CAR_Public/181205.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, December 5, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 243

                            Headlines

212 SERVICES: Underpays Asbestos Handlers, Sanchez-Marin Says
247 DELI: Rivera Villagomez Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Rosenblatt Class Action
ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Leavitt Files Securities Class Action
ALTISOURCE ASSET: 3d Cir. Affirms Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in N.Y.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Settles Price-Fixing Class Action for $45MM
AMPLIFY ENERGY: Thompson Sues over Wage-and-Hour Laws Violation
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Bid to Dismiss Texas Suit Still Pending
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Faces Taneja & Pokoik Class Suits in Texas

ARIZONA BILTMORE: Faces Class Action Over Bed Bugs
ASC INC: Conditional Certification of Leonardo Class Partly Granted
BANK OF AMERICA: $11MM McLeod Settlement Has Prelim Approval
BANK OZK: Class Action Threat Hits Profitability Growth
BARINGS BDC: Bid to Dismiss North Carolina Securities Suit Pending

BARINGS BDC: Continues to Defend Hammer Class Suit
BEF FOODS: Sar Sues over Misleading Product Presentation
BIG PICTURE: Williams et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Virginia
BILL GRAHAM: Kihn Seeks to Certify Composer and Performer Classes
BORAL INDUSTRIES: Underpays Construction Workers, Bishop Alleges

CALIBER HOME: 3rd Amended Razuki Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
CALIFORNIA: Cal. App. Grants Warner's Bid for Writ of Mandate
CALLOOH CALLAY: Underpays Ironers, River Suit Alleges
CANADA: Groups Call for End of Coerced Indigenous Sterilizations
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Sought in Voeks Suit

CAPITAL ONE: Doak Sues over Credit Background Checks
CAPTAIN MIKE'S: Zaca et al Seek Unpaid Wages for Delivery Workers
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: McCabe Appeals "Birchmeier" Ruling to 7th Cir.
CARNEGIE INVESTMENTS: Nixon Files Class Action in NY Under ADA
CAROLINA FIRST BANK: African American Applicants Claim Bias

CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Abella Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CENTENE CORPORATION: Removes Cisneros Suit to S.D. California
CHIASMA INC: Still Defends Gerneth Securities Class Action
CIELO VISTA: Trial Court Must Identify Costilla County Landowners
CLEAR CHANNEL: GAMCO Files Class Suit vs. iHeartMedia

CLEARVIEW SM: Underpays Laborers, Melgars Allege
COINBASE INC: Faces Diaz Suit for Disabilities Act Breach
CRIMSON WINE: Court Grants Final Approval of Settlement
CSWS, LLC: Powell et al Seek Minimum Wages & OT Pay for Dancers
DAMENZO'S INC: Sanchez Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA

DARPHIN LLC: Diaz Files ADA Class Action in New York
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Students Sue Over Professor Sexual Misconduct
DEFY MEDIA: Faces WARN Class Action in California
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Castronovo & Golombeck Suits Consolidated
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Futuredontics Still Defends Olivares Class Suit

DIVINE MIRACLES: Settlement in Hohensee Suit Has Court Approval
DONA MARIA: Final Approval of $275,000 FLSA Suit Settlement Sought
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Settlement Reached in Forsyth Class Suit
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Perry Sues over Debt Collection Practices
EDISON INT'L: Jan. 15 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

ELECTRIC BEACH: Mitchell Seeks OT and Minimum Wage
ENDOCYTE INC: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action in NY
ENDOCYTE INC: Wheby Balks at Merger Deal with Novartis
ENERGY TRANSFER: Parties in Warner Class Suit Agree to Stay Suit
ENERGY TRANSFER: Trial in Dieckman Class Suit Set for Sept. 2019

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Geisinsky Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
EWC UNION: Fair Seeks Unpaid Wages for Wax Specialist
EXPEDIA INC: Diaz Brings Class Suit in NY Under ADA
FAHERTY BRAND: Fischler Sues Clothing Brand for ADA Violation
FANNIE MAE: Dismissal of Suit Challenging 3rd Amendment Affirmed

FASION RETAIL: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Suit Says
FITNESS FORMULA: Court Tosses Out M. Wheeler's EFTA Claims
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Made Unsolicited Calls, Miller Says
GAL FOOD: Ventura Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime
GALERIE DE POP: Women's Clothing Shop Faces ADA Suit

GARNIER LLC: Diaz Sues Cosmetics Firm Under Disabilities Act
GEO GROUP: Immigration Detainees' Class Suits Ongoing
GERBER PRODUCTS: Class Decertification in Zakaria Upheld
GLAMGLOW LLC: Skincare Product Maker Faces Suit in New York
GLOBAL EAGLE: Fairness Hearing in M&M Hart Suit Set for March 2019

HAIN CELESTIAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
HAIN CELESTIAL: Stockholder Class & Derivative Suit Remains Stayed
HARKINS ADMINISTRATIVE: Removes Garcia Suit to C.D. California
HEADCLICKS INC: Okoe Files Fraud Class Suit
HERC HOLDINGS: 3rd. Cir. Affirms Dismissal in Ramirez Suit

HESS CORPORATION: Website not Accessible to Blind, Figueroa Says
HOMEAWAY.COM: Martinez Sues Web Portal Operator
HUDSON CITY: Refused to Stay Foreclosure Case, Lins Claim
HUUUGE INC: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in Wilson Suit
I.C. SYSTEM: Violates Debt Collection Practices Act, Says Iskhakov

IDAHO: Prison Officials Face Jones Ward Suit
INDIANA: Court Certifies JJC Juvenile Detainees' Suit
K & S ACW: Sandoval Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
K2M GROUP: Brown and Franchi Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
KANSAS: Faces Class Action Over Foster Care System

KENDO HOLDINGS: Faces Lawsuit in NY Under Disabilities Act
KERYX BIOPHARMA: Faces Several Akebia Merger-Related Suits
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Settlement Agreement in LAMPERS Suit Approved
KONA GRILL: Trial Date on Boots Class Suit Set for April 1
KRISHNA SCHAUMBURG: Appeal Likely in BIPA Class Action Ruling

LIBERTY MEDIA: Class Certification Bid in Buchanan Suit Ongoing
LIVE NATION: Faces Class Action Over Marshmello Concert
LIVINGSTON AUTO: Wortmann et al. Seek Wages for Car Wash Workers
LOAD TRAIL: Faces Class Action Over Workers' Unpaid OT Wages
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Kohler's Bid for Writ of Mandate Okayed

MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Bid For Class Certification in Lennen Underway
MDL 2801: Court Certifies Capacitors Antitrust Suit
MEDICAL RECORDS ONLINE: Sued over Steep Hospital Records Fees
MENARD INC: Can Compel Arbitration in Astarita Suit
MENGUIN INC: Faces Fischler Class Suit in NY

METRO-TECH SYSTEMS: Court Denies as Moot Bid to Dismiss Manigo Suit
MIDLAND FUNDING: Olson Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
MILESTONE MANAGEMENT: Santana Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
MONSANTO COMPANY: Riordan Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONTE R. LEE: Arredondo FLSA Suit Moved to N.D. Oklahoma

MOTION RECRUITMENT: Violates ADA, Nixon Suit Asserts
N.Y. CONSERVATORY: Faces Camacho Suit Asserting ADA Breach
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Montajo's Bid for Partial Summary Judgment OK'd
NATUS MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Costabile Class Suit
NECTAR RESTAURANT: Vidal Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAYHOUSE: Camacho Suit Alleges ADA Breach
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Faces Mulquin Securities Class Suit
NEVSUN RESOURCES: Raul Sues over Misleading Reports, Merger Deal
NEW MOOSEJAW: Revitch Sues over Alleged Wiretapping of Computers
NEWEGG INC: Sued by Diaz for Violating ADA

NORTH CAROLINA: Court Partly Allows Alvarez Suit to Proceed
NORTH CAROLINA: Court Partly Allows Johnson Suit to Proceed
OLIVE NAIL: Macas Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT under FLSA
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Costas Class Suit
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Ongoing in Suit v. PGV Unit

ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Riche Class Action vs. USG Ongoing
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Tel Aviv Class Action Stayed
PACCAR INC: Claims in Anderson Suit over Defective Engines Narrowed
PACIFIC BELL: Failed to Pay Wages & Overtime, Herrera Says
PACIFIC UNION: Mortgage Late Fees "Excessive," Hopkins et al. Say

PAIGE LAW: Matjusinas Sue over Debt Collection Practices
PARK HOTELS & RESORT: Fischler Brings Suit for ADA Breach
PETPLATE INC: Slade Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Violation
PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Lipitor-Related Antitrust Suits
PFIZER INC: Hormone Therapy Consumer Class Action Ongoing

PFIZER INC: Still Defends EpiPen Consolidated Class Suit
PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Defends Class Suit over Effexor XR Sales
PINKO US: Nixon Files Disabilities Act Suit v. Fashion Brand
PIQ-SOH LLC: Pet Insurance Service Firm Faces ADA Class Suit
POPULAR INC: 2nd Motion for Reconsideration in Torres Suit Pending

POPULAR INC: Appeal over Camacho Case Ruling Underway
POPULAR INC: Bid for Reconsideration in Maura Suit Still Pending
POPULAR INC: Says Settlement in Valle Suit Final and Unappealable
PORT RESOURCES: Seeks 1st Cir. Review of Ruling in Giguere Suit
PRINSTON PHARMA: Neal Sues over Contaminated Valsartan Drugs

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: 2d Cir. Tosses Bid to Appeal
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Order in PICA v. U.S. Bank Modified
QUDIAN INC: Court Stays Securities Suit Over 2017 IPO
RAKUTEN COMMERCE: Online Retailer Faces Class Action in NY
RANBAXY PHARMA: Court Denies Bid to Certify Fenwick Class

RANDSTAD GENERAL: Nixon Suit Asserts ADA Violation
RELIANT CAPITAL: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Avila FDCPA Suit
RFA BRANDS: Portable Charger Capacity Deceptive, Mancuso Claims
RINGCENTRAL INC: Appeal in Supply Pro Sorbents Lawsuit Ongoing
RINGCENTRAL INC: Continues to Defend Hurley TCPA Class Suit

ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY: Camacho Sues Asserting ADA Violation
ROSS STORES: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Morrison Suit
RUBY THAI: Underpays Restaurant Workers, Martinez Claims
RUBY TUESDAY: Robbins Geller to Lead in Securities Fraud Suit
RUSSELL TOBIN: Violates Disabilities Act, Nixon Class Suit Says

SABER HEALTHCARE: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Ruling in Bartels Suit
SAN DIEGO OUTLET: Court Consolidates Outlaw's Suits
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: West and Hopson Class Suit Dismissed
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Bid for Partial Judgment in Lanier Pending
SANFORD KAHN: Dupes Tenants over Eviction Notice, Montes Claims

SHAUN'S TOWING: Attorneys Can Start Sending Class Action Notices
SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Appeal in New York Class Action Still Pending
SIGNATURE CARE: Faces Adolphe Suit in New York Supreme Court
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Gentry Homes' Class Action Ongoing
SINCLAIR BROADCAST: 22 Price Fixing Suits Filed over TV Ad Rates

SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Continues to Defend Komito Class Suit
SNEAKERSNSTUFF INC: Store Sued for Alleged ADA Violation
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Consolidated Suit in Nevada
STITCH FIX: Weismann Alleges Misleading Business Reports
STORCK USA: Underfills Werther's Candy Bags, Woods Suit Claims

SUMA SUSHI: Placido Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime under FLSA
TAKL INC: Violates ADA, Crosson Suit Alleges
TREATMENT PARTNERS: Williams Seeks Unpaid Wages for Therapists
TREVENA INC: Faces Class Suits in Pennsylvania
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Suit Ongoing

TRUECAR INC: Appeal in Gordon Rose Class Action Underway
TRUECAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Milbeck Complaint Underway
TRUECAR INC: Ruling in Cal. Consumer Class Suit under Appeal
TWILIO INC: Jan. 15 Initial Approval Hearing on Flowers Settlement
U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES: Failed to Pay OT, Hernandez Suit Says

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Del Toro Lopez Deal Has Final Approval
ULTA SALON: Medeiros Suit Moved to Eastern District of California
ULTIMATE SERVICES: Servil Seeks Unpaid Wages for Home Care Workers
UNITED STATES: ICE Faces Class Action Over Immigrant Detentions
UNITED STATES: Navy Class Action Over Bad Paper Discharges OK'd

UNITED WHOLESALE: Mekaway Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
UPTOWN COMMUNICATIONS: Underpays Technicians, Clark Suit Alleges
US XPRESS: Jury Trial in Cal. Wage & Hour Suit Set for Feb. 2019
VENCHI 2: Faces Lawsuit Under Disabilities Act
VIRGINIA: Court Narrows Claims in Unaccompanied Minors Suit

VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Decision in Final Approval Hearing Reserved
VUZIX CORP: Mulls Bid to Dismiss 2 NY Securities Class Suits
WAL-MART ASSOC: Decertification of Magadia Meal Period Class Nixed
WALSH CONSTRUCTION: Navar et al. Sue over Gender Discrimination
WAYFAIR LLC: Diaz Sues Over Disabilities Act Breach

WELEDA INC: Sued in New York for ADA Violation
WILLS TOWERS: Sullivan Says Advisory Firm Violates ADA
WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Still Defends EarthLink Merger-Related Suits
WYETH INC: Court Narrows Claims in Effexor Antitrust Suit
ZION OIL: Faces Putative Class Action in Texas


                            *********

212 SERVICES: Underpays Asbestos Handlers, Sanchez-Marin Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELVIA SANCHEZ-MARIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 212 SERVICES, LLC; and ADESANOLA
OLADIRAN, Defendants, Case No. CV18-6050 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2018)
is an action for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs
as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Plaintiff Sanchez-Marin was employed by the Defendants as
asbestos handler.

212 Services, LLC is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598


247 DELI: Rivera Villagomez Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------
CRISTIAN RIVERA VILLAGOMEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 247 DELI LLC (D/B/A
DELICATESSEN), 247 DELICATESSEN MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC (D/B/A
DELICATESSEN), MARK T. AMADEI, ANDREW GLASSBERG, MICHAEL FERRERO,
FABIAN DOE, and JEFF CURRAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10515
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was ostensibly employed
as a delivery worker. However, he was required to spend a
considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped duties,
including but not limited to cleaning the windows, cleaning the
sidewalk, taking out the trash, running errand for the owners to
buy food for the owners, the owner's girlfriend and friends,
picking up laundry, picking up clothes and accessories at stores
for the owner, bringing things to the owner's apartment such as a
washing machine, taking things such as kitchen equipment when
Defendant Michael Ferrero was cooking at home and stocking
deliveries in the basement. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants
without appropriate minimum wage compensation for the hours that he
worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff
Rivera appropriately for any hours worked at the straight rate of
pay.

The Defendants employed and accounted for Plaintiff Rivera as a
delivery worker in their payroll, but in actuality his duties
required a significant amount of time spent performing the alleged
non-tipped duties. Regardless, the Defendants paid Plaintiff Rivera
at a rate that was lower than the required tip-credit rate.
However, under both the FLSA and NYLL, Defendants were not entitled
to take a tip credit because Plaintiff Rivera's non-tipped duties
exceeded 20% of each workday, or 2 hours per day, whichever is less
in each day. The Defendants employed the policy and practice of
disguising Plaintiff Rivera’s actual duties in payroll records by
designating him as a delivery worker instead of as a non-tipped
employee. This allowed Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiff Rivera
at the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay him at the
tip-credit rate. In addition, Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of unlawfully appropriating Plaintiff Rivera’s and other
tipped employees’ tips and made unlawful deductions from
Plaintiff Rivera's and other tipped employees' wages, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Rosenblatt Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, 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 has
been named as defendant in a shareholder class action suit
entitled, Rosenblatt v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

On October 23, 2018, an alleged shareholder of Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or Keryx, filed a putative shareholder
class action against Keryx, the members of the Keryx board of
directors, Alpha Therapeutics Merger Sub, Inc., the company's
wholly owned subsidiary, or the Merger Sub, and Akebia challenging
the disclosures made in connection with the pending merger of
Merger Sub with and into Keryx, or the Merger.

The lawsuit, Rosenblatt v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. The complaint generally alleges that the
registration statement filed in connection with the Merger fails to
disclose certain allegedly material information.

The alleged omissions relate to (i) certain financial projections
for Keryx and Akebia and certain financial analyses performed by
Keryx’s advisors; (ii) certain terms relating to the engagement
of Perella Weinberg Partners by Keryx; and (iii) any alleged
negotiations that may have taken place regarding future employment
and directorship of the Keryx's officers and directors.

The plaintiff asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against Keryx
and the members of the Keryx board of directors, and claims under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the members of the Keryx
board of directors, Akebia, and Merger Sub. The plaintiff seeks to
enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the Merger and seeks
damages in the event the transaction is consummated.

Akebia Therapeutics said, "We and Keryx believe that the
plaintiff’s allegations are without merit; however, litigation is
inherently uncertain and there can be no assurance that Keryx’s
or our defense of the action will be successful."

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of novel therapeutics for
patients with renal disease through hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF)
biology. he company was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.


ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Leavitt Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alnylam
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Caryl Hull
Leavitt individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., John M.
Maraganore, Manmeet S. Soni, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-12433-NMG
(D. Mass., Nov. 21, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities.

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company,
discovers, develops, and commercializes novel therapeutics based on
RNA interference (RNAi). Its pipeline of investigational RNAi
therapeutics focuses on genetic medicines, cardio-metabolic
diseases, and hepatic infectious diseases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Esq.
     Pomerantz LLP
     600 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Email: ahood@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     Pomerantz LLP
     600 Third Avenue
     20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Fax: (212) 661-8665
     Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Scott D. Musoff, Esq.
     Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (NYC)
     Four Times Square
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (212) 735-3000
     Fax: (212) 735-2000
     Email: smusoff@skadden.com

          - and -

     Alisha Quintana Nanda, Esq.
     Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
     500 Boylston Street
     Boston, MA 02116
     Phone: (617) 573-4800
     Fax: (617) 573-4822
     Email: Alisha.Nanda@skadden.com

          - and -

     Marley Ann Brumme, Esq.
     Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (MA)
     500 Boylston Street
     Boston, MA 02116
     Phone: (617) 573-4861
     Fax: (617) 305-4861
     Email: marley.brumme@skadden.com


ALTISOURCE ASSET: 3d Cir. Affirms Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CITY OF CAMBRIDGE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, On behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, et al., v. ALTISOURCE
ASSET MANAGEMENT CORP; WILLIAM C. ERBEY; KENNETH NAJOUR; ASHISH
PANDEY; ROBIN LOWE, Denver Employee Retirement Plan, Appellant,
Case No. 17-2471 (3d Cir.), Judge D. Michael Fisher of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District
Court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim.

In the securities fraud class action, former shareholders allege
that Altisource and several of its officers ("AAMC") inflated the
price of its stock through false and misleading statements.  When
these mistruths were revealed to the market, the allegation goes,
the price of AAMC's stock plummeted, costing shareholders billions
of dollars.

AAMC is one of several independent, but affiliated, companies
founded by William Erbey.  The first company, Ocwen Financial, was
created in 1988 and became the country's largest purchaser of
non-performing mortgage loans in the 1990s.  Companies earn profit
from non-performing mortgages by either efficiently foreclosing on
the underlying properties or by bringing the loans to current
status.

The 2008 housing crisis changed this picture.  As droves of
borrowers fell behind on their mortgages, the largest mortgage
holders found themselves ill-equipped to service the ballooning
number of delinquent, non-performing loans.  This led to widespread
corner-cutting -- e.g., robo-signing of foreclosure documents,
fraudulent affidavits, and other abusive servicing practices --
which culminated in the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement.  Under
this agreement, the nation's five largest mortgage holders, all
banks, agreed to provide more than $50 billion worth of relief to
mistreated homeowners.

The initial complaint in the class action was filed on Jan. 16,
2015 by City of Cambridge Retirement System.  After being appointed
as the lead Plaintiff, Denver Employees Retirement Plan filed a
significantly revised amended complaint, which it captioned its
"Consolidated Complaint."

The Plaintiffs base their fraud claims on two principal classes of
statements made by AAMC.  First, they argue that AAMC
misrepresented the benefits attributable to its relationship with
Ocwen.  The second category of alleged misrepresentations concerns
AAMC's stated policy of requiring its officers -- Erbey in
particular -- to recuse themselves from any transactions involving
other Ocwen-affiliated companies.  The Plaintiffs allege that this
disclosure was false and misleading because it omits to disclose
that the Related-Party Transaction Policy was widely disregarded by
Defendant Erbey and others.

AAMC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  The District Court granted the motion
and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim,
concluding that Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the requirements of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA").  Roughly
three weeks later, the Plaintiffs sought leave to reopen the case
and further amend the complaint, attaching a proposed second
amended complaint to its motion.  After considering the proposed
complaint, the District Court denied leave to amend as futile.  The
Plaintiffs then filed the timely appeal.

Judge Fisher finds that the Plaintiffs allege that AAMC
misrepresented both the benefits of its relationship with Ocwen and
its adherence to a recusal policy designed to protect against
conflicts of interest.  However, the Plaintiffs have failed to
sufficiently plead falsity as to either category.  The statements
concerning AAMC's relationship with Ocwen were not misleading in
the context in which they were made because AAMC's reliance on
Ocwen only extended to its ability to service the loans acquired by
AAMC.  Likewise, the complaint does not plausibly allege that
AAMC's statements about its recusal policy were false or
misleading.  Instead, it simply speculates that Erbey must have
violated the AAMC recusal policy because he is suspected to have
done so with other companies.  Neither allegation satisfies the
PSLRA's strict standards for stating a claim.

Even if they had sufficiently alleged that AAMC made false or
misleading statements, the Judge holds that this alone would not be
enough to survive a motion to dismiss.  The Plaintiffs must also
plead facts sufficient to create a "strong inference" that AAMC
intended to defraud shareholders (scienter), and adequately allege
that, when the truth was revealed about those fraudulent
statements, the Plaintiffs suffered an economic harm as a result
(loss causation).  Both factors are predicated upon a sufficient
pleading of false or misleading statements.

Because he holds that the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy this first
requirement, he declines to go so far as to postulate whether AAMC
may have intended to defraud shareholders with non-fraudulent
statements.  Nor does he we speculate whether statements made --
that do not correct or contradict misleading statements by AMMC --
could reasonably have caused economic harm to the Plaintiffs.
Instead, the Judge concludes his analysis at his finding of no
falsity and holds that the Plaintiffs have not stated a claim upon
which relief can be granted.

Finally, he finds that the economic harm suffered by AAMC's
investors is certainly regrettable, but the Plaintiffs fail to
plausibly allege that this harm arose from fraud.  When a stock
experiences the rapid rise and fall that occurred here, it will not
usually prove difficult to mine from the economic wreckage a few
discrepancies in the now-deflated company's records.  In passing
the PSLRA, Congress concluded that the very stability of our
capital markets depends on forestalling meritless suits while
preserving for "defrauded investors" the "indispensable tool" of
private litigation.  Because the Plaintiffs' complaint falls on the
wrong side of this carefully-struck balance, he affirmed the
decision of the District Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/tgd1MJ from Leagle.com.

Steve W. Berman, Esq. -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300, Seattle, WA 98101.

Peter E. Borkon, Esq. -- peterb@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202, Berkeley, CA 94710.

Vincent A. Colianni, II, Esq. -- vinny@colianni.com -- Colianni &
Colianni, 1138 King Street, Christiansted, VI 00820.

Kevin K. Green, Esq. [ARGUED for Appellant Denver, Employee
Retirement Plan], Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, 533 F Street, Suite
207, San Diego, CA 92101, Counsel for Appellant.

Walter C. Carlson, Esq. -- wcarlson@sidley.com -- [ARGUED], Sidley
Austin, One South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60603.

Chad C. Messier, Esq. -- cmessier@dtflaw.com -- Dudley Topper &
Feuerzeig, 1000 Frederiksberg Gade, P.O. Box 756, St. Thomas, VI
00804.

David S. Petron, Esq., Sidley Austin, 1501 K Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20005, Counsel for Appellee Altisource Asset
Management, Corp.

Darrell Cafasso, Esq. -- cafassod@sullcrom.com -- John L. Hardiman,
Esq., Julia A. Malkina, Esq., Sullivan & Cromwell, 125 Broad
Street, New York, NY 10004, Counsel for Appellee William C. Erbey.


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 court has granted lead plaintiff's and
Hawaii Structural Iron Workers Pension Trust Fund's request that
they be permitted to file an amended complaint.

On January 12, 2018 and January 19, 2018, two putative federal
securities class actions, captioned Hawaii Structural Iron workers
Pension Trust Fund v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00299-AJN (the "Hawaii Action"), and Nichols v.
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-00510-AJN (the "Nichols Action," and together with the
Hawaii Action, the "Actions"), respectively, were filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  

The Actions, which name certain of the Company's officers and
directors and, in the case of the Hawaii Action, the underwriters
of the Company's February 8, 2017 secondary public offering, as
defendants, asserted claims under some or all of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to
alleged material misstatements and omissions in the registration
statement for the secondary public offering and in certain other
public disclosures.  

On May 30, 2018, the court consolidated the Actions and appointed
the International Union of Operating Engineers Pension Fund of
Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware as lead plaintiff. On August 13,
2018, lead plaintiff and additional named plaintiff Hawaii
Structural Iron Workers Pension Trust Fund filed a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint.

On October 12, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On October 24, 2018, the court
granted lead plaintiff's and Hawaii Structural Iron Workers Pension
Trust Fund's request that they be permitted to file an amended
complaint on or before November 21, 2018.

AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
operates in the theatrical exhibition business. The company owns,
operates, or has interests in theatres. The company was founded in
1920 and is headquartered in Leawood, Kansas. AMC Entertainment
Holdings, Inc. is a subsidiary of Dalian Wanda Group Co., Ltd.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Settles Price-Fixing Class Action for $45MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Chicago reports that millions of Americans are receiving emails
about a class action lawsuit for anyone who bought a domestic plane
ticket during a six-plus year period. At least $60 million dollars
is up for grabs, but how much might passengers actually receive?

The answer could be zero, CBS Chicago reports.

At the crux of the lawsuit are allegations that four major airlines
conspired to increase prices. Two of those airlines have settled:
American agreed to pay $45 million and Southwest agreed to pay $15
million. Both deny wrongdoing.

"You just don't fork up $60 million dollars for no reason," CBS
Chicago legal analyst Irv Miller said.

The lawsuits against United and Delta continue. A Delta
spokesperson described the case as "not only ridiculous, it is
offensive."

"The law provides small plaintiffs that have been wronged to go
against a big company," said Miller.

But here's where the math gets fuzzy. Sixty million dollars sounds
like a lot of money. But attorneys fees could be as much as 30
percent -- or $18 million. Then mailing out the checks could cost
tens of millions, leaving little to nothing for the 84 to 153
million passengers potentially involved in the lawsuit.

When all is said and done, it is possible that after deductions,
"the remaining amount will be distributed to charities,
governmental entities, or other beneficiaries approved by the
Court," according to the frequently asked questions section of the
official website for the Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust
Litigation Settlements.

"You see you're a member of class action. Think you're gonna get a
lot of money back. Then you read the fine print and the fine print
says you may not get anything," said Miller.

If you'd like more information about the lawsuit, you can go to
DomesticAirClass.com.

The U.S. Justice Department investigated airline price fixing back
in 2015 and to date, it has not found any official wrongdoing.
[GN]


AMPLIFY ENERGY: Thompson Sues over Wage-and-Hour Laws Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD THOMPSON, an individual, for himself and those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMPLIFY ENERGY CORP., a Delaware
corporation doing business in California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case 2:18-cv-09541 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 9,
2018), seeks to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to
unpaid minimum wages under California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants provide services to drilling
operations off the California coast, including on fixed oil
platforms on the Outer Continental Shelf. Defendants employ hourly
employees who work on these oil platforms and travel between them
when necessary. The Defendants mandate that these hourly workers
perform their work in "hitches," which are multiple-day shifts
(varying in length) that begin and end in California and are also
spent either on vessels traveling to, back from, or between oil
platforms or on the oil platforms themselves.

The employees' hitches begin on California soil, where the
employees wait for a vessel to transport them to an oil  platform.
While they wait, Defendants mandate that the employees attend
safety briefings. The employees board their vessel and travel to an
oil platform on the Outer Continental Shelf. On rare occasions some
employees travel to and back from their  designated platform by
helicopter. The process is similar to trips aboard a vessel. The
primary difference is the length of the trip. Regardless of which
method of travel the employees take to their platform, it is
impossible for employees to take their own vessel and/or helicopter
to reach the platform. They must use the transportation provided by
Defendants.

Defendants, in contravention of California law, maintained a policy
and practice of paying their hourly employees for 13 hours each
day. Plaintiffs were paid for their 12-hour shift, and paid an
additional hour for the changeover. Defendants maintained a policy
whereby it did not pay their hourly employees for controlled
stand-by time, typically time spent on the platform between 5 p.m.
and 5 a.m., then were paid for an additional hour, to 6 a.m. for
changeover work at the end of the shift (and relieving employees
worked the 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. shift, plus an hour at the end of the
shift for changeover), even though this entire time was on-call
time and even though their hourly employees were deprived several
freedoms during this time. In short, Defendants violated California
law by not treating as compensable hours worked every hour their
hourly employees were restrained to the workplace, i.e., on
Defendants' vessels and platforms, including sleeping time, and
spent on California soil, the lawsuit says.

Attorneys for Plaintfiff and the Putative Class:

          Michael A. Strauss, Esq.
          Aris E. Karakalos, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ellison, Esq.
          STRAUSS & STRAUSS, APC
          121 N. Fir St., Suite F
          Ventura, CA 93001
          Telephone: (805) 641.6600
          Facsimile: (805) 641.6607
          E-mail: mike@strausslawyers.com
                  aris@strausslawyers.com
                  andrew@strausslawyers.com

APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Bid to Dismiss Texas Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Optoelectronics, 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 motion
to dismiss a consolidated class action suit in Texas remains
pending.

On August 5, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and two of
its officers in Mona Abouzied v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.,
Chih-Hsiang (Thompson) Lin, and Stefan J. Murry,  et al., Case No.
4:17-cv-02399.

The complaint in this matter seeks class action status on behalf of
the Company's shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its chief
executive officer, and its chief financial officer, arising out of
its announcement on August 3, 2017 that "the company see softer
than expected demand for its 40G solutions with one of its large
customers that will offset the sequential growth and increased
demand the company expects in 100G."

A second, related action was filed by Plaintiff Chad Ludwig on
August 16, 2017 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02512) in the Southern District
of Texas. The two cases were consolidated before Judge Vanessa D.
Gilmore.

On January 22, 2018, the court appointed Lawrence Rougier as Lead
Plaintiff and Levi & Korinsky LLP as Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff
filed an amended consolidated class action complaint on March 6,
2018. The amended complaint requests unspecified damages and other
relief.

The Company disputes the allegations and intends to vigorously
contest the matter. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April
4, 2018. Lead Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the
motion to dismiss on May 4, 2018, and briefing was completed on May
21, 2018. .

Further deadlines in this matter have been stayed until the court
issues a decision on the pending motion to dismiss.

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

Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells
various fiber-optic networking products worldwide. It offers
optical modules, lasers, transmitters and transceivers, and
turn-key equipment, as well as headend, node, and distribution
equipment. The company sells its products to Internet data center
operators, cable television and telecommunications equipment
manufacturers, and Internet service providers through its direct
and indirect sales channels. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. was
founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas.


APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Faces Taneja & Pokoik Class Suits in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Optoelectronics, 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 on October
1, 2018, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas against the Company and two of its
officers in Gaurav Taneja v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.,
Thompson Lin, and Stefan Murry, Case No. 4:18-cv-03544.

The complaint in this matter seeks class action status on behalf of
the Company's shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its chief
executive officer, and its chief financial officer, arising out of
its announcement on September 28, 2018 that it was revising its
third quarter revenue guidance due to "an issue with a small
percentage of 25G lasers within a specific customer environment."

A second, related action was filed by Plaintiff Davin Pokoik on
October 10, 2018 (Case No. 4:18-cv-03722) in the Southern District
of Texas.

The Company disputes the allegations and intends to vigorously
contest the matter.

Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells
various fiber-optic networking products worldwide. It offers
optical modules, lasers, transmitters and transceivers, and
turn-key equipment, as well as headend, node, and distribution
equipment. The company sells its products to Internet data center
operators, cable television and telecommunications equipment
manufacturers, and Internet service providers through its direct
and indirect sales channels. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. was
founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas.


ARIZONA BILTMORE: Faces Class Action Over Bed Bugs
--------------------------------------------------
Sonu Wasu, writing for ABC15, reports that an Arkansas woman has
filed a class action lawsuit against the Arizona Biltmore Hotel and
Resort, a Hilton Waldorf Astoria luxury property that is known for
its charm and has been a popular hotspot and summer getaway here in
the Valley.

In the lawsuit, Christine Bingaman claims that the hotel that
promises a world-class experience was anything but that for her.
She stayed on the property for four nights in May 2018.

The lawsuit states on her first night she experienced an itchy
sensation all over her legs. On her second night, Ms. Bingaman says
she saw a bug run across the sheets in her room. She was able to
catch the bug and put it in a plastic bag and looked up pictures of
bed bugs. She took the bug over to hotel staff and was immediately
transferred to another room on the property.

Ms. Bingaman told staff she worried about her personal belongings,
as she knew bedbugs were known to be "hitchhikers" that latched on
to clothing and luggage and could travel with you.

The lawsuit states Ms. Bingaman met with several managers at the
hotel who confirmed the bug had been a bedbug and acknowledged her
concerns about her personal property.  

The lawsuit states Ms. Bingaman was told to leave behind any
personal property she did not feel comfortable taking back home
with her, and that she would be compensated for it. The lawsuit
states Bingaman was never compensated for that property.

Now, she is suing the hotel for false advertising, fraud, and
emotional distress among other things.

The lawsuit states hotel staff are not properly trained to identify
bed bugs and treat them. The lawyers included attachments of
several reviews posted on the web, written from prior customers who
had stayed at the Biltmore and found bed bugs in their rooms as
well. The reviews dated back to 2016.  

ABC15 reached out to pest control experts to get their take on the
situation.

Rick Cooper, the Senior Director of Services for Terminix, said
there was a big misconception that bedbugs were only found in
dirty, unhygienic areas.

"There is nothing further from the truth; the reality is that bed
bugs can affect anyone. They can be in the finest of hotels and the
most expensive of homes," said Mr. Cooper.  

Cooper added that bedbugs typically went where people so it was not
uncommon to find bed bugs in most areas frequented by the public.


Anthony Deslo, the owner of Phoenix Bed Bug Expert, said finding
and treating bedbugs were typically jobs for the experts. Many
companies used trained bed bug dogs to detect the blood-sucking
pests as they could be hard to find. He added that he would not be
surprised to hear that housekeeping staff at the hotel did not find
any bedbugs as they changed sheets.

"In some cases, you would have to take the headboard off, which is
usually screwed to the wall. You have to lift it up with two guys
on each side as well as take all the sheets off and check the whole
perimeter of the top seam and bottom as well as the box spring,"
said Mr. Deslo.

He also agreed that the type of property did not make a difference
when it came to this non-discriminating pest that just wanted to
latch on to a human host to feed.

"It doesn't matter if its a five-star hotel or Super 8 or Motel 6.
It is just a matter of a lot of traffic and someone coming in
contact with it along with their travels," added Mr. Deslo.

The lawsuit claimed that the resort property was deceiving guests
who felt they were in a top-notch, world-class property, by not
notifying them of bedbug issues as they came up.

The lawsuit seeks monetary compensation to be determined by a jury,
along with the action on the resort property's part, outlining
aggressive steps they planned to take to address the problem.

A spokeswoman with the Arizona Biltmore resort sent us this
statement.

"We are not able to comment on a pending litigation. Arizona
Biltmore takes the issue of bed bugs very seriously as the safety
and comfort of our guests and staff are of paramount importance.
The hotel employs a comprehensive detection program which maintains
the highest levels of vigilance."

ABC15 reached out to the resort again to ask them to outline the
procedures they have in place to address bed bugs. A spokeswoman
stated:

"Our housekeeping and maintenance departments collaborate with
outside specialists to perform regularly scheduled inspections. In
the unlikely and unusual event, a guest suspects a problem; the
guest is relocated, the area in question is isolated to determine
whether a problem exists and, if warranted, the situation will be
immediately remedied."

ABC15 has reached out to the lawyers listed on the class action
lawsuit; it has yet to hear back from them. [GN]


ASC INC: Conditional Certification of Leonardo Class Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SEFERINO LEONARDO, Plaintiff, v. ASC, INC. (d/b/a La
Nonna), 151 MULBERRY ST. CORP. (d/b/a Il Palazzo), 164 MULBERRY ST.
CORP. (d/b/a Da Nico), P.J.'S OF LITTLE ITALY, INC. (d/b/a
Pellegrino's), ESTATE OF ANNETTE SABATINO, PERRY CRISCITELLI, and
NICHOLAS CRISCITELLI, Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-3657 (VEC) (S.D.
N.Y.), Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, granted in part the Plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification of a collective pursuant to
Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Leonardo has sued his former employer and related entities for
violations of the FLSA, and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").  The
Plaintiff worked as a dishwasher for La Nonna, an Italian
restaurant in Manhattan, between April 2012 and January 2016.
During that time, La Nonna was owned by the late Annette Sabatino,
whose estate is sued in the case, and was managed by Defendant
Perry Criscitelli, who was Annette Sabatino's husband.

The Plaintiff alleges that, each day, the Defendants deducted one
hour from his compensable hours for a "lunch break."  He alleges
that was improper and resulted in him being underpaid because the
Defendants required him to work during his purported meal break.
Additionally, he alleges that, on a daily basis, the Defendants
rounded the number of hours that he worked down to the nearest
quarter hour.  The Plaintiff asserts that this practice deprived
him of approximately one hour of wages per week.  Finally, he
alleges that the Defendants failed to provide him with proper wage
notices and wage statements, as required by the NYLL.

While the Plaintiff worked primarily at La Nonna, he alleges that
all non-managerial employees of Il Palazzo, Da Nico, Pellegrino's,
and employees of non-party restaurants SPQR and Novella, were
subject to the same time-shaving and rounding practices as
employees of La Nonna.

The Plaintiff moves for conditional certification of a collective
action on behalf of all current and former non-exempt employees who
were employed by these restaurants during the six years preceding
the date that the Plaintiff filed the Complaint.

Among other things, Judge Caproni finds while the Plaintiff seeks
to include employees of Il Palazzo, SPQR, and Novella in the
collective, he has not offered sufficient evidence that employees
of those restaurants were subject to the same wage-and-hour
practices as employees of La Nonna, Da Nico, and Pellegrino's.
Hence, the Plaintiff's motion for a collective will be granted as
to the kitchen staff who worked at La Nonna, Da Nico, and
Pellegrino's at any time during the period beginning three years
prior to the filing of the Complaint and continuing until the
present.

The Plaintiff requests that the Court equitably tolls the FLSA's
statute of limitations for potential members of the collective
while he attempts to effect notice.  The Judge finds that whether
tolling is appropriate is best addressed on an individual basis.
Accordingly, she declines to toll the statute of limitations for
all prospective Plaintiffs at this time, but prospective members of
the collective may move for tolling, as needed, on an individual
basis.

For these reasons, Judge Caproni granted in part the Plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification of a collective.  She
conditionally certified the collective of kitchen staff (including
dishwashers, cooks, bussers, and food preparers) who worked at La
Nonna, Da Nico, and Pellegrino's at any time between April 30, 2015
and the present.

She ordered the Defendants to provide to the Plaintiff's counsel
contact information (including names, addresses, email addresses,
and telephone numbers) for all potential members of the collective.
She did not order the Defendants to produce the social security
numbers of prospective members of the collective at this time.  The
proposed notice must be modified consistent with the Order, and the
parties must confer on any remaining objections to the form or
means of distribution of the notice.  Equitable tolling, if
necessary, will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

No later than Dec. 5, 2018, the parties must jointly submit a
revised proposed notice and a letter outlining any points of
disagreement.  If the Notice needs to be translated into a language
other than English, the submission must indicate whether the
parties have agreed on a proposed translation of the Notice.

The Clerk is respectfully directed to close the open motion at Dkt.
57.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/bNYcpx from Leagle.com.

Seferino Leonardo, on behalf of himself & Seferino Leonardo, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs, represented by
Anne Melissa Seelig -- info@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation
Group, PLLC, Taimur Alamgir, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee,
Lee Litigation Group, PLLC.

ASC, Inc. & Perry Criscitelli, Defendants, represented by Meredith
Rosen Cavallaro -- mc@pwlawyers.com -- Paduano & Weintraub, L.L.P.,
Alicia Valenti -- av@pwlawyers.com -- Paduano & Weintraub LLP &
Sarah Katherine Hook -- Sarah.Hook@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson
Lewis P.C.

P.J.'S of Little Italy, Inc., 133 Mulberry Street Restaurant, LLC,
191 Grand Restaurant Corp., 3333 Hylan Blvd. Food Corp. & 151
Mulberry St. Corp, doing business as Il Palazzo, Defendants,
represented by Alicia Valenti, Paduano & Weintraub LLP.

Annette Sabatino, Defendant, represented by Hillary Ann Fraenkel --
hfraenkel@clausen.com -- Clausen Miller P.C. & Alicia Valenti,
Paduano & Weintraub LLP.

Nicholas Criscitelli, Defendant, represented by Ali R. Jaffery ,
Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsbury LLP, Hillary Ann Fraenkel,
Clausen Miller P.C., Hillary Jacobs Raimondi --
hraimondi@tlsslaw.com -- Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsbury LLP,
Meredith Rosen Cavallaro, Paduano & Weintraub, L.L.P. & Sarah
Katherine Hook, Jackson Lewis P.C.

164 Mulberry St. Corp., doing business as Da Nico, Defendant,
represented by Ali R. Jaffery -- ajaffery@tlsslaw.com -- Traub
Lieberman Straus & Shrewsbury LLP & Hillary Jacobs Raimondi, Traub
Lieberman Straus & Shrewsbury LLP.

Estate of Annette Sabatino & P.J.'s of Little Italy, Inc., doing
business as Pellegrino's, Defendants, represented by Meredith Rosen
Cavallaro, Paduano & Weintraub, L.L.P. & Alicia Valenti, Paduano &
Weintraub LLP.


BANK OF AMERICA: $11MM McLeod Settlement Has Prelim Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GINA McLEOD, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-03294-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M.
Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement.

McLeod, a mortgage loan officer for Defendant Bank of America from
February 2014 to November 2016, brought the suit on behalf of a
class of Bank of America mortgage loan officers, alleging that the
Bank failed to reimburse her and other loan officers for the use of
their personal vehicles for work duties in violation of California
Labor Code Section 2802 and a derivative claim under the California
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").

The Plaintiff also amended the complaint in July 2016 to add a
cause of action under the California Labor Code Private Attorney
General Act ("PAGA").  She acknowledges that the Bank has a
facially-valid written reimbursement policy, but argues that the
Bank failed to exercise due diligence to reimburse Class Members
despite having constructive knowledge they incurred mileage
expenses.  Alternatively, the Plaintiff argues that the Bank had a
de facto policy or practice of not reimbursing loan officers for
routine mileage.

On Dec. 13, 2017, the Court certified the class of all persons who
are or have been employed, at any time from May 9, 2012 through the
date of the Court's granting of class certification in the matter,
by Bank of America, National Association in California under the
job titles Loan Officer, Senior Loan Officer, Mortgage Loan
Officer, Senior Mortgage Loan Officer, and Senior Lending Officer
("Loan Officers or Class Members").

The Court also certified the following questions for resolution on
a class-wide basis under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) with respect
to the Plaintiff's Section 2802 and UCL claims: (i) whether there
was a regular practice of not reimbursing Loan Officers for mileage
incurred and reimbursable under Section 2802; (ii) whether the
Defendant had constructive notice of unreimbursed mileage incurred
by Loan Officers in the discharge of their duties; (iii) whether
the Defendant's constructive notice gave rise to a duty of due
diligence under Section 2802; (iv) whether the Defendant's
system-wide efforts (or lack thereof) satisfied its duty of due
diligence under Section 2802; and, (v) whether, in light of
questions 1-4, the Defendant violated California Labor Code Section
2802 and the UCL.

The Bank sought permission to appeal the Class Certification Order,
but permission was denied by the Ninth Circuit.  The parties
engaged in settlement negotiations overseen by Magistrate Judge
Laporte and on Aug. 16, 2018 advised the Court that they were
finalizing the terms of a Settlement Agreement.  On Oct. 9, 2018,
the Plaintiff submitted the proposed Settlement Agreement for
preliminary approval.

The proposed settlement defines the "Settling Class" as comprised
of all persons who are or have been employed, at any time from May
9, 2012 through the date of Preliminary Approval, by BofA in
California under the job titles Mortgage Loan Officer (job code
SM009), Senior Mortgage Loan Officer (job code SM172), Senior
Lending Officer (job code SM172), FC Lending Officer (job code
SM611), Senior FC Lending Officer — E (job code SM610), and/or
Senior FC Lending Officer — NE (job code SM614).

The proposed settlement creates a non-reversionary $11 million
gross settlement fund.  The gross settlement fund will be allocated
in the following order:

     (i) attorneys' fees of $3.3 million, or 30% of the settlement
fund, to the class counsel and reimbursement of the class counsel's
out-of-pocket litigation expenses not to exceed $75,000

     (ii) a representative service award of $15,000 for Named
Plaintiff McLeod

     (iii) $37,500 in penalties to the California Labor Workforces
Development Agency to settle the PAGA claim.  The $37,500 penalty
represents 75% of the $50,000 allocated in the gross settlement
fund to settle the PAGA claim; the remaining 25% will be
distributed to the Class Members

     (iv) fees and costs of the Claims Administrator, capped at
$20,300;

     (v) The approximately $7,552,200 remaining after the above
items are deducted will be distributed to the Class Members as the
net settlement fund.

     (vi) The residual amount of the settlement fund from any
settlement checks not cashed by Class Members will be paid to the
State of California as unclaimed wages under the name of the
Settling Class Member pursuant to the escheat procedures set forth
in the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1300.

The net settlement fund will be distributed to the Class Members
pro rata based on the number of weeks they worked for the Bank as a
loan officer in California during the settlement period.  The
parties estimate that each Class Member will receive approximately
$40 per workweek, which represents approximately 73 miles driven
per workweek.  The Plaintiff, based on a small survey of current
and former loan officers, estimates that loan officers logged an
average of 170 unreimbursed work-travel miles per week (a number
the Bank disputes).  Thus, the reimbursement for 73 miles per
workweek represents a 43% recovery for the 170 total unreimbursed
miles.
Under the Settlement Agreement, the Bank will submit to a five-year
consent decree that requires it to:

     (i) Send monthly email reminders to individuals in the covered
loan officer positions, and to individuals directly managing them,
that work travel expenses are reimbursable;

     (ii) Provide training to newly hired individuals in the
covered positions and refresher training to supervisors of loan
officers on reimbursements for work-related travel; and

     (iii) Train covered loan officers and their supervisors on how
to access Defendant's reimbursement software on a smartphone.

The parties estimate that the current class members who continue to
work as MLOs during the consent decree period would receive
approximately $93 a week in mileage reimbursement, assuming the
current IRS mileage reimbursement rate and the 170 miles incurred
per week.

On Oct. 23, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the Plaintiff's
motion, during which it questioned the parties about the terms of
the proposed Settlement Agreement and ordered them to make certain
modifications to the Settlement Agreement and Notice.  The parties
made the modifications.

Judge Chen finds that the primary terms of the proposed settlement
agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate given the
circumstances of the case.  Accordingly, with the exception of the
attorneys' fees request, and the adjustment to the Named
Plaintiff's service award, he granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement.

The class counsel is asking for an award of $3.3 million in
attorneys' fees, which amounts to 30% of the settlement fund, plus
expenses not to exceed $75,000.  The Judge finds that a fee award
of $3.3 million may be excessive given that the litigation in the
case has not been particularly extensive.  Aside from briefing and
arguing class certification, the parties have engaged in one round
of mediation, some discovery, and the settlement negotiations that
culminated in this proposed agreement.  The Plaintiff's counsel
stated at the hearing that their requested fee represents
approximately a four-time multiplier on the lodestar figure for
their work on this case.  The Judge reserved ruling on the
Plaintiff's attorneys' fees request until the final settlement
approval stage, while noting his concerns.

The proposed settlement provides a representative service award of
$15,000 to the Named Plaintiff.  The Judge holds that a service
award of $15,000 would be much greater than the amounts that the
other Class Members are likely to recover, and the Named Plaintiff
has not asserted that she has expended a particularly significant
amount of time and effort in the case, or that she may be subject
to workplace retaliation for her role in bringing the litigation.
He therefore finds that a service award of $7,500 is reasonable.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/m7JRAJ from Leagle.com.

Gina McLeod, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron D. Kaufmann --
akaufmann@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder, LLP, David Philip
Pogrel -- dpogrel@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder LLP,
Elizabeth R. Gropman -- egropman@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard
Carder LLP & Edward Joseph Wynne -- ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com --
Wynne Law Firm.

Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by Apalla U. Chopra
-- achopra@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Susannah Kelly Howard
-- showard@omm.com -- O'Melveny& Myers LLP & Adam P. KohSweeney --
akohsweeney@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.


BANK OZK: Class Action Threat Hits Profitability Growth
-------------------------------------------------------
George Waldon, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that the
trawling for clients to support a class-action lawsuit against Bank
OZK began on Oct. 19. That's when shares lost more than a quarter
of their value when third-quarter earnings missed analysts'
estimates by 32 cents per share. The price has not rebounded
since.

After an incredible run of profitability growth, the bank's real
estate specialties group finally registered a $45.5 million lick on
two legacy commercial loans.

Bank OZK recorded a $74.2 million profit in the third quarter, a
22.7 percent decrease compared with the third quarter of 2017.

George Gleason, Bank OZK's founding chairman and CEO, noted during
the Oct. 19 conference call with analysts that the RESG portfolio
has had only five losses during the past 15 years.

"We will occasionally, in a quarter here and there, in a year here
and there, have a loss on the RESG portfolio," Mr. Gleason said.
"But we're not changing our business model at all because we
believe it is very, very sound and very, very conservative. So it's
business as usual for us, and we still are originating loans."
[GN]


BARINGS BDC: Bid to Dismiss North Carolina Securities Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barings BDC, Inc. (formerly Triangle Capital 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 the consolidated
class action suit entitled, In re Triangle Capital Corp. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL, remains pending.

The Company and certain former executive officers have been named
as defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits,
each filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York -- and then transferred to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina -- on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock between May 7, 2014 and November 1, 2017.

The first lawsuit was filed on November 21, 2017, and was captioned
Elias Dagher, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case
No. 5:18-cv-00015-FL (the "Dagher Action").

The second lawsuit was filed on November 28, 2017, and was
captioned Gary W. Holden, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation,
et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL (the "Holden Action").

The Dagher Action and the Holden Action were consolidated and are
currently captioned In re Triangle Capital Corp. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL.

On April 10, 2018, the plaintiff filed its First Consolidated
Amended Complaint. The complaint, as currently amended, alleges
certain violations of the securities laws, including, among other
things, that the defendants made certain materially false and
misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
business, operations and prospects between May 7, 2014 and November
1, 2017. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys'
fees and costs, among other relief, but did not specify the amount
of damages being sought.

On May 25, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On July 9, 2018, the plaintiff filed its response in
opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss. The motion to
dismiss was fully briefed as of July 31, 2018.

Barings BDC, Inc. (formerly Triangle Capital Corporation) and its
wholly-owned subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company"), are
specialty finance companies. The Company currently operates as a
closed-end, non-diversified investment company and has elected to
be treated as a business development company ("BDC") under the
Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the "1940 Act"). The
Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Triangle Mezzanine Fund LLLP
("Triangle SBIC") has also elected to be treated as a BDC under the
1940 Act. The Company has elected for federal income tax purposes
to be treated as a regulated investment company ("RIC") under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), for tax
purposes. The company is based in Raleigh, North Carolina.


BARINGS BDC: Continues to Defend Hammer Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Barings BDC, Inc. (formerly Triangle Capital 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 continues to defend a putative
securities class action suit entitled, Hammer, et al. v. Triangle
Capital Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02086-RDB .

The Company and certain current and former members of the Board of
Directors have been named as defendants in three other putative
securities class action lawsuits challenging the company's June 1,
2018 proxy statement seeking shareholder approval of the Asset
Purchase Agreement and the Externalization Agreement.

The first lawsuit was filed on July 6, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and is
captioned Carlson, et al. v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 5:18-cv-00332-FL (the "Carlson Action").

The second lawsuit was filed on July 9, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, and is captioned
Hammer, et al. v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-02086-RDB (the "Hammer Action").

The third lawsuit was filed on July 12, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, and is captioned Kent,
et al. v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-0237-ELH (the "Kent Action").

The complaints in the Carlson Action, the Hammer Action, and the
Kent Action each allege certain violations of the securities laws,
including, among other things, that the defendants made certain
material omissions in the proxy statement, and each sought to
enjoin the shareholder meeting scheduled for July 24, 2018, among
other relief.

On July 11, 2018, the plaintiff in the Carlson Action filed a
motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the July 24,
2018 shareholder vote and to require that certain supplemental
disclosures be made. On July 16, 2018, the court denied the
plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. The Kent Action was
voluntarily dismissed on September 20, 2018. The Carlson Action was
voluntarily dismissed on October 22, 2018.

The time for the defendants to respond to the complaint in the
Hammer Action has not yet expired.

Barings BDC, Inc. (formerly Triangle Capital Corporation) and its
wholly-owned subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company"), are
specialty finance companies. The Company currently operates as a
closed-end, non-diversified investment company and has elected to
be treated as a business development company ("BDC") under the
Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the "1940 Act"). The
Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Triangle Mezzanine Fund LLLP
("Triangle SBIC") has also elected to be treated as a BDC under the
1940 Act. The Company has elected for federal income tax purposes
to be treated as a regulated investment company ("RIC") under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), for tax
purposes. The company is based in Raleigh, North Carolina.


BEF FOODS: Sar Sues over Misleading Product Presentation
--------------------------------------------------------
Boubacar Sarr individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff vs. BEF Foods, Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-06409 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 11, 2018), sues Defendant over
misleading product presentation.

BEF Foods, Inc. distributes, markets, labels and sells refrigerated
ready-to-eat mashed potatoes under the "Bob Evans" brand. The
Products are available in no fewer than the following varieties:
Original, Garlic, Sour Cream & Chives, Sweet Potatoes, Buttermilk
Red Skin, Loaded (mix of cheeses with bacon), Savory Romano & Herb,
and Broccoli & Cheese. The Products are sold to consumers by
third-parties from brick-and-mortar stores and online, and
available in no fewer than 6, 12, 20 24, 28 and 32-ounce packages.


The front labels include an image of mashed potatoes, name of the
variety (i.e., Original, Garlic), a color pattern corresponding to
the variety (i.e., green for Sour Cream & Chives), vignettes of the
ingredients or flavor distinguishing that variety, "Farm-Fresh
Goodness," a picture of a traditional farm house on the slope of a
hill and "Made with Real Potatoes, Milk & Butter," and a golden
yellow pat of melting butter. The representations are misleading
because despite the centrality of butter to their marketing and
labeling, they contain butter as a component of an ingredient
designated as "butter blend," which also contains vegetable oils.

When consumers eat mashed potatoes, they are typically prepared or
consumed with fats and oils, like butter or vegetable oils (i.e.,
margarine). The naturally dry texture of potatoes requires a lipid
ingredient to enhance their texture, viscosity, palatability and to
provide lubrication in the mouth. Consumers prefer butter (and
dairy spreads) which do not include vegetable oils because they
prefer butter's: unique and unduplicated taste, owing to more than
120 naturally occurring flavor compounds including methyl ketones
and lactones; ability to enhance the texture and other qualities of
(mashed) potato products; mouthfeel, since butter melts at a normal
body temperature, while margarine has a higher melting point,
resulting in a greasy aftertaste on the palate. However, when
purchasing and consuming defendant's Products, they do not get to
make that all -- important decision -- choosing butter or vegetable
oil-based lipids -- and instead, they get both despite believing
they will only be having butter, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff reasonably believed based on defendant's
representations that the Products contained butter and not
vegetable oils, were fresh, and did not contain artificial
ingredients. Defendant's representations are false, deceptive and
misleading. The representations and omissions were relied on by
plaintiff and class members, who paid more than they would have
otherwise, causing damages. Defendant misrepresented the
composition of the Products by highlighting butter, giving
consumers the impression that they only contained butter to the
exclusion of non-dairy based fat ingredients, since consumers do
not use butter and vegetable oils on mashed potatoes, and implying
the Products were fresh, which took advantage of mistaken consumer
beliefs, when the Products are not fresh.

Defendant had a duty to disclose and/or provide a non-deceptive
description of the Products and knew or should have known same were
false or misleading. This duty is based, in part, on defendant’s
position as a trusted brand who has made homestyle fare for
Americans for decades from the chain of popular restaurants with
the Bob Evans name. The Plaintiff and class members would not have
purchased the Products or paid as much if the true facts had been
known, thereby suffering damages.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          Spencer Sheehan (SS-8533)
          891 Northern Blvd., Suite 201
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

               - and -

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1 Penn Plaza, Suite 2527
          New York, NY 10119

BIG PICTURE: Williams et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------
Lula Williams, Gloria Turnage, George Hengle, Dowin Coffy, and
Felix Gillison, on behalf of themselves and all individuals
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Big Picture Loans, LLC, Matt
Martorella, Ascension Technologies, Inc., Daniel Gravel, James
Williams, Jr., Gertrude McGeshick, Susan McGeshick, and
Giiwegiizhigookway Martin, the Defendants, Simon Xu Liang, the
Movant, Court No.: 6:18-mc-00303, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District South Carolina, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond) on
Nov. 15, 2018. The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:18-mc-00012-REP to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. District Judge Robert E. Payne.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          David Andrew Maxfield, Esq.
          1701 Richland Street
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 799-6000

              - and -

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          John G Albanese, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          43 SE Main St., Ste. 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 594-5933
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
                  jalbanese@bm.net

          Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: elizabeth@clalegal.com

Attorneys for Movant:

          Beth B. Richardson, Esq.
          Elizabeth Van Doren Gray, Esq.
          ROBINSON GRAY STEPP AND LAFFITTE LLC
          1310 Gadsden Street
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 929-1400
          Facsimile: (803) 929-0300
          E-mail: brichardson@robinsongray.com
                  egray@robinsongray.com

               - and -

          Justin Alexander Gray, Esq.
          ROSETTE, LLP
          25344 Red Arrow Highway
          Mattawan, MI 49071
          Telephone: (269) 283-5005
          Facsimile: (517) 916-6443
          E-mail: jgray@rosettelaw.com

BILL GRAHAM: Kihn Seeks to Certify Composer and Performer Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled GREG KIHN, an individual; and
RYE BOY MUSIC, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company v. BILL
GRAHAM ARCHIVES, LLC, dba WOLFGANG'S VAULT, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; NORTON, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company;
and WILLIAM SAGAN, an individual, Case No. 4:17-cv-05343-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), seek to certify these classes under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure:

   * Composer Class:

     All owners of copyrights in the musical compositions which
     have been reproduced, performed, distributed, or otherwise
     exploited by Bill Graham Archives, LLC d/b/a Wolfgang's,
     Norton, LLC and William Sagan ("Defendants") without a
     license or authorization to do so during the period from
     September 14, 2014 to the present.  Excluded from the Class
     are Defendants, Defendants' affiliates, subsidiaries or
     co-conspirators; employees of Defendants, including their
     officers and directors; and the Court to which this case is
     assigned ("Composer Class"); and

   * Performer Class:

     All persons whose performances are fixed on the sound
     recordings and audiovisual works which have been reproduced,
     performed, distributed, or otherwise exploited by Defendants
     without a license or authorization to do so during the
     period from September 14, 2014 to the present.  Excluded
     from the Class are Defendants, Defendants' affiliates,
     subsidiaries or co-conspirators; employees of Defendants,
     including their officers and directors; and the Court to
     which this case is assigned ("Performer Class").

Rye Boy Music, LLC, seeks to be appointed as class representative
for the Composer Class.  Gregory Kihn seeks to be appointed as
class representative for the Performer Class.  The Plaintiffs also
ask the Court to appoint Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, and Johnson
& Johnson, LLP, as class counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 26, 2019, at 2:00
p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Neville L. Johnson, Esq.
          Douglas L. Johnson, Esq.
          Arun Dayalan, Esq.
          JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP
          439 N. Canon Drive, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 975-1080
          Facsimile: (310) 975-1095
          E-mail: njohnson@jjllplaw.com
                  djohnson@jjllplaw.com
                  adayalan@jjllplaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          Bobby Pouya, Esq.
          Matthew A. Pearson, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
                  bpouya@pswlaw.com
                  mapearson@pswlaw.com


BORAL INDUSTRIES: Underpays Construction Workers, Bishop Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN BISHOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BORAL INDUSTRIES, INC.; and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00054773-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San
Diego Cty., Oct. 29, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for
unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Bishop was employed by the Defendants as construction
worker.

Boral Industries Inc. manufactures and supplies construction
materials in the United States. It offers clay bricks and pavers,
clay tiles, cement additives, fly ash, limestone, sand and gravel,
concrete roof tiles, and coal combustion products. The company
offers its products through a network of direct selling locations,
as well as a network of independent distributors. The company was
incorporated in 1978 and is based in Roswell, Georgia with
operating and distribution sites across the United States. Boral
Industries Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Boral Limited. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alisa A. Martin, Esq.
          AMARTIN LAW, PC
          600 West Broadway, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 308-6880
          Facsimile: (619) 308-6881

               - and -

          Lindsay C. David, Esq.
          BRENNAN & DAVID LAW GROUP
          2888 Loker Avenue East, Suite 302
          Carlsbad, CA 92010
          Telephone: (760) 730-9408
          Facsimile: (760) 888-3575


CALIBER HOME: 3rd Amended Razuki Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SALAM RAZUKI, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 17cv1718-LAB (WVG) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Larry
Alan Burns of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California granted Caliber's motion to dismiss Salam Razuki's Third
Amended Complaint ("TAC").

The TAC relates to a data breach in which hackers obtained Razuki's
personal information from Caliber.  In its June 8, 2018 Order, the
Court dismissed without prejudice Razuki's negligence, California
Constitution, Customer Records Act, and Unfair Competition claims
for failure to state a claim.  In his

TAC, Razuki re-alleges those four causes of action, and has added a
fifth claim of bailment.  But Razuki consented to dismissal of the
California Constitution and bailment claims in his opposition, so
the Court considers those claims dismissed.

Razuki's second amended complaint failed to state a claim for
negligence because his vague allegations of damages were impossible
for the Court to evaluate.  In his TAC, Razuki's newly alleged
damages include diminution in value of his personal data,
overpayments to Caliber, and continued risk to his financial
information.  

Judge Burns finds that Razuki still has not adequately pled damages
that could support a negligence claim.  First, his claim alleging
continued risk of harm is still insufficient because it stems from
the danger of future harm.  Second, his claim alleging diminution
of value of his personal data fails to allege enough facts to
establish how his personal information is less valuable as a result
of the breach.  Finally, Razuki alleges that he and the class
members overpaid Caliber for financial services during or after the
breach.  However, it is unclear what payments were made to Caliber
and for what services these alleged payments were made.

Razuki claims that the Defendant knew of higher-quality security
protocols available to them but failed to implement these measures,
in violation of the California Customer Records Act.  This claim,
the Judge finds, fails because it is precisely the type of
"threadbare" claim Ashcroft v. Iqbal warns of.  Razuki makes a
conclusory statement that Caliber knew of higher-quality security
measures, but he does not support that conclusion with any facts
about Caliber's protocols or actions it took when choosing
appropriate security measures.

Finally, the Judge finds that Razuki appears to be making his UCL
claim based on the "unlawful" prong of the statute.  He bases the
claim on violation of the CRA, Privacy Act of 1974, and the Federal
Trade Commission Act.  His CRA claim fails, so it cannot serve as
the basis for his UCL claim.

Judge Burns granted Caliber's Motion to Dismiss.  He concludes that
it is Razuki's fourth complaint and he still has failed to plead
basic facts that could supports his claim: (i) when the money was
withdrawn from his account; (ii) how much was withdrawn; (iii)
whether it was refunded; (iv) whether Caliber's security measures
were insufficient; and (v) what the other firms were doing that
Caliber wasn't.  

The only inference the Judge can draw from Razuki's failure to
plead basic facts is that he is in possession of no facts that
would plausibly support his claim, and that amendment would
therefore be futile.  For that reason, he dismissed the case with
prejudice.  The clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of
Caliber and to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/aZOfeT from Leagle.com.

Salam Razuki, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alex M. Tomasevic --
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas and Tomasevic LLP, Craig
McKenzie Nicholas -- cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas and
Tomasevic & David Gerald Greco -- dgreco@nicholaslaw.org --
Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP.

Caliber Home Loans, Inc., a Delware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Benjamin Kleine -- bkleine@cooley.com -- Cooley
Godward Kronish LLP, Laura Marie Elliott -- bkleine@cooley.com --
Cooley LLP & Maurice Werter Trevor -- rtrevor@cooley.com -- Cooley
LLP.


CALIFORNIA: Cal. App. Grants Warner's Bid for Writ of Mandate
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., Petitioner, v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES, Respondent; LARCO PRODUCTIONS, INC. et al., Real Parties
in Interest, Case No. B289109 (Cal. App.), Judge Ray Grimes of the
Court of Appeals of California for the Second District, Division
Eight,

On Jan. 29, 2013, Stuntman, Inc., a loan-out company for the
services of Hal Needham, a writer and director, filed a class
action complaint against Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.
("Defendant" or "Petitioner").  The substance of the complaint was
that the Defendant failed to account properly to profit
participants (Mr. Needham and the class members) for income derived
from the distribution of motion pictures on home video formats.
The complaint asserted the defendant engaged in the systematic
practice of accounting to and crediting profit participants based
on 20% of home video revenue, while it should have done so based on
100% of that revenue.

Other named plaintiffs, represented by some of the same law firms
representing plaintiffs in the case, filed similar lawsuits against
other studios (Universal City Studios LLC, Paramount Pictures
Corp., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., and Sony Pictures
Entertainment, Inc.).

On Feb. 15, 2013, Judge Elihu M. Berle issued an initial status
conference order in the Paramount Pictures case, staying those
proceedings pending further order of the court and setting an
initial status conference for April 16, 2013.  On Feb. 28, 2013,
Judge Lee Edmon (to whom the case was originally assigned) issued a
similar order in the case.  On March 4, 2013, the five lawsuits
were related.

The parties agree that as a result of the March 4, 2013 order
relating the cases, Judge Berle's initial status conference order
was entered in the case, and that the stay Judge Berle ordered
lasted for 43 days.  The parties complied with the order.

Mr. Needham died on Oct. 25, 2013, and on Nov. 26, 2013, a first
amended complaint substituted Larco Productions, Inc. and Michael
Elias as named plaintiffs.  The parties agree that the five-year
statute was tolled during this 32-day period, so the earliest date
on which the five-year statute could have run was March 2, 2018.

On March 2, 2018, the Defendant filed its motion to dismiss,
contending the five-year deadline expired that day, or in the
alternative that the case could not be brought to trial by a date
that included the 43-day initial stay (by April 16, 2018).  On the
same day (March 2), the Plaintiffs filed a motion for an order
finding the five-year deadline was extended, or in the alternative
granting them "preference for trial immediately."

The trial court heard both motions on March 26, 2018.  The court
denied the Dfendant's motion to dismiss and granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for trial preference.  Two days later, on March 28, 2018,
the court granted the Defendant's ex parte application and stayed
the case until the later of April 30, 2018, or the court's ruling
on the Defendant's writ petition for review of the trial court's
orders.

The Defendant filed its writ petition on April 2, 2018, seeking
dismissal of the lawsuit and a written decision clarifying that
proceeding with the lawsuit would violate the five-year rule and
that trial preference was improperly granted.

The Court issued an order to show cause and set dates for a written
return and reply.  Its order directed the parties to address seven
questions, in addition to any other issues they wished to address.
These questions were whether the trial court erred in refusing to
dismiss the case under the five-year statute; what circumstances
tolled the five-year period; whether the court found reasonable
diligence and excusable delay; whether the court erred in granting
trial preference; the scope of the trial that was set for April 10,
2018; whether the Defendant's procedural rights were violated by
setting trial despite no hearing on class certification and no
merits discovery; and whether the court erred in deciding to
empanel a jury before deciding class certification in view of
Fireside Bank.

Judge Grimes finds that the trial court's grant of trial preference
under the circumstances presented to it inexplicable.  The court
offered no explanation at the hearing, and the factual
considerations and conclusions the court stated at the hearing
uniformly supported the opposite conclusion.  So does the law.

He granted the Defendant's petition for a writ of mandate and
ordered the trial court to dismiss the entire action as required
under sections 583.310 and 583.360.  He holds that an order staying
responsive pleadings and outstanding discovery requests, while also
requiring the parties to negotiate and agree on a case management
plan and to prepare and file a joint statement specifically
addressing case-related issues in multiple areas  (and also
allowing the parties to informally exchange documents), does not
effect a complete stay of the prosecution of the action within the
meaning of Gaines v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co. (2016) 62
Cal.4th 1081, 1087 (Gaines), and Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc.
(2011) 51 Cal.4th 717, 730 (Bruns).  Consequently, the trial court
erred when it concluded the five-year period was tolled for 43 days
because of such a stay, issued at the outset of the case.  Thus,
the five-year period expired on March 2, 2018, and dismissal of the
action was mandatory.

Alternatively, the Judge holds that even if he assumes the 43-day
tolling period was permissible, the trial court's order granting
trial preference and setting the trial for April 10, 2018, the same
date on which the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was to
be heard, was a manifest abuse of discretion.  Well-settled
principles of law tell that (1) generally courts should not resolve
the merits in a putative class action case before class
certification and notice issues absent a compelling justification
for doing so, and (2) a class action is subject to dismissal under
the five-year statute if the class issues are not decided,
including notice to class members, with enough time to allow even a
minimally reasonable period for exercise by the class members of
their options.

Setting a trial to begin one week before expiration of the
five-year statute is impermissible and would render the Fireside
Bank and Massey principles a nullity.  Nor does the "ceremonial"
principle stated in Hartman v. Santamarin -- allowing the pro forma
commencement of the trial in order to preserve the right to a trial
on the merits in the face of the five-year statute -- apply to the
circumstances in the case.

A peremptory writ of mandate will be issued directing the trial
court to vacate its order of March 26, 2018, denying Petitioner's
motion to dismiss the action, and granting real parties' motion for
trial preference, and to enter a new and different order granting
the Petitioner's motion and dismissing the action.  Costs are
awarded to the Petitioner.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/UAgUZ5 from Leagle.com.

Irell & Manella, Steven A. Marenberg -- smarenberg@irell.com --
Josh B. Gordon -- josh.gordon@irell.com -- and Andrew J. Strabone
-- astrabone@irell.com -- for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Kiesel Law, Paul R. Kiesel, Jeffrey A. Koncius, Nicole Ramirez --
ramirez@kiesel.law; Boucher, Raymond P. Boucher, Shehnaz M.
Bhujwala, Maria L. Weitz; Johnson & Johnson, Neville L. Johnson --
njohnson@jjllplaw.com -- Douglas L. Johnson --
djohnson@jjllplaw.com -- and James T. Ryan -- jryan@jjllplaw.com --
for Real Parties in Interest.


CALLOOH CALLAY: Underpays Ironers, River Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
MARILU RIVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CALLOOH CALLAY, INC. d/b/a PRESSED CLEANERS;
and JEFFREY CURTIS, Defendants, Case No. CV18-6042 (E.D.N.Y., Oct.
29, 2018) is an action for declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, penalties, attorneys'
fees and costs as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.

The Plaintiff River was employed by the Defendants as ironers.

Callooh Callay, Inc. d/b/a Pressed Cleaners is a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598


CANADA: Groups Call for End of Coerced Indigenous Sterilizations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leyland Cecco, writing for The Guardian, reports that human rights
groups are calling on Canada to end the coerced sterilization of
indigenous women, as a growing number of victims seek to join a
class action lawsuit against government and medical professionals.

At least 60 women have joined a pending class action lawsuit
against doctors and health officials in the province of
Saskatchewan, seeking compensation for the violation of their
rights.

The lawsuit has yet to be certified by a judge, but Amnesty
International announced it will lobby the UN committee against
torture to increase pressure on the Canadian government to act.

"Ultimately, this is about women who are supposed to have the right
to make decisions about their bodies, having that right taken away
from them," said Amnesty's Jacqueline Hansen.

The women allege their fallopian tubes were tied, burned or cut in
public hospitals when the women were unable to give sufficient
consent -- which would be a breach of both medical ethics and the
law.

Some of the complainants have said they were told they would not be
allowed to see their newborn child unless they agreed to the
procedure.

"These women and their communities have suffered. They have
suffered. And they are entitled to restitution as they essentially
relive their trauma," said Alisa Lombard, the lawyer representing
the women.

The continued use of coerced sterilization was exposed in 2015,
when four women spoke about their experiences in the province of
Saskatchewan. An investigation was launched and the province's
health authority issued an apology and new criteria for tubal
ligations.

But the pending lawsuit suggests that some cases occurred as
recently as 2017.

Senator Yvonne Boyer, an indigenous lawyer who co-authored an
independent report on the experiences of women in Saskatchewan,
believes the problem is probably more widespread than currently
understood.

"If it's happened in Saskatoon, it has happened in Regina, it's
happened in Winnipeg, it's happened where there's a high population
of indigenous women," Boyer told the Canadian Press. "I've had many
women contact me from across the country and ask me for help."

Jane Philpott, minister of indigenous services, described the
practice as "horrifying" in an interview with the Canadian Press.

"The issue of forced sterilization of vulnerable people, including
indigenous women, is a very serious violation of human rights," she
said.

Indigenous leaders have also expressed outrage: Perry Bellegarde,
the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, joined calls
for an immediate investigation by the federal government.

"It is wrong, it is immoral, it is a gross violation of human
rights, and this dehumanizing practice must stop," he told the
Canadian Press.

Ms. Hansen said that Amnesty had investigated similar practices in
Mexico, Chile and Peru. "It's always done for a very specific
reason. It is clear that it's been linked to policies around
wanting to ensure a group of people doesn't reproduce," she said.

For Ms. Lombard, Canada's troubled history with indigenous people
lays bare the motivation behind the procedure.

"I think the genesis of this, and of treatment of people across the
board, is really rooted in racism," she said. "I think we have to
call it what it is." [GN]


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Sought in Voeks Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Voeks moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit titled JULIE VOEKS, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
SERVICES LP, Case No. 2:18-cv-01782-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), and further
asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification
and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the
Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring
briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


CAPITAL ONE: Doak Sues over Credit Background Checks
----------------------------------------------------
Daniel Doak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Capital One N.A., and Does 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-07102-SVK (N.D. Cal., November 21,
2018) alleges the Defendant’s violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Specifically, the Defendants reported false information to EQUIFAX
and TRANS UNION that its purpose for accessing Plaintiff's credit
report was ostensibly for "an account review or other business
transaction"; yet, at all relevant times, there was no legitimate
reason for Defendants to access or review Plaintiff's credit report
from any of the CRAs. In actuality, Defendants were trying to gain
confidential information about Plaintiff in furtherance of its
collection efforts on the subject Debt. If it denies this was its
purpose, then Defendants were trying to gain access to Plaintiff's
personal and financial information which is protected by law, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Daniel Doak is a natural person residing in Santa Clara
County in the state of California.

Capital One N.A. regularly provided information to consumer
reporting Agencies.

Doe Defendants 1 through 10, inclusive, are currently unknown to
Plaintiff, who therefore sues such Defendants by fictitious
names.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Habashy, Esq.
     LEXICON LAW PC
     633 W. 5th Street, 28th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (877) 529-5090
     Fax: (888) 373-2107
     Email: john@lexiconlaw.com

          - and -

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Kelsey L. Kuberka, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: 323-306-4234
     Fax: 866-633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com
            kkuberka@toddflaw.com


CAPTAIN MIKE'S: Zaca et al Seek Unpaid Wages for Delivery Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR MANUEL MALDONADO, GUSTAVO PEREZ ZACA, ANTONIO MIGUEL
JIMENEZ, and RICARDO ESPINOSA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CAPTAIN MIKE'S SEAFOOD
RESTAURANT, INC. (D/B/A MUDVILLE 9), FIUME LLC (D/B/A MUDVILLE 9),
ERIC B. SCHWIMMER, MARK ANDRUS, and MIKE BAKALIAN, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-10499 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are former employees of
Defendants Captain Mike's Seafood Restaurant, Inc. The Defendants
own, operate, or control an American Restaurant, located at 126
Chambers Street, New York, New York 10007 operating under the name
"Mudville 9". The Plaintiffs were ostensibly employed as delivery
workers at the restaurant. However, they were required to spend a
considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped duties,
including but not limited to cleaning the basement, mopping and
sweeping the basement, loading the kitchen with containers for the
next day of work, packing the delivery orders, arranging the food
stations, bringing products from neighboring restaurants such as
ice, bringing up ice from the basement, buying ice at the
supermarket when the ice machine stopped working, buying products
at the supermarket such as bread and cigarettes, bringing up
products for cooking and for deliveries, bringing up sodas from the
basement to the first floor, unloading deliveries, organizing
deliveries and merchandise, folding cardboard boxes, cleaning the
water and flooding in the basement, taking the damaged
refrigerators to the street, running errands for the manager such
as going to the bank to withdraw or deposit money, and taking out
the garbage.

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather,
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

CARIBBEAN CRUISE: McCabe Appeals "Birchmeier" Ruling to 7th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Kevin McCabe filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled GRANT BIRCHMEIER, et al. v. CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE,
INC., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-04069, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The appellate case is captioned as Grant Birchmeier, et al. v.
Kevin McCabe, Case No. 18-3387, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Seventh
Circuit Judge Frank H. Easterbrook affirmed the District Court's
approval of the settlement and attorneys' fees award to the class
counsel in the lawsuits titled GRANT BIRCHMEIER, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC., et al.,
Defendants-Appellants. APPEALS OF: CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC.;
VACATION OWNERSHIP MARKETING TOURS, INC.; THE BERKLEY GROUP, INC.;
FREEDOM HOME CARE, INC.; KEVIN MCCABE, Case Nos. 17-1626, 17-1778,
17-1953, 17-1969, 17-1984 & 17-2857 (7th Cir.).

During 2011 and 2012, a million people received phone calls asking
them to take political surveys in exchange for a chance to go on a
free cruise.  Some recipients filed a class action under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), seeking damages for
these unsolicited communications.

Caribbean Cruise Line, Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours, and the
Berkley Group were named as the Defendants on the theory that,
though they had not placed the calls, they had directed them and
thus are vicariously liable.  The District Court certified a class
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).  Later it granted partial summary
judgment in the Plaintiffs' favor and scheduled a trial.

On the eve of trial, the parties settled.  The Plaintiffs agreed to
release their claims against all the Defendants and any of the
Defendants' agents or independent contractors.  In exchange, the
Defendants agreed to pay into a fund no less than $56 million and
no more than $76 million.  The total will depend on the number of
approved claims that the class members submit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Appellant's
brief is due on or before December 17, 2018, for Kevin McCabe.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees GRANT BIRCHMEIER, STEPHEN PARKES, REGINA STONE
and GERARDO ARANDA, on behalf of themselves and classes of others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Ryan D. Andrews, Esq.
          Roger Perlstadt, Esq.
          Alexander Glenn Tievsky, Esq.
          EDELSON P.C.
          350 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  randrews@edelson.com
                  rperlstadt@edelson.com
                  atievsky@edelson.com

               - and -

          Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Esq.
          EDELSON, P.C.
          123 Townsend Street
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          E-mail: erapp@edelson.com

               - and -

          Mike Kanovitz, Esq.
          Jon C. Loevy, Esq.
          Scott R. Rauscher, Esq.
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          311 N. Aberdeen Street
          Chicago, IL 60607-1249
          Telephone: (312) 243-5900
          Facsimile: (312) 243-5902
          E-mail: mike@loevy.com
                  jon@loevy.com
                  scott@loevy.com

Appellant KEVIN MCCABE, Objector, is represented by:

          Todd C. Bank, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TODD C. BANK
          119-40 Union Turnpike
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 520-7125
          Facsimile: (856) 997-9193
          E-mail: tbank@toddbanklaw.com

Defendants CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INCORPORATED, BERKLEY GROUP,
INCORPORATED, and VACATION OWNERSHIP MARKETING TOURS, INCORPORATED,
are represented by:

          Brian P. O'Meara, Esq.
          FORDE LAW OFFICES, LLP
          111 W. Washington Street
          Chicago, IL 60602-0000
          Telephone: (312) 641-1441
          E-mail: bomeara@fordellp.com


CARNEGIE INVESTMENTS: Nixon Files Class Action in NY Under ADA
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carnegie Investments,
LLC. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Carnegie Investments,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06681 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

Carnegie Investment Counsel is an employee owned investment
manager. The firm provides its services to individuals, high net
worth individuals, pension and profit sharing plans, charitable
organizations, corporations, and state or municipal government
entities. The firm manages separate client focused equity, fixed
income, and balanced portfolios.[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


CAROLINA FIRST BANK: African American Applicants Claim Bias
-----------------------------------------------------------
REGINA ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAROLINA FIRST BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case
No. 7:18-cv-02927-DCC-JDA (D.S.C., Oct. 29, 2018) alleges violation
of the Civil Rights Act.

According to the Complaint, the Defendant utilized a uniform
procedure for hiring non-exempt employees in all of its bank
locations. From its headquarters, the Defendant developed a
standardized set of employment procedures that each bank location
utilized, including the credit history Screening Process described
herein.

The Defendant's Screening Process screened out individuals who
would otherwise be eligible for employment according to any
rational and fair system of determining who is qualified for
employment.

African American applicants were screened out from employment based
on their credit histories at three times the rate of White
applicants. The Defendant's Screening Process therefore had a
significant and detrimental impact on African American applicants,
based on their race, as compared to White applicants.

As of September 30, 2010, Carolina First Bank was acquired by TD
Bank, N.A. Carolina First Bank provides personal, small business,
and commercial banking products and services in South Carolina and
North Carolina. Carolina First Bank was founded in 1986 and is
based in Greenville, South Carolina with branch offices in South
Carolina and North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Scott Falls, Esq.
          Ashley L. Falls, Esq.
          FALLS LEGAL LLC
          245 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 250
          Charleston, SC 29492
          Telephone: (843) 737-6040
          Facsimile: (843) 737-6140
          E-mail: scott@falls-legal.com
                  ashley@falls-legal.com

               - and -

          Ossai Miazad, Esq.
          Juno Turner, Esq.
          Michael C. Danna, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, New York 10017
          Telephone: 212-245-1000
          E-mail: om@outtengolden.com
                  jturner@outtengolden.com
                  mdanna@outtengolden.com


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Abella Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW ABELLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC; CAVALRY SPV
I, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-15415-CCC-MF (D.N.J., Oct. 29, 2018) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case is assigned to Judge Claire C. Cecchi and referred to
Magistrate Judge Mark Falk.

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC provides financial resolution
services. Its services cover various areas, such as collection
account and debt control. The company was founded in 1991 and is
based in Valhalla, New York. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of Cavalry Investments, LLC. [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


CENTENE CORPORATION: Removes Cisneros Suit to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of CARMELA CISNEROS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTENE
CORPORATION; HEALTH NET FEDERAL SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Diego (Case No. 37-2018-00047894-CU-OE-CTL) to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California on October 29, 2018.
The clerk of court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:18-cv-02489-L-JLB. The case is assigned to Judge M.
James Lorenz and referred to Magistrate Michael S. Berg.

Centene Corporation operates as a diversified and multi-national
healthcare enterprise that provides programs and services to
under-insured and uninsured individuals in the United States. The
company provides its services through primary and specialty care
physicians, hospitals, and ancillary providers. Centene Corporation
was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.
[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Timothy J. Long , esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855
          Telephone: (213) 629-2020
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2499
          E-mail: tjlong@orrick.com


CHIASMA INC: Still Defends Gerneth Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Chiasma, 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 securities class action suit entitled,
Gerneth v. Chiasma, Inc., et al.

On June 9, 2016, Chiasma, Inc. and certain of the company's current
and former officers were named as defendants in a federal
securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, styled Gerneth v. Chiasma,
Inc., et al.

This lawsuit challenges the company's public statements regarding
its Phase 3 clinical trial methodology for octreotide capsules and
the company's ability to obtain FDA approval for the marketing and
sale of octreotide capsules. In December 2016, a lead plaintiff was
appointed in the case. An amended complaint was filed by the lead
plaintiff on February 10, 2017 similarly challenging the company's
statements regarding the Phase 3 clinical trial methodology and
results, and the company's ability to obtain FDA approval for
octreotide capsules, purportedly in violation of Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933.

The amended complaint adds as defendants current and former members
of the company's board of directors, as well as the investment
banks that underwrote the company's initial public offering ("IPO")
on July 15, 2015. The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of
all purchasers of the company's stock in its IPO. The plaintiff is
seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory damages on behalf of
himself and members of a putative shareholder class, including
interest and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in litigating
the action, and any other relief the court determines is
appropriate.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 27, 2017 and on February 15, 2018, the court denied
defendants' motion to dismiss. The defendants filed an answer to
the amended complaint on March 30, 2018.

Chiasma said, "We believe this lawsuit is meritless and intend to
vigorously defend against it. At this time, no assessment can be
made as to the likely outcome of this lawsuit or whether the
outcome will be material to us."

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

Chiasma, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on developing oral medications using transient permeability
enhancer technology platform for the treatment of rare and serious
chronic disease in the United States, Europe, and internationally.
The company offers oral octreotide capsules for adult patients
under the MYCAPSSA name, which is in two Phase III clinical trials
for the treatment of acromegaly, a condition that results in the
body's production of excess growth hormone. Chiasma, Inc. was
founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts.


CIELO VISTA: Trial Court Must Identify Costilla County Landowners
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Colorado, Division III, issued Opinion
affirming the judgment of the District Court granting Costilla
County landowners permanent right to access the Cielo Vista Ranch
and other properties that were once known as the Taylor Ranch (the
Ranch).

CVR Properties, Ltd., Jaroso Creek Ranch, LLC, and Western
Properties Investors LLC (the "Ranch Owner") challenges the trial
court's implementation of the supreme court's mandate on remand.
The Appellees are landowners in Costilla County whose rights to
access the Ranch to graze livestock and gather firewood and timber
were decreed through the remand proceedings.
Landowners have also cross-appealed, challenging certain
proceedings on remand as contrary to the mandate.

In Lobato v. Taylor, 71 P.3d 938 (Colo. 2002) (Lobato I), and
Lobato v. Taylor, 70 P.3d 1152 (Colo. 2003), as modified on denial
of reh'g (June 16, 2003) (Lobato II), the supreme court held that
Costilla County landowners whose land was settled as of 1869 were
entitled to access the Ranch for grazing and to take firewood and
timber.  Carlos Beaubien had recruited frontier families to settle
in the area in the 1850s and induced settlement by granting
settlers the right to access and use the Ranch for grazing,
firewood, and timber.  This grant was memorialized in a Spanish
language document -- the Beaubien Document -- that was executed and
recorded by Beaubien in 1863.  The supreme court held that Beaubien
had granted permanent access rights that run with the land.  When
it remanded the case after Lobato II, the supreme court "direct[ed]
the trial court to identify all landowners who have access rights
to the [Ranch] and to enter all necessary and appropriate orders to
safeguard those rights."

On appeal, Ranch Owner contends that the proceedings on remand from
2004 through 2010, when the trial court identified most of the
landowners with access rights to the Ranch, violated the mandate.
Ranch Owner raises several contentions of error. Ranch Owner's
central contention is that the trial court's opt-out process,
pursuant to which it decreed access rights for individual Costilla
County landowners even if they had not come forward to make a
claim, improperly relieved these landowners of their burden of
proof.

On cross-appeal, landowners contend that the trial court violated
the mandate when, in 2010, it switched to an opt-in process to
identify any remaining Costilla County landowners with access
rights. They contend that this opt-in process, implemented from
2010 through 2016, failed to comprehensively identify all Costilla
County landowners with access rights, as required by the mandate.

The Colo. App. concludes that the opt-out proceedings on remand
from 2004 through 2010 were largely consistent with Lobato II's
mandate.  But the Colo. App. also concludes that the opt-in process
implemented from 2010 through 2016 failed to discharge the mandate
because that portion of the identification process also could have
been comprehensive, but was not.

During the opt-out proceedings from 2004 through 2010, the trial
court identified benefited landowners based on an official 1894
Costilla County land survey, which the supreme court described as
"the best [available] evidence of benefited properties conveyed by
Beaubien."
The Colo. App. refers to the 1894 survey as "Map A and Book E"
because of its location in the Costilla County records. Map A
demarcates the boundaries and locations of the original vara strip
tracts conveyed by Beaubien to settlers, while Book E describes
each tract shown on Map A and identifies the settler to whom
Beaubien originally conveyed the tract.  Based on footnote six from
Lobato II and the absence of contrary evidence, the trial court
presumed that all Map A and Book E lands were settled as of 1869,
which entitled their present-day owners to access the Ranch.

For the duration of the opt-out process, the trial court worked
backward from Map A and Book E to identify benefited Costilla
County landowners and adjudicate their rights. It appointed the
owner of the San Luis Valley Title Company to identify the
present-day owners of the lands shown on Map A. After these
benefited landowners were identified, Ranch Owner could assert res
judicata as an affirmative defense to bar the claims of any
individual landowners.  Once the trial court determined that a
benefited landowner was not subject to res judicata, it notified
that landowner of his or her right to access the Ranch for
reasonable grazing of livestock and to gather timber and firewood
for household use. Any landowner whom the trial court found to be
barred by res judicata was notified and given an opportunity for a
hearing. Landowners were not otherwise required to come forward in
order to assert individual claims as a condition of the trial court
adjudicating their rights. Around 4500 Costilla County landowners
gained access rights to the Ranch through the proceedings from 2004
through 2010, which we refer to as the opt-out process.

In 2010, once the trial court had identified and adjudicated the
rights of most present-day owners of the lands in Map A and Book E,
it implemented a new process under which any remaining landowners
with access rights were required to come forward and assert a claim
before the trial court would adjudicate their rights. Because this
process required landowners to affirmatively come forward to have
their rights adjudicated, the Colo. App. refers to the proceedings
from 2010 through 2016 as the opt-in process. Approximately 350
more Costilla County landowners gained access rights to the Ranch
during this time.

The Colo. App. concludes that the opt-out process implemented from
2004 through 2010 produced an efficient and comprehensive result
with respect to the Map A portion of Costilla County. In Colo.
App.'s view, the opt-out process was consistent with the supreme
court's mandate to identify all benefited landowners on remand.

In contrast, however, the Colo. App. concludes that the opt-in
process implemented from 2010 through 2016 did not fully comport
with the mandate because the trial court, pursuant to that process,
failed to comprehensively and conclusively adjudicate the access
rights of landowners in the remainder of Costilla County, even
though it could have done so while remaining faithful to the
mandate.

During this second phase of the proceedings on remand, the Colo.
App. says the trial court could have identified all remaining
Costilla County landowners with access rights by using a
combination of the same general opt-out process used from 2004
through 2010, in addition to a modified opt-in process. Although
Map A and Book E had been exhausted as a reference for identifying
benefited lands, landowners presented undisputed evidence showing
that other lands -- lands outside of Map A -- were timely settled.
Because the trial court never attempted to identify all present-day
owners of these undisputedly timely settled lands, instead
adjudicating the rights of only those landowners who came forward
to assert claims, the Colo. App. concludes that it failed to
discharge its mandate. The Colo. App., therefore, reverses the
trial court's October 2016 order to the extent it requires any
remaining landowners entitled to access the Ranch to come forward,
and remands the case to the trial court with instructions to
identify all remaining owners of benefited lands in Costilla County
and adjudicate their rights. In all other respects, the Colo. App.
affirms the trial court's orders that are challenged on appeal.

The case is captioned Cielo Vista Ranch I, LLC; Jaroso Creek Ranch,
LLC; and Western Properties Investors, LLC, Defendants-Appellants
and Cross-Appellees, v. Billy Alire, Willie Alire, Leonides
Atencio, Robert Atencio, Frances D. Berggran-Buhrles, Zach Bernal,
Jose Fred Carson, Emilio DeHerrera, Juan DeHerrera, Adeline
Espinosa, Edward Espinosa, Elmer Manuel Espinoza, Margurito
Espinoza, Pete E. Espinoza, Corpus Gallegos, Gloria Gallegos, Jose
A. Gallegos, Moises Gallegos, Ruben Gallegos, Rupert Gallegos,
Raymond Garcia, Richard J. Garcia, Robert Garcia, Manuel Gardunio,
Ruben Herrara, Gilbert G. Herrera, Charlie Jacquez, Jr., J.R.
Jaquez, Jeffrey Jaquez, Maria Jaquez, Adelmo Kaber, Juan Lacombe,
Adolph J. Lobato, Bonifacio "Bonnie" Lobato, Carlos Lobato, Emilio
Lobato, Jr., Eugene Lobato, Henry Lobato, Jose F. Lobato, Pete
Lobato, Presesentacion Lobato, Crucito Maes, Bert Maestas, Manuel
Maestas, Norman Maestas, Raymond J. Maestas, Robert "Bobby"
Maestas, Clorindo Martinez, David Martinez, Eugene Martinez, Hubert
J. Martinez, Jesse Martinez, Jesse Martinez, Leonardo Martinez,
Rosendo Martinez, Solestiano Martinez, Agatha Medina, Alfonso
Medina, Cory Medina, Gilbert Medina, Leonardo Medina, Loyola
Medina, Marvin Medina, Orry Medina, Raymond M. Medina, Gilbert
"Andres" Montoya, Rudy Montoya, Willie Ray Montoya, Frank Olivas,
Gurtrude C. Olivas, Shirley Romero Otero, Eppy Quintana, Apolinar
Rael, Henry Rodriguez, Robert Romero, Bentura Roybal, Lucille
Samelko, Anthony Sanchez, Bonnie Sanchez, Eugene Sanchez, Evan
Sanchez, Frank Sanchez, Gerald Sanchez, James Sanchez, Jose G.
Sanchez, Rufino Sanchez, S.R. Sanchez, Vernon Sanchez, Ronald A.
Sandoval, Elesam Santistevan, Daniel Segura, Floyd R. Solan,
Carolyn Taylor, Jose R. Torres, Arnold Valdez, Sam Valdez, Emejido
Vialpando, Lawrence Vialpando, Martha Vialpando, Ervin L. Vigil,
Joe P. Vigil, Larry J. Vigil, Manuel Vigil, Michael J. Vigil,
Walter Vigil, David Cordova, Jerome Cordova, Matthew Cordova,
Rodney Cordova, S. Raymond Cordova, Theresa Cordova, Isidro Gomez,
Rosalie Gallegos, Mark Martinez, Daniel Martinez, Mike Martinez,
Joseph Medina, Manuel Pacheco, Silas Pacheco, Julian Padilla, and
Mary Renden, Plaintiffs-Appellees and Cross-Appellants. No.
16CA2083. (Colo. App.).

A full-text copy of the Colo. App.'s November 15, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yatnqp28 from Leagle.com

Squire Patton Boggs, LLP, Carolyn L. McIntosh --
carolyn.mcintosh@squirepb.com -- Aaron A. Boschee --
Aaron.boschee@squirepb.com -- Brent R. Owen --
brent.owen@squirepb.com -- Denver, Colorado, for
Plaintiffs-Appellees and Cross-Appellants Billy Alire, Willie
Alire, Leonides Atencio, Robert Atencio, Frances D.
Berggran-Buhrles, Zach Bernal, Jose Fred Carson, Emilio DeHerrera,
Juan DeHerrera, Adeline Espinosa, Edward Espinosa, Elmer Manuel
Espinoza, Margurito Espinoza, Pete E. Espinoza, Corpus Gallegos,
Gloria Gallegos, Jose A. Gallegos, Moises Gallegos, Ruben Gallegos,
Rupert Gallegos, Raymond Garcia, Richard J. Garcia, Robert Garcia,
Manuel Gardunio, Ruben Herrara, Gilbert G. Herrera, Charlie
Jacquez, Jr., J.R. Jaquez, Jeffrey Jaquez, Maria Jaquez, Adelmo
Kaber, Juan Lacombe, Adolph J. Lobato, Bonifacio "Bonnie" Lobato,
Carlos Lobato, Emilio Lobato, Jr., Eugene Lobato, Henry Lobato,
Jose F. Lobato, Pete Lobato, Presesentacion Lobato, Crucito Maes,
Bert Maestas, Manuel Maestas, Norman Maestas, Raymond J. Maestas,
Robert "Bobby" Maestas, Clorindo Martinez, David Martinez, Eugene
Martinez, Hubert J. Martinez, Jesse Martinez, Jesse Martinez,
Leonardo Martinez, Rosendo Martinez, Solestiano Martinez, Agatha
Medina, Alfonso Medina, Cory Medina, Gilbert Medina, Leonardo
Medina, Loyola Medina, Marvin Medina, Orry Medina, Raymond M.
Medina, Gilbert "Andres" Montoya, Rudy Montoya, Willie Ray Montoya,
Frank Olivas, Gurtrude C. Olivas, Shirley Romero Otero, Eppy
Quintana, Apolinar Rael, Henry Rodriguez, Robert Romero, Bentura
Roybal, Lucille Samelko, Anthony Sanchez, Bonnie Sanchez, Eugene
Sanchez, Evan Sanchez, Frank Sanchez, Gerald Sanchez, James
Sanchez, Jose G. Sanchez, Rufino Sanchez, S.R. Sanchez, Vernon
Sanchez, Ronald A. Sandoval, Elesam Santistevan, Daniel Segura,
Floyd R. Solan, Carolyn Taylor, Jose R. Torres, Arnold Valdez, Sam
Valdez, Emejido Vialpando, Lawrence Vialpando, Martha Vialpando,
Ervin L. Vigil, Joe P. Vigil, Larry J. Vigil, Manuel Vigil, Michael
J. Vigil, and Walter Vigil.

Polsinelli, PC, Bennett L. Cohen -- bcohen@polsinelli.com --
Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellees and Cross-Appellants
David Cordova, Jerome Cordova, Matthew Cordova, Rodney Cordova, S.
Raymond Cordova, Theresa Cordova, Isidro Gomez, Rosalie Gallegos,
Mark Martinez, Daniel Martinez, Mike Martinez, Joseph Medina,
Manuel Pacheco, Silas Pacheco, Julian Padilla, and Mary Renden.

Spencer Fane LLP, Ronald L. Fano -- rfano@spencerfane.com -- Jamie
N. Cotter -- jcotter@spencerfane.com -- Denver, Colorado, for
Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee Cielo Vista Ranch I, LLC.

Dill, Dill, Carr, Stonbraker & Hutchings, P.C., John J. Coates --
jcoates@dillanddill.com -- Denver, Colorado, for
Defendants-Appellants and Cross-Appellees Jaroso Creek Ranch, LLC,
and Western Properties Investors, LLC.


CLEAR CHANNEL: GAMCO Files Class Suit vs. iHeartMedia
-----------------------------------------------------
Clear Channel Outdoor 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
iHeartMedia is facing a putative class action suit entitled, GAMCO
Asset Management, Inc. v. Hendrix, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0633-JRS.


On August 27, 2018, a stockholder of the Company that filed a
derivative lawsuit against iHeartMedia and others in 2016 (GAMCO
Asset Management Inc.) filed a putative class action lawsuit in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned GAMCO Asset
Management, Inc. v. Hendrix, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0633-JRS.

The complaint names as defendants the Sponsor Defendants and the
members of the Company's board of directors. The complaint alleges
that minority shareholders in the Company during the period
November 8, 2017 to March 14, 2018 were harmed by decisions of the
Company's Board and the intercompany note committee of the Board
relating to an Intercompany Note.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that (i) the members of the
intercompany note committee breached their fiduciary duties by not
demanding payment under the Intercompany Note and issuing a
simultaneous dividend after a threshold tied to iHeartMedia's
liquidity had been reached; (ii) the Company's Board breached their
fiduciary duties by approving the Third Amendment rather than
allowing the Intercompany Note to expire; (iii) the Company's Board
breached their fiduciary duties by not demanding payment under the
Intercompany Note and issuing a simultaneous dividend after a
threshold tied to iHeartMedia's liquidity had been reached; (iv)
the Sponsor Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by not
directing the Company's Board to permit the Intercompany Note to
expire and to declare a dividend.

The complaint further alleges that the Sponsor Defendants aided and
abetted the Board's alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The
plaintiff seeks, among other things, a ruling that the Company's
Board, the intercompany note committee, and the Sponsor Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties and that the Sponsor Defendants
aided and abetted the Board's breach of fiduciary duty; and an
award of damages, together with pre- and post-judgment interests,
to the putative class of minority shareholders.

Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc., an outdoor advertising
company, owns and operates advertising display faces in the United
States and internationally. It operates in two segments, Americas
Outdoor Advertising and International Outdoor Advertising. he
company was incorporated in 1995 and is headquartered in San
Antonio, Texas. Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. is a
subsidiary of iHeartCommunications, Inc.


CLEARVIEW SM: Underpays Laborers, Melgars Allege
------------------------------------------------
CARLOS M. MELGAR, and JOSE ELIAS RAMIREZ MELGAR, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEARVIEW
SM, INC., and MOJSI MARKE, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-06048-AMD-RML (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2018) is an action for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs as a
result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laborers.

Clearview SM, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598


COINBASE INC: Faces Diaz Suit for Disabilities Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coinbase, Inc. The
case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Coinbase, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-10943 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

Coinbase, Inc. offers digital currency wallets. It also operates a
platform that allows merchants and consumers to buy, sell, and
store bitcoin, ethereum, and litecoin. It offers Coinbase, a
platform that facilitates consumers and merchants to transact with
bitcoins; global digital asset exchange; and merchant tools.[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


CRIMSON WINE: Court Grants Final Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Crimson Wine Group, Ltd. 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 a court has granted
final approval of the settlement amount on the class action suit
filed by a former empoyee of Pine Ridge Vineyards, and final
payments will be issued in the fourth quarter of 2018.

On May 17, 2017, a former employee filed a class action complaint
in the Superior Court of California, County of Napa against one of
the Company's subsidiaries, Pine Ridge Vineyards, alleging various
wage and labor violations.

On February 5, 2018, the Company settled this class action
complaint at mediation for $0.4 million, which was recorded in the
consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31,
2017.

The settlement does not contain any admission of liability,
wrongdoing, or responsibility by any of the parties.

The court granted final approval of the settlement amount and final
payments will be issued in the fourth quarter of 2018.

Crimson Wine Group, Ltd., through its subsidiaries, engages in the
production and sale of ultra-premium and wines. It operates through
two segments, Wholesale and Direct to Consumer. Crimson Wine Group,
Ltd. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Napa, California.
Crimson Wine Group, Ltd. was formerly a subsidiary of Leucadia
National Corporation.


CSWS, LLC: Powell et al Seek Minimum Wages & OT Pay for Dancers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenya Williams-Mix, Adrieana Powell, Shalayla Liddell, Jada Adams,
Breona Smith and Princess Wellington, the Plaintiffs, vs. CSWS,
L.L.C. d/b/a OCEAN GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, DEBORAH DIAZ and SEIF EL
SHARIF, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07460 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 9,
2018), seeks minimum wages, overtime wages, and/or all owed wages
due under the Fair Labor Standards and the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were female exotic
dancers who worked for Defendant at its Bedford Park Illinois
location during the relevant time period, and who was denied their
clearly-established rights under applicable federal and state
statutes. As a result of the practices of Defendants described
herein, Defendants failed to adequately compensate Plaintiffs,
including minimum and overtime wages as required by the FLSA and
IMWL, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          David Fish, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 E. 5th Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (331) 425 7083
          Facsimile: (630) 778 0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com

DAMENZO'S INC: Sanchez Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE JUAN GONZALEZ SANCHEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, the
Plaintiff, vs. DAMENZO'S, INC., an Illinois corporation, DAMENZO'S
2, INC., an Illinois corporation, DAMENZO'S 4, INC., an Illinois
corporation, and DOMINICK MANNINO, an individual, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-07494 (N.D. Ill., Nov.12, 2018), seeks to recover
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in workweek
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law,
and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees are current and former cooks, dishwashers,
cleaners and other kitchen staff employees of Defendants' Damenzo's
restaurants. For the first three weeks of his employment in July
2017, the Plaintiff worked at Defendants' restaurants on a six day
per week work schedule for eight hours each day. The Plaintiff
typically did not work Monday. Based on this work schedule, The
Plaintiff worked approximately 48 hours per week for the initial
three weeks of work at Defendants' restaurants.  Defendants did not
compensate Plaintiff and other non-exempt cooks, dishwashers,
cleaners and other kitchen staff employees, at one and one-half
times their regular hourly rates of pay for hours worked in excess
of 40 in individual work weeks, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Plaintiff's Attorneys:

          Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
          Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
          NOLAN LAW OFFICE
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 322-1100
          Facsimile: (312) 322-1106
          E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com
                  sengelson@nolanwagelaw.com

DARPHIN LLC: Diaz Files ADA Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Darphin LLC. The case
is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Darphin LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10921 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

Darphin LLC is a privately held company in New York, NY and is a
Single Location business, categorized under Perfumes and
Colognes.[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


DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Students Sue Over Professor Sexual Misconduct
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Pendak, writing for Valley News, reports that shock,
disappointment and conflicting emotions toward the school were some
of the feelings expressed by Dartmouth College students in the wake
of a class-action lawsuit filed by seven current and former
students against the Ivy League institution.

Filed on Nov. 15, the $70 million suit brought forth by a group of
female psychology and brain sciences students brought to light
unseemly details of allegations against former professors Todd
Heatherton, Paul Whalen and Bill Kelley, all of whom resigned or
retired earlier this year following internal investigations into
alleged sexual misconduct beginning last fall.

Few specifics of those allegations were made public before the Nov.
15 lawsuit revealed claims that professors "leered at, groped,
sexted, intoxicated and even raped female students," and
"perpetuated an alcohol saturated 'party culture,' by conducting
lab meetings at bars, by inviting students to 'hot tub parties,' at
private residences, and by suggesting undergraduates use cocaine as
part of a class demonstration on addiction."

The lawsuit claims college administrators turned a blind eye
despite knowledge of the abuse over a period of 16 years.

Even during a busy period of final exams wrapping up, many students
made time to read news reports -- many from national sources, such
as The New York Times and CNN -- after an email from President Phil
Hanlon sent to the entire campus on Nov. 15 acknowledged the
lawsuit and denied the characterizations of Dartmouth's actions.

"It's like, 'Come on.' It's really a shame this would happen here,"
Rachel Quist, a freshman from St. Peter, Minn., said on Nov. 17
during a walk near the Collis Center with classmates Chantal Elias
and Katie Miller. "Like with anything, there are two different
sides to the story, and I know the college has their own version.
But when you read some of these articles, it doesn't look good."

In defense of the college, Hanlon's email states that Dartmouth's
leadership is "dedicated to maintaining a safe and inclusive campus
for all members of our community."

Quist, Elias and Miller said they haven't felt uncomfortable on
campus during their first semester and that they feel the college
"definitely tries" to discourage sexual misconduct though various
education and support initiatives.

"There are a lot of student life groups that work really hard so
that (sexual assault victims) are supported," Miller said. "As part
of orientation, we all had training about what to do if we see or
hear about sexual assault."

Still, they said, the school has plenty of room for progress.

"You can be proactive, but (the allegations) are part of a deeply
entrenched culture," Elias said. "It takes constant effort to
reverse something like that."

Sophomore Abby Shipley said she wasn't bowled over by the details
of the allegations that emerged in the lawsuit, but only because it
wasn't new to her. In her view, the fact that the college began
investigating the three professors during her freshman year was
damning enough.

"When all of this first came out, it was surprising," Shipley said,
adding that she probably would read more about the lawsuit after
finals. "I kind of feel like, as a campus, we've already been
through this and it's in the past. I feel like the college has
handled it well."

Several students indicated general desensitization to such news in
light of the myriad sexual assault allegations surfacing during the
#MeToo movement. Sophomores Ish McLaughlin and Nick Schoeller said
that while close to home, the allegations against Heatherton,
Whalen and Kelley are only the latest revelations in a national
epidemic of abuse.

"It's disappointing, but it's less of a shock now than it might
have been three or four years ago," McLaughlin said. "It's a very
serious issue, but it's not a new one, just because you've heard
about these kinds of things so much, recently."

Other students, including a senior environmental studies major and
an undecided freshman, both of whom declined to provide their
names, said they have seen examples of misogyny and a "toxic
culture" at Dartmouth.

The senior who said she's involved in numerous student government
organizations said she hopes the lawsuit brought on by the seven
women helps inspire other victims to come forward without fearing
consequences.

That's also the aim of Abby Tassel, senior program adviser for WISE
Upper Valley, a Lebanon-based nonprofit that advocates to end
gender-based violence. WISE maintains an office near the Dick's
House health services center on campus.

Open twice per week for walk-ins and at other times for scheduled
appointments, one of the services of WISE's Dartmouth office is to
help victims of sexual assault and other gender-based violence
understand options for coming forward. "We help them navigate into
whatever process they choose and explain what some of the benefits
might be for each one," said Tassel, who cited WISE's
confidentiality policy when asked if any of the lawsuit's
plaintiffs had consulted with the organization. "We want them to
know they can access support no matter which avenue they choose to
pursue."

WISE also offers its support services through a crisis line it
staffs 24 hours daily, seven days a week.

As for eliminating instances of sexual harassment and assault at
Dartmouth or any other institution, Tassel pointed to what many
feel is the crux of the matter: accepted culture.

"It's all about culture," she said. "You can focus on individual
perpetrators of violence, but you also have to look at the systems
in place that embolden these actions, the cultures and subcultures
that support them. Anytime you're trying to end gender-based
violence, you have to think about the context of the oppression."
[GN]


DEFY MEDIA: Faces WARN Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------
James Loke Hale, writing for tubefilter, reports that significant
details about Defy Media's financial situation and its effects on
former employees and creators have come to light in the wake of
Defy's abrupt closure on Nov. 6, partially thanks to two lawsuits
filed against the company.

The first lawsuit: Former Defy employee Georgina Guinane filed a
class-action suit Nov. 13 on behalf of herself and all other Defy
employees whose employment was severed in the unexpected mass
layoff. Guinane is alleging Defy did not provide employees with the
60 days' written notice of layoff required by the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), and therefore they're
owed what they normally would have been paid for 60 days of work.

The second lawsuit: David Rath and Kara Welker, owners of talent
agency Generate Holdings, Inc., which was originally acquired by
Alloy Digital in late 2011, filed suit Nov. 14 alleging Defy owes
money to the creators Rath and Welker manage, as well as Rath and
Welker themselves. (Alloy Digital and Break Media merged into 2013
to form Defy, bringing Generate into Defy's fold.)

Tech lawyer Lior Leser, who regularly vlogs about legal issues that
affect YouTubers, parsed out the implications of both lawsuits in a
recent video.

Leser calls Guinane's filing a "tactical" lawsuit. Here's why: It's
a general assumption that Defy will eventually file for bankruptcy
-- and in bankruptcy, unsecured debts (that is, debts where the
ower hasn't put down some kind of collateral) can be written off.
Payroll counts as unsecured debt. But Guinane's suit is trying to
tie former Defy employees' payroll money to the WARN Act because in
bankruptcy, companies can't easily write off debts related to WARN
violations.

Leser applies the "tactical" descriptor to Guinane's complaint
because it shows some adroit planning on behalf of the plaintiffs
in an attempt to still recoup some wages in the event of a foreseen
bankruptcy. With that in mind, Rath and Welker's lawsuit is
tactical, too.

Their complaint claims that when Generate became a part of Defy,
Defy took over some of its financial duties, including "the
collection of fees generated by Generate's clients and the
remittance of those fees to the respective clientele after
deducting the appropriate management fee."

In practice, that meant money owed to Generate's clients went
through Defy first. Rath and Welker claim they sought to sever that
arrangement last year, entering into talks with Defy to pull
Generate out from under the company's umbrella and operate it
independently with its own bank accounts. During those talks,
Defy's CEO Matt Diamond and president Keith Richman allegedly urged
Rath and Welker to stay with Defy (and keep Generate's cash in Defy
accounts) while the company formulated a plan to separate
Generate.

But now Rath and Welker believe Defy was never actually working on
a plan. Instead, they allege, Defy was holding on to Generate for
the express purpose of using its creators' revenue (about $200,000)
to "artificially inflate Defy Media's accountings for use in
obtaining emergency financing for Defy Media." And when Defy shut
down, that money, which Rath and Welker say was not held in a
client trust account but was instead put into Defy's own operating
account -- became "subject to the claims of Defy Media's many
creditors and may be tied up in a bankruptcy proceeding."

The "tactical" part of this suit is, as Leser notes, in the fact
that it's pursuing allegations of fraud. Rath and Welker claim
Diamond and Richman fraudulently concealed information and
fraudulently misrepresented their intention to develop an exit
strategy for Generate. If that's the case, Rath and Welker could
walk away with some cash, as money owed because of fraudulent
actions can't be discharged in bankruptcy.

Bottom line is, these lawsuits are trying to give folks caught in
the crossfire between Defy and its creditors a chance to walk away
with at least some of what they claim is owed to them.

Rath, Welker, and Guinane aren't the only ones pursing legal action
against Defy. As previously reported, the company had two
high-profile pending lawsuits prior to its shutdown. One, filed in
August by Screen Junkies founder Andy Signore, whom Defy fired last
year after multiple women reported sexual misconduct, asks for an
undisclosed amount in damages for breach of contract. The second,
from website Topix, is related to the March shuttering of its
programmatic ad business, and alleges Defy owes Topix $300,000 in
payment for ads it ran on behalf of Defy.

There are three additional ongoing lawsuits with Defy names as the
defendant before its closure. Shandy Media and Proper Media both
filed separate $150,000 lawsuits (on June 13 and Sept. 7,
respectively) alleging, like Topix, that Defy owes them for
advertising. Another company, ViewAll Investments Limited, filed a
third lawsuit on Oct. 25 related to Defy's former ad business,
asking for $100,000.

Defy also owes money to YouTubers who were in its multichannel
network at the time of its closure. Those creators were due to
receive their September AdSense checks from Defy at the beginning
of November, but were never paid. We've confirmed that creators who
were a part of Defy's MCN will receive their October AdSense
payments directly from YouTube at the beginning of December, but
don't have any word on the status of September AdSense money.

There's no additional information yet about what entity is in
charge of Defy's assets or whether any of Defy's creditors have
been paid.

The case is GEORGINA GUINANE and class v. DEFY MEDIA, LLC and DAVID
RATH and KARA WELKER v. DEFY MEDIA, LLC. [GN]


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Castronovo & Golombeck Suits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona 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 County of New
York state court has consolidated the class action lawsuits filed
by John Castronovo and Irving Golombeck.

On June 7, 2018, John Castronovo filed a putative class action suit
in the County of New York alleging that the Company and certain of
its present and former officers and directors violated U.S.
securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements
in connection with a February 2016 registration statement issued in
connection with the acquisition of and merger with former Sirona
Dental Systems, Inc. by former Dentsply International Inc.

On August 9, 2018, Irving Golombeck filed a class action on behalf
of the same purported class with similar allegations. On September
19, 2018, the Court consolidated the two actions and ordered
plaintiffs to either file a consolidated complaint or designate one
of the previously filed complaints as operative within 45 days of
the order.

Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies &
Equipment; and Consumables. The company was founded in 1899 and is
headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.

DENTSPLY SIRONA: Futuredontics Still Defends Olivares Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona 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 Futuredontics, Inc.
continues to defend itself from a purported class action suit
brought by Henry Olivares.

On January 25, 2018, Futuredontics, Inc. received service of a
purported class action lawsuit brought by Henry Olivares and other
similarly situated individuals in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles.

The plaintiff class alleges several violations of the California
wage and hours laws, including, but not limited to, failure to
provide rest and meal breaks and the failure pay overtime.

The Company has filed its answer to the complaint and the parties
have initiated written and other discovery.

Dentsply Sirona said the Company continues to vigorously defend
against this matter.

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

Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies &
Equipment; and Consumables. The company was founded in 1899 and is
headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.


DIVINE MIRACLES: Settlement in Hohensee Suit Has Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LYDIA HOHENSEE, Plaintiff, v. DIVINE MIRACLES, INC.,
ET AL., SECTION: "E" (2). Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-1287
(E.D. La., Judge Susie Morgan of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana granted the Parties' Joint Motion to
Approve Settlement.

Hohensee filed the collective action, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, on Feb. 8, 2018.  She alleges that
Defendants Divine Miracles, Inc. and Donyette Williams violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to pay her and other
employees one and one half times their hourly rate for the hours
they work in excess of 40 hours per week, failing to compensate her
and other employees for all hours worked, and failing to comply
with the record-keeping provisions of the FLSA.

On July 26, 2018, the Plaintiff moved for conditional certification
as a collective action and notice to potential class members.  The
putative class was defined as all individuals who: (1) Worked for
Divine Miracles, Inc. at any time during the past three years; and
(2) Worded as a home health care worker ("direct support worker")
on behalf of Divine Miracles, Inc. and were paid straight time for
all hours worked.  The Defendants opposed.  Conditional
certification as a collective action has not been granted.

On Oct. 31, 2018, the parties jointly filed the instant motion to
approve their proposed settlement agreement.  

Judge Morgan finds that (i) there's no indication of fraud or
collusion; (ii) the unresolved issues and the complexity of the
litigation indicate the settlement is fair and reasonable; (iii)
the Parties have engaged in discovery relating to the motion to
conditionally certify the class; (iv) given the unresolved disputes
between the parties and the stage at which the litigation remains,
it is unclear whether and to what extent the Plaintiffs would be
meritorious; (v) he cannot ascertain whether the agreed-upon amount
of $10,500 is within a range of possible recovery for the
Plaintiffs; and (vi) the Parties jointly seek judicial approval of
a settlement agreement that addresses a bona fide dispute and was
negotiated in good faith.

For the foregoing reasons, the Judge granted the Joint Motion to
Approve Settlement, and the Parties' settlement agreement
approved.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Order and Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/TbjeqR from Leagle.com.

Lydia Hohensee, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by George Brian Recile --
GBR@CHEHARDY.COM -- Chehardy, Sherman, Williams, Murray, Recile,
Stakelum & Hayes, LLC, Anya M. Jones -- AMJ@chehardy.com --
Chehardy, Sherman, Williams, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLC,
Barry William Sartin, Jr. -- BWS@CHEHARDY.COM -- Chehardy, Sherman,
Williams, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLC, Matthew Arthur
Sherman -- MAS@CHEHARDY.COM -- Chehardy, Sherman, Williams, Murray,
Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLC, Patrick R. Follette --
PRF@CHEHARDY.COM -- Chehardy, Sherman, Williams, Murray, Recile,
Stakelum & Hayes, LLC, Preston Lee Hayes -- PLH@CHEHARDY.COM --
Chehardy, Sherman, Williams, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLC
& Ryan Paul Monsour -- RPM@CHEHARDY.COM -- Chehardy, Sherman,
Williams, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes, LLC.

Divine Miracles, Inc. & Donyette Williams, Defendants, represented
by Brandon E. Davis -- brandon.davis@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar,
LLP, Ashley Joy Heilprin -- ashley.heilprin@phelps.com -- Phelps
Dunbar, LLP & Rebecca Sha -- rebecca.sha@phelps.com -- Phelps
Dunbar, LLP.


DONA MARIA: Final Approval of $275,000 FLSA Suit Settlement Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled CESAR LEDO, an individual,
MIGUEL LEDO, an individual, RICARDO CHOY MOREY, an individual v.
GUILLERMO PRADO INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA DONA MARIA, MARIA PRADO
INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA DONA MARIA, Case No. 5:17-cv-02393-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), move the Court for entry of an order pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act:

   1. finally certifying the California Commission Overtime
      Subclass for settlement purposes under Rule 23(e) of the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   2. finally certifying the FLSA Commission Overtime Subclass
      for settlement purposes under the Fair Labor Standards Act
      ("FLSA");

   3. appointing Cesar Ledo, Miguel Ledo and Ricardo Choy Morey
      as the Class Representatives;

   4. appointing James Dal Bon, as Class Counsel for settlement
      purposes;

   5. granting final approval to the class action settlement
      based upon the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement
      as fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and

   6. entering final judgment in the form of the proposed Final
      Approval Order.

Plaintiffs seek final approval for a class action filed on April
26, 2017, for nonexempt employees against the owners of Dona
Maria's, a small chain of Mexican food restaurants.  The Plaintiffs
alleged violations of federal and state wage law under the Fair
Labor Standard Act and California Labor Code.  The Plaintiffs
alleged Defendants failed to pay overtime, shaved time, issued
inaccurate paystubs and failed to give employees legally mandated
breaks.  The Defendants denied all of the Plaintiff's allegations.

The case settled for a total of $275,000 to be apportioned
according to these terms:

   1) A total of $105,418.93 to be reserved for the "OT" Class;

   2) A total of $67,088.57 reserved for the "Hourly" Class;

   3) Administrative Costs to CPA of between $8500 and $20,000;

   4) Service awards of $2500 a piece for the named Plaintiffs;

   5) Class counsel to receive up to $75,000 for attorney's fees
      and $5000 for costs;

   6) A portion of the money for each class to be reserved for
      the opt-in consenters;

   7) Any unclaimed money to cy pres to the George Alexander Law
      Center;

   8) The Settlement used the work week method to calculate the
      net amounts awarded to the members of each class.  In the
      work week method, the class members receives a pro rata
      portion of the net settlement amount based upon the total
      number of work weeks during the class period.  The Net
      Settlement Fund is divided by the total number of weeks
      worked by each class member. The resulting amount is the
      dollar amount each of the class members receives for each
      week they worked during the class period; and

   9) Finally, according to the settlement members of both the
      "OT" Class and the "Hourly" Class would receive 80% of the
      settlement if they did not opt-out of the Rule 23 portion
      of the class. Members of both the "OT" Class and the
      "Hourly" Class would receive an additional 20% of their net
      settlement amount if they opted into the FSLA portion of
      the class. Unclaimed FSLA funds created by members that did
      not opt-in would be reallocated to those members that did
      opt-in.

The Court will commence a hearing on December 9, 2018, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Dal Bon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES DAL BON
          606 N. 1st St.
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 466-5845
          Facsimile: (408) 286-7111
          E-mail: jdb@wagedefenders.com


DXC TECHNOLOGY: Settlement Reached in Forsyth Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company 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 a settlement was
reached in Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard
Enterprise, with all 16 named and opt-in plaintiffs who were
compelled to arbitrate.

The purported class and collective action, Forsyth, et al. v. HP
Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise. This purported class and
collective action was filed on August 18, 2016 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, against HP and HPE
alleging violations of the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment
Act ("ADEA), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
California public policy and the California Business and
Professions Code.

Former business units of Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (HPE)
now owned by the Company will be proportionately liable for any
recovery by plaintiffs in this matter. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on December 19, 2016. Plaintiffs seek to certify a
nationwide class action under the ADEA comprised of all U.S.
residents employed by defendants who had their employment
terminated pursuant to a work force reduction ("WFR") plan on or
after December 9, 2014 (deferral states) and April 8, 2015
(non-deferral states), and who were 40 years of age or older at the
time of termination. Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23
class under California law comprised of all persons 40 years or
older employed by defendants in the state of California and
terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012.

On January 30, 2017, defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss
and a motion to compel arbitration of claims by certain named and
opt-in plaintiffs who had signed releases as part of their WFR
packages. On September 20, 2017, the Court denied the partial
motion to dismiss without prejudice, but granted defendants'
motions to compel arbitration for those named and opt-in
plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court has stayed the entire action
pending arbitration for these individuals, and administratively
closed the case. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration as
well as a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit (which has been
denied as premature).

The reconsideration motion was denied without oral argument. In
that same decision, the Court held that a joint arbitration was
permissible. The Company subsequently sought and obtained leave of
Court to file a motion for reconsideration arguing that joint
arbitration is not permitted under the relevant employee
agreements. The Court denied the motion on April 17, 2018, ruling
that interpretation of the employee agreements is an issue
delegated to the arbitrator. The American Arbitration Association,
which was designated to manage the arbitration process, has
selected a single arbitrator to conduct the proceedings. An initial
case management conference before the arbitrator was held on June
29, 2018. Pursuant to the release agreements, however, mediation is
a precondition to arbitration.

A mediation was held on October 4-5, 2018, and a settlement was
reached with all 16 named and opt-in plaintiffs who were compelled
to arbitrate. A settlement agreement has been signed.

DXC Technology said, "The case will continue to proceed in Court,
however, with respect to other putative class members. Former
business units of the Company now owned by Perspecta will be
proportionately liable for any recovery by plaintiffs in this
matter."

DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). DXC
Technology Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in
Tysons, Virginia.


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Perry Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Walter Perry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, a
South Carolina limited liability company, and LVNV Funding, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No.
5:18-cv-01875-LCB (N.D. Ala., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks to recover
damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a citizen of the State
of Alabama, residing in the Northern District of Alabama, from whom
Defendants attempted to collect delinquent, time-barred consumer
debt, which was allegedly owed to HSBC Bank for a credit card
account. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC is a South Carolina
limited liability company that acts as a debt collector, as defined
by section 1692a of the FDCPA, because it regularly uses the mails
and/or the telephone to collect, or attempt to collect, defaulted
consumer debts. Defendant Dynamic operates a nationwide debt
collection business and attempts to collect debts from consumers in
virtually every state, including consumers in the State of Alabama.
In fact, Defendant Dynamic was acting as a debt collector as to the
defaulted consumer debt it attempted to collect from Plaintiff, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com

               - and -

          Ronald C. Sykstus, Esq.
          BOND, BOTES, SYKSTUS,
          TANNER & EZZELL, P.C.
          225 Pratt Avenue
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 539-9899
          Facsimile: (256) 713-0237
          E-mail: Rsykstus@bondnbotes.com

EDISON INT'L: Jan. 15 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Edison International ("Edison" or the "Company")
(NYSE: EIX) and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Central District of California,
and indexed under 18-cv-09690, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their
affiliates, who purchased or otherwise, acquired Edison securities
between February 23, 2016 through November 12, 2018, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Edison securities between
February 23, 2016, and November 12, 2018, both dates inclusive, you
have until January 15, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact
Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Edison International was founded in 1886 and is based in Rosemead,
California. Edison International is the parent holding company of
Southern California Edison Company ("SCE"). SCE is an
investor-owned public utility primarily engaged in the business of
supplying and delivering electricity to an approximately 50,000
square mile area of southern California.

The Company supplies electricity primarily to residential,
commercial, industrial, agricultural, and other customers, as well
as public authorities through transmission and distribution
networks. Its transmission facilities consist of lines ranging from
33 kV to 500 kV and substations; and its distribution system
comprises approximately 53,000-line miles of overhead lines,
38,000-line miles of underground lines, and 800 substations located
in California. The Company serves approximately 5 million
customers.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company failed to maintain electricity transmission and
distribution networks in compliance with safety requirements and
regulations promulgated under state law; (ii) consequently, the
Company was in violation of state law and regulations; (iii) the
Company's noncompliant electricity networks created a significantly
heightened risk of wildfires in California; and (iv) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On November 8, 2018, two wildfires started in Southern California,
designated the Hill Fire and the Woolsey Fire. The Hill Fire, which
broke out in Ventura County, subsequently grew to 4,531 acres,
according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection ("Cal Fire").  Stretching from Los Angeles County to
Ventura County, the Woolsey Fire burned 93,662 acres, including 83
percent of all National Parks Service land in the Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area, according to Cal Fire.

On November 12, 2018, the California Public Utilities Commission
("CPUC") launched an investigation into Edison's subsidiary SCE, in
order to "assess the compliance of electrical facilities with
applicable rules and regulations in fire-impacted areas."
According to CPUC, electrical infrastructure may have suffered
malfunctions near ground zero of the blazes. Specifically, it was
reported that on the day the fires began SCE issued an alert to the
CPUC that a substation circuit near the Woolsey Fire origin
"relayed," or sensed a disturbance on the circuit, just two minutes
before Cal Fire said that the devastating fire began.

Following CPUC's announcement, Edison International's stock price
fell $7.44 per share, or more than 12%, to close at $53.56 per
share on November 12, 2018.  Over the following days, as the Hill
and Woolsey Fires continued to burn, Edison International's stock
price continued to fall, closing at $47.19 on November 15, 2018, a
total drop of 32% from its price prior to CPUC's announcement.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later,
the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established,
fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has
recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of
class members. [GN]


ELECTRIC BEACH: Mitchell Seeks OT and Minimum Wage
--------------------------------------------------
Angelica Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated as class representative under Illinois Law
and/or as members of the Collective as permitted under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff, vs. Electric Beach Tanning
Salon Ltd., V F V Inc., Ultramax Industries, Inc and MICHAEL A
VOJACK as an individual under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Illinois Wage Laws, the Defendants, Case: 1:18-cv-07475 (N.D. Ill.,
Nov. 12 2018), seeks overtime and minimum wage under FLSA and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The Plaintiff brought claims for relief for violation of the FLSA
as a collective action pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA (29
U.S.C. section 216(b)), on behalf of all employees of Defendants
who were, are, or will be employed by Defendants during the period
of three years prior to the date of commencement of this action
through the date of judgment in this action, who were not
compensated at one-and-one-half times the regular rate of pay for
all work performed in excess of 40 hours per work week and/or who
were not compensated at the federal minimum wage rate of $7.25 per
hour, via the Defendants' policy and procedure of Shaving work
hours to the retail hours of the Defendants operations, (rather
than to the actual hours of work) and/or the policy and procedure
of Defendants to pay via three allegedly separate corporations,
which actually are one employer, thereby denying the FLSA
Collective owed overtime wages and/or minimum wages and/or payment
of the proper overtime rate, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs and Class:

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

ENDOCYTE INC: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC on Nov. 16 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:18-cv-10392-JMF, on
behalf of public common shareholders of Endocyte, Inc. ("Endocyte"
or the "Company") (NasdaqGS: ECYT)  who held Endocyte securities on
the record date November 15, 2018 (the "Class Period"), and have
been harmed by Endocyte and its board of directors' (the "Board")
alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the
sale of the Company to affiliates of  Novartis AG ( the "Proposed
Merger").

Under the terms of the Proposed Merger, Endocyte shareholders are
only anticipated to receive $24.00 in cash for each share of
Endocyte common stock they own (the "Merger Consideration"). The
complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration is inadequate and
that the proxy statement regarding the Proposed Merger (the
"Proxy") provides shareholders with materially incomplete and
misleading information about the Proposed Merger, in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In particular, the
complaint alleges that the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning the valuation analyses performed
by the Company's financial advisors, Centerview Partners LLC and
Jefferies LLC, in support of their fairness opinions. The special
meeting of Endocyte shareholders to vote on the Proposed Merger is
currently scheduled for December 20, 2018.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 15, 2019. Any member of the putative class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/endocyte-inc. It is free and there
is no cost or obligation to you.

Monteverde & Associates PC -- http://www.monteverdelaw.com-- is a
national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm
committed that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed
to protecting shareholders and consumers from corporate wrongdoing.
Monteverde & Associates PC lawyers have significant experience
litigating mergers & acquisitions and securities class actions,
whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying
corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at
the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in
Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017, and 2018, an award given to
less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field.  He has also
been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017 Top Rated Lawyer.

Contact:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          United States of America
          jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com   
          Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]


ENDOCYTE INC: Wheby Balks at Merger Deal with Novartis
------------------------------------------------------
EARL WHEBY, JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ENDOCYTE, INC., JOHN C. APLIN, COLIN
GODDARD, MARC KOZIN, PHILIP S. LOW, PATRICK MACHADO, FRED A.
MIDDLETON, LESLEY RUSSELL, MIKE A. SHERMAN, and DAWN SVORONOS, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01794 (D. Del., Nov. 4, 2018), alleges
that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a proxy statement.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on October
18, 2018, pursuant to which Endocyte, Inc. will be acquired by
Novartis AG and Edinburgh Merger Corporation. On October 17, 2018,
Endocyte's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger with Novartis. Pursuant to the terms
of the Merger Agreement, Endocyte's stockholders will receive
$24.00 in cash for each share of Endocyte common stock they hold.

On October 31, 2018, defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says.

Endocyte is a biopharmaceutical company and leader in developing
targeted therapies for the personalized treatment of cancer. The
Company's drug conjugation technology targets therapeutics and
companion imaging agents specifically to the site of diseased
cells. Endocyte's lead program is a prostate specific membrane
antigen ("PSMA")-targeted radioligand therapy, 177 Lu-PSMA-617,
which is in phase 3 for metastatic castration-resistant prostate
cancer ("mCRPC") for PSMA-positive patients.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com

ENERGY TRANSFER: Parties in Warner Class Suit Agree to Stay Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer LP 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 parties in the
putative class action suit by William D. Warner entered into a
stipulation staying Defendants' response deadlines until the
designation of a lead plaintiff/lead counsel structure in
accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On September 17, 2018, William D. Warner ("Plaintiff"), a purported
Energy Transfer Equity (ETP) unitholder, filed a putative class
action asserting violations of various provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and various rules promulgated thereunder in
connection with the Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.-Energy Transfer
Partners GP Merger against ETP, Kelcy L. Warren, Michael K. Grimm,
Marshall S. McCrea, Matthew S. Ramsey, David K. Skidmore, and W.
Brett Smith ("Defendants").

Plaintiff specifically alleges that the Form S-4 Registration
Statement issued in connection with the ETE-ETP Merger omits and/or
misrepresents material information. Defendants believe the
allegations have no merit and intend to defend vigorously against
them.

On October 26, 2018, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a
stipulation staying Defendants' response deadlines until the
designation of a lead plaintiff/lead counsel structure in
accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

Energy Transfer LP provides diversified energy-related services in
the United States. It owns and operates approximately 7,900 miles
of natural gas transportation pipelines and three natural gas
storage facilities in Texas; and approximately 11,800 miles of
interstate natural gas pipelines. The company was formerly known as
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. and changed its name to Energy
Transfer LP in October 2018. The company was founded in 2002 and is
based in Dallas, Texas.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Trial in Dieckman Class Suit Set for Sept. 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer LP 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 trial in the
Regency Merger-related suit commenced by Adrian Dieckman, is
currently set for September 23-27, 2019.

Purported Regency unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal
courts in Dallas and Delaware asserting claims relating to the
Regency-ETP merger (the "Regency Merger"). All but one Regency
Merger-related lawsuits have been dismissed.

On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman ("Dieckman"), a purported Regency
unitholder, filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware (the "Regency Merger Litigation"), on
behalf of Regency's common unitholders against Regency GP, LP;
Regency GP LLC; ETE, ETP, ETP GP, and the members of Regency's
board of directors ("Defendants").

The Regency Merger Litigation alleges that the Regency Merger
breached the Regency partnership agreement because Regency's
conflicts committee was not properly formed, and the Regency Merger
was not approved in good faith. On March 29, 2016, the Delaware
Court of Chancery granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit
in its entirety. Dieckman appealed.

On January 20, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the
judgment of the Court of Chancery. On May 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed
an Amended Verified Class Action Complaint. Defendants then filed
Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and a Motion to Stay
Discovery on May 19, 2017. On February 20, 2018, the Court of
Chancery issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the
motions to dismiss, dismissing the claims against all defendants
other than Regency GP, LP and Regency GP LLC (the "Regency
Defendants").

On March 6, 2018, the Regency Defendants filed their Answer to
Plaintiff's Verified Amended Class Action Complaint. Trial is
currently set for September 23-27, 2019.

Energy Transfer said, "The Regency Defendants cannot predict the
outcome of the Regency Merger Litigation or any lawsuits that might
be filed subsequent to the date of this filing; nor can the Regency
Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be
required to resolve the Regency Merger Litigation. The Regency
Defendants believe the Regency Merger Litigation is without merit
and intend to vigorously defend against it and any others that may
be filed in connection with the Regency Merger."

Energy Transfer LP provides diversified energy-related services in
the United States. It owns and operates approximately 7,900 miles
of natural gas transportation pipelines and three natural gas
storage facilities in Texas; and approximately 11,800 miles of
interstate natural gas pipelines. The company was formerly known as
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. and changed its name to Energy
Transfer LP in October 2018. The company was founded in 2002 and is
based in Dallas, Texas.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Geisinsky Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Yisroel Geisinsky on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06691
(E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
     Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
     735 Central Avenue
     Woodmere, NY 11598
     Phone: (516) 668-6945
     Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


EWC UNION: Fair Seeks Unpaid Wages for Wax Specialist
-----------------------------------------------------
JESSICA FAIR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EWC UNION SQUARE LLC d/b/a EUROPEAN
WAX CENTER, EWC LAGUARDIA PLACE LLC d/b/a EUROPEAN WAX CENTER, and
34th STREET EUROPEAN WAX CENTER d/b/a EUROPEAN WAX CENTER, the
Defendants, Case No.: 160397/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 8, 2018),
alleges that Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in
illegal and improper wage practices including (a) requiring Wax
Specialists to perform work without compensation before the start
of their shift; (b) requiring Wax Specialists to perform work
without compensation after the end of their shift; (c) failing to
pay Wax Specialists at their straight or agreed upon rate for all
hours worked under 40 hours in a week; (d) failing to pay Wax
Specialists overtime of time and one-half their regular rate of pay
for all hours worked over forty in a week; (e) paying commissions
to Wax Specialists and not including such amounts in Wax
Specialists' overtime rate of pay; and (f) failing to provide
accurate wage statements under New York Labor Law.  Additionally,
Plaintiff brings individual claims pursuant to New York State Human
Rights Law against Defendant for pregnancy discrimination.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative New York Class:

          Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
          THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone (516) 625-0105

EXPEDIA INC: Diaz Brings Class Suit in NY Under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Expedia, Inc. The
case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Expedia, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10942 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments.
The company facilitates the booking of hotel rooms, airline seats,
car rentals, and destination services from its travel suppliers;
and acts as an agent in the transactions.[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


FAHERTY BRAND: Fischler Sues Clothing Brand for ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Faherty Brand, LLC.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Faherty Brand,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10941 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

Faherty Brand is an American clothing and lifestyle brand "about
the beach" created by twin brothers Alex and Mike Faherty.[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


FANNIE MAE: Dismissal of Suit Challenging 3rd Amendment Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID JACOBS; GARY HINDES, Appellants, v. FEDERAL
HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, IN ITS CAPACITY AS CONSERVATOR OF THE
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AND THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN
MORTGAGE CORPORATION; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION; FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, Case No. 17-3794 (3d Cir.), Judge Stephanos Bibas of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of the Appellants' amended complaint.

In 2008, the collapse of the housing market cost Fannie and Freddie
billions of dollars, threatening the U.S. mortgage market.  The
Treasury quickly took steps to prop up Fannie and Freddie.  But the
mortgage and financial markets remained perilous, and the financial
crisis grew worse.  So the Agency put both Fannie and Freddie into
conservatorship.

Under the Agency's direction, they entered into funding agreements
with the Treasury.  The Treasury gave each enterprise a funding
commitment.  When Fannie's or Freddie's liabilities exceed their
assets, they can draw on that funding commitment to keep their net
worth in the black.

In return, the Treasury received one million shares of senior
preferred stock in each of Fannie and Freddie.  These shares gave
the Treasury a liquidation preference in each enterprise equal to
$1 billion plus all the money drawn from the Treasury's funding
commitment.  The shares also gave the Treasury an annual dividend
equal to 10% of the liquidation preference, if paid in cash.

The Treasury initially capped its funding commitment at $100
billion per enterprise.  That was not enough, at least for Fannie.
Two amendments to the funding agreement more than doubled that cap,
and Fannie and Freddie wound up drawing $116.1 billion and $71.3
billion from the Treasury.  But as Fannie and Freddie drew more and
more money from the Treasury, they owed it larger and larger
dividends. In a vicious cycle, they sometimes had to draw money
from the Treasury just to pay the Treasury's dividends.

In 2012, the Treasury and the Agency renegotiated the funding
agreements and agreed to the Third Amendment. The Third Amendment
replaced the 10% annual dividend with a quarterly variable
dividend. It set that variable dividend equal to Fannie's and
Freddie's positive net worth above a capital buffer, which was set
to decrease with each dividend payment. The capital buffer is now
down to zero. So each quarter, the dividend consumes each
enterprise's entire positive net worth. The challengers call this
arrangement the Net Worth Sweep.

Jacobs and Hindes filed the class-action suit against the Agency,
Treasury, Fannie, and Freddie to challenge the Third Amendment.
Their original complaint asserted claims for breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and violations of Delaware and Virginia
corporate law.

The challengers later amended their complaint, voluntarily
dismissing their claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.  The amended complaint contains four counts: two asserting
that the Third Amendment violates Delaware and Virginia corporate
law, and two new claims against the Treasury for unjust enrichment.
It seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, including
damages, restitution, and disgorgement.

The Agency, Treasury, Fannie, and Freddie moved to dismiss.  The
District Court granted that motion, holding that 12 U.S.C. Section
4617(f) barred all the challengers' claims.  It reasoned that the
Agency acted within its statutory powers that the Recovery Act did
not incorporate state law, and that Section 4617(f)'s sweeping
limitations on judicial review deprived it of jurisdiction.  The
court also refused to take judicial notice of certain documents
that allegedly undermined the Agency's and Treasury's assertions,
because it did not rely on those assertions in reaching its
decision.

Judge Bibas finds that the challengers are in an unfortunate spot.
They invested in Fannie and Freddie, expecting regular dividend
payments in return.  The Third Amendment destroyed those
expectations.  The Recovery Act is clear.  

He rejects the shareholders' challenge on all fronts.  First, the
Recovery Act gave the government broad, discretionary power to
enter into the deal.  Second, the deal complies with the
requirements of the Recovery Act, as well as Delaware and Virginia
corporate law.  And third, the relief sought would restrain or
affect the exercise of the government's powers as conservator,
which the Recovery Act forbids.  That relief, even the monetary
relief, would unwind the whole deal.

For these reasons, the Judge affirmed the District Court's
dismissal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/a3a41f from Leagle.com.

Christopher N. Kelly, Esq. -- ckelly@potteranderson.com -- Michael
A. Pittenger, Esq. -- mpittenger@potteranderson.com -- [ARGUED],
Alan R. Silverstein, Esq. -- asilverstein@potteranderson.com --
Potter Anderson & Corroon, 1313 North Market Street, 6th Floor,
Wilmington, DE 19801.

Myron T. Steele, Esq. -- msteele@potteranderson.com -- Potter,
Anderson & Corroon, 800 North State Street, Suite 401, Dover, DE
19901, Counsel for Appellants.

David B. Bergman, Esq. -- david.bergman@arnoldporter.com -- Howard
N. Cayne, Esq. -- howard.cayne@arnoldporter.com -- [ARGUED], Ian S.
Hoffman, Esq. -- ian.hoffman@arnoldporter.com -- Dirk Phillips,
Esq. -- dirk.phillips@arnoldporter.com -- Asim Varma, Esq. --
asim.varma@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, 601
Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001.

Robert C. Maddox, Esq. -- maddox@rlf.com -- Robert J. Stearn, Jr.,
Esq. -- stearn@rlf.com -- Richards Layton & Finger, 920 North King
Street, One Rodney Square, Wilmington, DE 19801, Counsel for
Appellee Federal Housing Finance, Agency.

Gerard J. Sinzdak, Esq.[ARGUED], Abby C. Wright, Esq., United
States Department of Justice, Civil Division, 950 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530, Counsel for Appellee United
States Department of, Treasury.

Robert C. Maddox, Esq., Robert J. Stearn, Jr., Esq., Richards
Layton & Finger, 920 North King Street, One Rodney Square,
Wilmington, DE 19801.

Meaghan M. Vergow, Esq., O'Melveny & Myers, 1625 I Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20006, Counsel for Appellee Federal National
Mortgage, Association.

Michael J. Ciatti, Esq., King & Spalding, 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20006.

Robert C. Maddox, Esq., Robert J. Stearn, Jr., Esq., Richards
Layton & Finger, 920 North King Street, One Rodney Square,
Wilmington, DE 19801, Counsel for Appellee Federal Home Loan
Mortgage, Corporation.


FASION RETAIL: Violates Disabilities Act, Diaz Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fashion Retail NYC
LLC. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fashion Retail NYC LLC
doing business as: Sayki, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10930 (S.D.
N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

SAYKI is a Men's Fashion brand located in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FITNESS FORMULA: Court Tosses Out M. Wheeler's EFTA Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK WHEELER, Plaintiff, v. THE FITNESS FORMULA, LTD.,
and LAKEVIEW FITNESS EAST, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18 CV 582
(N.D. Ill.), Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted
the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment to the extent
that the Plaintiff seeks to hold them liable under section 1693e(b)
of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ("EFTA") for the six erroneous
charges.

Wheeler's debit card was erroneously charged six months' worth of
gym membership dues by the Defendants.  After catching their
mistake, the Defendants refunded the Plaintiff for the erroneous
charges.

The Plaintiff filed the putative class action, bringing claims
under the EFTA, and under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.  The
Defendants move for partial summary judgment on the EFTA claim,
arguing that they are not liable for violating section 1693e(b).

The Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated section 1693e(b) by
failing to give him advance notice of the erroneous charges.  The
Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment for two
reasons.  First, they did not violate section 1693e(b) because --
although they erroneously double-charged the Plaintiff for six
months -- none of those charges varied in amount from what the
Plaintiff had authorized for his monthly gym membership dues.
Second, even if they violated section 1693e(b), section 1693m(c)
shields them from liability because their violation was, (1)
unintentional, and (2) the result of a bona fide error despite
having maintained procedures reasonably adapted to avoid that
error.

Judge Gettleman finds that if either of the Defendants' arguments
is correct, they are entitled to summary judgment.  He says he
needs not find that a violation occurred to consider if the
Defendants can successfully assert the bona-fide error defense.  
Assuming without deciding that they violated section 1693e(b), the
Judge agrees that their violation was unintentional and the result
of a bona fide error despite having maintained procedures
reasonably adapted to avoid that error.  Consequently, to the
extent that the Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendants liable for
violating section 1693e(b) as to the six erroneous charges, he
granted the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is
granted.

The case remains set for a status on Dec. 6, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.,
and the parties should be prepared to identify the Plaintiff's
remaining claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/8eG1gE from Leagle.com.

Mark Wheeler, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members
described herein, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Edelman,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Tara Leigh Goodwin,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Cathleen M. Combs,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, David See Kim, Edelman,
Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC & James O. Latturner, Edelman,
Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC.

The Fitness Formula, LTD., doing business as Fitness Formula Clubs
& Lakeview Fitness East, LLC, doing business as FFC-East Lakeview
and Fitness Formula Club-East Lakeview, Defendants, represented by
Isaac J. Colunga -- isaac.colunga@icemiller.com -- ICE MILLER LLP,
Heather Lynn Maly -- heather.maly@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller &
Martha Larson Kohlstrand -- martha.kohlstrand@icemiller.com -- Ice
Miller LLP.


FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Made Unsolicited Calls, Miller Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JO ANN MILLER, and VITALY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 18STCV02663 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Oct. 29, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of making unsolicited calls.

Frontier Communications Corporation provides communications
services to consumer, commercial, and wholesale customers in the
United States. The company was formerly known as Citizens
Communications Company and changed its name to Frontier
Communications Corporation in July 2008. Frontier Communications
Corporation was founded in 1927 and is based in Norwalk,
Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghann E. George, Esq.
          Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FFIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (866) 598-5042
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com %
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


GAL FOOD: Ventura Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime
-----------------------------------------------
VIANEY VENTURA, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FRANCISCO HERREROS, AMADO HERREROS,
Individually and GAL FOOD CORP. d/b/a TACOS AL SUADERO, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06478 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid wage and overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Acording to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other FLSA Collective
have been subjected to Defendant's decision, policy, plan and
policies willfully failing and refusing to pay them the lawful
minimum wage and one half times their regular rate for work in
excess of 40 hours per workweek, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and proposed FLSA Collective Plantiffs:

          Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
          THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
          39 Broadway Suite 1530
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 344 9022
          Facsimile: (212) 344 0301

GALERIE DE POP: Women's Clothing Shop Faces ADA Suit
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Galerie De Pop Inc.
The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Galerie De Pop Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10929 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

Galerie DE Pop Inc is a privately held company in New York, NY and
is a Single Location business, categorized under Women's
Ready-To-Wear Apparel.[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


GARNIER LLC: Diaz Sues Cosmetics Firm Under Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Garnier LLC. The case
is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Garnier LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10920 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

Garnier is a mass market cosmetics brand of French cosmetics
company L'Oréal. It produces hair care and skin care
products.[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


GEO GROUP: Immigration Detainees' Class Suits Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, 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 class action suits initiated by
civil immigration detainees in Colorado, Washington and in
California.

On October 22, 2014, former civil immigration detainees at the
Aurora Immigration Detention Center filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado (the "Court").

The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the
Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the federal Trafficking
Victims Protection Act ("TVPA"). The plaintiff class claims that
the Company was unjustly enriched as a result of the level of
payment the detainees received for work performed at the facility,
even though the voluntary work program as well as the wage rates
and standards associated with the program that are at issue in the
case are authorized by the Federal government under guidelines
approved by the United States Congress.

On July 6, 2015, the Court found that detainees were not employees
under the Colorado Minimum Wage Order and dismissed this claim. In
February 2017, the Court granted the plaintiff-class' motion for
class certification which the Company appealed to the 10th Circuit
Court of Appeals. On February 9, 2018, a three-judge panel of the
appellate court affirmed the class-certification order. A petition
for rehearing en banc was denied on March 7, 2018.

On October 2, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Company's
petition for a writ of certiorari on the class certification order.
The plaintiff class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages,
exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees
and costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper.

In the time since the Colorado suit was initially filed, three
similar lawsuits have been filed – two in Washington and one in
California.

In Washington, one of the two lawsuits was filed on September 9,
2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The second was filed on September 20, 2017 by the State Attorney
General against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of
Washington for Pierce County, which the Company removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 9,
2017.

In California, a class-action lawsuit was filed on December 19,
2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S.
District Court Eastern Division of the Central District of
California. All three lawsuits allege violations of the respective
state's minimum wage laws. However, the California lawsuit, like
the Colorado suit, also includes claims based that the Company
violated the TVPA and California's equivalent state statute.

The GEO Group said, "The Company intends to take all necessary
steps to vigorously defend itself and has consistently refuted the
allegations and claims in these lawsuits. The Company has not
recorded an accrual relating to these matters at this time, as a
loss is not considered probable nor reasonably estimable at this
stage of the lawsuit."

The GEO Group, Inc. is the first fully integrated equity real
estate investment trust specializing in the design, financing,
development, and operation of correctional, detention, and
community reentry facilities around the globe. GEO is the world's
leading provider of diversified correctional, detention, community
reentry, and electronic monitoring services to government agencies
worldwide with operations in the United States, Australia, South
Africa, and the United Kingdom. The company is based in Boca Raton,
Florida.


GERBER PRODUCTS: Class Decertification in Zakaria Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OULA ZAKARIA, individually as a representative the
class, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GERBER PRODUCTS CO., a
corporation, d/b/a NESTLE NUTRITION, NESTLE INFANT NUTRITION, and
NESTLE NUTRITION NORTH AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
17-56509 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to
Defendant Gerber on Zakaria's California state law claims for
restitution and actual, punitive, and statutory damages as well as
its order decertifying the putative class of purchasers of Gerber's
Good Start Gentle infant formula.

The Court has reviewed the district court's decision to decertify
the class for abuse of discretion and its grant of summary judgment
de novo.  It finds that district court did not abuse its discretion
by decertifying the class on the ground that Zakaria had failed to
provide an adequate basis to calculate restitution under
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), False Advertising Law
("FAL"), or Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and actual
damages under the CLRA.  Regardless whether consumers were willing
to pay a higher price for the labelled product, the expert's
opinion did not contain any evidence that such higher price was
actually paid; hence, no evidence of restitution or actual damages
was proffered.

Next, it finds that Dr. Howlett's deposition testimony, viewed in
the light most favorable to Zakaria, does not support a justifiable
inference to the contrary.  Indeed, Gerber has adduced undisputed
evidence to show that it did not raise the price of Good Start
Gentle because of the 1st and Only Seal.  Dr. Howlett's conjoint
analysis alone does not create a genuine issue of material fact
regarding the amount of restitution or actual damages.  And because
Zakaria's claim for actual damages is unavailing, her claim for
punitive damages cannot succeed.

Finally, it finds that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by declining to proceed with a liability-only class
where no damages at all could be proven.  Zakaria has not adduced
sufficient evidence from which to infer what that premium might be,
and Gerber has adduced uncontroverted evidence that it did not
raise the price of Good Start Gentle because of its use of the 1st
and Only Seal.  Hence, the district court committed no error in
de-certifying the class.  

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/ukOauD from Leagle.com.


GLAMGLOW LLC: Skincare Product Maker Faces Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glamglow LLC. The
case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Glamglow LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10916 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

GLAMGLOW Inc. produces skincare products. It offers products for
anti-aging, problem skin, hydration, gentle applications, and eyes.
The company also provides pro treatments, gifts, kits, sets, and
cleansers.[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


GLOBAL EAGLE: Fairness Hearing in M&M Hart Suit Set for March 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Eagle Entertainment 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 court
has preliminarily approved the settlement in the securities class
action suit filed by M&M Hart Living Trust and Randi Williams, with
a fairness hearing for final approval scheduled for March 4, 2019.

On February 23, 2017 and on March 17, 2017, following the company's
announcement that the company anticipated a delay in filing its
Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2016 ("2016 Form
10-K") and that the company's former CEO and former CFO would
separate from the company, three putative securities class action
lawsuits were filed in United States District Court for the Central
District of California. These lawsuits alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the company,
its former CEO and two of the company's former CFOs.

The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed two of these lawsuits. The
third lawsuit, brought by putative stockholder M&M Hart Living
Trust and Randi Williams (the "Hart complaint"), alleged that the
company and the other defendants made misrepresentations and/or
omitted material information about the Emerging Markets
Communications (EMC) Acquisition, the company's projected financial
performance and synergies following that acquisition, and the
impact of that acquisition on the company's internal controls over
financial reporting.

The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and
costs. On November 2, 2017, the Court granted the company's and the
other defendants' motion to dismiss the Hart complaint, and
dismissed the action with prejudice. On November 30, 2017, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the Court's previous
judgment of dismissal to permit them to file a further amended
complaint.

On January 8, 2018, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
alter or amend the previous judgment. On January 29, 2018, the
plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit from the Court’s denial of the plaintiffs' motion
to alter or amend the judgment.

On October 4, 2018, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement to fully resolve the pending appeal and release all
claims against the Company and the other defendants in exchange for
a settlement payment of $1.1 million, to be fully paid by the
carriers of the Company's Directors & Officers insurance. On
November 2, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement,
with a fairness hearing for final approval scheduled for March 4,
2019.

Global Eagle Entertainment Inc. provides content, connectivity, and
digital media solutions for travel industry worldwide. The company
operates through two segments, Media & Content and Connectivity.
Global Eagle Entertainment Inc. is headquartered in Los Angeles,
California.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, 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 consolidated securities class
action suit filed in the Eastern District of New York.

On August 17, 2016, three securities class action complaints were
filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Company
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The three complaints are:

     (1) Flora v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the
"Flora Complaint");

     (2) Lynn v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Lynn
Complaint"); and

     (3) Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the
"Spadola Complaint" and, together with the Flora and Lynn
Complaints, the "Securities Complaints").  

On June 5, 2017, the court issued an order for consolidation,
appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of selection of
co-lead counsel.  Pursuant to this order, the Securities Complaints
were consolidated under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group,
Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Consolidated Securities Action"),
and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel were appointed as
Co-Lead Plaintiffs. On June 21, 2017, the Company received notice
that plaintiff Spadola voluntarily dismissed his claims without
prejudice to his ability to participate in the Consolidated
Securities Action as an absent class member.  

The Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action filed
a Consolidated Amended Complaint on August 4, 2017 and a Corrected
Consolidated Amended Complaint on September 7, 2017 on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities between November 5,
2013 and February 10, 2017 (the "Amended Complaint").  

The Amended Complaint names as defendants the Company and certain
of its current and former officers (collectively, the "Defendants")
and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly materially false
or misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press
releases and SEC filings regarding the Company's business,
prospects, financial results and internal controls. Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss on October 3, 2017. Co-Lead Plaintiffs
filed an opposition on December 1, 2017, and Defendants filed the
reply on January 16, 2018.

On April 4, 2018, the Court requested additional briefing relating
to certain aspects of Defendants' motion to dismiss. In accordance
with this request, Lead Plaintiffs submitted their supplemental
brief on April 18, 2018, and Defendants submitted an opposition on
May 2, 2018. Lead Plaintiffs filed a reply brief on May 9, 2018,
and Defendants submitted a sur-reply on May 16, 2018.

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

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes,
and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in
seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's
Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate.  The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake
Success, New York.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Stockholder Class & Derivative Suit Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, 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
entitled, In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Stockholder Class
and Derivative Litigation, continues to be stayed.

On April 19, 2017 and April 26, 2017, two class action and
stockholder derivative complaints were filed in the Eastern
District of New York against the Board of Directors and certain
officers of the Company under the captions Silva v. Simon, et al.
(the "Silva Complaint") and Barnes v. Simon, et al. (the "Barnes
Complaint"), respectively.  Both the Silva Complaint and the Barnes
Complaint allege violation of securities law, breach of fiduciary
duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.

On May 23, 2017, an additional stockholder filed a complaint under
seal in the Eastern District of New York against the Board of
Directors and certain officers of the Company. The complaint
alleges that the Company's directors and certain officers made
materially false and misleading statements in press releases and
SEC filings regarding the Company's business, prospects and
financial results.

The complaint also alleges that the Company violated its by-laws
and Delaware law by failing to hold its 2016 Annual Stockholders
Meeting and includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment and corporate waste.  On August 9, 2017, the Court
granted an order to unseal this case and reveal Gary Merenstein as
the plaintiff (the "Merenstein Complaint").

On August 10, 2017, the court granted the parties stipulation to
consolidate the Barnes Complaint, the Silva Complaint and the
Merenstein Complaint under the caption In re The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation (the
"Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action") and to
appoint Robbins Arroyo LLP and Scott+Scott as Co-Lead Counsel, with
the Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon as Liaison Counsel for
Plaintiffs. On September 14, 2017, a related complaint was filed
under the caption Oliver v. Berke, et al. (the "Oliver Complaint"),
and on October 6, 2017, the Oliver Complaint was consolidated with
the Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action. The
Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint under seal on
October 26, 2017.

On December 20, 2017, the parties agreed to stay Defendants' time
to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended
complaint through and including 30 days after a decision is
rendered on the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the
consolidated Securities Class Actions.

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

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes,
and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in
seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's
Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate. The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake
Success, New York.


HARKINS ADMINISTRATIVE: Removes Garcia Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of Adan Garcia, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Harkins
Administrative Services, Inc.; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of California County of Riverside (Case No.
RIC1819339) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on October 29, 2018. The clerk of court for the Central
District of California assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-02314-JAK-J. The
case is assigned to Judge John A. Kronstadt and referred to
Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott.

Harkins Administrative Services Inc. is a licensed and bonded
freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling
business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J Mankin, Esq.
          Misty M Lauby, Esq.
          FERNANDEZ AND LAUBY LLP
          4590 Allstate Drive
          Riverside, CA 92501
          Telephone: (951) 320-1444
          Facsimile: (951) 320-1445

The Defendants are represented by:

          Janet Lynn Grumer, Esq.
          Evelyn Wang, Esq.
          Michael T Baldock, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
          Telephone: (213) 633-6800
          Facsimile: (213) 533-6899
          E-mail: janetgrumer@dwt.com
                  evelynwang@dwt.com
                  michaelbaldock@dwt.com


HEADCLICKS INC: Okoe Files Fraud Class Suit
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Headclicks, Inc. The
case is styled as Daniel Okoe individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Headclicks, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10911 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

HeadClicks is a data-driven retailer using state of the art
technology to map consumer demands, and to identify and source
products.[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


HERC HOLDINGS: 3rd. Cir. Affirms Dismissal in Ramirez Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
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 in Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et
al. affirmed the dismissal of the action with prejudice.

In November 2013, a putative 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
Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleged that Hertz Holdings made material
misrepresentations and/or omission 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 (the "Exchange Act"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint sought
unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the purported class and
an award of costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert
fees.

In June 2014, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. In October 2014, the court granted Hertz Holdings'
motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to
amend the complaint a second time. In November 2014, plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint which shortened the putative class
period and made allegations that were not substantively very
different than the allegations in the prior complaint.

In early 2015, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint. In July 2015, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion
to dismiss without prejudice, allowing plaintiff to file a third
amended complaint. In August 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended
complaint which included additional allegations, named additional
then-current and former officers as defendants and expanded the
putative class period to extend from February 14, 2013 to July 16,
2015. In November 2015, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the third
amended complaint. The plaintiff then sought leave to add a new
plaintiff because of challenges to the standing of the first
plaintiff.

The court granted plaintiff leave to file a fourth amended
complaint to add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint was filed
on March 1, 2016. Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants
moved to dismiss the fourth amended complaint with prejudice on
March 24, 2016. In April 2017, the court granted Hertz Holdings'
and the individual defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the
action with prejudice. In May 2017, plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal and, in June 2018, oral argument was conducted before the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In September 2018, the
court affirmed the dismissal of the action with prejudice.

Herc Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
equipment rental supplier. It rents aerial, earthmoving, material
handling, trucks and trailers, air compressors, compaction, and
lighting equipment, as well as generators, and safety supplies and
expendables; and provides ProSolutions, an industry specific
solution based services, such as pumping solutions, power
generation, climate control, remediation and restoration, and
studio and production equipment. Herc Holdings Inc. is based in
Bonita Springs, Florida.


HESS CORPORATION: Website not Accessible to Blind, Figueroa Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HESS CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case
1:18-cv-10347 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2018), alleges that Defendant's
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's denial of full
and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods
and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired"
to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal
definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with
correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who
meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. Because
Defendant's website, www.hesstoytruck.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so
that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12 Fl.
          Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com

HOMEAWAY.COM: Martinez Sues Web Portal Operator
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HomeAway.com, Inc.
The case is styled as Pedro Martinez individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. HomeAway.com, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06666 (E.D.
N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

HomeAway.com, Inc. operates online portals for the vacation rental
industry. The company operates web portals that provide rental
information for beach houses, condominiums, and vacation homes. Its
portals include HomeAway.com, VRBO.com, and
VacationRentals.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group, P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11217
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


HUDSON CITY: Refused to Stay Foreclosure Case, Lins Claim
---------------------------------------------------------
JAY LIN, and IRENE LIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUDSON CITY SAVINGS BANK M & T
BANK; and PARKER MCCAY, PA, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-15387-BRM-LHG (D.N.J., Oct. 29, 2018) is an action against
the Defendants for monetary damages, out-of-pocket expenses,
damages, restitution, injunctive relief and penalties.

According to the complaint, August 3, 2010, the Defendants filed a
foreclosure case to foreclose on the Plaintiffs' mortgage of 2007
and 2001 which had been paid off. The Plaintiffs settled and
remitted payments to the Defendants. The Defendants delayed to sign
the settlement as it was merging with another entity.

Within the foreclosure case against the Plaintiffs, the Defendants
included in a claim for costs to cover the additional fees,
disbursements fees and the attorneys' fees in the Defendants
complaint.

On August 3, 2015, the Defendants filed Bankruptcy Petitions under
Chapter 11 and for an automatic stay. However, the Defendants
refused to stay the Plaintiffs' foreclosure case while the
bankruptcy case is pending causing damages to the Plaintiffs.

As of November 1, 2015, Hudson City Savings Bank, FSB was acquired
by Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company. Hudson City Savings
Bank, FSB provides banking products and services to customers in
New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. Hudson City Savings Bank,
FSB was formerly known as Hudson City Savings Bank and changed its
name to Hudson City Savings Bank, FSB in January 2004. The company
was founded in 1868 and is headquartered in Paramus, New Jersey. It
has branches in Westchester, Suffolk, Putnam, Richmond, and
Rockland counties, New York; and Fairfield County, Connecticut.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay J. Lin, Esq.
          JAY J. LIN, PA
          18 Sheppard Place, Suite E.
          Edison, NJ 08818
          Telephone: (732) 549-8800
          Facsimile: (732) 549-7505


HUUUGE INC: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in Wilson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SEAN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HUUUGE, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, (Case No. 3:18-cv-05276-RBL) (W.D. Wash.),
Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Tacoma, denied Huuuge's Motion to Compel
Arbitration.

The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Huuuge on April 6,
2018, alleging that Huuuge Casino constitutes illegal gambling in
violation of RCW Section 4.24.070.  Huuuge Casino is a game
available as a 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, Wilson alleges that they
are nonetheless valuable because they can be used to continue
playing.  Therefore, Wilson alleges that Huuuge's game amounts to
gambling as defined by statute and that he is entitled to recover
the money he lost playing.

Wilson downloaded Huuuge Casino from the Apple App Store.  When a
user searches for the Huuuge Casino app, they first encounter a
list of apps that match their search query.  Each item on the list
contains the name of the app, the developer, the app's user rating,
a large picture showing the gameplay experience, and a blue "GET"
button on the right that initiates downloading.  If a user wants to
learn more about the app before downloading it, they can click to
visit the app's page, which includes more information and another
place to download.   At the bottom of the app page, a user can
click an icon that says "more," which reveals details about the
game.  After scrolling through several screens' worth of text, a
user eventually encounters the statement "Read our Terms of Use,"
followed by a URL that a user can copy and paste into their web
browser to access the Terms.

Once a user downloads the game, they can view another link to the
Terms of Use by visiting the settings menu.  This menu is
accessible via a button in the upper corner of the game screen.

The matter is before the Court on Huuuge's Motion to Compel
Arbitration.  The underlying dispute is a class action to recover
money lost playing electronic gambling games available through a
mobile app.  Huuuge's Terms of Use, which include an arbitration
provision, are made available when a user initially downloads the
app and in the menu of the game itself.

Huuuge argues that the configuration of its app page and settings
menu put a reasonable user on inquiry notice that playing Huuuge
Casino entails agreeing to the Terms of Use.  Wilson responds that
he is not bound by Huuuge's Terms because the notice and URL were
not sufficiently conspicuous.

Judge Leighton finds that the question is whether Wilson was on
inquiry notice of Huuuge's Terms of Use.  Huuuge contends that its
app page presents a "hybrid" situation where inquiry notice is more
likely, but this is incorrect.  He holds that although a user does
have to click the "GET" button to download Huuuge Casino, there is
no accompanying notification informing a user that the "GET" button
doubles as a manifestation of assent to Huuuge's Terms.  Despite
this shortcoming, Huuuge's notification would likely be sufficient
if it were actually next to the button a user must click to
download the app.

Beyond this fatal inadequacy, the Judge finds that there are other
problems with the configuration of Huuuge Casino's app page.
Perhaps most importantly, a user can download the app before ever
even visiting the full app page because the "GET" button also shows
up next to each app listed in the search results.  In addition, the
notification to "Read our Terms of Use" and the following URL are
in generic black font and blend into the surrounding text such that
a user would have no reason to notice them unless they were
specifically hunting for them.  All of these result in Huuuge's app
page failing to put a reasonable user on inquiry notice of the
Terms of Use.

The in-game link to the Terms of Use is no better.  The Judge finds
that although the link to "Terms and Policy" is prominent enough
within the settings menu, a user must first click a small box with
three dots in the upper corner of the game screen to bring that
menu up at all.  The settings menu contains no notification, so any
increased likelihood of Wilson visiting the settings menu due to
repeated use of the app is irrelevant.

Having failed to prove that its app can measure up to the standard
set by other browsewrap cases, Huuuge argues in its Reply that the
Court should take judicial notice of ubiquitous online agreements
when weighing the objective standard for reasonable prudence and
inquiry notice.  The Judge declines to adopt Huuuge's suggestion.
While online users today are savvier than in the past, this does
not mean that the rules of contract law no longer apply.  If an app
developer wishes to bind a user to their copious terms, the onus is
on the developer to at least provide reasonable notice and easy
access.  This is not a difficult thing to do when designing an app,
despite Huuuge's protestations that the Court should devise some
special rule for app store purchases.  The fact is, Huuuge chose to
make its Terms non-invasive so that users could charge ahead to
play their game.  Now, they must live with the consequences of that
decision.

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

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

Sean Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, 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.

HUUUGE, Inc., a Delaware corporation, 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.


I.C. SYSTEM: Violates Debt Collection Practices Act, Says Iskhakov
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. System, Inc. The
case is styled as Khamidulla Iskhakov on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. I.C. System, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06672 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

I.C. System, Inc., doing business as Adams, Cooper and Mark,
operates as an accounts receivable company. It serves healthcare,
dental, commercial, communications, utilities, government,
financial services, and small and medium collection agencies,
including small and medium businesses, pest control, optometry,
veterinary, and chiropractic industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IDAHO: Prison Officials Face Jones Ward Suit
--------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against the State of Idaho. The case
is captioned as GLEN JONES WARD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IDAHO CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION - OROFINO; IDAHO STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; IDAHO
MAXIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTION; IDOC ADMINISTRATORS; T CARLIN; R.
VALLEY; K YORDY; A RAMIREZ; L ASHFORD; IDOC SUBSIDIARIES INCLUDING
BONNER COUNTY JAIL, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00484-BLW (D.
Idaho, Oct. 29, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge B. Lynn
Winmill.

Idaho Correctional Institution in Orofino was originally an old
state school and mental health facility that was modified into a
prison. A new wing was added in 1988. ICIO is designed to house up
to 580 male inmates. The facility primarily houses medium custody
inmates, but also houses offenders needing protective custody.
Givens Hall, a unit adjacent to the compound, serves as a work
camp.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


INDIANA: Court Certifies JJC Juvenile Detainees' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, TASHIANNE WILBURN, as the natural parent and guardian
of Z.W., a minor child, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CYNTHIA NELSON, in her official capacity
as the Executive Director of the St. Joseph County Juvenile Justice
Center, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17 cv 331-PPS-MGG (N.D.
Ind.), Judge Philip P. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

The proposed class action involves the alleged policy of the St.
Joseph Juvenile Justice Center ("JJC") of placing juvenile
detainees in solitary confinement.  Plaintiffs, Tashianne Wilburn
and Quanan Wilburn, are the parents and guardians of Z.W., a minor
child with special needs.  When he was 11 years old, Z.W. was held
in custody at the JJC and endured extended periods of solitary
confinement.  Z.W. is the purported class representative.  The
Wilburns seek an injunction bringing to a halt certain policies of
the JJC, but they also seek individual damages for their child,
Z.W.

The Plaintiffs filed their complaint on May 1, 2017, seeking relief
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for alleged violation of Z.W.'s
constitutional rights.  They amended their complaint on April 27,
2018, to include allegations on behalf of the proposed juvenile
class and the two subclasses.  On the same day, they filed the
instant motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs seek class certification for the class of all
detainees under the age of 18 years old who have been held or will
be held in any form of solitary confinement at the St. Joseph
County Juvenile Justice Center since Sept. 7, 2016.  Additionally,
they seek class certification of two subclasses.  The "IDEA
Subclass" consists of all members of the Juvenile Class with a
disability, as defined by the Individuals with Disabilities in
Education Act ("IDEA"), who have been or will be denied the special
education and related support services to which they are entitled
under the IDEA."  And the "Disability Subclass" consists of all
members of the Juvenile Class with psychiatric and/or intellectual
disabilities, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, who have been or
will be denied the programs, services, and benefits (including the
individualized assessment) mandated by the Americans with
Disabilities Act and/or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973.

Judge Simon finds that the class and subclasses of the Plaintiffs
in the case meet all the prerequisites of Rule 23(a), (b)(1),
(b)(2), and (b)(3).  Therefore, he granted the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification.

Accordingly, he certified (i) the class consisting of all detainees
under the age of 18 years old who have been held or will be held in
any form of solitary confinement at the St. Joseph County Juvenile
Justice Center since Sept. 7, 2016; (ii) the IDEA Subclass,
consisting of all members of the Juvenile Class with a disability,
as defined by the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act
("IDEA"), who have been or will be denied the special education and
related support services to which they are entitled under the IDEA;
and (iii) the Disability Subclass, consisting of all members of the
Juvenile Class with psychiatric and/or intellectual disabilities,
as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, who have been or will be denied
the programs, services, and benefits (including the individualized
assessment) mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act and/or
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

The Judge bifurcated Z.W.'s individualized monetary damages claim.
Any claim for individual damages for Z.W. will be stayed and
considered only if a finding of liability is made in the class
claim for injunctive relief.  Finally, the Class Representatives
will be: Patrick David Murphy, Charles Peter Rice, Murphy Rice LLP,
400 Plaza Building, 210 S. Michigan St., South Bend, Indiana
46601.

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

Tashianne Wilburn, as the natural parent and guardian of & Quanan
Wilburn, as the natural parent and guardian of, Plaintiffs,
represented by Patrick David Murphy -- pmurphy@murphyrice.com --
Murphy Rice LLP & Charles Peter Rice -- crice@murphyrice.com --
Murphy Rice LLP.

Cynthia Nelson, in her official capacity as the Executive Director
of the St. Joseph County Juvenile Justice Center, Andrew
Kostielney, The Board of County Commissioners of St. Joseph County,
Deborah Fleming, The Board of County Commissioner of St. Joseph
County, Dave Thomas, The Board of County Commissioners of St.
Joseph County, Robert Kruszynski, Jr, The St. Joseph County
Council, Corey Noland, The St. Joseph County Council, James
O'Brien, The St. Joseph County Council, Rafael Morton, The St.
Joseph County Council, Diana Hess, The St. Joseph County Council,
Mark Telloyan, The St. Joseph County Council, Mark Catanzarite, The
St. Joseph County Council, Robert McCahill, The St. Joseph County
Council & Mark Root, St. Joseph County Council, Defendants,
represented by James F. Groves, Lee Groves and Zalas & George C.
Lepeniotis, Lee Groves and Zalas.


K & S ACW: Sandoval Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------
Adalila Sandoval, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. K & S ACW, LLC, an Arizona
Limited Liability Company, and Sean Rozsa and Kristi Rosa, a
Married Couple, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04043-JZB (D.
Ariz, Nov. 13, 2018), alleges that Defendants violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act for their unlawful failure to pay overtime.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all
similarly-situated current and former Car Washers and/or Crew
Members of Defendants K & S ACW, LLC, and Sean Rozsa and Kristi
Rosa who were compensated at a straight-time hourly rate for all
hours worked, regardless of whether those hours exceeded 40 in any
given workweek.

The Defendants operated and did business as Arizona Car Wash
Company.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Telephone: (480) 382-5176
          Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
          E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
                  chris@bendaulaw.com

K2M GROUP: Brown and Franchi Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
K2M Group 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 plaintiffs in
Brown v. K2M Group Holdings, Inc. et al. and  Franchi v. K2M Group
Holdings, Inc. et al. have voluntarily dismissed their lawsuits.

On October 11, 2018, two purported class action lawsuits were filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware,
challenging a Merger deal with Stryker Corporation.

These actions, Brown v. K2M Group Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-01567 and Franchi v. K2M Group Holdings, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:18-cv-01568 (collectively, the "Actions") name K2M and
individual officers and members of the K2M Board of Directors as
defendants. The Actions allege, among other things, that the
defendants failed to disclose certain information relating to K2M's
financial projections set forth in the proxy statement filed with
the SEC on October 5, 2018 (the "proxy statement"). On October 17,
2018, plaintiff in the Brown lawsuit filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the stockholder vote on
the Merger pending the disclosure of additional information.

K2M believes that the Actions are without merit and that no further
disclosure is required to supplement the proxy statement under
applicable law; however, to eliminate the burden, expense, and
uncertainties inherent in such litigation, and without admitting
any liability or wrongdoing, K2M made certain supplemental
disclosures to the proxy statement as set forth in the Company's
Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 22, 2018. On October
23, 2018, in consideration for such supplemental disclosures by
K2M, plaintiffs in the Actions voluntarily dismissed the Actions,
and plaintiff in the Brown lawsuit withdrew the motion for a
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the stockholder vote on
the Merger.

K2M Group Holdings, Inc., a medical device company, provides spine
and minimally invasive solutions in the United States and
internationally. The company offers implants, disposables, and
instruments primarily to hospitals for use by spine surgeons to
treat spinal pathologies, such as deformity, trauma, and tumor. The
company was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Leesburg,
Virginia. As of November 9, 2018, K2M Group Holdings, Inc. operates
as a subsidiary of Stryker Corporation.


KANSAS: Faces Class Action Over Foster Care System
--------------------------------------------------
Jon Parton, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Kansas Gov. Jeff Colyer and the heads of the state's foster care
program allowed children in foster care to become essentially
homeless and suffer from sexual exploitation and trafficking,
according to a federal class action lawsuit filed on Nov. 16.

Advocacy groups Children's Rights, The National Center for Youth
Law and Kansas Appleseed filed the lawsuit on behalf of 10 children
who are in the state's foster care system.

Children were subjected to churning, a practice that moves foster
kids "from placement to placement," with some moving more than a
hundred times, according to the complaint.

"Alarmingly, [the Kansas Department for Children and Families]
frequently subjects children to 'night-to-night' or short-term
placements," the 68-page complaint states. In a repetitive,
destabilizing cycle, children are regularly forced to sleep for a
night or several nights anywhere a bed, couch, office conference
room, shelter or hospital can be found."

The children stay overnight at the short-term lodgings "and their
days in agency offices waiting to find out where they sleep next,"
which "deprives children of basic shelter and effectively renders
them homeless while in state custody," the lawsuit claims.

In one case, a 10-year-old boy who has been in state care since
2012 has been moved more than 70 times. This included a "near
continuous" three-month string of night-to-night placements, which
caused him to frequently change schools or not attend school at
all, according to the complaint.

Many of the children have also been forced to sleep in foster care
contractor offices, with one 17-year-old girl staying in an office
for a week.

The girl, who entered foster care in 2007, was adopted along with
her two sisters in 2010. Their adoptive father and brother
"repeatedly sexually assaulted and sodomized" her and one of her
sisters over a period of three years, the lawsuit states.

"The sisters remained in this home for three years despite multiple
calls to Child Protective Services reporting the abuse," the
complaint says.

The lawsuit claims that she was also sexually exploited and
trafficked in one of her placements.

Kansas, which relies on contractors to help find placements for
foster children, is accused of letting those agencies waive
capacity requirements and take on more children than are normally
allowed. The lawsuit refers to a home that could only legally take
in six children, but was approved for 10.

The advocacy groups aren't seeking damages in their complaint, but
instead ask the state to fix the problems. They claim the
children's 14th Amendment right to equal protection was violated by
the state agencies. [GN]


KENDO HOLDINGS: Faces Lawsuit in NY Under Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kendo Holdings Inc.
The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kendo Holdings Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10914 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

Kendo Holdings, Inc. manufactures beauty and skin care products
under a range of brand names which includes Kat Von D Beauty, Marc
Jacobs Beauty, Ole Henriksen, Fenty Beauty, and Bite Beauty.[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


KERYX BIOPHARMA: Faces Several Akebia Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
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 several putative
class action suits related to its merger deal with Akebia
Therapeutics, Inc.

On June 28, 2018, the company entered into an agreement and plan of
merger, which was amended on October 1, 2018, or the Merger
Agreement, with Akebia and Merger Sub, pursuant to which the
company will combine its respective businesses through the merger
of Merger Sub with and into its, with the Company's continuing
after the Merger as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Akebia. The Merger Agreement has been approved by the
company's Board of Directors and the board of directors of Akebia.

On October 16, 2018, a putative shareholder class action was filed
against the company and the members of the company's Board
challenging the disclosures made in connection with the Merger. The
lawsuit is captioned Corwin v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., No. 1:18-cv-01589, and is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware.

On October 23, 2018, a putative shareholder class action was filed
against the company, the members of the company's Board, Merger
Sub, and Akebia also challenging the disclosures made in connection
with the Merger.

The lawsuit is captioned Rosenblatt v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-12205, and was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On October 24, 2018, another putative shareholder action was filed
against the company and the members of the Keryx Board challenging
the disclosures made in connection with the Merger. The lawsuit is
captioned Van Hulst v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No.
1:18-cv-01656, and is pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware.

On November 1, 2018, another putative shareholder class action was
filed against the company and the members of the Keryx Board
challenging the disclosures made in connection with the Merger. The
lawsuit is captioned Andreula v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., No. 1:18-cv-01721, and is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware.

The complaints generally allege that the Registration Statement
filed in connection with the Merger fails to disclose certain
allegedly material information in violation of Section 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

The alleged omissions relate to (i) certain financial projections
for us and Akebia and certain financial analyses performed by our
advisors; (ii) certain terms relating to the engagement of one of
the company's advisors; and (iii) any alleged negotiations that may
have taken place regarding which individuals would serve on the
Board of the combined company as well as future employment of
officers.

Each of the plaintiffs seek to enjoin the defendants from
proceeding with the Merger and seek damages in the event the
transaction is consummated.

Keryx Biopharmaceuticals said, "We, together with Akebia, are
reviewing the complaints and have not yet formally responded to
them, but believe that each Plaintiff's allegations are without
merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. However,
litigation is inherently uncertain and there can be no assurance
regarding the likelihood that our or Akebia's defense of the
actions will be successful. Additional lawsuits arising out of the
Merger may also be filed in the future.

Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a commercial stage
biopharmaceutical company, focuses on providing medicines for
patients with kidney disease in the United States. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered
in Boston, Massachusetts.


KEURIG DR PEPPER: Settlement Agreement in LAMPERS Suit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Dr Pepper 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 settlement
agreement in Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement
System ("LAMPERS") v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al.,
has been approved.

A consolidated securities fraud class action against Keurig and two
of its former officers and directors captioned Louisiana Municipal
Police Employees' Retirement System ("LAMPERS") v. Green Mountain
Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 2:11-cv-00289 was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont.

Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the Company's disclosures
relating to its revenues and its inventory accounting practices. On
March 9, 2018, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the case.

On October 22, 2018, subsequent to the date of the financial
statements, the settlement agreement was approved. The terms of the
settlement were covered by the Company's insurance providers.

As a result, the Company has recorded the liability to the
plaintiffs and a receivable from the insurance providers.

Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. engages in the brewing system and specialty
coffee businesses in the United States and Canada. The company
sources, produces, and sells coffee, hot cocoa, teas, and other
beverages in K-Cup, Vue, Rivo, K-Carafe, and K-Mug pods brands;
coffee in traditional packaging, including bags and fractional
packs; and other specialty beverages in pods. The company was
founded in 1981 and is based in Waterbury, Vermont. Keurig Dr
Pepper Inc. is a subsidiary of Acorn Holdings B.V.


KONA GRILL: Trial Date on Boots Class Suit Set for April 1
----------------------------------------------------------
Kona Grill, 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 a trial date of
April 1, 2019, has been set in the class action suit filed by
Mitchell Boots.

On July 27, 2017, a class action complaint was filed against Kona
Sushi, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, by Mitchell
Boots, individually and on behalf of a Proposed Rule 23 Class, in
the United States District Court for Minnesota claiming, among
other things, that the Company violated Minnesota gratuity/tip
pooling laws with respect to certain classes of restaurant
employees.

The plaintiff has brought claims on behalf of a putative Minnesota
class and a putative national class of employees. On October 25,
2017, the plaintiff amended the complaint to withdraw the national
class claims and other common law claims, leaving one claim on
behalf of a putative Minnesota class, and added a second named
Plaintiff, Tracy Fortman.

On June 15, 2018, a revised pre-trial scheduling order was issued
by the District Court, setting pre-trial dates and setting a trial
date of April 1, 2019. The parties participated in mediation on
August 3, 2018, which concluded without resolution. Therefore, the
matter will proceed in accordance with the court-scheduled dates.

Kona Grill said, "As we intend to diligently defend this matter we
believe the possible loss or range of loss cannot be determined at
this time, and therefore we have not accrued any costs associated
with this matter as of September 30, 2018. The Company does not
expect the result of such complaint to have a material adverse
effect on the Company. However, there is no assurance that any
adverse ruling or settlement in this matter would not have a
material impact on the Company’s cash position and operations."

Kona Grill, Inc. owns and operates upscale casual restaurants under
the Kona Grill brand name. As of December 31, 2017, it owned and
operated 46 restaurants in 23 states of the United States and
Puerto Rico; and 3 franchised restaurants in Mexico, the United
Arab Emirates, and Canada. The company is based in Scottsdale,
Arizona.


KRISHNA SCHAUMBURG: Appeal Likely in BIPA Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Burt, writing for BiometricUpdate.com, reports that there are
approximately 100 class actions alleging violations under Illinois'
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) that could be
significantly affected by an upcoming ruling on the standard for
plaintiffs to qualify as "aggrieved," Law360 reports.

The state's Second District appeals court previously ruled in
another BIPA case, Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., that
the violation of technical requirements was insufficient to
establish injury, and dismissed the case. Other courts have decided
both for and against procedural violations constituting injury. The
Rosenbach decision has been appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court,
which will hear oral arguments in the case on November 20.

The Illinois Appellate Court's First District recently ruled in
Klaudia Sekura v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan Inc. that noncompliance
with BIPA's procedural requirements is sufficient cause of action
for a plaintiff, even without any allegation of further injury. The
case had previously been dismissed by a lower court, but the
appeals judge wrote that a procedural violation constitutes harm,
and in the case of Sekura the additional procedural violation of
uninformed disclosure of biometric data also distinguished it from
Rosenbach.

If the determination of the appeals court in Sekura is accepted by
the state Supreme Court, then numerous BIPA cases, including the
one against Facebook, would be strengthened. If the Illinois
Supreme Court reverses the appellate court's decision, and raises
the requirements for injury, many cases would lack the standing to
continue.

Law360 reports that the Sekura decision is expected to be promptly
appealed, and that in the meanwhile courts can expect the pace of
BIPA filings to accelerate further. [GN]


LIBERTY MEDIA: Class Certification Bid in Buchanan Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Media 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 on March 13, 2017,
Thomas Buchanan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a class action complaint against SIRIUS XM in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division.

The plaintiff in this action alleges that SIRIUS XM violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") by, among
other things, making telephone solicitations to persons on the
National Do-Not-Call registry, a database established to allow
consumers to exclude themselves from telemarketing calls unless
they consent to receive the calls in a signed, written agreement,
and making calls to consumers in violation of SIRIUS XM's internal
Do-Not-Call registry.

The plaintiff is seeking various forms of relief, including
statutory damages of $500 for each violation of the TCPA or, in the
alternative, treble damages of up to $1,500 for each knowing and
willful violation of the TCPA and a permanent injunction
prohibiting SIRIUS XM from making, or having made, any calls to
land lines that are listed on the National Do-Not-Call registry or
its internal Do-Not-Call registry.

The plaintiff has filed a motion seeking class certification, and
that motion is pending.

Liberty Media said, "SIRIUS XM believes it has substantial defenses
to the claims asserted in this action and intends to defend this
action vigorously."

Liberty Media Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
media and entertainment businesses primarily in North America and
the United Kingdom. The company operates through SIRIUS XM and
Formula 1 segments. Liberty Media Corporation is headquartered in
Englewood, Colorado.


LIVE NATION: Faces Class Action Over Marshmello Concert
-------------------------------------------------------
Gary Trock and Liz Walters, writing for Blast, report that one fan
of EDM star, Marshmello, felt he got a raw deal when the DJ only
performed a portion of his normal set list before calling it quits,
but because his true identity is relatively unknown, he was not
listed as a defendant.

Tommy Weinstein filed a class action lawsuit, obtained by The
Blast, naming Live Nation as the sole defendant over a breach of
contract claim.

Mr. Weinstein says he attended the Festival Pier at Penn's Landing
on May 12, 2018, and had paid $94 for a ticket to see Marshmello
perform.

Unfortunately, the festival got rained out and Marshmello only
performed for 30 minutes before organizers pulled the plug.
Weinstein blames Live Nation, claiming the "heavy rains" were
predicted and should have been scheduled around.

Marshmello actually addressed the cancellation that same night,
saying, "Tonight was bittersweet philly! I was so pumped for this
show and I'm glad we got to rock out for a little bit but Mother
Nature isn't anything to play with and safety first!" He added, "I
hope everyone gets home safe and I'll be back soon to make it up to
you guys!"

Because of the cancelation, Weinstein was offered a $15 voucher for
"Live Nation Concert Cash," but he does not feel that the offer is
enough. He is filing the lawsuit for himself and every other
attendee that purchased a ticket to see Marshmello perform, and
wants Live Nation to pay back restitution to all the concert goers
who had to shell out money for a ticket.

Mr.  Weinstein also explains that he believes Marshmello is partly
responsible for the blunder, but did not list the DJ as a defendant
because he's "unaware of the true names" that the star uses.

Marshmello has worked hard to keep his identity a secret, and even
though many fans believe him to be DJ-producer Chris Comstock, it's
never been confirmed.

Mr. Weinstein says if he's able to find out the true identity of
Marshmello, he will add him to the suit. [GN]


LIVINGSTON AUTO: Wortmann et al. Seek Wages for Car Wash Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK WORTMANN and JOSE RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. LIVINGSTON AUTO
WASH, INC., MORRISTOWN CAR WASH, LLC and PAUL RITTER, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-16128 (D.N.J., Nov. 14, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, unlawfully kept tips,
liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs as a
result of Defendants' willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have jointly operated as
a single integrated enterprise doing business as "Ritter Family Car
Wash," "Livingston Car Wash," "Morristown Car Wash" and "Morris
County Hand Wash" and "the Ritter family has been serving the
northern New Jersey area for over 40 years." The Plaintiffs and the
putative FLSA collective and Rule 23 class members were the car
wash workers subjected to Defendants' common unlawful policies in
violation of the FLSA and New Jersey Wage and Hour Laws and
Regulations.

Specifically, the Defendants jointly employed the car wash workers
including Plaintiffs who worked over 40 hours per week and were
paid approximately $72 for 10 hours of work per shift, that is, at
a wage rate of $7.2 per hour. As a result of Defendants' common
unlawful policies and practices, the car wash workers were not
compensated the statutorily mandated minimum wage for 40 hours of
working time in any given week and overtime at a rate of not less
than 1.5 times the statutorily mandated minimum wage for work
performed over 40 hours perweek; and the car wash workers were
divested of their rightfully earned tips, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          Ching-Yuan Teng, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
                  tonyteng@jtblawgroup.com

LOAD TRAIL: Faces Class Action Over Workers' Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Krause, writing for Dallas News, reports that a vehicle
trailer manufacturer that was the target of a recent immigration
raid is being sued by dozens of current and former employees in
federal court for allegedly failing to pay them required overtime
wages.

Jacinto Ramirez was the lead plaintiff against Load Trail when the
lawsuit was first filed in October. Since then, more than
three-dozen others have joined the suit, including welders,
material transporters and warehouse workers, according to the
lawsuit.

Allen R. Vaught, attorney for the workers, said he will seek
class-action status and that additional current and former
employees may opt to join the suit.

"Businesses have to make a profit. There's no reason why they can't
employ people lawfully and also make a profit," he said on Nov.
16.

Immigration agents armed with search warrants raided Load Trail in
August and detained more than 150 workers suspected of being in the
country without authorization. ICE said it was the nation's largest
single-site enforcement operation in a decade. The company, which
makes trailers that hitch onto the back of vehicles, is located in
Sumner, about 100 miles northeast of Dallas.

The raid was part of a criminal investigation into Load Trail for
alleged illegal employment of foreign workers. The investigation
continues.

Gene Besen, a Load Trail attorney, said on Nov. 16 that he could
not comment on the lawsuit because the company has not yet been
served.

He has previously said Load Trail pays good wages and does not
exploit its immigrant workers. Mr. Besen said in September that the
trailer manufacturer "always works diligently to abide by all
laws."

Mr. Besen said on Nov. 16 that his client is still working with the
Justice Department to reach a resolution related to the criminal
investigation. "I'm hopeful we'll see a resolution sooner rather
than later," he said.

Vaught said none of his clients were detained by ICE during the
recent enforcement operation but added that some who were caught up
in the raid may decide to join the lawsuit. Even if workers are
unauthorized, U.S. employers must still follow federal labor laws,
he said.

"There's no getting around paying fair wages," he said.

Load Trail began as a family-owned business in 1996 and grew to
employ more than 500 people on its 100-acre site, according to the
company's website.

The company paid a $445,000 fine in 2014 for hiring unauthorized
immigrants, according to an ICE report. The company employed more
than 179 unauthorized workers at that time, the report said.

The labor lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of Texas, says
Load Trail did not pay employees who worked more than 40 hours per
week overtime wages, in violation of the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mr. Ramirez worked at the company as a welder from 2004 to May
2017, according to the lawsuit. He regularly worked over 40 hours
per week and, like others, was paid both per trailer produced as
well as on an hourly basis, the suit says.

"Defendant unilaterally changed his method of pay at times of the
defendant's choosing," the suit says.

Mr. Ramirez received performance bonuses but did not get "all
overtime premium compensation due," according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also says Load Trail improperly deducted money from
employees' earnings for "alleged immigration matters" as well as
for uniforms, tools and other items the company required. That
allegation was not included in the amended complaint filed on Nov.
15.

But Mr. Vaught said he may file a separate action in state court
for the questionable deductions. He said employers cannot take
money from wages unless the law or a court order allows it, such as
with taxes and child support. He said the thousands of dollars
taken from his clients did not go toward any immigration services.

Salvador Leon, another plaintiff and former welder for Load Trail,
worked as a supervisor's assistant beginning in 2017 but did not
have managerial authority, the lawsuit said. He was paid a salary
while working as an assistant but wasn't paid overtime when he
worked more than 40 hours per week, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit lists three major classes of employees affected:
fabrication workers, including welders, painters, assemblers,
electricians and material cutters; warehouse workers such as
forklift operators, loaders and material transporters; and
assistants to supervisors.

Some of the plaintiffs were "occasionally" paid overtime for some
hours, the suit says, but Load Trail did not "accurately record or
pay all hours" worked.

"Federal law requires employers to make and keep accurate and
detailed payroll data for certain employees," the lawsuit says.

Mr. Vaught said retaliation against workers who sue is always a
possibility but is rare due to the added penalties that come with
it. Employers that are "dumb enough" to retaliate usually learn the
hard way, he said.

"They end up adding a zero to the damage figure." [GN]


LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Kohler's Bid for Writ of Mandate Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KOHLER CO., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS
ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; JOANNA PARK-KIM et al., Real Parties in
Interest, Case No. B288935 (Cal. App.), Judge Thomas Willhite of
the Court of Appeals of California for the Second District,
Division Four, granted Kohler's petition for writ of mandate,
asking the Court to order the trial court to vacate its Jan. 22,
2018 order to the extent it denies Kohler's
anti-class-certification motion with respect to the claim under the
Right to Repair Act.

Plaintiffs Joanna Park-Kim and Maria Cecilia Ramos are each owners
of a residential condominium dwelling in which "Rite-Temp Pressure
Balancing Valves" and "Mixer Caps" (which are contained in
"Rite-Temp Valve assemblies") manufactured by Kohler were installed
during construction.  In the third amended complaint, the
Plaintiffs allege that these valves and mixer caps, which are
designed to regulate water flow and temperature in household
plumbing, do not operate as intended due to their defective design
and manufacturing, and are corroding, failing, and/or will
inevitably fail, which has caused or will cause damage to other
components of the household plumbing lines or fixtures.

The Plaintiffs brought the instant lawsuit on behalf of themselves
and all owners of residential dwellings in California in which
these valves and mixer caps were installed during original
construction, alleging a claim for violations of the Act, as well
as claims for strict liability, warranty claims, and other claims.
It is estimated that Kohler sold approximately 630,000 of the
identified valves and mixer caps in California during the relative
time period.

After the Plaintiffs received numerous extensions of time, totaling
18 months, to file their motion for class certification, Kohler
sought to resolve the case by filing a motion for summary judgment
or adjudication on threshold legal issues.  The trial court granted
summary adjudication as to all claims except Plaintiff Ramos'
warranty and negligence claims, both the Plaintiffs' claims under
the Act, and their UCL claim.  Kohler then filed a "motion re
anti-class-certification," seeking a ruling that none of the
remaining causes of action can be certified as a class action.

On Jan. 22, 2018, the trial court granted Kohler's motion as to the
warranty, negligence, and UCL claims, but denied it as to the claim
under the Act.  The court also certified its ruling for appellate
review, on the grounds that it presented a controlling question of
law upon which there were substantial grounds for differences of
opinion, and that appellate resolution of the question would
greatly advance the conclusion of the litigation.  It then stayed
all proceedings pending resolution of the instant petition.

Kohler filed the instant petition for writ of mandate, asking the
Court to order the trial court to vacate its Jan. 22, 2018 order to
the extent it denies Kohler's anti-class-certification motion with
respect to the claim under the Act and to issue a new order
granting the motion in its entirety.  The Court summarily denied
the petition, and Kohler filed a petition for review in the Supreme
Court.  The Supreme Court granted review and transferred the matter
back to the Court with directions to vacate its order denying
mandate and to issue an order directing the superior court to show
cause why the relief sought should not be granted.

The issued the order to show cause as directed by the Supreme
Court, and have received a return to the petition from the
Plaintiffs and a traverse from Kohler.  In the return, the
Plaintiffs demurred to the petition on the ground that the petition
fails to state a justiciable basis for granting a writ of mandate
and/or prohibition.  But, as Kohler observes in its traverse, the
Supreme Court has concluded otherwise and directed us to issue an
order to show cause and consider the issue Kohler presents.  The
Supreme Court's order constitutes a determination that writ review
is proper.  Therefore, the Court overrules the Plaintiffs' demurrer
and addresses Kohler's petition.

In the present case, the Court is asked to determine whether
homeowners may bring a class action asserting a claim under the Act
against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective plumbing fixture
used in the construction of class members' homes.  Based on his
examination of the structure and language of the Act, as well as
the legislative history, Judge Willhite concludes that class
actions are not allowed under the Act except in one limited
context: to assert claims that address solely the incorporation
into a residence of a defective component, unless that component is
a product that is completely manufactured offsite.

Because the claim in the case involves allegedly defective products
that were completely manufactured offsite, the Judge holds that the
claim alleged under the Act cannot be litigated as a class action.
Accordingly, he granted the writ petition filed by Kohler, and
issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its
order to the extent it denied in part Kohler's anti-class
certification motion and to enter a new order granting the motion
in its entirety.  Kohler will recover its costs with regard to this
writ proceeding.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/aYWzcy from Leagle.com.

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Eric Shapland --
eric.shapland@arnoldporter.com -- Ryan W. Light --
ryan.light@arnoldporter.com -- and John C. Ulin --
john.ulin@arnoldporter.com -- for Petitioner.

Newmeyer & Dillion, Alan H. Packer -- alan.packer@ndlf.com --
Jeffrey R. Brower -- jeffrey.brower@ndlf.com -- and Joseph A.
Ferrentino -- joseph.ferrentino@ndlf.com -- for California Building
Industry Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Kasdan LippSmith Weber Turner, Kenneth S. Kasdan --
kskasdan@kasdancdlaw.com -- Jaclyn L. Anderson --
janderson@klwtlaw.com -- and Graham B. LippSmith --
glippsmith@klwtlaw.com -- for Real Parties in Interest.


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Bid For Class Certification in Lennen Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide 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 Anthony and Beth Lennen have sought class certification
of their lawsuit.

In May 2016, the company, certain of its subsidiaries, and certain
third parties were named as defendants in an action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida by Anthony
and Beth Lennen.

The case is filed as a putative class action; the plaintiffs seek
to represent a class consisting of themselves and all other
purchasers of arriott Vacation Club Destinations (MVCD) points,
from inception of the MVCD program in June 2010 to the present, as
well as all individuals who own or have owned weeks in any resorts
for which weeks have been added to the MVCD program.

Plaintiffs challenge the characterization of the beneficial
interests in the MVCD trust that are sold to customers as real
estate interests under Florida law. They also challenge the
structure of the trust and associated operational aspects of the
trust product. The relief sought includes, among other things,
declaratory relief, an unwinding of the MVCD product, and punitive
damages.

In September 2016, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and a motion to stay the case pending referral of certain
questions to Florida state regulators, and the Court granted the
motion to dismiss and denied the motion to stay. The Court granted
leave to plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, which plaintiffs
filed in October 2017.

In November 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which remains pending. In October 2018, plaintiffs filed
a motion for class certification.

Marriott Vacations said, "We dispute the plaintiffs' material
allegations and continue to defend against the action vigorously.
Given the early stages of the action and the inherent uncertainties
of litigation, we cannot estimate a range of the potential
liability, if any, at this time."

Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation develops, markets, sells,
and manages vacation ownership and related products under the
Marriott Vacation Club, Grand Residences by Marriott, and Marriott
Vacation Club Pulse brands. It operates through three segments:
North America, Asia Pacific, and Europe. Marriott Vacations
Worldwide Corporation is headquartered in Orlando, Florida.


MDL 2801: Court Certifies Capacitors Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. III), Case
No. 17-md-02801-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James Donato of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted the
direct purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPPs")'s motion for class
certification.

The Plaintiffs in the multi-district antitrust litigation are
putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers, along with a
few companies that opted out of the direct purchasers group to
pursue claims on their own.  The core allegation is that the
Defendants profited from a long-running, global price-fixing
conspiracy in the capacitor industry.  The relevant product is the
capacitor, an electronic component used to temporarily store and
even out the flow of electrical energy.

The DPPs seeking certification bought standalone capacitors
directly from one or more of the Defendants.  The four named DPPs
are Chip-Tech, Ltd., Dependable Component Supply Corp., eIQ Energy,
Inc., and Walker Component Group, Inc.  All are United States
companies.  The Defendants are for the most part overseas
capacitors manufacturers in Japan and other parts of East Asia.
The DPPs allege a single conspiracy among the defendant
electrolytic capacitor manufacturers and film capacitor
manufacturers to fix prices and suppress competition in the markets
for aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors, and film
capacitors.

The DPPs contend that the Defendants, which number in the dozens,
effectuated the conspiracy through regular cartel meetings.  These
meetings ranged from informal group communications by email and
telephone to formal gatherings of senior executives in Asia, all
for the purpose of illegally colluding on capacitor pricing and
production.  The DPPs also point to frequent meetings and
interactions between less senior personnel.  Film capacitor
meetings are alleged to have been held approximately six times a
year.  The conspiracy meetings regularly included a social
component of golf outings, dinner and drinks, which provided
additional opportunities for collusion.  The DPPs contend that the
conspiratorial effort was successful, and that the Defendants
artificially raised the prices of capacitors that were billed or
shipped to the United States.

As the domestic civil action has unfolded, several parallel
government investigations have been underway in overseas
jurisdictions.  China's National Development and Reform Commission,
the Fair Trade Commissions of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, the
competition commission of Singapore, Brazil's Administrative
Council for Economic Defense, and the European Commission's
competition authority have all pursued inquiries into price fixing
for capacitors.  Several of the investigations have resulted in the
imposition of fines on various defendants.

In the United States, the Department of Justice brought parallel
criminal prosecutions for the price-fixing conspiracy against a
number of the Defendants in the action and their individual
employees.  The Court is presiding over the parallel criminal
cases.  To date, the Court has taken guilty pleas from Defendants
NEC Tokin Corp. (Case No. 15-cr-426), Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd.
(Case No. 16-cr-180), Elna Co., Ltd. (Case No. 16-cr-365), Holy
Stone Holdings Co. Ltd. (Case No. 16-cr-366), Rubycon Corporation
(Case No. 16-cr-367), Nichicon Corp. (Case No. 17-cr-368), Matsuo
Electric Co. Ltd. (Case No. 17-cr-73), and Nippon Chemi-Con
Corp.(Case No. 17-cr-540).  The Court sentenced each of these
corporations to fines ranging from $600,000 to $60 million, along
with a condition to implement detailed compliance programs to
prevent future price fixing and other anti-competitive conduct.
Two individual employees of Defendant companies, Satoshi Okubo
(Case No. 17-cr-74) and Tokuo Tatai (Case No. 15-cr-163), also pled
guilty and were each sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one
year and a day.

Judge Donato resolves the DPPs class certification motion and the
Defendants' Daubert motions to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert
opinions.

The DPPs seek to certify the class of a all persons that purchased
capacitors directly from any of the Defendant Entities from Jan. 1,
2002 to Dec. 31, 2013, where such persons are: (a) inside the
United States and were billed or invoiced for capacitors by one or
more Defendant Entities during the Class Period (i.e., where
capacitors were billed to persons within the United States); or (b)
outside the United States and were billed or invoiced for
capacitors by one or more Defendant Entities during the Class
Period, where such capacitors were imported into the United States
by one or more Defendant Entities (i.e., where the capacitors were
billed to persons outside the United States but shipped to persons
within the United States).

The Judge granted the DPPs' motion for class certification.  He
certifies the class consisting of all persons that purchased
capacitors directly from any of the remaining Defendants from Jan.
1, 2002 to Dec. 31, 2013, where such persons are: (a) inside the
United States and were billed or invoiced for capacitors by one or
more Defendant Entities during the Class Period (i.e., where
capacitors were "billed to" persons within the United States); or
(b) outside the United States and were billed or invoiced for
capacitors by one or more Defendant Entities during the Class
Period, where such capacitors were imported into the United States
by one or more Defendant Entities (i.e., where the capacitors were
"billed to" persons outside the United States but "shipped to"
persons within the United States).  He appointed The Joseph Saveri
Law Firm as the counsel for the class.

The Judge denied the Defendants' Daubert motions to exclude the
DPPs' expert opinions.  He finds that the Court has already
considered and rejected the main challenges to the Plaintiffs'
experts.  In the case of Dr. McClave, the Defendants' Daubert
arguments are duplicative of their substantive arguments, and he
denied the motion to exclude his opinion for the same reasons.

He also rejects the remaining Daubert arguments against Dr. Zona.
The Defendants seek to exclude Dr. Zona's opinion that the
Defendants engaged in the alleged conspiracy.  The Judge
acknowledges that that is a topic on which it is not likely to
permit expert testimony at trial, but because Dr. Zona's opinion on
that point was wholly immaterial to the Court's class certification
analysis, defendants' motion to exclude that opinion is denied as
moot.  For Dr. Zona's price dispersion theory, again the
Defendants' challenges go to weight, rather than admissibility.  It
is not junk science, and the Defendants' motion to exclude it is
denied.  Lastly, the Judge finds that Dr. Zona's opinions about the
reliability of Dr. McClave's work are also admissible as far as
they go.

Judge Donato directed the DPPs to submit by Dec. 17, 2018, a
proposed plan for dissemination of notice to the class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/4FIIoi from Leagle.com.

Chip-Tech, Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by C. Andrew Dirksen --
cdirksen@cerallp.com -- Cera LLP, Joseph J. DePalma --
jdepalma@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, Solomon B.
Cera -- scera@cerallp.com -- Cera LLP, Steven J. Greenfogel --
sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenburg, LLC, Daniel
R. Karon -- dkaron@karonllc.com -- Karon LLC, pro hac vice, Eric L.
Cramer, Berger Montague PC, James W. Anderson, Heins Mills Olson,
P.L.C., James Gerard Beebe Dallal -- jdallal@saverilawfirm.com --
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Jason Scott Hartley, Stueve Siegel Hanson,
LLP, Jessica N. Servais, Heins Mills and Olson, P.L.C., pro hac
vice, Michael C. Dell'Angelo, IV, BERGER MONTAGUE PC, Ruthanne
Gordon, Berger Montague PC, Ryan James McEwan --
rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Vincent
J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C. & Joseph R. Saveri --
jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.

Dependable Component Supply Corp., Plaintiff, represented by C.
Andrew Dirksen, Cera LLP, Solomon B. Cera, Cera LLP, Steven J.
Greenfogel, Lite DePalma Greenburg, LLC, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Michael C. Dell'Angelo, IV, BERGER MONTAGUE
PC & William Henry London , Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC.

In Home Tech Solutions, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Alexander
Dewitt Singh Kullar, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez Smith LLP,
Allan Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP,
Gabriel Dash Zeldin, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez Smith LLP
& Simeon Andrew Morbey, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.

Everett Ellis, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson,
Robinson Calcagnie, Inc., Anne Elizabeth Smith, Shaffer Lombardo
Shurin, Kathleen Kopach Woods, Shaffer Lombardo Shurin, Richard
Lombardo, Shaffer Lombardo Shurin & William Robert Pointer, II,
Duncan Firm.

Fredrick P. Hege, Jr., Mike Fisher, Michael W. Davis, Jane Schmit,
Johnny Walker, John E. McDowell, Marta Michaud, Timothy Duffy, Sean
G. Tarjoto, Todd Stowater, David C. Keller, Jamie Thaemert, Scot
Dunlap, Garth Russell, M.D., BHRAC, LLC, doing business as Beverly
Hills Rent-A-Car, Beverly Hills Leasing LLC, Cetacea Sound, Inc.,
Computing Solutions, Inc., doing business as Wired! By Computing
Solutions, d/b/a Wired! Technology Partners, Gossett Motor Cars,
Inc., doing business as Wired! By Computing Solutions, d/b/a Wired!
Technology Partners, Gossett Motor Cars, Inc., doing business as
Gossett Hyundai, Gossett Motor Cars, Inc., doing business as
Gossett Mitsubishi, Gossett Motor Cars, Inc., doing business as
Gossett Audi, Gossett Motor Cars, Inc., doing business as Gossett
Volkswagen, Gossett Motor Cars, Inc., doing business as Gossett
Porsche, Gossett Motor Cars, Inc., doing business as Gossett
Chrysler/Jeep/Dodge, Gossett Motor Cars, Inc., doing business as
Gossett Fiat of Memphis, WE 3 Gossett, LLC, doing business as
Gossett Volkswagen of Germantown, WE 3 Gossett, LLC, doing business
as Gossett Kia South, WE 3 Gossett, LLC, doing business as Gossett
Hyundai South, WE 3 Gossett, LLC, doing business as Gossett Fiat &
Autorama, Inc., doing business as Mercedes Benz of Memphis,
Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel Stewart Robinson --
drobinson@robinsonfirm.com -- Robinson Calcagnie, Inc.

Panasonic Corporation, a Japanese corporation & PANASONIC
CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendants, represented by Jeffrey L.
Kessler -- jkessler@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, A. Paul
Victor -- pvictor@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, David L.
Greenspan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Frank S. Restagno, Ian L.
Papendick, Winston & Strawn LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and
Strawn LLP, Matthew Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Molly
Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Patrick Stephen Opdyke, Winston and
Strawn LLP, Rebecca Lara Litman, Winston and Strawn LLP & Sofia
Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP.

Sanyo Electric Group, Ltd., a Japanese corporation & Sanyo
Electronic Device (U.S.A.) Corporation, Defendants, represented by
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, A. Paul Victor, Winston &
Strawn LLP, David L. Greenspan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Ian L.
Papendick , Winston & Strawn LLP & Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn
LLP.

Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation & Taiyo Yuden (USA)
Inc., Defendants, represented by Adam C. Hemlock --
adam.hemlock@weil.com --  Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Christopher
J. Cox, Weil Gotshal & Manges, David Ramraj Singh, Weil, Gotshal
and Manges LLP & Steven A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro
hac vice.

NEC Tokin Corporation, a Japanese corporation & NEC Tokin America,
Inc., Defendants, represented by Jacob R. Sorensen, Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Roxane Alicia Polidora, Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP & Laura Christine Hurtado, Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

KEMET Corporation & Kemet Electronics Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Jacob R. Sorensen, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
LLP, Lindsay A. Lutz, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman & Roxane
Alicia Polidora, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.


MEDICAL RECORDS ONLINE: Sued over Steep Hospital Records Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
LMA LEGAL, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MEDICAL RECORDS ONLINE, INC. (dba
MRO), the Defendant, Case No. CAM-L-004258-18 (N.J. Super. Ct.,
Nov. 13, 2018), alleges that MRO charged class members a fee for
electronic copies of hospital records that far exceed the maximum
limits allowed by New Jersey law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a personal injury law
firm with an office in Moorestown, New Jersey. Like all class
members, the Plaintiff was victimized by the uniform MRO policies
and was charged more by MRO for electronic copies of client
hospital records produced via CD than permitted by N.J.A.C.
2A:16-51, et seq., the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Stephne P. DeNittis, Esq.
          Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq.
          Shane T. Prince, Esq.
          DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          5 Greentre Center
          525 Route 73 North Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ, 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797 9951


MENARD INC: Can Compel Arbitration in Astarita Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALBERT J. ASTARITA, DIANA M. OWENS, Plaintiffs, v.
MENARD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:17-06151-CV-RK (W.D. Mo.),
Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, St. Joseph Division, granted in part
and denied in part Menard's Renewed Motion to Dismiss Second
Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, to Stay the Proceedings
and Compel Arbitration.

Astarita and Owens bring the putative class action against Menard,
alleging that Menard failed to pay overtime wages in violation of
federal and state laws.  Astarita began working for Menard in the
Flooring Department in December 2016.  

Shortly after his initial hire, he executed the 2016 Agreement
which contained a designated signature line for both the "Team
Member" and for Menard.  Both Astarita and a representative of
Menard signed it.  In February 2017, Astarita electronically agreed
to a document entitled "2017 Employment Agreement Acceptance Page"
that did not contain designated signature lines for Astarita or
Menard but does contain an electronic stamp.  Menard has also
submitted an attestation from a representative that the copy of the
2017 Agreement submitted to the Court is a copy of the electronic
versions presented to and agreed to by the team member.

The Second Amended Complaint asserts claims against Menard for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") (Count I);
violations of the Missouri Minimum Wage Law (Count II); unjust
enrichment / quantum meruit (Count IV); breach of contract (Count
V); and retaliation under the FLSA (Count VI).

Menard moves the Court to dismiss Astarita's claims in the Second
Amended Complaint and compel arbitration, or stay the case pending
arbitration.  In support, Menard argues that Astarita's claims are
subject to a valid arbitration provision in the 2017 Agreement in
which Astarita agreed to arbitrate, in an individual capacity, the
claims he has brought against Menard in this lawsuit.  It further
argues that the 2017 Agreement's delegation provision requires the
threshold issue of arbitrability to be decided by the arbitrator.

Astarita opposes the motion and purports to challenge the validity
of both the delegation provision and the arbitration provision.
Astarita does not dispute that his claims fall within the scope of
the 2017 Agreement.

The issue for the Court is whether there is a valid arbitration
agreement.  

Judge Ketchmark concludes that Menard has met its burden to prove
the existence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement.
Because the parties have agreed to arbitrate gateway questions of
arbitrability per the delegation provision contained in the 2017
Agreement, Plaintiff Astarita's challenges to the 2017 Agreement
are for the arbitrator to determine.

Accordingly, the Judge granted in part and denied in part Menard's
Motion to Compel.  In particular, Menard's request to compel
arbitration of Astarita's claims is granted, and the request to
dismiss the case is denied.  Astarita's claims are stayed pending
completion of arbitration.

The counsel for the parties will file a joint status report 90 days
of the date of the Order and every 90 days thereafter until the
claims are finally resolved.  The Judge denied all the remaining
relief requested in the Motion to Compel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/8TTc4H from Leagle.com.

Albert J. Astarita, Plaintiff, represented by Michael James
Rahmberg -- mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com -- McClelland Law Firm,
P.C. & Ryan L. McClelland -- ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com --
McClelland Law Firm, P.C.

Diana M. Owens, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan L. McClelland,
McClelland Law Firm, P.C.

Menard, Inc., doing business as Menards, Defendant, represented by
Brian E. Peterson -- bpeterson@spencerfane.com -- Spencer Fane LLP,
Francis X. Neuner, Jr. -- fneuner@spencerfane.com -- Spencer Fane
LLP, James E. Davidson -- james.davidson@icemiller.com -- Ice
Miller LLP, pro hac vice & Paul L. Bittner --
paul.bittner@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP, pro hac vice.


MENGUIN INC: Faces Fischler Class Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Menguin, Inc. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Menguin, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06654 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

Menguin, Inc. provides online tuxedo rental services for weddings,
proms, black tie events, or other events. It serves grooms, brides,
and wedding planners.[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


METRO-TECH SYSTEMS: Court Denies as Moot Bid to Dismiss Manigo Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC MANIGO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. METRO-TECH SYSTEMS, INC. and ECE
INSTALLATIONS, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No.
3:18-CV-479-RJC-DCK (W.D. N.C.), Magistrate Judge David C. Keesler
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, Charlotte Division, denied as moot Metro-Tech's Motion To
Dismiss filed Oct. 24, 2018.

The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was filed on Nov. 7, 2018 which
supersedes the original Complaint.  It is well settled that a
timely-filed amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and
that motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as
moot.  Therefore the Magistrate directed that Metro-Tech's Motion
be denied as moot.  His recommendation is without prejudice to the
Defendant filing a renewed motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint,
if appropriate.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/x1Lt1v from Leagle.com.

Eric Manigo, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated., Plaintiff, represented by Philip J. Gibbons, Jr. --
phil@philgibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons Leis, PLLC & Craig Lorne Leis --
craig@gibbonsleis.com -- Gibbons Leis, PLLC.

Metro-Tech Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian Lee
Church -- bchurch@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Robinson Bradshaw &
Hinson, P.A. & Lawrence C. Moore, III --
lmoore@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P. A..


MIDLAND FUNDING: Olson Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marissa Olson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Midland Credit Management, Inc. and
Midland Funding, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.: 612040/2018, was
removed from the Suffolk County Supreme Court, to the U.S. District
Court fotr the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip) on Nov.
13, 2018. The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:18-cv-06451 to the proceeding. The suit alleges Fair
Debt Collection Act violation.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Matthew B Corwin, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
          E-mail: mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com

MILESTONE MANAGEMENT: Santana Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
LUIS SANTANA, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b), the Plaintiffs, v. MILESTONE MANAGEMENT MST, LLC, a
foreign limited liability company, ST. JAMES CROSSING APARTMENTS
INVESTORS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, and JAIME
CARVER, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-02781 (M.D.
Fla., Nov. 10, 2018), alleges that Defendants have unlawfully
deprived Plaintiff, and all other employees similarly situated, of
federal overtime compensation during the course of their
employment, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff weekly performed work
over 40 hours for which he was not compensated proper overtime as
required by the FLSA. Specifically, Plaintiff would frequently be
called back to perform work at the subject property in excess of 40
hours per week but would not be permitted to clock in and/or record
those hours worked in excess of 40 per week.  Defendants further
violated the FLSA by improperly calculating and underreporting
Plaintiff's hours, and by failing to pay Plaintiff one-and-a-half
times his regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40
per week, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Riordan Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
VICKIE RIORDAN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01918 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of
the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
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

MONTE R. LEE: Arredondo FLSA Suit Moved to N.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------
FRANK ARREDONDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MONTE R. LEE & COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00037, was removed from the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa). The Northern District of
Oklahoma Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-00580-JED-FHM. The
suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge John E Dowdell.

The case is a collective action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a cable
installer/inspector whose primary responsibility was the
installation of broadband telecommunications and cable systems. The
Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week but was
not paid lawfully for doing so because Defendant misclassified
installers as independent contractors and only paid them a straight
hourly rate, failing to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of
40.[BN]

Attorneys for Frank Arredondo:

          J. Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          1701 N Market St Ste 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com

Attorneys for Monte R. Lee & Company:

          Courtney Kay Warmington, Esq.
          FULLER TUBB & BICKFORD PLLC
          201 Robert S. Kerr Ave. Ste 1000
          Okla City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235-2575
          Facsimile: (405) 232-8384
          E-mail: cwarmington@fullertubb.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Gary Rector, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC (DALLAS)
          2001 Ross Ave Ste 1500 lb 116
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 880-8100
          Facsimile: (214) 880-0181
          E-mail: jrector@littler.com

MOTION RECRUITMENT: Violates ADA, Nixon Suit Asserts
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Motion Recruitment
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Motion
Recruitment Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06682 (E.D.
N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

Motion Recruitment Partners LLC, through its subsidiaries, provides
recruitment solutions to organizations in the United States and
Canada. It offers information technology (IT) permanent placement
and contract staffing 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


N.Y. CONSERVATORY: Faces Camacho Suit Asserting ADA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The New York
Conservatory for Dramatic Arts. The case is styled as Jason Camacho
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
The New York Conservatory for Dramatic Arts, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10948 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

The New York Conservatory for Dramatic Arts is a professional
acting training conservatory in New York City for actors focusing
on acting for film, television and theater.[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


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Montajo's Bid for Partial Summary Judgment OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY MARC MOSTAJO, and ELAINE QUEDENS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00350-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal.),
Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California (i) granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment; and (ii) denied the Defendant's
cross-motion for partial summary judgment.

Mostajo and Quedens bring class claims against Nationwide, their
former employer, for Nationwide's alleged failure to pay overtime
and unused but accrued vacation time to claims adjusters in
California.  The Plaintiffs worked for Nationwide as claims
adjusters in California from 1998 to December 2015 and January
2016, respectively.

On Jan. 9, 2017, Mostajo filed a Complaint against Nationwide in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento
(Case No. 34-2017-00206005-CU-OE-GDS), alleging, among other
individual claims, class claims for Nationwide's failure to pay
overtime in violation of the California Labor Code and California
Business and Professions Code.  The putative class consists of all
claims adjusters employed by Nationwide in California since January
2013.  A month later, Mostajo, joined by Quedens, amended the
complaint to include a class claim for failure to pay, upon
termination, accrued but unused vacation time.  Shortly thereafter,
Nationwide removed the case to federal court.

On Feb. 15, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class
Action Complaint against Nationwide which includes, in relevant
part, an allegation that that Nationwide had in place a policy
whereby it failed to pay for all accrued vacation time, precluding
claims adjusters from carrying over all accrued vacation time from
year to year and failed to pay all accrued vacation time at
termination.  Based on this policy, the Plaintiffs allege that
Nationwide violated California Labor Code Section 227.3, which
requires employers to pay employees for all accrued vacation time.


Nationwide filed an answer with affirmative defenses on March 29,
2018.  Its twenty-first affirmative defense argues that the
Plaintiffs' California law-based causes of action related to the
vacation time benefits are completely preempted by ERISA.

After a period of discovery, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for
summary judgment arguing that the Your Time Program is exempt from
ERISA as a "payroll practice" and so Nationwide's twenty-first
affirmative defense fails as a matter of law.  Nationwide opposed
and brought a cross-motion for summary judgment as to ERISA's
applicability.

Among other things, Judge Mendez finds that payroll practices
exemption applies if the Your Time Program vacation benefits are
paid from Nationwide's "general assets."  He finds that the payroll
practice exemption applies to the vacation benefits payments from
the Your Time Program because the undisputed facts demonstrate
Nationwide pays the benefit from its general assets.  The Trust has
no other source of funding beyond Nationwide, the Nationwide
Benefits Administrative Committee determines the payments to be
made to the Trust and by the Trust, and the Trust has no
independent recourse against Nationwide for failure to pay.

The Judge also finds that the vacation benefits payments for the
Your Time Program constitute a "payroll practice" within the
meaning of 29 C.F.R. Section 2510.3-1, rather than an employee
welfare benefit plan covered by ERISA.  Thus, ERISA does not
preempt the Plaintiffs' state law claims as to the vacation
benefits.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Mendez granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment, and denied the Defendant's
cross-motion for partial summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/MvKNnE from Leagle.com.

Anthony Marc Mostajo & Elaine Quedens, Plaintiffs, represented by
Robin G. Workman -- robin@workmanlawpc.com -- Workman Law Firm,
PC.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Barbara Allyn Blackburn -- bblackburn@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, Britney Noelle Torres -- btorres@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C., Daniel W. Srsic -- dsrsic@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, PC, pro hac vice, James J. Oh -- joh@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, pro hac vice, Richard H. Rahm --
rrahm@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Kai-Ching Cha --
kcha@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Michael J. Hui --
mhui@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..


NATUS MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Costabile Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Natus Medical Incorporated 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 against an amended class action suit
entitled, Costabile v. Natus Medical Incorporation, et al.

In January 2017, a putative class action lawsuit (Badger v. Natus
Medical Incorporation, et al., No. 17-cv-00458-JSW) alleging
violations of federal securities laws was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
naming as defendants the Company and certain officers and a
director.

In July 2017, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with a new lead
plaintiff (Costabile v. Natus Medical Incorporation, et al., No.
17-cv-00458-JSW) alleging violations of federal securities laws
based on allegedly false and misleading statements. The defendants
moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and in February 2018 the
motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs re-filed an amended complaint in April 2018 and
Natus responded in May 2018. A decision is expected later this
year.

Natus Medical said, "The Company continues to believe that the
plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims."

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

Natus Medical Incorporated provides newborn care, neurology, and
hearing and balance assessment healthcare products and services
worldwide. It offers products and services used for the screening,
diagnosis, detection, treatment, monitoring, and tracking of common
medical ailments in newborn care, hearing impairment, neurological
dysfunction, epilepsy, sleep disorders, neuromuscular diseases, and
balance and mobility disorders.  Natus Medical Incorporated was
founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Pleasanton, California.


NECTAR RESTAURANT: Vidal Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN VASQUEZ VIDAL, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs NECTAR RESTAURANT CORP.
(D/B/A NECTAR RESTAURANT), K.K. & D. OF 79TH ST. REST. CORP. (D/B/A
NECTAR CAFE), GEORGE KYRKOSTAS, PANAYIOTIS VALIANTIS, ANDREAS
ASONITIS, PETER DOE, and ESPIRO DOE, the Defendants, Case
1:18-cv-10465 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2018), alleges that Defendants
maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Vasquez and
other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without
providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by
federal and state law and regulations under Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law, Defendants,

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff ostensibly was employed
as a delivery worker. However, he was required to spend a
considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped duties,
including but not limited to dishwashing, cleaning and organizing
the basement, sweeping and mopping the floors, and preparing food
for the cooks. The Plaintiff Vasquez worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and
overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather,
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked, failed to pay Plaintiff Vasquez appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAYHOUSE: Camacho Suit Alleges ADA Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Neighborhood
Playhouse School of the Theatre. The case is styled as Jason
Camacho and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Neighborhood Playhouse School of the Theatre,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10946 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

The Neighborhood Playhouse School of the Theatre is a full-time
professional conservatory for actors located at 340 East 54th
Street in New York City, and is known as the home of the Meisner
technique, developed by Sanford Meisner.[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


NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Faces Mulquin Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Nektar Therapeutics 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 a putative securities class action suit
entitled, Mulquin v. Nektar Therapeutics et. al.

On October 30, 2018, the Company and its CEO and CFO were named in
a putative securities class action entitled, Mulquin v. Nektar
Therapeutics et. al., N.D. Cal.  The case asserts that for the
period of November 11, 2017 through October 2, 2018, the Company's
stock was inflated due to alleged misrepresentations about the
efficacy and safety of NKTR-214.

Nektar said, "We believe, however, that the allegations lack merit.
The case is in the early stages.  Accordingly, we cannot reasonably
estimate any range of potential future charges, and we have not
recorded any accrual for a contingent liability associated with
this legal proceeding. However, an unfavorable resolution could
potentially have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition, and results of operations or prospects,
potentially delay or limit our ability to use some of our research
and development programs, and potentially result in paying monetary
damages."  

Nektar Therapeutics, a research-based biopharmaceutical company,
discovers and develops drug candidates for cancer, auto-immune
disease, and chronic pain in the United States. The company was
founded in 1990 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


NEVSUN RESOURCES: Raul Sues over Misleading Reports, Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY RAUL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NEVSUN RESOURCES LTD., IAN W. PEARCE,
IAN R. ASHBY, GEOFF CHATER, ANNE E. GIARDINI, PETER G. KUKIELSKI,
STEPHEN SCOTT, and DAVID S. SMITH, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-10420 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2018), alleges that Nevsun
Resources Ltd and members of the Company's Board of Directors
violated Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed sale of the
Company in a cash transaction with Zijin Mining Group Co. Ltd.

According to the complaint, on September 5, 2018, Nevsun announced
that the Company had entered into a definitive agreement with
Zijin, pursuant to which Zijin will make a take-over bid to acquire
all of the issued and outstanding shares of Nevsun for C$6.00 per
share in cash. The Offer is valued at C$1.86 billion (US$1.41
billion). The Proposed Transaction also contains restrictive deal
protection devices that preclude the defendants from being able to
shop the Company in the best interests of the shareholders. The
deal protection devices include: (i) a "no-shop" provision that
restricts the Company's ability to solicit alternative acquisition
proposals for third parties; and (ii) a
termination fee of $50 million that Nevsun must pay to Zijin.

On September 14, 2018, the Company filed with the SEC an incomplete
and misleading Solicitation Statement (the "Solicitation
Statement") on Form SD14D-9F in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Solicitation Statement and the exhibits thereto
omit material information regarding the Proposed Transaction.
Accordingly, the failure to adequately disclose such material
information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(d), 14(e) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act as Nevsun stockholders need such
information in order to make a fully informed decision whether to
tender their shares in support of the Proposed Transaction or seek
appraisal, the lawsuit says.

Nevsun is a Canadian, diversified mid-tier miner with a portfolio
of base metal assets to drive growth. The Company is headquartered
in Vancouver, BC.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP
          821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 493-9780
          Facsimile: (516) 280-7376
          E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com

NEW MOOSEJAW: Revitch Sues over Alleged Wiretapping of Computers
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMIAH REVITCH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NEW MOOSEJAW, LLC and
NAVISTONE, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-06827-JCS (N.D.
Cal., Nov. 9, 2018), sues Defendants for wiretapping computers of
visitors to Defendant Moosejaw's website, Moosejaw.com.

According to the complaint, the wiretaps, which are secretly
embedded in the computer code on Moosejaw.com, are used by
Defendants to scan the user's computer in search of files that can
be used to de-anonymize and identify the user, and also to observe
visitors' keystrokes, mouse clicks, and other electronic
communications in real time for the purpose of gathering Personally
Identifiable Information ("PII") to de-anonymize those visitors --
that is, to match previously unidentifiable website visitors to
obtain their names and home addresses, along with detailed data
concerning their browsing habits. These wiretaps enable Defendants
to immediately, automatically, and secretly observe the keystrokes,
mouse clicks, and other electronic communications of visitors
regardless of whether the visitor ultimately makes a purchase from
Moosejaw. By doing so, Defendants have violated the California
Invasion of Privacy Act; have invaded Plaintiff's privacy rights in
violation of the California Constitution; have intruded upon the
seclusion of Plaintiff; have violated California’s Consumers
Legal Remedies Act; and have violated California's Unfair
Competition Law.

On several occasions prior to the filing of this lawsuit, the
Plaintiff Revitch visited Moosejaw.com. During each of Plaintiff's
visits Defendants scanned his device for files that could be used
to de-anonymize and identify him, captured his electronic
communications and redirected them to NaviStone in real time, and
used the intercepted data to attempt to learn his identity, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com
                  fklorczyk@bursor.com
                  scott@bursor.com

NEWEGG INC: Sued by Diaz for Violating ADA
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newegg Inc. under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Newegg Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10934 (S.D. N.Y., Nov.
21, 2018).

Newegg Inc. is an online retailer of items including computer
hardware and consumer electronics. It is based in City of Industry,
California, in the United States. In 2016, Liaison Interactive, a
Chinese tech company, acquired majority stake in Newegg in an
investment deal.[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


NORTH CAROLINA: Court Partly Allows Alvarez Suit to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Eli ALVAREZ, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH LASSITER, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-116-Fdw (W.D. N.C.), Judge Frank D.
Whitney of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina, Asheville Division, permitted the Amended Complaint
to proceed on the Plaintiff's claim for prospective injunctive
relief for the alleged deprivation of property without due process.


The pro se incarcerated Plaintiff filed a civil rights suit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 on his own behalf as well as
four other inmates alleging, inter alia, that their forced
participation in an RDU Program at Marion Correctional Institution
violates their constitutional rights.  The Complaint was so
seriously deficient that the Court was unable to complete initial
review.

On May 15, 2018, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file IFP
applications and an Amended Complaint within 21 days.  The Court
cautioned them that failure to comply would probably result in
dismissal.  It also informed the Plaintiffs that the filing of more
than one Amended Complaint would probably result in the opening of
separate Section 1983 cases.  The Plaintiffs did not file a single
Amended Complaint pursuant to the Court's instruction and the case
was severed.

Plaintiff Alvarez names the following as the Defendants in their
official capacities in his Amended Complaint: Director of Prisons
Kenneth Lassiter, Marion C.I. Superintendent Hubert Corpening, Case
Manager/RDU Programmer Gregory Swink, Assistant Superintendent
Donny Watkings, and RDU-Director Jenny Jenkins.

Construing the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint liberally and
accepting it as true, he was transferred to Marion C.I. on March 9,
2017.  The Plaintiff alleges the following: (i) that the Defendants
made up rules and implemented them in violation of the Plaintiff's
constitutional rights; (ii) they took his religious literature and
law books, personal property including his radio and electric
razor, and legal documents in violation of their own policies and
due process; (iii) the Defendants put the Plaintiff in the RDU
Program against his will and without due process; (iv) his
participation in the RDU Program was not court-ordered; (v) the
Defendants are not using funds adequately, are lying about the
housing status; (vi) the Plaintiff is unable to practice and learn
about his religion of Islam and is unable to properly litigate his
cases; (vii) he is being forced to talk about confidential issues
including his personal life and medical health; and (viii) the
Plaintiff has been put in segregation without due process where he
will remain indefinitely until he completes the RDU Program.

The Plaintiff seeks damages, transfer out of Marion C.I., a change
in the RDU rules or shutdown of the RDU program; creation of a
classification board, and a rule making participation in the RDU
Program voluntary.

The matter is before the Court on initial review of the Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint.  Also pending are the Plaintiff's Motion to
Amend, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and a Motion for the
Appointment of Counsel.  The Plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis.

The Plaintiff has filed an Affidavit in Support of Preliminary
Injunction, in which he claims that there is a campaign of
harassment and violations of constitution and policy at Marion C.I.
The main gist of his Motion is that he and the other Plaintiffs
will continue to remain on segregation without their property and
other privileges so long as they refuse to participate in the RDU
Program.   He asks the Court to have them removed from Marion C.I.
until this suit is complete to protect them from further harm by
Defendants.  Because the Plaintiff has failed to establish that he
is likely to succeed on the merits or that he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, Judge
Whitney will deny his request for preliminary injunctive relief.

Attached to Alvarez's Motion to Amend is his Amended Complaint.
The Judge will deny as moot the Motion because the Court previously
granted the Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint.  The
Plaintiff's Motion is also moot insofar as he seeks relief on
behalf of the other Plaintiffs because they, too, were granted
leave to amend and the Plaintiff does not have standing to request
relief on their behalf.

In his Motion to Amend, the Plaintiff appears to seek class
certification. His request will be denied because he is pro se and
is not an attorney, although he filed pleadings purporting to
represent a group, he is barred from representing anyone other than
himself.

The Plaintiff has filed a Motion for the Appointment of Counsel,
that purports to be filed on behalf of all the Plaintiffs.  The
Judge finds that the case does not present exceptional
circumstances that justify appointment of counsel.  Moreover,
Alvarez does not have standing to request relief on behalf of the
other Plaintiffs.  Therefore, his Motion for Appointment of Counsel
will be denied.

Turning to the merits of the Amended Complaint, among other things,
finds that (i) to the extent the Amended Complaint seeks relief on
behalf of individuals other than the Plaintiffs, these claims are
dismissed; (ii) Alvarez's claims for damages and retrospective
injunctive relief are dismissed except insofar as the Plaintiff
requests prospective injunctive relief because they are barred by
sovereign immunity; (iii) the Plaintiff's claims of cruel and
unusual conditions of confinement are insufficient to proceed; (iv)
the claim against RDU Program is too vague and conclusory to
proceed; (v) the freedom of religion claim is insufficient to pass
initial review because the Plaintiff's vague and conclusory
allegations fail to establish that he had a sincere religious
belief or that the official action or regulation substantially
burdened his exercise of that belief; and (vii) the Plaintiff fails
to allege how any of the Defendants' expenditures or recordkeeping
with regards to prisoner housing deprived him of any rights.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Whitney permitted the Amended
Complaint to proceed on the Plaintiff's claim for prospective
injunctive relief for the alleged deprivation of property without
due process.  The Plaintiffs' claim that the Defendants deprived
him of properly without due process for prospective injunctive
relief has passed initial review under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915. He
dismissed the remaining claims for seeking relief against immune
parties and for failure to state a claim on which relief can be
granted pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii).

The Judge (i) denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
Injunction and Motion for the Appointment of Counsel; and (ii)
denied as moot the Plaitiff's Motion to Amend.  

The Clerk of Court will commence the procedure for waiver of
service as set forth in Local Rule 4.3 for Defendants Lassiter,
Corpening, Watkings, Jenkins, and Swink who are current or former
employees of NC DPS.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/K1ypTY from Leagle.com.

Eli Alvarez, Plaintiff, pro se.


NORTH CAROLINA: Court Partly Allows Johnson Suit to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARVIN H. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH LASSITER, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-276-FDW (W.D. N.C.), Judge Frank
D. Whitney of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina, Asheville Division, permitted the Amended Compliant
to proceed on the Plaintiff's claims for prospective injunctive
relief for the deprivation of property, cruel and unusual
conditions of confinement, and violation of privacy.

The pro se incarcerated Plaintiff filed a civil rights suit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 along with four other inmates
alleging, inter alia, that their forced participation in an RDU
Program at Marion Correctional Institution violates their
constitutional rights.  The Complaint was so seriously deficient
that the Court was unable to complete initial review.

On May 15, 2018, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file IFP
applications and an Amended Complaint within 21 days.  It cautioned
Plaintiffs that failure to comply would probably result in
dismissal.  The Plaintiffs did not file a single Amended Complaint
pursuant to the Court's instruction and the case was severed.

Plaintiff Johnson names the following as Defendants in his Amended
Complaint in their official capacities: Director of Prisons Kenneth
Lassiter, Marion C.I. Superintendent Hubert Corpening, Case
Manager/RDU Programmer Gregory Swink, Assistant Superintendent
Donny Watkings, and RDU-Director Jenny Jenkins.

Plaintiff Johnson arrived at Marion C.I. on Jan. 26, 2017.  Upon
entering the RDU Program, he was forced to either send home or
donate his legal books, literature, and religious literature.  None
of his property exceeded the two cubic foot limit.  He failed to
meet the deadline for his federal habeas corpus petition, which was
March 8, 2018, because he did not have the needed legal books and
literature.  His personal privacy was invaded when he was forced to
talk about or fill out a survey regarding his past and his present
medical, mental health, criminal charges, and family issues, which
has exposed to psychological harm, and Sergeant Pruett called him a
"crack baby."  Plaintiff Johnson has been forced to do six months
in segregation with no procedural due process.  It is fraud to hold
him in segregation from March 10, 2018, to Sept. 10, 2018, while
his status in the prison remained "Reg. Population."  He claims
that he has completed the RDU Program but is still in segregation.
He is being harassed continuously and pepper spray was put in his
food three times.  His injuries have included psychological harm,
separation from his immediate family, "assassination of character,"
violation of federal constitutional rights and privileges,
discrimination, and the right to practice his religion.

Plaintiff Johnson seeks on behalf of himself and participants in
the "class" damages of $250,000, removal from the RDU Program, and
cancellation of the RDU Program.

The matter is before the Court on initial review of the Amended
Complaint.  Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.

Judge Whitney concludes that the Amended Compliant will be
permitted to proceed on the Plaintiff's claims for prospective
injunctive relief for the deprivation of property, cruel and
unusual conditions of confinement, and violation of privacy.  The
remaining claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted and for seeking damages against immune
parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii).

Therefore, the Plaintiff's claims regarding the deprivation of his
property, cruel and unusual conditions of confinement, and
deprivation of privacy have passed initial review pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1915 for prospective injunctive relief.  The
remaining claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted and for seeking damages against immune
parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii).

The Judge directed the Clerk of Court to commence the procedure for
waiver of service as set forth in Local Rule 4.3 for Defendants
Lassiter, Corpening, Watkings, Jenkins, and Swink who are current
or former employees of NC DPS.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/LE4sX5 from Leagle.com.

Marvin H. Johnson, Plaintiff, pro se.


OLIVE NAIL: Macas Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
MAYRA JOANA MACAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OLIVE NAIL & SPA INC. (D/B/A FLOWER
NAIL & SPA), ESTHER LEE , PAUL LEE , and KYUNG SOON YI , COLLECTIVE
ACTION UNDER 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) ECF Case, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-10525 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was ostensibly employed
as a waxer, manicurist, pedicurist and masseuse. However, she was
required to spend a considerable part of her work day performing
non-tipped duties, including but not limited to vacuuming the
entire salon, washing towels, collecting used nail filer and buffs,
cleaning the nail tools, cleaning bathrooms, cleaning the pedicure
chairs, collecting and taking out the garbage, refilling the
containers with cotton balls and lotions, cleaning the waxing room,
cleaning the masseuse's room, sweeping, mopping, drying and folding
sheets.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked,
failed to pay Plaintiff Macas appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Macas the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which she had to work
over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly failed to
pay Plaintiff wages on a timely, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Costas Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, 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 filed by Mac
Costas.

On June 11, 2018, a putative class action was filed by Mac Costas
on behalf of alleged shareholders that purchased or acquired the
Company's ordinary shares between August 8, 2017 and May 15, 2018
was commenced in the United States District Court for the District
of Nevada against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer.

The complaint asserts claim against all defendants pursuant to
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder and against its officers pursuant to Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that the Company's Form
10-K for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2017, and Form 10-Qs
for each of the quarters in the nine months ended September 30,
2017 contained material misstatements or omissions, among other
things, with respect to the Company's tax provisions and the
effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting, and
that, as a result of such alleged misstatements and omissions, the
plaintiffs suffered damages.

Following the Mac Costas claim filing, four additional complaints
of similar content were filed by other complainants. The Company
has not yet responded to the complaints.

The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law and
intends to defend itself vigorously.

Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered
energy power business worldwide. The company operates through
Electricity and Product segments. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was
founded in 1965 and is based in Reno, Nevada.


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Ongoing in Suit v. PGV Unit
---------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, 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 discovery is
underway in the class action suit against the company's subsidiary
Puna Geothermal Venture (PGV).

On August 5, 2016, George Douvris, Stephanie Douvris, Michael Hale,
Cheryl Cacocci, Hillary E. Wilt and Christina Bryan, acting for
themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated residents
of the lower Puna District, filed a complaint in the Third Circuit
Court for the State of Hawaii seeking certification of a class
action for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
consequential and punitive damages, attorney's fees and statutory
interest against Puna Geothermal Venture ("PGV") and other
presently unknown defendants.

On December 12, 2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for joinder of HELCO as a co-defendant, and the case, which had
been removed prior to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Hawaii, was remanded back to the Third Circuit Court.

The amended complaint purports that injuries and other damages in
an undisclosed amount were caused to the plaintiffs as a result of
an alleged toxic release by PGV in the wake of Hurricane Iselle in
August 2014. On June 14, 2017, the Third Circuit Court denied
HELCO's motion to dismiss the complaint against itself which it had
filed on March 25, 2017 and agreed to the Company's request to add
two third party defendants, who are, respectively, the distributor
and manufacturer of the pressure release valve that failed to
reseat during Hurricane Iselle. Discovery is underway.

The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law and
intends to defend itself vigorously.

Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered
energy power business worldwide. The company operates through
Electricity and Product segments. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was
founded in 1965 and is based in Reno, Nevada.


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Riche Class Action vs. USG Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, 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 purported class action suit entitled, Riche
v. Pappas, et al.

Following the announcement of the Company's acquisition of U.S.
Geothermal Inc. ("USG"), a number of putative shareholder class
action complaints were initially filed on behalf of USG
shareholders between March 8, 2018 and March 30, 2018 against USG
and the individual members of the USG board of directors.

All of the purported class action suits filed in Federal Court in
Idaho have been voluntarily dismissed. The single remaining class
action complaint is a purported class action filed in the Delaware
Chancery Court, entitled Riche v. Pappas, et al., Case No.
2018-0177 (Del. Ch., Mar. 12, 2018). An amended complaint was filed
on May 24, 2018 under seal, under a confidentiality agreement that
was executed by plaintiff.   

The amended Riche complaint alleges state law claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against former USG directors and seeks post-closing
damages.

Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered
energy power business worldwide. The company operates through
Electricity and Product segments. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was
founded in 1965 and is based in Reno, Nevada.


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Tel Aviv Class Action Stayed
------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, 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 filed
an agreed motion to the Tel Aviv District Court to stay the
proceedings in Israel until a final decision in the U.S. case (Mac
Costas) is adjudicated.

On May 21, 2018, a motion to certify a class action was filed in
Tel Aviv District Court against Ormat Technologies, Inc. and 11
officers and directors. The alleged class is defined as "All
persons who purchased Ormat shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange
between August 3, 2017 and May 13, 2018".

The motion alleges that the Company violated  Sections 31(a)(1) and
38C of the Israeli Securities Law because it allegedly: (1) misled
investors by stating in its financial statements that it maintains
effective internal controls over its accounting policies and
procedures, however the Company's internal controls had material
weaknesses which led to erroneous accounting in its 2017 unaudited
quarterly reports that had to be restated, including adjustments to
the Company's net income and shareholders' equity; and (2) failed
to issue an immediate report in Israel until May 16, 2018,
analogous to the report that was released in the United States on
May 11, 2018 stating, inter alia, that the errors in its financial
reports affected its balance sheet and would be remedied in its
2017 annual report.

The Company filed an agreed motion to the Tel Aviv District Court
to stay the proceedings in Israel until a final decision in the
U.S. case (Mac Costas) is adjudicated.

Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered
energy power business worldwide. The company operates through
Electricity and Product segments. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was
founded in 1965 and is based in Reno, Nevada.


PACCAR INC: Claims in Anderson Suit over Defective Engines Narrowed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, S.L. ANDERSON & SONS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PACCAR, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. C18-0742-JCC (W.D.
Wash.), Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended
complaint.

The Defendants manufacture and sell heavy-duty commercial vehicles.
Beginning in 2010, they began to manufacture PACCAR MX-13 diesel
engines.  The Engines incorporate an aftertreatment system ("ATS")
that the Defendants have previously included in other vehicles.  In
order to meet the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") 2010
Heavy-Duty On Highway Emissions Standard ("2010 Standard"), the
Defendants designed, manufactured, sold for profit, and warranted
Engines with an Emissions Aftertreatment System ("EAS") emissions
control unit.  The EAS includes an exhaust gas recirculation
("EGR") component that assists in altering the temperature and
composition of the exhaust.

The amended complaint asserts that a defect in the Engines, of
which the Defendants were aware, causes vehicles containing the
Engines to not function consistently or reliably, even following
repeated warranty repairs and replacements.  The EAS and related
systems continuously monitor Vehicles and, upon detection of a
malfunction, trigger a malfunction indicator and produce a fault
code that is stored in the Engine Control Module ("ECM").  The ECM
then derates or reduces the Vehicle's engine power, when required
to protect the Engine and ATS.

The fault codes are used by the Defendants to identify issues while
performing repair work.  They require that repair work on Engines
be done at their authorized dealers.  The amended complaint alleges
that the Plaintiffs and the others Class members have suffered
performance and reliability problems arising from the defect in the
Engines, which produces numerous fault codes that require
servicing.

The amended complaint alleges that since 2009, prior to beginning
to sell the Engines, the Defendants knew or should have known that
the EAS and related systems were not sufficiently robust to meet
their representations about their reliability and durability, that
the Engines and EAS were experiencing failures, and that frequent
repairs would be required.  Although the Defendants knew or should
have known about the defects, they failed to disclose the defects
to the Plaintiffs and the other Class members.  
The Defendants performed numerous repairs of Vehicles pursuant to
the Base Warranty.  They have not rejected a request to repair an
emissions-related defect pursuant to the terms of the Base
Warranty.  But the repair work done on the Vehicles failed to
correct the underlying defect.

The Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated.  Their amended complaint alleges
that the Defendants violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act
("CPA"), Revised Code of Washington section 19.86, and breached an
express warranty in violation of Revised Code of Washington section
62A.2-313.  In the alternative, Plaintiff Santoro and the
California Class members allege that the Defendants violated
California Commercial Code section 2313 and violated the California
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business and Professions
Code section 17200.  In the alternative, Plaintiff Anderson and the
Wisconsin Class members allege that the Defendants breached an
express warranty in violation of Wisconsin Uniform Commercial Code
section 402.313.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint
for failure to state a claim.

Judge Coughenour granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  Plaintiff Anderson's claim for breach of
express warranty is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to
amend.  

He finds that the amended complaint specifically asserts that the
Vehicle's defect and deficiencies stem from the EAS technology that
renders the Vehicles unreliable transportation and unsuitable for
ordinary commercial use; that the ATS's inherent deficiencies
produce numerous fault codes that require servicing; and that the
Engines suffer from sensor, injector, and doser problems, along
with other system failures.  The amended complaint further alleges
that the Defendants have exclusive knowledge or access to material
facts about the Vehicles and their Engines," and that Plaintiffs
could not know or reasonably discover these material facts.  The
multitude of the alleged problems resulting from the alleged defect
in the Engines does not render the Plaintiffs' claims implausible
or vague.

He further finds that the amended complaint does not establish that
Plaintiff Anderson, as the second purchaser, has a plausible claim
for breach of the Base Warranty.  The Defendants' motion to dismiss
is granted on this ground.  Plaintiff Anderson's claim for breach
of express warranty arising under Wisconsin law is dismissed
without prejudice and with leave to amend.  If the Plaintiffs
choose to file an amended complaint, they should offer, if they
can, factual assertions and legal argument establishing either that
the limitation of the Base Warranty to the first purchaser is
unconscionable or that Plaintiff Anderson is entitled to bring a
third party claim for breach of the Base Warranty under Wisconsin
law.

If the Plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, they must
plead additional allegations to cure the deficiencies identified in
the order.  The amended complaint must be filed within 30 days of
the issuance of the order.  If filed, the amended complaint will
only include additional allegations regarding the claim that was
dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/zKge4l from Leagle.com.

S.L. Anderson & Sons, Inc & Santoro Transportation, Inc, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Caroline F. Bartlett , CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN
BRODY & AGNELLO, PC, pro hac vice, James E. Cecchi --
jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY &
AGNELLO, PC, pro hac vice, James C. Shah -- jshah@sfmslaw.com --
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP, pro hac vice, Jerrod C.
Patterson -- jerrodp@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP, Natalie Finkelman Bennett -- nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com --
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP, pro hac vice, Richard J.
Burke -- rich@qulegal.com -- QUANTUM LEGAL LLC, pro hac vice,
Zachary A. Jacobs -- zachary@qulegal.com -- QUANTUM LEGAL LLC, pro
hac vice & Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN
SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

PACCAR, Inc, PACCAR Engine Company, Kenworth Truck Company &
Peterbilt Motors Company, Defendants, represented by Anthony
Pisciotti -- apisciotti@pmlegalfirm.com -- PISCIOTTI MALSCH, pro
hac vice, Clifford M. Laney -- claney@pmlegalfirm.com -- PISCIOTTI
MALSCH, pro hac vice, Danny Lallis -- dlallis@pmlegalfirm.com --
PISCIOTTI MALSCH, pro hac vice & William Randolph Squires, III --
rsquires@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG &
MOORE LLP.


PACIFIC BELL: Failed to Pay Wages & Overtime, Herrera Says
----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID HERRERA, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, a California
corporation; AT&T SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.: RG18928072 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Nov. 9, 2018), alleges that Defendant failed to provide
meal periods, failed to provide rest periods, failed to pay hourly
wages, failed to provide accurate written wage statements, and
failed to timely pay all final wages under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants as
a non-exempt, hourly employee from approximately 1999 through
December 19, 2017. During their employment with Defendants,
Plaintiffs regularly worked shifts of eight to twelve hours per
day, without being afforded a meal break during the first five
hours, and/or a second meal break after ten hours, as required by
California law. Defendants had a policy f automatically deducting
thirty minutes from Plaintiffs' paycheck, regardless of whether
Plaintiffs took a lunch break or not.

The Plaintiff and the putative class members were not provided with
rest periods of at 5 least 10 minutes for each four hour work
period, or major fraction thereof, due to (1) Defendants' policy of
not scheduling each rest period as part of each work shift; (2)
chronically understaffing each work shift with not enough workers;
(3) imposing so much work on each employee such that it made it
unlikely that an employee would be able to take their breaks if
they wanted to finish their work on time; and (4) no formal written
meal and rest period policy that encouraged employees to take their
meal and rest periods, the lawsuit says.

Pacific Bell Telephone Company is a telephone company that provides
telephone service in California. The company is owned by AT&T Inc.
through AT&T Teleholdings.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          William M. Pao, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com
                  william@setarehlaw.com


PACIFIC UNION: Mortgage Late Fees "Excessive," Hopkins et al. Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT KEITH HOPKINS and DEBBIE ANN HOPKINS, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PACIFIC
UNION FINANCIAL, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.: DC-18-16775 (D.
Tex., Nov. 6, 2018), alleges that the defendant charged and
accepted late fees on the escrow portion of their mortgagee's
payments in violation of the written contract with each class
member.

According to the complaint, Pacific serves as a mortgage loan
originator and servicer for various and numerous mortgagees for
mortgage loans in all 50 states throughout the United States. The
mortgage loans are comprised of both notes and mortgages. Pacific,
as a servicer for these various mortgage loans, is bound by the
terms of the original mortgage loans and is responsible for the
collection of payments made by the mortgagors, the assessment of
late payment fees ("late fees"), and the collection of those late
fees, among other duties. Pacific, as part of its servicing
agreements, may retain all or a portion of any late fees collected
from the mortgagors. Hopkins' note was prepared on the standard
FHMA/FHLMC Uniform Instrument Form 3200 , which limits any
applicable late fee charge to a percentage of their monthly
principal and interest payment. The mortgage industry uses the
Uniform Instrument about 90% of the time, and Paragraph 6 of the
Uniform Instrument provides for a late fee charge.

Pacific, however, routinely charges, collects, and retains more
than the stated percentage of the monthly principal and interest
payment for late fees to more than 300,000 individuals nationwide.
Because Pacific routinely collects late fees in an amount larger
than allowed under the terms of the Uniform Instrument, homeowners
have paid more late fees to Pacific than they legally owed, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Zachary D. Herbert, Esq.
          HERBERT LAW GROUP, PLLC
          legal@zherbertlaw.com
          1202 E. Arapaho Rd, Suite 140
          Richardson, TX 75081
          Telephone: 214 414-3808
          Facsimile: 214 602-7156


PAIGE LAW: Matjusinas Sue over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
OLGA MATJUSINA AND VALENTINA MATJUSINA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs. PAIGE LAW
GROUP, P.A., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-24727-AOR (S.D. Fla.,
Nov. 12, 2018), contends that the Defendant has dispatched
hundreds, or even thousands, of unlawful collection letters to
United States consumers, whereby each such letter contains
identical violations of sections 1692g(a)(3), 1692g(a)(4) and
1692g(a)(5) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

On or about September 26, 2018, the Defendant sent a collection
letter to Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the Consumer Debt. The
Collection Letter does not effectively convey the informatio n
required to be disclosed to consumers under section
1692g(a)(3)-(5), but rather provides, at best, a distorted version
of the disclosures. Accordingly, 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
section 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 33301
          Telephone: 954 907-1136
          Facsimile: 855 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com

PARK HOTELS & RESORT: Fischler Brings Suit for ADA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Park Hotels & Resorts
Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  

The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Park Hotels &
Resorts Inc. doing business as: The London NYC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06658 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

Park is the second largest publicly traded lodging REIT with a
diverse portfolio of market-leading hotels and resorts with
significant underlying real estate value. Park's portfolio consists
of 54 premium-branded hotels and resorts with over 32,000 rooms, a
majority of which are located in prime United States markets with
high barriers to entry.[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


PETPLATE INC: Slade Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Petplate, Inc. The
case is styled as Linda Slade individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Petplate, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10908 (S.D. N.Y.,
Nov. 21, 2018).

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

PetPlate, Inc. offers meal delivery service for dogs. The company's
meals are cooked in a facility, and cold-pressure technology is
used to destroy harmful bacteria and lock in nutrition.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Lipitor-Related Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer 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 purported class action suits over sales of
Lipitor.

Beginning in November 2011, purported class actions relating to
Lipitor were filed in various federal courts against, among others,
Pfizer, certain affiliates of Pfizer, and, in most of the actions,
Ranbaxy, Inc. (Ranbaxy) and certain affiliates of Ranbaxy.

The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent
nationwide, multi-state or statewide classes consisting of persons
or entities who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Lipitor (or, in certain of
the actions, generic Lipitor) from any of the defendants from March
2010 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful
conduct (the Class Period).

The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Lipitor, in
violation of federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust,
consumer protection and various other laws, resulting from (i) the
2008 agreement pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled certain
patent litigation involving Lipitor, and Pfizer granted Ranbaxy a
license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in various markets
beginning on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of the actions, the
procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents for Lipitor.

Each of the actions seeks, among other things, treble damages on
behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for
Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) during the
Class Period. In addition, individual actions have been filed
against Pfizer, Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates, among
others, that assert claims and seek relief for the plaintiffs that
are substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief
sought in the purported class actions described above. These
various actions have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in
a Multi-District Litigation (In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation
MDL-2332) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

In September 2013 and 2014, the District Court dismissed with
prejudice the claims by direct purchasers. In October and November
2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of all
other Multi-District Litigation plaintiffs. All plaintiffs have
appealed the District Court's orders dismissing their claims with
prejudice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In
addition, the direct purchaser class plaintiffs appealed the order
denying their motion to amend the judgment and for leave to amend
their complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
In August 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
reversed the District Court's decisions and remanded the claims to
the District Court.

Also, in January 2013, the State of West Virginia filed an action
in West Virginia state court against Pfizer and Ranbaxy, among
others, that asserts claims and seeks relief on behalf of the State
of West Virginia and residents of that state that are substantially
similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the
purported class actions described above.

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It operates in two segments, Pfizer Innovative
Health (IH) and Pfizer Essential Health (EH). The company was
founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


PFIZER INC: Hormone Therapy Consumer Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer 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 Wyeth LLC continues to defend
itself from the so-called Hormone Therapy Consumer class action
lawsuit.

A certified consumer class action is pending against Wyeth LLC in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
based on the alleged off-label marketing of its hormone therapy
products. The case was originally filed in December 2003.

The class consists of California consumers who purchased Wyeth's
hormone-replacement products between January 1995 and January 2003
and who do not seek personal injury damages therefrom. The class
seeks compensatory and punitive damages, including a full refund of
the purchase price.

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

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It operates in two segments, Pfizer Innovative
Health (IH) and Pfizer Essential Health (EH). The company was
founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


PFIZER INC: Still Defends EpiPen Consolidated Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer 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 consolidated class action suit related to EpiPen.

Beginning in February 2017, purported class actions were filed in
various federal courts by indirect purchasers of EpiPen against
Pfizer, and/or its affiliates King and Meridian, and/or various
entities affiliated with Mylan N.V., and Mylan N.V. Chief Executive
Officer, Heather Bresch.

The plaintiffs in these actions seek to represent U.S. nationwide
classes comprising persons or entities who paid for any portion of
the end-user purchase price of an EpiPen between 2009 until the
cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. In August
2017, a similar lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of a purported class of direct
purchaser plaintiffs against Pfizer, King, Meridian and Mylan was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

Against Pfizer and/or its affiliates, plaintiffs generally allege
that Pfizer's and/or its affiliates' settlement of patent
litigation regarding EpiPen delayed market entry of generic EpiPen
in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust
or consumer protection laws. At least one lawsuit also alleges that
Pfizer and/or Mylan N.V. violated the federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Plaintiffs also filed various consumer protection and unjust
enrichment claims against, and relating to conduct attributable
solely to, Mylan Pharmaceuticals regarding EpiPen. Plaintiffs seek
treble damages for alleged overcharges for EpiPen since 2009. In
August 2017, the actions were consolidated for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation (In re: EpiPen
(Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices and
Antitrust Litigation, MDL-2785) in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas with other EpiPen-related actions against Mylan
N.V. and/or its affiliates to which Pfizer, King and Meridian are
not parties.

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It operates in two segments, Pfizer Innovative
Health (IH) and Pfizer Essential Health (EH). The company was
founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Defends Class Suit over Effexor XR Sales
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer 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 that Wyeth LLC and its
affiliates continue to defend a class action lawsuit relating to
Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor.

Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions,
were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth LLC (Wyeth) and,
in certain of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other
defendants relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release
formulation of Effexor.

The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to represent a
class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its territories who
directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for
the purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the
defendants from June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants'
allegedly unlawful conduct ceased.

The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of
generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation of
federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the
antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain
states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and
improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange
Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR and entering into a
litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer
with respect to Effexor XR.

Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the
individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the
purported class actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor
XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since June
14, 2008. All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement but
declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff claims. In
January 2015, the District Court entered partial final judgments as
to all settlement agreement claims, including those asserted by
direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which plaintiffs
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In
August 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
reversed the District Court's decisions and remanded the claims to
the District Court.

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

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It operates in two segments, Pfizer Innovative
Health (IH) and Pfizer Essential Health (EH). The company was
founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


PINKO US: Nixon Files Disabilities Act Suit v. Fashion Brand
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PINKO US CORP. The
case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PINKO US CORP, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06686 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

PINKO is a contemporary fashion brand with an Italian spirit. It
was launched in the early 1980s by Cristina Rubini and Pietro
Negra.[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


PIQ-SOH LLC: Pet Insurance Service Firm Faces ADA Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PIQ-SOH, LLC. The
case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIQ-SOH, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-06684 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

PIQ LLC, doing business as petinsurancequotes.com, provides pet
insurance services. The Company educates and helps pet owners to
find pet insurance plans for their dogs and cats.
petinsurancequotes.com serves customers worldwide.[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


POPULAR INC: 2nd Motion for Reconsideration in Torres Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 second motion
for reconsideration filed before the Puerto Rico Supreme Court by
the defendant in the case, Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular
de Puerto Rico, et al, is pending.

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) has separately been named a
defendant in a putative class action complaint captioned Ramirez
Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al, filed before
the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan Part. The
complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief on behalf of the purported class against Popular, Inc. and
Popular Insurance, LLC (Popular Defendants), as well as other
financial institutions with insurance brokerage subsidiaries in
Puerto Rico.

Plaintiffs essentially contend that in November 2015, Antilles
Insurance Company obtained approval from the Puerto Rico Insurance
Commissioner to market an endorsement that allowed its customers to
obtain reimbursement on their insurance deductible for good
experience, but that defendants failed to offer this product or
disclose its existence to their customers, favoring other products
instead, in violation of their duties as insurance brokers.

Plaintiffs seek a determination that defendants unlawfully failed
to comply with their duty to disclose the existence of this new
insurance product, as well as double or treble damages (the latter
subject to a determination that defendants engaged in
anti-monopolistic practices in failing to offer this product).

Between late March and early April, co-defendants filed motions to
dismiss the complaint and opposed the request for preliminary
injunctive relief. A co-defendant filed a third-party Complaint
against Antilles Insurance Company. A preliminary injunction and
class certification hearing originally scheduled for April 6, 2017
was subsequently postponed, pending resolution of the motions to
dismiss. On July 31, 2017, the Court dismissed the complaint with
prejudice.

In August 2017, plaintiffs appealed this judgment and, on March 21,
2018, the Court of Appeals reversed the Court of First Instance's
dismissal. On May 18, 2018, defendants each filed Petitions of
Certiorari to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court. The Petitions of
Certiorari were all denied on June 26, 2018 and all parties but
BPPR filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration of such denial.
Those Motions for Reconsideration were denied and one defendant
filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration to the Puerto Rico
Supreme Court, which is still pending.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services primarily to
institutional and retail customers. The company accepts various
deposit products. Popular, Inc. was founded in 1893 and is
headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico.


POPULAR INC: Appeal over Camacho Case Ruling Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 plaintiffs'
appellate brief related to the case, Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et
al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., was due December 3,
2018.

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) has been named a defendant in a
putative class action captioned Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., filed before the United
States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of
mortgage-holders who have allegedly been subjected to illegal
foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage
servicers.

Plaintiffs maintain that when they sought to reduce their loan
payments, defendants failed to provide them with such reduced loan
payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation
processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel
(or dual tracking). Plaintiffs assert that such actions violate the
Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"), the Home Affordable
Refinance Program ("HARP") and other federally sponsored loan
modification programs, as well as the Puerto Rico Mortgage Debtor
Assistance Act and the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA").

For the alleged violations stated above, plaintiffs request that
all defendants (over 20, including all local banks), be held
jointly and severally liable in an amount no less than $400
million. BPPR waived service of process in June 2017 and filed a
motion to dismiss in August 2017, as did most co-defendants. On
March 28, 2018, the Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
On April 9, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of
such dismissal, which was denied on August 17, 2018. On August 29,
2018, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit. Plaintiffs' appellate brief is due
on December 3, 2018 and Defendants' response brief will be due 30
days thereafter.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services primarily to
institutional and retail customers. The company accepts various
deposit products. Popular, Inc. was founded in 1893 and is
headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico.


POPULAR INC: Bid for Reconsideration in Maura Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration of the ruling in the case, Yiries Josef
Saad Maura v. Banco Popular, et al. suit, remains pending.

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) has been named a defendant in a
putative class action captioned Yiries Josef Saad Maura v. Banco
Popular, et al., filed by the same counsel who filed the Lilliam
Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al.,
on behalf of residential customers of the defendant banks who have
allegedly been subject to illegal foreclosures and/or loan
modifications through their mortgage servicers.

As in Gonzalez Camacho, plaintiffs contend that when they sought to
reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with
such reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss
mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them
in parallel, all in violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA),
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(“FCRA”), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and
other consumer-protection laws and regulations. Plaintiffs did not
include a specific amount of damages in their complaint.

On January 3, 2018, plaintiffs requested that BPPR waive service of
process, which it agreed to do on February 1, 2018. BPPR
subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the same
grounds as those asserted in the Gonzalez Camacho action (as did
most co-defendants, separately). BPPR further filed a motion to
oppose class certification, which the Court granted, denying the
motion for class certification on September 26, 2018. On October 8,
2018, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of such denial,
which BPPR opposed on October 22, 2018. Those motions are still
pending.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services primarily to
institutional and retail customers. The company accepts various
deposit products. Popular, Inc. was founded in 1893 and is
headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico.


POPULAR INC: Says Settlement in Valle Suit Final and Unappealable
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 settlement in
the case, Josefina Valle, et al. v. Popular Community Bank, became
final and unappealable.

Popular Bank (PB) has been named a defendant in a putative class
action complaint captioned Josefina Valle, et al. v. Popular
Community Bank, filed in November 2012 in the New York State
Supreme Court (New York County). Plaintiffs, PB customers, alleged
among other things that PB engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and
trade practices in connection with the assessment of overdraft fees
and payment processing on consumer deposit accounts.

The complaint further alleged that PB improperly disclosed its
consumer overdraft policies and that the overdraft rates and fees
assessed by PB violate New York's usury laws. Plaintiffs sought
unspecified damages, including punitive damages, interest,
disbursements, and attorneys' fees and costs.

After several procedural steps that included a ruling partially
granting PB's motion to dismiss and the filing of an amended
complaint that was also partially dismissed, on August 12, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On September 17, 2015,
PB filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and on
February 18, 2016, the Court granted it in part and denied it in
part, dismissing plaintiffs' unfair and deceptive acts and trade
practices claim to the extent it sought to recover overdraft fees
incurred prior to September 2011.

On March 28, 2016, PB filed an answer to the second amended
complaint and, on November 13, 2017, the parties reached an
agreement in principle. Under this agreement, an amount up to $5.2
million would be paid to qualified claimants. In March 2018, the
Court entered an order for the preliminary approval of the
settlement.

On July 23, 2018, the claims process closed and, on August 6, 2018,
the Court granted its final approval of the settlement agreement,
entering such final order on August 13, 2018. The settlement became
final and unappealable on September 12, 2018.

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services primarily to
institutional and retail customers. The company accepts various
deposit products. Popular, Inc. was founded in 1893 and is
headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico.


PORT RESOURCES: Seeks 1st Cir. Review of Ruling in Giguere Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Port Resources Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Giguere v. Port Resources Inc., Case No.
2:16-cv-00058-NT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maine, Portland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
and Maine labor laws guaranteeing prompt payment of wages.

Port Resources manages and provides staffing for 24 group homes and
supervised apartments serving nearly 100 clients in residential
neighborhoods across southern Maine.

The appellate case is captioned as Giguere v. Port Resources Inc.,
Case No. 18-2073, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee DAVID GIGUERE, on his own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Peter Mancuso, Esq.
          Andrew Arthur Schmidt, Esq.
          ANDREW SCHMIDT LAW PLLC
          997 India Street
          Portland, ME 04101-0000
          Telephone: (207) 619-0884
          E-mail: peter@maineworkerjustice.com
                  andy@maineworkerjustice.com

               - and -

          Howard T. Reben, Esq.
          REBEN, BENJAMIN & MARCH
          97 India St.
          P.O. Box 7060
          Portland, ME 04112-0000
          Telephone: (207) 772-5496
          E-mail: hreben@rbmlawoffice.com

Defendant-Appellant PORT RESOURCES INC. is represented by:

          Graydon Stevens, Esq.
          KELLY REMMEL & ZIMMERMAN
          53 Exchange St.
          PO Box 597
          Portland, ME 04112-0597
          Telephone: (207) 775-1020
          E-mail: gstevens@krz.com


PRINSTON PHARMA: Neal Sues over Contaminated Valsartan Drugs
------------------------------------------------------------
TALSIE NEAL, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL INC. d/b/a
SOLCO HEALTHCARE LLC; SOLCO HEALTHCARE U.S., LLC; HUAHAI U.S. INC.;
and ZHEJIANG HUAHAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., the Defendants, Case
3:18-cv-16071 (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.

According to the complaint, 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.

These 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.

Prinston develops, manufactures, markets, and registers generic
prescription pharmaceutical products.[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

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: 2d Cir. Tosses Bid to Appeal
--------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, 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 in the Residential
Mortgage-Backed Securities ("RMBS") Trustee Litigation filed
against HSBC, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' request for
permission to appeal the denial of their class certification
motion, in PICA et al. v. HSBC, et al.

In February 2018, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and plaintiffs filed a petition with the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals seeking permission to appeal the class
certification decision. In May 2018, the Second Circuit denied
plaintiffs' request for permission to appeal the denial of their
class certification motion.

Prudential Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
insurance, investment management, and other financial products and
services in the United States and internationally. It operates
through U.S. Individual Solutions, U.S. Workplace Solutions,
Investment Management, and International Insurance divisions. The
company offers its products and services to individual and
institutional customers through its proprietary and third-party
distribution networks. Prudential Financial, Inc. was founded in
1875 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Order in PICA v. U.S. Bank Modified
---------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, 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 in the Residential
Mortgage-Backed Securities ("RMBS") Trustee Litigation filed
against U.S. Bank N.A., the New York State Supreme Court, First
Department, modified the lower court's January 2018 order in PICA
et al. v. U.S. Bank N.A.

In February 2018, the federal court entered a stipulated order: (i)
dismissing all claims involving three trusts with prejudice; (ii)
with respect to twenty trusts, dismissing with prejudice the Trust
Indenture Act ("TIA") claims for lack of standing, and the breach
of contract claims without prejudice; and (iii) dismissing without
prejudice the TIA and breach of contract claims concerning the four
remaining trusts.

In February 2018, U.S. Bank filed an appeal from the state court's
order concerning U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. In March 2018, plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal of the
state court's order concerning the motion to dismiss.

In August 2018, plaintiffs filed a second class action complaint in
New York state court against U.S. Bank, as trustee, asserting
claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of
duty of care.

In October 2018, the New York State Supreme Court, First
Department, modified the lower court's January 2018 order, by
dismissing plaintiffs' breach of contract claims for servicer
violations involving 56 of 77 trusts, and otherwise affirmed the
remainder of the lower court's January 2018 order.

Prudential Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
insurance, investment management, and other financial products and
services in the United States and internationally. It operates
through U.S. Individual Solutions, U.S. Workplace Solutions,
Investment Management, and International Insurance divisions. The
company offers its products and services to individual and
institutional customers through its proprietary and third-party
distribution networks. Prudential Financial, Inc. was founded in
1875 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


QUDIAN INC: Court Stays Securities Suit Over 2017 IPO
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge O. Peter Sherwood of the New York County Supreme Court stayed
further proceedings in the case, IN RE QUDIAN SEQURITIES
LITIGATION, Docket No. 651804/2018, Motion Seq. No. 001 (N.Y.
Sup.).

The case is a securities class action pursuant to the Securities
Act of 1933, on behalf of all purchasers of Qudian American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") in or traceable to defend Qudian Inc.'s
Oct. 18, 2017, initial public offering ("IPO").  Each ADS
represents one Class A ordinary share in Qudian.

The Plaintiffs allege the Registration Statement acknowledged the
importance of protecting Qudian's customer information and
preventing data breaches, but it failed to disclose a breach had
already occurred, compromising almost a million accounts.
Additionally, the Registration Statement failed to state the
company was lending improperly, and engaged in risky lending,
credit assessment, and loan collection practices including
predatory lending, high-risk lending, and providing prohibited
online loans to college students, as well as other business
practices putting the company at risk.

Judge Sherwood finds that there is another, earlier-filed, action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York ("SDNY").  That action asserts the claims brought in the
instant case.  All of the Defendants in instant action are the
defendants in the SDNY action, and the Plaintiff does not deny it
is a member of the putative class laid out by that complaint.  As
the Plaintiff argues, some of the specific misrepresentations
alleged in the instant action are not specified as actionable
misrepresentations in the SDNY action and the Plaintiffs are not
named in that action.  Until the class in the SDNY action is
certified and the Plaintiffs opt in to that action, they are
prospective class members in that action, no more.  Therefore, the
Judge holds that a stay appropriate.

Accordingly, he granted the motion to dismiss to the extent of
staying further proceedings in the action, except for an
application to vacate or modify said stay.  Either party may make
an application by order to show cause to vacate or modify the stay
upon the class action determination of the court SDNY action.

Judge Sherwood directed the Movant to serve a copy of the Order
with notice of entry on the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office
within 10 days from entry and the Clerk will mark the matter
stayed.  Such service upon the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office
will be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in
Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for
Electronically Filed Cases.  The Order constitutes the decision and
order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/m0V9rG from Leagle.com.


RAKUTEN COMMERCE: Online Retailer Faces Class Action in NY
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rakuten Commerce LLC.
The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rakuten Commerce LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10938 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

Rakuten Commerce LLC operates as an online retailer that sells
various products to customers, merchants, and retailers worldwide.
It offers computers and office products, electronics, fashion and
beauty products, video games, books, movies and music, home and
household products, health and fitness products, and toys and baby
products.[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


RANBAXY PHARMA: Court Denies Bid to Certify Fenwick Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANCIS FENWICK, EDWARD SAFRAN, STEVE HARDING, MARY
WARDRETT, and LINDA YOUNG, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, V. RANBAXY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
RANBAXY LABORATORIES, LTD., RANBAXY LABORATORIES, INC., RANBAXY
USA, OHM LABORATORIES, ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10, and JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-07354 (PGS)(DEA)(D. N.J.),
Judge Peter G. Sheridan of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The case is a class action matter brought by individuals who seek
refund of the money paid for certain prescription pills of the drug
Atorvastatin, manufactured and sold by the Defendants.  The product
is the generic version of Lipitor, and is used to reduce
cholesterol.

On Sept. 5, 2012, Ranbaxy employees noticed blue particles in the
raw materials used to manufacture Atorvastatin.  On Oct. 22, 2012,
the particles were identified as glass from glass liners for the
reactors used during the manufacturing process for the active
pharmaceutical ingredient ("API"), and at that time, Ranbaxy ceased
further manufacture and distribution of that API.  The API observed
to be containing glass was not distributed to consumers.

Thereafter, Ranbaxy manufactured another batch of the API, in the
same facility where it had first noticed the glass in the API.
This batch of API was shipped to a Ranbaxy manufacturing facility
in Mohali, India, where it was used in the manufacturing of the
Atorvastatin, and was then distributed to the distribution centers
of 35 different companies.  A total of 41 batches were manufactured
and distributed using the API that may have, but was never observed
to, contain glass.

On Nov. 9, 2012, Ranbaxy initiated a voluntary recall at the retail
level of 41 lots of Atorvastatin.  Ranbaxy explained it was taking
the action as a precautionary measure due to the fact that it
cannot exclude the possibility that the affected lots may contain
very small glass particles resembling a fine grain of sand (less
than 1 mm in size).

On Nov. 28, 2012, Ranbaxy issued a press release announcing the
recall.  On Nov. 29 and 30, 2012, the FDA issued a statement,
notifying the public of the recall.  It advised that the
possibility of advised health problems related to the recalled
product is extremely low and patients who have the recalled
medicine can continue taking it unless directed otherwise by their
physician or health care provider.

The 41 recalled lots amounted to 480,425 bottles containing the
recalled Atorvastatin pills.  Of that amount, 400,201 bottles were
returned during the recall. Nine of the 35 companies that received
the recalled Atorvastatin pills sold the pills to the Class

The Plaintiffs allege that from the 90 or 500 count pill bottles,
the recalled pills were repackaged and disbursed in smaller
bottles, often into 30 count pill bottles, and then sold to
consumers through pharmacies.  The parties agree that companies do
not track the lot numbers when buying or selling drugs to
consumers, and thus the parties are unable to determine which
consumers received pills from the recalled lots through information
provided by the companies.

Because the recall was at the retail level, and not at the consumer
level, only retailers were required to return the product and, as
the Plaintiff alleges, received a refund.  Thus, because consumers
were instructed to continue taking the recalled pills, consumers
who purchased the recalled pills did not receive a refund.
Plaintiffs now seek to certify a class representing consumers who
purchased pills that may have contained glass particles.

The Plaintiffs brought the present action on Nov. 29, 2012,
alleging: (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (2)
breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (3) breach of
express warranty; and (4) unjust enrichment.

The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, and a motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

The Plaintiffs seek class certification based upon the class of all
consumers who were dispensed Ranbaxy Atorvastatin pills identified
by found NDC numbers (66304-827-90; 66304-829-90; and 66304-829-05)
by certain pharmacies and mail order facilities during specific
date ranges.  

The Class Members were dispensed pills from inventory pools that
included recalled pills for the exact same type that possibly
contained glass particles.  The Class Periods are the date ranges
that those inventory pools included some of the recalled pills.

The Plaintiffs also provide a more detailed, alternative
definition, a class of all consumers who were dispensed Ranbaxy
Atorvastatin pills identified by found NDC numbers (66304-827-90;
66304-828-90; 66304-829-90; 66307-829-05) from a list of specified
stores of seven retail pharmacy companies or from a list of
specified dispensing facilities of two mail order pharmacy
companies during specific date ranges.

Ranbaxy recalled 41 lots of pills identified by those found NDC
numbers because of possible contamination with glass particles.
The Class Members were dispensed pills from inventory pools of each
of the specified retail pharmacy stores included the recalled pills
and the date ranges that the inventory pools of each of the
specified retail pharmacy stores included the recalled pills and
the date ranges that the inventory pools of each of the specified
mail order dispensing facilities included the recalled pills.

Judge Sheridan denied the Plaintiffs' Motion.  Among other things,
he finds that it is impossible to identify potential class members
without extensive and individualized fact-finding or mini-trials.
Further, it is likely impossible to, several years after the
recall, determine who from the potential class members did not
purchase recalled pills, as the companies did not track the lot
numbers.  Thus, the Plaintiffs have failed to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that the methodology suggested will
be successful in identifying potential class members.  Accordingly,
he finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence that they can identify the class
members based on its proposed methodology.

Regarding the Plaintiffs' breach of express and implied warranty
claims, the Judge holds that the laws differing laws of the 50
states would apply.  Regarding their unjust enrichment claims, the
law of New Jersey would apply.  The Plaintiff has not provided any
extensive analysis of the state law variances for the breach of
express and implied warranty claims, and whether or how these
variances may impact predominance.  Accordingly, because common
legal issues do not predominate, the Plaintiffs have not satisfied
the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).  Thus, based on the
information provided, the Judge is unable to grant the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/Jgw0eu from Leagle.com.

FRANCIS FENWICK, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, EDWARD SAFRAN, LINDA YOUNG, STEVE HARDING & MARY
WARDRETT, Plaintiffs, represented by BARRY J. GAINEY --
bgainey@gme-law.com -- GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON.

RANBAXY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., RANBAXY LABORATORIES, LTD., RANBAXY
LABORATORIES, INC., RANBAXY USA, OHM LABORATORIES & RANBAXY, INC.,
Defendants, represented by ARNOLD B. CALMANN -- abc@saiber.com --
SAIBER LLC, JEFFREY S. SOOS -- jsoos@saiber.com -- SAIBER LLC &
KATHERINE ANN ESCANLAR -- kescanlar@saiber.com -- SAIBER LLC.

ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10, Defendant, pro se.

JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendant, pro se.


RANDSTAD GENERAL: Nixon Suit Asserts ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Randstad General
Partner (US) LLC. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Randstad
General Partner (US) LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06683 (E.D.
N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

Randstad General Partner (US) LLC was founded in 1999. The
company's line of business includes providing employment
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


RELIANT CAPITAL: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Avila FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted in part and denied in part the
Reliant's motion to dismiss the case, ANNMARIE AVILA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
RELIANT CAPITAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, an Ohio Limited Liability Company;
and JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 10, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-2718 (ADS)(ARL)(E.D. N.Y.).

The Plaintiff initiated the putative class action against Reliant
as well as unidentified natural person and/or business entities for
damages stemming from alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  The Plaintiff contends that
Reliant attempted to collect a defaulted student loan debt using a
debt collection letter which falsely stated that the amount owed
may increase due to interest, late charges, and other charges.

Reliant is a debt collection agency and limited liability company
that exists pursuant to the laws of the State of Ohio.  Its
principal place of business is 670 Cross Pointe Road in Gahanna,
Ohio.

Prior to Dec. 19, 2017, the Plaintiff defaulted on her federal
student loan.  The Debt was subsequently placed with Reliant for
collection.  On Dec. 19, 2017, Reliant sent the Letter to the
Plaintiff in an attempt to collect an outstanding debt of
$33,151.18.  The principal balance was listed at $24,191.55, the
interest as $2,470.17, and fees & costs as $6,489.46.  The Letter
noted that the Plaintiff had not accrued any penalty charges.
Specific instructions were provided for submitting payment to
Reliant.

On May 8, 2018, the Plaintiff commenced the action against the
Defendants by filing a complaint.  The present motion in the action
was filed on June 22, 2018 by Reliant seeking to dismiss the entire
complaint in the action, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).  Reliant argues
that the Plaintiff fails to successfully allege a claim under
various provisions of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e or 15 U.S.C. Section
1692g(a)(1) because the language complained of in the Letter has
already been expressly approved by the Second Circuit in Avila v.
Riexinger & Assocs., a case where Avila was also a plaintiff.  

Specifically, the Plaintiff contends that the statement "because of
interest, late charges, and other charges that may vary day to day,
the amount due on the day you pay may be greater," is false,
deceptive and misleading.  The Plaintiff alleges that the language
Reliant used regarding "interest, late charges, and other charges"
is false, deceptive, or misleading, because while the her debt is
accruing interest, there are no accruing late charges or other
fees.

Judge Spatt granted in part and denied in part the Reliant's motion
to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).  He dismissed the Plaintiff's
complaint in its entirety.  However, he finds that judicial
estoppel does not apply becuase while the disputed language in the
Letter is the safe harbor formula established in Avila, the
Plaintiff's position is not fundamentally inconsistent or clearly
contradictory with her prior position in that case.  The Judge also
declined to award attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692k(a)(3) because Reliant has not met its burden in
demonstrating that the Plaintiff has engaged in bad faith.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Memorandum of
Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/bOPt7e from
Leagle.com.

Annmarie Avila, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Abraham Kleinman --
akleinman@kleinmanllc.com -- Kleinman, LLC, Andrew T. Thomasson,
Stern Thomasson LLP, pro hac vice & Philip D. Stern , Stern
Thomasson LLP, pro hac vice.

Reliant Capital Solutions, LLC, an Ohio Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, represented by Arthur Sanders -- asanders@bn-lawyers.com
-- Barron & Newburger, P.C..


RFA BRANDS: Portable Charger Capacity Deceptive, Mancuso Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK MANCUSO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RFA BRANDS, LLC, d/b/a MYCHARGE, the
Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-06807 (W.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks
redress for Defendant's unjust, unfair, and deceptive practices in
misrepresenting the capacity of the Products in violation of state
law.

In recent years consumers have become increasingly dependent on
portable electronic devices like smart phones, tablets, and laptop
computers (PED). PEDs have made it convenient for consumers to
constantly stay in communication with colleagues, friends, and
loved ones, and to immediately access information. However, like
any electronic device, PEDs require power and their internal
batteries must be periodically recharged. To address the needs of
consumers to use PEDs during travel, or when the consumer otherwise
lacks access to an electrical outlet, the portable charger industry
emerged. A portable charger, often called a power bank ("Power
Bank"), is a small, portable power source consumers can use to
recharge their PEDs during travel. The greater the capacity of the
Power Bank, as is expressed in milliampere-hours ("mAh"), the more
times the Power Bank can be used to recharge PEDs before the Power
Bank must be recharged itself. Thus, consumers prefer and are
willing to pay a premium for Power Banks with higher mAh ratings.

According to the complaint, RFA Brands, LLC manufactures, markets,
and distributes for sale to consumers a number of Power Banks under
the myCharge label. RFA Brands does so by prominently representing
the Products' capacities as measured in mAh. Unfortunately for
consumers, testing has shown the Products' actual capacities are
substantially lower than what RFA Brands represents. By deceiving
consumers about the Products’ capacities as detailed herein, RFA
Brands is able to sell more of, and charge more for, the Products
than the Company could charge if the Products were labeled
accurately. Further, RFA Brands was also incentivized to mislead
consumers to take away market share from competing products,
thereby increasing its own sales and profits, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
          FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3290
          E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                  tgarber@fbfglaw.com

RINGCENTRAL INC: Appeal in Supply Pro Sorbents Lawsuit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
RingCentral, 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 a district court
has ordered that the putative class action suit by Supply Pro
Sorbents, LLC be submitted on the briefs and record without oral
argument.

On April 21, 2016, Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC ("SPS") filed a
putative class action against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging
common law conversion and violations of the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") arising from fax cover sheets used
by the Company's customers when sending facsimile transmissions
over the Company's system ("SPS Lawsuit"). SPS seeks statutory
damages, costs, attorneys' fees and an injunction in connection
with its TCPA claim, and unspecified damages and punitive damages
in connection with its conversion claim.

On July 6, 2016, the Company filed a Petition for Expedited
Declaratory Ruling before the Federal Communications Commission
("FCC"), requesting that the FCC issue a ruling clarifying certain
portions of its regulations promulgated under TCPA at issue in the
SPS Lawsuit ("Petition"). The Petition remains pending.  

On July 8, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the SPS
Lawsuit in its entirety, along with a collateral motion to dismiss
or stay the SPS Lawsuit pending a ruling by the FCC on the
Company's Petition. On October 7, 2016, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss and gave SPS 20 days to amend its
complaint. The Court concurrently dismissed the Company's motion to
dismiss or stay as moot.  

Plaintiff filed its amended complaint on October 27, 2016, alleging
essentially the same theories and claims. On November 21, 2016, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, along with
a renewed motion to dismiss or stay the case pending resolution of
the FCC Petition.  On July 17, 2017, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss with prejudice and concurrently
dismissed the Company's motion to dismiss or stay as moot.

SPS filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
on July 28, 2017.  SPS's opening brief on appeal was filed on
December 20, 2017; asking that the dismissal be reversed and the
case be returned to the district court for the Lawsuit to be
processed. The Company's answering brief was filed on February 20,
2018; asking that the dismissal be affirmed. SPS filed its reply
brief on April 12, 2018. Oral argument had been scheduled to be
heard on November 16, 2018, but on October 23, 2018, the court
ordered that the case be submitted on the briefs and record without
oral argument.

RingCentral said, "There is no deadline for the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals to then issue its decision. It is too early to predict
the outcome of the SPS Lawsuit. Based on the information known by
the Company as of the date of this filing and the rules and
regulations applicable to the preparation of the Company's
condensed consolidated financial statements, it is not possible to
provide an estimated amount of any such loss or range of loss that
may occur."

RingCentral, Inc. provides software-as-a-service solutions for
business communications and collaboration primarily in the United
States. The company sells its products through a network of direct
sales representatives, as well as sales agents and channel
partners. RingCentral, Inc. was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Belmont, California.


RINGCENTRAL INC: Continues to Defend Hurley TCPA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
RingCentral, 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 class action suit filed by Joann Hurley.

On November 17, 2017, Joann Hurley ("Hurley"), filed a second
amended complaint in an ongoing putative class action lawsuit
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, adding the Company as a named defendant
and alleging that the Company and other defendants violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and regulations
promulgated thereunder by allegedly using an automated telephone
dialing system to deliver prerecorded political messages to Hurley,
an incumbent running for reelection, and others.  

Hurley alternatively alleges that the Company is vicariously liable
for the actions of its co-defendants. Hurley seeks statutory,
compensatory, consequential, incidental and punitive damages,
costs, and attorneys' fees in connection with her claims. The
Company was served with the second amended complaint on January 4,
2018.

On March 23, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of standing and failure to sufficiently state a
claim on which relief may be granted. Hurley filed her opposition
brief on April 6, 2018, and the Company filed its reply brief on
April 13, 2018.

On October 4, 2018, the district court issued its memorandum and
opinion order granting in part and denying in part the Company's
motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed Hurley's vicarious
liability claim but allowed Hurley's TCPA claim to proceed. The
Company filed its answer and affirmatives defenses to the second
amended complaint on October 18, 2018.  

RingCentral said, "It is too early to predict the outcome of this
lawsuit. Based on the information known by the Company as of the
date of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable to the
preparation of the Company's condensed consolidated financial
statements, it is not possible to provide an estimated amount of
any such loss or range of loss that may occur."

RingCentral, Inc. provides software-as-a-service solutions for
business communications and collaboration primarily in the United
States. The company sells its products through a network of direct
sales representatives, as well as sales agents and channel
partners. RingCentral, Inc. was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Belmont, California.


ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY: Camacho Sues Asserting ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roosevelt University.
The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Roosevelt University,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10944 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

Roosevelt University is a coeducational, private university with
campuses in Chicago, Illinois and Schaumburg, Illinois. Founded in
1945, the university is named in honor of both former President
Franklin Delano Roosevelt and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt.[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


ROSS STORES: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Morrison Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the motions of Defendants
Ross and AQ Textiles, LLC to dismiss the case, DOMINIQUE MORRISON,
Plaintiff, v. ROSS STORES, INC. ET AL., Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-02671-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

Morrison brings the putative class action against Defendants Ross,
AQ, and Creative Textile Mills Private Ltd., alleging that the
Defendants engaged in deceptive practice, namely making inflated
thread count representations with respect to bed linens they sold.


With the prior motions of Ross and AQ to dismiss pending, the
Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint ("FAC") on July 20,
2018.  The Plaintiff's FAC alleges claims for: violation of the
Magnusson Moss Warranty Act; fraud (Count 2); violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") (Count 3);
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal.
Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq. under its
unlawful prong (Count Four), unfair prong (Count Five), and
fraudulent prong (Count Six); (5) California False Advertising Law
("FAL") (Count Seven); breach of express warranty (Count Eight);
breach of warranty of merchantability (Count Nine); negligent
misrepresentation (Count Ten); and violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act (Count Eleven).  The claims alleged
under the CLRA, UCL, and FAL are alleged against Ross only, the
others are alleged against all the Defendants.

Ross and AQ have each filed a motion to dismiss.  AQ moves to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Both the Defendants
move to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for failure to
allege the Plaintiff's standing as to the full scope of product
misrepresentations alleged.

Judge Rogers finds that based upon Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v.
Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty. and Walden v.
Fiore, a plaintiff, as in the case, who is not a California
resident, does not allege to have suffered harm in California, and
does not allege any conduct by the defendant occurred in
California, has not established specific personal jurisdiction as
to her claims.  Therefore, the motion to dismiss AQ for lack of
personal jurisdiction will be granted.

The Plaintiff's allegation that the Defendants were put on notice
of a breach by prior customer complaints and by a letter from the
Plaintiffs' counsel sent three days prior to the filing of the
action is insufficient.  Though she argues futility in her motion,
she does not allege any facts showing that pre-filing notice to
Ross would have been futile.  Likewise, the argument that a class
action plaintiff need not provide pre-suit notice is wholly without
support.  Therefore, the Judge will grant Ross' motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiff has leave to amend to allege sufficiently the factual
basis for her claims against Ross, and for her satisfaction (or
excuse from satisfaction) of the notice requirements applicable to
them.

For these reasons, Judge Rogers granted the motion of Defendant AQ
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The Plaintiff has
failed to establish specific jurisdiction as to AQ Textiles.
Because the Judge finds that personal jurisdiction is not
established, she does not reach AQ's alternative grounds for
dismissal based upon failure to allege sufficient facts to state a
claim.  The Judge also granted with leave to amend the motion of
Defendant Ross to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

The Plaintiff will file her second amended complaint no later than
Dec. 4, 2018, and Defendant Ross will file its response no later
than Jan. 4, 2019, in light of the intervening holidays.  The
Judge's Order terminates Docket Nos. 37 and 38.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/cyIXF0 from Leagle.com.

Dominique Morrison, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situtated, Plaintiff, represented by S. Clinton Woods --
cwoods@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners, LLP., Charles E. Schaffer
-- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Sedran & Berman, pro hac vice,
Gwendolyn R. Giblin, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Ling Yue Kuang,
Audet & Partners, LLP, Michael Andrew McShane --
mmcshane@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners LLP & Stuart Cochran --
stuart@stecklerlaw.com -- Steckler Gresham Cochran.

Ross Stores, Inc. & AQ Textiles LLC, Defendants, represented by
Jeffrey Brian Margulies --  jeff.margulies@nortonrosefulbright.com
-- Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Andrew Leigh Rodenbough , Brooks
Pierce, Jennifer K. Van Zant -- jvanzant@brookspierce.com -- Brooks
Pierce McLendon Humphrey and Leonard LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren A.
Shoor -- lauren.shoor@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose
Fulbright US LLP, Ryan Clifford Fairchild --
rfairchild@brookspierce.com -- Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey,
pro hac vice & Shirley Bora Kim --
shirley.kim@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP.


RUBY THAI: Underpays Restaurant Workers, Martinez Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
MARCELINO HERNANDEZ-MARTINEZ, an individual, JUAN JOSE VILLA
ALVARADO, an individual, the Plaintiffs, vs. RUBY THAI VALLEY FAIR,
LLC, a California Corporation, YUH MEI CHIOU, an individual, and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.: 18CV337264
(Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 8, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to
to pay all wages including California overtime wages; failed to pay
all wages at the end of employment; failed to provide accurate
California itemized employee wage statements; failed to provide
breaks; and violated the California Unfair Competition Law for
unlawful and/or unfair act in violation of California Law.

According to the complaint, all Putative Plaintiffs are the
individual Plaintiffs' co-workers employed by Defendants as
non-exempt fast-food restaurant workers during the last four years
from the day they filed this complaint.

Each of the Defendants knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed
among themselves to damage the Plaintiffs and other non-exempt
laborer employees by depriving each of them of the benefits of wage
and hour law. The Defendants during the past four years did
wrongfully and knowingly deprive the employees of their lawfully
earned wages, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          James Dal Bon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES DAL BON
          606 N. 1 ST St.
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 466-5845
          Facsimile: (408) 286-7111

               - and -

          Victoria L.H. Booke, Esq.
          BOOKE & AJLOUNY
          606 North First Street
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 286-7000
          Facsimile: (408) 286-7111
          E-mail: vbooke@bookelaw.com

RUBY TUESDAY: Robbins Geller to Lead in Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT BLUESTONE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STEPHEN I. SADOVE, MARK W.
ADDICKS, DONALD E. HESS, F. LANE CARDWELL JR., KEVIN T. CLAYTON,
JEFFREY J. O'NEILL, and JAMES F. HYATT II, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-63 (E.D. Tenn.), Judge Harry S. Mattice, Jr. of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Knoxville,
granted  the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Lead
Counsel.

On Oct. 16, 2017, Ruby Tuesday announced that it had entered into a
definite merger agreement pursuant to which certain affiliates of
NRD Capital Management would take Ruby Tuesday private for $2.40
per share.  On Oct. 21, 2017, Ruby Tuesday filed a Preliminary
Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A.

On Nov. 8, 2017, Marcell Maseman filed the first class action
complaint, Maseman v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-478-HSM-CCS,
alleging that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities Exchange Commission
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, in connection with the
Acquisition.  Subsequently, eight other Ruby Tuesday stockholders
filed related complaints, Sun v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., No.
3:17-CV-482; Rosenfeld v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., 3:17-CV-485; Raul v.
Ruby Tuesday, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-494; Patterson v. Ruby Tuesday,
Inc., No. 3:17-CV-495; Breslau v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., No.
3:17-CV-496; Williams v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-499; Saile
v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-501; and Baily v. Ruby Tuesday,
Inc., No. 3:17-CV-511.

On Nov. 16, 2017, Plaintiff Maseman issued the statutory notice of
the pendency of his lawsuit in PR Newswire pursuant to the
requirements in 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(A).  A few days later, on
Nov. 21, 2017, Maseman filed a motion seeking consolidation of the
Related Actions and appointment of the interim lead Plaintiff and
the interim lead counsel.  In his motion, he requested that the
Court grants his request prior to the deadline for any other class
member to seek leave to serve as the lead Plaintiff under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA").

Plaintiff Robert Bluestone filed an objection to Plaintiff
Maseman's motion on the basis that the request was contrary to the
PSLRA, which allowed putative class members 60 days after the date
on which notice is published to seek appointment as the lead
Plaintiff.  On Dec. 18, 2017, prior to the expiration of the
sixty-day deadline, Maseman filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
of his action.

On Jan. 16, Plaintiff Bluestone filed a motion in Sun v. Ruby
Tuesday, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-482, seeking to consolidate the Related
Actions and for appointment as the lead Plaintiff.  Two days later,
on Jan. 18, the plaintiffs in the remaining Related Actions filed
Stipulations of Dismissal.  On Feb. 21, Plaintiff Bluestone filed
his own Complaint.  He did not publish notice with respect to his
own Complaint.

The matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton recommending that the Plaintiff's
Renewed Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of
Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Lead Counsel be granted.

The Defendants timely filed their Objections to the Magistrate
Judge's R&R.  They contend that the Plaintiff did not comply with
the notice requirements of the PSLRA and that the Plaintiff cannot
adequately represent the putative class because he is subject to
unique defenses.

Judge Mattice finds that the Defendants do not point to any
particular error or misconstruction of authority in the R&R.  They
simply disagree that the Plaintiff should be appointed the lead
Plaintiff in the action.  Such a perfunctory objection is
insufficient to trigger de novo review of the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation on the issue.

Moreover, the Judge finds that the Defendants' general arguments do
not constitute "proof" sufficient to rebut the presumption that the
Plaintiff is the most adequate plaintiff as required by 15 U.S.C.
Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II).  The Magistrate Judge's findings
of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the appointment of
Robert Bluestone as the lead Plaintiff were not clearly erroneous
or contrary to law.

For these reasons, Judge Mattice overruled that Defendants'
objection, accepted and adopted the Magistrate Judge's R&R, and
granted the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion.  Robert Bluestone is
appointed the lead Plaintiff and his selection of Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP as the lead counsel is likewise approved.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/SjzDmv from Leagle.com.

Robert Bluestone, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Hamp Lyons
-- CLyons@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Danielle
S. Myers -- DaniM@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice, David T. Wissbroecker -- DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Eun Jin Lee --
elee@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice,
Gerald E. Martin, Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC, pro
hac vice, Jerry E. Martin -- jmartin@barrettjohnston.com --
Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC, William Scott Holleman
-- FrankJ@JohnsonFistel.com --, Johnson Fistel, pro hac vice &
David Wilson Garrison -- dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com -- Barrett,
Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC.

Stephen I. Sadove, Donald E. Hess, F. Lane Cardwell, Jr., Kevin T.
Clayton & Jeffrey J. O'Neill, Defendants, represented by John S.
Hicks -- jhicks@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker, Donelson, Bearman,
Caldwell & Berkowitz, Kristine Roberts --
klroberts@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker, Donelson, Bearman Caldwell
and Berkowitz, PC, pro hac vice, Nicole D. Berkowitz --
nberkowitz@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker, Donelson, Bearman Caldwell
and Berkowitz, PC, pro hac vice & Christopher E. Thorsen --
cthorsen@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &
Berkowitz.

Mark Addicks, Defendant, represented by Christopher E. Thorsen,
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz.


RUSSELL TOBIN: Violates Disabilities Act, Nixon Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Russell Tobin and
Associates LLC. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Russell
Tobin and Associates LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06687 (E.D.
N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

Russell Tobin & Associates, LLC provides recruitment and staffing
services. Its services include temporary, temporary to permanent,
direct-hire, and consultant recruitment. The company caters to
accounting, administrative, banking and finance, human resource,
technology, legal and compliance, sales and marketing, and supply
chain sectors.[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


SABER HEALTHCARE: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Ruling in Bartels Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Saber Healthcare Group, LLC, et al., filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Edward Bartels, et al.
v. Saber Healthcare Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00283-BO,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina at Raleigh.

The appellate case is captioned as Edward Bartels, et al. v. Saber
Healthcare Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-2335, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Fourth Circuit
Judge William Byrd Traxler, Jr., vacated the District Court's order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court,
and remanded for reconsideration of the question of whether all of
the Saber Defendants are bound by the Franklin Manor
forum-selection clause in the cases, JEANNE T. BARTELS, by and
through William H. Bartels, Attorney-in-Fact, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants; and JEANNE T. BARTELS, by and through
William H. Bartels, Attorney-in-Fact, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Case
Nos. 16-2416, 16-2247 (4th Cir.),

Saber sits at the top of a family of wholly owned limited-liability
companies that own and operate dozens of assisted-living facilities
and nursing homes in several states, including North Carolina.
Current and former residents of one of Saber's North Carolina
assisted-living facilities brought a putative class action in North
Carolina state court against Saber and certain of its subsidiaries,
alleging that the Defendants failed to deliver the contractually
promised care and failed to comply with certain state law
requirements.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee JOSEPH J. PFOHL, Executor of the Estate of
Bernice C. Pfohl, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Matthew E. Lee, Esq.
          Jeremy Richard Williams, Esq.
          WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 West Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
                  matt@wbmllp.com
                  eremy@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Gary Edward Mason, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 640-1160
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Stephen Jay Gugenheim, Esq.
          Andrew D. Hathaway, Esq.
          GUGENHEIM LAW OFFICES, PC
          116 North Person Street
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 836-5551

Defendants-Appellants SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC; SABER HEALTHCARE
HOLDINGS, LLC; FRANKLIN OPERATIONS, LLC, d/b/a Franklin Manor
Assisted Living Center, d/b/a Franklin Manor Assisted Living
Center; SMITHFIELD EAST HEALTH HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a Gabriel Manor
Assisted Living Center; and QUEEN CITY AL HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a The
Crossings at Steele Creek, are represented by:

          Scott Elliot Bayzle, Esq.
          Stephen V. Carey, Esq.
          Robert Leandro, Esq.
          PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          P. O. Box 389
          Raleigh, NC 27602-0389
          Telephone: (919) 828-0564
          E-mail: scottbayzle@parkerpoe.com
                  stevecarey@parkerpoe.com
                  robbleandro@parkerpoe.com

               - and -

          Edward John Bennett, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP
          725 12th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-5901
          Telephone: (202) 434-5083
          E-mail: ebennett@wc.com

               - and -

          Mary Beth Hickcox-Howard, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP
          725 12th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-5901
          Telephone: (202) 434-5973
          E-mail: mhickcox-howard@wc.com


SAN DIEGO OUTLET: Court Consolidates Outlaw's Suits
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, OUTLAW LABORATORY, LP a Texas Limited Partnership,
Plaintiff, v. SAN DIEGO OUTLET INC., et al., Defendants. ROMA
MIKHA, INC, Defendant-counterclaimant and NMRM, Inc. and SKYLINE
MARKET, INC., third-party plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated entities, v. OUTLAW LABORATORY, LP,
Counterclaim Defendant and Third-Party, Defendant, Case No.
3:18-cv-1882-GPC-BGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted
Defendant Roma Mikha, Inc., Midway M3, Inc., and Third-Party
Plaintiffs NMRM, Inc. and Skyline Market, Inc.
("Counterclaimants")'s Motion to Consolidate the case with Outlaw
Laboratory, L.P. v. DG in PB, LLC (Case No. 18-cv-840-GPC-GBS),
dated Sept. 4, 2018.

Review of the two operative complaints show that both cases are
brought by the same Plaintiff, i.e., Outlaw, against
similarly-situated Defendants -- i.e., retail stores accused of
unlawfully offering for sale sexual enhancement products that
allegedly compete with Outlaw's products.  Indeed, the factual
allegations section of both of Outlaw's complaints are identical;
so too, are Outlaw's descriptions of the Defendants' alleged bad
acts.

Further, Judge Curiel finds that both complaints state causes of
action for violations of Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act.
The only difference between the two complaints, save the
Defendants' names, is that the complaint in the instant matter also
asserts two derivative state-law claims.  However, because those
state-law claims turn on the same evidence, and because the class
action asserted against the Plaintiff by the Counterclaimants,
embrace the Defendants identified in DG in PB, consolidation is
nonetheless proper.  He finds that the case and DG in PB share
common questions of law and fact, and that the time and effort
saved by consolidation will outweigh any inconvenience, delay, or
expense that it would cause.

Accordingly, the Judge granted the motion to consolidate, and
consolidated the captioned case and DG in PB for all purposes under
the "low numbered case," Case No. 18-CV-840-GPC-BGS.  All future
filings must be made in No. 18-CV-840-GPC-BGS.  The motion hearing
set for the matter on Nov. 16, 2018 is vacated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/fV8ney from Leagle.com.

Outlaw Laboratory, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership, Plaintiff,
represented by Matthew J. Smith --
msmith@insurancelawservices.com.

Roma Mikha, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Mark Poe -- mpoe@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw, Gaw
Poe LLP, Samuel Song -- ssong@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP & Victor
Meng -- vmeng@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP.

Midway M3, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP.

Eagle's Nest Property Management, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Robert Charles
Mardian, III -- rmardian@smalawsd.com -- Sullivan, McGibbons &
Associates LLP.

NMRM, Inc. & Skyline Market, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiffs,
represented by Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw, Gaw Poe LLP,
Samuel Song , Gaw & Poe LLP & Victor Meng, Gaw & Poe LLP.

Roma Mikha, Inc., a California Corporation, ThirdParty Plaintiff,
represented by Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw, Gaw Poe LLP &
Victor Meng, Gaw & Poe LLP.

Outlaw Laboratory, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership, ThirdParty
Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Smith.

Roma Mikha, Inc., a California Corporation, Counter Claimant,
represented by Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw, Gaw Poe LLP,
Samuel Song, Gaw & Poe LLP & Victor Meng, Gaw & Poe LLP.

Outlaw Laboratory, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership, Counter
Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Smith & Robert Tauler, Tauler
Smith LLP.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: West and Hopson Class Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, 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 court has
granted the company's motion to dismiss the class action suit filed
by Lisa West and Stormy Hopson, thereby dismissing the Company from
the lawsuit.

On October 14, 2016, Lisa West and Stormy Hopson filed an amended
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Exploration and
Production, LLC, among other defendants.

In their amended complaint, plaintiffs asserted various tort claims
seeking relief for damages, including the reimbursement of past and
future earthquake insurance premiums, resulting from seismic
activity allegedly caused by the defendants' operation of
wastewater disposal wells. The court dismissed the plaintiffs'
amended complaint on May 12, 2017, but permitted the plaintiffs to
file a second amended complaint.

On July 18, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended class
action complaint making allegations substantially similar to those
contained in the amended complaint that was previously dismissed.

On August 13, 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss, thereby dismissing the Company from the lawsuit.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. engages in the exploration, development, and
production of oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids primarily
in the Mid-Continent and North Park Basin of the United States. The
company is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Bid for Partial Judgment in Lanier Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Mississippian Trust II 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
for partial judgment on the pleadings filed in the class action
suit initiated by Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, is pending.

On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated unitholders of the Trust,
filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Trust, SandRidge
and certain current and former executive officers of SandRidge,
among other defendants (the "Securities Litigation").

The complaint, which was amended on November 11, 2016 (adding Ivan
Nibur, Lawerence Ross, Jase Luna, and Mathew Willenbuncher as lead
plaintiffs) and supplemented on May 1, 2017, asserts a variety of
federal securities claims on behalf of a putative class of (a)
purchasers of common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust I
("SDT") in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about
April 7, 2011, and (b) purchasers of common units of the Trust in
or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 17,
2012.

The claims are based on allegations that SandRidge and certain of
its current and former officers and directors, among other
defendants, including the Trust, are responsible for making false
and misleading statements, and omitting material information,
concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and gas reserves.
The plaintiffs seek class certification, an order rescinding the
Trust's initial public offering and an unspecified amount of
damages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs. As a result of
its reorganization in bankruptcy in 2016, SandRidge is a nominal
defendant only.

On August 30, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933. A partial judgment dismissing the claims
was entered in accordance with the order on December 5, 2017, and
the time to appeal that judgment has now expired.

As a result of the Court's order, the only claims remaining in the
litigation are the plaintiffs' claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder (the "Exchange Act Claims"). The only
remaining defendants in the litigation are SDT, James D. Bennett,
Matthew K. Grubb, Tom L. Ward, and SandRidge as a nominal defendant
only.

On September 11, 2017, the Court entered a subsequent order
regarding the remaining defendants' motions to dismiss the Exchange
Act Claims, granting the motion in part and denying the motion in
part.

On January 19, 2018, SDT filed a Motion for Partial Judgment on the
Pleadings as to any claims against it brought by purchasers of
common units of the Trust, arguing that such purchasers lack
standing to assert claims against SDT because they did not purchase
units in SDT. That motion is fully briefed and is awaiting a
decision from the Court.

On February 15, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which has been fully briefed and is awaiting a
decision from the Court.

On July 2, 2018, the remaining defendants filed a motion for
partial judgment on the pleadings, arguing that all claims asserted
on behalf of the members of the putative class are barred by the
statute of limitations. The motion has been fully briefed and is
awaiting a decision from the Court.

Regardless of the outcome of the litigation, the Trust may incur
expenses in defending the litigation, and any such expenses may
increase the Trust’s administrative expenses significantly.
However, the Trust is entitled to contractual indemnification
covering reasonable costs of investigation and attorney’s fees
and expenses that the Trust believes will be applicable. The Trust
will estimate and, if the Trustee deems it appropriate, begin
reserving funds for potential losses that may arise out of
litigation to the extent that such losses are probable and can be
reasonably estimated. Significant judgment will be required in
making any such estimates and any final liabilities of the Trust
may ultimately be materially different than any estimates. The
Trust is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or
estimate a range of any potential loss the Trust may incur in
connection with the Securities Litigation, and has not established
any reserves relating to the Securities Litigation.  The Trust may
withhold estimated amounts from future distributions to cover
future costs associated with the litigation if determined
necessary. The Trust has not yet fully analyzed any rights it may
have to indemnities that may be applicable or any claims it may
make in connection with the Securities Litigation.

SandRidge Mississippian Trust II holds royalty interests in oil and
natural gas properties. The company's properties are located in the
Mississippian formation in Alfalfa, Grant, Kay, Noble, and Woods
counties in northern Oklahoma and Barber, Comanche, Harper, and
Sumner counties in southern Kansas. The company was founded in 2011
and is based in Houston, Texas. SandRidge Mississippian Trust II is
a subsidiary of SandRidge Exploration and Production, LLC.


SANFORD KAHN: Dupes Tenants over Eviction Notice, Montes Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
NABOR MONTES, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, vs. SANFORD KAHN, LTD., an Illinois
Corporation; AMY MELAND SELLERGREN; and WHIPPLETREE MHC, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company d/b/a "Whippletree Village", the
Defendants, Case No. 2018CH14037 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Nov. 9,
2018), alleges that Defendants lied to Plaintiff about the order of
possession because they intended that Plaintiff not understand the
Order of Possession on account of the language barrier created by
his race and national origin.

Plaintiff is, and identifies as, Hispanic.  According to the
complaint, Sanford Kahn, Ltd. is a law firm and Illinois' largest
eviction mill, filing thousands of eviction cases annually and
dispossessing thousands of tenants from their homes. One of the
tactics Sanford Kahn, Ltd. uses is to lie to tenants of color,
particularly those who do not read English fluently, telling them
that they need to sign paperwork to stay in their units or speak to
the Judge. That paperwork turns out to be an Order of Possession.
This conduct, repeated over and over again by Sanford Kahn,
constitutes a fraud upon the Court system and a violation of
Illinois and federal law. This action seeks to vindicate the rights
of those dispossessed tenants, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Sheryl Ring, Esq.
          OPEN COMMUNITIES LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
          990 Grove Street, Suite 500
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Telephone: (847) 501-5760
          E-mail: sheryl@open-communities.org

SHAUN'S TOWING: Attorneys Can Start Sending Class Action Notices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Carroll, writing for The Aspen Times, reports that attorneys
for a man suing an Aspen towing company for overtime compensation
can start sending notices to other prospective plaintiffs to form a
class-action suit, according to a court ruling.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix, in an 11-page order issued
Nov. 13, cleared plaintiff and former Shaun's Towing and Recovery
driver Joseph Durrant to notify current and former employees of the
company about the litigation and provide instructions on how to
join the class action.

Judge Mix's order supported Mr. Durrant's motion describing
eligible class members as "all tow truck drivers who worked for
Shaun's Towing And Recovery, LLC and/or Shaun Healy, at any time
from three years before the date of the mailing of this notice
through the final disposition of this case, but did not receive
overtime for hours worked over 40 in any workweek."

The notice also must tell prospective plaintiffs they may have to
appear in Denver for court proceedings, Mix's order said.

Mr. Durrant's complaint, which was filed in December in the U.S.
District Court of Denver, claims he worked as a driver with Shaun's
Towing from August 2015 until February 2016, earning $13 an hour
plus 30 percent commission. The suit claims he wasn't paid for "the
required rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked over 40
each workweek."

The suit makes claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Colorado Minimum Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Wage Claim Act.

Mr. Durrant has alleged he and other employees were paid for two
weeks of work regardless of the number of hours they logged. Some
workers put in as many as 96 hours a week, Mr. Durrant alleges.

The defense has countered that Mr. Durrant cannot recruit
"similarly situated employees" to join his suit because drivers
could be required to cross state lines as part of their job, while
Mr. Durrant did not.

Mr. Durrant and other employees "are exempt from receiving overtime
compensation under the FLSA as they are subject to the Motor
Carrier Act Exemption," the defense argued. The defense asked that
the class be restricted to drivers who only worked within state
lines, but Mix ordered the class could include all drivers.

The Motor Carrier Act exempts employees who work overtime, provided
they are involved in interstate commerce through driving
activities, from receiving time-and-a-half pay.

Judge Mix's ruling said the defendants failed to provide
information to the court supporting that distinction.

"Defendants have offered no basis for differentiating between
employees who worked solely in Colorado and those who worked in
Colorado but also transported motor vehicles across State lines,"
the magistrate judge's order said.

However, Judge Mix said that argument can be brought up again after
the discovery portion of the litigation.

At this stage of the case, Judge Mix also noted that the plaintiffs
only need to demonstrate a "modest showing" that Mr. Durrant and
other class members were victims of labor law violations by Shaun's
Towing.

Shaun's Towing started in 2005 and serves the entire Roaring Fork
Valley.

Corpus Christi, Texas, attorney Clif Alexander, who represents Mr.
Durrant, and Shaun's Towing lawyer Michael P. McGovern of
Knoxville, Tennessee, could not be reached for comment. [GN]


SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Appeal in New York Class Action Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Oncology, 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 appeal in the
purported class action suit before  the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, is still pending.

On November 9, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its
executive officers (the New York Lawsuit).

The New York Lawsuit was brought by purported stockholders of the
Company seeking to represent a class consisting of stockholders who
purchased stock between July 15, 2015 and June 6, 2016. The New
York Lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

On March 13, 2018, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and entered a final judgment dismissing the New York
Lawsuit with prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal.

The Company believes that the claims in the New York Lawsuit are
without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Sierra Oncology said, "It is possible that additional similar
lawsuits could be filed. Due to the early stage of the litigation,
the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
However, at this point in time, the Company does not expect the
outcome of these claims will have a material impact on its
condensed consolidated financial statements."

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

Sierra Oncology, Inc., a clinical stage drug development company,
researches, develops, and commercializes DNA Damage Response (DDR)
therapeutics for the treatment of patients with cancer in the
United States and internationally. The company was formerly known
as ProNAi Therapeutics, Inc. and changed its name to Sierra
Oncology, Inc. in January 2017. Sierra Oncology, Inc. was founded
in 2003 and is headquartered in Vancouver, Canada.


SIGNATURE CARE: Faces Adolphe Suit in New York Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SIGNATURE CARE LLC.
The case is captioned ADOLPHE, FRIDANE AND INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED WHO WERE EMPLOYED BY
SIGNATURE CARE LLC AND/OR SIGNATURE CARE CDAP, MEGA STAFFING, INC.,
AND SHOLOM EISEN, the Plaintiffs, vs SIGNATURE CARE LLC, SIGNATURE
CARE CDPAP, MEGA STAFFING, INC., MEGA STAFFING NY, INC. AND SHOLOM
EISEN, the Defendants, Case No. 151214/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 9,
2018).

Signature Care is a New York State licensed home healthcare agency
that provides comprehensive homecare services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP
          40 Broad St, 7th FL
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080

Attorneys for Defendant:

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

SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Gentry Homes' Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co., 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 class action suit initiated by
Gentry Homes, Ltd.

Gentry Homes, Ltd. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 17-cv-00566, was filed in federal district court in Hawaii
against Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing,
Inc. on November 20, 2017.  

The Gentry case is a product of a previous state court class
action, Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd., et al. which is now
closed. The Nishimura case concerned alleged corrosion of the
Company's galvanized strap-tie holdowns and mudsill anchor products
used in a residential project in Honolulu, Hawaii, Ewa by Gentry.


In the Nishimura case, the plaintiff homeowners and the developer,
Gentry, arbitrated their dispute and agreed on a settlement in the
amount of $90 million, with $54 million going to repair costs and
$36 million going to attorney's fees.  

In the Gentry case, Gentry alleges breach of warranty and negligent
misrepresentation related to the Company’s "hurricane strap" and
mudsill anchor products. Gentry is demanding general, special, and
consequential damages from the Company in an amount to be proven at
trial. Gentry also seeks pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.  

Simpson Manufacturing said, "The Company admits no liability and
will vigorously defend the claims bought against it. At this time,
the Company cannot reasonably ascertain the likelihood that it will
be found responsible for substantial damages to Gentry.  Based on
the facts currently known, and subject to future events and
circumstances, the Company believes that all or part of the claims
may be covered by its insurance policies."


Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., through its subsidiaries, designs,
engineers, manufactures, and sells building construction products.
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. was founded in 1956 and is
headquartered in Pleasanton, California.


SINCLAIR BROADCAST: 22 Price Fixing Suits Filed over TV Ad Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sinclair Broadcast Group, 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
has been named as defendant in 22 putative class action suits
related to alleged price fixing of TV commercial prices.

The Company is aware of 22 putative class action lawsuits filed in
United States District Court against the Company and Tribune
(Tribune Media Company, Tribune Broadcasting Company, LLC, or
both). Most of these lawsuits were also brought against other
broadcasters and other defendants, including, in certain cases,
unidentified "John Doe" defendants.

The lawsuits allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices for
commercials to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout
the United States, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and,
in one case, state consumer protection and tort laws. The lawsuits
seek damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest, as well as
injunctions against adopting practices or plans that would restrain
competition in the ways the plaintiffs have alleged. The lawsuits
followed published reports of a DOJ investigation earlier this year
into the exchange of pacing data within the industry.

Sinclair Broadcast Group said, "The Company believes the class
action lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
itself against all such claims."

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. operates as a television
broadcasting company in the United States. It owns or provides
various programming, operating, or sales services to television
stations. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
Hunt Valley, Maryland.


SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Continues to Defend Komito Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Sinclair Broadcast Group, 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 in a class action complaint entitled,
Komito vs. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-CV-02445-CCB.  

On August 9, 2018, Edward Komito, a putative Company shareholder,
filed a class action complaint (the "Komito Complaint") in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland against
the Company, Christopher Ripley and Lucy Rutishauser, which action
is captioned Komito vs. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:18-CV-02445-CCB.  

The Komito Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading disclosures
concerning the Merger prior to the termination thereof.  

The Komito Complaint seeks declaratory relief, money damages in an
amount to be determined at trial, and attorney's fees and costs.  

On September 26, 2018, Hartej Singh, a putative Company
shareholder, filed a substantially identical class action complaint
(the "Singh Complaint"), which action was captioned Hartej Singh
vs. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., Case No. 1:18-CV-02967-CCB. The
Singh complaint was subsequently dismissed voluntarily.  

Sinclair Broadcast Group said, "The Company believes that the
allegations in the Komito Complaint are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against the allegations."

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. operates as a television
broadcasting company in the United States. It owns or provides
various programming, operating, or sales services to television
stations. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
Hunt Valley, Maryland.


SNEAKERSNSTUFF INC: Store Sued for Alleged ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sneakersnstuff, Inc.
The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sneakersnstuff, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06689 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

Sneakersnstuff is still located in Stockholm and has since opened
stores in Berlin, London, Paris and New York. Well-known throughout
the world, Sneakersnstuff is the store that put Sweden on the
sneaker map. It is widely known for always carrying carefully
selected items hard to come by, as well as staying true to the old
school sneaker lovers with a massive assortment of classics such as
Converse Chuck Taylor's, adidas Stan Smith's, Puma Suedes, New
Balance 577's, Nike Air Force 1's and Air Max 1's.[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


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Consolidated Suit in Nevada
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, 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 against a consolidated class action suit
in Nevada.

These cases were filed against the Company: Olutayo Ayeni v.
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Filed September 21, 2016 in
the United States District Court, Central District of California;
Case No. 2:16-cv-07074) (the "Ayeni Action") and Glen Hartsock v.
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Filed September 28, 2016 in
the United States District Court, District Court of Nevada Case;
No. 2:16-cv-02279-RFB-GWF) (the "Hartsock Action").

On November 15, 2016, the Ayeni Action was transferred to the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The
parties have stipulated to a consolidation of the Ayeni Action with
the Hartsock Action.

These class action lawsuits allege that the company and certain of
its executive officers made false or misleading statements and
failed to disclose material facts about our business and the
prospects of approval for the company's NDA to the FDA for QAPZOLA
in violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.

The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and
other unspecified equitable relief.

Spectrum Pharmaceuticals said, "We believe that these claims are
without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against these
claims. Furthermore, as of September 30, 2018, the value of a
potential settlement cannot be reasonably estimated given its
highly uncertain nature."

Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. develops and commercializes oncology
and hematology drug products. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was
founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Henderson, Nevada.


STITCH FIX: Weismann Alleges Misleading Business Reports
--------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN WEISMANN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STITCH FIX, INC., KATRINA LAKE, PAUL
YEE and MIKE C. SMITH, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-06565-HSG
(N.D. Cal., Oct. 26, 2018), is a securities fraud class action on
behalf of all purchasers of Stitch Fix common stock between June 8,
2018 and October 1, 2018, inclusive.

According to the complaint, Stitch Fix is an online retail fashion
subscription service. Stitch Fix purchases clothing, shoes and
accessories from name-brand manufacturers and designs more in-house
that it has manufactured. Stitch Fix personnel then select and
deliver curated boxes of items to "clients" to try on, buy what
they like, and return the rest. While some or all of the items can
be returned free of charge, clients are incentivized to accept the
entire selection through 25% price discount that is only applied if
the client accepts the entire shipment.

Beginning in 2017, the Company started to advertise its services on
television, which attributed to its considerable active client
growth during 2017 and 2018. For investors in Stitch Fix, reported
active clients is a key metric for them to value the Company and
make investment decisions. When the Company was marketing its IPO
in November 2017, it specifically touted that its active client
base had grown from 867,000 at August 1, 2015, to 1,674,000 at July
30, 2016, to 2,194,000 at July 29, 2017, representing
year-over-year growth rates of 93.1% and 31.1%, respectively. The
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) its active client
growth was weakening; (2) the Company would cease its investment in
television advertising; and (3) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On October 1, 2018, after the close of trading, Stitch Fix reported
its 4Q18 financial results, which fell short of projected active
client growth expectations, disclosing that the Company had signed
up far fewer than expected new active clients during 4Q18, which
had ended more than two months earlier, on July 28, 2018. The
Company reported that its active client count was virtually flat,
and that its active client growth had declined by 70%
quarter-over-quarter. On this news, the price of Stitch Fix common
stock fell $15.69 per share, greater than 35%, to close at $31.58
per share on October 2, 2018. As a result of Defendants' wrongful
acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class
members have suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          468 North Camden Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (818) 532-6449
          Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

STORCK USA: Underfills Werther's Candy Bags, Woods Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE WOODS, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. STORCK USA
L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, the Defendant, Case
5:18-cv-02409 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2018), seeks to recover damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant with
respect to packaging of product.

This lawsuit charges Defendant with unlawfully and unfairly
packaging its Werther's Original Caramel Hard Candies product in
opaque containers that contain more than 40 % empty space. Most
consumers purchased the Product without knowing that the containers
were substantially empty. The Plaintiff purchased the Product
manufactured/distributed by Defendant in April 2018 in Moreno
Valley, California in the Central District of California. In
particular, Plaintiff purchased the 8.1-ounce version of the
Product in Moreno Valley at a Walmart store. The Plaintiff
purchased the Product for the purpose of enjoying its contents
consuming (eating) the food item. The Plaintiff was surprised when
she opened the product that the container had over 40% empty space,
or slack-fill. Defendant's conduct violates consumer protection and
labeling laws, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
          Tania Babaie, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  mike@consumersadvocates.com
                  tania@consumersadvocates.com

SUMA SUSHI: Placido Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Placido, Marcelo Carcamo, Ricardo Placido, as individually
and on behalf of All Other Employees Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. The Suma Sushi NYC, Inc. d/b/a Suma Sushi, Li Wen
Qiu, Guofeng Chen, and Guo Xun Chen, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-10534 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, compensation for failure to
provide wage notice at the time of hiring and failure to provide
paystubs in violation of the New York Labor Law, liquidated damages
equal to the sum of gratuities reduction, unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime wages, and spread of hours premiums pursuant to the
NY Wage Theft Prevention Act; prejudgment and post judgment
interest; and attorney's fees and costs, under the New York Labor
Law and the Federal 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, proper minimum wage, overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, "spread of
hours" pay for each work day whose interval between beginning and
end exceeds 10 hours and failing to provide reimbursement for tools
of the trade, the lawsuit says.

Suma Sushi is a Japanese restaurant popular for traditional array
of raw fish plates complemented by cooked meals.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Proposed FLSA Collective and Potential
Rule 23 Class:

          Lorena P. Duarte, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38 th Ave. Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
          E-mail: lduarte@hanglaw.com

TAKL INC: Violates ADA, Crosson Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Takl, Inc. The case
is styled as Aretha Crosson individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Takl, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06667 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

Takl platform connects customers who need chores completed with
background-checked, self-employed Providers who are able to earn
money using their skills on their own schedule.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group, P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11217
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


TREATMENT PARTNERS: Williams Seeks Unpaid Wages for Therapists
--------------------------------------------------------------
LATOYA WILLIAMS, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b), the Plaintiff(s), vs. TREATMENT PARTNERS OF AMERICA LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company, and SCOTT FRANKEL, the
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-81568-JIC (S.D.
Fla., Nov. 14, 2018), seeks all unpaid wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants unlawfully deprived
Plaintiff, and all other employees similarly situated, of minimum
wage compensation during the course of their employment. The
Defendant employs and has employed within the past three years
various forms of non-exempt "therapists" to provide addiction
counseling in Palm Beach County, Florida. The Defendant uniformly
treats and classifies its "therapists" as employees in Palm Beach
County, Florida as it relates to the payment of wages. The
Plaintiff and the class members performed the same or similar job
duties as one another in that they worked as "therapist" employees
of Treatment Partners within the past three years without receiving
proper minimum wage pay for hours worked in each workweek during
employment, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Atorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS -
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  livia@jordanrichardspllc.com

TREVENA INC: Faces Class Suits in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------
Trevena, 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 has
been named as defendant in putative class action suits in
Pennsylvania.

On October 10, 2018, Trevena and certain of its former executives
were sued in a purported class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On October 15, 2018 and November 5, 2018, two substantially similar
lawsuits were filed against the company and certain former and
current executives in the same court. The plaintiffs allege that
the company and its former executives made false and misleading
statements in violation of federal securities laws regarding its
business, operations, and prospects, including certain statements
made relating to its End-of-Phase 2 meeting with the FDA.

The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, unspecified damages, and
attorneys' fees and other costs.

Trevena said, "We believe that the lawsuits are without merit, and
it intends to vigorously defend ourself against the allegations."

Trevena, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops therapies
based on breakthrough science to benefit patients and healthcare
providers confronting serious medical conditions. The company was
founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Chesterbrook,
Pennsylvania.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management 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 case
entitled, In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, is in
a holding pattern until the 11th Circuit decides whether to take
the Standard of Review ruling on appeal.

Triple-S Salud, Inc. (TSS) is a co-defendant with multiple Blue
Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) in a
multi-district class action litigation filed by a group of
providers and subscribers on July 24, 2012 and October 1, 2012,
respectively, that has since been consolidated by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern
Division, in the case captioned In re Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association Antitrust Litigation.

Essentially, provider plaintiffs allege that the exclusive service
area requirements of the Primary License Agreements with the Blue
Plans constitute an illegal horizontal market allocation under
federal antitrust laws. As per provider plaintiffs, the quid pro
quo for said "market allocation" is a horizontal price fixing and
boycott conspiracy" implemented through the Inter-Plans Program
Committee ("IPPC") and whose benefits are allegedly derived through
the BCBSA's Blue Card/National Accounts Program. Among the remedies
sought, provider plaintiffs seek increased compensation rates and
operational changes.

In turn, subscriber plaintiffs allege that the alleged conspiracy
to allocate markets have prevented subscribers from being offered
competitive prices and resulted in higher premiums for Blue Plan
subscribers. Subscribers seek damages in the form of
supra-competitive premiums allegedly charged by the Blue Plans
and/or the difference between what subscribers have paid the Blues
and the lower competitive premiums that non-competing Blues would
have charged. Both actions seek injunctive relief.

Prior to consolidation, motions to dismiss were filed by several
plans, including TSS - whose request was ultimately denied by the
court without prejudice. On April 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed suit in
the United States District Court of Puerto Rico against TSS. Said
complaint, nonetheless, is believed not to preclude TSS'
jurisdictional arguments.

Since inception, the Company has joined BCBSA and other Blue Plans
in vigorously contesting these claims. On April 5, 2018, the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,
Southern Division, issued it's ruling on the parties' respective
motions for partial summary judgment on the standard of review
applicable to plaintiffs' claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act
and subscriber plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on
the Blue Plan's single entity defense.

After considering the "undisputed" facts (for summary judgment
purposes only) and evidence currently on record in the light most
favorable to defendants, the court essentially found that: (a) the
Exclusive Service Areas constitute horizontal market allocations
that are subject to the Per Se standard of review; (b) the National
Best Efforts Rule constitutes an "output restriction" subject to
the Per Se standard of review; (c) there remain genuine issues of
material fact as to whether defendants' conduct can be shielded by
the "single entity" defense; and (d) claims concerning the BlueCard
Program and uncoupling rules are due to be analyzed under the Rule
of Reason standard.

As a result, the joint defense group obtained certification of the
standard of review decision, and on July 9, 2018 appealed the
matter to the 11th Circuit. Presently, the case is in a "holding
pattern" until the 11th Circuit decides whether to take the
Standard of Review ruling on appeal.

Triple-S Management said, "If successful, plaintiffs would be
entitled to recover treble damages plus attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses. In addition, the challenged practice would likely be
enjoined nationwide.  Even if class certification is denied, any
one plaintiff could still challenge the entire system and seek the
same broad relief as the current putative classes. An injunction in
favor of a single plaintiff could likely apply to the entire
system. Damages experts have yet to issue damage estimates.
Estimates of potential exposure towards providers, after trebling,
exceed $15 billion. Potential trebled damages towards subscribers
are close to $150 million. Possibilities of success are difficult
to predict globally and are contingent on whether the Per Se or the
Rule of Reason standard of review will apply to the practice, which
classes are certified, what practice is being challenged, and
whether the judge decides the case on summary judgment or a jury
does at trial. The likelihood of success globally appears to be
greater as to providers than as to subscribers. As part of the
Joint Defense Group, TSS intends to defend vigorously while
engaging in serious efforts to resolve the case through
mediation."

Triple-S Management Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
a portfolio of managed care and related products in the commercial,
Medicare, and Medicaid markets in Puerto Rico, the United States.
The company operates through three segments: Managed Care, Life
Insurance, and Property and Casualty Insurance. Triple-S Management
Corporation was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in San Juan,
Puerto Rico.


TRUECAR INC: Appeal in Gordon Rose Class Action Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
TrueCar, 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 plaintiff has
filed a notice of appeal on the court's denial of a class
certification motion and the proceedings in the trial court have
been stayed pending the resolution of the appeal.

On December 23, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed by Gordon Rose in the
California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. The
complaint asserted claims for unjust enrichment, violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and violation of the
California Business and Professions Code, based principally on
factual allegations similar to those asserted in the NY Lanham Act
Litigation and the CNCDA Litigation. The complaint sought an award
of unspecified damages, interest, disgorgement, injunctive relief
and attorney's fees.

In the complaint, the plaintiff sought to represent a class of
California consumers defined as "all California consumers who
purchased an automobile by using TrueCar, Inc.'s price certificate
during the applicable statute of limitations." On January 12, 2016,
the court entered an order staying all proceedings in the case
pending an initial status conference, which was scheduled for April
13, 2016. On March 16, 2016, the case was reassigned to a different
judge.

As a result of that reassignment, the initial status conference was
rescheduled for and held on May 26, 2016. By stipulation, the stay
of discovery was continued until a second status conference, which
was scheduled for October 12, 2016. On July 13, 2016, the plaintiff
amended his complaint.

The amended complaint continues to assert claims for unjust
enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
and violation of the California Business and Professions Code. The
amended complaint retains the same proposed class definition as the
initial complaint. Like the initial complaint, the amended
complaint seeks an award of unspecified damages, punitive and
exemplary damages, interest, disgorgement, injunctive relief and
attorney's fees.

On September 12, 2016, the Company filed a demurrer to the amended
complaint. On October 12, 2016, the court heard oral argument on
the demurrer. On October 13, 2016, the court granted in part and
denied in part the Company's demurrer to the amended complaint,
dismissing the unjust enrichment claim but declining to dismiss the
balance of the claims at the demurrer stage of the litigation.

At a status conference held on January 26, 2017, the court ruled
that discovery could then proceed regarding matters related to
class certification only. At a status conference held on July 25,
2017, the court set a deadline of January 8, 2018 for the filing of
the plaintiff's motion for class certification and provided that
discovery could continue to proceed regarding matters related to
class certification only at that time.

Subsequently, the court extended to February 7, 2018 the deadline
for the filing of plaintiff's motion for class certification and
for the completion of related discovery. On February 7, 2018, the
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The court held a
hearing on the plaintiff's class certification motion on July 12,
2018 and denied the motion on July 27, 2018.

On September 26, 2018, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and
proceedings in the trial court have been stayed pending the
resolution of the appeal.

The Company believes that the amended complaint is without merit,
and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. The
Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of
September 30, 2018 as the Company does not believe a loss is
probable or reasonably estimable.

TrueCar, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
Internet-based information, technology, and communication services
company in the United States. It operates its platform on the
TrueCar Website and mobile applications. TrueCar, Inc. was founded
in 2005 and is headquartered in Santa Monica, California.


TRUECAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Milbeck Complaint Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
TrueCar, 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 has
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed in the class
action suit initiated by Leon Milbeck.

On March 30, 2018, the Company and one of its former officers were
named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed by
Leon Milbeck in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. The complaint sought an award of unspecified damages,
interest, attorney's fees and equitable relief based on allegations
that the defendants made false or misleading statements about the
company's business, operations, prospects and performance during a
purported class period of February 16, 2017 through November 6,
2017 in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On June 27, 2018, the court appointed the Oklahoma Police Pension
and Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on August 24, 2018. The amended complaint
reiterated the claims in the prior complaint and added claims under
Section 11 of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint also added
the company's chief executive officer Chip Perry, the company's
interim chief financial officer John Pierantoni, the company's
former chief financial officer Michael Guthrie and the company's
underwriters and directors who signed the registration statement
for the company's secondary offering that occurred during the class
period as defendants.

On October 31, 2018, the plaintiff dismissed the underwriters from
the litigation "without prejudice," meaning that they could be
reinstated as defendants at a later time, and on November 5, 2018,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

The Company believes that the amended complaint is without merit
and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. The Company
has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of September
30, 2018 as the Company does not believe a loss is probable or
reasonably estimable.

TrueCar, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
Internet-based information, technology, and communication services
company in the United States. It operates its platform on the
TrueCar Website and mobile applications. TrueCar, Inc. was founded
in 2005 and is headquartered in Santa Monica, California.


TRUECAR INC: Ruling in Cal. Consumer Class Suit under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
TrueCar, 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 plaintiff in
the California Consumer Class Action suit filed a notice of appeal
on the court's denial of class certification motion, and
proceedings in the trial court have been stayed pending the
resolution of the appeal.

In December 2015, the company was named as a defendant in the
California Consumer Class Action. The complaint asserted claims for
unjust enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and violation of the California Business and
Professions Code, based principally on factual allegations similar
to those asserted in the NY Lanham Act Litigation and the CNCDA
Litigation.

In the complaint, the plaintiff sought to represent a class of "all
California consumers who purchased an automobile by using TrueCar,
Inc.'s price certificate during the applicable statute of
limitations." On January 12, 2016, the court entered an order
staying all proceedings in the case pending an initial status
conference, which was scheduled for April 13, 2016.

On March 16, 2016, the case was reassigned to a different judge. As
a result of that reassignment, the initial status conference was
rescheduled for and held on May 26, 2016. By stipulation, the stay
of discovery was continued until a second status conference, which
was scheduled for October 12, 2016. On July 13, 2016, the plaintiff
amended his complaint.

The amended complaint continues to assert claims for unjust
enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
and violation of the California Business and Professions Code. The
amended complaint retains the same proposed class definition as the
initial complaint.

Like the initial complaint, the amended complaint seeks an award of
unspecified damages, punitive and exemplary damages, interest,
disgorgement, injunctive relief and attorney's fees. On September
12, 2016, the company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint. On
October 12, 2016, the court heard oral argument on the demurrer. On
October 13, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part the
company's demurrer to the amended complaint, dismissing the unjust
enrichment claim but declining to dismiss the balance of the claims
at the demurrer stage of the litigation.

At a status conference held on January 26, 2017, the court ruled
that discovery could then proceed regarding matters related to
class certification only. At a status conference held on July 25,
2017, the court set a deadline of January 8, 2018 for the filing of
the plaintiff's motion for class certification and provided that
discovery could continue to proceed regarding matters related to
class certification only at that time.

Subsequently, the court extended to February 7, 2018 the deadline
for the filing of plaintiff's motion for class certification and
for the completion of related discovery. On February 7, 2018, the
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The court held a
hearing on the plaintiff's class certification motion on July 12,
2018 and denied the motion on July 27, 2018.

On September 26, 2018, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and
proceedings in the trial court have been stayed pending the
resolution of the appeal.

TrueCar said, "We believe that the amended complaint is without
merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.
Based on the current stage of the proceedings in this case, the
outcome of this legal proceeding, including the anticipated legal
defense costs, remains uncertain; however, we may incur significant
legal fees, settlements or damage awards resulting from this or
other civil litigation. If this matter is not resolved in our
favor, losses arising from the results of litigation or
settlements, as well as ongoing defense costs, could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows."

TrueCar, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
Internet-based information, technology, and communication services
company in the United States. It operates its platform on the
TrueCar Website and mobile applications. TrueCar, Inc. was founded
in 2005 and is headquartered in Santa Monica, California.


TWILIO INC: Jan. 15 Initial Approval Hearing on Flowers Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Twilio 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 a preliminary class
settlement approval hearing has been scheduled Angela Flowers v.
Twilio Inc., for January 15, 2019.

On February 18, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the Alameda County Superior Court in California, entitled Angela
Flowers v. Twilio Inc. The complaint alleges that the company
products permit the interception, recording and disclosure of
communications at a customer's request and are in violation of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief as well as monetary damages.
On May 27, 2016, the company filed a demurrer to the complaint. On
August 2, 2016, the court issued an order denying the demurrer in
part and granting it in part, with leave to amend by August 18,
2016 to address any claims under California's Unfair Competition
Law.

The plaintiff opted not to amend the complaint. Following a period
of discovery, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification
on September 20, 2017. On January 2, 2018, the court issued an
order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's class
certification motion.

The court certified two classes of individuals who, during
specified time periods, allegedly sent or received certain
communications involving the accounts of three of our customers
that were recorded. The parties held a mediation on August 29,
2018. Following further discussions in coordination with the
mediator, on September 27, 2018, the parties reached an agreement
in principle to settle the case. The parties are preparing a
long-form settlement agreement, and a preliminary class settlement
approval hearing has been scheduled for January 15, 2019.

Twilio Inc. provides a cloud communications platform that enables
developers to build, scale, and operate communications within
software applications in the United States and internationally. The
company's programmable communications cloud provides a set of
application programming interfaces that enable developers to embed
voice, messaging, and video capabilities into their applications.
Twilio Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES: Failed to Pay OT, Hernandez Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS MANUEL HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 79982368 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., Oct. 29,
2018) is an action against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Hernandez was employed by the Defendant as hourly
paid, non-exempt employee.

U.S. Security Associates, Inc. provides uniformed security
services, consulting and investigations, and specialized security
solutions in the United States and internationally. The company was
founded in 1955 and is based in Roswell, Georgia. As on October 26,
2018. U.S. Security Associates, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Allied Universal. [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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Del Toro Lopez Deal Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROXANA DEL TORO LOPEZ and ANA MEDINA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case Number: 17-cv-06255-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, granted (i)
the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class settlement;
and (ii) the Plaintiffs' and their counsel's motion for awards of
the Class Representative Service Payments and the Class Counsel
Attorneys' Fees and Costs Payment.

On Nov. 6, 2018, a hearing was held on the unopposed motion of del
Toro Lopez and Medina for final approval of the class settlement;
and on the separate motion of the Plaintiffs and their counsel for
awards of the Class Representative Service Payments and the Class
Counsel Attorneys' Fees and Costs Payment.

The Parties have submitted their Stipulation of Class Settlement
and Release, which the Court preliminarily approved in its April
19, 2018 order.  In accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order,
the Class Members have been given notice of the terms of the
Settlement and the opportunity to submit a claim form, comment on
the settlement, and/or opt out of its provisions.  In addition,
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Uber has given
the Attorney General of the United States and the appropriate state
officials in the states in which the Class Members reside timely
notice of the Settlement.

Having received and considered the Settlement, the supporting
papers filed by the Parties, and the evidence and argument received
by the Court at the final approval hearing on Nov. 6, 2018, by
means of her Final Approval Order, Judge Rogers granted final
approval of the Settlement.  She confirmed as final the appointment
of Roxana del Toro Lopez and Ana Medina as the Class
Representatives of the Rule 23 Class and the nationwide FLSA Class
under section 16(b).  She finds and determines that the award of
$50,000 to Ms. del Toro Lopez and $30,000 to Ms. Medina for their
services as the Class Representatives, in addition to their
Individual Settlement Payments, is fair and reasonable.

The Judge further finds that the requested payment of $2.5 million
in attorneys' fees and $152,958 in litigation costs and expenses,
for a total payment of $2,652,958 to the Class Counsel, is fair and
reasonable and ordered that payment be made to the Class Counsel
out of the Gross Fund Value in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement.

Upon completion of administration of the Settlement, the Settlement
Administrator, JND Legal Administration, will provide written
certification of such completion to the Court and the counsel for
the Parties.

The Judge set a compliance hearing for Jan. 18, 2019 at 9:01 a.m.
No later than five business days prior to the date of the hearing,
the parties will file a Post-Distribution Accounting in compliance
with the District's Procedural Guidance for Class Action
Settlements.  If compliance is complete, the parties need not
appear, and the compliance hearing will be taken off calendar.

By means of the Final Approval Order, Judge Rogers entered final
judgment in the action, as defined in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 58(a)(1).  The Parties are ordered to comply with the
terms of the Settlement.  She dismissed the action with prejudice,
each side to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees except as
provided by the Settlement and the Court's orders.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 14, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/rBQM0S from Leagle.com.

Roxana Del Toro Lopez, on behalf of themselves, and all others
similarly situated & Ana Medina, on behalf of themselves, and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Rachel
Williams Dempsey -- rdempsey@outtengolden.com -- Outten Golden LLP,
Adam T. Klein -- atk@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP, pro
hac vice, Laura Iris Mattes, Outten & Golden LLP & Jahan C. Sagafi
-- jsagafi@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nancy L. Abell
-- nancyabell@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP & Paul William
Cane, Jr. -- paulcane@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP.

Susan Fowler, Interested Party, represented by Christopher David
Baker -- cbaker@bakerlp.com -- Baker Curtis & Schwartz, P.C..


ULTA SALON: Medeiros Suit Moved to Eastern District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sherri A. Medeiros, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. FCS051572,
was removed from the Solano Superior Court, to U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento) on Nov. 9,
2018. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:18-cv-02947-TLN-AC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge Troy L. Nunley.

Ulta Beauty Inc., is a chain of beauty stores in the United States,
headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Isandra Y. Fernandez, Esq.
          James Ross Hawkins, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: Isandra@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  james@jameshawkinsaplc.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Kai-Ching Cha, Esq.
          Littler Mendelson, P.C. (San Francisco)
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
          E-mail: kcha@littler.com

ULTIMATE SERVICES: Servil Seeks Unpaid Wages for Home Care Workers
------------------------------------------------------------------
IKE SERVIL and MAKTUMMA TESHABAEVA, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated who were employed by ULTIMATE
SERVICES FOR YOU, INC., the Plaintiffs, vs. ULTIMATE SERVICES FOR
YOU, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 159458/2017, (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Nov. 9, 2018), seeks to recover wages and benefits which Plaintiffs
were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive pursuant to
New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has maintained a policy
and practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of
10 hours per day, without providing the proper hourly compensation
for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread of hours"
compensation. The Plaintiffs have initiated this action seeking for
themselves, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees who
are citizens of New York and who performed work within the State of
New York, minimum wages, overtime compensation, "spread of hours"
compensation, and damages arising from Defendant's breach of
contract, which they were deprived of, plus interest, attorneys'
fees, and costs.

This action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a putative
class of individuals who are citizens of the State of New York and
are presently or were formerly employed by to provide personal
care, assistance, health-related tasks and other home care services
to Defendant's clients within the State of New York, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
          Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
          New York, New York 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
          NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1517 Voohies Ave, 2nd Fl
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (212) 808-2224
          Facsimile: (866) 261-5478
          E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

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

UNITED STATES: ICE Faces Class Action Over Immigrant Detentions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that the
New York Civil Liberties Union has joined forces with The Bronx
Defenders and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law to file a
proposed class action lawsuit alleging that immigrant New Yorkers,
including those here legally, held in immigration detention are
waiting months on average before they can see a judge.

According to the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of an immigrant who has
been locked up in Orange County, the median wait time for
immigration detainees to see a judge at the immigration court in
Lower Manhattan has ballooned from 11 days in 2014 to 80 days this
year.

The delays have been exacerbated by stepped-up immigration
enforcement, the plaintiff's counsel alleges, which is creating a
bottleneck in the courts.

"People arrested by ICE and detained in criminal jails in New York
and New Jersey are detained for months, simply waiting for a first
hearing before a judge who can determine whether or not they should
even be locked up," said Jessica Kulig, a Cardozo Law student, for
the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic in a news
release.

Spokespersons for U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement and and the
Executive Office for Immigration Review declined to comment on the
suit, citing pending litigation.

The plaintiff alleges that ICE arrests more than 1,000 people in
the New York City area annually.

The suit states that, according to government data, 72 percent of
detainees are languishing in jail for more than two months before
they are brought before an immigration judge; 40 percent of
detainees are eventually released on bond.

They also allege that the immigration dragnet has swept up legal
residents—about 30 percent of detainees are green card holders,
the suit states.

The suit is the second that the NYCLU filed against federal
immigration authorities in November: it has also filed a proposed
class action suit alleging that a required background check for
immigrants is causing their children to be locked up in government
custody for weeks and sometimes months. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Navy Class Action Over Bad Paper Discharges OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leo Shane III, writing for MilitaryTimes, reports that veterans
forced from the Navy and Marine Corps for what they say were
undiagnosed mental health problems will be able move ahead with a
class-action lawsuit against the military asking for denied
benefits, a federal court ruled on Nov. 15.

The move could affect thousands of so-called "bad paper" veterans
who allege Defense Department officials unjustly ended their
careers rather than deal with their military-related injuries.

"This decision is a victory for the tens of thousands of military
veterans suffering from service-connected PTSD and TBI who are
denied the support of VA resources because of an unfair discharge
status," Tyson Manker, an Iraq War veteran and plaintiff in the
case, said in a statement on Nov. 16.

He called the court's favorable ruling "further evidence of the
Department of Defense's disgraceful violation of the legal rights
of the men and women who have served their country."

The issue of improper military dismissals has grown in prominence
in recent years as studies show that veterans with limited access
to military benefits face greater rates of homelessness and
suicide.

Veterans covered in the new lawsuit's class would have little or no
access to Veterans Affairs health care services, education benefits
or other support resources because of their less-than-honorable
discharge status.

However, many of those veterans argue that the infractions that led
to the end of their military careers were linked to undiagnosed
post-traumatic stress, traumatic brain injury, or other
service-related mental health problems. They have argued that if
supervisors properly treated those issues, they may still be
serving today.

Between 20 and 30 percent of troops who served in the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars have dealt with post-traumatic stress, according
to Defense Department estimates.

The new ruling will allow veterans advocates an easier path in
demanding relief from the Navy, the service's review boards and
other related agencies.

Last year, Pentagon officials ordered that those review boards use
more discretion in evaluating veterans' discharge status appeals
when those cases involved "conditions resulting from post-traumatic
stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, sexual assault or sexual
harassment."

Officials have said the goal is to make sure missed medical
problems don't result in lost benefits or support services. But
advocates for those veterans say those corrections remain slow and
erratic.

The National Veterans Council for Legal Redress, which is party to
the lawsuit, said that in 2017, while more than half of cases to
come before the Army and Air Force review boards were granted
discharge upgrades, only 16 percent of cases before the Navy board
received the same consideration.

That has raised concerns from both advocates and the federal court
that authorized the class action.

More information on the lawsuit is available through the Yale Law
School Veterans Legal Services Clinic, which is also involved in
the suit. [GN]


UNITED WHOLESALE: Mekaway Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
WALEED MEKAWAY, On Behalf of Himself And All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED WHOLESALE & TRADING, INC.,
ISLAM ADEL, and YASSER NAWAR, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-06327 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2018), seeks to recover damages
and equitable relief based upon Defendants' flagrant and willful
violations of Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed to them by: overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the overtime provisions
of New York Labor Law; the requirement that employers furnish
employees with wage statements on each payday containing specific
categories of information under the NYLL section 195(3); and the
requirement that employers furnish employees with a wage notice at
the time of hiring containing specific categories of accurate
information, NYLL section 195(1).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants --
a food cart storage, cleaning and supply business and its
owners/managers -- from on or about January 6, 2016 through the
date of his accident, February 5, 2018. Throughout his employment,
the Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work,
at least 72 hours a week. However, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff at the minimum wage or overtime rate of pay of one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay for each hour that Plaintiff
worked per week in excess of forty, as the FLSA and the NYLL
require. Furthermore, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for his
spread of hours in violation of NYLL. Lastly, Defendants failed to
furnish Plaintiff with accurate and/or complete wage statements on
each payday as the NYLL requires or provide Plaintiff with a wage
notice containing the criteria enumerated under the NYLL.
Defendants paid and treated of all their non-managerial employees
who worked for them in the same manner, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

UPTOWN COMMUNICATIONS: Underpays Technicians, Clark Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UPTOWN COMMUNICATIONS & ELECTRIC, INC.;
JONATHAN SMOKLER; and DANIEL GREENBERG, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-6044-ILG-PK (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2018) is an action for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs as a
result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Clark was employed by the Defendants as technician.

Uptown Communications & Electric, Inc. is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598


US XPRESS: Jury Trial in Cal. Wage & Hour Suit Set for Feb. 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, 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 jury
trial in the California Wage and Hour Class Action Litigation is
set for February 5, 2019.

In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Bernardino. The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

The putative class includes current and former truck drivers
employed by the company who worked or work in California after the
completion of their training while residing in California since
December 23, 2011 to present. The case alleges that class members
were not paid for off-the-clock work, were not provided duty free
meal or break times, and were not paid premium pay in their
absence, were not paid minimum wage for all hours worked, were not
provided accurate and complete time and pay records and were not
paid all accrued wages at the end of their employment, all in
violation of California law.  

The class seeks a judgment for compensatory damages and penalties,
injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs and pre- and
post-judgment interest. The matter is currently in discovery, and a
jury trial is set for February 5, 2019.  

U.S. Xpress said, "We are currently unable to determine the
possible loss or range of loss.  We intend to vigorously defend the
merits of these claims."

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. It
operates in two segments, Truckload and Brokerage. The company was
founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


VENCHI 2: Faces Lawsuit Under Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Venchi 2 LLC. The
case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Venchi 2 LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10937 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

Venchi concession at Eataly NYC Flatiron offers a broad range of
fine chocolates, chocolate bars and spreads produced according to
Italian tradition and using high quality, natural ingredients.[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



VIRGINIA: Court Narrows Claims in Unaccompanied Minors Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, Alexandria Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion granting
in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim in
the case captioned J.E.C.M., a minor, by and through his next
friend JOSE JIMENEZ SARAVIA, et al., Plaintiffs/Petitioners, v.
SCOTT LLOYD, Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement, et al.,
Defendants/Respondents. No. 1:18-cv-00903 (LMB/MSN). (E.D. Va.).

Plaintiffs/petitioners in this putative class action are four
minors from Central America designated as unaccompanied alien
children who are, or who have been, in the custody of the Office of
Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and the four sponsors who filed family
reunification applications on their behalf.  The
Defendants/respondents are the minors' custodians and the officials
responsible for administering ORR's policies with respect to the
detention and release of unaccompanied minors.

The Plaintiffs allege that the defendants' policies violate
constitutional, statutory, and administrative law, and they seek
declaratory and habeas relief as well as attorney's fees and
costs.

The Court ruled that the Defendant's motion to dismiss will be
granted in part as to the individual claims of plaintiffs J.E.C.M.,
Jimenez Saravia, R.A.I., Alvarado, K.T.M., and Velasquez Trail and
as to Count II and denied in all other respects.

According to the Court, Lopez has nothing to do with the question
here, which is whether plaintiffs remain in custody for purposes of
28 U.S.C. Section 2241(c). A petitioner need not be in actual
physical custody to sustain a habeas action if ongoing or
collateral consequences of detention constitute sufficient
restraints on the petitioner's liberty, however, plaintiffs have
not demonstrated why the minors' being released to their sponsors,
which is the relief they sought in the first place, amounts to such
a restraint on their liberty that they remain in custody under
Section 2241.  Accordingly, the Court will grant defendants' motion
to dismiss as to individual claims advanced by J.E.C.M., Jimenez
Saravia, R.A.I., Alvarado, K.T.M., and Velasquez Trail.

The Court held that the remaining plaintiffs' claims are ripe. Were
B.G.S.S. to be released to Jeronimo Sis's custody, their individual
claims would be mooted; however, until that happens, B.G.S.S.
continues to suffer an ongoing deprivation of his personal liberty
interest, and he and Jeronimo Sis continue to suffer an ongoing
deprivation of their interest in family unity. Because the
remaining plaintiffs claim that they are injured not only by the
possible denial of their family reunification application but also
by the process through which ORR will reach a decision (or fail to
act) on that application, their claims are ripe, and there is no
prudential reason why the Court should decline to adjudicate them.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 15, 2018
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc9kkqme
from Leagle.com.

Blanca Jeronimo Sis, Sandra Alvarado & Cinthia Velasquez Trail,
Plaintiffs, represented by Rebecca Ruth Wolozin --
becky@justice4all.org -- Legal Aid Justice Center, Angela A.
Ciolfi, Legal Aid Justice Center, John Christopher Rozendaal --
jrozendaal@sternekessler.com -- Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
PLLC & Salvador Manuel Bezos -- sbezos@sternekessler.com -- Sterne,
Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC.

J.E.C.M., a minor, by and through his next friend Jose Jimenez
Saravia & Jose Jiminez Saravia, Petitioners, represented by Rebecca
Ruth Wolozin, Legal Aid Justice Center, Angela A. Ciolfi, Legal Aid
Justice Center, John Christopher Rozendaal, Sterne, Kessler,
Goldstein & Fox PLLC,Salvador Manuel Bezos, Sterne, Kessler,
Goldstein & Fox PLLC & Simon Yehuda Sandoval-Moshenberg, Simon
Sandoval Moshenburg.

Scott Lloyd, Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Steven
Wagner, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Administration for
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Alex Azar, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Natasha David, Federal Field Specialist, Office of
Refugee Resettlement, Johnitha McNair, Executive Director, Northern
Virginia Juvenile Detention Center, Timothy Smith, Executive
Director, Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Center & Gary L.
Jones, Chief Executive Officer, Youth For Tomorrow, Respondents,
represented by Catherine M. Yang , US Attorney's Office.


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Decision in Final Approval Hearing Reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Virtus Investment Partners, 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 Court
has reserved its decision in the final approval hearing in the case
entitled, In re Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. Securities
Litigation; formerly Tom Cummins v. Virtus Investment Partners Inc.
et al.

On February 20, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws was
filed by an individual shareholder against the Company and certain
of the Company's current officers (the "defendants") in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"Court").

On April 21, 2015, three plaintiffs, including the original
plaintiff, filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and, on
June 9, 2015, the Court appointed Arkansas Teachers Retirement
System lead plaintiff. On August 21, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint")
amending the originally filed complaint, which was purportedly
filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock
between January 25, 2013 and May 11, 2015 (the "Class Period").

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading
statements and concealed material adverse facts relating to certain
funds formerly subadvised by F-Squared Investments Inc.
("F-Squared"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5. A
motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint was filed on behalf of
the Company and the other defendants on October 21, 2015.

On July 1, 2016, the Court entered an opinion and order granting in
part, and denying in part, the motion to dismiss, narrowing
plaintiffs' claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and dismissing one of the defendants from the suit. The
remaining defendants' Answer to the Consolidated Complaint was
filed on August 5, 2016. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
was granted on May 15, 2017. The Company believes that the suit is
without merit, nonetheless, on February 6, 2018, it reached an
agreement in principle with the plaintiffs, subject to Court
approval, settling all claims in the litigation, in order to avoid
the cost, distraction, disruption, and inherent litigation
uncertainty. The parties executed a final settlement agreement on
May 18, 2018.

On June 28, 2018, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement. A hearing for final approval was held on
October 24, 2018, at which the Court reserved decision.

Virtus Investment said, "Upon final approval by the Court, which
the Company believes is likely, the resolution of this matter will
not have a material impact on the Company's results of operations,
cash flows or its consolidated financial condition."

Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to individual and
institutional clients. It launches separate client focused equity
and fixed income portfolios. irtus Investment Partners, Inc. was
founded in 1988 and is based in Hartford, Connecticut.


VUZIX CORP: Mulls Bid to Dismiss 2 NY Securities Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Vuzix 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 plans
to file a motion to dismiss the class action suits filed in the
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.

On July 24, 2018, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, against the Company, certain of its current and former
directors and executive officers and the placement agents of the
Company's registered direct offering that was completed in January
2018.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders that purchased stock between November 9, 2017 and
March 20, 2018, or pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
registration statement and prospectus filed in connection with the
registered direct offering.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers
and directors made materially false and/or misleading statements
and failed to disclose material adverse events about the Company's
business, operations and prospects in press releases and public
filings. The complaint seeks damages in unspecified amounts, costs
and expenses of bringing the action, and other unspecified relief.


A similar purported class action was filed against the Company and
certain of its current and former executive officers and directors
on July 27, 2018, in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York. The Company believes the allegations are
false and intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company plans to
file a motion to dismiss the complaints.

Vuzix Corporation designs, manufactures, markets, and sells
wearable display devices in the United States and internationally.
Its wearable display products include augmented reality (AR) smart
glasses for various enterprise and commercial users and
applications; and video viewing glasses for on-the-go users as
mobile displays for entertainment and gaming. Vuzix Corporation was
founded in 1997 and is headquartered in West Henrietta, New York.


WAL-MART ASSOC: Decertification of Magadia Meal Period Class Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RODERICK MAGADIA, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-00062-LHK (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, denied Wal-Mart move to
decertify the meal period class.

Magadia brings a class action against Defendants Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. and Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. that alleges that Wal-Mart
denies its employees adequate meal period premiums in violation of
California Labor Code Section 226.7.  He filed the putative class
action in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara on Dec.
2, 2016.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges causes of action for (1)
violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512; (2)
violation of California Labor Code Section 226(a); (3) violation of
the Private Attorney Generals Act; and (4) violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law.

On Jan. 5, 2017, Wal-Mart removed the action to the Court and
alleged jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.  On Feb.
2, 2017, Wal-Mart filed an answer to the Plaintiff's complaint.

On Oct. 19, 2017, the Plaintiff moved for class certification.  On
Nov. 20, 2017, Wal-Mart filed its opposition.

On Jan. 9, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

It certified three classes:

     i. Meal Period Regular Rate Class: All current and former
California non-exempt retail store employees of Wal-Mart who
received non-discretionary remuneration, including MYSHARE INCT,
and was paid any meal period premium payments in the same period
that the non-discretionary remuneration was earned, at any time
between Dec. 2, 2012, through the present.

     ii. OVERTIME/INCT Wage Statement Class: All current and former
California non-exempt employees of Wal-Mart who received
OVERTIME/INCT at any time between Dec. 2, 2015, through the
present.

     iii. Final Wage Statement Class: All former non-exempt
employees who worked for Wal-Mart in the State of California and
whose employment terminated (whether voluntarily or involuntarily)
at any time from Dec. 2, 2015 to the present.

On Jan. 26, 2018, Wal-Mart filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit
for permission to appeal the Court's class certification order.  On
Feb. 22, 2018, the Ninth Circuit denied Wal-Mart's petition.

On Oct. 30, 2017, the Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment
on his claim under California's Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA").  On Jan. 16, 2018, Wal-Mart filed its opposition.  On May
11, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for partial
summary judgment on the Plaintiff's PAGA claim.  On June 25, 2018,
it denied Wal-Mart's request for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration.

On July 26, 2018, Wal-Mart moved for partial summary judgment on
the Plaintiff's three remaining claims.  On Aug. 16, 2018, the
Plaintiff filed his opposition.  On Sept. 27, 2018, the Court
denied Wal-Mart's motion for partial summary judgment.

On July 26, 2018, Wal-Mart moved for decertification of the meal
period class.  On Aug. 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed his
opposition.  

On Aug. 23, 2018, the parties filed a joint discovery letter brief,
in which the Plaintiff moved to strike corrections to the
deposition of Wal-Mart's 30(b)(6) witness, Victoria Moore.  On
Sept. 6, 2018, Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins denied the
Plaintiff's motion to strike the deposition corrections.  Then, on
Oct. 1, 2018, the Plaintiff filed objections to evidence offered in
support of Wal-Mart's reply brief.  On Oct. 9, 2018, Wal-Mart filed
a response to Plaintiff's objections.

Judge Koh denied Wal-Mart's motion for decertification.  She
determined in the Court's class certification order that with
respect to Wal-Mart's liability to the class members, common
questions predominated over individualized inquiries because
Wal-Mart's own records "document why each meal exception happened."
The evidence submitted with the instant motion continues to
demonstrate that Wal-Mart's own records -- specifically, the EMS
codes generated after a meal period exception investigation --
enable the Court to evaluate Wal-Mart's liability to the class
members "on a class-wide basis," which warrants certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Ry07d5 from Leagle.com.

Roderick Magadia, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis Sangwon Hyun --
dhyun@hyunlegal.com -- Hyun Legal APC, Larry W. Lee --
lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group, P.C., Nicholas
Rosenthal -- nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group &
William Lucas Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com -- Polaris Law
Group, LLP.

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation & Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by
Aaron Thomas Winn -- atwinn@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP,
pro hac vice & Natalie Frances Hrubos -- NFHrubos@duanemorris.com
-- Duane Morris, LLP, pro hac vice.

Lerna Mays, Miscellaneous, represented by Alan Dale Harris --
law@harrisandruble.com -- Harris & Ruble.


WALSH CONSTRUCTION: Navar et al. Sue over Gender Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALLISON NAVAR, and CAMILLE ROBERTSON, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WALSH CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY II, LLC, SKANSKA USA CIVIL NORTHEAST, INC., and SKANSKA USA
BUILDING, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10476 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 12, 2018), alleges that Defendants have engaged in systematic,
company-wide discriminatory treatment of female employees because
of their gender under the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, Skanska and Walsh discriminate against
their female employees through, inter alia: disparate treatment;
discriminatory policies, practices, and procedures in selection,
pay, promotion, and advancement; and retaliation. Skanska and Walsh
also have known or should have known that their business practices
-- including but not limited to their pay, promotion, discipline,
demotion, evaluation, and compensation practices -- have an illegal
disparate impact on female employees. Skanska and Walsh have failed
to take adequate measures to rectify this disparate impact.

The systemic gender discrimination described in this Complaint has
been and is continuing in nature. The Class Representatives seek,
on behalf of themselves and the classes they seek to represent,
declaratory and injunctive relief; back pay; front pay;
compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages; and attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses to redress Skanska and Walsh' pervasive and
discriminatory employment policies, practices, and procedures.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          Lucas Buzzard, Esq.
          JOSEPH KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640
          Facsimile: (212) 688-2548

               - and -

          Mariann Wang, Esq.
          CUTI HECKER WANG LLP
          305 Broadway, Suite 607
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 620-2600

WAYFAIR LLC: Diaz Sues Over Disabilities Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wayfair LLC. The case
is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wayfair LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10940 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

Wayfair, Inc. is an American e-commerce company that sells home
goods. Formerly known as CSN Stores, the company was founded in
2002 and now sells many home furnishings and decor items and over
ten million products from over 10,000 suppliers.[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


WELEDA INC: Sued in New York for ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weleda, Inc. The case
is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Weleda, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-10917 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018).

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

Weleda, Inc. provides skin and baby care products. It offers facial
care products.[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


WILLS TOWERS: Sullivan Says Advisory Firm Violates ADA
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wills Towers Watson
Analytical Insurance Services Inc. The case is styled as Phillip
Sullivan, Jr. on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Wills Towers Watson Analytical Insurance
Services Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10900 (S.D. N.Y., Nov.
21, 2018).

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

Willis Towers Watson's Insurance Consulting and Technology provides
a combination of advisory services for insurance companies,
integrated with technology solutions and software that is
underpinned by analytical capabilities.[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


WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Still Defends EarthLink Merger-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Windstream 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 company
continues to defend purported shareholder class action complaints
related to its merger agreement with  EarthLink Holdings Corp.

On February 27, 2017, Windstream Holdings completed its merger with
EarthLink Holdings Corp. ("EarthLink"), pursuant to the terms of
the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") dated
November 5, 2016, whereby EarthLink merged into Europa Merger Sub,
Inc., an wholly-owned subsidiary of Windstream Services, LLC, and
survived, and immediately following, merged with Europa Merger Sub,
LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Windstream Services, LLC, with
Merger Sub surviving and changing its name to EarthLink Holdings,
LLC (the "Merger").

Windstream Holdings, its current and former directors, and certain
of its executive officers are the subject of shareholder-related
lawsuits arising out of the merger with EarthLink Holdings Corp. in
February 2017.

Two putative shareholders have filed separate purported shareholder
class action complaints in federal court in Arkansas and state
court in Georgia, captioned Murray v. Earthlink Holdings Corp., et.
al., and Yadegarian v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., et. al.,
respectively.

Additionally, two separate shareholder derivative actions were
filed during the quarter in Arkansas federal court on behalf of
Windstream Holdings, Inc., styled Cindy Graham v. Wells, et. al.,
and Larry Graham v. Thomas, et. al. All four of the complaints
contain similar assertions and claims of alleged securities law
violations and breaches of fiduciary duties related to the
disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus soliciting
shareholder approval of the merger, which the plaintiffs allege
were inadequate and misleading.

Windstream Holdings said, "We believe that we have valid defenses
for each of the lawsuits, and we plan to vigorously defend the
pursuit of all matters. While the ultimate resolution of the
matters is not currently predictable, if there is an adverse ruling
in any of these matters, the ruling could constitute a material
adverse outcome on the future consolidated results of our income,
cash flows, or financial condition."

Windstream Holdings, Inc. provides network communications and
technology solutions in the United States. Its Consumer & Small
Business segment offers services, including traditional local and
long-distance voice services, and high-speed Internet services; and
value-added services, such as security and online back-up.
Windstream Holdings, Inc. also leases and sells broadband modems,
home networking gateways, and personal computers; and sells home
phones. The company was incorporated in 2013 and is based in Little
Rock, Arkansas.


WYETH INC: Court Narrows Claims in Effexor Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendants Wyeth Inc., Wyeth Manufacturing Limited, Wyeth Ireland
Pharmaceutical Products (Wyeth), Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and
Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited's (Teva) Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(c), regarding End-Payer Plaintiffs' Third Amended Consolidated
Complaint in the case captioned In re EFFEXOR ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-5661 (PGS)(LHG). (D.N.J.).

This case arises from allegations that two drug companies, Wyeth
and Teva, engaged in an anticompetitive scheme that prevented the
generic drug of Effexor XR from entering the market.

The Plaintiffs are end-payor purchasers (EPP) who claim to have
paid inflated costs for the brand-named drug, Effexor XR, due to,
among other things, a delayed entry provision included in Wyeth and
Teva's settlement agreement.  Unlike the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs, who assert claims under the Sherman Act, the EPPs base
their claims on their state's antitrust and consumer protection
acts.

The Court declines to grant judgment as to EPPs' consumer
protection claims in California, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York,
and North Carolina. However, the Court grants Defendants' motion,
without leave to amend as to EPPs' Illinois and Maine consumer
protection claims; and with leave to amend with regards to EPPs'
Rhode Island consumer protection claims.

The Court also ruled that the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

   -- Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings based on
preemption principles is denied.

   -- Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings based on
statute of limitations is denied.

   -- Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to EPPs'
state consumer protection claims in California, Nevada, New Mexico,
New York, and North Carolina is denied.

   -- Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as it
pertains to EPPs' Arizona, Nevada, and Utah antitrust claims is
granted without prejudice; EPPs are granted leave to amend their
Complaint to plead compliance with these notice provisions and,
with regards to Utah, include a named plaintiff from Utah.

   -- Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as it
pertains to EPPs' antitrust claims under the laws of the District
of Columbia is granted without prejudice.

   -- Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as it
pertains to EPPs' Massachusetts, West Virginia, Rhode Island, and
Tennessee consumer protection claims is granted without prejudice;
EPPs are granted leave to amend their Complaint to plead compliance
with Massachusetts and West Virginia's notice provisions,
individual claims in Tennessee, and consumer claims under Rhode
Island.

   -- Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as it
pertains to EPPs' Illinois and Rhode Island antitrust claims, and
EPPs' Illinois and Maine consumer protection claims is granted with
prejudice.

   -- Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Count
I of EPPs' Complaint under Kansas, New York, and Tennessee is
GRANTED to the extent these claims are predicated on unilateral
activity by Wyeth.

The EPPs have thirty (30) days from the filing of this Memorandum
and Order to file an Amended Complaint, consistent with this
Memorandum.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 15, 2018
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycrqqwjd
from Leagle.com.

City of Providence, Rhode Island, A.F. OF L.-A.G.C. BUILDING TRADES
WELFARE PLAN, IBEW-NECA LOCAL 505 HEALTH & WELFARE PLAN, NEW MEXICO
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION'S AND EMPLOYERS' HEALTH
AND WELFARE TRUST FUND & SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION HEALTH
AND WELFARE FUND, Plaintiffs, represented by JAMES E. CECCHI --
JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY &
AGNELLO, P.C.

LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff, represented
by DOUGLAS ROBERT PLYMALE, COUNSEL NOT ADMITTED TO USDC, JAMES R.
DUGAN, II, COUNSEL NOT ADMITTED TO USDC & JAMES E. CECCHI, CARELLA
BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.

WYETH, INC. & WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants, represented
by LIZA M. WALSH, WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP, MEGAN
DEPASQUALE, WHITE AND CASE, ELEONORE OFOSU-ANTWI, WALSH PIZZI
O'REILLY FALANGA LLP, RUKHSANAH L. SINGH , CONNELL FOLEY LLP &
WILLIAM T. WALSH, JR., Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. & TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC., Defendants, represented by BRIAN M. ENGLISH --
benglish@tompkinsmcguire.com -- TOMPKINS, MCGUIRE, WACHENFELD &
BARRY, LLP, MICHAEL E. PATUNAS -- mpatunas@patunaslaw.com --
PATUNAS LAW LLC & WILLIAM H. TROUSDALE --
wtrousdale@tompkinsmcguire.com -- TOMPKINS, MCGUIRE, WACHENFELD &
BARRY, LLP.


ZION OIL: Faces Putative Class Action in Texas
----------------------------------------------
Zion Oil & Gas, 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 has
been named as defendant in a putative class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Following the commencement of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) investigation, on August 9, 2018, a putative class
action Complaint was filed against Zion, Victor G. Carrillo, the
Company's Chief Executive Officer at such time, and Michael B.
Croswell Jr., the Company's Chief Financial Officer (collectively,
the "Defendants") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.

The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC
against all defendants and alleges violations of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act against the individual defendants in connection
certain with public statements defendants made from March 12, 2018
to May 30, 2018 and claims unspecified losses to the putative class
and fees and costs.

Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. operates as an oil and gas exploration company
in Israel. It holds a petroleum exploration license onshore Israel,
the Megiddo-Jezreel License that covers an area of approximately
99,000 acres. The company was founded in 2000 and is based in
Dallas, Texas.


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***