Defendants since Jan. 28, 2015; and (2) those who have received
unauthorized, auto-dialed calls on the residential telephone lines
since Jan. 28, 2015.

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Determination of
Discovery Dispute.  In the Joint Motion, the Plaintiff seeks an
order compelling Defendant Donisi Jax to provide further,
substantive responses to certain document requests and
interrogatories.  Donisi Jax objects to these written discovery
requests on various grounds.

Defendant Donisi Jax is an insurance agency that contracts with
third party lead vendors to develop leads to sell health insurance
policies.  It vehemently denies that any of its lead vendors are
its agents.  Donisi Jax's relationship with each and every one of
its lead vendors are the result of arms'-length business
transactions, and it does not assert any control over the vendors.
Indeed, with respect to the lead vendor that transferred the
Plaintiff to Donisi Jax, the contract between the parties
specifically states that each party will comply with law and Donisi
Jax has no right to audit the vendor.

Judge Crawford granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's
request for an order compelling Donisi Jax to provide further
responses to certain interrogatories and document requests.

She denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's request for an order
compelling Donisi Jax to provide further responses to Interrogatory
Nos. 3 and 4.  Donisi Jax agreed to produce its agreements with
third party lead vendors once a confidentiality Protective Order
was entered.  The Court recently entered a Protective Order.  The
Plaintiff may request the Court's assistance once again if Donisi
Jax does not produce the agreements with its third party lead
vendors that provide live transfer leads and/or does not disclose
contact information for these vendors and any associated call
centers.

She denied the Plaintiff's request for an order compelling Donisi
Jax to provide further responses to Document Request Nos. 19 and
20.  Under the circumstances presented, the Judge finds that Donisi
Jax provided an adequate response to these requests.

The Judge granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's
request for an order compelling Donisi Jax to provide further
responses to Document Request Nos. 10, 11, and 26.  She granted the
Plaintiff's request to the extent it seeks an order compelling
Donisi Jax to produce a document or documents that list the
telephone numbers for all leads received from all of its third
party live transfer lead vendors during the relevant time period.
Donisi Jax must produce the list to plaintiff no later than Nov.
30, 2018.  She denied the Plaintiff's request to the extent it
seeks an order compelling Donisi Jax to produce any other
documents, such as telephone bills, or other documents or reports
detailing all of its incoming and outgoing telephone calls during
the relevant time period.

The Judge denied the Plaintiff's request for an order compelling
Donisi Jax to provide a further response to Document Request No. 12
for failure to establish relevance and because it appears it would
be overly burdensome and disproportionate to require Donisi Jax to
compile the requested information.

She granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's request for
an order compelling Donisi Jax to provide a further response to
Document Request No. 18  She denied without prejudice the
Plaintiff's request for an order compelling production of its Do
Not Call List.  Donisi Jax represented it would produce its Do Not
Call List once a Protective Order was entered.  The Court recently
entered a Protective Order.  The Plaintiff may raise this issue
again only if Donisi Jax does not produce the Do Not Call List.
The Judge granted the Plaintiff's request for an order compelling
Donisi Jax to provide a complete response to Document Request No.
18 addressing the existence of any documents setting forth its
policies and procedures about the Do Not Call List.  Donisi Jax
will provide plaintiff with a full and complete response to
Document Request No. 18 that complies with Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 26(g) and 34(b)(2)(B) no later than Nov. 30, 2018.

Finally, the Judge granted the Plaintiff's request for an order
compelling Donisi Jax to provide a full and complete response to
Document Request No. 24.  She directed Donisi Jax will provide the
Plaintiff with a full and complete response to Document Request No.
24 that complies with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(g) and
34(b)(2)(B) no later than Nov. 30, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/l2hJMq from Leagle.com.

Kenneth J. Moser, individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Reichman
-- chrisr@prato-reichman.com -- Prato & Reichman, APC, Jeffrey
Braillard Cereghino -- jbc@rocklawcal.com -- Rock Law LLP, Justin
M. Prato -- jmprato@gmail.com -- Prato & Reichman, APC & Matt J.
Malone, Rock Law LLP.

Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Anton N. Handal -- tony.handal@gmlaw.com
-- Greenspoon Marder LLP, Dariel Jonathan Abrahamy --
dariel.abrahamy@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder LLP, pro hac vice &
Garry W. O'Donnell -- garry.odonnell@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon
Marder, P.A., pro hac vice.

National Congress of Employers, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Barton H. Hegeler --
mail@hegeler-anderson.com -- Hegler & Anderson, Ethan T. Litney,
Hegeler & Anderson, A.P.C. & Sarah M. Reddiconto, Hegeler &
Anderson, A.P.C.

Companion Life Insurance Company, a South Carolina Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Chad R. Fuller --
chad.fuller@troutman.com  -- Troutman Sanders LLP & Virginia B.
Flynn -- virginia.flynn@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, pro
hac vice.

Donisi Jax, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Jennifer L. Meeker -- jmeeker@nossaman.com -- Nossaman LLP, Maya
Hamouie -- mhamouie@nossaman.com -- Nossaman LLP & Stephen P. Wiman
-- swiman@nossaman.com -- Nossaman, LLP.

National Congress of Employers, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
Counter Claimant, represented by Barton H. Hegeler, Hegler &
Anderson, Ethan T. Litney, Hegeler & Anderson, A.P.C. & Sarah M.
Reddiconto, Hegeler & Anderson, A.P.C.

Kenneth J. Moser, individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Counter Defendant, represented by Christopher
Reichman, Prato & Reichman, APC, Jeffrey Braillard Cereghino, Rock
Law LLP, Justin M. Prato, Prato & Reichman, APC & Matt J. Malone,
Rock Law LLP.


HERTZ GLOBAL: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal in Ramirez Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of the
fourth amended complaint in the case, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz
Global Holdings, Inc., et al., with prejudice.

In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
Old Hertz Holdings (as defined in the Company's 2017 Form 10‑K)
and certain of its officers as defendants and alleging violations
of the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleged that Old Hertz Holdings made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public
disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through
November 4, 2013, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The complaint sought an unspecified amount
of monetary damages on behalf of the purported class and an award
of costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

In June 2014, Old Hertz Holdings responded to the amended complaint
by filing a motion to dismiss. After a hearing in October 2014, the
court granted Old Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss the complaint.
The dismissal was without prejudice and plaintiff was granted leave
to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the order.

In November 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which
shortened the putative class period such that it was not alleged to
have commenced until May 18, 2013 and made allegations that were
not substantively very different than the allegations in the prior
complaint. In early 2015, this case was assigned to a new federal
judge in the District of New Jersey, and Old Hertz Holdings
responded to the second amended complaint by filing another motion
to dismiss. On July 22, 2015, the court granted Old Hertz Holdings'
motion to dismiss without prejudice and ordered that plaintiff
could file a third amended complaint on or before August 22, 2015.


On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The
third amended complaint included additional allegations, named
additional current and former officers as defendants and expanded
the putative class period such that it was alleged to span from
February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015. Plaintiffs filed a fourth
amended complaint to add a new plaintiff on March 1, 2016. Old
Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the
fourth amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice on March
24, 2016, and plaintiff filed its opposition to same. The court
granted Old Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss with prejudice on
April 27, 2017.

The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit and filed their Initial Brief in November 2017.
Old Hertz Holdings, joined by two of the individual defendants
along with a separate brief by one of the individual defendants,
filed Opposition Briefs in January 2018. The plaintiffs' Reply
Brief was thereafter filed in February of 2018. Oral arguments were
held on June 12, 2018. On September 20, 2018, the Third Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of the fourth amended complaint with
prejudice.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. operates as an airport general use
vehicle rental company. It operates in three segments: U.S. RAC,
International RAC, and All Other Operations. The company provides
its vehicle rental services under the Hertz, Dollar, and Thrifty
brands from approximately 10,200 corporate and franchisee locations
in North America, Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia, Australia,
the Caribbean, the Middle East, and New Zealand. The company was
founded in 1918 and is headquartered in Estero, Florida.


HIGHGATE HOTELS: Filing of 4th Amended Henkel to Add Plaintiffs OKd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHELSEA HENKEL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HIGHGATE
HOTELS, LP, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-1435 (M.D. Pa.),
Judge Robert D. Mariani of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave
to File a Fourth Amended Complaint Joining Additional Plaintiffs.

On Oct. 4, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Amend.  Their
proposed amendment to the Complaint is the latest in a series of
amendments that have been made to their original Complaint.  In
their Motion to Amend, the Plaintiffs seek to add 31 additional
named Plaintiffs to their action and relate their claims back to
the date of the filing of the original Complaint on July 14, 2015.

The Plaintiffs' action seeks conditional and final class
certification for alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), as
amended, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 ("MWA"),
along with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class certification for claims of
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion.  Many of the
additional proposed named Plaintiffs have already provided opt-in
consent forms to the action, pursuant to the relevant provision of
the FLSA.

Defendants Highgate Hotels and Cove Haven, Inc. timely filed a
brief in opposition to the Motion to Amend, arguing that they would
be unduly prejudiced by the Plaintiffs'undue delay in filing the
motion, primarily because they will be afforded no meaningful
opportunity to complete extensive investigation and discovery into
the 31 additional named Plaintiffs.  Shortly after filing their
opposition, the Defendants submitted a letter to the Court
clarifying that they were objecting to not the adding of the
additional Plaintiffs -- most of whom have previously opted into
this action months ago -- but the adding of such additional
Plaintiffs now with the purpose of relating back their claims to
the commencement of the action.

The Plaintiffs filed a reply to the Defendants' opposition brief,
contending that their request to add additional parties to the
action complied with the Defendants' proposed discovery schedule,
previously approved by the Court, and that the Defendants had
previously received notice that the Plaintiffs were going to add
additional named Plaintiffs to the action and that they told the
Defendants they wanted the statute of limitations stayed at the
latest from the date of the filing of the Answer.  In arguing for
relation back of the new named Plaintiffs' claims, the Plaintiffs
essentially argue for equitable tolling of the statute of
limitations for each of the additional Plaintiffs' individual
claims.

In an Order dated Oct. 16, 2018, the Court ordered that the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend would not be deemed withdrawn, despite
Plaintiffs' failure to submit a brief in support of their Motion to
Amend, and explained the Court's reasoning in an accompanying
Memorandum Opinion.  At that time, the Court deferred ruling on the
merits of the Motion to Amend.

With respect to the Plaintiffs' proposed amendments to the
Complaint, Judge Mariani finds that there is insufficient evidence
to find that the Plaintiffs have engaged in undue delay, bad faith
or dilatory motive, or that one or more of the Defendants will
suffer undue prejudice as a result of allowing them to file its
Fourth Amended Complaint.  Additionally, since the time of the
filing of the Motion to Amend, fact discovery has been extended
numerous times. This should have provided the Defendants with more
than sufficient time to conduct additional discovery with respect
to these proposed additional named Plaintiffs.

The parties' treatment of the issue of the relation back of the
claims of the new named Plaintiffs is not particularly
well-developed in their briefs, the Judge adds.  Nevertheless, the
Court's application of the relevant law to the facts presented
indicates that merely adding additional named Plaintiffs, without
otherwise changing the claims presented in the Complaint, complies
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B), and that the equitable
circumstances militate in favor of relating the claims back.  Thus,
he finds that the claims of the additional named Plaintiffs will
relate back to the date of the original Complaint.

However, by granting the Plaintiffs leave to file their Fourth
Amended Complaint adding 31 additional named Plaintiffs, as in the
case of any amendment adding party plaintiffs, the Judge expresses
no opinion on whether the claims of those additional Plaintiffs are
barred by an applicable statute of limitations or otherwise subject
to an applicable affirmative defense in the case.  

This is particularly the case where the Plaintiffs have pending
before the Court a motion to conditionally certify a collective
action with respect to their claims under the FLSA in their first
and second causes of action and have in the same motion moved for
Rule 23 class certification with respect to their fifth cause of
action for breach of contract to an express third-party
beneficiary, their sixth cause of action for breach of contract to
an intended third-party beneficiary, their seventh cause of action
for unjust enrichment, and their eighth cause of action for
conversion.

Further, in that same motion, the Plaintiffs have moved for class
certification under Rule 23 for what they term a "Sub-class" for
claims included in their third cause of action for unpaid minimum
wages and their fourth cause of action for unpaid overtime wages,
both alleging violations of the MWA.  Because that motion and the
various claims encompassed within it has not been briefed by
Defendants, the Judge will do no more than grant the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Amend, which will add the 31 individuals as identified in
the Motion to Amend as party Plaintiffs to the action.

A separate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/3tus37 from Leagle.com.

Chelsea Henkel, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Matthew J. Blit -- mblit@levineblit.com
-- Levine & Blit, PLLC & Russell S. Moriarty, LEVINE & BLIT, PLL.

Highgate Hotels, LP & Cove Haven Inc., Defendants, represented by
David B. Feldman -- david.feldman@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins
Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Donald D. Gamburg --
donald.gamburg@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, P.C., Evan B. Citron -- evan.citron@ogletree.com --
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart & William F. Birchfield --
frank.birchfield@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, PC.


HOME BOX OFFICE: Burke Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Burke, Tony Cruz, Aaron Fernandez, Joseph Gilbert, Rashford
Grant, Winston Hamilton, Alphonso Hart, Manuel Henriquez,
Christopher Lamar, Oliver Martinez, Leamon Mincey, Luis Sanata
Perez, Eliezer Ruiz, Rex Salmon, Ray Seebaran, and Rufus Thomas
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Home Box Office Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10875 (S.D. N.Y., November 20, 2018) was brought by
Plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act against Defendant for
its failure to pay overtime to Plaintiffs who were employed by
Defendant as Parking Production Assistants.

Plaintiffs were non-exempt employees who were paid a shift rate of
pay and who do not receive proper overtime compensation of one and
a half times their regularly hourly rate for all hours worked
beyond 40 per workweek, according to the complaint. The Defendant's
regular failure to pay Plaintiffs for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek violates the Fair Labor Standards Act, it adds. Defendant
violated these laws by engaging in a systematic scheme of altering
Plaintiffs' paychecks in order to deprive them of their statutorily
required overtime pay.

Plaintiffs were "employees" within the meaning of the FLSA and were
employed by Defendant within this judicial district.

Defendant is organized under the laws of the state of Delaware and
has its principal place of business in New York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James Vagnini, Esq.
     Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq.
     Sara Wyn Kane, Esq.
     Matthew L. Berman, Esq.
     Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP
     600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7180
     Fax: (516) 706-0248


HPM CORPORATION: Slover Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
SHAWN SLOVER, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. HPM CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-05180 (E.D. Wash., Nov. 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, HPMC failed to pay Slover, and other
workers like him, overtime as required by the FLSA, and the
Washington's Minimum Wage Act. Instead, HPMC pays Slover, and other
workers like him, the same hourly rate for all hours worked,
including those in excess of 40 in a workweek. HPMC further failed
to pay Slover, and other workers like him, for all rest breaks,
meal breaks in violation of Washington Wage Laws ,the lawsuit
says.

HPMC is a woman-owned business that provides specialized services
to federal government clients and their contractors.[BN]

Attorney for Shawn Slover, et al.:

          Nicholas D. Kovarik, Esq.
          E-mail: nick@pyklawyers.com
          PISKEL YAHNE KOVARIK, PLLC
          522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 700
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: 509 321-5930
          Facsimile: 509 321-5935

INDUSTRIAL ALLIANCE: Connolly Obagi Launches Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Connolly Obagi LLP on Nov. 13 announced the
commencement of a proposed $15 million Canada-wide Class Action
against Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.
("Industrial Alliance"), together with a claim for $15M in punitive
and exemplary damages.

The proposed Class Action is brought by Kristy Armour, of Ottawa,
Ontario, who was employed by the Federal Government for sixteen
(16) years as an FI-4 (Manager, Financial Audit) until her medical
retirement on October 29, 2016.

The proposed Class Members include all persons employed by the
Federal Government, or who were employed by the Federal Government,
and who received long term disability ("LTD") benefits from
Industrial Alliance under Group Policy No. G-2400 (previously
identified as Group Policy No. G68-1400),  at any time dating back
to November 1, 1968 through to the present date.

The claim alleges that Industrial Alliance incorrectly calculated
the cost of living increase to which all Class Members were
entitled on an annual basis.  It is alleged that Industrial
Alliance calculated the cost of living increase based on the Class
Members' net LTD benefit after the application of deductions rather
than against the Class Members' gross LTD benefits prior to the
application of deductions.

It is also alleged that Industrial Alliance knew that the manner in
which it was calculating the cost of living increase, due and owing
to the Class Members, was contrary to the terms of the Policy and
that it wilfully mislead the Class Members in doing so.

If any person is employed by the Federal Government, or formerly
employed by the Federal Government, and is in receipt of, or was in
receipt of, LTD benefits from Industrial Alliance under the terms
of the Policy identified herein, please email
info@connollyobagi.com, subject line "INDUSTRIAL ALLIANCE CLASS
ACTION", and provide your name, group certificate number, history
of employment with the Federal Government and your history of
receipt of LTD benefits.

For further information: please contact Joseph Y. Obagi at Connolly
Obagi LLP (613) 683-2245 or send an e-mail to
joseph.obagi@connollyobagi.com, subject line "INDUSTRIAL ALLIANCE
CLASS ACTION".[GN]


IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Awaits Initial Approval of Rabkin Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the parties
in the case, Jay Rabkin v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et al.
lawsuit are awaiting the court's preliminary approval of their
settlement.

On April 10, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
announced settlements with the Company and with other public
companies and unrelated parties in the In the Matter of Certain
Stock Promotion investigation. The Company's settlement with the
SEC is consistent with the company's previous disclosures
(including in the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K that the
company filed with the SEC on March 9, 2017).

On April 14, 2017, a purported shareholder filed a complaint
seeking class action status in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California for violations of the federal
securities laws (Leonard DeSilvio v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et
al., case no. 3:17-cv-2086) against our company and three of our
former officers and directors.

On April 19, 2017, a second class action complaint (Amra Kuc vs.
Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et al., case no. 3:17-cv-2188) was
filed in the same court.

Both complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements, or by failing to make certain disclosures,
regarding the actions taken by Manish Singh, the company's former
CEO, and the company's former investor relations firm that were the
subject of the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotions
investigation.

On July 20, 2017, the plaintiff in the Kuc case filed a notice to
voluntarily dismiss that case. The court entered an order
dismissing the Kuc complaint on July 21, 2017. On July 26, 2017,
the court appointed a movant as lead plaintiff. On September 8,
2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint (Jay Rabkin v.
Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et al., case no. 3:17-cv-2086) seeking
class action status that alleges, among other things, that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially
false and misleading statements, or by failing to make certain
disclosures, regarding the actions taken by Manish Singh and the
company's former investor relations firm that were the subject of
the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotions SEC investigation.

On February 5, 2018, the court entered an order dismissing two of
plaintiff's six claims. As the result of mediation, on September
28, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for settlement,
the cost of which, if approved, is expected to be borne by the
company's insurance carrier and would result in no loss to the
company.

A hearing on preliminary approval of the settlement is set for
November 9, 2018.

Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology
company, focuses on developing and commercializing cancer
immunotherapy products to harness the power of a patient's immune
system to eradicate cancer cells. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. was
founded in 2007 and is headquartered in San Carlos, California.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Settlement in Mansor Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDMUND J. MANSOR and ROBERTA M. MANSOR, Plaintiffs, v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant, Civil Action No.
1:12-cv-10544-JGD (D. Mass.), Magistrate Judge Judith G. Dein of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted
final approval of the proposed class action settlement set forth in
the Settlement Agreement between the parties.

On Nov. 13, 2018, the Court held a duly noticed final approval
hearing.  There were no objections to the parties' request for
final approval of the Settlement Agreement, and only one class
member opted out.

Magistrate Judge Dein finds that (i) the Class Notice was given in
the manner ordered by the Court in order to apprise Settlement
Class Members of the pendency of the Action; and (ii) the
prerequisites for a class action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b) have been
satisfied for settlement purposes for each Settlement Class
Member.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, she finally
certified the Settlement Class, as identified in the Settlement
Agreement, which will consist of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Millennium CDs or whose funds remained in the
Millennium accounts at Chase from Sept. 25, 2008 through March 9,
2009, which includes persons whose CDs purportedly rolled over or
whose funds were deposited in or remained in the Millennium
accounts at Chase.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Magistrate
awarded the Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees and Expenses in the
amount of $1,618,750 payable pursuant to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.  She also awarded a case contribution award
in the amount of $25,000 to Plaintiffs Edmund J. Mansor and Roberta
M. Mansor, and a Receiver Fee of $30,000 to the Receiver pursuant
to Section II.D of the Settlement Agreement for his contributions
as Settlement Administrator.

The Action, including all individual claims and class claims
presented therein, is dismissed on the merits and with prejudice
against the Plaintiffs and all the other Settlement Class Members,
without fees or costs to any party except as otherwise provided
therein.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Final Order and
Judgment is available at https://is.gd/F8ElME from Leagle.com.

Edmund J. Mansor & Roberta M. Mansor, Plaintiffs, represented by
Harley S. Tropin -- hst@kttlaw.com -- Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,
LLP, pro hac vice, Keith L. Miller, Law Offices of Keith L. Miller,
Michael R. Lorigas -- mlorigas@kttlaw.com -- Kozyak, Tropin &
Throckmorton, LLP, pro hac vice, Tal J. Lifshitz -- tjl@kttlaw.com
-- Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas A.
Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., pro hac vice &
William H. Gagas -- wgagas@kbn-law.com -- Law Office of William H.
Gagas.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Beth I.Z.
Boland -- bboland@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Rachel M. Blise
-- rblise@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, pro hac vice, Courtney
Worcester , Foley & Lardner LLP, Michael Thompson --
mxthompson@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Redi Kasollja, Foley &
Lardner LLP & Stephen J. Quinlan, Foley & Lardner LLP.

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Interested Party,
represented by Peter C. Koch, Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued over Spoof Orders for Precious Metals Futures
------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Sterk and Kevin Maher individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff(s), vs. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.,
JOHN DMONDS, and JOHN DOES, the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-10634
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018), alleges that Defendants enganged in
unlawful and intentional manipulation of gold, silver, platinum,
and palladium futures and options contracts (Precious Metals
Futures Contracts) which were traded on the New York Mercantile
Exchange (NYMEX) and the Commodity Exchange, Inc. (COMEX) from at
least as early as January 1, 2009 through at least December 31,
2015 in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants consist of a group of
precious metals traders and their employer. On October 9, 2018,
Defendant Edmonds pled guilty in the District of Connecticut to one
count of conspiracy to defraud the market and manipulate the prices
of NYMEX and COMEX Precious Metals Futures Contracts and one count
of commodities fraud. The Defendants manipulated the prices of
NYMEX and COMEX precious metals futures and options contracts
during the Class Period using a technique called "spoofing" whereby
Defendants routinely placed electronic orders to buy and sell such
futures contracts with the intent to cancel those orders before
execution ("spoof orders").

These spoofing orders injected materially false and illegitimate
signals of supply and demand into the market and were intended to
induce other market participants, such as the Plaintiffs, to trade
against Defendants' genuine orders. But for the Defendants'
misleading inducements, Plaintiffs and the other market
participants otherwise would not have traded. Accordingly, the
spoof orders were designed to, and did, artificially move the
prices of NYMEX and COMEX precious metals futures and options
contracts during the Class Period in a direction that was favorable
to Defendants, but unfavorable to Plaintiffs, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Fred T. Isquith, Jr., Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036-8718
          Telephone: (917) 438-9102
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                  fisquith@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Adam Frankel, Esq.
          GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES, LLC
          881 Lake Avenue
          Greenwich, CT 06831
          Telephone & Fax: 203 622-6001
          E-mail: afrankel@grwlegal.com

JUUL: Faces Vaping Product Deceptive Marketing Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Lipscomb, writing for Miami New Times, reports that for
years, Miami resident Sabrina Zampa had no idea her teenage sons
were regularly vaping. It was only last August, after discovering
her son's Juul, that she learned her kids had been "juuling" since
middle school. Her now-16-year-old son says he bought his first
Juul products from the company's website and later used Postmates
to buy pod replacements — as did her younger son, now age 14.

Juul put out a multistep action plan, saying the company would stop
posting on Facebook and Instagram, cease sales of flavored pods in
stores, and add more intensive age-verification measures on its
website. And the Food and Drug Administration has unveiled new
rules that will limit sales on the internet and virtually end them
in convenience stores.

But Tampa attorney John Yanchunis, who is representing Zampa in a
class-action lawsuit against Juul, says the changes come too late
for teens like Zampa's, who can't stop vaping.

"It's a reaction of consequence rather than conscience," Mr.
Yanchunis says. "They should have done this from the outset rather
than marketing these products to kids."

The new lawsuit, filed November 5 in Miami-Dade Circuit Court,
accuses the makers of Juul of deceptively marketing "safe,
candy-like products to which minors are attracted." The complaint
says Zampa's sons and other class members were exposed to toxic
levels of nicotine without proper warning, increasing their risk of
diseases such as cancer.

Juul did not respond to request for comment from New Times;
however, the company said in a news release on Nov. 13 it never
intended for kids to start vaping.

"Our intent was never to have youth use JUUL products," the company
stated. "But intent is not enough, the numbers are what matter, and
the numbers tell us underage use of e-cigarette products is a
problem. We must solve it."

According to the Miami lawsuit, Zampa's sons have spent hundreds of
dollars on Juuls since they started vaping in middle school.
Although they both craved the "cool cucumber" flavor, neither teen
knew their Juuls contained nicotine, a highly addictive substance.
To this day, the brothers have been unable to quit.

Parents across the country have filed suit against Juul with
similar allegations. In October, Barbara Yannucci of Saint Lucie
sued the company for false advertising after her teenage son became
addicted to juuling and started vaping up to 12 times a day. A New
York mother also went after Juul this past June after her
15-year-old son became "heavily addicted to nicotine."

Mr. Yanchunis, the lawyer in the Miami case, says the company's
marketing is a major reason why kids have gotten hooked.

"Our interest is representing a class of children who have been
enticed, induced, and attracted to these products," he says.
"Particularly for a young person, a child, it's much harder to
overcome something that is addictive than, say, an adult who may
have more maturity and a greater strength of willpower. It's a
significant problem." [GN]


KE ZHANG: Seeks Minimum Wage & Overtime Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
Piyou Zhao, the Plaintiffs, vs. KE ZHANG INC. d/b/a YOU JIA, ZOU
JIA YONG, INC d/b/a T & T RESTAURANT, Chen Yi Zhu, Li Hui Zhu,
Xiang Keng Zhu and Zou Jia Yong, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-06452 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wage; unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiffs' compensation for all hours worked
and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Xiaoxi Liu, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353 8588
          E-mail: xliu@hanglaw.com

KONG TECHNOLOGIES: Cy Pres Distribution in Opperman Suit Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARC OPPERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KONG
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, authorized
the Settlement Administrator KCC to distribute uncashed settlement
distributions to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and thereafter
to close its files on the matter.

All parties to the class action settlement, through their counsel
of record, stipulated pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 7-12
that pursuant to Section 7.10.4 of the Settlement Agreement
approved by the Court, the Settlement Administrator should be
authorized at this time to distribute uncashed settlement
distributions to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The settlement payments were made the first week of June 2018.  The
90-day period elapsed by the end of the first week of September
2018.  Less than a dozen individuals have contacted the class
counsel since September 2018 and requested new checks or electronic
codes, and those requests have been accommodated by the Settlement
Administrator despite being late.

The Settlement Administrator's work is done, except for the cy pres
distribution, and it desires to close its files before the end of
the calendar year to avoid additional tax expense.  It reports to
the class counsel that 99.64% of the electronic payments and 84.88%
of the check payments have been cashed.  There is $153,372.35 in
unclaimed funds subject to the cy pres provision of the
settlement.

Therefore the parties stipulated and agreed that the Court should
instruct KCC to distribute the remaining uncashed funds to the
Electronic Frontier Foundation as provided by the Settlement
Agreement approved by the Court on March 27, 2018.  Judge Tigar so
ordered.

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

Marc Opperman, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given --
dmg@phillaw.com -- Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey
Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin --
nac@phillaw.com -- Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian
Samuel Clayton Conlon -- bsc@phillaw.com -- Phillips, Erlewine,
Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F.
Schwenker, pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan -- dirk@dirkjordan.com --
Frank H. Busch -- busch@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP,
Ivo Michael Labar -- labar@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe -- wagstaffe@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr
& Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt --
mvl@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Judy Long, Alicia Medlock & Scott Medlock, Plaintiffs, represented
by David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey
Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon,
Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law
Offices of Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank
H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr
& Wagstaffe LLP.

Claire Moses, Gentry Hoffman, Steve Dean, Alan Beueshasen, Greg
Varner, Rachelle King, Guili Biondi, Jason Green & Nirali
Mandaywala, Plaintiffs, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP
& Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Maria Pirozzi, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker,
pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP
& Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Oscar Hernandez & Haig Arabian, Plaintiffs, represented by Nicholas
A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel
Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Brian
Russell Strange, Strange & Butler, David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine  Given & Carlin LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP,
John Theodore Ceglia, Strange & Carpenter & Michael John von
Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Francisco Espitia, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas A. Carlin,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon,
Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Russell Strange,
Strange & Butler, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, John Theodore Ceglia,
Strange & Carpenter & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP.

Steven Gutierrez, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas A. Carlin,
Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon,
Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Russell Strange,
Strange & Butler, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, John Theodore Ceglia,
Strange & Carpenter & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP.

Lauren Carter, Stephanie Cooley, Claire Hodgins & Judy Paul,
Plaintiffs, represented by David M. Given , Phillips Erlewine Given
& Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin , Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin
LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon , Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin LLP, Daniel Jack Veroff , Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Frank H.
Busch , Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe , Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt , Kerr & Wagstaffe
LLP.

Theda Sandiford, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips
Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine
Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips,
Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Russell Strange, Strange &
Butler, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Frank
H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, John Theodore Ceglia, Strange &
Carpenter & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Kong Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Casas
-- casasg@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Jedediah Wakefield,
Fenwick & West LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi -- cvetesi@mofo.com --
Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon --
harmeet@dhillonlaw.com -- Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell,
Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael Henry
Page -- mpage@durietangri.com -- Durie Tangri LLP & Tyler Griffin
Newby -- tnewby@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP.

Twitter, Inc., Defendant, represented by James G. Snell, Perkins
Coie LLP, Lauren Beth Cohen, Perkins Coie LLP, Timothy L. Alger,
Greenberg Traurig LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster
LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., John Randall
Tyler, Perkins Coie LLP, Julie Erin Schwartz, Perkins Coie LLP,
Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri
LLP, Ryan T. Mrazik, Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac vice & Tyler Griffin
Newby, Fenwick & West LLP.

Apple, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alan D. Albright --
alan.albright@bracewell.com -- Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich LLP,
Clayton Cole James -- clay.james@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells
US LLP, Jessica Adler Black Livingston --
jessica.livingston@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro
hac vice, Jessica S. Ou, Gibson Dunn, Robert B. Hawk --
robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP & Stacy R.
Hovan -- stacy.hovan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP.

Yelp! Inc. & Foodspotting, Inc., Defendants, represented by Michael
Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP, Peter D. Kennedy, George &
Donaldson, L.L.P., Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP,
Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins
Coie LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby,
Fenwick & West LLP.

Instagram, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lori R. Mason, Cooley
LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP & Michael G. Rhodes, Cooley
LLP.

Foursquare Labs, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Frank
McDowell -- dmcdowell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Claudia
Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon
Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda Kersey
Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP, Molly A.
Smolen, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick &
West LLP.

Gowalla Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Harmeet K. Dhillon,
Dhillon Law Group Inc., Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster
LLP, James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Krista Lee Baughman, Dhillon
Law Group Inc., Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Micah R. Jacobs,
Dhillon Law Group, Inc., Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP,
Rachel Kung-Lan Loh, Dhillon Law Group, Inc. & Tyler Griffin Newby,
Fenwick & West LLP.

Kik Interactive, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lori R. Mason,
Cooley LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael G. Rhodes,
Cooley LLP, Christopher Brian Durbin, Cooley LLP, Claudia Maria
Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Erin Elisa Goodsell, Cooley LLP,
Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins
Coie LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP & Tyler Griffin
Newby, Fenwick & West LLP.

Instagram, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Dean Brown,
Cooley LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi,
Morrison & Foerster LLP, Erin Elisa Goodsell, Cooley LLP, Harmeet
K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie
LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby,
Fenwick & West LLP.


KRAFT HEINZ: 6 Classes in Vazquez Unpaid Wages Suit Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ENRIQUE VAZQUEZ, SERGIO ALFONSO LOPEZ, and MARIA
VIVEROS, individually and on behalf Assigned to of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS
COMPANY, a Pennsylvania Corporation, and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-02749-WQH (BLM) (S.D. Cal.),
Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted in part and denied in part the named
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

On Aug. 10, 2018, in Courtroom 14B of the Court, the Judge heard
argument on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.  After
having reviewed the pleadings and having heard oral argument, he
finds that Plaintiffs Lopez and Vasquez have satisfied the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), and certified the
following six classes against Defendant Kraft:

     a. Class 1a (Unpaid Wages -- Paycode Rule: Automatic 30 Minute
Unauthorized Meal Deductions -- Legacy Heinz Locations): All
current and former non-exempt production employees of Defendant's
Legacy Heinz locations,1 whose timekeeping records reflect a 30
minute deduction of time worked for shifts worked in excess of 6.0
hours where no meal period is reflected in the time punch records,
during the time period September 8, 2012 through October 9, 2018.

     b. Class 1c (Unpaid Wages -- Unauthorized Deductions for
Unapproved Hours Worked -- Legacy Heinz Locations): All current and
former non-exempt production employees of the Defendant's Legacy
Heinz locations whose timekeeping records reflect a deduction of
time from the employee's timekeeping records, accompanied by any of
the following notations: (i) UnApproved - Late Out; (ii) UnApproved
- Late Out - OT; (iii) UnApproved - Early In; or (iv) UnApproved -
Early In - OT, during the time period Sept. 8, 2012 through Oct. 9,
2018.

     c. Class 2a (Meal Period Class -- Paycode Rule: Automatic 30
Minute Unauthorized Meal Deductions -- Legacy Heinz Locations): All
current and former non-exempt production employees of Defendant's
Legacy Heinz locations, whose timekeeping records reflect a 30
minute deduction of time worked for shifts worked in excess of six
hours where no meal period is reflected in the time punch records,
during the time period Sept. 8, 2012 through Oct. 9, 2018.

     d. Class 2c (Meal Period Class -- Late Meal Periods -- San
Diego Location): All current and former non-exempt production
employees of Defendant's San Diego location whose timekeeping
records reflect a meal period commencing after the employee had
worked for five hours or more, during the time period Sept. 8, 2012
through Oct. 9, 2018.

     e. Class 4 (Wage Statement Class): All members of Class 1a,
1c, 2a, and/or 2c, who meet the criteria for class membership for
the time period Sept. 8, 2012 through Oct. 9, 2018, and who also
received a wage statement from Defendant during this same time
period.

     f. Class 5 (Waiting Time Penalty Class): All members of Class
1a, 1c, 2a, and/or 2c, who have separated their employment from the
Defendant during the time period Sept. 8, 2012 through Oct. 9,
2018.

The Judge appointed Enrique Vazquez and Sergio Lopez as the Class
Representatives; and Paul K. Haines, Sean M. Blakely, and Daniel
Brown of Haines Law Group, APC; Michael Singer and Marta Manus of
Cohelan, Khoury & Singer; and Sahag Majarian II of the Law Offices
of Sahag Majarian II as the Class Counsel.

With respect to the proposed classes 1b, 1d, 2b, 3a and 3b, the
Judge denied certification as to each of those proposed classes for
the reasons set forth in the Court's Order dated Oct. 9, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/KkpFgy from Leagle.com.

Enrique Vazquez, individually and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Marta Manus, Cohelan
Khoury & Singer, Michael D. Singer -- msinger@ckslaw.com --
Cohelan, Khoury & Singer & Paul K. Haines --
phaines@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group, APC.

Sergio Alfonzo Lopez, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Paul K. Haines,
Haines Law Group, APC, Sean M. Blakely, Haines Law Group, APC &
Tuvia Korobkin -- tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group,
APC.

Maria Viveros, individually and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Paul K. Haines,
Haines Law Group, APC.

Kraft Heinz Foods Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Daniel B. Chammas -- dchammas@venable.com -- Ford &
Harrison LLP, Alexandria Marie Witte -- awitte@fordharrison.com --
Ford & Harrison LLP & David Lishian Cheng -- cheng@fordharrison.com
-- Ford & Harrison LLP.


L.A. COLLEGE OF MUSIC: Faces Camacho ADA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Los Angeles College
of Music. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Los Angeles College
of Music, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10885 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 20,
2018).

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

Los Angeles College of Music is a for-profit music school in
Pasadena, in Los Angeles County, California. It has been accredited
by the National Association of Schools of Music since 2003.[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


LANNETT CO: Faces Pennsylvania Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company faces a
class action suit in the federal court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

On October 25, 2018, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit filed in the federal court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company, its Chief Executive
Officer and its Chief Financial Officer violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making material
misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the renewal of
the JSP Distribution Agreement which allegedly resulted in a
decline in the market value of the securities of the Company after
an announcement was made that  Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(JSP) would not be renewing the Distribution Agreement with the
Company.  

The Company and the corporate executives named in the complaint
deny that they made any material misrepresentations or omissions,
or that they violated any securities law. The Company has notified
its insurance carrier and requested a defense. The Company and
individual defendants intend to move to dismiss the complaint
although a deadline has not yet been scheduled for filing the
motion. The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of this
suit at this time.

Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended
release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage
forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well
as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft
gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in
1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


LANNETT CO: Securities Suit over Drug Pricing Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit regarding the
Company's drug pricing methodologaies and internal controls.

In November 2016, putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and two of its officers claiming that the Company
damaged the purported class by including in its securities filings
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's drug
pricing methodologies and internal controls.  

An amended complaint was filed in May 2017, and the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in September 2017. In
December 2017, counsel for the putative class filed a second
amended complaint, and the Court denied as moot the Company's
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
in February 2018. In July 2018, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In September 2018,
counsel for the putative class filed a third amended complaint.  

Lannett said, "The Company expects to file a motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint in November 2018. The Company cannot
reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at this time."

Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended
release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage
forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well
as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft
gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in
1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Pomerantz LLP to Lead in Veal Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW VEAL, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. LENDINGCLUB
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02599-BLF (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, (i) granted
XiangHong Ding and Zhenbin Chen ("LendingClub Investor Group")'s
motion to appoint the lead Plaintiff and the lead counsel; and (ii)
denied Ravi Mallur's motion to appoint the lead Plaintiff and the
lead counsel.

On May 2, 2018, Veal filed the putative securities class action
lawsuit against Defendants LendingClub, Renaud Laplanche, Scott
Sanborn, Carrie L. Dolan, Bradley Coleman, and Thomas W. Casey.
Veal alleges that, from Feb. 28, 2015 to April 25, 2018, the
Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and
concealed material adverse facts regarding LendingClub's business,
operational, and financial results.  

Veal alleges that, as a result of these misrepresentations and
omissions, the market price of LendingClub securities was
artificially inflated during the Class Period.  He alleges that,
after the misrepresentations and omissions became apparent, shares
of LendingClub fell $.49 per share, or over 15% from its previous
closing price to close at $2.77 per share on April 25, 2018,
damaging investors.  As a result, Veal filed the instant lawsuit
for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of
all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of LendingClub during the Class Period.

On May 3, 2018, the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. issued a Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") notice advising the
potential Class members of the claims alleged in the action and the
60-day deadline for the class members to move to be appointed as
the lead plaintiff under 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i).

On July 2, 2018, Mallur filed a motion seeking appointment as the
lead Plaintiff and approval of the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as the lead
counsel for the class.  On that same day, the LendingClub Investor
Group seek appointment as the lead Plaintiff and approval of
Pomerantz LLP as the lead counsel.  Each movant opposed the
appointment of the other.  However, LendingClub Investor Group
included with its opposition a joint declaration from its
individual members which cured the deficiencies Mallur had
identified in his opposition.  As such, in reply, Mallur conceded
that he should only be appointed in the event the Court does not
appoint the LendingClub Investor Group.  On Nov. 6, 2018, Mallur
submitted a notice of nonopposition to Lending Club Investor
Group's lead Plaintiff motion.

Judge Labson finds the matter suitable for submission without oral
argument and vacated the hearing scheduled for Nov. 15, 2018.
However, the case management conference set for that same day
remains on calendar.

Because Mallur concedes LendingClub Investor Group ("LIG") should
be the lead Plaintiff if the Court finds it satisfies the statutory
requirements, the Judge analyzes whether LIG satisfies these
requirements.  She finds that it does.

The Judge finds that (i) LIG has met the statutory notice
requirements because it filed its motion on July 2, 2018 the last
day within the 60-day deadline; (ii) LIG is the prospective lead
Plaintiff with the greatest financial stake in the litigation: it
has collectively purchased 111,450 shares, retained 62,750 shares,
expended net funds of $783,553, and lost a net total of $398,723;
and (iii) LIG has made a prima facie showing of typicality and
adequacy.  And because no other member of the purported Plaintiff
class has provided proof that LIG will not fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class or that it is subject to unique
defenses that render it incapable of adequately representing the
class, the Judge accordingly appointed LIG to serve as the lead
plaintiff.

No parties have objected to LIG's selection of Pomerantz LLP as the
counsel.  The Judge has reviewed the firm's resume, and is
satisfied that LIG has made a reasonable choice of counsel.
Accordingly, she approved LIG's selection of Pomerantz LLP as the
lead counsel.

For these reasons, Judge Labson granted LIG's motion to appoint the
lead Plaintiff and the lead counse; and denied Mallur's motion.
LendingClub Investor Group will serve as the lead Plaintiff in the
case, and Pomerantz LLP as the lead counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/s9EN48 from Leagle.com.

Matthew Veal, Individually and on bahalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Marsha Tiller, Plaintiff, represented by Peter B. Fredman --
peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- Law Office of Peter Fredman.

Riccardo Baron, Plaintiff, represented by Avraham Noam Wagner --
avi@thewagnerfirm.com -- The Wagner Firm.

LendingClub Investor Group, XiangHong Ding and Zhenbin
Chen,collectively LendingClub Investor Group-Lead Plaintiff,
Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP.

LendingClub Corporation, Scott Sanborn, Bradley Coleman & Thomas W.
Casey, Defendants, represented by Alexander K. Talarides --
atalarides@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP &
James Neil Kramer -- jkramer@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP.

Renaud Laplanche, Defendant, represented by Robert John Liubicic --
rliubicic@milbank.com -- Milbank Tweed.

Carrie L. Dolan, Defendant, represented by Charlene Sachi Shimada
-- charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP.

Ravi Mallur, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen, The Rosen
Law Firm, P.A. & Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen
Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice.

XiangHong Ding & Zhenbin Chen, Movants, represented by Jennifer
Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Leigh H.
Smollar -- lsmollar@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Patrick V.
Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.


LIFE INSURANCE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Walker Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Joyce Walker, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their lawsuit titled Joyce Walker, et al. v. Life
Insurance Co. of Southwest, Case No. 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-JDE, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Joyce Walker, et al. v. Life
Insurance Co. of Southwest, Case No. 18-80159, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendant
appealed a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is
entitled Joyce Walker, et al. v. Life Insurance Company of the
Southwest, Case No. 18-80093.

The Hon. James V. Selna previously granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  The Court adopted this class definition:

     All persons who purchased a Provider Policy or Paragon
     Policy from Life Insurance Company of the Southwest that was
     issued between September 24, 2006 and April 27, 2014, who
     resided in California at the time the Policy was issued, and
     who received an illustration on or before the date of policy
     application.

The Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint alleging that LSW's
practices in connection with the marketing and sale of two of its
life insurance policies, SecurePlus Provider and SecurePlus
Paragon, constitute unlawful and unfair business practices under
the California Unfair Competition Law based on various violations
of California's Illustration Statute.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners JOYCE WALKER, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated; KIM BRUCE HOWLETT, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated; MURIEL SPOONER, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated; TALINE BEDELIAN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and OSCAR
GUEVARA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Brian P. Brosnahan, Esq.
          Lyn Agre, Esq.
          Margaret Alexandra Ziemianek, Esq.
          KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
          1633 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 506-1700
          E-mail: bbrosnahan@kasowitz.com
                  lagre@kasowitz.com
                  mziemianek@kasowitz.com

               - and -

          Craig A. Miller, Esq.
          MILLER & CALHOON
          225 Broadway, Suite 1310
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-9449
          E-mail: cmiller@craigmillerlaw.com

Defendant-Respondent LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHWEST, a
Texas corporation, is represented by:

          Matthew T. Martens, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 663-6291
          E-mail: matthew.martens@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Andrea J. Robinson, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          60 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 526-6360
          E-mail: andrea.robinson@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Jonathan A. Shapiro, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS LLP
          101 California Street, Suite 3600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 291-6200
          E-mail: jonathan.shapiro@bakerbotts.com


LIFETOUCH INC: Court Dismisses Vigeant ERISA Suit with Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joan N. Ericksen of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota dismissed with prejudice the case, Deborah Vigeant,
Rhonda Wood, Elizabeth Millane, Douglas Eckelbecker, Amanda
Eckelbecker, Rodney Uting, and Lawrence Anderson, and all other
individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Michael Meek, Paul
Harmel, P. Robert Larson, Donald Goldfus, John Anderson, Bruce
Nicholson, Bernie Alrich, Ted Koenecke, Glenn Elo, Newport Trust
Company, and Lifetouch Inc., Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-577(JNE/TNL) (D. Minn.).

Lifetouch is a professional photography company focused primarily
on school pictures.  Until its recent sale to Shutterfly, Lifetouch
was 100% owned by its employees through an Employee Stock Ownership
Plan ("ESOP") sponsored by Lifetouch.  Lifetouch made all
contributions to the Plan and the Plan invested primarily in shares
of Lifetouch stock.  According to the Summary Plan Description,
Defendant Lifetouch -- the Plan Administrator -- was responsible
for managing the Plan and communicating with Plan participants.
Under the terms of the Trust Agreement, Lifetouch's Directors
appointed a Trustee, who had exclusive authority to manage the Plan
assets in the trust.  Defendants Ted Koenecke and Glenn Elo,
Lifetouch senior executives, served as the Trustees through May
2017.

Lifetouch made cash distributions to ESOP participants upon their
retirement.  In the event of a distribution, Lifetouch stock was
repurchased at the fair market value determined by the Trustees on
the June 30th immediately preceding the repurchase date.  The Plan
required the Trustees to value Lifetouch stock annually.  The
Trustees appointed and relied on the opinion of an independent
appraiser to determine the fair market value.

Starting in 2015, Lifetouch struggled financially as new
technologies transformed the professional photography industry and
consumer tastes.  In 2015 and 2016, Lifetouch suffered repeated
financial setbacks.  Lifetouch closed J.C. Penney and Target
brick-and-mortar portrait studio locations.  In November 2015,
Lifetouch closed an entire production facility in North Carolina
and laid off 206 employees.  Additionally, several Lifetouch senior
executives retired, culminating in the retirement of then-CEO Paul
Harmel in July 2016.  In A ugust of 2016, the StarTribune, a major
Minnesota newspaper, published an article about Lifetouch's
struggles to stay relevant, adapt to modern technology, and satisfy
consumer needs.

During this time, Lifetouch's stock value decreased.  Its financial
troubles continued.  On Jan. 30, 2018, CEO Michael Meek explained
in a StarTribune article that Lifetouch had put itself up for sale
because growth had slowed, and Lifetouch was not generating enough
cash flow to invest in new technologies and other areas of
business.  That same month, Shutterfly announced it was acquiring
Lifetouch for $825 million plus unspecified cash and investments.
After receiving a fairness opinion from a third-party financial
advisor, Trustee Newport Trust reviewed and approved the sale
price.  Lifetouch's sale terminated the Plan and commenced the
distribution of proceeds to participants.

The Plaintiffs brought a class action to recover the hundreds of
millions of dollars lost when Lifetouch's stock value declined.
Under Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA"), the Plaintiffs claim that this loss resulted from
breaches of fiduciary duties by Lifetouch, Lifetouch's Board of
Directors, and Lifetouch Trustees directly responsible for managing
the ESOP.

The Plaintiffs allege two breach of prudence claims.  First, they
claim that that the Trustees and other senior executives
manipulated data provided to the independent appraiser to inflate
Lifetouch's stock value in 2015 and 2016.  Second, they assert that
the Defendants should have investigated the evident discrepancy
between the 2015 and 2016 valuations and Lifetouch's financial
reality and removed imprudent investments.

All Defendants moved to dismiss the claims under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.  They argue
that the Plaintiffs fail to plead that Lifetouch's stock was
overvalued in 2015 and 2016.  First, the Defendants assert that the
Plaintiffs do not plead with particularly, under Rule 9(b), that
the Trustees fraudulently inflated Lifetouch's stock value.
Second, they argue that Lifetouch's stock drop in 2017 does not
plausibly suggest that they Defendants overvalued Lifetouch stock
in 2015 and 2016.

Subsequently, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action
against Defendant Newport Trust, a Lifetouch Trustee, pursuant to
Rule 41(a)(1)(A) (i).  Therefore, only the claims against
Lifetouch, the Board of Directors, and Trustees Ted Koenecke and
Glenn Elo remain.

Judge Ericksen finds that the Plaintiffs fail to plead fraudulent
stock inflation with particularity, and do not plausibly plead an
imprudent investment claim under Tibble v. Edison Int'l.  The
annual valuation of Lifetouch is inconsistent with the Plaintiffs'
assertion that the Defendants conducted absolutely no monitoring of
the Plan's investment in the face of changed financial
circumstances.  Moreover, Lifetouch's stock was not so risky as to
make the company stock an imprudent investment.  The financial
hardship described in the Complaint does not amount to the
financial collapse described in Morrison v. MoneyGram Int'l, Inc.
and In re ADC Telecommunications, Inc., ERISA Litig.  Although
Lifetouch faced financial setbacks, the company was valued at and
sold for over $800 million in 2018.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs
fail to state an imprudent investment claim.

The Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss the Plaintiffs'
monitoring claim because it is derivative of the Plaintiffs'
prudence claim.  The Judge agrees.  He finds that the Plaintiffs'
failure to plausibly allege any breach by the Trustees precludes
the monitoring claim.  Therefore, he dismissed the Plaintiffs'
failure to monitor claim.

The Plaintiffs also fail to allege self-dealing for the following
reasons.  First, they did not plausibly allege that senior
executives manipulated the financial data.  Second, the Trustees
relied on an independent appraiser to evaluate the stock value.
Third, it is not surprising, nor suggestive of malfeasance that
senior executives would depart a company experiencing financial
hardship.  There is no inference of wrongdoing from actions that
one would expect.

Moreover, the Plaintiffs' loyalty claim largely repeats the
allegations of their prudence claim.  Because the Judge found the
artificial inflation claim implausible, he also concludes that the
Plaintiffs' derivative loyalty claim fails.  Thus, he dismissed the
duty of loyalty claim.

Finally, because the Plaintiffs' proposed amendment would not cure
the Plaintiffs' failure to state a claim, the Judge dismissed the
action with prejudice.  

Based on the foregoing, Judge Ericksen granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss and dismissed the case with prejudice.  Defendant
Newport Trusts' motion to dismiss is denied as moot.

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

Deborah Vigeant, and all other individuals similarly situated,
Douglas Eckelbecker, and all other individuals similarly situated,
Amanda Eckelbecker, and all other individuals similarly situated,
Rhonda Wood, and all other individuals similarly situated, Lawrence
Anderson, and all other individuals similarly situated, Elizabeth
Millane, and all other individuals similarly situated & Rodney
Uting, and all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Douglas J. Nill -- dnill@farmlaw.com -- Douglas J.
Nill, P.L.L.C., Edward H. Glenn, Jr., Zamansky LLC, pro hac vice,
Jacob H. Zamansky -- jake@zamansky.com -- Zamansky LLC, pro hac
vice, Justin Sauerwald, Zamansky LLC, pro hac vice & Samuel E.
Bonderoff, Zamansky LLC, pro hac vice.

Michael Meek, P. Robert Larson, Donald Goldfus, John Anderson,
Bruce Nicholson & Bernie Alrich, Defendants, represented by Andrew
J. Holly -- holly.andrew@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
Nicholas J. Bullard -- bullard.nick@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney
LLP & Stephen P. Lucke -- lucke.steve@dorsey.com -- Dorsey &
Whitney LLP.

Paul Harmel, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Holly, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, Lars Golumbic, Groom Law Group, Chtd., pro hac vice,
Nicholas J. Bullard, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Stephen P. Lucke,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP.

Ted Koenecke & Glenn Elo, Defendants, represented by Andrew J.
Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Nicholas J. Bullard, Dorsey & Whitney
LLP, Stephen P. Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Theodore M. Becker,
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, pro hac vice.

Lifetouch, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Holly, Dorsey
& Whitney LLP, Cardelle B. Spangler -- cspangler@winston.com --
Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Heather Lehman Kriz --
hkriz@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas
J. Bullard, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Stephen P. Lucke, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP.


MAINE: Dismissal of Class Action Claims in Gladu Suit Recommended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICHOLAS A. GLADU, Plaintiff v. JOSEPH FITZPATRICK, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00274-GZS (D. Me), Magistrate
Judge John C. Nivison of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maine recommended that the Court dismisses all claims except the
claim identified as actionable in the original recommended.

In the action, the Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Maine
Department of Corrections at the Maine State Prison, alleges the
Defendants violated his constitutional rights following an incident
in February 2018.  He also attempts to assert a class action on
behalf of others who are similarly situated.

In response to a Recommended Decision After Review of Complaint
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(e), 1915A, the Plaintiff filed
a motion to amend with proposed supplemental pleadings in an
apparent effort to address the shortcomings identified in the
recommended decision.  Because the Plaintiff can amend his
complaint, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a), once as a matter of course within 21 days of service of the
complaint, and because the complaint has not yet been served, the
Magistrate granted the motion to amend.  

The Plaintiff alleges that on Feb. 11, 2018, he received two heavy
applications of pepper spray when he refused to cuff up for a cell
extraction, and that he was subsequently denied access to a shower
for three days after he was placed in Emergency Observation Status
("EOS").  More particularly, he alleges Defendant Manning,
identified as a sergeant at the Maine State Prison, not only denied
his request for a shower for a period of three days, even though he
reported to the Defendant that his skin was burning from
head-to-toe, but also denied him access to other means of
decontamination in his cell.

Upon review of Plaintiff's complaint, Magistrate Judge Nivison
concluded that the Plaintiff had alleged an actionable claim
against Defendant Manning.  He also determined that the Plaintiff's
claim against the supervisory officers failed because the Plaintiff
merely alleged in conclusory fashion that Defendant Manning was
following a policy or practice.  Under the circumstances, the
Plaintiff's supplemental filing lacks any basis to deviate from the
ordinary rule that an officer's mere denial of a grievance does not
establish that the officer is liable for the underlying
deprivation.

The Plaintiff seeks to assert a class action on behalf of all male
prisoners at MSP who were or will be exposed to chemical agents and
then deprived of meaningful opportunity to decontaminate by means
of a shower and clean change of clothing.  The Magistrate finds
that the Plaintiff's supplemental pleading does not alter the fact
that the Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, cannot assert a claim on
behalf of other individuals.

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Magistrate Judge granted
Plaintiff's motion to amend.  In addition, after review of the
amended pleadings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)
and 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915A(a), for the reasons set forth and in
the original recommended decision, he reiterated the recommendation
in the original recommended decision.

Specifically, he recommended that the Court dismisses the
Plaintiff's class action allegations; dismissed the Plaintiff's
claims against Defendants Fitzpatrick, Thornell, Liberty, Ross,
Cassese, and Burns; and permits the Plaintiff, based on the alleged
denial of means by which to decontaminate from the application of
pepper spray, to proceed on a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
against Defendant Manning.

A party may file objections to those specified portions of the
Magistrate Judge's report or proposed findings or recommended
decisions entered within 14 days of being served with a copy
thereof.  Failure to file a timely objection will constitute a
waiver of the right to de novo review by the district court and to
appeal the district court's order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Supplemental
Recomended Decision is available at https://is.gd/9mDUIn from
Leagle.com.

NICHOLAS A GLADU, and Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, pro
se.


MASTERCARD INC: Appeals Court to Hear Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Paige Long, writing for Law360, reports that an English appeals
court ruled on Nov. 13 that it could weigh whether a £14 billion
($18.1 billion) consumer antitrust suit against MasterCard Inc. can
proceed as a class action. [GN]


MCDONALD'S CORP: Ontario Judge Allows Happy Meal Suit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Serebrin, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that a Quebec
Superior Court judge has authorized a class-action lawsuit against
McDonald's that claims the fast food restaurant illegally
advertises to children.

Under Quebec's Consumer Protection Act, "no person may make use of
commercial advertising directed at persons under 13 years of age."

The lawsuit claims that displays inside McDonald's restaurants
showing Happy Meal toys violate this law.

"The authorization is, of course, preliminary, but the judge
basically found that we made an arguable case that the displays
when you walk into McDonald's directly incite children to buy
either toys individually or Happy Meals," said Joey Zukran, the
lawyer who filed the suit.

Authorization -- similar to a process called certification in other
provinces -- allows a lawsuit to be filed on behalf of a group, or
class

Anyone who purchased a toy or a Happy Meal for a child under 13 who
was present with them at a Quebec McDonald's while an "advertising
campaign directed at children" was happening in the restaurant
since Nov. 15, 2013 is now part of the class.

"What we're seeking are three things, the first thing and I would
even consider this probably the most important thing is an
injunctive relief, which means that we want the court to order
McDonald's to stop using the prohibited practice, which is the
displays both in the drive-throughs and in the restaurants," Mr.
Zukran said.

The lawsuit also seeks reimbursement for individual toys that were
purchased as well as a portion of sales of Happy Meals with toys
sold to children under 13.

"The third thing we're asking are punitive damages for what we
consider to be a blatant violation of Quebec consumer protection
law for over 25 years," Mr. Zukran said. "This violation is a
serious one, it's a public health issue, which is why it's so
important to us and it's been ongoing and intentional."

The value of the damages being sought have not yet be determined
and, after application for authorization, there could be hundreds
of thousands or even millions of people in the class.

A spokesperson for McDonald's said the company has received the
ruling "and plans to examine it carefully."

"We are aware of our obligations under Quebec's advertising laws
and reiterate that we do not believe this class action has merit,"
said Adam Grachnik, an external communications manager at
McDonald's Corporate Relations.

McDonalds argued against authorizing the suit, saying it only
advertises Happy Meal toys inside restaurants and drive-through
lanes in Quebec. It said Happy Meal boxes in the province don't
have any reference to toys, nor does the company's French-language
Canadian website, according to the judge's ruling.

McDonald's also said, according to the ruling, that it continues to
abide by a voluntary agreement relating to advertisements aimed at
children that it signed with the Office de la protection du
consommateur in 1985.

There are some exceptions to the ban on advertising aimed at
children, according to the ruling. For example, there can be some
advertising aimed at children in store windows, but those
advertisements can't directly incite a child to buy something, or
to encourage someone else to buy something for them. McDonald's
argued that any in-store advertising falls within those
exemptions.

The next step will be for judge to hold a hearing to determine how
class members will be notified.

"As far as we're concerned, we're preparing for a trial," Mr.
Zukran said. [GN]


MERCK & CO: Taha Sues over Zostavax Vaccine
-------------------------------------------
Fatema Taha, Plaintiff, vs. MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK SHARP & DOHME
CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06203 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 2,
2018), alleges that Merck failed to warn the Plaintiffs and other
consumers of the defective condition of Zostavax, as manufactured
and/or supplied by Merck.

According to the complaint, on or about October 6, 2015, the
Plaintiff was treated by Dr. Rachelle Brilliant at a healthcare
facility located in 101 Jordan Rd No. 104, Troy, New York 12180 for
shingles. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with shingles and/or other
zoster-related injuries after and despite being inoculated with the
Zostavax vaccine, and suffered serious physical, emotional, and
economic damages as a result of Plaintiff's injuries. As a direct
and proximate result of the Zostavax vaccine, Plaintiff has and
will continue suffer ongoing injuries, including but not limited to
mental and physical pain and suffering; extensive medical care and
treatment for these injuries; significant medical and related
expenses as a result of these injuries, including but not limited
to medical losses and costs include care for hospitalization,
physician care, monitoring, treatment, medications, and supplies;
diminished capacity for the enjoyment of life; a diminished quality
of life; increased risk of premature death, aggravation of
preexisting conditions and activation of latent conditions; and
other losses and damages; and will continue to suffer such losses,
and damages in the future.

The lawsuit contends that the Zostavax vaccine was defective due to
inadequate warnings or instructions because Defendants knew or
should have known that the product created significant risks of
serious bodily harm to consumers an d they failed to adequately
warn consumers and/or their healthcare providers of such risks.
Defendants failed to provide adequate warnings to healthcare
providers and users, including Plaintiff and Plaintiff's healthcare
providers, of the increased risk of developing severe and permanent
injuries, including, but not limited to, the risk of contracting
shingles and suffering from zoster-related injuries associated with
Zostavax, the lawsuit says.

Merck developed, tested, designed, set specifications for,
licensed, manufactured, prepared, compounded, assembled, packaged,
processed, labeled, marketed, promoted, distributed, and/or sold
the Zostavax vaccine to be administered to patients throughout the
United States, including New Jersey.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Debra J. Humphrey, Esq.
          MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS LLP
          60 E. 42 nd St., Suite 950
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: 212.702.5000
          Facsimile: 212.818.0164
          E-mail: dhumphrey@bernllp.com

MERIDIAN SENIOR: Dominguez Files ADA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meridian Senior
Living, LLC. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Meridian
Senior Living, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10873 (S.D. N.Y.,
Nov. 20, 2018).

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

Meridian Senior Living, LLC operates assisted living facilities for
age qualified residents throughout the United States. It offers
independent living, assisted living, and memory care services.[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


MINNESOTA: Court Affirms Ruling on Bids to Compel in Murphy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Tenner Murphy, by his guardians Kay and Richard
Murphy; Marrie Bottelson; Dionne Swanson; and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Emily Johnson Piper in her
Capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human
Services, Defendant, Civil No. 16-2623 (DWF/BRT) (D. Minn.), Judge
Donovan W. Frank of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota affirmed Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson's Order and
Opinion on Defendant's Motions to Compel.

Magistrate Judge Thorson's Aug. 29, 2018 Order addressed two
Motions to Compel filed by the Defendant.  The combined motions
raised seven issues: (1) deposition of a witness regarding
interrogatory responses; (2) discovery related to supplemental
needs trusts; (3) disclosure of documents; (4) spoliation
sanctions; (5) striking of errata answers; (6) sanctions for
failure to comply with previous order; and (7) removal of
confidential designations.  The Defendant objects to the Order as
it relates to all issues.

Magistrate Judge Thorson first addressed Defendant's request to
depose an additional witness on Plaintiffs' interrogatory answers
to Nos. 5, 17, 20, and 22-26 related to the Plaintiffs' requested
relief.  Magistrate Judge Thorson ultimately denied the Defendant's
request to depose an additional witness on the Plaintiff's answers
to Interrogatory Nos. 5, 17, 20, and 22-26.  The Defendant argues
that Magistrate Judge's Order is contrary to law because it
violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 by not allowing
Defendant access to the identities of persons answering the
interrogatories.

Judge Frank finds that Magistrate Judge Thorson thoroughly reviewed
the depositions at issue, properly concluded that there is no abuse
of Rule 33's verification procedures, and correctly denied the
Defendant's request to depose additional witnesses in respect to
Interrogatory Nos. 5, 17, 20, and 22-26.

Magistrate Judge Thorson next considered the Defendant's argument
that the Plaintiffs improperly withheld documents related to Tenner
Murphy's supplemental needs trust by invoking a common interest
privilege without an actual common legal interest.  She found that
the Plaintiffs properly invoked the privilege because the "common
interest" in the documents at issue was to create a special needs
trust to benefit Tenner Murphy to secure his well-being in light of
his disability.  The Defendant argues that Magistrate Judge
Thorson's interpretation of the common interest doctrine is overly
broad.

Judge Frank disagrees and finds that Magistrate Judge Thorson
correctly applied the "common interest doctrine" as it has been
interpreted in the Eighth Circuit.  He finds that the Magistrate
Judge did not act contrary to law when she denied the Defendant
access to documents about Tenner Murphy's special needs trusts.

Magistrate Judge Thorson then considered the Defendant's argument
that the Plaintiffs asserted improper work product and
attorney-client privilege objections with respect to questions
about documents that the Plaintiffs' witnesses reviewed prior to
their depositions.  She found that the Plaintiffs' counsel properly
asserted a work product objection because the selection and
compilation of documents by the counsel in preparation for
pre-trial discovery falls within the highly protected category of
opinion work product, and defendants failed to lay foundation for
the disclosure of the materials pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 612.

The Judge finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly applied the
work product privilege as interpreted by the Eighth Circuit.  It is
inconsequential that the Defendant did not specifically ask who
prepared the documents; the selection process was implicated and
the work product privilege applies.  The Defendant had the
opportunity to receive the information by laying a proper
foundation in accordance with Fed. R. Evid. 612.  The Magistrate
Judge did not act contrary to law when she declined to overrule the
Plaintiffs' work product objection.

Magistrate Judge Thorson then considered the Defendant's request to
strike a subset of substantive changes made by the Plaintiffs
Bottelson and Swanson in Rule 30 errata sheets.  She found that the
Plaintiffs provided sufficient justification to permit the errata
sheet changes.  She preserved both the original depositions and
errata sheets for use as impeachment at trial.  She also granted
the Defendant two additional hours of deposition with each witness
to ask about the challenged changes to the errata sheets.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' explanation does not
provide the sufficient justification necessary to permit the
changes.  The Judge disagrees.  He finds that the Magistrate's
application of the "sufficient justification" standard is
consistent with other courts in the district that have recognized
that forgetfulness and confusion are sufficient reasons for
changing deposition testimony.  Further, he finds that the
Magistrate granted the Defendant an appropriate remedy by allowing
two additional deposition hours. He affirms Magistrate Judge
Thorson's decision to permit the challenged errata sheets.

Next, Magistrate Judge Thorson considered the Defendant's request
to sanction the Plaintiffs for willful violation of a previous
order regarding a supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 22.
She denied the Defendant's request.  The Defendant argues that the
Magistrate's decision is contrary to law because the Plaintiffs
committed a willful violation by being purposefully unresponsive to
Interrogatory No. 22.  The Judge finds that the Magistrate properly
evaluated the Plaintiffs' response and correctly concluded that
their collective answer to Interrogatory No. 22 is not a
sanctionable offense because they did not willfully or otherwise
violate her previous order.

Finally, Magistrate Judge Thorson considered the Defendant's
request to remove the Plaintiff's confidential designations on 268
documents in three categories: (1) financial; (2) medical; and (3)
documents that are marked confidential for no reason discernable to
the Defendants. She denied relief as to the first two categories
because the Defendant previously stipulated to permit Confidential
designations on documents within the scope of protection afforded
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and the Plaintiffs satisfied their burden of
proving that the documents at issue fell within the scope.

The Defendant argues that Magistrate Judge Thorson addressed only
part of her motion; specifically, that it challenged the
Plaintiffs' confidentiality designations relating to both documents
produced in discovery and depositions of Named Plaintiffs
Bottelson, Swanson, Richard Murphy, and Kay Murphy.  It asks the
Court to consider its challenges to the Plaintiffs' deposition
confidentiality designations de novo or to remand them to the
Magistrate for further consideration because she failed to address
them.
The Judge finds that Magistrate Judge Thorson addressed the
Defendant's challenge by expressly stating that the Defendant's
motion to remove confidentiality designations to the extent the
Court found documents non-confidential was granted, but that the
motion was otherwise denied.  The Defendant's challenge to
confidential designations on the depositions is encompassed in the
totality of otherwise denied. Further, a separate analysis for the
depositions would be redundant, as the same logic applies.
Finally, her ruling is without prejudice; the Defendant will have
the opportunity to renew challenges to designations in relation to
future court filings.

Judge Frank concludes that Magistrate Judge Thorson's Order is
neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.  Giving proper
deference to the Magistrate Judge's Aug. 29, 2018 Order and for the
reasons stated, he denied Defendant's appeal and affirmed
Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson's August 29, 2018 Order in all
respects.

Accordingly, he overruled the Defendant's appeal of the Magistrate
Judge Becky R. Thorson's Order and Opinion on Plaintiffs' Motion to
Compel and Defendant's Motion to Compel.  He affirmed the
Magistrate's Aug. 29, 2018 Order and Opinion on the Defendant's
Motions to Compel consistent with his Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/iDAJSC from Leagle.com.

Tenner Murphy, by his guardians Kay and Richard Murphy and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Marrie Bottelson, and on
behalf of others similarly situated & Dionne Swanson, and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Eren
Ernest Sutherland, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid Minnesota Disability Law
Center, Joseph W. Anthony -- janthony@anthonyostlund.com -- Anthony
Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA, Justin M. Page, Mid-Minnesota Legal
Aid/Disability Law Center, Justin H. Perl -- jperl@mylegalaid.org
--, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, Peter McElligott --
pmcelligott@anthonyostland.com -- Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie
PA, Steven M. Pincus -- spincus@anthonyostlund.com -- Anthony
Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA, Steven C. Schmidt, Mid-Minnesota Legal
Aid Minnesota Disability Law Center & Steven Andrew Smith, Nichols
Kaster, PLLP.

Emily Johnson Piper, in her Capacity as Commissioner of the The
Minnesota Department of Human Services, Defendant, represented by
Aaron Winter -- aaron.winter@ag.state.mn.us -- Minnesota Attorney
General's Office, Brandon L. Boese, Office of the Minnesota
Attorney General, Janine Wetzel Kimble --
janine.kimble@ag.state.mn.us -- Minnesota Office of Attorney
General & Scott H. Ikeda -- scott.ikeda@ag.state.mn.us -- Minnesota
Attorney General's Office.

ARRM, Amicus, represented by Pari McGarraugh --
pmcgarraugh@fredlaw.com -- Fredrikson & Byron & Samuel D. Orbovich
-- sorbovich@fredlaw.com -- Fredrikson & Byron, PA.


MIYOKOS KITCHEN: Faces Class Action Over Vegan Butter Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Bird, writing for care2, reports that these days, if you
presume to call your vegan product "milk" or "meat," prepare to do
battle. The producers of the animal versions of those products are
putting a target on your back. The latest company in the
crosshairs? Miyoko's Kitchen.

Miyoko's Kitchen offers up artisanal vegan cheeses and vegan
butter. And this vegan butter isn't your typical palm-oil-based
butter substitute. Rather, the ingredients include coconut oil,
sunflower oil and cultured cashews to recreate a realistic
non-dairy butter. It spreads and melts like the real thing.

Fans of Miyoko Kitchen's products rave about them. Happy consumers
have turned the company into a plant-based success story.

But, all of a sudden, someone filed a class action lawsuit in late
October 2018 to challenge Miyoko's Kitchen's marketing approach.

Unlike other lawsuits against plant-based alternative foods, this
lawsuit doesn't allege that consumers will be confused between
"real" butter and vegan butter. Instead, it argues that consumers
are being misled because they would expect that Miyoko's products
"are nutritionally equivalent to butter or margarine, when they are
inferior -- lacking vitamin A, D, E and calcium.'"

The complaint alleges that Miyoko's products "bask in dairy's
'halo' by using familiar terms to invoke positive traits --
including the significant levels of various nutrients typically
associated with real dairy foods."

Really, dairy's "halo"? I'm fairly confident few of us buying vegan
butter think of the dairy industry as deserving of angelic
descriptors. It's cruel and heartless in myriad ways -- and that's
why so many of us are turning to plant-based alternatives.

The real assertion here is that Miyoko's dared to use the word
"butter" on its packaging when its product doesn't have all the
attributes of dairy butter.

"It is false and misleading for the Products to not be labeled as
an imitation (whether of butter or margarine) in a manner as
prominent as it promotes its equivalence to butter," the complaint
alleges.

So the beef -- if you'll pardon the expression -- is that the word
"vegan" isn't big enough on the packaging?

You mean the packaging that says right on its face that it's "vegan
butter"? The package that's stocked in the grocery cold case with
all the other non-dairy plant-based products so vegans can find
them? The one that's significantly more expensive than dairy
butter? The one that plant-based eaters specifically seek out
because it's vegan and it's really good? That one?

In fact, Miyoko's Kitchen has gone through a series of package
redesigns as its product grew in popularity. Where the packaging
once said "Melts, browns, bakes and spreads like butter," now it
says "Melts, browns, bakes, and spreads phenomenally." The words
"Made from Plants" now appear prominently on the box. The words
"cultured vegan" are now in larger font above the word "butter." A
vegan logo now appears on the front as well.

All these updates apparently took place before the lawsuit was
filed on October 30, 2018.

Why did the product call itself butter in the first place? That's
easy, says company founder Miyoko Schinner. She told Food
Navigator:

"We really believe that the landscape of dairy is changing rapidly
and innovation is driving that change. We're trying to
revolutionize how we make dairy products by making them from
plants, and we believe that is going to become the new norm."

We want to really drive the conversation about what exactly
constitutes a 'dairy' product in the future. There may come a time
when all dairy products come from plants and at that point, you
could ask are they really 'dairy free' or are they the new dairy?"

This lawsuit will be a tough sell. Food regulations permit products
to be called by an "appropriately descriptive term," attorney Bill
Acevedo told Food Navigator.

Indeed, we've already seen a lawsuit pertaining to WhiteWave Foods
products, the maker of Silk plant-based milks. The federal district
court in that case held that names like soy milk, almond milk and
coconut milk "clearly convey the basic nature and content of the
beverages, while clearly distinguishing them from milk that is
derived from dairy cows."

Are a group of "concerned" consumers truly behind this class action
lawsuit against Miyoko's Kitchen, or is this Big Dairy once again,
taking a different tack?

No one buys vegan butter expecting it to be nutritionally
equivalent. They buy it because they want a plant-based butter that
tastes good and functions similarly to butter in cooking and
baking. Those worried about nutrition read nutrition labels and
make decisions accordingly.

Just stop it with these ridiculous lawsuits. Plant-based
alternatives are here to stay. [GN]


MODIS INC: Brown Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Modis Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-3089-C (N.D. Tex., November 20, 2018) is a collective
action seeking to recover overtime compensation and all other
available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiff typically worked at least 50 hours per week, often more.
Yet Plaintiff (and other similarly situated employees) did not
receive any additional compensation for the hours worked above
forty in a week, and thus Defendant denied their workers overtime
pay in violation of federal law, says the complaint.

The Defendant willfully committed widespread violations of the FLSA
by failing to pay these employees for overtime hours worked in
excess of forty hours per week at a rate of one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff is an individual who was formerly employed by Defendant.

Modis is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of Florida.
Modis maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in
Florida. Modis is a citizen of Florida. Modis may be served through
its registered agent for service of process, CT Corporation System,
1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas, TX 75201-3136, or where
found.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josh Borsellino, Esq.
     Borsellino, P.C.
     1020 Macon St., Suite 15
     Fort Worth, TX 76102
     Phone: (817) 908-9861
     Facsimile: (817) 394-2412
     Email: josh@dfwcounsel.com


MOG INTERNATIONAL: Trusty Seeks OT Pay for Direct Care Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Asmyra A. Trusty, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MOG International, LLC,
Olayemi B. Olukanni, and Nurat O. Olukanni, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-04912-CDJ (E.D. Pa., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania
Wage Payment and Collection Law, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act of 1968.

According to complaint, MOG employs at least 50 Direct Care Workers
in Pennsylvania. During the last three years, MOG has required
these DCWs to work in excess of 40 hours per week without paying
time and a half for overtime. Because the DCWs were not properly
paid overtime for more than 80 hours in any given two week pay
period, MOG received unpaid labor from its DCWs each day, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
          Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
          Stephen T. Mahan, Esq.
          MCARTHY WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
          2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B
          Hsrrisburg PA 17110
          Telephone: (717) 238 5707
          Facsimile: (717) 233 8133
          E-mail: lweisberg@mcfirm.com
                  dcummings@mcfirm.com
                  smahan@mcfirm.com


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Jan. 14 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC on Nov. 14 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against MoneyGram International, Inc. (NASDAQ: MGI)
("MoneyGram" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between February 11, 2014 and November 8,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

IMPORTANT DEADLINE:  Investors who purchased MoneyGram's common
stock during the Class Period may, no later than January 14, 2019,
seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
investor class.  For additional information, or to learn how to
participate in this action, please visit
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/moneygram-international-inc/.

As detailed in the shareholder class action complaint, on November
8, 2018, the FTC issued a press release entitled "MoneyGram Agrees
to Pay $125 Million to Settle Allegations that the Company Violated
the FTC's 2009 Order and Breached a 2012 DOJ Deferred Prosecution
Agreement."  According to the press release, "[t]he FTC alleges
that MoneyGram was aware for years of the high levels of fraud and
suspicious activities involving certain agents, including large
chain agents. . .  At the same time, MoneyGram also often failed to
promptly conduct the required reviews or to suspend or terminate
agents, particularly those from larger locations with high levels
of fraud."

Following this news, shares of MoneyGram's common stock fell $2.20
per share, or nearly 50% in value, to close at $2.27 per share on
November 9, 2018, on heavy trading volume.

Among other things, the class action complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and misleading statements during
the Class Period, and failed to disclose to investors that: (i)
MoneyGram was aware for years of high levels of fraud involving its
money transfer system; (ii) MoneyGram failed to implement
appropriate anti-fraud countermeasures, in part, because doing so
would adversely impact its revenue; and (iii) this misconduct would
draw scrutiny from the FTC, which had an agreed-upon order
requiring MoneyGram to implement a comprehensive anti-fraud
program.  The complaint further alleges that, as a result of the
foregoing, investors purchased MoneyGram's common stock at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and suffered
investment losses as a result of defendants' conduct.

MoneyGram investors who suffered a financial loss in excess of
$100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus
Kaskela, Esq.) at (888) 715-1740, or via email at
skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, for additional information about this
action and their legal rights and recovery options.  Additional
information about this action may also be found at
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/moneygram-international-inc/.

Kaskela Law LLC -- http://www.kaskelalaw.com-- exclusively
represents investors in securities fraud, corporate governance, and
other stockholder actions. [GN]


MONSANTO COMPANY: Lis Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM LIS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01920 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of
the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207-2950
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com

MORRISONS: Sheppard Mullin Discusses Data Leak Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------
Shanna M. Pearce, Esq. -- spearce@sheppardmullin.com -- of
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, in an article for The
National Law Review, reports that UK supermarket chain Morrisons
has been held vicariously liable for the acts of a malicious
employee in the UK's first data leak class action. The issue began
in 2014, when a disgruntled Morrison's internal IT auditor posted
to a public file-sharing website the payroll data of nearly 100,000
employees (including names, addresses, dates of birth, national
insurance numbers and bank details). The employee was found
criminally liable in 2015 and jailed for eight years. A class
action of 5,500 employees filed claims against Morrisons alleging
breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). Although Morrisons
acted swiftly and responsibly after the leak, and was found not to
be primarily liable, the court of appeals has nonetheless now
affirmed the lower court ruling that Morrisons is vicariously
liable for the unlawful acts of its employee carried out in the
course of his employment.

Putting it Into Practice: Though sound policies and practices can
reduce companies' risk, choosing the right employees and carefully
restricting access to sensitive data are also important. [GN]


MOSAIC FERTILIZER: Fla. App. Reverses Curd Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC, Appellant, v. HOWARD CURD,
FLOYD DEFOREST, SCOTT MOBLEY, GARY BRUCE, DAVID LAGGNER, BRYAN
IBASFALEAN, PHILIP JOHNSON, and ANGELO LOGRANDE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellees, Case No.
2D17-2302 (Fla. Dist. App.), Judge Stevan T. Northcutt of the
District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Second District
reversed the nonfinal order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, and remanded for further proceedings
consistent with his Opinion.

Curd and other commercial fishermen sued Mosaic following a
pollutant spill into Tampa Bay.  The fishermen alleged that Mosaic
owned or operated a phosphogypsum storage area near Archie Creek in
Hillsborough County.  Within the storage area was a pond containing
the pollutant-rich wastewater from a phosphate plant.  Although
dikes enclosed the wastewater pond, the fishermen alleged that in
the summer of 2004 the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection
Commission and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
warned Mosaic that the pond was dangerously close to exceeding safe
storage levels.

In September 2004 Hurricane Frances swept across Florida, and on
Sept. 5, 2004, the dike gave way, spilling wastewater into Tampa
Bay.  In their lawsuit, the fishermen claimed that the spilled
pollutants resulted in a loss of underwater plant life, fish, bait
fish, crabs, and other marine life.  Though the fishermen did not
claim ownership of the damaged marine life, they claimed that the
spill resulted in damage to the reputation of the fishery products
the fishermen are able to catch and attempt to sell.
The circuit court allowed the fishermen to proceed on their claim,
but ultimately it dismissed the claim as unauthorized by the
economic loss rule.  The Court affirmed and certified questions of
great public importance; the Florida Supreme Court quashed the
Court's opinion and held that the economic loss rule did not bar
the fishermen from pursuing both a common law negligence claim as
well as a statutory cause of action under section 376.313(3),
Florida Statutes (2004).  The supreme court concluded that section
376.313(3) provides private causes of action to any person who can
demonstrate damages as defined under the statute, and that the
discharge of the pollutants constituted a tortious invasion that
interfered with the special interest of the commercial fishermen to
use those public waters to earn their livelihood.

On remand, the fishermen filed their fifth amended complaint and
made an initial attempt to certify a class of commercial fishermen.
However, they later opted to forgo class certification and instead
moved to intervene or join the putative class members and proceed
on a nonclass basis.  The circuit court denied the motion to
intervene.  The fishermen appealed, and the Court affirmed without
opinion.

Again before the trial court, the fishermen moved for class
certification.  They defined the putative class members as those
persons engaged in the commercial catch and sale of fish, bait
fish, shrimp, crabs, and other living sea creatures in the Tampa
Bay and who have lost income and continue to suffer damages because
of the pollution, contamination, and discharge of hazardous
substances by the defendant, Mosaic.

The circuit court held a hearing on the motion for certification.
After the first day of hearings, the circuit court entered an order
requiring further proceedings for class certification
determinations.  On the second day of hearings, Mosaic tendered the
testimony of seven expert witnesses without objection.  After the
two days of hearings, the circuit court entered an order
bifurcating the case into liability and damages phases and cited to
Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc.  

The court defined the liability phase as extending up to and
including determination of the geographic scope of potentially
harmful effects of the spill.  The order suggested that after all
liability issues were resolved the court would consider
decertification for the determination of individual damages.  The
court also granted the fishermen's motion for class certification
only as to the liability phase.  It found that the fishermen had
met their burden under rule 1.220(a) and that the liability issues
are common questions which predominate the individual damages
issues.

Mosaic appealed the order bifurcating the case and certifying the
class.

Judge Northcutt finds that the fishermen failed to carry their
burden of positing any reasonable methodology for proving classwide
claims.  The circuit court sua sponte amended the putative class to
include any holders of commercial fishing licenses who claim to
have been damaged by the Mosaic spill.  The fishermen therefore had
the burden of proving -- beyond mere "supposition" -- some
methodology for generalized proof by which the class representative
would necessarily prove the cases of all other commercial fishing
license holders who claim to have been damaged by the spill.

The fishermen's support for class certification amounted only to
the testimony of Curd and Nipper.  Taken as a whole, it is not
possible to view Curd's and Nippers' testimony as plausibly putting
forth a reasonable methodology for proving classwide claims.  The
circuit court therefore abused its discretion because there was no
competent, substantial evidence supporting its proof-based inquiry
into and ultimate determination of rule 1.220(b)(3)'s predominance
requirement.

Moreover, the Judge finds that although the circuit court
bifurcated the case into a liability and damages phases in the vein
of Engle, this bifurcation does not change his decision.  First, it
is not necessarily clear that Engle prospectively authorized
bifurcation as a means of meeting rule 1.220(b)(3)'s requirements.
Even assuming that Engle authorized the circuit court to use rule
1.220(d)(4)(A) to certify classwide liability issues, the fishermen
did not present a reasonable methodology for proving those issues
classwide.

Accordingly, Judge Northcutt reversed the order on appeal and
remanded for further proceedings consistent with his Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/guVM8U from Leagle.com.

David B. Weinstein and Kimberly Mello -- mellok@gtlaw.com -- of
Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tampa, and Andrew J. Patch of Greenberg
Traurig, P.A., Tampa (withdrew after briefing), for Appellant.

Andra T. Dreyfus -- attorneys@dreyfuspa.com -- and Casey C.
Harrison of Dreyfus Harrison, P.A., Clearwater, and F. Wallace
Pope, Jr. -- WALLYP@JPFIRM.COM -- of Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel &
Burns, LLP, Clearwater, for Appellees.


MUY PIZZA-TEJAS: Scott et al Seek Unpaid Wages for Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------
ERNEST SCOTT, JAMES GRIGGS, AND EVAN MONACELLI, ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the PLAINTIFFS, vs.
MUY PIZZA-TEJAS, LLC, MUY PIZZA SOUTHEAST, LLC AND MUY PIZZA
MINNESOTA, LLC, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 5:18-cv-01187-OLG (W.D.
Tex. Nov. 14, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage compensation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants operate Pizza Hut stores
in Texas, Florida, Virginia and Minnesota, among other states. Mr.
Scott was employed by Defendants as a delivery driver in Houston,
Texas beginning in 2013 and is currently still employed by
Defendants. Mr. James Griggs was employed by Defendants as a
delivery driver in Ruckersville, Virginia from January 2015 through
October 2016. Mr. Evan Monacelli was employed by Defendants as a
delivery driver in Cloquet, Minnesota from October 2015 through
August 2018.

For at least three years prior to the filing of this complaint,
Defendants willfully committed violations of the FLSA by failing to
pay minimum wage to their hourly delivery drivers, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, PC
          2901 Bee Cave Rd, Box L
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Negligent Over Athletes' Health, Dobson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Dobson and Bruce Swinton Jr., Plaintiffs, v. The National
Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-03661-TWP-DLP (S.D. Ind., November 21, 2018) is an original
class complaint against Defendant for failing to warn players of
the long-term risks associated with repeated concussive and
sub-concussive hits, failing to educate players on head injury
prevention, failing to timely implement rules of play that would
limit head injuries, failing to timely implement return to play
rules after concussions occurred, and failing to cover the cost of
post-collegiate medical care necessary as a result of the
Defendant's bad acts.

The complaint says despite the NCAA's and member conferences'
assumption of this responsibility for player safety, Defendant was
negligent and failed to carry out this duty in that they failed to
implement and enforce regulations that would properly protect
student-athletes from the risks associated with concussions and/or
manage those risks to properly respond to the medically proven fact
that repetitive concussions would lead to brain injuries in many
football players, including Plaintiffs and the Class.

The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to meet their legal
responsibility to safeguard student-athletes, despite being aware
that the NCAA and its member conferences have a "legal obligation
to use reasonable care to protect athletes from foreseeable harm in
any formal school sponsored activity". Defendant engaged in a
long-established pattern of negligence and inaction with respect to
concussions and concussion related maladies sustained by its
student-athletes, all the while profiting immensely from those same
student-athletes, says the complaint.

National Collegiate Athletic Association is an unincorporated
association that acts as the governing body of college sports with
its principal office located at 700 West Washington Street,
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.

Plaintiffs and Class Representatives James Dobson and Bruce
Swinton, Jr. are former NCAA athletes who played football at
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff from 1993 to 1995 and 1994 to
1996, respectively.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Vincent P. Circelli, Esq.
     George Parker Young, Esq.
     Kelli L. Walter, Esq.
     CIRCELLI,WALTER &YOUNG, PLLC
     Tindall Square Warehouse
     500 E. 4th Street, Suite 250
     Fort Worth, TX 76102
     Phone: (817) 697-4942
     Email: gpy@cwylaw.com
            vinny@cwylaw.com
            kelli@cwylaw.com


NEW GREAT WALL: Underpays Delivery Persons, Chen Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
JIAN CHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW GREAT WALL 2, INC. D/B/A NEW GREAT WALL
KITCHEN; and JOHN DOE, Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-10075
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendant
unpaid overtime compensation, prejudgment interest, maximum
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Chen was employed by the Defendants as delivery
person.

New Great Wall 2, Inc. d/b/a New Great Wall Kitchen is a
corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Tannenbaum, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          E-mail: dtannenbaum@hanglaw.com


NEW HAMPSHIRE INSTITUTE: Camacho Suit Alleges ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Hampshire
Institute of Art. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. New Hampshire
Institute of Art, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10886 (S.D. N.Y.,
Nov. 20, 2018).

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

The New Hampshire Institute of Art is a private, non-profit college
of creative arts located in Manchester, New Hampshire, in the
United States. NHIA is accredited by the National Association of
Schools of Art and Design and the New England Association of
Schools and Colleges.[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


NEW YORK: Campbell Seeks Wages & OT for Boiler Makers and Welders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LANGE CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs NEW YORK BOILER, INC.,
RICHARD BERGER and DONALD BERGER, the Defendants, Case No.
160513/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
prevailing wages, supplemental benefits, as well as overtime
compensation which the Plaintiff is statutorily and contractually
entitled to receive for their services performed at the Public
Works Projects, pursuant to New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the action is brought on behalf of the
Named Plaintiff and members of a putative class consisting of each
and every other person who performed construction trade work for NY
Boiler on the sites of the Public Works Projects, in such trades
which include but are not limited to Boiler Maker and Welder.

The Plaintiff performed various types of construction-related
improvement work, including but not limited to boiler construction,
repairs, maintenance, metal work, tube rolling and
cutting, tube bending, and other construction work at the Public
Works Project. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and members of
the putative class the prevailing rates of wages and supplements to
which Plaintiffs are entitled. The Defendant also failed to pay
Plaintiff at a rate of time and one-half of their hourly regular
rate of pay when they performed work in excess of 40 hours in a
seven day work week, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Putative Class:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
          New York, New York 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082

ONE BRANDS: Faces Melendez Product Liability Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against One Brands, LLC. The
case is styled as Jose Melendez individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. One Brands, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-06650 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018).

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

ONE Brands sells protein bars called ONE Bars that claims to be
packed with 20 grams of protein and only ONE gram of sugar per
serving.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq.
     Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
     891 Northern Blvd, Suite 201
     Great Neck, NY 11021
     Phone: (516) 303-0552
     Fax: (516) 234-7800
     Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


PALM BEACH HOME: Dominguez Brings Suit v. Home Under ADA
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Palm Beach Home
For Adults, LLC. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Palm
Beach Home For Adults, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10876 (S.D.
N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018).

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

The Palm Beach Home For Adults is located in Brooklyn at 2900 Bragg
Street and classified as a large Assisted Living facility. The Palm
Beach Home For Adults provides Assisted Living services for each of
its residents and if needed, assists them with bathing, grooming,
meal preparation, dressing and much more.[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


PARRENT SMITH: Griffin Sues Over Unauthorized Credit Report Probe
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Griffin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Parent Smith Investigations, Nichols J.
Smith, Joanne Parrent, and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-07092 (N.D. Cal., November 21, 2018) brings this action
to challenge the actions of Defendants with regard to Defendants'
wrongful use of Plaintiff's and the putative Class's credit reports
for no permissible purpose that caused damages.

Plaintiff is informed, believes, and alleges that Defendants have a
systemic policy and practice of obtaining credit reports of
consumers that are the subject of their "private investigations",
without authorization, consent, or any permissible purpose.

The complaint says the Defendants improperly requested Plaintiff's
credit report without any permissible purpose. Defendants were not
extending credit to Plaintiff or employing Plaintiff. Instead,
Defendants were conducting an adverse and unauthorized
investigation of Plaintiff when they obtained his credit report,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who is a "consumer".

Parrent Smith Investigations is a company located in Los Angeles,
California who conducts business in California.

Nichols J. Smith is a person who resides in Los Angeles, California
who conducts business in California.

Joanne Parrent is a person who resides in Los Angeles, California
who conducts business in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



PAUL BLANCO'S: Karla Black Sues over Commission Scheme
------------------------------------------------------
KARLA BLACK, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PAUL BLANCO'S
GOOD CAR COMPANY OAKLAND, a California Corporation; PAUL BLANCO'S
GOOD CAR COMPANY AUTO GROUP, a  California Corporation; and Does 1
through 50, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG 18928257 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Nov. 13, 2018) alleges that the Defendant failed to
compensate the Plaintiff and Class for all their missed meal breaks
and unpaid rest periods.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant
in California and paid on a draw vs. commission compensation scheme
from November 2017 to June 2018, and was at all times during her
employment with Defendant entitled to be paid minium wages and
entitled to the legally required off-duty meal periods. The
Plaintiff was also required to be paid for her rest periods as
Defendant paid Plaintiff only commissions wage for certain pay
periods. The Defendant did not separately compensate Plaintiff for
her rest periods, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

PDR NETWORK: Supreme Court Hears Fax Advertisement Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
poised to settle a jurisdictional issue that has bedeviled it for
years, the Supreme Court took up a case on Nov. 13 involving a
publisher that was sued for faxing an advertisement to a West
Virginia chiropractic office.

As the petitioner PDR Network LLC told the court in its bid for
certiorari, a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit ruled in the the
decision below that "the District Court lacked the jurisdiction to
independently interpret the statutory term 'advertisement' and
apply it to the single fax in question."

"That decision contravenes basic judicial providence to say what
the law is, directly conflicts with decisions of other circuits,
and warrants this court's review," PDR's petition continues.

Represented by attorneys at Blank Rome in Philadelphia, PDR
explains in the petition that its fax in 2013 was promoting a copy
of the Physicians' Desk Reference, a guide that has kept health
care providers apprised for over 70 years on drug labeling and
prescribing information.

When the company Carlton & Harris Chiropractic received PDR's fax,
however, it brought a federal class action under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

A federal judge dismissed the case, finding that Carlton & Harris
had not stated a valid claim under the TCPA, but in February 2018
the Fourth Circuit reversed.

Whereas the lower court here had employed a Chevron analysis, named
for precedent that says courts are empowered to independently
assess whether a statutory term is "unambiguous," the Fourth
Circuit said that the Hobbs Act controlled.

This would mean that the lower court was obligated to apply the
interpretations of the TCPA by the Federal Communications
Commission.

PDR argued in its petition that the Hobbs Act is intended "to
prevent disjointed attacks on agency orders via a challenge to the
order's 'validity.'"

"The practical consequence of the Fourth Circuit's decision in this
case, however, is to unjustifiably expand the Hobbs Act to strip
all courts of jurisdiction to apply federal statutes and interpret
agency guidance," the petition continues. "In so ruling, the Fourth
Circuit deepened a split of authority among circuit courts as to
the reach of the Hobbs Act, as well as the appropriateness of
engaging in a Chevron analysis to decide issues of statutory
interpretation.

"Certiorari is warranted to resolve the jurisdictional issues
presented, as well as equally important questions concerning the
TCPA's scope raised by the Fourth Circuit's rulings on the law."

Per its custom, the Supreme Court did not issue any comment in its
order taking up the case. PDR's was the one of two cases granted
certiorari this morning in an order list containing dozens of
denied petitions. The other case involves Virginia Republicans who
want to preserve state legislative districts that were struck down
as racially discriminatory.

Blank Rome attorney Jeffrey Neal Rosenthal -- dneal@blankrome.com
-- has not returned an email seeking comment. Glenn Hara --
ghara@andersonwanca.com -- of the firm Anderson + Wanca in Rolling
Meadows, Illinois, represents Carlton & Harris. Mr. Hara declined
to comment. [GN]


PFIZER INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Nixon Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pfizer, Inc. The case
is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06631 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018).

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

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It operates in two segments, Pfizer Innovative
Health (IH) and Pfizer Essential Health (EH).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PHOENIX COMPLETE: Underpays Mechanics, Caba Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
NELSON S. CABA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PHOENIX COMPLETE AUTO CARE, INC.; SUNDAY'S
RESORT LLC; ORLANDO SUNNY, INC., MIAMI SUNNY, INC.; YONG QING LIU
and LILI ZHENG,  Defendants, Case No. 80137745 (Fla. Cir.,
Miami-Dade Cty., Oct. 31, 2018) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, minimum wages, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Caba was employed by the Defendants as mechanic.

Phoenix Complete Auto Care, Inc. is a Florida corporation which
offers automotive products and services, including the diagnosis,
maintenance, and repair of ignition, fuel, computerized engine
control, cooling, emissions control, engine drive train,
electrical, air conditioning, oil and other fluid, and brake
systems. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rainier Regueiro, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Comeau Building
          319 Clematis Street, Suite 606
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 225-1970
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: rregueiro@rgpattorney.com


POINT PARK UNIVERSITY:  Camacho Bring Class Suit for ADA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Point Park
University. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Point Park
University, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10887 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 20,
2018).

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

Point Park University is a liberal arts university in downtown
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Formerly known as Point Park College, the
school name was revised in 2004 to reflect the number of graduate
programs being offered.[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


QUICKEN LOANS: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Amended Allen TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QUICKEN LOANS INC. AND
NAVISTONE, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-12352 (ES) (MAH)
(D. N.J.), Judge Esther Salas of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss
the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.

Allen filed the instant lawsuit on Feb. 9, 2018.  At the heart of
the controversy is Quicken's and NaviStone's implementation and
execution of a JavaScript code on a web server whose domain points
to "www.quickenloans.com."  Allen alleges that on June 20, 2017,
gizmodo.com, a technology news website, published an article
describing how NaviStone's Code works to unmask anonymous website
visitors.  He states that he visited and interacted with Quicken's
Website on several occasions within the 6 months prior to filing of
the lawsuit, but did not purchase any of Quicken's services or
products.  Quicken's Website provides visitors with information
about its products and services related to mortgages, and offers
prospective customers the ability to apply for a mortgage, or to
calculate refinancing terms.  Quicken's Website provides this
functionality through an on-line form.

NaviStone is a marketing company and data broker that offers the
Code to e-commerce companies such as Quicken to help them identify
who visits their websites.  NaviStone does this by maintaining a
database containing the names and mailing addresses of various U.S.
consumers.  NaviStone attempts to identify live-time website
visitors by matching their internet protocol addresses, and other
personally identifiable information ("PII") they provide, to
information on NaviStone's databases.  The task of identifying
visitors is handled by NaviStone's Code, which runs in the
background of websites and can intercept the electronic
communications of visitors, such as their keystrokes and mouse
clicks.

Allen alleges that because NaviStone has partnered with hundreds of
e-commerce websites, it can identify and track consumers across
those partner websites.  He alleges that Quicken, one of
NaviStone's voluntary partners, embeds the NaviStone Code onto its
website to scan visitors' computers for files that can be used to
identify who they are, intercept their electronic communications,
and obtain their de-anonymized PII.  The Amended Complaint further
alleges that NaviStone's Code is concealed through dummy domains in
an attempt to obfuscate the wiretap codes, and that the Code loads
simultaneously with Quicken's Website.  Thus, NaviStone -- and the
partnering website -- can intercept the communication in real time
even if a user doesn't hit submit.

In addition, Allen alleges that the NaviStone Code intercepts
information that a visitor types into a webform, such as when a
visitor enters the balance of his or her mortgage, the total value
of his or her home in an attempt to model hypothetical financing
options.  Because NaviStone's wiretaps are deployed on hundreds of
e-commerce websites, and because NaviStone maintains and correlates
its back-end database of User Data and PII across these hundreds of
websites, NaviStone can identify website visitors.
Allen alleges that the security and privacy policy maintained on
Quicken's Website is false and/or misleading, because Quicken does
in fact share visitor's information with NaviStone for NaviStone's
marketing purposes and promotional use.  Further, he alleges that
when the Defendants implemented the wiretaps they intended to
commit tortious acts including disclosures of the intercepted
information which violated Quicken's Privacy Policy, violated the
Stored Communications Act, violated the confidentiality provisions
of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and several New Jersey privacy
torts.

He seeks to represent a nationwide class of persons affected by the
Defendants' alleged practices, and also seeks to represent a New
Jersey subclass.  The Amended Complaint alleges that the
Defendants' practices violated: (Count I) 18 U.S.C. Section
2511(1)(a) of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act by
intentionally intercepting, endeavoring to intercept, and procuring
another to intercept electronic communications; (Count II) 18
U.S.C. Section 2511(1)(c) by intentionally disclosing electronic
communications intercepted in violation of Section 2511(1)(a);
(Count III) 18 U.S.C. Section 2511(1)(d) by intentionally using or
endeavoring to use the contents of electronic communications
intercepted in violation of Section 2511(1)(a); (Count IV) 18
U.S.C. Section 2511(1)(a) by intentionally procuring another to
intercept or endeavor to intercept electronic communications;
(Count V) 18 U.S.C. Section 2512 by creating wiretap codes,
possessing wiretaps, by advertising them, and by distributing them;
(Count VI) the Stored Communications Act by intentionally accessing
stored files without authorization or by exceeding authorization;
and (Count VII) the New Jersey common-law tort of intrusion upon
seclusion by intentionally intruding on the Plaintiff's solitude or
seclusion in a highly offensive manner.

The Defendants move motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

Judge Salas granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss.  Counts I
through VI of Allen's Amended Complaint are dismissed with
prejudice.  Count VII is dismissed without prejudice.

As to Count VII, the Judge finds that the allegations fail to
sufficiently state the amount Allen reasonably seeks for the
intrusion upon seclusion claim -- or the loss any putative New
Jersey class member -- in a way that would permit the Court to
estimate the total amount of the controversy.  Consequently, the
Amended Complaint does not properly plead the amount in controversy
requirement under CAFA.  The Judge, however, is not ready to
completely dismiss the case because it appears that Allen might be
able to allege sufficient facts for the Court to exercise original
jurisdiction over his intrusion upon seclusion claim.  Therefore,
he denied NaviStone's request and dismissed Count VII without
prejudice.

Allen may file a final amended complaint within 20 days, but
failure to do so will constitute dismissal of the entire action
with prejudice.  An appropriate Order accompanies the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/y4zrid from Leagle.com.

MICHAEL ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by FREDERICK JOHN KLORCZYK, III --
fklorczyk@bursor.com -- BURSOR & FISHER PA.

QUICKEN LOANS INC., Defendant, represented by JEFFREY DEAN VANACORE
-- JVanacore@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP.

NAVISTONE, INC., Defendant, represented by JAMIE P. CLARE --
jclare@coleschotz.com -- COLE SCHOTZ.


RAE FRANKS: Thompson Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
CALVINA THOMPSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED., the Plaintiff, vs. RAE FRANKS, ESQUIRE, P.A.,
the Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-81546-DMM (S.D. Cal., Nov. 12,
2018), seeks redress for unlawful conduct of Defendant in violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has dispatched thousands
of unlawful collection letters to United States consumers, whereby
each such letter contains identical violations of the FDCPA. The
Collection Letter violates the FDCPA by failing to sufficiently
inform the least sophisticated consumer of the rights and/or
protections he or she enjoys under sections 1692g(a)(3)-(5), as the
information/disclosure proffered in the Collection Letter is devoid
of entire swaths of mandatory information, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

RANDSTAD US: Court Dismisses Lopez Labor Suit Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the Defendant's motion
to compel arbitration and dismissed the case captioned JOSE
MARTINEZ LOPEZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. RANDSTAD US, L.P., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01003-BLF (N.D. Cal.) without
prejudice.

Plaintiffs Jose Martinez Lopez, Fernando Lara, and Elisabeth Lopez
brought claims on behalf of themselves and a putative class of
others similarly situated against their employer, Defendant
Randstad US, L.P. for violations of various California
wage-and-hour laws. The Defendant filed renoticed motions to compel
arbitration and to strike Plaintiffs' amendment to the complaint.
The Court heard oral argument on the motions on Oct. 25, 2018.

This case began in state court with Mr. Freddy J. Robledo, the
former lead plaintiff in this action, and a former employee of
Defendant. Mr. Robledo filed an action against Defendant in the
Superior Court of California, County of Monterey for wage-and-hour
violations under California's Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA")
on January 7, 2015. Defendant moved to compel arbitration of Mr.
Robledo's claims based on an arbitration agreement between Mr.
Robledo and Defendant. The state court denied the motion because
the arbitration provision included a class action waiver, and the
California Supreme Court has held that arbitration agreements
compelling the waiver of representative claims under PAGA cannot be
waived.

Like Mr. Robledo, Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant.
Each Plaintiff executed an arbitration agreement with Defendant
containing the same language, in relevant part, as Mr. Robledo's
agreement.

On Feb. 29, 2016, Mr. Robledo filed the present action in state
court. On Jan. 24, 2017, he amended his complaint to add Plaintiffs
as named plaintiffs. The FAC alleges five California state-law
causes of action: (1) failure to pay reporting-time pay; (2)
failure and refusal to pay agreed wages; (3) failure to pay wages
timely; (4) failure to pay all wages upon termination; and (5)
unfair business practices. On Feb. 27, 2017, Defendant removed the
case to this Court. On March 2, 2017, at Plaintiffs' request,
Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd dismissed Mr. Robledo from the
case. Defendant then filed the instant motion to compel
arbitration, and filed the instant motion to strike.

A district court faced with a petition to enforce an arbitration
clause engages in a limited two-part inquiry: first, it determines
whether the arbitration agreement is valid, and second, it
determines whether the agreement encompasses the claims at issue. A
district court does not consider challenges to the contract as a
whole, but rather only specific challenges to the validity of the
arbitration clause itself.

Plaintiffs' opposition challenged the validity of the arbitration
agreement and its application to the claims at issue on only two
fronts. First, Plaintiffs spent the bulk of their brief arguing
that the class action waiver provision in the agreement is invalid
under the Ninth Circuit's decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP.
At oral argument, Plaintiffs conceded that the Supreme Court's
decision in Epic Systems, which overturned the Ninth Circuit Morris
decision, forecloses this argument.

Second, Plaintiffs argued that the arbitration agreements are
unenforceable on their "own terms." According to Plaintiff, the
state court decision holding Mr. Robledo's arbitration agreement
unenforceable triggered the "poison pill" provision of Plaintiffs'
agreements. Because the state court held that the arbitration
agreement was unenforceable as to Mr. Robledo's representative
claims under PAGA, this decision satisfies the provision in
Plaintiffs' identical agreement that states that each agreement "is
void if it is determined that [the signatory] cannot waive the
right to participate in or receive money from any class,
collective, or representative proceeding.

The Court holds that the argument is without merit. The state court
found Mr. Robledo's agreement unenforceable as to his PAGA claims.
Mr. Robledo is no longer a party to this case, and Plaintiffs do
not bring any PAGA claims. That Mr. Robledo's agreement is invalid
as to his PAGA claims does not dictate that Plaintiffs'
independently executed agreements are void here as to non-PAGA
claims. Though Plaintiffs' agreements have the same class action
waiver language that caused the state court to invalidate Mr.
Robledo's agreement, this does not mean that the state court made
any determination as to these plaintiffs and these agreements. Had
these Plaintiffs brought a PAGA claim in this Court, the Court
would have had to independently determine the validity of the
agreements because these Plaintiffs were not parties in the state
court action.  The state court decision interpreting the language
would not somehow bind this Court in interpreting the same language
in an independent (albeit identical) provision. But Plaintiffs did
not even bring a PAGA claim here. Plaintiffs would have the Court
speculate about the types of claims that might have triggered the
poison pill language in the agreements, but that would be little
more than an improper parlor game, which the Court declines to
engage in where, as here, all of the asserted claims are clearly
covered by the arbitration agreement and not themselves void.

Thus, the Court finds that the state court's decision that Mr.
Robledo's agreement did not bind him to arbitration of his PAGA
claims does not somehow void Plaintiffs' agreements here, where no
PAGA claim has been asserted. Because Plaintiffs do not challenge
the validity and enforceability of these agreements on any other
grounds, the Court grants Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration.

Defendant's Motion to Strike is terminated as moot. There being no
remaining claims outside of arbitration, the entire action is
dismissed without prejudice to filing a later action to confirm or
vacate the arbitration award.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 20, 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2E0SKjZ from Leagle.com.

Jose Martinez Lopez, Fernando Lara & Elisabeth Lopez, Plaintiffs,
represented by Bernard James Fitzpatrick, Fitzpatrick & Swanston &
Charles Swanston, Fitzpatrick & Swanston Attorneys at Law.

Randstad US, L.P., Defendant, represented by Andrew More McNaught
-- amcnaught@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Elizabeth Jarvis
MacGregor -- emacgregor@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Michael
Anderson Wahlander  -- mwahlander@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw
LLP.


RELADYNE, LLC: Marzec Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MARZEC, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RELADYNE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2018CH14101 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County, Nov. 13, 2018), seeks to
stop Defendant's capture, collection, use and storage of
individuals' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, and to
obtain redress for all persons injured by Defendant's conduct.

Choosing to shun more traditional timekeeping methods, Defendant
has instead implemented an invasive program that relies on the
capture, collection, storage and use of its workers' fingerprints,
while disregarding the applicable Illinois statute and the privacy
interests it protects.  BIPA expressly obligates Defendant to
obtain an executed, written release from an individual, as a
condition of employment, in order to capture, collect and store an
individual's biometric identifiers, especially a fingerprint, and
biometric information derived from it.  BIPA further obligates
Defendant to inform its employees in writing that a biometric
identifier or biometric information is being collected or stored;
to tell its employees in writing for how long it will store their
biometric information and any purposes for which biometric
information is being captured, collected, and used; and to make
available a written policy disclosing when it will permanently
destroy such information. Despite the requirements under BIPA,
Defendant's practice violates its employees' statutorily protected
privacy rights under BIPA. Furthermore, Defendant's failure to
provide a written policy regarding its schedule and guidelines for
the retention and permanent destruction of its workforces'
biometric information violates section 15(a) of BIPA, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Frank Castiglione, Esq.
          KasifKhowaja, Esq.
          THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC
          70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 356-3200
          Facsimile: (312) 386-5800
          E-mail: fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com
                  kasif@khowajalaw.com

               - and -

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 South Michigan A venue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201-0575
          Facsimile: (312) 332-0600
          E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
                  cpsons@bormeslaw.com


REO CONTRACTORS: Underpays Project Supervisors, Chavez Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
PABLO CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REO CONTRACTORS, INC.; KINDALE PITTMAN;
HOLLY KIRK; GREGORY B. STESSEL; and VICKI STESSEL, Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-02895-K (N.D. Tex., Oct. 31, 2018) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Chavez was employed by the Defendants as project
supervisor.

REO Contractors, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
the State of Texas. The Company provides rehab services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          Travis Gasper, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
          1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749-1400
          Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
                  gasper@l-b-law.com


RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Jan. 7 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC on Nov. 14 notified investors
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Ribbon
Communications, Inc. f/k/a Sonus Networks, Inc. ("Ribbon" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: RBBN) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Ribbon securities
between January 8, 2015 through March 24, 2015, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/rbbn.

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 Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Sonus would fall materially short of its $74
million revenue forecast; (2) defendants knew that unrealistic
revenue and profitability forecasts remained aspirational and
largely unreachable, a fact that senior sales personnel regularly
communicated to defendants; (3) a number of 2015 sales had been
"pulled forward" to buoy sales numbers in Q4 2014, at management's
direction; (4) the "backlog" of sales expected to be recognized in
early 2015 was significantly lower than usual; and (5) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
bgandg.com/rbbn or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Ribbon you
have until January 7, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. [GN]


ROBERT BOSCH: Martinez et al. Sue over Defective Bosch CP4 Pump
---------------------------------------------------------------
RIGER MARTINEZ; BRETT NEIVILLER; NELSON RODRIGUEZ, JR.; BRADLEY
DAVID LETTSOME; JOSEPH MAY; CHRIS BELLEFLEUR; ANDRES MARTES SIERRA;
DANIEL PATRICK SELF; ALAN SCAGLIARINI; AMY NORMAN; DAVID AULITA;
CARL ALBERT RICHARDS, III; PATTI M. RICHARDS; and CHRISTOPHER OWEN
CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH LLC; GENERAL MOTORS
LLC; FORD MOTOR COMPANY FCA US LLC, F/K/A CHRYSLER GROUP; FIAT
CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES, N.V.; FCA NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS, LLC; VM
MOTORI S.P.A.; and VM NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
9:18-cv-81500-RLR (S.D. Fla., Nov. 1, 2018) alleges violation of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that Bosch and several
vehicle manufacturers are well known for cheating environmental
agencies in order to meet emissions criteria. But in this case,
Bosch and the Vehicle Manufacturer Defendants conspired to cheat
the consumers. They promised consumers the continued reliability of
their diesel engines, but with increased fuel efficiency and power
at greater fuel efficiency. However, this came with a hidden and
catastrophic cost that was secretly passed on to consumers. The key
was the Bosch CP4 high pressure fuel injection pump, which
unbeknownst to consumers is a ticking time bomb when used in
American vehicles. Bosch's CP4 pump was never compatible with
American fuel standards. The CP4 pump does not meet the
specifications for U.S. diesel fuel in terms of lubrication or
water content, and it struggles to lift a volume of fuel sufficient
to lubricate itself. As a result, the pump is forced to run dry and
destroy itself as air bubbles allow metal to rub against metal. The
pump secretly deposits metal shavings throughout the fuel injection
system and the engine until it suddenly and catastrophically fails
without warning, further contaminating the fuel delivery system
with larger pieces of metal. This often occurs around 100,000
miles, but sometimes occurs soon after purchase. The Vehicle
Manufacturer Defendants claim the failures are caused by fuel
contamination, which is not covered under their warranties.
Consumers are left with repair bills that range from $8,000.00 to
$20,000.00 per vehicle. Some victims of the Vehicle Manufacturers
Defendants' deception are American businesses who own several
vehicles and have suffered multiple failures. Others have spent
several hundred or several thousand dollars attempting to prevent
or mitigate these failures. Plaintiffs and all members of the
proposed classes paid a premium for these diesel vehicles, and were
harmed by being sold vehicles with a defective fuel injection pump
that is substandard for American fuel.

Robert Bosch GmbH provides technology and services worldwide. It
operates through Mobility Solutions, Industrial Technology,
Consumer Goods, and Energy and Building Technology segments. The
company was formerly known as Workshop for Precision Mechanics and
Electrical Engineering and changed its name to Robert Bosch GmbH in
1937. Robert Bosch GmbH was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in
Stuttgart, Germany. Robert Bosch GmbH is a subsidiary of Robert
Bosch Stiftung Gmbh. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Parker Felix, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 North Orange Ave., Ste. 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 418-2081
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3392
          E-mail: Andrew@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
          HILLIARD MARTINEZ GONZALES LLP
          719 S. Shoreline Blvd.
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 882-1612
          Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
          E-mail: bobh@hmglawfirm.com


ROWAN COMPANIES: Shareholders File Class Action Over Ensco Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Rowan Companies shareholders brought a federal class action to
protest the merger of the oil and gas driller with Ensco in an
all-stock deal that will leave Ensco shareholders with 61 percent
and Rowan shareholders with 39 percent of the combined company,
whose estimated value will be $12 billion.


SANDIA CORP: Proposed Kennicott Case Schedule Revised
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge James O. Browning issued a memorandum that the Court
will not, at this time, decide the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the case captioned LISA A. KENNICOTT, LISA A. GARCIA, SUE C.
PHELPS, and JUDI DOOLITTLE, on behalf of themselves and a class of
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SANDIA CORPORATION d/b/a
SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES, Defendant, No. CIV 17-0188 JB\GJF
(D.N.M.) because the Court will address the motion to dismiss after
the class certification hearing.  

The Court will amend the Joint Proposed Case Schedule and require
Sandia Labs to complete electronically stored information (ESI)
production on Jan. 15, 2019. The Plaintiffs must submit their
motion for class certification and expert reports by March 25,
2019.

The Court recognizes that condensing the case schedule to
accommodate a July 1, 2019, class certification hearing challenges
both parties. The parties have expressed their concerns about
shortened deadlines: Sandia Labs worries about completing ESI
production; the Plaintiffs have concerns about completing
discovery, litigating discovery issues, and preparing the class
certification motion and expert reports,; and both proposed case
schedules reflect attempts to maximize the parties' time to respond
to class certification and expert briefings.

The Court concludes that the revised case schedule will best
address its and the parties' concerns. The revised case schedule
allows Sandia Labs slightly over six weeks and time after the
holidays to complete its ESI production. The Court is disinclined
to grant Sandia Labs additional time for ESI production, because
the Court hesitates to reduce the time between the ESI production's
completion and the pre-class certification discovery, class
certification motion, and expert reports deadlines to a degree that
would disallow the Court and the parties time for litigation, which
the Plaintiffs have indicated they will seek, about the discovery.


The Court's experience with Sandia Labs' discovery production has
not been the best, and the Court fears it better build in time for
and anticipate forthcoming discovery disputes. As the July 1, 2019,
class certification hearing deadline responds to the Court's
scheduling needs and the Court wants to address discovery
litigation before the class certification hearing, the Court's
schedule reflects an attempt to leave time for the Court and the
parties to address the discovery litigation without interfering
with the class certification deadline. Sandia Labs can always
withdraw the MTD to relieve pressure on its ESI production; if
Sandia Labs withdraws its MTD, the Court has no need to set aside
the case schedule to which the parties previously agreed. As long
as Sandia Labs insists on keeping its MTD on file, the Court must
rule on it before the six-month deadline, and the Court thinks it
would be best to rule on it with the Plaintiffs' upcoming class
certification motion.

The March deadline for the class certification motion and expert
reports allows the Plaintiffs over two months for discovery and
preparation for the motion and reports. The initial stipulated time
between the ESI production completion, and the class certification
motion and expert reports deadline was similarly just over two
months.  The revised case schedule will also reduce Sandia Labs'
response time and the Plaintiffs' reply time proportionately, by
forty percent, giving Sandia Labs forty-five days to respond to the
Plaintiffs' class certification motion and expert reports, and the
Plaintiffs thirty days to reply to Sandia Labs' responses. Fairness
demands that the parties face equal reductions in their response
and reply times.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Nov. 20,
2018 is available at https://bit.ly/2FJv7y3 from Leagle.com.

Lisa A. Kennicott, Lisa A. Garcia & Sue C. Phelps, on behalf of
themselves and a class of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Anne Brackett Shaver -- ashaver@lchb.com -- Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Gretchen Mary Elsner, Elsner Law
& Policy, LLC, Kelly Maureen Dermody -- kdermody@lchb.com -- Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Bien, Outten & Golden
LLP, pro hac vice, Adam T. Klein, Outten & Golden LLP, pro hac
vice, Cheryl-Lyn Bentley, Outten & Golden LLP, pro hac vice, David
Lopez , Outten & Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Lin Yee Chan, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Michael Ian Levin-Gesundheit --
mlevin@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Tiseme
Gabriella Zegeye -- tzegeye@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP.

Sandia Corporation, doing business as Sandia National Laboratories,
Defendant, represented by Cindy Jean Lovato-Farmer, Sandia National
Laboratories, Justin E. Poore, Sandia Corporation, Scott D. Gordon,
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A., Grace E. Speights --
grace.speights@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro
hac vice, Jeffrey L. Lowry, Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb,
P.A., Krissy A. Katzenstein -- krissy.katzenstein@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Michael S. Burkhardt
-- michael.burkhardt@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, pro hac vice, Paola Viviana Jaime , Rodey, Dickason, Sloan,
Akin & Robb, P.A. & Theresa W. Parrish -- tparrish@rodey.com --
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A.


SANTA CLARA, CA: Settles Disabled Inmates' Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bay City News Service reports that Santa Clara County on Nov. 13
settled a November 2016 class action lawsuit alleging
discrimination against inmates with disabilities in three county
jails.

Though the county denied violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act alleged in the lawsuit, it has agreed to make
infrastructure improvements at Main Jail North, Elmwood Jail, and
the New Jail project to be constructed at the old Main Jail South.


If a court approves the terms of the settlement, the county will
also pay $1.1 million in attorneys fees and $2.2 million for
compliance monitoring to the nonprofit Disability Rights Advocates
and the law firm Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit will not receive any damages.

"The monetary value doesn't really apply here," attorney Lisa Ells
said. "It's not a case where we were suing for money, we were suing
for change."

The county has already committed $100 million to modify
architecture and infrastructure at the jails, such as cracked
sidewalks that prevent inmates from commuting to classes while
using wheelchairs, or providing access to bathrooms in different
areas of the jail that are ADA-compatible.

Though the negotiations were difficult, Ells said the county worked
diligently to address the problems outlined in the lawsuit. The law
firm Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld has brought similar lawsuits
against Monterey and Yuba counties, as well as the state jail
system.

"They're complicated problems and I credit [Santa Clara] County.
From the start, they understood they were real problems that needed
to be worked on and discussed," Ellis said.

Modifications will include ADA-accessible examination rooms,
mirrors, telephones, showers, exercise equipment, beds and entry
ramps to jail facilities.

"For years now, the Sheriff's Office has been partnering with other
County departments to prioritize construction efforts leading to
continued improved accessibility for inmates in our Jails," Sheriff
Laurie Smith said in a statement. [GN]


SANTA FE COUNTY, NM: Court Denies Dismissal Bids in Armendariz Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GABRIEL ARMENDARIZ ERIC DION COLEMAN, JACOB GOMEZ,
TONY LOVATO, MATTHEW J. LUCERO, EDWARD R. MANZANARES, JOE MARTINEZ,
CHRISTOPHER MAVIS, PHILLIP TALACHY, FELIPE J. TRUJILLO, JOSEPH
VIGIL, and JAMES M. WHEELER, on their own behalf and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. SANTA FE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, MARK GALLEGOS, in his individual and
official capacity, and INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL COATINGS, LLC, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00339 WJ/LF (D N.M.), Judge William P. Johnson of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico denied (i) the
Motion to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff Wheeler or, Alternatively,
for an Order to Show Cause why Claims Should Not be Dismissed
and/or Other Sanctions Imposed, filed on July 6, 2018 by Defendants
Santa Fe County Board of Commissioners and Mark Gallegos; (ii) the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Claims of Felipe Trujillo or,
Alternatively, for an Order to Show Cause Why Claims Should Not Be
Dismissed and/or Other Sanctions Be Imposed, filed July 13, 2018;
and (iii) the Defendants' Expedited Motion to Dismiss Claims of
Matthew Lucero or, Alternatively, for Order to Show Cause Why
Claims Should Not Be Dismissed and/or Other Sanctions Be Imposed,
filed July 23, 2018.

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

Seven of the original 12 Plaintiffs in the lawsuit remain
incarcerated, but according to the Defendants, of the five
Plaintiffs who are no longer incarcerated, each has failed in one
respect or another to participate in significant discovery matters
in the litigation.  All the three motions filed by the Defendants
differ slightly in the factual scenario but are similar in that
they all request sanctions against these the Plaintiffs for failing
to cooperate with the discovery process.  This similarity allows
the Court to address all three together.

Plaintiffs Wheeler, Trujillo and Lucero did not show for their
scheduled depositions.  

Plaintiff Wheeler, who is not incarcerated, was scheduled to appear
for his deposition on July 6, 2018.  According to the response, Mr.
Wheeler's car had a flat tire on the morning of the deposition and
he was unable to fix it in time to get to the deposition.  He has
answered other discovery requests in this case, and met with his
attorneys beforehand to prepare for his deposition.

The counsel for the Plaintiffs offered to reschedule Mr. Wheeler's
deposition and to pay the reasonable costs and fees incurred by the
County Defendants and Defendant Industrial Commercial Coatings, LLC
("ICC") as a result of Mr. Wheeler's non-appearance in exchange for
withdrawal of the instant motion.  However, the County Defendants
refused to enter into such an agreement with respect to Mr.
Wheeler.

Plaintiff Trujillo is currently incarcerated, but was released from
the detention facility for his July 11, 2018 deposition to take
place at defense counsel's office.  In the late afternoon of July
10, 2018, the Plaintiffs' counsel served a notice of non-appearance
for Mr. Trujillo, with no explanation as to why he would not show
up.  The Plaintiffs proposed a reasonable resolution of the issue,
just as they had with Plaintiff Wheeler: to reschedule Mr.
Trujillo's deposition and to pay the reasonable costs and fees
incurred by the County Defendants and ICC as a result of Mr.
Trujillo's non-appearance in exchange for withdrawal of the instant
motion.  The Defendants rejected this offer as well.

Plaintiff Lucero's deposition was scheduled for July 23, 2018, but
he did not appear, although counsel for the Defendants showed up
for the deposition.  Mr. Lucero claims that he was sick and that he
informed his attorneys at 5:50 a.m. on the morning of his
deposition that he would be unable to attend.  However, this
information was not relayed to the counsel for the Defendants
anytime between 5:50 a.m. and the 9:00 a.m. start of the deposition
-- instead, the Plaintiffs' counsel arrived a half-hour late and
only then informed the defense counsel that Mr. Lucero was ill and
would not be showing up for his deposition.

Mr. Talachy also did not show up for his deposition.  However, the
Defendants have not filed a similar motion to dismiss with respect
to Mr. Talachy for the simple reason that they accepted the
Plaintiffs' proposed resolution of Mr. Talachy's non-appearance for
his scheduled June 4, 2018 deposition, which was as follows: (i)
after Mr. Talachy missed his deposition, Plaintiffs rescheduled the
deposition; (ii) the Defendants deposed Mr. Talachy on July 17,
2018; (iii) the Plaintiffs voluntarily paid reasonable fees and
costs; and (iv) the County Defendants withdrew their motion to
dismiss Mr. Talachy's claims.

Judge Johnson finds the sanctions unwarranted at this time under
either Rule 37(d), the Court's local rules or Ehrenhaus.  Thus far,
there appears to be no purposeful evasion of discovery obligations
on the part of the Plaintiffs or their counsel, although subsequent
occurrences of the same conduct would indicate a pattern that may
well warrant sanctions, including dismissal of claims.  Also, the
judge finds that the Plaintiffs do not explain why defense counsel
were not advised of the non-appearances when the Plaintiffs'
counsel first became aware themselves, and this failure could be
viewed as a lack of respect for the opposing counsel's time.

The Defendants seek orders dismissing with prejudice the claims of
Plaintiffs Wheeler, Trujillo and Lucero, which the Judge has found
to be unwarranted at this time.  He finds the Defendants' other
requests are unfounded, given the circumstances.  The Defendants
request an award of the fees and costs incurred in preparing for
and appearing for the three depositions --which is exactly what
Plaintiffs timely offered Defendants in order to resolve the issue
and avoid court intervention, and which was rejected.  Had County
Defendants accepted these offers, the three depositions could have
already been rescheduled and the Defendants would by now probably
have the information they now still seek, all without the Court's
involvement.

The parties are in the case for the long haul, and the Judge fully
expects that other disagreements will arise.  For the missed
depositions: the counsel should reconvene and reschedule them;
procedures should be set in place so that the Plaintiffs can
immediately apprise their counsel of emergencies preventing their
deposition appearances and the Plaintiffs' counsel can pass this
information to the defense counsel quickly and efficiently,
including the reason for a plaintiff's inability to attend a
deposition.

For other disputes that may occur, the Judge suggests to both
parties (clients as well as attorneys) that the Court's time and
resources are better spent on the merits of their case.  For future
squabbles that make their way into court indicating a lack of
interest or responsibility, or a refusal to resolve the matter in
good faith, the Judge will consider whether an Order to Show Cause
should be directed to all concerned so that subsequent unnecessary
judicial intervention is kept to a bare minimum.

For these reasons, Judge Johnson denied the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss as to Plaintiffs Wheeler, Trujillo and Lucero.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/XpnziD from Leagle.com.

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

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

Industrial Commercial Coatings, LLC, Defendant, represented by Judd
C. West, West Law Firm, PLLC, Carrie A. Snow, West Law Firm, PLLC,

John D. Sear -- john.sear@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brooke
LLP, pro hac vice & Richard G. Morgan --
rick.morgan@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brooke, LLP, pro hac
vice.


SAVANNAH COLLEGE: Camacho Files ADA Class Action in NY
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Savannah College
of Art and Design, Inc. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The
Savannah College of Art and Design, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10884 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018).

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

Savannah College of Art and Design is a private, nonprofit,
accredited university with locations in Savannah, Georgia; Atlanta,
Georgia; Hong Kong; and Lacoste, France.[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


SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Settlement in Mendis Suit Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MENDIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL
CARRIERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. C15-0144-JCC (W.D. Wash.),
Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion for final approval of class settlement and for attorney fees
and costs.

The class action lawsuit is brought by Plaintiffs Mendis, Michael
Feola, Andrea Arbaugh, and Edward Ash against the Defendant,
alleging that the Defendant willfully failed to pay the Plaintiffs
and a certified Class of employee drivers for wage and hour abuses
in violation of Washington law.  The Defendant denies any and all
wrongdoing and denies any liability to the Plaintiffs or the
members of the Class.

On July 30, 2018, the Court granted preliminary approval of a
settlement agreement.

Judge Coughenour, upon Notice having been given as required in the
order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement, and
having considered the proposed Settlement Agreement, as well as all
papers filed, finds (i) that the Settlement was entered into in
good faith as the result of arm's-length negotiations between
experienced attorneys, (ii) that the Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and (iii) that the Settlement satisfies
the standards and applicable requirements for final approval of
this class action Settlement under Washington law and the
provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  There are no
objections to the Settlement.

Upon entry of the Order, the compensation to the participating
members of the Settlement Class will be effected pursuant to the
terms of the Settlement Agreement.

In addition to any recovery that the Plaintiffs may receive under
the Settlement, and in recognition of their efforts on behalf of
the Settlement Class, the Judge approved the payment of service
awards to Plaintiff Mendis in the amount of $15,000, and to
Plaintiffs Feola, Arbaugh, and Ash in the amount of $10,000 each.

He also approved payment (i) not to exceed $21,500 to the
Settlement Administrator for their fees and costs in administering
the Settlement; (ii) of attorney fees to the class counsel in the
sum of $1,437,500; and (iii) of $120,000 to the class counsel to
reimburse them for litigation costs and expenses they incurred.

The Judge dismissed action with prejudice as to all Settlement
Class Members except those who have timely and properly excluded
themselves from the Settlement Class.  Therefore, the Clerk is
ordered to enter the final approval of the class settlement and the
dismissal with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/DptHPP from Leagle.com.

Balapuwaduge Mendis, On his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Michael Feola, on their own behalf and on the
behalf of all others similarly situated, Andrea Arbaugh, on her own
behalf and on the behalf of all others similarly situated & Edward
Ash, On his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Erika L. Nusser --
enusser@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Greg Alan
Wolk, REKHI & WOLK, P.S., Hardeep S. Rekhi -- hardeep@rekhiwolk.com
-- REKHI & WOLK, P.S. & Toby James Marshall --
tmarshall@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.

Schneider National Carriers Inc, a Nevada Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Douglas Edward Smith -- desmith@littler.com --
LITTLER MENDELSON, Joel H. Spitz -- jspitz@mcguirewoods.com --
MCGUIRE WOODS, pro hac vice, Kellie Anne Tabor --
ktabor@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, Matthew C. Kane --
mkane@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP, pro hac vice & Michael
R. Phillips -- mphillips@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIRE WOODS, pro hac
vice.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Bid to Dismiss Raqqa et al. Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
defendants' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit by Raqqa, Inc.
Pittsburg Liquors, Inc., Omdev, Inc., Om Riya, Inc., E and B
Liquors, Inc., Michael Cairo, and Jason Van Lente, is still
pending.

On May 4, 2018, plaintiffs Raqqa, Inc. Pittsburg Liquors, Inc.,
Omdev, Inc., Om Riya, Inc., E and B Liquors, Inc., Michael Cairo,
and Jason Van Lente (collectively, "plaintiffs") filed a putative
class action complaint against Northstar Lottery Group LLC, IGT
Global Solutions Corporation, and Scientific Games International,
Inc. (collectively, "defendants"), in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

In their complaint, plaintiffs seek to represent two putative
classes of persons: (1) all persons who were or are parties to a
contract to sell at retail Illinois Lottery instant game tickets at
any time between July 1, 2011 and the present; and (2) all natural
persons who purchased one or more Illinois Lottery instant game
tickets at any time between July 1, 2011 and the present.

The complaint alleges that Northstar Lottery Group LLC discontinued
certain Illinois Lottery instant game tickets before all grand
prizes were awarded, and further alleges that those
discontinuations caused economic harm to lottery players, and to
lottery retailers who receive commissions on winning tickets.

The complaint asserts claims for alleged tortious interference with
contract, alleged tortious interference with prospective economic
advantage, alleged common law fraud, alleged violation of Illinois'
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, alleged unjust
enrichment and alleged civil conspiracy. The complaint seeks
unspecified money damages and the award of plaintiffs' attorneys'
fees and costs.

On June 18, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.

Scientific Games  said, "Due to the very early nature of this
litigation, we are currently unable to determine the likelihood of
an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss."

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

Scientific Games Corporation develops technology-based products and
services, and related content for the gaming, lottery, and
interactive gaming industries worldwide. Scientific Games
Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Bid to Drop Fife Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the
company's motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit by Sheryl Fife
is still pending.

On April 17, 2018, plaintiff Sheryl Fife filed a putative class
action complaint against Scientific Games Corporation (SGC) in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

In her complaint, plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of
all persons in the State of Washington who purchased and allegedly
lost virtual coins playing SGC's online social casino games,
including but not limited to Jackpot Party(R) Social Casino and
Gold Fish(R) Casino. The complaint asserts claims for alleged
violations of Washington's Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act,
Washington's consumer protection statute, and for unjust
enrichment, and seeks unspecified money damages (including treble
damages as appropriate), the award of reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and injunctive and/or
declaratory relief.

On July 2, 2018, SGC filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
complaint with prejudice.

Scientific Games said, "Due to the very early nature of this
litigation, we are currently unable to determine the likelihood of
an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss."

Scientific Games Corporation develops technology-based products and
services, and related content for the gaming, lottery, and
interactive gaming industries worldwide. Scientific Games
Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Anderson Sues Over Federal Civil Rights Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Loriann Anderson, Kerrin Fiscus, Kenneth Hill, Rene Layton, Michael
Miller, Bernard Perkins, Dennis Richey, Kathie Simmons, Kent Wiles
and Melinda Wiltse, as individuals and representatives of the
respective requested classes, Plaintiffs, v. Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) Local 503, Oregon Public Employees Union
(OPEU); Oregon AFSCME 75, labor organizations; Katy Coba, in her
official capacity as Director of the Oregon Department of
Administrative Services; Jackson County, Lane County, Marion
County, Wallowa County, City of Portland, political subdivisions of
the State of Oregon; Western Oregon University, a public higher
educational institution; Northwest Senior & Disability Services, a
local intergovernmental agency, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-02013-HZ (D. Ore. November 20, 2018) is an action that
arises under the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1871 to redress the
deprivation, under color of state law, of rights, privileges, and
immunities secured to Plaintiffs and class members by the
Constitution of the United States, particularly the First and
Fourteenth Amendments.

The Defendants maintain and enforce policies, provisions and
requirements under which, after Plaintiffs and other employees in
the proposed classes have notified their respective Defendant union
and public employer of their resignation from union membership and
revocation of their prior dues deduction authorizations, forced
fees to continue to be collected from Plaintiffs and other
employees in the proposed classes, and the dues deduction checkoff
and/or maintenance of membership provisions of the respective
collective bargaining agreements, until a specified small window
period that occurs months or years in the future.

The Defendants' actions and dues deduction revocation restrictions
violate the employees' exercise of their First Amendment right not
to pay moneys to a union without their affirmative consent and
knowing waiver of First Amendment rights, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Loriann Anderson resides and works in Polk County, Oregon
as a public employee of Defendant Western Oregon University.

Plaintiff Kerrin Fiscus resides and works in Marion County, Oregon
as a public employee of the State of Oregon's Board of Parole and
Post-Prison Supervision, a partner of the Oregon Department of
Corrections.

Plaintiff Kenneth Hill resides in Polk County, Oregon and works in
Marion County, Oregon as a public employee of the State of Oregon's
Military Department.

Plaintiff Rene Layton resides and works in Wallowa County, Oregon
as a public employee of Defendant Wallowa County's District
Attorney's Office.

Plaintiff Michael Miller resides in Canyon County, Idaho, and works
Malheur County, Oregon as a public employee of the State of
Oregon's Department of Corrections.

Plaintiff Bernard Perkins resides and works in Lane County, Oregon
as a public employee of Defendant Lane County, Oregon.

Plaintiff Dennis Richey resides and works in Jackson County, Oregon
as a public employee of Jackson County, Oregon.

Plaintiff Kathie Simmons resides in Washington County, Oregon, and
works in Multnomah County, Oregon as a public employee of the City
of Portland.

Plaintiff Kent Wiles resides in Linn County, Oregon, and works in
Marion County, Oregon as a public employee of the NorthWest Senior
& Disability Services.

Plaintiff Melinda Wiltse resides and works in Marion County, Oregon
as a public employee of Marion County, Oregon.

Service Employees International Union Local 503, Oregon Public
Employees Union, whose Portland office is located at 6401 SE Foster
Road, Portland, Oregon 97206, is a state-wide labor union,
affiliated with various other SEIU locals, that enters into
numerous collective bargaining agreements with public employers
throughout Oregon, including the State of Oregon.

Oregon AFSCME 75, whose Portland office is located at 6025 E
Burnside Street, Portland, Oregon 97215, is a state-wide labor
union, affiliated with various AFSCME locals, that enters into
numerous collective bargaining agreements with public employers
throughout Oregon, including the State of Oregon.

Katy Coba is the Director of the Oregon Department of
Administrative Services.

Western Oregon University, whose office is located at 345 Monmouth
Ave N, Monmouth, Oregon 97361, is a public higher educational
institution.

Wallowa County, whose office is located at 101 South River Street
Enterprise, Oregon 97828, is a political subdivision in the State
of Oregon and collectively bargains with Wallowa County Courts.

Lane County, whose office is located at 125 East 8th Avenue,
Eugene, Oregon 97401, is a political subdivision in the State of
Oregon.

Jackson County, whose office is located at 10 South Oakdale Avenue,
Medford, Oregon 97501, is a political subdivision in the State of
Oregon.

City of Portland, whose office is located at 1221 Southwest 4th
Avenue, Room 110, Portland, Oregon 97204, is a political
subdivision in the State of Oregon.

NorthWest Senior & Disability Services, whose Salem office is
located at 3410 Cherry Ave Northeast, Salem, Oregon 97301, is a
local intergovernmental entity.

Marion County, whose office is located at 555 Court Street
Northeast, Suite 5232, Salem, Oregon 97301, is a political
subdivision in the State of Oregon.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jill O. Gibson, Esq.
     121 SW Morrison St, 11th Floor
     Portland, OR 97204
     Phone: 503-686-0486
     Fax: 866-511-2585
     Email: jill@gibsonlawfirm.org

          - and -

     Milton L. Chappell, Esq.
     8001 Braddock Rd, Suite 600
     Springfield, VA 22151
     Phone: 703-770-3329
     Email: mlc@nrtw.org

          - and -

     James G. Abernathy, Esq.
     Rebekah C. Millard, Esq.
     PO Box 552
     Olympia, WA 98507
     Phone: 360-956-3482
     Email: JAbernathy@freedomfoundation.com
            RMillard@freedomfoundation.com



SETERUS INC: Sued over Alleged Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SPEHR, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. SETERUS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-01922 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks redress from
Seterus's systematic use of misleading, deceptive, unfair and
unlawful debt collection practices to collect upon residential
consumer mortgage loans.

The lawsuit alleges that Seterus sends homeowners form letters
(Missouri Final Letters) stating that the borrowers are in default
of their mortgages and that their failure to immediately make a
full and complete payment of all arrearages will result in
acceleration of their loan and commencement of foreclosure
proceedings. In truth, however, it has been and continues to be
Seterus's policy and practice not to accelerate loans, or to
initiate foreclosure proceedings, in instances where there is an
arrearage, so long as the borrower makes a partial payment
sufficient to bring the arrearage within a set parameter.
Accordingly, each of the Missouri Final Letters sent by Seterus
falsely and misleadingly suggests that Seterus will accelerate the
loan or commence foreclosure proceedings absent full payment, in
contradiction to Seterus's actual policy not to accelerate a loan
or commence foreclosure proceedings so long as any payment
sufficient to bring the loan less than 45 days delinquent is made
prior to the expiration date set forth in the Missouri Final
Letters.

The Missouri Final Letters sent by Seterus to Plaintiff and others
similarly situated contain false and misleading threats of
acceleration and foreclosure designed to intimidate borrowers into
making payments to Seterus that are beyond their means and beyond
what is necessary to avoid acceleration and save their homes from
foreclosure, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Mitchell Breit, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
          112 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016-7416
          Telephone: (212) 784-6400
          Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
          E-mail: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 W Morgan St
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: scott@wbmllp.com
                  pat@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Edward H. Maginnis, Esq.
          MAGINNIS LAW PLLC
          4801 Glenwood Ave, Suite 310
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 526-0450
          Facsimile: (919) 882-8763
          E-mail: emaginnis@maginnislaw.com

SHELTER MUTUAL: Baggett Suit Moved to W.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Billy Roy Wilson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, Western Division, granted the Defendant's
Motion to Transfer the case, SAMUEL BAGGETT, on behalf of himself
and all similarly situated persons and entities, Plaintiff, v.
SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
4:18-CV-00739-BRW (E.D. Ark.), to the Western District of Arkansas,
Fort Smith Division.

Plaintiff Batter, a resident of North Little Rock, Arkansas,
alleges that Shelter has a policy and practice to reduce the Med
Pay benefits in an amount equivalent to the sum paid by other
insurance, such as health insurance, maintained by an insured,
which is in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated Section 23-89-202
and Rule 21, Section 3 M of the Arkansas Insurance Commission.  On
Sept. 6, 2018, Mr. Baggett filed an amended complaint, which added
class action allegations.

On May 7, 2018, Donald Whitaker filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint in the Circuit Court for Logan County, Arkansas.  That
complaint alleges that Shelteras a common policy and general
business practice reduces its automobile medical benefit payments
owed to its insured based on payments by health insurance carriers,
which is in violation of Arkansas Law and the rules of the Arkansas
Insurance Commission.

Judge Wilson finds that the complaint in the instant case and in
Whitaker v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, involve the same
claims, the same relief, and the same defendant.  Additionally,
both want certification of the same class of Arkansas residents.
Although there are two different named Plaintiffs, the proposed
scope of their respective classes substantially overlap.

It is undisputed that the Whitaker case was filed first and was the
first to include class allegations.  Additionally, already pending
in that case is a motion for certification and a response.  The
outcome of that motion directly affects the instant case.  There
are no compelling circumstances that would excuse the first-to-file
rule in the case.  Accordingly, to preserve judicial resources and
avoid conflicting rulings, transfer is appropriate in the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/0cpckW from Leagle.com.

Samuel Baggett, On Behalf of Himself and all Similarly Situated
Persons and Entities, Plaintiff, represented by David S. Mitchell
-- DavidMitchell@DavidMitchellLaw.com -- David S. Mitchell, P.A.,
Kenneth Jerald Mitchell -- rustymitchell@taylorkinglaw.com --
Taylor King & Associates, P.A. & Marcus Neil Bozeman --
mbozeman@thrashlawfirmpa.com -- Thrash Law Firm.

Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by James
Melton Sayes -- msayes@msslawfirm.com -- Matthews, Sanders & Sayes
& Sarah E. Greenwood -- sarah.greenwood@mrmblaw.com -- Munson,
Rowlett, Moore & Boone, P.A..


SUNPOWER CORP: Court Dismisses Jannarone Suit Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case,
JEFFREY JANNARONE, Plaintiff, v. SUNPOWER CORPORATION, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 18-9612 (MAS) (TJB) (D. N.J.).

The Plaintiff initiated the putative class action suit in New
Jersey Superior Court, Monmouth County, Law Division.  In May 2018,
the Defendant removed the matter to the Court under diversity
jurisdiction.  

The Plaintiff asserts four individual claims: (1) breach of
contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing; (3) unjust enrichment; and 4) common law fraud; and two
class claims: violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; and
violations of the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty
and Notice Act.

The Plaintiff entered into a with GeoGenix, LLC, an installer of
solar power equipment, which stated GeoGenix would furnish and
install a complete solar electric power system at the Plaintiff's
property located in Wall, New Jersey.  The Defendant was the
manufacturer of the System, which was accompanied by a warranty.

The System began to malfunction almost immediately after
installation.  Namely, it failed to produce the requisite minimum
power output, and as a result, the Plaintiff was required to pay an
alternative source for energy which should have been produced by
the System in order to make up for the shortfall in the kW
production of the system.  The Plaintiff also lost credits, and
thus compensation, available under the New Jersey Solar Renewable
Energy Certificate Program.  The Plaintiff requested that the
Defendant repair or replace the System, but even after the
Defendant attempted to make repairs, the System continued to
malfunction.

The Plaintiff acknowledges the Defendant was not a party to the
Contract, but argues the Defendant assumed liability for all acts
and omissions arising out of the Contract by furnishing the System
to be installed, furnishing the warranty documents for the System,
and undertaking all repairs and maintenance for the System.  As
such, he argues GeoGenix was the agent acting on behalf of its
principal, the Defendant, and the Defendant is GeoGenix's successor
in interest.

The Plaintiff also contends that the Defendant breached its
obligations under the Warranty because, among other things, the
Defendant repeatedly ignored his complaints regarding the efficacy
of the System and each and every time Defendant attempted to repair
the defective System, the repair was either ineffective, or the
System shortly began to function sub-optimally again.

The matter comes before the Court upon the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss, to which the Plaintiff opposed.  The Defendant argues the
Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
because he did not adequately plead facts to support his agency or
successor-in-interest counts.  The Defendant therefore argues that
because the Plaintiff cannot establish the Defendant had any
relation to GeoGenix -- the party with whom the Plaintiff entered
into the Contract -- the Plaintiff's contract-related claims must
fail.  It further argues it satisfactorily performed under the
Warranty, and therefore those claims must also fail.

Judge Shipp finds that the Plaintiff failed to adequately plead
facts demonstrating GeoGenix was the Defendant's agent or that the
Defendant is GeoGenix's successor-in-interest.  Further, the
Plaintiff's pleadings regarding the Warranty are ambiguous.  The
Judge, accordingly, granted without prejudice the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.  The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint
within 21 days of entry of the Memorandum Opinion.  The Court will
enter an Order consistent with Judge Shipp's Memorandum Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/E2xIVs from Leagle.com.

JEFFREY JANNARONE, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by ANTHONY JOSEPH D'ARTIGLIO --
ajd@ansellgrimm.com -- ANSELL GRIMM & AARON, P.C.

SUNPOWER CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by DERRICK R.
FREIJOMIL -- dfreijomil@riker.com -- RIKER DANZIG.


SWEET HOME: Williams FLSA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TINA WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SWEET HOME
HEALTH CARE, LLC, et al., Defendants (E.D. Pa.), Judge Berle M.
Schiller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiffs' Uncontested Motion for Final
Approval of Collective and Class Action Settlement and Attorneys'
Fees, Costs, Administrative Fees and Class Representatives Service
Fees.

He awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $541,667; costs in the
amount of $49,868.05; claims administration expenses not to exceed
$22,000; and class representative service fees in the amount of
$6,000 to each Harris and Williams.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/tgBucO from Leagle.com.

TINA WILLIAMS & LAWRENCE G. HARRIS, Plaintiffs, represented by
STEVEN E. ANGSTREICH -- sangstreich@weirpartners.com -- WEIR &
PARTNERS & AMY R. BRANDT -- abrandt@weirpartners.com -- WEIR &
PARTNERS LLP.

SWEET HOME HEALTHCARE LLC, SWEET HOME PRIMARY CARE LLC, TEKIA
EMERSON & DARRYL EZELL, Defendants, represented by ALIZA R.
KARETNICK -- akaretnick@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP, SEAN
ZABANEH -- SSZabaneh@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP, ALYSSA
KOVACH -- AWKovach@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP &
CHRISTOPHER DRAKE DURHAM -- cddurham@duanemorris.com -- DUANE
MORRIS LLP.


TARGET CORPORATION: Boegeman Suit Moved to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Boegeman, Individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. Target
Corporation and Does 1-10, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
00046303-CU-MC-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego) on Nov. 14, 2018. The
Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-02606-BEN-NLS to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges
consumer credit law  violation. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Roger T. Benitez.

Target Corporation is the second-largest department store retailer
in the United States, behind Walmart, and is a component of the S&P
500 Index.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART, ESQ.
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: yana@westcoastlitigation.com

Attorneys for Target Corporation:

          Ashley Marie Brettingen, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 909-8000
          Facsimile: (310) 909-8001
          E-mail: abrettingen@hinshawlaw.com

TEXAS: Williams et al. Allege Improper Treatment of Prisoners
-------------------------------------------------------------
TOBY LYNN WILLIAMS; HENRY J. HARRIS; and EDWARD L. JOHNSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BRYAN COLLIER, in his official capacity Executive
Director of Texas Department of Criminal Justice; NORRIS JACKSON,
in his official capacity as Warden; and TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-00567-RWS-JDL (E.D.
Tex., Oct. 31, 2018) seeks to enjoin the Defendants' dangerous
practice of treating prisoners.

According to the complaint, since 2011 at least twelve prisoners
have died from heat stroke because of sweltering temperatures
inside buildings where the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
houses inmates. Hundreds more have suffered heat-related illnesses,
many of whom were among the elderly and disable inmates housed at
George John Beto Unit. Despite this conditions, the Defendants has
done nothing to lower the temperatures inside the housing areas at
the Beto Unit. This inflicts needless suffering on prisoners, and
exposes them to serious risk of harm.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) is a department of
the government of the U.S. state of Texas. The TDCJ is responsible
for statewide criminal justice for adult offenders, including
managing offenders in state prisons, state jails and private
correctional facilities, funding and certain oversight of community
supervision, and supervision of offenders released from prison on
parole or mandatory supervision. [BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


TORRENT PHARMA: Valsartan Drugs Contaminated, Robin Roberts Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBIN ROBERTS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TORRENT PHARMA, INC.; TORRENT
PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED; HUAHAI U.S. INC.; and ZHEJIANG HUAHAI
PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-16075
(D.N.J., Nov. 12, 2018), alleges that Defendants willfully ignored
warnings signs regarding the operating standards at the Zhejiang
Huahai Pharmaceuticals manufacturing plant in China, and continued
to allow ZHP to manufacture their Valsartan products for sale to
consumers in the United States even after Defendants knew or should
have known that their Valsartan products manufactured by ZHP
contained or likely contained NDMA and/or other impurities.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and hundreds
of thousands of other Valsartan consumers who paid for Defendants'
generic Valsartan that was adulterated through its contamination
with International Agency for Research on Cancer- and Environmental
Protection Agency-listed probable human carcinogen known as
N-nitrosodimethylamine. The Defendants represented and warranted to
consumers that their generic Valsartan products were
therapeutically equivalent to and otherwise the same as brand
Diovan (TM), were otherwise fit for their ordinary uses, and were
otherwise manufactured and distributed in accordance with
applicable laws and regulations.

According to the complaint, the  adulterated Valsartan drugs were
introduced into the American market at least as far back as 2015
for Defendants to profit from their sale to American consumers,
such as Plaintiff and Class Members. However, evidence now suggests
that the contamination dates back at least as far as 2012.
Plaintiff and Class Members paid for all or part of their Valsartan
prescriptions that were illegally introduced into the market by
Defendants and which were not fit for their ordinary use.
Defendants have been unjustly enriched through the sale of these
adulterated drugs since at least 2012. Defendants' conduct also
constitutes actionable common law fraud, consumer fraud, and other
violations of state law, the lawsuit says.

Torrent Pharma is the flagship company of the Torrent Group. Based
in the Indian city of Ahmedabad. It was promoted by U.N. Mehta,
initially as Trinity Laboratories Ltd, and was later renamed
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          David J. Stanoch, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-965-9177
          Facsimile: 215-985-4169
          E-mail: rhonik@golombhonik.com
                  dstanoch@golombhonik.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Michael L. Slack, Esq.
          John R. Davis, Esq.
          SLACK DAVIS SANGER, LLP
          2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: 512-795-8686
          Facsimile: 512-795-8787
          E-mail: mslack@slackdavis.com
                  jdavis@slackdavis.com


ULTA SALON: Ct. Enters Stipulated Protective Order in E. Wise Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, has entered a
Stipulated Protective Order in the case, ELIZABETH WISE, an
individual, Plaintiff, v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC.;
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. JULIE ZEPEDA, Plaintiff, v.
ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., Defendant, Lead Case No.
1:17-CV-00853-DAD-EPG, Member Case No. 1:18-cv-00750-DAD-BAM (E.D.
Cal.).

The parties agree that during the course of discovery it may be
necessary to disclose certain confidential information relating to
the subject matter of the action.  They agree that certain
categories of such information should be treated as confidential,
protected from disclosure outside the litigation, and used only for
purposes of prosecuting or defending the action and any appeals.
They jointly request entry of the Protective Order to limit the
disclosure, dissemination, and use of certain identified categories
of confidential information.

The parties assert in support of their request that protection of
the identified categories of confidential information is necessary
because litigation of the matter may seek discovery of private
information concerning parties and non-parties, including but not
limited to: financial information regarding the parties; personnel
information regarding the Plaintiff, as well as personnel
information of other employees and former employees of the
Defendant; and confidential or proprietary information related to
the business and operation of the Defendant.  They agree that a
protective order is necessary for these categories of information
to protect third-party's confidential financial data, the
Defendant's confidential business information, and the Plaintiff's
personal financial data.  Further, the parties agree that due to
the complexity of the lawsuit as a consolidated putative class
action, the proposed protective order should be entered by the
Court.

Magistrate Judge Grosjean granted the parties' joint request and
entered the Protective Order.  All documents and materials produced
in the course of discovery of the case, including initial
disclosures, responses to discovery requests, all deposition
testimony and exhibits, and information derived directly therefrom,
are subject to the Order concerning Confidential Information as set
forth below.  As there is a presumption in favor of open and public
judicial proceedings in the federal courts, the Order will be
strictly construed in favor of public disclosure and open
proceedings wherever possible.  Designated Confidential Information
must be used or disclosed solely for purposes of prosecuting or
defending the lawsuit, including any appeals.

In the event that the counsel for a party receiving Confidential
Information objects to such designation with respect to any or all
of such items, said counsel will advise the counsel for the
designating party the specific documents, testimony or information
to which each objection pertains, and the specific reasons and
support for such objections.  The counsel for the designating party
will have 15 days from receipt of such objections to agree to
de-designate documents, testimony or information pursuant to any or
all of the objections.

The Order will take effect when entered and is binding upon all
counsel of record and their law firms, the parties, and persons
made subject to this Order by its terms.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Protective Order is
available at https://is.gd/5zVOW7 from Leagle.com.

Elizabeth Wise, Plaintiff, represented by John Paul Briscoe ,
Mayall Hurley, PC, Nicholas John Scardigli --
sscardigli@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC, Robert Joshua
Wasserman -- rwasserman@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC, William
J. Gorham, III -- wgorham@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC &
Vladimir Joseph Kozina -- jkozinaj@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley
P.C.

Julie Zepeda, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis Hyun --
info@hyunlegal.com -- Hyun Legal, APC, Edward Wonkyu Choi --
dward.choi@choiandassociates.com -- Law Offices of Choi &
Associates & William Lucas Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com --
Polaris Law Group, LLP.

Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Courtney Marguerite Osborn -- cosborn@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson PC, John C. Kloosterman -- Jkloosterman@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C., Kai-Ching Cha -- kcha@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C., Alexis A. Sohrakoff -- asohra@uber.com --
Littler Mendelson PC, Julie A. Stockton -- jstockton@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson P.C. & Richard H. Rahm -- rrahm@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C..


UNIFIED CARING: Schick Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
SYLVIA SCHICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs  UNIFIED CARING ASSOCIATION d/b/a
PERENNIAL CARE UCA; PATRIOT HEALTH FLORIDA, INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the DefendantS, Case No.
4:18-cv-06889-KAW (N.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2018), seeks damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of the Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy and causing him to incur unnecessary
and unwanted expenses.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around July 2018, the
Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in -0440, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to
purchase Defendant's services. Patriot hired UCA to broker its
services and place calls on Patriot's behalf. That is, Patriot
hired UCA to place calls to telephone numbers of potential clients
with whom Patriot and UCA might solicit services. Under this
arrangement, UCA placed calls utilizing pre-recorded voice messages
to Plaintiff and others similarly situated by using an "automatic
telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section
227(a)(1). UCA would call Plaintiff and others similarly situated
and then, when someone such as Plaintiff answers, UCA would solicit
its services, which included discount medical plans provided
through Patriot.

UCA's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes
as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Defendant did not
possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using
an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on her cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
section 19 227(b)(1)(A). The Plaintiff is not a customer of
Defendant's services and has never provided any personal
information, including her cellular telephone number, to Defendant
for any purpose whatsoever. Accordingly, Defendant never received
Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
voice on her cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section
227(b)(1)(A), the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Won't Hear Immigration Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karina Brown, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
toddlers will continue representing themselves in immigration court
in the wake of a Ninth Circuit panel's refusal on Nov. 13 to
revisit dismissal of a class action that claimed kids should have
court-appointed attorneys in immigration proceedings -- a refusal
that drew a blistering dissent from five circuit judges.

The decision leaves in place a Ninth Circuit panel's 2016 finding
that a federal judge in Seattle lacked jurisdiction to hear the due
process claims of a class of thousands immigrant kids after the
American Civil Liberties Union and immigrant rights groups sued,
claiming the kids have a right to counsel.

During oral arguments in the appeal, government attorneys told the
panel that appointing representation for kids facing deportation
would "destroy the framework of the immigration system."

The ACLU, meanwhile, cited its deposition of Immigration Judge Jack
Weil, who implied toddlers can master immigration law after all.

"I've taught immigration law literally to 3-year-olds and
4-year-olds," Judge Weil said in his deposition. "It takes a lot of
time. It takes a lot of patience. They get it."

This past February, the kids petitioned for an en banc rehearing.
On Nov. 13, however, the court said in a 5-sentence order that a
majority of its judges voted to deny the request. A 15-page dissent
written by U.S. Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon and joined by four of
Judge Berzon's colleagues accompanied the order.

Judge Berzon called the state of children's immigration proceedings
"absurd," and accused the appellate panel of "running roughshod
over the statutory language and structure, as well as binding
law."

She said nothing prevents the court from reviewing the case since
immigration law, and precedent from both the Ninth Circuit and the
Supreme Court, bar review of cases only where the petitioner wants
a second look at an order of removal. Here, Judge Berzon noted, the
proceedings have not reached that stage.

Judge Berzon said the panel erred by basing its decision on a
subsection of law while "entirely ignor(ing) the introductory
language" that says that rule only applies to review of removal
proceedings -- an interpretation that Judge Berzon says was
affirmed by the Supreme Court.

"The children in the case have not been ordered removed, so they
cannot be, and are not, seeking review of a removal order," Judge
Berzon wrote.

Judge Berzon outlined the obstacles kids face in trying to navigate
arcane immigration law in a language they often do not understand.
She cited one case where lawyers described the three-year-old they
represented crawling on the table during his removal hearing.

"Absurdly," Judge Berzon wrote, "the only thing atypical about that
case was that the child had a lawyer."

Thousands of kids will continue to show up to such proceedings
without a lawyer, Judge Berzon said.

"The result is nearly preordained: deportation back to a country
where they will face violence and persecution," she wrote.

Judge Berzon and her colleagues in dissent -- U.S. Circuit Judges
Kim McLane, William A. Fletcher, Richard A. Paez and Mary H.
Murguia, said the court should have had the chance to enter a
ruling reflective of those points.

"We should have reheard this case en banc to correct the panel's
errors and given these children -- and other potentially affected
by the panel's rigid procedural ruling -- their day in court,"
Judge Berzon wrote.


UNITED STATES: Faces Singh Suit in Oregon over Religious Freedom
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the President of the
United States. The case is captioned as PACHATTAR SINGH; and
GURPREET SINGH, individually and and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States;
KIRSTJEN MICHELLE NIELSEN, Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security; RONALD D. VITIELLO, Acting Director, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; RICHARD L. MILLER, Field Office Director,
Portland Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United
States; HUGH J. HURWITZ, Acting Director of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons; RICHARD IVES, Warden, FCI Sheridan, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-01912-JR (D. Or., Nov. 1, 2018). The lawsuit alleges
violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The case is
assigned to Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo.

The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United
States(U.S. or US) or America, is a country composed of 50 states,
a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and
various possessions. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew G. McHenry, Esq.
          LEVINE & MCHENRY LLC
          1001 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1414
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 546-3927
          Facsimile: (503) 224-3203
          E-mail: matthew@levinemchenry.com

               - and -

          Tiffany A. Harris, Esq.
          TIFFANY A. HARRIS, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          333 SW Taylor St., Suite 300
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 782-4788
          E-mail: tiff@harrisdefense.com


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Bid to Drop Teamsters Local Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018,
for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2018, that the
company's motion to dismiss the class action entitled, Teamsters
Local 456 Pension Fund, et. al. v. Universal Health Services, Inc.
et. al., is still pending.

In December 2016 a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS) and certain UHS
officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The case was originally filed as Heed v. Universal Health Services,
Inc. et. al. (Case No. 2:16-CV-09499-PSG-JC). The court
subsequently appointed Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund and
Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiffs. The
case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the style of the case has been
changed to Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et. al. v. Universal
Health Services, Inc. et. al. (Case No. 2:17-CV-02817-LS).

In September 2017, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund filed an
amended complaint. The amended class action complaint alleges
violations of federal securities laws relating to disclosures made
in public filings associated with alleged practices and operations
at our behavioral health facilities. Plaintiffs seek monetary
damages for shareholders during the defined class period as a
result of the decrease in share price following various public
disclosures or reports. In December 2017, the company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Universal Health said, "We deny liability and intend to defend
ourselves vigorously. At this time, we are uncertain as to
potential liability or financial exposure, if any, which may be
associated with this matter."

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

Universal Health Services, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates acute care hospitals, outpatient facilities, and
behavioral health care facilities. The company operates through
Acute Care Hospital Services, Behavioral Health Care Services, and
Other segments. Universal Health Services, Inc. founded in 1978 and
is headquartered in King Of Prussia, Pennsylvania.


UTZ QUIALITY: Lepiane Files Fraud Class Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against UTZ Quality Foods,
LLC. The case is styled as Frank Lepiane, Jamillah Dunn
individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the
general public, Plaintiffs v. UTZ Quality Foods, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-02659-LAB-MDD (S.D. Cal., Nov. 20, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

UTZ Quality Foods, Inc. manufactures and markets snack foods in the
United States and internationally. It offers potato chips,
pretzels, cheese snacks, corn products, and popcorns. The company
offers its products through grocery stores, mass-merchants, club
stores, convenience stores, drug stores, and other channels.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ronald Marron, Esq.
     Law Office of Ronald Marron
     651 Arroyo Drive
     San Diego, CA 92103
     Phone: (619) 696-9006
     Fax: (619) 564-6665
     Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com


VALEANT PHARMA: Timber's Bid for Relief from Consolidation Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 15-7658 (MAS) (LHG) (D.
N.J.), Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (i) denied Timber Hill, LLC's Motion for
Relief from Consolidation Order; (ii) deneied Timber Hill's Motion
for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff; and (iii) denied as moot Lead
Plaintiff Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America
("TIAA") and named Plaintiff Tucson Supplemental Retirement
System's Motion to Strike.

On June 6, 2018, Timber Hill filed a two-count putative class
action Complaint against the Defendants alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Timber Hill seeks
to represent a class of all persons or entities that purchased call
options on Valeant common stock and/or sold put options on Valeant
common stock during the Class Period, and were damaged thereby.

Upon filing the complaint, Timber Hill joined 29 other actions
filed in the Court against the Defendants and other persons and
entities, alleging similar violations of the 1934 Act, and other
causes of action.

On June 8, 2018, the Lead Plaintiff notified the Court of the
filing of Timber Hill's Complaint and requested that the Court
consolidates the Timber Hill matter into the consolidated class
action.  the Lead Plaintiff's request was made pursuant to the
Court's May 31, 2016 Order consolidating multiple actions into the
action and appointing TIAA as the Lead Plaintiff.

The Court's Order directed that all securities class actions
subsequently filed in, or transferred to the District will be
consolidated into the action, and applied to every such action,
absent an order of the Court.  Pursuant to the Order, any party who
objected to such consolidation, or to any other provision of the
Order, must file an application for relief from the Order within 10
days after the date on which a copy of the Order is mailed to the
party's counsel.

On June 18, 2018, Timber Hill timely sought relief from the
Consolidation Order.  The Lead Plaintiff opposed on July 2, 2018.
The Defendants filed a response on the same day.  Timber Hill
replied on July 9, 2019.  

The Lead Plaintiff sought leave to file a Sur-Reply and filed a
Sur-Reply on July 13, 2018.  TIAA's Sur-Reply addresses (1) Timber
Hill's argument that TIAA will not represent the entire class, and
(2) Timber Hill's assertion that the "term equity security" does
not include put and call options.

Timber Hill objects to consolidation of its action with the matter
because the Plaintiffs in the action have not sought to represent
and protect the interests of investors who Timber Hill would like
to represent.  Timber Hill seeks to represent persons and entities
that purchased call options on Valeant common stock and/or sold put
options on Valeant common stock during the period Jan. 4, 2013
through Aug. 11, 2016.  It asserts that the Lead Plaintiff and its
counsel will not protect the interests of derivatives traders due
to potentially conflicting positions regarding, among other things,
the allocation of any recovery.

Judge Shipp finds that Timber Hill may be correct, and the
Defendants may oppose class certification on grounds that relate to
the class excluding certain derivatives traders.  Given that Timber
Hill has raised this issue now, Timber Hill's motion has the
salutary effect of putting the Lead Plaintiff and the Court on
notice that this issue may arise in the future.  The Lead Plaintiff
is empowered to make decisions that may impact the rights of
derivatives traders in the class.  The class certification process,
however, ensures that those rights are protected.  Moreover, a
failure to protect the rights of derivatives traders will likely
impact the litigation at later stages.  The Court will be able to
better evaluate the impact of the putative class definition on
derivatives traders when the Lead Plaintiff moves for class
certification.

Next, he finds that consolidation will not foreclose claims that
Timber Hill sought to bring prior to the entry of the consolidation
order because Timber Hill filed their Complaint over two years
after the entry of the Consolidation Order.  Moreover, unlike the
lead plaintiff In re New Oriental Educ. & Tech. Grp. Secs. Litig.,
the Lead Plaintiff's representations and actions regarding the
derivatives traders have not alternated between inclusion and
exclusion of the derivatives traders in the class.

The putative class of derivate traders and the Lead Plaintiff's
putative class have stated similar claims and any recovery
available to one group does not necessarily diminish the recovery
available to the other.  In Friedman v. Quest Energy Partners LP,
recovery by the class seeking recession would have necessarily
decreased the size of the proverbial "pie" available to the other
class.  Here, the Judge holds that the classes would be competing
for the same pie.

The Judge is aware that if these matters go to trial there is a
risk of inconsistent adjudications and additional expense and
burden on the parties.  Looking to the future, if the matter goes
to trial and it becomes clear that multiple or bifurcated trials
are necessary, the Plaintiffs will get multiple bites at the apple
and the Defendants will face potential prejudice, hardship, and
expense.  These issues, however, are not squarely before the Court
because consolidation, at this point, is for pretrial purposes
only.  The Court will resolve the issues surrounding multiple
trials if and when it becomes necessary to do so.

Finally, Timber Hill asserts that calculation of the damages of the
derivatives traders will require different experts than those
experts relied upon by TIAA.  Timber Hill, however, offers no
direct support for this assertion.  Through the course of
discovery, TIAA may find that the evidence suggests something
different and the derivatives traders who are part of the class may
have damages.  Even if this is not the case, if at a later stage of
the litigation, Timber Hill's assertion of the need for different
damages experts evolves into an obvious intra-class conflict, the
Court will entertain a renewed motion for relief from
consolidation.

Judge Shipp concludes that Timber Hill has not sufficiently
established that the prejudice, if any, that would result from
consolidation is not outweighed by the efficiencies and cost
savings of consolidation.  Indeed, much of the prejudice Timber
Hill alleges are future ills that may be resolved as this
litigation progresses.  Ultimately, there may be some merit to
Timber Hill's concerns, but, they are not properly before the Court
at this time.  Accordingly, he denied Timber Hill's Motion for
Relief from Consolidation.  The Court will enter an Order
consistent with his Memorandum Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/4tLCAe from Leagle.com.

TIAA-CREF, Lead Plaintiff, represented by CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER --
intake@seegerweiss.com -- SEEGER WEISS LLP & DAVID R. BUCHANAN,
SEEGER WEISS, LLP.

LAURA POTTER, Plaintiff, represented by CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER,
SEEGER WEISS LLP, SHELLY L. FRIEDLAND -- sfriedland@triefandolk.com
-- Trief & Olk & TED E. TRIEF, TRIEF & OLK.

CITY OF TUCSON TOGETHER WITH AND ON BEHALF OF THE TUCSON
SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff, represented by
CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER, SEEGER WEISS LLP & DAVID R. BUCHANAN, SEEGER
WEISS, LLP.

TIMBER HILL LLC, Plaintiff, represented by ROBERT N. CAPPUCCI,
ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI.

LIHAO CHEN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN
-- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA.

JUSAN YANG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, FORSTA AP-FONDEN, STICHTING BEDRIJFSTAKPENSIOENFONDS voor
het SCHILDERS, AFWERKINGSEN GLASZETBEDRIJF, STICHTING PGGM
DEPOSITARY, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION,
PACIFIC SELECT FUND & PACIFIC FUNDS SERIES TRUST, Plaintiff
Consolidateds, represented by BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG --
greenberg@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC.

ARIEL FEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated & ALAN FEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff Consolidateds, represented by SETH
PTASIEWICZ -- SPtasiewicz@krollfirm.com -- KROLL, HEINEMAN CARTON
LLC.

TIMBER HILL LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by ANDREW J.
ENTWISTLE -- aentwistle@entwistle-law.com -- ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI
LLP & CHRISTOPHER W. KINUM -- cwkinum@critchleylaw.com -- CRITCHLEY
KINUM & VAZQUEZ.

T. ROWE PRICE GROWTH STOCK FUND, INC., T. ROWE PRICE BLUE CHIP
GROWTH FUND, INC., T. ROWE PRICE INSTITUTIONAL LARGE-CAP GROWTH
FUND, A SERIES OF T. ROWE PRICE INSTITUTIONAL EQUITY FUNDS, INC.,
T. ROWE PRICE HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, INC., T. ROWE PRICE GROWTH
STOCK TRUST, T. ROWE PRICE BLUE CHIP GROWTH TRUST, T. ROWE PRICE
VALUE FUND, INC., T. ROWE PRICE INSTITUTIONAL LARGE-CAP CORE GROWTH
FUND, A SERIES OF T. ROWE PRICE INSTITUTIONAL EQUITY FUNDS, INC.,
T. ROWE PRICE FUNDS SICAV ON BEHALF OF ITS SUBFUND, T. ROWE PRICE
FUNDS SICAV-US LARGE CAP GROWTH EQUITY FUND, T. ROWE PRICE BLUE
CHIP GROWTH PORTFOLIO, A SERIES OF T. ROWE PRICE EQUITY SERIES,
INC., T. ROWE PRICE HEALTH SCIENCES PORTFOLIO, A SERIES OF T. ROWE
PRICE EQUITY SERIES, INC., T. ROWE PRICE U.S. EQUITIES TRUST, T.
ROWE PRICE NEW AMERICA GROWTH FUND, T. ROWE PRICE FUNDS SICAV ON
BEHALF OF ITS SUBFUND, T. ROWE PRICE FUNDS SICAV-US BLUE CHIP
EQUITY FUND, T. ROWE PRICE U.S. VALUE EQUITY TRUST, T. ROWE PRICE
BALANCED FUND, INC., T. ROWE PRICE PERSONAL STRATEGY GROWTH FUND, A
SERIES OF T. ROWE PRICE PERSONAL STRATEGY FUNDS, INC., T. ROWE
PRICE PERSONAL STRATEGY BALANCED FUND, A SERIES OF T. ROWE PRICE
STRATEGY FUNDS, INC., T. ROWE PRICE PERSONAL STRATEGY INCOME FUND,
A SERIES OF T. ROWE PRICE PERSONAL STRATEGY FUNDS, INC., T. ROWE
PRICE FUNDS SICAV ON BEHALF OF ITS SUBFUND, T. ROWE PRICE FUNDS
SICAV-GLOBAL GROWTH EQUITY FUND, T. ROWE PRICE INSTITUTIONAL GLOBAL
GROWTH EQUITY FUND, A SERIES OF T. ROWE PRICE INSTITUTIONAL
INTERNATIONAL FUNDS, INC., T. ROWE PRICE U.S. LARGE-CAP CORE GROWTH
EQUITY POOL, T. ROWE PRICE GLOBAL GROWTH STOCK FUND, A SERIES OF T.
ROWE PRICE INTERNATIONAL FUNDS, INC., T. ROWE PRICE PERSONAL
STRATEGY BALANCED PORTFOLIO, A SERIES OF T. ROWE PRICE EQUITY
SERIES, INC., T. ROWE PRICE NEW AMERICA GROWTH PORTFOLIO, A SERIES
OF T. ROWE PRICE EQUITY SERIES, INC., T. ROWE PRICE GLOBAL GROWTH
EQUITY POOL, ALLEGHANY CORPORATION, ALLEGHANY INSURANCE HOLDINGS
LLC, CAPITOL INDEMNITY CORPORATION, CAPITOL SPECIALTY INSURANCE
CORPORATION, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, PLATTE RIVER
INSURANCE COMPANY, RSUI INDEMNITY COMPANY, TRANSATLANTIC
REINSURANCE COMPANY, EQUITY TRUSTEES LIMITED AS RESPONSIBLE ENTITY
FOR T. ROWE PRICE GLOBAL EQUITY FUND, VOYA PARTNERS, INC., ON
BEHALF OF VY T. ROWE PRICE GROWTH EQUITY PORTFOLIO, JNL SERIES
TRUST, JNL STRATEGIC INCOME FUND LLC, JACKSON VARIABLE SERIES
TRUST, DOW CORNING EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLAN MASTER TRUST, THE
MILLIKEN RETIREMENT PLAN, PENN SERIES FUNDS, INC., FOREIGN &
COLONIAL INVESTMENT TRUST PLC, MINNESOTA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
SECURIAN FUNDS TRUST, CONAGRA FOODS RETIREMENT INCOME SAVINGS PLAN,
CITY OF TALLAHASSEE PENSION PLAN, TEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF
TEXAS, PRINCIPAL FUNDS, INC., PRINCIPAL VARIABLE CONTRACTS FUNDS,
INC., BLOOMBERGSEN PARTNERS FUND LP & BLOOMBERGSEN MASTER FUND LP,
Plaintiff Consolidateds, represented by DONALD A. ECKLUND --
DEcklund@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY
& AGNELLO, P.C. & JAMES E. CECCHI -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com --
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.

PENTWATER EQUITY OPPORTUNITIES MASTER FUND LTD., PENTWATER EVENT
DRIVEN CAYMAN FUND LTD., PENTWATER MERGER ARBITRAGE MASTER FUND
LTD., PWCM MASTER FUND LTD., OCEANA MASTER FUND LTD., LMA SPC FOR
AND ON BEHALF OF MAP 98 SEGREGATED PORTFOLIO, STATE BOARD OF
ADMINISTRATION OF FLORIDA & THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff Consolidateds, represented by JAMES E.
CECCHI, CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC. & ROBERT L ROSIELLO,
Defendants, represented by ERIC T. VISSICHELLI , MCCARTER &
ENGLISH, LLP, PAUL C. CURNIN , SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP,
RICHARD HERNANDEZ -- rhernandez@mccarter.com -- MCCARTER & ENGLISH,
LLP & ROBERT N. WARD -- rward@mccarter.com -- MACCARTER & ENGLISH,
LLP.

J MICHAEL PEARSON, Defendant, represented by HOLLY SUSANNE
WINTERMUTE -- hswinter@debevoise.com -- DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP &
PAUL C. CURNIN, SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP.

HOWARD B SCHILLER, Defendant, represented by JAMES S. RICHTER --
jrichter@winston.com -- WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP.

DEBORAH JORN, Defendant, represented by CARA JOY DAVID --
cara.david@srz.com -- SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Jacobs Files Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Verizon
Communications, Inc. et al. The case is styled as Melina N Jacobs
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon Investment Management
Corp., Verizon Employee Benefits Committee, Marc C. Reed, Martha
Delehanty, Andrew H Nebens, Connia Nelson, Shane Sanders, PhD.
Robert J. Barish, Donna C Chiffriller, Donna C. Hiffriller,
Defendants, Rock Creek Group, LP, Rock Creek Group, LLC, Interested
Parties, Case No. 1:18-mc-00537-PGG (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

Verizon Communications Inc., through its subsidiaries, offers
communications, information, and entertainment products and
services to consumers, businesses, and governmental agencies
worldwide.

Verizon Investment Management Corp. (VIMCO) operates as an asset
management arm of Verizon Communications, Inc. with approximately
$66.97 billion in assets under management. The firm primarily
provides its services to pension and profit sharing plans and other
employee benefit plans.

The Rock Creek Group, LP is a privately owned investment manager
which provides its services to institutions and pooled investment
vehicles. It also caters to funds, endowments, sovereign wealth
funds, Taft-Hartley plans, corporate, municipal, state and foreign
pension plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
     Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky, L.L.P.
     8501 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
     Scottsdale, AZ 85253
     Phone: (480) 428-0142
     Fax: (866) 505-8036
     Email: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com

          - and -

     James A. Bloom, Esq.
     Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP
     2000 Powell St., Suite 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Phone: (415) 421-7100
     Fax: (415) 421-7105
     Email: jbloom@schneiderwallace.com

The Interested Parties are represented by:

     Jeffrey F. Robertson, Esq.
     SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL LLP
     901 15th Street, NW, Suite 800
     Washington, DC 20005
     Phone: (202) 729-7478
     Fax: (202) 730-4520
     Email: jeffrey.robertson@srz.com


VINEYARD VINES: Nixon Says Retailer Breached Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vineyard Vines, LLC.
The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vineyard Vines, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06632 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018).

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

Vineyard Vines is an American clothing and accessory retailer
founded in 1998 in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, by brothers
Shep and Ian Murray. The brand markets upper market ties, hats,
belts, shirts, shorts, swimwear, bags for men, women, and
children.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



WEYERHAEUSER CO: Sued over Defective Joists Used in Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WALKER and COURTNEY WALKER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. WEYERHAEUSER
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01637 (W.D. Wash., Nov.
12, 2018), seeks to recover damages sustained by Plaintiffs and the
Class members that were proximately caused by Weyerhaeuser's
defective Joists used in the construction of Plaintiffs' and Class
members' homes and other structures.

The Plaintiffs brought this class action against Weyerhaeuser
individually and on behalf of all persons and entities who own or
who have signed contracts to purchase homes or other structures
located in the State of Ohio and across the United States in which
Weyerhaeuser's TJI Joists with Flak Jacket Protection are or were
installed.

According to the complaint, Weyerhaeuser manufactured the defective
Joists, and since at least December 5, 2016, sold and distributed
the Joists throughout Ohio and the United States for installation
in homes and other structures. Weyerhaeuser marketed and
represented, on its website and marketing materials, the Joists as
possessing "all the quality and cost-efficiency you expect from
Weyerhaeuser's Trus Joist engineered lumber products." Weyerhaeuser
touted the Joists to be "extremely durable," "not requiring]
special handling or storage." Weyerhaeuser sold the Joists with a
fully transferable warranty that warranted against "manufacturing
defects" and remained in effect for "the lifetime of the
structure."

The defective nature of the Joists is so severe, the lawsuit says,
that Plaintiffs' and Class members' homes and other structures were
rendered uninhabitable. Recognizing the serious, dangerous problems
with the Joists, Weyerhaeuser "halted all production, sales and
shipments of the product." Occupants of homes containing the Joists
have been advised to vacate their residences, the lawsuit says.

Weyerhaeuser Company, is one of the world's largest private owners
of timberlands, owning or controlling nearly 12.4 million acres of
timberlands in the U.S. and managing additional 14.0 million acres
timberlands under long-term licenses in Canada. The company also
manufactures wood products.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: 206 816 6603
          Facsimile: 206 319 5450
          E-mail: www.terrellmarshall.com

WIDEOPENWEST INC: Continues to Defend Suits in New York over IPO
----------------------------------------------------------------
WideOpenWest, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself from a putative class action lawsuit in
New York involving the company's initial public offering.

In June and July of 2018, putative class action complaints were
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and Colorado
State Court against WideOpenWest, Inc. and certain of the Company's
current and former officers and directors, as well as Crestview
Advisors, LLC ("Crestview"), Avista Capital Partners ("Avista"),
and each of the underwriter banks involved with the Company's
initial public offering (IPO).

The complaints allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the IPO. The
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of stockholders who purchased
stock pursuant to or traceable to the IPO. The complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

WideOpenWest said, "The Company believes the complaint and
allegations to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend
itself against these actions. The Company is unable at this time to
determine whether the outcome of the litigation would have a
material impact on our results of operations, financial condition,
or cash flows."

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

WideOpenWest, Inc. operates as a cable operator in the United
States. It provides high-speed data, cable television, voice over
IP-based telephony, and business-class services to residential and
business services customers.  The company was founded in 2001 and
is based in Englewood, Colorado. WideOpenWest, Inc. is a subsidiary
of WideOpenWest Holdings, LLC.


WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Court Narrows Claims in Kutza Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted in part and denied in part eh
Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, BRIAN KUTZA, Plaintiff, v.
WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03534-RS (N.D.
Cal.).

In the putative class action, Kutza alleges that Williams-Sonoma
misleads customers into believing that certain of its lotions,
soaps, and cleaning products contain no ingredients that are
"unnatural and/or synthetic."   Williams-Sonoma is a San
Francisco-based national retailer that specializes in upscale
products for the kitchen and home.  

The action involves approximately 60 products, consisting of
lotions, hand soaps, dish soaps, room sprays, countertop sprays,
and all-purpose cleaners in a variety of scents.  Kutza alleges he
has purchased several of the products on numerous occasions from a
Williams-Sonoma store in Los Angeles County.  He specifically
asserts he bought at least five of the products, including one in
each category except room spray.

Kutza contends he purchased the products because he saw the
labeling, advertising, the Williams-Sonoma website, and read the
packaging, which represented that the Products are 'natural' and
contain 'Active Ingredients Derived from Natural Sources.'  He
asserts he understood this to mean that he was purchasing natural
products that did not contain any unnatural and/or synthetic
ingredients.

Kutza further alleges that Williams-Sonoma's marketing materials
are replete with statements that the Products are natural,
naturally derived, or plant-based, and the labels of all of the
Products state the products are naturally derived.  According to
Kutza, Williams-Sonoma cultivates its image as a natural,
non-synthetic, health and eco-friendly brand.

The complaint asserts the various representations regarding
"natural" or "naturally-derived" ingredients are false or
misleading because the products in fact contain unnatural,
synthetic, and/or chemical ingredients.  The complaint lists over
50 examples of such ingredients found in one or more of the
products.

Williams-Sonoma, in turn, insists that no reasonable consumer would
be deceived as alleged in the complaint.  It offers evidence, in
the form of photographs of its product labels, showing that the
only reference to "natural" appears in the "fine print" on the back
or side labels of the products, where a statement appears; "Active
Ingredients Derived from Natural Sources."

The complaint sets out claims for relief under the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); California's False
Advertising Law ("FAL"); California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"); and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; as well as common law
claims for breach of express warranty, breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation, and fraud.  The California statutory claims are
advanced on behalf a putative California subclass only; the balance
of the claims are pleaded on behalf of a putative nationwide
class.

Williams-Sonoma seeks dismissal of the complaint, or parts of it,
on a variety of grounds.  Among other things, it contends Kutza
lacks standing to represent a nationwide class under the
Magnuson-Moss and common law claims for relief.

Judge Seeborg granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.  He dismissed with leave to amend the breach of
warranty claims under state and federal law.  He otherwise denied
the motion to dismiss.

Williams-Sonoma argues the Moss-Magnussen and state law warranty
claims must be dismissed for failure to allege facts showing any
"warranty," among other things.  The Judge finds that while the
allegations pass the threshold necessary for pleading that a
consumer may have been misled as to the nature of the product
ingredients, none of the express or implied representations in the
complaint rises to the level of a warranty, breach of which would
be actionable under state or federal law.  Accordingly, these
claims for relief are dismissed, with leave to amend.

Any amended complaint, or a statement that the Plaintiff elects not
to amend, will be filed within 20 days of the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/RKNddA from Leagle.com.

Brian Kutza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Arthur Morris, Jr. --
jmorris@jamlawyers.com -- Morris Law Firm, Adam Martin Goffstein --
adam@goffsteinlaw.com -- Goffstein Law, LLC, pro hac vice & Daniel
John Orlowsky, Orlowsky Law, LLC, pro hac vice.

William-Sonoma, Inc., Defendant, represented by P. Craig Cardon --
ccardon@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton
LLP, Alyssa Marie Shauer -- ashauer@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard
Mullin Richter Hampton LLP & Benjamin Okhaifo Aigboboh --
baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton
LLP.


WINESHOP AT HOME: Diaz Suit Alleges ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1-800 Wineshop.com,
Inc. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1-800 Wineshop.com, Inc.
doing business as: Wineshop At Home, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10926 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

1-800-WINESHOP.COM, INC. operates as a direct seller of handcrafted
artisan wines in the United States. It also operates a wine club.
The company offers red, white, specialty, and personalized wines,
as well as stemware and boxed gifts. In addition, it provides wine
tasting services.[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


XO GROUP: Faces Driscoll Securities Suit Over WeddingWire Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Driscoll, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. XO Group Inc., Michael Zeisser,
Michael Steib, Charles Baker, Marc Kozin, Jan Hier-King, Diane
Irvine, Barbara Messing, Peter Sachse, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-10909 (S.D. N.Y., November 21, 2018) is a class action
brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the other
shareholders of XO Group, Inc. except Defendants and their
affiliates, against XO Group and the members of XO Group's board of
directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and SEC Rule in connection with the proposed merger between XO
Group and WeddingWire, Inc.

On September 24, 2018, the Board caused the Company to enter into
an agreement of plan of merger with the WeddingWire, pursuant to
which, XO Group shareholders will receive $35.00 in cash for each
share of XO Group stock they own.  On November 13, 2018, the Board
authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading
preliminary proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in violation of Sections the Exchange Act that
recommends shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, says
the complaint.

The Defendants are touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration
to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy, but have failed to
disclose material information that is necessary for shareholders to
properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Merger, thereby
rendering certain statements in the Proxy incomplete and
misleading, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is, and has been at all relevant times, the owner of XO
Group common Stock.

XO Group is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located at 195 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007.
The Company operates internet websites, publishes magazines and
books, and produces television and video contents offering
information, products, and advice concerning weddings and
pregnancy. XO Group's common stock trades on the NYSE under the
symbol "XOXO".

Michael Zeisser is director of XO Group and Chairman of the Board.

Michael Steib is a director of XO Group and the Chief Executive
Officer of the Company.

Charles Baker is, and has been at all relevant times, Lead Director
of XO Group.

Marc Kozin, Jan Hier-King, Diane Irvine, Barbara Messing and Peter
Sachse are, and have been at all relevant times, directors of XO
Group.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
     New York, NY 10118
     Phone: (212) 971-1341
     Fax: (212) 202-7880
     Email: mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com
            jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


YAHOO! INC: Lawyers Submit New Details of $85MM Data Breach Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that in what appears
to be the first test case for the Northern District of California's
new class settlement guidance, lawyers submitted new details about
the $85M Yahoo data breach settlement in response to probing
questions from a federal judge.

Following lawyers' court papers to approve last month's settlement,
one of the largest for a data breach, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh
issued two orders for supplemental information that largely mimic
the Northern District of California's new guidance for class action
settlements, widely considered the strictest in the nation.

In a Nov. 9 response, some of which was sealed, lawyers filled up
21 pages answering Judge Koh's nine questions, which included more
information on the potential class recoveries had the case not
settled and the lodestar, or the amount of hours billed by
plaintiffs lawyers multiplied by their average hourly rates. Among
other things, the guidance said lawyers should provide billing
calculations in their fee request and estimate the recoveries had
plaintiffs succeeded on their claims.

In their response, lawyers attached an exhibit detailing a lodestar
of $22 million for 32 law firms, including Morgan & Morgan, New
York's Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman and Casey Gerry Schenk
Francavilla Blatt & Penfield in San Diego. Yet information
regarding how much the class could have gotten if the case had not
settled was largely sealed.

"Disclosure of this information would reveal class counsels' work
product and mental impressions of the case," wrote plaintiffs'
lawyer John Yanchunis in a declaration. "Protection of attorneys
work product in the form of mental impressions is sacrosanct."
Neither Mr. Yanchunis, of Morgan & Morgan in Tampa, Florida, nor
defense attorney Ann Marie Mortimer of Hunton Andrews Kurth in Los
Angeles, responded to requests for comment. The defendants are
Altaba Inc., the division of Verizon formerly known as Yahoo, and
Oath Holdings Inc., which owns Yahoo's holding company.

Judge Koh plans to hear oral arguments on preliminary approval of
the settlement at a Nov. 29 hearing.

In 2016, Yahoo announced that 500 million accounts had been hacked
in 2014, compromising names, email addresses, phone numbers, birth
dates and passwords. Months later, Yahoo disclosed another breach
in 2013 that affected 1 billion accounts, a figure that Verizon
increased to 3 billion last year. The settlement also involves a
third breach in 2015 and 2016.

The deal is one of the largest data breach settlements in U.S.
history. It resolves cases in multidistrict litigation before Judge
Koh, as well as those brought in California state court, later
coordinated in Orange County Superior Court, and class actions
brought in Israel.

The settlement includes a $50 million fund from which consumers can
make claims for cash reimbursements of out-of-pocket costs, such as
fraud charges and professional fees, associated with the breaches.
In addition, Yahoo has agreed to provide at least two years of
credit monitoring and identity theft protection insurance to class
members, and implement enhancements to its security programs.

Lawyers filed a motion for preliminary approval on Oct. 22. Then,
on Nov. 1, the Northern District of California published its new
guidance on class action settlements.

On Nov. 2, Judge Koh ordered the lawyers in the Yahoo settlement to
provide more information. She also asked why the deal involved 200
million individuals with about 1 billion Yahoo accounts, when three
breaches compromised more than 3 billion accounts. She also asked
about how they selected the settlement administrator and the number
of class members expected to submit claims—both aspects in the
guidelines. In a Nov. 5 order, Judge Koh asked more questions about
the calculation of the plaintiffs' fee request and the use and
retention of class member data provided in the settlement.

In their response, lawyers said they reached the 200 million figure
by estimating that 80 percent of the U.S. population of adults
living in the United States had Yahoo accounts during the class
period. They noted that the number of accounts dropped after Judge
Koh dismissed claims by account users in foreign countries, except
Israel. Not to mention, they wrote, many individuals had more than
one account.

They estimated that between 1 percent and 3 percent of class
members would submit claims, based on other breach cases. They also
said that Yahoo is paying for and selected the settlement
administrator, whose costs could be more than $5 million.

As to the class member data, lawyers said it would be "stored in a
climate-controlled data center, with security cameras and
restricted key access," and transferred through a "secure web
portal" and "encrypted file share." [GN]


YIR, LLC: Vega Sues over Unsolicited Marketing Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
TONY VEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. YIR, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-24736-FAM (S.D. Fla. Nov.
13, 2018), alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant offers comprehensive
buyer and seller real estate services. To promote its services,
Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of
consumers in the process. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief to halt Defendant’s illegal conduct, which has
resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and
disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The
Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and
members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

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

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          19495 Biscayne Blvd Nov. 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

YUBA COUNTY, CA: Court OKs Amended Consent Decree in Hendrick Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DERRIL HEDRICK, DALE ROBINSON, KATHY LINDSEY, MARTIN
C. CANADA, DARRY TYRONE PARKER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES GRANT, as Sheriff
of Yuba County; Lieutenant FRED J. ASBY, as Yuba County Jailer;
JAMES PHARRIS, ROY LANDERMAN, DOUG WALTZ, HAROLD J. "SAM" SPERBEK,
JAMES MARTIN, as members of the YUBA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
Defendants, Case No. 2:76-CV-00162-EFB (E.D. Cal.), Chief
Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, granted
the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Amended
Consent Decree and Request for Expedited Hearing.

The Magistrate named Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP as the
co-counsel for the class.

A hearing on the Motion was held on Oct. 24, 2018.

The Magistrate finds that the Amended Consent Decree falls within
the range of possible approval and is sufficiently fair to warrant
the dissemination of notice to the class members apprising them of
the Amended Consent Decree.  A hearing is appropriate to consider
whether the Court should grant final approval to the settlement,
and to allow adequate time for the members of the class, or their
counsel, to support or oppose this settlement.

He granted the parties' request to expedite the hearing on the
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Amended Consent Decree for
Oct. 24, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., and approved the Notice of Amended
Consent Decree.

Within seven days of the Order, the Defendants must post the Notice
(1) on the County's official website (www.co.yuba.ca.us/); and (2)
in all Jail facilities operated by Defendants, including, but not
limited to, in all dayrooms, all medical clinic spaces, the
visiting area, and the intake area in the Yuba County Jail.  The
copies of the Amended Consent Decree will be available in the Jail
library and made available to Jail inmates upon request.

The Magistrate authorized and approved the dissemination of the
Notice as provided.  No later than 10 days after the Order, the
Defendants must file and serve on the Plaintiffs' counsel an
affidavit affirming that they published notice as required in the
Court's order.

Any member of the class may write to the Court about whether the
settlement is fair.  The comments must be postmarked no later than
52 days after the issuance of the Order, and sent to the following
address:  Clerk of the Court United States District Court Eastern
District of California 501 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814

The final approval hearing is set for Jan. 23, 2019.  

A joint memorandum of points and authorities in support of final
approval will be filed on Jan. 9, 2019.  The Plaintiffs filed a
motion for reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses on Oct. 24,
2018.  A hearing on the motion for attorneys' fees and expenses
will be held on Jan. 23, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., the same date as the
hearing on the motion for final approval.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/XKJ3XB from Leagle.com.

David Hedrick, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn
-- bbien-kahn@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Carter
Capps White, King Hall Civil Rights Clinic UC Davis School of Law,
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld -- ggrunfeld@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan
and Grunfeld LLP, Michael Bien -- mbien@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien
Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Devin W. Mauney -- dmauney@rbgg.com -- Rosen
Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Fred H. Altshuler, Altshuler Berzon
LLP, Ilene Janet Jacobs, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. &
Michael Louis Freedman -- mfreedman@rbgg.com --  Rosen Bien Galvan
& Grunfeld, LLPO.

Dale Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn,
Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Carter Capps White, King Hall
Civil Rights Clinic UC Davis School of Law, Fred H. Altshuler,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Rosen Bien Galvan
and Grunfeld LLP, Michael Bien, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP,
Devin W. Mauney, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP & Michael Louis
Freedman, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, LLPO.

James Grant & Yuba County, Defendants, represented by Carl L.
Fessenden -- cfessenden@porterscott.com -- Porter Scott, PC, John
Riley Vacek -- jvacek@co.yuba.ca.us -- County of Yuba County
Counsel & John Robert Whitefleet -- jwhitefleet@porterscott.com --
Porter Scott, APC.

Estate of Bertram Hiscock, Unknown, represented by Lori Rifkin --
lrifkin@hadsellstormer.com -- Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP.



                            *********

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 ***